Comment by ChuckMcM
2 days ago
The story was kind of wild. I have never understood art theft as its very hard to move it. Now if they had made really good forgeries, then swapped them in the original museum frames and hid those to be "found", well that then would be a NY Times best seller.
Stuff like that tends to have a buyer before it is actually stolen.
I also think so, but that makes you question the buyer.
Who are these people that want priceless art they can't show anyone?
Remember when Kim Kardashian accidentally took a picture of herself next to some stolen statue? So it was uncovered because of her negligence.
It sort of hints that there's this class of ultra rich people who move in their own stratosphere and look at each other's possibly stolen art without snitching each other out.
I friend suggested that often fine art is "on loan" to museums from some rich person's estate and that having it 'stolen' allows the estate to collect the value of the insurance claim rather than taking the painting back and selling it on the market (which may or may not return the value of the insurance). Also it probably looks bad if "The Frobotz estate has asked for this painting to be returned so they can sell it."
Turns an otherwise illiquid asset into cash that the estate could use.