Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton

You seem to know so much about Montreal.
Tell me, have you driven south of Westmount?
South of St-Laurent and Sherbrooke?
While the people you know are doing well for
themselves, the facts remain.
Montreal is not a rich city.
Sure, people have style and on average might
spend a large percentage of their income
of clothes, especially since dwelling is cheap.
Yet, salaries are lower, taxes are higher,etc.
There's also this tendency of many Montrealers
to live, unfortunetaly, over their means.
This phenomenom can be found everywhere.
However, to assume that Montreal is a rich
city in 2004 when one has visited Toronto,
Calgary, or Vancouver is ludicrous at best.
In 1904, this would have been a different story.

Click to expand...

The proportion of rich to poor in Montreal is probably similar to rich to poor in Toronto. That ratio in Toronto is very exagerated because the condominium developments you see everywhere are standing everywhere. Vancouver is the heroin capital of North America, so it has its dark side, just like North Montreal or east St. Catherine. Montreal is small, but its high end living is quite apparent, so it definately is NOT a poor city. Also, this is not a poetry website, so alter your spacing please because it's very difficult to read your post.

I feel this conversation is starting to have a
tone that I am not accustomed to see in
this forum. I do not enjoy circular logic
conversations therefore I bid you adieu.

Our current conversation is not helping
in any way 37.8% of Montreal children from
0 to 5 years who are living under the
poverty line.

O and by the way, LV isn't necessarily part of the "bling bling" culture. That classic monogram has been around for a long time, and only recently has been raped of any legitimacy it ever had. I think if you were back many years ago and saw such a bag on a woman, you might think it's a nice design, but now it's so common, that I certainly agree that expensive or not, it's really a socio-economic security blanket.

Click to expand...

I don't really see objects like this as socio-economic security blankets.  I see them as either in bad-taste or as signs of insecurity.

The distinct majority of those "security blankets" are fake.

Which makes it even worse.

Quote:

Click to expand...

(Horace @ 29 Dec. 2004, 02:47)

Originally Posted by gorgekko,29 Dec. 2004, 12:43

Click to expand...

Originally Posted by PHV,29 Dec. 2004, 02:24

Click to expand...

And about LV being tacky... walk down St. Laurent on a saturday afternoon or through Davisville in Toronto... every 2nd teenage girl will have an LV monogram handbag... so I don't really think it's out of place.
You aren't seriously suggesting that popularity rules out tackiness do you? It's not its ubiquity that troubles me, but the pathetic status seeking that it implies -- like those teenage girls with their LV handbags. Although he's gotten slammed here recently, J.D. Erikson had a good line about this:

Perhaps the repetitive LV monogram reassures the wearer that they are a member of a certain class. As they take public transportation to work, amid the lower classes, it is their security blanket, their reminder that they are not of the low-income classes, merely on the same filthy traincar with them. It is their reminder that it will all be over soon, that they will soon be in their corporate office high above the city.

Click to expand...

It's no different than with people and their Gucci sunglasses, Baby Phat clothes or the bejeweled Rolex. It's meant to showcase their taste but merely advertises their cluelessness. They have the money to spend, but not the knowledge to own. I don't hate people with LV stuff...heck, my sister has an LV purse and if it sounds like I'm attacking you, it's not. I've just declared a personal war against the bling-bling society and LV is a footsoldier on the other side.
I'm in complete agreement with GorGek on this one. Â PHV, when you are older and have been humbled by life (whether it be financial or otherwise -- and the "otherwise" is usually a more effective remedy than the financial) perhaps you'll see it differently. Which is not to excuse the poor treatment you received. What the thread reveals, in toto, is the sad play of status anxiety that is the modern man.
It's simple. The dominant polo-coated, cordovan-wearing prep tastes of the 40's-60's, the WASP culture, have been replaced by a multi-ethnic culture that values heavily advertised and easily recognizable logos, whether LV or a NASCAR baseball hat. Wear what you want, and establish your own nostalgic enclave, but, as much as many of us detest change, it exists (and all the purchases of cordovan, grosgrain, camelhair, etc. won't change it). As Ken Pollock said on the "Ask Andy" forum, think of dinosoars.
StyStu: A bit of stretch to divine this alleged rear-guard action all from clothes, don't you think? (Though probably just a bit more so than the reverse of what I argued previously).

Forgive me if I restate something already written. First of all, the treatment delivered at the LV boutique has no excuse or explanation. Honestly, under stress, people do many things and I am not critical of the "responder."

You mentioned age but I saw no mention of your race. Just as an aside, in NYC and Philadelphia and Baltimore/ Washington, cities I am most familiar with, at the same time African-American people are a sort of underclass visa vis employment and crime victimization, they have huge amounts of disposable income and I have never seen them mistreated in boutiques, in fact a large amount of retail staff in the high-end boutiques is African-American.

It's simple. The dominant polo-coated, cordovan-wearing prep tastes of the 40's-60's, the WASP culture, have been replaced by a multi-ethnic culture that values heavily advertised and easily recognizable logos, whether LV or a NASCAR baseball hat. Wear what you want, and establish your own nostalgic enclave, but, as much as many of us detest change, it exists (and all the purchases of cordovan, grosgrain, camelhair, etc. won't change it). As Ken Pollock said on the "Ask Andy" forum, think of dinosoars.

Click to expand...

StyStu:  A bit of stretch to divine this alleged rear-guard action all from clothes, don't you think?  (Though probably just a bit more so than the reverse of what I argued previously).[/quote]
You're correct, Horace, that I'm too theatrical in equating change in style to general change of culture. Too much nostalgia from reading the "American Trad" posts on Ask Andy. I agree it's a stretch (and pompous) to generalize about the survival or disappearance of the prep and college value system or habits of the '50s-'60s just on the basis of contrasting brand names (Alden vs. Gucci, for example). I won't know much about you if I focus only on the shoes you are wearing.

Forgive me if I restate something already written. First of all, the treatment delivered at the LV boutique has no excuse or explanation. Honestly, under stress, people do many things and I am not critical of the "responder."

You mentioned age but I saw no mention of your race. Just as an aside, in NYC and Philadelphia and Baltimore/ Washington, cities I am most familiar with, at the same time African-American people are a sort of underclass visa vis employment and crime victimization, they have huge amounts of disposable income and I have never seen them mistreated in boutiques, in fact a large amount of retail staff in the high-end boutiques is African-American.

Click to expand...

Wow. This is the most amazingly myopic post I've read on race in North America. Wow

Quote:

Click to expand...

(Horace @ 30 Dec. 2004, 03:08) It's simple. The dominant polo-coated, cordovan-wearing prep tastes of the 40's-60's, the WASP culture, have been replaced by a multi-ethnic culture that values heavily advertised and easily recognizable logos, whether LV or a NASCAR baseball hat. Wear what you want, and establish your own nostalgic enclave, but, as much as many of us detest change, it exists (and all the purchases of cordovan, grosgrain, camelhair, etc. won't change it). As Ken Pollock said on the "Ask Andy" forum, think of dinosoars.
StyStu: Â A bit of stretch to divine this alleged rear-guard action all from clothes, don't you think? Â (Though probably just a bit more so than the reverse of what I argued previously).
You're correct, Horace, that I'm too theatrical in equating change in style to general change of culture. Too much nostalgia from reading the "American Trad" posts on Ask Andy. I agree it's a stretch (and pompous) to generalize about the survival or disappearance of the prep and college value system or habits of the '50s-'60s just on the basis of contrasting brand names (Alden vs. Gucci, for example). I won't know much about you if I focus only on the shoes you are wearing.[/quote] StyStu: I actually thought you had a point, as much as one can have a point when discussing clothes and the larger world, as it were. I myself did some of that on the other read of which you speak.

Quote:

Click to expand...

(Horace @ 30 Dec. 2004, 03:08) It's simple. The dominant polo-coated, cordovan-wearing prep tastes of the 40's-60's, the WASP culture, have been replaced by a multi-ethnic culture that values heavily advertised and easily recognizable logos, whether LV or a NASCAR baseball hat. Wear what you want, and establish your own nostalgic enclave, but, as much as many of us detest change, it exists (and all the purchases of cordovan, grosgrain, camelhair, etc. won't change it). As Ken Pollock said on the "Ask Andy" forum, think of dinosoars.
StyStu: Â A bit of stretch to divine this alleged rear-guard action all from clothes, don't you think? Â (Though probably just a bit more so than the reverse of what I argued previously).
You're correct, Horace, that I'm too theatrical in equating change in style to general change of culture. Too much nostalgia from reading the "American Trad" posts on Ask Andy. I agree it's a stretch (and pompous) to generalize about the survival or disappearance of the prep and college value system or habits of the '50s-'60s just on the basis of contrasting brand names (Alden vs. Gucci, for example). I won't know much about you if I focus only on the shoes you are wearing.[/quote] on the other hand, stylestudent, you can learn a hell of a lot about a person from the shoes they are wearing, or some of their accessories. The I know somebody who had a collection of very expensive (>30K each) jewlery watches and she is exactly the type of person who I would expect to have such watches - new rich, pushy, loud. I know somebody with a sieko quartz watch crusted with heavy gold and who wears several gold bracelets, and he is exactly what I would have thought of him at first glance. I the richest person I know personaly (from very old wasp money) wears a simple 30 year old steel rolex. these type of things can tell you a hell of a lot about people. I really don't have any friends who are into "bling". granted, most of my friends don't wear the same shoes that I do, but none of them wear anything that I consider grossly tacky. and I am pretty sure that that is not a coincidence. and the converse is true, too, I am sure. I imagine that somebody who felt they needed to drape themselves in bling and visable labels probrably wouldn't have a whole hell of a lot to talk about with me, either.

If I'm wearing corduroy, penny loafers, a tattersall shirt, and a 20-year old Rolex steel watch (which, coincidentally, is what I have on today), it's more likely, globetrotter, that you and I will have something in common. That said, you still won't know much about me (level of education, income, political leanings, family situation, where I live and what I do) from my appearance. I'm certainly not "old money", for example (the Ralph Lauren dilemma, which is so often the subject of comment on these forums). I personally am not offended by "bling" (it's actually entertaining-like looking at a comic book) but certainly think we shouldn't confuse it with style.

If I'm wearing corduroy, penny loafers, a tattersall shirt, and a 20-year old Rolex steel watch (which, coincidentally, is what I have on today), it's more likely, globetrotter, that you and I will have something in common. That said, you still won't know much about me (level of education, income, political leanings, family situation, where I live and what I do) from my appearance. I'm certainly not "old money", for example (the Ralph Lauren dilemma, which is so often the subject of comment on these forums). I personally am not offended by "bling" (it's actually entertaining-like looking at a comic book) but certainly think we shouldn't confuse it with style.

Click to expand...

unfortunatly, part of being a salesman is making snap judgments about people based on apperances. I am usually pretty good at it, but I don't switch it off when I am not working. and I am the first to admit that it is a crude trick, at best. and, like you said, there is a severe limit to the level of info it will give you.

I guess that I am not offended by bling, so much as amused, but having some responsbility to help out some relatives who blew their small and temporary fortune on bling 30 years ago doen'st make me that receptive to it. the guy with the gold sieko reports to me, and as long as he keeps making me money he is welcomed to wear what ever he wants (not to mention that he is actually a very nice guy), I jsut can't think of any of my friends who have anything that would fit into the "bling" catagory, or for that matter the visable label catagory.

Let's stop the flame wars or the thread will be locked, OK?

Let's stop the flame wars or the thread will be locked, OK?

Click to expand...

I see no flaming.

I see no flaming.

Click to expand...

Odd- because you were involved in two of them.

Definition of Flame:

Syn with ad hominem:

Arguing against a person, rather than what they say. Need me to post specifics?