Another Fluorescence ques....in bars/clubs

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/23/2010 7:49:52 PM
Author: sarap333

Date: 6/23/2010 6:49:36 PM

Author: Isabelle

I personally love the McDonald''s comparison b/c it inherently debunks the mischaracterization of Tiffany quality standards as a ''marketing ploy.'' For example, would you buy a McDonald''s hamburger if it cost 150 to 200% more than a burger of similar quality? Hopefully not, and yet many of you rant against T & Co. while at the same time agreeing that you have bought from there in the past, would buy from them again, and have nothing against it per se. It''s only their ''arbitrary grading standards'' that you take issue with and the ''marketing'' of their products: ''How dare they assert that an E color VVS1 with a triple excellent grade is superior to a K colored stone, for instance, with SI 2 inclusions??!'' But yet those of you who have bought Tiffany have in fact paid that premium for a Tiffany product. That in itself demonstrates the difference better than anything I could ever say. You wouldn''t pay double or triple for similar quality hamburgers, but you do step up to the plate and pay double or triple for Tiffany jewelery. Why? Because higher quality diamonds cost more than lower quality diamonds. Case closed.

Oh, a special shout-out to SaraPJ who suggests that the Tiffany is wanted b/c of the blue box it sits in. You have the history backwards, Sara. The blue box is only famous because of the quality it represents.

You mean the quality Tiffany used to represent before it was sold and become a multinational corporation. If you read this study proposal which details the company''s current marketing strategy I think you may find that the blue box is now the proverbial tail that wags the dog.


And as far as paying 100 or 150% more than what McDonald''s charges for a hamburger -- ever been to the 21 Club in NYC?


As for your comments that a K SI2 is a lower quality diamond than an E VVS1 -- I''m surprised that you''d even want to go there on a forum that prides itself in educating consumers that it is cut quality that is the only true beauty factor.


Color and clarity and fluoro are personal preferences. The public has been taught that the whiter and clearer the diamond the ''better'' it is (even though the majority of the population can''t tell a D from a G when it''s mounted and clarity grades above VS are only discernible under a microscope). Again, another case of marketing serving as the tail that wags the dog.


If I was in the market for luxury brand jewelry, Tiffany would not be my choice for the reasons I''ve stated above -- they haven''t been family owned since the 1950s; they have been resting on their laurels since the deaths of some of their more famous jewelers -- and certainly since they''ve acquired Little Switzerland, and most certainly since they currently only produce about a quarter of their products in-house.


You are paying 100 or 150% more for your 1 carat E VVS2 just for the little blue box. At least with a burger I get some sustenance.

Oh yes, I remember. You would buy "vintage" Tiffany: The diamonds that weren''t cut as well as they are today b/c the technology didn''t exist back then; diamonds that were oftentimes "blood diamonds" b/c Laurelton didn''t exist back in the day nor did the KPCS. You would buy cuts that are inferior to today''s from questionable sources and still pay through the nose for it, b/c it the business "family owned." That makes sense.

As for the rest, yes I know we are supposed to pretend that well cut colorless diamonds with nearly no inclusions are worth the same as well cut lower color stones with high inclusions. I get the narrative. It just isn''t true.

 

[stone-cold11]

Date: 6/23/2010 8:39:16 PM
Author: Isabelle

As for the rest, yes I know we are supposed to pretend that well cut colorless diamonds with nearly no inclusions are worth the same as well cut lower color stones with high inclusions. I get the narrative. It just isn't true.

Denial. I guess you really do no have any idea what this post is talking about.

Date: 6/23/2010 5:41:21 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)
Sorry - I am very late to this discussion.

Here is a definition of what Fluoro is:

As diamonds grow nitrogen is dispersed throughout the crystal. The nitrogen absorbs some blue light leaving the diamond yellowish. Higher energy light (X-rays or short wave UV) cause electrons in a lower shell to jump to the outer shell, and as they fall back there is a release of energy that makes diamond emit the blue light that was previously absorbed. Natural UV from daylight or some light globes can make a yellowish diamond look whiter because of this effect. Nitrogen occurs in various ‘states’ – a D coloured non fluorescent stone can to have 10 times more nitrogen than a K that is fluorescent.

 

[yssie]

Date: 6/23/2010 8:39:16 PM
Author: Isabelle


Oh yes, I remember. You would buy 'vintage' Tiffany: The diamonds that weren't cut as well as they are today b/c the technology didn't exist back then; diamonds that were oftentimes 'blood diamonds' b/c Laurelton didn't exist back in the day nor did the KPCS. You would buy cuts that are inferior to today's from questionable sources and still pay through the nose for it, b/c it the business 'family owned.' That makes sense.

As for the rest, yes I know we are supposed to pretend that well cut colorless diamonds with nearly no inclusions are worth the same as well cut lower color stones with high inclusions. I get the narrative. It just isn't true.

Credit where credit is due: this made me pause, you make a good point.

My first counter is that since these diamonds have been around for years and years, purchasing these pieces isn't supporting unethical and dishonourable practices, but that argument falls apart when I recognise that the thought of wearing ivory makes me cringe.. different species, same dilemma.


But then, I personally don't care about brand whatsoever so it's not an issue I'm ever going to deal with

No one is arguing that a well cut 1ct D VVS2 is monetarily worth the same as a well cut 1ct J SI2. We're arguing that a person may well find the J SI2 to be the more beautiful stone, and they're not wrong or mistaken to do so no matter what Tiffany believes, for any number of reasons - including the fact that the range of "well cut" includes a huge variety of performance types.

 

[WinkHPD]

Date: 6/23/2010 6:49:36 PM
Author: Isabelle
I personally love the McDonald''s comparison b/c it inherently debunks the mischaracterization of Tiffany quality standards as a ''marketing ploy.'' For example, would you buy a McDonald''s hamburger if it cost 150 to 200% more than a burger of similar quality? Hopefully not, and yet many of you rant against T & Co. while at the same time agreeing that you have bought from there in the past, would buy from them again, and have nothing against it per se. It''s only their ''arbitrary grading standards'' that you take issue with and the ''marketing'' of their products: ''How dare they assert that an E color VVS1 with a triple excellent grade is superior to a K colored stone, for instance, with SI 2 inclusions??!'' But yet those of you who have bought Tiffany have in fact paid that premium for a Tiffany product. That in itself demonstrates the difference better than anything I could ever say. You wouldn''t pay double or triple for similar quality hamburgers, but you do step up to the plate and pay double or triple for Tiffany jewelery. Why? Because higher quality diamonds cost more than lower quality diamonds. Case closed.

Oh, a special shout-out to SaraPJ who suggests that the Tiffany is wanted b/c of the blue box it sits in. You have the history backwards, Sara. The blue box is only famous because of the quality it represents.

Dear lady,

You are confusing rarity issues with quality issues. Cutting is quality, so I buy the Triple X part of your statement, but the E-VVS1 and the K-SI2 are strictly rarity and thus price issues.

The brand value is totally separate from the quality of the stones issues. The brand does have value, but the value does not translate to superior quality. It translates to consumer confidence in that brand, whether or not it is misplaced, but it says NOTHING about the actual quality of the product. There are many less expensive products that equal or exceed the quality of the brand you are talking about, but without their own perceived value of their own brands they will always sell for less than the big name brand. That has always been the way of the market, especially in this country where the brand is more important to many than the quality of the product being considered. (Go to any big name clothing or accessories store to see ample evidence of this fact.)

For you to confuse the value of the brand with the quality of the product is simply an error on your part. You have stated many mistruths as facts in your eagerness to prove us rubes. It is not working.

Wink

 

[Isabelle]

That''s total sophistry Wink. Rarity does factor in (quite significantly) to the value of a diamond. Thus Tiffany higher grade diamonds are more valuable. I made a mistake about a loupe''s capability to see flaws in a VS2 stone. I readily admitted my error at least 4 times. Consider this a fifth: Mea culpa! But then we had to spend a lot of time pretending that eye visible flaws in a VS2 diamond happen all the time.--That of course helps develop the false argument that Tiffany standards are "arbitrary". Please don''t patronize me by suggesting that I''m confusing "quality" with "branding." THAT brand means quality. We can pretend it doesn''t, but you''d have a hard time explaining how they''re no good and yet most of their competition falls all over itself trying to copy their cuts, setting styles, and designs. How many Tiffany style keys are for sale in the NY diamond district right now? How long will it take the cutters and dealers on this board to start cutting and trading lucida-style cuts once their patent expires? Their license on the legacy cut could expire soon. I''m sure no one here would be interested in cutting that one either, right? Please. Anyway, I understand I walked into the lion''s den with this discussion. But a dose of reality regarding the Tiffany brand and the exceptional quality it represents is really in order.

Cheers.

 

[Isabelle]

Yssie, I 100% agree with your last paragraph. And yet there are vendors on here who argue that they are equally valuable and that the Tiffany legacy (meaning heritage, not the diamond cut) is tied to a successful brand identity that emerged out of thin air rather than being based on the reality of their quality. Ridiculous.

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/23/2010 8:57:13 PM
Author: yssie

Date: 6/23/2010 8:39:16 PM

Author: Isabelle



Oh yes, I remember. You would buy 'vintage' Tiffany: The diamonds that weren't cut as well as they are today b/c the technology didn't exist back then; diamonds that were oftentimes 'blood diamonds' b/c Laurelton didn't exist back in the day nor did the KPCS. You would buy cuts that are inferior to today's from questionable sources and still pay through the nose for it, b/c it the business 'family owned.' That makes sense.


As for the rest, yes I know we are supposed to pretend that well cut colorless diamonds with nearly no inclusions are worth the same as well cut lower color stones with high inclusions. I get the narrative. It just isn't true.

Credit where credit is due: this made me pause, you make a good point.


My first counter is that since these diamonds have been around for years and years, purchasing these pieces isn't supporting unethical and dishonourable practices, but that argument falls apart when I recognise that the thought of wearing ivory makes me cringe.. different species, same dilemma.



But then, I personally don't care about brand whatsoever so it's not an issue I'm ever going to deal with

No one is arguing that a well cut 1ct D VVS2 is monetarily worth the same as a well cut 1ct J SI2. We're arguing that a person may well find the J SI2 to be the more beautiful stone, and they're not wrong or mistaken to do so no matter what Tiffany believes, for any number of reasons - including the fact that the range of 'well cut' includes a huge variety of performance types.

Well, Isabelle, now you have managed to insult the lovers of OEC and transitional cut stones.

And, to answer your question, yes, I would wear vintage Tiffany (pre-1950 pieces) and I also would wear 1960s and 1970s Tiffany's Schlumberger, Cummings and Peretti pieces. In fact, I actively search ebay and other vintage jewelry sties for these pieces. These pieces represent the golden age of the Tiffany brand when they controlled their own production and produced innovate designs. Schlumberger died in the late 1970s; Tiffany continues to produce his work. Cummings left the company in 1984 to start her own company. It makes you wonder why she left -- perhaps Tiffany's post-Avon years were not up to her standards as an artist?

yssie, as a long-time collector of vintage costume jewelry, I have often seen ivory pieces. Like you, I prefer not to buy jewelry made of ivory for ethical reasons. I also avoid pieces made of horn, crocodile skin, etc.

Diamonds are a grey area for me. I don't believe any one of us truly knows if the diamonds we wear (even post Kimberly) are conflict-free -- whether they are vintage or new. I think Kimberly has improved things, but it is far from perfect. I do buy my new diamonds from a company that sources sources its own rough and cuts its own stones (rather than buying stones from a cutting house or houses).

We all have choices to make when it comes to spending our money. I choose to spend my money in a way that supports small creative companies and individual artisans rather than large brand names. To me, the vendors respected on this site very much represent the spirit of the original Louis Comfort Tiffany brand -- quality, creativity, value. I'd rather support them in their endeavors and be one of the few wearing an original piece designed and executed just for me.

 

[Isabelle]

I don''t understand your reasoning Sara. Elsa Peretti, the most important designer of jewelry since Schlumberger is still designing for Tiffany. She''s still there. His originals from the 60''s and 70''s are still for sdle too. Some of her pieces are in museums. Some, (the bone pitcher comes to mind) are collectors items. Almost all are copied and sold on Ebay as legitimate when they are actually counterfeit. And again, why is everyone so busy copying the designs Tiffany designers conceive if they''re just so ordinary? You cull eBay for Tiffany designs? Why would you do that? According to your earlier post, the box is what''s driving the valuation of the product, not the product itself.

 

[yssie]

Date: 6/23/2010 11:05:17 PM
Author: sarap333

Well, Isabelle, now you have managed to insult the lovers of OEC and transitional cut stones.

And, to answer your question, yes, I would wear vintage Tiffany (pre-1950 pieces) and I also would wear 1960s and 1970s Tiffany's Schlumberger, Cummings and Peretti pieces. In fact, I actively search ebay and other vintage jewelry sties for these pieces. These pieces represent the golden age of the Tiffany brand when they controlled their own production and produced innovate designs. Schlumberger died in the late 1970s; Tiffany continues to produce his work. Cummings left the company in 1984 to start her own company. It makes you wonder why she left -- perhaps Tiffany's post-Avon years were not up to her standards as an artist?

yssie, as a long-time collector of vintage costume jewelry, I have often seen ivory pieces. Like you, I prefer not to buy jewelry made of ivory for ethical reasons. I also avoid pieces made of horn, crocodile skin, etc.

Diamonds are a grey area for me. I don't believe any one of us truly knows if the diamonds we wear (even post Kimberly) are conflict-free -- whether they are vintage or new. I think Kimberly has improved things, but it is far from perfect. I do buy my new diamonds from a company that sources sources its own rough and cuts its own stones (rather than buying stones from a cutting house or houses).

We all have choices to make when it comes to spending our money. I choose to spend my money in a way that supports small creative companies and individual artisans rather than large brand names. To me, the vendors respected on this site very much represent the spirit of the original Louis Comfort Tiffany brand -- quality, creativity, value. I'd rather support them in their endeavors and be one of the few wearing an original piece designed and executed just for me.

Yes, it does sound like this is more and more the case

My statement wasn't aimed as an attack on you or other collectors, if it sounded that way

- I have a gorgeous pair of OEC studs I adore, and FI and I are having steaks for dinner, so I fully admit to being a hypocrite without a soapbox to judge from one way or another - though, frankly, who would (or should) care if I did!

 

[Isabelle]

Oh and more thing: Neither Charles Lewis Tiffany (the founder) nor his son Louis Comfort Tiffany represented a spirit of denegrating the work of other artisans. In fact, they actively recruited them. That still happens. I wholeheartedly embrace your support of designers as skilled as they on this very board. Brian Gavin comes to mind. But I''ve never heard Brian disparage Tiffany or their quality. Instead he just quietly churns out top quality work. Many others do too. But those who sell the notion that T & Co. isnt about quality certainly do not represent the spirit of the original founder or his son. There are many skilled artisans at Tiffany conceiving new and exciting ideas every day and they do it in total anonymity, allowing the Tiffany brand to be the public face for their work.

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/23/2010 11:25:10 PM
Author: Isabelle
I don't understand your reasoning Sara. Elsa Peretti, the most important designer of jewelry since Schlumberger is still designing for Tiffany. She's still there. His originals from the 60's and 70's are still for sdle too. Some of her pieces are in museums. Some, (the bone pitcher comes to mind) are collectors items. Almost all are copied and sold on Ebay as legitimate when they are actually counterfeit. And again, why is everyone so busy copying the designs Tiffany designers conceive if they're just so ordinary? You cull eBay for Tiffany designs? Why would you do that? According to your earlier post, the box is what's driving the valuation of the product, not the product itself.

Yes, exactly. Peretti is still designing for Tiffany and so is Paloma Picasso. Their work is outstanding. And, you are correct, many of Tiffany's designer pieces are in museums -- and rightly so. But the counterfeit issue is a real problem for me, and, more than anything discussed on this thread, demonstrates the problems with the Tiffany brand crossing over from true luxury into mass manufacture.

There are many Tiffany fakes on ebay and I avoid any of the "new" Tiffany products -- e.g., the Etoile wedding band -- on vintage jewelry sites and ebay for just this reason. Once the product is copied and fakes are rampant, it dilutes the value of the brand. And companies know this -- that's why you see them spending big bucks -- really big bucks -- to fight counterfeiters. And it's not just Tiffany -- another good example is high-end watches, such as Concord. For years I've wanted to buy a gold Concord watch. But there are so many copies out there, that I've lost interest in buying a new Concord; instead I've got my eye on a circa 1960s Concord. Nobody's copying the old Concords (yet!). Copies dilute a brand's value.

And the box does indeed drive the value of the product -- especially in today's market where there are so many fakes. That's why every ebay seller dealing in Tiffany makes such a big deal about "comes with original Tiffany papers and box." Tiffany pieces that come with the original packaging are more highly valued -- worth more and cost more -- so much so that there are sellers selling just the boxes! So how many of those boxes are matched with counterfeit Tiffany products?

Even vintage Tiffany is not immune to fakes and counterfeit. For example, many times these pieces may be "marriages" of two individual pieces into one piece. A collector not only has to know the company history but also the styling, materials and craftsmanship specific to the brand and also know if the piece is representative of the design aesthetic of the era in which it was produced (e.g., one of the ways I know an ebay seller is clueless is when they describe a 1950s design as "art deco").

You will no doubt say that anyone can avoid this problem buy simply going into Tiffany, paying their markup and buying new Tiffany jewelry right from the source. And I say, yes, that's the only way you can be sure you're not getting a fake, but it does not begin to address the damage that the fakes and counterfeits have done to the brand. In some ways that's the cruel price of success.

When it comes to diamonds, what I've seen on PS is that people are quite willing to support a consumer's decision to buy from Tiffany because the person wants the brand. And I have no beef with that. What I take issue with is people who buy the brand blindly without doing research into what it is they are paying for. And this is why I object to blanket statements that everything Tiffany produces is better because it's Tiffany and Tiffany is known for quality. I do agree with you, that if you buy a diamond ring from Tiffany, that the ring will be beautiful. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anyone on PS say that Tiffany sells poor quality diamonds. What I do object to is the assertion that it's impossible to get something just as beautiful for less money, and that Tiffany somehow has cornered the market on quality. Tiffany is one option out of many for quality diamonds. Tiffany is a heavily marketed brand and the Tiffany of today is a far cry from the original Tiffany (up to 1950) that catered to the carriage trade.

I think that James Meyer, Ocean Pearlman, Leon Mege (jewelry); Crafted by Infinity diamonds and the Octavia cut diamonds -- just to name a few; there are many more -- are modern day equivalents of the original Tiffany. These are individuals/companies/products that combine the best in quality with innovative techniques. Tiffany plays it safe these days. It has to in order to maintain its market share. It's the smaller companies, like those I mentioned, who are willing to produce limited edition one-of-a-kind pieces. And it is these companies that are able to bend the rules and push the edge of the envelope -- such as cutting a 1.5 carat, ideal-cut, S color, I1 clarity diamond with strong blue fluorescence. Does that meet the Tiffany standard of what an engagement ring should be? Probably not. But is it a beautiful and rare diamond? Yes, indeed.

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/23/2010 11:38:31 PM
Author: Isabelle
Oh and more thing: Neither Charles Lewis Tiffany (the founder) nor his son Louis Comfort Tiffany represented a spirit of denegrating the work of other artisans. In fact, they actively recruited them. That still happens. I wholeheartedly embrace your support of designers as skilled as they on this very board. Brian Gavin comes to mind. But I've never heard Brian disparage Tiffany or their quality. Instead he just quietly churns out top quality work. Many others do too. But those who sell the notion that T & Co. isnt about quality certainly do not represent the spirit of the original founder or his son. There are many skilled artisans at Tiffany conceiving new and exciting ideas every day and they do it in total anonymity, allowing the Tiffany brand to be the public face for their work.

Do you work for Tiffany?

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/23/2010 11:27:42 PM
Author: yssie

Date: 6/23/2010 11:05:17 PM

Author: sarap333


Well, Isabelle, now you have managed to insult the lovers of OEC and transitional cut stones.


And, to answer your question, yes, I would wear vintage Tiffany (pre-1950 pieces) and I also would wear 1960s and 1970s Tiffany''s Schlumberger, Cummings and Peretti pieces. In fact, I actively search ebay and other vintage jewelry sties for these pieces. These pieces represent the golden age of the Tiffany brand when they controlled their own production and produced innovate designs. Schlumberger died in the late 1970s; Tiffany continues to produce his work. Cummings left the company in 1984 to start her own company. It makes you wonder why she left -- perhaps Tiffany''s post-Avon years were not up to her standards as an artist?


yssie, as a long-time collector of vintage costume jewelry, I have often seen ivory pieces. Like you, I prefer not to buy jewelry made of ivory for ethical reasons. I also avoid pieces made of horn, crocodile skin, etc.


Diamonds are a grey area for me. I don''t believe any one of us truly knows if the diamonds we wear (even post Kimberly) are conflict-free -- whether they are vintage or new. I think Kimberly has improved things, but it is far from perfect. I do buy my new diamonds from a company that sources sources its own rough and cuts its own stones (rather than buying stones from a cutting house or houses).


We all have choices to make when it comes to spending our money. I choose to spend my money in a way that supports small creative companies and individual artisans rather than large brand names. To me, the vendors respected on this site very much represent the spirit of the original Louis Comfort Tiffany brand -- quality, creativity, value. I''d rather support them in their endeavors and be one of the few wearing an original piece designed and executed just for me.

Yes, it does sound like this is more and more the case

My statement wasn''t aimed as an attack on you or other collectors, if it sounded that way

- I have a gorgeous pair of OEC studs I adore, and FI and I are having steaks for dinner, so I fully admit to being a hypocrite without a soapbox to judge from one way or another - though, frankly, who would (or should) care if I did!

No offense taken, yssie. I know you are an OEC fan. We all have to wrestle with the ethical issues surrounding cut stones and make the best decisions we can. Some of my friends wear vintage fur (but not new fur). I just can''t get my mind around wearing any fur, but I do wear leather shoes...sigh.

 

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/24/2010 12:19:21 AM
Author: sarap333

Date: 6/23/2010 11:25:10 PM

Author: Isabelle

I don''t understand your reasoning Sara. Elsa Peretti, the most important designer of jewelry since Schlumberger is still designing for Tiffany. She''s still there. His originals from the 60''s and 70''s are still for sdle too. Some of her pieces are in museums. Some, (the bone pitcher comes to mind) are collectors items. Almost all are copied and sold on Ebay as legitimate when they are actually counterfeit. And again, why is everyone so busy copying the designs Tiffany designers conceive if they''re just so ordinary? You cull eBay for Tiffany designs? Why would you do that? According to your earlier post, the box is what''s driving the valuation of the product, not the product itself.

Yes, exactly. Peretti is still designing for Tiffany and so is Paloma Picasso. Their work is outstanding. And, you are correct, many of Tiffany''s designer pieces are in museums -- and rightly so. But the counterfeit issue is a real problem for me, and, more than anything discussed on this thread, demonstrates the problems with the Tiffany brand crossing over from true luxury into mass manufacture.


There are many Tiffany fakes on ebay and I avoid any of the ''new'' Tiffany products -- e.g., the Etoile wedding band -- on vintage jewelry sites and ebay for just this reason. Once the product is copied and fakes are rampant, it dilutes the value of the brand. And companies know this -- that''s why you see them spending big bucks -- really big bucks -- to fight counterfeiters. And it''s not just Tiffany -- another good example is high-end watches, such as Concord. For years I''ve wanted to buy a gold Concord watch. But there are so many copies out there, that I''ve lost interest in buying a new Concord; instead I''ve got my eye on a circa 1960s Concord. Nobody''s copying the old Concords (yet!). Copies dilute a brand''s value.


And the box does indeed drive the value of the product -- especially in today''s market where there are so many fakes. That''s why every ebay seller dealing in Tiffany makes such a big deal about ''comes with original Tiffany papers and box.'' Tiffany pieces that come with the original packaging are more highly valued -- worth more and cost more -- so much so that there are sellers selling just the boxes! So how many of those boxes are matched with counterfeit Tiffany products?


Even vintage Tiffany is not immune to fakes and counterfeit. For example, many times these pieces may be ''marriages'' of two individual pieces into one piece. A collector not only has to know the company history but also the styling, materials and craftsmanship specific to the brand and also know if the piece is representative of the design aesthetic of the era in which it was produced (e.g., one of the ways I know an ebay seller is clueless is when they describe a 1950s design as ''art deco'').


You will no doubt say that anyone can avoid this problem buy simply going into Tiffany, paying their markup and buying new Tiffany jewelry right from the source. And I say, yes, that''s the only way you can be sure you''re not getting a fake, but it does not begin to address the damage that the fakes and counterfeits have done to the brand. In some ways that''s the cruel price of success.


When it comes to diamonds, what I''ve seen on PS is that people are quite willing to support a consumer''s decision to buy from Tiffany because the person wants the brand. And I have no beef with that. What I take issue with is people who buy the brand blindly without doing research into what it is they are paying for. And this is why I object to blanket statements that everything Tiffany produces is better because it''s Tiffany and Tiffany is known for quality. I do agree with you, that if you buy a diamond ring from Tiffany, that the ring will be beautiful. In fact, I don''t think I''ve ever seen anyone on PS say that Tiffany sells poor quality diamonds. What I do object to is the assertion that it''s impossible to get something just as beautiful for less money, and that Tiffany somehow has cornered the market on quality. Tiffany is one option out of many for quality diamonds. Tiffany is a heavily marketed brand and the Tiffany of today is a far cry from the original Tiffany (up to 1950) that catered to the carriage trade.


I think that James Meyer, Ocean Pearlman, Leon Mege (jewelry); Crafted by Infinity diamonds and the Octavia cut diamonds -- just to name a few; there are many more -- are modern day equivalents of the original Tiffany. These are individuals/companies/products that combine the best in quality with innovative techniques. Tiffany plays it safe these days. It has to in order to maintain its market share. It''s the smaller companies, like those I mentioned, who are willing to produce limited edition one-of-a-kind pieces. And it is these companies that are able to bend the rules and push the edge of the envelope -- such as cutting a 1.5 carat, ideal-cut, S color, I1 clarity diamond with strong blue fluorescence. Does that meet the Tiffany standard of what an engagement ring should be? Probably not. But is it a beautiful and rare diamond? Yes, indeed.

Sara, I agree with almost everything you wrote. I have read people on PS denigrate Tiffany quality, so I don''t agree with this sentence: "I don''t think I''ve ever seen anyone on PS say that Tiffany sells poor quality diamonds." I also do not agree that in terms of quality Tiffany of today is a far cry from the Tiffany of the first 50 years of the 20th century.--Again, in terms of quality it''s still there. They still recruit the most talented designers, cutters, artisans. Not that there aren''t plenty of equally talented artisans who do not work for Tiffany but those that conceive of the Tiffany designs are at the top of the pyramid right alongside those you mentioned above even if we don''t know all of their names. I know the name of the man who invented the Legacy diamond cut. I would love to meet the artisan who works for Tiffany who said, "Hey, let''s put this in a ring with a halo evocative of the Edwardian period." I''d love to meet that person. They set off a huge trend in engagement rings. I''d love to meet the guy or gal who said, "For Lucida, I want a broader band with crossed prongs." These people are geniuses in their craft and that in no way diminishes the brilliance of people like those you have mentioned above. So I think your post was well written and well thought out and well reasoned and I am glad we found common ground here. And to think it all started with a question regarding fluorescence. --And speaking of that, I for one learned something new there so I thank the PS experts who took the time to educate me on the fact that while strong fluor might diminish the trade value of a diamond it might not in any way diminish the diamond''s performance IRL.

Oh and no I don''t work there. You would think I do with all the books I have collected on the company over the years. I am very passionate about them and their historical relevance to this country. I got a chance to see the new Super Bowl ring they designed for the New Orleans Saints the other day. And that made me think of the Vince Lombardi trophy, the America''s Cup and all the incredible ways that Tiffany is tied to America''s legacy. I love, simply LOVE that about Tiffany. It is so much more than a blue box. In so many ways it is America''s company.

 

[missydebby]

Date: 6/24/2010 12:45:02 AM
Author: sarap333

Date: 6/23/2010 11:27:42 PM

Author: yssie

Date: 6/23/2010 11:05:17 PM


Author: sarap333



Well, Isabelle, now you have managed to insult the lovers of OEC and transitional cut stones.



And, to answer your question, yes, I would wear vintage Tiffany (pre-1950 pieces) and I also would wear 1960s and 1970s Tiffany''s Schlumberger, Cummings and Peretti pieces. In fact, I actively search ebay and other vintage jewelry sties for these pieces. These pieces represent the golden age of the Tiffany brand when they controlled their own production and produced innovate designs. Schlumberger died in the late 1970s; Tiffany continues to produce his work. Cummings left the company in 1984 to start her own company. It makes you wonder why she left -- perhaps Tiffany''s post-Avon years were not up to her standards as an artist?



yssie, as a long-time collector of vintage costume jewelry, I have often seen ivory pieces. Like you, I prefer not to buy jewelry made of ivory for ethical reasons. I also avoid pieces made of horn, crocodile skin, etc.



Diamonds are a grey area for me. I don''t believe any one of us truly knows if the diamonds we wear (even post Kimberly) are conflict-free -- whether they are vintage or new. I think Kimberly has improved things, but it is far from perfect. I do buy my new diamonds from a company that sources sources its own rough and cuts its own stones (rather than buying stones from a cutting house or houses).



We all have choices to make when it comes to spending our money. I choose to spend my money in a way that supports small creative companies and individual artisans rather than large brand names. To me, the vendors respected on this site very much represent the spirit of the original Louis Comfort Tiffany brand -- quality, creativity, value. I''d rather support them in their endeavors and be one of the few wearing an original piece designed and executed just for me.

Yes, it does sound like this is more and more the case

My statement wasn''t aimed as an attack on you or other collectors, if it sounded that way

- I have a gorgeous pair of OEC studs I adore, and FI and I are having steaks for dinner, so I fully admit to being a hypocrite without a soapbox to judge from one way or another - though, frankly, who would (or should) care if I did!

No offense taken, yssie. I know you are an OEC fan. We all have to wrestle with the ethical issues surrounding cut stones and make the best decisions we can. Some of my friends wear vintage fur (but not new fur). I just can''t get my mind around wearing any fur, but I do wear leather shoes...sigh.

It''s all a mine field. Example, I thought that I was doing so well on my eco-footprint because I don''t own a car and bike everywhere (I live in Holland and it''s the norm). However, I do go back to the States once or twice a year and I checked my footprint on an online calculator, and it was crazy from the flights. I think it''s ok to do your best. You can''t be perfect on these things. Just get all the info you can and make decisions that best reflect competing values. I think Wink was saying on the Rapaport fasting thread that if you use a computer, cell phone, or other such devices, a lot of the rare metals used in them also have the same problems...

 

[kenny]

I saw a great bumper sticker.

SAVE THE PLANET . . . KILL YOURSELF!

 

[Lula]

Date: 6/24/2010 12:20:20 PM
Author: kenny
I saw a great bumper sticker.


SAVE THE PLANET . . . KILL YOURSELF!

LOL, Kenny. Love your brevity and levity.



Isabelle, thanks for your reply. I tend to focus on the "mergers and acquisitions" history of large luxury companies and how that influences their marketing share/marketing decisions (a lingering side effect from having minored in business as an undergrad). So the information you provided on Tiffany's design process is new to me.

You seem to know a lot about Tiffany, and I think informed customers are the best customers, whether the information leads them to choose an F-VVS1 from Tiffany or an AGS0 SBF diamond from a PS online vendor. Informed choice is key.

The learning curve is steep, though, and I am amazed every day on PS by what I don't know. Sobering, isn't it?

 

[Isabelle]

Date: 6/24/2010 12:45:49 PM
Author: sarap333

Date: 6/24/2010 12:20:20 PM

Author: kenny

I saw a great bumper sticker.



SAVE THE PLANET . . . KILL YOURSELF!

LOL, Kenny. Love your brevity and levity.




Isabelle, thanks for your reply. I tend to focus on the ''mergers and acquisitions'' history of large luxury companies and how that influences their marketing share/marketing decisions (a lingering side effect from having minored in business as an undergrad). So the information you provided on Tiffany''s design process is new to me.


You seem to know a lot about Tiffany, and I think informed customers are the best customers, whether the information leads them to choose an F-VVS1 from Tiffany or an AGS0 SBF diamond from a PS online vendor. Informed choice is key.


The learning curve is steep, though, and I am amazed every day on PS by what I don''t know. Sobering, isn''t it?

There is an entire history of the original silversmiths who came to Tiffany and transformed what we think of as beautiful silver. I think the history behind Audubon is amazing. I could blog on it all day. But we agree that informed customers are in a better place. There is always room for passion in opinions. I guess I am passionate about what I know and eager to learn more. This is why I said I can get lost in Pricescope. The more I know, the more I realize I don''t know. Well, I am going to the T & Co. flagship store in a couple of weeks and I am really looking forward to that visit. I will report back if anything interesting happens.