Most Overpriced Designer?

[Chanelcouture09]

and the work of many luxury brands gets done by hand by artisans in italy and france (and labor in france ain't cheap).

many commenters try to compare luxury brands (and their prices) to other lower-cost brands (and their prices). those same lower-cost brands that buy their wares from manufacturers in india and china that use child and slave labor. let's also not forget all of the sweatshops in the second and third world that many of these big box retailers also use. some right in our backyard in mexico and central america. in the end, you get what you pay for.

exactly! i couldn't agree with you more

 

[Harumi]

and the work of many luxury brands gets done by hand by artisans in italy and france (and labor in france ain't cheap).

Actually high-end luxury is more and more often produced in China, with the finishing touches put in Europe for the prestige thing.

Granted, the skilled Chinese workers they use are not comparable to the slave or child labor and sweatshops of, say, Gap or Nike factories, but labor cost is no longer a justification of prices.
Hermes can make that claims and Vuitton for their leather goods can too, but the rest of them can't. A lot of Armani is made in China, so is Gucci and Burberry. Even Chanel is now producing some of its goods in China.

 

[Goya]

Balmain is IMHO the most ridiculous one. haha~~~

 

[Goya]

Actually high-end luxury is more and more often produced in China, with the finishing touches put in Europe for the prestige thing.

Granted, the skilled Chinese workers they use are not comparable to the slave or child labor and sweatshops of, say, Gap or Nike factories, but labor cost is no longer a justification of prices.
Hermes can make that claims and Vuitton for their leather goods can too, but the rest of them can't. A lot of Armani is made in China, so is Gucci and Burberry. Even Chanel is now producing some of its goods in China.

This is so true.

 

[mikeijames]

Actually high-end luxury is more and more often produced in China, with the finishing touches put in Europe for the prestige thing.

Granted, the skilled Chinese workers they use are not comparable to the slave or child labor and sweatshops of, say, Gap or Nike factories, but labor cost is no longer a justification of prices.
Hermes can make that claims and Vuitton for their leather goods can too, but the rest of them can't. A lot of Armani is made in China, so is Gucci and Burberry. Even Chanel is now producing some of its goods in China.

very true, but many "overpriced designer" brands like balmain most definitely don't get produced in china. love them or hate them.

 

[Jungla_Juana]

even some of the "luxury" goods that are 100% produced in Italy are made in sweatshops chock full of illegal Chinese immigrants, sadly... so it's just adding insult to injury how many price increases these labels have on top of the already high prices.

 

[GERGIN]

Proenza Schouler, their price tags scare me...

 

[poptheglock]

i think what alot of people forget is the quality of the material used and the craftsmanship that goes into it, like Harumi said, Crocodile skin takes alot to treat, dye and shape into the preferred shape, thats why it costs so much
yeah balmain is overpriced, and i've even admitted it but alot of the work is done by hand, like the bleaching of jeans and embroidery done on alot of their pieces

how much "craftmanship" lies in a ripped t-shirt (im referring to the balmain top posted earlier)?

 

[mikeijames]

how much "craftmanship" lies in a ripped t-shirt (im referring to the balmain top posted earlier)?

when prada sends out cut-off shorts or fendi sends out threadbare jackets or jil sander sends out ripped skirts, no one questions the craftmanship and gladly ponies up whatever they charge. but when someone decides to take on the everyday and give it the fashion rockglam treatment, suddenly the question of craftmanship and quality comes up.

further, not to belabor this point, but it hasn't been said since this new thread began, balmain is not a big fashion house owned by a huge fashion conglomerate (which can drive down costs for all of their brands by virtue of their size). they actually have to make a profit on the pieces they sell. they aren't just putting on a runway show for fun or shooting an expensive ad campaign as a vanity exercise or to sell handbags and makeup or simply to create some "brand image". they're actually showing clothes and advertising clothes they intend to wind up on real clients.

style.com

 

[kawing_walker]

hm... Christian Dior.

 

[mikeijames]

these great chanel leather pants? $8,510.

style.com

 

[Harumi]

^Chanel pricing are ridiculous but I think people pay as much for the garment as they pay for the customer service.
They treat their clients very, very well.

 

[Squizree]

^ Really? The Beverly Hills branch was very ordinary service last time I went. I mean yeah they're helpful but it's not exactly worship. And even if they are the best service in town, I don't think it justifies the price. How much did it cost to make those pants? $50?

 

[Squizree]

Versace Metal-embellished mini skirt S/S 2010
£ 4,881.58

Versace Embellished silk-crepe gown
£ 15,176.93

netaporter

 

[Dkammern]

As it's been said, Chanel is not a brand of which we can say the prices are all that overhyped.
Quality is impeccable, they ensure a constant brand buzz that is in no way cheap (how much does it cost to fly an army of +30 topmodels to the other side of the world, for an average 1/2 minute on the runway?), and they treat customers extremely well.
Chanel doesn't just hand you a glass of champagne when you are a client. They throw events and parties to which you are invited, send Christmas gifts (perfumes, flowers, silk squares...), they welcome you to visit their showrooms, late store openings... they keep a very VERY close relationship with a large number of their clients (this is not just a TOP10 big spenders kind of thing).

Whoever decides to buy the infamous pair of leather pants, opens the doors to all of that i am sure (presuming of course, that this is not the kind of 'myfirst-myoneandonly' chanel investemt) and I say for some people, all of these things Chanel gives back to them can be worth more than the $8000 they are charged for the pants.

^ Really? The Beverly Hills branch was very ordinary service last time I went. I mean yeah they're helpful but it's not exactly worship. And even if they are the best service in town, I don't think it justifies the price. How much did it cost to make those pants? $50?

On a side note, I don't think it has ever been commented how that's a question people ask quite lightly... (not personally talking about you Squizree, you were just the last one to ask)
i mean, are we talking full or direct, are we measuring how 'rich' the company gets in terms of gross margins, or looking beyond indirect costs, do we care about the other competitors prices or not, how do we quantify utility, opportunity costs, reservation prices...
the whole science of pricing... it is not at all simple!!!

 

[mikeijames]

^that's part of the exclusivity of these items. i really don't think people understand how much that figures into the world of high fashion these days. a woman will spend more to not see her garment on one of her peers. also, as you mention, more and more, they're buying into a lifestyle. it's all a part of the experience. modern men and women aren't buying just for the quality or just for the exclusivity or just for brand image or just for the star treatment. they're sophisticated enough to buy for it all. and how do you put a price on that? well, that's the enitre business of the luxury experience -- and it's really bigger than fashion in the end -- and so much more goes into it than cost of the material.

 

[Squizree]

^ That's not necessarily true. A lot of people who buy overpriced clothes just buy them so they can associated with money. Many people don't care about quality, they just wanna look "cool" and "rich" wearing whatever.
That's why loads of brands will plaster their names and logos and monograms on simple shirts; they feed off people's insecurities that if they buy their stuff they'll look "rich" and "chic" and "stylish".
Fashion prices continue to rise while their quality decreases. Gucci is what comes to mind here. Their clothes are RUBBISH, yet their prices are insanely high. They're priced AT LEAST 200% more than what they're worth.
I will GLADLY and HAPPILY pay hundreds/thousands of dollars for designer of clothing that is actually worth it. Unless you're a label's ambassador, buying overpriced clothing just for "brand image" is just shallow.

 

[mikeijames]

^you make a valid point, but we're much to quick to lump all brands into the same category. and if you think those label obsessed girls don't care about quality? let the strap on their new bag snap or the heel on their new shoe break. you'll discover that beneath that veneer, they do care about quality. i don't care if it's your husband's money or the money you earned by sitting in a corner office, you're invested in the pieces you buy for whatever those reasons may be.

lots of people stay at the ritz carlton just to say they're staying in the ritz carlton. you might not think they care about turn down service or the floral arrangements in the lobby, but they're just the type of people to care about those things. ironically, sometimes it's the "old money" types that take everything in stride from drafty castles to watered down drinks.

 

[bearbrick]

easy .....top of my head

#1 overpriced and overrated designer = TOM FORD followed very closely by MARC JACOBS [ at both LV and own label ]..........lastly STELLA MCCARTNEY - did i mention overhyped too ??

 

[iRyan]

Balmain

Slashed army t-shirt

$1,625

***Do not quote images***

net-a-porter

That is just BEYOND ridiculous, i'm a loss for words. I wouldn't even pay $40 for that piece of crap, let alone $1,625. Whoever would even think of buying that is stupid, in my opinion.