As someone who spends what can only be described as a pornographic amount of money on shoes (and we’re talking the hardcore scary German import-only stuff here, no soft-focus Oh Hi Mister Plumber Can You Check My Pipes nonsense) it may surprise you that for the most part I cannot get behind a super-expensive bag.
If it’s not a vintage clutch or my beloved hollowed-out armadillo (not joking, her name is Beulahbelle) as long as the thing’s well made, stylish and constructed by people who are old enough to buy lottery tickets, I’m all over it.
Currently I’m loving this silk bag from World of Good. It’s a great shape, the red and black is fun and Beetlejuicy while the grey couldn’t be more on trend.
Best part? These ridiculously inexpensive bags are completely fair trade.
According to the website, they’re “made by disabled artisan groups in Cambodia. NCDP helps artisans with disabilities earn a sustainable living, receive social services, self-help skills and training.”
While this doesn’t mean I have folded my campaign to systematically kick all hippies in the head with my pointy pointy shoes, I’ll give the granola grazers kudos on this one.
I just hope it doesn’t smell like patchouli.
(puts down granola, twirls like a Greatful Dead fan)
Those handbags are very pretty.
And being a child of the 60’s who was less than a hundred miles away from the Haight during the Summer of Love, companies like this do my psuedo-hippie heart good.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to see what other good for the soul goodies of fabulousness I can find on their website.
Comment by Twistie — September 10, 2007 @ 11:03 am
Those are nice!
Seriously, though. How can you not get behind expensive bags but buy fabulous shoes? Bags are maybe even better than shoes, since they look good but never make your feet hurt. Good shoes + cheap bag makes me feel fraudulently put together. I have a super-classic-will-carry-when-I’m-seventy bag from Tod’s that’s like psychological armor.
Comment by Sara — September 10, 2007 @ 1:52 pm
Great marketing strategy! I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Chile, where I worked with a group of indigenous women who made and sold their traditional textiles in our store. I totally leaned on the “helping marginalized, illiterate women of color whose alcoholic, unemployed husbands beat them up and who have no money to buy shoes for their children” angle to promote sales. The Chileans just rolled their eyes, but the American tourists ate it up. Revenues increased 26% my first summer there.
Comment by class-factotum — September 10, 2007 @ 2:56 pm
<p>Because my bag doesn’t separate me from putting my flesh where, moments before, a homeless man just urinated. My bag doesn’t make my legs look longer or my feet look smaller or make my walk even sexier. A bag doesn’t make an empowering click-clack sound as I walk down the hall that make my enemies pee a little in fear.</p>
<p>Personally I find most modern bags bulky, boring and unladylike (I’m old school and think a lady ought to carry the smallest purse possible), not to mention so knocked-off and mass consumed that I would pay money to not have a Coach or Dooney and Bourke or (gag) LV logo on my bag. </p>
<p>Status bags –with the exception of the divine Hermes Kelly– are tiresome and remind me of nothing so much as that Onion article titled “As You Can See by my Brand Name Clothing, I am Not Poor.”</p>
<p>I much prefer vintage bags. They’re smaller, the style and lines are better and you’re not going to see a woman or twelve witht he same darn bag at the grocery store every day.</p>
That’s just my thing. Your psychological armor may vary.
Comment by Plumcake — September 10, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
Oh, the Kelly bag. Learning of its existence was the only good thing about the movie “Le Divorce.” I might have an affair with a married Frenchman if I could get a red Kelly bag out of it.
I agree on the philosophy “smallest purse possible.” Alas, I carry three pairs of glasses (RX sunglasses, regular distance and computer only glasses. No, I do not want bifocals, thank you very much), so I must carry a purse larger than I think is esthetically pleasing.
Comment by class-factotum — September 11, 2007 @ 11:18 am