Trendy luxury jewelry. Cartier, VCA etc

[Anonymous]

They used to be a symbol of conventional, westernized wealth.

Not anymore, since now there are so many credible fakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They used to be a symbol of conventional, westernized wealth.

Not anymore, since now there are so many credible fakes.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
They used to be a symbol of conventional, westernized wealth.

Not anymore, since now there are so many credible fakes.

This -- I also have no desire for a Hermes or Chanel bag at this point since there are just so many people with fakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The love bracelets are beautiful. My MIL gifts them to all her granddaughters so my DD has a few which she likes to wear stacked. I don’t have any opinion about what others choose to wear.

She gifts $5k bracelets and your DD wears stacks of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe it's fake, maybe it's not. Does it matter? Wear what you like, buy what you can afford. If it bothers you that someone might think your $12,000 VCA piece is just a cheap Temu imitation, then I don't know how to help you.

Because most people attracted to this highly recognizable style are people who crave to be identified as wealthy. The older generation has no clue and wore this back when it actually did mean that. I don't blame the Grandmas walking about with such baubles, but the younger women? It's slightly cringe.

[Anonymous]

I have a Van Cleef alhambra necklace and a Cartier love bracelet. I love and wear both. They don't feel necessarily trendy to me because I don't see them in the wild very often. I think social media has skewed our sense of what's overdone/saturated.

That said, I find stacks of Cartier bracelets to be impossibly tacky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a Van Cleef alhambra necklace and a Cartier love bracelet. I love and wear both. They don't feel necessarily trendy to me because I don't see them in the wild very often. I think social media has skewed our sense of what's overdone/saturated.

That said, I find stacks of Cartier bracelets to be impossibly tacky.

You don't swan about in the right circles, PP, and the DC area isn't the best place for those circles. But yes, these jewelry pieces do have a rabid following of a certain type of attention-seeker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think that they have nice but very basic style and value things that are both beautiful and highly recognizable. They value wealth signifiers. As far as actual style goes, when we talk about whether or not someone is a "stylish" person -- an Alhambra bracelet, a Love bracelet ... these things convey a certain kind and level of style that is not bad and not great. It's nice. It's fine. It's basic. I wouldn't mind an Alhambra bracelet in tiger eye (because tiger eye is special to me). But I wouldn't go out of my way to buy it. And I wouldn't be in "head to toe" signifiers, but that is because I tend to prefer more of a street style.

This, it has a "trying too hard to fit in" vibe. Fine but I'm not impressed or excited by it. I do love unique jewelry pieces or when someone has a cohesive unusual style.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all replicas are cheap. You can get replicas that are real gold, and have beautiful workmanship, custom made by jewelers.

Ok.

So ... cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Welp nobody ever thinks my stack of DY is fake

I would.

Fake cable bracelets everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They used to be a symbol of conventional, westernized wealth.

Not anymore, since now there are so many credible fakes.

This -- I also have no desire for a Hermes or Chanel bag at this point since there are just so many people with fakes.

So, you don't really like those bags. Your primary concern would be that it be accepted as a sign of wealth. Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a Van Cleef alhambra necklace and a Cartier love bracelet. I love and wear both. They don't feel necessarily trendy to me because I don't see them in the wild very often. I think social media has skewed our sense of what's overdone/saturated.

That said, I find stacks of Cartier bracelets to be impossibly tacky.

Really? I feel like I see almost nothing but.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They used to be a symbol of conventional, westernized wealth.

Not anymore, since now there are so many credible fakes.

This -- I also have no desire for a Hermes or Chanel bag at this point since there are just so many people with fakes.

Did you have a desire for one at some other point? If so, why does that change because someone less affluent than you can afford the same look?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
They used to be a symbol of conventional, westernized wealth.

Not anymore, since now there are so many credible fakes.

This -- I also have no desire for a Hermes or Chanel bag at this point since there are just so many people with fakes.

So, you don't really like those bags. Your primary concern would be that it be accepted as a sign of wealth. Ok.

NP-I would feel bad if people thought I carry fake things personally, like signaling striver-ness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a Van Cleef alhambra necklace and a Cartier love bracelet. I love and wear both. They don't feel necessarily trendy to me because I don't see them in the wild very often. I think social media has skewed our sense of what's overdone/saturated.

That said, I find stacks of Cartier bracelets to be impossibly tacky.

Really? I feel like I see almost nothing but.

Same I see a LOT of both of these. Even more if you include Alhambra bracelets and Cartier Love rings in the mix.