The Lost Art Collection of Gaston Lévy (1893–1977) – The looting of an art collection in France in 1941 followed by a restitution claim in Germany over 20 years later

by Peter Elliott and Harry Spillane

Gaston Lévy (1893–1977) was a wealthy Parisian property developer who amassed a considerable art collection in the late 1920s. His collection was of international significance and contained many works by renowned artists, with a particular focus on Signac and Jongkind. In the last couple of decades the auction houses and other commentators have focussed on the romantic story of Lévy’s friendship with the artist Paul Signac and his sponsorship of the latter’s ambitious Ports de France project, a vast series of watercolors of the harbors of France. Lévy commissioned the project of his artist friend. In return he was allowed to choose his preferred watercolor of each port, with Signac keeping the other. Lévy thus acquired the entirety of the series of watercolors.

In focussing on this story alone, commentators have failed to uncover the complexity of the rest of Lévy’s life. They neglected to delve into Lévy’s biography and his history as a business operator. Yet this is essential to understanding the fate of his lost art collection.

This brief account draws attention to the authors’ recent detailed study (‘Study’), referenced at the end, which has revealed the true story of Lévy, the art collector, his art collection, its looting, and his claim for compensation to the German authorities long after the end of the war. The Study sheds entirely new light on the art collector and this account highlights its essential findings. Not content with this, however, the authors have returned to their original research to analyse for the Blog reader the timeline of the flawed 1962 German BRüG law compensation claim process, and the key documents leading to the settlement Lévy. This analysis further endorses the author’s theories as to the strategies Lévy adopted to ensure a successful outcome for his process, and further explains the mysteries surrounding the inventory he submitted listing artworks he claimed as looted from his French country property in 1940.

Lévy sold or transferred artworks throughout the 1930s, but in the early period of the war he still owned a very sizeable art collection. In June 1940, fearful of the impending Nazi persecution, he despatched most of his art objects from Paris to his Château des Bouffards in the Sologne, a remote country area south of Paris. His purpose was to keep his treasures safely hidden, and he and his family then fled to Tunis where he possessed a home and business interests. In his absence the valuables within the Château were removed by unknown German authorities in a wholly undocumented confiscation. We do not know the destination of his artworks following their removal. A couple of Signac paintings surfaced on the Paris art market during the occupation and were both sold at auction in 1943. A Pissarro and another Signac, owned by Lévy, passed through the ERR process in Paris, re-appeared post-war, but then disappeared once more. The artworks re-emerged decades later and were finally restituted to Lévy descendants. Another Signac painting, Quai de Clichy, was discovered as part of the Gurlitt Trove and was similarly returned in mid-2019. Otherwise, the collection is ‘lost’.

Researchers have been puzzled as to why it was that Lévy did not report his looted art in France in the period immediately following the war, but only initiated a compensation claim as late as 1962, and then only through the German rather than the French process. The answer lies in his chequered life story, and in his periodic involvement in criminal enterprise, particularly at times of severe financial pressure. Even prior to the war Lévy was the subject of two convictions for fraudulent activities, one in Tours in 1919 and another in Evreux in 1934. These episodes demonstrated that he was unscrupulous, untroubled by legality or morality (and an explicit police report in 1929 drew attention to his lack of scruple). Lévy dabbled in criminality again during his time of refuge in Northern Africa during the occupation of France. He was convicted in criminal cases involving illegal export of currency and gold first in Cairo and subsequently in Tunis, the first in late 1943, the second towards the end of 1944. The fine and prison sentence imposed on Lévy in his absence in Tunis meant he was unable to return there. Instead, he remained in Egypt, becoming engaged in illicit currency transactions. This led again to a further conviction in early 1951, again in his absence this time in France, and the imposition not only of a prison sentence but huge monetary penalties. The fact these remained outstanding meant he could never return to live in France. These cases against Lévy are fully documented, and the formal French court judgements of 1919, 1934 and 1951 all identify Lévy with precision and provide full detail of the activity that led to his convictions. The Tunisian and French court decisions of 1944 and 1951explain the exile he and his wife endured in Italy for the rest of their lives. Thus, Lévy finally made his claim for compensation for his lost artworks, to the German authorities from his Italian refuge, long after the end of the war, rather than from France much earlier.

The Study provides a detailed analysis of Lévy’s BRüG law compensation claim to the German authorities. He commenced the process in late 1958, submitted his claim in early 1962 and completed it later that same year from his remote exile in Sanremo, Italy. Key to the success of his process was his retainer of two Paris art experts (father and son, commissaires-priseurs) who helped compile his inventory and established a valuation for each artwork. Lévy listed the artworks he claimed were removed from his French country property. It is noteworthy that he only provided clear evidence identifying a handful of the major artworks on his list. Otherwise, he merely recorded on the list a standardized formula of scant information: artist, title, medium, dimensions, the art dealer from whom he acquired it and the date of purchase, to which the art experts added their ‘1956 valuation’ of each artwork. The titles listed were vague and general. With a few exceptions, Lévy submitted no photographs or additional data to support his claim, which might have contributed significantly to identifying artworks and underpinning their valuation. Lévy simply signed a sworn statement covering the inventory of artworks, accompanied by their sparse data, claiming these were items removed from his property in 1940.  Based on their valuations of each item the Parisian art experts concluded that the collection was worth 23.4 million DM. The authors commented: “It remains a mystery as to how they valued these artworks, given that it was done based on a superficial listing and they did not explain their methodology.”1

Before July 1962 an additional German art expert appointed to the case delivered his appraisal, a lower valuation of approximately 21 million DM. This expert based his valuation entirely on comparative data from art list prices at public action, conceding in his report that “in the absence of a viewing …value is left almost entirely up in the air”.2

In preparing this Blog the authors have returned to their research to analyse for the reader the timeline of the remarkably quick settlement reached between the German authorities and Lévy in this case. This is against the background that: “Lévy ‘s advisers would have led him to expect a heavily discounted settlement in view of the uncertainties surrounding the confiscation of his cultural good and their destination (which could not be proven to have been Germany).”3

Lévy’s claim was only formally submitted in late February 1962, and the final court settlement was concluded at the end of October of the same year, a mere eight months to conclude a complicated process involving the loss of multiple cultural objects. In fact, the settlement figure was agreed between the negotiators in July of that year, a mere four and a half months after the procedure commenced. The additional three months reflected the administrative delay in obtaining formal court approval for what had been agreed between the negotiators. This was, indeed, a very quick process to deliver the final award to Lévy of a sizeable compensation award, probably one of the larger ones made under that law.

Given that Lévy expected his claim to be heavily discounted because of the uncertainties surrounding it, it is not implausible to suggest that he chose to maximise the ‘headline value’ of the claim at the outset by including additional objects in his listing, not removed from his country property at all. This would have inflated overall value claimed and cushioned the impact of the discount he was expecting to be imposed on his claim. Thus, it is possible to infer that the strategy he agreed with his advisers included the submission of a format of inventory which made the claimed artworks listed difficult to identify (positively or negative). The claim was then to be followed by an early settlement offer to distract attention from the sparse content of the inventory listing. This would have focussed the authorities’ attention on the achievement of a quick, and apparently successful settlement, thus avoiding a nigh-impossible verification of the supporting inventory.

The timeline of the documents in the Procedural File supports this theory:

  • Submission of Lévy’s claim, 27 February 1962
  • Internal German Memorandum, 3 April 1962, confirming that only a month after submission, Lévy was indicating he intended to negotiate a settlement.
  • Internal German Memorandum,4 July 1962: this is a briefing note for the German negotiator mandated to negotiate with Lévy’s representatives. In this memorandum the German official lawyer sets out the rationale for a deeply discounted settlement taking account of ‘the difficulties of valuation, and the uncertainty factors’. It is clear from this report that the lawyer simply accepted Lévy’s sworn statement covering the items he claimed as looted, without further verification.
  • Internal German Memorandum, 19 July 1962, in which the German official negotiator records the settlement discussion held with Lévy’s two lawyers, a discussion which had the clear objective of reaching a settlement figure which sufficiently factored in the ‘uncertainty’. Although Lévy’s lawyers were initially looking for settlement at a level of 50%, they agreed to accept the lesser amount proposed by the German official negotiator and readily agreed a final settlement figure.
  • Record of the settlement award to Lévy of 8 million DM, approved by the judge of the Restitution Court, 31 October 1962.4

The authors’ Study provides the only attempt to date to identify the artworks Lévy listed on the detailed inventory he submitted in support of his compensation claim.

Based on the scant information in Lévy’s inventory it proved possible to match only twelve of the listed 122 major artworks with known paintings, and thereby to conclude they were correctly included in his list. Four paintings (by Degas, Jongkind, Signac and Vuillard respectively) were demonstrated to have been falsely placed on the list; this illustrates the unreliability of the inventory. Identification of the Signac artworks in Lévy’s inventory listing should have proved straightforward, as he himself prepared the Signac Pré-catalogue on which the current artist catalogue draws. Lévy cannot himself have overlooked any work he owned. However, apart from the readily identifiable Signac paintings, the subject of widely publicized restitutions, only two other works of Signac on his list could be identified. The authors concluded it was probable that three Signac artworks were wrongly included in the inventory listing. In addition, based on the view of the artist’s archivist, they concluded that a listed Vuillard portrait was incorrectly included in the inventory. Several other artworks on the list appeared doubtful, and others questionable. It is apparent that Lévy’s submission included claims for artworks that did not exist or that had left his ownership before the looting of his property occurred. The Study concluded that: “…the inventory provides no possible basis on which to identify most of the artworks listed. The West German authorities should never have accepted it as adequate for their process in 1962.”5

The authors expressed surprise that the data on all the listed artworks was so evenly and uniformly sparse, and commented: “From Lévy’s own work on the Signac Pré-catalogue, and from the data he recorded on artworks he transferred to [a fellow art collector] in 1932, we know that he had access to more detailed data, and photographs, on works within his collection. A suspicious researcher could readily conclude that the inventory was prepared in this uniformly sparse manner precisely to ensure that the document was incapable of being tested or verified. … Given Lévy’s history of transgression of the law, it is conceivable that he may have inflated his compensation claim to offset what he might have considered to be an oppressive discounting of the value of his claim.”6


The reader can access full details of the Study, and 15 additional images of paintings within the Collection of Lévy, in:

Peter Elliott / Harry Spillane: The Lost Art Collection of Gaston Lévy (1893-1977), in: transfer –Zeitschrift für Provenienzforschung und Sammlungsgeschichte / Journal for Provenance Research and the History of Collection 4 (2025), DOI: https://doi.org/10.48640/tf.2025.1.113818, 34-51 .

At the outset Peter Elliott researched the art collection and life of Gaston Lévy in the context of work on his book, now published:

Looted! The Nazi Art Plunder of Jewish Families in France, Pen & Sword, UK, October 2025.
Looted! is a history of the lives and art collections of French Jewish families, whose art was looted, and whose businesses were confiscated during the Nazi Occupation of France (1940–44). The story is of their lives, their businesses and art collections, and the journeys of their paintings during wartime and beyond.

As the complexity of Lévy’s chequered career and his brushes with the criminal courts emerged, it became evident that his story did not ‘fit’ with those of the other four Protagonist families who all made an important cultural and industrial contribution to France. Thus, Lévy’s story was omitted from the book, and published separately by the co-authors in the Study.


1 p. 45, col. 2, of the Study.

2 p. 45, col. 2, of the Study.

3 p. 45, col. 2, of the Study.

4 All the official documents are within ‘The 1962 Lévy Procedural File’, see FN 4 of the Study.

5 p. 50, col. 2, of the Study.

6 p. 50, col. 2; p. 51, col. 1, of the Study.


Peter Elliott is author of “Looted! The Nazi Art Plunder of Jewish Families in France”. Dr. Harry Spillane is Bye-Fellow in History, Downing College, Cambridge.


Nur der Text ist unter der Lizenz Creative Commons Namensnennung 4.0 International nutzbar. Alle anderen Elemente (Abbildungen, importierte Anhänge) sind „Alle Rechte vorbehalten“, sofern nicht anders angegeben.


OpenEdition schlägt Ihnen vor, diesen Beitrag wie folgt zu zitieren:
Peter Elliott, Harry Spillane (8. April 2026). The Lost Art Collection of Gaston Lévy (1893–1977) – The looting of an art collection in France in 1941 followed by a restitution claim in Germany over 20 years later. RETOUR 🠔. Abgerufen am 17. Mai 2026 von https://doi.org/10.58079/1615c


Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.