In a quiet Manhattan auction room that is about to become a stage for one of the season's largest sales, a question older than the painting itself is being raised again: whether a sale made in the shadow of persecution can ever be called free. The heirs of Samuel Fischer, whose publishing house gave voice to Thomas Mann and Hermann Hesse, say a Van Gogh that hung for decades in private hands was let go in 1936 under the weight of Nazi pressure and the forced flight from Berlin. Sotheby's, which has not found proof of duress, is trying to reach an agreement before the gavel falls, in a long and
Jewish Heirs Challenge $180 Million Van Gogh Sale at Sotheby’s, Citing Nazi-Era Duress
Heirs of a Jewish family say its publishing company's Nazi-era losses and forced emigration led to a sale under duress, including a 'Reich flight tax.'
"No auction may take place."
Mark
Why does a 1936 sale in Amsterdam count as a Nazi-era claim at all? The Netherlands wasn't under Nazi rule then.
Mimi
That's the heart of it. The heirs say the family was already squeezed: publishing bans on authors, the company split, a move to Vienna, a flight tax. The sale came after that.
Luke
But that's their account. Sotheby's says its research hasn't established duress. The flight tax comes from Schnabel's research, and I don't see documents in the reporting.
Mark
So what's actually confirmed?
Mimi
The provenance chain in Sotheby's own catalog: Fischer buys in 1909, deposit with Feilchenfeldt, 1936 sale to a Parisian collector, Argentine purchase in 1975.
Luke
Right. Whether the price was fair or the sale was forced isn't established. Schnabel is demanding Sotheby's prove it was, which flips the burden.
Mark
Why didn't the family claim it after the war?
Mimi
Gottfried Bermann Fischer sought compensation for confiscated assets but not these paintings, because the law then didn't cover sales outside Nazi territory.
Luke
And we don't know if the auction goes ahead. Sotheby's didn't say.
Mark
And Gisela's 2007 letter?
Mimi
She let a Cézanne sale pass but reserved rights on the rest. Her heirs are now using that.
The Pulse
- A $180 million Van Gogh sits on the catalog cover, and a Berlin lawyer has demanded that no auction take place until a 1936 sale is proven fair.
- The heirs say their family's publishing firm was crippled by Nazi bans and that a 'Reich flight tax' pushed them out of Berlin and into a sale they could not refuse.
- Sotheby's says its research has not established duress, yet it is committed to a 'mutually satisfactory resolution' and has not said whether Wednesday's lot will proceed.
- The outcome may decide whether the Fischer family's other works are reconsidered, and whether this claim joins a growing set of settlements in the restitution world.
In a quiet Manhattan auction room that is about to become a stage for one of the season's largest sales, a question older than the painting itself is being raised again: whether a sale made in the shadow of persecution can ever be called free. The heirs of Samuel Fischer, whose publishing house gave voice to Thomas Mann and Hermann Hesse, say a Van Gogh that hung for decades in private hands was let go in 1936 under the weight of Nazi pressure and the forced flight from Berlin. Sotheby's, which has not found proof of duress, is trying to reach an agreement before the gavel falls, in a long and uneven effort to measure coercion that the law was never built to measure.
On Nov. 12, a lawyer in Berlin wrote to Sotheby's restitution chief with a blunt request: unless the auction house could prove a 1936 sale was fair, no auction should take place. The letter concerns a Van Gogh painted in 1890 at Auvers-sur-Oise, now estimated at $180 million and set to be offered in Manhattan on Wednesday night. It is the centerpiece of the season's marquee sales.
The lawyer, Gunnar Schnabel, represents American heirs of Samuel Fischer, founder of S. Fischer Verlag, whose authors included Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse and Alfred Döblin. The family bought the painting in 1909. After Fischer's death in 1934, his son-in-law ran the firm as the Nazis tightened their grip. Authors were banned, the company was split, and the family moved to Vienna. Before leaving, they had placed the Van Gogh with a dealer in Amsterdam, and in 1936 it was sold to a Parisian collector. The heirs say the sale came three months after the family fled Berlin, and that they had to pay the Reich flight tax imposed on emigrants.
The legal path is uncertain. After the war, the family recovered its Berlin company and sought compensation, but never claimed the paintings sold in Amsterdam, which was outside Nazi rule when the sale happened. Still, duress claims of this kind have increasingly ended in settlements, and a Swiss museum returned a Sisley last year on similar grounds.
Sotheby's says its provenance research has not established duress, but that it is working toward a mutually satisfactory resolution with the family. It has not said whether the painting will be sold on Wednesday. The family's history with the issue runs deep: a daughter once reserved all rights to any painting her father had sold under pressure. What comes next is whether the lot is withdrawn, and whether a settlement follows that could shape how other Fischer works are reviewed.
On Nov. 12, a lawyer in Berlin sent an email to the head of restitution at Sotheby's in New York with a blunt demand: unless the auction house could prove a 1936 sale was fair, "no auction may take place." The email, from Gunnar Schnabel to Marco Toracca, concerns a Van Gogh with an estimate of $180 million, scheduled to go on the block in Manhattan on Wednesday night.
Schnabel represents American heirs of Samuel Fischer, the founder of the German publishing house S. Fischer Verlag, whose authors included Thomas Mann, Hermann Hesse and Alfred Döblin. The painting is "Châtaigniers en Fleurs (Blossoming Chestnut Trees)," made in 1890 in Auvers-sur-Oise, near Paris, after Van Gogh had spent two years in the south of France. The heirs say it was sold in Amsterdam before the Second World War because of financial losses their family's company suffered under the Nazis. Schnabel asked Sotheby's to show beyond doubt that it sold at market value and that the family "would have wanted to carry out the sale even without Nazi rule." He added that his client is prepared to seek a fair solution in the spirit of the 1998 Washington Principles, the international guidelines on Nazi-looted art.
The painting is the centerpiece of next week's marquee fall auctions and is backed by a Sotheby's financial guarantee. Its estimate is the highest of the season and would exceed the Van Gogh auction record of $117.2 million, set in 2022 at the Paul Allen sale at Christie's, about $133 million in today's money. It belongs to the Blaquier-Arrieta collection, assembled from the 1960s by Carlos Pedro Blaquier and Nelly Arrieta de Blaquier of Buenos Aires. Twelve Impressionist and post-Impressionist works from it, including pieces by Monet, Gauguin and Degas, are expected to bring about $450 million together. The Van Gogh is on the catalog cover. It has not been seen in public for more than 60 years, and shows a blooming chestnut tree, three women with parasols walking away beneath it and a lone man approaching on the road.
According to Sotheby's catalog, Samuel Fischer bought the painting from a Paris gallery in 1909. After his death in 1934, his son-in-law Gottfried Bermann Fischer took over the firm. As the Nazis rose, many of its authors faced publishing bans, the company was split in two, and Bermann Fischer moved to Vienna to keep publishing their work. In 1932 or 1933, the family had left the van Gogh and two Cézannes with the dealer Walter Feilchenfeldt at the Paul Cassirer gallery in Amsterdam. The Van Gogh was lent to the Museum Boymans in Rotterdam in 1933, then to the Kunsthalle in Bern in 1934. In 1936 Feilchenfeldt sold it to a Parisian collector. After more changes of ownership, the current Argentine owners bought it in 1975. Nelly Arrieta de Blaquier, who died in 2020, was the sole heir to the Ledesma sugar fortune.
The claim rests on that 1936 sale. Schnabel says it came three months after the family left Berlin for Vienna. The Nazis limited what departing Jews could take, and his research indicates the family had to pay the "Reich flight tax" levied on emigrants.
There is a legal wrinkle. After the war, Gottfried Bermann Fischer regained control of his Berlin company and sought compensation for confiscated assets, but made no claim for the paintings sold in Amsterdam. Then, there was no legal basis for compensation for art sold in territory not under Nazi rule, and the Netherlands was not in 1936. In recent years, however, such duress claims have increasingly ended in settlements. Last year the Bern Museum of Fine Arts returned a Sisley to the heirs of Carl Sachs, who fled to Switzerland in 1939 and sold it there the next year, citing "anomalies with the sale in Switzerland."
Sotheby's says it did extensive research on the provenance and has been in dialogue with the Fischer heirs. "Our research to date has not established that the painting was sold under duress," it said, but it is "committed to working toward a mutually satisfactory resolution." It did not say whether the lot will go ahead on Wednesday.
The family has history here. Gisela Bermann Fischer, Gottfried's daughter, handled its art claims until she died in 2014. In 2007, when Christie's offered a Cézanne portrait of his wife that was also sold through Feilchenfeldt in 1936, she did not oppose the sale, which drew no buyer. But in a Feb. 2, 2007, letter she reserved all rights on any other painting her father sold under duress, and said her withdrawal would set no precedent. The new claim shows her heirs agree. What to watch is whether the lot is withdrawn, and whether a settlement follows.
Notable Quotes
Our research to date has not established that the painting was sold under duress, but we are committed to working toward a mutually satisfactory resolution.— Sotheby's statement
No auction may take place unless Sotheby's proves the 1936 sale was at market value.— Gunnar Schnabel, lawyer for the Fischer heirs (paraphrased)
Want the full story?
Read the original at The New York Times ↗