That cuff just sucks you right on in! It is spectacular!
Love that cuff! I would not know Bisbee if it bit me on the toe…lol!
4 Likes
Remember my grail piece? Ralph Lauren’s sandcast buckle? So, I’m reading Indian Jewelry of the American Southwest that I just bought on eBay, turn the page, and there’s my grail piece! 
At first, I thought it was RL’s actual buckle, but after close examination, the only slight difference is the small stampwork on the left and right. Can’t believe there are two of these buckles!
3 Likes
Maybe that’s a sign one will be coming your way. So cool.
1 Like
I’ll need to decide which car to sell. 
2 Likes
Sell the flashy one. Drive the ordinary, dependable looking, family mobile and it will help you keep a low profile and stay safe …until you step out and people see the buckle and jewelry. 
2 Likes
Wow, not only are the stones large, they’re beautiful as well! That photo is interesting. B&W, but the concho belt is in color.
For me, any Charles Loloma height bracelet will do; I’m not that picky.
7 Likes
NOTE: I’ve copied and pasted my post from above to keep this topic in the same post.
Remember my grail piece? Ralph Lauren’s sandcast buckle? So, I’m reading Indian Jewelry of the American Southwest that I just bought on eBay, turn the page, and there’s my grail piece! At first, I thought it was RL’s actual buckle, but after close examination, the only slight difference is the small stampwork on the left and right. Can’t believe there are two of these buckles!
UPDATE: So I’m on eBay and come across this Ralph Lauren belt and buckle that sold for $150! Look familiar?
Why would Ralph Lauren approve and commission a cheap copy of his very special sandcast buckle and not preserve and protect the artist’s original design? This really disappoints me.
@TAH Can you help me better understand your problem with the new piece? It would be necessary to know that the original buckle was hallmarked and a proprietary design, hence “an artist” who is identifiable who could plausibly be seen as being ripped off. Do you know this to be the case?
Or is the old buckle an unmarked (anonymous) item that Ralph owned and chose to turn into a commercial replica, without the intent to deceive anyone? If so, I cannot find an offense. To me, a mass market version of an old form isn’t per se a bad thing. Think of the tons of Fred Harvey-inspired products out there that are nearly direct quotes of old pieces, and Anglo-created pieces that copy various forms of old Navajo jewelry, like Jock Favour and others–advertised and hallmarked correctly to avoid being deceptions.
There’s a market and legitimacy for various things; the tricky part is if someone’s intellectual property was really taken. Incidentally, cast pieces may exist in multiples anyway in the old pieces. And theft vs. sharing is a complicated subject in Native communities: copyright and individual ownership are pretty modern conceptions.
I understand your points and mostly agree with you. I believe it is this…
I’m assuming that Ralph’s buckle is an authentic, vintage sandcast piece, probably not hallmarked. I wouldn’t be surprised if it was made by the same artist as the 1950s buckle in the book photo, who is likely deceased. The tons of Fred Harvey-inspired products and hallmarked Jock Favour’s pieces are just that - inspirations or renditions of the Navajo style - not exact copies of unique, specific pieces.
Were any laws broken? Nope. But it disappoints me that Ralph Lauren wouldn’t be more conscientious and a better steward of his collection acquired through his good fortune. Taking a very unique design and mass-producing cheap copies for the sake of turning a relatively small profit just doesn’t sit well with me. Personally, if I owned that buckle, I would feel responsible to protect the original design for other collectors, who might have the same buckle in their collection.
1 Like