"The Man Who Made Vermeers" is both a brilliant scholarly work and fascinating read. Insightful writing, yet complete accessible. Get this book, you won't be disappointed.

This is a fascinating story, and Lopez does a great job in presenting his materials. Plus, the book is clearly informed by a lot of serious research. Definitely worth reading!

The bored prose of the author deadened the lively subject of art forgery in the Nazi era. What a missed opportunity. It reads like high school term paper. This is diabolical stuff so use it.

I very much enjoyed reading this book on Vermeer and Van Meegeren. In the first place I loved the way it is written, the style, which is - I think - in a way typical for American books, that is: very well-written, to the point, and very thoroughly documentated. Secondly I'm impressed by the way the author is confident with Dutch culture, the Dutch cultural climate in the Interbellum and with Dutch publications that, I think, even many Dutch researchers don't know. Furthermore he seems to have an extremely good knowledge of Dutch language.

I think that the interpretation of Van Meegerens painting as a form of fascist art is challenging and intriguing. In fact it presents a parallel of what I have often been thinking about 19th century Dutch historic novels: they tell us more about the 19th century Netherlands than of the Middle ages.

There is one question, though, that came to my mind about the post-war situation of Van Meegeren. I was familiar with the common story about Van Meegeren being some sort of clown or opportunist and I never knew, for instance, the story about the dedication to the Führer of Van Meegeren's book Teekeningen 1. It is astonishing to see that, in spite of the publications of the evidence, Van Meegerens version incredibly soon is taken for the truth by Dutch public opinion. I was a bit surprised, though, that the author never mentions the fact that the paper De Waarheid that published this first was the daily newspaper of the communist party. I wonder to what extent that might have played a role in public opinion? On one hand the communist party had a lot of credits shortly after the war because of their activities in the resistance - definititely in Amsterdam. So one should say that a publication in that paper must have been influential (if I'm not mistaken De Waarheid was at that moment the largest newspaper in the Netherlands, for what it's worth with paper shortage and all that) On the other hand: could it be that political reasons were involved already at that early moment? Cold war was still far ahead, but could there already have been, at this early stage, political reasons involved in ignoring a communist publication?

Again, I enjoyed this book very much and have already told many friends about it.

The book arrived in the condition that it was advertised, and as punctually as it could possibly been.

Thank you.