Most Overpriced Designer? #2

[Dkammern]

I don't think that's too overpriced on the Balenciaga shoes, it's a unique design with unusual mixed with exotic materials.

exotic materials as in... formica?

balenciaga shoes are always overpriced... specially the runway versions.
the lego shoes were almost as pricey (even though those were pre-crisis)

back to our fun game: how about a three thousand dollar brass necklace? yours by lanvin.

(source: net-a-porter.com)

i see nothing wrong with it! i mean how gorgeous are lanvin necklaces...

EDIT: i'm checking out net-a-porter and all necklaces retail for less than a thousand euros... where did you see that price mikeijames?!

 

[mikeijames]

exotic materials as in... formica?

balenciaga shoes are always overpriced... specially the runway versions.
the lego shoes were almost as pricey (even though those were pre-crisis)



i see nothing wrong with it! i mean how gorgeous are lanvin necklaces...

EDIT: i'm checking out net-a-porter and all necklaces retail for less than a thousand euros... where did you see that price mikeijames?!

with regard to the lego shoes, didn't they fetch $4k (in the boom times)? it's bold to debut a $7k (and i think they're closer to $8k....in any case they would be with VAT anywhere) in a recession. that's part of the reason i love them. i can't wait to see who actually wears them. baleciaga is to shoes what balmain is to jackets.

no one disputes the utter beauty of lanvin, it's the pricepoint at discussion here.

the original necklace must have sold out (who says we're in a recession?), but here is the link ( http://www.net-a-porter.com/product/80575 ).

the matching brass brooch fetches $1,660. (at this link in case it sells: http://www.net-a-porter.com/product/80581 ).

(source: net-a-porter.com)

 

[Crying Diamonds]

exotic materials as in... formica?

Exotic materials as in... alligator.

 

[mikeijames]

how about some great patent pleather slingbacks? yours for $695 by stella mccarntey. compare to manolo blahnik slingbacks for $575 and jimmy choo slingbacks for $495 in actual leather.

(source: net-a-porter.com)

 

[Jungla_Juana]

^^
$700 for grown-up Jellies, basically.

(is it me, or does that look a lot like the CL Helmut?)

 

[ilaughead]

^I'm not usually one to defend Stella, but if you think of it a different way, some of us would be happy to spend the extra $100 on a pair of shoes already at that price level if it meant they were cruelty-free.

 

[ErnstLudwig]

for that price they should be at least biodegradable... and free of evil chemicals, but I doubt that

 

[ChiStreetStyle]

I think it's important to consider the labor involved in creating a garment. If a limited number of pieces are produced, then they are just that much more expensive. It's not only a matter of materials used, but also the thought and design as well. Retooling to create each garment is an expensive process. I think it's easy to pick on BALMAIN because the prices are so high, but the simple fact is that the market sets the prices. They wouldn't be high if people didn't think BALMAIN was worth it. I think many of you touched upon the fact that people purchase overpriced items to demonstrate social status and spending power. A shredded $1000 tee is worth $1000 to whomever purchases it, although I would never buy it. Even if money was no object.

Personally, I consider the energy that went into each piece from the labor and design down into the material (cotton, silk, etc). It's deceptive to say that 100% cotton clothing is inherently "cheap" because cotton fabric is so common, if a tremendous amount of thought and talent went into its creation. I also favor labels with ethical labor practices and plan to focus my research on finding ways to raise wage and workplace standards in the international garment trade.

Just my .02... I do buy most of my items on sale or vintage because I am a perpetually broke full time graduate student.

 

[mikeijames]

^I'm not usually one to defend Stella, but if you think of it a different way, some of us would be happy to spend the extra $100 on a pair of shoes already at that price level if it meant they were cruelty-free.

clearly that's the case as stella mccartney shoes have quite the following....

 

[mikeijames]

I think it's important to consider the labor involved in creating a garment. If a limited number of pieces are produced, then they are just that much more expensive. It's not only a matter of materials used, but also the thought and design as well. Retooling to create each garment is an expensive process. I think it's easy to pick on BALMAIN because the prices are so high, but the simple fact is that the market sets the prices. They wouldn't be high if people didn't think BALMAIN was worth it. I think many of you touched upon the fact that people purchase overpriced items to demonstrate social status and spending power. A shredded $1000 tee is worth $1000 to whomever purchases it, although I would never buy it. Even if money was no object.

Personally, I consider the energy that went into each piece from the labor and design down into the material (cotton, silk, etc). It's deceptive to say that 100% cotton clothing is inherently "cheap" because cotton fabric is so common, if a tremendous amount of thought and talent went into its creation. I also favor labels with ethical labor practices and plan to focus my research on finding ways to raise wage and workplace standards in the international garment trade.

Just my .02... I do buy most of my items on sale or vintage because I am a perpetually broke full time graduate student.

exclusivity has a lot to do with it as well. it's a fool's argument to think that the price of a garment only has to do with quality of materials or workmanship. we all know that the lion's share of people who walk into a designer's boutique buy the stuff because of the name on the label or to impress their peers.

harper's bazaaar has a great article with marc jacobs in it this month. he observed that in his early days he tried to make vuitton a less ostentatious brand and quickly learned that that's the opposite of what people want. they didn't want the logo in the lining or the "louis vuitton tucked behind the buttons, they wanted to wear it out front and out loud. people don't buy the $1k tee just because it's egyptian cotton (if it even is) or because some french artisan (not second world sweatshop worker) distressed it for hours by hand, they buy it because they know the minute they wear it, everyone knows how much they spent. and if you've got the body and the attitude, it makes you look really good.

no designer brand can disparage that customer because that's MOST of the fashion customer. even our fashion die-hards who worship at the altars of the most insider brands around know that many of the girls who snap that stuff up aren't only buying it because they love and because of it's story....it's like art in a gallery, yes, there exist few who may buy it simply and only because they love it and store it in a basement somewhere, but most buy art to be seen.

 

[Squizree]

I think things have changed though, thank goodness. People do pay more attention to quality and materials these days. One of the very positive things that the reccession brought was the sense of thinking twice before you purchase something. People don't want to spend money on monograms anymore.

 

[Unknownpleasures]

for that price they should be at least biodegradable... and free of evil chemicals, but I doubt that

They're supposed to be free of "evil chemicals",too.I think her company actually makes most of the materials they use that's why the prices raise taht much;no other company makes shoes that are 100% cruelty free.From the faux leather to the glue they use,everything. Or at least that's what she claims

 

[WonderfulTonight]

although i absolutely adore them, i think loubs could be more comfortable for the price they cost..like say, jimmy choos

 

[Crying Diamonds]

There's always going to be new money or the blinded tasteless that want the emblazoned logos, that's why Vuitton, Fendi, Gucci, Chanel, etc, sellotape it onto anything and everything.

 

[mikeijames]

no comparison to balmain, or tom ford, or others, but bottega veneta gives us some quite pricey versions of designer denim given they don't have any special washes, distressing, etc. that we normally attribute to jeans at this price point: $640.00

style.com

 

[Unknownpleasures]

What?Wow,well That's Quite expensive for that...

 

[Jungla_Juana]

are the Bottega jeans raw denim? if so, it potentially get very expensive depending on the weight and quality of the fabric obtained from the looming process (usually the best comes from Japan).... so a high price on raw denim jeans makes more sense to me than a high price on some jeans made from nondescript denim that were then distressed/bleached/ripped. at least one of the two carries intrinsic value.

that said, I think $640 is way too much even if they are raw.

 

[ari94]

Oh man thats a lot for those jeans and I thought my Dsquared jeans were expensive..

 

[mistress_f]

correct me if im wrong, but i generally find bottega veneta to be always super-expensive even with the most basic stuff

 

[gossiping]

have you been in the store and seen it in real life? i think it's so worth it their stuff.