E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City
Detail from "Dancer Making Points," the Degas painting lost by the reclusive heiress Huguette Clark.
NEW YORK — The mystery itself is a masterpiece. A $10 million painting by Degas — a simple figure of a ballerina in a yellow and red tutu pointing her toe – vanished from the New York City apartments of reclusive heiress Huguette Clark, and wound up, innocently enough, on the living room wall of Henry Bloch, a Kansas art collector better known as the "H" in the tax company H&R Block. How it got there is a multi-layered tale involving one of the more colorful transactions in the history of high-end art.
For readers who have been following the Clark mystery story on msnbc.com, this episode provides a new piece of evidence that could be important in the legal battle over her $400 million estate. Now we know that her longtime physician, as part of a settlement over the painting, signed a statement swearing to her competency, describing his then-102-year-old patient as "mentally and physically alert." This was in 2008, or three years after she signed a will cutting her family out of any inheritance and planning an art museum in her California home.
The circumstances in which the Degas ballerina disappeared from Clark’s Fifth Avenue apartments in the early 1990s remain unclear, but for the first time the story can be told of how it ended up in Bloch’s living room, above the sofa, between a Seurat and a Toulouse-Lautrec. And how Bloch was allowed to keep the painting even after the FBI came calling.
When it was discovered in 2005 that Bloch and his wife had purchased a painting with a tainted past, a quiet dispute over its ownership erupted. It had been taken from Clark's apartment, but it also had been bought in good faith by the Blochs.
Valuing her privacy more than her possessions, Clark had told her attorney and the FBI in 1992 not to pursue the loss of the painting. She didn't list it on the international registry of stolen art. As a result, in a high-stakes legal version of the children's rhyme "finder's keepers, loser's weepers," she may have lost her claim to the painting. The Blochs' attorney argued that it now belonged to them.
After well-mannered wrangling, Clark and Bloch reached a deal. Clark agreed to donate the painting to an art museum in Kansas City, Mo., the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, where Bloch had been a longtime trustee, chairman and benefactor, and where he and his wife had promised to donate all their art when they died. As part of the agreement, the heiress, not America's Tax Man, got the income tax deduction for the gift.
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City
"Dancer Making Points" or "Danseuse Faisant des Pointes," 1879-1880, by Edgar Degas, pastel and gouache on paper mounted on board, from the collection of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City, Missouri. The painting was donated by heiress Huguette Marcelle Clark 16 years after it went missing from her New York apartments.
The handoff
To seal the deal, the ballerina needed to change hands. In October 2008, on a clear but crisp Monday at the Bloch home in Mission Hills, Kansas, a museum representative handed the ballerina in the gilded frame to Clark's attorney, who handed it back to the museum, and back onto the Blochs' wall it went. The museum had agreed to lend the painting back to the Blochs, and they will have it as long as they live, renewing the loan every year. Then it will go back to its owner, the Kansas City museum, with the rest of the Bloch collection of Impressionist masterpieces.
The parties signed a confidentiality agreement, keeping the whole business secret even from the staff of the museum. Only three of its 21 trustees were told.
When the museum announced in 2010 the promise by the Blochs to donate 30 Impressionist masterpieces at their death, the Degas dancer was featured in The Kansas City Star newspaper, although the museum at that point had already owned the painting for two years.
Last month, when asked about the ballerina, the museum public relations staff said emphatically that it was not owned by the museum.
'Stunning'
"This is a remarkably beautiful work by Degas. Everything about this work is stunning," wrote Joachim Pissarro, curator of the department of painting and sculpture at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City, describing the gentle figure of a dancer in bold yellow and orange, set against brown floorboards and a green backdrop of foliage on a stage.
Edgar Degas, the reluctant Impressionist who preferred to be known as a Realist, painted the ballerina in France in 1879-1880, as his eyesight was failing. It's a seemingly simple work, 19 by 14½ inches, with pastel and gouache applied to paper. It's known as "Dancer Making Points," or in French, "Danseuse Faisant des Pointes."
The ballerina was sold at a gallery in Paris in 1927, then passed to the French collector Georges Lévy, who brought his collection to America in 1939-1940 to escape the Nazis. Huguette Clark or her mother bought it sometime before 1955.
The youngest daughter of the former U.S. Sen. William Andrews Clark, known as one of the Copper Kings of Montana, Huguette Marcelle Clark was born in Paris in 1906. In his day, her father could have bought up all the works of all the Impressionists with one week's income from his mines, but he mostly preferred older paintings.
Estate of Huguette M. Clark
An undated photograph of copper heiress Huguette Clark, 1906-2011.
In 1991, at age 84, Huguette Clark moved from her 42-room apartments on New York's Fifth Avenue, and would live the remaining 20 years of her life in hospital rooms. She left behind a Monet, a Renoir and many other treasures.
Documents and interviews show that it didn't take long for one treasure to go missing.
In 1992 or early 1993, her attorney, Donald Wallace, learned that the Degas ballerina was lost. There was talk that a member of the building staff had taken it, or that doormen had seen it next to a trash bin in the building. In any case, the ballerina was gone. Wallace informed his client, whom he never met face to face in 20 years of representation. Clark discouraged him from pursuing the matter, maintaining her longstanding policy of not doing anything that would generate publicity, even if it cost her millions.
But her attorney, or the building manager, called the FBI. Wallace explained that Clark saw no visitors, but the FBI agents barged into her hospital room anyway. She discouraged them from investigating. She didn't file an insurance claim. She didn't register the painting with the Art Loss Register, a company founded in 1991 that was becoming the de facto place to check for stolen art.
'Seemingly from a good family'
Later in 1993, a well-dressed man walked into the Peter Findlay Gallery, about a 15-minute stroll down Fifth Avenue from Clark's apartment.
"Many years ago," Findlay told msnbc.com in an email, "I had a gallery on Madison Avenue and sold good things of a European taste, particularly Impressionist works such as Degas, etc. Naturally people would stop in to look and to chat. Among them was a European gentleman, seemingly from a good family, who visited New York from time to time and would occasionally visit the gallery.
"At some point he told me that he had inherited a work by Degas that had been in his family for many years and asked if I would help him sell it. Eventually the work was brought to the gallery. It had the aura of a work that had been in a family for a long time."
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City
Henry and Marion Bloch, benefactors of the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art in Kansas City. Henry Bloch and his brother founded H&R Block in Kansas City in 1955. The Henry Bloch biography, by their son, is entitled, "Many Happy Returns: The Story of Henry Bloch, America's Tax Man."
At this time, Henry and Marion Bloch were shopping in New York for paintings. Henry and his brother, Richard, had founded a tax accounting firm in Kansas City in 1955, calling it H&R Block, changing the spelling slightly from their last name. They built a nationwide business after the Internal Revenue Service stopped helping people fill out their tax returns. Henry Bloch, 89 today, had been a navigator on American B-17 bombers during World War II, and by all accounts is a hard-working, humble man. He and Marion, who have been married for 60 years, built a collection of Impressionists, eventually acquiring works by Renoir, Monet, van Gogh.
To buy one of Degas' famous series of dance paintings, for an undisclosed price, the Blochs sold a lesser Degas, of three dancers. Bloch later told The Kansas City Times, "This was so much finer."
Findlay said he did everything he could to confirm the provenance of the painting, checking with the Art Loss Register. "I was shocked when I heard from the FBI that the Degas was stolen."
Christopher A. Marinello, executive director and general counsel for the Art Loss Register in London, said in an interview that buyers should do their own checks on the authenticity and good title of art. "It costs less than $100 to check the ownership of a $5 million painting. People will buy a used car and they'll take it around the corner and put it up on a lift and check it out, and they'll get a Carfax report. They'll spend millions on art, and do nothing."
The Blochs mostly kept their collection at home, but in the summer of 2007, the Degas held center stage at the Nelson-Atkins when the Marion and Henry Bloch Collection highlighted the opening of the Bloch Building, named for its benefactors. The exhibition was sponsored by the H&R Block Foundation. The museum displayed a close-up of the Degas ballerina as a signature image of the collection, and notecards with the image are still for sale today in the museum gift shop.
Two years earlier, the museum and the Blochs had learned from the FBI that the Degas ballerina might belong to someone else.
In 2005 an auction house in New York had noticed that a Degas owned by Clark (known then as "La Faisant des Pointes" or "Making Points") was apparently the same one sold to Henry Bloch.
"I believe I may have been first contacted in late 2005," Henry Bloch said in a written answer to questions from msnbc.com, "by the FBI, who indicated that they were conducting an art investigation and wanted to confirm their information that we had purchased the Degas." The FBI, Bloch said, "did not give any indication that it had been stolen and gave us assurances there was nothing to worry about. I nevertheless shared the inquiry with my attorney at the time who discussed it with the Director of the Nelson-Atkins. I do not believe I was contacted again by them until late 2007."
In late 2007, the Blochs received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office, asking them to turn the painting over to the federal court during the investigation. A round of meetings began with the FBI, the U.S. Attorney, and the attorney for Clark.
Nobody wanted a lawsuit
The attorney for the Blochs took the position that the painting was theirs, fair and square.
Attorney John R. Phillips represented both the Blochs and the Nelson-Atkins. "The law is clear that the Blochs were – and the Nelson-Atkins Museum now is – the rightful owner of the work," he said in written answers to msnbc.com.
The two sides couldn't agree whether the painting had actually been stolen. Clark's attorney argued that the FBI file clearly showed that the painting had been reported as stolen. The attorney for the Blochs argued that the FBI never concluded for sure whether the painting had been given away, lost or stolen.
Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, Kansas City
The living room in the home of Henry and Marion Bloch in Mission Hills, Kansas, showing some of their collection of Impressionists. The Degas pastel of a ballerina is to the left of the sofa.
Even if it had been stolen, the Bloch claim cited legal cases requiring diligence by the loser of property to try to recover it. The idea is that unreasonable and inexcusable delay puts an unfair burden on the later possessor of the property. The doctrine is called laches (from the Old French word for "slack"). Failing to exercise your rights can cause you to forfeit them. One of the well-known cases involved the artist Georgia O'Keefe, who never reported to police the loss of a painting. Moreover, a Kansas law (and the Degas ballerina was then in Kansas), called a statute of repose, sets a 10-year limit on a lawsuit to recover an item.
Most people in Clark's position would have fought for their property, and Clark, a painter herself, did want her Degas to be returned. Documents show that her attorney, Wallace "Wally" Bock, advised her that she had the option to sue for the painting or its value. But she abhorred lawsuits, and a 102-year-old recluse was never going to sit for a deposition.
The main goals for the Blochs were to keep possession of the painting during their lifetimes, and to make sure it then went to the Kansas City museum. Their attorney made a proposal: If Clark were to donate the painting to the Nelson-Atkins, the Blochs would give up ownership immediately, and cede possession after they died.
Before the handoff, Sotheby's appraised the painting at $10 million. Clark would be able to claim that amount as a charitable deduction on her income tax return.
On Oct. 7, 2008, in her recognizable handwriting, now a bit shaky, 102-year-old Huguette Clark signed a deed giving her ballerina to the Nelson-Atkins Museum. (Read the document in PDF form.)
'Mentally and physically alert'
There was one more hitch, which could play a large role in the court fight now beginning over Huguette Clark's $400 million estate. The museum would not accept the gift from the centenarian, particularly one whom they couldn't meet, unless Clark provided a doctor's statement affirming she was competent to make the gift.
On Oct. 10, 2008, Clark's longtime physician signed a sworn statement. The affidavit by internist Dr. Henry S. Singman began by explaining that he was semi-retired, and had only the one patient.
"I am and have been personal physician to Madame Clark, who resides at 907 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York, since 1991. As such, and because of her advanced age, I visit her on an almost daily basis."
He said he had seen her just the day before. "At that time, and on all previous visits, I found her, although slightly hard of hearing, to be mentally and physically alert, able to read and comprehend written and printed material as well as verbal communications, competent to understand and execute documents and to sign her name thereto without assistance." (Read the document in PDF form.)
Huguette Clark died at age 104 in May 2011, having signed two wills in 2005, when she was 98. The first will left nearly everything to her family, the great-grandchildren from her father's first marriage. The second will, signed just six weeks later, was more detailed, excluding her family entirely, making plans for an art museum in her Santa Barbara oceanfront home, and leaving about $36 million to her nurse ($27 million after taxes), a $40 million Monet to the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., with substantial gifts to a godchild, her doctor, her attorney, her accountant and others.
If Clark was mentally competent in 2008 to make a stunning act of generosity, ceding any claim to a $10 million painting that had been taken from her, then it may be harder for her family to prove that she was incompetent in 2005 to sign that second will.
The attorney for the family, John R. Morken, said he would first question Dr. Singman's independence. The doctor is not only a beneficiary in that second will, named to receive $100,000, but also received gifts from Clark of $60,000 to $115,000 a year in her last years, over and above his payment for medical services, similar to the large gifts she gave others in her tight circle. "Obviously he wouldn't say that she lacked capacity, or else these gifts would be invalid," Morken said yesterday. "All I can say is, I look forward to his deposition."
Singman also signed a similar statement of her competency in 1995, as required by one of her banks for a financial transaction, long before she signed a will. He declined to comment this week.
The family has made a second argument, contending that Clark was unduly influenced by the nurse, attorney and accountant to sign the second will. The attorney and accountant have said that it was drafted according to her explicit instructions.
"In this transaction," said Morken, the family attorney, "I would question what was told to her, whether she knew what she was giving up."
The temporary executor of her estate, the public administrator of the city of New York, has challenged certain gifts paid from Clark's accounts, including a $5 million gift to her nurse, but has not challenged the gift of the Degas. That silence could indicate that the executor found the gift to be well documented. The attorney for the public administrator, Peter Schram, declined to comment.
'Strict confidentiality'
On Oct. 27, 2008, the painting changed hands outside the Bloch home in Mission Hills, a suburb of Kansas City. The museum's director, Marc F. Wilson, now retired, was present for the round-robin hand-off, as was Phillips, the attorney for the Blochs and the museum. Clark was represented by her attorney, Bock, and accountant, Irving Kamsler. The 128-year-old painting was walked out to the car, handed around gently like a newborn baby, and back inside it went.
The U.S. Attorney's Office withdrew its subpoena. No one was charged with taking the painting. The FBI said this month that the case remains open.
W.A. Clark Memorial Library
A childhood photograph of copper heiress Huguette Clark, 1906-2011.
The exchange was kept secret. The Blochs and Clark signed a confidentiality agreement. The museum told only three of its 21 trustees, the three who serve as an executive committee. Even the museum's curators of European paintings were not told. No entry for the painting was created in the museum's records.
"We have consistently worked to honor our donors’ wishes for privacy and to respect the strict confidentiality requested by Ms. Clark at the time of the gift to the museum," explained the new director of the Nelson-Atkins, Julián Zugazagoitia, who joined the museum in 2010, in written answers to msnbc.com.
Was the museum's decision to lend the painting back to the Blochs, secretly, the ethical choice? The Nelson-Atkins is open free to the public, which would be able to enjoy the Degas today, if the museum staff knew that it owned the painting.
If the Blochs had fought for ownership and won, the painting wouldn't have come to the museum any sooner, staying at the Bloch home as part of their collection until their deaths. If they had fought and lost, the painting would probably have remained hidden away in the Clark apartment until after she died in May 2011, and would be headed for her proposed art museum in California if her last will is upheld.
"Despite a highly unusual course of events," museum direcdtor Zugazagoitia wrote, "and thanks to Ms. Clark's role as an additional benefactor to the museum, Mr. Bloch has been steadfast in ensuring that the work ends up in the museum's collection for the benefit of the public. We are extremely grateful for the generosity of both the Blochs and Ms. Clark."
A memento
Before the transaction was concluded, Huguette Clark made two requests.
Though Clark gave the painting without restriction to the Nelson-Atkins, in a side letter she asked that her beloved Corcoran Gallery, where most of her father's art is on display, should be allowed to borrow the painting up to three times in 25 years. If it were shown there, she would receive credit by name. But in Kansas City, the painting is listed as an anonymous gift.
After the Degas was deeded to the museum, the heiress also asked for, and received, a full-size color photograph of her ballerina.
---
Reporter Bill Dedman is writing a nonfiction book about the Clark family. If you have information, you can reach him at bill.dedman@msnbc.com.
Here's a video companion piece from KSHB in Kansas City:
Degas masterpiece has its secret story of ownership revealed with ties to heiress Huguette Clark and Henry Bloch of H&R Bloch. KSHB's Christa Dubill reports.
Previous stories in the Huguette Clark mystery series on msnbc.com:
Archive of all stories, photos and videos.
Photo narrative, "The Clarks: An American story of wealth, scandal and mystery," Feb. 26, 2010.
Printable version of the photo narrative, Feb. 26, 2010.
Clark family notes and sources, Feb. 26, 2010.
Investigative report, part one, "At 104, the mysterious heiress Huguette Clark is alone now: Relatives are kept away. Only her accountant and attorney visit. Who protects HuguetteClark, with 3 empty homes and no heirs?" Aug. 19, 2010.
Investigative report, part two, "Who is watching Huguette Clark's millions? Reclusive heiress's assets are sold by two advisers, one an accountant with a felony conviction. Another elderly client signed over his property to the same accountant and attorney," Aug. 20, 2010.
"Criminal probe begins into the finances of reclusive heiress Huguette Clark: Manhattan DA's Elder Abuse Unit is on the case. The same unit prosecuted the Brooke Astor case; Clark has about four times the wealth," Aug. 24, 2010.
"Report sparks welfare check on heiress Huguette Clark," Aug. 25, 2010.
"Generosity of an heiress: four homes for a nurse, gifts for attorney's family," Sept. 1, 2010.
"Huguette Clark, the reclusive heiress, has signed a will, attorney says," Sept. 2, 2010.
"Family of copper heiress asks court to protect her from attorney, accountant," Sept. 3, 2010.
"Attorney for 104-year-old heiress defends his handling of her finances," Sept. 7, 2010.
"Judge leaves pair under investigation in control of heiress Huguette Clark's fortune," Sept. 9, 2010.
"Huguette Clark, the reclusive copper heiress, dies at 104," May 24, 2011.
"Family excluded from Huguette Clark burial," May 26, 2011.
"Heiress Huguette Clark's will leaves $1 million to advisers," June 22, 2011.
"The 1 percent of the 1 percent: How Huguette Clark's millions were spent," Nov. 19, 2011.
"A $400 miillion twist: Huguette Clark signed two wills, one to her family," Nov. 28, 2011.
"Tax fraud alleged in estate of heiress Huguette Clark; accountant resigns," Dec. 21, 2011.
"Nurse, in line to inherit millions, battles family of heiress Huguette Clark," Dec. 22, 2011.
"Judge bounces attorney and accountant from estate of heiress Huguette Clark," Dec. 23, 2011.
"Book coming on reclusive heiress Huguette Clark and her family," Feb. 3, 2012.
"You can move into heiress Huguette Clark's building, for $25 million," Feb. 6, 2012.
"Family of heiress Huguette Clark claims fraud by nurse, attorney, accountant," Feb. 15, 2012.
"Heiress Huguette Clark's apartments hit the market, listed at $55 million," March 9, 2012.
"The jewels of reclusive heiress Huguette Clark go on auction," March 13, 2012.
Leave a Comment:
Somebody stole the darn thing and made some money from it.
She traded it to H&R Block for lifetime tax preparation.
Wow and I thought my being old, broke, and unemployed was tough-these unfortunate 1%ers...
More evidence that if your wealthy you don't face the same set of rules as average people.
Yesterday there was a story on msn about a pub that is called the hobbit and serves drinks named after the characters in the hobbit & lord of the rings books & movies.And have been doing so for 20 years.They are being sued by some Hollywood firm who owns the rights to these books and films.but since nobody complained for 20 years maybe this could be a case for "The doctrine called laches" Failing to exercise your rights can cause you to lose them.
Statute of limitations has run out. Had she just filed as stolen...H would have had to take the loss. If you buy stolen property that cannot be tracked back to the originator with a bill of sale (proving it was not stolen), even unknowingly and/or legitimately at any point, you lose. It is the same rule as if you had in your possession counterfeit money: it is confiscated and you lose even though you might have paid and earned it honestly.
None of those rules apply equally to the rich.
Richard Fuld walked away after tanking Lehmen Bros -- because he was another wealthy Dumbya Bush butt-licker.
zuksam: Re the Hobbit case. The rights to the book and characters probably didn't belong to the movie studio during those 20 years, but rather to the Tolkien estate.
Anyone who pays the price on a "return" loan deserves whatever they get. If you need the money that badly, you'd be better off going to your local bank and getting a 60 or 90day loan. Pay it off when you get your return.
They bought this piece fairly it seems. They did not know it was stolen. Granted, ignorance wouldn't have saved them if the item has been listed as stolen. But it wasn't. Perhaps Miss Clark knew who had taken it and didn't want to file charges against them? Who knows. We never will know the truth about it.
But the Blochs did nothing wrong. Legally or otherwise.
Wakehead: What are you talking about? I see the same set of rules that would apply for everyone... The only difference is the amount of money and value of the property, nothing less, nothing more.
While I'm sure this woman lived the way she wanted too there is no question that she was abused by those who were supposed to be looking out for her welfare. She made poor choices in the people she put her trust in who robbed her and it's only by their wiles that they didn't leave her destitute.
I had a whole new thought about this case. It is clear that Ms. Clark developed "distant" feelings toward her surviving relatives, all cousins of varying degrees from half-brothers and half-sisters. I suspect that Ms. Clark had reasons to treat her relatives as she did. Regarding her becoming a "prisoner", most people of advanced age in our society are similar prisoners, whether at home or in a retirement home, or a nursing home. Their friends and close family members, and even children, have died. Survivors have moved away. The only difference between Ms. Clark and a 104 year old poverty case is that Ms. Clark could choose her room.
Why not let the State of New York have the whole damn estate, after any legitimate Federal taxes have been paid. Then let the NY Attorney General use that money to pursue the so-called relatives' claims. Any superfluous claims should be treated as attempted criminal fraud.
I wonder how many claims would disappear, quickly and quietly.
i'm so sick of hearing about huguette clark.
@rock - then may I suggest that you don't read the stories about her. I find her life to be very interesting, sad but still intriguing. If you are sick of her perhaps you should not read an article like this thereby making yourself ill. Common sense?????????
I am so sick of hearing about people who are so sick of something...I'm sick of it! Sick! Sick! Sick!
I think her story and her persona are both totally fascinating. I have read and re-read every single new article and watched every little news-clip that has come out. I think it would all make for a great exhibit. The life and times of the Clark family. Bet they would have lots of interesting things to show.
Then stop reading! Find something else that does hold your interests.
This has caught my attention from the start!! Mind boggling! Her life is still so "in the dark". Cant wait to read what happens next.
Hey ROCK, if ya crawl under one ya wont have to read it!
rockmebritney,
If you live long enough, this could be your story, with or without the money.
Who is forcing you to read the articles?
Statute of limitations has run out. Had she just filed as stolen...H would have had to take the loss. If you buy stolen property that cannot be tracked back to the originator with a bill of sale (proving it was not stolen), even unknowingly and/or legitimately at any point, you lose. It is the same rule as if you had in your possession counterfeit money: it is confiscated and you lose even though you might have paid and earned it honestly.
And I'm so sick of hearing about BIG BUSINESS guys getting rip offs... so he has a zillion dollar painting hanging on his wall.... someone got a tax write off.... if the USA gave someone a tax write off.... put the damn thing out where people can see it..... You got it with OUR money... not yours.....
I'm not sure I follow your logic. By applying the same logic, if someone is able to deduct an amount from their taxable income to reduce their tax liability, the public get's to make use of said deduction.
Next time I need a ride anywhere, I'll hop in someones vehicle they are using for business purposes and tag along until I get to my destination. That small business owner is using my money for the trip, so I get to ride along.
everyone gets write-offs for the mortgage on their primary home. so, does "the public" get to move in?
Kevin
A description of "Redistribution of Wealth". Let me know what you write off so that I can come use it.
Actually, they bought it with their own money, from the gallery, and then Clark still made her money from it through the donation and tax write off... Seems like a rather fair trade to me, especially since it WILL eventually be on display at the museum. The end result was a fair and classy way to solve the issue. I doubt the majority of people in the world would handle it that way.
The rich get richer - and crazier! Anything involving these people just shows how kooky they are...
And the rich get zanier. Why do people think having a gazillion dollars makes you a success? It only makes you comfortable. It doesn't make you a pillar of your community.
I'll take rich over pillar anytime!
It feels like I have been seeing Hugette Clark stories on MSNBC AND ONLY MSNBC for years now. Outside of the journalist who seems to be employed exclusively to fill the Hugette Clark niche in the world of current events, WHO actually CARES? Seriously. This is the first time I ever bothered to click on a Hugette Clark piece after these many eons of passing over front-page, high profile Hugette Clark headlines. The only reason I clicked on it is that THIS story was the only one that didn't mention her name in the headline. I feel hoodwinked by this omission. In the future, MSNBC, PLEASE refrain from story headlines about Hugette Clark that do not feature the name Hugette Clark in them. I still refuse to read this article and will NOT read it. It is not germane to ANYTHING in this world outside of a handful of expensive lawyers and a couple of antiquated golden-age socialites who are far too old and infirm to use a computer without help. I also don't care what outrageously mundane thing was found in the servant's bathroom of Hugette Clark's surprisingly uninteresting penthouse, nor the scandalous manner in which she stored her favorite linens, nor what her shocking preferences were for dinner silverware, as someone somewhere seems to wait for with baited breath. Does anybody eagerly anticipate the next ten page expose on her rumored bathroom habits or the manner in which she liked the drapes to be laundered? To what obscure, unknown, and hither-to irrelevant person will Mr. Dedman turn to now that he has turned this dead horse into a lumpy mass of beaten refuse? I care not, but I'm sure someone will use it as an excuse to berate Obama or Santorum in the comments.
CRAMY, Thank you for your kind and thoughtful note. Actually, I believe you've set some sort of record for longest comment saying you're definitely not going to read a story! Enjoy the rest of your day.
Next time you click on something and you find that you are not interested in it, don't read it
bill do a story about the art of plain bob...how valuable it is ...i'll give you a cut if help me unload it...lol...
Bill: In response to CRAMY, is it not common in the news industry to ignore or give minimal coverage to an exclusive story that another news organization has developed? That's what this Clark investigative story was, and for other news companies to cover it they would be obliged to acknowledge the roles of MSNBC and yourself, their competitors. At least that's what I'm guessing could be a reason CRAMY is only reading about Clark from NBC News.
Mr. Dedman,
I'm still confused...I hope your book can simplify these transactions. The path of this painting is very interesting. Maybe I need a diagram with circles and arrows. I think I can see a big movie or documentary just around the corner. I look forward to your book.
Red_Vespa, I see your point about exclusive stories. That does often happen. In this case, the Huguette Clark story has been covered later by The New York Times (which had the story this past week about her apartments), Associated Press (which has followed along from the beginning), and others, particularly in places with Clark connections (New York, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, Montana, now Kansas City, etc.).
You're cracking me up Bill. That was an awesome takedown on CRAMY. Keep up the good work.
@cramy - Much ado about nothing. You sure have a lot to say about something you don't want to know anything about!!!!!!!!!
Cramy.................So why are you going on and on and on about something that doesn't interest you? And why are you commenting about something you haven't read? You must be fun at a cocktail party............................saying everything about nothing that interests you yet you know everything about. Geesh!
Well, if she had a doctor with only one patient, accountants and lawyers with only one client, and a live-in nurse with only one patient, certainly she can have one reporter who writes exclusively about her.
I myself find the Clark stories absolutely fascinating and plan to buy Mr. Dedman's book once it is published. Please continue your work Mr. Dedman, it would be a shame if after all of this time reporting on it, the mystery about this reclusive heiress is not completely told. Keep up the good work.
Bill - I've thoroughly enjoyed reading your stories on Ms. Clark and the family. I had not previously heard of Mr. Clark, and I find the whole tale, sorry as it may be at times, quite interesting. Your piece here today on the Degas is great journalism. Keep us informed on further developments. Good luck with the book.
@Lalo Cafe - Your post made me chuckle. I was thinking the same thing about a diagram with circles and arrows. LOL
I happen to like stories like this. Dont listen to the trolls Mr Dedman
The rich deserve each other. It is humorous to see them steal from each other.
the rich are just thieves. they are the same as all scum that steal and lie . it is all about greed. that is why there are so many in congress.
Odd, I see greed on the part of parasites who feel they have some right to steal from others because those others have more than a parasite. Strange how society has gotten so twisted.
This poor woman did noting to make you so angry, except be born into wealth. And why do you think she was forced to live like this? And as for "Mr. and Mrs. H" they weren't born rich..........they worked hard to become successful. Why is everyone so envious?
I cannot understand the animosity that arises when someone is successful.
What people dont like are those "successful people" who screwed a lot of other people for the money.
And, that's a very legitimate point.
There are some who are ethical -- but they seem few and far between...
Opto, you hit the nail right on the head. It's jealousy of people who have done better than they have. I don't understand it myself.
hey ! in today's world if everyone can't be rich no one should be unless the government is going to give money to those who aren't rich. not need to work for wealth. it should be given to you.
Harrykid, and just where did that money come from that you are so willing to have given out. It is a proven fact that if everyone gets the same grade in school as an average, it will not be long before all are failing, the ones that got high grades at first will resent those that did not study and they will soon not study either. Life is the same. You want something, get up off of your butt and work for it, Save your money and buy it and hope somebody doesn't feel that you owe them half or more of the possessions that you have worked for.
Treed360 that maybe true but in today's society there is a growing population that believe wealth should just be given to them and that all should be able to have what ever they want with out breaking a sweat. just look at the sub prime disaster and it still goes on. many who acquired loans knowing they were not capable of paying the loan are know wanting the government to get their money back. and if they scream loud enough the government will give it to them.and so wealth can be made without hard work.
And people think they can take the wealth from the 1%,it ain't gonna happen
jroliver. Democracy will cease to exist when you take money from those willing to work to support those who refuse to. Thomas Jefferson.
While there are some that are born into wealth there are many like the Blochs who made it on their own. No one stops you from becoming a success..but YOU. There will be setbacks. Some endeavors may fail at first, but if you stick with it, you will succeed.
I am not one of the 1%. Not even close. But I was raised to believe that you get what you work for. That the world doesn't owe you a living.
Wealth = insanity, control freaks, arrogance that you are above any law. This is so disgusting. The family should inherite and the others are manipulative, greedy jerks.
What an obnoxious attitude! How do you figure anyone other than the family is greedy? It was HERmoney and possesions to do with as she saw fit. As long as it is found she was mentally capable at the time what she does with what is hers is nobodies business but hers. She could flush it down a toilet or have it buried with her in a vault of gold and it is nobodies business to pass judgement. As long as the government does not get its hands on a single penny to waste whatever she did or did not decide is fine with me.
Those portraits of her as a young girl and as child should be worth almost as much as the painting. What a real, and beautiful picture to hang on ones wall of art.
Yes, stolen and what a good deal the H. Got for doing taxes.
Why is it that sad and bitter people think these problems are exclusive to the rich? My father passed in 1983. He had worked hard in his 45 years to get out of the cesspool of white trash that was his family. He started out with nothing, and ended up comfortably in the middle class. My parents had divorced three years earlier, and each had their own modest home. The divorce was amicable, and they were still friends. When dad passed, my Mom allowed his family to stay at his house. During the week up to the funeral, his family scoped out the house and on the day of the funeral, showed up with a U-Haul and took items meant for my sister and I, his rightful and only heirs listed in his will. They took clothing, coin collections and items my father created with his own hands. Families, and strangers alike steal from hard working people. While many of the so called 1 percenters are trust fund babies, many have gotten there off the sweat of their own backs. They have worked hard for what they have and have worked 16 hour days to do it. My dad never made it to the 1%, but I have no doubt that he would have, had he lived a long life. What I did inherit from him, was his work ethic and ability to see past labels and bitterness. His family is has never grown past what they were, and still are leeches on society and will probably read this story and complain about the wealth of others. Never once willing to work for it themselves. This woman was a victim of many unscrupulous individuals. Most were her employees, jealous of what she had and who decided what was hers, was theirs. Redistribution of her wealth in the worst way.
similar to my fathers death. his siters showed up and claimed furniture jewelry and other things. they even called the hospital and asked why a autopsy was not done. at that point my sister and i threw them out and sent them home. they did not even stay for his funeral. all while my mother was dying from breast cancer which she did several weeks after my fathers funeral. a couple who truly loved each other. they are buried side by side and my sister and i see them often. but these family memebers are just greedy like my fathers sisiters and were just waiting for the cash register to die!
There is no love lost in families when there are dollar signs in their eyes. I saw this with my grandfather when he died. His third wife and her grown children cleaned grandpa's clock so to speak. What was left at the will reading was divided between my father(his only child) and the wife number three. The lawyer jokingly placed a penny on the table and said that was left and could not be divided. Third wife grabbed the penny and said ,I will take that. Oh well I don't have to worry about that problem with my boys, I told them that what little money I have I will enjoy in my retirement. They both are hardworking well educated men and are not sitting around waiting for me or my ex to die. They got their fortune in good education and loving parents, the rest is up to them.
it seems you could write a book about this woman. as for the painting that was decided long ago. as for the kids and family. get a life its not your money it was her money. to do as she saw fit. something must have happened about her family that angered her hence the second will. maybe they should have spent more time with her or showed a little compassion and love instead of waiting for the cash register to die.
Did anyone else notice that the notary signature is Judi Kamsler? That makes it suspicious being that the accountant's last name is Kamsler too, who's to say that it was even Clark that actually signed the deed.
Garnet, yes, good eyes! That's the wife of Mrs. Clark's longtime accountant, in this case doubling as a notary. It's clear that Mrs. Clark allowed few visitors.
I like these stories about Miss Clark- she was the last link into a world gone away. Fascinating that she would absorb the loss of a masterpiece to avoid undue publicity. After all, a lady is in the newspaper only 3 times-when she is born, when she marries,and when she leaves this world.
The obvious unanswered question (to me) is: Who is the person that took the painting to the Peter Findlay Gallery and sold it?
Warford, It is a mystery. We just don't know who that person was, and it seems the FBI did not nail this down. Certainly no one was arrested.
From his comment, it sounds like Peter Findlay knows/knew the name and surely they have records, something sounds fishy in that area.
This is the part that bothers me, too.
Unless you're selling something for $100 at a pawn shop, the buyer is going to want to write a check, and maybe know a little bit about you.
I so agree with you. It's hard to believe that a reputable art gallery didn't get a name when dealing with a painting worth that kind of money. I seriously doubt the person was paid cash for the painting. So who was the check made payable to? Was the check deposted into an account, then what name was on the account as well as the check? Were the funds wired out of the country? Easily answered questions with something as simple as a "search warrant". There is something very fishy stinky smelling about that part of the story. Very few people would have had access to her apartment - that narrows the list of suspects down considerably.
Being from MT and learning all about the Butte Copper Kings in MT History this story fascinates me!
Bill -- I love these stories about Hugette Clark. It's so interesting to peek into her life. Keep them coming!
That is the one real surprising thing to me...........that the original owner didn't want to file or make a claim or to have any followup to it and yet the FBI forced themselves into her private life.
Oh my god what is MSNBC's facination with this old dead rich coot? Who cares? There's a zillion of these lunatics across the country and MSNBC is focusing with laser-like intensity on this one. Look at the sheer number of articles that they've produced on this woman. She was the reclusive heiress of blah blah blah. Her fortune is tied up by her extended family or the person she marrieds family or her housekeeper or whatever. People acting like jackals over the remains of a dead person is nothing new?
Why won't MSNBC shut up about this already?
Thanks, Paul, for your comment. You may be right. Maybe no one cares about this story.
On the other hand, it's been the most popular story ever to appear on msnbc.com. I have gotten thousands of emails now from readers following the story. It's been picked up by other news organizations. So clearly it has some appeal, and still a great deal of mystery about her life, and about the outcome of the court battle.
(N.B.: We're not MSNBC. That's a TV network in New York, our half-sister company. We're msnbc.com, a website in Redmond, Wash. Don't worry, you're not the only one confused by this. One would guess that the folks at homedepot.com work for Home Depot, but in our case, no.)
How did you determine that? Going by the number of responses it isn't even close to other stories. Now I do understand that some political stories get several inputs from the same responder. So how do you know it the "most popular story ever"?
Paul.......>>>>So why did you read it?
gtouch: from page views counted by our publishing system.
Sorry that this story bores you to tears Paul but many find it fascinating! Bill is doing a wonderful job of peeling back the intriciate layers of this story and I'm enjoying each one of them. But then I am from MT, learned all about the Butte Copper Kings in MT History in school, so I find this interesting!
Mr. Dedman, I am really looking forward to your book. What a fascinating project you have found!
"The museum would not accept the gift from the centenarian"
pretty sure there are other museums that wouldn't mind getting their hands on a donated masterpiece.
If someone was able to smuggle out a multi-million dollar painting, you have to wonder what else was stolen from Clark's home. Interesting story--can't wait to read the book.
I have been following this story from the beginning and love the updates. What a bizarre story it is. I hope a book is forthcoming but only from someone who really did know the true story without an agenda.
I'm going to spend every last dime and when I die they can fight over my stained dentures and my gold plated ring.