It’s not wrong to like designer goods, but far too often I have seen people being interested in fashion labels simply because a brand name reflects one thing: “I have piles of money!”. The aforementioned population will claim that they “love fashion” and think of haute couture as “art”, but all too often these people also believe Christian Dior and Coco Chanel are still alive and designing. They also couldn’t tell you which resort show they liked this season and probably don’t know who Nicolas Ghesquière, Alber Elbaz, Phoebe Philo, or Rei Kawakubo are nor what houses they design for. Their interest in fashion is just based on what it can help them project to other people, rather than an interest in the industry.
This is markedly seen in what these people purchase: logo-rific accessories. The price point makes them much more accessible than clothes and can be used every day. However, the practicality of these items is often what gets abused given how many women and teenaged girls I’ve seen rocking their “Louis Vuitton” handbag at Kroger while in sweats and flip flops. The image doesn’t add up.
This “look” isn’t solely the buyer’s fault; brands have definitely been marketing the aspirational, logo-ridden bag or “It Bag” a lot within the last decade. Case in the point: the Louis Vuitton Monogram Multicolore Speedy, a hugely successful handbag. Considering how many pictures of faux speedys I had to rummage through to find the image below, it is also one of the most replicated and exploited designs.
Well, looking at it shows that Marc Jacobs knew exactly what he was doing by inviting Takashi Murakami to collaborate on updating Vuitton’s image. To put it nicely, this bag is pretty bold if not in your face about the logo pattern. No denying this bag is anything but Louis Vuitton. I feel like this entire bag’s creation was based on getting a newer, less affluent clientele interested in Louis Vuitton by offering them a bag that explicitly states “I was expensive to purchase, can’t you tell by my logos?”. Smart marketing on Louis Vuitton’s part to sell bags and inject some youthfulness into their image, but I think the popularity of this handbag has cheapened the image of Louis Vuitton. This bag doesn’t say classic to me, it says 2003 and trendy. Let’s not forget that this color palette and pattern drizzled down through less prestigious brands like Coach, Dooney and Bourke, Liz Claiborne, all the way down to places like Claire’s and knock-offs sold from purse parties and from online Canal Street-style stores.
Another case-in-point: The Cambon line of Chanel handbags, seen in high schools and featured on this week’s episode of 16 and Pregnant:
Authentic Chanel Cambon handbags from Purseblog’s forum.
I think Karl Lagerfeld decided to do his own interpretation of a logo bag, instead of lots of logos one, giant off-centered on would work just as well. This handbag and shoe line has also been desecrated by a sea of fakes.
Nothing says authentic like matching boots, bag, and sunglasses!
Similar bags have also been produced by the likes of Gucci, Fendi, Dolce & Gabanna, and Burberry. Worst of all, for those who do choose to buy authentic designer goods, if you’re buying these styles of handbags most people will probably assume yours is a fake as well. Is it really worth the investment then to buy a handbag that is now associated with being fake, if you’re buying it for the logo to begin with? It now defeats the purpose to even bother with authentic designer goods.
The moral of this handbag tale: buy what is within your price range, that isn’t so incredibly trendy you won’t be able to use it in three months and most importantly appeals to your style and sensibilities, not to impress others!
