0:00:02 > 0:00:0319 million.
0:00:03 > 0:00:04The art world.
0:00:04 > 0:00:08Glamour, wealth, intrigue.
0:00:08 > 0:00:1195. Selling at 95 million.
0:00:11 > 0:00:15Beneath the surface, there's a darker place,
0:00:15 > 0:00:18a world of high stakes and gambles.
0:00:20 > 0:00:24International art dealer Philip Mould knows the risks.
0:00:24 > 0:00:26He hunts down sleepers -
0:00:26 > 0:00:29paintings that hide dark secrets.
0:00:29 > 0:00:31In the past, we looked at pictures.
0:00:31 > 0:00:33Now, almost, you can look through them.
0:00:33 > 0:00:36Paint almost acts like blood at a crime scene.
0:00:39 > 0:00:42I'm Fiona Bruce, and I have over 20 years' experience as a journalist.
0:00:42 > 0:00:46Every picture tells its own story,
0:00:46 > 0:00:49and it's up to us to try and uncover it.
0:00:49 > 0:00:51We're teaming up to investigate
0:00:51 > 0:00:55the human dramas and mysterious tales locked in paint.
0:00:59 > 0:01:01It's a world that spans continents.
0:01:01 > 0:01:04It can take you anywhere at any moment.
0:01:04 > 0:01:06Less than 24 hours ago, I was in London.
0:01:06 > 0:01:10Suddenly, I had to drop everything and fly all the way down here
0:01:10 > 0:01:13to Cape Town in South Africa, to pick up a painting that could be
0:01:13 > 0:01:16by one of the world's great masters, by Rembrandt.
0:01:16 > 0:01:18But whoever's painted it,
0:01:18 > 0:01:22I do know it has a dark and fascinating history.
0:01:22 > 0:01:24Wow, look at the difference now.
0:01:24 > 0:01:26Look at that picture now.
0:01:26 > 0:01:29This painting will bring us within touching distance
0:01:29 > 0:01:32of one of the greatest artists that ever lived.
0:01:32 > 0:01:36It's a bit like a religious ritual, by which you anoint the picture.
0:01:36 > 0:01:41It will require an investigation that reaches into the highest ranks of Nazi Germany...
0:01:41 > 0:01:44This almost certainly relates to the forced sale of the picture.
0:01:44 > 0:01:46..and test our team to its limits.
0:01:46 > 0:01:50This is getting so complicated.
0:02:02 > 0:02:06This story began with an excited call from Philip.
0:02:06 > 0:02:10I needed to see him at base, quickly.
0:02:10 > 0:02:14His head of research, Dr Bendor Grosvenor, was waiting,
0:02:14 > 0:02:16and time was not on our side.
0:02:16 > 0:02:19So, why have you got me here in such a hurry?
0:02:19 > 0:02:24The best way of explaining that is for you to see the picture. Bendor?
0:02:24 > 0:02:27This emerged a few days ago. Bendor found it on the computer.
0:02:27 > 0:02:31It's a picture coming up for sale in South Africa, in Cape Town.
0:02:31 > 0:02:34It looked interesting, so we decided to look into it.
0:02:34 > 0:02:37It looked like something that could be a very good spec,
0:02:37 > 0:02:40as we say in the trade.
0:02:40 > 0:02:43What caught my eye is this looks like a period painting
0:02:43 > 0:02:47done almost 400 years ago, but the estimate is only £800.
0:02:47 > 0:02:49Which is astonishingly cheap.
0:02:49 > 0:02:52Yes, fantastically cheap for a pretty good picture from the period.
0:02:52 > 0:02:57The second thing that caught my eye is the guy's face.
0:02:57 > 0:03:01- I seem to remember I've seen it before somewhere.- You just remembered the look of this chap?
0:03:01 > 0:03:06Yes. As a bit of a portrait anorak, I try and remember faces as much as possible.
0:03:06 > 0:03:09So I went through some old catalogues. Here he is -
0:03:09 > 0:03:13the same sitter, I think, in two paintings by Rembrandt himself.
0:03:13 > 0:03:15So you're doing all this to try and show
0:03:15 > 0:03:17that that painting up for sale in South Africa
0:03:17 > 0:03:20is perhaps not just by a follower of Rembrandt,
0:03:20 > 0:03:24- but by Rembrandt himself? - It could be by Rembrandt, but, at the very least,
0:03:24 > 0:03:28we're dealing with a painting that was painted in his circle
0:03:28 > 0:03:31or possibly in his studio, and maybe by the master himself.
0:03:31 > 0:03:34So, this is an interesting picture,
0:03:34 > 0:03:36it's a picture of considerable quality,
0:03:36 > 0:03:41but it was in the process of looking into it that a darker side emerged.
0:03:41 > 0:03:43Oh?
0:03:45 > 0:03:48This painting was sold at auction in 1935 in Berlin
0:03:48 > 0:03:52and it came, it says here, from the Van Diemen Gallery.
0:03:52 > 0:03:55The Van Diemen Gallery belonged to the Oppenheimers,
0:03:55 > 0:03:57and the Oppenheimers were Jews,
0:03:57 > 0:04:00forced to flee when the Nazis came to power.
0:04:00 > 0:04:02All of their stock was seized by the Nazis
0:04:02 > 0:04:06and placed under the administration of one of Goering's right-hand men
0:04:06 > 0:04:10and sold at auction for a fraction of its value.
0:04:10 > 0:04:12Ah, I'm beginning to get the idea.
0:04:12 > 0:04:15So this painting that is up for sale in South Africa
0:04:15 > 0:04:19almost certainly is in fact a stolen painting, stolen by the Nazis?
0:04:19 > 0:04:23Mmm. It's almost certainly what we call a spoliated painting,
0:04:23 > 0:04:26- which is in effect stolen.- Gosh.
0:04:26 > 0:04:29There's absolutely nothing to suggest at this stage at all
0:04:29 > 0:04:32that the people who are selling this know about it,
0:04:32 > 0:04:34nor indeed do the auction house know about its history.
0:04:34 > 0:04:38- How long till this thing goes up for sale?- It's 4:00 now.
0:04:38 > 0:04:42- This picture's coming up when, Bendor?- 4:00 tomorrow.
0:04:42 > 0:04:44- 24 hours.- Right.
0:04:44 > 0:04:47So we need to find some answers, and fast.
0:04:47 > 0:04:52Is the picture in South Africa just a modern copy?
0:04:52 > 0:04:54Did it belong to the Oppenheimers?
0:04:54 > 0:04:56I'm keen to find out more about them.
0:04:56 > 0:05:00They owned the Van Diemen Gallery that had the picture in the '30s.
0:05:00 > 0:05:01Living in Berlin at that time,
0:05:01 > 0:05:05Jakob and Rosa Oppenheimer would have witnessed the rise of Nazism.
0:05:05 > 0:05:10They fled from Berlin in April 1933 and went to Paris.
0:05:10 > 0:05:12I guess they thought they'd be safe there.
0:05:13 > 0:05:16But in 1940, Hitler invaded France.
0:05:17 > 0:05:21Now, Jakob died in Nice in 1941.
0:05:22 > 0:05:26Rosa was sent to a concentration camp. She died at Auschwitz in 1943.
0:05:28 > 0:05:30Somehow, their children survived.
0:05:30 > 0:05:33So, they do have living descendants,
0:05:33 > 0:05:35who may have a claim on this painting.
0:05:37 > 0:05:39Well, since the 1935 auction,
0:05:39 > 0:05:43the Oppenheimers' pictures have been scattered all over the world.
0:05:43 > 0:05:44But early in 2009,
0:05:44 > 0:05:48the descendants of the Oppenheimers found three of those paintings.
0:05:48 > 0:05:51They were in a museum in California, and the State of California
0:05:51 > 0:05:55has since decided to return those pictures to the Oppenheimer family.
0:05:55 > 0:05:58Here is the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger,
0:05:58 > 0:06:01standing beside two of the descendants,
0:06:01 > 0:06:03Peter Bloch on the left
0:06:03 > 0:06:06and Inge Blackshear on the right,
0:06:06 > 0:06:10at the ceremony when they returned the paintings.
0:06:10 > 0:06:13But in this murky world, the laws about returning paintings,
0:06:13 > 0:06:17or restituting them, as it's known, differ from country to country.
0:06:17 > 0:06:21To avoid getting bogged down in the legalities, I need some advice.
0:06:21 > 0:06:24Next morning, I visit Anne Webber of the Looted Art Commission in London.
0:06:24 > 0:06:28You would think that things that were stolen, if everybody's agreed
0:06:28 > 0:06:31that they were taken under terrible circumstances,
0:06:31 > 0:06:34you should be able to get them back wherever they are.
0:06:34 > 0:06:37But no. The justice you get depends on the accident of geography.
0:06:37 > 0:06:40The accident of where the work of art has come to rest.
0:06:40 > 0:06:45In this case, we know that there is a lawyer who represents the Oppenheimer family.
0:06:45 > 0:06:48She's a French lawyer living in Paris, or working from Paris,
0:06:48 > 0:06:51and the right thing to do is to contact her,
0:06:51 > 0:06:55ask her, "Is this painting on your list of missing paintings?"
0:06:55 > 0:06:58And then to see what she would like to do about it.
0:06:58 > 0:07:04Back at base, we're sending the limited information we have on the painting to the lawyer in Paris.
0:07:07 > 0:07:12We can't stop the auction ourselves. We have no claim on the painting,
0:07:12 > 0:07:15and with only five hours left till bidding starts,
0:07:15 > 0:07:19we need to know if she's able to stop the sale.
0:07:22 > 0:07:25- 'Bonjour.'- Ah, bonjour. Puis-je parler avec Eva Sterzing?
0:07:25 > 0:07:27'Yes. Hold the line, please.'
0:07:27 > 0:07:29MUSIC PLAYS
0:07:31 > 0:07:34My guess is that Eva Sterzing's busy looking into her records.
0:07:34 > 0:07:37She's only had the details for about half an hour,
0:07:37 > 0:07:40so I can hardly expect her to come up with an immediate answer.
0:07:40 > 0:07:43And I bet you she'll be surprised.
0:07:45 > 0:07:47Hello. Is that Eva Sterzing?
0:07:47 > 0:07:49Hi, this is Philip Mould.
0:07:49 > 0:07:51How are you?
0:07:51 > 0:07:54Have you received the information that I've sent you?
0:08:16 > 0:08:19As I understand it, there is no guarantee,
0:08:19 > 0:08:23far from it, that the auction house will withdraw this picture, so...
0:08:38 > 0:08:40This is all a bit of a gamble.
0:08:40 > 0:08:43Raising questions over the painting's past
0:08:43 > 0:08:46could mire it in lengthy legal disputes.
0:08:46 > 0:08:48The owner may dispose of the picture secretly,
0:08:48 > 0:08:51so it just disappears from sight.
0:08:51 > 0:08:54It's still showing it for sale,
0:08:54 > 0:08:57but sometimes these things move quite slowly.
0:08:57 > 0:09:03I wouldn't like to be told that my picture was Nazi booty, would you?
0:09:03 > 0:09:07What I'm finding rather frustrating is you and I know that this picture
0:09:07 > 0:09:11is considerably more interesting than it appears on the screen.
0:09:11 > 0:09:13I still want to get my hands on it.
0:09:15 > 0:09:19It's frustrating to wait, knowing there's nothing more we can do.
0:09:19 > 0:09:22PHONE RINGS
0:09:22 > 0:09:25Hi.
0:09:25 > 0:09:27Do you have some news?
0:09:27 > 0:09:28I'll come through now.
0:09:30 > 0:09:34Hi. Just had a call from Rudd's in South Africa,
0:09:34 > 0:09:36and the picture has been withdrawn.
0:09:36 > 0:09:39So the lawyer's letter has clearly had an effect.
0:09:39 > 0:09:41Must have done. They didn't give any reasons.
0:09:41 > 0:09:45They just said something about an ownership dispute.
0:09:53 > 0:09:56Thankfully, we've managed to stop the auction.
0:09:56 > 0:09:58Now, two questions need answering.
0:10:00 > 0:10:03I'm desperate to discover who painted the picture.
0:10:03 > 0:10:05Could it be by Rembrandt?
0:10:06 > 0:10:09And I want to know who the rightful owner is.
0:10:09 > 0:10:12To investigate, we need more than a computer image.
0:10:12 > 0:10:14We need the painting itself.
0:10:14 > 0:10:18So, one overnight flight later, here I am in Cape Town.
0:10:18 > 0:10:23I've been given permission to take the picture temporarily for testing in Europe.
0:10:23 > 0:10:26While I'm here, I can find out more about the painting
0:10:26 > 0:10:29and its owner from the auctioneer, Charles Rudd.
0:10:29 > 0:10:33- Hi, I'm Fiona Bruce. Charles, I presume.- Yes, welcome to Rudd's.
0:10:33 > 0:10:35- Nice to see you.- So, where is it?
0:10:35 > 0:10:37Right here. Follow me.
0:10:40 > 0:10:42After you.
0:10:42 > 0:10:46How exciting. I'm the first one to have a good look at it.
0:10:46 > 0:10:47Absolutely.
0:10:49 > 0:10:54Well, I have to say, when I saw it on the computer back in London,
0:10:54 > 0:10:57I was expecting something smaller, and, actually, not as vivid as this.
0:10:57 > 0:11:01- Yes.- I was worried that I might be slightly unimpressed by it,
0:11:01 > 0:11:04but, actually, I think it's rather wonderful.
0:11:04 > 0:11:06Yes. I think it's got a lot of pathos,
0:11:06 > 0:11:09and I think there's a lot of feeling in it, as a painting.
0:11:10 > 0:11:14Tell me how you came by it, how this painting came to your attention.
0:11:14 > 0:11:17Well, the owner of this painting,
0:11:17 > 0:11:22we've had dealings with over a couple of years.
0:11:22 > 0:11:26He did take about four of his paintings to another auction house,
0:11:26 > 0:11:30and two of those paintings were unsold at that auction.
0:11:30 > 0:11:32- And this was one of them?- Yes.
0:11:32 > 0:11:34And is it because he'd failed to sell it before
0:11:34 > 0:11:36- that he put it on at quite a low price?- Yes.
0:11:36 > 0:11:38He didn't want the painting back,
0:11:38 > 0:11:41and he didn't want them to handle the resale of the painting,
0:11:41 > 0:11:44so he gave it to us and we came to an agreement
0:11:44 > 0:11:46to put what we considered a fair estimate
0:11:46 > 0:11:49to draw some interest to the painting.
0:11:49 > 0:11:51In sterling, it was just about under £1,000, wasn't it?
0:11:51 > 0:11:53Yes.
0:11:53 > 0:11:57I'd very much like to meet the owner while I'm here.
0:11:57 > 0:11:58Is that going to be possible?
0:11:58 > 0:12:01I have asked him whether he would like to attend today,
0:12:01 > 0:12:04but, unfortunately, he didn't feel he wanted to.
0:12:04 > 0:12:06And how did he come by the painting?
0:12:06 > 0:12:08- He inherited it, did he?- Yes.
0:12:08 > 0:12:11Now, we did know that the owner, Peter Schaary,
0:12:11 > 0:12:16inherited this painting in 1978, and this is written by his father,
0:12:16 > 0:12:19"Bequeathed as a gift to my son." The other thing was...
0:12:19 > 0:12:22I was going to say, that was the first thing I noticed
0:12:22 > 0:12:23when you turned it round.
0:12:23 > 0:12:26- What does this mean?- We're not sure.
0:12:26 > 0:12:29- It looks like a sort of fascist label.- It does, instantly.
0:12:29 > 0:12:32As if it had been in some storage warehouse somewhere.
0:12:32 > 0:12:36- Now that is a bit chilling, isn't it?- Mmm.
0:12:39 > 0:12:42- Philip, it's Fiona. - 'Hello. How are you getting on?'
0:12:42 > 0:12:46Well, I have it in front of me, which is very exciting.
0:12:46 > 0:12:50It's much more... It's much richer, it's much more colourful,
0:12:50 > 0:12:54it's much more interesting as a painting, to my uneducated eye,
0:12:54 > 0:12:57now seeing it in real life. Are there any obvious things
0:12:57 > 0:12:59I should be looking at before we wrap it up?
0:13:01 > 0:13:06'What we do know is, in 1935 when it was measured,
0:13:06 > 0:13:10'the dimensions were approximately 52 by 38cm.'
0:13:10 > 0:13:15Well, it's 51. 50.5... Hang on.
0:13:15 > 0:13:17- Charles is very helpfully measuring it.- By 38.
0:13:17 > 0:13:20By 38. And you were thinking...
0:13:20 > 0:13:24- 'That's good enough.'- That's good enough, is it? OK. Anything else?
0:13:24 > 0:13:27- 'Does it have a gold frame?' - It does have a gold frame.
0:13:27 > 0:13:30- 'Does it look like quite an old frame to you?'- Well...
0:13:30 > 0:13:32How old would you think it is?
0:13:32 > 0:13:35I think this frame may be from the '60s or '70s.
0:13:35 > 0:13:37Oh, he thinks it might be from the '60s or '70s.
0:13:37 > 0:13:40'May have lost its original frame. Not a problem.
0:13:40 > 0:13:42'From what you've told me,
0:13:42 > 0:13:46'it looks a highly likely picture. So in your situation,
0:13:46 > 0:13:49'I'd wrap it up and take it home.'
0:13:49 > 0:13:51The present owner may not want to meet me,
0:13:51 > 0:13:57but it's a good sign that he's willing to entrust the painting to us to undergo investigation.
0:14:00 > 0:14:04Well, here it is. Yikes! I'm pretty terrified, actually,
0:14:04 > 0:14:07about taking this on a plane back overnight.
0:14:07 > 0:14:09Apparently the guy who brought it to the auction house
0:14:09 > 0:14:11in the first place, who owns it at the moment,
0:14:11 > 0:14:14brought it along the Skeleton Coast of Namibia,
0:14:14 > 0:14:17bouncing around in the back of his Land Rover.
0:14:17 > 0:14:21So who knows? Hopefully, I won't do too bad a job of it.
0:14:26 > 0:14:30In Paris, the Oppenheimers' lawyer can give us more information
0:14:30 > 0:14:34about the possible ownership of the painting.
0:14:34 > 0:14:38Eva Sterzing has spent many years battling to find and return the Oppenheimer collection.
0:14:38 > 0:14:43Two years after they fled Germany, their Van Diemen Gallery
0:14:43 > 0:14:46was put into liquidation by the Nazis.
0:14:46 > 0:14:48The pictures were sold at knockdown prices
0:14:48 > 0:14:52at what's been called Judenauktion, or Jewish auctions.
0:14:52 > 0:14:57Thanks to the Nazis, the paintings, including masterpieces by Titian,
0:14:57 > 0:15:00Van Dyck and Rubens, passed into new hands.
0:15:00 > 0:15:04They were very well-known art dealers
0:15:04 > 0:15:07and they had very fine paintings.
0:15:07 > 0:15:12And then these auctions, which you call Judenauktion...
0:15:14 > 0:15:17..they sold all these paintings.
0:15:17 > 0:15:19I have got this in my catalogues.
0:15:19 > 0:15:22They put a little...little...
0:15:24 > 0:15:26..rosa...
0:15:26 > 0:15:28red stickers like this.
0:15:28 > 0:15:32"Unlimitiert" - without limit.
0:15:32 > 0:15:35Here's one. That's why you call it verschleudern.
0:15:35 > 0:15:39You throw it on the market.
0:15:39 > 0:15:44Because in the end, you could buy something for one mark.
0:15:44 > 0:15:48That one was restituted a long time ago.
0:15:48 > 0:15:54Having spent so many years working to restitute the Oppenheimer estate to its rightful heirs,
0:15:54 > 0:16:00Eva has grown to know descendants Peter Bloch and Inge Blackshear as friends.
0:16:00 > 0:16:02She is all too aware of how important
0:16:02 > 0:16:06regaining their inheritance is to them, and to others like them.
0:16:06 > 0:16:12I've known them since such a long time and I know how it is important.
0:16:14 > 0:16:19Because the Jews were persecuted in Germany,
0:16:19 > 0:16:23and persecution means everything.
0:16:23 > 0:16:26I saw it with them in California.
0:16:28 > 0:16:31It is very good for them.
0:16:31 > 0:16:34They feel like having been...
0:16:34 > 0:16:38That it is recognised, the persecution.
0:16:38 > 0:16:40Yeah, here it is.
0:16:40 > 0:16:46With the picture now withdrawn from the Cape Town sale and on its way back to London,
0:16:46 > 0:16:51Eva is keen to reunite her clients with the painting taken in such terrible circumstances.
0:16:51 > 0:16:56Whenever you steal something from somebody, you are only satisfied
0:16:56 > 0:17:01once the thief is in prison or you get it back, your property.
0:17:01 > 0:17:04I'm a little like a detective when I find something.
0:17:07 > 0:17:10It's also fun...
0:17:10 > 0:17:14to chase art, isn't it?
0:17:15 > 0:17:20As Fiona arrives back from Cape Town on the red-eye,
0:17:20 > 0:17:24I'll be able to get a better idea whether the painting really is,
0:17:24 > 0:17:27without doubt, the looted picture and not a cheap modern copy.
0:17:31 > 0:17:34- Special delivery.- Welcome back.
0:17:34 > 0:17:38- You've got it.- Yes! Here it is.
0:17:38 > 0:17:40- I'm so excited.- I know.
0:17:40 > 0:17:43I was terrified, carrying this on the plane.
0:17:43 > 0:17:46I always get this rather uncertain feeling at this stage,
0:17:46 > 0:17:48when the picture is opened in London.
0:17:48 > 0:17:51It's come from another part of the world.
0:17:51 > 0:17:55It always looks different somehow in the London light.
0:17:55 > 0:17:57I'm dying to know what you make of it.
0:17:57 > 0:18:00You can't get away from the fact that he still looks like
0:18:00 > 0:18:02a grumpy old chap standing there,
0:18:02 > 0:18:05but it's got a depth that I hadn't appreciated until I saw it.
0:18:10 > 0:18:13The moment of truth approaches.
0:18:15 > 0:18:16- Here we go.- Are you ready?
0:18:16 > 0:18:18Get on with it.
0:18:21 > 0:18:23What do you think?
0:18:23 > 0:18:28That looks interesting. I have to say I do think that it's a period work.
0:18:28 > 0:18:30It's got that sort of gnarled intensity
0:18:30 > 0:18:36that you associate with Rembrandt and his circle.
0:18:38 > 0:18:41And this looks like a wonderfully-hewn piece of oak,
0:18:41 > 0:18:44possibly Baltic oak.
0:18:44 > 0:18:47Just the sort of thing that one would be looking for
0:18:47 > 0:18:49for a 17th-century picture.
0:18:49 > 0:18:54I think there's a possibility that we can find out who this is by,
0:18:54 > 0:18:59but the real thing is, is it the picture that we think it is,
0:18:59 > 0:19:01the Oppenheimer picture?
0:19:06 > 0:19:08We could put some white spirit on it.
0:19:08 > 0:19:11I don't think we'd damage the picture in so doing.
0:19:11 > 0:19:15- White spirit takes off paint. - Nah. Well, it can do,
0:19:15 > 0:19:18but not old, solid varnish like this.
0:19:18 > 0:19:20And you're going to do it for me.
0:19:20 > 0:19:23You want me to put this white spirit on this painting,
0:19:23 > 0:19:26follower of Rembrandt, hundreds of years old? Are you sure?
0:19:26 > 0:19:28No, this is white spirit.
0:19:28 > 0:19:31It's not acetone. It doesn't actually take off the varnish.
0:19:31 > 0:19:33Go on, live dangerously.
0:19:33 > 0:19:36- Like that?- That's it.- Oh!
0:19:36 > 0:19:38Look at the drapery on that.
0:19:38 > 0:19:41- Terrifying!- Look at the shadow underneath the drapery,
0:19:41 > 0:19:43how the drapery comes forward now.
0:19:44 > 0:19:46Actually, I can see, that is amazing.
0:19:46 > 0:19:50Isn't that better? It's a bit like water when it goes over pebbles.
0:19:50 > 0:19:54On a dirty picture like this, you can get a hint, a taste,
0:19:54 > 0:19:56of what it might be when it's clean.
0:19:56 > 0:20:00'Although I wouldn't advise anyone else trying this, for a minute or two while wet,
0:20:00 > 0:20:05'the old varnish becomes transparent, allowing the depth of the painting to shine through.'
0:20:05 > 0:20:08We haven't got long, cos it's going to evaporate off.
0:20:08 > 0:20:12- So you've just got to... - Wow. Look at the difference now.
0:20:12 > 0:20:15Look at that picture now.
0:20:15 > 0:20:19It's like a fish coming out of the water, isn't it?
0:20:19 > 0:20:22- Wow.- I mean, you can see that it's a work of some quality,
0:20:22 > 0:20:26and definitely has the feel of an early painting.
0:20:29 > 0:20:32This painting is definitely holding a lot of secrets.
0:20:32 > 0:20:34But so often in this world,
0:20:34 > 0:20:37the back of a picture can tell you more than the front.
0:20:39 > 0:20:43Well, that looks like an 18th-century wax collector's seal.
0:20:43 > 0:20:48So that tells us, almost certainly, that this isn't a modern fake.
0:20:48 > 0:20:51The panel looks right for the period.
0:20:51 > 0:20:53It's been chamfered in the right way.
0:20:53 > 0:20:56We've got the three quarters here,
0:20:56 > 0:20:59and they make this incision into the edge,
0:20:59 > 0:21:01so you can frame it properly.
0:21:01 > 0:21:04There's also some writing on the frame here.
0:21:04 > 0:21:08- This looks like a German script, doesn't it?- Does it?
0:21:08 > 0:21:10How can you tell?
0:21:10 > 0:21:13- It says "lieb". "Lieben", or something.- There've been some wonderful moments
0:21:13 > 0:21:16when we've looked at the back of pictures.
0:21:16 > 0:21:19Just as we begin to think we've got some missing art,
0:21:19 > 0:21:21we work out the words and it's something like,
0:21:21 > 0:21:23"Hang to left of door".
0:21:24 > 0:21:28Come on, Bendor, what about this? This is what got me excited.
0:21:28 > 0:21:31Well, this one is...
0:21:31 > 0:21:34It's not very easily discernable at the moment.
0:21:34 > 0:21:39If it was a whopping great big swastika, we'd know more about it.
0:21:39 > 0:21:41It has a fascistic air about it.
0:21:41 > 0:21:45You're right, because this little thing in the middle,
0:21:45 > 0:21:48this little bundle of sticks tied together, is a fasces,
0:21:48 > 0:21:51and that was what the early fascists used as a symbol.
0:21:51 > 0:21:54That's where they get the term "fascist" from.
0:21:55 > 0:21:59One always has that element of uncertainty before a picture arrives
0:21:59 > 0:22:01that you've only known from digital images.
0:22:01 > 0:22:05It's now here, we've seen it, and it's unquestionably old.
0:22:05 > 0:22:10Just how old is something that we need to determine.
0:22:10 > 0:22:13And it seems to have all the evidence
0:22:13 > 0:22:18to suggest that it is the Oppenheimers' picture.
0:22:18 > 0:22:21To me, it's covered with fingerprints,
0:22:21 > 0:22:23we just need to read them.
0:22:31 > 0:22:34The next place I want to go is here, the Witt Library.
0:22:34 > 0:22:36This is the Scotland Yard of the art world
0:22:36 > 0:22:41with images and information on over a million pictures.
0:22:41 > 0:22:45It was here that Bendor discovered the link between our picture
0:22:45 > 0:22:49and the Van Diemen sale. I want Fiona to see that evidence for herself.
0:22:54 > 0:22:56Always wanted to do this.
0:22:57 > 0:22:59Right, lead on.
0:23:01 > 0:23:03In these files are just so many answers.
0:23:03 > 0:23:05I mean, it's a bit like with crime scenes.
0:23:05 > 0:23:08You have to library all the evidence,
0:23:08 > 0:23:12library the DNA and then, using it later on, you can establish things.
0:23:12 > 0:23:18Any picture that has been in a prominent public collection or an auction or with a dealer
0:23:18 > 0:23:22in the last 100 years, the chances are you can find it here.
0:23:22 > 0:23:24- Right.- Staggering, really.
0:23:24 > 0:23:27God, there's a lot of Rembrandt. New Testament?
0:23:27 > 0:23:30I love the smell of it, don't you? Sort of leather and...
0:23:30 > 0:23:33Kind of musty...
0:23:33 > 0:23:36Self-portraits, Old Testament etchings... Oh, portraits.
0:23:36 > 0:23:39His father and his brother.
0:23:39 > 0:23:41Over to you.
0:23:41 > 0:23:44This is a fantastic resource.
0:23:44 > 0:23:46I once found a missing link here
0:23:46 > 0:23:50that proved a lacklustre landscape was really a Gainsborough.
0:23:50 > 0:23:54Just look how many images there are, just for the father.
0:23:54 > 0:23:57- And they're all of his dad?- Well, they're purported to be of his dad,
0:23:57 > 0:24:01- but there's no evidence for that. - Oh, I see. So it could be anybody?
0:24:01 > 0:24:03It could be anybody, probably a studio model.
0:24:03 > 0:24:07- That's definitely our chap, isn't it?- This is the same guy.- Yeah.
0:24:07 > 0:24:11The set of the eyes, the shape of the nose, and that slightly sort of,
0:24:11 > 0:24:14"How long am I going to have to sit for?" model look.
0:24:14 > 0:24:20And Rembrandt would have chosen this chap to paint because he had an interesting face, a lived-in face?
0:24:20 > 0:24:22- Yeah.- Is that right?- Yes, absolutely.
0:24:22 > 0:24:24Rembrandt was always looking for
0:24:24 > 0:24:27different types of human expression, thought and insight.
0:24:27 > 0:24:30- If he found a good face... - He stuck with them.
0:24:30 > 0:24:33A good face is worth having. A lot of would-be Rembrandts.
0:24:33 > 0:24:38I'm looking at so many that are similar, I can't remember what ours looks like any more.
0:24:38 > 0:24:40- Oh!- Here it is.
0:24:40 > 0:24:42Right, OK.
0:24:42 > 0:24:46- Talk about incriminating evidence. - This is what Bendor saw.
0:24:46 > 0:24:48Yes. It's one and the same thing, isn't it?
0:24:48 > 0:24:51"Van Diemen sale, Graupe, Berlin, 26-29 April, 1935."
0:24:51 > 0:24:55Isn't it extraordinary? Picture comes up in South Africa,
0:24:55 > 0:24:57we here in the Witt Library in London,
0:24:57 > 0:25:00photograph, ancient information, put it all together.
0:25:00 > 0:25:04- It's like a trail of clues, isn't it?- Yeah.
0:25:07 > 0:25:11Although we know that the painting that was for sale in Cape Town
0:25:11 > 0:25:13is definitely the Nazi painting,
0:25:13 > 0:25:16there are still many questions to answer.
0:25:16 > 0:25:18Hang on, because this says Rembrandt,
0:25:18 > 0:25:21and yet the picture in Cape Town
0:25:21 > 0:25:23is described as being by a follower of Rembrandt.
0:25:23 > 0:25:25So how can you tell the difference?
0:25:25 > 0:25:28You're asking an absolutely crucial question. It's the difference
0:25:28 > 0:25:31between the master and a follower or an assistant.
0:25:31 > 0:25:34I'll tell you what, we can go to the National Gallery.
0:25:34 > 0:25:36There you can see some real Rembrandts.
0:25:51 > 0:25:54Rembrandt was the greatest Dutch artist of the 17th century,
0:25:54 > 0:25:58a time when Dutch painting was the envy of Europe.
0:25:58 > 0:26:02But while many of his contemporaries excelled in landscapes
0:26:02 > 0:26:07and still-lives, Rembrandt became famous as a master of the human face.
0:26:07 > 0:26:09The National Gallery holds
0:26:09 > 0:26:11a wonderful collection of his portraits.
0:26:17 > 0:26:20Now, even I recognise this self-portrait.
0:26:20 > 0:26:26Two things jump out at me. He's not flattering himself obviously, is he?
0:26:26 > 0:26:33Also, he looks either slightly querulous or very slightly anxious.
0:26:33 > 0:26:36I'm not quite sure which it is. But you can see that in his expression.
0:26:36 > 0:26:41Absolutely. That's exactly what makes this a fascinating picture.
0:26:41 > 0:26:46It's not obvious. It's not someone laughing or sad or angry.
0:26:46 > 0:26:49It teeters on the edge, one feeling teetering into the other.
0:26:49 > 0:26:51It's just incredibly clever.
0:26:53 > 0:26:56You can tell a Rembrandt portrait by the superior way
0:26:56 > 0:27:00he portrays a subject's character and emotion,
0:27:00 > 0:27:03with nothing more than inspired brushstrokes.
0:27:03 > 0:27:05There's no vagueness in a Rembrandt.
0:27:05 > 0:27:09I read that Hitler was a great fan of Rembrandt's,
0:27:09 > 0:27:10which is surprising in one sense
0:27:10 > 0:27:14in that Rembrandt mixed with and painted a lot of Jewish people.
0:27:14 > 0:27:16Why do you think Hitler was such a fan?
0:27:16 > 0:27:20Because Rembrandt is the ultimate trophy.
0:27:20 > 0:27:23I mean, Rembrandt is a by-word for artistic genius.
0:27:23 > 0:27:28What he wanted was these bits of booty himself around him
0:27:28 > 0:27:30as a form of aggrandisement.
0:27:36 > 0:27:39- Take a look at this, Fiona. It's got no label on it.- Right.
0:27:39 > 0:27:41Tell me what you think of this.
0:27:41 > 0:27:44What, in terms of is it a Rembrandt or not?
0:27:44 > 0:27:47Yeah, quality. Is it a Rembrandt?
0:27:47 > 0:27:50Oh, God. I don't know.
0:27:50 > 0:27:54Well, OK, from what I've learned from the master...
0:27:55 > 0:28:00I also could make a complete fool of myself now!
0:28:00 > 0:28:03I would say it's not as fine
0:28:03 > 0:28:06as the ones we've seen. Even though those are not photographic
0:28:06 > 0:28:10in the way they portray the faces, they are very clear.
0:28:10 > 0:28:13You're going to tell me this is a Rembrandt, aren't you?
0:28:13 > 0:28:17When I'm saying it doesn't particularly look like a Rembrandt.
0:28:17 > 0:28:20- I can reveal to you it is not a Rembrandt.- Ooh!
0:28:20 > 0:28:22- But it was thought to be a Rembrandt. - Oh, right. OK.
0:28:22 > 0:28:25It was demoted in the 1960s.
0:28:25 > 0:28:28But it's very difficult, because you can't just say,
0:28:28 > 0:28:30"It's got the right paint and it's from the right period
0:28:30 > 0:28:34"and this is the sort of subject he does." There are subtle differences
0:28:34 > 0:28:36in the quality of the handwriting, as it were.
0:28:36 > 0:28:39If it was originally thought that this was a Rembrandt,
0:28:39 > 0:28:43it's possible that this came from the studio of Rembrandt,
0:28:43 > 0:28:46- from one of his pupils, is it?- Yeah.
0:28:46 > 0:28:50He had around him a group of people, assistants, pupils if you want,
0:28:50 > 0:28:53people who would actually, as he worked on a picture,
0:28:53 > 0:28:57quite often sit around and do the same model, the same object.
0:28:57 > 0:28:59Rembrandt could do it from one angle
0:28:59 > 0:29:02and two or three other people could do it from other angles.
0:29:02 > 0:29:03He had a sort of industry going on.
0:29:03 > 0:29:07- These were apprentices, effectively? - Apprentices, pupils, yes.
0:29:07 > 0:29:10These were people who could also supply pictures which he could sell.
0:29:10 > 0:29:12So you could get a copy of a Rembrandt
0:29:12 > 0:29:14or you could get an original Rembrandt.
0:29:22 > 0:29:26With Philip eager to uncover the mysteries of our painting,
0:29:26 > 0:29:31I want to learn more about how art was systematically looted
0:29:31 > 0:29:36by the Nazis in the years before the Second World War.
0:29:42 > 0:29:49As well as housing an impressive array of machines to excite the imagination of any schoolboy,
0:29:49 > 0:29:54the Imperial War Museum holds a wealth of rare archive film
0:29:54 > 0:29:56that documents the rise of Nazism
0:29:56 > 0:29:58from the days before our painting was looted.
0:29:58 > 0:30:03Archive that historian James Taylor has arranged to show me.
0:30:09 > 0:30:14This is a crowd listening to the propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels,
0:30:14 > 0:30:19who is announcing a one-day boycott of Jewish shops throughout the country
0:30:19 > 0:30:25and the intention was that this would stop non-Jewish people buying from Jewish shopkeepers.
0:30:25 > 0:30:28- Gosh. And when was this? - The end of March 1933.
0:30:28 > 0:30:30March 31st to be specific.
0:30:30 > 0:30:34So this is only two months since Adolf Hitler's become Chancellor.
0:30:34 > 0:30:37- He didn't waste any time, did he? - No, absolutely not.
0:30:37 > 0:30:43And this is the beginning of the creeping and increasing legislation
0:30:43 > 0:30:47against the Jews as Hitler became more powerful.
0:30:47 > 0:30:52Yes. I mean, I think the key years are really 1935
0:30:52 > 0:30:55when the Reich citizenship law is brought in
0:30:55 > 0:30:59and that effectively makes Jews second-class citizens.
0:30:59 > 0:31:02Then they turn their attention wholesale
0:31:02 > 0:31:07to the possessions of Jews. The focus of Nazi antisemitic law
0:31:07 > 0:31:08is to force Jews to emigrate.
0:31:08 > 0:31:12The irony of that is that they actually put obstacles in their path,
0:31:12 > 0:31:16one of which was that they weren't allowed to take their assets with them.
0:31:16 > 0:31:21So they insisted that all Jewish artworks,
0:31:21 > 0:31:25shares and bonds be declared. It was either taken forcibly
0:31:25 > 0:31:31or, after the Jews were deported, then the property was taken.
0:31:34 > 0:31:37Not all Jews were as wealthy as Jakob and Rosa Oppenheimer,
0:31:37 > 0:31:41with the funds to buy expensive paintings,
0:31:41 > 0:31:44but it's estimated that, by the end of the war,
0:31:44 > 0:31:48one third of all the world's art treasures had been looted by the Nazis.
0:31:48 > 0:31:53Paintings by Da Vinci, Raphael and others adorned the walls of the Nazi leaders.
0:31:53 > 0:31:59When it came to art, were there Nazis who were particularly interested in it per se?
0:31:59 > 0:32:02Well, Goering, most famously,
0:32:02 > 0:32:05is the person who was interested in art. Hitler, of course...
0:32:05 > 0:32:07- Was a watercolourist.- That's right.
0:32:07 > 0:32:11And he wanted to establish certainly a kind of Fuhrer museum.
0:32:11 > 0:32:13But it's also worth pointing out
0:32:13 > 0:32:17that they were very particular about the type of art that they wanted.
0:32:17 > 0:32:19Anything that they considered degenerate -
0:32:19 > 0:32:23which was, generally speaking modernist art - was destroyed.
0:32:29 > 0:32:33I think it's fascinating and horrifying in equal measure
0:32:33 > 0:32:36to see quite how systematically the Nazis stripped away
0:32:36 > 0:32:39everything from the Jews that made them human, really.
0:32:39 > 0:32:43I hadn't realised the Nazis were so keen to force the Jews to emigrate.
0:32:43 > 0:32:46I didn't realise that was part of their master plan.
0:32:46 > 0:32:50Of course, the Oppenheimers in '33 left Germany, they did emigrate.
0:32:50 > 0:32:54They had to leave everything behind, including their painting.
0:32:54 > 0:32:58A painting Bendor has news of back at base.
0:32:58 > 0:33:02Well, Anne Webber from the Commission for Looted Art in Europe has been in touch.
0:33:02 > 0:33:05She and her team have made the most fantastic discovery.
0:33:05 > 0:33:09Our picture was listed by the Nazis in 1934
0:33:09 > 0:33:11as a work of national treasure,
0:33:11 > 0:33:14which meant that it couldn't be exported from the country
0:33:14 > 0:33:20and Anne and her team have kindly sent us a copy of the list from a few years later in 1938.
0:33:20 > 0:33:25Here it is. It's the second picture down, artist Rembrandt on the left
0:33:25 > 0:33:28and then "Bildnis seines Vaters in Pantasietracht".
0:33:28 > 0:33:31It means, basically, portrait of the father in fancy dress.
0:33:31 > 0:33:36And you can see all these pictures are by Rembrandt van Rijn.
0:33:36 > 0:33:38And this is extraordinary.
0:33:38 > 0:33:40I'm just trying to keep up with what this means.
0:33:40 > 0:33:44- They thought it was a Rembrandt... - Indeed, yes.- ..and as a Rembrandt,
0:33:44 > 0:33:46was of national importance to the heritage...
0:33:46 > 0:33:49This puts a whole different historical slant on it.
0:33:49 > 0:33:55It moves from albeit an important old master picture to a national treasure.
0:33:55 > 0:33:59I mean, whatever the picture is, whatever we catalogue it as now,
0:33:59 > 0:34:03whoever painted this, this was, in its day, something of supreme importance.
0:34:03 > 0:34:06Obviously in their day, they were pretty convinced it was by Rembrandt,
0:34:06 > 0:34:10otherwise they wouldn't have catalogued it as a national treasure, I assume.
0:34:10 > 0:34:13- Yes.- So we really do need to find out who it's by.
0:34:16 > 0:34:18If we can find out who painted our picture,
0:34:18 > 0:34:23then we can also get closer to a fair valuation for its owners.
0:34:23 > 0:34:29So I've come to Amsterdam where Rembrandt lived from 1639 onwards.
0:34:31 > 0:34:33So why am I here in Amsterdam?
0:34:33 > 0:34:38I'm here to see probably the greatest Rembrandt connoisseur of our times, Ernst Van de Wetering.
0:34:38 > 0:34:44As chairman of the Rembrandt Research Project, he knows more about Rembrandt than anybody else alive.
0:34:44 > 0:34:48If he says your unknown 17th-century canvas is by Rembrandt,
0:34:48 > 0:34:51it could be worth £25 million, let's say.
0:34:51 > 0:34:54If not, just a few thousand dollars.
0:34:54 > 0:34:57This man's got the power of a Roman emperor.
0:35:04 > 0:35:05So, here it is.
0:35:05 > 0:35:12'Ernst has so much knowledge and experience, he may well be able to give an instant opinion.'
0:35:21 > 0:35:23The first response is that it is...
0:35:25 > 0:35:28..a 17th-century painting.
0:35:28 > 0:35:32But the question is, is the painting made by Rembrandt?
0:35:32 > 0:35:37The answer is no, because it's not signed.
0:35:37 > 0:35:40- It's as simple as that, is it? - It is very simple.
0:35:40 > 0:35:46The technique is similar, very similar. Judging from the technique,
0:35:46 > 0:35:49it must have been done in his studio
0:35:49 > 0:35:53and he must have seen it, this painting.
0:35:53 > 0:35:57Each studio had its own paint recipes.
0:35:57 > 0:36:01I wouldn't say there were buckets of paint where they picked paint from,
0:36:01 > 0:36:06but in his Rembrandt school, they used the same matter
0:36:06 > 0:36:09and the behaviour of the matter was comparable.
0:36:09 > 0:36:11Some of it flows easily,
0:36:11 > 0:36:17other paint drags over the surface and behaves in a specific way.
0:36:17 > 0:36:21So what I see here, you could also see on a Rembrandt.
0:36:22 > 0:36:28'So the painting is not by Rembrandt, but it's definitely connected to the great man.
0:36:28 > 0:36:33'With the help of Ernst and the team he works with, we can still find out who painted this picture.
0:36:35 > 0:36:38'Applying state-of-the-art techniques, step by step,
0:36:38 > 0:36:43'they can delve deeper and deeper into the creation of our painting.'
0:36:43 > 0:36:48I think it's best we start with the head and from there we can orient ourselves more easily.
0:36:48 > 0:36:50'An infrared camera will allow us
0:36:50 > 0:36:53'to look beneath the surface of the painting
0:36:53 > 0:36:57'and see the artist's preparation, known as the reserve.'
0:36:59 > 0:37:03There is...around the feather,
0:37:03 > 0:37:05you see the shape
0:37:05 > 0:37:09making a reserve for a wider feather than you see now on the painting.
0:37:09 > 0:37:13This is most probably a change in the conception of the painting.
0:37:13 > 0:37:19- That's thrilling. Like a poet missing a line and then adding one.- Yes, yes.
0:37:19 > 0:37:22But look at this hat. I mean, this hat was once enormous.
0:37:22 > 0:37:23Look at the edge there.
0:37:23 > 0:37:27It looks like one of those great big, floppy Rembrandt hats.
0:37:27 > 0:37:29Yeah, it could be.
0:37:30 > 0:37:33Or, I mean, the turban.
0:37:33 > 0:37:39You would expect a turban, but he gets a very small cap.
0:37:39 > 0:37:42But it may have been a different shape originally.
0:37:42 > 0:37:48So what we're seeing is an artist trying to find an artistic solution.
0:37:48 > 0:37:52- Yes.- In other words, an original painting and not a copy.
0:37:52 > 0:37:54Yes, we can be sure about that.
0:37:54 > 0:37:58'Already, our picture is revealing its past.
0:37:58 > 0:38:01'It shows an artist changing his mind whilst painting.
0:38:01 > 0:38:03'So it's an original work.
0:38:03 > 0:38:06'A copy would not have these tell-tale signs beneath the surface.
0:38:06 > 0:38:11'But we need more investigation to find out who it's actually by.
0:38:11 > 0:38:16'So it's now in the expert hands of Martin Bijl
0:38:16 > 0:38:18'who's a restorer extraordinaire.
0:38:18 > 0:38:23'I'm intrigued by a series of faint marks at the bottom of the picture.
0:38:23 > 0:38:26'Could it be a signature? His trained eye might just be able to find it.
0:38:26 > 0:38:30'If it exists, it could reveal what we're eager to know.'
0:38:32 > 0:38:34Now, Martin, I've got to ask you,
0:38:34 > 0:38:38can you make out anything in the bottom left-hand corner?
0:38:38 > 0:38:42Is there a possible signature?
0:38:42 > 0:38:45I've just had a first look at it
0:38:45 > 0:38:52and it ends with a date - 1639 or 1635.
0:38:52 > 0:38:56But then before this date, something is written
0:38:56 > 0:39:00and that's partly over-painted.
0:39:00 > 0:39:05- Mm-hmm.- That suggests that somebody painted over the signature
0:39:05 > 0:39:08without knowing what he did.
0:39:08 > 0:39:11He didn't even paint over everything because...
0:39:12 > 0:39:15..one or two centimetres before,
0:39:15 > 0:39:19there is also the remains of a signature which is not retouched.
0:39:19 > 0:39:22So there is more,
0:39:22 > 0:39:25and I think we only can confirm by looking through a microscope
0:39:25 > 0:39:29because the over-paintings are too thick and too opaque.
0:39:30 > 0:39:32It's a bit of a muddle, isn't it?
0:39:32 > 0:39:34Yeah.
0:39:34 > 0:39:38That's why restorers like to clean this kind of picture
0:39:38 > 0:39:41because we want to reveal these problems.
0:39:41 > 0:39:44'The Amsterdam experts will continue their investigations,
0:39:44 > 0:39:48'confident that we can put a name to its creator.'
0:39:53 > 0:39:57This compelling, and it is compelling, process of attribution
0:39:57 > 0:40:01that's going on all around me is central to our world.
0:40:01 > 0:40:06It's a bit like a religious ritual, by which the painting gets anointed.
0:40:06 > 0:40:10It's only by knowing when something was painted
0:40:10 > 0:40:12or, best of all, who painted it,
0:40:12 > 0:40:16that art historians have got something to grab onto, to hold onto.
0:40:16 > 0:40:21People who buy pictures will take out cheques and sign them when they've got that.
0:40:21 > 0:40:26It's riveting. The picture itself hasn't changed physically at all.
0:40:26 > 0:40:28But already it's growing in stature
0:40:28 > 0:40:32from the follower of Rembrandt that was at auction for just £1,000.
0:40:41 > 0:40:44With the painting yielding more and more secrets to Philip,
0:40:44 > 0:40:48I'm keen to uncover just how far Nazi looting spread.
0:40:49 > 0:40:52When Europe was liberated after the war,
0:40:52 > 0:40:55Goering's personal stash of looted art was discovered.
0:40:55 > 0:41:00A multi-million-pound haul that read like a Who's Who of the greats of the art world.
0:41:00 > 0:41:04But we've barely found the tip of the iceberg.
0:41:04 > 0:41:10So much was stolen that it's estimated that art worth up to £20 billion remains missing.
0:41:10 > 0:41:13And the Nazis stole art not just from the Jews
0:41:13 > 0:41:17but from anyone they considered to be an enemy of the state.
0:41:17 > 0:41:22Adam Zamoyski is trying to locate items taken from his Polish grandmother's art gallery.
0:41:22 > 0:41:27He wants to recover them to create a public museum for Poland to be proud of.
0:41:27 > 0:41:30The Nazis behaved completely differently in Poland
0:41:30 > 0:41:32to the way they behaved anywhere else -
0:41:32 > 0:41:35in Belgium or France or anywhere else.
0:41:35 > 0:41:42They were determined to destroy the Polish upper classes and intelligentsia anyway,
0:41:42 > 0:41:45but they also confiscated everything.
0:41:45 > 0:41:49All Polish property was simply liable to confiscation.
0:41:49 > 0:41:53So the Germans started sending these things to different places
0:41:53 > 0:41:57because they had their great plans for the Fuhrer's museum in Linz
0:41:57 > 0:41:59and then Goering took a few
0:41:59 > 0:42:03and the frightful governor of Poland, Hans Frank,
0:42:03 > 0:42:04had in his bedroom that Raphael.
0:42:04 > 0:42:08- So this was in your family museum? - That's right.- And the Nazis took it?
0:42:08 > 0:42:14Yes. It's thought to be a self-portrait by Raphael and disappeared without trace.
0:42:14 > 0:42:18- And this is all you've got? A black and white image?- Exactly.
0:42:18 > 0:42:20- And you've no idea where it is?- No.
0:42:20 > 0:42:22Every single lead has been chased up.
0:42:22 > 0:42:27It's probably the most valuable looted object still out there from the Second World War.
0:42:27 > 0:42:30Of all of them. Really?
0:42:30 > 0:42:32So several millions, I imagine.
0:42:32 > 0:42:34Oh, hundreds of millions.
0:42:34 > 0:42:38I mean, you know, there wouldn't be a museum in the western world
0:42:38 > 0:42:42that wouldn't do anything to get hold of it.
0:42:42 > 0:42:44Bite your arm off to have it.
0:42:44 > 0:42:49I see it as a personal duty to try and reconstitute these collections
0:42:49 > 0:42:53and to make them available because it was put together by ancestors
0:42:53 > 0:42:59whom I actually rather admire and who I'm, sort of, quite fond of.
0:42:59 > 0:43:05But, also, I see it almost as a moral duty to the people of Poland.
0:43:09 > 0:43:12'In Amsterdam, I'm hoping that pigment expert Karin Groen
0:43:12 > 0:43:16'will be able to get closer to an attribution.
0:43:16 > 0:43:19'Is that a signature in the bottom left-hand corner?
0:43:19 > 0:43:25'Under her microscopic scrutiny, a dark secret begins to emerge.'
0:43:25 > 0:43:29I started with these larger retouchings
0:43:29 > 0:43:32in what could be a signature,
0:43:32 > 0:43:37but then when we move on, one can see that also what...
0:43:38 > 0:43:41..could be numbers...
0:43:41 > 0:43:43The 6 was mentioned and a 3.
0:43:43 > 0:43:46Yes, I've always assumed that was the date.
0:43:46 > 0:43:50Yeah, but they seem to have been made in paint used for retouching.
0:43:50 > 0:43:52So later, I think.
0:43:52 > 0:43:56Ah. So you're telling me that your microscope tells you
0:43:56 > 0:44:00- that the whole signature is added, the whole date, everything?- Yeah.
0:44:00 > 0:44:04That sounds like a rather clear conclusion then, doesn't it?
0:44:04 > 0:44:07- Bit disappointing.- I'd love to have a look down the lens myself.
0:44:07 > 0:44:12- I don't disbelieve you for a moment. - It's bang in the middle here.
0:44:14 > 0:44:16Oh, crikey, I see what you mean.
0:44:16 > 0:44:19I've seen this so many times before
0:44:19 > 0:44:21but not quite as graphically as this.
0:44:21 > 0:44:26- There's a sort of smeary, dishonest layer above, isn't there?- Yeah.
0:44:26 > 0:44:28Above what?
0:44:28 > 0:44:30The paint looks really different.
0:44:30 > 0:44:32- Really different.- Kind of smeary.
0:44:32 > 0:44:35And then as I pass it along...
0:44:35 > 0:44:39to where the date is, the date is the same smeary paint.
0:44:42 > 0:44:45- Mm.- There's so signature here at all, is there, really?
0:44:45 > 0:44:47- Well, no evidence of one.- No.
0:44:47 > 0:44:53So any hopes of identifying the painting by signature have foundered.
0:44:53 > 0:44:56It was added later, maybe in the 19th century,
0:44:56 > 0:44:59possibly in an effort to pass it off as a Rembrandt.
0:45:06 > 0:45:10It is great that we're finding out more and more about the painting now
0:45:10 > 0:45:14but my research has thrown up a disturbing new revelation
0:45:14 > 0:45:19which is there is a second claim on this picture now.
0:45:19 > 0:45:21We knew already the Oppenheimers.
0:45:21 > 0:45:25They ran the Van Diemen Gallery, it was liquidated by the Nazis.
0:45:25 > 0:45:27But the painting then passed to a bank
0:45:27 > 0:45:32as part repayment of a loan that had been made earlier to the Oppenheimers.
0:45:32 > 0:45:38Now that bank was Jewish and its assets were then seized by the Nazis
0:45:38 > 0:45:42and among those assets was our painting.
0:45:42 > 0:45:44That bank no longer exists,
0:45:44 > 0:45:49but its heirs are saying that they too now have a claim on our picture.
0:45:49 > 0:45:53It's a very confusing situation.
0:45:53 > 0:45:59Who owns this picture? And how commonly do situations like this occur with claim and counter-claim?
0:45:59 > 0:46:02I've called in Anne Webber from the Looted Art Commission.
0:46:04 > 0:46:06If a painting belonged to an art dealer,
0:46:06 > 0:46:11the art dealers in Germany were put under enormous pressure by the Nazis once they came to power.
0:46:11 > 0:46:17Really, by 1935, Jewish art dealers weren't allowed to practise in Germany.
0:46:17 > 0:46:23So you might have a situation where an art dealer took out a loan from a bank
0:46:23 > 0:46:28and then the collateral for that loan might have been works of art
0:46:28 > 0:46:33and then the loan is called in because of the art dealer being put under so much pressure.
0:46:33 > 0:46:36The loan is called in so the art works go to the bank.
0:46:36 > 0:46:38The bank itself may have been Jewish-owned
0:46:38 > 0:46:44and then subsequently that bank may have been seized by the Nazis or liquidated or Aryanised, taken over,
0:46:44 > 0:46:49and that painting at that point belonged to the bank and it was then seized from them.
0:46:49 > 0:46:56In over 60-70 years, it might be lost in the mists of time who is the rightful owner.
0:46:56 > 0:47:00Because there were so many waves of dispossession by the Nazis,
0:47:00 > 0:47:02you really have to unpick all that
0:47:02 > 0:47:06and unravel all these different discriminatory measures that were taken
0:47:06 > 0:47:09to try and understand who exactly was the owner of the painting.
0:47:09 > 0:47:13So yes, you could have a situation where two different people
0:47:13 > 0:47:17believe themselves to be the owner, for good reason.
0:47:21 > 0:47:25Back in Amsterdam, we're reaching the final stages of our forensic research
0:47:25 > 0:47:28and the last step is often the most revealing.
0:47:28 > 0:47:31An X-ray image of our painting shows the artist's original sketch.
0:47:31 > 0:47:37The contrast between his first sketch and the finished painting
0:47:37 > 0:47:42may take us closer to understanding just who that artist was.
0:47:42 > 0:47:47The technique is very similar to what we know from Rembrandt, except that Rembrandt was more outspoken.
0:47:47 > 0:47:50You see the contrast, much stronger.
0:47:50 > 0:47:55This is painted rather meek. It's very carefully done.
0:47:55 > 0:47:56A sort of cowardly Rembrandt,
0:47:56 > 0:48:00- but someone who knows Rembrandt nonetheless.- Yes, yes.
0:48:00 > 0:48:03I wouldn't say coward, but insecure.
0:48:03 > 0:48:08A young boy of, we'll say, 17 or 18 years who works in his style.
0:48:08 > 0:48:09Sounds as though you're homing in.
0:48:09 > 0:48:11Yes.
0:48:13 > 0:48:15'The team have completed their studies.
0:48:15 > 0:48:18'Now it's up to Ernst to try and pull it all together
0:48:18 > 0:48:22'and tell us just who this painting is by.'
0:48:26 > 0:48:32My personal opinion is that the painting is very close to Isaac De Jouderville.
0:48:32 > 0:48:35Isaac De Jouderville, the pupil of...
0:48:35 > 0:48:38Isaac De Jouderville was a pupil of Rembrandt's
0:48:38 > 0:48:43from, say, already 1627, '28, '29.
0:48:46 > 0:48:50One should always be careful here.
0:48:50 > 0:48:56The name of Jouderville may cover two or three young men. I mean...
0:48:58 > 0:49:02..the pupils of Rembrandt do not have a very...
0:49:03 > 0:49:06..stamped style of their own, er,
0:49:06 > 0:49:10and so there may be different individuals
0:49:10 > 0:49:14which we have made into one individual
0:49:14 > 0:49:18because there is enough connection from one painting to the other
0:49:18 > 0:49:21and so we call them Jouderville.
0:49:21 > 0:49:23Once we focus in on the master,
0:49:23 > 0:49:26what is not by him
0:49:26 > 0:49:31is treated less exact as Rembrandt himself.
0:49:31 > 0:49:37So, when I say it's Jouderville, it comes close to a number of paintings
0:49:37 > 0:49:41which we attribute, at this moment, to Jouderville.
0:49:49 > 0:49:52We have a result. The committee has decided.
0:49:52 > 0:49:57Not only have we established that this is now one and the same picture
0:49:57 > 0:50:01that was spoliated or force-sold by the Nazis in the 1930s,
0:50:01 > 0:50:03but we now have a firm attribution.
0:50:03 > 0:50:09A picture that was formerly called "follower of Rembrandt", which frankly means nothing,
0:50:09 > 0:50:14is now by Isaac De Jouderville, the orphan pupil of Rembrandt himself.
0:50:14 > 0:50:18It's now from his time by a firm name.
0:50:18 > 0:50:21The emperor has spoken.
0:50:25 > 0:50:30With our attribution work finished, we'll have to return the painting to Rudd's auction house in Cape Town.
0:50:30 > 0:50:34But first it's back to London to tell the others the news.
0:50:34 > 0:50:37With this new information, I reckon the painting,
0:50:37 > 0:50:40which we found for sale for just £1,000,
0:50:40 > 0:50:44is now worth closer to 20,000. But who was Isaac De Jouderville?
0:50:44 > 0:50:46Well, he's probably best known
0:50:46 > 0:50:49for being one of Rembrandt's very first pupils
0:50:49 > 0:50:51and, in fact, I've got a painting here
0:50:51 > 0:50:55which is thought to be one of his early self-portraits.
0:50:55 > 0:50:59He joined Rembrandt's studio as an apprentice
0:50:59 > 0:51:02when he was about 16 years old in 1629.
0:51:02 > 0:51:08For that privilege, he would have had to pay Rembrandt about 100 Dutch guilders every year.
0:51:08 > 0:51:11We know all this information because De Jouderville was an orphan
0:51:11 > 0:51:15and we have copies of the receipts between Rembrandt and De Jouderville's guardians.
0:51:15 > 0:51:16As an apprentice,
0:51:16 > 0:51:20he would have been in the studio doing everything from mixing paints
0:51:20 > 0:51:22to learning how to paint and draw.
0:51:22 > 0:51:25- And clearly not paying a lot of attention to his hair.- No!
0:51:25 > 0:51:28He was pretty cool for the 1630s, I think.
0:51:28 > 0:51:34In the studio, the way you learned your trade was effectively by making copies of the master's work.
0:51:34 > 0:51:39This is thought to be by Jouderville, and here the Rembrandt which De Jouderville copied.
0:51:39 > 0:51:42And the sharp-eyed of you will notice that there's no dog
0:51:42 > 0:51:45- in De Jouderville's picture because...- Did you notice that?
0:51:45 > 0:51:49I think even I might have spotted that.
0:51:49 > 0:51:53Rembrandt added his later, after De Jouderville made the copy.
0:51:53 > 0:51:57I hope you're also seeing that the pose in this copy by Jouderville
0:51:57 > 0:52:01is exactly the same as that of our picture.
0:52:01 > 0:52:03Oh, yes. So it is, yes.
0:52:03 > 0:52:05So what we've got here is not only
0:52:05 > 0:52:09an important discovery of a new picture by De Jouderville,
0:52:09 > 0:52:15but a fascinating piece of evidence as to how Rembrandt's studio system worked.
0:52:15 > 0:52:17You can imagine De Jouderville in the studio
0:52:17 > 0:52:20and when Rembrandt is using this model for his own paintings,
0:52:20 > 0:52:23De Jouderville's in the corner, doing his own pictures himself.
0:52:23 > 0:52:26So that would affect the value of our painting?
0:52:26 > 0:52:29Most certainly. An attribution is very important.
0:52:29 > 0:52:32It's like waving a magic wand over a picture.
0:52:32 > 0:52:37- It turns from the anonymous to the identifiable.- It's all very exciting,
0:52:37 > 0:52:42but I have to throw a bit of a spanner in the works because there is a counter-claim to this painting.
0:52:42 > 0:52:48A Jewish family who owned a bank at the time of the Second World War,
0:52:48 > 0:52:52they lent money to the Oppenheimer family back in the '30s,
0:52:52 > 0:52:56and they are now claiming this painting, among others,
0:52:56 > 0:53:00- as collateral for that loan, all that time ago.- How extraordinary.
0:53:00 > 0:53:02This is getting more and more complicated.
0:53:02 > 0:53:04Mind you, the whole thing might be academic.
0:53:04 > 0:53:09The owner might not be prepared to relinquish hold of the picture. He might want to hang on to it.
0:53:09 > 0:53:12- In which case no-one else can have it.- In which case no-one can.
0:53:12 > 0:53:15But we've got to go back to Cape Town, to return the picture.
0:53:15 > 0:53:19- I've spoken to the owner, Peter Schaary.- Oh, right? - And he's agreed to meet us.
0:53:19 > 0:53:23So why not, at that meeting, try and establish what he has in mind?
0:53:23 > 0:53:25Whatever Mr Schaary decides,
0:53:25 > 0:53:29the new claim is likely to prolong the ownership dispute.
0:53:29 > 0:53:33So it's back to Cape Town to return the painting to the auction house
0:53:33 > 0:53:37and a chance for us to meet the mysterious Mr Schaary.
0:53:37 > 0:53:41Beautiful, sunny Cape Town. Have you been to Cape Town before, Philip?
0:53:41 > 0:53:44I haven't. I must say, I absolutely adore it.
0:53:44 > 0:53:46And just over there...
0:53:46 > 0:53:51is where our whole story began, in Rudd's Auctioneers.
0:53:51 > 0:53:54What a journey that painting's been on.
0:53:54 > 0:53:57We're meeting Peter Schaary who owns this painting. What's he like?
0:53:57 > 0:54:02I had a brief chat with him on the phone from Namibia. He sounds like a very reasonable guy.
0:54:02 > 0:54:08I'm wondering, you know, given that this painting was sold in the Van Diemen sale,
0:54:08 > 0:54:13are there Nazi antecedents in his past, in his family? Is that how he got hold of the painting?
0:54:13 > 0:54:16- I'm fascinated by all that. - You can ask him that!
0:54:16 > 0:54:19What, you don't want to? I don't mind. I'll ask him.
0:54:19 > 0:54:20- Shall we go?- Let's go.
0:54:23 > 0:54:27'We've already sent Mr Schaary news of what we've been able to find out
0:54:27 > 0:54:30'about the painting's place in art history.
0:54:30 > 0:54:35'So what can he tell us about the man who owned it, his grandfather?'
0:54:35 > 0:54:37- Hello, Mr Schaary.- Hello.
0:54:37 > 0:54:40- Fiona Bruce, very nice to meet you. Hello there.- Hi, Philip Mould.
0:54:40 > 0:54:43Very nice to meet you, having spoken to you on the phone.
0:54:43 > 0:54:47- Yes. Thank you very much for coming. - A huge pleasure.
0:54:47 > 0:54:52'My grandfather was in Berlin in the '20s and '30s. He was a lawyer.
0:54:52 > 0:54:54'He was a very influential man.'
0:54:54 > 0:54:57If your grandfather was a lawyer before the war,
0:54:57 > 0:54:59what did he do during the war?
0:54:59 > 0:55:02I remember he had a uniform, but he was not in the war.
0:55:02 > 0:55:06Was your grandfather a Nazi? That's what I'm getting at.
0:55:06 > 0:55:07No. My grandfather...
0:55:09 > 0:55:14I would say no because, like I said, he was a businessman.
0:55:14 > 0:55:19He was lucky in business and in private, I think.
0:55:19 > 0:55:22He had enough funds...
0:55:22 > 0:55:23in his life to...
0:55:26 > 0:55:30..put up pictures in his house in Johannesburg
0:55:30 > 0:55:36when I was, my goodness, I was 13 going on 14.
0:55:36 > 0:55:39There was a Frans Hals and there was a Vermeer.
0:55:39 > 0:55:41A Frans Hals and a Vermeer?
0:55:41 > 0:55:44- Yes.- Owned by your grandfather?- Yes.
0:55:44 > 0:55:47We traced this picture back - which is what piqued our interest -
0:55:47 > 0:55:51back to 1935, the Van Diemen sale, which of course was a sale
0:55:51 > 0:55:56of much art that had been kind of appropriated from Jewish families.
0:55:56 > 0:56:00- Yes, yes.- So did your grandfather not buy it from that sale?- No, no.
0:56:00 > 0:56:04My grandfather surely couldn't have bought it,
0:56:04 > 0:56:09knowingly, that it was somebody else's, you know.
0:56:09 > 0:56:11For that he had too high standing.
0:56:11 > 0:56:16He couldn't do that for himself and he wouldn't have done it
0:56:16 > 0:56:19because he was a very generous person all his life.
0:56:19 > 0:56:23I suppose the question now is what are you going to do with it?
0:56:23 > 0:56:26Would it give you a feeling of satisfaction
0:56:26 > 0:56:30to see the picture returned in some way to its rightful owners?
0:56:30 > 0:56:32Oh, 100%. I have no problem with that.
0:56:32 > 0:56:35I inherited them. I didn't buy it.
0:56:35 > 0:56:39I was given it as part of the inheritance of my mother.
0:56:39 > 0:56:42I had the benefit of looking at it, enjoying it.
0:56:42 > 0:56:46If it belongs to somebody else, that person should have it, you know.
0:56:47 > 0:56:51So even though the painting is worth £20,000,
0:56:51 > 0:56:5620 times more than he thought, Mr Schaary is still willing to give it up.
0:56:56 > 0:57:01That's what we've been hoping for since the day we stopped the auction.
0:57:01 > 0:57:04We've come a long way since then.
0:57:04 > 0:57:07But sadly the chaos left by the Nazis has foiled our attempts
0:57:07 > 0:57:10to return the painting to its rightful owner for now.
0:57:10 > 0:57:14Until an agreement can be reached, this painting, like so many others
0:57:14 > 0:57:19that were taken in terrible circumstances, will remain locked in limbo.
0:57:21 > 0:57:26The thing is, when this all started, it was an unwanted portrait,
0:57:26 > 0:57:28for sale at a knockdown price.
0:57:28 > 0:57:30I mean, we've come a long way since then.
0:57:30 > 0:57:36We've worked out the story of the gallery owners, the picture's dark Nazi past.
0:57:36 > 0:57:38And, of course, who painted it.
0:57:38 > 0:57:44Isaac De Jouderville - pupil of one of the greatest artists the world has ever seen.
0:57:44 > 0:57:48Now it can claim to be within the wider world of Rembrandt.
0:57:48 > 0:57:55And actually it's a 300-year-old witness to the great man himself.
0:57:55 > 0:57:57It can live and breathe again.
0:58:00 > 0:58:05In this series we've looked beyond pictures, into their hidden secrets.
0:58:05 > 0:58:07That is very exciting.
0:58:07 > 0:58:10We've found paintings that have a past, sometimes thrilling.
0:58:10 > 0:58:13We've been looking at him all the time.
0:58:13 > 0:58:15That was with the painting?
0:58:15 > 0:58:16Sometimes dark.
0:58:16 > 0:58:24All art tells a story and it's through these stories that paintings come to life.
0:58:47 > 0:58:50Subtitles by Red Bee Media Ltd
0:58:50 > 0:58:53E-mail subtitling@bbc.co.uk