Episode 17. 94th Academy Awards Red Carpet Review Bibliography

From episode 17 onwards, T&G will no longer be posted full transcripts for episodes. As of March 2022, previous episode transcripts will remain on the site, however, writer/owner/creator Jennifer Sieverling reserves the right to remove them at any time. None of the written works may be copied or otherwise duplicated and/or removed and replicated from this site.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allaire, Christian. “Timothée Chalamet Borrowed From the Womenswear Runways at the Oscars 2022.” Vogue, 28 Mar. 2022, www.vogue.com/article/timothee-chalamet-louis-vuitton-oscars-fashion.

Burtt, Kristyn. “Paris Jackson Goes Rocker-Chic in Red Eye Shadow and Dramatic Ruffled Gown at Post-Oscars Bash.” Hollywood Life, 28 Mar. 2022, hollywoodlife.com/2022/03/27/vanessa-hudgens-oscars-2022-dress-photos.

Dweck, Sophie. “The Best Jewelry from the 2022 Oscars.” Town & Country, 27 Mar. 2022, www.townandcountrymag.com/style/jewelry-and-watches/g39506578/best-jewelry-2022-oscars.

“Elsa Peretti® Large Bone Cuff in Sterling Silver, 95 Mm Wide. | Tiffany and Co.” Tiffany & Co, www.tiffany.com/jewelry/bracelets/elsa-peretti-large-bone-cuff-10658993. Accessed 29 Mar. 2022.

Fasel, Marion. “The Best Jewelry at the 2022 Oscars | The Adventurine.” The Adventurine, theadventurine.com/culture/celebrity/the-best-jewelry-at-the-2022-oscars. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022.

Katz, Brandon. “As Expected, the Oscars Were the Lowest Rated in History.” Observer, 27 Apr. 2021, observer.com/2021/04/oscars-tv-ratings-academy-awards-lowest-viewership.

Hsu, Tiffany. “94th Academy Awards Beats Last Year’s Lowest-Ever Oscars Ratings.” The New York Times, 28 Mar. 2022, www.nytimes.com/2022/03/28/business/media/oscars-ratings-2022.

Miller, Daniel. “The Red Carpet Isn’t Actually Red, and Other Secrets Underfoot at the Oscars.” Los Angeles Times, 24 Feb. 2017, www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-oscars-red-carpet-20170224-htmlstory.html.

Luu, Christopher. “Kirsten Dunst Wore a Ruffled Strapless Gown At the 2022 Oscars.” InStyle, 28 Mar. 2022, www.instyle.com/awards-events/red-carpet/oscars/kirsten-dunst-2022-oscars-red-carpet.

Shirley, Kristen. “Remembering Tiffany Jewelry Designer Elsa Peretti (1940–2021).” Forbes, 14 June 2021, www.forbes.com/sites/kristenshirley/2021/03/22/remembering-tiffany--co-jewelry-designer-elsa-peretti-1940-2021/?sh=1a89091667d3.

Episode 016. Signet Rings: A Holy Authority

Hello, hello everyone; welcome. I’m glad you’ve found your way to Tea & Gemstones, your podcast home for a shiny happy mix of history, science, and social commentary on anything and everything to do with jewelry and gemstones. We cover topics ranging from why diamonds are every color of the rainbow, how a 15-million-dollar necklace helped bring down the French monarchy, the latest red-carpet fashions, and for a deeper dive, I recommend our four-part series “A Casual History of Gold”, where I follow a golden thread through the history of mankind about how gold has influenced, motivated and inspired humans since the beginning of time. But you know, casually and with a sense of humor, haha Oh- real quick- thank you so much to everyone who has reviewed and rated Tea & Gemstones on Spotify and Apple podcasts, that’s the lynchpin to keeping the show discoverable in the search algorithm. Okay, let’s dive into this juicy new episode.

*music*

I would like to submit the opinion that rings are the epitome of jewelry… more than necklaces or earrings… bracelets or brooches. When I think ‘jewelry’, rings are what first comes to my mind. I suppose that word association is personal for everyone, but for me, it’s rings. Rings can signify so many things. A circle with no beginning and no end, heavy with symbolism. Rings are frequently given as tokens of love and commitment. But beside the first thoughts of engagements and wedding bands… rings are also used to designate authority and power. Imagine a royal court, a weary traveler comes to make a request of the king, who extends a hand for his subject to “kiss the ring.” How about the sweeping epic saga of Tolkien’s “The Lord of the …. Rings.” One ring to rule them all, now that was some gold with authority. While that fictional ring of power was a smooth band, rings that symbolize authority are most often a style called a signet ring.

The signet ring is an ancient accessory. Archaeologists have discovered 3,000-year-old signets from the time of the Egyptian pharaohs. They’re mentioned in the Bible. Most of us know the story of Daniel who was thrown in the lion’s den. Well, his ancient story contains a signet ring reference. In the Old Testament, book of Daniel, chapter 6, verse 17 states quote, “and a stone was brought and laid upon the mouth of the den; and the king sealed it with his own signet and with the signet of his lords; that the purpose might not be changed concerning Daniel.” But wait- hold up a second- what IS a signet ring? Well, a signet ring is a wearable piece of a person’s identity. A signet is usually a larger in size ring with a big face carved with very purposeful markings- like either a family crest, inlaid with gemstones or other symbols designating a position of authority. Back in days before technology- everything was written by hand- how do you apply a mark of authentication to a document? Well, signet ring markings are reverse engineered so when the ring is stamped into ink or wax, the design displays out perfectly. The mark of the signet conveyed the king’s definitive authority for his actions. But I think it also applies a layer of accountability and responsibility- in a time before much documentation was possible, signets allow for tracing of decision making. The high level of detail and intricacy of the designs made them nearly impossible to copy- so that’s how before technology you could know a decree really did come from the king, or even that a father’s last will and testament was his own. The signet ring was worn on the pinkie finger of the nondominant hand, to keep the ring safe from wear and tear and easily accessible to emboss and seal documents. While a family crest signet ring can be passed down as an heirloom through generations, some signet rings were considered too powerful to exist after their owners died- they were destroyed to prevent any forged documents being created postmortem. It makes sense- think of the chaos if someone could write up whatever they wanted and literally apply a stamp of truth? Nowadays a signet ring cannot count as a person’s official signature on a waiver, a lease or a driver’s license… how unglamourous, right? A signet ring has become a stylish fashion choice- most luxury jewelers offer their own signet designs. David Yurman alone as of 2021 offers 81 different signet rings. And don’t get me wrong- I am absolutely not dogging the concept of a modern heirloom- blending the historical with the new, that’s my *jam*- but there is one place on Earth where the custom signet ring is truly rarified and revered… and it sits on the hand of someone that 1.3 billion people consider the highest authority on the planet… I’m talking about his Holiness… the Pope.

*music*

So, the Pope. To describe the pope is no small feat. It’s grandeur and pomp and formality layered more thickly than upon any other job title in the world. I guess if there was an Indeed job posting for the position you’d have to list it’s full regalia, “Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the Servants of God.” … pause for effect… But hey- did you hear the name “Pope” in there? You don’t have to rewind- you didn’t hear it listed because it isn’t actually one of the job’s official titles. It’s actually… more of a nickname, if you can believe that. Dr. Terrence W. Tilley, Chair of the Theology Department at Fordham University says quote, “calling the pope ‘pope’ is a little like calling your CEO, ‘chief.’ ‘Pope’ comes from the Italian, ‘papa.’ It’s a colloquial term rather than a formal term. ‘Holy Father,’ ‘Sancta Papa,’ which is where you get “pope.”” End quote. I will openly admit, before I started researching this episode I did not know “Pope” was a nickname haha It makes me smile that the head of the Catholic Church, an incredibly formal and structured organization… their leader is called papa. But this is not a religious or political podcast, you’re here for the jewelry.

So, while yes, the Catholic Church loves lavishness, and gold and just copious amounts of adornment in general- for the sake of this episode we are taking a focused look at just one thing… the papal ring. Which is not an insignificant item. The rings have a deep historical legacy. The existence of the pope’s ring is first documented in history in the year 1265, when Pope Clement the 4th wrote a letter to his nephew and mentioned “the ring of the fisherman” was used to seal all the pope’s private correspondence. So, there are two takeaways from this statement, one is referring to the ring as “the ring of the fisherman,” which harkens back to the first pope, St. Peter, who was a humble fisherman until he became one of Jesus Christ’s apostles, who were told by Christ, “I will make you fishers of men.” The 2nd takeaway is the distinction of the ring sealing the pope’s *private* letters. Private, not public. So while king’s and lords would seal decrees, laws, official stuff with their signets- the ring of the fisherman is more personally connected to the “off-duty” side of this very, very formal and authoritative entity of the Pope. Public documents definitely still got a “stamp of approval” as it were, it was a separate seal, usually made of lead, that stamped those papers. Those seals are called “papal bulls.”

Discovering the more personal nature of the Ring of the Fisherman only makes me like it more- of course jewelry should be personal! And each Pope seemed to relish the opportunity to create their own ring to represent themselves. Because while like family signet rings can become heirlooms passed down through the generations- the papal rings are a one person use only. Each new pope gets a new custom ring for himself. And the Catholic Church stays very on brand for their love of ritual when it comes to the issue of, “how do you handle a problem like a former pope’s ring?” There are the thorny possibilities I talked about earlier, of impersonating and falsifying documents with a signet ring on the wrong person’s finger. Well, the Catholic Church prevents this problem with one of their favorite things… a ceremony, haha In this ceremony the former pope’s ring is, well, not fully destroyed- like melted down and gone- but it is rendered null and void for its power. So there’s a guy called the Camerlengo (cah-mer-lingo), a sort of private secretary for the pope. After a pope is no longer pope, for whatever reason, just about always death, but super rarely, resignation, the Camerlengo brings the papal signet ring before the cardinals of the church- the cardinals are chief officials of the papal bureaucracy… and they do wear the bright red color of a cardinal bird… though that’s not where their name derives from- it’s from the word “cardo,” which is Latin for door, or hinge- meaning they are the door or access to becoming Pope- since a new pope is elected from the Cardinal’s ranks. It’s funny- the bird actually takes its name from the church- when the English were arriving in the Carolinas in the 1700s, they saw the beautiful red birds sporting the same color as the… cardinals. And so the birds and the church leaders share a pronoun. But anyway! Sorry- I love etymology (eh-tuh-maa-luh-jee) the study of the origins of words. And there are a lot of words to explain when trying to talk about the Catholic Church. It’s easy to get off track when discussing anything to do with Catholicism, an institution awash in terms and phrases that may be unfamiliar to people. All this is set the background for the ritual of voiding out the former papal ring. The Camerlengo takes the ring and in front of the cardinals acting as witnesses, the camerlengo takes a silver hammer and chisel and makes two lines on the face of the signet in the shape of a cross- therefore rendering the document sealing authority of the ring cancelled. Sometimes the ring goes on display for a little while after this- though the only ring on continuous display in the Vatican museums belongs to the “antipope” Clement the 7th- who was elected in 1378 by French cardinals who didn’t like the pope in Rome, Urban the 6th- that was a mess. Anyway, it’s a disappointment to me that these masterworks of gold, imbued with history, tradition and authority exist in posterity pretty much just in photographs and a few paintings. But the rings lack of continued physical presence certainly doesn’t mean we shouldn’t examine all their fascinating details. So mostly all the fisherman’s rings exhibit the same artistic theme, with each pope applying their own interpretation of a depiction of St Peter and their own papal name.

Pope Benedict the 16th in 2005 commissioned his ring based on the paintings of Michelangelo; and boy did he have a specific vision… the jewelers submitted over 200 drawings before the design was finalized. The ring was a large elliptical shape of 35 grams of yellow gold- it was crafted by 8 goldsmiths working 15-hour days for 2 weeks. In contrast to this grandeur, Benedict’s successor, Pope Francis skewed the notion he needed a lavish solid gold ring- he commissioned a silver ring from a jeweler in Barcelona, Spain. He actually chose an archived design of St. Peter holding two keys- representing authority in heaven and Earth; the design was originally created for Pope Paul the 16th who never had the design made. I think it reinforces Pope Francis’ reputation as a humble leader focused on humility that he approached his papal ring’s creation this way. But low-key Pope Francis is not the norm for a pope’s vibe and well, …that makes for a lot of bling to talk about haha Swinging the pendulum from pope Francis, let’s look at Pope John Paul the second. He took a crucifix, which is a decorative cross, he took a crucifix belonging to Pope Paul the 6th and had it made into a ring- the cross was turned sideways, so the long portion wraps around the finger and an image of St. Peter is engraved on the vertical portion. This play on the traditional round or oval signet shape is unexpected for a pope- a profession pretty rigidly structured in tradition. I like that taking a closer look at the fisherman’s rings can reveal little glimpses of personality. Benedict the visionary perfectionist, Francis the modest, John Paul the second, he was the first non-Italian pope in more than four hundred years, with his own progressive ideas, I looked at his modified crucifix ring as a representation of his putting a literally ‘spin’ on ideas. Um, so with the idea that these rings give us glimpses of personality, with that idea in mind, what does it mean that Pope Pius the 9th in the late 1800s, he wore a large ring featuring -get this- a cameo of himself, all in white diamonds on yellow gold. That seems like some epic Mariah Carey level diva-ness, no- it’s higher level than that haha But I guess when you’re the pope commission your ring, who is going to tell you, “no”? ‘No, you can’t have a ring depicting your face in diamonds’, I mean, Jesus says in the book of Luke, Chapter 6, verse 20, ‘blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” Haha- but okay, I’ll back off the spicy… thank you Pius the 9th, for the flex- your ring is certainly worth talking about, jewelry and bling are the whole reason I’m here talking. People’s grand ideas for what jewelry can be is the fuel for a lot of podcast episodes.

*music*

One of my favorite examples of a papal ring is from Pope Clement the 14th. Now, this ring might have been made commemorative of his service, since it was supposedly dated ‘1774,’ which would make it not the official fisherman’s ring, but it’s worth mentioning. Pope Clement, he had a large oval, not surprising there, but, it was two-toned! Yall know I love mixing metals. The ring’s bezel and shank are high karat yellow gold, but the dark onyx oval face is carved with the papal tiara- which is an epic ceremonial hat, and two crossed keys- yeah, like the design Pope Francis chose. I mean, there are only so many established motifs in existence that relate to St. Peter, so unless you go rouge like diamond face Pius the 9th, there will probably be some repeats. Even the names get repeated- each new pope chose a name for himself, and there have been twelve popes named Pius. We have some details about two other Pius pope’s rings- Pius the 10th and Pius the 12th both had fisherman’s rings featuring dark large stones, most likely amethyst, though Pius the 12th’s stone was much larger than Pius the 10th’s. I couldn’t find anything about the guy in the middle, Pius the 11th. It is curious… most of the more than 260 popes- there aren’t an abundance of available details about their papal signet rings. This ring that conveys a literal seal of authority, tied to the identity of one of the most powerful people on Earth… historians are left a bit empty handed on the details. Sure, we know lots about the ring’s broad significance and purpose (for me, it’s hard to think of a piece of jewelry with more authority)- but the little details that could provide personal, humanizing insights into the aesthetic preferences of His Holiness, Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, etc, etc, we don’t get treated to those details except for the most recent popes, when the jewelers themselves are like, giving interviews about the ring creation process and modern photography gives us the ability to document, zoom in and examine. If someone could please create a compendium of papal jewelry… I’d buy that. That’s a bigger homework assignment than little ol’ me could take on. All I can do is hopefully bring some attention to what I think is one of the coolest *jobs* a piece of jewelry can have… the signet ring with it’s unique connection to personal identity and authority, from the humble family crest on an heirloom, to kings and merchants, all the way to bespoke creations for the head of the Catholic Church… to a personal piece you can buy for yourself, don’t sleep on signet rings. They’ve been around a long time and are certainly here to stay.

*music*

That’s all for this episode of Tea & Gemstones. I may just be turning off my microphone and then going to browse the internet for my own signet ring that reflects my personality. If you’re inspired to make your own future heirloom purchase, tag us in a pic on Instagram, at Tea and Gemstones. All I’ve ever wanted is to be a sparkly educator slash influencer. Check out the show notes for a link to our website which has full transcripts for every episode and the bibliography. Our theme music is by Joseph McDade with additional music by Audionautix. Please don’t forget to leave a rating and a review for the show on whatever platform you’re listening on… it is all the keeps Tea and Gemstones from being buried by the dreaded algorithm. It really does make a huge difference to the visibility of the show. Okay everyone, I have been your host, Jen, it has been fun hanging out. Until next time, Stay Sparkly.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“The History Press | A Brief History of Signet Rings.” The History Press, www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/a-brief-history-of-signet-rings. Accessed 12 Jan. 2022.

Ross, Scott. “New Pope Takes on 8 Official Titles, But Pope’s Not One.” NBC4 Washington, 13 Mar. 2013, www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/pope-titles/1937813.

Episode 015. Tiffany & Co. Is Trying Too Hard

Hello, hello everyone. Hi, come on in…. welcome to “Tea & Gemstones”, your shiny happy home for a mix of history, science and social commentary about anything and everything to do with jewelry, gemstones, and precious metals. No topic is too random, and I love to dive into all the little details, because I think that is where a lot of the joy is. I am your host, Jen. I am a lifelong sparkle enthusiast just out to do some learning, laughing and taking a deeper look at both trends and history. Oh! Thanks again to everyone who has been leaving reviews and ratings, especially if you’re listening on Spotify or Apple podcasts. That feedback from yall is literally the only thing that keeps Tea and Gemstones discoverable in the algorithm… I got an email from Apple Support saying exactly that haha So because of yall, more people can find and listen to the show… so… again, my most heartfelt thanks. Okay- let’s get started on this week’s episode!

*music*

What’s cool? What’s… “classic”? Can a classic brand be cool… and inversely, can a cool brand be a classic? I want to take a look at one specific iconic brand and how they have recently fallen into a quagmire of their own making, a totally messy tangle of this concept of cool versus classic. Tiffany & Co.

Classic jewelry companies that know they are classics are like Cartier and Van Clef & Arpels, or Harry Winston. They don’t chase fads, they are timeless and they know their motifs. The Cartier panther and the Van Clef & Arpels alahambra lucky four-leaf clover are everlasting symbols of luxury, able to deftly be redesigned, reimagined, and reinterpreted endless times without aging or becoming too… “try hard.” Because it’s pretty universally agreed upon that there’s nothing more intrinsically uncool than trying too hard. I feel that Tiffany & Co. has always had a bit of a struggle to focus themselves on a narrow range of motifs. They have in current rotation the “Return to Tiffany” line, “Atlas”- based on the roman numerals of the large clock in the NYC flagship store, the Tiffany Keys collection with dozens of designs of the little tool, I mean, Tiffany’s website has a vast dropdown menu… do you want Tiffany T, Tiffany Hardwear, Tiffany Knot, Tiffany Victoria, Save the Wild, Lovebugs, Elsa Peretti, Schlumberger, Paloma Picasso, or Tiffany 1837? It’s an enormous catalog of inventory- and that list I just gave you isn’t complete and doesn’t include engagement rings, or Tiffany home goods like vases, candlesticks, tea sets, baby rattles, or purses, jewelry boxes, tote bags and sunglasses and watches. I suppose there is a great benefit to the ‘something for everyone’ approach. The published financials could certainly point to “yes”: Tiffany’s revenue in 2020 was over three and a half billion dollars. Billion. With a B. But it seems like Tiffany’s is not content with billions of dollars… they don’t want to just be rich… they want to be COOL.

Tiffany’s wants to be the cool kid everyone wants to invite to their party. Whenever I think about someone rich trying to be cool, Jeff Bezos comes to mind, especially that picture that went viral on social media a couple months ago with him wearing tight white pants and heart shape sunglasses on some beach… it was radiating “try too hard” energy. But forget about Jeff, I really want too… why did Tiffany & Co, this 184-year-old company suddenly decide to start campaigning for cool points? Well, because in January 2021, the Tiffany’s that has existed for nearly 200 years- it wasn’t *that* Tiffany’s anymore. The company was sold to a mega conglomerate called “LVMH Moet Hennessy Louis Vuitton,” but that’s a mouthful and everyone just says LVMH. So, a ‘conglomerate’ is a term for a multi-industry company, combining different kinds of businesses into one unified group- like the Avengers for superheroes, LVMH is like that for luxury goods.

Founded in 1987 when fashion house Louis Vuitton merged with high-end champagne and cognac company Moet Hennessy. LVMH has spent the last three decades swallowing up every luxury company you’ve probably ever heard of, including: Marc Jacobs, Fendi, Stella McCartney, Celine, Christian Dior, Givenchy, Fenty, Sephora, Benefit Cosmetics, Gucci, Tag Heuer, Dom Perignon and Bulargi… and more! As of 2021, LVMH owns 75 prestigious brands and the conglomerate was valued at $339 billion dollars, making LVMH the most valuable company in all of Europe. It was into this ultra-luxury, massive blended… *family* that Tiffany joined on January 7th, 2021. The price tag for Tiffany & Co.? $15.8 billion dollars. After dropping that kind of cash, LVMH hit the ground running with their quest to take the blue box engagement ring company in a new “cool” direction. Whatever it takes.

*music*

You know the analogy that if you throw a frog in boiling water, it’ll leap right out- but if you slowly increase the temperature, the frog in the water will never notice the temperature rising? To parley the analogy over- Tiffany’s is the chef, we the consumers are the frog, and the water temperature is the “we are cool” factor. If Tiffany’s underwent a massive, sudden full-on rebranding overnight, all the frogs would leap from the suddenly boiling water. So, instead Tiffany’s has been slowly, deliberately trying to change the temperature of their pot; so subtly their established customer base won’t exit, and maybe new, younger, cool customer frogs will come over… finding the now hot water appealing. Haha- this analogy makes perfect sense to me- I hope it came out as coherently as I intended.

At first, the changes did seem slow. But changes, they sure were. Here’s an example. For over one hundred years, Tiffany’s has run a print ad in the top right corner of page A3 of the New York Times. It’s premium placement; essentially the ad is the first thing a reader sees when they turn the front page over. Steve McKee, cofounder of ad agency McKee Wallwork + Co; said the regular ad showed the power of brand growth. He wrote, quote, “Rain or shine, good times and bad- you can always find a Tiffany ad on page A3 of the New York Times. Tiffany’s small space newspaper ads are almost as iconic as the blue box,” end quote. But nope- like ruthlessly abandoning a streak on Snapchat; Tiffany’s pulled their ad at the start of 2021, just after they got acquired by LVMH. Former Times editor Quentin Hardy tweeted on March 3rd, quote, “the page three Tiffany ad disappeared from the print New York Time. It’s like a disturbance in The Force,” end quote. I mean, it isn’t a secret that people, especially younger people- aren’t reading print newspapers anymore. But the print New York Times still has about 800,000 individual subscribers, not to mention people grabbing a copy at newsstands, airports and coffee shops. I couldn’t find out how much Tiffany’s had been paying for their iconic prime ad placement since 1896- but I guess it wasn’t worth maintaining. Or… wasn’t ‘cool’ to maintain.

Okay, the son of the boss of LVMHis a is 28-year-old man named Alexandre Arnault. And Alexandre was given the job of ‘executive vice president of product and communications’ at Tiffany’s… so as these changes started happening, Alexandre was viewed as the orchestrator and spokesman. Which is valid. When questioned about the ad being cancelled- an ad mind you, that in the 2016 edition of “This Is Tiffany,” a magazine/catalog combo published annually- Tiffany’s themselves lovingly said quote, “In an ever-changing world, perhaps Tiffany & Co’s most consistent relationship with the public over the last century is it’s daily advertisement on page A3 of the New York Times.” End quote. When Alexandre was asked about ending that, ‘most consistent relationship,” he replied that the company would be sharpening their social media presence and moving away from a corporate tone to one that is more personal. Well… yes- that did happen. What Tiffany’s did next on social media did feel sharp and personal; it was basically an attack ad on their own established customer base.

*music*

July 2021 was when Tiffany’s got tired of being coy with their… transition. The “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany” ad campaign popped up in July 202l with videos and posters featuring young, sort of stereotypical ‘cool’ models- very thin bodies, slicked back hair, wearing white tank tops and Tiffany jewelry, staring at the camera with sullen, unsmiling faces. Rather than advertising featuring a beautiful piece of jewelry, these ads were trying to sell a lifestyle, a “vibe”… but people immediately bristled at the tagline, “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany” in huge letters. It felt like the company was stepping on their generations of loyal customers to lift themselves into some new place of being. A lot of hurt women took to social media to share their sore feelings. On Instagram, one user, @ drea_steiner commented, quote, “as a mother who has spent the last 15 months working from home and homeschooling my daughters at the same time I feel really offended. Mothers all over the world have been hit particularly hard by the pandemic- I am not sure this is the right moment to diminish us. It obviously never is. If it wouldn’t hurt my husband I would take off my Tiffany’s wedding band and my Tiffany’s engagement ring right now,” end quote. Whoa. I thought this woman’s response was so earnest, I decided to reach out to her. I messaged her on Instagram, explained this episode’s concept, referenced her comment and asked how she was feeling now, seven-ish months later. And lo’ and behold, the beauty of social media, I got a response in less than a day! We connected and talked for almost half an hour. I got permission to publicly discuss our conversation.

My hurt Tiffany’s customer is named Andrea, she lives in Germany and really had a uniquely insightful view on the “Not Your Mother’s” tagline. Andrea actually runs a PR company specializing in beauty brands and she has a masters in Luxury Management. Andrea told me she understood Tiffany’s targeting of new, younger, Millennial/Gen Z customers but stated there is no need to put off your existing customers. Andrea is definitely still angry, repeating that her disappointment in Tiffany’s shifting values made her wish her wedding set rings were from somewhere else. We concluded our conversation with Andrea telling me she only intended to buy vintage Tiffany’s on ebay from now on, to avoid supporting quote, “the new owners,” end quote.

I think today’s consumers- especially that coveted youth demographic- are pretty media savvy. The youth customer has grown up saturated in social media and technology, and consequently can smell a phony or a ‘try-hard’ instantly. Authenticity is prized. Look at the exploding success of the simple Carhartt beanie in the past few months. Carhartt doesn’t even advertise it, heck it used to be a free gift with purchase when the blue-collar workwear brand first created the unisex solid colored hat. The $16 beanie is currently riding a booming wave of popularity with that ‘youth’ demographic Tiffany’s is drooling over. Because Carhartt is unpretentious and authentic… and definitely not ‘trying to be cool.’ Carhartt was just existing, doing their thing and people like that. With LVMH at the controls for 13 months now as of February 2022, Tiffany’s has been trying to present a new overnight “authenticity” to the world. But for 180 plus years, people saw one consistent persona… it’s just jarring the way changes have been done. Steve Jobs had a famous quote, “deciding what not to do is as important as deciding what to do.” And LVMH decided to *do* something unexpected with their blue box brand. A collaboration.

*music*

Tiffany’s doesn’t want to be your mother’s pearls or your great aunt’s china… millennials, gen Z’s, etc, have already caught onto the price mark-up of a Tiffany engagement ring and they aren’t shelling out for a blue ring box like people used too… So, Tiffany is chasing, *chasing* the youth, the cool factor, hard. You can’t just say a tagline, “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany”, but still sell all the same ‘traditional’ products, you gotta show new hip cool designs, right? Well, a couple months after July, Tiffany did just that with an action speaking a lot louder than campaign words. They dropped their collaboration with Supreme. …. Supreme is an American clothing and skateboarding lifestyle brand founded in New York City in 1994. Their purview is a combination of skateboarding and hip-hop culture. Not even in the same realm or dimension as Tiffany & Co, who sells things like a $550 sterling silver clothespin or a diamond ball pendant for $13,000. Though Supreme isn’t cheap- far from it- Supreme produces high-quality items in very limited quantities. This creates a feverishly hot resell and secondhand market laser focused on their brand. And in the last ten years Supreme has become like, the go-to creator of instant street cred to companies seeking the young, fiercely loyal Supreme customer. Supreme has collaborated and released limited edition collections with over 50 brands, including The North Face, Nike, Dover Street Market, Vans, and in 2017, the ultimate luxury giant of Louis Vuitton.

The iconic LV logo pattern work was turned Supreme’s signature fire engine red with the bold white italic lettering of “Supreme” nestled among the Vuitton monogram flowers. It’s new and fresh and definitely interesting to look at- it’s like your brain is so used to the pattern in browns and cream that seeing it in such bright red is like a glitch in the matrix. But… did it make Louis Vuitton- who I consider a classic brand… did it make them “cooler”? Well, people smarter than me said… “no.”… Guy Trebay, a style writer for the New York Times wrote, quote, “Nothing is more lethal to cred than a sellout. You may think, in the case of the Louis Vuitton collaboration with Supreme… the only victim would be Supreme, the street-style label with a rabid fan base and seemingly bulletproof cool… but both parties appeared to take a hit in the fall 2017 collection… It was the fashion version of a murder-suicide.” End quote. Yeah… he wasn’t beating around the bush. And while the sale numbers for the collab aren’t really public- the fact is- the collection was pulled from production after a super short time. While the pieces are now like, a cult obsession, with sweatshirts from the collection selling in resale for over $7,000… I don’t think Louis Vuitton- the 168-year-old fashion mega-powerhouse, really changed their status from “classic” to “cool” from the blink-and-you-missed-it Supreme collaboration in summer 2017.

So, what about Tiffany’s date with Supreme just a few months ago? Are they now enjoying a new “cool-kid” persona in the hallways after Supreme took them to a party? Well, under Tiffany & Co.’s own Instagram post about the collaboration there are a wide range of opinions. One person wrote, quote, “can’t wait to not afford it,” end quote. One commenter expressed excitement saying, “wow the only collab I’ve ever needed in my life.” End quote. Well, I’m gad they’re so happy- because most of the almost a thousand comments on the post were more of a skeptical variety. Lot’s of people calling the designs, “tacky”, “trashy” or just… “ugly”. One person wrote out a full thought that I felt echoed a lot of my own musings, they said, quote, “I get the collab if you’re trying to attract a younger pop culture clientele. I love it! But your marketing is getting a bit too obvious, try to stay in your lane without looking desperate.” End quote. ……looking desperate… ouch. It is such a cutting phrase. Tiffany got caught turning the temperature up a little too fast. And the perfect example of this is from the collaboration with Supreme… guys. Tiffany’s made a Heart Knife Key ring… yeah! It’s a freaking knife protruding down from a “Return to Tiffany” heart…. It looks like something a teenage dude would make in a friend’s garage and wear to impress girls at Hot Topic at the mall. I mean- you can’t wear it on an airplane or take it into a school… it’s as if Tiffany’s has just dyed it’s hair black with dye from Walgreens and yelled at their parent’s, “this is me now! I’m edgy!” The knife key, along with six other pieces including a bracelet of stamped silver stars and a plain white t-shirt with the Supreme logo in Tiffany blue, were released on November 11th, 2021. The knife key retailed for $525.

I suppose Tiffany’s felt they primed their customers with actions like the declarative “Not Your Mother’s Tiffany” ad campaign just five months earlier. Except- I don’t feel the Tiffany’s customer WANTED to be primed. I sense Tiffany’s seeing the social media hashtags and long lines for people buying “drops” limited edition capsule collections from brands that sell out in single digit minutes. But just because that’s a buzzy, popular system for some brands, I don’t feel it invalidates or ruins any other approach for selling luxury goods. There’s a comfort in an enduring, timeless, classic piece. The gold classic Cartier Love bracelet has existed since 1969. Yes, new blingy version with diamonds or other gold colors than yellow have entered inventory since it’s creation, but the iconic original is unchanged for 53 years- and it remains one of the most popular jewelry pieces ever- in 2016, Google released data that the Love bracelet was the most googled piece of jewelry that year.

But is the fanatic obsession with limited edition pieces the love for the object itself- or is the joy mostly from the adrenaline of the chase and the dopamine rush of acquisition with thousands of other people after what you wanted? And once it’s bought… now what? Resell it, (after some pics on Instagram and TikTok of course) and then onto the next one- the next drop, the next release. It’s an addicting- and fun, yes, cycle that must keep churning out fresh limited editions all the time to keep the consumer base engaged in the process. Or people will get bored and take their money elsewhere. Why else would the 28-year-old company of Supreme have done over FIFTY brand collaborations? That’s… exhausting. But I mean, I get it, from a fast fashion ever evolving streetwear, hip-hop company, it makes sense. But why on earth is Tiffany & Co, the company universally credited with creating the modern classic engagement ring- trying to squish and squeeze themselves into that kind of new mold? The financials of like 2017 would suggest that yes- our world wasn’t solely enamored with the world of Tiffany, sales fell, numbers weren’t growing. But instead of like, being okay with a few less billions and holding firm and true to their aesthetic, Tiffany’s is rapidly trying everything they can to morph into a modern cool kid. But they’re trying too hard. You can’t suddenly become something you just are not… people can tell when you’re not embracing your own identity. You get comments on the Instagram post that you’ve changed, people miss who you were- there was nothing wrong with who you were!

Dear Tiffany’s, it’s okay to be a fancy place with a reputation for quality, albeit high prices and a killer New York legacy. In a world with so much luxury trending towards a fast fashion distribution system… is that really where we’re going to find our heirlooms? Growing up, loving Tiffany’s, being gifted pieces, the thrill of saving up and buying my own- I have always felt like I was creating my future heirlooms for me, my daughter, for whoever comes after. With the classics being shoved aside for trying every new thing possible--- the last few years of Tiffany designs really have seemed like they’re throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, like they’ll greenlight anything. There’s no other explanation for the oddness of the ‘Lovebug’ collection.

I guess Tiffany has given up on having a true iconic classic- like the Cartier Love bracelet. Well, their “classic” was the six-prong round white diamond engagement ring and people just aren’t buying those like they used too. So, it’s as if Tiffany said, “well- if we can’t have an icon, we’ll just do a bunch of random stuff.” I mean, Tiffany & Co. was founded in 1837, making them a 185-year-old company, 17 years older than Louis Vuitton. But with Tiffany’s sold to LVMH in 2021, their choices don’t match with their heritage, they seem like a very young, new company floundering around, trying to figure out who they are. Which is so befuddling for the literal generations of established customers, who I feel like want to tap Tiffany’s on the shoulder and be like, “do you have amnesia or is this an identity crisis?” to which I think 2022 Tiffany & Co would respond, “which answer makes us sound cooler?”

*music*

This episode went HARD on the ‘tea,” haha but I do it out of passion- my friends and family know about my very long-standing deep love affair with Tiffany’s, and I’ve talked about it a bit in previous episodes. I don’t want to be a fair-weather fan and abandon a brand for experimenting… but I also feel pretty intensely that Tiffany’s has closed the book on it’s old self without caring about the people who really liked that book and thought it was worthwhile. But Tiffany’s is absolutely allowed to change. Some of yall, I guess who might’ve turned off the podcast by now haha but you disagree with my views and think all the new things Tiffany is doing are amazing. I hope people *do* like the new stuff… it sure would be a shame if people are disappointed on both ends.

Whatever which way your opinion falls, I wanna hear about it, I do! Head to Tea & Gemstones on Instagram and leave a comment on the grid post for this episode- Oh! And if yall could please, please leave a review and a rating on your preferred listening platform- especially Apple- I would appreciate it so, so much. Reviews are the necessary component to getting this podcast active in the search and discovery algorithm so people interested in jewelry, gemstones and commentary can find the show. It seriously means the world to me, thank you. Check out the show notes for a link to our website which has transcripts for every episode and the bibliography. Our theme song is by Joseph McDade with additional audio provided by Audionautix. As always, I have been your host, Jen. Until next time… stay sparkly.

T&G EPISODE 015

BIBLIOGRAPHY

“The How and Why of the Louis Vuitton x Supreme Collaboration.” The Fashion Law, 27 Mar. 2020, www.thefashionlaw.com/the-louis-vuitton-x-supreme-collaboration-is-here.

“Just a Moment...” The Morning Brew, 23 July 2021, www.morningbrew.com/marketing/stories/2021/07/23/not-mothers-tiffany-campaign-sparks-backlash.

Markets, Cpt. “Why Supreme Brand Is So Expensive? - CPT Markets.” Medium, 12 Dec. 2021, medium.com/@cptmarketsofficial/why-supreme-brand-is-so-expensive-881ee69e051b.

Ritschel, Chelsea. “Supreme Collaboration Disappoints Tiffany and Co Fans: ‘Who Thought This Was OK?’” The Independent, 8 Nov. 2021, www.independent.co.uk/life-style/supreme-tiffany-and-co-collab-b1953702.html?amp.

https://robbreport.com/lifestyle/news/lvmh-is-now-the-most-valuable-company-in-europe-1234599368/

Selter, Emily. “10 Things You Didn’t Know About the Cartier Love Bracelet.” Town & Country, 10 Feb. 2021, www.townandcountrymag.com/style/jewelry-and-watches/a10262588/cartier-love-bracelet-history.

“Tiffany Ditches Its New York Times Ads, after 125 Years.” IDEX, idexonline.com/FullArticle?Id=46643. Accessed 12 Feb. 2022.

“Tiffany Giving Up Century-Old ‘New York Times’ Ad.” JCK Online, www.jckonline.com/editorial-article/tiffany-new-york-times-ad. Accessed 12 Feb. 2022.

Wikipedia contributors. “LVMH.” Wikipedia, 4 Feb. 2022, en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVMH.