trouble at the top

the point of luxury goods is to make those who possess them feel superior, and those who can't afford them feel miserable. a perfect arrangement. it's like an x-ray of human nature (which contains by volume so much of pride, envy, unhappiness and snobbery). that's why pointless objects like this hermès handbag cost $5,000 plus. it's not worth $5,000, of course. no bag is. it's priced that way so most people can't afford it. hence, more happy feelings of superiority for the bags' owners, and more general misery for the rest. at least, where fashion-minded women are concerned. naturally i couldn't care less.

i'm reminded of this by 3 recent occurances.

1. hugo boss prosecuted a local retailer for selling boss suits at a discount, thereby "substantially damaging the reputation of the brand". in other words, the effect of making hugo boss more affordable made previous boss buyers unhappy (feeling a lot less superior) that more people could afford the clothes.

2. an enterprising melbourne woman is leasing the above mentioned kelly bag and its ilk for $100 a day; all to coincide with melbourne's dress-up season of the spring carnival. now the miserable can be made temporarily happy.

3. a hand-wringing article in the "australian financial review" worrying that luxury brands were losing their "premium cachét", as more people could afford them. according to the logic of marketing, luxury brands like hermès and louis vuitton were losing their "aura of exclusivity" and being "sullied". (at this point i had to choke back a tear. poor cartier! poor bulgari!). it all sounds like france before the revolution.

anyway, what all this demonstrates is how wonderfully perspicacious dr suess's "sneetches" story is. oh the narcissism of petty differences. unlike the story though there'll be no happy resolution in real life.

where to next?

i wouldn't be surprised to see a renaissance of the toff. when luxury brands become ubiquitous the only really socially exclusive criterion left is noble birth. you never know. the "almanach de gotha" may become the fashion bible of the 21st century.

{an addendum. a related instance of the above phenom was the louis roederer cristal champagne brouhaha. this wine, as you probably know, was originally conceived for the absolutist house of romanov. owing to its priceyness it had lately become popular with black hip-hop types—the most vulgar people in living memory—who know nothing about wine, but everything about conspicuous crassness. when quizzed about his new clientele the owner of louis roederer shrugged his shoulders and said ruefully it wasn't his fault; he couldn't help the people who bought his wine. cue pouty protests from offended nouveaux riche millionaires like sean "poof daddy" coombs. i felt sorry for the vintner. his crime was to have the effrontery to tell the truth.}