How much does it cost? Starter bracelets range from $27-59 while the individual beads range in price from $20 to $100.

Who's wearing Chamilia? Such celebs as Usher, Paris Hilton and Shannon Elizabeth just to name a few.

Are you a fan of Disney? Chamilia also offer a cultured pearl jewelry complete line of Disney inspired beads to compliment their line.

In an effort to continually bring our customers the latest and best in jewelry, we have added a new line to our store known as "CHAMILIA". You will be excited to see and learn about this beautiful jewelry line featuring European bead bracelets and necklaces with 14k gold, sterling silver and murano glass. Of course, this new line compliments the already large selection of single strand necklace European bead jewelry we currently offer and gives a distinctive new flavor to our inventory.

What is Chamilia? The name Chamilia is a more feminized word pointing to "Chameleon", which demonstrates the ability to change and adapt to the environment and surroundings. Chamilia's inspiration originates from European styling. Designers create each design which are then handmade by experienced craftsman. Chamilia offers both "Classic" and "Trendy" styling. Chamilia jewelry allows one to multi-strand necklaces design and customize their own bracelet, necklace or anklet, each having unique character and style. Select individual beads from a constantly growing selection of the highest quality, sterling silver, 14k gold, murano glass and Swavorski crystal. One can start with just one bead or as many as you desire.

Another gold high end fashion jewelry trend is the return to the bangle bracelets. These aren't the old, clunky style of bracelets from the 60's, rather they are exquisitely crafted with gold wire accents, designs and even gemstones. The bracelets can be worn as singles or can be stacked on the wrist to add color and depth to freshwater pearl the gold tones. When stacked these gold bracelets are typically mixed, with wider and narrower bangles, solid and decorated and even different types of metals.


Within the jewelry world there are classic pieces that seem to always be in style, however there are also those very unique trends that come around every now and then to really shake things up. High end jewelry or fine jewelry lines are not immune to the impact of freshwater pearl jewelry trends. Often just having the trend shown within a high end line means that it is moved beyond the trend stage and is now an acceptable fashion accessory or style.

Although gold has been around for centuries, the allure of this precious metal keeps it on top of the latest in fashion trends for all season wear. One of the newer fashion styles to sport gold is the multi-layered necklace. This style is typically in three layers of chain, attaching to the top layer with a single clasp at the back. The three layers or chains, shortest to longest, are separated enough to allow charms, beads or smaller gold pieces to akoya pearl pendant hang between the layers, creating a warm, soft appearance. These stacked type necklaces are ideally suited to various open necklines but can also be worn as an accent to a jacket or over a top with a straight or high neckline. Since they are not long, hanging necklaces they are easy to wear and add a touch of richness.

Marcasite Becoming Fashionable

Marcasite jewelry became fashionable in the Victorian era ¨C its black color was popular at the time especially at the end of the Queens reign when sombre clothing and adornment were the vogue. Cameo pendants and brooches/pins were especially popular and there are many examples of the freshwater pearl pendantdark marcasite contrasting with ivory.

What is Marcasite?

Marcasite is a natural mineral that is called iron sulfide and is often mined in South America although it is found naturally all around the world and marcasite is related to iron pyrite which is also called ¡°Fools Gold¡± due to its likeness to gold but relative low value ¨C miners would mistake iron pyrite for freshwater pearl bracelet gold when staking a claim and only realising their mistake later.

The color of marcasite ranges from dark grey to black often with sparks of yellow or gold throughout the stone. As with all natural stones, the color can differ slightly. Marcasite was considered to reduce negative energy and improve communication.

2. Look inside your Diamond.

Much like looking inside a crystal ball, looking inside your diamond will reveal the truth about its true components and its authenticity. The key is: Real diamonds always have something inside. If you look into your diamond with a 1200x microscope, you should be able to freshwater pearl beads see tiny inclusions within the stones infrastructure. If you hold the diamond in front of your eye and look through its side, you should not be able to see through it, nor should it look to be one clear, unified color. If the stone exerts zero degrees of brilliance, and if you can see through it from the side, then it is definitely fake.

Chances are, if you are buying a diamond ring for someone, you want your diamond to be special, durable, and most of all, authentic. With all of the imitation diamond jewelry on the market today, it is wise to know a few helpful hints on how to determine a real diamond from a fake.

Learn the tools of the trade and gather a akoya pearl beads few of these easy tricks up your sleeve. It is time to put your diamond to the test.

1. Real Diamonds are flawed; fakes are not.

While some might think that the goal in purchasing the perfect diamond is to find one that is virtually flawless¡ªthat is not always the case. Carefully crafted Cubic Zirconia sports absolutely no imperfections, making it easy to loose pearl label as fake. Real, pure diamonds contain tiny ¡®flaws¡¯ which oftentimes creates a brilliance that cannot be seen in fakes.

Tomorrow brings excruciating embarrassment for the United Nations. It will honour the worst man left in the world, who now devotes his time to thwarting its attempts to bring other international criminals to justice. Colonel Gaddafi will make a triumphant address to the assembled dignitaries (including a humiliated President Obama), unless a district attorney in New York arrests him for murder, or torture, or conspiracy to cause explosions ¨C or for any of the various crimes against humanity committed during 35 of his 40 years of dictatorship.

Gaddafi gets away with murder because European nations, and the corporations that influence their governments (British Petroleum in the case of the UK), are desperate to share in his oil wealth, and because he buys off the relatives of his victims with "blood money" ($2.7bn for Lockerbie, $1m per family for a UTA passenger jet, and further millions for US victims of his supply of semtex to the IRA), accompanied by insincere apologies.

In Africa, his impunity is attractive to playground equipmentother corrupt or brutal rulers: in February, he was elected chairman of the African Union, and he has transformed this organisation into the main opponent of the international criminal court, guaranteeing to protect Omar al-Bashir from its arrest warrant over his alleged crimes in Darfur. Gaddafi has in the past ordered many assassinations of dissidents ("stray dogs") and sponsored terrorist groups reportedly ranging from Baader Meinhof to Abu Nidal ¨C while his charity provides lavish compensation to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The legal excuse for his untouchability is sovereign (or head of state) immunity, the Machiavellian doctrine that for centuries protected political and military leaders from any kind of accountability other than by forcible overthrow. But immunity is not what it used to be: the Pinochet decision, by Britain's highest court, held that ex-dictators could be liable for torturing their own people; and then the international court of justice held that courts set up by the United Nations could prosecute government ministers for mass murder. In due course Slobodan Milosevic went to trial, followed by Charles Taylor after the UN's court in Sierra Leone had upheld the issue of an arrest warrant at a time when he was still the head of Liberia. The particulars in this warrant, significantly, named Gaddafi as an "unindicted co-conspirator", accusing him of sponsoring Taylor and Foday Sankoh, the brutal rebel leader whose Operation No Living Thing almost lived down to its words in Freetown.

The experienced prosecutor who obtained the Taylor warrant has publicly stated that he had the evidence to indict Gaddafi. His successor, Stephen Rapp, has just left the Taylor trial to take up the post of inflatable bouncers ambassador for war crimes prosecutions with the Obama administration. If his replacement obtains an arrest warrant from the UN court, Gaddafi would have no immunity if it were executed on him in New York.

There are other ways for US law enforcement to feel the colonel's collar. Britain gave the world the Pinochet precedent, but the US provided the Noriega example ¨C the Panama head of state was arrested, convicted and jailed for exporting cocaine to the US. If Megrahi was guilty of the Lockerbie bombing (and, conspiracy theories aside, the evidence justified the verdict), then Gaddafi must have given the order.

Megrahi was a senior Libyan intelligence official, and there is no way that Gaddafi's intelligence services, run by his brother-in-law, would commit an atrocity of this magnitude without his knowledge and approval. This crime has such close connections to America, given the nationality of the airline and most of the victims, that a New York district attorney would have no difficulty claiming jurisdiction to arrest the man reasonably suspected of being an arch co-conspirator.

Just six months after Lockerbie, the Libyans did it again ¨C to a French airliner over Chad. A French court convicted in absentia Gaddafi's brother-in-law and five Libyan intelligence operatives. Then investigating judges held that there was a strong case for Gaddafi himself to answer: post Pinochet, sovereign immunity could not apply for a crime as serious as blowing up an airliner. But a French appeal court overruled this decision, on the erroneous ground that airline terrorism did not amount to an international crime. The families of Gaddafi's victims appealed to the European court of human rights, so to get himself off the hook his charity paid each family $1m to compromise the case. If the evidence is still available, this case too might proceed in the US.

There are other legal possibilities. Unruly rulers such as Karadzic, Mugabe and Marcos have on visiting America been served with writs and made the subjects of civil actions under the US alien tort claims act. Although those indicted cannot be obliged to wait around for the swing machines verdict, proceedings can give victims' relatives some satisfaction through the presentation of evidence about the defendants' complicity in crimes against humanity.

For the present however, Gaddafi struts the world stage, a living embodiment of impunity. He came in from the cold in 2003 for one reason only ¨C to obtain help against Islamic enemies who despise his "green book" and want to destroy his dynasty. Britain has been his leading appeaser: the SAS trains his troops, Scotland Yard helps his police (although not to apprehend the murderer of PC Yvonne Fletcher), and his dissidents here have been arrested and jailed under the UK's anti-terror legislation. Italy and France have welcomed him, and last month the Swiss government issued a grovelling apology for arresting his son, Hannibal, over allegations of beating his servants.

So, over to America. President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton recently criticised Britain for pandering to Gaddafi by encouraging Megrahi's release. This week the US has the opportunity to end Gaddafi's invulnerability which derives not from his strength, but from the weakness of international law and those who have a duty to apply it.

What exactly are the Liberal Democrat leadership up to at Bournemouth? On the one hand we have had Nick Clegg gleefully promising savage spending cuts, reneging on the pledge to abolish tuition fees and hinting at the possibility of means testing child benefit ¨C all measures that those who like their politics framed in a left-right spectrum would define as rightwing, the inflatablesort of the thing you might expect to appeal to Conservative voters.

Then today, on the other hand, there is Vince Cable ¨C the "people's chancellor" as he was introduced before his keynote speech to the Lib Dem conference this morning ¨C floating the idea of a mansion tax on properties worth more than £1m to finance lifting 300,000 low-paid workers out of tax and sounding for all the world like a traditional socialist finance minister bent on squeezing the rich and appealing to traditional Labour supporters.

At first blush this looks like a political pushme-pullyou, with the LibDems heading in two directions at once, offering some eye-catching cuts to all those Conservative voters whom they need to win back in order to retain their seats in the south, while simultaneously floating a good old-fashioned class-envy tax policy that may persuade Labour voters in the north to break the allegiance of a lifetime and come over to the Lib Dems instead.

Actually, I think the idea is more coherent than that. From the Lib Dem leaders and advisers I've been talking to, it seems to me the main thing that Clegg and Cable are jointly trying to do is set the agenda over fiscal consolidation in the coming decade in a way they think that neither of inflatable bouncer their rivals can match.

At the root of their thinking is the belief that we simply live in changed political times now. For 20 years or so, radical politics has been centred on the need to increase public spending, largely to make good the cuts of the 20 years before that. Now the combined cost of saving the financial system and the fiscal imbalances that flow from higher unemployment and recession mean that, for the foreseeable future, the question is how to pay down the debt.

The Lib Dems want to prove that they have a philosophical and practical grasp of what needs doing. That's why they are trying so show that they will not shirk the celebrated "tough choices" on spending. But, at the same time ¨C and it's vital to understand that in their eyes the strategy depends on both ¨C they are also willing to make tough choices on tax that their rivals cannot match.

That's what Cable's clear and excellent speech today was trying to show. There are two ways of paying down the debt, he essentially said. One is to cut spending. The other is to raise taxes. Labour and the Tories are locked in a battle over whether cuts or taxes are the right route to take, each trying to scare voters away from the other. The Lib Dems, on the other hand, are prepared to do both. The government is living beyond its means, said Cable, but it is not bankrupt, not even nearly. Its problem is that its income was too heavily based on receipts from the financial services industry. Those receipts are not going to recur any time soon, and certainly not as the basis for sustained spending at current levels. Therefore both spending cuts and tax rises will be needed. In the inflatable cartoon words of one activist I spoke to today, the party is looking for "a more heroic platform" on which to fight the general election.

Not everyone in the party will buy it, of course. There is a left v right divide in the Lib Dems as there is in the other parties. And plenty of activists are shocked at what they have been hearing, even if they are prepared to trust their party's stars to get the policy right.

But the point of the Clegg-Cable strategy is to make a noise, to get noticed for their readiness to think big, and to shout as loud as they can that theirs is the only party that is willing to think about public spending openly and honestly, recognising the cuts that can be made and the taxes that should be levied to pay for public services. Cable gave a lot of detail this morning, not just the familiar targeted programmes and the mansion tax ¨C where the specific naming of Mittal and Abramovic as targets was an interesting piece of populism by St Vince that may soften the blow among Bournemouth millionaires ¨C but also things like a total public sector pay freeze, a slashing of public sector pensions, a cutback on tax credits and a cutback in high salaries.

The aim is to get noticed and to set the agenda in new times. If that legitimates the Tory cuts agenda more widely, as Jackie Ashley suggested this morning, then that's the way the cards will fall. But it's not the Lib Dem intention. The intention is to be distinctive by being more honest than Labour and much fairer than the Tories ¨C and thus to win votes from both. But at bottom it's about waving the flag while the cameras are on them and shout loudly so that voters know that the choice is wider than they suppose and the Lib Dems are still in the game.