Poll - Tiffany's Victoria Pendant

[galatie]

Hello everyone,

I am having the Tiffany's Victoria Pendant (pictured below) replicated. The picture below is the biggest size that Tiffany's does, which is .81ctw.

When I tried it on at the store, the pendant looked too small for my taste. I am therefore having it replicated, and trying to decide between 1.2ctw and 1.4ctw.

This would be for everyday wear, but I do like diamonds on the bigger side (wear 2.5ct erring and a 5 band eternity ring on my right hand, consisting of .40 pointers each).

Wondering if the 1.4ctw might make the piece look a bit too much like costume jewellery? But only don't want to get the 1.2ctw and regret not going bigger?

Please vote and help me make up my mind! - thank you!!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I think there is no way it would look like costume jewelry as long as the workmanship is great and the diamonds are well matched and good quality. I totally agree that I would want the pendant larger. You are only talking about a difference of 30 to 35 point stones, so I don't think it will make that much difference in appearance. The key is finding 4 well matched stones, and I would just give your vendor that range in which to look. I'd encourage you to get more chubby marquise and not long and skinny, because I think the elongated ones will not look as good.

 

[yssie]

Tiffany could certainly offer this style in larger sizes if they cared to... And they would have no trouble selling them. There’s probably a reason that they don’t.

My opinion: Why replicate at all? A four-leaf design is classic - change it up a touch and make it uniquely yours. Add a couple extra prongs to keep your larger stones secure. A stone in the center? Something unexpected in the gallery?

 

[Skyjems]

My $.02, bigger is better.

Look for proportions around 1.8x1, not more than 2x1 max.

Find the diamonds first! You may luck out and find someone who has a set for a great price, however, you may need to recut one or more stones because this style will make it easy to spot differences between the stones' size, shape, cutting style and of course, colour!

Good luck!

 

[galatie]

I think there is no way it would look like costume jewelry as long as the workmanship is great and the diamonds are well matched and good quality. I totally agree that I would want the pendant larger. You are only talking about a difference of 30 to 35 point stones, so I don't think it will make that much difference in appearance. The key is finding 4 well matched stones, and I would just give your vendor that range in which to look. I'd encourage you to get more chubby marquise and not long and skinny, because I think the elongated ones will not look as good.

Thank you, diamond! I am taking your advice, and getting it made by IDJ, my first time using them, and hoping I will like the end product!

Hmm, interesting thought on the chubby vs skinny marquise, would you happen to have any pics of the two so that I can visualize?

 

[galatie]

My $.02, bigger is better.

Look for proportions around 1.8x1, not more than 2x1 max.

Find the diamonds first! You may luck out and find someone who has a set for a great price, however, you may need to recut one or more stones because this style will make it easy to spot differences between the stones' size, shape, cutting style and of course, colour!

Good luck!

Thank you, Skyjems, leaning towards the 1.4 now..

 

[stonehunter20]

it's hard. this reminds me of picking the classic tiffany bean necklace... i was struggling with getting the right bean size... and i had to try them on a few times to compare.

im probably not being helpful here. but dumb question: how would you even assess how a 1.4ct would look like? especially when it's divided into 4 pieces? not sure how much width it will add when ctw goes up. how about having the vendor who is going to make this piece for you to run a few CADS for 0.81, 1.2 and 1.4 ctw, and compare them side by side to get a sense of how much bigger they are? just my two cents on the process.

 

[Big Fat Facets]

I assure you, diamonds do not look like costume jewelry.

1.2ctw and 1.4 ctw is a very subtle difference as it is between 4 stones on the pendant. I would also favor chubbier marquise to achieve a fuller look as @diamondseeker2006 mentioned above.

If i must vote, i will vote for the larger. Its a mind thing. I feel better about going larger, even if it isn't that noticeable.

 

[galatie]

Thanks, everyone, for your input.

So ID have now said it's really only possible to get the 1.2ctw, as 1.4 would be hard to find, and if that's too small for me, they could source 1.6ctw

Thoughts on the 1.6? I am petite, but love big stones, so think I could pull this off for everyday wear?

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Thanks, everyone, for your input.

So ID have now said it's really only possible to get the 1.2ctw, as 1.4 would be hard to find, and if that's too small for me, they could source 1.6ctw

Thoughts on the 1.6? I am petite, but love big stones, so think I could pull this off for everyday wear?

Yes !
I do not see the bigger size being anything but perfect

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

Thanks, everyone, for your input.

So ID have now said it's really only possible to get the 1.2ctw, as 1.4 would be hard to find, and if that's too small for me, they could source 1.6ctw

Thoughts on the 1.6? I am petite, but love big stones, so think I could pull this off for everyday wear?

I don’t think 1.6 is going to be HUGE by any means, so if it’s not too expensive I’d definitely go with 1.6 over 1.2! Also petite and also love big stones 0.4pts vs 0.3pts is definitely a noticeable increase but not an obscene amount of bling at ALL. It’s going to look beautiful!

 

[Big Fat Facets]

yes, I'd go for the 1.6ctw, if i were in your position. And it's between 1.2ctw or 1.6ctw.

 

[galatie]

Thank you, everyone for all of your help!!!

Super helpful for someone like me who doesn't have a good eye for detail, etc.

I will post pictures of the finished product once received.

 

[galatie]

Hi everyone,

Please see 4mq stones which IDJ think may be a good fit for the necklace. Certificates and image are below - we are searching for four near identical stones so that the quadrants of the necklace match as much as possible. Can I have thoughts on the stones below? Best to keep searching for or these are a good match? I am not sure if they are any issues with bowties as well, so any feedback would be great.

Thank you!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

They all have a nice shape and the high color will be beautiful!

 

[OdetteOdile]

I am watching this project with interest! I think this necklace is going to be stunning!

 

[Big Fat Facets]

they are beautiful. i have had the tiffany victoria pendant, in my collection. i must say that these diamonds look prettier to me. i prefer plumper marquise. and the, at times, darkness across the belly of the marquise(s) in the victoria pendant that i had seen, is lacking in these

if i were to have a victoria inspired pendant made, and i were to scrutinize these 4 stones, id say the second diamond appears least plump than the rest. this could be attributed to it being tilted on the tray, though. it also exhibits the most darkness in the belly, but still considered fairly good. my favorite is the one at far screen right

im thrilled for you and this project. im speculating that it will turn out even better than what had inspired it!

 

[Rons Wolfe]

You speak to my heart with those D's and E's. This is going to be nice!

 

[yssie]

Could we please not publicly support someone in a quest to have a vendor replicate another designer’s designs?

When one large vendor replicates another vendor’s work, the lawsuit that ensues is won by the designer whose design or brand or name was stolen.

The (im)morality of this situation doesn’t change when one vendor is small and the other is world-renown. OP used the term “replicate” in her original post and ignored responses suggesting some customization, so clearly ethical considerations are not of consequence here. This forum does itself no justice by enabling this disregard.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

@yssie Are we sure that's an original Tiffany design? I'd be surprised if no one had ever arranged 4 marquise stones like that, but it is possible, of course. One example I am sure of is diamond station necklaces were around long before Elsa Peretti's dbty line came out. I just thought that might be the case with the marquise design, but I am in agreement regarding copying if it is Tiffany's original design.

 

[yssie]

Agree on DBTY @diamondseeker2006 - any number of incarnations of those have been around for ages!

For me it's an issue of motivation as much as of outcome. The OP specified that she was looking to "replicate" Tiffany's design, which I feel strongly is unethical in intent regardless of success of execution. It's a pretty simple design - it really wouldn't take much to move it out of "replica" territory! Two forward-facing chain attachment jump rings, the basket style, the style of the prongs, the central nub, the angles of the stones... Materially change any of them and the whole question of design theft goes away.

However, since the original post the OP has said nothing to suggest that she plans to do anything other than continue her attempt of a "replica", despite responses recommending otherwise, so I think we can only assume that remains her intent. Which is unfortunate.

 

[SimoneDi]

OP, the stones look lovely and well matched, I probably wouldn’t search for additional ones. I hope that you love your soon to be new pendant!

 

[Big Fat Facets]

@yssie

you do raise a very good point. and i am in ethical agreement. im sorry i didn't catch the op's use of "replica", i should have

all this time, i thought it was more of an "inspired" piece as op was selecting heavier carat weight diamonds than the actual and original victoria pendant

i do want to apologize, if my participation of this thread and support of op, in anyway, encouraged unethical practices

 

[yssie]

You used the word inspired in your own response @Big Fat Facets! No harm no foul!

I hope OP will consider adapting the Tiffany design to make it her own unique custom piece - IDJ has found some lovely marquise options to work with!

 

[AllAboardTheBlingTrain]

@yssie @diamondseeker2006 I’m pretty sure what I’m going to say isn’t a great argument since I think the Tiffany Victoria line has been around forever, but I’ve seen that design - four marquis as a flower - on display at several jewelers even when I was younger (though I’ve never scrutinised the Victoria and cant be sure if they were identical in the little details of course). I’d be surprised if that was really original. There’s a difference - to me - between something like this or a DBTY which has had generic versions around forever, and something like the Cartier love bracelet which is iconic and copying the latter is something I wouldn’t be okay with. I mean we call one iteration of the classic 6 prong ring setting a Tiffany setting don’t we, but most people getting it aren’t going to Tiffany for it. But maybe I’m contradicting myself as there are some slight changes between Tiffany’s Tiffany setting and other vendors’ Tiffany setting which I think is the point yssie was making. Food for thought.

I do wonder though, exactly how identical the pendant will be now that the ctw is doubled. I do think there will necessarily be changes just in the angle, so I think it’ll look different from the Victoria just by virtue of the stones used.

 

[yssie]

@yssie @diamondseeker2006 I’m pretty sure what I’m going to say isn’t a great argument since I think the Tiffany Victoria line has been around forever, but I’ve seen that design - four marquis as a flower - on display at several jewelers even when I was younger (though I’ve never scrutinised the Victoria and cant be sure if they were identical in the little details of course). I’d be surprised if that was really original. There’s a difference - to me - between something like this or a DBTY which has had generic versions around forever, and something like the Cartier love bracelet which is iconic and copying the latter is something I wouldn’t be okay with. I mean we call one iteration of the classic 6 prong ring setting a Tiffany setting don’t we, but most people getting it aren’t going to Tiffany for it. But maybe I’m contradicting myself as there are some slight changes between Tiffany’s Tiffany setting and other vendors’ Tiffany setting which I think is the point yssie was making. Food for thought.

I do wonder though, exactly how identical the pendant will be now that the ctw is doubled. I do think there will necessarily be changes just in the angle, so I think it’ll look different from the Victoria just by virtue of the stones used.

I remember when a lot of vendors - including beloved PS vendors - called their solitaire settings “Tiffany”, or “Tiffany style”... Then Tiffany sued Costco and all websites were purged of the Tiffany name overnight!!

To be honest most of them, if they were trying to imitate Tiffany’s iconic solitaire mount, did a poor job of it. Many of them were/are beautiful in their own right though! The “help me find a Tiffany solitaire duplicate” threads here on PS do make me cringe... It really does come down to intent, for me. Being inspired by a design and unknowingly winding up in the same place as someone else - it’s happened before and we know it will again! No matter how much “homework” one might do to avoid it. Going into a project with the explicit aim of replicating a specific piece from another vendor’s signature line, as proposed in this thread, feels very different.

Tiffany’s design team could easily productize a larger version of the pendant if they wanted to, but they haven’t. I come back to there being an aesthetic reason for this... My presumption is that longer stones, when angled forward the way the Victoria’s petals are, will extend far enough in front of the central “nub” that the whole pendant reclines backward when worn, despite the flat petal backs... But reducing the angle of the stones both flattens visual face-up dimension and exaggerates any bowtie. And marquise stones increase in length fast as carat goes up!

One way to fix the flop/recline would be to have the stones not attach to the chain at the front tips of the top two prongs. Another would be to alter the gallery/backside to a larger and less-curved flat. Those would also meaningfully change the very simple design such that it’s no longer a “replica”, in my opinion.

 

[galatie]

Agree on DBTY @diamondseeker2006 - any number of incarnations of those have been around for ages!

For me it's an issue of motivation as much as of outcome. The OP specified that she was looking to "replicate" Tiffany's design, which I feel strongly is unethical in intent regardless of success of execution. It's a pretty simple design - it really wouldn't take much to move it out of "replica" territory! Two forward-facing chain attachment jump rings, the basket style, the style of the prongs, the central nub, the angles of the stones... Materially change any of them and the whole question of design theft goes away.

However, since the original post the OP has said nothing to suggest that she plans to do anything other than continue her attempt of a "replica", despite responses recommending otherwise, so I think we can only assume that remains her intent. Which is unfortunate.

Yssie, I appreciate your opinion, but I think you are taking the whole post out of context.

Maybe replica was a poor choice of word, and inspired would be appropriate, but I stated that the .81 that I tried on at Tiffany's was not big enough for my liking, and therefore, my project was already not going to be exactly the same as the original pendant, particularly in terms of size. I have ended up with a piece which will be twice as big, and by sheer virtue of size, I am sure the angles, alongside other little details which I have not even considered, will be different from the Tiffany's pendant.

I also don't see the point in debating the ethics of this if we aren't even sure that 4 mq diamonds in a flower design is an original Tiffany's setting, which I don't believe it is.

Thank you to everyone else for your kind feedback - very helpful, I think we will stop searching for stones now and move forward to getting the pendant made...

 

[yssie]

If the intent of the project is not to reproduce Tiffany’s rendition of this design as closely as possible, regardless of stone size*, then “inspired by” is definitely a more appropriate term than “replicate”. And noone, including me, will ever object to an inspiration project!

We do get a handful of posters who are looking to create actual replica jewellery, not inspiration pieces. More’s the pity. The amount of detail some of these individuals are determined to copy can be astonishing! I’m very happy to learn that that’s not your goal and I will wish you luck with your project

*I do want to point out for any lurkers reading this thread that the vast majority of jewellers who take ethics stances against replicating other vendor’s works will not consider altering only stone size, sans other design changes, to be a material differentiation. This rarely works well anyway - most designs really can’t significantly scale up or down exactly as-is without some other alterations.