top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 112 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

The article can't be bothered to include any pictures of the stolen jewels

edit: I think these are the stolen jewels

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    I saw the top piece in another article, and I heard about all the sapphires. This is my first time seeing them, and they are unbelievable. It looks like they're the right works.

    There was also a crown that got dropped in the street and took some damage. At least it was recovered.

    I once read a book by a retired jewel thief whose statutes of limitations has all run out, and he said that that the first thing he did was break down the jewelry, sort the stones, and melt down the settings. Then he'd fence them ASAP. Always. So all that jewelry he stole, all that sentimental value, is gone forever.

    These works are priceless not only for their craftsmanship and beauty, but their historic significance as well. They were literally created to be fit for a King, or Queen.

    Unfortunately, the intrinsic value of those old, perfect stones on today's market, far outweighs their historic or artistic value. There is likely some Sociopathic Oligarchs who think those stones would look better in modern settings, and be better served by being worn around, and not just put on display in some museum where nobody goes.

    That's a lot of loose stones, some of them very large, and some small. There are enough to make many, many pieces of jewelry. Perhaps there will be a bit of a black market among jewelers who cater to the very wealthy, to sell works that includes a Louvre stone or two.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 77 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Last headline I saw about this said 7 minutes. Pretty soon the thieves will be reaching back in time to grab these things.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 64 points 1 year ago (22 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.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 1 year ago (2 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago* (11 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 1 year ago (4 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (4 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 31 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I never understood stealing high value items. That shit is gonna be so hot it'd take a deep network to fence.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago

    Just give them to some local children to play with.

    As an aside, am I the only one who always thought Alfred was kinda a piece of shit for that story? Like a lot of Batman stuff hasn't aged well, but even when I first watched that movie, going scorched earth for a jewel thief was fucked up.

    Some people want to watch the world burn. Alfred actually did set their world on fire and watched it burn.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [+] 20 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Things with historical value are worth far more than the cost of their raw materials. These are crown jewels, not copper pipe being sold by meth addicts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    Yeah, I know, but the thing with that is that everyone will know it's stolen, so no one dares to buy it. Because otherwise they will sit on super rare stolen items, which could land them in prison for the rest of their lives. To the only way to fend it is to melt it down, reshape the stones and sell it for its materials for far less than it's original value, or sell it to someone who wanted these specifically and hired you to the job. But again, why would you want to sit on something as hot as this...

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 44 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Someone should really try to beat that record should they be returned.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Thats where I wear a chastity belt…no ones getting their hands on my crown jewels.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I love how my brain immediately pictured a jewel encrusted royal chastity belt despite nothing in your comment saying anything to suggest that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Can’t wait for the film

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago

    Where was Nicholas Cage?

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (4 children)
  • [–] 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is art. Thank you for taking the time to make this. You're reviving the spirit of the best parts of the Old 'Net. :D

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago

    Didn't anyone bother to get an airtag on those things?

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Where was security during all this? Was there NO camera coverage on that part of the building? This is The Louvre, not a pawn shop. All the reporters keeps saying this is "the crime of the century" to which I say, "well yeah, but that's only because your awful security made that possible!"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    We are in the "telling the public what evidence they have will alert the perps" phase, only wild media speculation until the investigators are done doing their thing.

    I look forward to Internet Historian doing one of his stock image gilliamation videos about this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    can't wait for the true crime yt essay

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago
    [–] 12 points 1 year ago

    These trinkets will go to a very rich collector, not through your typical "fence the goods" path. I'd check Mar-a-Lago as a first step.

  • source
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    "Guys, the jewels, go get them."

    "I don't know much about rocks, but I know what I like, and that is rocks that sell."

    • Bain (Payday 2)

    "It's a funny fuckin' world we live in, eh?"

    • Hoxton (Payday 2)
  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Best thing to do is to smash them and sell them afterwards to different people, no?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago

    Oh no, the world is missing some shiny rocks. I demand the planet cease rotating until these rocks are restituted!

  • source
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Congratulations, they just stole a lump of carbon or silica.

  • source
  • [+] -15 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    1300 diamonds in Eugénie‘s crown? That shoulda been sold and given to the people long time ago. Take a pic and move on.

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    They were in a museum, they belonged to the people there

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Liquidate some old rich people’s assets to benefit the people of France, or keep them in a box to stare at and remember how much wealthier they all were than you? “Belonged to the people” is a very loose description since they have no control over what the Louvre does.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    Sales tax on the tickets alone more than makes up for the value of the item itself though. 8.7 million visitors a year results in a shitton of tax money which benefits the people of France.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Totally, but people would still line up to see Mona Lisa. Not saying to get rid of the museum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    Sure, though it could be less people for the same ticket price.

    If we look at the extreme case, removing every item from the Louvre but the Mona Lisa would result in significantly less tax income because there's no way millions would spend [insert Louvre ticket price I am too lazy to research]€ for looking at a single painting for 5 minutes.

    Museums with more items generally result in more money.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Who said to make the Louvre just the Mona Lisa?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is your brain on workerism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    These are beautiful impressive works of art and craftsmanship and you want to sell them off for like 8 hours of government budget so they can sit in one of those rich guys collections.

    You arent just going on about lame ass workerist platitudes about "benefiting the people" its not even a coherent position once you step back even a little.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago

    Wow you love the crown. You’re unable to even think of ways to spend the money outside of government. This mentality is exactly that of Empress Eugénie’s and why the Second Empire was easily overthrown. Valuing jewels over people is astonishingly dystopian.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (8 children)

    Diamonds are worthless. Shiny coal. Some interesting industries applications, but you can get much better quality ones for much cheaper, if you're looking for that kind of thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    Diamonds are worthless is a crazy statement. Tell that to every person who has ever had to buy a diamond engagement ring.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    Falling for a well known scam doesn't make the crap you bought any less worthless.

    Buy a moissanite, if you want a shiny rock. It's prettier, almost as hard, cheaper than the overpriced cartel shit, and you won't be financing said cartels.

    (And if you just want something particularly hard or good at heat transfer, industrial diamonds are quite inexpensive.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Just because you think something is worthless doesn’t mean you can afford to buy it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    It's fucking carbon.

    It's one of the most common gems on Earth.

    The only reason jewelry diamonds are expensive (industrial ones are cheap) is the artificial scarcity enforced by the criminal cartels controlling their monopoly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    If it’s up then it’s up. You’re opinion clearly has no effect on the market.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

    You’re opinion clearly has no effect on the market.

    Of course not. De Beers' does. That's the point.

    Do try to resell a jewelry diamond, though, and tell me how much profit you made.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    The point is that Empress Eugénie’s crown alone could fetch tens of millions for the people of France, whether you like it or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    The point is that 99% of the value of the crown jewels is in their historical and cultural significance, 99% of the rest of the value is on the design and craftsmanship, 99% of the remaining value is on the metals and jewels excluding the diamonds, and the remaining one millionth is on the diamonds themselves.

    And that's probably exaggerating the value of the diamonds.

    Focusing on the diamonds is like looking at a famous painting and deciding it must be valuable because the nail it's hanged on is particularly shiny.

    When it comes to the value of the crown, the diamonds are less relevant than the dust it's covered on (which at least has historical significance).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    That fact they didn’t secretly GPS tag them… that’s on them, so many different ways to track “PEOPLE” let alone objects, so… who fucked up? Should have been years ago…

    People legit put AirTags/gps devices on bikes and cars, etc… it could have been these items as well. Dumb!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 3 comments in c/hackernews@lemmy.bestiver.se view that post