Hacker News Reader

Comment by DanBC | Hacker News Reader

This is something that I too find confusing.

I don't get what the added value is of a handbag that costs $2,000. There's good quality materials, high quality assurance, restricted numbers, sales from expensive shops. But still, that's no where near $2,000. So a forger can make a knock off and try to sell it for $1,800; or for $200; or a bad similar bag and sell it for $50. I don't know why they don't make nice bags for $200. This is true when you look at wristwatches. I want a nice movement in a nice case with a nice face for a reasonable price.

There's a lot of philosophy around it if you're interested in that kind of noodling.

"Bob has a science-fiction machine that can make an exact copy of a famous artwork. No one will be able to tell the difference between the two pieces. Bob borrows a famous artwork, but he then gets the copy and original mixed up. Should he tell the museum? Or should he just return one? No-one will eve know, but Bob." etc.

View on HN

So a forger can make a knock off and try to sell it for $1,800; or for $200; or a bad similar bag and sell it for $50. I don't know why they don't make nice bags for $200.

Interesting enough, this happens; there are high quality fakes as well as poor quality. I've sat down with the head of brand enforcement for a major fashion house, held the different fake items, and seen what can be made.

There are different grades of counterfeit available, which basically boil down to three: the cheap and nasty; something nice (the $200 example); and something incredible.

The latter is particularly interesting; sometimes a counterfeiter will understand the brand so well, the cuts, styles and use of materials that define them, and come up with entirely new ranges that have never and will never be made by the authentic manufacturer.

I've had more than one brand manager tell me that in any other situation, the designer behind the items would be able to walk into a job with them due to their new designs being so good.

I've had more than one brand manager tell me that in any other situation, the designer behind the items would be able to walk into a job with them due to their new designs being so good.

Thank you for telling us your experience. That was exactly the point I was trying to get through. The market that buys cheap to reasonable copies would never be able to pay the premium price of the original merchandise, thus there's no loss there.

However, the role of the high quality counterfeiter and the market that they aim for should be better understood in order to be economically explored. Though not by litigation, but by normal market channels.

In the end, instead of paying lawyers to pursue the lost revenue, we could create new brands that would fit the expectations of these unharvested markets.

I don't know why they don't make nice bags for $200.

It's because of the demand side of the equation. There's a large enough market of aspirational consumers who really just want the brand name but can't afford to pay the mid-market price ($20 vs $200 vs $2000). The perceived quality, whether it's actually there or not, comes from their ability to wear and show the brand name. Globally, that's a large enough market to make it continually worthwhile for producers and resellers to continue the counterfeiting, especially at the very low end.

My wife loves expensive shoes and purses. Not the "aspirational" brands like Coach or even Louis Vuitton. She has graduated to brands like Chanel ($3000-5000) and Hermes ($15,000) and Louboutin shoes ($900).

I'll tell you exactly why women love to spend lots of money for purses and shoes. It's for the sheer exclusivity of it. It's not because of things like quality or functionality, so the argument that a $200 knockoff is just as functional or has just as good craftsmanship is useless.

I have argued that for something so expensive like $5000 handbag, you would expect an INCREASE in functionality or durability. I would expect things like waterproofedness, etc but no. They are even more fragile than you would expect. The price is simply a way to create a sense of exclusivity.

It similar to why a man buys a 600 hp Ferrari when most highways only allow speeds up to 60 mph. It's a show of power, prestige and wealth. Sure you could get a car that had the same acceleration with better fuel efficiency, but that's not why people buy ferraris.

You may find this an interesting read:

http://www.amazon.com/Deluxe-How-Luxury-Lost-Luster/dp/01431...

It goes into how the goods are nearly always made in low-cost countries like China & Philippines these days, and that the demand for them is purely status-driven.

"I want a nice movement in a nice case with a nice face for a reasonable price."

You might want to look at some higher-end Chinese watches. Some of the Parnis watches look very nice indeed.

Or just get a Casio f91w for $10. More accurate, has led to light it in the dark, waterproof, has a stopwatch, alarm and won't get nicked by anyone and doesn't carry a repair cost ever.

I sold my Omega watch and got one and have had it for 3 years. When it dies, I'll just buy another one.

Unfortunately it's so butt ugly that you'll likely get on a government watch list.

I really wish I made that last part up.

http://www.hodinkee.com/blog/2010/5/11/the-casio-f91w-digita...

Yes well aware of that :)

Reminds me of a Stephen Wright joke (IIRC): Someone broke into my apartment last night and stole all of my furniture... and replaced it with exact duplicates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com