Jewelry

[adelle38]

On 9/29/2014 kachina624 said:

On 9/29/2014 miss got rocks said:

And another thing, I hope that the Joan Rivers line doesn't go of the way that Quacker Factory did when after Jeene passed away. I loved how Joan designed jewelry, and I don't want to see her line go away from her

vision.

The jewelry Joan sold in the 90's is a whole different animal than what has been sold since. I was aghast when I ordered some beads and they were plastic. I couldn't believe it. The older stuff was weighty and certainly not plastic. I haven't bought any of her things for years now. I really don't care if they discontinue her line.

I agree. Joan's jewelry was great until about 10 years ago and had to shift manufacturing to China.

[ical]

On 9/29/2014 adelle38 said:

On 9/29/2014 kachina624 said:

On 9/29/2014 miss got rocks said:

And another thing, I hope that the Joan Rivers line doesn't go of the way that Quacker Factory did when after Jeene passed away. I loved how Joan designed jewelry, and I don't want to see her line go away from her

vision.

The jewelry Joan sold in the 90's is a whole different animal than what has been sold since. I was aghast when I ordered some beads and they were plastic. I couldn't believe it. The older stuff was weighty and certainly not plastic. I haven't bought any of her things for years now. I really don't care if they discontinue her line.

I agree. Joan's jewelry was great until about 10 years ago and had to shift manufacturing to China.

What example could you give? I've purchased years ago, and now, and I don't see a difference. If an item is not stone or crystal or glass or gem, she would state so and most cases it was due to weight/comfort concerns. And the enamel work and the crystal settings, on bees, pins, etc, I don't see a lack in quality. They are better in some ways, because she had some limits in enamel in years past, didn't she?, until she got the perfection she wanted in enamel work. And: Not everything is going out of the park, as is with every line. Just my thoughts.

Edited to add: Not all her things were/are made in China*. Actually, some are made in Thailand and the USA (perhaps other locations, as well).

Made in China:

[Twinkiesnanna]

Not according to Roman numerals .org.....it is ""IV""

[Twinkiesnanna]

This is why I left these boards 20 years ago. Why does one have to be so mean?

On 9/29/2014 ical said:

On 9/29/2014 stevieb said:

Either IV or IIII is acceptable for 4 in Roman numerals. Not at all to be a smarty pants, but I think I learned that in 5th grade.

Or would that be IIIII grade?

[Twinkiesnanna]

I will again leave as my vasculitis of the brain due to lupus does not meet the standards. Goodbye again

[ical]

On 9/29/2014 Twinkiesnanna said: I will again leave as my vasculitis of the brain due to lupus does not meet the standards. Goodbye again

Read this while you're gone! Hope you feel better!

FAQ's: Roman IIII vx IV on Clock Dials

Very interesting theories with much research!

http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently-asked-questions-faq/faq-roman-iiii-vs-iv-on-clock-dials.aspx

[ical]

On 9/29/2014 Twinkiesnanna said: Not according to Roman numerals .org.....it is "IV"

FAQ's: Roman IIII vx IV on Clock Dials

Very interesting theories with much research!

http://www.ubr.com/clocks/frequently-asked-questions-faq/faq-roman-iiii-vs-iv-on-clock-dials.aspx

[Kachina624]

On 9/29/2014 Twinkiesnanna said:

Funny, I was just writing a review for item number J291159 ~~~Bronzo Italia Mother of Pearl cushion dial panther link watch. I returned it because the Roman numeral for the 4 is incorrect. For $120 I expect more from a watch. Funny part, it is made in Italy??

You made a big mistake. That is the traditional way of designating "4" on watches with Roman Numerals. I've got watches that cost a heck of a lot more than $120., which use that designation.

[issiestorm]

On 9/29/2014 Twinkiesnanna said:This is why I left these boards 20 years ago. Why does one have to be so mean?

On 9/29/2014 ical said:

On 9/29/2014 stevieb said:

Either IV or IIII is acceptable for 4 in Roman numerals. Not at all to be a smarty pants, but I think I learned that in 5th grade.

Or would that be IIIII grade?

It didn't strike me that ical was trying to be mean. I thought she was just trying to joke around a bit.

[stevieb]

On 9/29/2014 ical said:

On 9/29/2014 stevieb said:

Either IV or IIII is acceptable for 4 in Roman numerals. Not at all to be a smarty pants, but I think I learned that in 5th grade.

Or would that be IIIII grade?

Or grade V...