I am a long time vintage jewelry collector and researcher, so I buy practically everything on jewelry that is published. This book, except for the pretty pictures, is absolutely worthless for research and filled with so many errors it is staggering. I shudder at the thought of new or inexperienced collectors or dealers buying this and repeating the information that is in here thinking they are getting a scholarly tome written by an expert. The section on Trifari (of which I have a large collection of and am very well versed in) has so many pieces dated incorrectly. On page 7 of the book a pair of Trifari invisibly set flower earrings are listed as "1940s Trifari earrings in sterling silver". I own these earrings and know they are from the 1960s and NOT sterling silver. The back of these earrings are marked Trifari with the copyright symbol which came into use c.1955. One of the founders, CARL FISHEL is misspelled "KARL". On page 42 there is an art deco bracelet with the mark TKF dated from the 1920s, except that mark was not registered and used on the jewelry until 1935. On page 43 a starburst set dated 1940s is really from 1966. There is a brooch and earring demi-parure listed on page 51 of the Trifari section as "1950s head pin and earring set". This set is NOT Trifari. It is the well known REJA STERLING MEDUSA set from 1946!! The famous lawsuit that Trifari fought and won in 1955 which stated costume jewelry designs were works of art and could be protected by copyrights is mentioned, but she says that the lawsuit was Trifari vs. Coro, when in fact, the company they sued was CHAREL.
An unsigned aurora borealis bow brooch that is on the back cover is inside and dated as 1930s/1940s when aurora borealis stones were not even invented until 1955 by Swarovski for Dior. Yet in the Dior chapter this information is stated correctly. A page of jelly bellies shows an English sterling JB penguin dated as C.1910. I know this piece. It was made by Ciro Pearls of England. Jelly bellies are made of Lucite, a material which did not even exist until 1931. The penguin in the book is an exact copy of a Trifari patented piece from 1943...the earliest this piece in the book could be dated to. The dating shown for the penguin is WRONG by a minimum of 33 years. A Boucher enamel flower is listed as 1920s/1930s when Boucher did not go into business for himself until 1937.Under the Chanel section the first piece shown, a "late 1920s orchid pin in potmetal" is not from Coco Chanel in France like the rest of the pieces in the chapter, but from a US firm called Chanel Novelty. They only produced a line for one collection in Spring of 1941 and signed their pieces Chanel in script, but had to change their name to Reinad due to pressure probably from Chanel France. This groundbreaking research was discovered in 2000 by Carla and Roberto Brunialti--approximately 10 years before the publication of this book.
Aside from all of this confusing and useless information, the most egregious error that is an embarrassment (was there even an editor or proofreader on board?) writes about a Stanley Hagler bracelet made for "WALLACE SIMPSON" that "would be fit for a queen". This is "WALLIS SIMPSON", the DUCHESS OF WINDSOR, who married the ex-KING OF ENGLAND, probably one of the most famous women in the world. This is a BRITISH author. HOW could a mistake like that be made? In this era of the internet, when precise information such as patents are available online for the entire world to research, including many pieces in this book for exact dating, where there are some wonderful websites that offer fantastic ACCURATE research on many of these companies, where there are peer to peer vintage costume jewelry groups to help each other, there is absolutely no excuse for this. If I had to list all the mistakes I have found, it would be a book in itself. There are too many costume jewelry books being published today with absolutely no substance. This is one of them. The first book had the same problem, but I bought this second one hoping many of the previous mistakes would be rectified. Boy was I wrong. I bought this book in 2010 when it first came out and knew about the errors, but as I was looking at it again tonight with all of this fresh in my mind, I had to come here and leave a review. I cannot recommend this book at all. I would give it Zero stars if Amazon let me but they didn't, so I'll give it 1 star for the photography.