October 31, 2023 • 25 mins
A 19th-century German goldsmith famous for his forgeries of Renaissance objects, including jewelry and vessels. His fakery was discovered after his death, during a major archive by the Victoria and Albert Museum in London.
Executive Producers: Maria Trimarchi and Holly Frey
Producer & Editor: Casby Bias
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to Criminalia, a production of shondaland Audio in partnership
with iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Gold and jewel encrusted. The Rospigliosi cup had been displayed
as a work of sixteenth century Italian goldsmith ben Venuto
Cellini at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York
City since nineteen thirteen as part of the Benjamin Altman
bequest to the museum. But in the early nineteen eighties
it was discovered that the piece, one of the mets
(00:37):
most admired and beloved Renaissance treasures, was actually not et
Cellini original at all. It was really a nineteenth century
Vasters original, and there were others. Welcome to Criminalia, I'm
Maria Trumurky.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
And I'm Holly Frye. Reinhold Vasters was in nineteenth century
German goldsmith. His work then zo changed when his wife
Katerina Hamaker died in eighteen fifty nine, and that left
him with two young daughters to raise and a tight
budget on which to do so. Today he's famous for
(01:13):
his forgeries of Renaissance objects, including jewelry and vessels in particular,
but no one ever knew or guessed about his counterfeits
until decades after his death. It all unraveled when the
Victorian Albert Museum in London began an investigation about works
in their archive. Their work led to a revelation beyond
(01:36):
the walls of the Vina. In time, it would be
discovered that at least forty five objects at the men
were actually Vaster's works masquerading as authentic pieces, and they
were not the only ones duped.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Vasters is generally acknowledged as a gifted goldsmith and interpreter
of period pieces from the time of the European Renaissance.
Experts have linked some examples of nineteenth century jewelry as
well as some goldsmithing as his genuine work. He's not
all fakes. During his legit years. In eighteen fifty three,
(02:12):
Basters was contracted to be part of the restoration of
the Ahen Cathedral, specifically to make reproductions of designs for
Franz Bach, canon of the cathedral and curator at the
local Diocesan Museum, a museum for the Catholic Church. Bach
employed highly skilled goldsmiths to not only restore, but also
to replace liturgical objects that had been damaged through continuous
(02:36):
usage over time, and here Basters worked with fellow legitimate goldsmiths.
In town records, he is mentioned for having a quote
workshop for the production of church vessels in the medieval style,
and he's once named as a jeweler in the town.
Bach's project put Maasters on the radar of various dealers.
And this is when a man named Frederick Spitzer are
(02:59):
an antagonist. If we're going to hand out labels enters
the story Frederick Spitzer.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Vasters may have been the maker, but Baron Frederick Spitzer
was the seller, and it seems the mastermind behind a
lot of forged works during the years he was alive.
Spitzer was a Viennese art collector and dealer of antiquities,
specializing in medieval and Renaissance art. He worked with European collectors,
(03:28):
including prominent names like Baron Adolph de Rothschild and Sir
Richard Wallace, and he boasted that some of his art
objects came from the collections of, among others, Louis Fedel
de Bruges, Dumenil, Prince Soltikov, Baron Sellier, Alessandro Castellani, and
Julian Greo. In the years close to Vaster's wife Katerina's death,
(03:51):
Spitzer commissioned Vasters to be his in house forger. The
job offer was that Vasters would alter existing objects and
or create new forgeries that could be sold on the
market as authentic works of art, all made to meet
market demand. In addition to handling artifacts many of dubious providence,
(04:13):
Correspondence between Spitzer and his associates suggested he was also
very much engaged in some underhanded negotiations and trading with
various collectors. For Masters, the partnership was simple, though it
kept him flush in work and money.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
While experts consider his connection to Spitzer to be firmly established,
there is evidence of it in the historical record, the
record of works misattributed and provenances deliberately concealed. The extent
of that may never be known. Maasters doesn't get a
lot of recognition as a talented professional goldsmith during his lifetime,
(04:51):
though he was, but experts theorize from piecing together the
financial records of his anonymous works that Spitzer's very very
generous payments for his forgeries may have compensated for that.
Maasters wasn't the only forger working for Spitzer. Spitzer had
a large number of pieces forged by other goldsmiths and artists,
(05:13):
which he sold as authentic.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
We're going to take a break here for a word
from our sponsor, and when we come back we will
talk about how Spitzer basically lived in a gallery and
how it was a stack of drawings that brought down
the forgery empire.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Welcome back to Criminalia. Let's get to know more about Spitzer,
the guy who turned his own home into a museum,
as well as his unique way of making a sale.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Spitzer's first big art deal was when he resold an
Albrecht Durer engraving at a huge profit. He established his
business in London in the eighteen forties and then moved
to Paris in eighteen fifty two. By the time he
was in Paris, he had been successful enough to turn
his home into a collector's dream. It became known as
(06:15):
Lemius Spitzer. Located near the Oucta Triomphe. His mansion was
filled as one would fill a museum gallery and as
you'd see at the Louver, for instance, objects were housed
in glass cases and everything was cataloged. This home slash
gallery was a popular high society hangout. Some came to
(06:36):
view the works he kept and some came to buy them.
American artist and ex pat John Singer Sargeant was a
regular presence there, for instance, and Hungarian composer and pianist
Franz Liszt was often around the house too, and is
said to have been heard playing the piano on occasion.
Among his regular clients were magnates including the Rothschilds, as
(06:59):
well as newspaper baron William Randolph Hurst. Spitzer showed his
works for sale in a particular way. He always showed
a number of works together. No object was ever seen solo,
and he always chose a mix of authentic pieces with
forged pieces.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
He may have courted names like the Rothchilds, but Spitzer
also focused on the practice of revitalizing broken or damaged
works of art, particularly those made of metals. That practice
is not a crime and usually not a forgery. It's
technically just considered a repair, but it becomes problematic if
(07:41):
the piece is worked too far. Becoming unrecognizable from its
original state can turn an authentic work into a counterfeit
of itself. It's also problematic when deceptive descriptions, provenance, and
pedigrees get attached to those objects. Spitzer catered to the
type of person who could and would overlook some squishy
(08:04):
details to have an object they considered worthy of their
place in society.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Paula Cordera, a fellow at the Center for the History
of Collecting at the Frick, said of Spitzer quote he
was really able to capitalize on the growing demand for
decorative art among a growing bourgeois class. She continued that
much of Spitzer's success came at least in part from
his ability to be one step ahead of trends. He
(08:30):
was known to purchase works when they were out of vogue,
only to later sell them at a markup when they
were in demand. According to Cordera, it wasn't until more
than a decade after his death the curators began to
really take a look at some of the works from
Spitzer's collection, and with time and research, they discerned that
some were heavily restored to a point that threatened their authenticity.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
The controversy, though, really grew legs in nineteen seventy eight,
when more than one thousand drawings by vasters were rediscovered
in the archives of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The
VNA had acquired a library of his drawings, prints and
lithographs in nineteen nineteen, a decade after the goldsmith's death,
but they'd been in storage and out of sight. The
(09:18):
drawings appeared to be renderings of known Renaissance objects, including
many pieces of jewelry. However, upon examination by VNA curator
Charles Truman, notations found on the drawings in Master's handwriting
include very specific details such as which colors should be
(09:38):
used when enameling specific objects, and how these were drawings
that actually made one's heart sink because they were production drawings,
and they included precise instructions to other smiths on how
to craft certain existing Medieval and Renaissance objects, probably all
(09:59):
for Spitzer, and probably all sold as genuine. Each of
the thousand plus documents depicted a different piece. Most drawings
corresponded to known Renaissance objects in a number of well
known collections, and the revelation suddenly cast doubts on the
authenticity of many pieces. Equally revealing were associated documents that
(10:20):
showed other goldsmith's hate executed many pieces to Vaster's designs.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
With this finding, experts now were suspicious of pretty much
every single object for which there was a corresponding Master's drawing.
In fact, even regarding Renaissance objects for which there were
no corresponding drawings, they were still suspicious. After all, what
if there were more drawings like this still to be found.
(10:48):
The documents confirmed that there was a forger, and also
opened up the idea that there was likely more than
one forger, with works hidden in many collections. And that
was true true. Spitzer alone had several forgers working for him,
including Masters, of course, but also Alfred Andre, a highly
(11:08):
regarded nineteenth century Parisian restorer. Andrea was Chevalier of the
Legion of Honor and widely respected for his legitimate metalwork,
but it also became clear to modern historians that he
was one of the goldsmiths who had executed many pieces
to Vaster's designs.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Building on the work Truman did at the VNA, scholar
Rudolph Distelberger of the Museum of Art History in Vienna
began his own detective work in nineteen eighty three. At first,
though in his investigation, it was Alfred Andre's forged Renaissance works,
not Masters, that came to light. So let's talk about
him for a moment. We know he was also connected
(11:49):
to Spitzer. His forgeries, it was discovered, had deceived the
National Gallery, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the British Museum,
the Victoria and Albert, and the Walters Art in Baltimore.
Through Spitzer. He was another craftsman hired to restore and
repair or aka make counterfeits. Distelberger concluded that quote in
(12:12):
order to enlarge his collection, Spitzer apparently commissioned Andre and
Maasters to produce objects in the style of the Renaissance,
then presented them in his collection as originals of the
sixteenth century. He played an inglorious role in this deception.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Like the Masters drawings. Years later, Distelberger found physical evidence
of Andre's forgeries. Andre's family had kept many of the
models and casts that he had created, many of which
were used to recreate Renaissance objects and collections around the world.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
We are going to take a break for word from
our sponsors, and when we're back we'll talk about the
fallout from the discovery of the forgery ring.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Welcome back to Criminalia. Let's talk about what happened after
the discovery of the blueprints and that the Rospiliosi Cup,
a popular and treasured item, was fake.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Philippe de Montebello, Museum director at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art at that time, initially stated that they believe the
drawings quote might be marvelous chronicles of old pieces, but
we now know they are not. They contained too many
instructions on how to make them. They were blueprints. We're
not sure why he kept them, but they're remarkable drawings,
(13:45):
and even forgers have pride. As an institution, the MET
was anxious and started to withdraw certain pieces from exhibition,
announcing that quote, we have been gradually removing things from
view for examination because we did not want to keep
on view anything that might be doubtful.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
By nineteen eighty four, the forgeries made worldwide headlines when
the MET held a news conference to announce that Reinholdmasters,
a goldsmith and restorer, had been more than a restorer.
They stated it had been concluded from his drawings that
many of the alleged antique objects in institutions around the world,
(14:27):
including the Met, had in fact been made in his
shop in Germany in the late eighteen hundreds, and that
included the Rospiliosi Cup exhibited at the Met. The Respiliosi
cup was considered a treasure and had long been attributed
to the Florentine goldsmith and sculptor benven Nutuccellini. In a
brochure in eighteen fifty two, it was described as a
(14:51):
salt vessel of gold enameled in different colors from the
years fifteen forty to seventy, said to be made by
benven Uttuccillini, the property of Prince Ris Bolioso of Rome.
Art historian Eugene plom named the prince as the owner,
but also admitted that there were no documents authenticating the
attribution to Cellini. He claimed it had belonged to his ancestor,
(15:16):
Grand Master of the Court, to the Grand Duke of Tuscany.
But then nothing more was heard of that object until
nineteen oh nine, when it was sold by art dealer
Charles Wurthheimer to Benjamin Altman, who then bequeathed it to
the Met.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Upon close examination an inspection of the Rospiliosi Cup and
many other works, some objects were clearly made entirely from
Vastar's Renaissance style blueprints, including a rock crystal vase mounted
in gold and a rock crystal candlestick mounted in silver guilt.
Other objects were determined to be partly of authentic Renaissance derivation.
(15:55):
For instance, fragments of earlier works were remounted and reworked
by vast To, creating new, similar but forged work. And
then some works, including a pendant with a figure of
Neptune enameled in gold and set in jewels and pearls,
aren't precise copies of Master's designs, but they are so
(16:15):
similar that scholars believe they can safely attribute them to
other craftsmen working from his instructions.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Of the VNA's blueprints. Demonte Bello has also stated, quote,
most likely every major repository of Renaissance jewelry, metalwork, and
mounted crystals will find that a disturbing proportion of their
holdings date from the nineteenth century. This is irrefutable because
we have the actual drawings created by the maker. He continued, quote,
(16:46):
he captured the style of the Renaissance so well that
even today, if you were to put side by side
two pieces, one by Masters and one from the Renaissance,
very few curators could tell by eye alone. He was
that good, which is why all the collections were fooled.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Despite the fact that the works do not actually date
from the Renaissance. They do still yes, have value among
many circles. De Montebello has stated, quote in their own right,
while they were made to deceive, these works are of
enormous quality and great beauty, and they are important historically.
We intend to mount an exhibition in which we will
(17:26):
carefully explain the master's works, comparing them with authentic pieces
and showing the difference between the two. And it's true
the museum doesn't hide them today, though they do now
attribute these works to masters.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Of masters well. He purchased a house in Acham in
eighteen seventy two, and he lived there until his death
in nineteen oh nine. By his later years, Vasters had
become a man of means, and he became a collector
of decorative arts himself. In nineteen oh two, he exhibited
almost five hundred objects from his growing collection. His final
(18:04):
year as an active goldsmith appears to coincide with the
year of Spitzer's death, eighteen ninety and according to city records,
he was officially registered as retired in eighteen ninety.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Five, and Spitzer a short entry in the Collector Journal
published in eighteen ninety reads quote, the Spitzer collection has
in the estimation of connoisseurs and amateurs. At least long
Ben the Eighth Wonder of the World now and then
its possessor has allowed glimpses of it to be seen
(18:36):
in exhibitions, but as a rule it has been locked
and barred against vulgar and elect eyes in his roomy mansion,
which it stuffs like sausage from cellar to roof. Before
his death, Spitzer collaborated with art historian Emil Moligner on
a multi volume illustrated catalog of his private collection. Only
(18:57):
one volume was published before he died, but he left
detailed instructions for its completion in his will. The Spitzer collection,
which contained more than four thousand items, was publicly auctioned
over the span of three months in eighteen ninety three.
Most of the collection was bought by Australian born London
based private collector George Salting. He bequeathed his collection to
(19:21):
the British Museum, the National Gallery in London, and the
Victoria and Albert Museum in nineteen oh nine. Spitzer's collection
was revered, but what no one knew when it was
auctioned was that some things were authentic, but some were not.
Like Vaster's, Spitzer's duplicity wasn't known during his lifetime.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
When it comes to Spitzer and his forgers, According to
online art brokerage Artsy quote, at the very least, Spitzer's
story serves as a cautionary tale. When one encounters a
collection of work so numerous they stuff a house like
a sausage, one should always inquire a about how they
were made. Indeed, listen, I like sausage. Who doesn't? Would
(20:11):
you like a bogus bevy? As we consider how many
things sitting in collections are probably fake because of this man, Yes, okay,
this one was one of those things. Where as we
were looking at this, I kept thinking not about anything
related to the time that the forgeries were made or
the period of time that they were forging, but instead
(20:37):
that magical time when all of this was exposed. The
early eighties were a real fun time for cocktails. There's
a lot of experimentation going on, and it is when
most people will say that a very popular cocktail today
was invented, and that is what we are going to make,
(20:58):
a forgery of espresso martini.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Do you know my history with the espresso martini? Have
I ever told you, I don't. I really want to
like the espresso martini, and I also it's a similar
thing for me, like chocolate martini. I very much want
to like something like that too, and I try. I
at some point in the last let's go with decade
to fifteen years, decided I will always try it because
(21:25):
there's going to be one out there that I like,
but I haven't yet.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
I mean, the good news is there are now a
lot of versions. But the original was really just espresso,
coffee liqueur and vodka. It was very simple, and that
was created by Dick Bradsell in the UK right around
nineteen eighty allegedly for a model who said that she
wanted to get woken up and messed up at the
same time. But that is not what we're making today.
(21:50):
We're making something that looks like it right, but also
has only three ingredients and also will we'll mess you
up for sure, So let's do it. And it's very yummy.
It's very easy to make. You're going to take an
ounce of cognac and an ounce of dark spiced rum
and put those together in your shaking tin and shake
(22:13):
them with ice until they are just frosty cold and
You're going to strain that into a martini glass with
a few ice shards are green in there. Get ready
because this is going to sound crazy, but I'm telling
you something great happens here. You're going to top it
with an ounce to two ounces, depending on your taste
(22:34):
of root beer. If you really want to sell the illusion,
you could put a couple of espresso beans on top.
But it looks like an espresso martini, but it could
not taste more different. But it is very spirit forward
because unlike our recent cocktail that included cream soda, where
the taste of the spirit in it was obscured, this
does not. You can still tell there's a lot of
(22:55):
alcohol in it, like at this point it's two thirds
roughly of spirit, so it's very present. It is a
weird flavor. I'm not gonna lie. It's unexpected and it's strange.
But I loved it and found myself like I didn't
even consciously do so. Often when I'm making drinks for
the show, I'm doing it early in the day because
(23:16):
we record in the afternoon, and I usually don't finish
the drink. I'll either give it to my beloved or
I will put it away or I'll just toss it
it happens. I realized after a while that I had
just been carrying it around sipping it. I was like, oh,
I clearly like this drink, which I am calling the
slap in the face, because discovering all of these technical
drawings that were basically a manual to how to forge
(23:39):
Renaissance art had to have felt like a slap in
the face to the entire art community. That's not a
great feeling to be, like, how many of our things
are probably fake?
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Sorry? How many documents did you say there were?
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Yes, this one is another one that is a little
bit tricky to do. A mocktail. I will tell you
the mocktail does not look as much like an espresso martini,
but it gets closer to the flavor of the original drink.
Instead of that ounce of cogniac, you are going to
take an ounce of white grape juice and doctor it up.
(24:14):
I would let a little bit of clove sit in
there for a little while, and I would throw in
some nutmeg, and you're just gonna let that do its
thing for I don't know, ten minutes or so, and
then give it a little shake and then strain that
off because you don't want that stuff in there. Dark
spiced drum, we're going to do our trick of a
dark tea. I would actually do a red tea here
and not a black tea. And again, if you really
(24:38):
like spice, you can add something like a cardamom and
it's going to do something really good. And then you
use your root beer and this makes also a very
very yummy especially when it's very cold. Something really cool
happens with these three things, and they're like, hi, we
would like to play today. It's sweeter than the alcoholic version.
So you could put it over ice if you want
to dilute it a little bit down instead of making
(24:59):
it look like a martini. But you're gonna be happy
and you won't feel like you got slapped in the face.
You could just do root beer and rum. If you
don't like the kgnac note, I love a little cognac.
I probably made this because I was thinking of kognak
recently and thinking a konnak in a minute. I really
love a little cognac in that you think, why am
I not doing that? Now? We are. We hope that
(25:22):
if you make this you find it fun and interesting
and If you don't like it that you tweak it
to make it super delicious for your palette. We will
be right back here again next week with more stories
of forgeries and more bogus bevies. Criminalia is a production
(25:45):
of Shondaland Audio in partnership with iHeartRadio. For more podcasts
from Shondaland Audio, please visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Welcome to Criminalia, a production of shondaland Audio in partnership
with iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:15):
Gold and jewel encrusted. The Rospigliosi cup had been displayed
as a work of sixteenth century Italian goldsmith ben Venuto
Cellini at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York
City since nineteen thirteen as part of the Benjamin Altman
bequest to the museum. But in the early nineteen eighties
it was discovered that the piece, one of the mets
(00:37):
most admired and beloved Renaissance treasures, was actually not et
Cellini original at all. It was really a nineteenth century
Vasters original, and there were others. Welcome to Criminalia, I'm
Maria Trumurky.
Speaker 1 (00:53):
And I'm Holly Frye. Reinhold Vasters was in nineteenth century
German goldsmith. His work then zo changed when his wife
Katerina Hamaker died in eighteen fifty nine, and that left
him with two young daughters to raise and a tight
budget on which to do so. Today he's famous for
(01:13):
his forgeries of Renaissance objects, including jewelry and vessels in particular,
but no one ever knew or guessed about his counterfeits
until decades after his death. It all unraveled when the
Victorian Albert Museum in London began an investigation about works
in their archive. Their work led to a revelation beyond
(01:36):
the walls of the Vina. In time, it would be
discovered that at least forty five objects at the men
were actually Vaster's works masquerading as authentic pieces, and they
were not the only ones duped.
Speaker 2 (01:51):
Vasters is generally acknowledged as a gifted goldsmith and interpreter
of period pieces from the time of the European Renaissance.
Experts have linked some examples of nineteenth century jewelry as
well as some goldsmithing as his genuine work. He's not
all fakes. During his legit years. In eighteen fifty three,
(02:12):
Basters was contracted to be part of the restoration of
the Ahen Cathedral, specifically to make reproductions of designs for
Franz Bach, canon of the cathedral and curator at the
local Diocesan Museum, a museum for the Catholic Church. Bach
employed highly skilled goldsmiths to not only restore, but also
to replace liturgical objects that had been damaged through continuous
(02:36):
usage over time, and here Basters worked with fellow legitimate goldsmiths.
In town records, he is mentioned for having a quote
workshop for the production of church vessels in the medieval style,
and he's once named as a jeweler in the town.
Bach's project put Maasters on the radar of various dealers.
And this is when a man named Frederick Spitzer are
(02:59):
an antagonist. If we're going to hand out labels enters
the story Frederick Spitzer.
Speaker 1 (03:07):
Vasters may have been the maker, but Baron Frederick Spitzer
was the seller, and it seems the mastermind behind a
lot of forged works during the years he was alive.
Spitzer was a Viennese art collector and dealer of antiquities,
specializing in medieval and Renaissance art. He worked with European collectors,
(03:28):
including prominent names like Baron Adolph de Rothschild and Sir
Richard Wallace, and he boasted that some of his art
objects came from the collections of, among others, Louis Fedel
de Bruges, Dumenil, Prince Soltikov, Baron Sellier, Alessandro Castellani, and
Julian Greo. In the years close to Vaster's wife Katerina's death,
(03:51):
Spitzer commissioned Vasters to be his in house forger. The
job offer was that Vasters would alter existing objects and
or create new forgeries that could be sold on the
market as authentic works of art, all made to meet
market demand. In addition to handling artifacts many of dubious providence,
(04:13):
Correspondence between Spitzer and his associates suggested he was also
very much engaged in some underhanded negotiations and trading with
various collectors. For Masters, the partnership was simple, though it
kept him flush in work and money.
Speaker 2 (04:30):
While experts consider his connection to Spitzer to be firmly established,
there is evidence of it in the historical record, the
record of works misattributed and provenances deliberately concealed. The extent
of that may never be known. Maasters doesn't get a
lot of recognition as a talented professional goldsmith during his lifetime,
(04:51):
though he was, but experts theorize from piecing together the
financial records of his anonymous works that Spitzer's very very
generous payments for his forgeries may have compensated for that.
Maasters wasn't the only forger working for Spitzer. Spitzer had
a large number of pieces forged by other goldsmiths and artists,
(05:13):
which he sold as authentic.
Speaker 1 (05:16):
We're going to take a break here for a word
from our sponsor, and when we come back we will
talk about how Spitzer basically lived in a gallery and
how it was a stack of drawings that brought down
the forgery empire.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
Welcome back to Criminalia. Let's get to know more about Spitzer,
the guy who turned his own home into a museum,
as well as his unique way of making a sale.
Speaker 1 (05:53):
Spitzer's first big art deal was when he resold an
Albrecht Durer engraving at a huge profit. He established his
business in London in the eighteen forties and then moved
to Paris in eighteen fifty two. By the time he
was in Paris, he had been successful enough to turn
his home into a collector's dream. It became known as
(06:15):
Lemius Spitzer. Located near the Oucta Triomphe. His mansion was
filled as one would fill a museum gallery and as
you'd see at the Louver, for instance, objects were housed
in glass cases and everything was cataloged. This home slash
gallery was a popular high society hangout. Some came to
(06:36):
view the works he kept and some came to buy them.
American artist and ex pat John Singer Sargeant was a
regular presence there, for instance, and Hungarian composer and pianist
Franz Liszt was often around the house too, and is
said to have been heard playing the piano on occasion.
Among his regular clients were magnates including the Rothschilds, as
(06:59):
well as newspaper baron William Randolph Hurst. Spitzer showed his
works for sale in a particular way. He always showed
a number of works together. No object was ever seen solo,
and he always chose a mix of authentic pieces with
forged pieces.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
He may have courted names like the Rothchilds, but Spitzer
also focused on the practice of revitalizing broken or damaged
works of art, particularly those made of metals. That practice
is not a crime and usually not a forgery. It's
technically just considered a repair, but it becomes problematic if
(07:41):
the piece is worked too far. Becoming unrecognizable from its
original state can turn an authentic work into a counterfeit
of itself. It's also problematic when deceptive descriptions, provenance, and
pedigrees get attached to those objects. Spitzer catered to the
type of person who could and would overlook some squishy
(08:04):
details to have an object they considered worthy of their
place in society.
Speaker 1 (08:09):
Paula Cordera, a fellow at the Center for the History
of Collecting at the Frick, said of Spitzer quote he
was really able to capitalize on the growing demand for
decorative art among a growing bourgeois class. She continued that
much of Spitzer's success came at least in part from
his ability to be one step ahead of trends. He
(08:30):
was known to purchase works when they were out of vogue,
only to later sell them at a markup when they
were in demand. According to Cordera, it wasn't until more
than a decade after his death the curators began to
really take a look at some of the works from
Spitzer's collection, and with time and research, they discerned that
some were heavily restored to a point that threatened their authenticity.
Speaker 2 (08:55):
The controversy, though, really grew legs in nineteen seventy eight,
when more than one thousand drawings by vasters were rediscovered
in the archives of the Victoria and Albert Museum. The
VNA had acquired a library of his drawings, prints and
lithographs in nineteen nineteen, a decade after the goldsmith's death,
but they'd been in storage and out of sight. The
(09:18):
drawings appeared to be renderings of known Renaissance objects, including
many pieces of jewelry. However, upon examination by VNA curator
Charles Truman, notations found on the drawings in Master's handwriting
include very specific details such as which colors should be
(09:38):
used when enameling specific objects, and how these were drawings
that actually made one's heart sink because they were production drawings,
and they included precise instructions to other smiths on how
to craft certain existing Medieval and Renaissance objects, probably all
(09:59):
for Spitzer, and probably all sold as genuine. Each of
the thousand plus documents depicted a different piece. Most drawings
corresponded to known Renaissance objects in a number of well
known collections, and the revelation suddenly cast doubts on the
authenticity of many pieces. Equally revealing were associated documents that
(10:20):
showed other goldsmith's hate executed many pieces to Vaster's designs.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
With this finding, experts now were suspicious of pretty much
every single object for which there was a corresponding Master's drawing.
In fact, even regarding Renaissance objects for which there were
no corresponding drawings, they were still suspicious. After all, what
if there were more drawings like this still to be found.
(10:48):
The documents confirmed that there was a forger, and also
opened up the idea that there was likely more than
one forger, with works hidden in many collections. And that
was true true. Spitzer alone had several forgers working for him,
including Masters, of course, but also Alfred Andre, a highly
(11:08):
regarded nineteenth century Parisian restorer. Andrea was Chevalier of the
Legion of Honor and widely respected for his legitimate metalwork,
but it also became clear to modern historians that he
was one of the goldsmiths who had executed many pieces
to Vaster's designs.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
Building on the work Truman did at the VNA, scholar
Rudolph Distelberger of the Museum of Art History in Vienna
began his own detective work in nineteen eighty three. At first,
though in his investigation, it was Alfred Andre's forged Renaissance works,
not Masters, that came to light. So let's talk about
him for a moment. We know he was also connected
(11:49):
to Spitzer. His forgeries, it was discovered, had deceived the
National Gallery, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the British Museum,
the Victoria and Albert, and the Walters Art in Baltimore.
Through Spitzer. He was another craftsman hired to restore and
repair or aka make counterfeits. Distelberger concluded that quote in
(12:12):
order to enlarge his collection, Spitzer apparently commissioned Andre and
Maasters to produce objects in the style of the Renaissance,
then presented them in his collection as originals of the
sixteenth century. He played an inglorious role in this deception.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
Like the Masters drawings. Years later, Distelberger found physical evidence
of Andre's forgeries. Andre's family had kept many of the
models and casts that he had created, many of which
were used to recreate Renaissance objects and collections around the world.
Speaker 2 (12:47):
We are going to take a break for word from
our sponsors, and when we're back we'll talk about the
fallout from the discovery of the forgery ring.
Speaker 1 (13:09):
Welcome back to Criminalia. Let's talk about what happened after
the discovery of the blueprints and that the Rospiliosi Cup,
a popular and treasured item, was fake.
Speaker 2 (13:22):
Philippe de Montebello, Museum director at the Metropolitan Museum of
Art at that time, initially stated that they believe the
drawings quote might be marvelous chronicles of old pieces, but
we now know they are not. They contained too many
instructions on how to make them. They were blueprints. We're
not sure why he kept them, but they're remarkable drawings,
(13:45):
and even forgers have pride. As an institution, the MET
was anxious and started to withdraw certain pieces from exhibition,
announcing that quote, we have been gradually removing things from
view for examination because we did not want to keep
on view anything that might be doubtful.
Speaker 1 (14:05):
By nineteen eighty four, the forgeries made worldwide headlines when
the MET held a news conference to announce that Reinholdmasters,
a goldsmith and restorer, had been more than a restorer.
They stated it had been concluded from his drawings that
many of the alleged antique objects in institutions around the world,
(14:27):
including the Met, had in fact been made in his
shop in Germany in the late eighteen hundreds, and that
included the Rospiliosi Cup exhibited at the Met. The Respiliosi
cup was considered a treasure and had long been attributed
to the Florentine goldsmith and sculptor benven Nutuccellini. In a
brochure in eighteen fifty two, it was described as a
(14:51):
salt vessel of gold enameled in different colors from the
years fifteen forty to seventy, said to be made by
benven Uttuccillini, the property of Prince Ris Bolioso of Rome.
Art historian Eugene plom named the prince as the owner,
but also admitted that there were no documents authenticating the
attribution to Cellini. He claimed it had belonged to his ancestor,
(15:16):
Grand Master of the Court, to the Grand Duke of Tuscany.
But then nothing more was heard of that object until
nineteen oh nine, when it was sold by art dealer
Charles Wurthheimer to Benjamin Altman, who then bequeathed it to
the Met.
Speaker 2 (15:32):
Upon close examination an inspection of the Rospiliosi Cup and
many other works, some objects were clearly made entirely from
Vastar's Renaissance style blueprints, including a rock crystal vase mounted
in gold and a rock crystal candlestick mounted in silver guilt.
Other objects were determined to be partly of authentic Renaissance derivation.
(15:55):
For instance, fragments of earlier works were remounted and reworked
by vast To, creating new, similar but forged work. And
then some works, including a pendant with a figure of
Neptune enameled in gold and set in jewels and pearls,
aren't precise copies of Master's designs, but they are so
(16:15):
similar that scholars believe they can safely attribute them to
other craftsmen working from his instructions.
Speaker 1 (16:23):
Of the VNA's blueprints. Demonte Bello has also stated, quote,
most likely every major repository of Renaissance jewelry, metalwork, and
mounted crystals will find that a disturbing proportion of their
holdings date from the nineteenth century. This is irrefutable because
we have the actual drawings created by the maker. He continued, quote,
(16:46):
he captured the style of the Renaissance so well that
even today, if you were to put side by side
two pieces, one by Masters and one from the Renaissance,
very few curators could tell by eye alone. He was
that good, which is why all the collections were fooled.
Speaker 2 (17:04):
Despite the fact that the works do not actually date
from the Renaissance. They do still yes, have value among
many circles. De Montebello has stated, quote in their own right,
while they were made to deceive, these works are of
enormous quality and great beauty, and they are important historically.
We intend to mount an exhibition in which we will
(17:26):
carefully explain the master's works, comparing them with authentic pieces
and showing the difference between the two. And it's true
the museum doesn't hide them today, though they do now
attribute these works to masters.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
Of masters well. He purchased a house in Acham in
eighteen seventy two, and he lived there until his death
in nineteen oh nine. By his later years, Vasters had
become a man of means, and he became a collector
of decorative arts himself. In nineteen oh two, he exhibited
almost five hundred objects from his growing collection. His final
(18:04):
year as an active goldsmith appears to coincide with the
year of Spitzer's death, eighteen ninety and according to city records,
he was officially registered as retired in eighteen ninety.
Speaker 2 (18:15):
Five, and Spitzer a short entry in the Collector Journal
published in eighteen ninety reads quote, the Spitzer collection has
in the estimation of connoisseurs and amateurs. At least long
Ben the Eighth Wonder of the World now and then
its possessor has allowed glimpses of it to be seen
(18:36):
in exhibitions, but as a rule it has been locked
and barred against vulgar and elect eyes in his roomy mansion,
which it stuffs like sausage from cellar to roof. Before
his death, Spitzer collaborated with art historian Emil Moligner on
a multi volume illustrated catalog of his private collection. Only
(18:57):
one volume was published before he died, but he left
detailed instructions for its completion in his will. The Spitzer collection,
which contained more than four thousand items, was publicly auctioned
over the span of three months in eighteen ninety three.
Most of the collection was bought by Australian born London
based private collector George Salting. He bequeathed his collection to
(19:21):
the British Museum, the National Gallery in London, and the
Victoria and Albert Museum in nineteen oh nine. Spitzer's collection
was revered, but what no one knew when it was
auctioned was that some things were authentic, but some were not.
Like Vaster's, Spitzer's duplicity wasn't known during his lifetime.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
When it comes to Spitzer and his forgers, According to
online art brokerage Artsy quote, at the very least, Spitzer's
story serves as a cautionary tale. When one encounters a
collection of work so numerous they stuff a house like
a sausage, one should always inquire a about how they
were made. Indeed, listen, I like sausage. Who doesn't? Would
(20:11):
you like a bogus bevy? As we consider how many
things sitting in collections are probably fake because of this man, Yes, okay,
this one was one of those things. Where as we
were looking at this, I kept thinking not about anything
related to the time that the forgeries were made or
the period of time that they were forging, but instead
(20:37):
that magical time when all of this was exposed. The
early eighties were a real fun time for cocktails. There's
a lot of experimentation going on, and it is when
most people will say that a very popular cocktail today
was invented, and that is what we are going to make,
(20:58):
a forgery of espresso martini.
Speaker 2 (21:01):
Do you know my history with the espresso martini? Have
I ever told you, I don't. I really want to
like the espresso martini, and I also it's a similar
thing for me, like chocolate martini. I very much want
to like something like that too, and I try. I
at some point in the last let's go with decade
to fifteen years, decided I will always try it because
(21:25):
there's going to be one out there that I like,
but I haven't yet.
Speaker 1 (21:29):
I mean, the good news is there are now a
lot of versions. But the original was really just espresso,
coffee liqueur and vodka. It was very simple, and that
was created by Dick Bradsell in the UK right around
nineteen eighty allegedly for a model who said that she
wanted to get woken up and messed up at the
same time. But that is not what we're making today.
(21:50):
We're making something that looks like it right, but also
has only three ingredients and also will we'll mess you
up for sure, So let's do it. And it's very yummy.
It's very easy to make. You're going to take an
ounce of cognac and an ounce of dark spiced rum
and put those together in your shaking tin and shake
(22:13):
them with ice until they are just frosty cold and
You're going to strain that into a martini glass with
a few ice shards are green in there. Get ready
because this is going to sound crazy, but I'm telling
you something great happens here. You're going to top it
with an ounce to two ounces, depending on your taste
(22:34):
of root beer. If you really want to sell the illusion,
you could put a couple of espresso beans on top.
But it looks like an espresso martini, but it could
not taste more different. But it is very spirit forward
because unlike our recent cocktail that included cream soda, where
the taste of the spirit in it was obscured, this
does not. You can still tell there's a lot of
(22:55):
alcohol in it, like at this point it's two thirds
roughly of spirit, so it's very present. It is a
weird flavor. I'm not gonna lie. It's unexpected and it's strange.
But I loved it and found myself like I didn't
even consciously do so. Often when I'm making drinks for
the show, I'm doing it early in the day because
(23:16):
we record in the afternoon, and I usually don't finish
the drink. I'll either give it to my beloved or
I will put it away or I'll just toss it
it happens. I realized after a while that I had
just been carrying it around sipping it. I was like, oh,
I clearly like this drink, which I am calling the
slap in the face, because discovering all of these technical
drawings that were basically a manual to how to forge
(23:39):
Renaissance art had to have felt like a slap in
the face to the entire art community. That's not a
great feeling to be, like, how many of our things
are probably fake?
Speaker 2 (23:50):
Sorry? How many documents did you say there were?
Speaker 1 (23:53):
Yes, this one is another one that is a little
bit tricky to do. A mocktail. I will tell you
the mocktail does not look as much like an espresso martini,
but it gets closer to the flavor of the original drink.
Instead of that ounce of cogniac, you are going to
take an ounce of white grape juice and doctor it up.
(24:14):
I would let a little bit of clove sit in
there for a little while, and I would throw in
some nutmeg, and you're just gonna let that do its
thing for I don't know, ten minutes or so, and
then give it a little shake and then strain that
off because you don't want that stuff in there. Dark
spiced drum, we're going to do our trick of a
dark tea. I would actually do a red tea here
and not a black tea. And again, if you really
(24:38):
like spice, you can add something like a cardamom and
it's going to do something really good. And then you
use your root beer and this makes also a very
very yummy especially when it's very cold. Something really cool
happens with these three things, and they're like, hi, we
would like to play today. It's sweeter than the alcoholic version.
So you could put it over ice if you want
to dilute it a little bit down instead of making
(24:59):
it look like a martini. But you're gonna be happy
and you won't feel like you got slapped in the face.
You could just do root beer and rum. If you
don't like the kgnac note, I love a little cognac.
I probably made this because I was thinking of kognak
recently and thinking a konnak in a minute. I really
love a little cognac in that you think, why am
I not doing that? Now? We are. We hope that
(25:22):
if you make this you find it fun and interesting
and If you don't like it that you tweak it
to make it super delicious for your palette. We will
be right back here again next week with more stories
of forgeries and more bogus bevies. Criminalia is a production
(25:45):
of Shondaland Audio in partnership with iHeartRadio. For more podcasts
from Shondaland Audio, please visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.
Hosts And Creators
Holly Frey
Maria Trimarchi
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Therapy Gecko
An unlicensed lizard psychologist travels the universe talking to strangers about absolutely nothing. TO CALL THE GECKO: follow me on https://www.twitch.tv/lyleforever to get a notification for when I am taking calls. I am usually live Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays but lately a lot of other times too. I am a gecko.