What do you think?
Rate this book
Master Thieves: The Boston Gangsters Who Pulled Off the World's Greatest Art Heist
An account of the Boston criminal underworld's role in the infamous Gardner Museum art theft traces the contributions of Louis Royce and Ralph Rossetti and examines the FBI's announcement that they had identified those responsible.
393 pages, Hardcover
First published March 10, 2015
139 people are currently reading
1637 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 173 reviews
October 11, 2015
1.5 stars. I am super interested in this story, having lived in Boston and read/seen several other books & movies on the topic. But the writing is so bad that I cannot forgive it. Not only is it incredibly sloppy, but the author contradicts himself and also repeats himself so frequently that I began to suspect that most of this writing began life as separate short pieces that have been strung together with no one bothering to edit the piece as a whole for presentation in long form.
I work in publishing and have a very good understand of how this happened (basically, the author has a good platform and the topic is sensational enough for some easy marketing + outsourcing and cuts to staffing:books ratio means there is very little editing or supervision of writing).
When I realized how consistently terrible the writing and (lack of) editing was, I began to mark them. A few of my favorites, with page numbers from my hardback first printing:
-p. 22: There is an ellipses that isn't supposed to be there. It appears to be the kind of (...) that you put in your writing to remind yourself to fill in later. Except by all appearances neither the author, copyeditor, editor, nor anyone ever read the manuscript again to even notice: "the pair made it seem that they were members of an emergency utility crew and set up orange cones around a nearby.... With Devin providing lookout, Royce swung the bucket" and so on.
-p. 51: paragraphs are in the wrong order. Yes, I am serious. The thieves are inexplicably, out of nowhere, "frustrated by their failure", but read on and you learn about the attempt in the next paragraph.
-p. 176: The author claims "The FBI has committed tremendous manpower and forensic resources to the case" but spends the rest of the book making the opposite claim as to their efforts.
-p. 217: The author describes the thieves' disguises as "private security uniforms that could have been bought at any army supply store" and yet in two other locations writes about how the only witnesses to see the uniforms describe them as legit-looking police uniforms, all the way down to the pins and insignia. (Example on p. 44: "they looked to be dressed in police uniforms, right down to the union pins fastened to their shirt collars".)
I work in publishing and have a very good understand of how this happened (basically, the author has a good platform and the topic is sensational enough for some easy marketing + outsourcing and cuts to staffing:books ratio means there is very little editing or supervision of writing).
When I realized how consistently terrible the writing and (lack of) editing was, I began to mark them. A few of my favorites, with page numbers from my hardback first printing:
-p. 22: There is an ellipses that isn't supposed to be there. It appears to be the kind of (...) that you put in your writing to remind yourself to fill in later. Except by all appearances neither the author, copyeditor, editor, nor anyone ever read the manuscript again to even notice: "the pair made it seem that they were members of an emergency utility crew and set up orange cones around a nearby.... With Devin providing lookout, Royce swung the bucket" and so on.
-p. 51: paragraphs are in the wrong order. Yes, I am serious. The thieves are inexplicably, out of nowhere, "frustrated by their failure", but read on and you learn about the attempt in the next paragraph.
-p. 176: The author claims "The FBI has committed tremendous manpower and forensic resources to the case" but spends the rest of the book making the opposite claim as to their efforts.
-p. 217: The author describes the thieves' disguises as "private security uniforms that could have been bought at any army supply store" and yet in two other locations writes about how the only witnesses to see the uniforms describe them as legit-looking police uniforms, all the way down to the pins and insignia. (Example on p. 44: "they looked to be dressed in police uniforms, right down to the union pins fastened to their shirt collars".)
September 9, 2015
I stole—er, borrowed—this from my dad, who borrowed it from the library, because if you know me you know I can’t resist a heist story. Doesn’t matter if it’s movie, book, video game, whatever. Doesn’t matter if it’s a bank heist, an art heist, or even a golf heist. I just love the intricacy of the planning required for such major robberies. I like being walked through the timeline, the details, and seeing what might go wrong. Heists are like the opposite of a mystery novel, because you know the whole story going into it (and seem to be cheering for the bad guys, unless their heist is presented as somehow noble).
In Master Thieves, we don’t actually know who planned and carried off the heist that robbed the Isabella Gardner Museum of several precious works of art. Stephen Kurkjian has some theories formed from years of investigation as a reporter and interviews with experts on art, art theft, and Bostonian crime. But neither he nor the FBI has managed to recover the lost works.
I was not familiar with the Gardner heist, but Kurkjian gets us up to speed and then spends most of his time focusing on the fruitless FBI investigation and the various players in the Boston underworld who might have had a stake in robbing the museum. The way Kurkjian presents it, the FBI focused solely on chasing leads—some of which were dubious—whereas his theory has formed from pursuing the motive of the crime. Apparently art theft was a way of copping a deal with the authorities: cut short a prison sentence, and we’ll return this priceless work of art unharmed. Kind of like a less bloody ransom. So Kurkjian believes the Gardner job started as an attempt to get that type of deal for an imprisoned Boston mob honcho—but things went awry, and somewhere along the way the paintings vanished. It’s possible, perhaps even likely, that anyone who knew their whereabouts is now dead.
For a journalist Kurkjian’s writing leaves something to be desired. Alternatively, perhaps it was just the book’s editing that suffered. Whatever the cause, Master Thieves has some discrepancies that detract from the smoothness of the experience. There are a few areas where it seems that the flow of paragraphs should have been rearranged—things alluded to as if we already knew about them, but then they are introduced in subsequent paragraphs. There is also some duplication across the chapters. Similarly, in later chapters Kurkjian will introduce someone who featured in an earlier chapter as if we had never seen them before. It’s almost as if each chapter was constructed in a self-contained fashion before being welded together into a book.
When I wasn’t busy pondering the structure and style of the book, though, the actual information that Kurkjian delivers is interesting. He lays out the relationships among different elements of the Boston underworld. He explains where he found his information, talks about the various interviews he had (or didn’t have), and also gives us a sense of how people’s attitudes changed over time. One thread that runs through the entire book is a sense of regret that the public doesn’t recognize this heist as being more serious than they do. Kurkjian agrees with the museum representatives and others who believe that this art represents an invaluable part of our heritage; he is enthusiastic about the potential for crowdsourcing to track down the missing paintings.
I am somewhat sympathetic to this point of view. While it’s true that there are many more serious issues we could spend our energy on, I don’t think that means art heists need to be a low priority. They’re part of our history. And the idea that access to such history might be irrevocably denied because pieces were stolen and then hidden away forever seems odious to me.
Kurkjian also places the theft in context. He explains how the museum had extremely poor security leading up to the theft—and how one thief’s observations to this effect might have inspired the theft, albeit years later. Following the theft, the Gardner and numerous other museums had a “wake up call” and finally found the money to renovate. That’s always what it comes down to, of course—money. Kurkjian chronicles the frustration the security directory at the Gardner experienced trying to draw money from the trustees; in parallel, he also points out that his criticism of the FBI investigation is not criticism of the agents but rather the bureaucracy and lack of funding hamstringing the entire case.
As someone who has worked at an art gallery that has only minimal security, I could really empathize with this part. Publicly-funded, non-profit institutions have a hard enough time getting money to keep the doors open; renovations and security equipment cost a lot, especially if you have to keep upgrading over the years. Yet what is that cost compared to the loss of important artwork? These are the sorts of equations that don’t often enough make their way into the chequebook.
Master Thieves shed light on a heist I hadn’t heard about. It has a fairly broad overview of the context of the theft and its investigation from someone very familiar with the story. Aside from the fact that we don’t know who did it—which the author, admittedly, can’t help—my only real complaint is about the book’s structure and writing. It’s competent, but it doesn’t quite create that romance that always seems to surround heists for me.
In Master Thieves, we don’t actually know who planned and carried off the heist that robbed the Isabella Gardner Museum of several precious works of art. Stephen Kurkjian has some theories formed from years of investigation as a reporter and interviews with experts on art, art theft, and Bostonian crime. But neither he nor the FBI has managed to recover the lost works.
I was not familiar with the Gardner heist, but Kurkjian gets us up to speed and then spends most of his time focusing on the fruitless FBI investigation and the various players in the Boston underworld who might have had a stake in robbing the museum. The way Kurkjian presents it, the FBI focused solely on chasing leads—some of which were dubious—whereas his theory has formed from pursuing the motive of the crime. Apparently art theft was a way of copping a deal with the authorities: cut short a prison sentence, and we’ll return this priceless work of art unharmed. Kind of like a less bloody ransom. So Kurkjian believes the Gardner job started as an attempt to get that type of deal for an imprisoned Boston mob honcho—but things went awry, and somewhere along the way the paintings vanished. It’s possible, perhaps even likely, that anyone who knew their whereabouts is now dead.
For a journalist Kurkjian’s writing leaves something to be desired. Alternatively, perhaps it was just the book’s editing that suffered. Whatever the cause, Master Thieves has some discrepancies that detract from the smoothness of the experience. There are a few areas where it seems that the flow of paragraphs should have been rearranged—things alluded to as if we already knew about them, but then they are introduced in subsequent paragraphs. There is also some duplication across the chapters. Similarly, in later chapters Kurkjian will introduce someone who featured in an earlier chapter as if we had never seen them before. It’s almost as if each chapter was constructed in a self-contained fashion before being welded together into a book.
When I wasn’t busy pondering the structure and style of the book, though, the actual information that Kurkjian delivers is interesting. He lays out the relationships among different elements of the Boston underworld. He explains where he found his information, talks about the various interviews he had (or didn’t have), and also gives us a sense of how people’s attitudes changed over time. One thread that runs through the entire book is a sense of regret that the public doesn’t recognize this heist as being more serious than they do. Kurkjian agrees with the museum representatives and others who believe that this art represents an invaluable part of our heritage; he is enthusiastic about the potential for crowdsourcing to track down the missing paintings.
I am somewhat sympathetic to this point of view. While it’s true that there are many more serious issues we could spend our energy on, I don’t think that means art heists need to be a low priority. They’re part of our history. And the idea that access to such history might be irrevocably denied because pieces were stolen and then hidden away forever seems odious to me.
Kurkjian also places the theft in context. He explains how the museum had extremely poor security leading up to the theft—and how one thief’s observations to this effect might have inspired the theft, albeit years later. Following the theft, the Gardner and numerous other museums had a “wake up call” and finally found the money to renovate. That’s always what it comes down to, of course—money. Kurkjian chronicles the frustration the security directory at the Gardner experienced trying to draw money from the trustees; in parallel, he also points out that his criticism of the FBI investigation is not criticism of the agents but rather the bureaucracy and lack of funding hamstringing the entire case.
As someone who has worked at an art gallery that has only minimal security, I could really empathize with this part. Publicly-funded, non-profit institutions have a hard enough time getting money to keep the doors open; renovations and security equipment cost a lot, especially if you have to keep upgrading over the years. Yet what is that cost compared to the loss of important artwork? These are the sorts of equations that don’t often enough make their way into the chequebook.
Master Thieves shed light on a heist I hadn’t heard about. It has a fairly broad overview of the context of the theft and its investigation from someone very familiar with the story. Aside from the fact that we don’t know who did it—which the author, admittedly, can’t help—my only real complaint is about the book’s structure and writing. It’s competent, but it doesn’t quite create that romance that always seems to surround heists for me.
September 21, 2019
It's most enjoyable when a nonfiction book often reads like a fictional one. This could be made into a fine movie, but it'd probably have a better ending with the artwork actually being recovered...and to date it still hasn't been. I visit the Gardner Museum pretty regularly and they've left the empty frames of the stolen artwork on the walls, waiting for their return. The theft took place a few months before I graduated from the art school that is right next door, so I was well aware of it the time, but this book clued me in on the level of criminal gang activity going on in Boston back then that I was completely ignorant of.
May 15, 2025
If I wanted to read circular, self contradicting, and incomplete reasoning that doesn't even lead to an attempt answer the original question... I would have graded my students' homework.
June 15, 2015
In March of 1990 two men dressed as police officers knocked on the door of the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum in Boston. An inexperienced security guard allowed them through the door. The two guards on duty were tied up in the basement and the thieves had free reign in the museum. Forty-five minutes later they existed the museum with thirteen works of art valued at $500 million dollars. This is the largest unsolved art theft in history. Mr. Kurkjian’s book is the latest of many books (both fiction and non-fiction) written on the subject over the last 25 years.
In “Master Thieves” the reader is updated on the investigation and introduced to the gangs and organized groups in Boston long rumoured to have been involved in the theft. Mr. Kurkjian uses many of the contacts made during his years as a reporter at the Boston Globe to obtain interviews, gather ideas and offer speculation about who might actually have “pulled the heist”. Mr. Kurkjian does not pull any punches when it comes to his criticism of the FBI investigation. He feels that they dropped the ball in more ways than one; turning down help from local law enforcement agencies who may have had better contacts and informants as well as not following up on substantial and very credible leads which they determined “not useful”. Is he correct in his criticism? He makes a strong case.
As Mr. Kurkjian points out in his afterward, he did not spend a lot of pages discussing the theft itself because most readers will be familiar with the details. Although he always does draw the reader’s attention back to the Gardner robbery, this is definitely a time line of underworld activity in Boston and surrounding areas from the mid 20th century to the present. Interestingly, Mr. Kurkjian, at the end of the book, offers the reader not only a viable motive behind the crime but also does a little finger pointing in the direction of whom he thinks are the most likely suspects.
I have read about and been fascinated by not only the theft but by Isabella Gardner’s life and how the museum came into being so this book was right up my alley of interest. “Master Thieves” is probably not the best book to pick up without at least a little background about the museum and the robbery.
This year marked the 25th anniversary of the theft and no one has been arrested nor has anyone had a verifiable sighting of the valuable pieces of art in all that time. It was on my bucket list to see the Gardner Museum and a few years ago I was able to do just that. I found the museum itself rather overwhelming and it truly is a breath stopping moment to walk into the Dutch Room and see the empty frames hanging on the wall. After all the reading, and especially after finishing this book, my personal opinion is that if the paintings have not been destroyed over the past 25 years, they will surface accidentally when all of the key players in the mystery have died and a relative comes across them hidden away in an attic somewhere.
If your interest is piqued a little about the Isabella Stewart Gardner robbery this an excellent website to check out http://www.gardnermuseum.org/resource....
In “Master Thieves” the reader is updated on the investigation and introduced to the gangs and organized groups in Boston long rumoured to have been involved in the theft. Mr. Kurkjian uses many of the contacts made during his years as a reporter at the Boston Globe to obtain interviews, gather ideas and offer speculation about who might actually have “pulled the heist”. Mr. Kurkjian does not pull any punches when it comes to his criticism of the FBI investigation. He feels that they dropped the ball in more ways than one; turning down help from local law enforcement agencies who may have had better contacts and informants as well as not following up on substantial and very credible leads which they determined “not useful”. Is he correct in his criticism? He makes a strong case.
As Mr. Kurkjian points out in his afterward, he did not spend a lot of pages discussing the theft itself because most readers will be familiar with the details. Although he always does draw the reader’s attention back to the Gardner robbery, this is definitely a time line of underworld activity in Boston and surrounding areas from the mid 20th century to the present. Interestingly, Mr. Kurkjian, at the end of the book, offers the reader not only a viable motive behind the crime but also does a little finger pointing in the direction of whom he thinks are the most likely suspects.
I have read about and been fascinated by not only the theft but by Isabella Gardner’s life and how the museum came into being so this book was right up my alley of interest. “Master Thieves” is probably not the best book to pick up without at least a little background about the museum and the robbery.
This year marked the 25th anniversary of the theft and no one has been arrested nor has anyone had a verifiable sighting of the valuable pieces of art in all that time. It was on my bucket list to see the Gardner Museum and a few years ago I was able to do just that. I found the museum itself rather overwhelming and it truly is a breath stopping moment to walk into the Dutch Room and see the empty frames hanging on the wall. After all the reading, and especially after finishing this book, my personal opinion is that if the paintings have not been destroyed over the past 25 years, they will surface accidentally when all of the key players in the mystery have died and a relative comes across them hidden away in an attic somewhere.
If your interest is piqued a little about the Isabella Stewart Gardner robbery this an excellent website to check out http://www.gardnermuseum.org/resource....
March 27, 2017
Early March 18, 1990, while revelers continued to celebrate St. Patrick's Day into the wee hours in Boston, two thieves dressed as police officers gained entry into the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, easily neutralized the two guards and the practically non-existent security system, and made off with 13 masterpieces valued at nearly half a billion dollars in less that an hour. Yes, billion. Almost 26 years later, speculation remains as to who was responsible for the heist, and to date, not one of those pieces has been seen or recovered. It remains the largest art heist in history.
I have been fascinated with this heist since news first broke the morning following the theft. I initially thought it was only a matter of time before the authorities closed in on the culprits and returned the artwork to its rightful place, but that's yet to happen. It amazes me that with all the FBI agents investigating, and with all the mobsters suspected of being involved, NOTHING concrete has come to light after all this time. I knew that no breakthroughs had been made in recent years, so I wasn't expecting the author to solve this case once and for all, but I thought, having only recently been published, it would be a bit more comprehensive, including all information that had been gathered from the years leading up to the theft to any recent developments that I may have missed, since it's no longer front page news.
I love that the author included a brief description of the cast of characters at the beginning of the book, because there are many; yet, it just wasn't enough...I still got confused. Perhaps if they had been presented in a flow chart format, so the reader could easily determine which foot soldier was loyal to which mob boss, that certainly would have helped. What definitely didn't help was the writing style itself. It is a bit repetitive, and the overall style is not very engaging. There is really little background provided and little in terms of distinguishing one mobster from another: when they were in jail, when they were killed, and what any of that had to do with the heist itself.
Without a doubt, an in-depth discussion of mob involvement is integral to this theft, but it was impossible to keep all the names and affiliations straight. Perhaps if they had been presented in chapters grouped by mob faction, with the flow chart of names and their bio included at the opening of each chapter, followed by the history of that particular gang, and then delving into their suspected involvement. The way this was presented was not very organized, and while repetitive, the repetition did not help clear up any confusion, so the mobsters and their slayings and criminal enterprises is overwhelming and their relevance to the heist is not always clear.
Overall, I was really looking forward to reading this book, but it just wasn't very well organized and ultimately didn't deliver.
I have been fascinated with this heist since news first broke the morning following the theft. I initially thought it was only a matter of time before the authorities closed in on the culprits and returned the artwork to its rightful place, but that's yet to happen. It amazes me that with all the FBI agents investigating, and with all the mobsters suspected of being involved, NOTHING concrete has come to light after all this time. I knew that no breakthroughs had been made in recent years, so I wasn't expecting the author to solve this case once and for all, but I thought, having only recently been published, it would be a bit more comprehensive, including all information that had been gathered from the years leading up to the theft to any recent developments that I may have missed, since it's no longer front page news.
I love that the author included a brief description of the cast of characters at the beginning of the book, because there are many; yet, it just wasn't enough...I still got confused. Perhaps if they had been presented in a flow chart format, so the reader could easily determine which foot soldier was loyal to which mob boss, that certainly would have helped. What definitely didn't help was the writing style itself. It is a bit repetitive, and the overall style is not very engaging. There is really little background provided and little in terms of distinguishing one mobster from another: when they were in jail, when they were killed, and what any of that had to do with the heist itself.
Without a doubt, an in-depth discussion of mob involvement is integral to this theft, but it was impossible to keep all the names and affiliations straight. Perhaps if they had been presented in chapters grouped by mob faction, with the flow chart of names and their bio included at the opening of each chapter, followed by the history of that particular gang, and then delving into their suspected involvement. The way this was presented was not very organized, and while repetitive, the repetition did not help clear up any confusion, so the mobsters and their slayings and criminal enterprises is overwhelming and their relevance to the heist is not always clear.
Overall, I was really looking forward to reading this book, but it just wasn't very well organized and ultimately didn't deliver.
April 3, 2015
This is the best reporting I have read about the Gardner theft to date. Kurkjian has been reporting on this case for 25 years and this is the culmination of all of his work and research. To me, his theories are plausible and he lays out his reasoning very clearly. As Anthony Amore, current security director at the Gardner, is quick to point out, his conclusion is only another theory. It must be said, however, that what the FBI is positing is also only a theory and the latest information that they have released regarding who they think perpetrated the theft is strikingly similar to that put forth by Kurkjian. So...draw your own conclusions! Kurkjian also gives an interesting history of underworld scuttlebutt from before the theft that details previous near attempts and intentions, which is chilling in itself. He is very respectful of current director Anne Hawley (as he should be, from my point of view), and includes insight from former Board members that illuminate why security was so lax prior to 1990. One thing he doesn't do, (again from my point of view) is shine the spotlight nearly hard enough on certain other individuals formerly connected with the Gardner whom I think could bear more scrutiny.
This account, along with the chapter about the Gardner theft in former FBI Art Squad director Robert Wittman's book, Priceless, are the two sources that are most compelling to me about this event. Both Wittman, who worked directly on the case, and Kurkjian are scathing about the inept and seemingly deliberately obstructive role that members of the FBI played in keeping this case from being solved in the past. Hopefully it's not too late for current FBI agents and Amore to rescue this art and set things right.
This account, along with the chapter about the Gardner theft in former FBI Art Squad director Robert Wittman's book, Priceless, are the two sources that are most compelling to me about this event. Both Wittman, who worked directly on the case, and Kurkjian are scathing about the inept and seemingly deliberately obstructive role that members of the FBI played in keeping this case from being solved in the past. Hopefully it's not too late for current FBI agents and Amore to rescue this art and set things right.
Read
May 2, 2024DNF
April 23, 2015
I'm not sure why I'm fascinated by the Gardner heist - maybe it's the simple fact of an unsolved mystery and missing great art. However, I thought Kurkjian was a bit repetitive in his writing, telling the same thing over and over. I think you could read the first chapter, where he describes the theft and then the last one, where he draws his conclusions and you'd pretty much know what was in the entire book. That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the book could have been better edited/arranged. Still wondering where is the art and who took it?
April 30, 2021
If you watched "This is a Robbery" on Netflix and thought "I could use about seven more hours of this", then this is the book for you. It adds a lot of new information on the art heist and gives a laundry list of ways the FBI messed up and continues to mess up the investigation. It's written in a journalistic style so don't expect a thrilling page-turner but the story has enough intrigue on its own to keep you interested.
September 13, 2016
This book was pretty disappointing. For someone who thought about the robbery for 20 years, there's a whole lot of "no new information" here. I've read better about the Gardner.
March 30, 2025
Ebook note: narrative text was 86% of whole, remainder was notes, etc.
This could have been a really engrossing and interesting book about a still unsolved theft, and to be fair, I did read til the end. But man did it need an editor! I think one of the other reviewers here is right, and this was thrown together from a series of periodical articles, because there's a lot of unnecessarily repeated information, the kind of thing you'd put in if it had been weeks or months since you'd last written about the subject and couldn't count on the reader remembering, or had to make sure to include people who hadn't read the previous articles. (For example, we are told about how a mobster -- who has AFAICT no actual connection to the Gardner theft -- was captured by someone calling the FBI to report they'd seen the mobster's girlfriend around town. We get this information at least three times, maybe four.)
Other complaints about the prose: Kurkjian's style is often incredibly awkward, leading to a lot of accidentally hilarious clauses: describing someone as "the son of a police chief who turned into a legendary art thief in New England" (it's the son who was the art thief, not the police chief), or this: "...the painting he took a fancy to, an eighteenth-century portrait of a stuffy-looking British nobleman, happened to catch his fancy."
Or this overwrought sentence, which winds up being its own paragraph:
"For the then-forty-six-year-old Hawley, who had sought the position in the hope of restoring the Gardner to its turn-of-the-century brilliance, and who had neither the inclination nor the ability to solve crimes, she soon added that most high-profile responsibility to the long list of duties her job entailed."
There is so much extraneous and irrelevant detail about various people in this book, it winds up muddying the whole narrative and making it hard to understand what's important to the story and what isn't. It's like Kurkjian couldn't resist putting in everything he learned, no matter how trivial (example: at a meeting between someone who maybe had held the stolen paintings for the theives and the FBI, it's noted that the possible holder's lawyer ordered in "special sandwiches from [the client's] favorite Italian restaurant"; the feds, however, "brought their own sandwiches -- from a local Subway." It's utterly irrelevant and honestly not even very amusing. WHO CARES ABOUT THE CATERING???) There's an entire chapter about the Boston organized crime scene that AFAICT had no actual bearing on any of the rest of the book apart from introducing more irrelevant and needless detail -- I skimmed the entire chapter and felt no deficit in understanding the remainder of the book.
Oh, and there's the part in chapter 2 where 2 paragraphs are completely out of order, leading to some confusion on the reader's part as to why the thieves are frustrated about something. It's a very basic, but glaring error that could have been fixed if anyone had taken the time to proofread the text.
Honestly, I'm not even sure why I finished this book. I do not feel better informed about the Gardner Art Museum theft of 1990. I do not think Kurkjian has any particular insight into the case. I mainly feel like reading this was a waste of my time.
This could have been a really engrossing and interesting book about a still unsolved theft, and to be fair, I did read til the end. But man did it need an editor! I think one of the other reviewers here is right, and this was thrown together from a series of periodical articles, because there's a lot of unnecessarily repeated information, the kind of thing you'd put in if it had been weeks or months since you'd last written about the subject and couldn't count on the reader remembering, or had to make sure to include people who hadn't read the previous articles. (For example, we are told about how a mobster -- who has AFAICT no actual connection to the Gardner theft -- was captured by someone calling the FBI to report they'd seen the mobster's girlfriend around town. We get this information at least three times, maybe four.)
Other complaints about the prose: Kurkjian's style is often incredibly awkward, leading to a lot of accidentally hilarious clauses: describing someone as "the son of a police chief who turned into a legendary art thief in New England" (it's the son who was the art thief, not the police chief), or this: "...the painting he took a fancy to, an eighteenth-century portrait of a stuffy-looking British nobleman, happened to catch his fancy."
Or this overwrought sentence, which winds up being its own paragraph:
"For the then-forty-six-year-old Hawley, who had sought the position in the hope of restoring the Gardner to its turn-of-the-century brilliance, and who had neither the inclination nor the ability to solve crimes, she soon added that most high-profile responsibility to the long list of duties her job entailed."
There is so much extraneous and irrelevant detail about various people in this book, it winds up muddying the whole narrative and making it hard to understand what's important to the story and what isn't. It's like Kurkjian couldn't resist putting in everything he learned, no matter how trivial (example: at a meeting between someone who maybe had held the stolen paintings for the theives and the FBI, it's noted that the possible holder's lawyer ordered in "special sandwiches from [the client's] favorite Italian restaurant"; the feds, however, "brought their own sandwiches -- from a local Subway." It's utterly irrelevant and honestly not even very amusing. WHO CARES ABOUT THE CATERING???) There's an entire chapter about the Boston organized crime scene that AFAICT had no actual bearing on any of the rest of the book apart from introducing more irrelevant and needless detail -- I skimmed the entire chapter and felt no deficit in understanding the remainder of the book.
Oh, and there's the part in chapter 2 where 2 paragraphs are completely out of order, leading to some confusion on the reader's part as to why the thieves are frustrated about something. It's a very basic, but glaring error that could have been fixed if anyone had taken the time to proofread the text.
Honestly, I'm not even sure why I finished this book. I do not feel better informed about the Gardner Art Museum theft of 1990. I do not think Kurkjian has any particular insight into the case. I mainly feel like reading this was a waste of my time.
January 22, 2018
Stephen Kurkjian relives the 1990 robbery at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum and reviews the theories on possible criminals. As a Boston Globe journalist covering the theft from the very first day, his coverage and details of the actual break in and the management at the ISGM's response was great. (I was puzzled by the overall reviews at that point!) It's also written in a fairly straightforward manner; digestible, if you will.
Then, I got to the second chapter. I realize that in cities with two major papers, bashing the competition is considered acceptable behavior. That said, if Mr. K had been offered a ride with the same possible criminals to see the art work, he too would have jumped into the van blind folded. Insulting the possible naivete of others just isn’t nice.
Then, we went into endless theories. Endless. Aside from the fact that the actual individuals involved in the robbery were thugs and had ties in Boston, the theories were scattered. I found his insistence that the robbery was related to the mob interesting, but no more grounded than other possibilities. I associate organized crime break ins as having a purpose: financial gain or damaging the other ‘team’, if you will. The ISGM theft theories provided no true financial gain. There were no ties to black market overseas collectors or antiquity dealers. I don’t think most of the thugs Mr. Kurkjian pitched as possible robbers truly appreciated art.
Of course, it is a mystery and as time continues, seems less like to be solved. That made the end of the book even more disheartening!
Then, I got to the second chapter. I realize that in cities with two major papers, bashing the competition is considered acceptable behavior. That said, if Mr. K had been offered a ride with the same possible criminals to see the art work, he too would have jumped into the van blind folded. Insulting the possible naivete of others just isn’t nice.
Then, we went into endless theories. Endless. Aside from the fact that the actual individuals involved in the robbery were thugs and had ties in Boston, the theories were scattered. I found his insistence that the robbery was related to the mob interesting, but no more grounded than other possibilities. I associate organized crime break ins as having a purpose: financial gain or damaging the other ‘team’, if you will. The ISGM theft theories provided no true financial gain. There were no ties to black market overseas collectors or antiquity dealers. I don’t think most of the thugs Mr. Kurkjian pitched as possible robbers truly appreciated art.
Of course, it is a mystery and as time continues, seems less like to be solved. That made the end of the book even more disheartening!
April 27, 2020
The author worked very hard to make a whole book about an unsolved mystery by rehashing every dead end, every rumor, every possibility of motive and perpetrator. And then he repeated himself. When you're done, you realize they aren't any closer to solving the crime than they were in 1980 when they botched the original investigation. As time goes by, the most likely candidates are going to the grave with their secrets intact. I think it's highly likely there will never be a happy ending for the Gardener Museum.
November 12, 2024
2 stars. Incredibly interesting story hampered by low quality writing and editing errors. I'm a sucker for any heist stories and I know of this one so was very excited to read this work - disappointed.
April 14, 2023
It could’ve been like 100 pages shorter. It felt like he didn’t know where to end
August 14, 2025
This book looks sound, but it also looks long and filled with unpleasant characters. Real gangsters are not charming and they are not loyal. One chapter was enough.
December 15, 2019
Dry. Much more about Boston Gang culture than art theft. Too many jumps between suspects and timelines and I could never keep the gangster stories straight. The podcast is much more compelling.
July 31, 2018
In 1990 2 gangsters dressed up like policemen pulled off what might be the most famous art heist in history--they stole 13 works of art from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum. Amongst the stolen items were Rembrandts, Vermeers, Degas' and a Manet. They were valued at a total of 500 million dollars. And then they seemed to disappear. The FBI, the reporters, the museum, and even some of the crime families have been working to solve this mystery for the past 28 years.
This book gave me exactly what I wanted--all of the details about the case, all of the guesses, and information on all of the parties involved. Kurkjian is well suited as the author of this book--he wrote stories about the heist for the Boston Globe for many years, so he has an emotional connection as well as knowledge and research ties to the case. Kurkjian's law degree also allows him access to court documents that a regular author wouldn't be able to get to. He even interviewed crime bosses to make sure he was capturing the dynamics of this crime Lord's demise and the uprising of the new crime families.
I wish I had kept track of all of the players on a spreadsheet. There were so many people and so many names to keep on top of--especially tricky with an audio book.
My best guess is that the art work was accidentally destroyed when it was stored under a shed and the ground water rose, filling the hiding spot. I don't think that "Bobby the Cook" Gentile will ever admit to this; it's too shameful. But I just don't think we're ever getting the artwork back. I definitely don't think it's hanging on some rich person's wall somewhere. And if anyone did know the location of the stolen artwork--then between the 5 million reward and the promise for immunity from jail they would have come forward by now.
I also think that one of the night watchmen (Abath) that let the fake policemen in that night was in on it. There are so many holes to his story that just don't add up.
I followed up the reading of this book with a visit to the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum--which is lovely. They still hang the empty frames of the stolen artwork, as a reminder of what is missing.
Additional things I found out through this book:
1) The Boston branch of the FBI are doofuses
2) The FBI cut deals with the crime families all of the time. Some number of the crimes the big families commit are to have leverage to get their own family members out of prison. The FBI also sets up these criminals through an undercover sting for something like drug dealing or a stolen vehicle to put them in a position where they can avoid jail time if they give the FBI information about other crimes.
3) There is a "code of honor or ethics" amongst thieves. If you come up with the idea for a heist and someone else carries it out before you get to, then they owe you 15% of the spoils.
4) In Italy there are 80 members of their "FBI" that are over art recovery. In the U.S. the FBI has the following number of agents specifically assigned to art cases--ZERO.
I enjoy local stories and this is a good one. Some small amount of swearing.
This book gave me exactly what I wanted--all of the details about the case, all of the guesses, and information on all of the parties involved. Kurkjian is well suited as the author of this book--he wrote stories about the heist for the Boston Globe for many years, so he has an emotional connection as well as knowledge and research ties to the case. Kurkjian's law degree also allows him access to court documents that a regular author wouldn't be able to get to. He even interviewed crime bosses to make sure he was capturing the dynamics of this crime Lord's demise and the uprising of the new crime families.
I wish I had kept track of all of the players on a spreadsheet. There were so many people and so many names to keep on top of--especially tricky with an audio book.
My best guess is that the art work was accidentally destroyed when it was stored under a shed and the ground water rose, filling the hiding spot. I don't think that "Bobby the Cook" Gentile will ever admit to this; it's too shameful. But I just don't think we're ever getting the artwork back. I definitely don't think it's hanging on some rich person's wall somewhere. And if anyone did know the location of the stolen artwork--then between the 5 million reward and the promise for immunity from jail they would have come forward by now.
I also think that one of the night watchmen (Abath) that let the fake policemen in that night was in on it. There are so many holes to his story that just don't add up.
I followed up the reading of this book with a visit to the Isabella Stewart Gardner museum--which is lovely. They still hang the empty frames of the stolen artwork, as a reminder of what is missing.
Additional things I found out through this book:
1) The Boston branch of the FBI are doofuses
2) The FBI cut deals with the crime families all of the time. Some number of the crimes the big families commit are to have leverage to get their own family members out of prison. The FBI also sets up these criminals through an undercover sting for something like drug dealing or a stolen vehicle to put them in a position where they can avoid jail time if they give the FBI information about other crimes.
3) There is a "code of honor or ethics" amongst thieves. If you come up with the idea for a heist and someone else carries it out before you get to, then they owe you 15% of the spoils.
4) In Italy there are 80 members of their "FBI" that are over art recovery. In the U.S. the FBI has the following number of agents specifically assigned to art cases--ZERO.
I enjoy local stories and this is a good one. Some small amount of swearing.
October 31, 2019
In the book Master Thieves, Stephen Kurkjian describes one of the most famous robberies in American history. Kurkjian was an investigative reporter for the Boston Globe, who spent decades trying to figure out more about the theft. The theft started when two men dressed as police officers demanded entrance to the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum, a Boston art museum that held some of the most famous art pieces in the world. The two thieves then cuffed up the guards in handcuffs. A noticeable thing the thieves did was stealing the not as expensive artwork but ignoring some of the most valuable pieces of art in the museum. They stole 13 pieces of art worth 500 million. In just 81 minutes they carelessly shattered glass frames for paintings and artifacts. The police didn’t arrive until 8:15 am to investigate and release the tied up guards. After the theft, it was noticeable that they did not steal the most expensive piece in the museum, Titans Rape of Europa. The FBI failed to find a definite answer to who exactly were the men who committed the act, but they had several leads that they thought were promising. This robbery was not only important because of the arts worth, but because the criminals were never caught and it is one of the biggest unsolved art mysteries of the art world. The appalling work of the FBI and police proved to be a big theme in the book, due to the impact of the lack of responsibility that lead to many priceless pieces of art stolen and lost forever. The police did not do their job correctly, as they didn’t even show up until 8:15 am the next morning. The police should be a reliable quick aid of safety, that should have responded to the scene earlier and maybe could have had a chance to catch the two men. The FBI was unable to find any strong leads from the case and they were never able to catch the two thieves. The FBI failed its mission to find the suspects and as a result, the museum lost 500 million from artwork and today, the artifacts are still missing. When reading this book I was amazed at how easily these two men were able to pull off such a heist and how they never were caught. Because this book was based off a true story, it added another aspect of the book, when reading the events that took place it was shocking that all of this happened in real life. I also liked how the author was an investigative reporter of the scene, I got to witness a different perspective of the book and all about his views on the heist. I am only giving four stars because although the heist and investigation shortly after were interesting, I felt like the book only got more stale and there were a lot of boring components of the book. I would recommend the book to people who enjoy reading non-fiction books because it was intriguing finding all the smaller details of the heist that I didn’t know about before reading the book.
October 3, 2015
Two cops walk into a museum ...
and walk out with millions of dollars worth of artwork. That's what happened one night at the Gardner Museum in Boston, Mass. This happened in 1990 and the crime is still unsolved.
This is an interesting look into the crime underworld and the hierarchy that exists there. The author has some interesting theories as to how or why this crime was pulled off, but the fact remains that the priceless paintings are still missing.
It is bewildeing that the founder of the museum has put into the contractual agreement that certain upgrades to the facilities not be carried out or the building becomes the property of Harvard. This is part of the reason the security wasn't up to snuff.
A quick and engaging read.
and walk out with millions of dollars worth of artwork. That's what happened one night at the Gardner Museum in Boston, Mass. This happened in 1990 and the crime is still unsolved.
This is an interesting look into the crime underworld and the hierarchy that exists there. The author has some interesting theories as to how or why this crime was pulled off, but the fact remains that the priceless paintings are still missing.
It is bewildeing that the founder of the museum has put into the contractual agreement that certain upgrades to the facilities not be carried out or the building becomes the property of Harvard. This is part of the reason the security wasn't up to snuff.
A quick and engaging read.
May 2, 2021
I have always been intrigued by the Gardner Heist. I went to college in Boston and it was certainly a bit of local lore. I was a baby when the heist actually occurred but I recall older relatives talking, marveling and wondering about it when I was young. I recently watched the Netflix special and decided to expand my knowledge of the story by reading this book. I am unsure as to why this book was rated so low. I felt that it gave a very detailed, thorough account of the events of the heist. It went through all of the major players and also followed the narrative of the law enforcement officers working the case. I would highly recommend this book to anyone wanting to know about the Gardner heist and/or art theft in general.
May 5, 2015
This book started out really promising and the Isabella Gardner art museum heist in 1990 will never not be a fascinating topic. But–disappointingly–Kurkjian lost me in the weeds midway through with the complicated relations of various Boston mob figures and how they may or may not play into Kurkjian’s overall heist hypothesis. There’s no definitive answers as to who took the paintings or where they ended up, though Kurkjian’s ultimate guess seems about as good as we’ll ever get.
July 31, 2015
I was really excited to read this book I am a huge fan of stolen art themed books & love the story of the Gardner Heist & have read several books about it. I was disappointed cause the main focus was the mob connections between different mob guys. Wanted more of the art I do appreciate the authors theory just wasn't an exciting read.
April 5, 2015
This book does an excellent job of describing the events following (and leading up to) this incredible heist. It's a fascinating read that offers the reader a nice retrospective into the Boston crimes and thugs of the 80's and 90's, in addition to the ongoing investigation.
May 16, 2015
Quick read, but in desperate need of a good editor and a reorg of a lot of content. Could cut down by about 1/3.
July 22, 2024
The late John Mortimer, the British author, created a fictional character named Horace Rumpole, a Wordsworth-spouting barrister who had the "honor the represent" the Timsons, a "family of South London villains" who never came tooled up to a robbery, as well as some of the shadiest and misguided London thieves imaginable. Dozens of his stories were made into 1-hour episodes shown on Masterpiece Mystery in the late 1970s and 1980s and broadcast on PBS.
Among one of the more memorable of Rumpole's shady clients was Melvin Glassworthy, a London fence who trafficked in stolen artwork. Rumpole ingloriously cross-examined a police officer about Glassworthy's criminal activities, was reprimanded by the judge, and Glassworthy was convicted, blaming his conviction and long sentence on Rumpole. After being remanded to custody, Rumpole who now represented one of the Timsons in the theft of a Tadeo DeBartolo masterpiece visited Glassworthy in the cells and asked him where he would try to offload the Renaissance masterpiece.
Glassworthy protested that they couldn't possibly be blaming him for that since he was locked up when it was stolen, but told Rumpole: there's no way you could sell it or traffic such a Masterpiece because it is simply "too well known" in its own right and as to the fact it had been stolen. Glassworthy, with the knowledge that only a stolen artwork fence could possess told Rumpole emphatically that the only place to dispose of the masterwork was "on the municipal rubbish tip".
I thought of this as I read Stephen Kurkjian's account of the Gardner art thefts on evening of the feast of St. Patrick's in 1990. The book was written in 2015, and by then, not a whiff of hope existed by those who seemed to know anything that the art could be recovered, and yet, here is the author proposing so many different avenues of investigation, holding out hope that recovery was possible even though law enforcement, art experts, museum heads and curators, and thieves themselves have been looking, looking, looking, and hoping, hoping, hoping that they will be the one to find the works stolen, especially Vermeer's The Concert, Storm on the Sea of Galilee by Rembrandt, and Manet's Chez Tortoni, among others.
Kurkjian's work does offer a fine synopsis of leads that have been followed in this effort to recover the valuable art, but like many others he seems to be looking in the wrong places, even asking the wrong questions. Even Robert Wittman, the retired FBI's first art crime investigator, now retired, implied that the promising leads evaporated sometime before 2010 when the undercover he spearheaded collapsed.
I have followed the theft from the Gardner with great interest from the first day the break-in and theft was reported. All the reasons why the theft was successful are and have been well-known. All
the usual suspects, including organized crime and North End and East Boston criminals have died, been killed off, or imprisoned, and the stolen art, recovered or recoverable, has been presented as an instrument of exchange for money, reduced imprisonment, or even the $10M reward now offered for information about the whereabouts of the art stolen from the Gardner Museum. No one has come forward.
The author and many others have asked the wrong question from the very first day. The most important question, I think, is not "who" stole the works or "who" could have stolen the works, and who possesses them now, but "where" the works could be. My own belief is that, if the works do not reside in the private collection of a individual who either bought some or all of them through a fence, these works, for now, are lost. They could have been destroyed. They could be left in some storage facility. They could be in someone's basement without the knowledge that they are there. Or, it could be, as the fictional Melvin Glassworthy advised Rumpole of the Bailey, they could have been cast upon the detritus of the municipal rubbish heap somewhere in the world when the unsophisticated thieves realized that they could not monetarize the value of their theft without consequences. Or, they could have been hired to steal the works, or any works, from the Gardner by some criminal willing to pay.
The mystery of the art stolen from the Gardner is the coldest of cold cases now, 24 years after the early morning break-in and theft, and to my mind is not solvable now. It's possible that, years from now, when those of us alive at the date of the thefts on the evening of St. Patrick's Day, 1990 are all dead, one or more of the works will be discovered, identified, and noted as a remarkable piece of art stolen in 1990 from an important Boston art museum. Or, maybe not. Maybe these important works are simply gone. The central problem of this book is offering the hope that there still are live leads to follow, even if the leads are premised on asking "who" stole the works, not "where" are the works today.
Among one of the more memorable of Rumpole's shady clients was Melvin Glassworthy, a London fence who trafficked in stolen artwork. Rumpole ingloriously cross-examined a police officer about Glassworthy's criminal activities, was reprimanded by the judge, and Glassworthy was convicted, blaming his conviction and long sentence on Rumpole. After being remanded to custody, Rumpole who now represented one of the Timsons in the theft of a Tadeo DeBartolo masterpiece visited Glassworthy in the cells and asked him where he would try to offload the Renaissance masterpiece.
Glassworthy protested that they couldn't possibly be blaming him for that since he was locked up when it was stolen, but told Rumpole: there's no way you could sell it or traffic such a Masterpiece because it is simply "too well known" in its own right and as to the fact it had been stolen. Glassworthy, with the knowledge that only a stolen artwork fence could possess told Rumpole emphatically that the only place to dispose of the masterwork was "on the municipal rubbish tip".
I thought of this as I read Stephen Kurkjian's account of the Gardner art thefts on evening of the feast of St. Patrick's in 1990. The book was written in 2015, and by then, not a whiff of hope existed by those who seemed to know anything that the art could be recovered, and yet, here is the author proposing so many different avenues of investigation, holding out hope that recovery was possible even though law enforcement, art experts, museum heads and curators, and thieves themselves have been looking, looking, looking, and hoping, hoping, hoping that they will be the one to find the works stolen, especially Vermeer's The Concert, Storm on the Sea of Galilee by Rembrandt, and Manet's Chez Tortoni, among others.
Kurkjian's work does offer a fine synopsis of leads that have been followed in this effort to recover the valuable art, but like many others he seems to be looking in the wrong places, even asking the wrong questions. Even Robert Wittman, the retired FBI's first art crime investigator, now retired, implied that the promising leads evaporated sometime before 2010 when the undercover he spearheaded collapsed.
I have followed the theft from the Gardner with great interest from the first day the break-in and theft was reported. All the reasons why the theft was successful are and have been well-known. All
the usual suspects, including organized crime and North End and East Boston criminals have died, been killed off, or imprisoned, and the stolen art, recovered or recoverable, has been presented as an instrument of exchange for money, reduced imprisonment, or even the $10M reward now offered for information about the whereabouts of the art stolen from the Gardner Museum. No one has come forward.
The author and many others have asked the wrong question from the very first day. The most important question, I think, is not "who" stole the works or "who" could have stolen the works, and who possesses them now, but "where" the works could be. My own belief is that, if the works do not reside in the private collection of a individual who either bought some or all of them through a fence, these works, for now, are lost. They could have been destroyed. They could be left in some storage facility. They could be in someone's basement without the knowledge that they are there. Or, it could be, as the fictional Melvin Glassworthy advised Rumpole of the Bailey, they could have been cast upon the detritus of the municipal rubbish heap somewhere in the world when the unsophisticated thieves realized that they could not monetarize the value of their theft without consequences. Or, they could have been hired to steal the works, or any works, from the Gardner by some criminal willing to pay.
The mystery of the art stolen from the Gardner is the coldest of cold cases now, 24 years after the early morning break-in and theft, and to my mind is not solvable now. It's possible that, years from now, when those of us alive at the date of the thefts on the evening of St. Patrick's Day, 1990 are all dead, one or more of the works will be discovered, identified, and noted as a remarkable piece of art stolen in 1990 from an important Boston art museum. Or, maybe not. Maybe these important works are simply gone. The central problem of this book is offering the hope that there still are live leads to follow, even if the leads are premised on asking "who" stole the works, not "where" are the works today.
August 24, 2018
Going into this, it’s not like I didn’t know that this is an as-of-yet unsolved mystery. I’ve been to the Gardner and seen the empty frames. Yet at the end of this book I found myself doubly frustrated that there was no /ending/. I wanted the thieves identified and caught, the art returned, the scales set right.
Kurkjian doesn’t make promises that he will catch the thief at any point in the book (the bold new theory or whatever is overhyped blurb syndrome for you, though). In many ways this book is more journalistic than its similarly Boston Globe journalist-penned crime story Black Mass - it’s less narrative, jumping back and forth between people and doing less handholding in explaining who they are, which, in a criminal environment like Boston and Rhode Island, gets very confusing since everyone’s names feel vaguely similar. It’s a story essentially still in progress, so it feels less juicy and indeed Kurkjian feels less interested in finding the juice to begin with.
It begs a lot of questions, of course. One that I thought of and haven’t been able to shake: how much is art, the concept, worth - not in dollars, but in society? Is Boston a Worse City than whichever in Italy that recovered it’s paintings in a day or whatever? (It’s been a long time since I read the book, bear with me.) I’m an artist - of course my answer is Yes. Especially when the crime so theft ties into other criminal activity in Boston. But is it also easy to understand how rationalizing the expense of the investigation might be hard? Sure.
If this book was fiction, we might be able to ponder these questions in the abstract. We could talk about how some of the criminals seem to be simultaneously cunning and bumbling, how the paintings seem to be a symbol of something lost but always nearly in reach. Respectability maybe? Wealth, power? We could read the essential abandonment of this piece of history - art history and Boston’s history alike - as a metaphor for the encroaching anti-intellectual era to come under Bush and beyond.
It’s not fiction though, so while it’s tempting to narrativize these things, it’s just a frustrating story, and it’s not as slick a reading experience as other non-fiction about unsolved mysteries so it makes it a little harder to stomach. Flipping, after I finished the last sentence, to the copyright page to find out that this book was published years ago and still nothing has changed was like a wordless stinger. After all, those frames are still empty.
Kurkjian doesn’t make promises that he will catch the thief at any point in the book (the bold new theory or whatever is overhyped blurb syndrome for you, though). In many ways this book is more journalistic than its similarly Boston Globe journalist-penned crime story Black Mass - it’s less narrative, jumping back and forth between people and doing less handholding in explaining who they are, which, in a criminal environment like Boston and Rhode Island, gets very confusing since everyone’s names feel vaguely similar. It’s a story essentially still in progress, so it feels less juicy and indeed Kurkjian feels less interested in finding the juice to begin with.
It begs a lot of questions, of course. One that I thought of and haven’t been able to shake: how much is art, the concept, worth - not in dollars, but in society? Is Boston a Worse City than whichever in Italy that recovered it’s paintings in a day or whatever? (It’s been a long time since I read the book, bear with me.) I’m an artist - of course my answer is Yes. Especially when the crime so theft ties into other criminal activity in Boston. But is it also easy to understand how rationalizing the expense of the investigation might be hard? Sure.
If this book was fiction, we might be able to ponder these questions in the abstract. We could talk about how some of the criminals seem to be simultaneously cunning and bumbling, how the paintings seem to be a symbol of something lost but always nearly in reach. Respectability maybe? Wealth, power? We could read the essential abandonment of this piece of history - art history and Boston’s history alike - as a metaphor for the encroaching anti-intellectual era to come under Bush and beyond.
It’s not fiction though, so while it’s tempting to narrativize these things, it’s just a frustrating story, and it’s not as slick a reading experience as other non-fiction about unsolved mysteries so it makes it a little harder to stomach. Flipping, after I finished the last sentence, to the copyright page to find out that this book was published years ago and still nothing has changed was like a wordless stinger. After all, those frames are still empty.
July 27, 2022
It has been over thirty years since the Gardner Museum, woefully under-secured, lost 13 art masterpieces to a brazen nighttime theft. Images of the two most well-known pieces, Rembrandt's Storm on the Sea of Galilee and Vermeer's The Concert, are reproduced in the book. The 13 stolen paintings have never been recovered. Their estimated market value is well over half a billion dollars. This book, by Boston Globe investigative reporter Stephen Kurkjian, lays out all the characters in the story, and posits his theory on who likely committed the theft.
The problem with the book is that ultimately I stopped caring very much about any of it. We learn about some New England (dis)organized crime families, and gang warfare, but nothing is told in a very compelling way. It all muddles together, and overlapping parts get repeated -- a Venn diagram of interconnected wise guys, a bunch of thieves and extortionists. The likely motive for the theft was leverage to lessen the length the jail sentence of a mafioso doing hard time.
What we find out is that the FBI investigators do not play well with others, and they didn't tap into any local police or state detective talent. Most of the leads they have pursued led nowhere. Most of the suspects have died, including the guys that Kurkjian thinks committed the theft, plus the guy who likely stored at least some of the paintings. There is a chance that the reason the masterpieces haven't ever been recovered, is because they were buried or otherwise improperly stored, and succumbed to flooding. And who wants to admit to that? It's all such a waste.
The problem with the book is that ultimately I stopped caring very much about any of it. We learn about some New England (dis)organized crime families, and gang warfare, but nothing is told in a very compelling way. It all muddles together, and overlapping parts get repeated -- a Venn diagram of interconnected wise guys, a bunch of thieves and extortionists. The likely motive for the theft was leverage to lessen the length the jail sentence of a mafioso doing hard time.
What we find out is that the FBI investigators do not play well with others, and they didn't tap into any local police or state detective talent. Most of the leads they have pursued led nowhere. Most of the suspects have died, including the guys that Kurkjian thinks committed the theft, plus the guy who likely stored at least some of the paintings. There is a chance that the reason the masterpieces haven't ever been recovered, is because they were buried or otherwise improperly stored, and succumbed to flooding. And who wants to admit to that? It's all such a waste.
January 17, 2019
After listening to the podcast “Last Seen” on the theft of 13 artworks from the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum on March 18, 1990, I decided to read one of the books mentioned in the podcast, Stephen Kurkjian’s Master Thieves: The Boston Gangsters Who Pulled Off the World’s Greatest Art Heist (2015). I realized quickly that much of the podcast is based directly on people and theories related to the theft covered in this book. In fact this book could be the companion to the podcast. It’s an interesting read certainly, but sadly it doesn’t really produce any revelations on who exactly did the heist job, and it makes no attempt to answer any other, more important questions, such as who wanted the job done and where did the paints go after the job was done. Like much of the work done on this case, it keeps its focus strictly on Boston, or at the most the east coast, which has gotten everyone absolutely nowhere since 1990. It’s this short-sightedness that has kept the case unsolvable for 29 years. To his credit though, Kurkjian covers the main Boston characters who may have been part of the heist job, and pretty much one by one rules them out, and the book includes a very useful index and a list of characters so the reader can keep everyone straight. This is important because almost everyone involved in the case is named Bobby. If you listened to Last Seen, this will add nothing new/Last Seen adds nothing new to the book either. If you did not listen to Last Seen, this is a good primer to get you started.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 173 reviews