Tuesday, September 04, 2007

Money may not buy happiness, but at least it can get you really fancy accessories

Over the long weekend, the Post had an interesting article about Coach handbags. (Disclaimer: I have at least six. And a wallet. And two wristlets. And now I'm reminded that I never did follow-up on my promise to blog about my handbag collection. But I digress.)

The point of the article -- I think -- is that the Coach brand has come to represent an affordable luxury item. Which is an oxymoron, right? But at any rate, it's a category separate and distinct from higher-end brands like, for example, Louis Vuitton -- and their $52,500 handbag.

Which brings me to my real point: $52,000 for a purse? And it's not even all that cute?*

$52,000 is more than my car cost-- almost double. And I have a pretty nice car. Even if I had that kind of disposable income I don't know that I could pull the trigger on such a ridiculous purchase. I mean, think of all the shoes $52,500 could buy.

The world is a crazy, crazy place.

*The Post's Ruth Marcus described it as "[N]ot the world's priciest handbag . . . but it may be the ugliest. The Empress's New Purse is -- shh! -- a hideous hodgepodge of 14 recycled Louis Vuitton bags cut up, stitched back together and festooned with gold chains. If Frankenstein's monster carried a purse, this is what it would look like." Ouch.


Justin S. said...

Forget describing that purse as "not even that cute".... "Butt ugly" is a better way to describe it.

DSL said...

Exactly what I was thinking.

dara said...

I was being generous. There are elements of it that I like -- the different fabrics, for example, are kind of cute. But the shape is hideous and the end result is garish.

I have a little Coach patchwork bag that is way cuter.

Paige Jennifer said...

That has to be one of THE fugliest handbags I've ever scene. It's the result of ten fabrics, four metals and a glue gun gone mad. And you know Jessica Simpson or Victoria Beckham will be snapped toting one by the end of the week.

CBK said...

Utterly disgraceful. Both the design and the price.

dara said...

PJ: Close. Beyonce.

But if there are 5 of these bags in North America (24 worldwide) and Beyonce has one and some unnamed DC-area resident has another one, who has the last three? It's like figuring out who had the golden ticket in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

cbk: Like I said, it is not cute, at least to me and everyone who's commented. There's no accounting for taste. But the worst thing about it -- by far -- is definitely the price tag.

Paige Jennifer said...

(slamming head against Pottery Barn coffee table) How the frick did I forget Beyonce? I am totally losing my got-no-taste-radar. I can guarantee that one of the other five bags will belong to someone in Miami. Perhaps...JLo? Or has that rodent hubby of hers tamed her tacky ways?


Kimora Lee Simmons!

(this is WAY too fun)

honeykbee said...

$52,000 sure could buy a whole bunch of shoes. Or... just one pair of really, really ugly hodgepodge ones made to look like a bunch of shoes sewn together.

dara said...

PJ: I dunno, JLo isn't consistently tacky in her personal style. It's her clothing designs, accessories, and perfumes that are the problem.

No, I think it's gotta be someone who tends to err on the side of "It's awesome because it's designer." Perhaps Paris Hilton?

HKB: Meta-shoes. Kinda like how this is a meta-purse.

But for $52,500, those shoes better have solid gold heels and pave diamonds.

dara said...

And, for the record, the stupid bag costs more than a year at GW, the most expensive school in the country.