Is Harry Winston just a blatant copy of Tiffany?

[Lula]

From some quick research on the web, it looks like Tiffany copied Harry Winston's business model with regard to investing in diamond mines. It looks like Tiffany is a recent convert to this model, whereas it appears that HW has been investing in the Diavik mine since the early 1990s. It's hard to tell from the timelines, though.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125650986946206903.html
http://investor.harrywinston.com/about_history.html

 

[Lula]

Hmm, HW's FAQ page is pretty specific. I'm impressed. http://investor.harrywinston.com/faqs.html

Their stock is also less expensive than Tiffany's and it's sold on the NYSE not Nasdaq.

From the link you listed:
Is Harry WInston Diamond Corporation vertically integrated?
No. The Company focuses on the most profitable segments of the diamond pipeline: mining of rough diamonds and retail of luxury diamond jewelry and timepieces. Harry Winston does not participate in the cutting and polishing of diamonds.


Unlike HW, Tiffany IS an vertically integrated company and controls and owns its entire supply chain.

HWD stock has a P/E of 56 while TIF stock has a P/E of 26. TIF is therefore technically a less expensive stock even though its share price is higher. A stock's value is determined by it's P/E ratio or PEG ratio, not by its share price alone. The stock exchange difference is not really relevant. Not sure how any of this is relevant. Both are publicly traded in the US but HWD is Canadian and TIF is American.

Agree with you on the question of how any of this is relevant. Especially since it's not clear who invested in what, when. And I'm not sure I'd want to do business with a vertically integrated company, if we're talking business ethics -- that model often produces artificially high prices for consumers.

I understand P/E ratios. What I'm saying is the less expensive HW stock may be a better buy (more room to grow, especially in these times of rising diamond prices and increased demand from China/India) than Tiffany's, who may be closer to market saturation in terms of numbers and locations of stores than HW.

And you're the one who asked our opinions on what you found while researching both companies. I'm just showing you what I found, based on a tiny Google search -- enough to make me want to do more research to confirm both companies' histories, marketing plans, investment strategies re mines, etc.

 

[Klokke]

From some quick research on the web, it looks like Tiffany copied Harry Winston's business model with regard to investing in diamond mines. It looks like Tiffany is a recent convert to this model, whereas it appears that HW has been investing in the Diavik mine since the early 1990s. It's hard to tell from the timelines, though.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125650986946206903.html
http://investor.harrywinston.com/about_history.html

Nope. Tiffany has had mine ownerships going waaayy back. But most importantly, the two current business models are different. HW states on their own website that they are not a vertically integrated diamond company. T&Co are vertically integrated to from mine to retail.

What I found that HW copied though was not Tiffany's level of integration (which they haven't yet matched). Rather it was the blatant manner Harry Winston himself seemed to have copied much of what Charles Tiffany did in founding and growing his company. Please see the OP.

 

[Klokke]

Hmm, HW's FAQ page is pretty specific. I'm impressed. http://investor.harrywinston.com/faqs.html

Their stock is also less expensive than Tiffany's and it's sold on the NYSE not Nasdaq.

From the link you listed:
Is Harry WInston Diamond Corporation vertically integrated?
No. The Company focuses on the most profitable segments of the diamond pipeline: mining of rough diamonds and retail of luxury diamond jewelry and timepieces. Harry Winston does not participate in the cutting and polishing of diamonds.


Unlike HW, Tiffany IS an vertically integrated company and controls and owns its entire supply chain.

HWD stock has a P/E of 56 while TIF stock has a P/E of 26. TIF is therefore technically a less expensive stock even though its share price is higher. A stock's value is determined by it's P/E ratio or PEG ratio, not by its share price alone. The stock exchange difference is not really relevant. Not sure how any of this is relevant. Both are publicly traded in the US but HWD is Canadian and TIF is American.

Agree with you on the question of how any of this is relevant. Especially since it's not clear who invested in what, when. And I'm not sure I'd want to do business with a vertically integrated company, if we're talking business ethics -- that model often produces artificially high prices for consumers.

I understand P/E ratios. What I'm saying is the less expensive HW stock may be a better buy (more room to grow, especially in these times of rising diamond prices and increased demand from China/India) than Tiffany's, who may be closer to market saturation in terms of numbers and locations of stores than HW.

And you're the one who asked our opinions on what you found while researching both companies. I'm just showing you what I found, based on a tiny Google search -- enough to make me want to do more research to confirm both companies' histories, marketing plans, investment strategies re mines, etc.

The OP really had nothing to do with stock prices but TIF is the cheaper stock. HWD is more expensive. HWD might have more potential for growth but you pay up for that growth. But I'm looking to buy an e-ring not stock.

Diamond and jewelry prices are mostly determined by the raw commodity prices. Whether or not a a diamond company is vertically integrated could increase or decrease retail prices but not by much if at all. Raw commodity prices are determinative. A vertically integrated US diamond company is, however, bound by US law. The gives more assurance that all along supply chain human rights and environmental issues are respected and can be audited. If a company is not vertically integrated (e.g. HW) that means parts of the supply chain are harder or impossible to monitor or audit.

I don't think prices for diamonds can be called "artificially high." You are buying a piece of carbon so by that measure almost any price could be said to be high. The ways we value diamonds are all subjective: 4Cs, scarcity, brand, etc. If a 1ct E IF is not artificially high compared to a 1ct J VS2 then neither is a T&Co artificially high compared to a WF stone. They are priced where the market determines they should be priced. Likewise, Tiffany's prices are no more or less ethical than HW or WF or GOG prices. They might be higher but that doesn't make them less ethical. No one is forced to buy them. But again we are getting away from the OP. I stated in the OP that I realize PS vendors offer lower prices than the luxury chains.

 

[mogster]

"Aside from its corporate office in Toronto, Harry Winston also has a rough diamond sorting facility in Toronto and a marketing office in Antwerp, Belgium. Harry Winston sells Tiffany & Co. about 25% of the diamonds in Winstons's share and sells the remainder on the Antwerp open diamond market through its rough diamond dealer subsidiary, Aber International."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Winston_Diamond_Corporation

Do think this Wikipedia article is accurate? If so, would you be worried that the Tiffany diamond you buy came from Harry Winston?

 

[TristanC]

Tristan - you are male and out of your teens, it's no wonder you automatically command attention in jewellery stores! Trust me when I say that a solo young woman does not generally merit the same enthusiasm

I like to think that I look spritely and young... and I DO shop at tiffany in torn jeans and loafers with a collarless tee shirt on occasion. The same response is given.

If i walk NEAR a jewelry store in office attire (shirt, slacks)... the sales assistants eyes kinda dilate and I think they get ready to move in for the kill.

This is why I like to browse in high end stores - they tend to be less hopeful that you will buy anything off the bat.

Oh and to the OP. Please take this in the best possible way.

I have no idea how ANY of this fits into your choice of a ring. Me? I LOVE tiffany. Love love love. I've got 5 things from them, all plat so far.

I wouldn't get my e-ring from them, but I already did a long post as to why (nutshell: 80% cost of e-ring is the diamond, diamonds are commodities, tiffany charges a super premium, i feel silly paying it for a diamond ering. Perfectly fine with other jewelry from there, because - heck jewelry is frivolous so an item of beauty from a place with branding is ++points for jewelry. And their designs are not half ugly)

I think both companies are great. I like them both. I never see the problem with people getting branded e-rings. Especially if they can afford it.

I only find it difficult when people get branded e-rings and try to convince the world that they got a great deal. It doesn't happen.

But you can EASILY get a branded diamond ring, and have bought the MOST PERFECT thing for your future wife. Seriously.

Maybe look at the designs you like? Rather than the company's history and prospectus, unless this is important to both you and your SO. You can't lose both ways I think. Good luck!

 

[mogster]

I have no idea how ANY of this fits into your choice of a ring.

Sometimes when I have to make a huge decision and settle the cognitive dissonance in my head, I'll myopically focus on a totally arbitrary detail only tangentially related to the decision at hand. I hope this is not what the OP is doing.

 

[centralsquare]

Seems HW owns 40% of the Diavik Diamond Mine (http://investor.harrywinston.com/business.html), which sells to Tiffany. That is what I could gather.

 

[Klokke]

"Aside from its corporate office in Toronto, Harry Winston also has a rough diamond sorting facility in Toronto and a marketing office in Antwerp, Belgium. Harry Winston sells Tiffany & Co. about 25% of the diamonds in Winstons's share and sells the remainder on the Antwerp open diamond market through its rough diamond dealer subsidiary, Aber International."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Winston_Diamond_Corporation

Do think this Wikipedia article is accurate? If so, would you be worried that the Tiffany diamond you buy came from Harry Winston?

It's accurate but not complete. The full story is that Tiffany owned a big chunk of the Canadian miner Aber which in turn owned a chunk of the Diavik mine. Tiffany also got along term contract on its choice of $50 million worth of diamonds at 10% below market, subject to those diamonds meeting Tiffany's standards. Aber later bought the Harry Winston retail business and then changed its name to Harry Winston Diamond Corp. Tiffany sold its shares in Aber/HWD but maintains rights/options on Diavik from what I understand.

But why would that worry me? It doesn't change anything about Tiffany's history or vertically integrated business model. Not sure what your point is.

 

[Klokke]

I have no idea how ANY of this fits into your choice of a ring.

Sometimes when I have to make a huge decision and settle the cognitive dissonance in my head, I'll myopically focus on a totally arbitrary detail only tangentially related to the decision at hand. I hope this is not what the OP is doing.

Instead of projecting your own psychology onto others maybe you could just read the OP instead of wondering "what the OP is doing". It's pretty clear and simple. Then maybe you could offer some constructive advice. Isn't that what PS is supposed to be about?

 

[Colltee]

I've just purchased an engagement ring at Tiffany and can, 100% hand on my heart say I've been totally ripped off, I could have got the exact same quality diamond (probably better) for half the price, found their service - in general good but also at times verging on so-so to somewhat bad/disappointing (it all depends on who ends up serving you). I bought from them because let's face it - at the end of the day I'm clearly a (bit of a stupid) magnet for their marketing and they've managed to suck me in with their branding. Fair play to them I say, they deserve all the profit they make.

 

[Klokke]

Tristan - you are male and out of your teens, it's no wonder you automatically command attention in jewellery stores! Trust me when I say that a solo young woman does not generally merit the same enthusiasm

I like to think that I look spritely and young... and I DO shop at tiffany in torn jeans and loafers with a collarless tee shirt on occasion. The same response is given.

If i walk NEAR a jewelry store in office attire (shirt, slacks)... the sales assistants eyes kinda dilate and I think they get ready to move in for the kill.

This is why I like to browse in high end stores - they tend to be less hopeful that you will buy anything off the bat.

Oh and to the OP. Please take this in the best possible way.

I have no idea how ANY of this fits into your choice of a ring. Me? I LOVE tiffany. Love love love. I've got 5 things from them, all plat so far.

I wouldn't get my e-ring from them, but I already did a long post as to why (nutshell: 80% cost of e-ring is the diamond, diamonds are commodities, tiffany charges a super premium, i feel silly paying it for a diamond ering. Perfectly fine with other jewelry from there, because - heck jewelry is frivolous so an item of beauty from a place with branding is ++points for jewelry. And their designs are not half ugly)

I think both companies are great. I like them both. I never see the problem with people getting branded e-rings. Especially if they can afford it.

I only find it difficult when people get branded e-rings and try to convince the world that they got a great deal. It doesn't happen.

But you can EASILY get a branded diamond ring, and have bought the MOST PERFECT thing for your future wife. Seriously.

Maybe look at the designs you like? Rather than the company's history and prospectus, unless this is important to both you and your SO. You can't lose both ways I think. Good luck!

TristanC, I think you are trying to be helpful but I don't think you read the OP or even the title of the thread. I'm not sure how this thread got so hijacked. I never tried to convince anyone here that I could get a great deal with a luxury brand. In fact I stated multiple times that I understood that I would NOT be getting the best deal at T&Co or HW and that I knew that PS vendors offered better value. I explained that in addition to the qualities that PS-ers value, I also needed to consider what my SO really wanted (a brand). I wanted to take what I learned at PS to pick the best of what the luxury brands carried and I just was trying to get some feedback regarding what I'd read about HW vs. T&Co. That's all. I don't know how it all got hijacked.

Anyway, thanks but I already know I won't get the best deal at HW or T&Co. And I know we need to look at designs. We've already done that. Do you really think someone could buy a ring without considering designs?

 

[Klokke]

I've just purchased an engagement ring at Tiffany and can, 100% hand on my heart say I've been totally ripped off, I could have got the exact same quality diamond (probably better) for half the price, found their service - in general good but also at times verging on so-so to somewhat bad/disappointing (it all depends on who ends up serving you). I bought from them because let's face it - at the end of the day I'm clearly a (bit of a stupid) magnet for their marketing and they've managed to suck me in with their branding. Fair play to them I say, they deserve all the profit they make.

Hi. So sorry you had such a bad experience with such an important purchase. I know T&Co is expensive but thanks for the heads up. I've had good service when I've been in there browsing but maybe I've just been lucky so far. That's why I'm trying to do as much research as I can in advance. Good luck!

 

[kenny]

I don't think it is but if some people feel that blue box is worth thousands, even tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars extra, it's okay by me.

People vary.

 

[TristanC]

Tristan - you are male and out of your teens, it's no wonder you automatically command attention in jewellery stores! Trust me when I say that a solo young woman does not generally merit the same enthusiasm

I like to think that I look spritely and young... and I DO shop at tiffany in torn jeans and loafers with a collarless tee shirt on occasion. The same response is given.

If i walk NEAR a jewelry store in office attire (shirt, slacks)... the sales assistants eyes kinda dilate and I think they get ready to move in for the kill.

This is why I like to browse in high end stores - they tend to be less hopeful that you will buy anything off the bat.

Oh and to the OP. Please take this in the best possible way.

I have no idea how ANY of this fits into your choice of a ring. Me? I LOVE tiffany. Love love love. I've got 5 things from them, all plat so far.

I wouldn't get my e-ring from them, but I already did a long post as to why (nutshell: 80% cost of e-ring is the diamond, diamonds are commodities, tiffany charges a super premium, i feel silly paying it for a diamond ering. Perfectly fine with other jewelry from there, because - heck jewelry is frivolous so an item of beauty from a place with branding is ++points for jewelry. And their designs are not half ugly)

I think both companies are great. I like them both. I never see the problem with people getting branded e-rings. Especially if they can afford it.

I only find it difficult when people get branded e-rings and try to convince the world that they got a great deal. It doesn't happen.

But you can EASILY get a branded diamond ring, and have bought the MOST PERFECT thing for your future wife. Seriously.

Maybe look at the designs you like? Rather than the company's history and prospectus, unless this is important to both you and your SO. You can't lose both ways I think. Good luck!

TristanC, I think you are trying to be helpful but I don't think you read the OP or even the title of the thread. I'm not sure how this thread got so hijacked. I never tried to convince anyone here that I could get a great deal with a luxury brand. In fact I stated multiple times that I understood that I would NOT be getting the best deal at T&Co or HW and that I knew that PS vendors offered better value. I explained that in addition to the qualities that PS-ers value, I also needed to consider what my SO really wanted (a brand). I wanted to take what I learned at PS to pick the best of what the luxury brands carried and I just was trying to get some feedback regarding what I'd read about HW vs. T&Co. That's all. I don't know how it all got hijacked.

Anyway, thanks but I already know I won't get the best deal at HW or T&Co. And I know we need to look at designs. We've already done that. Do you really think someone could buy a ring without considering designs?

I read it. Then i read the direction this started to take. Then i wondered if YOU found all this important to your purchase. If you did... more power to you then.

If you reread my post from a general perspective, it was not aimed at you like a weapon you needed to defend yourself from.

I never said "You" were trying to convince anyone of a deal. I said that would be my pet peeve. Nobody in their right minds would think that shopping at Tiffany & Harry Winston was what you did if you wanted to be smart with your money. Heck, I've done it a couple of times, and I KNOW it wasn't smart money. I would never insult you enough by implying you were silly enough to think that; you would have to explicitly say that before we make such assumptions

And yes, I shared my views on HW &T&Co. In an earlier post. In case you missed it: I love them both. I feel more comfortable in T&Co though. Which yes, implies that I like them more. I never once asked you to take your hard earned money to a PS vendor either.

For what its worth, when I go to T&Co I'm always treated well, and I think I get fair money's worth, with the branding and all the follow up treatment.

Re: designs... you mean you have a design at either of these places that you love equally as much? I was trying to say that if you liked either setting even a bit more, just go with that cos... and I say again... between the two, you can't really lose.

 

[mogster]

But why would that worry me? It doesn't change anything about Tiffany's history or vertically integrated business model. Not sure what your point is.

I was originally wondering if it would bother you that T&Co procures a certain percentage of their diamonds from a company whose history you find unscrupulous, before you clarified the history of Diavik.

Then maybe you could offer some constructive advice.

What kind of advice are you looking for?

And to answer your original question,

Knowing all this, can anyone here tell me why anyone would prefer HW to T&Co? Am I missing something?

not everyone shops for jewelry based on the history or integration of a company. Someone may like a particular HW design better, and, thus, choose HW to T&Co.

 

[iota15]

To answer your OP, if I had to choose (even though IRL I would choose neither but I hang out with enough brand snobs to know what I'm talking about) I would pick HW because:

1. I like their designs and workmanship better. Seriously, HW workmanship looks better to my eyes (but your FI's are the only ones you have to please). HW prongs are generally swoopier and have more of a curve than Tiffany prongs (technically more difficult). HW also finishes their prong heads with a fine claw point, unlike Tiffany's that finishes with a rounded knob. That look is less delicate and common to my eyes.

2. The dillution of the Tiffany brand with cheaper pieces does lessen the "prestigious-ness" of the company to me. If we're talking brand-reputation/prestigious-ness/hoity-toity-ness, which if we're all honest, is part of the reason some people get sucked into luxury brands like Hermes, LV, Graff, Loubutins, etc., then HW definitely has more of it than Tiffany's.

It feels like almost every barrista at Starbucks, every receptionist at a law firm and every pretty 17-year old girl at the mall, is sporting some type of Tiffany heart necklace, the locket bracelet or Tiffany charm. Tiffany's is getting overplayed and I associate their products to overpriced mass marketed items - and yes, "mass marketed" should be a dirty word for a luxury brand retailer, even if they are pulling in a great profit. If I wanted the enchantment of quality and exclusivity, I would choose HW. No question.

 

[iota15]

I have a difficult time understanding why you characterize HW as copying Tiffany's model of marketing. Graff, Cartier, pretty much all of the luxury diamond brands - buy highly expensive jewels, publicize their acquisitions, show them off at expos or their stores, adorn celebrities or royalty, and again, publicize their acquisitions. Tiffany's might have done some of it first because they're a very old company, but really, it seems like a pretty obvious model for any high end jewelry retailer to me.

But in all honesty, I would consider my point 1 and 2 above in making a choice, as well as what your fiance wants, over whether a company has a vertically integrated process in place. You may have a special fiance, but I don't have a single girlfriend (some of whom have Cartier, Bulgari, HW and/or Tiffany rings) talk/care about the vertical integration of their respective ring's manufacturing process or where it's stock was listed. It's more like, "Oooo.. pretty (design, workmanship and quality of stone-based)" and for the brand-conscious friends, "It's a (blah)" - denoting their care for the reputation/brand of their piece.

If it assists, I find Tiffany rings are being bought at a much slower pace than other luxury brands in my circle. In recent years, it is generally only bought when the man shops by himself, or the FI has had a lifelong desire for a Tiff - regardless of what the brand has done to itself in recent years.

 

[seminoles]

To answer your question about why someone would choose HW over Tiffany, it could very well be just a matter of personal preference of HW's design and workmanship over what Tiffany has to offer. It's similar to why someone would choose a Mercedes over a BMW. Also, I am not 100% sure that HW copied Tiffany's business model. However, if he did copy there business model it has worked for him. Wouldn't anyone want to copy a proven model that worked? Google is copying Microsoft's business model of Windows by trying to put it's smartphone operating system on all smartphones outside of Apple because it is a proven model that works. Likewise, many companies are copying Apple's iPad and iPhone because they are proven to be successful products. So even though those companies products are copies of the iPad and iPhone look and features, some choose them over the iPhone or iPad simply due to personal preference.

 

[Colltee]

I've just purchased an engagement ring at Tiffany and can, 100% hand on my heart say I've been totally ripped off, I could have got the exact same quality diamond (probably better) for half the price, found their service - in general good but also at times verging on so-so to somewhat bad/disappointing (it all depends on who ends up serving you). I bought from them because let's face it - at the end of the day I'm clearly a (bit of a stupid) magnet for their marketing and they've managed to suck me in with their branding. Fair play to them I say, they deserve all the profit they make.

Hi. So sorry you had such a bad experience with such an important purchase. I know T&Co is expensive but thanks for the heads up. I've had good service when I've been in there browsing but maybe I've just been lucky so far. That's why I'm trying to do as much research as I can in advance. Good luck!

Hi - sorry I probably worded my post above wrongly, overall I have had really great service from all of the Tiffany staff I have dealt with. One person - probably just due to having a lot on her plate that day, was a little short with me when I called regarding a question in relation to my purchase. But the rest have been top-notch and can't fault them. There's a decent amount of sarcasm in my above post BTW - aka I'm not saying I feel ripped off due to bad service, I'm just pointing out even if I am willing to pay the inflated prices Tiffany charge I do actually realise I could go elsewhere and probably save $'s - but don't want to. It's the same with all high-end brands - whilst good value products, a lot of it comes down to marketing and suckers like me buy into it willingly.

 

[cookies]

No. Of course not.

Big companies in the same industry usually have similarities to certain degree. You can not change the history, in the sense that one company had to start first before the others came into the play. You cannot just say the other companies were/are copying the first company. I would like to think competition is a good thing.

If you are choosing among AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, etc, for your land line, would you choose AT&T because their Bell Labs invented the telephone?

 

[dragonfly411]

Without reading every reply, a few quick thoughts.

1) A name brand isn't everything. The name brands of this world aren't what keep our country running.
2) If you feel the need to be patriotic while creating a ring, why not support an individual jeweler/designer who is not a name brand or large corporation and is based in the U.S. to help support our economy.
3)Businesses copy other businesses to find success. If you don't like it go with someone smaller with unique ideas.

 

[centralsquare]

Seems that, at least, some of this post refers to the surprise by the linkages between HW and Tiffany. On one hand, it may seem to be deception (at least that is what I took from the OP). But, when you think of industries, such as Oil, where many of the companies form joint ventures for exploration in order to share risk, it surprises me a lot less. I wonder how many other diamond companies share similar alliances.

 

[princesss]

Given your criteria, I think it's clear that Tiffany's is the way to go. If you want an American company, luxury brand, and the ability to walk in and get the ring serviced and generally good customer service, Tiffany's is the right choice for you.

It does not concern me that HW uses a similar (or the same) business model as Tiffany's. Nor does it bother me that other luxury brands generally do the same thing. I work in an industry where the industry leaders all have very different business philosophies, but we are not sending home a tangible product with customers. In an industry like that, why wouldn't you go with a proven business model, and just change what's important to you? (Tiffany seems to focus on the whole piece, HW on the diamond.) Different things appeal to different people (as many posts in this thread have shown).

Best of luck to you and your soon-to-be FI. Hopefully you get far better service at Tiffany's than I have - the SA I talked to couldn't tell an Asscher from an as....cushion.

ETA: Btw, I think it might bear mentioning that Tiffany's is only looked at as a luxury brand in certain circles, and above certain carat weights. There are many social circles where the brand is passe and by marketing itself with its silver pieces, it has gone down several pegs in terms of how much of a "luxury" brand it actually is. Not sure what your social circle is like, but that might be something to take into consideration.

 

[Klokke]

Nobody in their right minds would think that shopping at Tiffany & Harry Winston was what you did if you wanted to be smart with your money. Heck, I've done it a couple of times, and I KNOW it wasn't smart money.

Well then by that logic no diamond purchase at all would be what you did if you wanted to be smart with your money, no? Why not save even more and and get a CZ?

None of this is really logical. All diamond purchases are frivolous, right? Or did you determine that only branded diamond purchases are frivolous? Is that the cutoff - precisely between a PS vendor price and a luxury brand price? And are the subjective things offered only by the branded stones worth zero because you say so?

 

[Klokke]

But why would that worry me? It doesn't change anything about Tiffany's history or vertically integrated business model. Not sure what your point is.

I was originally wondering if it would bother you that T&Co procures a certain percentage of their diamonds from a company whose history you find unscrupulous, before you clarified the history of Diavik.

Then maybe you could offer some constructive advice.

What kind of advice are you looking for?

And to answer your original question,

Knowing all this, can anyone here tell me why anyone would prefer HW to T&Co? Am I missing something?

not everyone shops for jewelry based on the history or integration of a company. Someone may like a particular HW design better, and, thus, choose HW to T&Co.

Yes! Thank you. A relevant and constructive post! The differences in design and style between HW and T&Co. weren't obvious to me before. As I said, I am pretty new at this. This give me another useful way to compare the two. I'll look into it further. Thanks.

 

[Klokke]

To answer your OP, if I had to choose (even though IRL I would choose neither but I hang out with enough brand snobs to know what I'm talking about) I would pick HW because:

1. I like their designs and workmanship better. Seriously, HW workmanship looks better to my eyes (but your FI's are the only ones you have to please). HW prongs are generally swoopier and have more of a curve than Tiffany prongs (technically more difficult). HW also finishes their prong heads with a fine claw point, unlike Tiffany's that finishes with a rounded knob. That look is less delicate and common to my eyes.

2. The dillution of the Tiffany brand with cheaper pieces does lessen the "prestigious-ness" of the company to me. If we're talking brand-reputation/prestigious-ness/hoity-toity-ness, which if we're all honest, is part of the reason some people get sucked into luxury brands like Hermes, LV, Graff, Loubutins, etc., then HW definitely has more of it than Tiffany's.

It feels like almost every barrista at Starbucks, every receptionist at a law firm and every pretty 17-year old girl at the mall, is sporting some type of Tiffany heart necklace, the locket bracelet or Tiffany charm. Tiffany's is getting overplayed and I associate their products to overpriced mass marketed items - and yes, "mass marketed" should be a dirty word for a luxury brand retailer, even if they are pulling in a great profit. If I wanted the enchantment of quality and exclusivity, I would choose HW. No question.

Thanks! Really helpful. My SO is feel differently regarding your points but I guess the whole point is that the differences are not objective. No real right or wrong. She might think that Tiffany has a better brand and reputation but she is no more or less correct than you. Thanks lot.

 

[Klokke]

Given your criteria, I think it's clear that Tiffany's is the way to go. If you want an American company, luxury brand, and the ability to walk in and get the ring serviced and generally good customer service, Tiffany's is the right choice for you.

It does not concern me that HW uses a similar (or the same) business model as Tiffany's. Nor does it bother me that other luxury brands generally do the same thing. I work in an industry where the industry leaders all have very different business philosophies, but we are not sending home a tangible product with customers. In an industry like that, why wouldn't you go with a proven business model, and just change what's important to you? (Tiffany seems to focus on the whole piece, HW on the diamond.) Different things appeal to different people (as many posts in this thread have shown).

Best of luck to you and your soon-to-be FI. Hopefully you get far better service at Tiffany's than I have - the SA I talked to couldn't tell an Asscher from an as....cushion.

ETA: Btw, I think it might bear mentioning that Tiffany's is only looked at as a luxury brand in certain circles, and above certain carat weights. There are many social circles where the brand is passe and by marketing itself with its silver pieces, it has gone down several pegs in terms of how much of a "luxury" brand it actually is. Not sure what your social circle is like, but that might be something to take into consideration.

Great. Big help. The social circle issue is not an issue for us. It seems that most people don't know the Tiffany history or business model so I wouldn't trust their evaluation of the brand anyway. Thanks.

 

[Klokke]

To answer your question about why someone would choose HW over Tiffany, it could very well be just a matter of personal preference of HW's design and workmanship over what Tiffany has to offer. It's similar to why someone would choose a Mercedes over a BMW. Also, I am not 100% sure that HW copied Tiffany's business model. However, if he did copy there business model it has worked for him. Wouldn't anyone want to copy a proven model that worked? Google is copying Microsoft's business model of Windows by trying to put it's smartphone operating system on all smartphones outside of Apple because it is a proven model that works. Likewise, many companies are copying Apple's iPad and iPhone because they are proven to be successful products. So even though those companies products are copies of the iPad and iPhone look and features, some choose them over the iPhone or iPad simply due to personal preference.

Yes. Totally agree. Great analogies too. Tiffany = Apple. T&Co vs. HW is like BMW vs. Mercedes. Very helpful.

 

[Blackpaw]

Oooh as a proud Canadian I am very excited by the idea that Harry Winston is a Canadian company now .

hear, hear though i cant claim to be Canadian (i do live here though)!

Your OP, and klokke your valiant defense of T&Co as the be all end all, does seem to be courting controversy, but i hope you'll show us whatever you get from T&Co!

Oh was anyone else slightly perturbed by the 'manufacturing plant' - it doesnt have a great 'ring' to it, though i assume its for their peretti/picasso pieces...