Might be good to have it checked just in case.A few days ago mine reg JUC fell off
Luckywise I heard that but being a bit worried now.
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Might be good to have it checked just in case.A few days ago mine reg JUC fell off
Luckywise I heard that but being a bit worried now.
same they fixed it at the boutique few months ago so now I wondering if they gonna fix it again?A few days ago mine reg JUC fell off
Luckywise I heard that but being a bit worried now.
Is it? How?Yep, the new one. But cannot imagine how that happened? The new one is even more safe.
when did Cartier start using the new clasp? Thank youYep, the new one. But cannot imagine how that happened? The new one is even more safe.
Is yours the new or old style clasp? My wife has the old style and it's difficult to get open even when you want to. I haven't seen the new clasp. Sorry to hear that it came loose...A few days ago mine reg JUC fell off
Luckywise I heard that but being a bit worried now.
I just came out of the store! I took the thin JUC with me that I preordered. I tried on the original JUC with diamonds (a mistake) now I really want it!
Here is what I think. In store, when I just looked my wrist, I think the thin juc is nice. Also from the picture of my wrist, I feel the thin even looks better.
Then I checked out the bracelets in the full size mirror. ThickJUC definitely stands out more and I like it better. I prefer my jewelry to be loud tho as I wear really plain clothes.I’m 5’5”, so I’m not super petite. I do have small bones, thus thin wrist.
I wore the bracelet outdoors, the thin one I took with me. It’s definitely tiny even when I just look at my wrist.
So I think I’ll exchange to regular JUC. I like regular one with diamond. Ugh now I don’t know if I can justify to pay much more for the diamond version. As it is not a lot of diamond, for $6000 cad$ more. It also really depends on the lightings for the diamond to sparkle. So now my dilemma would be diamond or no diamond
View attachment 4835499
View attachment 4835500
View attachment 4835501
View attachment 4835502
View attachment 4835503
View attachment 4835504
Those are by MAD Paris right? They also do them in emerald and other colored stones.
Hi everyone, I recently took the plunge to buy both the love and JUC and I see some people tossing up between the sm JUC or regular JUC. I would say, please go in store and try them on and see which one your heart resonates with. I have always been a fan of the JUC and if I was younger I would have gone for the original. For info I’m a guy and I’m 28. This is all just my opinion of course but I wanted to throw my two cents in.
Some people might think that a guy should definitely go for the regular version because it looks more masculine because it is chunkier. But I would say go for whatever you feel suits you. I think the regular is more masculine on a girl but not necessarily on a guy because I think that men’s jewellery can instead look more feminine if it is more chunky and attention grabbing. And in recent years I’ve learnt that something might look great on other people but if it isn’t for me then it isn’t for me. It might not suit my lifestyle or how I like to enjoy jewellery which is to give a quick echo of my personality rather than be it.
all this build up is to say that I actually enjoy the SM version a lot more because i am more comfortable with it and it is more understated which is how I like my jewellery. I want to wear my pieces and not have them wear me.
Just to illustrate, I’ve attached some photos. I ended up with the YG SM JUC and in the other photos I wore the WG JUC. I love the regular for how solid it is but I think it looks out of place for me - it’s too ‘obvious’? Just not subtle enough for me. I hope I was able to help some of you think about what works for you.
Have any of you seen other guys wearing the small JUC? It is probably less common. I’m also hoping that one day they would be able to make a WG JUC SM.
View attachment 4906508View attachment 4906509View attachment 4906510View attachment 4906511View attachment 4906512