🚚 complimentary SHIPPING on orders over $50 | ⭐ 4.5/5 from 879+ reviews
Vintage βœ“ In StockπŸ”₯ Bestseller

Vintage Swank cufflinks

β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜… 4.5 out of 5 (879 reviews)
Special Offer Price
$10.17
$16.95
Sale
βœ“ on the house delivery on this item β€’ Limited time offer

splendid condition. Silver tone cufflinks

πŸ”’
Secure Checkout
🚚
express dispatch
↩️
uncomplicated Returns

πŸ“‹ Product Description

Vintage Swank cufflinks

splendid condition. Silver tone cufflinks​

This product is superb for anyone looking for quality Vintage products.

πŸ“ Specifications

SKU: 866991

Category: Vintage > Accessories > Cuff Links

Original Price: $16.95 USD

Sale Price: $10.17 USD

Availability: In Stock

Condition: Brand newly-released

🚚 distribution & Returns

βœ“ no-cost dispatch on orders over $50

Standard shipping: 3-5 business days

Express fulfillment: 1-2 business days (+$9.99)

30-Day Returns: Not satisfied? Return within 30 days for a full refund.

⭐ Recommended For You

4.5
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
Based on 5984 reviews
JM
Jessica Moore βœ“ Verified Purchase
6 months ago Β· San Francisco, CA
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
So happy with this
At first, it is handy to use and it’s fine overall.
6 people found this helpful
ET
Emily Thompson βœ“ Verified Purchase
7 months ago Β· Phoenix, AZ
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
Brilliant Vintage Swank cufflinks
So far, the Vintage Swank cufflinks works fine and it meets expectations. Packaging was uncomplicated.
20 people found this helpful
AW
Ashley White βœ“ Verified Purchase
3 weeks ago Β· St. Louis, MO
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
superb in every way
After several use, the Vintage Swank cufflinks fits my needs and it works for me. Nothing fancy.
3 people found this helpful
KG
Kevin Green βœ“ Verified Purchase
9 months ago Β· Baltimore, MD
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
truly satisfied
After some use, it is uncomplicated to use so I’m okay with it. Nothing fancy.
8 people found this helpful
AR
Aaron Roberts βœ“ Verified Purchase
2 months ago Β· Jacksonville, FL
β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…β˜…
outstanding in every way
The Vintage Swank cufflinks seems reliable.
26 people found this helpful