this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2025
454 points (99.1% liked)

News

36160 readers
3126 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sangriaferret@sh.itjust.works 65 points 4 months ago (6 children)

So you have the jewels. Now what? Do they just go into some rich person's secret collection? It's not like you can fence these things.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 101 points 4 months ago (1 children)

On jobs like these, they already have a buyer.

[–] Yondoza@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 months ago

They said with suspicious confidence....

[–] minnow@lemmy.world 57 points 4 months ago (1 children)

When the French Blue was stolen after the revolution, it was recut and probably became the Hope Diamond.

If they can't find a buyer, they'll melt it down and recut any gems that are too recognizable. Easy money, if you know the right people.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In the melt down and recut scenario, is it "easy money" though? Seems like robbing the most famous museum in the planet would be inviting one of the most well resourced investigations over gems that I presume could have been stolen from somewhere a little more low profile.

I'm not remotely knowledgeable, but it feels like it wouldn't be worth going after the louvre specifically without confidence you have someone willing to acquire the pieces intact rather than having to erase nearly all their "value" in the process.

[–] minnow@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

It certainly wouldn't be the desired outcome! But the point is that there's money to be made either way.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

They think they'll dismantle and melt them and try to fence the stones (stones, especially famous ones are pretty worthless). They should get about 200 k€ for the lot if they're lucky. At least according to art specialists debating on news channels.

[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 29 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If they're sophisticated thieves, they will be sold intact to some overseas billionaire for much more than that. You'd be surprised (or maybe not that surprised) how much stolen art and artefacts winds up in the private collections of rich assholes.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

For some reason, this is not considered likely by the investigators. Don't ask me why.

[–] Pulptastic@midwest.social 10 points 4 months ago

They can’t prosecute the rich, why even bother investigating them.

[–] psoul@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I won’t ask you why but will ask you for a source as I find it surprising too.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Source is local news channels.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Feels like that would be super high risk for relatively low reward. I would have guessed if you wanted some relatively anonymous gems you'd do just as well with much less risk finding a couple of much lower profile jewelry stores or something.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

You seem to think criminals have actually reflected upon this. They might actually be idiots.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I suppose I may be overestimating Louvre security. I guess I would assume a criminal might have to be somewhat smart to overcome what I presumed to be higher security than you might find at a typical target for idiot criminals.

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Oh yes, there's basically no security. At least nothing to deal with a quick grab like that. The only concern seems to have been terrorism. And even then,it was clearly not very well taken into account.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Curious why you got a downvote, if there's a good reason, I would have found a reply more informative...

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Presumably because I said "no security ", which is a bit of an exaggeration. Very inadequate security would have been better. Supposedly there's a plan to upgrade the whole thing, but that should take a year or two still.

[–] cmbabul@slrpnk.net 10 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Float a line to the Saudi Royal family Jared Kushner, they’d buy them no shame at all

[–] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

Bold of you to assume they haven't already bought them.

[–] MML@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'd check the owners house, I assume they're insured.

[–] Halcyon@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

They're part of the French crown jewels and had been acquired by the Louvre in 1985 so they were kept in (and stolen from) the owner's house.

[–] MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago

They'll be broken down, metal smelted, gems recut if necessary. They're gone, who cares. It's not like they were the actual crown jewels, just a few baubles.