Chloe not so hot because of this?

  1. I found this article that manolo maven posted in the celebrity section and thought of bringing to the attention of the chloe forum. What do you think about this? If you read the entire article you'll get a better picture.Is chloe not so hot because of this?:crybaby:

    Telegraph | Fashion | You've been WAGGED!

    Part of the article says:
    Once, Chloé's bags were the most coveted accessories known - each season the latest design, from the Silverado to the Paddington, would be an instant sell-out.
    It helped, of course, that very few of us could afford to blow £1,000 or more on one intoxicating fashion fix. This summer's Betty - oversized, slouchy and multi-pocketed - was first spotted on Kate Moss, whose patronage, of course, made it must have - for a while.
    Once Steven Gerrard's fiancée, Alex Curran, had taken her Betty on a few shopping trips during the World Cup, however, its allure was in doubt. It didn't help that she used it to shield herself from the paparazzi, making the huge snakeskin number even more prominent.
    Suddenly, the Betty wasn't so hot. The same fate surely awaits this autumn's Chloé bag, the Edith - a neat little satchel already owned by Kylie Minogue.
  2. Interesting...but what does "wagged" mean?
  3. Maybe ditched? I don't know exactly i lived in the UK for four years but i am still Greek....
  4. I don't understand....why would this article impact me in any way? I don't care who the heck is carrying the bag, who the heck is critiqueing it (btw, who cares who these style critics are?) and who thinks it is "in" or "not".

    I love Chloe for reasons celebrities don't even consider (TDF leather, for instance). The people who are MOST guilty of wanting to throw a brand in people's faces or show off that they have money are celebrities!

    I hate those kinds of people in real life so why would I care what celebrities do:throwup: Btw, does everyone notice that magazine writers are the ones who fret over the price of designer handbags? It's enough to make one ill.

    Any bloke with a computer and a blog can claim something disparaging about a designer/handbag. Shoot, I bet I can create a blog soley on Chloe and talk about how it is going to have a sensational "come back" of the year and some person on some purse forum will post it as a thread claiming, "Chloe to experience a come back this year!"

    Sorry, if I come off strong...I'm just tired of a handbag's popularity and credibility being based on celebrities or obnoxious "style" critic. :sad:
  5. I agree with lordguinny! I am not sure why that article would have any affect on the popularity of Chloe. Once a die hard fan, always a die hard fan! (Regardless of what the celebrity du jour thinks or wears)!
  6. Happy birthday Jag. :flowers:
  7. I think it's a British slang term for something like "critic"...I guess meaning that once you've been "wagged" it is definitely NOT a good thing:smile: I could be wrong:smile:)
  8. Thank you sweetie! Wait till I tell you what I got today!:graucho:
  9. I also love chloe and don't care what anyone says.I don't think that the actual article could ever make chloe not so hot. But there is a point that if a brant gets overexposed it can have negative effect on its image. Chloe was considered (and still is i think) a classy brand and if everyone starts carrying it maybe it will fade away like prada did.
  10. For some reason, I just don't think Chloe has the same "exposure" problems that Prada had. Or I should say, I hope it never does! Prada just exploded onto the scene and before you knew it, everyone had either a real one or a fake one- and many could not tell the difference between the two. So in the end, why pay $1000 for a bag that someone will automatically think is fake because of all the copies out there???

    With Chloe, the leather is so irresistable and unmistakable. The fakes just cannot rival the real deal!! That slouchy, thick, luscious leather is just TDF, and I have yet to see a fake that can even come close!
  11. Relax don't get so passionate about it. It's only something to read and spend away our time not obsess over it.
  12. You are totally right about the Chloe quality.But also Prada lacked of imagination lately as well- or the nineties ended and the minimalism ended with them...
  13. Regarding over exposure, LV is overexposed and remains widely popular. Prada was overexposed and came out with a new fall line with amazing leather and now everyone is lusting after it again. Just goes to show you that no one really cares about whether or not a bag is "in" or "out" because of exposure.

    What dictates whether a bag is "in" or "out" is the style.

    jag, that is amazing about your birthday hobo!!!! :nuts: Do post pics!
  14. WAG = Wife and Girlfriend (of footballer), in UK not something to aspire to, so if bag has been wagged, it's not so covetable cos the WAG's got there first!

  15. That's why when I see those articles online or in a paper I usually pass right by them. They aren't worth my time.

    But....when it comes to my handbags I am a serious lover so I'll always be passionate. :P