Famous photograph of Winston Churchill missing from Ottawa Hotel

[John Kasaian]

(from BBC News) A portrait by Yousuf Karsh, who snatched a cigar out Churchill's mouth just before firing the shutter on his 8x10 camera in 1941, is missing from the Chateau Laurier. Staff noticed that the frame was different from the other Karsh installations and after consulting with the Karsh estate it was found that the original print had been replaced with a copy.

Where's Columbo when you need him?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-62649297

[Drew Wiley]

I wonder how many of the real deal exist. The Weston gallery in Carmel had one on display for quite awhile. Very classic cold neutral print. Looked like DuPont paper to me.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Took them months before they realised it had been switched.

[Pieter]

The replacement is a copy, not a fake. If the thief had been smart enough to replace the original with a copy with the same frame, or just swap the frame contents, no-one would have been the wiser. There hasn't been any word if the copy is not identical.

[John Kasaian]

I'd hazard to guess the original was signed on the back, the copy maybe not? Or the signature forged?
Or the copy was a digital, not silver?

[Pieter]

I'd hazard to guess the original was signed on the back, the copy maybe not? Or the signature forged?
Or the copy was a digital, not silver?

Still, it looks like no-one was the wiser, except for the frame. And the purloined print was not unique. Like Ansel Adams, many prints were made of the Churchill photo.

[r.e.]

Police are reasonably confident that the photograph will eventually be recovered. They think that it's too well-known to "disappear" (among other things, the UK used it for the ￡5 note in 2016). Karsh himself made the print. Karsh and his wife had lived at the Chateau Laurier, and he had his studio there, for decades. His wife told the NY Times that the print had been gifted to the Chateau Laurier along with several other prints. No copies of Karsh photographs have been made from negatives since the 1990s, when the negatives were given to Canada's national archives.

When the hotel got suspicious, it contacted the Karsh estate representative. The print was indeed signed. The representative, a woman who started working for Karsh in 1979, said that she knew within a couple of seconds that the signature was fake.

This is a good art theft story. Who did it? Why? When will the print re-enter the market? Apparently stealing it wasn't that easy; it required a decent set of tools. However, at the time traffic in the area where it was stolen was light because of the pandemic, and both employees and guests in the hotel were required to wear masks.

Sources:
The Toronto Star
CBC News
CTV News
The Guardian
The NY Times

[Pieter]

Police are reasonably confident that the photograph will eventually be recovered. They think that it's too well-known to "disappear" (among other things, the UK used it for the ￡5 note in 2016). Karsh himself made the print. Karsh and his wife had lived at the Chateau Laurier, and he had his studio there, for decades. His wife told the NY Times that the print had been gifted to the Chateau Laurier along with several other prints. No copies of Karsh photographs have been made from negatives since the 1990s, when the negatives were given to Canada's national archives.

When the hotel got suspicious, it contacted the Karsh estate representative. The print was indeed signed. The representative said that she knew within a couple of seconds that the signature was fake.

Once again, there are multiple prints in collections and available for sale. How would one prove that one of those is the stolen one? The date of acquisition?

[r.e.]

Once again, there are multiple prints in collections and available for sale. How would one prove that one of those is the stolen one? The date of acquisition?

I'm not planning to play amateur art theft sleuth. I suppose you could phone the RCMP unit that deals with art theft, and the Karsh estate, and ask how they can prove that the print, if it emerges, was stolen. The answer just might have something to do with provenance (starting with "Where did you get the print?"), as well as any distinguishing features.

I am pretty sure that if somebody tries to sell the print to a legitimate gallery that deals in photographs, the vendor is likely to be asked a few questions. This theft has gotten a lot of publicity.

[Pieter]

I'm not planning to play amateur art theft sleuth. I suppose you could phone the RCMP unit that deals with art theft, and the Karsh estate, and ask how they can prove that the print, if it emerges, was stolen. The answer just might have something to do with provenance (starting with "Where did you get the print?"), as well as any distinguishing features.

I am pretty sure that if somebody tries to sell the print to a legitimate gallery that deals in photographs, the vendor is likely to be asked a few questions. This theft has gotten a lot of publicity.

In a year or so, it won't be remembered by many. The world of art dealers is rife with dishonest liars and cheats. If it was eventually obtained by such a dealer, it could probably be sold without much effort.