Most Overpriced Designer? #1

[vavavinny]

^! Very good point. I'm not even of the crowd where I can choose between either/or! I am just speaking from a hypothetical point of view. But even if I regurgitated a one-hundred dollar bill everytime I opened my mouth, I STILL would not spend 15 k on that gimmicky Balmain jacket. A pair of leather Balmain pants, though? Definitely !

 

[Spike413]

I don't know, I think comparing anything Balmain, or any designer RTW for that matter, to a vacation home, luxury car or diamonds is far fetched.

Cars aside fashion is the only other luxury item that decreases in value from the moment it's purchased. Yeah, Balmain's having a moment right now but there's no guarantee that any museum will care about curating vintage Decarnin 20 or 30 years from now. Really the only kinds of clothing that will doubtlessly rise in value is haute couture, and the bottom line is that Balmain and couture are in two different stratospheres.

And diamonds? Well, I believe the tagline is that they last forever. You can't say that about a bedazzled cotton jacket or a shredded mini dress.

No amount of rationalizing will change the fact that a huge number of people come in here with Balmain on their minds. Clearly that means that to the average fashion-lover there is a huge discrepancy between the clothes and the pricetags they carry. It's all subjective, obviously, but if so many people feel similarly maybe there's some truth to it.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I think you have a point

 

[mikeijames]

I don't know, I think comparing anything Balmain, or any designer RTW for that matter, to a vacation home, luxury car or diamonds is far fetched.

Cars aside fashion is the only other luxury item that decreases in value from the moment it's purchased. Yeah, Balmain's having a moment right now but there's no guarantee that any museum will care about curating vintage Decarnin 20 or 30 years from now. Really the only kinds of clothing that will doubtlessly rise in value is haute couture, and the bottom line is that Balmain and couture are in two different stratospheres.

And diamonds? Well, I believe the tagline is that they last forever. You can't say that about a bedazzled cotton jacket or a shredded mini dress.

No amount of rationalizing will change the fact that a huge number of people come in here with Balmain on their minds. Clearly that means that to the average fashion-lover there is a huge discrepancy between the clothes and the pricetags they carry. It's all subjective, obviously, but if so many people feel similarly maybe there's some truth to it.

for the super-rich, the correlation is more real than you think. whether it's interior design, travel, jewelry, art, electronics, fashion, automobiles, or residences, many don't have to worry about whether it's worth it or not. it's a simple matter of if it strikes their fancy and how quickly they can get it.

many people recoil at the pricepoints of balmain -- much like many did balenciaga some years ago -- because they're not used to the idea of the pure impulse fashion purchase. the cult of balmain -- much like the cult of balenciaga years ago -- buys the stuff because it creates those butterflies much like a sports car does a middle age man or a mcmansion speaks to footballer's wife.

i believe victoria beckham represents the balmain women exactly. she built a chapel in her back yard for one of her son's christenings. that's the type of woman who can buy balmain without flinching. besides....the rich have gotten even richer since the days of the $400 gucci pump and the $600 fendi baguette.

now, back to our game!! judith leiber minaudieres....$5,995 each.

[source: neimanmarcus.com]

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ I didn't know about the chapel I think you have that correlation exactly right ... but I don't think we can paint all the 'superrich' with the same brush. Many people who are quite well off know the value of a dollar, don't spend money like water, and in fact do feel the pinch of the recession, although certainly not at the level where they're making choices like people on the bottom rung of the ladder make every day (e.g., prescription or food?).

 

[Spike413]

That same argument of the "super-rich" keeps coming up and all I can think when I hear that defense is that the super-rich who don't look at a pricetag are not the people whose tastes or spending dictate what falls under the title of "overpriced", because there simply is no such thing as overpriced for them. Balmain is not haute couture, it's available to anyone who has the money, credit line, or willpower to save their pennies in order to afford it. There's no club to be initiated into or lifestyle you must lead. Anyone can attain it if they wanted it badly enough, so I think that focusing solely on people with a vastly different idea of expensive than most people in the world is unfair in the context of the discussion. Putting a trendy mass produced pair of jeans, embellished t shirt or sequined mini dress into the same class of luxury reserved for things like real estate, fine jewelry and priceless artwork is, imo at least, ludicrous, especially considering that you can't completely knock off and replicate a vacation home, a Harry Winston bracelet or a Picasso. The same can't be said of most clothing (including much of what Balmain produces), and to my mind the knock off factor kind of diminishes some of the exclusivity. Yeah, you may have the real deal, but that doesn't change the fact that hundreds of other people might be parading around in a dress that looks exactly the same.


It seems like the commonly held belief in this thread is that, regardless of a person's lifestyle and financial means, they wouldn't actually be getting what they've paid for when it comes to Balmain clothing. That's really all it comes down to, that the actual value isn't there despite the pricetag.

 

[mikeijames]

^this, of course, supposes that this so-called "club" of fashion folk who buy the couture don't also buy balmain. i don't understand from where this idea of two mutually exclusive groups originates. the same woman who commissions a fantastical design from the gaultier atelier or a impeccable suit from chanel couture also snaps up the balmain tuxedo jacket and alexnder wang cargos. the fact remains that while mass market retailers do not quickly replicate draped balenciaga blouses or ingenius giles skirts, it does not mean they can not. the reason mass market retailers replicate with such exquisite detail everything balmain attempts -- not to mention gucci or chanel or dolce or versace -- comes about because it does have MASS appeal while tickling our fashion fancies. a monet is no less valuable because art.com sells thousands of them each year. a van gogh is no less monumental because it's recreated -- stroke by stroke -- millions of times over.

if we were really being honest with ourselves, we wouldn't even really introduce the idea of value because so little in fashion -- nor any other creative field -- has to do with value it has to do with the creativity, exclusivity, etc. in the sea of fashion populated by babydoll dresses and leggings, a tough structured jacket and destroyed denim stood as a fresh breath of air. it was a game changer. it created a club more exclusive than the chanel jacket club and more modern. it's in that moment that one finds the justification for its price. it's like a theyskens skirt or a lanvin necklace or a fendi fur. you're paying to become the part of a new club.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ Value is still very much part of my fashion world

 

[x_roses_x]

Marc by Marc Jacobs is way to expensive for what you buy, Juicy Couture also...and 200$ tshirt? 100$ flip flops? ..... no thank you. For me its about quality

 

[Spike413]

TBH at this point I'm kind of over this circular discussion of Balmain.

It hasn't gone anywhere. It's likely that no one's perceptions have been changed. And the clothes themselves really don't deserve such heavy scrutiny, they're just jeans and trashy party girl dresses at the end of the day.

The bottom line is that there are a number people on this board, and I suspect elsewhere, who find Balmain's prices insulting and/or comical when compared to other designer ready-to-wear, and there are those who don't.

 

[Drusilla_]

I love Balmain's look, it's just not for me- and I don't know if it's just me but the SS10 collection feels very, very similar to the previous two, it's just that it's done in lots of khakis.

Overpriced designer stuff? I could plug so many brands into that category (Armani and Versace are common offenders), but the cake gets taken by Louis Vuitton. Their accessories are HIDEOUS. Blue denim bag covered in monograms? Check. Ugly blue denim clogs covered in monograms? Check. (go see disneyrollergirl if you don't believe me). And, a few years ago, hair bobbles- hair bobbles!- selling in my country for the equivalent of about 400$. That's 400 USD. There is no tax in the world that could have raised the price that far, and just seeing it made me want to puke a little and then swear never to spend any of my money on anything by LV once I earned it.

 

[mikeijames]

^louis vuitton really and truly does baffle the mind with how freely they set price points simply because they know that they have a fan base that will buy it no matter the price. however, that's why they call themselves a "status brand."

 

[mikeijames]

bugatti veyron, $2.1 million.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/08/automobiles/autoreviews/08bugatti.html

source: nytimes.com

 

[Drusilla_]

^ can't comment on cars, but I guess if you're rich enough, nothing can be truly 'overpriced'.
I still stand by my comments on LV- it's flagrantly overpriced, and purposely so- I had a friend who used to work as a sales assistant in an LV store. She told me that, every once in a while (once a season, by her reckoning), the prices got raised by about 5 percent from what they first retailed for. Why? Because they could! On the upside, I was happy for her because it meant her workplace was doing well though.

 

[isa.b.elle.]

i do agree about the fact that now there are very few items with a justifiable price-tag, but there are some brand whose prices are just insane!!here is my top3..: alexander wang (200$ for the same t-shirt you can get at h&m for 5$)
balmain (not much for the jackets..but the jeans..1500$ whoa!)
ungaro (everything!!)

 

[prettypouf]

Christian Lacroix
But I'll miss him.

 

[rlynne]

what about phi? just about everything has a standard $1,000 minimum pricetag..

 

[thestylehive]

An Alexander Wang terry sweatshirt costs about US$375. Even tanks from the T by Alexander Wang range from US$80 to $100. I don't get it. I love the accessories and think they are totally worth the money. I can't justify four three digits for basics though, such as plain black, white, grey tanks that are bound to be covered up from layering anyway.

 

[Frida]

Balmain destroyed cotton jersey t-shirt € 787,50 about 1.128 $

style.com/luisaviaroma.com

 

[mikeijames]

^has anyone looked at the balmain sale on outnet.com: suddenly makes the "most overpriced" according to so many quite reasonable in designer apparel terms.