Quality of Tiffany jewelry compared to other designer brands

[sosauce]

Diamond quality can slightly vary for the same creation, depending on where and when it has been produced, so even if yours are G VS, it doesn’t mean they couldn’t use different quality/color for a different piece.
About the brand engraving - the comparison you offered is very unrealistic. If Tiffany and Costco diamonds cost the same, then either Costco is a luxury brand, or Tiffany is a mass market. The true question is how much money would I be willing to pay for Tiffany engraving on a diamond? And the answer is zero.

I’m just saying your anecdotal and hearsay evidence isn’t as compelling when mine directly contradicts it.

Anyways, yes, that is the question. How much are customers willing to pay for branding? As another example, if you had two bags with the same construction, the same material, the same craftsmanship, and the same price, but one said Gucci and the other said Target, no one would choose the Target bag over the Gucci bag, even if they were identical in all other respects besides branding. I’ve only ever bought Gucci as gifts and not for myself, but even I would not be so self-loathing as to say that I would seriously consider choosing a Target bag over a Gucci bag if the prices were the same.

The fact customers are willing to pay a price premium is reflective of brand equity. If the Gucci bag were priced just $10 more, 99% of customers would still choose Gucci. If it were $100 more, maybe 97% of customers would be willing to pay for Gucci. Eventually, you get to the point where customers have a more serious deliberation between choosing a $2000 Gucci bag and a $200 Target bag.

Thus, when you say that Tiffany jewelry costs 5 to 10 times more, that’s because of the company’s brand equity. And when you say that you wouldn’t be willing to pay ANY additional premium for a Tiffany diamond than a Costco diamond, you simply sound contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. It’s not a meaningful or authentic contribution to this discussion. And even if you yourself held a view against Tiffany because of some personal vendetta, you surely understand that you’re not being objective when you make such sweeping and unyielding statements about every product offering across every category that a company has ever made across all time.

 

[Mishella]

I’m just saying your anecdotal and hearsay evidence isn’t as compelling when mine directly contradicts it.

Anyways, yes, that is the question. How much are customers willing to pay for branding? As another example, if you had two bags with the same construction, the same material, the same craftsmanship, and the same price, but one said Gucci and the other said Target, no one would choose the Target bag over the Gucci bag, even if they were identical in all other respects besides branding. I’ve only ever bought Gucci as gifts and not for myself, but even I would not be so self-loathing as to say that I would seriously consider choosing a Target bag over a Gucci bag if the prices were the same.

The fact customers are willing to pay a price premium is reflective of brand equity. If the Gucci bag were priced just $10 more, 99% of customers would still choose Gucci. If it were $100 more, maybe 97% of customers would be willing to pay for Gucci. Eventually, you get to the point where customers have a more serious deliberation between choosing a $2000 Gucci bag and a $200 Target bag.

Thus, when you say that Tiffany jewelry costs 5 to 10 times more, that’s because of the company’s brand equity. And when you say that you wouldn’t be willing to pay ANY additional premium for a Tiffany diamond than a Costco diamond, you simply sound contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. It’s not a meaningful or authentic contribution to this discussion. And even if you yourself held a view against Tiffany because of some personal vendetta, you surely understand that you’re not being objective when you make such sweeping and unyielding statements about every product offering across every category that a company has ever made across all time.

For some reason you continue using “if my aunt had b*lls she would be my uncle” non valid argument. I’m telling you once again, you can not compare a mass market brand with a luxury brand inventing reality that does not exist(same price).
If personal experience at the boutique is anecdotal to you - ok, we have nothing more to discuss here

 

[sosauce]

For some reason you continue using “if my aunt had b*lls she would be my uncle” non valid argument. I’m telling you once again, you can not compare a mass market brand with a luxury brand inventing reality that does not exist(same price).
If personal experience at the boutique is anecdotal to you - ok, we have nothing more to discuss here

I’m just trying to get you to understand the definition of brand equity through an illustration. It’s not an invalid argument when you havent shown the principle to be wrong. Brand equity applies for non-mass-market brands, too. It simply explains how and why different companies charge different amounts.

If you had two bags with the same design and price, but one said Chanel and one said YSL, the Chanel would win. If you had two of the same car, but one was Bentley and the other was Lexus, the Bentley would win. If you have two of the same watch, and one was Patek Philippe and the other was Omega, the Patek would win. If you had two of the same ring, and one was Cartier and the other was Roberto Coin, the Cartier would win. All brands have to compete on price, it’s not a phenomenon that’s limited to just Walmart and Kroger.

Companies with more brand equity charge higher prices, because they can get away with it and want to make more money. Companies with less brand equity charge lower prices, so they can get more of the market and make more money. It’s a very common sense balancing act.

YSL, Lexus, Omega, Roberto Coin, etc. would not be considered “mass market,” but the principle of brand equity still stands. Consumers are willing to pay different price premiums for different brands. And the reason why YSL can’t charge the same amount as Chanel is because it can’t.

At this point, you’re just trolling. Yeah, obviously, Tiffany has a higher price point. I’m not sure why you’re clutching your pearls that the company charges five to ten times more than a local jeweler. No one is shocked — especially not on a luxury brand forum. You justify your blanket criticism by remembering seeing some paperwork about a Victoria pendant with I, SI stones. It’s just not the case. Victoria pendants don’t come in large enough carat sizes to have their own individual certificates for each stone, unless we’re talking special order or high jewelry. Also, I went to the mall today, and my Tiffany SA said the same thing I suspected based on my paperwork, which is that Victoria goes from D—G. You can apparently tell based on an item’s class and department number, which is a relic from when all store layouts used to be split between fine and fashion jewelry. In those days, fine and fashion jewelry even had different holiday packaging, and SAs could only sell on one side of the store or the other.

Anyway, you probably didn’t see what you think you saw, or you were shown the wrong thing, or you remembered seeing whatever that thing was incorrectly. Either way, it’s a moot point.

 

[Mishella]

I’m just trying to get you to understand the definition of brand equity through an illustration. It’s not an invalid argument when you havent shown the principle to be wrong. Brand equity applies for non-mass-market brands, too. It simply explains how and why different companies charge different amounts.

If you had two bags with the same design and price, but one said Chanel and one said YSL, the Chanel would win. If you had two of the same car, but one was Bentley and the other was Lexus, the Bentley would win. If you have two of the same watch, and one was Patek Philippe and the other was Omega, the Patek would win. If you had two of the same ring, and one was Cartier and the other was Roberto Coin, the Cartier would win. All brands have to compete on price, it’s not a phenomenon that’s limited to just Walmart and Kroger.

Companies with more brand equity charge higher prices, because they can get away with it and want to make more money. Companies with less brand equity charge lower prices, so they can get more of the market and make more money. It’s a very common sense balancing act.

YSL, Lexus, Omega, Roberto Coin, etc. would not be considered “mass market,” but the principle of brand equity still stands. Consumers are willing to pay different price premiums for different brands. And the reason why YSL can’t charge the same amount as Chanel is because it can’t.

At this point, you’re just trolling. Yeah, obviously, Tiffany has a higher price point. I’m not sure why you’re clutching your pearls that the company charges five to ten times more than a local jeweler. No one is shocked — especially not on a luxury brand forum. You justify your blanket criticism by remembering seeing some paperwork about a Victoria pendant with I, SI stones. It’s just not the case. Victoria pendants don’t come in large enough carat sizes to have their own individual certificates for each stone, unless we’re talking special order or high jewelry. Also, I went to the mall today, and my Tiffany SA said the same thing I suspected based on my paperwork, which is that Victoria goes from D—G. You can apparently tell based on an item’s class and department number, which is a relic from when all store layouts used to be split between fine and fashion jewelry. In those days, fine and fashion jewelry even had different holiday packaging, and SAs could only sell on one side of the store or the other.

Anyway, you probably didn’t see what you think you saw, or you were shown the wrong thing, or you remembered seeing whatever that thing was incorrectly. Either way, it’s a moot point.

You pay for the luxury brand what you pay because you were shown pretty pictures throughout your whole life. On tv, in magazines, wherever else. Maybe you love the design, maybe you think it will make you happier or people will think something specific of you if you show up with this item. Whatever it is, it is in your head. And many people don’t buy luxury brands for a simple reason - they are not interested. Their “pretty picture” is something else. And brand equity simply does not exist in a world where people are used to the other brands or don’t pay attention to them at all, or some are simply rational and don’t scream of happiness when presented a certain brand. I know many people like that and I am myself one of them. I don’t value certain brands just because they have a brand equity. I definitely did when I was 19 and didn’t have too much money, though The truth is I would much rather buy the same bag from Target/Costco over Chanel or Gucci for a simple reason - they have much better customer service. I would be able to return/exchange it anytime and with no headche. I would also not be a target for robbery with a bag from costco and would be able to show up anywhere without drawing attention to myself and making people think how much I paid for my bag. That is what I value much higher that just a brand name on the item. I am also always super happy to buy a pretty or/and functional thing from an unknown brand.
Btw, I have a degree in Marketing, maybe that contributes towards my skepticism and rationalism towards the brands

 

[AntiqueShopper]

You pay for the luxury brand what you pay because you were shown pretty pictures throughout your whole life. On tv, in magazines, wherever else. Maybe you love the design, maybe you think it will make you happier or people will think something specific of you if you show up with this item. Whatever it is, it is in your head. And many people don’t buy luxury brands for a simple reason - they are not interested. Their “pretty picture” is something else. And brand equity simply does not exist in a world where people are used to the other brands or don’t pay attention to them at all, or some are simply rational and don’t scream of happiness when presented a certain brand. I know many people like that and I am myself one of them. I don’t value certain brands just because they have a brand equity. I definitely did when I was 19 and didn’t have too much money, though The truth is I would much rather buy the same bag from Target/Costco over Chanel or Gucci for a simple reason - they have much better customer service. I would be able to return/exchange it anytime and with no headche. I would also not be a target for robbery with a bag from costco and would be able to show up anywhere without drawing attention to myself and making people think how much I paid for my bag. That is what I value much higher that just a brand name on the item. I am also always super happy to buy a pretty or/and functional thing from an unknown brand.
Btw, I have a degree in Marketing, maybe that contributes towards my skepticism and rationalism towards the brands

If you truly believe these statements than why would you ever buy a luxury brand?

Luxury brands bring design elements, history, etc with them. They also bring quality. Tiffany is a quality brand.

Compare Blue Nile’s (a respected brand) melee stones with Tiffany. Many of their pieces use I1 for clarity and are “good” cut. (Tiffany goes down to SI1 on some pieces and uses much higher quality cut in their melee.) Blue Nile costs more than many jewelers but has a reputation of being an excellent place to buy jewelry.

Although I cannot comment about Chanel’s customer service I can say Tiffany has far superior customer service than any company I have dealt with.

 

[joseybird]

You pay for the luxury brand what you pay because you were shown pretty pictures throughout your whole life. On tv, in magazines, wherever else. Maybe you love the design, maybe you think it will make you happier or people will think something specific of you if you show up with this item. Whatever it is, it is in your head. And many people don’t buy luxury brands for a simple reason - they are not interested. Their “pretty picture” is something else. And brand equity simply does not exist in a world where people are used to the other brands or don’t pay attention to them at all, or some are simply rational and don’t scream of happiness when presented a certain brand. I know many people like that and I am myself one of them. I don’t value certain brands just because they have a brand equity. I definitely did when I was 19 and didn’t have too much money, though The truth is I would much rather buy the same bag from Target/Costco over Chanel or Gucci for a simple reason - they have much better customer service. I would be able to return/exchange it anytime and with no headche. I would also not be a target for robbery with a bag from costco and would be able to show up anywhere without drawing attention to myself and making people think how much I paid for my bag. That is what I value much higher that just a brand name on the item. I am also always super happy to buy a pretty or/and functional thing from an unknown brand.
Btw, I have a degree in Marketing, maybe that contributes towards my skepticism and rationalism towards the brands

I’m not sure what the underlying point you’re trying to make is considering this is a forum aimed at folks who enjoy luxury brands? Are you critiquing just Tiffany and Co or are you making a more general critique?

 

[Mishella]

If you truly believe these statements than why would you ever buy a luxury brand?

Luxury brands bring design elements, history, etc with them. They also bring quality. Tiffany is a quality brand.

Compare Blue Nile’s (a respected brand) melee stones with Tiffany. Many of their pieces use I1 for clarity and are “good” cut. (Tiffany goes down to SI1 on some pieces and uses much higher quality cut in their melee.) Blue Nile costs more than many jewelers but has a reputation of being an excellent place to buy jewelry.

Although I cannot comment about Chanel’s customer service I can say Tiffany has far superior customer service than any company I have dealt with.

I would buy a luxury brand because I love the design, not because its a brand, simple as that

 

[Mishella]

I’m not sure what the underlying point you’re trying to make is considering this is a forum aimed at folks who enjoy luxury brands? Are you critiquing just Tiffany and Co or are you making a more general critique?

It’s not a critique, it’s a reply to a person who is very sure that everyone without exception is amazed by brands and values them just for the sake of brand

 

[AntiqueShopper]

I would buy a luxury brand because I love the design, not because its a brand, simple as that

So you do like Tiffany designs as I saw you had a jeweler make earrings similar to the Victoria ones.

The post that compared to Target/Costco bags was written in a way that suggests you think luxury brands are a waste of money and you should buy other pieces. Why would you continue to buy luxury when similar designs are available and more reasonable prices?

 

[Mishella]

So you have probably purchased Tiffany since you like the design - as I saw in another thread you had your jeweler make Victoria-style earrings.

No, I haven’t purchased Tiffany since the design I liked was a classic you can buy at any department store or order from your jeweler. I don’t see a reason to buy something not unique from a brand.

 

[AntiqueShopper]

No, I haven’t purchased Tiffany since the design I liked was a classic you can buy at any department store or order from your jeweler. I don’t see a reason to buy something not unique from a brand.

If it is the Victoria earrings than the ones from the department store are infringing on a copyrighted design. The design was copyrighted in 1997 by Tiffany and Company. It was inspired by a Tiffany archival piece.

 

[Mishella]

If it is the Victoria earrings than the ones from the department store are infringing on a copyrighted design. The design was copyrighted in 1997 by Tiffany and Company. It was inspired by a Tiffany archival piece.

If you modify the setting style/type of clasp/size, etc it’s not an infringement. Tiffany has a specific setting for these earrings - uplifted outside corners of the stones. Which I don’t really like, as the flat ones look better in my ears, because you don’t see the setting metal.

 

[AntiqueShopper]

If you modify the setting style/type of clasp/size, etc it’s not an infringement. Tiffany has a specific setting for these earrings - uplifted outside corners of the stones. Which I don’t really like, as the flat ones look better in my ears, because you don’t see the setting metal.

So then it isn’t a piece that is at “any department store”. It is a modified version of a copyrighted design.

It is fine if you don’t enjoy the designs in the brand but I find it unfair for someone to comment about the quality of a product (intent of this thread) if he/she had little experience with it.

 

[Mishella]

So then it isn’t a piece that is at “any department store”. It is a modified version of a copyrighted design.

It is fine if you don’t enjoy the designs in the brand but I find it unfair for someone to comment about the quality of a product (intent of this thread) if he/she had little experience with it.

I commented on the quality of the stones they use after visiting their boutiques and inquiring about it. What my experience has to do with their stones quality? I didn’t comment that they are terrible, stones are falling off, clasps are bending, etc

 

[AntiqueShopper]

I commented on the quality of the stones they use after visiting their boutiques and inquiring about it. What my experience has to do with their stones quality? I didn’t comment that they are terrible, stones are falling off, clasps are bending, etc

Because you have given incorrect information.

1. You misquoted the Victoria diamond quality.

2. You used TRR as a website to back up your beliefs- which gives very vague information and has had a history of selling fake Tiffany (yes I have seen obvious fakes)

3. Others have told you that they are aware that Fashion lines (Tiffany views as Fashion lines) include as low as J/SI1 stones but you insisted other lines include these as well.

4. You also said that the Victoria line can be found at “any department store”


I will 100% admit that the quality in some pieces went down. If you compare the weight of a 2000 Heart Tag Bracelet to today you will feel a difference. In 2013 the small Victoria was .36 cttw and now it is .32. However, that does not mean the pieces aren’t still well made and hold value more than the material costs.

As I said before- it is not just Tiffany that has a change in quality. I personally experienced the quality difference at VCA and it took Cartier quite some time to work out the issues in the attached screw system design in the Love Bracelet.