Why pay so much for anything other then leather?

TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others

#17
kathyrose said:
They're durable and because of their designs.
Click to expand...


I totally agree with you Kathyrose. I gave my daughter my first LV bag, Concorde, when she turned 18 five years ago (the bag is 18 years old now) and she practically use that bag everyday. The bag is well constructed and very durable and from looking at it, you wouldn't be able to tell the age. I tried to get it back from her by getting her another LV bag and she refused. She loves the bag too, too much and she says she gets many compliments on it:love:.
 
#18
ValleyOppressed said:
By nature, leather-
-is vulnerable to water damage
-stretches over time
-fades
-scratches
-scuffs

While most canvas or nylon bags (ala Prada, Vuitton, Burberry etc.) are generally:
-waterproof
-don't stretch
-rarely fade
-are resistant to scuffs and scratches
Click to expand...

Well said!!! This just justified my non-leather bag purchases.

I can think of another reason not to buy a leather bag...I have nothing against using animal skins (I think they're pretty attractive), but if I ever attend any events where there is a possibility of people attacking me for wearing anything made from animal, I would just bring my non-leather bags out. These events can include going to meet friends of friends who I've never met before (who may also find it amusing to make others feel bad about what they choose to eat, say, and wear).
 
#20
thats the reason I only get leather bags ... I dont think canvas, vinyl, plastic are worth so much. Keep in mind, most designers to make LEATHER bags - many LV's are made of leather (eg vernis, epi, suhali, matt); burberry also has leather bags every season, Dior lady-dior, same with many other labels. Get the leather!!!:P
 
#22
Well, they last longer than leather, and in many cases, those materials cost MORE than leather. Some of the worst leather I've ever seen was on Chloe bags, and some of the most overall ridiculously expensive are Gucci, Chanel and BV.

I'd buy another LV or even venture into Burberry land, but I wouldn't buy a Goyard. They cost half again as much as LV, and their quality just isn't what it used to be. Very flimsy bags for the $$. In that case, I would definitely prefer leather.

Are LVs worth it? It depends on the buyer, but they sure seem to hold their value. Are you overspending? That question also applies to Gucci, Chanel, BV, Kooba, Leiber.....any of them.
 
#27
atrophia said:
I don't agree with this. I'm not all that into bags that scream the designer's name, and even if I like a designer, designers have bad days, and I don't like to buy a design, even if it's a designer I generally like, that I think is hideous. I'm not buying it because of the name or because I want to flaunt the name ("Ha ha, look at me, I am wearing Louis Vuitton!"), but because I like the design and I like the bag. The Tokidoki for LeSportsac bags sort of skirt the line on this because anybody who's into fashion or handbags is going to know who made them, but the average Joe won't, and I maintain that I am buying them because I think it rocks that Simone Legno is all about the cute Japanese imagery and tattooed chicks, and because the bag designs are to die for, not specifically because they're "Tokidoki for LeSportsac". To me it's the difference between just any old monogram LV (not putting them down for those who do like them, just personally I don't really care) and the Cherry Blossom line. I'm still not really into the monograms on those either but I'd be willing to deal with it because I really like the design of the bags. If only I could afford one. I'm not specifically buying it ONLY BECAUSE it's Louis Vuitton. To me, paying for the design and paying for the name are two entirely different things.
Click to expand...

I agree that these bags are GREAT quality and that most buy them for this reason but the reason they cost so much is because of the name. The quality puts them up there in price range but the comapnies still jack the price WAY up because they are LV and they can. Law of supply and demand baby! Look at the Birkin bag - really worth that price??? No - but people pay it so why not.
So - I'm not saying you buy it for the name - but a large portion of what you're paying for is the name.
 
#28
I gotcha, I think I misunderstood what you were saying: not why people pay so much, but why they cost so much to start with. It was hard to understand that the way you said it the first time.
 
#29
IMO they are. Most of the bags are around $2,000 and climbing, and while they're decently made, you're REALLY paying for the name. The jewelry, in particular, is nothing but average, and if it went down the runway, triple or quadruple the price. 90% of their revenues come from the accenssories, fragrances and cosmetics, and they'll price them quite high. It strikes me as funny that the company started out pushing clothes, and now they're a very minor part of the whole enterprise.

bernz84 said:
Is Chanel really overpriced? Although I'm not a really big fan--nor an expert--of Chanel, it seems to hold its value pretty well.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top