Has anyone seen Tiffany's new metal: Rubedo?

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#77
I'm not saying Rubedo isn't a pretty metal. It is. But I don't understand the hallmark: "metal." Which could mean anything. I understand that Tiffany is keeping their new metal's alloy a secret to discourage counterfeits, but from the company that literally set the national purity standards for silver, gold, and platinum, I don't understand how they justify keeping the "metal" content secret from its higher-end consumers. And in any case, why stamp the pieces "metal" instead of "Rubedo?" So they can change the "metal" alloy content any time they want? :confused1:

I asked a sales associate and she told me that Rubedo is an "alloy" and "not being marketed as a precious metal," to justify the secrecy. Which is funny, because 925 is a precious metal and is being sold for about 150% to 1000% less. So why should I pay more for a non-precious "metal" they're advertising is crafted from - you guessed it - precious metals?! And get this: because it's not being marketed as a precious metal, all Rubedo items come in sterling packaging. No suede boxes with the premium price tag :sad:.

I also don't understand unveiling the new alloy in the 1837 collection. Sure it has the 2012 175th anniversary exclusive Tiffany signature, but people who purchase in the Rubedo range likely already have enough pieces from that collection. Why not debut the "metal" in Schlumberger or another collection that has no sterling in its line? :shrugs:

Mixing the Rubedo pieces with sterling chains also bothers me. The two-tone pieces I understand having sterling chains, but why debut a solid Rubedo bard pendant and fail to craft the whole piece in the metal? It feels like they're cutting corners quite frankly, saving money by using the same chain as the sterling bar pendant. :blah:

I'd rather see Tiffany debut a new designer collaboration, or re-issue coveted classic designs like the favrile scarabs Louis Comfort Tiffany's studio crafted (http://tiffanyscarabs.com/) for the 175th anniversary. I actually don't mind Tiffany using 14k, 12k, 10k gold, but let us know what it is! And at the end of the day, I would rather have seen their titanium jewelry extended (interlocking 1837 titanium or DBTY in titanium bezels and chains would be amazing) because it's stronger and purer than Rubedo.

I want to give this new alloy a chance. Tiffany is just not "wowing" me, and worse, they're asking us to purchase precious materials without a proper stamp, with blind faith in their prestige. If they keep up tactics like this their prestige will wear thinner than it already is.

Rant over. I'll start breathing again now :sweatdrop: lol.
 
#78
^ ^

I agree with you. For all this is an anniversary piece, the only thing I feel like they're celebrating is the stupidity of their customers.

Having said that...I still like the three ring necklace, design-wise.
 
#79
NurseAnn said:
Got my narrow ring today. The color is beautiful and I love the ring but I am still having hesitations about how it will wear over time. In some lights it looks like rose gold while in other lighting it looks like rose silver. It's very interesting.


photo-7.jpg



And next to my RG plated MK watch
photo-6.jpg
Click to expand...

oh it is so lovely. please keep it, I think that you will be happy you did! it looks very pretty with your watch!
 
#80
amateurjeweler said:
I'm not saying Rubedo isn't a pretty metal. It is. But I don't understand the hallmark: "metal." Which could mean anything. I understand that Tiffany is keeping their new metal's alloy a secret to discourage counterfeits, but from the company that literally set the national purity standards for silver, gold, and platinum, I don't understand how they justify keeping the "metal" content secret from its higher-end consumers. And in any case, why stamp the pieces "metal" instead of "Rubedo?" So they can change the "metal" alloy content any time they want? :confused1:

I asked a sales associate and she told me that Rubedo is an "alloy" and "not being marketed as a precious metal," to justify the secrecy. Which is funny, because 925 is a precious metal and is being sold for about 150% to 1000% less. So why should I pay more for a non-precious "metal" they're advertising is crafted from - you guessed it - precious metals?! And get this: because it's not being marketed as a precious metal, all Rubedo items come in sterling packaging. No suede boxes with the premium price tag :sad:.

I also don't understand unveiling the new alloy in the 1837 collection. Sure it has the 2012 175th anniversary exclusive Tiffany signature, but people who purchase in the Rubedo range likely already have enough pieces from that collection. Why not debut the "metal" in Schlumberger or another collection that has no sterling in its line? :shrugs:

Mixing the Rubedo pieces with sterling chains also bothers me. The two-tone pieces I understand having sterling chains, but why debut a solid Rubedo bard pendant and fail to craft the whole piece in the metal? It feels like they're cutting corners quite frankly, saving money by using the same chain as the sterling bar pendant. :blah:

I'd rather see Tiffany debut a new designer collaboration, or re-issue coveted classic designs like the favrile scarabs Louis Comfort Tiffany's studio crafted (http://tiffanyscarabs.com/) for the 175th anniversary. I actually don't mind Tiffany using 14k, 12k, 10k gold, but let us know what it is! And at the end of the day, I would rather have seen their titanium jewelry extended (interlocking 1837 titanium or DBTY in titanium bezels and chains would be amazing) because it's stronger and purer than Rubedo.

I want to give this new alloy a chance. Tiffany is just not "wowing" me, and worse, they're asking us to purchase precious materials without a proper stamp, with blind faith in their prestige. If they keep up tactics like this their prestige will wear thinner than it already is.

Rant over. I'll start breathing again now :sweatdrop: lol.
Click to expand...

Perfectly good rant. :smile1: I really like how you stated your points.
The "metal" stamping is a bit odd... I agree. I also agree that my rubedo pendant should have come with a rubedo chain. However, I am glad it came out in the 1837 line, I like that line as everyday pieces, so I am cool with that.
I took a leap of faith, so to speak, and I hope that this metal turns out to be even more intriguing than I initially thought. :smile1:
 
#85
amateurjeweler said:
I'm not saying Rubedo isn't a pretty metal. It is. But I don't understand the hallmark: "metal." Which could mean anything. I understand that Tiffany is keeping their new metal's alloy a secret to discourage counterfeits, but from the company that literally set the national purity standards for silver, gold, and platinum, I don't understand how they justify keeping the "metal" content secret from its higher-end consumers. And in any case, why stamp the pieces "metal" instead of "Rubedo?" So they can change the "metal" alloy content any time they want? :confused1:

I asked a sales associate and she told me that Rubedo is an "alloy" and "not being marketed as a precious metal," to justify the secrecy. Which is funny, because 925 is a precious metal and is being sold for about 150% to 1000% less. So why should I pay more for a non-precious "metal" they're advertising is crafted from - you guessed it - precious metals?! And get this: because it's not being marketed as a precious metal, all Rubedo items come in sterling packaging. No suede boxes with the premium price tag :sad:.

I also don't understand unveiling the new alloy in the 1837 collection. Sure it has the 2012 175th anniversary exclusive Tiffany signature, but people who purchase in the Rubedo range likely already have enough pieces from that collection. Why not debut the "metal" in Schlumberger or another collection that has no sterling in its line? :shrugs:

Mixing the Rubedo pieces with sterling chains also bothers me. The two-tone pieces I understand having sterling chains, but why debut a solid Rubedo bard pendant and fail to craft the whole piece in the metal? It feels like they're cutting corners quite frankly, saving money by using the same chain as the sterling bar pendant. :blah:

I'd rather see Tiffany debut a new designer collaboration, or re-issue coveted classic designs like the favrile scarabs Louis Comfort Tiffany's studio crafted (http://tiffanyscarabs.com/) for the 175th anniversary. I actually don't mind Tiffany using 14k, 12k, 10k gold, but let us know what it is! And at the end of the day, I would rather have seen their titanium jewelry extended (interlocking 1837 titanium or DBTY in titanium bezels and chains would be amazing) because it's stronger and purer than Rubedo.

I want to give this new alloy a chance. Tiffany is just not "wowing" me, and worse, they're asking us to purchase precious materials without a proper stamp, with blind faith in their prestige. If they keep up tactics like this their prestige will wear thinner than it already is.

Rant over. I'll start breathing again now :sweatdrop: lol.
Click to expand...

:goodpost:

I saw the jewelry today at Tiffany's. The metal is very pretty and shiny, but if they will only stamp it "Metal", why bother? If it has a decent amount of gold content, they shouldn't hesitate to stamp in on the item, especially at the prices they're asking. You don't even know how much silver they use. It could be 95% copper, with silver and gold added in very small amounts, or other lesser metals like titanium, etc. mixed in. I personally wouldn't buy it. I think it's just another marketing gimmick, and I'm surprised that Tiffany would do something like this. Furthermore, the prices Tiffany has placed on these "mystery metal" items are obscene.

There are laws in the jewelry trade for disclosing the metal content and it's purity, but I suppose for such a high profile company as Tiffany & Co., it appears they've found a way around them. Unless they disclose the metal content and purity, I have no way of determining what the value is, and I'm staying away from it.
 
#89
Thanks for the article link!

So 55% copper, 31% gold, 14% silver.

I did notice that my ring had a "metallic" smell to it, so I had assumed the copper made up a large portion of the alloy. Nice to see actual numbers though.

Pricey for what it is, yes, but that is true for all Tiffany. I don't regret buying the medium ring. I didn't purchase it as an "investment", but as something to wear and enjoy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top