Editing Han van Meegeren (section)

===M. Jean Decoen's objection===
M. Jean Decoen, a Brussels art expert and restorer, stated in his 1951 book he believed ''The Supper at Emmaus'' and ''The Last Supper&nbsp;II'' to be genuine Vermeers, and demanded that the paintings should again be examined. He also claimed that van Meegeren used these paintings as a model for his forgeries.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Decoen |first=Jean |title=Retour à la véritè, Vermeer-Van Meegeren: Deux Authentiques Vermeer |publisher=Editions Ad. Donker |year=1951 |location=Rotterdam |language=nl |trans-title=Back to the truth, Vermeer-Van Meegeren: Two genuine Vermeer |oclc=3340265}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Schueller|1953|pp=48–58}}</ref> Daniel George Van Beuningen, the buyer of ''The Last Supper&nbsp;II'', ''Interior with Drinkers'', and ''The Head of Christ'', demanded that Dr. Paul Coremans publicly admit that he had erred in his analysis. Coremans refused and Van Beuningen sued him, alleging that Coremans's wrongful branding of ''The Last Supper&nbsp;II'' diminished the value of his "Vermeer" and asking for compensation of £500,000 (about US$1.3&nbsp;million, or about US$10&nbsp;million today).{{efn|name="multiple"}}

The first trial in Brussels was won by Coremans, because the court adopted the same reasoning of the court ruling at van Meegeren's trial. A second trial was delayed owing to van Beuningen's death on 29 May 1955. 
In 1958 the court heard the case on behalf of van Beuningen's heirs. Coremans managed to give the definitive evidence of the forgeries by showing a photograph of a ''Hunting Scene'', attributed to [[Abraham Hondius|A. Hondius]], exactly the same scene which was visible with [[X-ray]] under the surface of the alleged Vermeer's ''Last Supper''. Moreover, Coremans brought a witness to the courtroom who confirmed that van Meegeren bought the ''Hunt scene'' in 1940.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Bianconi |first=Piero |title=Vermeer |publisher=Gemeinshaftsausgabe Kunstkreis Luzern Buchclub Ex Libris Zürich |year=1967 |page=101 |language=de}}</ref> The court found in favour of Coremans, and the findings of his commission were upheld.<ref>{{harvnb|Godley|1951|pp=256–258}}</ref>