Is Tiffanys really that much more expensive?

[IronMikey]

Hi all. I just got back from doing some shopping at T and Co mostly to look at their traditional solitare setting. I looked at a 2.2 ct VVS2, H and it was about $40k. The sales person told me that a VS2, H or I, 2 ct stone would run in the $30-31k range.

Looking at whiteflash and GOG I really don''t see how much you''re really saving. If you bought this from WF:
ACA 2.025 I VS2 AGS $21,555.00 plus a classic tiffany knife edge for $755 you''re up to $22,300. T and Co offers interest free financing so if you stuck the $30k in a 12 month CD you''d make $1500 in interest.

In sum, yes it''s $5000 and that''s no small amount of money but for a purchase like this it might be worth the additional cost.

Also, I can''t see why people shop at B & M''s that aren''t T and Co or something similarly high end. I was shown a 2.0 ct GIA graded VS2, H for $31,500 at JE Caldwell. I didn''t see the cert so I don''t know the specs but the cut didn''t show half of the life the Tiffany diamonds did. Maybe there you could haggle a bit with the price but still...

Am I missing something here?

 

[partgypsy]

It looks like you paid 70% at Whiteflash what you would have paid at Tiffany''s (close to 10 grand). If the If the 7, 8 grand is pocket change to you, you can always send it to me!

 

[IronMikey]

Of course $6000 isn''t pocket change but you are getting something in exchange for that money. There is certainly a value to giving (or receiving) the real thing -- it become very subjective and individualized when you determine what that value is.

I just imagined the difference in price to be far more dramatic than a 25% premium based on the reading I''ve done on this forum.

 

[JulieN]

I can''t see where your numbers are coming from. That''s an 8000 difference on the I VS. Minus your interest, that''s a 6500 difference. 5000?


Anyway, taking the original 8000 difference, that''s a roughly 36% "markup" over the ACA for the Tiffany. Before you gave me numbers, I was roughly estimating a 40% markup for Tiffany, so I wasn''t that far off.

Now, doesn''t 36% more sound like a lot?

 

[Cleo]

Of course, you are trying to compare peaches with nectarines when it comes to cut.

Most PSers value the cut quality above nearly all else - and this has a huge impact on the cost of stone.

The Tiffany diamond may well be a nice make, but the WF ACA is most probably AGS0 Ideal cut, and has super-precise optical symmetry, which is what creates the H&A phenomenon. H&A stones take about 4x longer to cut than a ''standard'' AGS0, I believe.

The cut quality of the WF is arguably (far) superior to that of the Tiffany diamond - and therefore the cost of a better cut needs to be considered as well.

x x x

 

[IronMikey]

Well the ballpark difference is $6000 b/c you would need to factor the interest into the equation -- you can''t just disregard it. Thus, the total price for the WF ring plus the setting is $22,300 and the total cost of the T and Co ring would be $28500 (1 year from now). The savings would be greater depending on the length of time the interest free financing ran for.

So the WF ring is 78.3% as expensive as the ring from T and Co one year from now if you invested your original purchase price. I don''t really see that as being terribly significant. But like I said, it''s totally subjective and I can see someone not wanting to pay an extra penny for the name.

 

[Klunker]

I originally started my shopping tour at Tiffany''s.
I looked at 0.75ct RB, H, VS2 in their platinum solitaire with channel set band. The price range was from $7200 - $8500.
The B&M stones I looked at range at $3100, plus $1600 for the setting = $4700.

That saves me $2500 to $3800, which I will spend for the honeymoon.

Oh, and I''ll get an independently AGS-0 certified diamond. I don''t like certs and appraisals coming from the same place as the diamond and are obviously biased.

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:16:24 PM
Author: IronMikey
Well the ballpark difference is $6000 b/c you would need to factor the interest into the equation -- you can''t just disregard it. Thus, the total price for the WF ring plus the setting is $22,300 and the total cost of the T and Co ring would be $28500 (1 year from now). The savings would be greater depending on the length of time the interest free financing ran for.

So the WF ring is 78.3% as expensive as the ring from T and Co one year from now if you invested your original purchase price. I don''t really see that as being terribly significant. But like I said, it''s totally subjective and I can see someone not wanting to pay an extra penny for the name.

I''m not entirely sure you can really factor in the interest, in all fairness. One could easily put the WF stone on an interest free credit card balance-transfer deal or something similar to achieve the same result.

Most people prefer to pay for their item from savings, rather than with credit: interest free or otherwise.

Again, you have to factor in the highly significant difference in cut quality.

x x x

 

[tberube]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:16:24 PM
Author: IronMikey
Well the ballpark difference is $6000 b/c you would need to factor the interest into the equation -- you can't just disregard it. Thus, the total price for the WF ring plus the setting is $22,300 and the total cost of the T and Co ring would be $28500 (1 year from now). The savings would be greater depending on the length of time the interest free financing ran for.


So the WF ring is 78.3% as expensive as the ring from T and Co one year from now if you invested your original purchase price. I don't really see that as being terribly significant. But like I said, it's totally subjective and I can see someone not wanting to pay an extra penny for the name.

But, like Cleo said, getting the ACA cut, which is a far superior CUT to the T&Co diamond, you're really making out in the deal. Make your comparison between your Tiffany diamond and a mid-range ideal cut diamond (NOT ACA), and I think you'll probably be closer to comparing apples vs. apples.

 

[grady]

What about sales tax?

 

[MoonWater]

Some people put that extra "change" toward a bigger/better stone. There is no way I could have gotten the cut and carat stone I got at Tiffanys for the price that was paid with WF. Throw in the custom setting, I would say we probably saved the same amount we paid for the ring. I''ll take a 50% discount over a brand name. And I get an ACA Super Ideal Cut stone to boot.

 

[IronMikey]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:13:07 PM
Author: Cleo
Of course, you are trying to compare peaches with nectarines when it comes to cut.

Most PSers value the cut quality above nearly all else - and this has a huge impact on the cost of stone.

The Tiffany diamond may well be a nice make, but the WF ACA is most probably AGS0 Ideal cut, and has super-precise optical symmetry, which is what creates the H&A phenomenon. H&A stones take about 4x longer to cut than a ''standard'' AGS0, I believe.

The cut quality of the WF is arguably (far) superior to that of the Tiffany diamond - and therefore the cost of a better cut needs to be considered as well.

x x x

I agree that the cut of the stone is massively important but I don''t really know that you can say definitively that the ACA is superior to a given stone and T and Co. I saw a "hearts on fire" diamond at another B and M and the cut was great but the stones at Tiffanys seemed as visually pleasing.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

The bankwire price on the Whiteflash stone is only $20,908, plus you'd get a slight discount on the setting for wiring in the money for the setting. Oh, and the biggest break: no tax!

I did some comparison shopping at Tiffany's AFTER we bought my ring. I have a Lazare Kaplan diamond, so I thought it would be interesting to ask one of the salespeople for a rough estimate of a LK stone with my specs while I was browing one day. The difference between their quote for a solitaire and what we paid after taxes from another high-end B&M was about $13k.

 

[neatfreak]

Mikey, there certainly is some value for people in buying the "blue box experience" if you are one of those people, then yes it might be worth it for you to purchase at Tiffs. Nothing wrong with that, but for most people a savings of 30% is a LOT and many people would prefer to spend that extra on something else.

You just need to decide FOR YOURSELF how much that blue box is worth for you.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:24:02 PM
Author: IronMikey

Date: 4/18/2008 5:13:07 PM
Author: Cleo
Of course, you are trying to compare peaches with nectarines when it comes to cut.

Most PSers value the cut quality above nearly all else - and this has a huge impact on the cost of stone.

The Tiffany diamond may well be a nice make, but the WF ACA is most probably AGS0 Ideal cut, and has super-precise optical symmetry, which is what creates the H&A phenomenon. H&A stones take about 4x longer to cut than a ''standard'' AGS0, I believe.

The cut quality of the WF is arguably (far) superior to that of the Tiffany diamond - and therefore the cost of a better cut needs to be considered as well.

x x x

I agree that the cut of the stone is massively important but I don''t really know that you can say definitively that the ACA is superior to a given stone and T and Co. I saw a ''hearts on fire'' diamond at another B and M and the cut was great but the stones at Tiffanys seemed as visually pleasing.

Tiffanys has amazing lighting, were you allowed to take the stone to the window? How about at the B&M?

 

[Klunker]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:21:44 PM
Author: grady
What about sales tax?

I just did my state taxes and had to claim the table 1 amount for internet purchase sales tax in my AGI range.

 

[JulieN]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:16:24 PM
Author: IronMikey
Well the ballpark difference is $6000 b/c you would need to factor the interest into the equation -- you can't just disregard it. Thus, the total price for the WF ring plus the setting is $22,300 and the total cost of the T and Co ring would be $28500 (1 year from now). The savings would be greater depending on the length of time the interest free financing ran for.


So the WF ring is 78.3% as expensive as the ring from T and Co one year from now if you invested your original purchase price. I don't really see that as being terribly significant. But like I said, it's totally subjective and I can see someone not wanting to pay an extra penny for the name.

I disagree about interest. Take the 8000 you saved TODAY and do something with it.


In the long run, we're all dead.

 

[CptRon]

Why not take that additional savings and get a bigger diamond???? $5,000 is still $5,000 no matter how you look at it.

 

[IronMikey]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:20:45 PM
Author: tberube

Date: 4/18/2008 5:16:24 PM
Author: IronMikey
Well the ballpark difference is $6000 b/c you would need to factor the interest into the equation -- you can''t just disregard it. Thus, the total price for the WF ring plus the setting is $22,300 and the total cost of the T and Co ring would be $28500 (1 year from now). The savings would be greater depending on the length of time the interest free financing ran for.


So the WF ring is 78.3% as expensive as the ring from T and Co one year from now if you invested your original purchase price. I don''t really see that as being terribly significant. But like I said, it''s totally subjective and I can see someone not wanting to pay an extra penny for the name.

But, like Cleo said, getting the ACA cut, which is a far superior CUT to the T&Co diamond, you''re really making out in the deal. Make your comparison between your Tiffany diamond and a mid-range ideal cut diamond (NOT ACA), and I think you''ll probably be closer to comparing apples vs. apples.

Does anyone have a source that can prove the ACA is vastly superior to T and Co? Or that T and Co is equivalent to a mid range ideal cut?

Also, you''re technically supposed to pay taxes on tax free purchases made out of state. Check out turbo tax...

Also the interest free is nice b/c some people (me) don''t have a $30,000 credit limit. Paying for something out of savings makes zero sense financially speaking -- you could just take the interest free loan and take out a CD with your savings or put the money in an ING account -- it''s free money really.

There seems to be a strong vibe in favor of using internet vendors on this site. I agree the prices are lower but I just thought it would be almost a 50% markup at Tiff''s not the ~25% one I encountered

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:24:02 PM
Author: IronMikey

Date: 4/18/2008 5:13:07 PM
Author: Cleo
Of course, you are trying to compare peaches with nectarines when it comes to cut.

Most PSers value the cut quality above nearly all else - and this has a huge impact on the cost of stone.

The Tiffany diamond may well be a nice make, but the WF ACA is most probably AGS0 Ideal cut, and has super-precise optical symmetry, which is what creates the H&A phenomenon. H&A stones take about 4x longer to cut than a ''standard'' AGS0, I believe.

The cut quality of the WF is arguably (far) superior to that of the Tiffany diamond - and therefore the cost of a better cut needs to be considered as well.

x x x

I agree that the cut of the stone is massively important but I don''t really know that you can say definitively that the ACA is superior to a given stone and T and Co. I saw a ''hearts on fire'' diamond at another B and M and the cut was great but the stones at Tiffanys seemed as visually pleasing.

I didn''t.

I said that it was arguably superior.

The fact remains that it takes around 4x longer to cut a stone to the levels of super-precice optical symmetry as required by H&A stones such as the WF ACA, than it does to cut an AGS0 diamond.

Some people value the extra craftsmanship and time required to achieve this optical symmetry. Some value the Tiffany branding and blue box experience. Some value both.

It''s ultimately your choice how, where and why you spend your money.

x x x

 

[IronMikey]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:28:08 PM
Author: JulieN

Date: 4/18/2008 5:16:24 PM
Author: IronMikey
Well the ballpark difference is $6000 b/c you would need to factor the interest into the equation -- you can''t just disregard it. Thus, the total price for the WF ring plus the setting is $22,300 and the total cost of the T and Co ring would be $28500 (1 year from now). The savings would be greater depending on the length of time the interest free financing ran for.


So the WF ring is 78.3% as expensive as the ring from T and Co one year from now if you invested your original purchase price. I don''t really see that as being terribly significant. But like I said, it''s totally subjective and I can see someone not wanting to pay an extra penny for the name.

I disagree about interest. Take the 8000 you saved TODAY and do something with it.


In the long run, we''re all dead.

Not to be rude, but to disagree with making 5% on your money is a bit silly. A 0% loan is free money if you put it into an interest bearing account.

 

[NewEnglandLady]

You save 5% by wiring the money instead of charging it, so then you don''t have to worry about paying, then gaining interest over a year. You get your 5% immediately.

 

[suchende]

Wait... what? Tiffany won''t require you to make payments for all that time??

Unless they don''t, you couldn''t throw it in a CD at all. You''d have to calculate that interest WAY differently. I don''t know the formula because I purged accounting out of my brain the day I got my degree, but I know that you can''t just keep it all when you''re on a payment plan...

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:32:07 PM
Author: IronMikey


Does anyone have a source that can prove the ACA is vastly superior to T and Co? Or that T and Co is equivalent to a mid range ideal cut?

Also, you''re technically supposed to pay taxes on tax free purchases made out of state. Check out turbo tax...

Also the interest free is nice b/c some people (me) don''t have a $30,000 credit limit. Paying for something out of savings makes zero sense financially speaking -- you could just take the interest free loan and take out a CD with your savings or put the money in an ING account -- it''s free money really.

There seems to be a strong vibe in favor of using internet vendors on this site. I agree the prices are lower but I just thought it would be almost a 50% markup at Tiff''s not the ~25% one I encountered

If someone can post total depth, table %, crown angle and pavilion angles for some Tiffany stones then they could be run through the HCA and their scores compared to a WF ACA.

Of course, if the scores are all under 2 for both Tiffany''s and WF ACA diamonds it proves nothing.

However, the best alternative would be to compare the optical symmetry of the stones, using an H&A viewer... or the light performance with an Idealscope.

Anyone have any Tiffany diamonds kicking about?

x x x

 

[Ellen]

All I know is, from the few Tiff certs I''ve seen on here, we don''t seem to be comparing apples with apples when comparing their stones to the super ideal H&A''s we are privy too. Sooo, why risk getting just a "good stone", when you can get a sure thing for less money? Unless the blue box holds that much meaning, which to some it does. And that''s ok, it just doesn''t for me.

 

[IronMikey]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:39:08 PM
Author: Cleo

Date: 4/18/2008 5:32:07 PM
Author: IronMikey


Does anyone have a source that can prove the ACA is vastly superior to T and Co? Or that T and Co is equivalent to a mid range ideal cut?

Also, you''re technically supposed to pay taxes on tax free purchases made out of state. Check out turbo tax...

Also the interest free is nice b/c some people (me) don''t have a $30,000 credit limit. Paying for something out of savings makes zero sense financially speaking -- you could just take the interest free loan and take out a CD with your savings or put the money in an ING account -- it''s free money really.

There seems to be a strong vibe in favor of using internet vendors on this site. I agree the prices are lower but I just thought it would be almost a 50% markup at Tiff''s not the ~25% one I encountered

If someone can post total depth, table %, crown angle and pavilion angles for some Tiffany stones then they could be run through the HCA and their scores compared to a WF ACA.

Of course, if the scores are all under 2 for both Tiffany''s and WF ACA diamonds it proves nothing.

However, the best alternative would be to compare the optical symmetry of the stones, using an H&A viewer... or the light performance with an Idealscope.

Anyone have any Tiffany diamonds kicking about?

x x x

Yeah I''d love to see this too. I wasn''t attacking your statement, I was really just curious. I''d love to see based on the #''s and pictures how the two stack up against each other.

Also, the bank wire discount of 2% (not 5%) is nowhere near the same thing as earning 5% for 12+ months on a 30K lump sum.

Yes, someone mentioned making monthly payments -- that''s true for sure. They aren''t terribly high but if you didn''t have the money to cover them otherwise you''d be better off putting the $ in an ING account where you can access the money without penalty.

 

[Cleo]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:43:22 PM
Author: Ellen
All I know is, from the few Tiff certs I''ve seen on here, we don''t seem to be comparing apples with apples when comparing their stones to the super ideal H&A''s we are privy too. Sooo, why risk getting just a ''good stone'', when you can get a sure thing for less money? Unless the blue box holds that much meaning, which to some it does. And that''s ok, it just doesn''t for me.

With Ellen''s experience on PS (and 12k+ posts!) that''s a pretty strong argument for me.

x x x

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:32:07 PM
Author: IronMikey


Does anyone have a source that can prove the ACA is vastly superior to T and Co? Or that T and Co is equivalent to a mid range ideal cut?

IronMike - My T&Co. falls within AGSO, GIA Ex/Ex/EX and AGA1b (1 parameter).

They DO have ACA equivalent stones there just check the stats on each piece.

Yes this forum is biased towards great internet deals and had I known I might have gone this direction.

But for me the ring is all that I hoped for and love, love, love the customer service.

You have possibly made the best financial argument to go w/ Tiff''s that I have read yet. Thanks!

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Date: 4/18/2008 5:39:08 PM
Author: Cleo

Date: 4/18/2008 5:32:07 PM
Author: IronMikey


Does anyone have a source that can prove the ACA is vastly superior to T and Co? Or that T and Co is equivalent to a mid range ideal cut?

Also, you''re technically supposed to pay taxes on tax free purchases made out of state. Check out turbo tax...

Also the interest free is nice b/c some people (me) don''t have a $30,000 credit limit. Paying for something out of savings makes zero sense financially speaking -- you could just take the interest free loan and take out a CD with your savings or put the money in an ING account -- it''s free money really.

There seems to be a strong vibe in favor of using internet vendors on this site. I agree the prices are lower but I just thought it would be almost a 50% markup at Tiff''s not the ~25% one I encountered

If someone can post total depth, table %, crown angle and pavilion angles for some Tiffany stones then they could be run through the HCA and their scores compared to a WF ACA.

Of course, if the scores are all under 2 for both Tiffany''s and WF ACA diamonds it proves nothing.

However, the best alternative would be to compare the optical symmetry of the stones, using an H&A viewer... or the light performance with an Idealscope.

Anyone have any Tiffany diamonds kicking about?

x x x

Cleo, hope this attaches.

I scored 2.5 on HCA but realized there are a lot of complexities to this tool and that it doesn''t apply to my stone (see AGS, GIA, AGA grades).

 

[NewEnglandLady]

You''re right, it wasn''t 5%, the bankwire price is only a 3% discount, sorry about my miscalculation.

Still, my point is that if a person is interested in saving $1,500 by putting the ring on a 0% card while the money grows in a fund for a year, Tiffany probably isn''t the store for them since they''d be spending thousands more on a name.

I''m not trying to be a proponent of online vendors, in fact DH bought my ring from a high-end B&M who was about to send off some of their pieces to auction and he was able to negotiate with them. While the whole red-carpet experience was fun and it is nice to have a ring from a well-known jeweller, we only went that route because we were in a unique situation and it was the best deal. Again, the difference in what we paid after taxes for our ring which had almost a half a carat in side stones in platinum vs. the Tiffany quote for a same-quality stone from the SAME cutting house was $13k, so it''s like having a car or something thrown in.

My point is that for those who are PRICE conscious, Tiffany just isn''t the best option. While you might get a great stone, there''s no way you can get a good deal.