Is Harry Winston just a blatant copy of Tiffany?

[Klokke]

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...

Do you dislike Tiffany? If so, why?

I wasn't defending T&Co. Just trying to explain what I'd found out about them and HW to those who didn't seem to believe what I'd found. It's not my information. It's publicly available corporate data. I was just reporting it.

The manufacturing facility referred to mining and initial processing of rough diamonds. Tiffany controls how and where this is done unlike others. I haven't seen where or how the Picasso/Peretti stuff is made since I wasn't shopping for that.

Haven't decided yet if I will buy from T&Co but will post whatever I get. A little worried about posting if I do go with T&Co given the odd anti-T&Co mood here.

Canada is great. I'll trade you T&Co if we can have Canada's banking and health care system.

 

[kenny]

Do you dislike Tiffany? If so, why?

They overcharge and the cut quality is not even the best.

Tiffany offers image over substance.

Still, people vary.
Some go for image, and aren't the type to bother with education about cut.
Nothing wrong with that.

If you feel that blue box is worth it then it is...to you.

 

[AmeliaG]

Do you dislike Tiffany? If so, why?

I wasn't defending T&Co. Just trying to explain what I'd found out about them and HW to those who didn't seem to believe what I'd found. It's not my information. It's publicly available corporate data. I was just reporting it.

The manufacturing facility referred to mining and initial processing of rough diamonds. Tiffany controls how and where this is done unlike others. I haven't seen where or how the Picasso/Peretti stuff is made since I wasn't shopping for that.

Haven't decided yet if I will buy from T&Co but will post whatever I get. A little worried about posting if I do go with T&Co given the odd anti-T&Co mood here.

Canada is great. I'll trade you T&Co if we can have Canada's banking and health care system.

If you get a Tiffany ring, you can post it in the 'Show Me the Bling' forum. There we celebrate each other's choices and generally don't critique. There are a lot of people who bypass the Rocky Talky forum altogether and take their Tiffany rings straight to 'Show Me the Bling'. They overwhelmingly get a positive response.

As for RockyTalky, like Yssie said, this is a price conscious forum that is focused on helping people get the best possible diamond at the lowest cost. Tiffany's can and does provide a value to its customers but its value is not generally defined as getting the best deal on a diamond. People who shop at Tiffany's have other priorities, exclusivity, uniqueness of design (some Tiffany designs are hard to copy well) that overrides price considerations.

Here it's just the opposite, price considerations can and do override a lot of other considerations except for the quality of the cut. It's not a hard and fast rule; Blue Nile offers lower prices but their lack of images for evaluating diamond cut prevents it from being recommended here more often. A couple of higher priced customer designers do get recommended here a lot due to positive experiences from their clients. But overall, price consciousness is a huge factor here and that's not Tiffany's strength.

I would disagree with kenny though. The little blue box is not the only reason people buy from Tiffany. Some designs, like the Tiffany Ribbon ring, cannot be satisfactorily duplicated because of the particular design and copyright restrictions preventing other vendors from making exact copies. Other designs like the classic Tiffany 6-prong have been more easily duplicated with minor changes while keeping the overal look of the ring.

 

[Rhea]

If you post in Show Me The Bling with the ring, or even in Rocky Talk asking for advice on particular Tiff's rings/stones you will get nothing but positive feedback. This thread seemed to be started a discussion thread, open to debate, which is why you're getting the responses you are reading as anti-Tiff's.

I still look forward to seeing your photos. It sounds like Tiff's is a great company and match for your preferences in buying an engagement ring.

 

[princesss]

Please don't hesitate to post the ring when you finally pick one out! Yes, there is some degree of anti-Tiffany sentiment around here (I actually very strongly dislike them, and it would take something very special for me to consider buying anything from them), but a beautiful ring is a beautiful ring! Post in on SMTB, and you won't get anything but people telling you they love it - RT is for making decisions, SMTB is for bragging. We don't rain on anybody's parade just because they chose something we wouldn't.

Btw, I forgot to mention it before, but congratulations on this exciting time in your life!

 

[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...

Do you dislike Tiffany? If so, why?

I wasn't defending T&Co. Just trying to explain what I'd found out about them and HW to those who didn't seem to believe what I'd found. It's not my information. It's publicly available corporate data. I was just reporting it.

The manufacturing facility referred to mining and initial processing of rough diamonds. Tiffany controls how and where this is done unlike others. I haven't seen where or how the Picasso/Peretti stuff is made since I wasn't shopping for that.

Haven't decided yet if I will buy from T&Co but will post whatever I get. A little worried about posting if I do go with T&Co given the odd anti-T&Co mood here.

Canada is great. I'll trade you T&Co if we can have Canada's banking and health care system.

Why would you assume i dont like tiffany? on the contrary, im very fond of the little blue box and had i not wanted a larger diamond for my budget would have likely purchased an engagement ring there - as it is i look forward to buying a wedding band from a T&co, Cartier or some such so i can enjoy the shopping experience these brands offer.

My comment re the 'manufacturing facility' was that it somewhat demystifies the product to hear it spoken of in so business-like a manner. Jewellery (and particularly T&Co diamonds which have their own level of mystique/(hi)story/marketing) has such 'emotional' meanings attached to it - wouldnt you hope your tiffany diamond ring is hand crafted in a village workshop by master artisans and woodland fairies not put together in a manufacturing facility!

I guess i find your impetus for buying from T&Co a little different to most. The blue box, the marketing, the 'american owned' tag, are all reasons i can see people choosing to buy there for, but for me i guess the structure of their business (and their competitors) isnt a factor i would use in determining where to purchase a diamond. If i were to base my choice of jeweler on consideration of a business model, i would end up at pricescope-style vendors who have fewer overheads and accordingly, better prices! Like you say though, diamonds are particularly useless objects so purchasing one at all is a little weird...i guess we wouldnt all be here if the stones themselves didnt 'market' to us with their sparkle!

I hope you do post a T&Co ring - in my few years on pricescope ive never seen anyone speak derogatively of a tiffany engagement ring (once its been purchased )

 

[Klokke]

Do you dislike Tiffany? If so, why?

I wasn't defending T&Co. Just trying to explain what I'd found out about them and HW to those who didn't seem to believe what I'd found. It's not my information. It's publicly available corporate data. I was just reporting it.

The manufacturing facility referred to mining and initial processing of rough diamonds. Tiffany controls how and where this is done unlike others. I haven't seen where or how the Picasso/Peretti stuff is made since I wasn't shopping for that.

Haven't decided yet if I will buy from T&Co but will post whatever I get. A little worried about posting if I do go with T&Co given the odd anti-T&Co mood here.

Canada is great. I'll trade you T&Co if we can have Canada's banking and health care system.

If you get a Tiffany ring, you can post it in the 'Show Me the Bling' forum. There we celebrate each other's choices and generally don't critique. There are a lot of people who bypass the Rocky Talky forum altogether and take their Tiffany rings straight to 'Show Me the Bling'. They overwhelmingly get a positive response.

As for RockyTalky, like Yssie said, this is a price conscious forum that is focused on helping people get the best possible diamond at the lowest cost. Tiffany's can and does provide a value to its customers but its value is not generally defined as getting the best deal on a diamond. People who shop at Tiffany's have other priorities, exclusivity, uniqueness of design (some Tiffany designs are hard to copy well) that overrides price considerations.

Here it's just the opposite, price considerations can and do override a lot of other considerations except for the quality of the cut. It's not a hard and fast rule; Blue Nile offers lower prices but their lack of images for evaluating diamond cut prevents it from being recommended here more often. A couple of higher priced customer designers do get recommended here a lot due to positive experiences from their clients. But overall, price consciousness is a huge factor here and that's not Tiffany's strength.

I would disagree with kenny though. The little blue box is not the only reason people buy from Tiffany. Some designs, like the Tiffany Ribbon ring, cannot be satisfactorily duplicated because of the particular design and copyright restrictions preventing other vendors from making exact copies. Other designs like the classic Tiffany 6-prong have been more easily duplicated with minor changes while keeping the overal look of the ring.

Got it. Very helpful. Thanks. Not sure where I will buy yet but will post on "Show Me the Bling" instead of here.

 

[Klokke]

Please don't hesitate to post the ring when you finally pick one out! Yes, there is some degree of anti-Tiffany sentiment around here (I actually very strongly dislike them, and it would take something very special for me to consider buying anything from them), but a beautiful ring is a beautiful ring! Post in on SMTB, and you won't get anything but people telling you they love it - RT is for making decisions, SMTB is for bragging. We don't rain on anybody's parade just because they chose something we wouldn't.

Btw, I forgot to mention it before, but congratulations on this exciting time in your life!

Thanks a lot! Still in the decision stage. Not sure where I will buy yet but I'll post on SMTB when I do the deal.

 

[aquanaut]

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.

I just read through this entire thread and have to say that I think the above post by Iota15 is the most useful in this debate/dilemma of the OP choosing which company to buy form. Perhaps, history of each company holds the #1 importantce to the OP over EVERYTHING else.

Personally, since both are high end retailers, with generally comparable service and quality, I would focus on the design and brand name "value." HW and Tiffany have very different designs; the classic solitaire from each company differ starkly in the prongs, height of the ring, and style of the shank. Those are the factors that really matter to most people.

Lastly, HW in my opinion surpasses Tiff in "prestige" and "exclusivity" because all of their items are in a much higher price point. They do not deal with silver and generally do not offer pieces below thousands of dollars. Whereas, Tiff has a myriad of jewelery pieces below $1000. This doesn't make one better over the other, but it does make HW more exclusive simply by virtue of being less accessible and hence more rare.

 

[maria121]

Wow, I can't believe that this thread has turned into a heated debate over which brand is better. I think both brands have their uniqueness and they are successful because of their difference in their branding and products. I don't feel there is a need to justify which one is better over the other. We should respect both brands and enjoy what they have to offer. Also, each person has their own preference. I feel distraught that the OP feels the need to put down HW to bring Tiffany to a status above its competitor. Just out of curiosity...do you work for Tiffany?

 

[Klokke]

Wow, I can't believe that this thread has turned into a heated debate over which brand is better. I think both brands have their uniqueness and they are successful because of their difference in their branding and products. I don't feel there is a need to justify which one is better over the other. We should respect both brands and enjoy what they have to offer. Also, each person has their own preference. I feel distraught that the OP feels the need to put down HW to bring Tiffany to a status above its competitor. Just out of curiosity...do you work for Tiffany?

No I don't work for Tiffany and wasn't trying to put down HW. If you re-read the OP you'll see I was just reporting what I learned about HW and Tiffany. Why would you say reporting on the history and business model of HW is a put down? I mean I have a personal preference for the history that Tiffany has but it's not like HW is way worse in comparison.

Anyway, you'll see in the OP that I am new to PS and was just originally just trying to see if people could verify what I'd read about HW since a lot of PS-ers seem to be pretty interested in all aspects of the diamond trade. Now it seems that, with some exceptions, I'm just responding to off-topic posts and trying to explain myself. Not sure why all this has hit a nerve with some people. Luckily some of you came through with some really helpful comments so thanks for those. Again, if it came off as a put down I apologize but I don't see how stating HW's history and business model is a put down.

Another thing that is odd is how people can say HW is more prestigious because they have higher prices than T&Co while at the same time saying it's silly to buy from T&Co because they charge high prices. You can't really claim both those positions. Seems like there's a lot of anti-T&Co sentiment here -- at least on this thread. I don't get it - but it's ok. Please don't try to explain it anymore. But if anyone has anything else to add regarding the actual OP topic I'd appreciate it.

 

[LGK]

I'm not a huge fan of brands- hell, I'm not a huge fan of paying new retail prices on much of anything!- but, if it were me considering buying a high end brand diamond, I would probably be looking at 1. the actual designs available and the diamonds in them 2. the cache of the brand itself since you're actually *paying* for that, and probably less (or not at all!) the history or business structure of the store itself.

I do suspect that the way I think of the issue is more of a... girly concern/approach than looking at the history, stock price, business structure etc.

I would agree with what iota said, honestly. Seeing the Tiffany logo everywhere, on necklaces/bracelets of girls everywhere, does kind of dilute the prestige a bit, and if you're paying for it, that's a consideration. IMHO. And I do like the prongs on HW work a lot better- Tiffany prongwork looks mass manufactured to me. And it's those sorts of details that I can obsess over easily!

It does sound, however, that keeping your $$ ($$$$) in the US is important. If that's the case it definitely sounds like your research points strongly at Tiffany. And if that's a big factor, totally understandable. You might, as suggested before, if you feel very strongly about giving your money to an American maker you might consider a smaller, high end, custom boutique type jeweler like 23rd St or Victor Canera or Steven Kirsch... that way it would be going to a small individual business not a corporation. But obviously those sorts of small boutique operations wouldn't have mass brand recognition either, which could be a deal breaker it sounds like.

Oh, and btw, have you considered looking for a second hand Tiffany (or HW, or other designer) piece? It seems that some folks here have had great luck with Tiffany being able to take a 2nd hand Tiffany item back to the source, and then have Tiff repolish or even reset it entirely, and put it in the lovely box and essentially make it like new. Just a thought- obviously not the approach for everyone, but it can definitely save a bundle over new with not much drawback except perhaps lack of a huge selection and, I guess, lack of the "full Tiffany experience".

 

[Circe]

I'm new to PS and love it. I was looking for a first time e-ring and PS saved me and educated me. You all are great. I came into this lamenting how much I'd need to spend on "a piece of carbon" but now I'm a cut nerd obsessed with HCA, Sarin data, angles, IS images, AGS cut guidlines, etc. I'm ruined!

My fiance-to-be would be happy with anything I gave her but I knew that she would really prefer a luxury brand where she new she could always go for quality service. I knew that no amount of PS info would change her mind.

Armed with my PS knowledge I knew how pick out the outstanding performers from the luxury stores' stock knowing that all their stock would likely be very good to excellent to begin with.

Purely out of patriotism (I'm American), I wanted to stick with a US brand and that seemed to rule out Graff, Bulgari, Van Cleef, Cartier, Chopard, etc. It seemed my choices really were just Tiffany and Harry Winston -- until I did a little research.

Tiffany was founded in 1837 by Charles Lewis Tiffany ("the King of Diamonds") and most here know the highlights: the iconic 6-prong setting that is still a legend today, the retailing innovations, acquisition of French crown jewels as a marketing stroke of genius, the designs, the service, the quality, and so on.

Then I read up on HW history. I was expecting an equally impressive history considering how highly-regarded HW seems to be but came away thinking HW was just a blatant, shameless copy of the Tiffany history and innovations. And I was really surprised that I'd never seen this discussed here.

Harry Winston started HW in 1932 partly from his father's firm. His father Jacob was also a jeweler and had immigrated to the US from the Ukraine changing his name to "Winston." Harry chose to call himself "the King of Diamonds" (sound familiar?) and also began acquiring famous enormous diamonds and publicizing this. HW retail operations are now owned by a Canadian mining company formerly known as Aber and now called Harry Winston Diamond Corporation.

So, unless I'm wrong, HW is a fake name with a copied business model that is now not even a US company -- it's Canadian company. I realize that history and originality won't necessarily make the diamond or setting quality any better. And what I've seen and read about HW pieces surely do not make me question the quality. But I feel if you are going to "pay up" for a name there ought to be some substance and honesty that come with the name. The HW story seems like a blatant and not very good copy of the Tiffany history and business model. And they're really just a front now for a Canadian miner. Knowing all this, can anyone here tell me why anyone would prefer HW to T&Co? Am I missing something?

This may be the oddest thread I've ever seen on PS. No, Harry Winston is not a blatant copy of Tiffany: not in its business model (unless, of course, you'd like to consider Tiffany a blatant copy of the jewelers who came before him, and the jewelers who came before them as blatant rip-offs of their Renaissance forebears, etc., etc., etc.), and not in its designs. Tiffany did not invent the practice of buying famous gems and piggy-backing smaller purchases off of the resulting reputation.

Tiffany's began as a general store: Charles Tiffany drove it to success first by making the innovative decision to sell Chinese and Japanese goods (bought personally from ship's captains who had brought trinkets to sell to their countrymen) and then by selling German costume jewelry. They got into higher-end jewelry when they came across a line of Parisian paste gems called Palais Royale, but they didn't focus on precious jewelry until John P. Young, one of Charles Tiffany's original partners (the store was originally "Tiffany, Young, & Ellis") found himself in France for his annual buying trip in 1848 in the midst of political upheaval verging on outright riot. At this point, Tiffany's was still basically a general store, if an upmarket one because of its focus on foreign goods: looking around, Young decided on the spot that getting out of the country with his usual orders of parasols and furniture and cosmetics and paste jewelry would be unlikely, so he simply went for the handiest goods with the highest values - jewels. He acquired some of the French crown jewels on that trip, under somewhat sketchy circumstances, and the rest was history. As a result, the press crowned Charles Tiffany, who was somewhat more charismatic than John Young, who'd bought the damned things, "The King of Diamonds." By 1876 or so, Tiffany's had developed the 6-prong setting as we know it today: in the intervening 30ish years, they had transformed themselves and renovated their focus, from general goods to high-quality silver and gems.

Harry Winston, on the other hand? Born into a jewelry family in 1896, 84 years after Charles Tiffany. Made his first big score at 12, according to legend, when he spotted a 2-carat emerald being sold for pennies in a pawn-shop by a shop-keeper who thought it was glass. He started his own jewelry company when he was 19, using money he'd earned himself. Stories differ on how he got the name "King of Diamonds," as with Tiffany: in both cases, the press was likely to blame after a big-ticket deal. So, basically, the only thing they have in common is that they were in the jewelry trade.

I actually find your bolded paragraph on HW offensive: Harry Winston is not less "American" than Charles Tiffany because his father was an immigrant. Their changing their name? Not an attempt to deceive, but the kind of assimilation that many immigrants practice (particularly, you know, if there's a strong chance of being discriminated against by "patriots"). After all, you don't see us referring to Charles Tiffany by his original family name of "de Conisby." The fact that the company is now Canadian? That might be relevant ... except that as the rest of this thread has shown, modern business tends to be convoluted.

Both companies are tremendously successful because of their adherence to quality goods, their design innovations, and their honorable business practices. You don't need to smear one to elevate the other. As for why somebody would buy from one over the other? I'm guessing it would be because they loved what they were getting. If I want to give my money to a good cause, I find a charity. When I'm buying jewelry? I have different requirements - beauty, grace, originality. Point of fact, I'm a lot more likely to go to a more recent Ukranian immigrant, like my personal jeweler: he works as a bench for Tiffany and HW alike, but his most innovative pieces are his own originals. Who knows? Maybe in 30 years, he'll be another "King of Diamonds." After all, le roi c'est mort, longue vie au roi.

P.S. - Since you are interested in the history of the company, I'd recommend a book by Joseph Purtell called The Tiffany Touch. It provides an excellent overview of the fascinating history of the company, its founders, and their descendants.

 

[maplefemme]

Great post, Circe, very informative, thank you.

 

[AmeliaG]

This may be the oddest thread I've ever seen on PS.

Yeah, I agree.

OP, by now, I'm sure you know that the regulars of this forum are not the consumers that are willing to pay the brand premium for either Harry Winston or Tiffany so for a lot of people here, the debate between which is better or more American is a moot point.

But pricescope is the number 1 forum that comes up in search engines and, OP, your thread just popped up on the first page of Google when I typed in 'tiffany harry winston'. Are you using the popularity of this forum and the activeness of its members to up the position of this thread and your argument in the Google search engine?

 

[Circe]

Wow, I can't believe that this thread has turned into a heated debate over which brand is better. I think both brands have their uniqueness and they are successful because of their difference in their branding and products. I don't feel there is a need to justify which one is better over the other. We should respect both brands and enjoy what they have to offer. Also, each person has their own preference. I feel distraught that the OP feels the need to put down HW to bring Tiffany to a status above its competitor. Just out of curiosity...do you work for Tiffany?

No I don't work for Tiffany and wasn't trying to put down HW. If you re-read the OP you'll see I was just reporting what I learned about HW and Tiffany. Why would you say reporting on the history and business model of HW is a put down? I mean I have a personal preference for the history that Tiffany has but it's not like HW is way worse in comparison.

Dude, this is disingenuous in the extreme. Your header asks if the one is a blatant copy of the other, before proceeding to insinuate that HW is somehow trying to pass itself off as an American company. You were not "reporting on" the history and business model of HW: you were misrepresenting it.

ETA: Heh, thanks, MapleFemme!

 

[rubyprincess]

Circe that was informative thank you so much for sharing that history.

 

[Klokke]

I'm new to PS and love it. I was looking for a first time e-ring and PS saved me and educated me. You all are great. I came into this lamenting how much I'd need to spend on "a piece of carbon" but now I'm a cut nerd obsessed with HCA, Sarin data, angles, IS images, AGS cut guidlines, etc. I'm ruined!

My fiance-to-be would be happy with anything I gave her but I knew that she would really prefer a luxury brand where she new she could always go for quality service. I knew that no amount of PS info would change her mind.

Armed with my PS knowledge I knew how pick out the outstanding performers from the luxury stores' stock knowing that all their stock would likely be very good to excellent to begin with.

Purely out of patriotism (I'm American), I wanted to stick with a US brand and that seemed to rule out Graff, Bulgari, Van Cleef, Cartier, Chopard, etc. It seemed my choices really were just Tiffany and Harry Winston -- until I did a little research.

Tiffany was founded in 1837 by Charles Lewis Tiffany ("the King of Diamonds") and most here know the highlights: the iconic 6-prong setting that is still a legend today, the retailing innovations, acquisition of French crown jewels as a marketing stroke of genius, the designs, the service, the quality, and so on.

Then I read up on HW history. I was expecting an equally impressive history considering how highly-regarded HW seems to be but came away thinking HW was just a blatant, shameless copy of the Tiffany history and innovations. And I was really surprised that I'd never seen this discussed here.

Harry Winston started HW in 1932 partly from his father's firm. His father Jacob was also a jeweler and had immigrated to the US from the Ukraine changing his name to "Winston." Harry chose to call himself "the King of Diamonds" (sound familiar?) and also began acquiring famous enormous diamonds and publicizing this. HW retail operations are now owned by a Canadian mining company formerly known as Aber and now called Harry Winston Diamond Corporation.

So, unless I'm wrong, HW is a fake name with a copied business model that is now not even a US company -- it's Canadian company. I realize that history and originality won't necessarily make the diamond or setting quality any better. And what I've seen and read about HW pieces surely do not make me question the quality. But I feel if you are going to "pay up" for a name there ought to be some substance and honesty that come with the name. The HW story seems like a blatant and not very good copy of the Tiffany history and business model. And they're really just a front now for a Canadian miner. Knowing all this, can anyone here tell me why anyone would prefer HW to T&Co? Am I missing something?

This may be the oddest thread I've ever seen on PS. No, Harry Winston is not a blatant copy of Tiffany: not in its business model (unless, of course, you'd like to consider Tiffany a blatant copy of the jewelers who came before him, and the jewelers who came before them as blatant rip-offs of their Renaissance forebears, etc., etc., etc.), and not in its designs. Tiffany did not invent the practice of buying famous gems and piggy-backing smaller purchases off of the resulting reputation.

Tiffany's began as a general store: Charles Tiffany drove it to success first by making the innovative decision to sell Chinese and Japanese goods (bought personally from ship's captains who had brought trinkets to sell to their countrymen) and then by selling German costume jewelry. They got into higher-end jewelry when they came across a line of Parisian paste gems called Palais Royale, but they didn't focus on precious jewelry until John P. Young, one of Charles Tiffany's original partners (the store was originally "Tiffany, Young, & Ellis") found himself in France for his annual buying trip in 1848 in the midst of political upheaval verging on outright riot. At this point, Tiffany's was still basically a general store, if an upmarket one because of its focus on foreign goods: looking around, Young decided on the spot that getting out of the country with his usual orders of parasols and furniture and cosmetics and paste jewelry would be unlikely, so he simply went for the handiest goods with the highest values - jewels. He acquired some of the French crown jewels on that trip, under somewhat sketchy circumstances, and the rest was history. As a result, the press crowned Charles Tiffany, who was somewhat more charismatic than John Young, who'd bought the damned things, "The King of Diamonds." By 1876 or so, Tiffany's had developed the 6-prong setting as we know it today: in the intervening 30ish years, they had transformed themselves and renovated their focus, from general goods to high-quality silver and gems.

Harry Winston, on the other hand? Born into a jewelry family in 1896, 84 years after Charles Tiffany. Made his first big score at 12, according to legend, when he spotted a 2-carat emerald being sold for pennies in a pawn-shop by a shop-keeper who thought it was glass. He started his own jewelry company when he was 19, using money he'd earned himself. Stories differ on how he got the name "King of Diamonds," as with Tiffany: in both cases, the press was likely to blame after a big-ticket deal. So, basically, the only thing they have in common is that they were in the jewelry trade.

I actually find your bolded paragraph on HW offensive: Harry Winston is not less "American" than Charles Tiffany because his father was an immigrant. Their changing their name? Not an attempt to deceive, but the kind of assimilation that many immigrants practice (particularly, you know, if there's a strong chance of being discriminated against by "patriots"). After all, you don't see us referring to Charles Tiffany by his original family name of "de Conisby." The fact that the company is now Canadian? That might be relevant ... except that as the rest of this thread has shown, modern business tends to be convoluted.

Both companies are tremendously successful because of their adherence to quality goods, their design innovations, and their honorable business practices. You don't need to smear one to elevate the other. As for why somebody would buy from one over the other? I'm guessing it would be because they loved what they were getting. If I want to give my money to a good cause, I find a charity. When I'm buying jewelry? I have different requirements - beauty, grace, originality. Point of fact, I'm a lot more likely to go to a more recent Ukranian immigrant, like my personal jeweler: he works as a bench for Tiffany and HW alike, but his most innovative pieces are his own originals. Who knows? Maybe in 30 years, he'll be another "King of Diamonds." After all, le roi c'est mort, longue vie au roi.

P.S. - Since you are interested in the history of the company, I'd recommend a book by Joseph Purtell called The Tiffany Touch. It provides an excellent overview of the fascinating history of the company, its founders, and their descendants.

I see you feel for some reason that HW was somehow attacked and wish to defend them but you need to get your facts right.

1. Tiffany did, in fact, pioneer and popularize the practice of buying famous gems and piggy-backing smaller purchases off of the resulting reputation. Marketing genius. HW copied a great idea.

2. Tiffany descended from Humphrey Tiffany who was a settler in Massachusetts in the 1660's. The name was always Tiffany. It doesn't get much more American than that. When you are deliberately misleading with a factual items like this it destroys the credibility of your whole argument. And I'm not sure even why you felt you needed to attempt to defend HW. Please see the OP and read the thread as this has already been addressed.

3. Your other misinterpretation were addressed in previous posts here so I won't list them all.

4. Thanks for the book recommendation.

 

[Klokke]

I'm not a huge fan of brands- hell, I'm not a huge fan of paying new retail prices on much of anything!- but, if it were me considering buying a high end brand diamond, I would probably be looking at 1. the actual designs available and the diamonds in them 2. the cache of the brand itself since you're actually *paying* for that, and probably less (or not at all!) the history or business structure of the store itself.

I do suspect that the way I think of the issue is more of a... girly concern/approach than looking at the history, stock price, business structure etc.

I would agree with what iota said, honestly. Seeing the Tiffany logo everywhere, on necklaces/bracelets of girls everywhere, does kind of dilute the prestige a bit, and if you're paying for it, that's a consideration. IMHO. And I do like the prongs on HW work a lot better- Tiffany prongwork looks mass manufactured to me. And it's those sorts of details that I can obsess over easily!

It does sound, however, that keeping your $$ ($$$$) in the US is important. If that's the case it definitely sounds like your research points strongly at Tiffany. And if that's a big factor, totally understandable. You might, as suggested before, if you feel very strongly about giving your money to an American maker you might consider a smaller, high end, custom boutique type jeweler like 23rd St or Victor Canera or Steven Kirsch... that way it would be going to a small individual business not a corporation. But obviously those sorts of small boutique operations wouldn't have mass brand recognition either, which could be a deal breaker it sounds like.

Oh, and btw, have you considered looking for a second hand Tiffany (or HW, or other designer) piece? It seems that some folks here have had great luck with Tiffany being able to take a 2nd hand Tiffany item back to the source, and then have Tiff repolish or even reset it entirely, and put it in the lovely box and essentially make it like new. Just a thought- obviously not the approach for everyone, but it can definitely save a bundle over new with not much drawback except perhaps lack of a huge selection and, I guess, lack of the "full Tiffany experience".

Thanks for the reasoned and level-headed advice. I see what you are saying about T&Co being more accessible. I think that can be a plus in some ways as getting service is a lot easier and more available.

And GREAT idea about checking on pre-owned and getting a re-mount. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks!

 

[Klokke]

Wow, I can't believe that this thread has turned into a heated debate over which brand is better. I think both brands have their uniqueness and they are successful because of their difference in their branding and products. I don't feel there is a need to justify which one is better over the other. We should respect both brands and enjoy what they have to offer. Also, each person has their own preference. I feel distraught that the OP feels the need to put down HW to bring Tiffany to a status above its competitor. Just out of curiosity...do you work for Tiffany?

No I don't work for Tiffany and wasn't trying to put down HW. If you re-read the OP you'll see I was just reporting what I learned about HW and Tiffany. Why would you say reporting on the history and business model of HW is a put down? I mean I have a personal preference for the history that Tiffany has but it's not like HW is way worse in comparison.

Dude, this is disingenuous in the extreme. Your header asks if the one is a blatant copy of the other, before proceeding to insinuate that HW is somehow trying to pass itself off as an American company. You were not "reporting on" the history and business model of HW: you were misrepresenting it.

ETA: Heh, thanks, MapleFemme!

I guess some people would say the header is a put down but lots of people here are saying that the fact that HW copied things is no big deal. So which is it? It's certainly not a crime. Should I have written HW was modeled after T&Co instead of using the word copy? What's the difference? I, personally, found it surprising and something of a minus but apparently a lot did know or don't care.

And there was no misrepresentation. I just reported what the facts that I found.

 

[Circe]

I see you feel for some reason that HW was somehow attacked and wish to defend them but you need to get your facts right.

1. Tiffany did, in fact, pioneer and popularize the practice of buying famous gems and piggy-backing smaller purchases off of the resulting reputation. Marketing genius. HW copied a great idea.

2. Tiffany descended from Humphrey Tiffany who was a settler in Massachusetts in the 1660's. The name was always Tiffany. It doesn't get much more American than that. When you are deliberately misleading with a factual items like this it destroys the credibility of your whole argument. And I'm not sure even why you felt you needed to attempt to defend HW. Please see the OP and read the thread as this has already been addressed.

3. Your other misinterpretation were addressed in previous posts here so I won't list them all.

4. Thanks for the book recommendation.

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. Lemme guess, you got your info. from wikipedia?

1) Ever hear of a gentleman named Tavernier, for example? He sold the stone that would BECOME, first, the French Blue and then the Hope Diamond to the crown. He's simply one of many gem traders who've gone down in history. I'm really sort of boggled by this idea you have that no one bought or sold famous gems while also selling less expensive gems prior to 1848. Do you think we waited that long to develop fire, too?

2) Yes, Humphrey Tiffany was one of Charles Tiffany's descendants. They both descended from William de Conisby, who came to England from France shortly after the Norman conquest, who is remembered (among other things) in this nice bit of doggerel: "William de Conisby/ Came out of Brittany/ With his wife Tiffany." Interesting connection, all things considered.

3) Please check your sources, and consider the fact that your ten minutes of research do not make you an automatic expert: when people who've been studying these issues for decades provide you with additional knowledge, it's not a sign they're wrong: it's a sign you're ignorant. I don't feel a need to defend HW, but I do feel a need to prevent misinformation from being spread.

4) My pleasure!

 

[Klokke]

This may be the oddest thread I've ever seen on PS.

Yeah, I agree.

OP, by now, I'm sure you know that the regulars of this forum are not the consumers that are willing to pay the brand premium for either Harry Winston or Tiffany so for a lot of people here, the debate between which is better or more American is a moot point.

But pricescope is the number 1 forum that comes up in search engines and, OP, your thread just popped up on the first page of Google when I typed in 'tiffany harry winston'. Are you using the popularity of this forum and the activeness of its members to up the position of this thread and your argument in the Google search engine?

Yep. I know. I even stated in the OP that I knew that most PS-ers would rightly recommend PS vendors over luxury brands and I explained that I felt I couldn't go the PS-vender route for my e-ring as much as I would have liked to. Totally understand.

I'm not a blogger, don't have a website, and couldn't care less about google rankings. This was my first ever PS new topic post and I am starting to regret it. There have been some really helpful posts but most seem to not understand or are having odd over-reactions. I didn't think there'd be closet HW owners here but maybe there are.

Anyway, no one would be happier than me if this thread died. Diminishing returns at this point. I can just post at SMTB when I make the big purchase.

 

[Klokke]

I see you feel for some reason that HW was somehow attacked and wish to defend them but you need to get your facts right.

1. Tiffany did, in fact, pioneer and popularize the practice of buying famous gems and piggy-backing smaller purchases off of the resulting reputation. Marketing genius. HW copied a great idea.

2. Tiffany descended from Humphrey Tiffany who was a settler in Massachusetts in the 1660's. The name was always Tiffany. It doesn't get much more American than that. When you are deliberately misleading with a factual items like this it destroys the credibility of your whole argument. And I'm not sure even why you felt you needed to attempt to defend HW. Please see the OP and read the thread as this has already been addressed.

3. Your other misinterpretation were addressed in previous posts here so I won't list them all.

4. Thanks for the book recommendation.

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. Lemme guess, you got your info. from wikipedia?

1) Ever hear of a gentleman named Tavernier, for example? He sold the stone that would BECOME, first, the French Blue and then the Hope Diamond to the crown. He's simply one of many gem traders who've gone down in history. I'm really sort of boggled by this idea you have that no one bought or sold famous gems while also selling less expensive gems prior to 1848. Do you think we waited that long to develop fire, too?

2) Yes, Humphrey Tiffany was one of Charles Tiffany's descendants. They both descended from William de Conisby, who came to England from France shortly after the Norman conquest, who is remembered (among other things) in this nice bit of doggerel: "William de Conisby/ Came out of Brittany/ With his wife Tiffany." Interesting connection, all things considered.

3) Please check your sources, and consider the fact that your ten minutes of research do not make you an automatic expert: when people who've been studying these issues for decades provide you with additional knowledge, it's not a sign they're wrong: it's a sign you're ignorant. I don't feel a need to defend HW, but I do feel a need to prevent misinformation from being spread.

4) My pleasure!

Sorry but you seem to be purposely missing the point. You obviously know the history so that is not the problem.

1) I said Tiffany pioneered and popularized the marketing method. I never said he was the first. This is a fact. HW copied him even to the point of taking Tiffany's "king of diamonds" nickname. Another fact.

2) In the OP I made the point that the Winston name was changed while Tiffany's was not. This is a fact and 100% correct. You are just being silly here. Everyone has descendants with different names. Again, when you purposely misrepresent things this way you lose credibility.

3) I never claimed to be an expert. I actually admitted I was a newbie in the original post. I came to PS to learn from the experts. Ad hominem attacks also undermine your argument and is certainly no way to carry out your claimed mission to prevent the spread of misinformation.

 

[Circe]

I see you feel for some reason that HW was somehow attacked and wish to defend them but you need to get your facts right.

1. Tiffany did, in fact, pioneer and popularize the practice of buying famous gems and piggy-backing smaller purchases off of the resulting reputation. Marketing genius. HW copied a great idea.

2. Tiffany descended from Humphrey Tiffany who was a settler in Massachusetts in the 1660's. The name was always Tiffany. It doesn't get much more American than that. When you are deliberately misleading with a factual items like this it destroys the credibility of your whole argument. And I'm not sure even why you felt you needed to attempt to defend HW. Please see the OP and read the thread as this has already been addressed.

3. Your other misinterpretation were addressed in previous posts here so I won't list them all.

4. Thanks for the book recommendation.

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. Lemme guess, you got your info. from wikipedia?

1) Ever hear of a gentleman named Tavernier, for example? He sold the stone that would BECOME, first, the French Blue and then the Hope Diamond to the crown. He's simply one of many gem traders who've gone down in history. I'm really sort of boggled by this idea you have that no one bought or sold famous gems while also selling less expensive gems prior to 1848. Do you think we waited that long to develop fire, too?

2) Yes, Humphrey Tiffany was one of Charles Tiffany's descendants. They both descended from William de Conisby, who came to England from France shortly after the Norman conquest, who is remembered (among other things) in this nice bit of doggerel: "William de Conisby/ Came out of Brittany/ With his wife Tiffany." Interesting connection, all things considered.

3) Please check your sources, and consider the fact that your ten minutes of research do not make you an automatic expert: when people who've been studying these issues for decades provide you with additional knowledge, it's not a sign they're wrong: it's a sign you're ignorant. I don't feel a need to defend HW, but I do feel a need to prevent misinformation from being spread.

4) My pleasure!

Sorry but you seem to be purposely missing to point. You obviously know the history so that is not the problem.

1) I said Tiffany pioneered and popularized the marketing method. I never said he was the first. This is a fact. HW copied him even to the point of taking Tiffany's "king of diamonds" nickname. Another fact.

2) In the OP I made the point that the Winston name was changed while Tiffany's was not. This is a fact and 100% correct. You are just being silly here. Everyone has descendants with different names. Again, when you purposely misrepresent things this way you lose credibility.

3) I never claimed to be an expert. I actually admitted I was a newbie in the original post. I came to PS to learn from the experts. Ad hominem attacks also undermine your argument and is certainly no way to carry out your claimed mission to prevent the spread of misinformation.

That word? I do not think it means what you think it means. And this goes for many of the words you are using. For example, to "pioneer" is to be first at something. For example, fact: Harry Winston didn't change his name; his parents did, as at some point, as. at some point, Tiffany's ancestor's did.

When you come to learn, and dozens of people tell you you're mistaken about something, and you argue with them, deliberately misunderstand them or present them as taking this personally (actual fact, dude: people who think you're slandering HW in this thread are not necessarily deeply invested in the issue: they can just be intellectually offended), and repeat your incorrect opinions as "facts" over and over and over again, you do not come off as a newbie: you come off as a troll trying to provoke a response.

P.S - That wasn't an ad hominem. "Ignorant" is in fact the word you use to describe someone who is lacking in information, particularly apt when they then insist they are correct in their lack of knowledge. On the other hand, your imputing that I felt "personally attacked" and then claiming my info. was off when it isn't? That's both manipulative and offensive.

 

[maplefemme]

I'm curious, Klokke, as a self professed new cut nut, have you been inside Tiffany & Co and discussed Asets, HCA scores and Sarins with any of the sales people? Did they have any understanding of them? Did you find a GG on staff?
I just left my local branch today. I abhor incompetence, especially when it comes to significant purchases, you better know your product inside out or I loose respect very quickly. Those are my needs and what I expect when it comes to "good service". I respect that's not everyone's expectations. I have no feelings either way towards Tiffany & Co or Harry Winston as a business model, if asked, I prefer Harry Winston's designs and execution.
A close friend is set on getting a Tiffany Novo, hence our visit today. When I asked about pavillion facet structure for the cushion cuts in their Novos she had no clue what I was talking about, 8 mains, 4 mains...nothing but blank stares...crickets from the entire sales staff. I asked if they had a GG on staff whom I could speak with, I was told no, no GG at that store, but she could help us.
She then went on to tell me the center stone for the Novo "isn't really a cushion, it is a round diamond that was made a little bit square, it's an exclusive cut to Tiffany"...HUH?
Now I'm not buying this ring, my friend is, she doesn't care AT ALL about the details, she just wants an authentic Tiffany Novo - so be it, absolutely her choice and I know she'll be thrilled when she gets it.
All of us have different needs and different values, different ideas of good customer service.

 

[Klokke]

I see you feel for some reason that HW was somehow attacked and wish to defend them but you need to get your facts right.

1. Tiffany did, in fact, pioneer and popularize the practice of buying famous gems and piggy-backing smaller purchases off of the resulting reputation. Marketing genius. HW copied a great idea.

2. Tiffany descended from Humphrey Tiffany who was a settler in Massachusetts in the 1660's. The name was always Tiffany. It doesn't get much more American than that. When you are deliberately misleading with a factual items like this it destroys the credibility of your whole argument. And I'm not sure even why you felt you needed to attempt to defend HW. Please see the OP and read the thread as this has already been addressed.

3. Your other misinterpretation were addressed in previous posts here so I won't list them all.

4. Thanks for the book recommendation.

Wrong on all counts, I'm afraid. Lemme guess, you got your info. from wikipedia?

1) Ever hear of a gentleman named Tavernier, for example? He sold the stone that would BECOME, first, the French Blue and then the Hope Diamond to the crown. He's simply one of many gem traders who've gone down in history. I'm really sort of boggled by this idea you have that no one bought or sold famous gems while also selling less expensive gems prior to 1848. Do you think we waited that long to develop fire, too?

2) Yes, Humphrey Tiffany was one of Charles Tiffany's descendants. They both descended from William de Conisby, who came to England from France shortly after the Norman conquest, who is remembered (among other things) in this nice bit of doggerel: "William de Conisby/ Came out of Brittany/ With his wife Tiffany." Interesting connection, all things considered.

3) Please check your sources, and consider the fact that your ten minutes of research do not make you an automatic expert: when people who've been studying these issues for decades provide you with additional knowledge, it's not a sign they're wrong: it's a sign you're ignorant. I don't feel a need to defend HW, but I do feel a need to prevent misinformation from being spread.

4) My pleasure!

Sorry but you seem to be purposely missing to point. You obviously know the history so that is not the problem.

1) I said Tiffany pioneered and popularized the marketing method. I never said he was the first. This is a fact. HW copied him even to the point of taking Tiffany's "king of diamonds" nickname. Another fact.

2) In the OP I made the point that the Winston name was changed while Tiffany's was not. This is a fact and 100% correct. You are just being silly here. Everyone has descendants with different names. Again, when you purposely misrepresent things this way you lose credibility.

3) I never claimed to be an expert. I actually admitted I was a newbie in the original post. I came to PS to learn from the experts. Ad hominem attacks also undermine your argument and is certainly no way to carry out your claimed mission to prevent the spread of misinformation.

That word? I do not think it means what you think it means. And this goes for many of the words you are using. For example, to "pioneer" is to be first at something. For example, fact: Harry Winston didn't change his name; his parents did, as at some point, as. at some point, Tiffany's ancestor's did.

When you come to learn, and dozens of people tell you you're mistaken about something, and you argue with them, deliberately misunderstand them or present them as taking this personally (actual fact, dude: people who think you're slandering HW in this thread are not necessarily deeply invested in the issue: they can just be intellectually offended), and repeat your incorrect opinions as "facts" over and over and over again, you do not come off as a newbie: you come off as a troll trying to provoke a response.

P.S - That wasn't an ad hominem. "Ignorant" is in fact the word you use to describe someone who is lacking in information, particularly apt when they then insist they are correct in their lack of knowledge. On the other hand, your imputing that I felt "personally attacked" and then claiming my info. was off when it isn't? That's both manipulative and offensive.

You are making things up again and don't seem to know the definition of "pioneer" and "ad hominem" Your info IS off.

1)Where did I say Harry Winston changed his name? I didn't. You obviously can read so I have to assume you are purposefully misrepresenting what I wrote. Fact: The Winston name was changed from a Ukrainian one and the Tiffany name was never changed.

2) Definition: pioneer (noun, plural pioneers)
-One who goes before, as into the wilderness, preparing the way for others to follow
-Some people will consider their national heroes to be pioneers of civilization.
-Certain politicians can be considered as pioneers of reform.
-example: Charles Tiffany was a pioneer and HW copied some of his methods.

3) Definition: ad hominem (plural ad hominems)
-(logical fallacy) A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
-A personal attack.

 

[Circe]

You are making things up again and don't seem to know the definition of "pioneer" and "ad hominem" Your info IS off.

1)Where did I say Harry Winston changed his name? I didn't. You obviously can read so I have to assume you are purposefully misrepresenting what I wrote. Fact: The Winston name was changed from a Ukrainian one and the Tiffany name was never changed.

2) Definition: pioneer (noun, plural pioneers)
-One who goes before, as into the wilderness, preparing the way for others to follow
-Some people will consider their national heroes to be pioneers of civilization.
-Certain politicians can be considered as pioneers of reform.
-example: Charles Tiffany was a pioneer and HW copied some of his methods.

3) Definition: ad hominem (plural ad hominems)
-(logical fallacy) A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
-A personal attack.

I feel pretty comfortable with my definitions of the words in question, in the contexts in which you applied the terms. I could waste more time arguing with you, but ... why bother? Go forth, secure in your ignorance: proclaim untrue opinions as "facts" relating to well-regarded companies; garner the scorn of professionals. Or, you know, maybe read over a thread where just about every single person regards your question with an attitude best summarized as "Say what, now?" and consider the fact that you are coming off as prejudiced against first generation immigrants and their contributions to American society, and as being very black-and-white as regards the complexity of international corporations and the best way in which to support your economy. Your call!

 

[maplefemme]

Wow, I can't believe that this thread has turned into a heated debate over which brand is better. I think both brands have their uniqueness and they are successful because of their difference in their branding and products. I don't feel there is a need to justify which one is better over the other. We should respect both brands and enjoy what they have to offer. Also, each person has their own preference. I feel distraught that the OP feels the need to put down HW to bring Tiffany to a status above its competitor. Just out of curiosity...do you work for Tiffany?

No I don't work for Tiffany and wasn't trying to put down HW. If you re-read the OP you'll see I was just reporting what I learned about HW and Tiffany. Why would you say reporting on the history and business model of HW is a put down? I mean I have a personal preference for the history that Tiffany has but it's not like HW is way worse in comparison.

Dude, this is disingenuous in the extreme. Your header asks if the one is a blatant copy of the other, before proceeding to insinuate that HW is somehow trying to pass itself off as an American company. You were not "reporting on" the history and business model of HW: you were misrepresenting it.

ETA: Heh, thanks, MapleFemme!

Anytime! I find I learn a lot more by listening, to those more versed than I, on a subject I have spent mere months researching

 

[Klokke]

You are making things up again and don't seem to know the definition of "pioneer" and "ad hominem" Your info IS off.

1)Where did I say Harry Winston changed his name? I didn't. You obviously can read so I have to assume you are purposefully misrepresenting what I wrote. Fact: The Winston name was changed from a Ukrainian one and the Tiffany name was never changed.

2) Definition: pioneer (noun, plural pioneers)
-One who goes before, as into the wilderness, preparing the way for others to follow
-Some people will consider their national heroes to be pioneers of civilization.
-Certain politicians can be considered as pioneers of reform.
-example: Charles Tiffany was a pioneer and HW copied some of his methods.

3) Definition: ad hominem (plural ad hominems)
-(logical fallacy) A fallacious objection to an argument or factual claim by appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim; an attempt to argue against an opponent's idea by discrediting the opponent himself.
-A personal attack.

I feel pretty comfortable with my definitions of the words in question, in the contexts in which you applied the terms. I could waste more time arguing with you, but ... why bother? Go forth, secure in your ignorance: proclaim untrue opinions as "facts" relating to well-regarded companies; garner the scorn of professionals. Or, you know, maybe read over a thread where just about every single person regards your question with an attitude best summarized as "Say what, now?" and consider the fact that you are coming off as prejudiced against first generation immigrants and their contributions to American society, and as being very black-and-white as regards the complexity of international corporations and the best way in which to support your economy. Your call!

1)You feel comfortable with "your" definitions? You do know that you are not entitled to your own definitions of words. Likewise, you are not entitled to your own facts. You are only entitled to your own opinions.

2) Thanks for deciding not to waste more time arguing. I think that's a good idea for you. You are only arguing with yourself and embarrassing yourself anyway. I didn't come here to argue but apparently you did. I don't think that arguing is what this forum is about.

3) No prejudice was implied or stated against anyone. I was just wondering aloud whether the Winston name change was a marketing move to sound more American, an immigration anomaly, or something else. I really don't know. All I know was that there was an unusual name change. If you see this as prejudiced you must be transferring some of you own feelings because there was no implied prejudice.

4) Your summary of all the the responses to this thread is yet another misrepresentation by you. I believe it is you who should re-read the thread.

 

[kenny]