or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton - Page 6

post #76 of 122
And on a happier note, I received a New Year's greeting message from Louis Vuitton today. It features a bare diamond-studded tree they had previously sent (around november) so you could hang your leathers on the branches, and then forward to a loved one who might examine your wish list. (I had done some research for a friend by directly corresponding with France, so I guess I was in their system)
post #77 of 122
I found it interesting that the LV "store within a store" at Saks in Washington, DC (actually, Chevy Chase, Maryland) had an all-Asian sales team; I didn't see any other Asian sales clerks in the store during my fairly quick trip to the store looking for Christmas presents.  Perhaps Saks does it that way b/c LV is popular with Asians in the DC area?  Who knows.  In any event, I did think they were polite and helpful, which is slightly surprising considering I was doing my shopping with my 2-year old son on my shoulders.
post #78 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
I see no flaming.
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?
Well seeing as those events took places several pages ago, then I really see no need for your to interject, so call off the hounds. There is no impolite conversation going on here.
post #79 of 122
OK, PHV, but they seem to start up every 3 pages or so, and this is page 8.
post #80 of 122
Sometimes, Horace, I think you intentionally misunderstand me, this must be an Amherst thing. I remarked about the treatment of African Americans in boutiques in three Northeastern cities, my words were not a global statement about "race in North America."
post #81 of 122
Quote:
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.
You point? Burberry wasn't once part of the bling bling set and yet it has been co-opted by chavs. Are there people who carry or wear LV who aren't "blinging"? Could be. Haven't met any yet and my social circle is pretty varied. Mercedes-Benz, Rolex, Cartier and a thousand other brands used to be the preserve of those with money, now they're the preserve of the bling-bling set. Hell, Bentley -- the car of the British aristocracy -- is the official car of rappers now. The only reason we don't see every clod with a Bentley is because you can't fake them...well, fake them easily or cheaply I suppose. By the way, it was someone else who said you'd get older and face reality, not me. I'm perfectly capable of offending you on my own, I don't need anyone else's help Good to see I have fellow soldiers in my war against bling-bling. Your orders will arrive by PM.
post #82 of 122
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by PHV,29 Dec. 2004, 1:33
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.
You point? Burberry wasn't once part of the bling bling set and yet it has been co-opted by chavs. Are there people who carry or wear LV who aren't "blinging"? Could be. Haven't met any yet and my social circle is pretty varied. Mercedes-Benz, Rolex, Cartier and a thousand other brands used to be the preserve of those with money, now they're the preserve of the bling-bling set. Hell, Bentley -- the car of the British aristocracy -- is the official car of rappers now. The only reason we don't see every clod with a Bentley is because you can't fake them...well, fake them easily or cheaply I suppose. By the way, it was someone else who said you'd get older and face reality, not me. I'm perfectly capable of offending you on my own, I don't need anyone else's help   Good to see I have fellow soldiers in my war against bling-bling. Your orders will arrive by PM.
I largely agree about anti bling. I don't own anything with very visible logos, besides a pair of Ferragamo cufflinks (not recognized by most people anyways).... My point was basically that it wasn't as if Burberry and LV were ALWAYS for the tacky, which many people seem to think. Seriously though, everyone in some way is showing off when they dress up. Even those of you who are so endlessly cultured and understated with your working button holes, 7 folds, hand worked suits and fine shoes are showing off. Far more for yourselves than others, but do not put yourself on a moral high ground. Like I said, most of my clothing is fairly non descript, but I certainly do not think of myself as being this crusader for simplicity and anti-commercialism when I wear a Brioni or Andersen shep. That really is just bling bling in a higher circle, is it not?
post #83 of 122
Quote:
That really is just bling bling in a higher circle, is it not?
No. Buying seven-fold ties or Oxxford suits is an appreciation of quality. Are there jerks that walk around telling people how much their Kiton suit cost? Yes, and they are morons. Aficionados are more concerned with the quality of their clothes, not the cost. They like well-crafted clothes for both their objective and subjective reasons. It's like buying beautiful art, except you get to wear it. Dressing in logos, the bling bling mindset, is a statement of money spent (or in case of fakes, amount of money they wish they could spend). There is no appreciation of craftmanship, merely a declaration of their status (or desired status).
post #84 of 122
gorgekko - I probably agree with you on 99.9% of board topics. However, I respectfully must disagree with your last post. I think the PHV raises a good point. Is being a sartorial dandy/peacock really any less different than a chav, except on a higher (price) level? For example, your point about quality/art is true. HOWEVER, when those of us with top quality garmets walk around with 1 or 2 sleeve buttons undone, or pickstiched lapels, who is kidding who (and I concede to be one of these on occassion)? These are signals, albeit subtle ones. As you point out, the motives are different - people aren't trying to prove they can afford expensive things or have a shield, but they are signaling that they are in the know or are trying to impress their boss (rather than their neighbors). Is that any better? Again, I concede being as guilty anyone, but I can't help notice a slight tinge of elitism, or at the least a double standard perhaps.
post #85 of 122
Quote:
For example, your point about quality/art is true. HOWEVER, when those of us with top quality garmets walk around with 1 or 2 sleeve buttons undone, or pickstiched lapels, who is kidding who (and I concede to be one of these on occassion)? These are signals, albeit subtle ones.
Isn't that the same, though, as the people who tell you how much their suits cost? If someone walking around with a button or two undone on your coat sleeve, then that person is doing the same thing as the cat telling someone his suit cost $2K. I mean, isn't a chav with money merely a richer version of the bling-bling label whore? Money don't change a thing with them. At any rate, I do dig what you mean though. I just respectfully disagree
post #86 of 122
Quote:
Quote:
(rsp1 @ 31 Dec. 2004, 01:49) For example, your point about quality/art is true.  HOWEVER, when those of us with top quality garmets walk around with 1 or 2 sleeve buttons undone, or pickstiched lapels, who is kidding who (and I concede to be one of these on occassion)?  These are signals, albeit subtle ones.
Isn't that the same, though, as the people who tell you how much their suits cost? If someone walking around with a button or two undone on your coat sleeve, then that person is doing the same thing as the cat telling someone his suit cost $2K. I mean, isn't a chav with money merely a richer version of the bling-bling label whore? Money don't change a thing with them. At any rate, I do dig what you mean though. I just respectfully disagree  
I had a few thoughts on this, but the main one is something like this - if dressing is a type of communication, how we communicate with the world, then you could equate it with language. pardon this tangent, but it has a point - I recently picked up a copy of one of the longer Thomas Mann novels from my bookshelf where I hadn't re-read it in 5 years or more. It is a fantastic book, well written, great language, well built charactors. a pure pleasure to read. if you look around an airport some time, you will see a lot of people reading a certain "novel" with a "historical" plot that anybody with even a mediocre education would realize is full of innacuracies, and of course is poorly written and has poorly developed charactors and a wide range of other problems, as well. but they are enjoying it, and I would imagine that they wouldn't get much pleasure reading about the trials and tribulations of 3 generations of rye traders in 19th century Lubbeck. to each their own. now, but to what I was saying - to wear a subtle suit, in good fabric, hand made by an artisan, to wear handmade shoes in a buttersoft leather, to have a shirt in the perfect shade of blue, a great tie, these are pleasures that might be communicating something about you to others, but they can also be a lot like amature poetry, writen for yourself. they express a bit of your art (are you aiming for the perfect blue shirt, or the perfect pink shirt, are you willing to wear a frayed shirt but you aim a the perfect shoe collection) they "speak" in a much richer and more nuanced language than wearing a tee shirt with some designers name on it and a pound of 14 carat gold around your neck. the cavs are speaking one language, I am speaking another. and I reserve the right to feel about them the way I might feel about people who think that an airport novel is the hight of literature. And they can sneer at my buttenholes and my Mann novels.
post #87 of 122
I treat boutiques such as Hermes or Zegna, Prada or Diane von Furstenberg as museums of art.  The number of my visits far outweighs that of my purchases.  I go in to admire garments as I would paintings at the Chicago art institute, in many ways.  If I were a designer, I think I would be more flattered by someone who appreciates without buying, as opposed to someone who could buy without truly appreciating.   The conversation lately reminds me of a subject my philosophy teacher in the Lycee (High School) once put to us: if nobody could see you, would you still care about how you are dressed? Another one she asked was: does one need to be educated to recognize a work of art?
post #88 of 122
Agreeing with gorgekko, I think there is a difference between the "bling" approach and what we can call the "high quality" approach--it's a matter of tastefulness and discretion. It's the difference between a flashing neon sign and a calling card. Both announce your presence, but one is a shout and the other is a whisper or a slight clearing of the throat. Yes, one can be blingy about high quality items, too: the usual logos, suit labels still sewn on the sleeve, etc. But isn't it better that people suspect your clothes are of super high quality and possibly cost a fortune than for them to be put off by the brashness of constantly announcing it? Some may feign shock ("shocked. shocked, I say."), but I think we can safely say that pretty much anyone who spends much of his time at this forum is interested in showing off a bit through dress. There are tasteful, and not so tasteful, ways of doing that.
post #89 of 122
Quote:
I treat boutiques such as Hermes or Zegna, Prada or Diane von Furstenberg as museums of art.  The number of my visits far outweighs that of my purchases.  I go in to admire garments as I would paintings at the Chicago art institute, in many ways.  If I were a designer, I think I would be more flattered by someone who appreciates without buying, as opposed to someone who could buy without truly appreciating.   The conversation lately reminds me of a subject my philosophy teacher in the Lycee (High School) once put to us: if nobody could see you, would you still care about how you are dressed? Another one she asked was: does one need to be educated to recognize a work of art?
I should say yes since there are certain tangential examples. For example the Comtess de Castiglione had thousands of photographic portraits made of herself when she was a recluse only going out at night. Then there is the Marchesa Casati who had an entire pavillion filled with portraits of herself.
post #90 of 122
I once wore a sari (gold embroidery on red silk) on a day off, at home, when I was all alone, for the pleasure it gave me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton