Objection to the expert’s painting examination opinion of the Museum of Fine Arts
File number at the Museum of Fine Arts (MFA): SZM/169-23/2022/110
Riot Police case number: 29022/671/2020.bü.
I. The objectionable facts of the examination of the picture of Hugó Scheiber titled ‘The Woman with a Hat’
The painting in question was sold together with a twenty-page detailed Complex Painting Examination Protocol prepared by Tondo SP1 Llc., which, based on an objective laboratory examination, accurately determined the age of the painting: ‘late 30’s of the 20th century, early 40’s’ (see also: Complex Painting Examination Protocol, page 1, page 20), which also confirmed the 1941 date of the painting. Despite the objective examinations, the forensic expert Gábor Einspach, who was commissioned by the investigating authority, did not even question the dating (!), and even found the stylistic characteristics typical of Scheiber (see below), he did not attribute the painting to Hugó Scheiber. We raised an objection against this subjective expert’s opinion, as the expert subjectively questioned the authenticity of the painting, merely because of the signature, without taking into account the instrumental determination of the contemporaneity of the signature and the painting (see also: Complex Painting Examination Protocol, page 9), nor the historical circumstance that the objectively measured date of origin of the painting precludes the possibility of forgery, since at that time the Jewish Law III was already in force in Hungary, which meant that the sale, even the public exhibition, and even the possession of Jewish works of art was impossible. Under these historical circumstances, the period immediately preceding the Holocaust completely rules out the possibility that the painting of a Jewish painter, who was persecuted because of his Jewish origin and discriminated against in the art world, was forged. Therefore, the forensic expert, disregarding the historical circumstances, committed the crime of Holocaust relativisation under the current law (Section 333 of the Criminal Code). We have reported this fact to the authority.
As a consequence, the Ózd Prosecutor’s Office ordered the re-examination of the painting in order to eliminate the contradiction between the objective examination and the forensic expert’s opinion, which was also noted by the Prosecutor’s Office. However, the Ózd Prosecutor’s Office did not question the subjective assessment of the work of art, but implicitly the complex material analysis made by Tondo SP1 Llc., which implied to the investigators of the MFA that the re-objective measurement must be adjusted to the subjective opinion of the forensic expert, as if it was unquestionable. The professional consultation of the forensic expert with Tondo SP1 Llc., which we specifically requested from the prosecution, did not even arise.
The prosecutor who ordered the examination considered the age determination to be decisive for the examination, which was also confirmed by the Museum of Fine Arts, which had inadequate laboratory equipment1. Repeating the examination in a laboratory with a lower technical and technological background was unnecessary and also a waste of money. The order to repeat the material test is also of a legal concern, because the investigating authority and the prosecuting authority
1 Also compare with: MFA’s examination data sheet, page 1/footnote no. 4; page 2/Article 3 and 5
are obliged to take into account the mitigating circumstances for the accused [Section 3 Paragraph (6) of Act XC of 2017]. The questions asked in the re-examination of the material were biased to suggest the expected answer, precluding an independent test assessment. This justifies the incomplete professionalism of the examination results, which conceal or neglect essential details, and cover them in a nebulous pseudoscience.
Tondo SP1 Llc., headed by Zsófia Végvári, has an internationally recognized, independent, world-class laboratory. The services of which are regularly used by Interpol, Homeland Security and the Hungarian Police (!), as well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBxayaefP9M
The designation of the Museum of Fine Arts (hereinafter referred to as: the MFA) as a laboratory test site was to support the preconception of the self-certifying police. This had already had a similar precedent in the course of the procedure, when the “expert” asked to examine the nude of Egon Schiele titled The Six-fingered, which had been previously submitted for expert examination by the MFA, was unable to place it in the Schiele oeuvre, and attributed the mould stains on the carrier (appeared several years ago) to grease stains (sic!), which he classified – without objective measurement – as pre-dating the date of the painting, building his concept of examination on this.
In any case, the pathetic, forced “expert opinion” represented a limited preparedness.
In the case of the Vaszary picture and the Nemes Lampérth picture, I will discuss the conceptual nature of the lab selection separately.
The conclusions of the Museum of Fine Arts’ examination are conceptualized, unsubstantiated, incomplete, distorted, and ignore a number of important factors, which I will discuss in detail below.
It cannot be assumed that the Museum of Fine Arts did not actually recognise the style of Hugó Scheiber in the painting under examination and in the picture underneath it, revealed by the X-ray examination, as this would mean that the experts who carried out the examination were not sufficiently informed about the life of Hugó Scheiber or the monographs dealing with his oeuvre. In possession of these facts, to claim that the painting is “most probably not the original work of Hugó Scheiber” is a blatantly false statement and an institutionalisation of Holocaust relativisation!
The statement “very likely” is not equivalent to the legal category of “beyond reasonable doubt”, which means that the examination could not produce any actual evidence of the painting’s falsity. In other words, even such a conceptualized, coerced opinion was not capable of being admissible as evidence in criminal proceedings according to the interpretation of the law. [“A fact not proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be imputed to the accused.” Section 7 Paragraph (4) of Act XC of 2017].
Detailed rebuttal:
a.) The examination was not independent and anonymous, but was conducted being aware of Tondo SP1 Llc.’s Complex Painting Examination Protocol and was done with the knowledge of the expert’s opinion of Gábor Einspach, which inherently created the possibility of bias and suggestion.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) has failed to ensure the conditions of a due procedure throughout the process. Due process would have been ensured if the examination had been conducted under independent anonymous conditions, with only the picture as the subject of the examination, excluding the possibility of subjective suggestion.
The following facts raise suspicions of pressure from the NBI:
On 26 August 2022, the NBI issued a request for an examination to the MFA. The MFA received a request to change the deadline to 18 October 2022, but according to the letter from the NBI, the measurement for all three works was completed within the given time, but additional time was requested for the description and submission of the expert’s opinion. In the case of József Nemes Lampérth: Nude and János Vaszary: On the Front, the same text structure and content is found in the Examination data sheet, so the reason for the extension is unrealistic, but rather shows that there were subsequent negotiations between the NBI and the MFA regarding the final text.
Quotation from the letter (also in the case of the Nemes Lampérth and Vaszary pictures):
In the course of the procedure, the Museum of Fine Arts was commissioned to carry out an instrumental examination of the painting “Hugó Scheíber: The Woman with a Hat”.
According to the information provided by the Museum of Fine Arts, the diagnostic studies are expected to be completed by the deadline for the submission of the expert’s opinion, but additional time is needed for the description and submission of the expert opinion.
The pressure of the NBI can be felt in the appendix:
Warning
Pursuant to Section 200 Paragraph (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an expert may be fined and ordered to pay the criminal costs incurred if:
a) he or she unjustifiably refuses to cooperate or to give an opinion after having been warned of the consequences of refusal;
b) he or she fails to submit an expert opinion within the time limit set; or
e) he or she breaches other obligations and this results in the delay of the proceedings.
Pursuant to Paragraph (2), if an expert appointed by the head of the business organisation or organisation to which the expert has been seconded fails to provide an expert’s opinion, the fine or the obligation to reimburse the criminal costs incurred shall be imposed on the business organisation, expert institute, organisation or expert body to which the expert has been seconded.
The large number of discrepancies in the examination results does not exclude the possibility that the original MFA’s expert’s opinion was different or did not state the authenticity of the images. The inspection data sheet for the Hugó Scheiber painting is two and a half pages, while the inspection data sheets for the János Vaszary painting and the József Nemes Lampérth drawing are one and a half – one and a half pages long. This paucity of documentation does not justify the need for an extension, given the final completion date of 18 November 2020 (especially compared to the 20-page detailed report of Tondo SP1 Llc.), but rather reflects a serious internal professional dilemma, confirmed by the self-contradictory nature of the data sheets.
b.) There was no detailed examination protocol documenting the procedure, technique and technology of the examination! It can therefore be said that the examination does not meet the criteria of scientific rigour. While Tondo SP1 Llc. documented every detail of the examination in a detailed scientific description.
c.) The material received is only a description (“examination data sheet”), which shows that the Museum does not have the personnel, technical, technological and professional background that would outweigh the much higher professional and technical skills of Tondo SP1 Llc.
d.) The Museum, according to the document submitted2, does not have the technical and technological background to carry out a complex examination of the kind that Tondo SP1 Llc. is capable of. As a result, it could only base its conclusions on a much more limited set of examination data. [e.g.: “The signature is incomplete, and the date underneath cannot be read with complete certainty using any of the techniques employed.” (see also the MFA’s examination data sheet, page 2/3.) - While according to Tondo SP1 Llc.’s Complex Painting Examination Protocol (see p. 9), the date 1941 can be read under the microscope it used.]
It is completely unacceptable from a legal point of view that a more limited, narrow objective examination method overrides a more complex one that explores the full depth of the examination, including the substrate and the entire signature.
The examination protocol of Tondo SP1 Llc. states that no foreign intervention can be detected in the picture. The MFA has not carried out such an examination!
e.) The choice of control images selected for pigment analysis is technically unacceptable and erroneous because they are not contemporaneous (prior) with the image under examination. This control study would only have been correct if it had been compared with Hugo Scheiber’s pictures from the 1940’s.
The picture was prepared at a time when lead white and titanium white were in a period of transition(also compare with: MFA examination datasheet, page 1/Article 2, in the same text, footnote no. 4), so the argument put forward in the statement of grounds as a refutation of authenticity, that the picture under examination does not contain large amounts of lead white, but mainly titanium white, does not constitute any counter-evidence, but rather proves its authenticity!
The material test report of Tondo SP1 Llc. describes that “lead (Pb) is detectable in white primer and white paints, - lead has completely disappeared from the 1960’s, from the “kremzi” white paint, which was the most common. (see also: Complex Painting Examination Protocol, page 20). The report of Tondo SP1 Llc. also states precisely – contrary to the MFA’s data sheet - that the titanium white used in the painting is the early titanium white (see also Page 14 - research microscope image), which is from before the Second World War (see also Page 20).
According to the description of the Museum of Fine Arts, titanium white was introduced to Europe in the late 1920’s (!) and took at least 10 years to become widespread, so it is quite understandable that the 1919 painting could not have been painted using titanium white, and in his paintings of 1930 and 1932 he had a lot of occasions to use lead white still
2 Also compare with: MFA’s examination data sheet, page 1/footnote no. 4; page 2/Article 3 and 5
available to him, but in a 1941 painting he also used titanium white, which was available and had proved its worth by then. The finding of the MFA that “the date of the painting can be dated after the end of the 1920’s” (see MFA’s examination data sheet, p. 1/2) does not exclude the possibility that the painting was created in 1941, in fact it confirms it!
Moreover, it is a well-known fact in professional circles that artists always work with the material they have at hand, and there is no reason to believe that Hugó Scheiber would not have had titanium white at his disposal in the early forties, as it was available. The protocol of Tondo SP1 Llc. also notes that “The spread of certain paints or the painter’s habit of buying paint can mean a difference of several years from the date of origin/market launch.” (see also: Complex Painting Examination Protocol, page 20).
Therefore, it is completely incomprehensible how the MFA came to the conclusion that the picture is not the work of Hugó Scheiber, an illogical and self-contradictory final conclusion that is the result of the influence of the authority.
The presence of titanium white would only be conclusive evidence of the falsity of the picture if it were dated earlier than the appearance of titanium white, but certainly not if it were dated after its appearance. Thus, the negative final conclusion of the MFA is a huge professional slip and misuse of the otherwise proven method of evidencing with the presence of titanium white in previous pictures!
f.) The MFA examination challenges the way in which the presence of phthalocyanine-based (green) and blue pigments was measured in the complex examination carried out by Tondo SP1 Llc. Objecting precisely to the presence of materials that put the age of the picture between 1938 and 1941, which gives the most accurate dating (see also: the detailed description and microscopic images of the Complex Painting Examination Protocol, pages 12-16; and its summary on page 20).
Despite the detailed description of the protocol, the MFA does not understand the method used to detect the phthalocyanine dye and criticises that “the protocol refers to the copper complex of the compound (Cu-phthalocyanate, blue substance), but among the elements identified by XRF, copper (Cu) is present below the limit of detection (<LOD) or in such low quantities that it is not sufficient to be a blue compound.” (MFA’s examination data sheet, Article 5).
This objection of the MFA shows a high degree of professional incompetence, because Zsófia Végvári writes in connection with the material analysis of the Rippl-Rónai pictures that: “After titanium white, we also have to mention blue and green paints, which since the early 1940’s have contained phthalocyanine; they attach organic components to a copper atom, so that the copper is only slightly identifiable on the surface.”3 - In other words, the small presence of copper is evidence of the blue presence of phthalocyanine.
3 See also: Painting examination. Everything about Rónai... or his forger. 08.03.2020. 10:14 Painting examination laboratory. https://festmenyvizsgalat.blog.hu/2020/03/08/mindent ronairol Emphasis added by me - M. S.
Unfounded questioning of this examination result certainly raises the conceptual justification for the MFA test, since the detection of the presence of phthalocyanine provides the most accurate age determination possible. Moreover, the MFA does not understand either how these measurements were made, which shows a much lower level of professionalism.
The question arises as to why, precisely with these conclusive measurement results, the MFA’s experts did not consult Zsófia Végvári at Tondo SP1 Llc., who carried out the complex examination, and instead bypassed her and based their conclusions on an incomplete measurement result. This is also incomprehensible because, as Tondo SP1 Llc.’s Complex Painting Examination Protocol also points out that the protocol does not contain all the documentation of the examination, and if any questions arise regarding the examination or the database of the period, the experts of the Painting Examination Laboratory will provide further clarification (see also Pages 19-20.).
Part of the summary of the complex painting examination report of Tondo SP1 Llc. (page 20):
Detailed result for the determination of raw materials:
• Priming of the painting: From before the Second World War
• phtalo blue: post-1935-36 but pre-1970 (presence of Cu, large-particle base material)
• phtalo green: post 1938, its composition changes from 1970, like that of the phtalo blue
• yellow: pre-1941 (after 1941, the presence of antimony in yellow paints becomes widespread again)
• the yellowish appearance of early titanium white (pre-WWII) in research microscopic images (1000x, Canada balsam preparation)
•Lead (Pb) is detectable in white primers and white paints; lead disappears completely from “kremzi” white paint, the most common white since the 1960’s.
In summary, the materials for the painting date from 1938 to 1941. (The spread of certain paints or the painter’s habit of buying paint can mean a difference of several years from the date of origin/market launch.) The painting does not contain any modern pigments produced after the Second World War (combined presence of Zn, Mo, Sr, Se).
The above statements can be supported by an examination of the raw materials collected from each period and by the results of professional databases abroad. For more information on the database on the periods, please contact the professionals of the Painting Analysis Laboratory by appointment.
The professional bypassing of Zsófia Végvári is incomprehensible, if only because she is the greatest authority in this field and currently has the best equipped laboratory in the country, and she regularly carries out measurements for the authority. As the MFA’s examination is not carried out by an independent, anonymous method, but by taking Tondo SP1 Llc.’s Complex Painting Examination Protocol as a basis for comparison, and with a lack of professional preparation, professional consultation would have been expected. The failure to do so also raises a bias.
g.) The MFA did not even have the technical equipment to read the full signature with the 1941 date, and therefore considers it incomplete, although Tondo SP1 Llc.’s Complex Painting Examination Protocol states that the signature was etched into the still-drying paint in pencil at the time the painting was created, and that the full signature with the date 1941 can be seen under a microscope
(see also: Tondo SP1 Llc.’s Complex Painting Examination Protocol, page 9, page 20).
This also shows that the MFA’s lack of technical equipment may have led them to a completely wrong conclusion, and why the signature and date were not examined under a microscope?
h.) The MFA study does not address the fact that the man with the hat and pipe below the top image in the x-ray is also in the style of Hugó Scheiber (see analogies below), separated from the top female portrait by a sealed layer of solidified lacquer. And it is not able to show at all that even under the portrait of the man with the hat, you can see a started picture4, so it is a double repainted picture (see also: Complex Painting Examination Protocol, page 10). In case there is a picture below the top picture, also in the style and period of the painter, it proves the authenticity of the picture beyond any doubt!!
The fact that the underdrawing of the compositional plan with pencil and brush is not mentioned is also an indication of the limited instrumentation of the MFA (in the same text, see also page 3).
An X-ray image of the picture, which clearly shows the portrait of the man with the hat and pipe.
Analogies from the oeuvre. A similar orange background was detected during the layer analysis as in the third image (see also: Complex Painting Examination Protocol, page 9),
4 What is probably a floral still life, also in the style of the painter – based on the verbal communication of Zsófia Végvári.
A similar floral still life by the artist, as can be started in the picture below.
The MFA did not carry out any layer material testing, while Tondo SP1 Llc. also carried out detailed layer testing (see also: the same text, pages 16-19):
Stereomicroscope images
Zoom: 20x. The detail photographs of the painting clearly show the superimposition of layers of paint. The top and middle layers of paint are separated by a varnish. The stereomicroscope images illustrate the cross-section sampling locations. The cross-section patterns were lifted from the edges and damaged areas of the painting to cause as little damage to the artwork as possible. The damaged parts have been repaired.
Example 6 – turquoise on the left edge
Example 9 – blue hat in the middle top part
h.) The authenticity of the picture examined is confirmed even by the copies. Although the quality of the reproductions is abominably low, they do reflect the form and colour of the original during the painter’s lifetime, and – in the painting sold by the Kieselbach Gallery – the position of the signature with the year, the date 1940, was probably fixed because of the difficulty of reading the date on the original painting, since the number 4 was still legible, but the number 1 is only visible under a microscope
(see also: Tondo SP1 Llc.’s Complex Painting Examination Protocol, page 9). It is precisely this discrepancy in the date that proves that the picture sold by Kieselbach Gallery can only be a copy! The other copies, which have been further deteriorated, are signed in a different place and are of other format. The picture sold by the Kieselbach Gallery may have been the first copy, because it still has the Scheiber signature and the date 1940 on the arm, under the bracelets.
In 2010 and again today, the investigating and prosecuting authorities have refused to investigate the painting sold by the Kieselbach Gallery. Gábor Einspach also suppressed the existence of the Kieselbach copy, which is evidence that he is closely related to Tamás Kieselbach, and therefore his expert’s opinion is biased. The expert opinion of Gábor Einspach cannot be taken into account in the proceedings pursuant to Section 191 of Act XC of 2017.
The first picture is the one I sold, the second is the one sold by the Kieselbach Gallery, the others are increasingly poor copies that have been sold at other international auctions.
In his expert opinion, Gábor Einspach attributed the stylistic features of the painting I sold to Hugó Scheiber “Many of the stylistic features of the painting submitted for examination – the Art Deco female nude broken up by cubic planes and stripped down to geometric shapes, [here he probably meant a portrait – M. S.] the frontal setting, the close-up, the lady’s fluttering curls and sematic, almond-shaped eyes, and the draperies evoking the atmosphere of a sophisticated, contemporary night club venue – all recall the world of Hugó Scheiber’s typical, unmistakable works from around the 1920’s and 1930’s.” [Emphasis added by me - M. S.]
The opinion of the MFA that the examined picture is “most probably not the work of Hugó Scheiber” is a false statement in the knowledge of the above facts.

 

 

 

i.) The MFA’s expert opinion is an institutional-level Holocaust relativisation based on knowledge of Hugó Scheiber’s career.
Hugó Scheiber was a destitute and professionally ostracised artist all his life. In Germany, at the Entartete Kunst (Degenerate Art) exhibition in Munich in July 1937, his paintings were included among the “non-German” works that were most likely later destroyed.5
Endre Barát, a writer and journalist, “hid a dozen of his surviving pictures during the war. Imre Ámos was the last to see them. Ámos did not escape, the fate of the paintings is still unknown... "6 He sold his works for a bowl of food. “Witnesses still living can sometimes be heard to have met him carrying a sack of coal up to his second-floor courtyard room, begging them to buy one of his works – for pennies. It is said that he used to be a pre-eater in the shop window at the Fischer restaurant opposite the Royal Hotel.7
And in the 1940’s, even possession of such a work, which the Nazis considered decadent, was a life-threatening crime, let alone worth forging!
At the age of sixty-seven, he was called up for labour service. He survived the war, but died destitute and ostracised – in 1950, the Fine Arts Association rejected his application for membership.8 His first monograph was published privately only in 1995.
THE WORK IS THE SUBJECT OF A PROFESSIONAL DEBATE AND NOT A CRIMINAL CASE!
I have sent to the FBI’s Art Crime Unit the complete material of the paintings János Mattis Teutsch: Mother with Child and Couple sold by Zsolt Kishonthy, as well as the painting Hugó Scheiber: Woman with Cigarette sold by the Kiselbach Gallery. SOONER OR LATER THE PICTURES WILL APPEAR! In the future, the Hungarian authorities will inevitably have to face the task of clarifying the situation.
For the rest of my life, I consider it my duty to document, archive and publish the case.
The work is denied because it harms the interests of insider market players, but in time the work will be recognised anyway!
SUMMARY:
1.) For the selection of the pigment sample, the MFA did not choose comparable works, but earlier works from 1919, 1930 and 1932, which led to an erroneous conclusion. It should have chosen a work from the 1940’s, by which time the use of titanium white in painting had become widespread.
2.) The MFA certainly confirmed that the work, even as a result of its limited laboratory facilities, could have been produced in the painter’s lifetime from the late nineteen-twenties. The authenticity of the painting could only be doubted if synthetic materials were found in the painting that were typical of the period after the painter’s death.
5 Also compare with: Hugó Scheiber, In: Katalin S. Nagy: Commemorative stones. Holocaust in Hungarian Art 1938-1945. Glória Publisher House, 2006, p. 192-193, also compare with: Entartete Kunst, or degenerate art,,,, in: ARTS.OTHERWISE; 07 JANUARY, 2019.
6 See also: György Szegő: The Monography of Lenke Haulisch on Hugó Scheiber, in: Past and Present 1997/4. p. 116.
7 Also compare with: Lenke Haulisch: Hugó Scheiber. Serpent, Budapest, 1995. p. 77. , Emphasis added by me - M. S.
8 See also, in the same work: p. 88.
9 The already cited Scheiber monography by Haulisch.
3.) The limited laboratory facilities at the MFA did not allow the signature and date to be read, which Tondo SP1 Llc. did.
4.) The date of the signed signature (1941) was verified by Tondo SP1 Llc. by material measurements, which the MFA’s laboratory was not able to do.
5.) The knowledge of Hugó Scheiber’s life and existential situation and the historical context exclude the possibility of forgery.
6.) The copies and their palpable eroded quality also prove that the work existed and that only the image in my former possession can be the original.
7.) The MFA survey was not independent, anonymous, and the control and influence can be seen.
8.) There can be no bias in the case of Tondo SP1 Llc., because according to the contract, I should have paid the same fee also in case of a negative result.
9.) The work is documented as a creation of the Holocaust, a testament to the Jewish spirit and existence.Jewish people will not allow this to be denied! I had the work and documents of the proceedings archived in Hungarian original and English translation in the Hungarian Jewish Archives and in nine Holocaust centres and museums around the world. I will stand up for usurped works to the end!
10.) The inclusion of the picture in the criminal proceedings is legally inadmissible, because I sold the picture with the knowledge of the complex material analysis of Tondo SP1 Llc., which was created in 2011. The buyer of the painting was aware of my dispute with Tamás Kieselbach and bought it with an English and Hungarian copy of the Complex Painting Examination Protocol. The 30-day complaint period was not used and the purchase was positively qualified. I sold the picture for 20% of the actually indicated price offered by the buyer, because I knew that the corrupt Hungarian insider market would never recognize it. At most, the sale may give rise to civil proceedings, which cannot be overturned afterwards. Time is of the essence - i.e. you cannot retroactively invalidate the Tondo SP1 Llc.’s Complex Painting Examination Protocol and its positive final conclusion, which I was aware of at the time of the sale.

The Museum of Fine Arts is not allowed to issue an art assessment under the present legislation. I personally would never have had access to such assessment. The possibility to do so was cancelled in 2008.10
10 “Data provision on artefact assessment by the Museum
The Artwork Assessment Service of the Museum of Fine Arts operated from the opening of the institution in 1908 until September 2008, and was discontinued with effect from 1 September 2008. This data provision service is available for the artefact valuations of the Museum of Fine Arts from 1975 to 2008. Within the framework of the Museum of Fine Arts’ Data Provision Service, the Museum of Fine Arts guarantees that the assessment number provided by the Applicant is accompanied by the assessment opinion issued in the official protocols of the Museum. The museum does not accept any responsibility for the fact that the artworks currently bearing the appraisal identification numbers are in fact identical to the objects originally examined.” https://vasarely.hu/szakmai-szolgaltatasok/ Emphasis added by me - M. S.
For these reasons, the whole procedure is illegal, which can be seen as an excess of power by the investigating authority seeking self-justification. The procedure violates European legal standards on freedom of expression, freedom of thought, freedom of research and the free market.
11.) The whole procedure proves that the investigating authority does not have the staff or the technical and technological capacity to protect artefacts.
The state should create the conditions for independent artefact rating, based on forensic laboratory testing and accessible to all, just as it does for intellectual property in the field of consumer goods.
12.) The fact of the Holocaust relativisation against Gábor Einspach was not only dismissed in the course of the proceedings, but was elevated to an institutionalised level. The case is reminiscent of the concession trials of the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s, when the Hungarian State appropriated Jewish-owned art collections by means of intimidation, on trumped-up charges and in violation of the laws of the time.11
II. János Vaszary On the Front
The examination data sheet showed that the MFA does not have the technical, technological and professional conditions to carry out such a task with proper professionalism.
a.) In the letter accompanying the examination data sheet, the MFA states that “during the entire period of János Vaszary’s (...) active career, all the pigments known and used today were available. In view of this, it was possible to predict that the work of art could have been made in the lifetime of the alleged artist even without diagnostic examination.” [Emphasis added by me - M. S.]
It was found that the painting contains pigments typical of the period of János Vaszary (see also the Examination data sheet, Article 1). Thus, the questioning of the authenticity of the picture is not justified. At the same time, it highlights the contradictory measurement assessment of the MFA, which, in the case of the Hugó Scheiber painting, declares that the painting is most likely not original because of the pigment discrepancy due to the erroneous selection of a sample that does not match in age, but in the case of the watercolour, when the match confirms the age of the painting and thus its originality, it does not take it as evidence. This assessment approach also demonstrates the bias or influence of the MFA.
b.) The current technical capacity of the MFA is not sufficient to test the substrate (see also Paragraph (3) of the findings of the Expert’s examination opinion).
e.) Based on footnote 4, the MFA identifies the supposed artist as János Vaszary, whose pigments in the painting are of his period. The MFA’s examination did not object to the signature.
11 Also compare with: László Mravik: The Long Shadow of the Holocaust - III. Fates of artifacts after 1945. In: Artmagazin 4 2004. Year II. Issue 3. pages 9-12, 50-52.
https://www.artmagazin.hu/articles/archivum/32261ebbef0493f4faaafcca99e5a7a4
d.) Examination sheet 7. According to the summary: “On the basis of the diagnostic tests carried out, it cannot be disproved, nor can it be said that the watercolour is the work of János Vaszary.” - In other words, the examination could not, or rather did not want to, take a – positive or negative - position on the authenticity of the picture. The falsity of the painting has not been confirmed in any way (what’s more!), so it is unacceptable that the Expert’s Examination Opinion considers as relevant the art-historical expertise as the final conclusion, which can only be supported by proof beyond reasonable doubt! [see also: “A fact not proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be imputed to the accused.” Section 7 Paragraph (4) of Act XC of 2017].
According to the findings of the MFA’s Expert’s examination opinion, “the date setting of artefacts created after 1940 cannot be further specified with the help of the available measuring instruments, since there is no element that can be tested, which – in relation to a given age – would mean a reference value clearly confirming or excluding the date of creation. - This statement does not cover the reality, because such a reference value does exist, namely the determination of the level of radioactivity, because the radioactive content of the pre-1945 pictures is much lower than that of the post-WWII ones! Its measurement is decisive for the authenticity of the paintings of the period under examination!12
Zsófia Végvári has such a measuring instrument, and in her laboratory, which is much more modern than the MFA, she could have provided professionally valuable examination results, but her omission in case of this image also created a manipulation niche!
e.) Similar motifs from the oeuvre:

The examples reproduce the same watercolour technique and colour scheme as the picture under examination.
On this basis, the picture should have been recognised as undoubtedly original!
The theme is repeated countless times in Vaszary’s work, but in different ways, he conveys the dramatic situation, the hopelessness and the chaos. This topic is not for sale, its drama forces introspection. The forger is preparing his work for sale, not for documentation,
12 Also compare with: A lecture on techniques for detecting fake works of art was held on the campus in Gyöngyös. In: Counterfeiting of works of art. 21.04.2022.
https://www.heol.hu/helyi-kozelet/2022/04/a-hamis-mukincsek-felismeresitechnikairol-tartottak-eloadast-a-gyongvosi-campuson
-
.
...
János Vaszary
??????
János
or for thinking about it. The picture has a very deep meaning. This harrowing subject could only be portrayed by those who were part of the historical events. Vaszary prepared his pictures of the First World War as a war reporter.
The picture is a document of Hungarian history, to deny it is capital treason!
d.) I sold the picture at the repeated request of the buyer, considering his modest means. The sale was made by the free and consensual will of two parties. The buyer did not make use of the 30-day right of complaint. The authority seized it against the will of the buyer. If there were any problems, it would be a matter for civil proceedings. The seizure of the painting was an unnecessary harassment of an elderly man.
I reject the subjective “expert’s opinion” of Gábor Einspach, which was not supported by the laboratory analysis.
The examination of the MFA shows that the Vaszary watercolour is original!
III. József Nemes Lampérth: Standing female nude
a.) The selection of the work from the 30 illegally taken works of art is manipulative and misleading, given the possibilities of the MFA’s examination.
Article 3 of the Examination Data Sheet:
The determination of the organic components of works of art made with charcoal, chalk or graphite is not possible with the measuring instruments currently available in the Museum of Fine Arts, because the pool of instruments (as the most frequent type of artefacts) is primarily suitable for the analysis of painted layers. In the case of this work, therefore, art historical expertise may be of primary relevance.
No latent visual world can be detected behind the upper layer of the graphics under study.
The unlawfully seized painting of János Mattis Teutsch titled Transylvanian Venus or the Female Couple, which was the reason for the whole procedure, should have been examined in a laboratory, because the oil paint material would have given the MFA’s modest technical equipment the opportunity for an evaluable examination. Examination of the two pictures would certainly have confirmed that they were taken between the two World Wars, which would have been decisive evidence of the unfoundedness, illegality and motive of the proceedings.
b.) According to the examination data sheet:
5. The expert shall describe his observations on the performance of the instrumental examination of the additional works of art included in the forensic expert opinion prepared by forensic expert Zsolt Kishonthy.
The majority of the creators of the works listed in the expert’s opinion of ordinal no. 3/2021 dated 22 February 2021, recorded by forensic expert Zsolt Kishonthy, died after the spread of the pigments currently used in contemporary art and known to us, i.e. all the pigments that are still used today were available during the entire period of their active creative period. Thus, even without a diagnostic examination, it can be stated that the works of art listed in the expert opinion were made in the lifetime of the alleged artists, but we cannot hope for a more precise dating from the material test.
6. Other observations by the expert: –
7. SUMMARY:
On the basis of the diagnostic tests carried out, it cannot be refuted, but it cannot be stated either that the graphic is the work of József Nemes Lampérth.
On this basis, it can be stated that the examination of the MFA could not establish any facts excluding doubt or proving the originality of the work of József Nemes Lampérth.

c.) It would be a research task, if there is still intellectual capacity and expertise for this in Hungary, to register the charcoal, unsigned portrait of József Nemes Lampérth, which until now has been considered the work of sculptor Géza Csorba, based on the shading technique applied, and to verify the similar technique of the indicated nude, and to actually register it as a self-portrait, and on this basis to register it as the work of Nemes Lampérth in the future.
The N. L. nude and the Nemes Lampérth portrait attributed to Géza Csorba
Article 5 on the examination data sheet classified all of the other 29 seized artworks as contemporary with the artists’ ages, and states that “the artworks may have been made during the lifetime of the alleged artists”. So, for the other 29 remaining pictures, there is no evidence to exclude their authenticity, but rather to support their authenticity! [“A fact not proved beyond reasonable doubt cannot be imputed to the accused.” Section 7 Paragraph (4) of Act XC of 2017].
Article 5 of the examinationi data sheet:
5. The expert shall describe his observations on the performance of the instrumental examination of the additional works of art included in the forensic expert opinion prepared by forensic expert Zsolt Kishonthy.
The majority of the creators of the works of art listed in the expert’s opinion of ordinal no. 3/2021 dated 22 February 2021, recorded by forensic expert Zsolt Kishonthy, died after the spread of the pigments currently used in contemporary art and known to us, i.e. all the pigments that are still used today were available during the entire period of their active creative period. Thus, even without a diagnostic examination, it can be stated that the works of art listed in the expert’s opinion were made in the lifetime of the alleged artists, but we cannot hope for a more precise dating from the material test either.
I have not received any information about the fact that all the pictures have been subjected to MFA investigation!
The authority must exclude Zsolt Kishonthy from the proceedings as an expert pursuant to Section 191 of Act XC of 2017.
The works of art in question, although part of a private collection, represent and enrich Hungarian cultural values, and in the case of Jewish artefacts, the cultural values of Hungarian and world Jewry. The unjustified denial of these artefacts is therefore a serious cultural crime, equivalent to the crime of treason and Holocaust relativisation!
Based on the above, I demand the return of all seized works!
Sajóvelezd, 20.02.2022
Miklós Sáránszki
H-3656 Sajóvelezd Bánattanya 1.
info@saranszkifarm.hu