Louis Vuitton VS Chanel

Notably, due to her involvement with the Nazi's, Chanel was arrested in September 1944, at the order of the Committee of Public Morals. I guess they weren't impressed either.

You can say what you want about Louis Vuitton's company and anti-semitism, but you didn't see them being arrested. That was reserved for really egregious circumstances, such as Chanel.

[...]

So, she used her money from the perfume stipend (again financed by someone else) to support her nazi officer boyfriend.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's interesting when people say LV is more common than Chanel, I mean isn't this just a given? If we factor in the cheapest bag of both brands, it goes without saying that many more can afford LV compared to Chanel. My question is; why would this influence whether you prefer one brand to another? To my knowledge, you prefer a brand because of its product offering and whether it fits/suits with you and your lifestyle, not whether it's been seen on X, Y & Z. Perhaps I'm wrong?

In regards to the original question, I do agree with many posters that Chanel requires a dressier outfit however I think most, if not all of these posters are basing this on the elusive Classic Flap/2.55/Reissue. There are many Chanel handbags that are equally as casual as LV (think Coco Cocoon) and equally as many LV bags that are dressy like Chanels. What I'm trying to say is that it is relative, we buy what we like.

I suspect there are many LV buyers who buy predominantly the more casual bags such as Speedy, Eva (granted, this is debatable on how its worn), Neverfull and there are others who buy the dressier bags such as Sobe, Limelight, Brea etc.

I would say it's hard to choose between the two because they both offer a wide selection of products aimed at niches in the market, but not necessarily the same market. One poster mentioned earlier they preferred LV for variety but Chanel for elegance, and this is perfectly put. I think LV go for more of a 'fashion forward' crowd, particularly with their seasonal offerings whereas Chanel aims for women who are after a lot of investment for their money.

Just my opinion.

:goodpost:
 
Normally, I wouldn't comment on something like this as this is just a place for us to indulge in our shared love of handbags, which is probably why few are commenting on what you've posted, but here is my second response.

Charlestonmom, i think your post is again a tad bit too harsh. I mean really...these are fashion designers, fashion houses...not close personal friends of ours. I think that definitely as consumers we should be educated about what and from whom we are buying, but I find your opinions to be super harsh. I also think there's a lot of grey in what you are portraying to be black and white, matter of fact.

In regards to her personal habits when it came to men, I can't imagine she was the first or last woman to lead such a lifestyle for a few reasons. One, I don't know if it was quite that she was so morally repugnant that these men didn't marry her. That she was such a monster that she was only fit for living as someone's mistress. She was an orphan, to my knowledge without a fine pedigree or fabulous wealth...these men probably wanted to marry someone with status. So someone like Chanel was reserved for being a mistress. You said earlier that this was hurtful to their wives and children...to be honest, their wives probably knew...and this was most likely something that was tolerated and quietly accepted from what I have read from your very same wikipedia, not really the best historically accurate source, but for the sake of this quick discussion it will have to suffice. It doesn't excuse her behavior, but it's just to say that she was just part of a complicated scheme of things. Two, say what you want but as a woman who eventually built an empire, I think she is to be commended. Maybe the way in which she did so wasn't something I would want to follow or advocate, but this lifestyle helped her keep her business running in what was and still is a man's world.

As for the Nazis...well, I am not even going to get into that as it's just all too complicated and this isn't really the place for such debate.

Ego? Are you kidding me? Coco wouldn't be a fashion icon if she weren't...ego is what keeps the fashion world going! I say that tongue in cheek but not really...I think if we were all to base our fashion purchases upon who was "nice" and not arrogant, well...we'd be walking around with barely anything on. Not a jab at anyone in the fashion industry itself...as I am sure many ppl on this lovely forum are employeed in the fashion industry...just something I hear from a lot of friends in the industry, and something you can feel the second you head into any luxury boutique or department store, which is kind of fabulous and terrible all rolled into one.

I can understand that it's a personal choice for you to not support a fashion designer/house that represents that which you find to be morally repugnant, etc., and I respect that. And maybe I am wrong. Maybe you have done a ton of research on this topic, and maybe this is the general consensus when it comes to Chanel of almost anyone who researches her. But I doubt that? I think that to be an icon, to create something important and empire-like, either during your own lifetime or thereafter, especially if you come from nothing, you start out as a someone who is abnormally clever and quick, stubborn and abrasive, brilliant and even visionary, and you work, work, work at it. You make choices that range from good to so-so to just awful, both in a business and moral sense. Along the way, you lead a life that is larger than life, so splashy and abnormal that when ppl look back on in it is easy for them to take sides, either reifying you as some kind of deity or demonizing you as some kind of monster.

I am not sure myself as to how I should view her but personally feel your posts sounded like attacks...even when you were just responding to someone who disagreed with you. Not necessary.
 
The OP asked if cost wasn't an issue which we would purchase. I merely responded with my opinion and the reasons for it. Since this is a fun forum with lots of diverse views, its nice to learn new things, and hear new opinions even if we don't agree. Lots of people don't care about who a designer was in real life in terms of bags they buy, but some do because for some it cheapens or ruins the experience. Some may even be impressed by how she fought her way to the top like you are. No right or wrong with opinion snd history "just is." It's all personal opinions on the forum anyway as far as how we view things. I love hearing lots of other opinions and am fascinated with history, especially as it relates to fashion. I merely stated what is well known if anyone researches her history No attack, just the facts. As they used to say on Dragnet. Ha ha!

Not trying to offend. I used to like her designs before I was more aware of how she lived her life. I just was responding to the original question. One of the best parts of a forum like this is diverse opinions, increased knowledge about bags, fashion, history and designers, good and bad. I love hearing all the diverse opinions even though I don't always agree. It's what often makes this forum great to read.
 
Last edited:
I don't think the issue is to do with the Nazi's, in my opinion. I think the issue is that Coco used her body and seduction to get her places because she knew this was the only method to keep her afloat. Not sure if anyone has seen Coco Avant Chanel, but this is portrayed perfectly whereby she used to 'sing' to the Nazis with her Sister and they eventually became mistresses of many men who had an interest. I don't think anyone can find prostitution a moral method to get higher in society or to make a name for yourself (and not a good one at that!).

I think what charleston-mom is trying to say she doesn't understand how many women relate the brand Chanel to traits such as glamour and elegance given the routes of the founder of the brand.

I think many fans of Chanel only remember the fact she made the little black dress, brought the tan into fashion and the fragrances therefore through great marketing, many of the brand's following ignore the true origins of the brand. Realistically if this was public knowledge, do you think as many would buy into the brand? Let's not forget before Lagerfeld took over the creative direction at Chanel, it was regarded as a 'dying brand' and many questioned his move to take over Chanel. Of course, this is an entire different subject for debate.

Just my opinion.
 
Great post! You hit the nail right on the head!

I don't think the issue is to do with the Nazi's, in my opinion. I think the issue is that Coco used her body and seduction to get her places because she knew this was the only method to keep her afloat. Not sure if anyone has seen Coco Avant Chanel, but this is portrayed perfectly whereby she used to 'sing' to the Nazis with her Sister and they eventually became mistresses of many men who had an interest. I don't think anyone can find prostitution a moral method to get higher in society or to make a name for yourself (and not a good one at that!).

I think what charleston-mom is trying to say she doesn't understand how many women relate the brand Chanel to traits such as glamour and elegance given the routes of the founder of the brand.

I think many fans of Chanel only remember the fact she made the little black dress, brought the tan into fashion and the fragrances therefore through great marketing, many of the brand's following ignore the true origins of the brand. Realistically if this was public knowledge, do you think as many would buy into the brand? Let's not forget before Lagerfeld took over the creative direction at Chanel, it was regarded as a 'dying brand' and many questioned his move to take over Chanel. Of course, this is an entire different subject for debate.

Just my opinion.
 
Let me amend my post. If you look up the definition of prostitute, and research Chanel's life and how she got her money, she was exactly that. She worked on her back for many years with a succession of men, married and not, sometimes several at the same time, to obtain financial support and bankroll her insatiable desire for money and fame. When one didn't have enough, or dumped her, as happened frequently, she went on to the next. While it is true that you can find other designers that have checkered pasts, I know of no other that not only supported herself, but bankrolled her entire company by working on her back as s consort and very highly paid consort. She was not considered acceptable by anyone really in decent society. While her designs later in her life brought her money and some fame, she was so reviled and hated in France after the war for her political leanings and living at a hotel with a high ranking Nazi officer that she voluntarily self-exiled herself to Swtzerland for 15 years. She knew she was hated.

She never gained real respectability in France during her lifetime. When she made her comeback, it was the US that largely embraced her fashion and designs, not France. Likely because they were less aware of both her moral and political history. Or they just didn't care.

Again, while there were other designers that may have checkered pasts, I am consistently amazed that the house of Chanel has managed to totally sweep who she really was under the rug, and make her appear as a glamorous icon. If you watch any of her later interviews with her personally, her lack of character, arrogance and lack of underlying class show through so clearly. I frankly have never run across anyone that looked as bad, nor was conversely that arrogant. She may have been pretty when young, but years of smoking, hard living, and morally-repugnant behavior caught up with her. She was anything but classy and glamorous in later adulthood. While she had a lot of money and no longer needed to work as a prostitute to bankroll her company, she looked 20 years older than she was. Her employees didnt like her and were treated poorly enough that at least one time they held a strike. She retaliated not long after by closing her shop and putting them all out of work, despite pleas even by the government not to. She was really a despicable person. It showed in her lack of close friends, the fact that the few people she wanted to marry didn't find her acceptable in polite society, and she never was able to marry. She had one longer relationship, but he married someone that was acceptable. She continued to bed him despite the marriage. Purportedly, he was planning on leaving his wife for her when he was killed in a car wreck. Some people have painted this as a star-crossed romance and tragic death. While it was a tragic death, she had no compunctions at all about breaking up his marriage, taking huge sums of money from him before and after marriage, or the same things from sommany others. She lived repeatedly as the cincubine and mistress of so many different men that polite society considered her kind of a joke. Yes, they might buy a gown, but no way would they invite her to dinner. I imagine having her anywhere near your husband would have been a scary proposition as she was seemingly without conscience.

She was anything but decent on any level, nice or classy on the true level of what true class means. Having one of her bags is just not something that would make me feel good or proud. I would always be aware of her history. While other designers may have skeletons, I know of no others that were so entirely lacking in class and decency. (Sorry for any typos, typing on that darn little iPhone keyboard - LOL!).


I'm aware what the definition of the word prostitute thank you very much.
After reading about her today, I don't think that's what she was. A prostitute by definition trades sex for hard cash.

Mistress she may have been, but that does not make her a prostitute.
She was dating and living with these men. They supported her. But this doesn't mean sex for money was the only component of the relationships.

Granted, I didn't know so much about her before today, but it still doesn't change my opinion of the designs today.
It seems to me she was very troubled..loosing her mother at a young age and having her father run away.

The type of behavior you mentioned is not uncommon among people with her type of upbringing.
I just think it's sort of sad.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, she was trading for money. They just put it directly into her business. It's still prostitution. And it's ridiculous to think they didn't give her money as well. She wasn't working or pulling in any income for many years. She quit her first job to become a mistress to the first in a long succession. Of course they gave her money. Likely a mistress' allowance, plus clothes, jewelry along with bankrolling whatever she asked for. It's just semantics.

And she definitely did not live with every man she had affairs with for money. She did live with several while going away with even their friends and being with both in the same weeks time. Getting money from both. In one instance, it was the best friend of the man she was living with. Came back from the weekend jaunt with friend and went back to first guy, but continued affair with second guy before and after his marriage. That was Boy Capel.

She has an affair with Igor Stravinsky while living with him and his ailing wife and three children. Now there is something glamorous and classy. Not. Can you imagine how the wife and children felt? They took her in due to her dire financial straits and she has an affair with the husband right under the nose of the critically ill wife and in the same house as the children. Glamorous, classy icon?


I agree it was sad. But I think it was sadder for the wives and children of the men. And a prostitute can take either cash or goods and services. It fits the definition. Even with the men she lived with (all short-lived), a kept woman is a kept woman. She bankrolled her company entirely on the heels of wealthy men who paid for it.

I'm aware what the definition of the word prostitute thank you very much.
After reading about her today, I don't think that's what she was. A prostitute by definition trades sex for hard cash.

Mistress she may have been, but that does not make her a prostitute.
She was dating and living with these men. They supported her. But this doesn't mean sex for money was the only component of the relationships.

Granted, I didn't know so much about her before today, but it still doesn't change my opinion of the designs today.
It seems to me she was very troubled..loosing her mother at a young age and having her father run away.

The type of behavior you mentioned is not uncommon among people with her type of upbringing.
I just think it's sort of sad.
 
Last edited:
Quick revision. Igor Stravinsky had four children at the time of her affair. I think they came to live with her, so the affair was in her home in front of wife and kids. Admirable that she took them in, except for the kind of big issue of what happened. Anyway, didn't want to have that wrong. First article I read about the affair misstated it I terms of who took who in. I imagine wife was grateful, until . . . LOL!
 
Last edited:
Until today I had no knowledge about Coco Chanel’s past whatsoever. Do I think of here differently now that I do? No, not really. She lived in a different time and made decisions she thought were the best for her. As for being someone's mistress, there are far worst things people do than that. And why are always women the ones to blame? It takes two to tango.
I personally don’t own a Chanel bag, not yet, anyway, and certainly something like Coco's past wouldn’t stop me in that. When buying bags I do not necessarily relate to manufacturers. I buy their bags because of the design and the way they make me feel when I wear them.
 
I personally don’t own a Chanel bag, not yet, anyway, and certainly something like Coco's past wouldn’t stop me in that. When buying bags I do not necessarily relate to manufacturers. I buy their bags because of the design and the way they make me feel when I wear them.

I think you just kinda went back on what you said. Not trying to start an argument but you said you buy bags because of their design and the way they make you feel but you do not relate to manufacturers.

In my opinion you must be able to relate to the manufacturer to have any sense of satisfaction when carrying a product from any given brand. For example many in this thread have stated they admire Chanel for its elegance, sophistication and whatever else so they believe these are core values of the brand (hence the discussion) meaning they can relate to the brand and would like to be perceived this way. Much like those who buy Rick Owens or Givenchy want to be seen as 'fashion forward' or trend setters as they're at the forefront of fashion.

Just my opinion.
 
I think you just kinda went back on what you said. Not trying to start an argument but you said you buy bags because of their design and the way they make you feel but you do not relate to manufacturers.

In my opinion you must be able to relate to the manufacturer to have any sense of satisfaction when carrying a product from any given brand. For example many in this thread have stated they admire Chanel for its elegance, sophistication and whatever else so they believe these are core values of the brand (hence the discussion) meaning they can relate to the brand and would like to be perceived this way. Much like those who buy Rick Owens or Givenchy want to be seen as 'fashion forward' or trend setters as they're at the forefront of fashion.

Just my opinion.

I like Chanel Flap bag because of its design who I find is elegant and sophisticated and in my eyes a true lady bag, along Hermes Kelly. That is why I don’t care if Coco Chanel, who designed the bag, was as far from lady as she could be and was perceived as a prostitute by some people. Does it now mean that if we buy Chanel bags we are all prostitutes and support prostitution? It doesn’t make any sense.

I just wanted to say that past of the people who designed/made bags is not important, at least not to me, nor it is going to affect me when it comes to buying those bags. And I don't think I have to necessarily relate to a brand when buying their products. I love LV because I see it as a luxury designer brand with beautiful quality products and because of that I feel special when carrying their bags. Until I read it, I didn’t know that people who buy Givenchy want to be seen as trend setters, as you wrote it. If I were to buy a Givenchy Nightingale bag, I would do so because I like the bag not because I want to make a message.
 
I think the LV brand is just more creative, regardless of whether it's canvas or leather. With so many Chanel bags they just slap a double C on the bag somewhere and price it 4x over what it's worth. And rrriiiggghhhttt, a caviar jumbo flap is worth over 4k...BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!