Tiffany and Co, the former great American jeweler?

[Imdanny]

Meow!

http://www.langantiques.com/category/160/4/item/160-1-330/

What do you think?

I think some of Tiffany's "Statement Jewelry" is pretty darn good. I don't see why something like the $92,0000 yellow sapphire necklace on their site now doesn't compare with anything I see at VCA, Cartier, Harry Winston, etc.

A lot of "craft" doesn't exist the way it used to in old times. I don't see why Tiffany should be expected to be any exception.

 

[strmrdr]

It is true....
They are now just another mass marketer in my book

 

[Imdanny]

http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?sku=22919954&mcat=148204&cid=288156&search_params=s+5-p+5-c+288156-r+-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+

If this is your idea of mass market, I'll take it!

I mean I wouldn't buy a RB from them, because I think I could get a better deal, but their Lucida platinum and gold bands are the equal to any similar product VCA and Cartier sell. I think it depends on the piece, and the circumstances. It seems fashionable to diss them. I'll pass.

 

[Imdanny]

I want to add a comment for Lang Antique & Estate Jewelry.

The description of the piece in the above mentioned link is, "Something for her dressing table. An 18k yellow gold ring tray from the formerly great American jeweler. Circa 1930."

The mark clearly indicates 14k. Come on. Get it together if you're going to be so high and mighty.

 

[T L]

Ha!! Thanks for the link, it made me laugh. I''m sorry, but I identify Tiffany&Co more closely with Zales than I do with Harry Winston, Graff, VC&A and Bulgari. That''s not to say they don''t have nice things, but not the caliber of what they once were.

 

[suchende]

I suppose it''s a bit like Ralph Lauren vs. Proenza Schouler in the fashion world: even though they both have high-end couture lines, you can get a t-shirt emblazoned with an Ralph Lauren logo, which perhaps cheapens the brand in the minds of some consumers.

 

[february2003bride]

Date: 1/23/2009 4:28:49 AM
Author: Imdanny
http://www.tiffany.com/Shopping/Item.aspx?sku=22919954&mcat=148204&cid=288156&search_params=s+5-p+5-c+288156-r+-x+-n+6-ri+-ni+0-t+

If this is your idea of mass market, I''ll take it!

I mean I wouldn''t buy a RB from them, because I think I could get a better deal, but their Lucida platinum and gold bands are the equal to any similar product VCA and Cartier sell. I think it depends on the piece, and the circumstances. It seems fashionable to diss them. I''ll pass.

Imdanny, I had at the same time a Tiffany Luicda and a 3mm domed comfort fit from e-weddingbands.com. The differences were so minute that the price of the Lucida wasnt worth it. Also, I can tell you that the Facets Raphael 3mm band is basically an exact match of the Lucida. The Lucida was a beautiful band, but when there were at least 2 other rings that were comparables in quality at a much lesser price, that made a difference in my mind.

 

[oldminer]

I am sure that Tiffany and all other premium type retailers today are struggling with far more knowledgeable consumers, far more knowledge of value, much wider distribution of information, and much more intense competition. Workmanship has definitely slipped for most retailers, but when you look at the real money making arm of Tiffany, giftware, they have very nice quality and do a very big job promoting it well. Jewelry is their hook but not where the main money lies these days.

For those who get million dollar bonuses, a salad bar buffet won''t do. They look for the kind of personal service and privacy offered by high end B&M merchants. There is a niche market for these high end firms and although knowledge about value is widespread on Pricescope devotees, the main customers of these high end retailers would not alter their buying preferences for an amount of money we think is a lot and they think is petty.

There is room for many differing levels of retailing to exist side by side. People who would not shop at a high level might be jealous, or might know better. It is difficult to tell what kind of person anyone is until you really know them and how they spend their money. Jumping to conclusions does little of benefit. A ton of money passes through Tiffany each year. They all can''t be unhappy. That''s what building a brand successfully is all about.....willing buyers.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

I still think Tiffany has beautiful, high quality, classic jewelry. The problem is that it is priced double what it is worth. My view is that if one can locate pieces second hand at half the retail price, then I''d rather have it than most no-name brands.

 

[suchende]

Date: 1/23/2009 9:44:31 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I still think Tiffany has beautiful, high quality, classic jewelry. The problem is that it is priced double what it is worth. My view is that if one can locate pieces second hand at half the retail price, then I''d rather have it than most no-name brands.

Hmmm... I suppose everyone has their own idea about what a peice is "worth." Is a Van Cleef & Arpels peice worth retail? Scrap? More or less than a comperable Tiffany''s piece?

 

[tdha]

I think uber rich people just get in a tiff (no pun intended) when us regular folk encroach on their territory. They don''t like the gift items cuz it makes it possible for the Tiffany & Co brand to be mass marketed. Much too pedestrian!

 

[Imdanny]

Ha!! Thanks for the link, it made me laugh. I'm sorry, but I identify Tiffany&Co more closely with Zales than I do with Harry Winston, Graff, VC&A and Bulgari. That's not to say they don't have nice things, but not the caliber of what they once were.

Well, I'm not laughing. The description misrepresented the product. The gratuitous criticism of Tiffany and Co was unprofessional. The entire description was unprofessional and the person who wrote it should be warned not to do it again. Unless this firm wants to be known for dishonest and/or sloppy and childish behavior.

As far as comparing Tiffany and Co to Zales, if that's how you want to spend your time, more power to you.

 

[Imdanny]

Imdanny, I had at the same time a Tiffany Luicda and a 3mm domed comfort fit from e-weddingbands.com. The differences were so minute that the price of the Lucida wasnt worth it. Also, I can tell you that the Facets Raphael 3mm band is basically an exact match of the Lucida. The Lucida was a beautiful band, but when there were at least 2 other rings that were comparables in quality at a much lesser price, that made a difference in my mind.

I've considered Facets, but to be honest, they don't impress me as much as eweddingbands. This is their description of the platinum they use:

"Facets only uses 950 platinum - the purest form of platinum used in jewelry - as well as 18K gold."

Eweddingbands tells you they use ruthenium as an alloy (as does Tiffany). Any company that doesn't say, or gives marketing BS like "the purest form of platinum used in jewelry" is not going to get my business.

But I'm glad that you were able to inspect different choices and make the decision that was right for you. I certainly have no problem with that.

 

[suchende]

Date: 1/23/2009 11:18:20 AM
Author: Imdanny

Ha!! Thanks for the link, it made me laugh. I''m sorry, but I identify Tiffany&Co more closely with Zales than I do with Harry Winston, Graff, VC&A and Bulgari. That''s not to say they don''t have nice things, but not the caliber of what they once were.

Well, I''m not laughing. The description misrepresented the product. The gratuitous criticism of Tiffany and Co was unprofessional. The entire description was unprofessional and the person who wrote it should be warned not to do it again. Unless this firm wants to be known for dishonest and/or sloppy and childish behavior.

As far as comparing Tiffany and Co to Zales, if that''s how you want to spend your time, more power to you.

How childish or unprofessional? Certainly a company selling Tiffany products has nothing to gain from maliciously insulting the Tiffany''s brand. I would sooner believe they were evoking the cultural memory of Tiffany''s perhaps more glamourous past.

 

[Imdanny]

I'm afraid you misunderstood my posts. I posted a link to an add. The add DID misrepresent the product. The add DID gratuitously slam Tiffany while attempting to sell a (used) Tiffany product.

Please reread my comments in light of the link I posted (and text I copied). Thank you.

 

[suchende]

Date: 1/23/2009 11:32:43 AM
Author: Imdanny
I'm afraid you misunderstood my posts. I posted a link to an add. The add DID misrepresent the product. The add DID gratuitously slam Tiffany while attempting to sell a (used) Tiffany product.

Please reread my comments in light of the link I posted (and text I copied). Thank you.

I just don't agree with your assessment that this was an obvious or intentional insult against Tiffany & Co.

 

[Imdanny]

My intention is give my view of this ad which struck me as remarkably unprofessional and of Tiffany more generally. I don't have a desire to have a 'flame war.' I think that I've stated my opinions about Tiffany in this thread for those who wish to read them and that I've done this now well enough that I can let other add their points of views. Thank you in advance. Have a nice day, everyone.

 

[Imdanny]

So you think it's fine to represent a 14kt product as an 18kt product? So you think describing Tiffany and Co as "the formerly great American jeweler" is not gratuitous and is not unprofessional? Ok, then.

Like I said, I don't have the option of replying to argumentative posts all day. Have a nice day.

 

[suchende]

Date: 1/23/2009 11:40:56 AM
Author: Imdanny
So you think it''s fine to represent a 14kt product as an 18kt product? So you think describing Tiffany and Co as ''the formerly great American jeweler'' is not gratuitous and unprofessional? Ok, then.

Like I said, I don''t have the option of replying to argumentative posts all day. Have a nice day.

Since you posed questions, I will respond as well, though I certainly don''t want to argue about it, it is clearly a matter of opinion, as PSers have widely divergent ideas about the "greatness" of T&C. It''s an interesting topic that PSers occasionally have discussed in the past, and I hope will discuss in the future.

I never spoke to the misrepresentations in the ad, clearly a mistake was made, and I never said nor implied that it was okay, though I am inclined to give the vendor the benefit of the doubt that the mistake was an honest (rather than intentionally decietful) one.

No, I don''t think the phrase "formerly great American jeweler" is gratuitous or unprofessional, though apparently quite controversial!

 

[Todd Gray]

Few jewelry companies are as well known as Tiffany & Co., what woman in America or another industrialized nation doesn''t recognize the baby blue box "for all that it represents" immediately? They continue to fetch exceptional prices on their merchandise by people who are willing to pay for brand recognition and create a very nice trickle down marketing effect by raising the awareness of those who aren''t willing to pay for quality that such quality at least exists, personally I love the fact that Tiffany is out there creating such a market!

Naturally I''m happy that what I consider to be a lot of people are able to appreciate the quality that Tiffany represents, but who are intelligent enough to realize that such quality is not exclusive to Tiffany, nor is it exclusive to Harry Winston''s or Cartier. I love the fact that so many people here on PS are quality conscious, yet intelligent enough to look past the label to the characteristics of the diamond and specifically to the cut quality - the factors that actually contribute to visual performance.

 

[Miss Fortune]

Date: 1/23/2009 7:51:48 AM
Author: tourmaline_lover
Ha!! Thanks for the link, it made me laugh. I''m sorry, but I identify Tiffany&Co more closely with Zales than I do with Harry Winston, Graff, VC&A and Bulgari. That''s not to say they don''t have nice things, but not the caliber of what they once were.

ditto.

 

[Imdanny]

Where's that lady who said that she'll go to the mat to defend Tiffany?! She's hard-core on this subject! I bet she'd have something to say.

As for me, "Tiffany and Co, 1930" would suffice. I'm an adult. I don't need to be told what to think by a "vendor."

I mean, clearly they're saying that their little 14kt Tiffany tray is "great." Personally, I doubt Tiffany and Co. made that tray- they were probably only the vendor, and it has wear from someone putting coins (or something) in it. I don't see anything "great" about it and I think the price is ridiculous. But that's just me. Maybe someone else will buy it for that price, think it's "great," think the vendor is great, and professional.

 

[Imdanny]

And Cartier is the caliber of what it once was.

Um, no.

 

[Harriet]

Lang''s description was unncessary and against its interest. Unfortunately, when I look at books about the Tiffany of yore and go to the store, ...

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 1/23/2009 9:52:43 PM
Author: Imdanny
And Cartier is the caliber of what it once was.


Um, no.

True this. We''re seeing this all over the globe in many industries. Mass produced jewelry is...mass produced jewelry --haha. And Tiff''s mark up is well over half. Lang''s should have omitted that phrase, though. I dislike seeing jewelers diss on other jewelers--petty.

 

[Harriet]

Yup. Have you seen the old Cartier sketches? Heartstopping.

 

[coatimundi_org]

Date: 1/23/2009 10:30:26 PM
Author: Harriet
Yup. Have you seen the old Cartier sketches? Heartstopping.

oh yes indeed.

 

[Harriet]

I still have hope for VCA.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Date: 1/23/2009 9:54:38 AM
Author: suchende

Date: 1/23/2009 9:44:31 AM
Author: diamondseeker2006
I still think Tiffany has beautiful, high quality, classic jewelry. The problem is that it is priced double what it is worth. My view is that if one can locate pieces second hand at half the retail price, then I'd rather have it than most no-name brands.

Hmmm... I suppose everyone has their own idea about what a peice is 'worth.' Is a Van Cleef & Arpels peice worth retail? Scrap? More or less than a comperable Tiffany's piece?

I've never been in VC&A in my life, so I really don't know!

I am wearing a Tiffany ring daily (see avatar wedding band) and I think it is great quality and worth what I paid. However, I wouldn't buy a solitaire there because I was able to get the same or better quality diamond for about 40% less than I could there (new). Signed Pieces often sells used Tiffany e-rings at excellent prices, and I would buy one of those IF the cut quality was ideal.

The high end stuff is really where you get into the unique, artistic pieces, and I suppose the people buying those don't have to look at the price tags.

(ETA: Have y'all seen the Tiffany Christmas catalog??? I don't see how anyone can say that they don't still make some magnificent pieces!)

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

My adverretising guy has tracked Tiffany and we discuss the issue of availability.

Tiffany went public about 2 decades ago and the number of stores has mushroomed ever since. The idea of the flagship store lost its meaning. Tiffany is at everyones doorstep now.

I have no dowubt they are still a very tight and well run company - but today when the new ideas and standards come along and their old management and technical diamond staff try to keep up.... well... sorry, they seem not to be.

This is not a knot http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=knots&

The example of what causes a nailhead is wrong http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/Cut_nailhead.aspx What they show as a good stone is actually the bad one.

This Tiffany diamond at the top that supposedly represents the best standard has a very very bad dug out pavilion http://www.tiffany.com/Expertise/Diamond/Brilliance/never_define.aspx?img=very&


I have raised a couple of issues like this about 2 years before and the above mentioned info on their site has not changed. That seems a bit dinasaurish. I hope tough times like this will result in a spring cleaning and we will see one of the industry''s flag ships sail strongly out of this storm.