Jump to content


Photo

Quality Issues With New Solids


  • Please log in to reply
47 replies to this topic

#31 Sandra

Sandra

    2000 Post Member

  • Members
  • 2,216 posts

Posted 14 August 2005 - 05:23 PM

QUOTE(Lisa @ Aug 12 2005, 06:07 PM)
So I did hear back from EL reguarding this issue of the Flowering Flacon, I was told the solids as it is now is the correct way. I was told changes were made by Jay Strongwater last minute. This is what I am told, I must say I was very pleasantly suprised I got a response from EL.

So now we have an answer!

View Post



I am surprised at two things here . . . that Jay made the change and the last minute, though only he can confirm this if he answers one Phyllis' letter and secondly that they did indeed reply!

Edited by Sandra, 14 August 2005 - 05:30 PM.


#32 Petals

Petals

    2000 Post Member

  • Members
  • 2,902 posts

Posted 14 August 2005 - 05:56 PM

This all sounds back to front to me!

Now, as I think was pointed out earlier, if we keep on buying the ''good'' solids, that market is being serviced.

Then, if E.L Reps and Employees keep buying the rejects and the discounted items,
that market is also being serviced.

So whilst we keep buying the good, and they keep buying the bad.......
then ....E.L are having their cake and eating it!

Hope you get what I am trying to say! blink.gif

cool.gif

#33 2cute4u2

2cute4u2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts

Posted 14 August 2005 - 06:16 PM

Hi jackie,

You have it right on the money. EL makes money on both the solids sold at full retail and those they sell discounted at the warehouse and CDS stores. EL will lose only if a majority of their retail clients and employees refuse to buy the solids. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening on a mass scale anytime in the near (or distant) furture. mad.gif

#34 Lisa

Lisa

    2000 Post Member

  • Admin
  • 2,990 posts

Posted 14 August 2005 - 06:31 PM

Yes, Jackie I do understand what you are saying and it does make perfect sense.

I do think that what will happen is the retail stores, Saks, NM and others may order less solids each year because it is up to the stores what and how much they buy from EL. I really feel EL and the stores will see a big decrease in solids sales this year and that may lead to smaller orders from the retailers next year.


As far as the Beautiful Flowering Flacon- I was just told what happened it doesn't mean I believe it as I still have not heard back from the Strongwater camp about it. ph34r.gif

#35 2cute4u2

2cute4u2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts

Posted 15 August 2005 - 01:29 PM

Hi Lisa...find out where the solids are being produced. Used to be Strongwater was made in USA...made not be the case any longer. That may explain the quality issue.

#36 Printerslady

Printerslady

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 07:51 AM

Personally, I'm stunned that EL would say that JS approved the change in the design of the Flowering Flacon. I think that is a cop-out response to their goof, and they're just trying to save face by saying it is what the designer wanted. Maybe they made the mistake, then made peace with JS so they wouldn't have to redo the Flacon. If that's the case, the Strongwater's reputation suffers along with EL's. What a shame, and what a dissappointment. mad.gif

For what it's worth, I NEVER got a reply back from Estee Lauder other than a canned reply....Thank you for your comments, blah, blah, blah.
sad.gif

Catherine


#37 Lisa

Lisa

    2000 Post Member

  • Admin
  • 2,990 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 09:10 AM

I agree and also never heard back from the JS camp. cool.gif

#38 Lisa

Lisa

    2000 Post Member

  • Admin
  • 2,990 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 10:50 AM

So I just got an email today (just now) from JS and yes, the solid with the two flowers facing back is the correct way. I was told one solid was made with the two flowers facing front and that was the one EL photographed- the mistake.

I was very happy to get a response back from both EL and JS.



#39 Printerslady

Printerslady

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 10:56 AM

Well, well, well....I finally got my reply from Estee Lauder, or as the lady from Consumer Communications spelled it in her email "Estie Lauder." blink.gif This is the gist of what she said:

"However, upon further review, Jay Strongwater personally felt that having one flower facing forward complemented the bow detail on the front. He turned two flowers toward the back, as he always wants his pieces to be as beautiful from the back as they are from the front. When redesigned as such, the artist felt that the flowers were now in the right place." dry.gif

If that's the case, Strongwater designs are going downhill, IMHO! sad.gif

Catherine


#40 Lisa

Lisa

    2000 Post Member

  • Admin
  • 2,990 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 11:03 AM

So..... Hmmmmm..... we BOTH got replies today around the same time? ph34r.gif

My ears were ringing earlier! laugh.gif

#41 Printerslady

Printerslady

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 11:05 AM

QUOTE(Lisa @ Aug 18 2005, 10:50 AM)
So do you think someone is monitoring the site since I just posted above that about not hearing back from JS and viola I get a response- but there are no resources for EL to provide any information to me. huh.gif

View Post




Someone's watching, Lisa! ph34r.gif My email from "Estie Lauder" came very quick after posting that I had only received a canned reply. I must say, I am dissappointed in the decision about the Flacon. I think it looks odd...it looks like a mistake! And from what I've read hear, most of you think it looks like a mistake as well. The two flowers SHOULD face forward. How often do we display our solids backwards anyway? blink.gif

Catherine


#42 Lisa

Lisa

    2000 Post Member

  • Admin
  • 2,990 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 11:15 AM

I agree with you on that Catherine, I like the two flowers facing front better also. I do know that Jay does finish his backs just as beautifully as the front of his pieces but this one does look odd because in my opinion the two flowers facing front balance the bow.

I was disappointed this year with JS designs (I do adore all of Jay's work) I feel they cannot be compared to the detail, crystal work and enamel work of the last three years pieces. I feel like less detail was done and the prices too high for these pieces.

An example of what I am talking about is the glistening acorn from 2002- this solid is absolutely stunning and has lots of what we all love- crystals! This solid in 2002 sold for $150, totally worth that price. The new 2005 solids start at $175 and the workmanship (details, enamel and crystals) is just not the same- can't compare.
user posted image

#43 Printerslady

Printerslady

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 366 posts

Posted 18 August 2005 - 02:18 PM

Your point is well made with the Glistening Acorn. There is a vast difference in the quality as well as the prices of todays JS solids versus those of a few years ago. It's such a shame, don't you think? I mean I used to get excited about upcoming releases of JS solids, but I don't think the new Strongwaters stand out against the other EL solids like they used to. The Lucky Dragon is one of the better ones this year, and it's not a Strongwater. Where's the bling that we used to see in Strongwater solids? sad.gif

Catherine


#44 Karin

Karin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 263 posts

Posted 20 August 2005 - 02:58 AM

I loved the idea of the furniture in this years Strongwater solids. If anyone recalls it I had a wish for furniture solids in one of our topics about design ideas. Amazingly enough my wish really came true biggrin.gif However I did want them without any "floating" dogs and kittens which felt overdoing a perfect sofa and stool. My point is that instead of buying the solids I bought the Strongwater box of a chaise lounge ("Josette"). I wish I could show you a picture of this gorgeous little sofa that in my opinion is so much better than the solids. I kind of have this suspicion that maybe also the corresponding solids where originally designed without any animals but for some reason EL wanted them to be more "cute" or something. Anyway, no Strongwater solids this year, sorry EL wink.gif

Karin

#45 VEGAS LADY

VEGAS LADY

    1000 Post Member

  • Members
  • 1,118 posts

Posted 20 August 2005 - 04:20 AM

HI KARIN...... smile.gif

THE IDEA OF FURNITURE SOLIDS ON THEIR OWN IS A GOOD ONE. E.L. HAS DONE THE ANIMAL THEME TO DEATH......I FOR ONE AM SICK OF THEM, YEAR AFTER YEAR THEY TURN UP AND THEY ALL LOOK THE SAME........ mad.gif

Margaret




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users