Editor’s Note
**Editor’s Note:** The recent theft of “priceless” jewels from the Louvre raises a surprising question: can such high-profile loot ever be sold? Industry experts explain why even the black market offers no safe harbor for these iconic pieces.
The jewels stolen from the Louvre, described as “priceless,” may never find a buyer? The commercial director of Maison Celinni explains why reselling them, even on the black market, is nearly impossible.
The jewels stolen from the Louvre are described as “priceless.” Can we really assign them a value, even an approximate one?
That seems difficult. These are very old jewels, whose quality criteria no longer match current standards. The diamonds or stones that compose them would not be certified today like those found on the modern market. Today, every diamond over 0.15 or 0.20 carats has a laser engraving on its pavilion, linked to a certificate. It’s its identity card, in a way. These certificates are issued by laboratories like the GIA, which is highly recognized worldwide. But at the time of the Louvre jewels, this system did not exist. Ancient jewels do not benefit from any modern traceability. However, a diamond sold without a certificate loses enormous value on the legal market. So it’s really complex to assign them a real value; from a commercial standpoint, they have very little. Their interest is primarily historical.
Even unset, it would be of no interest. Of course, there is a parallel market, but the value remains low. You can resell an exceptional quality diamond, like a Harry Winston, at a very good price, but not this kind of ancient stones, often small and irregularly cut.
Extracting stone by stone to try to resell them would be a titanic and useless task. We are not talking about exceptional diamonds here. These stones have primarily heritage value. I sincerely doubt that was the thieves’ objective.
Yes, in my opinion, it’s the most credible lead. This type of theft is not intended for resale on the black market. These pieces have historical, almost sentimental value, not financial. I am convinced there was a sponsor behind it. This is typically the pattern of a commissioned theft. If it weren’t commissioned, the thieves would have gone to Cartier or Tiffany & Co because there is real market value behind them.
When you look at major art theft cases, it’s almost always the case: private collectors, enthusiasts, who commission these thefts to possess a unique piece. Obviously, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I would lean towards the work of a great collector. Someone very rich, passionate about history, willing to take risks to own a “mythical” piece. The interest of these people is not financial: it’s prestige and exclusivity.