Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Your recent purchases

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • gnarjen
    Senior Member
    • Oct 2009
    • 106

    This is all making me think of Buffalo '66..

    "Would you like to know why l can't drive this kinda car?
    l'm used to luxury cars.
    Have you ever heard of a luxury car?
    Ever heard of Cadillac, Cadillac Eldorado? That's what l drive.
    l drive cars that shift themselves.
    My cars shift themselves.
    The luxury cars, they shift themselves."

    (Totally googled it, there's no way I'd remember it all.)

    Comment

    • Fade to Black
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2008
      • 5340

      Originally posted by Lumina View Post
      Gift for my love :



      Thanks to Hide-san :)
      this look is my holy grail

      Lumina may i ask where you located this?

      Also if anybody has info on the shirt, much appreciated. Thanks.
      www.matthewhk.net

      let me show you a few thangs

      Comment

      • Avantster
        ¤¤¤
        • Sep 2006
        • 1983

        /\ Pretty sure wire.artist has that shirt, I believe it was stocked at pollyanna.

        Originally posted by Lumina View Post
        Avanster > No shirt, but the paper and milk should be easier to find


        No shirt? Surely you're not suggesting he go shirtless like the guy behind him.

        Personally I dug this sleepy baguette look complete with fluffy slippers. Ah, but I digress..

        let us raise a toast to ancient cotton, rotten voile, gloomy silk, slick carf, decayed goat, inflamed ram, sooty nelton, stifling silk, lazy sheep, bone-dry broad & skinny baffalo.

        Comment

        • Lumina
          Senior Member
          • Dec 2009
          • 277

          Fade to black > It was on Yahoo auctions, like every good things

          Avantster > Don't worry, he already has Yohji shirts/t-shirt, and if they don't match we'll find one

          I don't know if they're still here, but I saw the slippers on Yahoo a few days ago, that's a start !

          Comment

          • whitney
            Senior Member
            • Dec 2009
            • 300

            Originally posted by interest1 View Post
            Luxury is indulgence. Whether it's Ann or Prada, luxury is in the eye of the beholder. I may be aware that a Prada scarf defines luxury for some people. But if an item holds no emotional pull over me, there is no real indulgence going on, therefore there is no luxury behind it.
            this, and a few other things that were mentioned, combined, makes something a luxury.

            the fact that it is something you desire (often because of the design, material or hype around that product), that you cannot indulge on a daily basis because of the cost or availability is what luxury goods are (defined as, imo)

            if it is something that is substantially produced then there must be a trade off so that it is still considered 'luxury' e.g. rick owens leather jacket don't come cheap (at least not to the average minimum making worker-- so it is still limited to a certain group of people)

            take any item by any designer or any house and once its produced in heavy quantities and at a price point that is right for most people then the 'luster' is gone.
            you stole my signature :insert mad face:

            Comment

            • ronin
              Banned
              • Dec 2009
              • 200

              Personally, it's the fact that there is an identified category name "luxury goods" that disturbs me, or rather that it is lousely defined, based on basic considerations - items that are too expensive for the average citizen, not immediately accessible, and not needed to survive, or even to maintain an average lifestyle.
              To me, luxury is something rare and personal, strongly linked to individual dreams, a moment of indulgence and extremely good feeling, which, in the case of sustainable goods, is suspended or can be triggered several times. Calling something a luxury good when it is still on the market, or in the process of being developped, and not yet acquired by someone who will make is his luxury, takes away the most important dimension. The goods are defined as luxury by a third party, making them interchangeable. I think the term is becoming derogatory.
              Luxury goods are advertised to create needs, as any other product, but I don't perceive the created need as targeted to the product itself, rather to the whole idea of luxury behind it. So people want to buy something to get a share of the fantasized lifestyle they think they can access through purchasing expensive goods, thus, price becomes more important than quality and creativity. Using the term "luxury good" makes something anonymous, soulless, dull, worth only its price. Technically, clothing by CCP for example may be luxury, because most people can't afford it, you most likely have to take three different trains just to see it in person, and you don't need it to stay alive, but comparing it to other luxury labeled brands like Gucci is totally superficial, the only criterias being neither related to the goods themselves nor to the person wanting them. Well, that's exactly the comparison that is being made using the term "luxury good" as a category storing everything expensive and hard to get. Or, that's how I feel about it anyway.

              Moreover, a luxury is something you don't need, while I really need those lace-up Ann boots.

              Comment

              • jj.still
                Senior Member
                • Dec 2006
                • 221

                BSR, Christian thanks guys.
                Btw, BSR where did you find and try XS? (PM will be good option :))

                Originally posted by BSR View Post
                +1 I'm an Ann size XS normally (and a 46 in most brands), but in Moth's asymetrical coat, I tried XS it was too small on the shoulder area, M is too large (and perfectly fits Moth who is 48), so I guess S would fit you properly!
                Originally posted by Christian View Post
                /\ You have definitely to size up one in Ann D coats from this season.
                Last edited by jj.still; 12-21-2009, 06:30 AM.

                Comment

                • Chant
                  Banned
                  • Jun 2008
                  • 2775

                  Let's be honest, and quite brutal : niche luxury goods are luxury goods.

                  You can't shift from "luxury" to "quality", since luxury goods can be of a poor quality (design or fabric wise), but this is what the industry would like you to be convinced of. It's only a psychological alibi to justify the amazingly high prices that can not be justified otherwise.

                  This is luxury : something so expensive (and for no objective reason), that one have to develop as many theories as there are human minds to justify the price paid, in a way (objective : "quality") or another (sujective : "moment of indulgence", "individual dreams", "good feeling").

                  Luxury is the price you have to pay to get the possibility of fantazising your own impulse to buy.

                  Comment

                  • Faust
                    kitsch killer
                    • Sep 2006
                    • 37852

                    /\ That is a pretty good definition. I agree that many items from designers we love are actually inferior quality to a lot of what traditional luxury goods manufacturers make. So, in this case from the formula Luxury + Creativity = Fashion we definitely pay a premium for Creativity.
                    Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                    StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                    Comment

                    • Seventh
                      Senior Member
                      • Dec 2006
                      • 270

                      A quick look in the dictionary defines luxury as, "something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort."

                      Obviously, outside of basic food and shelter, a lot of things could be defined as luxury. This made me think about the arts and crafts, would we call a painting by Van Gogh or a Shaker table (just picking some obvious examples) a luxury? I don't think so, because despite their practical "inessentialness", I would argue that they are culturally essential (and made from a place of cultural essentialness).

                      I would argue that at some level fashion and design also fulfills a culturally essential role (helps create and define our aesthetics, etc). Where the line is drawn between the essential and the inessential, is really tricky to define (and more than my mind can handle at the moment). I suggest that it be debated between the bourgeois intellectuals.

                      Comment

                      • misterpale
                        Senior Member
                        • Apr 2008
                        • 390

                        christian,i have to agree.we´re all playing a game,which is very expensive and our favs are definitly expensive luxury goods.everybody of us have always open to pull the trigger on a discounted items,but it´s still expensive enough for an average worker.of course we have a much deeper interest and celebrate our fav designers and there developments and garments have a less quantity bla,bla,bla.....but imo the definiton of luxury goods is always about the price.lit allows also other definitons,it just depends on the angle.let´s be honest to ourselves.most of us ballin´more or less long or more and or less hard.it´s being quite normal for most us to spend 2 k on a pair of shoes,2,5k on a leather or even even 300 on a basic t-shirt.it´s not luxury anymore - it´s just normal and most of us are just crazy!it´s not luxury -we call it passion.we want it - we pay it!

                        Comment

                        • Faust
                          kitsch killer
                          • Sep 2006
                          • 37852

                          Originally posted by Seventh View Post
                          A quick look in the dictionary defines luxury as, "something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort."

                          Obviously, outside of basic food and shelter, a lot of things could be defined as luxury. This made me think about the arts and crafts, would we call a painting by Van Gogh or a Shaker table (just picking some obvious examples) a luxury? I don't think so, because despite their practical "inessentialness", I would argue that they are culturally essential (and made from a place of cultural essentialness).

                          I would argue that at some level fashion and design also fulfills a culturally essential role (helps create and define our aesthetics, etc). Where the line is drawn between the essential and the inessential, is really tricky to define (and more than my mind can handle at the moment). I suggest that it be debated between the bourgeois intellectuals.
                          They are absolutely and definitely inessential. It's the entire basis of the Western culture split, to separate things that are purely formal from those that carry a function. A cultural function is something different - I am sure the dictionary was talking about utility and not some abstract function.
                          Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                          StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                          Comment

                          • Seventh
                            Senior Member
                            • Dec 2006
                            • 270

                            I understand what you are saying, but I don't think that there can be an absolute distinction between them. At a certain level, cultural creativity is more than just luxury.

                            Originally posted by Faust View Post
                            They are absolutely and definitely inessential. It's the entire basis of the Western culture split, to separate things that are purely formal from those that carry a function. A cultural function is something different - I am sure the dictionary was talking about utility and not some abstract function.

                            Comment

                            • Faust
                              kitsch killer
                              • Sep 2006
                              • 37852

                              Hey man, I'm with you, but that does not change history or dictionary definitions :-)
                              Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months - Oscar Wilde

                              StyleZeitgeist Magazine

                              Comment

                              • ronin
                                Banned
                                • Dec 2009
                                • 200

                                Originally posted by Seventh View Post
                                A quick look in the dictionary defines luxury as, "something inessential but conducive to pleasure and comfort."

                                Obviously, outside of basic food and shelter, a lot of things could be defined as luxury. This made me think about the arts and crafts, would we call a painting by Van Gogh or a Shaker table (just picking some obvious examples) a luxury? I don't think so, because despite their practical "inessentialness", I would argue that they are culturally essential (and made from a place of cultural essentialness).

                                I would argue that at some level fashion and design also fulfills a culturally essential role (helps create and define our aesthetics, etc). Where the line is drawn between the essential and the inessential, is really tricky to define (and more than my mind can handle at the moment). I suggest that it be debated between the bourgeois intellectuals.
                                Interesting question, I think the line depends on the values our society carries, but also on the ones our close environment carries. Culture would be at the top level of the original Maslow's pyramid, so it could be seen as a need indeed, but one that appears only when more basic needs are fulfilled. A bourgeois need, in a way. Still, this modelization has been obsolete for a while, some people putting their need for acceptance prior to their safety needs for example, same for their self-accomplishment needs, of which cultural needs depend. You can have grown up to value self accomplishment through appreciation of the fine things ('fine' may not be the correct term) over social acceptance. I still have trouble figuring out how the human brain can put cultural needs ahead of basic, material needs like eating or sleeping, but apparently it happens.

                                Besides, many very common things in Western societies (for example), like toilets, were perceived as a luxury a few decades ago, and still are in some parts of the world. Generalization, as several people stated earlier, was a key factor to erasing all considerations of luxury. Appreciation of the arts and crafts may still be a luxury in a way, but not perceived as such because it is accessible to a majority in our social environment, and because the basic needs of most people around us are met.

                                As for owning original art pieces, that is a big luxury to me. I'm just not sure I can explain why right now.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X
                                😀
                                🥰
                                🤢
                                😎
                                😡
                                👍
                                👎