Found some perfect Tiffany Victoria stud lookalikes for $1500 -- buy or skip? SWOT analysis time!

[okthen]

Continuing on my love for Tiffany Victoria line (and its unaffordability for me hehe!).......I just found what seems to be a perfect pair of the Victoria studs!!!

Details: These are DEF, VVS1 diamonds, VG to excellent cut, and about AUD $2000 (so $1500 USD) for 0.80 TCW. (Photos and videos below are of 0.48 tcw, as 0.80 tcw will be custom-made -- so expecting them to be slightly bigger!)




Strengths: Price ($2000 for 0.80 tcw vs actual Tiffany Victoria medium at $16,500 for 0.91 tcw or at least $5000 on the second-hand market-- so huge price difference!), almost perfect 'bloom' in the marquise diamonds, customisable to have all metal work in YG/RG, and lifetime buyback.

Weaknesses: The only two cons I can see are: 0.80 tcw is not a standard size and will fall somewhere between Tiffany small (0.60 tcw) and medium (0.90 tcw) (so there is risk of the design not looking harmonious?!), and the marquise have the 'bow-tie effect' with the dark lines in the middle. The latter I am not worried about too much, as I have the Tiffany Victoria cluster ring and even it has bow-ties in all four marquise.

So, what do you think:
-- Any flaws in the design that you can see?
-- The biggg question: Should I go for 0.48 carats (AUD $1300) which is about 6.5mm in length, or 0.80 carats (AUD $2000). Both are not standard Tiffany sizes. I am attaching a reference photo of a $10 Tiffany Victoria lookalike that I bought as a practice stud to show how 9mm looks in my earlobe.

 

[lucida818]

DSS is real, at least everyone in this forum believes so
You have seen the bigger ones @ 0.90ct & put on 9mm, 0.48ct will be deemed small in time to come. Hence I strongly advise you to have bigger carat weight if budget isn’t an issue.

How about customizing 0.90ish ct instead?

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Definitely go for the larger ones (or even a little larger as lucida said)! That size fits your ear just fine. I have seen these from various jewelers in the US, too.

Well, wait....so you already have the pendant? What size are those diamonds? I wouldn't want the earrings larger than the pendant.

 

[okthen]

DSS is real, at least everyone in this forum believes so
You have seen the bigger ones @ 0.90ct & put on 9mm, 0.48ct will be deemed small in time to come. Hence I strongly advise you to have bigger carat weight if budget isn’t an issue.

How about customizing 0.90ish ct instead?

That's a great point -- I will probably feel the 0.48 tcw is too small as I get older.

I might go with the 0.80 tcw then. 0.90 would be great, but that's where the jeweler really wants to bump up the price as its approaching 1 tcw and I feel its not worth going up 25% in price for a 10% increase in tcw!!

P.S.: What is DSS?

 

[okthen]

Definitely go for the larger ones (or even a little larger as lucida said)! That size fits your ear just fine. I have seen these from various jewelers in the US, too.

Well, wait....so you already have the pendant? What size are those diamonds? I wouldn't want the earrings larger than the pendant.

I am tilting towards larger now

The pendant is the fake $10 practice version that I bought with the earrings. I like to do that for expensive purchases (also doing it right now with a Goyard bag that I want to buy), to see if I actually actually enjoy wearing them and will wear them enough -- or if its just the adrenaline rush of buying something beautiful and desired.

A real gold-diamond Victoria pendant is down the line after the studs, and the ring!

Thanks for your help

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Trust me, many people here including myself order "diamond" pieces from Berricle to get an idea of sizes, etc,. so I think it's a very wise idea!

I had Whiteflash make me two platinum diamonds-by-the-yard necklaces because they are equal in quality (Whiteflash uses top quality diamonds) to Tiffany at a fraction of the price. I do think designs that are simple and not really unique to Tiffany are fine to custom make. I wouldn't ever copy one of their original unique designs.

 

[okthen]

Trust me, many people here including myself order "diamond" pieces from Berricle to get an idea of sizes, etc,. so I think it's a very wise idea!

I had Whiteflash make me two platinum diamonds-by-the-yard necklaces because they are equal in quality (Whiteflash uses top quality diamonds) to Tiffany at a fraction of the price. I do think designs that are simple and not really unique to Tiffany are fine to custom make. I wouldn't ever copy one of their original unique designs.

That's how I think about it too -- if it's not unique enough, it's definitely not worth the markup. This is where yards, victoria, eternity rings, maybe even the solitaires from Tiffany fit for me.

But some other designs from Tiffany (their keys and Elsa designs are a big one) are really unique and worth saving for and buying on the secondary market. No one else seems to do key pendants as harmonious as Tiffany

Thanks so much for your help in deciding the sizing!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I look forward to seeing it!

(I did get my real Tiffany key second hand and bought a longer chain for it at Tiffany! So we think alike!)

 

[okthen]

I look forward to seeing it!

(I did get my real Tiffany key second hand and bought a longer chain for it at Tiffany! So we think alike!)

Wow, haha what a coincidence. Keys next on my list, and I'll probably go your route

I am putting my order later tonight for the studs!!

 

[ksluice]

P.S.: What is DSS?

Diamond Shrinking Syndrome

(I think that was left unanswered)

 

[okthen]

Diamond Shrinking Syndrome

(I think that was left unanswered)

Thanks for that, wow haha

 

[whiteanvil]

hi - I'm a few months late to this thread but wondering whether you can point me towards where you bought the studs? I'm so keen for a pair (also fellow Aussie!)

 

[RunningwithScissors]

I don't want to seem like a meanie or a downer. I understand the desire for beautiful jewelry which can be outside our budget. I'm only now able to buy jewelry, though I've longed for jewelry and not been able to afford it for most of my life.

But I really do not think it is right to copy an iconic design that is copyrighted. And the Tiffany Victoria line is a recognized, iconic design.

I'm an artist, I make my living by my designs, and I know first hand how emotionally and financially devastating it can be to have my designs stolen and copied. Please don't support doing this. It is theft.

My comments are not directed at DBTY owners. I do not see a diamonds by the yard type necklace as belonging only to Tiffany, so I don't consider people's DBTY necklaces copyright infringement as I do copying the Victoria design. Examples of a DBTY-type necklace can be found since at least Edwardian times. (I own an amethyst-the-the-yard 1910's necklace.)

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

I don't want to seem like a meanie or a downer. I understand the desire for beautiful jewelry which can be outside our budget. I'm only now able to buy jewelry, though I've longed for jewelry and not been able to afford it for most of my life.

But I really do not think it is right to copy an iconic design that is copyrighted. And the Tiffany Victoria line is a recognized, iconic design.

I'm an artist, I make my living by my designs, and I know first hand how emotionally and financially devastating it can be to have my designs stolen and copied. Please don't support doing this. It is theft.

My comments are not directed at DBTY owners. I do not see a diamonds by the yard type necklace as belonging only to Tiffany, so I don't consider people's DBTY necklaces copyright infringement as I do copying the Victoria design. Examples of a DBTY-type necklace can be found since at least Edwardian times. (I own an amethyst-the-the-yard 1910's necklace.)

I agree with you about iconic, copyrighted designs like the Cartier love, for example, but I would be surprised if Tiffany Victoria is actually copyrighted. I just googled that the line was launched in 1998, but I’ve seen examples in many jewelers stores including from before 1998. In fact, my grandfather had a pair of cufflinks that were like the Victoria (4 marquise flower) and he got those in the 70s or 80s.

 

[okthen]

I agree with you about iconic, copyrighted designs like the Cartier love, for example, but I would be surprised if Tiffany Victoria is actually copyrighted. I just googled that the line was launched in 1998, but I’ve seen examples in many jewelers stores including from before 1998. In fact, my grandfather had a pair of cufflinks that were like the Victoria (4 marquise flower) and he got those in the 70s or 80s.

My point exactly.

A lot of designs that got co-opted by luxury jewelry brands pre-date their launches.

To deprive yourself of them because you can't afford them (or are savvy enough to not pay the markups) is not smart.

Copying an original design of an independent artist is unforgiveable, and I would never do that because its quite literally stealing food from someone's table.

But Tiffany is owned by LVMH, which in turn is owned by big fund managers like BlackRock, which in turn are most likely investing for rich people like the ones who can buy Tiffany at full prices. That's barely theft, and more like creating an efficient market.

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

My point exactly.

A lot of designs that got co-opted by luxury jewelry brands pre-date their launches.

To deprive yourself of them because you can't afford them (or are savvy enough to not pay the markups) is not smart.

Copying an original design of an independent artist is unforgiveable, and I would never do that because its quite literally stealing food from someone's table.

But Tiffany is owned by LVMH, which in turn is owned by big fund managers like BlackRock, which in turn are most likely investing for rich people like the ones who can buy Tiffany at full prices. That's barely theft, and more like creating an efficient market.

I actually looked it up, and Tiffany apparently has copyrighted DBTY as well (though I’m sure the copyright in this case must be just for the name, can’t imagine it is for the style). But the concept of a bezel station necklace predates Tiffany. Or we call the six prong solitaire the Tiffany setting, but it predates Tiffany and every single jeweler offers their own version of it. To me, Tiffany Victoria is similar to a DBTY, at least as far as the studs go. I think an argument over design can be made for the tennis bracelet with the Victoria clasp, maybe. But the studs themselves - or a pendant if they make one - is generic imo. Tiffany cuts their own Marquis diamonds for the Victoria I believe, and so one can argue that if you’re getting them made by a jeweler who is sourcing you existing marquis diamonds (and possibly in different ctw to what Tiffany offers), setting the stones at different angles, the piece is already materially different.

I don’t hold with counterfeiting, as in, getting the Tiffany trademark on a non Tiffany piece of jewelry (generic design or otherwise), nor do I hold with copying a recognisable, iconic design by a big maison, let alone independent artists (which I agree is almost worse). Like the example of the cartier love bracelet - that is a copyrighted/“copyrightable” design imo. But there’s a point where the differences between what is a “copy” and what is “acceptable” are going to be minutely small because the design itself is not inherently different or complex.

 

[Paisley2628]

I don’t hold with counterfeiting, as in, getting the Tiffany trademark on a non Tiffany piece of jewelry (generic design or otherwise), nor do I hold with copying a recognisable, iconic design by a big maison, let alone independent artists (which I agree is almost worse). Like the example of the cartier love bracelet - that is a copyrighted/“copyrightable” design imo. But there’s a point where the differences between what is a “copy” and what is “acceptable” are going to be minutely small because the design itself is not inherently different or complex.

I agree that there are certain truly "unique" pieces of jewelry- but many, many styles have been done before. There are so many antique/vintage pieces of jewelry, there is no way any one person has seen them all to know the origins of a more recent "original" design.

I happened upon this pendant - which is described as an Edwardian piece. It looks a lot like the VCA Alhambra. ( I own multiple pieces of VCA jewelry and love them).
So, did VCA create an original design?

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

I agree that there are certain truly "unique" pieces of jewelry- but many, many styles have been done before. There are so many antique/vintage pieces of jewelry, there is no way any one person has seen them all to know the origins of a more recent "original" design.

I happened upon this pendant - which is described as an Edwardian piece. It looks a lot like the VCA Alhambra. ( I own multiple pieces of VCA jewelry and love them).
So, did VCA create an original design?

I think this is different enough from the VCA though. The quatrefoil shape is super common.

What really is original? I think the iconic Alhambra proportions with the tiny gold beads could be considered a copyrighted design, but just the idea of a quatrefoil can’t. Similarly, a gold bracelet with the shape of the screw of the LOVE is distinct imo, but just a gold bracelet isn’t. I personally don’t find the 10 stone LOVE bracelet super distinctive - diamonds equidistant and bezel set in a gold bracelet is not something particularly “new”. It may get a little uncomfortable (for me) if you get a bracelet with the diamonds set in the exact same way Cartier does and with the exact clasping mechanism Cartier does. That being said though, using a screw to hold your bracelet together is not unique to Cartier. It’s a traditional clasp in Indian jewelry, exceedingly common even today. Ofc, the application of the concept is done very differently by Cartier, and the need for a screwdriver is also fairly unique I think.

It’s an interesting topic. I think I might make a separate thread and tag you if you’d like to continue the conversation, so we don’t derail this one. Let me know if that would be interesting for you.

 

[Paisley2628]

I think this is different enough from the VCA though. The quatrefoil shape is super common.

What really is original? I think the iconic Alhambra proportions with the tiny gold beads could be considered a copyrighted design, but just the idea of a quatrefoil can’t. Similarly, a gold bracelet with the shape of the screw of the LOVE is distinct imo, but just a gold bracelet isn’t. I personally don’t find the 10 stone LOVE bracelet super distinctive - diamonds equidistant and bezel set in a gold bracelet is not something particularly “new”. It may get a little uncomfortable (for me) if you get a bracelet with the diamonds set in the exact same way Cartier does and with the exact clasping mechanism Cartier does. That being said though, using a screw to hold your bracelet together is not unique to Cartier. It’s a traditional clasp in Indian jewelry, exceedingly common even today. Ofc, the application of the concept is done very differently by Cartier, and the need for a screwdriver is also fairly unique I think.

It’s an interesting topic. I think I might make a separate thread and tag you if you’d like to continue the conversation, so we don’t derail this one. Let me know if that would be interesting for you.

I think a separate thread is a good idea!

 

[yssie]

I don't want to seem like a meanie or a downer. I understand the desire for beautiful jewelry which can be outside our budget. I'm only now able to buy jewelry, though I've longed for jewelry and not been able to afford it for most of my life.

But I really do not think it is right to copy an iconic design that is copyrighted. And the Tiffany Victoria line is a recognized, iconic design.

I'm an artist, I make my living by my designs, and I know first hand how emotionally and financially devastating it can be to have my designs stolen and copied. Please don't support doing this. It is theft.

My comments are not directed at DBTY owners. I do not see a diamonds by the yard type necklace as belonging only to Tiffany, so I don't consider people's DBTY necklaces copyright infringement as I do copying the Victoria design. Examples of a DBTY-type necklace can be found since at least Edwardian times. (I own an amethyst-the-the-yard 1910's necklace.)

Completely agree.

I understand - and agree - that several of the big houses’ iconic lines are inspired by existing designs.

I also agree that there is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting a piece of a style that one of the big houses was inspired by.

And I agree that if you want a style that one of the big houses was inspired by, you have no moral obligation to buy from that house.

If a person specifically for Tiffany lookalikes… Not for suggestions to make a four marquise piece, no non-Tiffany inspirations... If one is asking to copy another designer’s specific piece, then the intent is to copy that designer’s specific piece with all the specific elements that make that designer’s design uniquely theirs. Not pay homage to whatever might have inspired it. And I have the exact same response to that intent as @RunningwithScissors.

@AllAboardTheBlingTrain makes a good point about simpler designs - differences between the design and inspired-by creations may be minute because the design itself is inordinately simple. Intent matters most to me here. Searching for a ready-made clone - or going into a custom project looking to clone another designer’s piece as closely as possible - is different from adapting a style you like to your tastes and winding up with something immensely similar. But in that case… The title of such a query would never be “help me find the perfect Tiffany lookalikes”.

 

[bludiva]

I don't want to seem like a meanie or a downer. I understand the desire for beautiful jewelry which can be outside our budget. I'm only now able to buy jewelry, though I've longed for jewelry and not been able to afford it for most of my life.

But I really do not think it is right to copy an iconic design that is copyrighted. And the Tiffany Victoria line is a recognized, iconic design.

I'm an artist, I make my living by my designs, and I know first hand how emotionally and financially devastating it can be to have my designs stolen and copied. Please don't support doing this. It is theft.

My comments are not directed at DBTY owners. I do not see a diamonds by the yard type necklace as belonging only to Tiffany, so I don't consider people's DBTY necklaces copyright infringement as I do copying the Victoria design. Examples of a DBTY-type necklace can be found since at least Edwardian times. (I own an amethyst-the-the-yard 1910's necklace.)

I would agree with this for a unique design but the 4 marquise earrings or rings were around before Tiffany started making them.

Many of these high end brands take inspiration from other places too, for example Tiffany's Melody rolling ring are their take on Cartier.





And Betteridge has their own supersized marquise flower earrings.

 

[RunningwithScissors]

But Tiffany is owned by LVMH, which in turn is owned by big fund managers like BlackRock, which in turn are most likely investing for rich people like the ones who can buy Tiffany at full prices. That's barely theft, and more like creating an efficient market.

There's no such thing as "barely theft."

Theft is not dependent on whether the person or entity being stolen from is wealthy or poor or somewhere in between.

I had a misguided young lady tell me one time that it was okay that she stole another woman's leather jacket because the person she stole it from was a jerk. The victim may have been a jerk, but that doesn't make the act of stealing the jacket any less wrong or somehow not count as theft.

I agree with Yssie that its about intent here. If you like the Tiffany Victoria style in general but wanted your own twist on it, or wanted it in a very different size than it comes in, then that seems a different, more benign intent then what I hear you saying, which is that making a replica makes you feel savvy for not paying full price.

And copyright law is very specific in that there have to be a certain number of visible differences to make a similar-style object/image be an entirely new piece and not be infringement/theft. Taking inspiration from something is very different from copying it and the only way the examples above of the Tiffany vs Cartier trinity pieces are able to co-exist without a giant lawsuit is that these number of differences were followed. I'm the company's teams of attorneys had to approve them.

 

[RunningwithScissors]

And I want to make sure its understood that I think that what @AllAboardTheBlingTrain has said is valid and a productive debate as to what constitutes a historical idea versus what is copying/theft. I do not take issue at all with her perspective. I think we are all figuring out where to draw that line and I respect her opinion and don't find it to be on the side of "theft" at all.

 

[Ionysis]

I can’t see this particular situation as problematic in ANY way. It’s the most basic design - four marquise diamonds with a blob of gold in the middle. There is nothing whatsoever which is unique or proprietary about that. This design was around way before Tiffany ever existed.