Most Overpriced Designer? #1

[mikeijames]

frank gehry is the most overpriced brand. i mean, those buildings are built with the same materials as every other building.

 

[Leeroi]

what about alaia? I love alaia, but everything is so darn expensive!!

Where do you get your Alaia? His clothes are so exclusive and practically have to go to his house yourself and have it hand sewn to your skin so ofcourse its pricey.

 

[Leeroi]

I don't think Hermes is overpriced since they have used the same technique, fabric, and quality since they started so many years ago. Hermes is practically the only brand who doesn't lie about where they make their products, especially their bags which are made strictly at their atelier, unlike Prada and many other Italian brands that have been caught having their bags made in China and then passing it off as "Made in Italy", then charging you extremely way more than what it originally took to make. Now that's what call a total rip off.

 

[Leeroi]

And one thing to note is that many designers are sometimes forced to charge more than they really want to because stores like Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf, and Harrods have a "minimum" price range for designers to sell their clothes there to be considered luxury. So if these "overpriced" designers can't sell their clothes at those shops, then they'll be considered second hand goods being sold at JCPenny, and what designer wants that? Luxury these days don't mean quality anymore because of retailers, it just means price.

 

[Spike413]

Where do you get your Alaia? His clothes are so exclusive and practically have to go to his house yourself and have it hand sewn to your skin so ofcourse its pricey.

Not exactly. His stuff is stocked at Barney's in the states, and Browns and Matches in the UK. Both Browns and Matches have online shopping as well. There's also a store on Long Island called Hershleifer's that sells a small selection of Alaia. Those are just some stores off the top of my head, I'm sure there are more.

His clothing isn't as "exclusive" as you seem to think, they just happen to be very expensive.

 

[mikeijames]

also, maserati...i mean, $200k for a car when you can just get a honda for $12k? what's the point?

 

[ponytrot]

andy warhol is the most overpriced label. i mean, it's just paint and canvas.

frank gehry is the most overpriced brand. i mean, those buildings are built with the same materials as every other building.

also, maserati...i mean, $200k for a car when you can just get a honda for $12k? what's the point?

please.

You keep making the exact same posts, with the exact same fallacious analogies. What's your point?

There are a few things that determine pricing, among them: demand and customer flexibility, value of the brand "exclusivity factor", marketing, and direct costs to do with the material, the skill of the creator, the rarity of the good in question.

I think you're confusing (and conflating) those aspects that relate to VALUE and those aspects that relate to MARKETING.

An Andy Warhol has value because of the skill of the artist, the price of any painting is due to whatever artistic merit, reputation of the artist - determining the "value" of the painting. Material costs don't fact or in.

The value of a Maserati similarly has aspects of marketing value (ie. branding) and also due to the actual features of the car- design, motoring, engineering, craftsmanship.

The complaints common here in this thread point to the fact that the marketing of the brand often grossly overtakes the value of the clothing. The criticism is that there is little value, or unsubstantiated value.

Tell me, what artistry do you see in Balmain's $2000+ ripped jeans? If it were woven with magical fairy hair by Santa then sure, i could understand the overpriced value. But as it is, those jeans can be substituted by a pair of GAP jeans and apart from the label in the back pocket, no one would notice a difference. THAT's the critique.

The analogy with art or maserati's don't work, because no one is going to confuse a Warhol with a sketch my cousin did. Just as no one is going to confuse a beaten up Honda for a Maserati.

However one may very well look at a ripped plain American Apparel shirt and see it as identical to a ripped plain Blamain shirt (or whatever overpriced designer looking to make a buck off brand-hos).

 

[mikeijames]

^my point, as you just said, is that the materials, construction, and all that don't matter in conspicuous consumption. it's ALL about exclusivity. the warhol hanging on my wall is a pixel by pixel reproduction of the original sprayed onto canvas with digital precision ....but it costs but a trifle compared to its original. the balmain jean costs that much because it's exclusive and everyone on this thread knows that. the fact that gap and american apparel hire fashion majors out of college to diligently and studiously copy those designs only emphasizes that fact. in the era of designer jeans, a four hundred dollar pair of true religious barely raises an eyebrow in most metropolitan circles and hardly buys one any semblence of exclusivity. one balmain jean shuts the place down. a five hundred dollar theory black jacket might not even get a table at an exclusive restaurant while a balmain jacket wouldn't need reservations.

people buy balmain jeans for the same reason they live in $11.5M apartments in richard meier buildings, drive $200k lamborghinis, and have $1.2M twomblys hanging on their walls. i don't understand why balmain causes all of this stir in the fashion community when most in that same community regularly swallow the pricepoints of every other aspect of the luxury lifestyle. the inside of a private jet doesn't feel all that different than a commercial one does. they're just less people around.

honestly, in thirty years when the costume institute puts together a retrospective exhibit about the naughties, do you think they're going to have mannequins dressed in gap jeans or balmain jeans?

 

[ponytrot]

I get what you mean, I really do. Particuarly re: consumption and marketing, 2 huge factors in today's society. However I find (personally) that certain status symbols have more value, and that certain things do have a level of substance that underpins more than just marketing rhetoric and psychology.

I mean I would happily pay through the nose for art, rare books, and truffles. To me, its worth it for the irreplaceable experience of those things. Whereas imo, ripped jeans are ripped jeans - unless I find the Balmain ones particularly well cut, I would feel ripped off (no pun intended) paying more for it. As i stressed in my previous post, its about that substitute factor - if I can easily find a substitute for a certain product, and the two things are interchangeable in terms of the pleasure/utility that it affords me then I would go for the cheaper one. That's why I would pay for expensive stationery over k-mart stationery, it offers something I can't replace without decreased pleasure. Whereas certain items of clothing, i wouldn't care if i bought it from Gap, Zara or [ insert high priced designer].

I just don't think its fair to say that everyone who dislikes Balmain (to cite an over-cited example) is unable to understand the value or property of luxury goods.

Obviously people value things differently - if someone feels that what they get from $2000 jeans is irreplaceable, then all that matters is that that particular consumer feels justified in that purchase. I'm not going to judge. However people do differ in what they consider important and replaceable - and i think its important to be able to let people be. If they feel indignant that some items of clothing (particularly basics) are sky high in price, then i think that's justified as well.

Its all a matter of priorities and different conceptions of values.

 

[mikeijames]

Its all a matter of priorities and different conceptions of values.

and in this, we completely agree. it fundamentally bothers me that there's so much judgement and condemnation splashing around when it really all comes down to individual choice and utility. that 'butterflies' feeling -- i refer here to a one-off quote anna della russo said outside the armani show -- remains the same whether it's a high end item or a low end one. it just seems many here like to judge when the price tag gets high and use all manner of argument to justify that judgement.

also, i forget where i heard this, but one runway critic talked about how houses like chanel and other big luxury houses are so important because they also CREATE the idea of luxury and FEED the channels that spread it. if it weren't for the billions of dollars in advertising these luxury companies spent, most magazines and television shows about that experience wouldn't exist. it's an interesting circle when you think about it. when you buy a luxury item, the money goes to those -- whether immediately to the shop girl, her bosses, or down the line, the advertisers, elite marketing firms, etc. -- who ultimately have an interest in keeping that lifestyle alive and relevant.

now, back to our fun game!! 3" acetate and silver bottega veneta hair comb. $560.

net-a-porter.com

 

[LetThemEatCake]

Prada falls apart. Not made well. I wish I had the mental focus at this point to join in the discussion properly, but I'm not there. Maybe tomorrow.
I'm venturing more into lengthy discussions on forums with material I', not an expert on;its easy and I could do it blindfolded when it comes to best sunscreen, best reflective moisturizing cream, where to get the best riding boots (all I wear year round, i hate sandals) but I live in a pasture with my horses and if I go to Neiman Marcus, Barneys, maybe Saks (they're declining in taste) I usually do not go to look at clothes for long, I stay in Cosmetics.
As you were.

 

[fashionista-ta]

I get what you mean, I really do. Particuarly re: consumption and marketing, 2 huge factors in today's society. However I find (personally) that certain status symbols have more value, and that certain things do have a level of substance that underpins more than just marketing rhetoric and psychology.

I mean I would happily pay through the nose for art, rare books, and truffles. To me, its worth it for the irreplaceable experience of those things. Whereas imo, ripped jeans are ripped jeans - unless I find the Balmain ones particularly well cut, I would feel ripped off (no pun intended) paying more for it. As i stressed in my previous post, its about that substitute factor - if I can easily find a substitute for a certain product, and the two things are interchangeable in terms of the pleasure/utility that it affords me then I would go for the cheaper one. That's why I would pay for expensive stationery over k-mart stationery, it offers something I can't replace without decreased pleasure. Whereas certain items of clothing, i wouldn't care if i bought it from Gap, Zara or [ insert high priced designer].

I just don't think its fair to say that everyone who dislikes Balmain (to cite an over-cited example) is unable to understand the value or property of luxury goods.

Obviously people value things differently - if someone feels that what they get from $2000 jeans is irreplaceable, then all that matters is that that particular consumer feels justified in that purchase. I'm not going to judge. However people do differ in what they consider important and replaceable - and i think its important to be able to let people be. If they feel indignant that some items of clothing (particularly basics) are sky high in price, then i think that's justified as well.

Its all a matter of priorities and different conceptions of values.

To me, you're pointing up a different value system than that of exclusivity ... you're talking about inherent value and aesthetics.

If all one cares about is exclusivity and status, and has money to burn, then clearly the Balmain jeans are the way to go.

I guess I choose to pay more in two cases ... one is the shopping experience. Yes, it may be that many drugstore items are equivalent to those you buy in department stores (a persistent rumor that I honestly doubt), but there's no denying the shopping experience is different. At the dept store, I can try everything, take samples home, and get 'expert' (I hope) advice. At the drugstore, I better be prepared to figure it out myself--and to buy the item several times to get the color right, canceling out whatever I may have saved (and probably more).

When it comes to different price points, I buy luxury items when the quality, design, or both can't be replicated at a lower price point. If you want Bottega quality leather, you pretty much have to go there ... but I certainly wouldn't buy that haircomb.

 

[aldn]

I agree with ta-ta. sometimes luxury items quality and design can't be replicated on a mass level.

 

[roisin]

balmain!! omg, ridiculous.

 

[mkd1187]

These Yohji boxer shorts at barneys dot com blew me away!!

$925

$1010

$1225!!!

all barneys

 

[Geostud]

^I saw those too... absolutely ludicrous!!

 

[mikeijames]

^so that's what one wears under balmain jeans....

 

[mikeijames]

aquascutum leggings, $3,240.

style.com

 

[fashionista-ta]

These Yohji boxer shorts at barneys dot com blew me away!!

$925




$1010





$1225!!!




all barneys

I'm thinking those better come with more than a pretty picture

 

[Squizree]

These Yohji boxer shorts at barneys dot com blew me away!!

$925




$1010




$1225!!!



all barneys

Wtf!! There is NO way those are worth those prices, unless they've included the models' balls along with them!