Thieves Make off with Major Art Collection in Corktown

We don't get this type of crime often.This smells highly of an inside job. It is highly unlikely your average or even above average street thief would grab these as they are all abstract, or nearly so, works. They would have no idea of how to fence such works anyway.

It baffles me that anyone with this value of a collection would not have it insured. If one can't afford to insure it wouldn't one sell it rather than run this risk?

Quote:

---

The 19 works of art were stolen sometime between April 27 and 29 and may have been taken by international art thieves, according to the FBI.

The FBI did not say where the artwork was stored or identify the owner, but said the artwork was not on display. The art was not insured.

The stolen art has been entered into a national database of stolen artwork. A $5,000 reward is being offered for the return of the art, which includes a "Flowers" silkscreen by Warhol. The other stolen art includes works by Larry Rivers, Francesco Clemente, Philip Taaffe, Joseph Beuys and Peter Schuyff.

From The Detroit News

---

I agree. To leave a big time collection in Detroit and uninsured is ridiculous. This story seems fishy.

Sweet, this stuff only happens in movies! I need to watch The Score again.

Quote:

---

Farmington Hills tax attorney and noted art collector Richard Rollins owns the Brooklyn Lofts building in Corktown, which caters to artists in search of studio space. He did not know about the theft.
"I have some Warhols, but I don't keep them in my building," Rollins said Tuesday. "I don't think anyone should have a serious collection in Corktown. I think Detroit is the most dangerous city in the United States."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...#ixzz1vdemkj96

---

The nerve of this guy! He lives in Farmington Hills but makes money whoring out his Detroit asset. Then he throws in a dig about Detroit. Why does he even get involved in Detroit, is it just some kind of "art" for him?

How many Jerome Ferretti'is or Stephen Goodfellow's got swiped??

As anyone checked out the confines of the 666, err I mean the 555 Gallery hehe!

This Rollins guy is a joke. The common perpetrators of crimes in Detroit aren't smart enough to know who Rosa Parks or Rev. Winans are. Do you seriously think they heard about Andy Warhol and start plotting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by corktownyuppie

This Rollins guy is a joke. The common perpetrators of crimes in Detroit aren't smart enough to know who Rosa Parks or Rev. Winans are. Do you seriously think they heard about Andy Warhol and start plotting?

---

Sounds like a major league a-hole too: "I have some Warhols..." oh you just got some Warhols lying around, eh there, Mr. Fancy?

The FBI thinks that this is the work of professional art thieves. Of course the glorious reich of Farmington Hills has a forcefield to protect against such evildoers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Det_ard

The nerve of this guy! He lives in Farmington Hills but makes money whoring out his Detroit asset. Then he throws in a dig about Detroit. Why does he even get involved in Detroit, is it just some kind of "art" for him?

---

Makes me not want to recommend the Brooklyn Lofts to anyone looking for a space. I'm curious what he pays in taxes for his building.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jt1

Makes me not want to recommend the Brooklyn Lofts to anyone looking for a space. I'm curious what he pays in taxes for his building.

---

I wouldn't rush to judgment. Wait till the story comes out. This probably wasn't a random break-in. Sounds very targeted -- and quite possibly inside job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch

I wouldn't rush to judgment. Wait till the story comes out. This probably wasn't a random break-in. Sounds very targeted -- and quite possibly inside job.

---

I was speaking of the comments by the owner of the building.

From today's Free Press: Andy Warhol artifact among stolen art pieces in Corktown art heist

Quote:

---

Authorities ... pegged the value of the collection at more than $1 million....

An art dealer told the Free Press on Tuesday that the Warhol silk screen that's missing is not actually a piece of art but a studio tool worth no more than $2,000-$3,000.

"Nobody collects these," said Richard Polsky, a dealer and author based in the San Francisco Bay area, who has written two books about Warhol. "The only place it would have value would be to the Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh to display alongside a 'Flowers' or to a crook who would want to do something fraudulent.

"It's memorabilia," Polsky said. "Somebody might buy it for a couple grand to say they had it and it was cool."

Polsky reviewed the names of about a dozen of the works the FBI said were stolen and estimated their market value at around $200,000.

"I hate to sound cavalier," he said, "but this is a pretty minor collection."

---

I'm only speculating here... but one scenario that would make sense is if the owner was going thru a divorce, and the wife wanted half the art... well you get my drift... store it in Detroit... don't insure it... inside job... nothing for spouse to get....

I can't think of another scenario that remotely makes any sense... unless the collector is a real moron...

People don't insure art because insurance is expensive and random thieves aren't likely to take it and if they do, it is likely to turn up again. An art collection isn't much fun if you can't look at it, and if you want to at it, you need to put it someplace where you are.