Wednesday, January 14, 2009
I think I get where Stella McCartney was going on this dress, but I think she didn't quite have enough material to get there. The top looks like it could use a good yank upward to avoid the dreaded saggy-boob look and yet I fear any adjustment would result in some indecent exposure. As it is, you can't sit down in it. I'm pretty sure only the likes of Gwyneth Paltrow can pull this off (and she barely did anyway). Once you mention the $2595 pricetag, I'm beginning to question Stella and NM's sanity. Who's the target audience? Recession-proof exhibitionists?
Sure, this is nice -- but it's so, so simple. These pieces could be easily found at a fraction of the cost at H&M, the Gap, J.Crew, etc. Sure, they might not be as impeccably made, but should quality construction really run you $205 for a white tee shirt, $3530 for a white leather jacket, and $605 for white jeans? For those with an aversion to arithmetic, that means the total cost of this outfit is $4340 (before any applicable sales tax). That's completely insane. It's tantamount to burning money.
So I say, let the market run it's course. Retailers who can't catch on to the growing demand for attractive clothing at reasonable prices should go the way of the dodo bird.
From the International Herald Tribune (emphasis added):
Rather than trying to keep the machine running by pumping out high-price hand bags, watches and other goods, he [Alain Nemarq, the chairman of Mauboussin, the prestige jewelry firm] proposed the unthinkable: the entire luxury industry should slash prices. "We need a return to reason, decency, discretion, beauty and creativity — in other words, to true values," Némarq said. (Mauboussin has lead by example. It has sold its one-carat diamond solitaire "Chance of Love" ring for about $14,500, roughly a third less than its normal price, and its lower-end 0.15-carat diamond ring was priced at $895, Némarq said.)