Most Overpriced Designer? #1

[Petit Lucille]

my jaw dropped violently

 

[MarionasMuse]

Yeah Yohji and his sport/second(partnered with Adidas) line Y-3 are so oveerpriced.In my city we have one shop called Cache and they are selling Y-3 and a little Yohji`s and the prices are j-just unbelievable ridiculous.They`re just crazy with that garbage.

 

[gossiping]

see by chloe. seriously there's no difference between their quality and topshop, it's ridiculous!

 

[ettebe]

There is a few designers that are quite expensive I find.

I'll name some later on. I need to go do something OY

 

[ponytrot]

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

ooh bless!

 

[chessmess]

^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?

warhols cost what they do because of his historical importance, because of his interity in what he did.

he changed the face of the art world radically and it hasn't been the same since. he popularized and revolutionized the art world with his sensationalized pieces.

to say that it is just paint on canvas is incredibly ignorant. its not about the materials involved in any sort of visual art, but the way the artist uses it and the conceptual elements involved in his work.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ The concept of provenance (I guess you could call it) comes into play with art ... the silkscreen Andy printed is different from one he never saw or touched. I suppose you could equate this to the involvement with the designer you can get with couture.

I have photos that belonged to the Eameses, that Charles shot & presumably developed & hung for a museum show, and then came home with them. They're not perfect, you can see they've been touched and who knows, maybe thrown in a closet ... so to me this is different than prints from the negatives (wherever they may be), if it were possible to get them ... and worth paying more for.

 

[Deleted member 103203]

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.

I thought that was Louis Vuitton not Prada.

 

[mikeijames]

warhols cost what they do because of his historical importance, because of his interity in what he did.

yes, of course, their historical significance plays a part, but we have a number of watershed artists from the period whose works don't fetch $71M for one painting as warhol's "green car crash" did recently. these works fetch these prices because captains of industry, international billionaires, and elites of all stripes buy them to show just how much money they have.

to say that it is just paint on canvas is incredibly ignorant. its not about the materials involved in any sort of visual art, but the way the artist uses it and the conceptual elements involved in his work.

you've reiterated exactly my point. my entire point is that the material and labor don't really matter when you get into this idea of conspicuous consumption. that's all i'm saying. women aren't going to buy out those balmain super short shorts because they're spun with gold, they're going to buy those super short shorts because they're balmain. just like a russian oil baron doesn't buy a picasso because he's a cubist aficionado, he buys it because it's a picasso.

 

[rlynne]

stella mccartney? i find that since her clothes and especially shoes aren't made with more expensive materials like leather, i find it hard to understand why they cost sometimes even more then leather shoes and pieces...

maybe im missing something though, im open to other opinions..

 

[honeycombchild]

It's often the case that leather is cheaper than the substitutes... deccent ones like Stella uses anyway.

 

[fashionista-ta]

yes, of course, their historical significance plays a part, but we have a number of watershed artists from the period whose works don't fetch $71M for one painting as warhol's "green car crash" did recently. these works fetch these prices because captains of industry, international billionaires, and elites of all stripes buy them to show just how much money they have.



you've reiterated exactly my point. my entire point is that the material and labor don't really matter when you get into this idea of conspicuous consumption. that's all i'm saying. women aren't going to buy out those balmain super short shorts because they're spun with gold, they're going to buy those super short shorts because they're balmain. just like a russian oil baron doesn't buy a picasso because he's a cubist aficionado, he buys it because it's a picasso.

But there are plenty of people buying Picasso who aren't nouveau riche schmucks. There are some really thoughtful and talented collectors who own Picassos.

 

[fashionista-ta]

It's often the case that leather is cheaper than the substitutes... deccent ones like Stella uses anyway.

I don't know anything about her operation, but I suspect she may find herself on the bleeding edge of product development occasionally ... and there're costs associated with that, to say the least. I would love to know more, now that I think about it

 

[rlynne]

yeah, i was interested to know because i thought there must be a reason behind the expensive price, because otherwise it would be hard to get away with charging that..

does anyone have experience with the quality of her clothes and how long they last?

 

[mikeijames]

But there are plenty of people buying Picasso who aren't nouveau riche schmucks. There are some really thoughtful and talented collectors who own Picassos.

some really thoughtful, talented, and rich collectors, natch.

 

[romeoelliott]

i would probably get one or two of the classic designer items, but seriously a glittered tank top for a thousand dollar, no thx

 

[SGaspar]

I have no idea of how expensive Stella McCartney is, but I wouldn't pay a cent for any garment of hers so she's overpriced to me xD

 

[Scott]

stella mccartney? i find that since her clothes and especially shoes aren't made with more expensive materials like leather, i find it hard to understand why they cost sometimes even more then leather shoes and pieces...

maybe im missing something though, im open to other opinions..

i think a lot of it has to do with the fact that her substituted materials and the technological methods they're manufactured aren't as easy to come by. i mean,creating something ethical yet luxurious as an alternative for skins is no easy task i would expect and for leather is probably much more expensive to make that using leather itself. and this isn't no macy's so it's far more complex than using PVC or something.

 

[SGaspar]

i think a lot of it has to do with the fact that her substituted materials and the technological methods they're manufactured aren't as easy to come by. i mean,creating something ethical yet luxurious as an alternative for skins is no easy task i would expect and for leather is probably much more expensive to make that using leather itself. and this isn't no macy's so it's far more complex than using PVC or something.

I really really dislike McCartney but you are absolutely right and we have to acknowledge that she really is worried about those issues. And of course it won't be cheap to do what she does, I wouldn't except it to be anyway

 

[chessmess]

yes, of course, their historical significance plays a part, but we have a number of watershed artists from the period whose works don't fetch $71M for one painting as warhol's "green car crash" did recently. these works fetch these prices because captains of industry, international billionaires, and elites of all stripes buy them to show just how much money they have.



you've reiterated exactly my point. my entire point is that the material and labor don't really matter when you get into this idea of conspicuous consumption. that's all i'm saying. women aren't going to buy out those balmain super short shorts because they're spun with gold, they're going to buy those super short shorts because they're balmain. just like a russian oil baron doesn't buy a picasso because he's a cubist aficionado, he buys it because it's a picasso.

no, you're wrong, and you twisted my statement.

i never said it was abotu conspicious consumption, i said it was abotu conceptual importance. Ideas are worth more than the paint on a canvas