To invest or not to invest? That is the luxurious question.

Hey everyone! How has your week been? Well the bloggie will be much ado about nothing with fashion and makeup - for now. As my articles and blog posts cannot correlate...conflict of interest I suppose. Hopefully the boss  will be more open...eventually ;). As for now taking everything in stride and growing patiently in my new post. 

Today's blog is about - what really is the difference between purchasing luxurious brands and lower end brands?. My friends and fam all know that I am sucka for deals, and will admit that Forever 21 has been one of my fave go to stores. Am not averse to wearing luxurious brands but being practical makes my bank account looks sassy, will not hang my hat higher than it can reach - for now ;).

Sheer equipment blouse, Bloomingdale's: $218.00, said to be made in the USA.

Sheer equipment blouse with convertible sleeves, Forever21: $14.80, said to be imported.

Saw this article recently, and it tickled my brain, are those who are in support of these fashion chains, truly being wasteful? How many times can these items be worn before they give up the ghost? What about the 1% that believe in investment pieces and for the most part those who are considered simply as "label whores"? And there are those who aren't really big on brand design awareness but would rather wear something "nice" and "reasonably priced"?

The belief is to save your money and put it towards a few well-chosen pieces that will not date and also one of the best ways to get lasting staple pieces in your wardrobe...and as for the luxury brand sector, the recession is well and truly over...But really, if you are sympathetic to those whose pockets aren't as sunken as those who can afford to support high end designers, there is one brand who has consistently supported the need for this market. When observed carefully and even not so microscopic with their blatant copying...y0u will see that Forever 21 has copied everyone...from big brands to smaller, independent designers. Once a fashion label run by a pair of friends named Moriah Carlson and Alice Wu, sued them for producing clothing out of a printed fabric that looks virtually identical to one of Carlson and Wu's original prints.

An example:

Top: Feral Childe's print. Bottom: Forever 21's.

Is copyright infringement flattery or against the law?
 

As one who pinches my dollar...and only browse the high end labels online or for the most part go window shopping or gladly scour through the sale racks of Macy's or Neiman Marcus for deals; I  have always been a big fan of luxury-goods companies. Why? the drive behind these labels - LVMH and Compagnie Financiere Richemont, which owns Cartier, have a license to print money...excuse me? how cool is that? These brands have a mystique and fascination that lasts and once owned, you can dust them off and wear all over again through different seasons. It is impossible to walk down the thoroughfares of luxury, from Rodeo Drive to the Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honore, without feeling it. Since the market hit bottom 3 years ago, stock in Tiffany's and LVMH has tripled, and Saks has more than quadrupled. By the way how's your portfolio doing?

But the lingering questions are: does clothing possess any artistic or aesthetic qualities that can be entirely separated from its functionality as a “useful item?” Second, would explicitly extending copyright to cover clothing, fit the constitutional foundation that supports all of copyright law? Does the law prohibit copycats, to continuously undercut the original designs of high end designers?

Forever 21 and Marc Jacobs Hudson Bag

When it comes to sales in luxury growth, 75 percent in luxury sales was in emerging markets such as China but the irony is this - most of Forever 21's clothing are said to be imported from there, where labor is cheap and clothes aren't made in the best environment or with the best materials (But I'm not going to touch on labor practices issues, because I'm not educated enough from the standpoint of an attorney to talk about it). For the first time in modern history, the Chinese buy more luxury goods than anyone else - they now account for 25 percent of the global market, edging out the Japanese.

Sidebar: A decade ago, the Chinese had just 2 percent of the market. Yes, the times they are chagin' fo' sho fo' sho.

Check out these knockoffs and you determine:

Diane Von Furstenberg vs Forever21

Tory Birch vs Forever 21

Marc Jacobs

Forever 21

Even "the devil" said so:

In a scene I remember quite keenly from The Devil Wears Prada..."the devil" said that trends start up at the top, and eventually work their way down to Walmart, and without knowing it, you're wearing a designer inspired garment...may have been said with much disdain but rings truth. In my opinion, Forever 21 is simply making fashion accessible to the general public, and when it's comes to fashion it should be a personal choice. There is room for everybody - why do you think high end vintage stores or even thrift shops exists? Some designers are now starting to catch on and are making lines for less expensive stores such as H&M because they realize if you cant beat them join them I suppose.
DIY is now the rage among coin conscious fashionistas, because frankly if you can why not? 

"Fashion fades, only style remains the same". - Coco Chanel

Designer pieces as investments, is quite understandable, however, for most, spending $30 on a shirt, dress or blouse that might eventually go out of style, is quite comforting especially to the pockets.

So how will you invest?

Have a glam Thursday!

xxo

G