Two Way Hard Three | Las Vegas Casino & Design Blog

January 20, 2007

Smoking Gun Posts Steve Wynn's 'Le Reve' Lawsuit

Posted by Hunter

The Smoking Gun, obtainers of mug shots the world over, has posted the legal documents that make up the Wynn vs. Lloyds of London lawsuit regarding paying lost value in the Picasso masterpiece, 'Le Reve'. Wynn asserts that he is owed the difference between a never-consumated sale price and the newly appraised value given that the painting has been restored.

This is a good spot for ongoing discussion on 'Le Reve' and the various damage issues.

Technorati Tags: , , ,


Read archived comments (8 so far)
January 20, 2007 11:56 AM Posted by mike_ch

Well hopefully they'll collect damages from the guy who broke a hole in it and give Steve his due losses while also taking a cut for themselves. :P

January 20, 2007 3:19 PM Posted by Leonard Stern

Hey Hunter: I really DO appreciate your having included, just for purposes of future dialogue, MY previously posted original link to TheSmokingGun's published material, including access to the entire filed compalint in U.S. District Court, N.Y. (by Wynn) brought against Lloyd's in what clearly appears to be the result of [his] self-serving appraisal/valuation that will NEVER pass muster, when considering Steve's "questionable" attempt at collecting tens upon tens of millions from Lloyd's in an entirely unsubstantiated, reimbursable claim, based solely on what can only be considered a biased opinion made by his so-called "experts" in [their] inflated valuation of, the once priceless, masterpiece, this certainly is beginning to appear as a feeble attempt by Wynn in establishing some sort of foundation which smacks of fraud from where I stand! "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck"... I assume that you have evidently decided to officially open a new thread on the topic of the Picasso incident. :-) BTW - Wynn's "Picasso accident" has actually fuelled a proposed, new bill in Congress, for consideration in providing future legislation, that actually limits what individuals, regardless of their personal wealth or influence, who shall be considered to be either "entitled" or "suitable" to be allowed to purchase or otherwise own, catalogued, specifically identified, priceless works of fine art ("Le Reve" most definitely qualifies) where there represents a possibility that the work might be treated or exposed to either direct negligence or lack of security resulting in potential theft, as demonstrated in the manner in Steve's handling of "Le Reve" which suffered irreparable damage. Who knows, Steve might have actually contributed to the future preservation of priceless, irreplaceable works like "Le Reve" at the hands of other irresponsible collectors such as himself!

January 20, 2007 4:03 PM Posted by mike_ch

What I think is funny is that when this piece was in the gallery, it and the others were protected with a security system that was so sensitive that they asked guests to only stand in certain spaces and often doing so much as pointing at a picture would make a buzzer go off. It was understandable considering the value and prestige of the pieces, of course, but not something most people are used to.

He really should have kept that art gallery open. It wasn't costing that much to operate, and that security system could have protected him from himself!

January 20, 2007 8:05 PM Posted by Leonard Stern

mike_ch: I have it on good authority, through very reliable sources, several within Steve's 'inner sanctum', that it was not at all uncommon for Wynn to privately treat his guests to a display of selectve works within his personal fine art collection, which usually entailed "invited guests", whereby he made a conscious decision to expose such priceless works to the potential of damage simply due to the fact that, he [Steve] has demonstrated NO respect whatsoever for the obligations + responsibility that go along with ownership of such masterpieces + [he] considers these priceless works nothing more than mere "toys' at his own disposal for the sole purpose of impressing selected high-profile frends + guests (i.e WLV whales, etc.). This is not the first time he has acted irresponsibly in this regard, since Steve has been diagnosed to be totally 'legally blind', the stupid f*uck had no business even being "in elbow's" distance of this Picasso. Needless to say, since the presentation of "Le Reve" was held in the privacy of his own residence, the normal "security systems" were not enforced. In addition, how do you protect this masterpiece from a blind nut-job like Steve who, obviously was, in striking distance of being able to puncture a 1 1/2" HOLE, through the canvas! Tell me WHO is going to tell Wynn: "Hey Steve, since your vision is worth sh*t, step away from that Picasso before you plunge your elbow through it."

January 20, 2007 11:26 PM Posted by Mike E

Leonard, with all due respect, I understand your strong "anti-Wynn" stance, but your last post was completely uncalled for.

With your experience and professionalism, I'd expect a higher level of discourse in your comments than the trash above. Several of the regular contributors here, including myself, are in our 20s and act more mature than you.

I'm not denying your credibility anymore, but to speak of your "sources" and your high position in this field while using that kind of language hurts your reputation.

For a man of your stature to post comments ridiculing a blind man on a blog that caters to a very specific nich´┐Ż of Vegas-fanatics is quite frankly pathetic. This isn't junior high.

January 22, 2007 9:59 AM Posted by Christian

Wynn has always been an art aficianado. Simply put, he enjoys art and if you are going to spend millions of dollars on it, why not share it with your friends.

Obviously there will be no convincing Leonard to like Wynn for that in anyway, but I'm with Mike E - Leonard may have gone a bit too far.

And Le

January 22, 2007 11:15 AM Posted by Leonard Stern

Well Christian, you are certainly welcome to express your personal views, however biased they may be. While you might vehemently disagree with my own POV, my comments are based on reported fact, not simply comprised of rambling banter from someone who holds an extreme level of animosity towards Steve, which I have never kept secret. I can assure you, with absolute certainty, that there are more people than you could possibly imagine who share my exact sentiments towards Wynn but are afraid to express them for fear of retribution. IMO, Wynn is nothing more than a deranged tyrant + I personally have no fear of reprisal whatsoever from the "bully" since I report nothing but historically accurate information. If any comment I have made is speculative in nature, I will indicate that it is such. Many in the fine art community consider Wynn to be an irresponsible collector, so I do not only speak for myself regarding this event. And since he is, in fact, reported to be "legally blind" by definition, that comment is neither malicious nor defamatory. Christian, I'm sure I would have heard by now from one of Wynn's legal minions, but so far I haven't been met by any Process Servers at my front door. LOL

Since this thread happens to be on the topic of the Picasso "incident", there is an amusing rumor circulating (I emphasize rumor) that Adelson wants to have a wax replica of Steve made to be included in Madame Tussauds Wax Museum at the Venetian, complete with a replica of "Le Reve", depicting the exact "moment" that Wynn punched the hole through the masterpiece. I think this would be absolutely hilarious, + unless [they] intentionally exaggerate the actual size of the "hole" (making sure that it is a true + accurate representation of the recorded dimension of the tear/puncture) there won't be much that Wynn can do legally to stop it, unless of course, the wax replica of Steve is not a precise likeness of his holiness! (no pun intended) Only in Vegas!!!

January 22, 2007 11:29 AM Posted by mike_ch

If that were to truly happen I would have no choice but to decide the Steve/Sheldon feud is really a media circus the both of them decide to create for their own gain.

Which may be the case, anyway.