Someone is stealing Christopher Columbus letters | Hacker News Reader

Someone is stealing Christopher Columbus letters

cbsnews.com

125 pointsmayiplease32 comments

> One of the most valuable art collections in Europe isn't housed in a museum visited by millions of tourists, but in this warehouse in the back of his police station. It's basically an evidence locker for stolen artifacts. This is a Caravaggio. What does a Caravaggio go for these days? It is millions of dollars. It is a paint stolen at the end of 1990 and was from a private house.

What's not explained is why are police keeping all this artwork? If you saw the 60 Minutes piece on this you'd see that it's an enormous evidence room full of artworks they are hoarding. They know where the multi-million dollar Caravaggio was stolen from in 1990. Why hasn't at least this particular piece been returned to its owner?

I also wonder why such an obvious question isn't answered in the story. I'm afraid that the answer might be that it doesn't fit the agenda of the story about sophisticated art thieves and super rich collectors. The reason might be that the Italian police declare that your art is a national treasure and they simply keep it. Or they impose an impossible burden of proof that you acquired it legally (similar to U.S. asset forfeiture laws) and require you to show a chain of receipts back to Caravaggio in 1602.

Why do you think there’s an agenda? The article talks about returning the stolen letters to their owners, so it’s not like the police are unwilling to repatriate stolen goods. Perhaps these artworks in their store have unknown owners or there are conflicting claims? And what do you do with antiquities like an ancient amphora? Who knows where it came from originally, so who do you return it to?

> Perhaps these artworks in their store have unknown owners

For unknown owners, fine. But they know where the Caravaggio came from. The article says, "Giovanni Prisco: Yes, and it is a paint stolen at the end of 1990 and was from a private house. It was discovered in the north of Italy."

I'm reading that as saying that it was stolen from someone's private house and that it was recovered somewhere else in the north of Italy.

Perhaps the person from whom it was stolen can't prove they owned it legitimately? I expect stealing stolen goods has higher odds of not being reported so lower risk for the thieves. That said, stealing from people who might own stolen expensive art might not be the smartest thing to do... :)

That’s why OP asked if the burden of proof is so absurd that you have to show receipts back to 1602 by Carravaggio himself. This should be easily answered in the article but isn’t.

That was nearly 30 years ago, maybe that owner is long dead and it's not clear who the rightful heir is?

> ...was stolen from in 1990. Why hasn't at least this particular piece been returned to its owner?

Just because it was stolen in the 90s does not mean they have been holding on to it the whole time. It might have been recovered 6 months before this 60 Minutes episode was filmed and they are still holding it as evidence for a trial.

why are police keeping all this artwork?

Evidence locker. If the trial is in course the proofs are locked. There is a period of time between the painting stolen and when was found probably also.

And, I'm speculating, but as an old Caravaggio is really fragile, it could be easily distroyed when stolen. Even if returned to their owners is probably not valid to show again and is not fixable. The owner could prefer to avoid spend money on the storage of a ruined art as long as he/she can.

> If there is one library in the world you'd think would be impervious to theft, this would be it.

Gotta admit, not really.

> Jay suspected the library's letter had been stolen and put up for sale, which meant whatever was currently in their collection was a fake.

> Jay Dillon: To my utter astonishment, a Columbus letter in the Vatican library was a forgery. And then I went to the Biblioteca Riccardiana in Florence and damned if the same thing doesn't happen again. Their Columbus letter is a fake too.

I think this is an interesting story. But, imagine if all these "valuable" private libraries just scanned all there stuff. Does the original really matter? The data in the book should be enough. Of course it does to many people, the original DOES matter. Because the book is no longer valued for it's contents, but as an art piece.

The most shocking thing to me about this article isn't about the theft stories, but how there is a Cultural Heritage Squad police division. And that they have in possession of the worlds rarest art pieces. One example is in the millions stolen from a private home. Did the owner not even bother to call the "lost and found" or are they the ones holding it? Why aren't the paintings taken care of better in a climate controlled environment by professionals? And WHY is EVIDENCE hung and frame on the wall in the police stations. Something smells here to be frank.

[The stolen letters] were found in the most surprising places. The letter stolen from the Riccardiana Library in Florence turned up in, get this, the U.S. Library of Congress. . .

Inspired by Lee Israel[0][1], perhaps?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Israel

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4595882/

Sounds almost like a plot from National Treasure (2004). Except it's Columbus letters instead of the Constitution.

How rich was Columbus?

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/christopher-colu...

"Although Columbus enjoyed a substantial revenue from Hispaniola gold during the last years of his life, he repeatedly attempted (unsuccessfully) to gain an audience with King Ferdinand, whom he felt owed him further redress."

So I'm thinking - well off, but not wealthy.

I don’t recall how wealthy he was, but the claim that he pursued was a percentage (15% comes to mind, but don’t quote me) of all revenues generated by Spain in the New World.

His heirs also had 30 years of lawsuits or so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleitos_colombinos

amazing that you could sue the King...

Declaration of Independence was what Nic Cage had to steal.

He just had to..

> Sounds almost like a plot from National Treasure (2004). Except it's Columbus letters instead of the Constitution

You are correct. National Treasure (2004) was about The Declaration of Independence, not The Constitution.

There is also this from 2017: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/24/sleuths-track-ce...

via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15094537 (but no comments)

Looks like this is really all old news. The thief might not even be alive anymore.

Should be "Someone was ... ". Probably moved on to Gutenberg Bibles or something. Which are harder to fake, but people are correspondingly less likely to check.

Do digital copies exist?

Many!

This seems like a good English translation: http://www.ems.kcl.ac.uk/content/etext/e022.html

Wikipedia links to more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus%27s_letter_on_the_fir...

When combined they yield a treasure map

To the mythical land of Alabama.

This happens all the time, and for decades, and is one of the prime reasons why institutions digitize their collection.

Non-AMP link: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/christopher-columbus-letters-st...

Thanks—changed from https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/christopher-columbus-letter.... The software missed that one for some reason.

What the...?

Google can host amp links on foreign domains?

They might be using the Signed HTTP Exchanges functionality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com