Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basic. If you actually want to invest in a nice gold bracelet get an Elizabeth Locke or Temple St. Claire. But then people wouldn't know how much you spent, which I assume is the point of the Cartier.

I can’t afford any of this, but the point of the Cartier bracelet is to have a certain spare aesthetic. I looked at those two websites, and they’re NOTHING like the love bracelet. Literally not a single thing on the Elizabeth Locke website that I wouldn’t return. I’d take a Cartier tank over any of those $100,000 necklaces. Now would I buy a bracelet I can’t take off? Nope. But that snark was completely uncalled for.

+1
I had never even heard of Elizabeth Locke or Temple St. Claire so I investigated. Pretty pieces, outrageously expensive - and nothing I would ever covet. Give me a Cartier tank too!!

I have some Temple St. Claire earrings and they are beautifully made but they were way over priced. I got them on sale but still they, like most jewelry, were far too overpriced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the people saying that the Love bangles are "tacky" or "trashy"... I'm confused. They are objectively a fairly minimalist piece of jewelry. Do I think that they are overpriced for what they are? No doubt! You can get a similar gold bangle for 1/3 the price, but this doesn't make the piece in poor taste. Maybe some of the people who wear them are trashy, but the piece itself is bordering on blandly understated.

I agree. Also, I assure you, the haters posting on here do not have them, and [b]most likely cannot afford them or they have no-one to buy it for them and lack the confidence to buy it for themselves[/b].

LOL, whatever helps you sleep at night knowing you are in the same jewelry league as tacky Bravo ladies....

But here you all are, continuing to prove this PP right...stop outing yourselves, its unbecoming.

The defensiveness on thread is kind of pathetic. I'm here to laugh at you. I am Pakistani, the jewelry I wear daily is worth far more than your little lock on bracelet, so trust me, I have no skin in this game other than finding this thread amusing and people like you kind of sad.

DP. Aren't you a charmer. I bet you have *tons* of friends.

+1

She sounds completely unhinged and quite frankly rude.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the people saying that the Love bangles are "tacky" or "trashy"... I'm confused. They are objectively a fairly minimalist piece of jewelry. Do I think that they are overpriced for what they are? No doubt! You can get a similar gold bangle for 1/3 the price, but this doesn't make the piece in poor taste. Maybe some of the people who wear them are trashy, but the piece itself is bordering on blandly understated.

I agree. Also, I assure you, the haters posting on here do not have them, and [b]most likely cannot afford them or they have no-one to buy it for them and lack the confidence to buy it for themselves[/b].

LOL, whatever helps you sleep at night knowing you are in the same jewelry league as tacky Bravo ladies....

But here you all are, continuing to prove this PP right...stop outing yourselves, its unbecoming.

The defensiveness on thread is kind of pathetic. I'm here to laugh at you. I am Pakistani, the jewelry I wear daily is worth far more than your little lock on bracelet, so trust me, I have no skin in this game other than finding this thread amusing and people like you kind of sad.

DP. Aren't you a charmer. I bet you have *tons* of friends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all the people saying that the Love bangles are "tacky" or "trashy"... I'm confused. They are objectively a fairly minimalist piece of jewelry. Do I think that they are overpriced for what they are? No doubt! You can get a similar gold bangle for 1/3 the price, but this doesn't make the piece in poor taste. Maybe some of the people who wear them are trashy, but the piece itself is bordering on blandly understated.

I agree. Also, I assure you, the haters posting on here do not have them, and [b]most likely cannot afford them or they have no-one to buy it for them and lack the confidence to buy it for themselves[/b].

LOL, whatever helps you sleep at night knowing you are in the same jewelry league as tacky Bravo ladies....

But here you all are, continuing to prove this PP right...stop outing yourselves, its unbecoming.

The defensiveness on thread is kind of pathetic. I'm here to laugh at you. I am Pakistani, the jewelry I wear daily is worth far more than your little lock on bracelet, so trust me, I have no skin in this game other than finding this thread amusing and people like you kind of sad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm neutral on the love bangle, but really shocked so many people find it "embarrassing" to buy themselves jewelry. You think OP's friends' husbands picked those out themselves without any prodding from their wives? Please.

I also don't get it. I buy myself things with abandon and I'm becoming really good at colored stones and Edwardian jewelry. I'd love to go on a gem trip to Sri Lanka.

I think Opie is referring to the fact that the love bangle theme is that it’s a gift from your significant other and you cannot take it off (it needs to be removed with the screwdriver device) and that shows unyielding commitment. My guess is it hope he is concerned that some basic snob might say something to her like “oh who brought that for you? Your husband, your boyfriend, your parents? and then she would have to say “I bought it for myself,” and then risk a debate on whether that’s appropriate. Another words I don’t think that she would have trouble buying another piece of jewelry for herself.

I also think OP is overthinking it.