Forget labels. The fashion elite turn to 'stealth wealth.'
- Thread starter sonya
- Start date
Interesting article.
I guess whether or not a bag is recognizable depends largely on where you live. For instance in the big cities, and especially in NYC, a Balenciaga would be instantly identifiable. But it is similar to a Hermes in that neither bag has a logo print on it.
I guess whether or not a bag is recognizable depends largely on where you live. For instance in the big cities, and especially in NYC, a Balenciaga would be instantly identifiable. But it is similar to a Hermes in that neither bag has a logo print on it.
Soon the fakers will be making more
stealth Wealth" type bags & the trendsetters will be buying logos again.
While the first part of your statement I agree with, the second part I do not. Trendsetters won't resume buying logos because counterfeiters will start making more logo-free (but obvious) bags. You are assume a large percentage of those buying the logoed fakes are going to start buying the logo-free fake bags which is going to push the trendsetters in the opposite direction. But you are forgetting that 1. the counterfeiters will continue to make logoed fake bags, 2. non trendsetters will continue to buy logoed fakes. I think the main reason people buy logoed bags (fake or real, but especially fake) is because they want a bag that shouts "designer." (Of course there are the people who don't realize they are buying fakes or the ones that just really love the design, etc. but I think those are in the minority. The common mindset of people who go to Canel St in New York to buy a "Louis Vuitton" is to buy a fake Louis Vuitton. Most didn't just "stumble" on Canel Street and see a cute bag they want to buy.) You don't get the same sort of "obviousness." While some more fashion conscious people who cannot afford/don't want to spend the money on a designer purse may buy a fake Hermes Birkin or fake Bottega Veneta woven ball bag to look like they are part of the trendsetters, this is still a small proportion of those who buy fakes.
Truthfully, this is not a new phenomenon. Faux Hermes Birkins exist but I believe Louis Vuitton monogram still outsell these birkins several fold....
However, I must point out that there is a trend that when the economy is doing well, hemlines go up (which we've been seeing with the miniskirts) and logo-a-gogo goes into full force (like back in 1998/1999 or so)....
Intersting article. I think in many ways, there is something to be said about subtle logos and being a secret society. I know that since joining tPF my knowledge of designers has increased exponentially (and I always thought I was pretty savvy beforehand) Somehow I think it takes someone with a little more exposure to ge the meaning of the red sole or any other label with a (somewhat, I mean how subtle is red 
trademark.
trademark.
Nice article...but I believe that all things are branded in one way or another....some are less obvious than others...
The Birkin is known with the wealthy, it has been essentially kept in the same design to be recongnized.....just more for the Elite rather than the masses...
I do think that having too many logos on anything can be a bit too much...but essentially, everything is brand oriented.....Clothes, Cars, Sunglasses...etc.
But it has a point about being discreet about money...I do find that alot of wealthy people try to keep their riches more hidden and care less about brands b/c to them it is nothing big....it is the less privillaged that seem to hold brands in a bigger light b/c it is like a prize....
The Birkin is known with the wealthy, it has been essentially kept in the same design to be recongnized.....just more for the Elite rather than the masses...
I do think that having too many logos on anything can be a bit too much...but essentially, everything is brand oriented.....Clothes, Cars, Sunglasses...etc.
But it has a point about being discreet about money...I do find that alot of wealthy people try to keep their riches more hidden and care less about brands b/c to them it is nothing big....it is the less privillaged that seem to hold brands in a bigger light b/c it is like a prize....
just adding my vote that: i agree that one has to be in the fashion know to recognise most non-labelled bags.. here in australia, the average person in the street won't recognise (or even know about) balenciaga or birkin, nor many other bags that aren't monogrammed. esp as chain store copies are so prolific..
and to me, it is like a secret club.. i love being recognised by people who know, fellow bag lovers..
and i love owning and carrying something secret and exclusive and out of reach.
but at the same time, i love having a bag that's beautiful in itself (quality of materials and make, design). i've had people gush over the loveliness of my balenciagas who have no idea what it is, who have never even heard of the label. that's a very affirming moment.
both are important, beauty and exclusivity. i wouldn't pay so much if it were only one and not the other.
eg. a beautiful non-labelled bag (eg indie designer, handmade): i would love to own and use, but wouldn't pay as much (mainly because i change my mind so often, and am generally broke hehe, so if i fell out of love i need to know that i can resell it, not because i don't think it's worth it)
and an exclusive bag that wasn't beautiful to me, nor well-made? i wouldn't want it at all.
and i'm aware that many people love and wear logos simply because it makes a statement.. that attitude's abit wannabe, but understandable..
which is why if you're a true fashion lover, you must be careful not to overload on obvious logos.
and to me, it is like a secret club.. i love being recognised by people who know, fellow bag lovers..
and i love owning and carrying something secret and exclusive and out of reach.
but at the same time, i love having a bag that's beautiful in itself (quality of materials and make, design). i've had people gush over the loveliness of my balenciagas who have no idea what it is, who have never even heard of the label. that's a very affirming moment.
both are important, beauty and exclusivity. i wouldn't pay so much if it were only one and not the other.
eg. a beautiful non-labelled bag (eg indie designer, handmade): i would love to own and use, but wouldn't pay as much (mainly because i change my mind so often, and am generally broke hehe, so if i fell out of love i need to know that i can resell it, not because i don't think it's worth it)
and an exclusive bag that wasn't beautiful to me, nor well-made? i wouldn't want it at all.
and i'm aware that many people love and wear logos simply because it makes a statement.. that attitude's abit wannabe, but understandable..
which is why if you're a true fashion lover, you must be careful not to overload on obvious logos.
I totally disagree.
Of course it is unlikely that people who like designer bags will be tempted to buy many Kmart or Target bags; as however good the design is, the quality will be absent.
As Intlset said in her previous post:
Intlset said:
It is completely possible to love high end designer items for this seductive combination of high design, high quality materials and the fact that the items are often handmade by artisans; without having the slightest interest in status.
Of course, I don't know about Intlset's circumstances, but I was born into a lower upper class family and then, through circumstances beyond our control, we ended up having to move to a middle class area and I went to a state school.
Because of this, my early life was an attempt to play down my background, not emphasise it.
In addition, my grandparents always told me that it was extremely vulgar to display wealth. They always had beautiful quality, nicely made things, but never anything that screamed 'wealth'.
I am still left with this feeling of slight embarassment when wearing designer items; I wore my (unlogoed) RC bangle to the hairdressers the other day and the receptionist went wild over it, asking where it was from. I found myself saying; 'Oh, it was a gift from my BF, so I don't know, I'm sorry.'. :shame:
Don't you think that if I was trying to show off and display my status, I'd have happily told her the truth?
Believe me, if I really was interested in displays of status, I'd also be happy to admit it to you; someone I've never met.
Do you really think all people like me are dishonest?
Believe me, if I really was interested in displays of status, I'd also be happy to admit it to you; someone I've never met.
Do you really think all people like me are dishonest?
Seems my intent with that comment has been misread. Think of it this way: all things being equal anyone would prefer the best things in life. The difference is that most people with more income, born or risen to priviledge, can and proudly do purchase status items. Not every multimillionaire is going to be like Sam Walton and drive a Ford pickup truck when he could afford a fleet of Rolls Royces.
There's nothing at all wrong with saying you want the best and own the best, but it all boils down to the simple fact that with handbags as an example: nobody needs a $1000-$40,0000 bag to carry their wallet and car keys in. Part of status is having quality made items with the best fabrics and best leathers. There's nothing wrong with that, but there's nothing wrong with admitting that it gives you pleasure to own these things. It may not be an "in your face" display of status, but owning the best is in fact, a show of status.
I'm talking strictly well off individuals here. I certainly would never look down my nose at a woman carrying said "Kmart" bag. In her world, that may be just as special as any Birkin (probably more so). I've also walked in the shoes of a Kmart woman and have been thrilled to have owned $40 leather bags. I'm now in a position to afford much better quality bags. I'm not ashamed to admit that I do carry them. I earned my way to this income level. I don't mind a bit if someone recognizes that through my bag or my lifestyle, nor does it bother me if they don't.
This is my point.
PS-I HATE logo bags and would never own one.
I would assume that probably the majority of this country wouldn't know a Birkin if it literally flew through the air and smacked them in the face. I would assume that they would "feel" the quality, but still not have a clue of it's exclusive price.
Great article!
About the Birkin comments - I live in a city of just under a million, and not that many of my co-workers know what a Birkin is (many of my female co-workers do, but not the men), and I'm a physician. My non-physician friends, unless they watch celebs/fashion, certainly wouldn't know a Birkin if it hit them in the head.
Most fakes still tend to go for logos since that's what "lay" people recognize - ITA with the sentiment of the article... I haven't bought a LV mono in over 3 years now for that reason.
About the Birkin comments - I live in a city of just under a million, and not that many of my co-workers know what a Birkin is (many of my female co-workers do, but not the men), and I'm a physician. My non-physician friends, unless they watch celebs/fashion, certainly wouldn't know a Birkin if it hit them in the head.
Most fakes still tend to go for logos since that's what "lay" people recognize - ITA with the sentiment of the article... I haven't bought a LV mono in over 3 years now for that reason.
Of course no one NEEDS a designer bag, but your question brings up the "cut-off point"... honestly, you don't even need a $500 bag. Really, I can just use my Walmart bag to hold things just as well, even though it's made of PVC. Or even my Safeway plastic bag.
Frankly, my view is that people can spend their money how they wish - I don't believe in going into debt for an "image" you can't afford, but you also can't take your money with you when you're dead.
There is nothing wrong with admitting it, if it is true.
But to insist that others should 'Be honest' and admit that they buy designer bags as a show of status, just because you do (and to thereby insinuate that anyone who doesn't admit it is dishonest), is incorrect.
An analogy would be to try to force everyone who has ever dated Brad Pitt to admit that they did so for the status and refuse to accept that they actually did so for his looks, talent and personality.
To pursue this analogy, despite his beauty, I would hesitate to date Brad Pitt, as I would be concerned that the 'logo', which is his face, is too well known and that I'd never get any privacy!
That is also how I have felt when I have carried more obviously designer bags in the past; women approaching me in airports, asking what my BF does for a living, harder up friends looking despondently at them etc...
...I hate it!!!
Personally, I only buy designs I truly love, I rarely buy 'it' bags and I almost never wear/carry obvious logos. In addition, I also try to avoid telling almost everyone I know who they are by and where I bought them.
So, if I'm going for a show of status, I'm doing a pretty poor job!
I'll admit that I enjoy getting compliments on my items, but only if they are compliments on the design. Anyone with the money can hand the credit card over, but not everyone is creative enough to choose beautiful items and put them together imaginatively.
That, perhaps, is my show of status.
I, personally, have had (and continue to have) a roller coaster of a life, financially speaking. Partially due to my family circumstances and partially due to my career choices and like you, I would never look down my nose at anyone's posessions.
I also agree that nobody should be ashamed to have worked their way up the career ladder. However (and I think this may well be a UK verses US difference), I think in this country, we are still slightly less comfortable with the 'I'm considerably richer than you' attitude; however hard the person has worked to get there.
Most of us (with some notable exceptions) are conscious of not wanting to make others feel uncomfortable, just because we are lucky enough to be in a higher paying job.
After all, it's not necessarily a person's fault that they can't (and may never) afford nice things and lower paid, often doesn't mean less hard working, or less vital to society.
Often quite the reverse.