Top 10 Jewelry Brands - Do you agree?

[RedRobbin]

But not one of the others on the list are affordable to the average teenager. In fact, Most of the rest of the list are not affordable to me.

my daughter owns the least expensive piece from Tiff...a $200 ?? silver bracelet that was probably made in China. i asked her "did it came in a blue box"?..

Their silver pieces are made in Rhode Island.

 

[rosetta]

Any opinions on garrard?

 

[arjunajane]

This thread came to mind as I was just reading an article about luxury (and by extension, the problems associated with luxury knock offs, something I personally feel has likely immeasurably damaged T&Co's brand image, amongst others)..but anyhow, that is a different discussion
I thought this quote was fun:

"Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three - and paradise is when you have none".

 

[kenny]

"Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three - and paradise is when you have none".

Great Quote!

 

[daysie8]

I think "luxury" is a relative term, depends on the underlying basis for comparison.

So if I were a pauper, living on the streets, a warm meal may be my biggest luxury.

Conversely if I were on the Top 10 list Forbes list, perhaps that 110 ct diamond Yenny mentioned will hit the spot.

At the end of the day, it is up to every single individual to define what constitutes as luxury to them.

I also believe that a product, service, (and brand name) are all part and parcel to the term "luxury"

 

[coati]

Screw brands.
Diamond is diamond.

Go for light performance.

Jewel is not jewel.

Yes.

This Buccellati cuff does not perform, it adorns.

 

[coati]

I think Leviev belongs on this list. He hasn't been in the jewelry business as long as the other companies. but his jewels are spectacular and top quality.
Based on what I see on the 2nd floor of Tiff's NY store and in Harry Winston's NY store, I would still include them in the luxury category.
At one time, I would also have included Jacob the Jeweler, but now I'm not so sure about him. What do you think?
Although this thread is about jewelry, I'm compelled to go off topic and say that Hermes is one of the best for luxury handbags.

Agree about Leviev.

The popular luxury brands on Rodeo are still very luxurious. I pop in from time to time. Just like with fine gemstones, I'm hard pressed to find fault with the finest examples of any variety, though I have my favorites. The big brands have their top work for those who are fortunate enough to enjoy it.

Maintaining a brand is something else. For example, Temple St. Clair is doing a line for Target. Many feel that this will reduce the brand's value. Thoughts?

 

[RedRobbin]

Screw brands.
Diamond is diamond.

Go for light performance.

Jewel is not jewel.

Yes.

This Buccellati cuff does not perform, it adorns.

Sigh. one of my favorite designers. They should be on the list.

 

[RedRobbin]

I think Leviev belongs on this list. He hasn't been in the jewelry business as long as the other companies. but his jewels are spectacular and top quality.
Based on what I see on the 2nd floor of Tiff's NY store and in Harry Winston's NY store, I would still include them in the luxury category.
At one time, I would also have included Jacob the Jeweler, but now I'm not so sure about him. What do you think?
Although this thread is about jewelry, I'm compelled to go off topic and say that Hermes is one of the best for luxury handbags.

Agree about Leviev.

The popular luxury brands on Rodeo are still very luxurious. I pop in from time to time. Just like with fine gemstones, I'm hard pressed to find fault with the finest examples of any variety, though I have my favorites. The big brands have their top work for those who are fortunate enough to enjoy it.

Maintaining a brand is something else. For example, Temple St. Clair is doing a line for Target. Many feel that this will reduce the brand's value. Thoughts?

I never thought of Temple St. Clair as luxury and one of those reasons is that most people don't know the name. I think whether you buy it or not, you know "Cartier" after a certain age. You know "Ferrari." You know "Rolex." TSC just isn't in that category even if her designs are high dollar and high quality. I think it takes high dollar, high quality and brand recognition to be in that category. I salute her for trying to stay in the game by going to Target. She was one of the designers that Tiffany signed a deal with but it never went anywhere as far as I could tell. Or maybe it did but in this economy companies are hurting. Tiffany also opened those pearl stores, Iridesse. They are all closed now. And many of their designers went bankrupt like Anthony Nak. The road is littered with the corpses of expensive jewelry design houses that never achieved the brand status of some of the names in the Luxist list.

 

[AprilBaby]

I think Leviev belongs on this list. He hasn't been in the jewelry business as long as the other companies. but his jewels are spectacular and top quality.
Based on what I see on the 2nd floor of Tiff's NY store and in Harry Winston's NY store, I would still include them in the luxury category.
At one time, I would also have included Jacob the Jeweler, but now I'm not so sure about him. What do you think?
Although this thread is about jewelry, I'm compelled to go off topic and say that Hermes is one of the best for luxury handbags.

Agree about Leviev.

The popular luxury brands on Rodeo are still very luxurious. I pop in from time to time. Just like with fine gemstones, I'm hard pressed to find fault with the finest examples of any variety, though I have my favorites. The big brands have their top work for those who are fortunate enough to enjoy it.

Maintaining a brand is something else. For example, Temple St. Clair is doing a line for Target. Many feel that this will reduce the brand's value. Thoughts?

Agreed. QVC making knock off for Tacori does the same thing. Why buy the expensive one when someone else can get the same thing for cheap.

 

[coati]

This Buccellati cuff does not perform, it adorns.

Sigh. one of my favorite designers. They should be on the list.

They are on the list.
One of my favorites too.

 

[coati]

Maintaining a brand is something else. For example, Temple St. Clair is doing a line for Target. Many feel that this will reduce the brand's value. Thoughts?

I never thought of Temple St. Clair as luxury and one of those reasons is that most people don't know the name. I think whether you buy it or not, you know "Cartier" after a certain age. You know "Ferrari." You know "Rolex." TSC just isn't in that category even if her designs are high dollar and high quality. I think it takes high dollar, high quality and brand recognition to be in that category. I salute her for trying to stay in the game by going to Target. She was one of the designers that Tiffany signed a deal with but it never went anywhere as far as I could tell. Or maybe it did but in this economy companies are hurting. Tiffany also opened those pearl stores, Iridesse. They are all closed now. And many of their designers went bankrupt like Anthony Nak. The road is littered with the corpses of expensive jewelry design houses that never achieved the brand status of some of the names in the Luxist list.

TSC has reasonable brand recognition, but certainly not to the degree of a large house. There is a definite fashion jewelry category with different brand identity. Irene Neuwirth, Elizabeth Locke, and Pomellato come to mind, though Pomellato has its lower priced Dodo line. And no, they would not be on any general consumer survey list, but many would categorize them as luxury.

I agree with you that popularity is important for a general consumer list, and that is why the Luxist list makes sense to some. The beauty of jewelry is in its subjectivity, its personal meaning. One woman's luxury is another woman's mainstream mass marketed product. That is why I find the list so interesting.

 

[coati]

I think Leviev belongs on this list. He hasn't been in the jewelry business as long as the other companies. but his jewels are spectacular and top quality.
Based on what I see on the 2nd floor of Tiff's NY store and in Harry Winston's NY store, I would still include them in the luxury category.
At one time, I would also have included Jacob the Jeweler, but now I'm not so sure about him. What do you think?
Although this thread is about jewelry, I'm compelled to go off topic and say that Hermes is one of the best for luxury handbags.

Agree about Leviev.

The popular luxury brands on Rodeo are still very luxurious. I pop in from time to time. Just like with fine gemstones, I'm hard pressed to find fault with the finest examples of any variety, though I have my favorites. The big brands have their top work for those who are fortunate enough to enjoy it.

Maintaining a brand is something else. For example, Temple St. Clair is doing a line for Target. Many feel that this will reduce the brand's value. Thoughts?

Agreed. QVC making knock off for Tacori does the same thing. Why buy the expensive one when someone else can get the same thing for cheap.

Neil Lane for Kay's? There was a thread about this in hangout. Some liked the accessibility while others felt it reduced the brand. Cathy Waterman for HSN-same thing. Does the fact that she has a line on a home shopping channel make her higher end pieces "worth" less?

Thanks for your comments everyone.

 

[RedRobbin]

Maintaining a brand is something else. For example, Temple St. Clair is doing a line for Target. Many feel that this will reduce the brand's value. Thoughts?

I never thought of Temple St. Clair as luxury and one of those reasons is that most people don't know the name. I think whether you buy it or not, you know "Cartier" after a certain age. You know "Ferrari." You know "Rolex." TSC just isn't in that category even if her designs are high dollar and high quality. I think it takes high dollar, high quality and brand recognition to be in that category. I salute her for trying to stay in the game by going to Target. She was one of the designers that Tiffany signed a deal with but it never went anywhere as far as I could tell. Or maybe it did but in this economy companies are hurting. Tiffany also opened those pearl stores, Iridesse. They are all closed now. And many of their designers went bankrupt like Anthony Nak. The road is littered with the corpses of expensive jewelry design houses that never achieved the brand status of some of the names in the Luxist list.

TSC has reasonable brand recognition, but certainly not to the degree of a large house. There is a definite fashion jewelry category with different brand identity. Irene Neuwirth, Elizabeth Locke, and Pomellato come to mind, though Pomellato has its lower priced Dodo line. And no, they would not be on any general consumer survey list, but many would categorize them as luxury.

I agree with you that popularity is important for a general consumer list, and that is why the Luxist list makes sense to some. The beauty of jewelry is in its subjectivity, its personal meaning. One woman's luxury is another woman's mainstream mass marketed product. That is why I find the list so interesting.

My best friend has the most beautiful Pomellato bracelet and three rings. She got them about six months ago. They are so beautiful. But yes, I do agree with you that they fall more into the fashion jewelry category. Though I guess you could day the Buccellati (sp?) bracelet you posted earlier does too, and yet for some reason I see that as a more timeless piece whereas I would see some of the Pomellato pieces as very "here and now". It's funny how our own perceptions will color how we view "luxury." I guess the names on the list are those that most people agree are seen as "luxury" even if they don't speak to them.

 

[RedRobbin]

I think Leviev belongs on this list. He hasn't been in the jewelry business as long as the other companies. but his jewels are spectacular and top quality.
Based on what I see on the 2nd floor of Tiff's NY store and in Harry Winston's NY store, I would still include them in the luxury category.
At one time, I would also have included Jacob the Jeweler, but now I'm not so sure about him. What do you think?
Although this thread is about jewelry, I'm compelled to go off topic and say that Hermes is one of the best for luxury handbags.

Agree about Leviev.

The popular luxury brands on Rodeo are still very luxurious. I pop in from time to time. Just like with fine gemstones, I'm hard pressed to find fault with the finest examples of any variety, though I have my favorites. The big brands have their top work for those who are fortunate enough to enjoy it.

Maintaining a brand is something else. For example, Temple St. Clair is doing a line for Target. Many feel that this will reduce the brand's value. Thoughts?

Agreed. QVC making knock off for Tacori does the same thing. Why buy the expensive one when someone else can get the same thing for cheap.

Neil Lane for Kay's? There was a thread about this in hangout. Some liked the accessibility while others felt it reduced the brand. Cathy Waterman for HSN-same thing. Does the fact that she has a line on a home shopping channel make her higher end pieces "worth" less?

Thanks for your comments everyone.

I looked at the Neil Lane for Kay rings. I thought some of them were pretty! I don't think it diminishes the brand because if you still want a custom Neil Lane you can get one and everyone who knows NL, knows the difference. Interesting thread. Thank you for starting it.

 

[seenathkumar]

For me the most important is the design and certification. I think some designers can come with some awesome designs.

 

[Garry H (Cut Nut)]

A proven test of luxury status of a diamond jewellery luxury brand is the second hand value / action value of pieces sold without provenance (i.e. not owned by anyone famous).
In that test Cartier fine (not commercial) pieces seem to do well.

opinions?

 

[kenny]

A proven test of luxury status of a diamond jewellery luxury brand is the second hand value / action value of pieces sold without provenance (i.e. not owned by anyone famous).
In that test Cartier fine (not commercial) pieces seem to do well.

opinions?

There are two legitimate markets, the informed market and the uninformed market.

In the uninformed piano market there is enough demand for any worn out old Steinway piano that buyers will compete pay 10 times what any informed person (a piano dealer or piano rebuilder or tech) would pay.
Such is the mystique of some brands.

 

[denverappraiser]

A proven test of luxury status of a diamond jewellery luxury brand is the second hand value / action value of pieces sold without provenance (i.e. not owned by anyone famous).
In that test Cartier fine (not commercial) pieces seem to do well.

opinions?

I don’t agree with this test. Auction results are just too full of other variables like the skills of the auction house, advertising, who turned out to bid that day and even foreign exchange rates. There’s rarely a ‘generic’ equivalent that can be directly compared so it becomes a large statistical game to separate out the value of a particular brand on an item as opposed to what that item would bring of the same quality and description but without the brand. It’s worth it only if the buyers at that particular auction are willing to pay after all. Auctioneers think about this sort of thing a lot. They are commission salespeople working for the seller and their job is to make everything as attractive as possible within the circumstances. Deciding whether it’s worth the trouble to feature a particular designer and, if so, how to best do it is part of the skill that they’re bringing to the deal. If they pump up every item as a special brand, the buyers tend to stop listening about what’s special but if they have a piece that would bring more if they pumped up the maker it would be doing a disservice to the seller (and themselves) not to promote it as such.

 

[decodelighted]

Irene Neuwirth

Thrilled to see her mentioned. She does beautiful, inventive work & is - by chance - related to a friend of mine. If only it was a close enough connection to warrant a *discount*. (Sadly not.)

In my estimation "luxury" is a moving target. Brands are always doing things to cheapen their images -- but not everyone realizes it at the same time, or is turned off by attempts at "going mainstream". There will always be "experts" and "laymen". Their list is probably a pretty good summary of what passes for "luxurious" among moderately-informed, upper middle class professionals without ties to the design or fashion industries (i.e. -- being a celebrity or journalist or mag editor or boutique buyer) -- OR without being a die-hard jewelry enthusiast.

I don't think the above mentioned type of person knows JAR.

 

[RedRobbin]

A proven test of luxury status of a diamond jewellery luxury brand is the second hand value / action value of pieces sold without provenance (i.e. not owned by anyone famous).
In that test Cartier fine (not commercial) pieces seem to do well.

opinions?

I know for a fact they do. Same with Bulgari. A friend sold a Bulgari piece in July through a local very upscale jeweler. She got 5% over what she paid for it at retail many years ago! I couldn't believe it. The piece was almost never worn but still,--5% over retail??! Shocking. She has had great success reselling Cartier and Bulgari. This jeweler seems to do quite a lot of business reselling Schlumberger Tiffany pieces as well, but also any Tiffany engagement rings do a brisk business. They rings are usually gently worn or were repolished but the prices are lower than at Tiffany. NOT cheap though. They seem to hold value especially the rounds.

 

[coati]

Irene Neuwirth

Thrilled to see her mentioned. She does beautiful, inventive work & is - by chance - related to a friend of mine. If only it was a close enough connection to warrant a *discount*. (Sadly not.)

In my estimation "luxury" is a moving target. Brands are always doing things to cheapen their images -- but not everyone realizes it at the same time, or is turned off by attempts at "going mainstream". There will always be "experts" and "laymen". Their list is probably a pretty good summary of what passes for "luxurious" among moderately-informed, upper middle class professionals without ties to the design or fashion industries (i.e. -- being a celebrity or journalist or mag editor or boutique buyer) -- OR without being a die-hard jewelry enthusiast.

I don't think the above mentioned type of person knows JAR.

Most don't know JAR-even industry professionals. I'm guessing that's his aim.

Irene Neuwirth is delightful. Another who comes to mind is Anne Sportun-textural, organic, and understated. Love her use of rose cuts and unplated white gold. Also Gurhan, a perennial favorite. Arunashi is up there as well.

Nice that there is so much to enjoy. From acclaimed to indy, mass market to artisan, there is plenty of luxury to be had by all.

Ultimately, it would be nice for us to create a PS list of luxury brands. Might be a bit more complicated, but that's the fun.

 

[decodelighted]

A PS list would be interesting. I'd guess that a "Top 10 Most DESIRED" would be a bit different than a "Top 10 Most Luxurious".

 

[RedRobbin]

Irene Neuwirth

Thrilled to see her mentioned. She does beautiful, inventive work & is - by chance - related to a friend of mine. If only it was a close enough connection to warrant a *discount*. (Sadly not.)

In my estimation "luxury" is a moving target. Brands are always doing things to cheapen their images -- but not everyone realizes it at the same time, or is turned off by attempts at "going mainstream". There will always be "experts" and "laymen". Their list is probably a pretty good summary of what passes for "luxurious" among moderately-informed, upper middle class professionals without ties to the design or fashion industries (i.e. -- being a celebrity or journalist or mag editor or boutique buyer) -- OR without being a die-hard jewelry enthusiast.

I
Ultimately, it would be nice for us to create a PS list of luxury brands. Might be a bit more complicated, but that's the fun.

I'm in!

 

[coati]

A PS list would be interesting. I'd guess that a "Top 10 Most DESIRED" would be a bit different than a "Top 10 Most Luxurious".

All right, let's do it. I like Top 10 Most Desired Jewelry Brands, and "brand" can be open in meaning. If people like popular, that's great. Not so popular? That's great too.

 

[RedRobbin]

A PS list would be interesting. I'd guess that a "Top 10 Most DESIRED" would be a bit different than a "Top 10 Most Luxurious".

All right, let's do it. I like Top 10 Most Desired Jewelry Brands, and "brand" can be open in meaning. If people like popular, that's great. Not so popular? That's great too.

Ok, you start the new thread and I will start thinking about my heart's desire.

 

[coati]

A proven test of luxury status of a diamond jewellery luxury brand is the second hand value / action value of pieces sold without provenance (i.e. not owned by anyone famous).
In that test Cartier fine (not commercial) pieces seem to do well.

opinions?

I agree about Cartier, as well as Harry Winston, Van Cleef & Arpels, Fabergé(of course (new work notwithstanding), various luxury watch brands, Buccellati, Bulgari and vintage Schlumberger as mentioned above.

A quick scroll through the Sotheby's Sold Lot Archive showcases many of these brands.
http://browse.sothebys.com/?hp=&hpc...e=1&q=magnificent+jewels&sla=1&slaform=1&u1=q

The brands are beefy enough at the fine level-with or without provenance.

 

[AprilBaby]

I agree that there is a big difference between top 10 most desired/popular and top 10 most luxurious.

 

[Imdanny]

Screw brands.
Diamond is diamond.

Go for light performance.

I know but as I keep saying some of us like jewels and when you're a person-who-likes-jewels you have to consider the major brands both what they have produced and what they have contracted to produce.

IMO, Oscar Heyman should be on any such list but because it was contracted by others for so many years I don't think it ever will be.

 

[gardengloves]

I'd add Hermes to the list..