KP,
Yes, I do believe that some folk buying fakes believe that almost the entire difference between what they are buying and the real thing is the huge markup from the factory to the retailer. Sometimes, and especially considering the news coming out regarding just how much the makers are paid, it's not that far from the full truth. In this case, you are the one who has simply discounted an opposing view with not a trace of reasoning or evidence.
And, yes, I believe an overabundance of choices makes it hard to make the best choice for your particular circumstances. It's true for toothpaste. Why not clothing? Don't tell me there's never been a time when you stood trying to make a choice and realized there were so many possibilities you were never going to be sure you'd made the right choice and the choice was taking more time than it was worth.
Ah, but the proliferation of fake Rembrandt would adversely affect the price of a not-yet-authenticated or not-absolutely-certain Rembrandt, whatever its quality, not to mention the artist who has to answer the question "Why should I buy an unknown when I could have an "apparent" Rembrandt for the same price?" There's only so much money going to be spent on art, and some of it just left the market.
Last of all, fashion is one of those areas where a lot of the money put into the original is in the development. Like the potter who answers the question "How long did it take you to make that mug?": "Five minutes to make the mug. Twenty years to learn how to make it in five minutes." The high-fashion designer item represents the result of several careers worth of knowledge and experience in design, construction, materials, sourcing, advertising, etc., etc., etc. The maker or marketer of the fake pays nothing for all that, but gets the benefit of it. They should not be rewarded for that.
Yes, I do believe that some folk buying fakes believe that almost the entire difference between what they are buying and the real thing is the huge markup from the factory to the retailer. Sometimes, and especially considering the news coming out regarding just how much the makers are paid, it's not that far from the full truth. In this case, you are the one who has simply discounted an opposing view with not a trace of reasoning or evidence.
And, yes, I believe an overabundance of choices makes it hard to make the best choice for your particular circumstances. It's true for toothpaste. Why not clothing? Don't tell me there's never been a time when you stood trying to make a choice and realized there were so many possibilities you were never going to be sure you'd made the right choice and the choice was taking more time than it was worth.
Ah, but the proliferation of fake Rembrandt would adversely affect the price of a not-yet-authenticated or not-absolutely-certain Rembrandt, whatever its quality, not to mention the artist who has to answer the question "Why should I buy an unknown when I could have an "apparent" Rembrandt for the same price?" There's only so much money going to be spent on art, and some of it just left the market.
Last of all, fashion is one of those areas where a lot of the money put into the original is in the development. Like the potter who answers the question "How long did it take you to make that mug?": "Five minutes to make the mug. Twenty years to learn how to make it in five minutes." The high-fashion designer item represents the result of several careers worth of knowledge and experience in design, construction, materials, sourcing, advertising, etc., etc., etc. The maker or marketer of the fake pays nothing for all that, but gets the benefit of it. They should not be rewarded for that.
