Tapestry is a big company that makes clothes and accessories. They have three main brands: Coach, Kate Spade, and Stuart Weitzman. In the last few months, they sold more things from their Coach brand than before, which made people happy. This means that Tapestry can make more money this year than last year. Because of this good news, people who own a small part of Tapestry's company (called shares) are also happy and want to buy more shares. So the price of each share went up by 7.87%. The company is also giving some of its money to the people who own the shares as a gift (called dividend). They said they will give more gifts this year than last year. Read from source...

- The article does not provide any data or evidence to support the claim that Tapestry shares soared due to strength in Coach brand. It merely states the fact without explaining how the brand contributed to the increase in share price and why other factors may have influenced it.
- The article uses vague terms like "beating the street view" and "slumped" without specifying what these numbers are or how they were derived. This makes it hard for readers to understand the performance of each brand and compare it with the market expectations.
- The article focuses mostly on the positive aspects of Tapestry's Q2 results, such as higher revenue, gross margin, operating income, and dividend payment, while ignoring or downplaying the negative ones, such as lower sales for Kate Spade and Stuart Weitzman brands. This creates a one-sided and misleading impression of Tapestry's overall performance and health.
- The article does not mention any potential challenges or risks that Tapestry may face in the future, such as changing consumer preferences, competition, supply chain disruptions, or economic uncertainties. This leaves readers with an incomplete and optimistic picture of Tapestry's prospects and outlook.
- The article does not cite any sources or references for its claims, figures, or forecasts. It relies solely on the information provided by Tapestry itself, which may be biased or inaccurate. This undermines the credibility and reliability of the article and its author.