“Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye,” wrote Shakespeare, and beauty is the definitive example of a subjective judgment. But functionality, reliability—those are, or should be, objective measurements. Does an object function as it is intended? Can it be relied upon to do so, time after time? With that in mind, should we expect functionality and reliability from jewelry?

Louis Vuitton’s Damier Staples Bangle is, in this eye’s judgment, an attractive piece of jewelry. It combines their Damier Héritage motif with their Monogram motif, all in what is an extremely restrained design by the maison’s current standards. It’s available in silver-toned brass, not silver, but at its price point (USA: $555; EU: 450 €), and from LVMH, that’s to be expected. It’s available in two sizes: M and L. Speaking as someone with 7.5" (19 cm) wrists, which can be difficult to fit with French brands, the L size fits well—so kudos to Vuitton for making a bracelet that works for a wide range of men. Louis Vuitton says the bracelet was designed by their creative director Pharrell Williams and describes it as an “everyday piece of jewelry”, which sounds right. It could easily transition from a (not overly-conservative) office to an upscale restaurant and then to a club afterwards.

On the wrist, it’s understated, yet somehow manages to be dramatic at the same time. And again, as a man with relatively large wrists, it’s a substantial piece of jewelry that can hold its own and look good. (I recently tried on a rather delicate cord bracelet from the excellent brand le gramme and it made my wrist look like nothing quite so much as a bird trussed and ready for the oven.)

The problem is in the clasp, and Louis Vuitton hints at it on their product page, which includes the text, “Please refer to the included instructions on how to open and securely wear the bangle.” Do you take that as a warning? You should. The clasp relies on pressure on the bracelet itself to separate its two halves so they can detach. In practice, what this means is that any pressure on the bracelet—whether deliberate or inadvertent—can, if applied at the proper angle, cause the clasp to detach. In my experience, this is especially true if the bracelet happens to be under a shirt sleeve for a moment—not that it makes it more likely that pressure could detach the clasp, but that the wearer may not see it happening. If not, the bracelet can fall out without being noticed.

You might think a luxury maison would have a generous warranty policy to account for situations such as these, but not in this case. If you notice the clasp detaching inadvertently, you can send it in for service, but I don’t know what Louis Vuitton would be able to do for you—the flaw is in the design, not the execution. If the clasp detaches inadvertently due to this flaw and you lose the bracelet, they won’t replace it.

The subtitle of this article reads, “Does a beautiful luxury motif outweigh a fundamentally flawed design?” The answer is no. It doesn’t. As consumers, we can’t accept that. We have every right to expect that our luxury purchases not only look good but function properly and are reliable over long periods of time. Anything less betrays the promise of luxury.

If you love the look of this bracelet and are convinced you can keep it safe on your wrist, then it might be for you. Otherwise, skip the Damier Staples Bangle in favor of bracelets—from Louis Vuitton or other firms—with positive latching mechanisms¹ that, in practice, can only be opened deliberately.

We do not accept consideration of any kind in exchange for product or service reviews.