dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. The summary judgment evidence conclusively establishes Tiffany’s ownership of the necklace. I would therefore affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in Tiffany’s favor.
In support of its motion for summary judgment, Tiffany introduced three affidavits: Roger John Coleman, Tiffany’s manager of investigations and the person who investigated the loss when the Schlumber-ger amethyst “Leaves” necklace was “lost in transit” somewhere between Tiffany’s Taipei and New York stores; Pierce *594MacGuire, the director of Tiffany’s Sehlumberger Department when the necklace was stolen; and Marc Joseph, an assistant buyer in the Sehlumberger Department when the necklace was produced and the manager of the department at the time the necklace was stolen.
According to all three of Tiffany’s witnesses, Tiffany produced the Schlumber-ger amethyst “Leaves” necklace in 1988. In November 1994, this necklace was “lost in transit” somewhere between Tiffany’s Taipei and New York stores. At the time, MacGuire annotated the store’s inventory card to reflect the neeWaee was “stolen [in] Taiwan.” Coleman’s investigation revealed a package containing the “one-of-a-kind Tiffany Sehlumberger neddace” was delivered to the Taiwan Airport for shipment via China Airlines to Tiffany’s New York store. However, the package never arrived in New York. Neither Tiffany’s investigation nor that of the Taiwan Aviation Police Department recovered the necklace.
In his affidavit, Marc Joseph testified he worked directly with Jean Sehlumberger in the production of Sehlumberger jewelry. He was directly involved in the production of the Sehlumberger “Leaves” necklace depicted on page 54 of the 1988-89 Tiffany Blue Book Catalog. Joseph testified this necMace and the necklace at issue in this case are “one and the same.” Joseph based his conclusion on several factors:
a. Identical Stones. [Joseph] was personally responsible for procurement of the stones for the Tiffany Necklace. Amethysts in the shape depicted are not common. The amethyst stones in the Necklace have the same color, saturation, “plump” shape and overall quality as the amethysts shown in photographs of the Tiffany Necklace.
b. Markings. The piece is marked “TIFFANY SCHLUMBERGER.” The marking is properly placed and consistent with Tiffany marking techniques.
c. Drilling. The drilling of the amethysts for the Tiffany Necklace was especially challenging. In order to properly drill the amethysts without leaving a tell-tale white ring on the perifery [sic], a special technique is required. In order to have the drilling properly made, [Joseph] sent the amethysts for the Tiffany Necklace to Brun of Paris. On examination, it is obvious that the stones in the Necklace have been drilled using Brun’s technique. There is no periferal [sic] white ring around the setting, which would be common with any other technique.
d. Overall Manufacturing Detail. Sehlumberger jewelry is very difficult to produce. The detail and workmanship is time intensive and unique. The Necklace bears the “signature” of these techniques, including pav[é] diamond set leaves, the articulated nature of the connections between the leaves, the caps on the amethysts, and the clasp.
e. Size, shape and appearance. The Necklace is identical to the photographs of the Tiffany Necklace taken after its manufacture but before shipment to Taiwan for display. It would be virtually impossible, even by our own shop, to create another necklace which could so accurately match the photographs, especially the shape of the amethysts, and placement of the diamonds in the amethysts.
Joseph concluded his affidavit by noting “[t]he Tiffany Necklace was produced only once by Tiffany & Co. Sehlumberger Department using amethysts pierced with diamonds. When a piece is one-of-a-kind, we indicated this as ‘Subject to prior sale’ in our marketing materials. The attached pages from the 1988-89 Blue Book so state.” Tiffany’s summary judgment evi*595dence thus establishes its title to the unique Schlumberger amethyst “Leaves” necklace; its theft in 1994; and its identity as the necklace at issue in this case.
In response to Tiffany’s motion, TDI submitted the affidavit of its vice president, Ivan Frederick Grabhorn, a lapidary with more than thirty years of experience. Grabhorn admits the necklace at issue in this case is very similar to the Schlumber-ger amethyst “Leaves” necklace, although it has one more amethyst drop; amethysts of the type used on the Tiffany necklace are readily available; customers commonly ask jewelers to replicate jewelry seen in magazines or catalogs or worn by another person; it would be possible to replicate the Schlumberger amethyst “Leaves” necklace; it is not possible to identify the amethyst drops on the Schlumberger amethyst “Leaves” necklace from the photograph in Tiffany’s 1988-89 catalog; without microscopic photographs, it is impossible to tell if a diamond is a diamond in the Schlumberger amethyst “Leaves” necklace; jewelers know not to trust a marking as proof of origin and it was for that reason the necklace was sent to Tiffany’s for evaluation; it is not difficult to drill holes in amethysts without tell-tale white holes; “difficult to produce” does not mean “unique or only achievable by Tiffany or its Schlumberger Department”; jewelers capable of making the necklace can be found in many major cities, including San Antonio; pavé diamond, leaf motifs, and articulated connections are common; neither the clasp on the necklace nor the caps on the amethysts are unique; and the Schlumberger amethyst “Leaves” could be reproduced for $21,000 plus labor.
Given this evidence, I would affirm the summary judgment. Tiffany & Co. conclusively established the necklace at issue is the one-of-a-kind Schlumberger amethyst “Leaves” necklace owned by Tiffany and stolen in 1994. At most, Grabhorn’s affidavit establishes it is possible to replicate the necklace in terms of its overall design, materials, and workmanship. Nowhere does he challenge that, in Joseph’s words, it would be virtually impossible even for Tiffany & Co. to create another necklace that would “so accurately match the photographs [of the stolen necklace], especially the shape of the amethysts, and placement of the diamonds on the amethysts.”