Paris Louvre Jewels Heist

[Enchanted_Elixir]

On 10/24/2025 at 10:27 AM, vinapu said:

beautiful useless things.

Painting at least can cover crack or hole in the wall

I get the instinct. Fabergé eggs feel like beauty weaponised by wealth. But beauty isn’t owned by oligarchs. It is a school for the senses, and the poor deserve admission first.

Think of a flat with a cracked wall, a rickety table, a kettle on. Hang a small painting. Lay a clean cloth. Light a candle. These are not distractions from material need. They are forms that teach attention, patience, and care. Form educates desire before slogans do. If you want solidarity, start with a room that makes friendship easy.

I’m no defender of luxury baubles. Craft over spectacle. A hand-thrown mug, a well-mended coat, a parish banner carried through the estate on a feast day. These “useless” things are in fact useful. They bind a street. They tutor the gaze. They make fidelity imaginable.

The market sells us décor as mood. But common life needs «liturgy». Weekly meals, shared tools, a wall everyone helps repaint, a mural the children touch up each term. Beauty becomes a public good when it shows up in durable forms that ordinary people can use and keep.

[Enchanted_Elixir]

On 10/21/2025 at 9:58 AM, PeterRS said:

Not just any old pieces, either. These were to all intents and purposes the royal jewels of France. Just eight pieces, but of almost incalculable value. One crown is set with 2i2 pearls and 3,000 diamonds!

Just to provide some context, most of the Crown Jewels of France no longer exist. Taken apart during the 1790s, the remaining ones purposefully destroyed by the republican government after 1870 as a response to the conflict with the royalist factions. So unless returned, the materials from that era gone forever.

[PeterRS]

5 hours ago, Enchanted_Elixir said:

Just to provide some context, most of the Crown Jewels of France no longer exist. Taken apart during the 1790s, the remaining ones purposefully destroyed by the republican government after 1870 as a response to the conflict with the royalist factions. So unless returned, the materials from that era gone forever.

Agreed, but you are talking about the jewels which beonged to the Bourbon Dynasty whose King and Queen were executed during the Revolution. The jewels which were stolen essentially belonged to women directly related to the later rulers of France who had been crowned Emperors. To all intents and purposes they were French royalty in the 19th century and their extant jewels can be called as most commentators have done crown jewels. Athough there are subtle differences between the two titles, in this case there was little difference, I believe, between the nomenclature of King and Emperor.

[vinapu]

23 hours ago, unicorn said:

One can just as well enjoy reproductions and/or works by less well-known but essentially equally talented artists. 

Indeed, I like Guernica in my living room better that original in Reina Sophia museum in Madrid

[PeterRS]

2 hours ago, vinapu said:

Indeed, I like Guernica in my living room better that original in Reina Sophia museum in Madrid

Is your living room that big? 

[PeterRS]

On 10/25/2025 at 9:18 AM, unicorn said:

I definitely agree that we place too much value on originals. The only reasons I can think of for buying an original are either (1) you think you can sell it later for more, or (2) you're a high-volume museum, such as the Louvre, where tens of thousands will pay good money each day to see the original (and also provide more tourist dollars towards your city's and/or country's economy). If you simply appreciate the artwork, reproductions can be made, the difference which can only be detected by experts. If I really like an artwork, be it a painting, sculpture, or whatever, I'll get a reproduction. I can appreciate it over and over for a tiny fraction of the cost. Even better, I'll buy an artwork I like from an unknown artist, then I pay less for something that I not only appreciate, but that's unique.

I basically agree with your reasoning. David Hockney was a simple lad from the north of England. He dabbled in painting as a child and wanted to become an artist. Like the young Picasso and so many other artists, he never expected to become famous. That one of his paintings (see the Art forum) might be about to go under the hammer at auction for an expected US$45 million would no doubt have staggered him when he started his career.

As with some of the paintings of other artists, their value is partly in the enjoyment of the buyer and partly in the investment possibility. What I often wonder is how anyone knows how the art market will develop. As far as I know, the great masters of the past like Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Donatello, Durer & co made just an average living. They surely could not have known that future generations would place enormous cash value on their paintings and sculptures. Did even artists of later centuries like Constable, Goya and Delacroix consider increasing values?

Canaletto was surely just a scenic artist rather like those who one sees today outside major buildings and palaces in Europe and elsewhere whose quickly worked paintings sell for peanuts. Canaletto's were basically sold to tourists as a memento of their visit to Venice on the Grand Tour. Yet Joseph Smith, the British Consul in the city, liked them, bought 50 and became the artist's agent. Smith later sold many to the King of England. One recently sold for a whopping $43.9 million at Christie's in July this year. What I wonder makes this any different from most of his other Venice paintings?

The most expensive Canaletto ever sold "Return of the Bucintoro on Ascension Day"

I am all for reproductions. I have a smaller-sized reproduction of my favourite painting by Manet. I even have it as a fridge magnet! But most of the paintings in my flat were purchased for peanuts and are no doubt still worth only peanuts. But I enjoy them - and that is surely the main issue. 

[BjornAgain]

3 hours ago, vinapu said:

Indeed, I like Guernica in my living room better that original in Reina Sophia museum in Madrid

Pish, as they say in Glasgow, aka Small fishing village on the Clyde.

Guernica is a mere 3.5m by 7.8m, or 27.3m².

If we're talking size, as some of the fine collaborators of this distinguished forum do, then I give you "Impossibility is a Myth", by 14 year old Nigerian autistic artist Kanyeyachukwu Tagbo-Okeke. Painted on canvas  measuring a whopping 12,381m², and confirmed by Guinness in April this year as the world's largest art canvas.

For reference, the size of an American Football field is 5,390m². Whereas, a British or European International Football pitch is between 6400m² and 8250m² (Just discovered there is no fixed dimensions, all depends on the stadium).

Might be a bit tricky to frame and hang.

[vinapu]

21 hours ago, PeterRS said:

Is your living room that big? 

no but original I have is bit smaller than fake original they have at Reina Sofia

[PeterRS]

I see from The Guardian that police have caught two of the suspected thieves. This was partly a result of their having left behind at the scene of the robbery a ridiculous amount of materials from which they could be identified. You walk off with hugely valuable jewels but are so stupid you leave behind items which can through fingerprints and DNA identify you. Dumb!

The men were identified from forensic analysis of items that were abandoned at the scene, including gloves, a hi-vis vest, a motorbike helmet, angle grinders and other power tools, a blow-torch and a walkie-talkie.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/26/two-men-reportedly-arrested-after-louvre-jewel-heist