Louis Vuitton is now a 'brand for secretaries' in China

#47
JustAgUrL said:
Lately, I see it a lot on one of the sub-forums, people don't understand what Luxury USED to mean.

Luxury used to be about high quality…

People USED to care that their shoes were Made In Italy.
People used to care that their watches were Made in Switzerland.
That their Crystal was made in Austria.
Their silk in Hong Kong..

Now, people just care about getting the latest "IT" bag.
they don't care where it is made.
"Oh, I see my Prada bag is made in China, I don't care though, I like the bag. "

One only need to visit the Prada Sub-Forum to see this.

Prada being made in China, falling apart within a year.

People only care about the names, not the quality behind these names
anymore.
This I find terribly sad. This is why Luxury no longer hold the status
is used to, it is no longer about the history or the craftsmanship
and standing behind the name.


I tried on a pair of Lanvin Boots a few years back,
with the conversion they would have cost me over $1,000
The price was reasonable in my opinion, it was the fact
that they were made in China that turned me off from buying them.

Don't get me wrong, there are some thing I have no problem being made in
China, just not $1,000 Lanvin Boots.


Luxury has become mass produced and disposable. Which is the antithesis of what Luxury used to stand for.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people do care about these things.
I do. Many people on this forum do.
I care where my shoes are made. I care where my Louis Vuitton products are made. But made in Italy or Made in France or Made in the USA does not guarantee quality either.

You are making a blanket statement. It may be true in some cases, but there are a lot of people who don't fit the description you provide. I give shoppers a lot more credit in discerning what they buy.
 
#48
Marey said:
I'd like to request they sell all their LV so I can buy them used on layaway at Fashionphile. Kthanksbye!

No seriously, it sounds like I'm being witchy but I'm really just kidding. I don't mind at all if there are people with more wealth than I who think LV is low-class or for the common folk like me. Honestly, I'm not likely to run into any of these people anyway since I doubt we frequent the same restaurants, so to each his or her own, I say. If it bothers someone that all types of men/women carry LV, then that's more money for some other luxury brand to make, so yay for that label. No matter HOW pricey your handbag, there's always going to be someone out there who thinks yours is low-rent anyway. Personally, I know where my bracket is and I'm cool with it. I have so much more at this point in my life than I ever thought I'd have that I'm too busy being eternally grateful to be offended when someone doesn't want to be affiliated with me and my handbags. I get why people follow that line of thinking and let's face it, I have it to a lesser degree myself, because I'd rather buy a used Vuitton than a new Kors or Coach, so I can't pretend I'm not above the same attitude myself from time to time. ;)
Click to expand...

+1 This is an incredibly well written and positive post. I wish I saw more posts like this on this forum. I like the way you think!
 
#49
Colonia said:
Very well said! Quality should be very important and the main focus but that is unfortunately not the main focus anymore.
I remember cars in the past. You could drive an old German car with over 500.000 km and it was still a good car. Nowadays the cars around 200.000 km are regarded as old and have lost of repairs.
The companies want us to buy new things constantly. That is why they don't want a a long product lifecycle and we are also guilty because we let them do this with us.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

I remember when the marketing of Shoes Made in Italy,
and that people bought them because they would have them forever because they were well made, they would last forever.

Or, when I bought my first Louis Vuitton Speedy,
the SA said to me, Louis Vuitton is the kind of bag you will have for the
rest of your life, the kind of bag that you can pass down to your daughter.
By the way, that bag in 1995 was $335… Not exactly an expensive bag.

Luxury was not about the price, it was about the quality workmanship.
 
#50
Secretaries in China aren't "low class," as has been referred to in this thread. They are the rising consumer class, which China is very proud about. Sure, the super-rich in China want to make sure they stand out from these other consumers, but I think LV has to pleased to be expanding its customer base in Asia, at all tiers.
 
#53
fabuleux said:
I think a lot of people do care about these things.
I do. Many people on this forum do.
I care where my shoes are made. I care where my Louis Vuitton products are made. But made in Italy or Made in France or Made in the USA does not guarantee quality either.

You are making a blanket statement. It may be true in some cases, but there are a lot of people who don't fit the description you provide. I give shoppers a lot more credit in discerning what they buy.
Click to expand...



I think that most here know, I was not talking about EVERYBODY…
and that most people here would not fall into that category.
 
#54
fabuleux said:
I sure don't want to keep my shoes that long! I wear them a couple of years and then off to eBay!
Click to expand...




Most of the very wealthy men I know have their shoes resoled
every couple years.
There is no reason to replace shoes every few years if you take proper
care of them.

I have Bally shoes I have had for 15 years, you can't even tell they have
been worn, yet they have.
 
#55
JustAgUrL said:
Most of the very wealthy men I know have their shoes resoled
every couple years.
There is no reason to replace shoes every few years if you take proper
care of them.

I have Bally shoes I have had for 15 years, you can't even tell they have
been worn, yet they have.
Click to expand...

I just want new shoes. Fashion changes, taste evolves. My shoes are in great shape, I just want new styles!
So rather than store them and clutter my closets, I would rather sell them and get new ones!
 
#56
fabuleux said:
This is how I think about it:
Something is "low class" when the person carrying it is vulgar or low class herself. Someone could carry a Birkin bag in croc and could still look vulgar and low class.

Money does not buy elegance.
Click to expand...

You've misunderstood me.

What I say is that in an old money society it's considered low class to brag about money. So croc Birkin would be considered vulgar by the definition. It's like wearing a sign saying look at me, I've spent so much money on this and I want to brag about it.

If you spend a lot of money on something it should be special. For example, he doesn't wear Rolex, thinking its vulgar. He wears discreet Breguet and Patek Phillip.

Even my dad who doesn't care about brands recently described an outfit of a prostitute or a gold digger as HL dress, CL shoes, Chanel bag.

I personally not as concerned about this. But I don't wear my LV mono to my office. Nor do I use Birkins to my office. I find those items to be very recognizable and therefore inappropriate for work.
 
#58
jellyv said:
Secretaries in China aren't "low class," as has been referred to in this thread. They are the rising consumer class, which China is very proud about. Sure, the super-rich in China want to make sure they stand out from these other consumers, but I think LV has to pleased to be expanding its customer base in Asia, at all tiers.
Click to expand...

Really? Secretaries in general aren't particularly low lass wherever they may live but i do find this post a bit offensive
 
#59
emms2381 said:
Really? Secretaries in general aren't particularly low lass wherever they may live but i do find this post a bit offensive
Click to expand...

^You understand that I was responding to some other people using the expression "low class," right? I'm saying that it is not at all an appropriate way to talk about these employees.

Did you read the article in the first post?
 
#60
Love4H said:
You've misunderstood me.

What I say is that in an old money society it's considered low class to brag about money. So croc Birkin would be considered vulgar by the definition. It's like wearing a sign saying look at me, I've spent so much money on this and I want to brag about it.

If you spend a lot of money on something it should be special. For example, he doesn't wear Rolex, thinking its vulgar. He wears discreet Breguet and Patek Phillip.

Even my dad who doesn't care about brands recently described an outfit of a prostitute or a gold digger as HL dress, CL shoes, Chanel bag.

I personally not as concerned about this. But I don't wear my LV mono to my office. Nor do I use Birkins to my office. I find those items to be very recognizable and therefore inappropriate for work.
Click to expand...

I totally understand.
And somewhere, someone is looking at that Patek Philippe watch and thinking "what a piece of trash..."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Back