In initial stories released I kept wondering why the hell no one was talking to the insurance people who had provided quotes that "were too expensive," for the partners to be able to afford it. Obviously they had to see the collection in order to evaluate it. Insurance reps have now come forward but reports of their comments are still muddied and confusing.
In a recent conversation with a friend I pointed out that without insurance, there would be no purpose in pretending a collection had been stolen. He pointed out that stolen art, especially relatively unknown pieces go way up in value due to the publicity. He speculated that perhaps the owners intended to miraculously reacquire their stolen art and then sell it off at the new higher value due to the publicity. Hmmmmm.... that would be pretty diabolical. And i would imagine with the police watching them so carefully, very hard to pull off.
Below are some research links on various reports on this story. I think this will be Wednesday's Art Topic on the Damage Report. Feel free to share your thoughts.
This one is excellent info on the reputed stolen Pollack: