To compare marking up a pair of shoes or a denim jacket to compete with other luxury brands with charging close to $30k for a hand sewn, likely hand dyed gown built with an intricate internal structure and made to order is ludicrous.
my point remains: at the high end of the market or the low end of the market, workmanship and materials do not represent the only two things that go into decisions about pricing. ask anyone who has sat in those meetings: it's also about other factors in the marketplace including the artistry of the designer at the head of that house
(let me state for the record, i'm a firm believer in capitalism and believe that no designer charges more than they think they'll get from their customer. if there's someone who's willing to pay that price, it serves as absolute validation for that designer's pricing strategy.)
i'm not saying that the nina ricci dress isn't "worth it," i'm saying that the amount of work and materials don't account for the $28k pricetag. and considering the number of new york socialites, european debutantes, and asian society women who clamored for those nina ricci dresses, i believe they did create an air of prestige (in part) with their pricing. not to mention that ricci knew they could charge a premium because of theyskens.
while everyone in this forum wants to beat up on one house for the prices they charge, by their standard, they have a lot of other easy targets including brands most shop everyday. if you saw how cheaply some average mall retailers acquired and produced their wares, you'd launch a protest. trendsetting, marquee designers, innovative, fantastical advertising campaigns, and multiple mind-blowing boutiques do not pay for themselves.
here's a lovely velvet top from balenciaga from last year. it sold for $5,950 (just in case you're curious, the wool pants sold for $3,950).
(style.com)
) that there's a little gnome on either shoulder creating that tented effect. And gnomes do not come cheap 
lanvin faux pearl and diamante necklace, $2525. 
