Copying, and ... copying

[Laila619]

I think Zahra Leyla's RDG ring was definitely unique and I've never seen anything like it anywhere. But Yssie's 3 stone and 5 stone, and Haven's ring? I *adore* both ladies' rings, but I am positive I have seen very similar designs elsewhere. Trellis rings especially have been around forever. So in that sense, I do not think they are unique. Now, I completely understand that when you are in the process of designing and creating it with your jeweler, and pouring your heart into it, you might feel like it's your design, but in reality there are others out there already just like it. So I just don't get it I suppose. Haven and Yssie, you know I love you ladies and I sincerely hope you're not offended. If other people like your rings, it just means you have great taste!!

I think this thread is getting kind of a snobby undertone. I wonder if people are more offended by their "copying" over there because they use sims?

 

[pregcurious]

I just went to the "David Klass Photo Gallery" on the other site, and it was bizarre. I saw copies of Haven's solitaire, LM's 5 stone with pink halo, Kelpie's SS ring, Yssie's 5 stone from DBL, a ring from an antique reproduction site (I can't remember the name), a Michael Beaudry setting, Zahra's RDG ring, and a jbEG Lily.

Here's the thing. With the exception of the Zahra's RDG ring, the copies were pretty good, and quite _exact_. They skimped on some small details, but I could recognize the original.

 

[TravelingGal]

I think Zahra Leyla's RDG ring was definitely unique and I've never seen anything like it anywhere. But Yssie's 3 stone and 5 stone, and Haven's ring? I *adore* both ladies' rings, but I am positive I have seen very similar designs elsewhere. Trellis rings especially have been around forever. So in that sense, I do not think they are unique. Now, I completely understand that when you are in the process of designing and creating it with your jeweler, and pouring your heart into it, you might feel like it's your design, but in reality there are others out there already just like it. So I just don't get it I suppose. Haven and Yssie, you know I love you ladies and I sincerely hope you're not offended. If other people like your rings, it just means you have great taste!!

I think this thread is getting kind of a snobby undertone. I wonder if people are more offended by their "copying" over there because they use sims?

I don't think so. I think it's more a case of a cast replica being made of hand forged pieces, and the feeling over there that the copies are better than the original that's raising some eyebrows. And I think it's more the design proportions that people there see the improvement on, vs the "quality" of the piece.

 

[House Cat]

I guess I am naive around here. I see so many settings copied. I didn't know they were personal. For example, let's take the Harry Winston inspired halo setting. Who was the original Pricescope member to use that setting? Was permission asked of that member 3,000 times over when that particular setting was used? What about all of the settings designed and named on Whiteflash? What about Brian Gavin's settings that he and PS members have designed as "personal" designs but then he's posted on his website and now sells to others? The grace setting comes to mind and that setting was VERY personal to the pricescope member. Do you see where I am going with this? It is a very confusing line.

I will make it more clear. For the many years that I have been on this forum, Pricescope members have put their heart and soul into jewelry designs with various jewelry makers, but it seems to me that after that setting is made, it is fair game, especially in the mind of the jewelry maker.

When did the rules change? What I mean is, when was it made clear that permission should be asked if a copy were to be made of a particular piece? Am I totally confused somewhere. Am I missing some piece of etiquette somewhere?


So then, if this setting is "fair game," in other's minds, it is fair game to be copied too. It is not sacred to anyone but the artist themselves.

I'm not meaning to hurt anyone here. I'm just explaining what I have witnessed from a impartial point of view.

ETA: I need to edit to add, I know the settings are personal in the sense that they mean a lot to the person designing them. I didn't know they were personal, meaning that the person wouldn't want the setting ever copied? I hope I am making sense.

 

[Matata]

Execution of a design is in the eyes of the beholder. I looked at the gallery referred to earlier. I saw a few rings that were based on Psers rings but the differences were so significant to my eyes that I can't consider them copies. Zahara's alleged copy? Not even close. The differences in the skills of the jewelers producing the rings are clearly apparent. A war of words over what that other site's members do and what we do here is divisive and will lead to bad juju. There is cross membership on both sites. Those folks are happy with their rings and their choices, no need to cast aspersions.

 

[Laila619]

Execution of a design is in the eyes of the beholder. I looked at the gallery referred to earlier. I saw a few rings that were based on Psers rings but the differences were so significant to my eyes that I can't consider them copies. Zahara's alleged copy? Not even close. The differences in the skills of the jewelers producing the rings are clearly apparent. A war of words over what that other site's members do and what we do here is divisive and will lead to bad juju. There is cross membership on both sites. Those folks are happy with their rings and their choices, no need to cast aspersions.

Yes, this. I don't want this to be an "us" vs "them" sort of mentality. There are a lot of nice folks over there, just like there are here!

 

[Rockdiamond]

I just went to the "David Klass Photo Gallery" on the other site, and it was bizarre. I saw copies of Haven's solitaire, LM's 5 stone with pink halo, Kelpie's SS ring, Yssie's 5 stone from DBL, a ring from an antique reproduction site (I can't remember the name), a Michael Beaudry setting, Zahra's RDG ring, and a jbEG Lily.

Here's the thing. With the exception of the Zahra's RDG ring, the copies were pretty good, and quite _exact_. They skimped on some small details, but I could recognize the original.

ummm - I just looked, as this post peaked my interest.
The copy of the ring we made is quite different from the one we made.
I'd call it "inspired by"- but the details make the whole ring different.
The differences are obvious- especially if we're talking about typical PS eyes.

And as Laila has pointed out- we did not invent the trellis design. But we certainly did put our own twist on it.

 

[Rhea]

I think Zahra Leyla's RDG ring was definitely unique and I've never seen anything like it anywhere. But Yssie's 3 stone and 5 stone, and Haven's ring? I *adore* both ladies' rings, but I am positive I have seen very similar designs elsewhere. Trellis rings especially have been around forever. So in that sense, I do not think they are unique. Now, I completely understand that when you are in the process of designing and creating it with your jeweler, and pouring your heart into it, you might feel like it's your design, but in reality there are others out there already just like it. So I just don't get it I suppose. Haven and Yssie, you know I love you ladies and I sincerely hope you're not offended. If other people like your rings, it just means you have great taste!!

I think this thread is getting kind of a snobby undertone. I wonder if people are more offended by their "copying" over there because they use sims?

I don't think so. I think it's more a case of a cast replica being made of hand forged pieces, and the feeling over there that the copies are better than the original that's raising some eyebrows. And I think it's more the design proportions that people there see the improvement on, vs the "quality" of the piece.

That's what I have the problem with. It's not like a Tiffany ring, which is by a big company and therefore not as personal. I was surprised to find people saying that the reproduction rings are much better than the original in what seemed like such an insulting way.

For the record, I have no problem with copying. I recently did an earring setting and borrowed from a few different sources including SS, a couple of posters here, AER, and an antique on JbEG. It's pretty and I spent a lot of time of time on it, but it's nothing new. By the same token, there's an earring setting on here that I love and I'd not hesitate to copy it.

There's nothing completely new done but it's good to play nice and either credit the inspiration or at least be polite and not slam the original of what was copied.

 

[pregcurious]

I just went to the "David Klass Photo Gallery" on the other site, and it was bizarre. I saw copies of Haven's solitaire, LM's 5 stone with pink halo, Kelpie's SS ring, Yssie's 5 stone from DBL, a ring from an antique reproduction site (I can't remember the name), a Michael Beaudry setting, Zahra's RDG ring, and a jbEG Lily.

Here's the thing. With the exception of the Zahra's RDG ring, the copies were pretty good, and quite _exact_. They skimped on some small details, but I could recognize the original.

ummm - I just looked, as this post peaked my interest.
The copy of the ring we made is quite different from the one we made.
I'd call it "inspired by"- but the details make the whole ring different.
The differences are obvious- especially if we're talking about typical PS eyes.

And as Laila has pointed out- we did not invent the trellis design. But we certainly did put our own twist on it.

There is definitely a difference where the shank meets the trellis. I agree with you that details are different. The trellis is quite a good copy, and it is odd to see on another shank. I think it's good that it doesn't bother you.

I thought that the copies would be more difficult to identify, based on the comments that Zahra's ring is not a good copy. In the case of that ring, I have to say I'm not sure I would have recognized it without the tip. The scale is very different, and Zahra's has the sharpness of a hand forged ring. I imagine that the vendor could actually do a good job with his own designs, but I can't find a website. Looking at Yelp, it seems that this vendor specializes in copying designs. I see that there is definitely a market for that.

I feel like I just walked into a Bizarro dimension of PS.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Nah, it doesn't bother me in the least little bit.
When you do something well, people will copy you.
When people steal my pictures ( happens all the time) I go bezerko- but jewelry designs all evolve from other designs. That's a good thing IMO

 

[pregcurious]

Your trellis was beautiful, and the copy actually makes me appreciate your workmanship more. I love how you carried the flow into the shank. Very thoughtful.

 

[Aoife]

I just went to the "David Klass Photo Gallery" on the other site, and it was bizarre. I saw copies of Haven's solitaire, LM's 5 stone with pink halo, Kelpie's SS ring, Yssie's 5 stone from DBL, a ring from an antique reproduction site (I can't remember the name), a Michael Beaudry setting, Zahra's RDG ring, and a jbEG Lily.

Here's the thing. With the exception of the Zahra's RDG ring, the copies were pretty good, and quite _exact_. They skimped on some small details, but I could recognize the original.

I just did this, too, and actually, I agree. Many of the iterations were very pretty, especially the copy of Haven's.

Perhaps the takeaway from this is that very distinctive and intricate rings are harder to duplicate satisfactorily. No surprise there.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that the stones set in the copies are sims is irrelevant. I just wasn't really aware of the number of copies, or how much crossover there was between sites. Sims are not my thing, but I understand that others get a lot of pleasure from them. The copying was the issue under discussion.

 

[Jax172]

They've now posted a thread about this thread on the other forum.

Personally, I'm fully aware that once you put a picture out there - it's pretty much likely to be copied. I am sure all the designers are aware of this. But I think that they also likely get more business from the pictures being online and that that far outweighs the fact that people make inferior copies of their work. Their name isn't on it and if it isn't very good no one will mistake the copy for an original anyways. If there was truly something I didn't want copied for whatever reason, I wouldn't post pictures online.

 

[SB621]

I just went to the "David Klass Photo Gallery" on the other site, and it was bizarre. I saw copies of Haven's solitaire, LM's 5 stone with pink halo, Kelpie's SS ring, Yssie's 5 stone from DBL, a ring from an antique reproduction site (I can't remember the name), a Michael Beaudry setting, Zahra's RDG ring, and a jbEG Lily.

Here's the thing. With the exception of the Zahra's RDG ring, the copies were pretty good, and quite _exact_. They skimped on some small details, but I could recognize the original.

I just did this, too, and actually, I agree. Many of the iterations were very pretty, especially the copy of Haven's.

Perhaps the takeaway from this is that very distinctive and intricate rings are harder to duplicate satisfactorily. No surprise there.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that the stones set in the copies are sims is irrelevant. I just wasn't really aware of the number of copies, or how much crossover there was between sites. Sims are not my thing, but I understand that others get a lot of pleasure from them. The copying was the issue under discussion.

Really?!?!?! I saw the copies too and I pretty much think they are in completely different ball parks. I'm not saying his work is bad. I really liked some of the things I saw - especially some eternitys, but I think the repos that I recongized can't be compared to the orginals. But to me that is expected. There is a reason why these designers are $$$$ and if you are paying for a cheaper vs then that is what you are going to get. As long as the person recongizes that then who really cares. However, please don't say they are inspired by when the only change is minimal. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck- then it is a duck.

EDIT- I should also say that I'm pretty obessive with settings. I could care less what is set in them. I know people like DS are crazy about the cut and color etc etc etc. But I guess my excitment is always the setting so I spend a lot more time looking at them then most people

 

[cygnet]

They've now posted a thread about this thread on the other forum.

And someone copied a response from here over there I just thought that was funny because the thread is about copying
Honestly I can see both sides of the argument, and I can understand loving something but not wanting the exact same thing as the original, whether it is because it is too expensive or you'd rather substitute a different stone or make a few changes, etc. I get it, but I still personally think a few of the copies cross the line. But that line is highly subjective.

I don't think I'd be too upset if someone loved my ring and wanted to buy an Octavia and put it in the exact same setting... but then again, mine is hardly an original. It's just the first time that particular stone has been combined with that setting (or anything similar, as far as I know). But that's a totally different situation than Zahra's ring being copied, I think. What really got to me in that situation was the sense of smugness about the copy's supposed superiority over the original. Different strokes and all, but the attitude was kind of obnoxious. Oh well.

 

[Aoife]

I just went to the "David Klass Photo Gallery" on the other site, and it was bizarre. I saw copies of Haven's solitaire, LM's 5 stone with pink halo, Kelpie's SS ring, Yssie's 5 stone from DBL, a ring from an antique reproduction site (I can't remember the name), a Michael Beaudry setting, Zahra's RDG ring, and a jbEG Lily.

Here's the thing. With the exception of the Zahra's RDG ring, the copies were pretty good, and quite _exact_. They skimped on some small details, but I could recognize the original.

I just did this, too, and actually, I agree. Many of the iterations were very pretty, especially the copy of Haven's.

Perhaps the takeaway from this is that very distinctive and intricate rings are harder to duplicate satisfactorily. No surprise there.

As far as I am concerned, the fact that the stones set in the copies are sims is irrelevant. I just wasn't really aware of the number of copies, or how much crossover there was between sites. Sims are not my thing, but I understand that others get a lot of pleasure from them. The copying was the issue under discussion.

Really?!?!?! I saw the copies too and I pretty much think they are in completely different ball parks. I'm not saying his work is bad. I really liked some of the things I saw - especially some eternitys, but I think the repos that I recongized can't be compared to the orginals. But to me that is expected. There is a reason why these designers are $$$$ and if you are paying for a cheaper vs then that is what you are going to get. As long as the person recongizes that then who really cares. However, please don't say they are inspired by when the only change is minimal. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck- then it is a duck.

EDIT- I should also say that I'm pretty obessive with settings. I could care less what is set in them. I know people like DS are crazy about the cut and color etc etc etc. But I guess my excitment is always the setting so I spend a lot more time looking at them then most people

There's a difference between saying some of them are pretty, and saying the workmanship matches the originals--which they don't. Would I use this guy to make one of my settings? Nope, but obviously he fills a need, just like Daniel M, or many others. I also wouldn't be inclined to use a vendor who makes most of his living, apparently, off copying designs.

 

[pregcurious]

I agree that the quality of some of the reproductions was not as good as the original, but some of them were quite good (not all). I'm not sure how much people are paying the vendor, but I am guessing that they are getting a decent deal.

From the comments above, I think my bar was set very low.

 

[Circe]

Woah, this thread has exploded since the last time I looked at it. Lots of food for thought, and no need for apologies from anybody, at least not to me - while I was hoping it wouldn't get acrimonious with the linking and the inter-forum stuff, I have to admit, the straw that broke the camel's back and made me wonder if it was just me was that link in Haven's thread, and the bit where people were complimenting the imitation at the expense of the original. It left a bad taste in my mouth, too, because, a) I like the ring's owner, b) I really respect the amount of work she and her jeweler put into designing it, and, c) I think she's been really classy about bestowing the blanket blessing! But, like somebody on there asked ... why would it bug? It's not even my ring! So I figured it would be a valid question to pose. Why does it bug (some of us more than others)?

One of my grad school friends doesn't make bank (we were English majors, we saw it coming), but he loves his name-brand watches, and has a collection of "Rolex" and such. He also has a tendency to gloat over how good the copies are, and how much smarter it is to get them than to drop 20K per wrist, and how he'd get them even if he won the lottery. And somehow ... it always feels a little dog-in-the-manger. Dude ... why not just get a really cool Fossil, or something? Vintage Bulova? No?

I actually think Dreamer, social scientist that she is, got really close to what I see as the heart of it when she said:

... Another interesting layer is that the replicator then gets a lot of attention from peers saying the replicated version is even better than the original! Translation: You are cooler and better than the original owner.

I am sure these types of processes are not entirely conscious. But we have all had experiences in life where we long to be like someone else perceived to have what we want -- wealth, popularity, influence, happiness. I think aspirational replication is about trying to be like people we admire in some way.

I do wonder if part of that is also the by-extension implication that the peers giving the compliments are cooler and better, too, for seeing through the propoganda, etc. And if maybe that's why these sorts of things tend to generalize out (per forum, or social class, or what-have-you). We're all identifying with the people we perceive as sharing, not just our tastes, but also our putative philosophies?

P.S. - *I* apologize for rambling and/or starting the sh!t-storm I wanted to avoid. I've been flu-ish all week, and gods only know what's making it out of my mouth.

And, P.P.S. - Ladies from the other forum, if you read this, believe me, it's not a sim thing, or a more-moola-makes-a-project-more-worthwhile thing. It is purely and simply - or began as, anyway - me wondering how people were feeling about copyright these days. It's gotten very ... fluid ... when we look at other media (PirateBay, etc.) and I was wondering how other people saw it when it came to jewelry design. No more, no less. I certainly never wanted anybody to feel denigrated because of finances.

Son of P.P.S. - Big difference between copying pieces made 100 years ago, and pieces made this year, because ... copyright. No, small jewelers can't sue, they don't have the means (one reason why it bugs me more than the "inspired by" pieces that rip on Tiffany or Cartier, who most certainly do have the means to defend their profits). Doesn't mean they don't deserve the credit for their original ideas, though.

 

[aljdewey]

I actually think Dreamer, social scientist that she is, got really close to what I see as the heart of it when she said:

... Another interesting layer is that the replicator then gets a lot of attention from peers saying the replicated version is even better than the original! Translation: You are cooler and better than the original owner.

I am sure these types of processes are not entirely conscious. But we have all had experiences in life where we long to be like someone else perceived to have what we want -- wealth, popularity, influence, happiness. I think aspirational replication is about trying to be like people we admire in some way.

I do wonder if part of that is also the by-extension implication that the peers giving the compliments are cooler and better, too, for seeing through the propoganda, etc. And if maybe that's why these sorts of things tend to generalize out (per forum, or social class, or what-have-you). We're all identifying with the people we perceive as sharing, not just our tastes, but also our putative philosophies?

I completely agree that a sense of inclusion or belonging may the impetus for some folks, but for the stronger personalities I'd be less inclined to think that's their motivation. I honestly think there's a little more to it than that.

The threads noting how widely spread PSers are geographically suggests that most people live in smaller areas where there's probably not much variety available beyond the tried-and-true mainstream offerings. It makes sense that people would see a larger variety of styles here, thereby increasing their likelihood to find something that resonates with their own personal style. To me, this is akin to clotheshorses finding more much inspiration in fashion-forward places like NY than in rural town America.

I'd bet, too, that many posters find examples of things very well done here that may change their perceptions. My birthstone is peridot, for example, and I wasn't a fan of it for years because the only examples I'd ever seen of it were commercial grade goods and they were all oval shaped - like belly buttons. My appreciation for peridots changed drastically when I saw some of the vibrant Pakistani colors here in shapes other than oval. Up until that point, I literally didn't know what I didn't know.....but being exposed to better color representations of it definitely revised my opinion.

I always thought I was a diamond lover only until I saw some stunning examples of colored stones. My gravity toward then didn't come about because I wanted to feel like one the cool colored stone kids (haha - I think most of you here know that doesn't really motivate me at all), but their sharing did influence me in that it exposed me to colored stones in a new light and fueled my appreciation (and eventually preference) for them.

 

[Circe]

Oh, indeed - I meant the tendency to compliment the imitation at the expense of the original.

 

[yssie]

The vendors on NYC sidewalks who "serve a need" for knockoff purses get rounded up and fined. Again and again and again.
If (say) Lockheed Martin tried to "serve a need" by borrowing one of (say) GE's turbine designs that hasn't yet been patented I can only begin to imagine the lawsuit.

In few other industries would copyrighting and this mean absolutely nothing (legally).


(That's from one of the photos Zahra posted)


Aoife, I used your wording because I think it hits the nail on the head, not because I'm aiming my response at you! Yes, if you post it on the internet it'll get copied. That's a fact - and it's a sad statement on some vendors' lack of integrity and scruples. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

 

[Aoife]

Yssie, no worries, and yes, I noticed the copyright on the thread on the other forum, and thought it was one of the most unintentionally ironic things I'd seen in a while.

In general, copyrights are a lot harder to prove than you would think, although RDG would probably have a stronger case than most.

 

[aljdewey]

In few other industries would copyrighting and this mean absolutely nothing (legally).


(That's from one of the photos Zahra posted)

I work directly in an industry that focuses solely on copyright, and I can assure you that the exact opposite is true.....there are several other industries in which copyright means absolutely nothing when it's someone else's work. The only time people seem to care about it is when they themselves are the ones shortchanged.

 

[cygnet]

I noticed the unintentional irony of the copyright logo posted on the other thread too.

Also... someone over there seems to be having a bad day.

 

[SCrane]

I don't have anything insightful to add, but I thought the stuff in the David Klass gallery over there was very nice looking. I don't think that the stuff there is better than the original but rather different. The copy of Zahra's ring was changed intentionally to something the other lady felt more comfortable with it sounded like. I don't think it was a "desecration" of the original or that the jeweler's work was bad. I'm guessing that if you present a picture of something to pretty much any jeweler and they have the ability to create it and you have the money to pay for it, they will do it. I can't imagine that the guy was being intentionally offensive or that he lives for making knock-offs... Just my opinion.

 

[Haven]

OK, I think we are giving ourselves airs if we really think that. PS has been around for ages and a LOT of people find us when searching for jewelry/diamond info. We're a stop for bling lovers! I don't think anyone anywhere is waiting to pounce on new designs and copy them. There are people who love jewelry but can't afford diamonds. There is a forum for that. And if you love jewelry, you're going to find PS, and find pieces of PSers that you love and covet.

I don't think anyone over there owes us any courtesy. It's a separate forum. The general public lurk here all the time and I'm sure there's lots of copying going on that we never know about. I agree that copying a RDG design is a little different from copying some others, but there's also a bit of ego that's going on here IMHO. Any successful designer is going to be copied. If it makes RDG sick to see his stuff copied and he requests his jewelry NEVER be shown on the web, well....it seems he got as busy as he was from PSers posting his rings to the net!

Ditto, and great point with the bolded. We've been over this before with the surfgirl saga, but you can't have it both ways as a consumer, either. You can't get all the love for your gorgeous ring and then be SHOCKED AND DISMAYED when someone wants a ring exactly like yours.

I agree, but I do want the love! If someone sets out to make an exact copy, and they're going to document it on a forum, I'd love to know about it! Why leave me out? Let me in on the fun that my ring inspired, please.

I just saw an etsy seller is selling a copy of my ring. I don't care about that either, but it seems like a different situation than a consumer copying it.

If it's on PS, sure, but I don't think it's realistic to think that someone on another board is going to come here and do that. And I didn't think you were shocked and dismayed, BTW-just slightly tweaked, if that. Which I think is perfectly fine and reasonable, BTW! (Not that you need my permission, of course-just trying to be extra clear! )

I will never claim to be realistic with my expectations, friend!

Thank you for your kind words, Circe.

 

[yssie]

I don't have anything insightful to add, but I thought the stuff in the David Klass gallery over there was very nice looking. I don't think that the stuff there is better than the original but rather different. The copy of Zahra's ring was changed intentionally to something the other lady felt more comfortable with it sounded like. I don't think it was a "desecration" of the original or that the jeweler's work was bad. I'm guessing that if you present a picture of something to pretty much any jeweler and they have the ability to create it and you have the money to pay for it, they will do it. I can't imagine that the guy was being intentionally offensive or that he lives for making knock-offs... Just my opinion.

I'm happy to confirm that that's absolutely not the case

I work directly in an industry that focuses solely on copyright, and I can assure you that the exact opposite is true.....there are several other industries in which copyright means absolutely nothing when it's someone else's work. The only time people seem to care about it is when they themselves are the ones shortchanged.

Yssie, no worries, and yes, I noticed the copyright on the thread on the other forum, and thought it was one of the most unintentionally ironic things I'd seen in a while.

In general, copyrights are a lot harder to prove than you would think, although RDG would probably have a stronger case than most.

I don't know anything about copyrighting or patenting, actually, so I believe you if you say they're very hard to prove. Obviously it's just terribly naive to hope that people would respect the intent

 

[justginger]

I don't have anything insightful to add, but I thought the stuff in the David Klass gallery over there was very nice looking. I don't think that the stuff there is better than the original but rather different. The copy of Zahra's ring was changed intentionally to something the other lady felt more comfortable with it sounded like. I don't think it was a "desecration" of the original or that the jeweler's work was bad. I'm guessing that if you present a picture of something to pretty much any jeweler and they have the ability to create it and you have the money to pay for it, they will do it. I can't imagine that the guy was being intentionally offensive or that he lives for making knock-offs... Just my opinion.

I agree with Yssie. When I was gathering info and quotes for my engagement ring, I used a variety of designs to show a variety of benches. I think at least 4 flat said "We'd have to change around 20% of that design, we're uncomfortable with replicating a unique design exactly." I wasn't wanting a replica anyway, just inspiration to integrate various elements.

But yes, there are definitely are jewelers with a moralistic (or legalistic) aversion to design theft.

ETA: I am not opposed to the replication of basic, general settings that have been around for ages. The Tiffany, the Harry Winston, my Poppy is set in something very much like a basic Leon setting (the Boston Jeff, who I certainly would have contacted had it been a possibility, despite the fact that I feel the setting is fairly indistinct in terms of design elements).

 

[packrat]

I saw on Etsy someone did a ring like my semi bezel chrysoberyl ring, and when I saw it I thought now how in the....?? I'd not had mine for very long when I saw it. The only thing different was there were diamonds across the shank exactly like I'd originally planned..well, and mine is gorgeous and this one um..was looking sorta rough.

I ended up not copying Coati's three stone exactly (Tho I can't say I'm not still thinking about it ), but I did reach out to her on FB about it, and go w/the vendor who did her ring b/c I was scared of letting anyone else attempt to recreate the "feel" of it that I wanted.

And I saw the threads a while back w/the copies of Z's and Haven's rings and did this ..well maybe this b/c that one seems to have super raised eyebrows like mine were when I read some of the comments. I think Haven shoulda gotten some acknowledgement in the thread on her copy.

 

[redwood66]

Hello Ladies,

I feel the need to post in this thread as much has been said about the "other forum" of which I am also a member. There is a place for everyone to feel "at home" on the internet with people who share their love of something. I do not post here but do "lurk" because there are many beautiful things to see and learn about. The reason I do not post here is due to the many rules against this or that and also because of the display of haughtiness and snobbery seen in some places in this thread. I own diamonds, colored stones and sims. I have in fact just designed with "Mr. Classy" an original ring set which I posted on that forum. It has a sim and therefore I cannot post its lovely design here. I love Yssie's 5 stone and her original 3 stone ring and would love to have something similar one day. I also love Haven's ring and my new set has the feel of it but looks nothing like it. I choose not to spend $$$$$ on a 2ct diamond but that does not mean that I am no less deserving of a beautifully designed piece of jewelry.

There are many lovely people here and there also. I will continue to lurk here and post there and this is all JMHO.