Comments on: Let’s Face It: Fashion isn’t an Investment http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html PurseBlog reviews luxury designer handbags and accessories in a daily editorial. Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:03:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: yslsuperlover http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-267669 yslsuperlover Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:42:49 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-267669 also, i'd like to add that many women do not carry handbags for investment purposes. If that were the case, you would leave them at home in their dustbags. They are an outward sign of wealth, style, what have you...that's pretty much it. If handbags were anything less than that, I would be carrying around my Whole Foods canvas bag 24/7. also, i’d like to add that many women do not carry handbags for investment purposes. If that were the case, you would leave them at home in their dustbags. They are an outward sign of wealth, style, what have you…that’s pretty much it. If handbags were anything less than that, I would be carrying around my Whole Foods canvas bag 24/7.

]]> By: yslsuperlover http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-267668 yslsuperlover Tue, 27 Oct 2009 01:40:03 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-267668 agreed. agreed.

]]> By: Martha Nakajima http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-255394 Martha Nakajima Fri, 29 May 2009 14:18:25 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-255394 Investment--yes, in the case of a professional woman who wants to project a certain image of taste, success, or class. It could be J Crew and Coach one day and Dior another, depending on the day and the effect being sought. Investment–yes, in the case of a professional woman who wants to project a certain image of taste, success, or class.
It could be J Crew and Coach one day and Dior another, depending on the day and the effect being sought.

]]> By: papertiger http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-255344 papertiger Thu, 28 May 2009 20:33:28 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-255344 A more expensive bag can be an investment if it stops you from buying cheaper ones that don't last or you only liked for a minute because some celebrity of the moment was given it to carry. I bought a mid-priced (£75 - which is not exactly cheap) branded bag and both handles broke within 3 times of me using it - I was heartbroken. The shop where I bought it and the manufacturer didn't want to know. If a handle of one my prized Gucci's broke, unlikely but hypothetically if it did, I know Gucci would fix it. Ten years from now, if an epidemic or climate change hasn't killed us all, Gucci would still fix my bag. I love my vintage huge LV garment-carrier but after so much wear the wheels need replacing. I'll just pop down to a LV store and they'll replace the old ones and voila! Like new again. Instead of spending a couple of hundred pounds on an OK suitcase that might last a couple of years I'll have my old faithful (and FAB) LV back on its feet for half the price. As for heirlooms, my father left me his Gucci belt (I know, not a bag). It was bought in 1987 and the reversible leather had worn (he wore it almost continually). I took it to Gucci in January and they replaced EXACTLY the brown/black leather that went with the model 22 years earlier. only shorter so it now fits me. Same buckle, better new and only £90 rather that double for a new one. My dad's back with me whenever a where it. Granted, in the early 1990s none of the status bags, all the LV speedys and classic-flap Chanels included, were worth very much after a decade of so called investment dressing. That's why I could buy such wonderful bags in the late 1990s in charity shops (good will) and second-hand (vintage) shops for next to nothing (e.g. in 1999 I bought a pre-owned Chanel large black lambskin limited edition flap bag with 'cocoa' leather interior £5) Good bags, luggage, accessories should last for years not as long as the season. Isn't that the point of luxury. I want the things I buy to last for ever not just the season. Just make sure that everything you buy is for love and not whim - that's the investment. A more expensive bag can be an investment if it stops you from buying cheaper ones that don’t last or you only liked for a minute because some celebrity of the moment was given it to carry.

I bought a mid-priced (£75 – which is not exactly cheap) branded bag and both handles broke within 3 times of me using it – I was heartbroken. The shop where I bought it and the manufacturer didn’t want to know. If a handle of one my prized Gucci’s broke, unlikely but hypothetically if it did, I know Gucci would fix it. Ten years from now, if an epidemic or climate change hasn’t killed us all, Gucci would still fix my bag.

I love my vintage huge LV garment-carrier but after so much wear the wheels need replacing. I’ll just pop down to a LV store and they’ll replace the old ones and voila! Like new again. Instead of spending a couple of hundred pounds on an OK suitcase that might last a couple of years I’ll have my old faithful (and FAB) LV back on its feet for half the price.

As for heirlooms, my father left me his Gucci belt (I know, not a bag). It was bought in 1987 and the reversible leather had worn (he wore it almost continually). I took it to Gucci in January and they replaced EXACTLY the brown/black leather that went with the model 22 years earlier. only shorter so it now fits me. Same buckle, better new and only £90 rather that double for a new one. My dad’s back with me whenever a where it.

Granted, in the early 1990s none of the status bags, all the LV speedys and classic-flap Chanels included, were worth very much after a decade of so called investment dressing. That’s why I could buy such wonderful bags in the late 1990s in charity shops (good will) and second-hand (vintage) shops for next to nothing (e.g. in 1999 I bought a pre-owned Chanel large black lambskin limited edition flap bag with ‘cocoa’ leather interior £5)

Good bags, luggage, accessories should last for years not as long as the season. Isn’t that the point of luxury. I want the things I buy to last for ever not just the season. Just make sure that everything you buy is for love and not whim – that’s the investment.

]]> By: LVDevotee http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-255305 LVDevotee Thu, 28 May 2009 13:20:00 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-255305 Amen sister :). I love bags as much as the next gal and have spent a lot on LV's and lately Chanel's....but every time I hear (read) folks referring to high end bag purchases as an "investment", I cringe. I guess that it is semantics....I see what people mean when they say that it is an investment...they are not referring to a money making/protecting investment but rather an investment in themselves. Still, I think that we have to be careful with that definition because it can lead to "over-indulging" in luxury at the expense of wise choices. That said...I still love Chanel and will continue to buy them....but I think that it is best to call a spade a spade....these purchases are a splurge that I get a lot of joy from.....but not really an investment! Amen sister :) . I love bags as much as the next gal and have spent a lot on LV’s and lately Chanel’s….but every time I hear (read) folks referring to high end bag purchases as an “investment”, I cringe. I guess that it is semantics….I see what people mean when they say that it is an investment…they are not referring to a money making/protecting investment but rather an investment in themselves. Still, I think that we have to be careful with that definition because it can lead to “over-indulging” in luxury at the expense of wise choices. That said…I still love Chanel and will continue to buy them….but I think that it is best to call a spade a spade….these purchases are a splurge that I get a lot of joy from…..but not really an investment!

]]> By: dierregi http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-255290 dierregi Thu, 28 May 2009 07:08:24 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-255290 I never considered bags as an "investement" purchase and I am glad to see that finally someone agrees with me. Maybe some people find it easier to spend a lot for luxury goods if they think of it as a wise move, rather than indulging themselves. I am pretty well aware that when I buy something pricey I do it because I expect good quality, durability and style - but I do not fool myself into believing that I am in any way "investing". I do not re-sell and I don't buy used goods, so that part of the market does not even exist for me. As far as handing over your luxury items to future generations... well, taste and fashion change and it might very well be that your grandchildren will not like at all whatever piece of jewellery of handbag you're handing over - therefore considering the re-selling as a piece of "antique" :-) However, leather does not keep well with the passing of time (tends to get very cardboard-like) and that's another reason why considering bags an investment to hand over to future generations seems a bit foolish to me - maybe you should consider jewellery, it depreciates less. I never considered bags as an “investement” purchase and I am glad to see that finally someone agrees with me. Maybe some people find it easier to spend a lot for luxury goods if they think of it as a wise move, rather than indulging themselves. I am pretty well aware that when I buy something pricey I do it because I expect good quality, durability and style – but I do not fool myself into believing that I am in any way “investing”. I do not re-sell and I don’t buy used goods, so that part of the market does not even exist for me.

As far as handing over your luxury items to future generations… well, taste and fashion change and it might very well be that your grandchildren will not like at all whatever piece of jewellery of handbag you’re handing over – therefore considering the re-selling as a piece of “antique” :-) However, leather does not keep well with the passing of time (tends to get very cardboard-like) and that’s another reason why considering bags an investment to hand over to future generations seems a bit foolish to me – maybe you should consider jewellery, it depreciates less.

]]> By: Kate W. http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-255278 Kate W. Thu, 28 May 2009 03:56:48 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-255278 I see nothing unethical about the use of the term 'investment' to describe fashion purchases. I've been reading fashion magazines since I was in my early teens, and certain purchases have always been described as 'investments'...even as a thirteen year old I grasped that such a description was meant to connotate the quality, durability, and classic style of the item rather than said item's resale value. As a lawyer, by the way, i can tell you that just because a certain definition isn't found in a legal dictionary doesn't mean that it wouldn't be an accepted definition in a court of law. Common usage counts for a lot! Are salespeople calling fashion items 'investments' that aren't really investments under any use of the word..items that will neither increase in value nor be useful for many years? Yes, of course, just like stockbrokers sometimes push bad stocks. It doesn't mean that using 'investment' to describe something in fashion is a wholeheartedly evil endeavor. I think generally consumers understand that by 'investment' most people who sell, say, a cartier watch or chanel bag, aren't saying 'wow, you'll be able to sell this for a lot more money than you bought it!' in the manner of stocks, more that 'this will still be in style and functioning many years from now and you can pass it on to your kids.' Perhaps the proper economic term would be 'increased utility,' but really, that would be a much harder concept to understand than a simple re-interpretation of the word 'investment'. Could one buy certain fashion items that would actually increase in value? Yes, a classic chanel could be bought for aprx. 1K in 2003, and I know a seller could get at least 1200 for one now ebay. However these sort of examples are rare as pointed out above...but then again, so is an example of a stock price that's higher now than it was 5 years ago :-). I see nothing unethical about the use of the term ‘investment’ to describe fashion purchases. I’ve been reading fashion magazines since I was in my early teens, and certain purchases have always been described as ‘investments’…even as a thirteen year old I grasped that such a description was meant to connotate the quality, durability, and classic style of the item rather than said item’s resale value. As a lawyer, by the way, i can tell you that just because a certain definition isn’t found in a legal dictionary doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t be an accepted definition in a court of law. Common usage counts for a lot! Are salespeople calling fashion items ‘investments’ that aren’t really investments under any use of the word..items that will neither increase in value nor be useful for many years? Yes, of course, just like stockbrokers sometimes push bad stocks. It doesn’t mean that using ‘investment’ to describe something in fashion is a wholeheartedly evil endeavor.

I think generally consumers understand that by ‘investment’ most people who sell, say, a cartier watch or chanel bag, aren’t saying ‘wow, you’ll be able to sell this for a lot more money than you bought it!’ in the manner of stocks, more that ‘this will still be in style and functioning many years from now and you can pass it on to your kids.’ Perhaps the proper economic term would be ‘increased utility,’ but really, that would be a much harder concept to understand than a simple re-interpretation of the word ‘investment’. Could one buy certain fashion items that would actually increase in value? Yes, a classic chanel could be bought for aprx. 1K in 2003, and I know a seller could get at least 1200 for one now ebay. However these sort of examples are rare as pointed out above…but then again, so is an example of a stock price that’s higher now than it was 5 years ago :-) .

]]> By: Amanda Mull http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-255270 Amanda Mull Thu, 28 May 2009 02:03:58 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-255270 @luvhautecouture You can sort of twist a handbag into one of those categories, but the common denominator of all of them is an eventual financial gain. I have a habit that dates back to high school debate team of looking stuff up first in legal dictionaries, and this is what I got: Main Entry: investment - Function: noun 1 : the outlay of money usually for income or profit : capital outlay; also : the sum invested or the property purchased 2 : the commitment of funds with a view to minimizing risk and safeguarding capital while earning a return —compare SPECULATION . If you were to tell someone that your car was an investment, most people that have ever bought a car would scoff. It's something that you spend a lot of money on, and get a lot of use out of, but rarely will you recoup even half of the money that you spent on resale. Some sort of financial return is the hallmark of an investment in the way that these companies are using the word (and in basically any definition that I've read that assumes an initial expense of money, which is what we're dealing with here), and trying to convince customers that their goods will hold their value when only a tiny percentage of them stand a chance (I don't deny that there are a couple of instances, just like with cars) might even be unethical. If a car company was using the same kind of language, I'm sure we'd all feel like our intelligence was being insulted. . My point isn't that you shouldn't buy things, or that you shouldn't base decisions on what you think you'll get the most use out of. All that is logical. It's justifying it by calling any high-dollar purchase an "investment" that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. @luvhautecouture You can sort of twist a handbag into one of those categories, but the common denominator of all of them is an eventual financial gain. I have a habit that dates back to high school debate team of looking stuff up first in legal dictionaries, and this is what I got: Main Entry: investment –
Function: noun
1 : the outlay of money usually for income or profit : capital outlay; also : the sum invested or the property purchased
2 : the commitment of funds with a view to minimizing risk and safeguarding capital while earning a return —compare SPECULATION
.
If you were to tell someone that your car was an investment, most people that have ever bought a car would scoff. It’s something that you spend a lot of money on, and get a lot of use out of, but rarely will you recoup even half of the money that you spent on resale. Some sort of financial return is the hallmark of an investment in the way that these companies are using the word (and in basically any definition that I’ve read that assumes an initial expense of money, which is what we’re dealing with here), and trying to convince customers that their goods will hold their value when only a tiny percentage of them stand a chance (I don’t deny that there are a couple of instances, just like with cars) might even be unethical. If a car company was using the same kind of language, I’m sure we’d all feel like our intelligence was being insulted.
.
My point isn’t that you shouldn’t buy things, or that you shouldn’t base decisions on what you think you’ll get the most use out of. All that is logical. It’s justifying it by calling any high-dollar purchase an “investment” that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

]]> By: Otter http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-255269 Otter Thu, 28 May 2009 01:39:26 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-255269 As a total bag sl*t, i agree -- bags are not investments. Cars are not investments. Watches are not investments. Clothing is not an investment. When a salesperson pulls this line on me, even if I want the item very badly, I leave. I want to purchase most things like new cars, expensive watches and bags as vanity or status items. I like high end and great quality, but never kid myself that they are an investment and any sales slob that pulls that stuff gets stiffed from me. As a total bag sl*t, i agree — bags are not investments. Cars are not investments. Watches are not investments. Clothing is not an investment. When a salesperson pulls this line on me, even if I want the item very badly, I leave. I want to purchase most things like new cars, expensive watches and bags as vanity or status items. I like high end and great quality, but never kid myself that they are an investment and any sales slob that pulls that stuff gets stiffed from me.

]]> By: luvhautecouture http://www.purseblog.com/in-the-news/lets-face-it-fashion-isnt-an-investment.html#comment-255266 luvhautecouture Thu, 28 May 2009 00:50:28 +0000 http://www.purseblog.com/?p=13105#comment-255266 I was also thinking... a person could buy a super limited edition Chanel purse today, not use it, and sell it later at a profit. Same thing for the classics, but it today, wait like 3 years when the price has gone up $1,500 and sell it for more than you paid... kind of an investment? I was also thinking… a person could buy a super limited edition Chanel purse today, not use it, and sell it later at a profit.

Same thing for the classics, but it today, wait like 3 years when the price has gone up $1,500 and sell it for more than you paid… kind of an investment?

]]>