Disgusting treatment at Louis Vuitton

[Horace]

Quote:

(PHV @ 29 Dec. 2004, 02:24) 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.

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. 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.

 

[Fabienne]

Quote:

(PHV @ 29 Dec. 2004, 02:24) 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.

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.
One would have to hope that people realize what they own. It isn't so evident. A little story: My secretary has this bag, multicolored lettering, looks a lot like a LV bag of the new generation, but is actually a donnelly & brooke or something like that. We get a visitor from South America, and she wants one of those bags for her daughter. So off she goes on her lunch hour to get an identical bag for the visitor. When she comes back, I say something jokingly to the effect that it is awfully close in design to Louis Vuitton bags. She looks at me very innocently and says: Louis what? PS: don't get me wrong, I don't mean to make fun of her. She is sweet and efficient. But obviously a few steps were missing there.

 

[STYLESTUDENT]

Quote:

(gorgekko @ 29 Dec. 2004, 12:43)

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

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.

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.

 

[globetrotter]

Quote:

(PHV @ 29 Dec. 2004, 02:24) 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.

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.
gko, I am with you, here. I can't think of anything that I wear that has a visual label or would be easy to identify by brand. The closest thing would be my watch, and you would have to be very very close for that. I don't have any annimosity for people who do feel the need to show their labels, but I don't have respect for it, really.

 

[Duveen]

Fabienne,

I think that the story about your secretary is actually a compliment to her.  She chose something because she liked the look of it, not because she was aping the upper classes.  It seems she'd be knocked for the latter and cast as a poseur(euse), but why should she be pitied because she doesn't know Louis Vuitton?  

She is simply in another shopping universe - one that is equally trend-saturated, but fairly insulated from the luxury products that drive the trends on the top-line.

I'm not saying that she followed the forum's advice - know quality, buy the best you can, eschew labels (tho' we are label-whores as well, but of a more esoteric order) - but she made a decision based on pattern and design.  I'd say that only the very first purchasers of a new LV product (the ones who buy before they are SURE that it is a hit, when it is just VERY LIKELY to be a hit, but could still flop) truly buy it for the design rather than the fact that it is a status symbol.

 

[Fabienne]

Fabienne, I think that the story about your secretary is actually a compliment to her. Â She chose something because she liked the look of it, not because she was aping the upper classes. Â It seems she'd be knocked for the latter and cast as a poseur(euse), but why should she be pitied because she doesn't know Louis Vuitton? Â She is simply in another shopping universe - one that is equally trend-saturated, but fairly insulated from the luxury products that drive the trends on the top-line. I'm not saying that she followed the forum's advice - know quality, buy the best you can, eschew labels (tho' we are label-whores as well, but of a more esoteric order) - but she made a decision based on pattern and design. Â I'd say that only the very first purchasers of a new LV product (the ones who buy before they are SURE that it is a hit, when it is just VERY LIKELY to be a hit, but could still flop) truly buy it for the design rather than the fact that it is a status symbol.

OK, I didn't dig deep into that one, but my perception is that, indeed, in her world, those D&B (or whatever they are called) bags have a similar status to the LV bags in other spheres. And I actually thought along the same lines as what you said, after she said she didn't know Louis Vuitton. It was refreshing and disconcerting. I never ever shop for labels. I go for what I like if the quality is there. I have two bags by Lancaster, and everywhere I go, I get comments about them, especially the red one. Lancaster is not very well known in this country. They are not top of the line. But: they are durable (I've thrown them in the back of the car-no scratch yet), stylish, practical. Even my mother-in-law, who carries Coach and LV, admired it so much, we bought her one in France. I have never seen her wear it.

I wonder if it has to do with the fact that it wouldn't be identified, where she lives. The last time she came to visit, she had a red Coach bag very similar to mine.

 

[dah328]

A little story: My secretary has this bag, multicolored lettering, looks a lot like a LV bag of the new generation, but is actually a donnelly & brooke or something like that.  We get a visitor from South America, and she wants one of those bags for her daughter.  So off she goes on her lunch hour to get an identical bag for the visitor.  When she comes back, I say something jokingly to the effect that it is awfully close in design to Louis Vuitton bags.  She looks at me very innocently and says: Louis what?

Might it have been Dooney & Bourke?  Those were all the rage when I was in high school about 12 or 13 years ago.  I can't imagine any label-conscious girl sporting one of those given the abrupt rise and fall in the popularity of that label.

dan

 

[Duveen]

Fabienne,

Thanks for your reply - tell me more about Lancaster. Do they have a website? My significant other is rather hard on her purses (I've gotten her a number of mid to high-end bags and they invariably get wet/scratched up) - I'd love to find a tough, stylish bag. She is not terribly label sensitive, so it won't matter that the brand is not as much of a statement over here.

Good call also on the D&B being status for her group (my guess is that it is Dooney and Burke, which is a 'status bag' for Nordstrom's shoppers). I rewrote my original post twice to try to acknowledge that she may well be equally trend- and status-driven, but is simply singing from a different hymnal.

Which brings me to the question - what share of people can be said to truly buy largely based on design and quality vs. simple 'flash' (I am talking across class groups and within the boundaries of their budget)? One wonders...

 

[LabelKing]

Dooney & Bourke are bags for the country club set. The All Weather Leather, and other rather classic designs.

One may chide the customers who buy in the Monogram collection but the luggage, especially the suitcases, are hard to surpass. Only perhaps with Goyard, and to a certain extent Hermes.

The Epi line is quite lovely as well.

 

[Fabienne]

Lancaster does have a website (in English as well). Tell me what you think? http://www.lancaster.fr/ I usually either get them in France, or my mom buys the model I like and ships it. I don't believe the company does mail-order, but there are a few stores in the US, I think.

 

[shoreman1782]

Dooney and Bourke jumped on the colorful white LV bag trend and has ridden it back to premium shelves. They're really pretty pricey. My gf works at a Nordstrom and they just have the most offensive bling stuff. Dooney and Bourke make watches that look like a clown crapped on your wrist. All the standard quartz watch companies for women have glass/crystal encrusted monstrosities. A lot of them have MOP faces though, which I kind of like.

Also, these gross juicy couture charm bracelets that look like Mr. T necklaces. How far are we off the original topic? I used to look around in Neiman Marcus when I lived near King of Prussia, PA, in my mid-teens. I must say, they always treated me with respect, regardless of what I was wearing. They did keep a close eye on me, but I'm not really offended by that.

 

[november]

Well, the montreal you see must be a totally different one that I'm in, because there's absolutely tons of money here, as it is the 2nd fastest growing city in Canada besides Calgary... you ever been on Peel st. or driven through west mount?

I have never been on Peel St or driven
through Westmount.  I don't know anything about
my hometown from a historical, cultural or sociological
point of view.

 

[PHV]

--

 

[PHV]

Quote:

(PHV @ 28 Dec. 2004, 11:24) Well, the montreal you see must be a totally different one that I'm in, because there's absolutely tons of money here, as it is the 2nd fastest growing city in Canada besides Calgary... you ever been on Peel st. or driven through west mount?
I have never been on Peel St or driven through Westmount. Â I don't know anything about my hometown from a historical, cultural or sociological point of view.
Well, what you have said here certainly suggests that you don't.

 

[november]

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.