1935 Mercedes 500K stolen by American service man returned to owner's family

[Rusty_OToole]

From what you say the family knew where the car was and tried to get it back but got nowhere until the car returned to Germany. If they could show they started to take action before the statute of limitations ran out, that would be good enough to establish a claim.

[mercer09]

If tax was collected at each sale would state and federal governments be responsible for returning that portion of the sale with interest?

 

since when does any gov return monies with interest, including our own?  never happen.........................!

[capngrog]

I would be very interested in seeing how the Prym Family substantiated/proved their claim.  What proof did they have of the theft in the aftermath of WWII?  As pointed out by Matt in his Post #28 above, Postwar Germany was total chaos.  People were literally starving, and family heirlooms were sold to those with money (American Soldiers) for pennies on the dollar.  Who knows what transpired when custody of the Pryms Mercedes passed from the caretaker to the American G.I.?  Were automobiles titled in Germany at the time?

 

This entire "deal" could be the subject of at least an hour's T.V. presentation on the Velocity channel, judging by the popularity of the 2014 movie, "The Monuments Men", starring George Clooney.

 

Curiouser and curiouser,

Grog

[capngrog]

3 hours ago, 540K said:

.

 

In American law, the concept of the good faith purchaser for value protects the innocent buyer from the tainted title of the seller.

 

I'm unaware of such a concept under the laws of the United States; however, as I've previously said, I'm no lawyer.  It seems like, at least several times per year, a story hits the news of someone's long-lost (stolen) treasure (usually a car) being found and returned to the rightful owner.  The custodian (not the legal owner) at the time of the discovery of the car always "takes it in the shorts" and loses his investment.  I guess this is based on the concept that a thief is never the owner of purloined goods in his custody and cannot, therefore, legally transfer ownership.  In other words, the thief has no right of ownership to property he has stolen and cannot transfer ownership, never having been the legal owner.

 

I hope that makes some sense, because it makes my brane hurt just thinking about all this.

 

Time for some rum,

Grog

[mike6024]

There should be more information online to elucidate the court's title ruling, but for now Bloomberg is a bit better news source than jalopnik so maybe this helps:

 

In an initial ruling, the Hamburg regional court said yesterday there was no evidence that U.S. troops quartered at Prym’s Stolberg estate, Waldfriede, in 1945 were entitled to take the car, a Mercedes-Benz 500K “Spezial Roadster.” 

 

The caretaker who looked after Prym’s car, Franz Wagemann, was away for a few days when it vanished. His daughter, who is now 84 and lives in the U.S., recalled her father’s reaction in a statement presented to the court. He was, she wrote, “furious” and “very dismayed.”

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-05-30/mercedes-car-stolen-in-war-belongs-to-heirs-court-says

 

RM Auctions did not provide complete provenance :

 

Mr. Haren had purchased the car only last year, during the RM Auctions in Monterey, California. At the time of the auction, RM had listed a large swath of the car's history as being unknown. The car was actually one of five Mercedes-Benz 500/540K models for sale that weekend, an almost unreal number considering the models' extreme rarity and value.

 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/classic-cars/news/a21888/stolen-mercedes-benz-500-to-be-returned-to-heir-35570/

Edited August 6, 2016 by mike6024 (see edit history)

[mike6024]

18 minutes ago, capngrog said:

(540K said:

In American law, the concept of the good faith purchaser for value protects the innocent buyer from the tainted title of the seller.)

I'm unaware of such a concept under the laws of the United States;

Well receiving stolen property is a criminal offense. If I purchase a $1,000 bicycle from a homeless dude for $60 I could be sent to jail, especially if I advertise it online for sale for $500. I think what was meant is that if the stolen item comes with good quality forged documentation, as a realistic forged title, and a fair price is paid, the purchaser was acting in good faith, and not subject to prosecution. But no valid ownership exists.

[540K]

Criminal law requires intent. If you do not know the bicycle was stolen and do not intend to deprive the true owner of the property, you cannot be found guilty of receiving stolen property. You may lose the bike and your money, but that's all. Your hypothetical is all circumstantial evidence. People will say, "You should have known better," but that's not proof of criminal intent. If you change the facts and say the buyer knew the true owner had reported it stolen, THEN you're getting a free ride to and overnight accomodations at the pokey.

 

The good faith purchaser concept is complicated, for sure. It doesn't protect thieves or people who know the property is stolen. It only protects innocent purchasers until a court repudiates the voidable title. What that means is that an innocent purchaser's title is "good" and the property can be sold any number of times to other innocent purchasers. The big "but" is that the "good" title is voidable - it can be taken away by a court determination. But  until a court says your title is bad, it's your car and you can sell or maintain possession. It really is valid ownership; it's just that it can be taken away in court. Splitting hairs, certainly. Clear as mud? 

[padgett]

Think this is an interesting topic but we will never know for sure what actually happened. I am surprised when the media gets the details even close.

In the US, criminal law is entirely different from civil. This did not occur in the US, does not ever seem to have been any question here. Was the US title ever formally challenged ?

Word "stolen" in heading has always bothered me, seems to presume something that is not known.

Most money will be made by the lawyers.

[mercer09]

just say-the soldier bought the car for 1000. from Mr Prym........................

 

now the soldier has passed as well as Mr Prym......................

 

the family is or isnt aware of the 1000. transaction, but regardless, has a good lawyer. no paperwork to be found, we want "our" car back.

 

that could easily be the other side of the coin.................

[8E45E]

On ‎06‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 1:32 PM, 540K said:

General Lyon was the consignor, and, from what very little I know, it is difficult to imagine he would take a haircut without a fight. I can understand RM wanting to keep him happy, particularly if they think there is going to be an Estate sale in the near future. 

 

The catalogs all state that sales are "as is, where is" with no warranties as to condition, provenance, previous ownership, etc. etc. and no obligation to verify information provided by the consignor or third parties.I read somewhere that the Pryms wrote to the new owner each time the car changed hands since the mid-1970's, and perhaps a question of actionable fraud arises. The auction catalog said that the car's history between Prym's purchase and the 1970's was "unknown at this time." Did Lyon or RM intentionally withhold information about the Prym family's claim, or did each previous owner assume the risk with knowledge of their claim?

 

This is undoubtably a significant car - the Berlin Auto Show display car. Could the Prym claim have motivated Lyon to sell?  I guess we'll never know.

 

In American law, the concept of the good faith purchaser for value protects the innocent buyer from the tainted title of the seller.  I believe the theory suggests that all the previous American buyers obtained "good" title and could freely sell the car up until a court repudiated their voidable titles. This may mean that in the musical chairs of passing this car around, the music stopped before van Haren could sell to someone else. I don't know, but I think that does not end the discussion if there was willful concealment of the Prym family's claim. It would be really interesting to know what each party knew or was advised before the auction.  

 

I find it very curious that the German court ruled that the 30-year statute of limitations only began to run when the car returned to German soil. I would have thought there would be some international court process for the Pryms to at least get a judgement, even if it could not be enforced until the car was on German soil. I suppose the court's reasoning was that they had no jurisdiction unless the car was there.

The car was seized in 2012, which was four years ago.  Does anyone know the court proceedings from then until now where it was decided it belongs to the Prym family?  I'm certain all sides of the story were presented before the courts handed their final decision.

 

And if van Haren was aware of all this, would he have risked taking the car back to Germany to publicly show it?

 

Does anyone remember the Bovey collection in Montana when an dishonest caretaker sold off many of their cars in 1980 while they were away on an extended vacation?  Fortunately, they did get all their cars back; some which ended up in Canada.

 

Craig

Edited August 8, 2016 by 8E45E (see edit history)

[mercer09]

And if van Haren was aware of all this, would he have risked taking the car back to Germany to publicly show it?

 

he obviously appears unaware................. which further makes one question if it is wise to take any car of great value outside of their country?

[540K]

I poked around a little more online but haven't found transcripts of the court proceedings. Most of the reporting has been by automobile journals, so finding anything from a true legal perspective has proved difficult. The most complete description of the court's decision that I have found is here: http://www.elginism.com/similar-cases/mercedes-benz-500k-spezial-car-looted-by-the-nazis-siezed-at-essen-techno-classica-car-fair/20120717/4847/  You'll notice right away " The auctioneer allegedly refused to hand-over the vehicle."  That suggests pretty strongly that Lyon and RM, at least, knew ownership was disputed, but that language is qualified by "allegedly" and may just be the author's hyperbole.

 

One thing I had not noticed before is that the court decision was only an "initial" or preliminary decision that the Prym family's claim survives the statute of limitations defense. (A statute of limitations is a law that requires a lawsuit to be filed within a certain number of years, or your claim will be dismissed.) One website stated: “The court has recognized our claim is valid and we will prepare the next stage and file suit for the car’s return,” said Alexander Martius of Stein & Partner Rechtsanwaelte in Aachen, the lawyer who represented the heirs in court.  So, this case never went to a full trial, as far as I can determine. The German court suggested the statute of limitations under US law had not run out either, so why did the Pryms not pursue the case in the US 30 or 40 years ago when they first raised the issue? All sorts of things have been returned to war victims without the object returning to Germany or another occupied country. So perhaps there was some weakness in the Prym's case as well, had they gone to trial.

 

Since the car is going to auction, there is obviously not going to be a full trial, and there is not likely to ever be a public record of testimony on the history of the car beyond 1945. I now think  A.J and others are correct that there was a private settlement between all the players so that the case would not drag on for years in German or US courts. If van Haren was going to pursue RM or Lyon in a US court, it seems like we would have heard about that by now. 

[60FlatTop]

and here I am considering a berm in the front yard just to slow the family down from putting all my stuff at the curb.

[John_Mereness]

Generally speaking:  The laws are complicated via war  Also, there were ways to report stolen at time.   And, a good starting point for reference via law generally is "stolen is stolen".   I tried to buy a 1925 Delage perhaps 15 years ago - walked away due to its family history regarding ownership during war.

Edited August 11, 2016 by John_Mereness (see edit history)

[mercer09]

 

and here I am considering a berm in the front yard just to slow the family down from putting all my stuff at the curb.

 

 

why not just go for a moat with a draw bridge?

[46 woodie]

I would love to know more of the story. How did some GI manage to first of all take possession (steal) the car. Then he would have had to hide it somewhere and then arrange for transport to the US. He had to hide it from his superior officers first of all. I know every GI came home with some "spoils of war", a Nazi flag, a Luger, binoculars ETC, but a car? I can't imagine how this guy did it, he must have been some really slick and enterprising GI. 

[Grimy]

Sergeant Bilko?

[Rusty_OToole]

2 hours ago, 46 woodie said:

I would love to know more of the story. How did some GI manage to first of all take possession (steal) the car. Then he would have had to hide it somewhere and then arrange for transport to the US. He had to hide it from his superior officers first of all. I know every GI came home with some "spoils of war", a Nazi flag, a Luger, binoculars ETC, but a car? I can't imagine how this guy did it, he must have been some really slick and enterprising GI. 

He had a gun. The country was under martial law and he was part of the army. I touched on this in my previous post #19.

 

'

I recall another story from an old car magazine. It was about a Mercedes roadster that was 'liberated' (stolen) from a factory owner at the end of the war. The officer who took it, had it painted olive drab in a German body shop for a couple of cartons of cigarettes and had a motor pool sergeant paint an official looking number on the hood.

 

After driving it around for a few months he got called into his CO's office. First question, how do you come to be driving around in a German car with no paperwork and the registration number of a Sherman tank painted on the hood. Before you answer that  I see your tour of duty has 4 more months to go. If you want to go home tomorrow leave the car in my parking space with the keys in the ignition.

 

This may have been the same car.'

[540K]

Bonham's is now stating in the auction catalog that the German court decision in 2012 was in fact preliminary only, and subsequent negotiations led to a final and comprehensive settlement regarding the car. How comprehesive it really is, I don't know. Did it include RM or Lyon? All we are likely to know is that title is truly settled in the Prym family, and value/bidding should not be any issue next month.

[capngrog]

7 minutes ago, 540K said:

 All we are likely to know is that title is truly settled in the Prym family, and value/bidding should not be any issue next month.

 

I'm sure that previous owners of this car also thought that there were NO problems with the title.  I don't think that someone would pay million$ for a car without being sure of the title.  As far as I'm concerned, without disclosure of the full story of ownership, from the time of purchase by Mr. Prym, I would consider the title "clouded" and would not bid.  Key information, in my opinion, would be the circumstances of the transfer of custody of the car after WWII and details of how the Prym family was able to maintain their claim of ownership of the car.  I would also be VERY interested in why the Prym family was unable/unwilling to pursue their claim in U.S. and Dutch courts. 

 

Of course I'm not a multi-millionaire so my opinion is worth approximately what it has cost you to read this post. 

 

Oh, by the way, that really fine "XK Silver Cloud Pierce Auburn Bugatti Benz" that you so proudly own is really mine since it was stolen from my Uncle Guido 71 years ago.  Cough it up!

 

Cheers,

Grog

[capngrog]

On ‎8‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 4:49 PM, 540K said:

Bonham's is now stating in the auction catalog that the German court decision in 2012 was in fact preliminary only, and subsequent negotiations led to a final and comprehensive settlement regarding the car. How comprehesive it really is, I don't know. Did it include RM or Lyon? All we are likely to know is that title is truly settled in the Prym family, and value/bidding should not be any issue next month.

 

Do you have any information on the upcoming Bonham's Auction?  Is the Prym Mercedes to be offered at the upcoming September 03, 2016 Bonhams Auction in Chantilly, France?  I've tried to get some information from the Bonham's site, but so far, I've been unable to find out any thing of significance.  Have you been able to view the Prym Mercedes offering on the Bonham's account?  If so, I'd very much appreciate a link.

 

Cheers,

Grog

[Matt Harwood]

On 8/13/2016 at 4:49 PM, 540K said:

Bonham's is now stating in the auction catalog that the German court decision in 2012 was in fact preliminary only, and subsequent negotiations led to a final and comprehensive settlement regarding the car. How comprehesive it really is, I don't know. Did it include RM or Lyon? All we are likely to know is that title is truly settled in the Prym family, and value/bidding should not be any issue next month.

 

Agreed. As I suspected, a deal happened that made all the interested parties release their interest in the car. I should point out that I never said the title was in dispute--the car could legally be bought and sold--only that the legal gray area that has been following it for decades and the latest court ruling and seizure might depress bidding. Now that this gray area has been resolved and a new owner won't have to worry about someone coming after the car once it's in his garage, it will sell easily and for a good figure. Hopefully it'll bring big money, but remember that van Haren got the car for about $2 million under the low estimate at Monterey last year (a real deal in certain circles). Was that because of the legal cloud hanging over it (which was apparently well known) or because the market was soft? I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. Two years ago when the market was at its hottest since 2008, this car with a clear history might have brought $8-10 million. The pre-auction estimates are quite a bit less than that.

 

Some of the additional reading I've done suggests that the Prym family has been pursuing this for more than 40 years. It isn't new and it has been dogging this car since its "appearance" in 1976. Why did they not get a US court to settle the case? I don't know, but I suspect that it would be very difficult to get a US court to settle a case like this involving a US citizen and a German citizen. I'm guessing there are international courts for that kind of thing. Or perhaps they figured that a US court wouldn't be as friendly to their case--would a US court rule against a US citizen in favor of a former Nazi (Nazi collaborator, whatever)? Shopping for a friendly court isn't a new thing, which is what it seems they did. They found a court to hear their claim and that court ruled in their favor.

 

It is unlikely that it was just a wave of the hand kind of thing--I'm sure there was extensive proof presented by the Prym family. Something like this isn't just settled on someone's granddaughter saying something is true. It appears that most of the documents are not available to the public, and may never be given the circumstances of this latest settlement, but I think it's highly unlikely that it was quick or easy for them to prove ownership beyond a reasonable doubt. I'm no expert in US courts, let alone German courts, but if they won the judgement, it was surely because there was a preponderance of evidence in their favor. But regardless of the court's ruling, there was no way to seize the car in another country, they had to wait for it to come home to German jurisdiction first.

 

2 hours ago, capngrog said:

 

Do you have any information on the upcoming Bonham's Auction?  Is the Prym Mercedes to be offered at the upcoming September 03, 2016 Bonhams Auction in Chantilly, France?  I've tried to get some information from the Bonham's site, but so far, I've been unable to find out any thing of significance.  Have you been able to view the Prym Mercedes offering on the Bonham's account?  If so, I'd very much appreciate a link.

 

Cheers,

Grog

 

It's on the splash page of their website for the Chantilly auction and listed within: http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23603/lot/16/?category=list&length=10&page=2

 

Their description is now substantially revised from what it was about three weeks ago. Where it used to gloss over the ownership dispute, it now says the situation is remedied and puts a happy ending spin on it. They're even claiming it's a ONE OWNER CAR.

 

I also see that they seem to have rushed it through the Mercedes-Benz "Classiche" process in time for this auction. Lord knows what that must have cost...

 

And holy crap, I just noticed this:

 

Buyer's Premium Rates
25% on the first €50,000 of the Hammer Price
20% from €50,001 to €1,000,000 the Hammer Price
12% on the excess over €1,000,000 of the Hammer Price

TVA at the current rate of 20% will be added to the Buyer's Premium and charges.

 

That's the BUYER'S premium. That's EXTRA over whatever your final bid is. 25%?!? Am I the only one who thinks buyer's premiums in general are ludicrous and this one is borderline offensive? Although maybe we now know how they're going to pay off everyone involved in this case. If the car sells for $5 million, they're going to get at least $500,000 from the seller and nearly $700,000 from the buyer. Maybe it's just me, but that seems offensive.

 

Would you guys ever buy from me if I charged you an extra 25% over the listed price to buy a car?

 

 

 

Edited August 15, 2016 by Matt Harwood (see edit history)

[A. Ballard 35R]

Matt, an extra 25% charge would be entirely justified based on your outstanding write-ups !!!!

[mercer09]

 

That's the BUYER'S premium. That's EXTRA over whatever your final bid is. 25%?!? Am I the only one who thinks buyer's premiums in general are ludicrous and this one is borderline offensive? Although maybe we now know how they're going to pay off everyone involved in this case. If the car sells for $5 million, they're going to get at least $500,000 from the seller and nearly $700,000 from the buyer. Maybe it's just me, but that seems offensive.

 

maybe that's why the car didnt fetch 10 million on the first round?

 

anything over 10% to me as a buyer, and I dont attend your auction-dont care if it's the biggest show on earth or a local estate sale. that is what's fair to me.

 

 

•  

[capngrog]

1 hour ago, Matt Harwood said:

 

 

 

It's on the splash page of their website for the Chantilly auction and listed within: http://www.bonhams.com/auctions/23603/lot/16/?category=list&length=10&page=2

 

 

 

 

 

 

Matt,

 

Thanks for the link.  It's interesting that, depending on author, the details (facts?) of the story vary significantly. There are still many unanswered questions here, but I guess we'll never get those answers.  My main question continues to be: "With all of the turmoil in Germany at the end of WWII, and with the car's owner having apparently been incarcerated after having been convicted of "war crimes", how did the Prym family prove that the car was 'stolen' one  dark night?"  

 

I agree that a 25% Buyer's Premium Rate is a bit excessive ... actually, a whole bunch excessive!

 

Cheers,

Grog

[benjamin j]

Interesting story and some very well thought out comments. I especially liked Matt Harwood’s and Digger914s comments.

My own feelings are that everyone in Germany should have to take some blame for being dumb enough to elect hitler ( no capital h is deserved) in the first place. I started my engineering career working with German scientist that were brought hear after WW2. They were all ashamed of their country and it showed.

[Rusty_OToole]

There is no evidence Pym was convicted of war crimes or even accused. Under Martial law many prominent people  were jailed until they could be investigated and their names cleared. We already mentioned Ferdinand Porsche, Louis Renault and Hans Ledwinka. Notice that only one of these, Porsche, was German and none were convicted of war crimes.

 

Furthermore Hitler was never elected to anything in Germany or anywhere else. He finagled his way into the Chancellorship then faked up the Reichstag fire and used it as an excuse to declare martial law. Under martial law, there were no more elections as long as he lived.

[benjamin j]

10 hours ago, Rusty_OToole said:

There is no evidence Pym was convicted of war crimes or even accused. Under Martial law many prominent people  were jailed until they could be investigated and their names cleared. We already mentioned Ferdinand Porsche, Louis Renault and Hans Ledwinka. Notice that only one of these, Porsche, was German and none were convicted of war crimes.

 

Furthermore Hitler was never elected to anything in Germany or anywhere else. He finagled his way into the Chancellorship then faked up the Reichstag fire and used it as an excuse to declare martial law. Under martial law, there were no more elections as long as he lived.

on august 19th 1934 hitler was elected president of Germany basic common knowledge.

[capngrog]

12 hours ago, Rusty_OToole said:

There is no evidence Pym was convicted of war crimes or even accused. Under Martial law many prominent people  were jailed until they could be investigated and their names cleared.

 

Based on previous posts in this thread and numerous articles written on the Prym Mercedes, I believe that there is ample evidence that Hans Friedrich Prym was both accused and convicted of crimes committed during WWII.  An example is the below blurb from a Jalopnik article dated June 03, 2012:

 

"Prym's Mercedes disappeared in 1945, while he was serving a prison sentence handed to him by the Allies. His estate was used as a base for U.S. troops serving under General Maurice Rose at the beginning of the march into Germany. Stolberg was one of the first places in Germany to be conquered. The caretaker who looked after Prym's car, Franz Wagemann, was away for a few days when it vanished."

 

I tried to find specific information on the internet concerning Prym's incarceration, but I was able to find little of substance.  The Wikipedia entry on Prym does not even mention his time in prison after WWII.

 

Here is a link to one of the best discussions of the case that I have yet found:  http://www.oostwaard.com/kunstrecht/artikel/140

Note that the German court's decision regarding the statute of limitations has been called into question due to contrary precedent.

 

An interesting article which appeared in the Australian newspaper 'Argus' dated March 12, 1945, indicated that the Russians were dissatisfied with the "lenient" treatment given by the Americans to Hans Prym.  The Argus article quoted the Russian newspaper Izvestia which called Prym "... the Nazi aircraft manufacturer and employer of Russian slave labour ..."  The Izvestia article went on to say that Prym "... attempted to bribe two US soldiers to obtain the release of an offspring detained in Belgium."  The article in Izvestia further said of Prym's sentence by the Allied courts: "The American court which sentenced the Hitlerite bloodsucker to five years' gaol, then reduced the sentence to six months and a fine".  Mr. Prym and his company must have figured prominently in the Nazi war effort for him to have garnered such swift attention PRIOR to the end of WWII.

 

My basic question remains:  Was the Prym Mercedes "stolen" or "sold".  What proof do Prym's heirs have that the car was "stolen"?  If Mr. Prym only served six months in jail, why did he not immediately raise hell about his cherished car being stolen?  Had he done so, the Statute of Limitations would have started to run (in an American court).   As I alluded in an earlier post, something about the German Court's seizing of the Mercedes, stinks.

 

Here is a link to the Australian 'Argus' article:   http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/1109371  If you look at the box on the left side of the page, you'll notice that it is much more legible than the article shown in the newspaper to the right.  Just scroll down for mention of the "Prym Affair".

 

Just my opinion,

Grog

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2016 by capngrog
I wanted to add the link to the Argus article (see edit history)

[540K]

Off topic, but the auction house premiums discussed above vary depending on the house. RM Sotheby's is currently king of the hill, and seller's want to be part of it.  "King of the hill" meaning not just RM Sotheby's results and number of sales, but marketing ability. I believe they can reach significantly more wealthy persons around the globe through their own database, because Sotheby's has been around for 100 years. The buyer's premium must have an affect on bidding at some point, but obviously sellers do not think RM's premium structure will affect their net. The house is going to keep raising their premiums until sellers and buyers exert pressure by not consigning or bidding. If RM Sothebys can sustain their premium structure without it affecting consignments and bidding, the other houses are going to follow their lead. High water raises all boats.

 

The market is softer than it was 2 years ago, but the media seems content to say sellers should just expect lower hammer prices. I don't see anyone calling out the houses to reduce premiums. Maybe there is a tipping point if houses like Bonham's and Gooding have lower premiums and RM loses the ability to attract consignments.

 

Also, you never know what the seller's commission is. It is negotiable, whereas the buyer's commission is not (to my knowledge). I know of instances where seller's commission was waived just to get the consignment (and buyer's premium) for a top car.

 

So, 25% of the first dollars - the market is bearing it, and it's up to the market to correct it. If there are enough major players who agree with mercer09, maybe the premiums change. Bottom line could be that these players are in a whole different ballpark than most folks, and the premium structure is nearly irrelevant. Until 25% of bid X is less than 10% of bid Y, the premium is going to be 25%.

 

[zdillinger]

While I have never heard of this type of situation with an automobile, it does happen fairly regularly with other objects of value including works of art, perhaps most famously Klimt's portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer (subject of the film "Woman in Gold"). The family of the original owner would have had to prove that the car (or painting, whatever) was either directly looted or was "sold" under duress. Even if the serviceman had paid some nominal fee and gotten a bill of sale, it could be argued that the sale was not legitimate 80 years later. Virtually any object without rock solid provenance which could have been in continental Europe during the Nazi regime is suspect.

 

This is further complicated by the fact that such an automobile could easily be declared part of the German cultural patrimony which guarantees additional legal protection under European law (though not American law).

If you are interested in this sort of thing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has a very good website replete with case studies (though none are automotive).

Edited August 17, 2016 by zdillinger (see edit history)

[8E45E]

1 hour ago, zdillinger said:

This is further complicated by the fact that such an automobile could easily be declared part of the German cultural patrimony which guarantees additional legal protection under European law (though not American law).

 

That is the case of the 1912 Brooke 'Swan Car'.  It was apparently smuggled out of India and is now in a museum in Holland.

 

Craig

[SC38dls]

Could the care taker have sold the car to the GI then said he didn't know what happened as he "was out of town" at the time it disappeared?? No that would be very sneeky for a low paid servant of a guy in jail who couldn't sign a pay check to do, right?  Just a thought 

[capngrog]

2 hours ago, SC38DLS said:

Could the care taker have sold the car to the GI then said he didn't know what happened as he "was out of town" at the time it disappeared?? No that would be very sneeky for a low paid servant of a guy in jail who couldn't sign a pay check to do, right?  Just a thought 

 

Yes, that is certainly a possibility and one that I mentioned in my Post #30,  That's one of the questions that make this thread so great!  I'm thinking that this story could be the basis of a really good movie.  Just to add another possibility to your theory, the "low paid servant" could have been acting upon the instructions of Mr. Prym to liquidate assets so as to obtain ready cash to help him maintain his claims to his estates ... or to physically maintain ( maintenance, taxes, wages etc.) the estates themselves.

 

Cheers,

Grog

[8E45E]

10 hours ago, SC38DLS said:

Could the care taker have sold the car to the GI then said he didn't know what happened as he "was out of town" at the time it disappeared?? No that would be very sneeky for a low paid servant of a guy in jail who couldn't sign a pay check to do, right?  Just a thought 

That's exactly what happened to the Bovey collection in Montana in 1980.  The Boveys were out of town when their unscrupulous caretaker attempted to sell off some of their collection, including a 1921 HCS.  Needless to say, a few vintage car club enthusiasts including a few who lived here got stung, but the Boveys' did get all their cars back in the end.

 

Craig

[mercer09]

"They were all ashamed of their country and it showed."

 

 

Being German and having many relatives in Germany, I can tell you full out that the shame wasnt in what was done, but in losing the war for most Germans.....

 

Having epicly failed the 1st WW and starving, the people were hungry for anything they were told in a new and unified country, that was being promised great success.

 

not stating that everyone loved hitler, but they loved the promise and the dream.

 

 

[C Carl]

Ugh , mercer09. What a sad reality. I guess at this point a bit of levity may be in order , hmmm ? My solution is , just give the 540 to me ! Yeah ! Not that I particularly deserve it. But it would go a long way to healing the wounds I still feel from the "big one that got away" from me over 50 years ago. You know , the 1930 SS38/250 factory bodied tourer I have sobbed about elsewhere. Remember ?It was Mercedes Benz racing white , red leather , and in better original shape than the best aspects of my original '24 and '27 Cadillacs put together. You know the circumstances. But hey , it was just an exceptional 30 year old used car back then ! O.K. old  man Carl. Back to reality. To paraphrase an earlier posting : If wishes were 'Benzes , the Three Pointed Star would grace all of our garages in abundance. So look , just give it to me !   - Carl

[540K]

The Hans Prym family Spezial Roadster sold today for approximately $5,925,000  (4.6M Euro + 15% commission). A little over $2M increase in price (approx 60%) in five years, so it's difficult to argue it should have gone for more, but I thought it would almost double in value.

[capngrog]

Thanks for the update.  Is there a way to find out who bought it?

 

Cheers,

Grog

[JRA]

Where is this roadster now?