27 replies to this topic

[tanyat]

Does anyone know what is the difference b/t a hearts on fire diamond versus a regular one? Has anyone purchased one?

[jan]

Quote:
Does anyone know what is the difference b/t a hearts on fire diamond versus a regular one?
________________________________________

By regular one, I'm going to assume you are talking about a non ideal cut diamond.

The Hearts on Fire diamonds are ideal cut diamonds that exhibit a hearts and arrows pattern when viewed under a special scope. All of the Hearts on Fire Diamonds come with an AGS lab report and have ideal porportion, ideal polish, and ideal symmetry. These diamonds are strictly marketed in select stores so you will pay a higher price than on the internet. Although the diamond is ideal cut and hearts and arrows, not all diamonds will perform the same in light performance.

We test each individual diamond, because they can vary.

There are other branded ideal cut hearts and arrows diamonds, which have a premium for the brand name and then there are also non branded ideal cut hearts and arrows diamonds.

Not all ideal cut hearts and arrows branded diamonds are the same either. Some have GIA lab report, some have AGS lab reports, and in the case of the Love Diamond some even have IGI lab reports.
Some of the branded hearts and arrows diamonds are more stringent on the hearts and arrows patterns as well.
Some branded hearts and arrows are marketed on the internet and you will pay less than the ones marketed just in the stores.

We carry the Brilliant Fire tm branded hearts and arrows which are guaranteed to have a perfect hearts and arrows pattern as well as 3 very highs in light performance.



Jan

[free1indeed]

tanyat, on Friday, Oct 26 2001, 09:50 PM, said:

Does anyone know what is the difference b/t a hearts on fire diamond versus a regular one? Has anyone purchased one?

I have 2 of the Hearts on Fire diamonds. One Ring, One necklace. I absolutely love them. They sparkle like crazy. It is awesome to see how perfectly they are cut under a microscope! You can see every heart cut on the bottom and every diamond shaped cut on the top. Until it's mounted, of course. Then you can only see the top cuts. It is a much more brilliant diamond than a regular one. Hope this helps.

[barry]

Wow!

A 7 year old thread brought back to life!

[barry]

BTW;

HOF announced a few days ago that they are opening a retail store at the end of this month and selling direct to the public.

Their Authorized Dealers probably are none too happy that the parent company will now be competing against them on the same product.

[denverappraiser]

It’ll be interesting to watch.

This has been played out quite a few times before in other industries and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. Manufacturers will set up ‘factory outlet’ shops out in the suburb of major cities that serve as direct competition to their retailers in those cities and will sell things at a token discount. It started out as a way of unloading factory seconds and discontinued merchandise but more and more it’s become nothing more than a discount retail outlet. Some of them aren’t even owned by the company at all, the outlet mall is licensing the name but the store is otherwise just like any other authorized seller and they are competing on the same footing. This sort of thing does extremely well for products that require a lot of sales explanation and that carry a big markup (like HoF) and the other retailers may actually be on board with it because it builds the brand value. It’s worked really well for Bose, Mikasa, Nike and several other big brands. We’ll see how it goes. I would not expect that the HoF owned store is any cheaper than at one of their retailers and might actually be more expensive.

Neil

[barry]

This is being played out right now in our Industry where wholesaler/manufacturers selling directly to Brick & Mortar jewelers have also set up retail websites selling diamonds and jewelry directly to the public at prices lower than what the B&M is selling it for thus undercutting them. Nice.

Having their cake and eating it too. Marie Antoinette would be proud.

[denverappraiser]

Yup. And the end game looks like this.

The manufacturers think the retailers aren’t doing a good enough job for their money and set up retail outlets themselves – online, on the street or both.

The retailers get POed about it and start selling the goods of other manufacturers. In order to avoid having the same problem with the new guy, the retailer needs to do their own manufacturing rather than hiring someone else to do it.

The manufacturer/retailers figure out that retailing is a lot harder than they thought it was going to be and go out of business over it since their dealer network has now dropped them. The ‘brand’ gets absorbed into Walmart.

The retailer/manufacturers figure out the manufacturing is a lot harder than they thought it was going to be and suffer the same fate.

The Chinese government buys Walmart through their new SWF (sovereign wealth fund, a game played for decades by the Saudi’s but only recently by China) and becomes the manufacturer, retailer and banker all rolled into one.

Now both the manufacturers and retailers who had enough sense to stick to their knitting and do what they do well have a REAL competitor. Don't think it's possible? It's happened many times in other industries. Clothing, shoes, TV's and furniture are just a few industries that have been clobbered by just this process. Walmart is already the #1 jeweler in the world. There are a few players who could hold up to this slow motion train wreck but it's probably not your local jewelry store. How about a takeover of Blue Nile by Rosy Blue Group for example (or visa versa)? Now wouldn't that just make a single HoF store look like a drop in the bucket?

Neil

Edited by denverappraiser, 03 June 2008 - 08:27 AM.

[diamondsbylauren]

I wonder how DeBeer's is liking being a retailer.

My impression is that they are not setting the world on fire.....

[barry]

Rosy Blue maybe taking over Bluenile? Betcha Mark Vadon would love that! Big payday for him and his VC investors.

He and other top BN execs have been consistently selling out their shares over the past three years.

[denverappraiser]

I just made up the scenario of Rosy Blue buying BN as an example. I do think they’re a valid takeover target because of their high brand name recognition and their lack of a physical location makes it easy to change the back office operations without changing the look and feel of things very much and I think Rosy Blue has the wherewithal to pull it off but this is just wild speculation. Indoargyle, Leviev, Steinmetz or Rio Tinto are other examples of folks who could do some interesting things with this kind of acquisition as well. In the Internet diamond business, no one comes even close to having the brand recognition of Blue Nile thanks to hundreds of millions of their stockholders dollars having been spent on advertising.

Such an acquisition could, of course, go the other direction as well with BN buying up a manufacturing/mining concern. The synergy would be the same and only the name on the masthead would change.

Neil

[Adylon]

denverappraiser, on Tuesday, Jun 3 2008, 10:53 AM, said:

The Chinese government buys Walmart through their new SWF (sovereign wealth fund, a game played for decades by the Saudi’s but only recently by China) and becomes the manufacturer, retailer and banker all rolled into one.

Haha I never saw that one coming, very true

Hey but there is a right way to do it. Didn't Tiffany once only sell through high end retailers? Then they spent lots of money to build special displays in their partner retail stores, made a whole "Tiffany" section in the store... like a store within a store... then they eventually started opening up their own shops and now they're the biggest brand name worldwide.

I believe Tacori is trying to do the same now, spending big bucks making custom displays, even custom showcases for some of their top selling retailers. Problem is Tacori has already whored themselves out to QVC and their quality has dropped considerably as they've outsourced more and more. I don't think Tacori will ever pull off what Tiffany has. But some may.... And Hearts on Fire may be one of them.

I really welcome the designers/manufacturers entering this market at the retail level to be honest. This industry needs more strong brands... both the big chains that sell "junk" as well as the mom and pop shops who still run their stores like 1985 need to be weeded out. The junk will be sold online by the discounters because it's the most efficient way. And the high quality goods will sell in small specialized boutiques and strong national brands/designers.

That's my prediction at least

[jan]

I carry Tacori and haven't seen the quality lowered. It's been consistent over the last 7 years that we have carried it. Also they are still making the bridal line in house. The QVC line is a sterling silver with platinum coating and CZ stones, so not the same kind of product as the bridal line. Those maybe outsourced.

Edited by jan, 04 June 2008 - 06:54 AM.

[mmath]

The whole advantage of a retail location is proximity and relationship (expertise and trust). The internet has eliminated the proximity advantage. As people gain comfort and as internet businesses gain credibility retail won't make sense any longer. As a supplier its foolish to hitch your trailer to a mature industry in decline. You aren't going to grow your business that way. These guys know they either have to replicate the most successful business strategies, develop their own superior strategies, or perish.

Understand that diamonds have extremely high price elasticities. There are many competitors, an engagement diamond represents a huge percentage of annual income, and people usually take their time finding the best value. If retail outfits can't either (a) compete on the basis of price (which they can't) or (B ) differentiate themselves on the basis of value, quality, expertise, credibility, etc., then they won't last. The suppliers know this and they have to choose between loyalty to their retailers and staying in business long term.

Forward integration might work. By becoming the retailer themselves they can charge lower prices to achieve the same margins. By branding retail locations nationwide they have fantastic control over ethics, sales practices, marketing consistency, etc. When you supply to mom-and-pop retailers or franchises you have some great retailers and some lousy ones.

In twenty years, I think the jewelers of today will still exist but their jobs will look much different. Rather than working in a face-to-face retail environment, they'll probably be using emerging collaborative technologies to advise/sell product to people all over the world. All these suppliers are positioning themselves to be that business so that they can protect their profits.

It may seem ruthless, greedy, or disloyal, but really its just capitalism. If they don't do it, somebody else will (at their peril).

Edited by mmath, 04 June 2008 - 07:20 AM.

[denverappraiser]

‘Branding’ is a curiously double edged sword that gets talked about endlessly at the conventions. On the one hand, it’s one way to differentiate your products from your competitors without fighting over who will be the ‘lowest bidder’ and it’s a way of preserving enough profit margin to include quality and value characteristics that may not be immediately obvious to non-expert shoppers.

On the other hand, it encourages opacity in the marketplace, which can be frustrating to expert shoppers and can lead to deterioration in exactly the areas that the brand stands for. It’s nice to know that the brand XYZ stands for something and it makes it easy for shoppers who don't want to deal with the learning curve themselves, but if no one other than XYZ can know what’s going on behind the scenes, you have a setup for shenanigans. The current output of the brandowners for the historical US watchmakers like Hamilton and Waltham come to mind.

Overall I agree that it’s good for the manufacturers to be taking more responsibility for the retailing process and for the retailers to be taking more responsibility for the products they sell but one of the things I actually like about the jewelry business is that it’s made up of a large number of relatively small and very different providers, each offering their own special bundle of benefits for shopping with them. Increasing presence of branding and the related brand advertising has a homogenizing affect on the market that is nearly certain to reduce this. Probably drastically. As with my above comments, this has happened in other industries and it’s not necessarily in the consumers best interest. Computer operating systems, cars and fast food restaurants come to mind here.

Neil

Ps. I just looked this up. China Investment Corp, which is the private investment arm of the Chinese government and was started in 2007 for the purpose of managing overseas investment now has a $200 BILLION dollar portfolio. That’s 5x the biggest mutual fund in the world (fidelity Magellan).

[Adylon]

jan, on Wednesday, Jun 4 2008, 09:53 AM, said:

I carry Tacori and haven't seen the quality lowered. It's been consistent over the last 7 years that we have carried it. Also they are still making the bridal line in house. The QVC line is a sterling silver with platinum coating and CZ stones, so not the same kind of product as the bridal line. Those maybe outsourced.

Jan I mean no disrespect, Tacori reminds me of Simon G in their quality, their marketing, their product, etc. Do they roll out a nice package, have a nice "look" and good marketing? Yes. Is it an exceptionally made product? Not in my opinion, it's maybe slightly better if comparing to mall jewelers. And I'm good friend with some of the Simon G people, my cousin is one of their CAD designers. I have a lot of respect for both companies because they're obviously very successful in their own ways, but I wouldn't say they're at the top of their class in terms of quality. I have warmed up to Gelin & Abaci however. I used to worry about their relatively low weight compared to other tension manufacturers, but I've been made a believer after having more exposure to their products and manufacturing.

Just my opinion of course.

Edited by Adylon, 04 June 2008 - 08:03 AM.

[Adylon]

mmath, on Wednesday, Jun 4 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

The whole advantage of a retail location is proximity and relationship (expertise and trust). The internet has eliminated the proximity advantage. As people gain comfort and as internet businesses gain credibility retail won't make sense any longer. As a supplier its foolish to hitch your trailer to a mature industry in decline. You aren't going to grow your business that way. These guys know they either have to replicate the most successful business strategies, develop their own superior strategies, or perish.

Understand that diamonds have extremely high price elasticities. There are many competitors, an engagement diamond represents a huge percentage of annual income, and people usually take their time finding the best value. If retail outfits can't either (a) compete on the basis of price (which they can't) or (B ) differentiate themselves on the basis of value, quality, expertise, credibility, etc., then they won't last. The suppliers know this and they have to choose between loyalty to their retailers and staying in business long term.

Forward integration might work. By becoming the retailer themselves they can charge lower prices to achieve the same margins. By branding retail locations nationwide they have fantastic control over ethics, sales practices, marketing consistency, etc. When you supply to mom-and-pop retailers or franchises you have some great retailers and some lousy ones.

In twenty years, I think the jewelers of today will still exist but their jobs will look much different. Rather than working in a face-to-face retail environment, they'll probably be using emerging collaborative technologies to advise/sell product to people all over the world. All these suppliers are positioning themselves to be that business so that they can protect their profits.

It may seem ruthless, greedy, or disloyal, but really its just capitalism. If they don't do it, somebody else will (at their peril).

mmath - are you a consumer, appraiser, retailer, designer? just curious.

[mmath]

Adylon, on Wednesday, Jun 4 2008, 12:02 PM, said:

mmath, on Wednesday, Jun 4 2008, 10:20 AM, said:

The whole advantage of a retail location is proximity and relationship (expertise and trust). The internet has eliminated the proximity advantage. As people gain comfort and as internet businesses gain credibility retail won't make sense any longer. As a supplier its foolish to hitch your trailer to a mature industry in decline. You aren't going to grow your business that way. These guys know they either have to replicate the most successful business strategies, develop their own superior strategies, or perish.

Understand that diamonds have extremely high price elasticities. There are many competitors, an engagement diamond represents a huge percentage of annual income, and people usually take their time finding the best value. If retail outfits can't either (a) compete on the basis of price (which they can't) or (B ) differentiate themselves on the basis of value, quality, expertise, credibility, etc., then they won't last. The suppliers know this and they have to choose between loyalty to their retailers and staying in business long term.

Forward integration might work. By becoming the retailer themselves they can charge lower prices to achieve the same margins. By branding retail locations nationwide they have fantastic control over ethics, sales practices, marketing consistency, etc. When you supply to mom-and-pop retailers or franchises you have some great retailers and some lousy ones.

In twenty years, I think the jewelers of today will still exist but their jobs will look much different. Rather than working in a face-to-face retail environment, they'll probably be using emerging collaborative technologies to advise/sell product to people all over the world. All these suppliers are positioning themselves to be that business so that they can protect their profits.

It may seem ruthless, greedy, or disloyal, but really its just capitalism. If they don't do it, somebody else will (at their peril).

mmath - are you a consumer, appraiser, retailer, designer? just curious.

Consumer but I'm also an economist.

[mmath]

denverappraiser, on Wednesday, Jun 4 2008, 11:26 AM, said:

‘Branding’ is a curiously double edged sword that gets talked about endlessly at the conventions. On the one hand, it’s one way to differentiate your products from your competitors without fighting over who will be the ‘lowest bidder’ and it’s a way of preserving enough profit margin to include quality and value characteristics that may not be immediately obvious to non-expert shoppers.

On the other hand, it encourages opacity in the marketplace, which can be frustrating to expert shoppers and can lead to deterioration in exactly the areas that the brand stands for. It’s nice to know that the brand XYZ stands for something and it makes it easy for shoppers who don't want to deal with the learning curve themselves, but if no one other than XYZ can know what’s going on behind the scenes, you have a setup for shenanigans. The current output of the brandowners for the historical US watchmakers like Hamilton and Waltham come to mind.

Overall I agree that it’s good for the manufacturers to be taking more responsibility for the retailing process and for the retailers to be taking more responsibility for the products they sell but one of the things I actually like about the jewelry business is that it’s made up of a large number of relatively small and very different providers, each offering their own special bundle of benefits for shopping with them. Increasing presence of branding and the related brand advertising has a homogenizing affect on the market that is nearly certain to reduce this. Probably drastically. As with my above comments, this has happened in other industries and it’s not necessarily in the consumers best interest. Computer operating systems, cars and fast food restaurants come to mind here.

Neil

Ps. I just looked this up. China Investment Corp, which is the private investment arm of the Chinese government and was started in 2007 for the purpose of managing overseas investment now has a $200 BILLION dollar portfolio. That’s 5x the biggest mutual fund in the world (fidelity Magellan).

I agree. A more efficient supply chain means more consumer surplus. That's growth! The overall trend is good for the industry and good for the consumer. Change is also a bit frightening for those with a lot invested in things being one way.

The mom-and-pop retailer doesn't have the homogeneity of the large internet shops or giant retailers. The diversity of retailers and the relationships are a nice thing. I don't think that is a feasible business model for the future, however. I do think that as technology evolves we will get back to that quality. It just won't be delivered the same way we are used to it.

Edited by mmath, 04 June 2008 - 08:37 AM.