NEW YORK (AP) — As the world reels from a daring heist at the Louvre Museum in Paris, speculation is mounting about the fate of the opulent jewels that once graced the necks of France’s royalty.

Experts are cautioning that these treasures, valued at over $100 million (approximately 88 million euros), might already be dismantled or melted down. This process could facilitate their conversion into new jewelry pieces like necklaces or earrings, which might be discreetly sold without attracting significant attention.

“There’s no need to resort to the black market; these pieces could simply end up in a jewelry store,” explained Erin Thompson, an art crime specialist at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “It’s conceivable they could be sold just around the corner from the Louvre itself.”

Thompson and other experts highlight a growing trend where stolen jewels and metals are altered to obscure their origins, offering thieves a way to profit while evading detection. Given the high profile of the stolen Crown Jewels, public display is impossible, and selling the artifacts intact poses a significant challenge since their images have been widely circulated, noted Christopher Marinello, a lawyer and founder of Art Recovery International.

The jewels may be hard to monetize

“By dismantling them, the thieves effectively erase their tracks,” Marinello said, suggesting that these jewels could become even harder to trace if taken abroad to be recut and integrated into international supply chains.

Nevertheless, when sold in smaller pieces, these jewels typically fetch only a fraction of their original value. This is due not only to their reduced size but also because altering them strips away their historical significance.

It isn’t a simple process.

“The real art in an art heist isn’t the stealing, it’s the selling,” explained Robert Wittman, former senior investigator of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s art crime team. Wittman, who has since formed his own private practice, said that the individuals behind such heists are typically “better criminals or thieves than they are businessmen.”

Unlike others, Wittman is skeptical about Sunday’s thieves successfully monetizing the artifacts they stole from the Louvre — which include an emerald necklace and earrings, two crowns, two brooches, a sapphire necklace and a single earring worn by 19th-century royals. He notes the gems may still be identifiable by their clarity, for example, and gold that was refined when the pieces were made hundreds of years ago is not as pure as what’s typically in demand today.

“Because of what they are, there’s really no point destroying them,” Wittman said, while pointing to the risks of selling such high-profile stolen goods.

Scott Guginsky, executive vice president of the Jewelers’ Security Alliance, a nonprofit trade association focused on preventing jewelry crime, also notes the age and quality of the artifacts’ diamonds. He suspects they’re probably not graded.

“It’s not something that you can move on the open market. It’s nothing that can go through an auction house,” said Guginsky, who used to run the New York Police Department’s organized theft squad.

Given the amount of preparation that the thieves likely put into this, Guginsky believes they have a plan for selling the jewels, even if they might first decide to “sit on” the jewelry and wait out suspicion.

“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, notes most jewelry businesses implement anti-money laundering programs and look out for red flags like unusual orders, repeated purchases and requests for secrecy.

Still, she and others say the age of some jewels — if broken down effectively — could actually make it harder to track. Newer gemstones, for example, sometimes carry a laser inscription inside that can be evaluated in a lab. But “because these are historical pieces, it’s rather unlikely that it has those identifying features,” noted Yood.

Experts like Thompson say bigger gems can be recut to a point that they’re unrecognizable. A challenge is finding people who have the skill to do that and don’t ask too many questions — but it’s possible, she said.

Whether the people behind Sunday’s heist had those contacts or certain buyers lined up is unknown. But it’s important to also note that “the guys who actually enter the museums are usually all hired hands, and they’re almost always caught in these cases,” Thompson added.

Chances of recovery look dim

She and others say that museums have increasingly faced a rash of similar thefts over recent years. Thompson notes that stealing from storage can go undetected for longer: the British Museum in London, which has accused a former curator of stealing artifacts and selling them online, is still trying to recover some of the 2,000 items stolen.

Some past thieves have made ransom demands for stolen artwork overall, or wait for a potential “no questions asked” reward from an insurance company — which can amount to about a 10% cut for some insured pieces in Europe, Thompson says. The jewels stolen from the Louvre Sunday, however, were reportedly not privately insured.

Sometimes government offers of a reward for information about a high-profile heist can also quicken the investigation, although the French government has yet to publicize such an incentive. If that changes, or promising leads are uncovered from the evidence left behind at the Louvre, experts like Wittman note it could increase the chances of recovering the artifacts.

Still, as more time passes, others feel that the fate of finding the historic jewels looks dim.

“I think they’re going to catch the criminals,” said Marinello. “But I don’t think they’ll find them with the jewels intact.”