Talk:Richemont

Goals of Richemont/Mimi So Partnership

Modern.Jewelry.Historian, you continue to make edits that state that Richemont's only goal in the Mimi So investment was the international expansion of Mimi So. However, Karimzadeh, writing in Women's Wear Daily in 2004, provides direct quotes from a Richemont executive that say:

"Richemont believes Mimi brings a unique design perspective to the luxury industry," said Ed McQuigg, group vice president of marketing for Richemont. "We are confident her philosophy and unparalleled talent will translate into significant brand expansion both domestically and internationally for Mimi So." (I added the bold.)

AND

"We are confident with the backing of Richemont, Mimi So will grow at both retail and wholesale," McQuigg said.

These quotes clearly don't support your assertion. Why are you so insistent of your viewpoint, even in the face of contradictory evidence from a reputable source? Please help me understand. 71.212.89.17 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no issue with your inclusion of international plus domestic. You have repeatedly mischaracterized the conclusion of the relationship. It is a fact, unreported in the used reference, that together Mimi So and Richemont formed Mimi So International, a joint venture. Every subsequent article refers to Mimi So International. You choose to call that brilliant insight research, fine, so I dropped the joint venture language. However, you have insisted on stating that the firm dissolved, when obviously it didn't and no reference of yours supports that interpretation. Your latest statement of "ending her association" is also original research on your part. Also, your text is simply inelegant and long. This is the Richemont page and doesn't benefit from all the quote details.

What I propose: "Richemont acquired a minority stake in the New York-based jewelry brand of Mimi So in 2004 with a plan to expand domestically and internationally.[23][24] In 2007, Richemont requested to become the majority partner, but So declined. She purchased Richemont's stake in the company.[25"]--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 03:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW include the quote if you feel it is relevant, I was just undoing your undo, not hiding some torrid secret you uncovered!--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 03:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that isn't what you did. I made the changes in two separate edits. You could have reverted only the changes to the article itself, but you intentionally removed both edits, including the quote. No matter what you claim, it makes you look scummy, especially in the context of your poor conduct overall.

I asked you a specific question above that you failed to answer. Again, why are/were you so insistent of your viewpoint, focusing solely on international, even in the face of contradictory evidence from a reputable source? I can't possible negotiate with you if I don't understand what you are trying to achieve. Please explain it to me. What's going on? Why are you doing this? It's clearly very important to you, so explain it. Am I missing something?

"You choose to call that brilliant insight research" Nice try, but that's on you. Original research isn't allowed in WP, period. Its not my rule, its WP's rule. Its a key WP guideline and you are required to follow it. Don't get mad at me for busting you for doing it. Any experienced editor would have seen your attempt to string unrelated articles together as evidence of some other idea as synthesis.

You say I mischaracterized the end of the relationship. I did not. I never said the firm dissolved. (I'm not sure what "the firm" refers to - you need to be more clear.) The joint venture between Mimi So and Richemont dissolved. Their relationship ended. It's over. Do you believe that the JV between Richemont and Mimi So still exists, despite what happened in 2007? If so, how would you prove that? Saying that she bought them out isn't enough - finish the story. 71.212.89.17 (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Dear 71.212.89.17 et al, I'll pass on debating motivation and revisionist history here, as we already have that discussion on my talk page. Perhaps you could respond to my proposal above, which attempts to meet in the middle of our viewpoints. If we resolve the impasse, perhaps we can move on.--Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Warning to ip editor

• Dear ip editor, kindly consider it a final warning before a block. The messages you've left accusing editor MJH on their talk page are not acceptable. Please read NPA, which is a non-negotiable benchmark you should consider while communicating with fellow editors. In reality, I should have range blocked your ip address range from editing anywhere on Wikipedia the moment I noticed your comments to MJH, which were brought to my attention by multiple editors. This is your final chance to immediately change your language and orientation towards other editors. Wifione ^Message 04:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note to Modern Jewellery Historian

Repeatedly addressing an ip as a paid editor is not acceptable. If you wish, take the issue to the CoI noticeboard; that would be quite appropriate. I'll continue watching this article from this moment onward to keep a tab on the interactions. Please contact me directly on my talk page for any assistance. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 04:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Side note to editors

While dispute resolution is a good place to start when facing editing disputes, my understanding is that the issues out here can be managed with talk page discussions. I can clearly understand the differences of opinion and if the editors require, can sort them out line by line/issue by issue. If you wish my views on editing issues, I'll suggest taking each issue sequentially below this message. I'm perfectly okay if you decide to sort it out yourself too. Kind regards. Wifione ^Message 04:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Mimi So, there are a several interesting facts we can consider adding to Richemont. Obviously the mention needs to be concise and facts special to be included here, rather than restricting to Mimi So.

1. Mimi So and Richemont formed a new company, in legal terms, a joint venture. In the end, Richemont sold its interest to Mimi So herself, and the company continues to operate. This could alternatively by included by using the proper name, Mimi So International, in the citation.
2. Mimi So was the first and only American brand, and the only living namesake designer among Richemont brands, which are otherwise Euro-centric with a median founding date of 1871. Dates from Richemont website
3. Richemont opened substantial flagship stores in Beverly Hills (in a Richemont owned building, adjacent to sister brands Cartier and Panerai), on 5th Ave in New York and in Tokyo.
4. Before and during the JV, Mimi So did design work for Cartier, Piaget and substantially Montblanc, designing its entire first jewelry collection.
5. Cartier allocated staff and Richemont formed a distribution company, Mimi So Japan. This level of collaboration between the brands was unprecedented, and in response to an offer from Mitsukoshi for Mimi So to immediately fill a high prestige ground floor space in the flagship Nihonbashi annex. Mimi So hired famous architects and built a large boutique inside Mitsukoshi, becoming the top selling brand on this ground floor.
6. The first 4 are in the references. The last is admittedly research, albeit true.

IP was very interested in mentioning expectations, and both "retail and wholesale", "international and domestic" and concluding with "ending the relationship", each of which I consider a distinction without a difference.

One length-appropriate proposal is:

• Richemont and Mimi So formed a joint venture in 2004, executing a plan to launch the American jewelry designer's boutiques in New York, Tokyo and Beverly Hills CA. In 2007, Richemont requested to become the majority partner. So declined and purchased Richemont's stake in the venture. Mimi So was Richemont's first interest in an American brand or living designer.

I am open to all suggestions, even from IP. --Modern.Jewelry.Historian (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Dear Wikipedia and editors,

Much of the information that appears on Richemont’s Wikipedia page is factually incorrect regarding brands that it owns and out of date according to the company’s latest annual report (published) and also recent share price performance and market cap information. I am unable to update this information as I work for Richemont at my communications agency so am declaring a conflict of interest but wanted you to be aware of the latest facts as below:

1. 2nd paragraph (brand list incorrect: request some names amended and removal of Giampiero Bodino): The brands it owns include A. Lange & Söhne, Azzedine Alaïa, AZ Factory, Baume & Mercier, Buccellati, Cartier, Chloé, Delvaux, Dunhill, IWC Schaffhausen, Giampiero Bodino, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Montblanc, MR PORTER, Officine Panerai, Piaget, Peter Millar, Purdey, Roger Dubuis, Serapian, THE OUTNET, Vacheron Constantin, Van Cleef & Arpels, Watchfinder & Co. and Yoox Net-a-Porter. <ref> https://www.richemont.com/en/home/about-us/maisons-portfolio-overview/

2. 3rd paragraph (information very out of date and therefore incorrect, request to delete and replace): As of November 2012, Compagnie Financière Richemont S.A. was the sixth-largest corporation by market capitalization in the Swiss Market Index. As of 2017, Richemont was the third-largest luxury goods company in the world after LVMH and Estée Lauder Companies.[3]

As of Dec 2022, Richemont was the fourth largest corporation by market capitalisation in the Swiss Market Index <ref> https://markets.businessinsider.com/index/market-capitalization/smiand and the seventh largest in the Johannesburg Stock Exchange <ref> https://www.listcorp.com/jse. Richemont also joined the Euro STOXX 50 Index on 20 December 2021. <ref> https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/luxury-goods-group-hermes-wins-promotion-blue-chip-euro-stoxx-50-index-2021-12-01/

As of 31 January 2022, Richemont has a market capitalisation of CHF 69 billion. <ref> https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CFR.SW/?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEpXxAOynRHse1EgWaB9k70a_ArDnahkHkBRm0x6RMv1i-l-YI8D3dlKzaTDVExPfrnKk1bXrHp_nUtcULSRcLrMXNruI5trr9d16ZpDpS4kygTCdG7mIhja2UkbVo_SU0TSSTXnL8M18IbPY3iy4zVZg8_T61CbdCFisAJSM5Gr

3. Organization (request for information update) Compagnie Financière Richemont S.A. organizes its business activities into three operating divisions: Jewellery Maisons, Specialist Watchmakers and Fashion & Accessories / Other businesses with a fourth, YNAP, held for sale, subject to transaction completion. <ref> https://www.richemont.com/en/home/ <ref> https://www.richemont.com/en/home/about-us/maisons-portfolio-overview/

Cartier, Van Cleef & Arpels, and Buccellati constitute the Jewellery Maisons.

The Specialist Watchmakers group is composed of A. Lange & Söhne, Baume & Mercier, IWC Schaffhausen, Jaeger-LeCoultre, Officine Panerai, Piaget, Roger Dubuis, and Vacheron Constantin and the joint venture with the Ralph Lauren Watch & Jewelry Co.

The Fashion & Accessories / Other Businesses division includes Azzedine Alaïa, AZ Factory, Chloé, Delvaux, Dunhill, Montblanc, Peter Millar, and Purdey, and Serapian.

4. Subsidiaries (request for removal of incorrect info) Giampiero Bodino – fine jewellery; based in Milan, Italy <ref> https://www.richemont.com/en/home/about-us/maisons-portfolio-overview/

Zoe at Teneo Zoe at Teneo (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I understand that you wish to have the article updated. However, the sources that you have cited are not suited for the article, at least not in the way that you have cited them. You need to cite sources that actually, and literally say what the article says. Sources that only make it plausible that the article's contents are correct (without reflecting the article's contents) are insufficient. Also note that citing Richemont's website is not a good idea. That is because contents not only need to be correct, it needs to be clear why the contents are notable and should be included in the article. Best regards, -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:45, 29 April 2023 (UTC)