As I a few weeks ago for the first time about the Lookbookbilder of the American brands “upper class label“ stumbled, I thought of course once at Chanel. After a few seconds it was clear, however, that the Paris Luxury House certainly not behind these pictures could put anyway, this image change would be highly surprising.
And then it dawned on even and discovered the small errors in the logo. That do that?, I wondered. So apparently stealing a supersign? Apparently, Yes. And what should we do now? Always again highly controversial discussions regarding the copy Queen ZARA materialize for some time. Miu Miu, Prada, … Oh, the fire has already pretty much every big fashion house mass made available. Part of the buying public pleased with affordable prices for great designs and sees no competition factor between high street chain and luxury homes. The second half complaining and boycotted like crazy, finally you could also just don’t write off at school or sell ideas of others as one’s own.
And look how’s now with „ upper class from? Is it okay to use a well known logo, to secure sales figures? The collection I like personally despite moral reservations, which is certainly not least due to the optically excellent well done Chanel twin. Yes, it’s just a nice character. The accompanying photos Richard Avedons a little reminiscent of the style and are well managed. I would wear „ fake “never, that’s too big imitation trauma“ since my last stay in the urlaublichen South.
Is perhaps also as a criticism to see? On the pageantry and Swank and all the pointless labeling? Behind a decent concept in the struggle against crackpot luxury? And if that were the case, it would be fine to call such an upper class part his own?