What $430,000 can buy at Pomelatto in Beverly Hills, California

[Asher Kelman]

 

[Jerome Marot]

Looks like a slipknot. I would not want that symbol around my neck.

 

[Asher Kelman]

MONILI HIGH JEWELRY COLLECTION



Co-created by Gucci and Pomellato


The collection reflects a shared commitment to Italian craftsmanship and a timeless approach to design-uniting Gucci's expertise in leatherwork with Pomelloto's heritage in gold and diamonds.


Pomellato

 

[Asher Kelman]

Looks like a slipknot. I would not want that symbol around my neck.

Yes, it has a kind of gangster arrogance.

So who would buy such creations? My wife says that folk who want to hide money or the columns of Saudi and Chinese tourists with endless cash!

I have no idea what the stone by itself might be worth, but I figure it’s the brands and exclusivity as unique almost unobtainable works of art, that counts!

….to be sold within locked shops with an armed guard in a dive suit inside the door once one us judiciously welcomed inside!

On the side of the road, there are round 1.5 meter diameter concrete bollards to shield stores from the trucks that robbers would be crash through the glass doors if they clubs bypass the 2 tons of concrete blockades!

Asher

 

[Asher Kelman]

​

Here we have the same family of creations presented as a bracelet, part the handcrafted leather omega shape and to meet it a diamond encrusted finger.

Or is it intended to be subtly far more sensual than that even hinting at coitus?

Asher

 

[Doug Kerr]

Or, in Beverly Hills, for that amount one could have built a fairly fancy doghouse.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Or, in Beverly Hills, for that amount one could have built a fairly fancy doghouse.

Best regards,

Doug

Price aside, do you find the work as sculptural artwork interesting and worthy of sustained interest.

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

I suppose it will raise lots of interest when worn by a model worthy of the cover of Vogue.

 

[Will Thompson]

My most recent copy of Vogue only one model worthy of being included but none worthy of the cover!

I just put it in the trash!

 

[Asher Kelman]

I suppose it will raise lots of interest when worn by a model worthy of the cover of Vogue.

I see these as fabulous decorations for women, centered exceptionally well but unfortunately far to costly to have fun giving one to my wife.

They have elegant design and reach a level that can complement the finest clothes with the simplest of designs as these are in themselves works of art.

But it does spark within me the idea of making “wearable sculpture” offered within range of budgets of purchase at least by folk who have worked for 20 years and want to treat a spouse or daughter with something special.

However, these items are out of reach for everyone I have ever known!

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

However, these items are out of reach for everyone I have ever known!

Not a problem. Vogue models are out of reach for everyone as well.

 

[Jerome Marot]

My most recent copy of Vogue only one model worthy of being included but none worthy of the cover!

I just put it in the trash!

Amusingly, I just checked and the December US issue features a male model on the cover. But there is a new issue every month.

 

[Will Thompson]

I will report back when I get the December issue.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Asher Kelman: “Plebian”
Cost ~ $114,000
​

 

[Asher Kelman]

I would love to hear the conversations of the manager and sales staff after a tourist hands over $114,000 for what I labeled as the Plebian piece!

So do they feel they have given the customer fair value?

After all these works are unique, beautiful, immaculately crafted, and few will exist on the planet.

Is our surprise at the prices simply a reflection of our ignorance of what’s reasonable for luxury goods? I could imagine pricing the precious stones and then tripling that price to arrive at WHST might be “fair”.

If these were 2 meter high sculptures for display in a public places or a wealthy home I would immediately understand but for essentially a necklace?

Do they “high five” and laugh at the customers once they are out the store?

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

You seem to be overly impressed by what are just numbers, Asher.

 

[Asher Kelman]

You seem to be overly impressed by what are just numbers, Asher.

Jérôme,

No, not at all! $114,000 or $430,000 are not just numbers. It’s real money!

That’s enough money to feed many families for a year! That’s enough to fund two graduate students on a research project to tackle life threatening diseases, one could buy and donate a heart-lung machine for a hospital and more. So it’s not just numbers!

It points to the flaw in how we individuals are allowed to spend accumulated wealth.

I am not claiming any solution to apparent money waste. However to dismiss these unusually vast sums spent on non-essential decorations, as merely “numbers” is a tad flippant, wouldn’t you admit?

I am not innocent, if there’s guilt to be assigned!

I also spend at my whim, accumulated savings, (far far more modest than that of the fancy jewelry buyers), but still on a greatly reduced scale, I am no better!

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

But money is always simply numbers on paper (and in modern times, the paper itself is virtual). What impresses you are the associated symbols.

Here, the symbol is simply one of power and social status. By displaying that jewelry, and even more so by displaying it on a prize woman, the buyer simply displays conspicuous consumption.

Is that money wasted? A part will go back to the public as taxes, the rest finances a network of workers, from the gallery owner to the South African diamond miners. Would there be better uses for that amount? Undoubtedly so, but then jewel makers would go bankrupt. Is the concentration of wealth a problem? Sure, but that is another question and when we are talking about concentration of wealth in the USA, figures reach several billions. Now, several billions is a completely different kind of symbol.

 

[Asher Kelman]

But money is always simply numbers on paper (and in modern times, the paper itself is virtual). What impresses you are the associated symbols.

Here, the symbol is simply one of power and social status. By displaying that jewelry, and even more so by displaying it on a prize woman, the buyer simply displays conspicuous consumption.

Is that money wasted? A part will go back to the public as taxes, the rest finances a network of workers, from the gallery owner to the South African diamond miners. Would there be better uses for that amount? Undoubtedly so, but then jewel makers would go bankrupt. Is the concentration of wealth a problem? Sure, but that is another question and when we are talking about concentration of wealth in the USA, figures reach several billions. Now, several billions is a completely different kind of symbol.

All true but then we agree, “just numbers” masks a hello if a lot of important factors we both agree exist to challenge us!

Thanks for the good points you have made.

Asher