For sale: a sterling silver Tiffany "tin can," $1000


I reckon the Tiffany designers are helping trickle down cash. This is daylight robbery, hooray!

Unfortunately, I also reckon this selling of stupid gewgaws indicates an upcoming financial crash. Too much money is in the hands of people too stupid to use it in any responsible sense.


Didn’t we just do this?

Pitchforks, guillotine


I actually kind of like it.


I saw something similar to this recently that made me think of a new feature we should add to the tax code. There should be certain ridiculously luxurious products that are placed on a rotating list by a randomizing algorithm. When you buy one of them, it triggers a notification, and you get a letter from the IRS the following week…

“This is the IRS. We hope you are enjoying your $1000 silver coffee can, and we would like to notify you that you will be taxed at a rate of 66.6% for the next three years.”


Always seems strange to me that people find spending money on a whimsical thing like this is worse than say- investing in a coal mining company. Although I doubt I could ever bring myself to spend a thousand bucks on this particular thing, I could totally imagine spending a few days to make my own.


Buy two of these, and one of the Tiffany sterling silver balls of yarn, and you’ve got yourself one fancy tin can telephone.


Me too. It’s technically excellent, and I have a penchant for element 47.

But I’d rather my silver line my purse.

Also just wondering how soon before that accidentally ends up in recycling.


Perfect for the trustafarian busker in your life. Rattle your silver can while wearing the $375 anarchy jacket.and the artfully muddied $425 jeans.


OK, everyone, I still think we need to take a breath. Tiffany has always made artistic items, adding their flair to things like lamps, and cigarette cases, and even guns and knives. Yes, it is over priced. Duh. All of their stuff is. ie the charm bracelets and other more common items even the plebes can afford.

This doesn’t look anything different than a rehash of the Pop Art movement with a coating of precious metals (because that is kinda their thing). It seems to me the push back is BECAUSE it is a common item (just like during the original Pop Art movement). If this was a small vase with some sort of what one would consider an “artistic form” one would chalk it up to expensive art. But let’s remember the original Pop Art movement literally had people making fake Brillo pad boxes, blowing up panels in comic books, and making giant sculptures of common items, and painting soup cans. The Pop Art movement showed that even common items can be art.


Well, yes. But in the 1950s, pop art was original, (except for the dada objets in the 20s).

This is not original at all. This is a middle finger to the nouveau riche. I like it. (I don’t think actual billionaires would be awed by this.)


Art doesn’t need to be original to be art.

1 Like

The “CanPhone-X”


But it does have to be interesting to matter.


I’m kind of disappointed that they didn’t include the iconic razor-sharp edge.


Tiffany doesn’t mean to sell sterling silver tin cans for $1,000. They mean to get people to come to their website, look at $1,000 tin cans, and then buy their girlfriend a $150 sterling silver pretzel charm. Go to some high end jewelry store and see the $30,000 engagement rings? They don’t move very many of them, but it sure makes $3,000 look like less of a commitment.


“Darling, I’m buying you this $3,000 engagement ring because it is less of a commitment.” :smiley:


I’m guessing, on average, the marriages with a $3K ring do better than the marriages with a $30K ring.



1 Like

Ugh - sorry - I am throwing that curve off…

1 Like

Would it be gauche, or is it Tiffany’s intention, for it to be filled with No. 2 pencils?

Oh, I’m sorry. First World problems.