Future Vintage - Buying Fashion as Investment | Page 2 | the Fashion Spot

Future Vintage - Buying Fashion as Investment

  • Thread starter Thread starter Muse_Views
  • Start date Start date
^i think we already have a thread for investment / collecting outftis ...

Muse_Views opened it, I think ...
 
I'd say any of the more extreme Ghesquiere for Balenciaga show pieces should be a pretty good investment as well..I expect some of them to be worth quite a lot in a few decades :lol:

I was going to say this too, some of the more abstract/recognisable (e.g SS08) and more iconic collections (FW06) that people will remember will be worth quite a bit in a while.

I mean, people still go mad for the Fall/Winter 2006 Shoes, and they did when they came out too.

Apart from being relatively iconic, I think that as time goes on Ghesquiere will only go from strength to strength alongside Balenciaga as a brand. They are constantly becoming more and more of a power brand, for example, SS09 they showed bags on the runway for the first time, and if that isn't a sign of financial success/increased sellability I don't know what is.
 
^ I would think being able to leave bags off the runway is a sign of financial success ...
 
Miss C, in the documentary Secret World of Haute Couture they say couture garments can be donated to a museum (at the end of your life, for example) and written off as a loss in taxes...
 
Hey BerlinRocks, Thanks for the feedback. I'm new here, so what does "bump" mean?
Anyways, I was reading thu some older threads and you have some great references in "Art & Fashion.... unlimited borders" as well as in a Murakami thread.
But back to what I originally posted, was hoping to discuss the fact that clothes (even pret-a-porte) despite being works of art in their own rights, by celebrated designers... they, much like a car, just start droping in value the moment you take it out of the store. I personally think this is very unfortunate because I value a piece from a past collection (doesn't even need to be vintage) even more than I do a new one - because it has history, it possibly influenced other designers and it's not so easy to find anymore.
Then my thought process took me took me to the collaborative pieces that are none the less a work by the artist too so this should give the garment/bag a better shot...
What GIUS says does defenately count as an investment, but I really wonder WHY clothes just don't increase in value like art?
And it's not to do with production/edition because if you consider the production methods Damien Hirst (who was previously mentioned in this thread) and Takashi Murakmi use for example, I bet there are just as many "spot paintings" out there as there are Balenciaga bags.
 
i think it depends on the piece.. comme des garcons' work and issey miyake have all been exhibited and kept in archives of museums.. they're all pret-a-porter. and those labels, and their designers even, are still alive to this day. it didn't have to wait till they became 'vintage' --its value was already apparent..

and for the bags.. i think they will rise in value too..since they are limited edition. i think things that are sort of symbolic of the times or somehow make a mark on time, are the ones that can rise in value..


btw bump just means a thread is revived... :-)
since this thread has been sleeping since a year ago
 
if investment meaning the piece of clothing will last the longest in terms of wear, i would go for lanvin for sure
but as pure investment, i would have brought dior homme when hedi was designing despite i do not wear men's clothes. i would also buy christopher kane because i do see a future in him
 

Users who are viewing this thread

New Posts

Forum Statistics

Threads
214,454
Messages
15,262,444
Members
88,466
Latest member
lucasethan5673
Back
Top