• Tiara from the set of Queen Marie-Amelie and Queen Hortense (img in article)[1]
• Necklace from the sapphire set of Queen Marie-Amelie and Queen Hortense (img in article)[1]
• Earring, from the pair belonging to the sapphire set of Queen Marie-Amelie and Queen Hortense (img in article)[1]
• Emerald necklace from the Empress Marie Louise set (img in article)[1]
• Pair of emerald earrings from the Empress Marie Louise set (img in article)[1]
• Brooch known as the "reliquary brooch" (img)[2]
• Tiara of Empress Eugenie (also referred to as a "diadem") (img)[3]
• Large corsage bow brooch of Empress Eugenie. (img in article)[1]
Stolen and found outside, broken
• Crown of Napoleon III's wife, Empress Eugenie (img)[4]
"Eight objects were taken, according to officials: a sapphire diadem, necklace and single earring from a matching set linked to 19th-century French queens Marie-Amélie and Hortense; an emerald necklace and earrings from the matching set of Empress Marie-Louise, Napoleon Bonaparte’s second wife; a reliquary brooch; Empress Eugénie’s diadem; and her large corsage-bow brooch — a prized 19th-century imperial ensemble."
> It also collides with a deeper tension the Louvre has struggled to resolve: swelling crowds and stretched staff. The museum delayed opening during a June staff walkout over overcrowding and chronic understaffing.
Raise ticket prices until you can afford more staff or don’t need more staff?
They're already working on doing exactly that. The construction work that the thieves hid with is to restore all the previous doors of the museum so they can start being used as entrances again to reduce the strain on the I.M. Pei pyramid, the modern entrance of the Louvre. Coupled with that, they're building the first temporary exhibit space of the museum, with an adjacent permanent exhibit space. That permanent exhibit's subject? Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa, with a special ticket to visit only that already in the plans.
In 10 years, bus full of tourists will go straight to the pyramid, then straight to the Da Vinci exhibit, take their goddamn selfie, and leave. The rest of the visitors will mostly enter through the historical entrances and never interact with those throngs of Mona Lisa lookie loos.
The Louvre is doing exactly what makes the most sense; they're not stupid, they're just not very fast, as is usual for a museum.
It makes so much sense on one level. At the same time, I worry in the long run this could have the effect of trimming the budget for less selfie-worthy exhibits. I love stuff like the Napoleon III apartments.
When I visited the Louvre it was absolutely wild to me how many people were just there for the Mona Lisa. I took a look at it in person because of course I did, but I don't think it was anywhere close to the most interesting piece the museum has on display (I preferred the classical sculptures), nor even the best painting. It seems like such a waste for people to fawn over that one painting and pretty much ignore all the other masterpieces you can see there.
> it was absolutely wild to me how many people were just there for the Mona Lisa
> It seems like such a waste for people to fawn over that one painting and pretty much ignore all the other masterpieces you can see there
I think you're making the rather large assumption that everyone is into art in the first place, and thus find it surprising that they would fail to appreciate everything other than the Mona Lisa.
In reality, I suspect a lot of folks just weren't going to go to the museum at all otherwise. They only go to see the Mona Lisa, not because they think it's a particularly magnificent piece of art, but simply because:
(a) they don't want to look silly saying they visited Paris but didn't see the most famous painting in the world there, and/or
(b) the whole world talks about it, and they naturally want to experience whatever it is, to maybe see what all the fuss is about.
Such reasons are pretty natural, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic merits of -- or appreciation of -- the Mona Lisa relative to whatever else is there. It could've just been a hole in the wall, and if it had been the most famous thing in the world, it would've prompted a similar reaction.
The Louvre was a royal palace, the rooms and halls are all quite stunning. It was originally built in the 12th century and expanded through the 17 century, so as historical artifacts go, it's definitely a thing on its own. It is worth visiting even if there were no art at all inside it. YMMV.
I think it would also be more interesting if you could really approach it and have the time to look at it like other pieces.
My memories of the Mona Lisa is of a rather small paint behind dirty glasses with a large group of japanese tourists grouped in front of it and I simply didn't have the patience to wait and I just really glanced at it while passing by.
Also like most paints of its age, it is seriously damaged, colors aren't the original one and paint is cracked. I wish there was a way to actually enjoy in person those paints as they were when they were delivered to their customers.
My memories of the few times I've been to the Louvre are exactly the same as yours.
Musee d'Orsay down the river is a much better museum in my opinion and the one I never skip when I'm in Paris, the Louvre I'll only go to if someone I'm with has never been and really wants to.
It's a bit of a paradox because in a way d'Orsay is much more “pop” than Louvre. I think people would generally enjoy d'Orsay more than historic focused Louvre.
The funny thing about the Mona Lisa is that the public only became enamoured with it after it was stolen from the Louvre and subsequently recovered, it went from "notable but not particularly famous" to "famous for being stolen" to "famous for being famous".
Well it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, not exactly a nobody. That alone is enough for it to be famous. He's probably more famous than the Mona Lisa.
basically the story for any popular tourist destination - people go so that they can tell their friends they went, not for the actual experience. and so the most important part of the experience is doing exactly the same thing your friends did, so you can say "i did it too".
Yeah, this can lead to awkward small talk between people who like doing the big name tourist stuff and people who like doing things off the beaten path when they discover they both visited the same place and have surprisingly little experience in common.
I work part-time at an art gallery (not a museum) with 300 pieces from 300 artists, on two floors. The typical visitor walks through, looking but not stopping, often not bothering with upstairs. It's rare for anyone to take more than 20 minutes.
I will say, the quality of exhibition in even the biggest most popular art museums is pretty poor.
The number of times a glare on the glass obscured the work, or I've walked through a room completely befuddled about what I'm looking at until finally on my way out discovering that I entered from the "wrong" direction and they intended that I take one very specific weird meandering path through the halls, and I get no info until the end of an exhibit otherwise, is ridiculous. On top of that, I feel like I get some history and analysis per artist or per period when what I really want is per work, explaining how they painted it, what they were thinking about or referring to (since art is almost always part of a conversation), and what's notable about that specific work. I'd also probably like fewer pieces from a given artist in a row and just have more a collection of contemporaries that drew inspiration from each other in a sequence so I can see how techniques and vocabularies developed, rather than "Here's the artist room. He was very famous and used a lot of color. We have access to these for a month, so take a good look."
It's weird just how much better science museums are at exhibit building. Please, art museums, crib their notes!
Problem is most museums are visited by tourists which by the time they reach the museum already have sore feets from strolling around the city and can't stand comfortably more than a couple seconds. There are a few museums that put benches which allows to actually take the time to enjoy watching a piece but there is always someone who decides to stand in front of you.
I also which a normal entry fee would allows you to comeback several times in a period. I don't have the stamina to contemplate 300 art pieces in a row. Can I watch 300 movies in the same day or can I even listen to 300 music records while giving them my full attention in a day? Nope.
Poland does this for their Leonardo (Lady With An Ermine). It is housed in a separate room, tickets are separate and it is sometimes rotated between different museums (at least I saw her in two different ones by now). It it really helpful plus it saves money if you don't want to see it.
The Louvre understaffed? It's one of the most visited places in the world and would still be, even if the double the ticket price. The "Louvre understaffed" sounds like a management failure more than anything else.
I don't know how easy it is to increase prices in France but in some places they sell tickets in advance and there are only a limited number of them. Something like movie theaters.
It's already like that, and it sucks. I remember a time when you could spontaneously decide "I'm going to the museum today!" then go there, wait a bit in line and get in. Now you have to book it weeks in advance, then get in line anyway, or show up without a reservation and be told the museum is full.
Sure, it does suck. But things change, and this is one of those things. The present solution has the Louvre closing without warning because they are short staffed, and that will only become a more frequent problem if they can't find some solution. Would you rather live in a world where you have to plan your visit to the Louvre, or where the Louvre will be randomly closed 5% of the time?
First and foremost, any implementation where staff walk off the job is not a solution. So status quo is worse than any alternative plan that addresses that issue.
Did you not read the thread? They are not paying enough to keep their staff working. Their options are to increase prices, decrease availability, or do nothing and hope it works out.
The beauty of not being the center of the universe, or having a passion that almost nobody else has. When it comes to appreciating say the art, I see no issue there.
Your right ends where other's same rights begin and all that.
You misunderstood me. I don't lament not having the museum to myself. I lament the loss of a time when we could go to places without planning to weeks in advance.
Nowadays, we still need to wait in line to get in the museum, as we always needed to, the only difference is that there's a panel that reads "online reservations" in front of the line, and that you get bounced if you don't have a reservation.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me pricing everything at its actual correct price is the best way; do not subsidize consumption or production, do not protect producers. All of these things are firstly political footballs and secondly only act to consume wealth inefficiently (which is to say, to mis-allocate resources).
Then work on making everyone as wealthy as possible, by encouraging economic growth, so we have as much personal, individual wealth as possible, and so can buy as much of what we want or need as possible.
> it seems to me pricing everything at its actual correct price is the best way
It seems to me that the "actual correct price" is the one that doesn't prevent everybody but the rich from being able to experience the art and cultural heritage.
There are many alternatives for dealing with crowds available. It's also just good business since those artistic works are a huge draw for tourists being outside money into Paris and into the country as well.
Keep it up, and you ensure only foreigners and rich people will be able to visit important or desirable things in your own country. I live in Lisbon, and see this happening all the time.
It's pretty common for museums here (in Lisbon/Portugal) to offer discounted entry to residents. I was just a the MAAT (for example) and I asked for and got the resident discount.
The Louvre is a national museum. Access by lottery with affordable ticketing would be more democratic than access by riches over others by pricing out working class visitors.
Just do the classic developing country thing and charge non-french people significantly more. 2x the price if you live outside paris, 5x the price if you live outside of France, and 20x the price if you live outside the EU.
I wonder if the Paris city hall can do a rebate program of "Dear Paris residents, mail in your ticket stub and we'll give you a partial refund" - this is a first draft of an idea, it's flawed because it would lead to opportunistic Parisians asking tourists for their ticket stubs, and then telling the city hall that they visited the Louvre 30 times last month.
No, they can't, EU courts would strike that in a heartbeat.
Some time ago Germans tried to tax foreign drivers on their roads, so they introduced toll, nominally for all, but also lowered the same amount another car-related tax that was paid only by Germans. EU bodies saw through the scheme just fine and now they're on hook for returning the toll money to anyone still keeping the invoice/receipt.
There are only charging Germans right now. They wanted to extend that to foreigners, so if you wouldn't lower the tax that pays for this right now, you would charge Germans double.
Of course this is against the interest of other countries, which is why they prevented that, but it wasn't unfair or discrimination.
Half yes, probably discarded, but the other half are in company books, because those were accounted as costs of operations. Even then, yes, probably worth it for the time.
Admission is free for the following visitors:
Under 18s
Proof of ID required.
Under 26 year-old residents of the European Economic Area (EU, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein)
Proof of ID and residency required.
All visitors
On the first Friday of the month after 6 p.m. (except in July and August)
I don't know about the Louvre, but national amenities usual charge more to tourists. You can rise tourist fares as much as needed. They aren't poor nationals, and it's their number which is causing problems.
The UK's Natural History Museum is quite instructive. No staff anywhere apart from where money gets taken for food and souvenirs. Free entry to hordes and hordes of children with parents and grandparents in tow.
So how do they manage it?
There is ticket booking, which is done in advance or else there is a queue. Once in, you are just following the same walk as everyone else to see the dinosaurs - what else?!? After the dinosaurs have been seen people can tire themselves out seeing some of the rest of the museum, but most don't see a lot else and head for the gift shop before going home.
At the Louvre they have the slight problem that the hordes are there to see that one painting, the one that isn't exactly massive. Everyone knows exactly what it looks like before taking the pilgrimage. Really they should just get rid of it and put it in on a regional tour indefinitely, so as to share the tourist money elsewhere.
They were also movie-level clever, in that they set exact the right power junction on fire, got in at the exact right time, at exact the right place. Then they also set their own car on fire. I don't think it was too different, than what you would see in a movie.
Even if it was relatively simple and security was lax you have to question why they targeted the Louvre.
You can’t fence these items because of how high-profile they are. You can melt them down and sell the gold, but you’d destroy a lot of the value by doing that. Because it’s such a high-profile target you know a lot of resources will be allocated to track you down. You’d think that there be much safer targets to rob that wouldn’t draw as much attention and would provide similar returns.
1) It’s always possible a rich person hired them ahead of time to steal specific items (that’s why you sometimes see way more “expensive” in theory items that are completely ignored in these heists — without a buyer ahead of time they’re worthless) Though in this particular case I think it was a crime of opportunity, but idk
2) You could potentially sell it to someone overseas who doesn’t care. There are rumors of a Gardner Heist (Boston) painting hung up on MBS’ yacht
Generally speaking: The simpler something appears on the surface, the more work it requires behind the scenes. Think of designing 'simple' software, from the user perspective.
Swedish has a word for heists where the thieves go in through the ceiling, it's called a "rififikupp", named after the french novel "Du rififi chez les hommes". The latest one became a Netflix mini series (The Helicopter Heist), the most famous one before that was at the modern museum where some Picassos where stolen.
I'm sad for the loss of this portion of the French patrimoine. But being Sunday, I'll cite an ancient Rabbi who had some insight on this kind of problem, and call France to recover another French patrimoine that they tossed aside but which is still recoverable - the treasure of la foi chrétienne.
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
-Jesus
Matthew 6:19-21
An unavoidable implication seems to be that Jewish and Muslim and other non-Christian people are a problem. What results has that approach yielded in the past? Were those results fit for the Christian or any other faith? What fruit does that tree bear?
You could pursue your faith, and let others pursue theirs. That approach - liberty, fraternity, equality - has yielded wonderful results around the world. Maybe you would set an example for others that would inspire them to admire and consider your faith rather than suspect it as a threat, or for those who have suffered at its hands, hate it as an enemy.
1) No one expects security in these places to be Hollywood grade lasers, knockout gas, explosive bolts shuttering down inch thick steel plates in an instant. But 7.5 minutes seems a tad long to have gone, per lack of reporting on anything at all about security guards, without being either opposed or confronted, or otherwise encountering obstacles to escape? (I've seen a story also say 4 minutes. The specific timeline might have been revised? Either that or they're deriving their metrics from different start/end points on what constituted beginning and ending the of the theft.
2) Also, this: “One of the jewelry items was found near the Louvre”. Careless that, someone isn't getting a bonus, but I'm not sure if that points either to ineptitude of non-professionals taking a rare opportunity, or professionals who simply had an unlucky fumble but were smart enough not to double back for it.
3) Finally: The market for these is, what, maybe 100 people in the world? That have the desire for this sort of loot, as-is? Because chopping them up and selling piecemeal is not an economically viable risk/reward calculation. Their value is their cohesion, at least as individual pieces and especially as a set. Otherwise, old jewels certainly have a lot of value but they're also not so rare in their individual pieces as to require this high profile of a burglary. So, specific buyers in mind and a commissioned theft I would think? Then again there have been some "dumb thieves" high profile thefts in the past so its not impossible. And it's not so nice a thought to think we're at the point in this world where billionaires are dispatching gangs of thieves in the old Hollywood tradition, instead of keeping their thefts of the more traditional
Wait for the ultrarich to offer a pile of money to improve the museum security. [in exchange of a few special exhibitions organized for/by them. #winWin]
There are already such exhibitions, when I went there, it was related to dress from designer, although gorgeous to see them in the middle of historical rooms, sometimes I wondered if there were from the era.
I feel like you're trying to be sarky with the "#winWin", but genuinely yes. If the tradeoff is that someone gets to feel important and have a plaque put up with their name on it, and something good but expensive happens which otherwise could not, everyone absolutely does win. Even better than taxes because it's a specific goal and consensual on all sides.
Gold is up, it's unfortunately that simple. If these aren't found very quickly they'll be melted because there is no way they can be fenced as they are. Fuck these thieves.
I would guess not 100s. The artifacts are priceless in their original form, but most likely in order to sell them they will need to re-cut the stones and melt down the precious metals.
Unless the artifacts were stolen-to-order for a client who wants them as-is. It happens, paintings get stolen and it's not like those can be melted down.
I'm pleased that there are still jewel thieves in the 21st century, perhaps even international jewel thieves, but I have misgivings about the reality. What if they're funding something unpleasant? And did they have to take so many jewels? I appreciate that they're not running a charity, but they could have left some for future jewel thieves.
I see a bunch of comments that it is possible that the thieves were working for a private collector.
Are there really private collectors willing to risk everything for a piece they can never display or even reveal their possession of to anyone else? Have any collectors been caught doing this in the last 50 years?
Yes, and sometimes they turn up after the original client has passed away. Sometimes the art is bought in good faith, although I don't know how likely that is in this case.
On one hand it sounds like a movie trope. On the other hand, life imitates art and plenty of dictators and billionaires are indistinguishable from cartoon villains.
What are the economics of stealing historical jewelry?
Their size is probably big enough that any collector could distinguish them from any random jewels.
Who is there to sell to? The best bet is to store it away then let your great grandkids sell it to some Asian billionaire in the future when Europe and Europol no longer have any power and influence.
Sadly the article alludes to the probable destiny of these pieces: being broken down for melt value. The big stones will get recut to hide where they came from. If the thieves are “smart” it’s likely these will never be seen again in their current form. It just so happens that the Crown Jewels pack a lot of gold and precious stones into a convenient and easy-to-steal package. That the historical and cultural value of these far outweighs the material value is of zero concern to thieves looking to make a quick buck.
If the thieves were only after the melt value then there are easier things to steal. It seems more likely that these particular items were "stolen to order" for a specific private collector.
That's dumb, but it's the best case scenario that everyone should hope for. If they really are only after street resale of the bare metals and stones, those artifacts are already gone as I write this.
Depending on what exactly is this you can find someone to refinish the stones and melt and precious metals. Possibly the stones are not recognizable anyways when taken off. Other than that I assume there is an underground market for these sorts of goods. These thieves seem sophisticated enough to have access to someone who will take this.
> Recovery may prove difficult. “It’s unlikely these jewels will ever be seen again,” said Tobias Kormind, managing director of 77 Diamonds. “Professional crews often break down and re-cut large, recognizable stones to evade detection, effectively erasing their provenance.”
Pretty sure there is an underground market for billionaires. I don't doubt they have their private collections that only others in the fold get to view. Bragging rights for the rich and famous?
But also, once a thing is stolen, the market for forgeries of said object explodes. I also may have seen too many mysteries on television though.
If your net worth is counted in billions and have hundreds of real estate to hide a collection in.... that might be a caprice within your reach. Looking at WWII, already children will be free to sell the jewelry on auction.
Sometimes I wonder what it must be like to be the kind of woman who is ultimately destined to wear these stolen items at private parties for ultra mega rich people so powerful that no one can do anything about it.
Another way is to have the people who could do anything about it so compromised by blackmail that to do anything would be mutually assured destruction.
There's obviously someone involved on the inside, at least at the most basic "paid off" level. This is probably the number one security lapse in any and all organizations. Someone can be corrupted. I still hold that some guard was paid off in the Epstein situation as well. It's the simplest answer and unless it's irrefutably proven false, then that should be the main line of investigation (in this case and many others).
None of these stories seem to actually have the items stolen. Most keep implying it was the three diamonds: Regent, Sancy, and Hortensia.
However, Sky News has an actual list. [1]
[1] https://news.sky.com/story/louvre-museum-in-paris-closed-aft...
Stolen and not retrieved
Stolen and found outside, broken [2] https://thefrenchjewelrypost.com/content/uploads/2016/09/san...[3] https://thefrenchjewelrypost.com/content/uploads/2016/09/san...
[4] https://thefrenchjewelrypost.com/content/uploads/2016/09/san...
EDIT: AP article appears to have been updated (at time of edit 8:25 PM GMT). Now lists items. Original comment was written ~7:00 PM GMT.
Trust the Brits to list in excruciating detail exactly how the French messed up!
That's wrong, at least as of now: The AP story in the current OP lists them.
Acknowledged. Saw the change on AP and made an edit. Original comment was written an hour or two ago.
Red team strikes again.
"Eight objects were taken, according to officials: a sapphire diadem, necklace and single earring from a matching set linked to 19th-century French queens Marie-Amélie and Hortense; an emerald necklace and earrings from the matching set of Empress Marie-Louise, Napoleon Bonaparte’s second wife; a reliquary brooch; Empress Eugénie’s diadem; and her large corsage-bow brooch — a prized 19th-century imperial ensemble."
Such a shame that all these diamonds stolen from Indian temples and shit. Europeans in India were “theifing” around a lot.
> It also collides with a deeper tension the Louvre has struggled to resolve: swelling crowds and stretched staff. The museum delayed opening during a June staff walkout over overcrowding and chronic understaffing.
Raise ticket prices until you can afford more staff or don’t need more staff?
Or create a separate museum for Monalisa and few top exhibits for tourists interested only in them.
They're already working on doing exactly that. The construction work that the thieves hid with is to restore all the previous doors of the museum so they can start being used as entrances again to reduce the strain on the I.M. Pei pyramid, the modern entrance of the Louvre. Coupled with that, they're building the first temporary exhibit space of the museum, with an adjacent permanent exhibit space. That permanent exhibit's subject? Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa, with a special ticket to visit only that already in the plans.
In 10 years, bus full of tourists will go straight to the pyramid, then straight to the Da Vinci exhibit, take their goddamn selfie, and leave. The rest of the visitors will mostly enter through the historical entrances and never interact with those throngs of Mona Lisa lookie loos.
The Louvre is doing exactly what makes the most sense; they're not stupid, they're just not very fast, as is usual for a museum.
It makes so much sense on one level. At the same time, I worry in the long run this could have the effect of trimming the budget for less selfie-worthy exhibits. I love stuff like the Napoleon III apartments.
When I visited the Louvre it was absolutely wild to me how many people were just there for the Mona Lisa. I took a look at it in person because of course I did, but I don't think it was anywhere close to the most interesting piece the museum has on display (I preferred the classical sculptures), nor even the best painting. It seems like such a waste for people to fawn over that one painting and pretty much ignore all the other masterpieces you can see there.
> it was absolutely wild to me how many people were just there for the Mona Lisa
> It seems like such a waste for people to fawn over that one painting and pretty much ignore all the other masterpieces you can see there
I think you're making the rather large assumption that everyone is into art in the first place, and thus find it surprising that they would fail to appreciate everything other than the Mona Lisa.
In reality, I suspect a lot of folks just weren't going to go to the museum at all otherwise. They only go to see the Mona Lisa, not because they think it's a particularly magnificent piece of art, but simply because:
(a) they don't want to look silly saying they visited Paris but didn't see the most famous painting in the world there, and/or
(b) the whole world talks about it, and they naturally want to experience whatever it is, to maybe see what all the fuss is about.
Such reasons are pretty natural, and have nothing whatsoever to do with the intrinsic merits of -- or appreciation of -- the Mona Lisa relative to whatever else is there. It could've just been a hole in the wall, and if it had been the most famous thing in the world, it would've prompted a similar reaction.
The Louvre was a royal palace, the rooms and halls are all quite stunning. It was originally built in the 12th century and expanded through the 17 century, so as historical artifacts go, it's definitely a thing on its own. It is worth visiting even if there were no art at all inside it. YMMV.
I agree!
The Mona Lisa isn't even the most interesting piece in the room it's shown in.
I think it would also be more interesting if you could really approach it and have the time to look at it like other pieces.
My memories of the Mona Lisa is of a rather small paint behind dirty glasses with a large group of japanese tourists grouped in front of it and I simply didn't have the patience to wait and I just really glanced at it while passing by.
Also like most paints of its age, it is seriously damaged, colors aren't the original one and paint is cracked. I wish there was a way to actually enjoy in person those paints as they were when they were delivered to their customers.
There was a digital reconstruction using the pigments analysis https://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/digital-restoration...
My memories of the few times I've been to the Louvre are exactly the same as yours.
Musee d'Orsay down the river is a much better museum in my opinion and the one I never skip when I'm in Paris, the Louvre I'll only go to if someone I'm with has never been and really wants to.
It's a bit of a paradox because in a way d'Orsay is much more “pop” than Louvre. I think people would generally enjoy d'Orsay more than historic focused Louvre.
The funny thing about the Mona Lisa is that the public only became enamoured with it after it was stolen from the Louvre and subsequently recovered, it went from "notable but not particularly famous" to "famous for being stolen" to "famous for being famous".
Well it was painted by Leonardo da Vinci, not exactly a nobody. That alone is enough for it to be famous. He's probably more famous than the Mona Lisa.
So what you're saying is that this theft was an inside job by the museum in order to gain attention for a few more pieces of art. /s
basically the story for any popular tourist destination - people go so that they can tell their friends they went, not for the actual experience. and so the most important part of the experience is doing exactly the same thing your friends did, so you can say "i did it too".
Yeah, this can lead to awkward small talk between people who like doing the big name tourist stuff and people who like doing things off the beaten path when they discover they both visited the same place and have surprisingly little experience in common.
I work part-time at an art gallery (not a museum) with 300 pieces from 300 artists, on two floors. The typical visitor walks through, looking but not stopping, often not bothering with upstairs. It's rare for anyone to take more than 20 minutes.
I will say, the quality of exhibition in even the biggest most popular art museums is pretty poor.
The number of times a glare on the glass obscured the work, or I've walked through a room completely befuddled about what I'm looking at until finally on my way out discovering that I entered from the "wrong" direction and they intended that I take one very specific weird meandering path through the halls, and I get no info until the end of an exhibit otherwise, is ridiculous. On top of that, I feel like I get some history and analysis per artist or per period when what I really want is per work, explaining how they painted it, what they were thinking about or referring to (since art is almost always part of a conversation), and what's notable about that specific work. I'd also probably like fewer pieces from a given artist in a row and just have more a collection of contemporaries that drew inspiration from each other in a sequence so I can see how techniques and vocabularies developed, rather than "Here's the artist room. He was very famous and used a lot of color. We have access to these for a month, so take a good look."
It's weird just how much better science museums are at exhibit building. Please, art museums, crib their notes!
Problem is most museums are visited by tourists which by the time they reach the museum already have sore feets from strolling around the city and can't stand comfortably more than a couple seconds. There are a few museums that put benches which allows to actually take the time to enjoy watching a piece but there is always someone who decides to stand in front of you.
I also which a normal entry fee would allows you to comeback several times in a period. I don't have the stamina to contemplate 300 art pieces in a row. Can I watch 300 movies in the same day or can I even listen to 300 music records while giving them my full attention in a day? Nope.
a lot of people just don’t really like museums. they’re boooooooring.
Then just don't go?
You don’t understand. ITS FAMOUS!!!!!!
It’s amazing how much fame sort circuits reasoning in the human mind.
Poland does this for their Leonardo (Lady With An Ermine). It is housed in a separate room, tickets are separate and it is sometimes rotated between different museums (at least I saw her in two different ones by now). It it really helpful plus it saves money if you don't want to see it.
It’s already the case.
The Louvre understaffed? It's one of the most visited places in the world and would still be, even if the double the ticket price. The "Louvre understaffed" sounds like a management failure more than anything else.
I don't know how easy it is to increase prices in France but in some places they sell tickets in advance and there are only a limited number of them. Something like movie theaters.
In which case visitor numbers won’t swell
It's already like that, and it sucks. I remember a time when you could spontaneously decide "I'm going to the museum today!" then go there, wait a bit in line and get in. Now you have to book it weeks in advance, then get in line anyway, or show up without a reservation and be told the museum is full.
Sure, it does suck. But things change, and this is one of those things. The present solution has the Louvre closing without warning because they are short staffed, and that will only become a more frequent problem if they can't find some solution. Would you rather live in a world where you have to plan your visit to the Louvre, or where the Louvre will be randomly closed 5% of the time?
First and foremost, any implementation where staff walk off the job is not a solution. So status quo is worse than any alternative plan that addresses that issue.
France is the only place in the world you can have so many visitors that you…. Can’t hire more staff?!? For a paid venue?
Did you not read the thread? They are not paying enough to keep their staff working. Their options are to increase prices, decrease availability, or do nothing and hope it works out.
No kidding, thanks for summarizing what I’m saying.
Ah sorry, i misunderstood the sarcasm. You’re totally right, it’s absurd
I think a better way of looking at it might be that there are plenty of other museums that fit the bill, but the Louvre is no longer one of them.
Oh interesting we secured tickets in Sept for the winter. It sounds like there's a chance we wont get in...
The beauty of not being the center of the universe, or having a passion that almost nobody else has. When it comes to appreciating say the art, I see no issue there.
Your right ends where other's same rights begin and all that.
You misunderstood me. I don't lament not having the museum to myself. I lament the loss of a time when we could go to places without planning to weeks in advance.
Nowadays, we still need to wait in line to get in the museum, as we always needed to, the only difference is that there's a panel that reads "online reservations" in front of the line, and that you get bounced if you don't have a reservation.
Yes, let's price out everyone but the rich from seeing art. Let the free market decides who deserves to see culture in real life.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me pricing everything at its actual correct price is the best way; do not subsidize consumption or production, do not protect producers. All of these things are firstly political footballs and secondly only act to consume wealth inefficiently (which is to say, to mis-allocate resources).
Then work on making everyone as wealthy as possible, by encouraging economic growth, so we have as much personal, individual wealth as possible, and so can buy as much of what we want or need as possible.
> it seems to me pricing everything at its actual correct price is the best way
It seems to me that the "actual correct price" is the one that doesn't prevent everybody but the rich from being able to experience the art and cultural heritage.
There are many alternatives for dealing with crowds available. It's also just good business since those artistic works are a huge draw for tourists being outside money into Paris and into the country as well.
The Louvre ticket price is around $18 right now. I think they could stand to increase it a bit without pricing out “everyone but the rich”.
There is more culture outside of the Louvre than inside it.
Exactly. Japan has been raising prices to help to curb the crowded tourism. Such a simple supply/demand solution
Keep it up, and you ensure only foreigners and rich people will be able to visit important or desirable things in your own country. I live in Lisbon, and see this happening all the time.
It's pretty common for museums here (in Lisbon/Portugal) to offer discounted entry to residents. I was just a the MAAT (for example) and I asked for and got the resident discount.
And there's the scheme which allows residents 52 museum entries per year for free: https://www.museusemonumentos.pt/pt/noticia-com/novo-regime-...
Any reasonable place doing this offers discounts in various formats for locals. San Francisco has some museums like this with discounts for locals.
It's tourists tax for the foreigners, it's not for the locals. Maybe Lisbon should consider charge the foreigners to help fund the locals too?
There are two things you can do about the law of supply and demand. Believe in it and act accordingly, or don't believe in it and be victim to it.
The Louvre is a national museum. Access by lottery with affordable ticketing would be more democratic than access by riches over others by pricing out working class visitors.
Just do the classic developing country thing and charge non-french people significantly more. 2x the price if you live outside paris, 5x the price if you live outside of France, and 20x the price if you live outside the EU.
Charging EU citizens more than French citizens would be illegal discrimination under EU law. (It might be legal to charge local Parisians less.)
For example see https://brusselssignal.eu/2024/12/ec-demands-end-to-portugal...
I wonder if the Paris city hall can do a rebate program of "Dear Paris residents, mail in your ticket stub and we'll give you a partial refund" - this is a first draft of an idea, it's flawed because it would lead to opportunistic Parisians asking tourists for their ticket stubs, and then telling the city hall that they visited the Louvre 30 times last month.
No, they can't, EU courts would strike that in a heartbeat.
Some time ago Germans tried to tax foreign drivers on their roads, so they introduced toll, nominally for all, but also lowered the same amount another car-related tax that was paid only by Germans. EU bodies saw through the scheme just fine and now they're on hook for returning the toll money to anyone still keeping the invoice/receipt.
There are only charging Germans right now. They wanted to extend that to foreigners, so if you wouldn't lower the tax that pays for this right now, you would charge Germans double.
Of course this is against the interest of other countries, which is why they prevented that, but it wasn't unfair or discrimination.
Seems worthwhile, nobody will actually keep the receipt
Half yes, probably discarded, but the other half are in company books, because those were accounted as costs of operations. Even then, yes, probably worth it for the time.
What is the difference? The key idea still work …
From the Web-site of the Louvre:
(Source: https://www.louvre.fr/en/visit/hours-admission)Don't forget teachers, and unemployed people.
This is true for every national muséum in France and it is awesome !
> Access by lottery with affordable ticketing would be more democratic than access by riches over others by pricing out working class visitors
Do both. Lottery tickets the day of. Advance-rate tickets at a premium price. Mix and match with a non-EU premium for both.
I don't know about the Louvre, but national amenities usual charge more to tourists. You can rise tourist fares as much as needed. They aren't poor nationals, and it's their number which is causing problems.
You cannot have any different pricing for all EU nationals.
I'm not sure they can legally charge more for other European citizens than French citizens though.
The UK's Natural History Museum is quite instructive. No staff anywhere apart from where money gets taken for food and souvenirs. Free entry to hordes and hordes of children with parents and grandparents in tow.
So how do they manage it?
There is ticket booking, which is done in advance or else there is a queue. Once in, you are just following the same walk as everyone else to see the dinosaurs - what else?!? After the dinosaurs have been seen people can tire themselves out seeing some of the rest of the museum, but most don't see a lot else and head for the gift shop before going home.
At the Louvre they have the slight problem that the hordes are there to see that one painting, the one that isn't exactly massive. Everyone knows exactly what it looks like before taking the pilgrimage. Really they should just get rid of it and put it in on a regional tour indefinitely, so as to share the tourist money elsewhere.
I agree. But not at the cost of the working class workers.
Crazy how simple and efficient these heists are in their execution. All the heist movies are way too complex and clever. It‘s just smash and run.
Compare also this robbery from 2019 in Dresden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dresden_Green_Vault_burglary
They were also movie-level clever, in that they set exact the right power junction on fire, got in at the exact right time, at exact the right place. Then they also set their own car on fire. I don't think it was too different, than what you would see in a movie.
Even if it was relatively simple and security was lax you have to question why they targeted the Louvre.
You can’t fence these items because of how high-profile they are. You can melt them down and sell the gold, but you’d destroy a lot of the value by doing that. Because it’s such a high-profile target you know a lot of resources will be allocated to track you down. You’d think that there be much safer targets to rob that wouldn’t draw as much attention and would provide similar returns.
1) It’s always possible a rich person hired them ahead of time to steal specific items (that’s why you sometimes see way more “expensive” in theory items that are completely ignored in these heists — without a buyer ahead of time they’re worthless) Though in this particular case I think it was a crime of opportunity, but idk
2) You could potentially sell it to someone overseas who doesn’t care. There are rumors of a Gardner Heist (Boston) painting hung up on MBS’ yacht
Generally speaking: The simpler something appears on the surface, the more work it requires behind the scenes. Think of designing 'simple' software, from the user perspective.
I disagree. Many times things that appear simple are really just simple.
They are indeed simple, they are not necessary easy.
The Hatton Garden heist was fairly elaborate.
Swedish has a word for heists where the thieves go in through the ceiling, it's called a "rififikupp", named after the french novel "Du rififi chez les hommes". The latest one became a Netflix mini series (The Helicopter Heist), the most famous one before that was at the modern museum where some Picassos where stolen.
If they would be efficient, they would not have been caught.
(But maybe they were caught because they were careless afterwards? Selling stolen art is not risk free either)
They weren’t caught. (Yet.)
I meant the Dresden Heist thieves and they were caught.
Only the henchmen.
They apparently used an angle grinder to open one of the glass boxes that the items were on display in. So not exactly smash and run...
I'm sad for the loss of this portion of the French patrimoine. But being Sunday, I'll cite an ancient Rabbi who had some insight on this kind of problem, and call France to recover another French patrimoine that they tossed aside but which is still recoverable - the treasure of la foi chrétienne.
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. -Jesus Matthew 6:19-21
An unavoidable implication seems to be that Jewish and Muslim and other non-Christian people are a problem. What results has that approach yielded in the past? Were those results fit for the Christian or any other faith? What fruit does that tree bear?
You could pursue your faith, and let others pursue theirs. That approach - liberty, fraternity, equality - has yielded wonderful results around the world. Maybe you would set an example for others that would inspire them to admire and consider your faith rather than suspect it as a threat, or for those who have suffered at its hands, hate it as an enemy.
Huh?
A sufficiently stupid person is indistinguishable from a sufficiently advanced LLM.
When it happened in London, the thief was granted a lifetime pension.
https://www.reddit.com/r/UKmonarchs/comments/1dcmb7i/fun_fac...
Top comment suggests the king was in on it.
A few thoughts:
1) No one expects security in these places to be Hollywood grade lasers, knockout gas, explosive bolts shuttering down inch thick steel plates in an instant. But 7.5 minutes seems a tad long to have gone, per lack of reporting on anything at all about security guards, without being either opposed or confronted, or otherwise encountering obstacles to escape? (I've seen a story also say 4 minutes. The specific timeline might have been revised? Either that or they're deriving their metrics from different start/end points on what constituted beginning and ending the of the theft.
2) Also, this: “One of the jewelry items was found near the Louvre”. Careless that, someone isn't getting a bonus, but I'm not sure if that points either to ineptitude of non-professionals taking a rare opportunity, or professionals who simply had an unlucky fumble but were smart enough not to double back for it.
3) Finally: The market for these is, what, maybe 100 people in the world? That have the desire for this sort of loot, as-is? Because chopping them up and selling piecemeal is not an economically viable risk/reward calculation. Their value is their cohesion, at least as individual pieces and especially as a set. Otherwise, old jewels certainly have a lot of value but they're also not so rare in their individual pieces as to require this high profile of a burglary. So, specific buyers in mind and a commissioned theft I would think? Then again there have been some "dumb thieves" high profile thefts in the past so its not impossible. And it's not so nice a thought to think we're at the point in this world where billionaires are dispatching gangs of thieves in the old Hollywood tradition, instead of keeping their thefts of the more traditional
I don't want to say it's related - but the juxtaposition of this robbery and French current political situation is kind of funny.
Wait for the ultrarich to offer a pile of money to improve the museum security. [in exchange of a few special exhibitions organized for/by them. #winWin]
There are already such exhibitions, when I went there, it was related to dress from designer, although gorgeous to see them in the middle of historical rooms, sometimes I wondered if there were from the era.
I feel like you're trying to be sarky with the "#winWin", but genuinely yes. If the tradeoff is that someone gets to feel important and have a plaque put up with their name on it, and something good but expensive happens which otherwise could not, everyone absolutely does win. Even better than taxes because it's a specific goal and consensual on all sides.
The political issue with this statement is VERY real ! [this is definitely not democracy compatible, if you want my personal feeling]
When the Notre Dame burned down, it became a competition between the billionaires who was going to be the bigger donor.
I think at the rebuilt cathedral, there's a plaque honoring the owners of Louis Vuitton, and I don't know who else...
I am really curious how much these guys can expect to get when this is all done. 10s of millions? 100s ?
They are probably not selling on the black market but it was an order from a private collector
Gold is up, it's unfortunately that simple. If these aren't found very quickly they'll be melted because there is no way they can be fenced as they are. Fuck these thieves.
There is no way these were stolen for bullion value. There are a thousand easier targets if that was the goal.
I would guess not 100s. The artifacts are priceless in their original form, but most likely in order to sell them they will need to re-cut the stones and melt down the precious metals.
Unless the artifacts were stolen-to-order for a client who wants them as-is. It happens, paintings get stolen and it's not like those can be melted down.
Or stolen for ransom. That might fetch the largest payout of all.
Brokering the deal and arranging the transfer of funds would have a very high risk.
Yes, stolen-to-order seems like the most plausible explanation.
Flambeau at it again...
I'm pleased that there are still jewel thieves in the 21st century, perhaps even international jewel thieves, but I have misgivings about the reality. What if they're funding something unpleasant? And did they have to take so many jewels? I appreciate that they're not running a charity, but they could have left some for future jewel thieves.
If you like jewel heists, maybe particularly in the Louvre, I recommend the French mini series Lupin - I thought it very well made: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupin_(French_TV_series)
Crown jewels stolen. Future jewel thieves most impacted.
Well, we have to think of future detective fiction, and thrillers.
I see a bunch of comments that it is possible that the thieves were working for a private collector.
Are there really private collectors willing to risk everything for a piece they can never display or even reveal their possession of to anyone else? Have any collectors been caught doing this in the last 50 years?
Seems to strain credulity to me.
Potentially yes
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jun/10/da-vinci-sa...
Yes, and sometimes they turn up after the original client has passed away. Sometimes the art is bought in good faith, although I don't know how likely that is in this case.
https://www.artrecovery.com/casestudies
On one hand it sounds like a movie trope. On the other hand, life imitates art and plenty of dictators and billionaires are indistinguishable from cartoon villains.
Why are those highly variable historical jewels so badly protected that could be stolen faster than my bicycle?
Given the same set of motivation and fame, I feel confident your bicycle could be stolen much quicker. Possibly even while you’re on it!
What are the economics of stealing historical jewelry?
Their size is probably big enough that any collector could distinguish them from any random jewels.
Who is there to sell to? The best bet is to store it away then let your great grandkids sell it to some Asian billionaire in the future when Europe and Europol no longer have any power and influence.
Sadly the article alludes to the probable destiny of these pieces: being broken down for melt value. The big stones will get recut to hide where they came from. If the thieves are “smart” it’s likely these will never be seen again in their current form. It just so happens that the Crown Jewels pack a lot of gold and precious stones into a convenient and easy-to-steal package. That the historical and cultural value of these far outweighs the material value is of zero concern to thieves looking to make a quick buck.
If the thieves were only after the melt value then there are easier things to steal. It seems more likely that these particular items were "stolen to order" for a specific private collector.
That's dumb, but it's the best case scenario that everyone should hope for. If they really are only after street resale of the bare metals and stones, those artifacts are already gone as I write this.
In Egypt the historical gold bracelet was just melted for its gold value:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1kw8dwy4dro
Depending on what exactly is this you can find someone to refinish the stones and melt and precious metals. Possibly the stones are not recognizable anyways when taken off. Other than that I assume there is an underground market for these sorts of goods. These thieves seem sophisticated enough to have access to someone who will take this.
Sad.
FTA:
> Recovery may prove difficult. “It’s unlikely these jewels will ever be seen again,” said Tobias Kormind, managing director of 77 Diamonds. “Professional crews often break down and re-cut large, recognizable stones to evade detection, effectively erasing their provenance.”
Large gems can be broken up and recut for sale. Destroys value (certainly the cultural value) but renders them salable.
Ransom? Or is that too risky?
Pretty sure there is an underground market for billionaires. I don't doubt they have their private collections that only others in the fold get to view. Bragging rights for the rich and famous?
But also, once a thing is stolen, the market for forgeries of said object explodes. I also may have seen too many mysteries on television though.
If your net worth is counted in billions and have hundreds of real estate to hide a collection in.... that might be a caprice within your reach. Looking at WWII, already children will be free to sell the jewelry on auction.
It's explained in the article.
I’m sure many Russian oligarchs would be eager buyers. Especially the top Russian oligarch.
>See What Was Taken in the Louvre Heist [unpaywalled link]
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/19/world/europe/louvre-heist...
Sometimes I wonder what it must be like to be the kind of woman who is ultimately destined to wear these stolen items at private parties for ultra mega rich people so powerful that no one can do anything about it.
I don't think any amount of money would allow you to wear these in public. You'd need some other form of power, maybe a dictator or similar could.
Another way is to have the people who could do anything about it so compromised by blackmail that to do anything would be mutually assured destruction.
Everyone at the party has been to Epstien’s island a few times.
There's obviously someone involved on the inside, at least at the most basic "paid off" level. This is probably the number one security lapse in any and all organizations. Someone can be corrupted. I still hold that some guard was paid off in the Epstein situation as well. It's the simplest answer and unless it's irrefutably proven false, then that should be the main line of investigation (in this case and many others).
Make stealing life threatening again.
Yes, trying to do this in some parts of the world is likely to result in death. That's an extremely strong deterrent.
Interesting that some anonymous downvoters on HN seem to side with criminals...