Ladydior815's recent thread about
this person's blog post made me remember a conversation I had the other day with the minder of the vintage designer boutique Didier Ludot.
There were two lovely vintage kellys in the shop, a black box and a gold (both size 32, in case anyone wants to stop by and have a look). When I asked if they might have any birkins, the woman gave a derogatory sniff and said, "You will never find any of that bag here. [Monsieur Ludot] despises them."
"
Despises them?" I said. "That's a pretty strong word for a bag."
"Yes, he despises them and has said that he will never sell any birkins here - only the kelly."
"Well, the kelly
is more feminine--"
"The kelly is more elegant! But the birkin, ech!" This very well-appointed woman in her Chanel suit looked as if she wished she could spit. "It is too
show-off. He does not like this, and so will never sell this bag here."
"Too 'show-off'?"
"Yes, too show-off."
"But it's perfectly functional - more functional in many ways for some than the kelly. It's a great tote bag, easy access, etc."
The woman shrugged in her Chanel tweed. "Maybe... but you will never find one here. Women only buy birkins to show off. But a woman buys a kelly because it is the most elegant bag."
Yada yada yada.
This back and forth went on for some time, but she wasn't to be convinced. Monsieur Ludot had schooled her too well in the party line.
I know scores of women who buy birkins as practical bags. That isn't to say that they don't quietly appreciate the glamour it may afford, but I can't imagine that this quiet appreciation alone would give rise to such strong disapprobation from one of Paris's most well-respected collectors of vintage haute couture. I think it must be the in-your-face attitude of some birkin buyers that give the rest of us birkin carriers a bad name.
On that I'd have to agree with Monsieur Ludot - "nyah-nyah-na-nyah-nyah"
is pretty gauche.
(Happily no one at the Prix de Diane behaved in that fashion.)