I KNEW IT!!! Fashion opinion always opens a can of caviar with worms! (or in this case, questions) See previous post today.
But that's good because then I don't need to think of the next topic since I feel this week will be uneventful.
Question #1 from Charlotte: "...makes me re-think (about) the chanel i was gonna gift myself with."
Being a member of the fashion press who tells you to go out and buy the next 'must-have,' I do not want to discourage you dedicated followers of fashion to buy Chanel, LV, BV, Fendi, etc. In fact, I should encourage it because I have a job BECAUSE of the luxury goods market.
HOWEVER what I discourage is (and I hate to sound like a Chekua Mama 'during the war we ate champoy and rice', 'we wore our shoes until there were holes and we had no socks," 'our only food was lugaw' --well, you better move to the house with champoy and rice, then!) .....
.....buying stuff when you know the money could be put to better use. You feels me?
(of course we all have those Sex and the City moments of buying something extremely beautiful and expensive but not making the rent. This is why they are called 'moments' and not entire lives or else the whole world would be called the United States by now and there woud only be one road to the world's end: Wall Street)
If Charlotte wants to buy something for herself this Christmas or after closing a deal, then as they say in Pinoy showbiz, "More Power to You."
(Especially if you have a choice between buying electronics for the boyfriend or a bag for yourself, I'd choose you anytime!)
Question #2 from Rain: "does it really require a global recession for the elite to understand that a luxury bag hurts the global economy in the long run and it does not speak well of a person's sense of taste and individual style?"
There are two answers to this--a) the fashion answer b) the economics answer.
THE FASHION ANSWER: NO. For the fashion insider or individualist, the 'It" bag never was because this group of people would rather get caught with their pants down (wearing Myla or Agent Provocateur, of course) than get caught with something everyone wants or has. That slavish behaviour, as the snobby Brits put it, is for 'shop girls."
THE ECONOMICS ANSWER: NO. For the truly elite, and we really don't want to go there since I go there enough with my job, the "It" bag is beneath them because these are the haute couture clients for whom over 50,000 euros of a dress would guarantee them 100% exclusivity and privacy. A 100,000 euro off-the-rack Fendi fur also works. See...I told you we don't want to go there.
THE ECONOMICS ANSWER: YES. The "It' bag died with the recession because most of the free world (including the not-so-free like Russia) were heavily based on credit for the last 10 years. That means, now that credit has tightened and many banks are going to be 'collecting' until next year, there ain't going to be much of "It' going around.
I read somewhere that Americans borrowed up to 120% over their household incomes! This is why "Washington, Wall Street and The City (of London), we have a problem..."
(But on the trend front, the brands knew that the "It' bag idea was dying---for the last two years at least---so they introduced shoes which weren't very successful and now watches and jewellery which has yet to prove itself as a market sector)
Yan lang po....O--sige ibukas niyo na ang mga bag niyo for inspection...
"Bag ma'am...." (Guard with chopsticks)
This is still less irritating than "ID niyo ma'am..."