Anericans are ignorant of the fact that Tiffany made his fortune by buying half of the French crown jewelry in 1885 for peanuts and then copy the pieces at will, reproduce them and sell them by the thousands.Then copy the French Art Nouveau style at the turn of the century and sell them the same American way by thousands of pieces.
Finally calling it all classic American style of jewelry and luxury .
2
I honestly believe that the so called luxury goods marketed by the likes of LVMH and Pinault show what commodity fetichism means. Marx defines it brilliantly and Veblen coins the term conspicuous consumption.
The use value of this stuff is not even a hundredth of what they are able to sell it to people who make their money in ways that give me nausea.
1
And let’s all just remember, given the LVMH CEO’s cozying up to Trump, that now we have a great reason to stop buying anything at Tiffany ever again.
3
RIP Louis
here's to the 1%...."let 'em eat cake"....hmmm
One can only hope that the .001% of the population that spend there money on this ridiculously overpriced stuff will have an epiphany, stop buying these baubles, and put their resources to better use. I guess you could say that such acquisitions are 'aspirational', but I believe most people are repulsed by it; and not by jealousy. Oh yeah, not gonna happen. Ugh
Will Americans still think that France is a communist nation ?
If they ran out of other people's money, how can they buy Tiffany /Co ?
I don't understand how it is possible .
Bernard Arnaud buying Tiffany ?
And Patrick Drahi just bought Sotheby's when Christie's belongs to Francois Pinault.
The gilets jaunes are right to fight the socialist dictatorship.
GE bought Alstom, maker of the TGV and instead of honoring the sale contract which engaged them to hire 1000 engineers, they fired 1000. Usual American business .
Remember when Tom Ford had bought Yves St Laurent for 1 symbolic Franc in exchange of keeping the 1000 employees to retirement ?
As soon as the sale was finalized , he fired everybody .
So Yves and Pierre Berge organized a public sale at Centre Pompidou with all the stars and even though YSL had sold his name , Tom Ford could just eat his hat. And the money of the sale of all the collections was given to the "petites mains " for their retirement .
That is socialist dictatorship.
@JPH Tom Ford basically stole the Brand and name Yves Saint Laurent.
Today named YSL as if to forget that Yves was a man with a proper name.
Only the Americans are able to do that : steal the name and qualities and creations of someone without any shame.
It's challenging these days to be draped in Diamonds by the Yard with so many homeless people everywhere, and still maintain your sense of dignity...
1
This is sad news, indeed. My family has been customers of Tiffany since the 1940s. My mother’s engagement and wedding rings are from Tiffany Fifth Avenue, and my purchase of an item for either my mother or sister — it’s not my wife’s style to wear this style of jewelry — is something of a tradition; not from the hyper-pricey catalog, but something tasteful and elegant without being ostentatious.
When I first read about a possible LVMH purchase, it made me realize how much its history as an iconic American brand played in adding value. I kept some hope because there was mention of a realization of this aspect by some in Tiffany. But today my feelings are reflected in a word in this article’s subhead: It becomes part of a “stable.”
I’ll be going this week to one of Tiffany’s outlets for a gift for the holidays. And while it’s common to make online comments about never again, I believe this may be the case. If this deal is what Tiffany needs to survive, then I wish it luck. But in my mind, there will be the Old Tiffany and the New Tiffany and, like heirloom jewelry, the old will carry worth the new never will.
4
Numerous monopolies created today. There are dozens of mega-companies who can buy off the government. Amazon just tried to do that, by spending $1 1/2 million in the Seattle city council--THE CITY COUNCIL! Thank goodness they lost, but they still don't pay any taxes. Where are our anti-trust laws? Where are the elected representatives who will enforce them? Do you really want huge companies running your government? Better vote for the right candidates--usually not Republicans, although there are Corporate Democrats who will do nothing about this, since they get their bribes from the same donors as the Republicrooks. Think about it.
Why do I imagine more upcoming Asian entrees on the Breakfast at Tiffany menu?
3
Luxury goods disgust me when the world is getting more and more polarized. There are people who are starving for the lack of food and dying because of poised water. Yet, a Jane Birkin bag fetches the annual income of most of African families a couple of times over.
As I walk on Fifth Avenue, Bond Street, Avenue Montagne, Ginza or Via Monte Napoleone it is the same stores of brands mostly owned by LVMH or Pineaud irrespective of their original countries of origin; I feel the same disgust.
Veblen would be interested to see what happened to his “conspicuous consumption” of the “leisure classes.”
4
Tiffany long ago tapped into a market of undiscerning status seekers, driving leased BMWs, lugging huge Coach bags, who wanted some overpriced bobble in a fancy box.
2
Having grown up in Manhattan, my impression of the Tiffany & Co of my childhood represented not only luxury, but exclusivity. It was always in the same league, if not at the top of it, as Harry Winston, Van Cleef & Arpels, and Cartier. The Fifth Avenue New York flagship stores of all these companies always had breathtaking displays in their windows (during the daytime), and heartstopping items inside. From a purely image point of view, these brands were simple "wow"!
But with its spread into retail outlets across the US and around the world, the Tiffany name may still have the ring of luxury, but I'm afraid it has lost its cachet of exclusivity. Tiffany's seemingly ubiquitous presence brings it at least within reach to many, but I fear that overexposure has diluted the "wow" of its brand.
1
rachel bunny mellon found the blue boxes "declasse". amusing. i love tiffany's, am a long time customer, and am also french-american heritage. but this saddens me a bit. a great american brand is now something a little bit different. another change that begin with reed doing whatever it is he is doing ... (some good, some bad)
2
Aside from the business aspect, and the fashion status, like them or not - LV makes supremely high quality products.
When the Titanic was discovered National Geographic showed a photo of one of their suitcases under water for 80 years and commented on the amazing condition it was still in,
I have had two LV wallets in my lifetime. Which means in the last 50 years I have spent $500 on wallets.
Let’s hope they keep their identity intact.
Rimowa’s offerings have become more streamlined, but also a bit more generic at the same time.
A little bit of eccentricity goes a long way in the lux market. If I can buy an identical item elsewhere, then I’m going to shop for price. Brand myth and cachet is what can tip the scales the other way, and frankly being a cog in a global conglomerate is neither sexy nor special.
2
No more Tiffany's for me. Who owns the company I patronize means everything. I will cherish all my previous purchases but I'm done...pout.
9
When my mom in Florida wanted to buy someone a gift that would really stand out, I steered to Tiffany, where a beautiful glass bowl (NOT overpriced BTW) was almost as impressive to the receiver as the signature light-blue box it came in.
1
Whether or not this is good for Tiffany or LVMH is of less importance to me than the general trend of a handful of companies owning everything in the world. The same thing happens in appliances, electronics, personal care, etc. Conglomerates are friends to the one percent, but to the rest of us they represent a world of independence and individualism that is slipping away. The market capitalization of these luxury goods makers is so high that only a few cash-rich companies can afford to purchase them, much like in the pharma industry. And then the stock price also becomes out of reach for many small investors. Eventually, everything worldwide will be gobbled up by three or four mega conglomerates. When seen in the context of recent global events in the political sphere, I find little to celebrate in this acquisition.
Furthermore, in the context of the luxury market, I'm not sure this is a good move either. Ultimately, a few people at the very top will become the arbiters of taste and craftsmanship for all luxury goods. This essentially goes against the principles of true luxury (not to be confused with premium) retail, which should ideally cater to small discrete consumer groups with varying desires and needs. But if the deal makes money, it will be lauded, so... here we are.
30
@PMS I agree and disagree at the same time. Whilst not ideal to have so few mega-companies own 'all the brands', there are a few (positive) things worth noting.
a) Within a company like LVMH, the brands are EXTREMELY independent. If you work on Dior vs LV, or Dom Perignon vs Krug, or Zenith vs Tag, you are trying to drive your own brand first and foremost. Yes you are technically owned by the same company, but it is in the company culture that each brand has its own voice, its own DNA, and its own story. You do everything to protect your brand's voice. You never, ever, compromise - even if you're part of the same group as other competing brands. That is the secret sauce of LVMH in my opinion, and what allows it to scale so well.
b) The larger these mega-companies get, the more desire true luxury consumers have to go out and find the next hidden gem. Authenticity is the real differentiating factor, and there are many small brands with amazing stories out there who will now have perhaps a longer and wider runway to grow in the shadows of the big guys. It's a virtuous cycle in a way, until they too get gobbled up, but then there's room for others after that.
For those reasons I still see this as a win-win-win. Win for the shareholders (of which I am NOT one), win for the brands, and ultimately yes a win for the consumers.
5
Only brand that owns a color? What about Hermès (which escaped M. Arnaud’s clutches) orange?
23
@Alex Monty -- exactly! At least HERMES is not for sale!!
1
Actually, Birks (founded 1879) has been using turquoise boxes since 1920 - just a different shade of turquoise. Founded in Canada by Henry Birks, the company's now owned by an Italian corporation. Looks like Tiffany is going the same way...to foreign ownership.
2
Tiffany was founded in 1837 and has documentation using Blue Boxes from the 1860s onwards.
2
Those who are disappointed should persuade the shareholders not to approve the deal. A customer for diamond jewelry who values money rather than a blue box frequently hires an expert jeweler to accompany a visit the 5th Ave store, select a piece of jewelry and then have another source produce virtually the same item for much less money.
1
@BJM
Were those diamonds ethically sourced? Were the workers doing the digging, cutting, and polishing of the gems ethically employed? I will bet NOT. They are at Tiffany. Which, by the way, have the MOST BEAUTIFUL pieces of jewelry. I will (and have) gladly paid a bit more for a beautiful piece that does not have "blood" all over it!
We do.
Expensive in the king haul v what we wind up paying.
Truth? We take all potential purchases to our trusted jeweler, Half Moon Bay Goldworks for eval and inour.
As a former American LVMH employee, I think this is a great move for both them and T&Co. Why? For the single reason that this helps to 'Americanize' the company a bit. Hear me out...
The vast majority of the other maisons within the Group are European... and therefore the entire company has a European leadership culture (even in the USA). Even most of the interns are French!
While that culture mash is sometimes a good thing (think maternity and paternity leave, etc) it is my feeling that the senior leaders look at the 'American way' of doing things with a mix of admiration and skepticism. They admire and want the cool 'start-up' way of working, but generally-speaking I feel they don't believe that Americans really understand what it means to be/lead/grow an iconic luxury brand with +100 years of history. That we don't really speak 'their' language of luxury.
Tiffany & Co changes that.
I have profound respect for the strength of the blue box - and I am very excited for the French (and Italians) to finally have a real and authentic American luxury brand in the same family. It will be good for them. And I believe, it will be good for the long term health of T&Co.
The only question I have is what will happen with the rare Patek Philippe watches that are sold through and stamped with 'Tiffany & Co'. Will they continue doing that collaboration? Likely not. That will be a big loss for them...
14
The luxury goods market has grown lockstep with the top-heavy disparity in the distribution of wealth in the developed markets.
And why not: The top 1% spends more on diamonds and $20,000 handbags, than the other 99% spend on cheeseburgers. That I can tell you. Believe me.
12
This is disappointing. Tiffany’s will lose its identity and become just another mass market vendor. This is what happens to signature companies when they are acquired by conglomerates.
I am not wealthy; I have always treasured my few “blue boxes.” I guess now they will become collectors’ items of a sort- emblems of the quality and unique character that was Tiffany’s.
24
@RMC
I don’t remember when Tiffany wasn’t a mass market vendor - but a way overpriced one. Want to spend 10K or more on a decent piece of jewelry - try Sam’s Club. Low on cachet - high on value. Yeah - surprised me too!
7
yep, it's called mass-tige versus prestige. No rich person goes to Tiffany's.
@formernewyorker Then you've never seen the "high" jewelry at Tiffany's especially from the Blue Book collection of one-of-a-kinds. The quality of the workmanship at T&Co on these pieces is nearly unmatched. In the 1980s, when Nelson Peltz took a piece of Tiffany's, yes, he did push for a mass market and nearly ruined the brand. But, it was a blip of a decade for a company which is 150 years old. BTW, Tiffany also designed some of those magnificent sterling silver trophies for leagues such NFL and NFL. They do many custom pieces of which the public is not aware. It's an exquisite brand.
Tiffany and Steinway have been so ingrained in my love for America as two of our most prized showpieces. When all else failed I have looked to these icons as two of the best of the best America has offered to the world....refinement, excellence and
and even spiritual enrichment in their quests to created even more beautiful things.
Now, with Tiffany soon to be sold, my soul feels torn. Right now, today, in all the chaos of our country, I am finding fewer things to grasp that represent the greatness of our nation.....ah, yes, I know why....it’s called Globilization!
15
@William Culpeper
Add Boeing to the list of once iconic American brands. Not scooped up by some foreign entity but spoiled by pure American capitalism.
1
Sadly this is a mistake for a US brand.
It will go the way Jil Sander went.
Vanished as a German brand scooped into an Italian brand.
To be mixed in with the conglomerate
Is to come out with no real identity.
31
@Alaric Not if it's done well and LVMH can do many things very well. I, too, was saddened at the news at first but if it gives Tiffany's some wingspan, it can be great for such an iconic brand. Also, this is a different category than soft goods, like Jil Sander. And, last, not all brands go away when part of a large company. Cartier is part of Richemont yet most people think of Cartier as a standalone company. Hopefully, though, Tiffany's iconic store in NYC will not be sold off for the land value and will continue to spark both hopes and memories.
6