I'm with diamondfan on this one. Chanel may be "classic" in terms of fashion with their suits and "little black dresses", but the promotion of fine jewelry is a relatively recent thing - 1990's. At this point, we don't know if the fine jewelry will become "classic".Date: 3/2/2007 7:59:32 AM
Author: diamondfan
It is okay, a statement piece that might be a bit trendy, more of a cocktail type ring...pretty, but not what I would jump to spend money on...
Date: 3/2/2007 9:06:12 AM
Author: Harriet
Chanel's not trendy. It's classic.
I think the pave Camelia has been around longer than Vera Wang. Flower brooches and rings are nothing new, and just recently i saw pieces FAR more stunning, in Camelia and rose settings from Oscar Heyman/ Van Cleef. They are almost 100 years old, which says that probably before them and before diamond people probably carved Camelias out of rock and wore them, but in the end fashion (even in jewlery) is resurrected and refashioned to be like new.Date: 3/2/2007 12:34:32 PM
Author: decodelighted
Date: 3/2/2007 9:06:12 AM
Author: Harriet
Chanel''s not trendy. It''s classic.
HA! Depends on who the designer of the period is. Those gross trash can liner bags are CLASSIC?? Not to me!
ETA: the Camellia line seems like a BLATENT rip off of the other ''flower shaped wire pave'' jewelry that''s been around for a few years now. Vera Wang did it I believe & others. Too little - too late. HARDLY classic, IMO.
You''re going to have to start inventing holidays! Let''s see - anniversary of first date, anniversary of first kiss....Date: 3/3/2007 9:45:43 PM
Author: Harriet
I tried on the pendant today. Both the FI and I loved it. So, it''s now on my wishlist (Starryeyed, you here?
There's nothing wrong with having a long-term plan...I think most of us doDate: 3/4/2007 1:31:30 PM
Author: Harriet
You're too kind. Some of the items I'm coveting are for the long-term.