| Vincenzo Peruggia's Smock | |
|---|---|
| |
|
Origin |
Vincenzo Peruggia |
|
Type |
Smock |
|
Effects |
Total transparency |
|
Downsides |
Horrible lying |
|
Activation |
Placing over an object or person |
|
Section |
|
| [Source] | |
Origin[]
The Mona Lisa is one of the most recognizable pieces of artwork in the world, period. But it took one defining incident to launch it to global fame. On August 2, 1911, the masterpiece just disappeared off its wall in the Louvre. Stolen! Only four pegs where a painting should be. No inquisitive artist, museum guard or archive photographer could find it. For two years.
Then reports came in from Florence. An art gallery owner had been contacted by a main claiming to have the painting with the intention of returning it to Leonardo’s homeland, for a price. The Uffizi director confirmed its authenticity a wily thief was arrested after, one Vincenzo Peruggia. A former construction worker at the Louvre, his plan was simple. When nobody was around, lift the 21 × 30 in (53 × 77 cm) wood painting off the wall and hide it under a large painting smock. Each laborer wore the same uniform, so he just walked out the worker’s entrance without concern.
Some accounts claim patriotism motivated his theft. Others believed a criminal conspiracy overseen by an art forger and mastermind planned on stealing and re-selling duplicates on the black market. Either way, the Mona Lisa was permanently returned to a new solo exhibition in the art world. Peruggia served a small prison sentence, served in the army and ironically opened a paint shop afterwards.
Effects[]
Turns whatever it hides transparent, allowing it to disappear in plain sight. The longer it stays hidden, the more see-through it will become. From the edges to the center, surface details disappear until its either completely invisible or clear. Sunlight will still glint off it at the right angle, so nothing is completely hidden from detection.
The transparency also extends beyond physical appearances. It makes the user a terrible liar, unable to say they didn’t reach into the cookie jar much less commit a crime. Possibly an extension of the crummy explanation Peruggia gave for the theft or the impenetrable gaze of the painting’s subject itself.