Subcompacts Show Significant Sales Gain

USA Today - Led by the Toyota Yaris, the Honda Fit and the Nissan Versa (shown) -- small, front-wheel-drive, fuel-efficient subcompacts -- sales of the low-price end of the small-car market are up 42.2% through November compared with a year ago. That's in an overall new vehicle market down 2.5%.

They're selling in an average 29 days, less than half the time it normally takes to sell a vehicle, Power Information Network says. The three stars of the category, Fit, Yaris and Versa, sell in less than two weeks.

Despite the dramatic growth in their sales, the low-price small cars are only about 2% of U.S. new vehicle sales. ... more

Comments

[ciao]

Continuiamo a non trovare sulla vostra rivista la notizia dell'invenzione del moto perpetuo e come tutti gli altri ne dovrete rispondere in tribunale: perchè non volete parlare dell'invenzione del moto perpetuo e quindi dell'energia gratis e quindi dell'acqua gratis? Ci penseranno gli avvocati a chiedervelo.

http://domenico-schietti.blogspot.com/2006/12/il-primo-esemplare-di-motore-di.html

Il primo esemplare di Motore di Schietti clandestino è stato consegnato

Svolta nel mondo dell'energia, è stato inventato il moto perpetuo, free energy per tutti!

[amazingdrx]

Only 2%? They have a huge growth potential then.

Imagine plugin serial fuel cell hybrids this size that average more than 10 times the mileage of these designs?

They would spend no time on the lot, people would order them ahead! Make it happen Japanese automakers! US companies are not seriously trying to compete for this market.

[Paul Dietz]

The problem with subcompacts remains their safety. This will likely limit market penetration even if fuel remains at current levels.

[amazingdrx]

Ever see an indy car hit the wall at over 100 mph and the driver walk away Paul? How much do they weigh? Around 1000 pounds?

The safety problem is due mainly to design, not weight or size. And larger vehicles have safety problems too. Would you rather crash in a Volvo or a Detroit SUV?

The lightest cars, racecars, are also the safest in a crash.

[Nucbuddy]

Dr. X,

Race-cars use special safety systems -- such as five- and six- point seatbelts, helmets, racing suits, and foam neckguards -- that have convenience costs.

Roll-cages could be incorporated into small cars, but they would take up valuable room (and might force the use of helmets if they come too close to the driver's head). This is not as much of a problem in a one-seat race-car with no cargo-carrying requirement.

[Ender]

Paul - "The problem with subcompacts remains their safety"

In Australia these cars are huge sellers and are classified as small cars not subcompacts. We drive them all the time, I own a 'subcompact', and we have no worse road fatalities than you do in the US.

This is a normal car size for most people in the world. You need to change this perception that large cars are safer. Small cars can be perfectly safe as the biggest safety device in the car is the driver and how he/she drives.

The main problem we have here is the large 4WDs (SUVs) fitted with bullbars that are only used for dropping kids off at school. Bullbars in urban areas need to be banned.

[Nucbuddy]

Ender,

Australia differs from the United States. Its population is 91% caucations, and much of the rest is Han Asian.

Its population is older.

It has a more-restrictive licensing scheme.

If you search the IIHS website for weight and similar terms, you will find articles indicating that smaller, lighter cars are more dangerous in all types of crashes.

[Ender]

Nucbuddy - "Australia differs from the United States. Its population is 91% caucations, and much of the rest is Han Asian."

So you are saying Americans are big so they have to drive big cars?????????

"Its population is older."

So???

"It has a more-restrictive licensing scheme."

Again this is a good thing right??

"If you search the IIHS website for weight and similar terms, you will find articles indicating that smaller, lighter cars are more dangerous in all types of crashes."

That is hardly a surprise with monster SUVs driving round with not very well trained drivers!! By your solution we all should drive hummers with armour just so we don't get killed by other drivers.

The death rate in Australia is no higher than the US.

[Paul Dietz]

You need to change this perception that large cars are safer. Small cars can be perfectly safe as the biggest safety device in the car is the driver and how he/she drives.

All else being equal, smaller cars are more dangerous to their occupants than larger ones (although SUVs are notoriously dangerous for their size, due to high center of gravity). This is clear in the data and is true even if drivers are responsible for most accidents. I don't know about you, but on my planet, drivers are not perfect, and never will be.

Given that driving a car is one of the most dangerous thing most Americans do, facile dismissal of safety concerns is literally whistling past the graveyard.

[Charles S]

"All else being equal, smaller cars are more dangerous to their occupants than larger ones"

I have to assume the statement above is supported by the popular statistic that in a crash between larger vehicle versus a smaller one, occupants of the smaller vehicle have a much higher chance in fatality. However, I have also seen data that indicates the fatality rate for occupants of SUVs is 11% higher than passenger cars for 2004.

Before we go back and forth, we all need to admit size and mass alone is NOT the only factor in safety. Height mismatch between bumper was a BIG issue in large vehicles bypassing the strongest safety features of smaller, less tall vehicles. Rollover and roof collapse contributed a great deal to fatalities for trucks and SUVs.

Seat belts and airbags are examples of features that has nothing to do with size and mass. The point is, safety the SUM of all the features engineered into the vehicle.

The other point is that "safety" should also include ACTIVE safety, as well as PASSIVE safety. Passive safety is about crash-worthiness, but active safety is about NOT being hit in the first place.

Short stopping distance, quick responses to driver's commands (such as swerving), good visibility for the driver, etc. are features that helps drivers AVOID accidents, and may even keep drivers from CAUSING accidents in the first place. Vehicles with higher mass may do very well in straight frontal collisions, but do poorly when it comes time for critical maneuvering.

There will never be a "perfectly safe" car or truck, but we need to look at "safety" in a broader view than just big versus small.

[Paul Dietz]

However, I have also seen data that indicates the fatality rate for occupants of SUVs is 11% higher than passenger cars for 2004.

Yes, but not higher than small car fatalities. The rates for those cars are considerably higher.

There will never be a "perfectly safe" car or truck, but we need to look at "safety" in a broader view than just big versus small.

Fine, but please don't use this big picture approach as an excuse to ignore the evidence you don't like. Small cars are more dangerous.

[Charles S]

"Small cars are more dangerous."

Alright, then less compare several small cars and see which one is more or less dangerous?

Geo Metro
Ford Fiesta
Smart fortwo
Mini Cooper (new)

I'm not looking for a detailed breakdown of each vehicle, but while you're accusing me of using generalization (big picture) approach to analyze safety, you have flipped to the other extreme by making a generalization that small cars, just because of its size, mean that they are all equal in terms of safety features. I do not feel that I'm being selective, but I do believe your bias against small cars is equally "selective" by nature.

[Paul Dietz]

Here are some numbers (from Britain) for safety of various car models, from several years ago. As a group, small cars are considerably more dangerous than larger cars. The chance of an accident causing a fatal injury is five times higher in a small car than in a large car (although the spread in serious injury rates is not nearly as large).

The argument you will want to make is that large cars, while they make the driver safer (which is relevant to the person deciding what to buy) also make others less safe. A study at the NHTSA a decade ago found that reducing the weight of light trucks would reduce overall traffic deaths for just this reason. This suggests a tax on larger cars and trucks to account for the negative externality would be a good public policy.

[Charles S]

I have briefly scan the model list of the report and noticed that the report is talking about vehicles dated in the 1990's up to 2000. That pretty much falls into the "Geo Metro" category that we all can agree, are dangerous. The current batch of small cars are not the same, and with addition of tougher US safety codes and manufacturer's additional voluntary upgrades, these small cars are more robust compare to small cars of the 90's.

I have no problem with weight reduction, and applying that to ALL vehicles will certainly help us all in reduction of energy consumption.

However, bumper mismatch is also an important aspect in safety that the public mistakenly equate as the problems with vehicle sizes. We have technology in all new cars today that can withstand a high speed, frontal and side impacts, but they are USELESS if the front of the SUV bypasses such features and head straight for the occupants behind the glass. Reasons like these are why newer SUVs have lower bumpers, and many newer small cars are taller (of course, getting more headroom, too).

Perhaps in a perfect world, we can address other flaws such as unnecessary high ground clearance for urban trucks and SUVs, poor driver's visibility of the surroundings, blind spots, etc. then maybe we can have a fair comparison of safety among most non-commercial vehicles on the road.

[Paul Dietz]

The current batch of small cars are not the same, and with addition of tougher US safety codes and manufacturer's additional voluntary upgrades, these small cars are more robust compare to small cars of the 90's.

I strongly doubt this affects the overall conclusion (automotive engineering has not changed all that much in half a decade), but perhaps you could point to some actual data supporting your claim.

[Ender]

From the supplied reference, the IIHS here is one of the modern taller subcompacts that are extremely popular here in Oz

Toyota Echo 2000-02 184,554 75 (32-119) 65 8 4
75 deaths per million vehicles

Mercury Grand Marquis 1999-2002 1,141,009 83 (66-100) 52 32 14
Which has 83 deaths per million vehicle years.

You would be safer in a Toyota Echo than a Mercury Grand Marquis, whatever that is. Notice also that there were 14 rollover accidents in the large SUV. You cannot generalise that larger cars are safer because that is not true of all large cars and all small cars.

http://www.healthinfonet.ecu.edu.au/html/html_community/roadsafety_community/background.htm
In this document vehicle restraint seems more important than vehicle size. With airbags and seat belts small cars can be just as safe. Australia very wisely legislated for compulsory seat belt wearing years ago. It also notes the huge effect alcohol has and speed none of which are related to vehicle size.

However the real proof is, if larger cars are safer, then the USA should have less deaths per 100 000 people than Australia which is not the case.
http://www.cemt.org/irtad/IRTADPUBLIC/we2.html

From the international database of road deaths Australia's rate, was in 2004, 7.9 per 100 000 people and the USA was 14.5.

Note also that most of the countries in Europe that have much smaller cars on the average than either the USA or Australia have much lower death rates that the US.

[Nucbuddy]

Ender wrote: you are saying Americans are big so they have to drive big cars?

No, I was meaning to imply that since Australia has higher proportions of caucasians and Han Asians than does America, its good road safety record might seem to follow naturally since caucasians and Han Asians tend to be safer drivers.

Ender wrote: "Its population is older."

So?

Australia's older population should weight toward driving more safely -- since it is older:
http://www.iihs.org/research/fatality_facts/teenagers.html

Ender wrote: "It has a more-restrictive licensing scheme."

[...] this is a good thing right?

Australia's restrictive three-stage licensing scheme might limit the damage that its teenaged drivers can do. See the above link on teenaged drivers.

Ender wrote: "If you search the IIHS website for weight and similar terms, you will find articles indicating that smaller, lighter cars are more dangerous in all types of crashes."

That is hardly a surprise with monster SUVs driving round

SUV's are not involved in small-car single-vehicle crashes, and SUV's are not involved in small-car crashes involving two or more vehicles of similar size-weight. Neglecting the rollover fatalities of SUV's and pickup trucks, the most dangerous class of cars in both single vehicle crashes and homogenous multi-vehicle crashes is the small-car class.

Please reread the documents linked-to by this search:
http://www.google.com/search?&q=+site%3Awww.iihs.org+weight

Ender wrote: The death rate in Australia is no higher than the US.

There may be mitigating factors involved. Australia differs from the United States in having a more caucasian/Han Asian and older population, and in having a licensing scheme that might restrict the havoc that its teenagers can wreak on the roads.

[Bob]

I like to think of it as large SUV drivers are more likely to kill someone other than themselves "all else equal". I own a small sports car with better safety ratings than the car, truck, or SUV ratings of my friends and families vehicles, but I know that someone driving a large SUV is more likely to kill me than someone driving a small one or a car similar to mine. It's unfortunate that people are only concerned with their own safety when considering what size vehicle to buy. I'd rather see someone buy an average sized vehicle with exceptional handling and accident avoidance features. It would do us all some good.

[Ender]

Nucbuddy - "Australia differs from the United States in having a more caucasian/Han Asian and older population"

You seem to have this fixation on race here. We are the same as you guys over there - no differences!!!!! Have you ever visited Oz BTW? You seem to be desperately trying to justify your larger cars with any argument you can. We have lower fatalities with our smaller cars - about half as many. The bottom line is that the evidence is against you. Our, on average, smaller cars had in 2004 half the fatalities that your larger, on average, cars had. This blows your premise out of the water. If you are putting it down to us being better drivers (which I doubt) then that is taking away from your argument that smaller cars are less safe as this has nothing to do with the size of the car.

The factors in fatalities are alcohol, vehicle passenger restraint, speed, and road conditions/weather. Only after these are considered does vehicle size come into it. Obviously, by the evidence, average vehicle size does not matter at all when the vehicle fleet are reasonably the same. In the US subcompacts, as you call them, do have to drive with large numbers of enormous SUVs that do bypass all the safety that can be built into into a small car. So in that case the smaller car will have more fatalities.

In Oz we do not have the sheer numbers of very large SUVs. We do have them, of course, but high petrol prices here ensure that they are on average much smaller than in the US. Here the probability of a smaller car crashing into a very large car is much lower so we have less fatalities despite the fact that our car fleet is on average much smaller.

However there is nothing inherently unsafe with smaller cars if they are built with the correct safety gear such as seat belts and airbags as the modern ones have now. The Yaris has 6 airbags including side ones and are very safe. Some of the older small cars were very unsafe however so were some of the larger cars.

I still say it is not primarily the car that is unsafe but it is the nut that holds the steering wheel.

[amazingdrx]

Wrong again buddy. At least you are consistent!

The safety devices pioneered in racing take decades to incorporate in consumer vehicles. Watch the movie, "Tucker".

Volvo and other companies use these safer designs voluntarily to compete in the market place. Detroit uses bribery to stop the government from requiring lifesaving technology.

Your excuses about helmets and storage space in regular cars are ridiculous.

We are talking people's lives, billions in costs for death and injuries, and companies that actually fix the price of a human life to benefit their bottomline. Blood money, just like blood for oil in Iraq.

What's wrong with a kevlar tub and roll cage in a car? And air bags already substitute for helmets. Furthermore weight and air resistance are the main factors in economy car's extra mileage. Length is not as important a factor.

The extra length can hold storage space, storage space that is designed to absorb the energy of a crash, at least in Japanese and Swedish vehicles.

[Nucbuddy]

Ender wrote: on race here. We are the same as you guys over there - no differences

Apparently, that is not the case. According to Wikipedia, Australia is 91% caucasian, whereas the United States is only 67% caucasian.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Australia#Ethnic_groups
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States#Demographics

[Nucbuddy]

Ender wrote: Our, on average, smaller cars had in 2004 half the fatalities that your larger, on average, cars had.

Vehicle fatalities per 100 million kilometers travelled are around 0.9 for both Australia and the United States.
abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/4A814725D2E88920CA2570DE0019B47F?opendocument
www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

Ender wrote: This blows your premise out of the water.

...Not if there are other factors involved. For example, Australians might be better drivers than Americans are, and this might be compensating for more-dangerous vehicles in Australia.

Ender wrote: If you are putting it down to us being better drivers [...] then that is taking away from your argument that smaller cars are less safe

That does not make sense. If Australia's cars are more dangerous than those of the United States, but its traffic fatality rate per distance-travelled is the same, perhaps one reason might be that Australians are better drivers.

[Paul Dietz]

If Australia's cars are more dangerous than those of the United States, but its traffic fatality rate per distance-travelled is the same, perhaps one reason might be that Australians are better drivers.

Or that the roads are less crowded.

[Ender]

Nucbuddy - "Apparently, that is not the case. According to Wikipedia, Australia is 91% caucasian, whereas the United States is only 67% caucasian."

And that is a factor because .......?

"Not if there are other factors involved."

Yes there are lot of other factors involved which relegates vehicle size to insignificance. I really do not think that Americans and Australians are at all different and are better drivers. Try driving on the Mitchell Freeway here in Perth and see how good the drivers are.

Paul Dietz - "Or that the roads are less crowded."

Not really as Australia is one of the most urbanised in the world. Most people (92.5%) drive in cities where the traffic is more or less the same the world over.
http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_detail.cfm?IndicatorID=30&Country=AU

[Nucbuddy]

Ender wrote: there are lot of other factors involved which relegates vehicle size to insignificance.

Could you please show your math?

[amazingdrx]

"No, I was meaning to imply that since Australia has higher proportions of caucasians and Han Asians than does America, its good road safety record might seem to follow naturally"

Racial theory on driving safety? From a discussion on the boom in small car sales?

How did you get from here to there? Nevermind, I don't really want to know. Yikes!!

I guess it isn't a surprise given your argument that nuclear contamination is good since it increases the "herd immunity" of human populations.

[Ender]

Nucbuddy - "Could you please show your math?"

OK so lets start with your premise that larger cars are safer. Here are the stats:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/4A814725D2E88920CA2570DE0019B47F?opendocument
http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

The US had in 2002 14.93 deaths per 100 000 people, Australia had in the same year 8.7 nearly half.

The US in 2002 had 1.51 deaths per 100 million miles driven, Australia had 0.9 deaths.

Now to try to explain this you have brought up all sort of entities like race, driving skill and the like. A certain William of Occum once said that entities should not be multiplied unecessarily.

To justify your initial premise you need to invoke all sorts of entities that you cannot prove. Therefore the simplest conclusion, that involves no unecessary entities, is that your premise is false and larger cars are not safer that smaller cars.

[Nucbuddy]

Ender wrote: The US in 2002 had 1.51 deaths per 100 million miles driven, Australia had 0.9 deaths.

...per 100 million kilometers.
abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/4A814725D2E88920CA2570DE0019B47F?opendocument

A kilometer is not a mile. Australia's 0.9 deaths per 100 million kilometers converts to 1.45 deaths per 100 million miles. The United States' 1.51 deaths per 100 million miles converts to 0.94 deaths per 100 million kilometers.

The 2005 data for the United States is 1.47 deaths per 100 million miles.
www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov

This translates to 0.91 deaths per 100 million kilometers.

The 2004 rate for the United States was 1.45 deaths per 100 million miles. This translates to 0.90 deaths per 100 million kilometers.

The United States and Australia seem to share the same traffic fatality rate per vehicle distance travelled. This is 0.9 per 100 million Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT).

[Ender]

Nucbuddy - "The United States and Australia seem to share the same traffic fatality rate per vehicle distance travelled. This is 0.9 per 100 million Vehicle Kilometers Travelled (VKT)."

Which still does not support your premise that larger cars are safer. If they were the deaths per 100 million miles would be less for the US.

You may have picked up the mistake however it does not change the conclusion. To do this you would have to demonstrate statistically a significantly lower fatality rate for the larger US cars which is not supported by the available figures.

[Paul Dietz]

The comparison between the US and Australia cannot be used as evidence that smaller cars are as safe as larger cars. It cannot be used as evidence the other way, either. There are too many ways the two environments are different (different laws, enforcement, driver education, culture, etc.) that would render the comparison meaningless.

What you need to do is look at differences in rates between large and small cars in the same population. I posted a link to just such numbers from the UK. In those figures, small cars are much more dangerous than large cars.

[Ender]

Paul - "What you need to do is look at differences in rates between large and small cars in the same population"

Yes but this from the US statistics disproves this:

Toyota Echo 2000-02 184,554 75 (32-119) 65 8 4
75 deaths per million vehicles

Mercury Grand Marquis 1999-2002 1,141,009 83 (66-100) 52 32 14
Which has 83 deaths per million vehicle years.

In this case in the US the small car is safer than the larger car. A generalisation that all small cars are less safe than large cars is just wrong.

What would be more accurate is that SOME small cars are less safe than SOME large cars. If you pick a modern small car with adequate safety and drive it sensibly, either in Australia or the US, you will be perfectly safe - well as safe as you can be. A large car is not a guarantee of safety.

For gods sake you use 40% of the worlds gasoline - don't you think it is about time you paid a bit more for petrol and drove smaller cars. Would it hurt you that much?? The rest of the world gets on fine with small cars - can't you guys??

[Nucbuddy]

Ender wrote: A generalisation that all small cars are less safe than large cars is just wrong.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Ender wrote: A large car is not a guarantee of safety.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Do you know what a correlation is, Ender?

Ender wrote: For gods sake you use 40% of the worlds gasoline

In terms of productivity, the United States is the most energy-efficient nation on Earth. If you would like the United States to pay more for oil, you may influence the present price upward by purchasing oil futures. In turn, Australia will be charged more for the technologies it licenses from more-productive nations such as the United States.

[Paul Dietz]

Yes but this from the US statistics disproves this:

Selecting particular cars where the random variation in the data skews the result in the way you want, eh?

Perhaps you should learn more of that 'statistics' thing of which you write.

[Ender]

NucBuddy - "In turn, Australia will be charged more for the technologies it licenses from more-productive nations such as the United States."

I guess I deserved that however you will pay more for oil in the future and you will have to give up your large cars at some time. Why invent excuses to keep them? We cannot strip mine the entire earth and fill the air with greenhouse gases just so you can have the illusion of safety.

BTW I did not bring up a straw man argument perhaps you should read your own reference.

Paul - "Perhaps you should learn more of that 'statistics' thing of which you write"

Yes that would be true however in this case there are some small cars that are safer than some large cars. This is not a blind thing. You are not allocated randomly a car that you then proceed to drive. You choose the car you drive and if you chose a Toyota Echo you would be just as safe as in the huge SUV.

Perhaps you should learn about statistics a bit too. This is not random choice where the overall average of small cars being less safe would lead more deaths from people randomly picking them. People choose cars based on studies such as this therefore already skewing the statistics.

And if either of you want to rabbit on about correlation then if large cars were that much safer than small cars this would appear in the data from 2 different countries with different average car sizes despite the differences in culture etc. The fact that no such correlation exists, despite the USA and Australia being quite similar in culture etc, means that larger cars are not necessarily safer than small cars.

[Dr. Evil]

Ender, Nucbuddy is just trying to be cool. Shhhh! pull in real close here, an' I'll wisper it to ya... Blacks and Mezicans cain't drive! There. Now git!

[Harvey D]

On snowy and rainy days, most vehicles in the ditch are large 4 x 4 and SUVs.

Does that mean that 4 x 4 and SUVs should not be allowed on the roads during cold winter months and rainy days.

They are definately not safer because they are bigger.

However, since they are very often out of control, they damange others (including small cars) more often.

[George]

There is a difference between size and weight. In a collision, the vehicles job is to decelerate the passengers without applying injurious force to them. This is mainly accomplished by crush zones in the front and rear of the vehicle which are designed to deform in a controlled manner, dissipating energy and decelerating the occupants safely. Adding mass to the vehicle will not necessarily make it safer. It might make it harder to decelerate safely, or make it less stable due to increased c.g. or polar moment.
It may be possible to increase the size of a vehicle, particularly the length, without a huge weight penalty. This would result in longer crush zones for safer deceleration.

Of course, when two objects collide, physics tells us that the heavier one will experience the smaller acceleration. I would happily support reduced limits on mass and bumper height of "light trucks".

[ティファニー 激安]

tiffany & coスウォッチ グループ ジャパンはこのほど、東京?銀座のニコラス?G?ハイエック センター内に「ティファニー ウォッチ ショールーム」をオープンした。男性向けの「アトラス ジェント スクエア クロノグラフ」、女性向けの「ティファニー ジェメア」をはじめ、希少性の高いアイテムも展示、販売される。Tiffany Rings
国内初のティファニー ウォッチ専門店となる同ショールームには、新作ウォッチがいち早く店頭に並ぶだけでなく、さまざまなフェアやイベントも開催される予定となっている。時計の専門知識を持つスタッフにより、利用客の要望にもきめ細かく対応するという。ティファニー 激安
同ショールームでも販売される「アトラス ジェント スクエア クロノグラフ」は、最高のムーブメントとして広く認められるフレデリック?ピゲ製自動巻キャリバー1285を搭載。さらに頑丈な40mmのステンレス スティール ケースとスポーティなデザインにより、毅然とした男の魅力を演出している。Tiffany ネックレス
「ティファニー ジェメア」は、18カラットのホワイトゴールドで作られた樽型のケースが特徴で、たくさんのダイヤモンドを散りばめた宝飾時計に仕上がっている。ダイヤモンド1列のモデルとダイヤモンド2列のモデルのほかに、時計の表面に610個のダイヤモンド(3.12カラット)を敷き詰めたフルパヴェのモデルも用意。Tiffany locksこれらの3モデルを、直径22mm / 18mmの2パターンで展開する。ティファニー
その他、ショールームのオープンを記念し、日本初登場となる「ステートメント ウォッチ」「5thアヴェニュー ウォッチ」なども特別展示されるティファニー。
アメリカを代表する世界のプレミア?ジュエラー、ティファニーは1837年の創設以来、時を越えて多くの人々を魅了してきた。ティファニーのジュエリー、シルバー、ウォッチ、そのデザインの数々は何世代にもわたって世界中で愛され続けている。ティファニー 通販