Merriam-Webster defines luxury as “something adding to pleasure or comfort but not absolutely necessary.”
Simple enough. But culturally, luxury has always meant more than comfort. It has implied rarity, status, and even exclusive access.
When we picture luxury, we imagine yachts anchored off the Amalfi Coast, private jets at the ready, five-star resorts, haute couture, handbags that cost more than a mortgage, and more. These items don’t just feel indulgent — they feel exclusive. And that exclusivity is the point.
Luxury and the Power of Scarcity
Industry research continues to reinforce the same truth: luxury is anchored in scarcity. If something is widely available, endlessly restocked, and easily attainable, its mystique begins to fade.
And yet, over the past decade, a new phrase has taken hold: accessible luxury.
Contemporary brands built their positioning around it. The promise? Designer aesthetics, prestige branding, and elevated storytelling, all without the traditional barriers to entry.
But here’s where the paradox emerges.
The Accessibility Dilemma
If luxury depends on limited access, can it truly coexist with accessibility?
Expanding distribution, increasing production, and broadening market reach may drive short-term revenue. However, oversaturation often chips away at perceived exclusivity — and with it, long-term brand equity. Consider Michael Kors or Marc Jacobs. Both were once firmly positioned in the luxury space, but overexposure and diffusion lines diluted their brand image.
Of course, accessibility is not the sole determinant of luxury. Quality, craftsmanship, heritage, and emotional resonance matter deeply. And luxury itself is subjective. One person’s once-in-a-lifetime purchase is another person’s everyday staple. Luxury means different things to different people, and maybe the better question is not whether accessible luxury exists, but how each person defines luxury in the ever-evolving fashion space.
“Luxury” means different things for different people. It really depends on your income bracket. For some people, eating adequate protein every day is luxury. Let’s never forget that.
To me luxury is an easy life. Having needs and wants met with the least amount of effort. Material things are simply wealth, not luxury, there is a difference.
We do not use the word luxury for clothes and bags, we simply call them designer as opposed to highstreet.
Luxury is being free of all of the mundane things in life.
I completely agree. For me, real luxury is waking up without an alarm.
Wealth buys objects. Luxury buys silence and peace.
Are we talking luxury or quality? Quality has been declining in the luxury segment as of late; quality materials and workmanship are available without a brand label though, always have been. But they are two different things, and the answer to what is accessible luxury depends on which of these you are looking for.
Why did designer get rebranded as luxury?
Why would luxury be defined by limited access? Are hard-to-get Supreme drops or Gucci rubber sandals luxury?
For me, it’s all about quality: leather lining,
careful stitching, the leather itself, solid hardware, etc.
The Row meets these criteria and is accessibly priced, IMO. Not inexpensive, but compared with brands like Hermes, a downright bargain LOL.
Also Jos. Duclos.
I really don’t care who else is carrying it.
Interesting, I find the Row massively overpriced even when compared with Hermes. Very basic design with quality leather that doesn’t justify the price.
The Row quality has plummeted. I have handbags from about 3-4 years ago that are fantastic but the newer ones I have returned or sold. Its disappointing. They are going for more mass market appeal. Its simply not special anymore.
I should have clarified that I have two from years ago so I can’t comment on current quality.
I’m seeing luxury as peace and contentment. Having more things, even if the are exclusive, is just baggage for me at this point. I bought a lovely Celine Louise bucket bag in tan recently and it’s given me so much pleasure to just enjoy her without needing the next, and the next. It’s about attitude, scarcity doesn’t drive me, I’d rather buy myself a nice book, a weekend away, massage etc. rather than accumulating more. Sorry for the ramble…
Limiting this discussion on material things, maybe more specifically handbags, I tend to define “luxury” choices as the ones satisfying the need for quality, taste (to each their own) and a bit indulgence. Yes the first two definitely can be found in other price points if one is willing to spend time and energy to research.
One man’s food is another man’s poison
just be happy
Very well said.
I agree that luxury definitely means different things to different people… I suggest reading The Psychology of Fashion by Carolyn Mair, it may change your perspective on the “luxury” market.
Much of luxury perception comes from the marketing that goes into making a brand feel either more accessible or more exclusive. Michael Kors is an example of a brand where its larger availability (e.g. having outlets and bags available at discount stores) makes it feel more accessible in the mainstream despite having an exclusive fashion line (Michael Kors Collection). That is not to say that Michael Kors is low quality (though I know some here may disagree), but the marketing has made the brand less associated with the luxury aesthetic despite having luxury products.
I have heard that many people consider handbags sold consistently above the $1000 (US) mark as luxury handbags, though I would be interested in hearing other people’s perspectives on this.
Michael Kors has done a fantastic job at ruining their brand by focusing on outlet stores and discounts… as a result, the desirability of the brand is in the gutter.