NEW YORK — Days after a daring daylight theft at the Louvre Museum stripped a display of royal jewels worth more than $100 million, experts are divided on what happens next: whether the treasures will be broken up and melted down for parts or remain intact and prove too hot to sell.

The October 19 heist removed a cache of historically important pieces that once adorned French royals, including an emerald necklace and earrings, two crowns, two brooches, a sapphire necklace and a single earring, according to the Chicago Tribune news summary provided in the supplied notes. The staggering valuation — roughly 88 million euros — underscores both the cultural weight and market temptation surrounding the collection.

How the thieves could try to cash in

A number of specialists warn the jewels may already be on their way to becoming unrecognizable. “You don’t even have to put them on a black market, you just put them in a jewelry store,” said Erin Thompson, an art crime professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “It could be sold down the street from the Louvre.”

Breaking apart gems and melting historic metalwork can make stolen pieces harder to trace and easier to sell, a path experts have seen become more common with jewel and metal thefts. Christopher Marinello, a lawyer and founder of Art Recovery International, said thieves resort to dismantling because the intact artifacts are nearly impossible to move after “everyone and their sister” has seen images of them. “By breaking them apart, they will hide their theft,” Marinello said, adding that once routed through cutters and robust supply chains abroad, the material can become even more “traceless.”

Other veterans of art-crime investigations counsel caution about that prediction. “The real art in an art heist isn’t the stealing, it’s the selling,” said Robert Wittman, former senior investigator with the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s art crime team. He doubts the thieves can easily monetize the artifacts intact or as parts, noting that the age, clarity and distinctive characteristics of the gems — and the less-pure gold typical of centuries-old settings — complicate resale. “Because of what they are, there’s really no point destroying them,” Wittman said, pointing to the high risks of circulating such well-known material.

Scott Guginsky, executive vice president of the Jewelers’ Security Alliance and a former head of the NYPD’s organized theft squad, said the age and quality of the diamonds make them ill-suited for conventional markets. “It’s not something that you can move on the open market. It’s nothing that can go through an auction house,” he said. Still, Guginsky believes the thieves likely had a disposal plan and may “sit on” the items until scrutiny fades. “I can’t see them stealing it without having an idea what they want to do,” he said. “There’s always a person willing to buy stolen jewelry. No matter what it is, somebody will buy it.”

Sara Yood, CEO and general counsel of the Jewelers Vigilance Committee, said most reputable businesses run anti–money laundering programs and watch for red flags such as unusual orders or requests for secrecy. But she noted that very old gems typically lack modern identifiers like laser inscriptions, a gap criminals could exploit if stones are recut. For these pieces, “because these are historical pieces, it’s rather unlikely that it has those identifying features,” Yood said.

What the numbers say

Recovery odds for stolen art remain stubbornly low — commonly around 10 to 15 percent — according to the FBI Art Crime Team’s 2022 reporting. Analysts attribute the modest rate to covert sales channels, cross-border movement and the ease with which gems can be altered or broken up. Time also cuts against recovery: the longer pieces remain missing, the more likely they are to be dispersed, laundered through intermediaries or absorbed into inventories, FBI Art Crime Team findings show.

Experts also point to a broader uptick in museum-related thefts in recent years. Thompson noted that losses from storage can go undetected; the British Museum in London, for example, has sought to recover thousands of items while investigating internal theft, according to the provided materials.

Insurance and rewards can influence outcomes, too. Some thieves have floated ransom demands or waited for “no questions asked” rewards. But the Louvre jewels were reportedly not privately insured, and the French government had not publicized a reward as of the latest reporting in the supplied notes.

Why royal jewels are hard to trace

Centuries-old royal jewels blend rare stones with bespoke metalwork, often lacking modern forensic markers such as serial numbers or laser inscriptions. Their age and craftsmanship amplify cultural value while complicating traceability, according to Art Conservation Journal. Museums rely on conservation records, catalog photography and provenance archives to identify pieces; once stones are recut or mounts remade, those records lose much of their power.

Those vulnerabilities coexist with stringent protections — and their limits. The International Council of Museums and Museum Security Networks describe a multilayered security approach common in major institutions: high-resolution CCTV, motion and tamper sensors, reinforced cases, access controls, regular inventory audits, and specialized staff training. Historic buildings, budget and staffing constraints, and the potential for insider knowledge can still create exploitable gaps, those groups note, making continuous reassessment essential after a breach.

What investigators and the trade can do now

Experts stress that rapid, coordinated action in the early days is critical. The FBI Art Crime Team’s protocols and guidance from the Jewelers Vigilance Committee outline immediate steps that can improve recovery odds:

  • Push detailed alerts with photographs and measurements to law enforcement, customs agencies, auction houses and trade groups.
  • Monitor pawnshops, local retailers, online marketplaces and border crossings for recently altered or recut stones.
  • Engage reputable dealers, cutters and gem labs to flag suspicious inquiries or unusual orders.
  • Use forensic gemology and museum conservation records to spot recutting or re-setting.
  • Consider a publicized reward or conditional amnesty to incentivize credible tips, balancing investigative needs.
  • Coordinate internationally to close transit routes and share intelligence quickly.

Museums and the jewelry industry can also tighten defenses, according to the International Council of Museums, Museum Security Networks, the Jewelers’ Security Alliance and the Jewelers Vigilance Committee:

  • Immediately review access controls, increase visible security, audit inventories and analyze CCTV and alarm logs.
  • Upgrade display cases, add vibration/motion sensors, expand RFID tagging and strengthen staff screening and training.
  • Reinforce anti–money laundering and know-your-customer checks for high-value or unusual transactions; train front-line and bench staff to recognize indicators of recent recutting; use independent gem labs and maintain chain-of-custody documentation; and keep rapid reporting channels to law enforcement open.

The clock is ticking

In the near term, investigators hold their best chance of finding the pieces intact — or intercepting altered stones before they disappear into commerce. Thompson added that the “guys who actually enter the museums are usually all hired hands, and they’re almost always caught in these cases,” a dynamic that can generate leads if arrests follow swiftly.

But if the trail cools, experts fear the artifacts will vanish in parts, their history stripped in the process. “I think they’re going to catch the criminals,” Marinello said. “But I don’t think they’ll find them with the jewels intact.”