Is Tiffanys really that much more expensive?

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Date: 4/19/2008 12:02:53 PM
Author: bee*
I hear ya on the blue box thing lisa! We don''t even have a Tiffanys in Ireland so the blue box means nothing to me either! I personally got my ring in Tiffanys as the lucida was the most beautiful ring I had ever seen and that''s the only place that sells them. I really do not think that many people buy purely for the blue box.

Hi Bee.

I know we have always been supporters of Tiff''s.

It just seems like so many people try to copy their designs/settings and really would love to have an original.

Believe me I am the most coupon oriented, bargain hunter, deal hound there is but left it at the door for the rings.

This doesn''t mean I left my common sense or semi-prowess in finding a good diamond. I certainly could have known a lot more at the time (read initial posts).

And I had some buyers remorse after finding PS.

Now I realize I made the right decision for me. No rationalizations, just my heart I suppose.

I think Garry said something profound and could possibly lend itself to why people are still arguing over Tiff''s vs. internet.

"I have yet to hear any evidence that Tiffany is transperent enough to allow their customers access to the type of information that Pricescopers have become acustomed to recieving."

This lack of transparency founds the mystery to fuel the debate. The experts here don''t really know if they don''t have access.

And I don''t think anecdotal evidence, visits to a few stores and viewing a small sample size, is enough to cast aspersions. IMO.

 

[risingsun]

I looked at HOF diamonds and found them to be beautiful and expensive! That's how I happened onto PS and ultimately purchased my ACA diamond. It is set in a HOF semimount and I have a matching HOF wedding band. I liked being able to find such a high quality diamond for a reasonable price. I also enjoy having the amenities of my local jeweler. It was the best of both worlds for me.

 

[motownmama]

Hmmmmm - I''m trying to think how best to respond! Reading "between the lines," I think your GF WOULD REALLY treasure the tiff name, but you are obviously a smart guy who''s just not sure the $''s make sense and you want to get the BEST deal too. As long as there''s a setting at T that she really would like, I say GO FOR IT!!

 

[Imdanny]

Date: 4/19/2008 12:15:08 PM
Author: gwendolyn

Date: 4/19/2008 12:02:53 PM

Author: bee*

I hear ya on the blue box thing lisa! We don''t even have a Tiffanys in Ireland so the blue box means nothing to me either! I personally got my ring in Tiffanys as the lucida was the most beautiful ring I had ever seen and that''s the only place that sells them. I really do not think that many people buy purely for the blue box.

Maybe they wear the boxes and throw the jewelry away?

Ha ha ha!

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 4/18/2008 6:07:15 PM
Author: IronMikey


Thanks, Lisa.

From all the reading i had done on here I expected to look at the pricetag on the 2.2ct VVS2 H and see around $60k but when it was only $40 I started wondering how much you really save financially. To be honest, my GF shops at Bloomingdales, NM, Saks, etc and to her brand names are important. Usually that''s because they produce a higher quality item.

In this case the quality of the two may be similar but b/c I''m the one doing all the research she''ll never know that. To her, Tiffany''s just screams quality.

Also, people have been stating that the WF ACA is a better cut than T and Co. What about GOG? They don''t use this process and they sell AGS-0 stones at around the smae price as WF. Is there any argument to be made for GOG being superior to T and Co? Also, is WF superior to GOG then?

Good Old Gold and WhiteFlash both sell top quality hearts and arrows stones. Both have an outstanding selections and great passion for well cut diamonds. I have purchased from both. I am one who would buy a lot of my jewelry from Tiffany if I happened to be rich.

We got my ring stone from GOG, had Leon Mege set it in a Cartier style solitaire, and I got the real Tiffany Legacy wedding band to go with it. I adore it, and the extra few hundred to get the Tiffany ring was worth every penny to me. But I think we saved several thousand dollars buying the 1.63 H VS1 stone from GOG instead of Tiffany. Plus I knew I was getting the very best cut stone possible. So for larger diamond purchases, I''ll buy from WF and GOG anytime. But for some jewelry items that are less expensive and a particular Tiffany style, sure, I''d buy from Tiffany.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/18/2008 11:04:19 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/18/2008 10:46:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Lisa I have written a lot about the fact that HCA is a little too strict (two eyed vs one eyed view and super symmetry). Also in some cases appropriate painting can help a stone up to HCA 3.
So we do not need to disagree on that basis

Garry not challenging you on this point.

Not clear about the rest of your reasoning that GOG or WF or JA, etc. cannot compare?

I''m going to go read their website info on their ''traditional (out of date) approach to gemology. They do not know for example what ''brillianteering'' or girdle painting and digging means - they miss used one such example to describe their girdle thickness rules''

I find this interesting.......

Lisa your homework is late?

 

[triple]

Iron Mikey,

Just purchase the Tiffany and Co. ring and be done with it. However, I would not use the 12 month intrest free on such a large purchase! I would think this offer has somewhere in the 25% intrest rate if you don''t follow the rules to the T. This could add up to be a lot of $$$$. I''m not trying to say you cannot afford this, only that the company giving you the loan wants you to fail!

I also think your justifying the T and C purchase with saving money in a 12 month CD to offset the cost from paying WF or GOG in full at the time of purchase is hogwash. If you can afford to put $40,000 up front in a CD for 12 months, you don''t have to worry about how much the ring cost or where you''ll get the best value.

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Date: 4/19/2008 4:39:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/18/2008 11:04:19 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/18/2008 10:46:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Lisa I have written a lot about the fact that HCA is a little too strict (two eyed vs one eyed view and super symmetry). Also in some cases appropriate painting can help a stone up to HCA 3.
So we do not need to disagree on that basis

Garry not challenging you on this point.

Not clear about the rest of your reasoning that GOG or WF or JA, etc. cannot compare?

I''m going to go read their website info on their ''traditional (out of date) approach to gemology. They do not know for example what ''brillianteering'' or girdle painting and digging means - they miss used one such example to describe their girdle thickness rules''

I find this interesting.......

Lisa your homework is late?

I stand corrected - "Re-read"

Don''t see where they haven''t addressed your points, Garry (although they do not specifically use the words "brillianteering/painting/digging).

http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/Never.aspx

You mean this? http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very&

I read this as more layman''s speak than not knowing their stuff.

If you want acurate verbiage then go here: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

I think it safely says the same thing but in technical trade terms. Most advertising camppaigns aren''t going to put customers through these rigors.

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

More recent GIA article on painting/digging:

http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/estimating_painitng.pdf

 

[butterfly 17]

Date: 4/18/2008 11:26:13 PM
Author: kathyinjapan
Cost and specs aside, one big advantage I consider with T&Co is that I can walk into any of their stores worldwide and receive complimentary lifetime servicing on my rings

I don''t know if this true. I have a few Tiffany rings, count 7 of them, and a solitaire, and I always had to pay for resizing, cleaning and polishing. It definitely was not complimentary at all.

This applied wether or not it was platinum, diamonds, or silver. I think the first time you buy, if it is not your size, then they will do it for free, but after that, you have to pay for it.

 

[LaurenThePartier]

I wish one of our fellow PSers would post his experience with shopping T&Co. in here.

He was quoted ~$30k for a 1.5, F, VS2 from T&Co., and asked for my help in finding something bigger/better. I asked if the name brand was important to him, and as I understood it, it really wasn''t.

I introduced him to Katie at WF, and they ended up finding an amazingly well performing 2.0 F, VS2 in a H&A style for $27k - add in the 6 prong heavy TIffany setting and he was OTD for less than $28k or so.

Some women would prefer the T&Co diamond and setting, some the extra .5 ct. - at the end of the day, all that matters is that you feel your cost/benefit was positive.

 

[kathyinjapan]

Date: 4/19/2008 6:56:08 PM
Author: butterfly 17
I don''t know if this true. I have a few Tiffany rings, count 7 of them, and a solitaire, and I always had to pay for resizing, cleaning and polishing. It definitely was not complimentary at all.


This applied wether or not it was platinum, diamonds, or silver. I think the first time you buy, if it is not your size, then they will do it for free, but after that, you have to pay for it.

I have two of their rings - a solitare and a half eternity band.

I had my e-ring resized upon purchase in Japan, and regularly checked and cleaned by them afterwards. Later in America I had my wedding ring resized and both rings cleaned. Most recently in Australia they checked and cleaned both my rings and repaired a prong on my wedding band.

All these services have been complimentary and T&Co have assured me that this will continue for the lifetime of both rings.

 

[butterfly 17]

Date: 4/19/2008 7:39:47 PM
Author: kathyinjapan

Date: 4/19/2008 6:56:08 PM
Author: butterfly 17
I don''t know if this true. I have a few Tiffany rings, count 7 of them, and a solitaire, and I always had to pay for resizing, cleaning and polishing. It definitely was not complimentary at all.


This applied wether or not it was platinum, diamonds, or silver. I think the first time you buy, if it is not your size, then they will do it for free, but after that, you have to pay for it.

I have two of their rings - a solitare and a half eternity band.

I had my e-ring resized upon purchase in Japan, and regularly checked and cleaned by them afterwards. Later in America I had my wedding ring resized and both rings cleaned. Most recently in Australia they checked and cleaned both my rings and repaired a prong on my wedding band.

All these services have been complimentary and T&Co have assured me that this will continue for the lifetime of both rings.

Maybe your getting special treatment

or maybe it depends on how long you have had the rings before you had the work done. or perhaps you had the receipt.

All I know is rhat the resizing is a one time deal, after that, you have to pay for it. I have had three wedding rings resized, one with diamonds, similar to your ring, a 3 mm. lucida band and the elsa peretti platinum band and I had to pay to have them resized. I had all the work done at the Tiffany''s on 5th Avenue in NYC.

The cleaning is probably free, but I am positive that to have it polished and cleaned is not, again, I had a few silver things polished and cleaned and had to pay for it. In fact when you go to the service area, they have a list of fees that shows the price for different services.

When you had your rings cleaned did they polish them as well, because the times I had it done, I had to leave it at the store for a few days or hours, depending on how busy they are. A few times they even mailed it out to me because I could not wait.

If they just cleaned it or checked the prongs, then maybe they did not charge for it.

In fact, I have knife edge band that is a size six and I took it to a Tiffany''s in NJ ( Short Hills Mall) and they told me it would take at least a week and I would be charged for the resizing.

Maybe I am wrong, but my wallet doesn''t seem to think I am..

 

[kathyinjapan]

I think it might be different in different countries then.

In Japan I had platinum and sterling silver items cleaned and polished free of charge while I waited. They don''t have any list of fees like America does.

 

[sna77]

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

you are responsible for paying sales tax.. regardless of whether WhiteFlash charges you for it or not... You need to report the purchase on your taxes...

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/19/2008 6:38:41 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 4:39:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/18/2008 11:04:19 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/18/2008 10:46:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Lisa I have written a lot about the fact that HCA is a little too strict (two eyed vs one eyed view and super symmetry). Also in some cases appropriate painting can help a stone up to HCA 3.
So we do not need to disagree on that basis

Garry not challenging you on this point.

Not clear about the rest of your reasoning that GOG or WF or JA, etc. cannot compare?

I''m going to go read their website info on their ''traditional (out of date) approach to gemology. They do not know for example what ''brillianteering'' or girdle painting and digging means - they miss used one such example to describe their girdle thickness rules''

I find this interesting.......

Lisa your homework is late?

I stand corrected - ''Re-read''

Don''t see where they haven''t addressed your points, Garry (although they do not specifically use the words ''brillianteering/painting/digging).

http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/Never.aspx

You mean this? http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very&

I read this as more layman''s speak than not knowing their stuff.

If you want acurate verbiage then go here: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

I think it safely says the same thing but in technical trade terms. Most advertising camppaigns aren''t going to put customers through these rigors.

Yes Lisa, http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very that link shows a diamond with a seriously dug out diamond as an example of Tiffany optimum girdle profile. It is absolutely inpossible to do this to a diamond and have a nice appearance. This diamond is a dog.

There are other examples too of this type of very low level understanding of diamonds.
I can not believe that this is only the fault of the advertising people.

 

[bee*]

Date: 4/19/2008 12:18:17 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 12:02:53 PM

Author: bee*

I hear ya on the blue box thing lisa! We don''t even have a Tiffanys in Ireland so the blue box means nothing to me either! I personally got my ring in Tiffanys as the lucida was the most beautiful ring I had ever seen and that''s the only place that sells them. I really do not think that many people buy purely for the blue box.

Hi Bee.


I know we have always been supporters of Tiff''s.


It just seems like so many people try to copy their designs/settings and really would love to have an original.


Believe me I am the most coupon oriented, bargain hunter, deal hound there is but left it at the door for the rings.


This doesn''t mean I left my common sense or semi-prowess in finding a good diamond. I certainly could have known a lot more at the time (read initial posts).


And I had some buyers remorse after finding PS.


Now I realize I made the right decision for me. No rationalizations, just my heart I suppose.


I think Garry said something profound and could possibly lend itself to why people are still arguing over Tiff''s vs. internet.


''I have yet to hear any evidence that Tiffany is transperent enough to allow their customers access to the type of information that Pricescopers have become acustomed to recieving.''


This lack of transparency founds the mystery to fuel the debate. The experts here don''t really know if they don''t have access.


And I don''t think anecdotal evidence, visits to a few stores and viewing a small sample size, is enough to cast aspersions. IMO.

Yep I''d be the same-I''m the biggest bargain hunter going! Although when you come from Ireland and buy in the US, it''s like getting a bargain. I was quoted €11000 for a .88, H, VS2 princess cut stone over here-they didn''t have a cert available so I couldn''t check anything. That''s about $17000! I got my 1.23 ct for much less than that!

 

[bee*]

Date: 4/19/2008 12:15:08 PM
Author: gwendolyn

Date: 4/19/2008 12:02:53 PM

Author: bee*

I hear ya on the blue box thing lisa! We don''t even have a Tiffanys in Ireland so the blue box means nothing to me either! I personally got my ring in Tiffanys as the lucida was the most beautiful ring I had ever seen and that''s the only place that sells them. I really do not think that many people buy purely for the blue box.

Maybe they wear the boxes and throw the jewelry away?

ah so that''s what they mean

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/9/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx
check out 2B the ASET images around 4-6 degrees

 

[Showmethefire]

I used to think that places like Tiffany''s sell the best diamonds, rings etc.
I am not saying that they do not, but at the end of the day, when you are buying a Tiffany''s, what are you actually buying? I would say that if I do buy a Tiffany''s its because of the branding. Again, I stress that I am not taking anything away from the quality of their diamonds, or slamming ppl who decided to go with Tiffany''s.
However, through much reading up on pricescope, idealscope and goodoldgold''s website, I''ve come to realize that branding is not as important as the Cut of the diamond. And I would rather buy an unbranded well cut diamond vs a branded well cut diamond simply because I personally would not want to pay difference in price for the branded diamond.
At the end of the day, an individual buyer has to weigh for himself or herself whether the branding is important to him or her.
If it indeed is, then I say go for the Tiffany''s.

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Date: 4/19/2008 10:24:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/19/2008 6:38:41 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 4:39:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/18/2008 11:04:19 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/18/2008 10:46:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Lisa I have written a lot about the fact that HCA is a little too strict (two eyed vs one eyed view and super symmetry). Also in some cases appropriate painting can help a stone up to HCA 3.
So we do not need to disagree on that basis

Garry not challenging you on this point.

Not clear about the rest of your reasoning that GOG or WF or JA, etc. cannot compare?

I''m going to go read their website info on their ''traditional (out of date) approach to gemology. They do not know for example what ''brillianteering'' or girdle painting and digging means - they miss used one such example to describe their girdle thickness rules''

I find this interesting.......

Lisa your homework is late?

I stand corrected - ''Re-read''

Don''t see where they haven''t addressed your points, Garry (although they do not specifically use the words ''brillianteering/painting/digging).

http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/Never.aspx

You mean this? http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very&

I read this as more layman''s speak than not knowing their stuff.

If you want acurate verbiage then go here: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

I think it safely says the same thing but in technical trade terms. Most advertising camppaigns aren''t going to put customers through these rigors.

Yes Lisa, http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very that link shows a diamond with a seriously dug out diamond as an example of Tiffany optimum girdle profile. It is absolutely inpossible to do this to a diamond and have a nice appearance. This diamond is a dog.

There are other examples too of this type of very low level understanding of diamonds.
I can not believe that this is only the fault of the advertising people.

The GIA article shows fig. 1 as resembling Tiffany''s first girdle ex. IMO & does not appear "seriously dug out.". http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/estimating_painitng.pdf

T&Co: http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very

I don''t see how GIA''s fig. 2 or 3 come as close.

Again the opacity of their cutting techniques/lab make judging them by some anecdotal evidence difficult and cannot predict standard practice.

I still stick by what I believe to be advertising a difficult concept to a simpler audience. Perhaps this was not the best ex. in their ad. campaign and they should clarify.

Is there anyone on here how has worked in their lab? Perhaps has some real world evidence for sloppy carftsmanship and blatantly incorrect use of information on their website?

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/21/2008 1:29:03 AM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

The GIA article shows fig. 1 as resembling Tiffany''s first girdle ex. IMO & does not appear ''seriously dug out.''. http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/estimating_painitng.pdf

T&Co: http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very

I don''t see how GIA''s fig. 2 or 3 come as close.

Again the opacity of their cutting techniques/lab make judging them by some anecdotal evidence difficult and cannot predict standard practice.

I still stick by what I believe to be advertising a difficult concept to a simpler audience. Perhaps this was not the best ex. in their ad. campaign and they should clarify.

Is there anyone on here how has worked in their lab? Perhaps has some real world evidence for sloppy carftsmanship and blatantly incorrect use of information on their website?

Lisa there is a better article from gIA (with lousy photo''s) http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

"While digging out on the pavilion can save more weight than the equivalent digging out on the crown, the visual impact is stronger (similar to painting on the pavilion), causing diamonds to have an interrupted pattern that results in an overall gray appearance lacking in contrast."

If you need convincing that this will be a shocking looking diamond I am happy to model it for you in DiamCalc. No proportion sets can save its life. It indicates to me a lack of up-to-date knowledge.

Did you read http://journal.pricescope.com/Articles/45/9/Visible-Effects-of-Painting--Digging-on-Superideal-Diamonds.aspx from Brian (John Pollard and I did some editing on that article at vegas last year)
check out 2B the ASET images around 5 degrees - for what appears to me to be a good match.

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/21/2008 1:29:03 AM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 10:24:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/19/2008 6:38:41 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 4:39:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/18/2008 11:04:19 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/18/2008 10:46:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Lisa I have written a lot about the fact that HCA is a little too strict (two eyed vs one eyed view and super symmetry). Also in some cases appropriate painting can help a stone up to HCA 3.
So we do not need to disagree on that basis

Garry not challenging you on this point.

Not clear about the rest of your reasoning that GOG or WF or JA, etc. cannot compare?

I''m going to go read their website info on their ''traditional (out of date) approach to gemology. They do not know for example what ''brillianteering'' or girdle painting and digging means - they miss used one such example to describe their girdle thickness rules''

I find this interesting.......

Lisa your homework is late?

I stand corrected - ''Re-read''

Don''t see where they haven''t addressed your points, Garry (although they do not specifically use the words ''brillianteering/painting/digging).

http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/Never.aspx

You mean this? http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very&

I read this as more layman''s speak than not knowing their stuff.

If you want acurate verbiage then go here: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

I think it safely says the same thing but in technical trade terms. Most advertising camppaigns aren''t going to put customers through these rigors.

Yes Lisa, http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very that link shows a diamond with a seriously dug out diamond as an example of Tiffany optimum girdle profile. It is absolutely inpossible to do this to a diamond and have a nice appearance. This diamond is a dog.

There are other examples too of this type of very low level understanding of diamonds.
I can not believe that this is only the fault of the advertising people.

The GIA article shows fig. 1 as resembling Tiffany''s first girdle ex. IMO & does not appear ''seriously dug out.''. http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/estimating_painitng.pdf

T&Co: http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very

I don''t see how GIA''s fig. 2 or 3 come as close.

Again the opacity of their cutting techniques/lab make judging them by some anecdotal evidence difficult and cannot predict standard practice.

I still stick by what I believe to be advertising a difficult concept to a simpler audience. Perhaps this was not the best ex. in their ad. campaign and they should clarify.

Is there anyone on here how has worked in their lab? Perhaps has some real world evidence for sloppy carftsmanship and blatantly incorrect use of information on their website?

Here..., look at the markings (in the image) and you will clearly see it is of a worse case in the Tiffany example!

I agree with Garry that its not only the fault of the advertisement people..., someone at Tiffany''s was responsible to give this specific Diamond as an example for a "properly proportioned girdle to MAXIMIZE brilliance"..., a big no-no for a Company that saves no $$$ or resources to advertise their supreme quality!!!

Now..., that does not mean all their Diamonds are cut this way....

But if Tiffany executives read these lines..., I will bet they will change their sample image and someone will get a small slap on his hand

!

Good eye''s Garry

(if I remember correctly..., you have mentioned this a while ago.)

 

[Po10472]

This is a topic that could go on for a long time..............

My DH and I visited the 5th Ave store in December last year and I was so excited because it was ''Tiffany''s''. Had heard all the stories of excellent diamonds, excellent quality, customer service ect. what a let down

The diamonds were pretty yes, but I was more impressed with their halogen lights and clever delivery than their stones. Customer service, pah, the only people that were nice were the guys working the lifts (elevators). My wonderful DH bought me a beautiful necklace instead of the charm bracelet I had wanted, mainly because the quality of the bracelet was shocking.

What I learned tho was its all about the marketing and the packaging and they can get away with charging you at least 25% more than their competitors. Yes, you can get some lovely pieces, I own some, and lovely stones, I don''t doubt that, but when I think of Tiffany''s now, its just another jewellers, a well known one, but a B&M nonetheless.

For your money, what you should be doing is looking at the best quality and craftsmanship that money can buy. Get the best stone from GOG or Whiteflash and have Leon Mege design the setting. If its a name she''s after, then this is the one.

If this still doesn''t float your boat, make sure you get Tiffany to source the best quality diamond you can get for your inflated price and of course, come back with lots of pics.

over and out!

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

Date: 4/21/2008 3:31:21 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 4/21/2008 1:29:03 AM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 10:24:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/19/2008 6:38:41 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 4:39:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/18/2008 11:04:19 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/18/2008 10:46:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Lisa I have written a lot about the fact that HCA is a little too strict (two eyed vs one eyed view and super symmetry). Also in some cases appropriate painting can help a stone up to HCA 3.
So we do not need to disagree on that basis

Garry not challenging you on this point.

Not clear about the rest of your reasoning that GOG or WF or JA, etc. cannot compare?

I''m going to go read their website info on their ''traditional (out of date) approach to gemology. They do not know for example what ''brillianteering'' or girdle painting and digging means - they miss used one such example to describe their girdle thickness rules''

I find this interesting.......

Lisa your homework is late?

I stand corrected - ''Re-read''

Don''t see where they haven''t addressed your points, Garry (although they do not specifically use the words ''brillianteering/painting/digging).

http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/Never.aspx

You mean this? http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very&

I read this as more layman''s speak than not knowing their stuff.

If you want acurate verbiage then go here: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

I think it safely says the same thing but in technical trade terms. Most advertising camppaigns aren''t going to put customers through these rigors.

Yes Lisa, http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very that link shows a diamond with a seriously dug out diamond as an example of Tiffany optimum girdle profile. It is absolutely inpossible to do this to a diamond and have a nice appearance. This diamond is a dog.

There are other examples too of this type of very low level understanding of diamonds.
I can not believe that this is only the fault of the advertising people.

The GIA article shows fig. 1 as resembling Tiffany''s first girdle ex. IMO & does not appear ''seriously dug out.''. http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/estimating_painitng.pdf

T&Co: http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very

I don''t see how GIA''s fig. 2 or 3 come as close.

Again the opacity of their cutting techniques/lab make judging them by some anecdotal evidence difficult and cannot predict standard practice.

I still stick by what I believe to be advertising a difficult concept to a simpler audience. Perhaps this was not the best ex. in their ad. campaign and they should clarify.

Is there anyone on here how has worked in their lab? Perhaps has some real world evidence for sloppy carftsmanship and blatantly incorrect use of information on their website?

Here..., look at the markings (in the image) and you will clearly see it is of a worse case in the Tiffany example!

I agree with Garry that its not only the fault of the advertisement people..., someone at Tiffany''s was responsible to give this specific Diamond as an example for a ''properly proportioned girdle to MAXIMIZE brilliance''..., a big no-no for a Company that saves no $$$ or resources to advertise their supreme quality!!!

Now..., that does not mean all their Diamonds are cut this way....

But if Tiffany executives read these lines..., I will bet they will change their sample image and someone will get a small slap on his hand

!

Good eye''s Garry

(if I remember correctly..., you have mentioned this a while ago.)

Thx DG
here is a Diamcalc model as close as I can get - it is around 5.5 degrees of pavilion digging.
Pavilion Digging is far worse than crown digging (and both are far far worse than painting in most cases)

 

[lisa1.01fvs1]

Date: 4/21/2008 3:31:21 AM
Author: DiaGem

Date: 4/21/2008 1:29:03 AM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 10:24:40 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/19/2008 6:38:41 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/19/2008 4:39:53 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Date: 4/18/2008 11:04:19 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Date: 4/18/2008 10:46:44 PM
Author: Garry H (Cut Nut)

Lisa I have written a lot about the fact that HCA is a little too strict (two eyed vs one eyed view and super symmetry). Also in some cases appropriate painting can help a stone up to HCA 3.
So we do not need to disagree on that basis

Garry not challenging you on this point.

Not clear about the rest of your reasoning that GOG or WF or JA, etc. cannot compare?

I''m going to go read their website info on their ''traditional (out of date) approach to gemology. They do not know for example what ''brillianteering'' or girdle painting and digging means - they miss used one such example to describe their girdle thickness rules''

I find this interesting.......

Lisa your homework is late?

I stand corrected - ''Re-read''

Don''t see where they haven''t addressed your points, Garry (although they do not specifically use the words ''brillianteering/painting/digging).

http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/Never.aspx

You mean this? http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very&

I read this as more layman''s speak than not knowing their stuff.

If you want acurate verbiage then go here: http://www.diamondcut.gia.edu/pdf/6_05_RDR_pg239_243pdf.pdf

I think it safely says the same thing but in technical trade terms. Most advertising camppaigns aren''t going to put customers through these rigors.

Yes Lisa, http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very that link shows a diamond with a seriously dug out diamond as an example of Tiffany optimum girdle profile. It is absolutely inpossible to do this to a diamond and have a nice appearance. This diamond is a dog.

There are other examples too of this type of very low level understanding of diamonds.
I can not believe that this is only the fault of the advertising people.

The GIA article shows fig. 1 as resembling Tiffany''s first girdle ex. IMO & does not appear ''seriously dug out.''. http://lgdl.gia.edu/pdfs/estimating_painitng.pdf

T&Co: http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very

I don''t see how GIA''s fig. 2 or 3 come as close.

Again the opacity of their cutting techniques/lab make judging them by some anecdotal evidence difficult and cannot predict standard practice.

I still stick by what I believe to be advertising a difficult concept to a simpler audience. Perhaps this was not the best ex. in their ad. campaign and they should clarify.

Is there anyone on here how has worked in their lab? Perhaps has some real world evidence for sloppy carftsmanship and blatantly incorrect use of information on their website?

Here..., look at the markings (in the image) and you will clearly see it is of a worse case in the Tiffany example!

I agree with Garry that its not only the fault of the advertisement people..., someone at Tiffany''s was responsible to give this specific Diamond as an example for a ''properly proportioned girdle to MAXIMIZE brilliance''..., a big no-no for a Company that saves no $$$ or resources to advertise their supreme quality!!!

Now..., that does not mean all their Diamonds are cut this way....

But if Tiffany executives read these lines..., I will bet they will change their sample image and someone will get a small slap on his hand

!

Good eye''s Garry

(if I remember correctly..., you have mentioned this a while ago.)

Yes, fault of advertiser who has no idea on how diamonds are cut and most likely did not OK image w/ lab (definitely their bad, will email them this thread today - why not?).

I don''t think they (ad people) even understand "maximize brilliance" or this was the intent as, again, no avearge consumer would even pick this up on photo or understand it!

And no, "that does not mean all their Diamonds are cut this way....

"

I think they are like any B&M trying to make a buck - they have good merch. and not so good.

I still stand by my opinion that the example is "off" but not enough, given context of laypersons''s campaign, to cast aspersions.


Thanks DG You summed it up nicely:
"But if Tiffany executives read these lines..., I will bet they will change their sample image and someone will get a small slap on his hand

!

Lisa

 

[clivus]

Where exactly are you going to get a 12 month CD at 5%? It''s not happening these days. Low 4% at the MOST.

 

[diagem]

Date: 4/21/2008 12:03:02 PM
Author: lisa1.01fvs1

Yes, fault of advertiser who has no idea on how diamonds are cut and most likely did not OK image w/ lab (definitely their bad, will email them this thread today - why not?).

I believe advertising Companies that handle huge accounts like this one for Tiffany''s should double or even triple check before putting things to print!

I don''t think they (ad people) even understand ''maximize brilliance'' or this was the intent as, again, no avearge consumer would even pick this up on photo or understand it!

That would be even worse..., Garry''s are in every profession..., I believe

.

And no, ''that does not mean all their Diamonds are cut this way....

''

On the contrary..., if you look carefully..., the photographer shot (I notice) the thinnest part of the overall girdle on this specific Diamond thinking its the best potential frame..., oooops...

I think they are like any B&M trying to make a buck - they have good merch. and not so good.

Definitely way above the average..., they just chose the wrong example as a showpiece..., which means throwing big advertising $$$ down the garbage as obviously not only consumers look for mishaps!

I still stand by my opinion that the example is ''off'' but not enough, given context of laypersons''s campaign, to cast aspersions.

Obviously thats not the case! We are dissecting it!


Thanks DG You summed it up nicely: You are very welcome

''But if Tiffany executives read these lines..., I will bet they will change their sample image and someone will get a small slap on his hand

!

Lisa

 

[purrfectpear]

Date: 4/21/2008 12:44:27 PM
Author: clivus
Where exactly are you going to get a 12 month CD at 5%? It''s not happening these days. Low 4% at the MOST.

That''s just what I was thinking

I still miss last year when I was getting 6% on an online savings account

 

[Ty Cobb]

Garry, are you still going back to that stupid example off of Tiffs website that some advertising twit put up there who has probably never even seen a diamond. Not even getting into the fact that he probably distorted the picture to high heaven to try and isolate exactly what he wanted to show in the picture. Seriously, if Tiffs believed that was an example of a great stone, they would have all kinds of issues with quality. They would be getting derided by the industry and their stones wouldn''t hold up. Seriously, a stone with that kind of girdle wouldn''t even last very long in the ring. It would chip or break or whatever. I have said again, the only evidence I need of the quality of Tiffs diamonds is what I see with my own eyes. I have yet to see a diamond, ANYWHERE, that has made me think, geez, I really wish I hadn''t bought my FI''s engagement ring from Tiffany''s because that is such a better diamond. In fact I usually find myself thankful that I got a high quality stone that appears to be of much better quality then all the other E-rings I see.

HCA does not work in regards to Tiffs.

They cut their diamond with a specific goal in mind. They all lend to the younger people''s ring side of the equation. They cut it for more fire.

I have seen some dazzling rings at Tiffs that HCA would have made me think were dogs. I had one the HCA rated as a 4.3 that had a perfect idealscope image. So really, I could care less what HCA says about a ring I have seen with my own eyes in north facing lighting.

As for the argument that GOG and such make rings that are "Far" better cuts then Tiffs. In my experience the difference isn''t even detectable by the naked eye. Ya''ll all talk about using Ideal scopes to look at rings to verify the precision of the cut. Well, if you can''t tell it with the naked eye, it sounds to me like you are paying for something you don''t even benefit from.

The next person who can look at a Tiff ring with the naked eye and truly say it is a poorly cut stone, will be the first. I love the e-ring I bought there and I love the wedding rings we bought there. It is a personal choice.

Do you want to pay a premium for a brand name and in regards to the Tiffany setting, an unbeatable and uncopyable setting. Or is your true preference all about the bottom line.

I used to believe that there was a third category of person who was all about the precision of the cut....but everything I have read in my 2-3 years on this site has increasingly led me to believe that these people tend to really be more about saving money and the cut precision arguement is a crutch.

If they said you could get just as good a diamond for less money I might believe it was about the cut, but their continued insistence that the diamond they get there is better then what you can get at tiffany''s or other B&Ms, especially when it is something you cannot even see with your naked eye, I more and more have trouble believing it is cut fanaticism that drives them.


Anyway, my advice is to find a diamond you like for an amount you like, and to hell with what anyone else thinks about your purchase