Sunday, August 30, 2009

Savvy Shopping - Bring On The Retro Brooches

Staying quiet and cool in the air conditioning yesterday I finally got around to reading the new September issue of Vogue with the cover photo of Charlize Theron looking just a t'wee bit alien-ish.
The multi page Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue ads left me uninspired.

But the editorial featuring the 1940s inspired looks photographed by Steven Meisel was simply brilliant. I particularly loved the black and white photo of the two models (Karen and Liya, if you must know) in the Thomas Maier for Bottega Veneta dresses. That photo was museum worthy.

What I just don't get it this.
Vogue's website, the Forties Trend featured Ben-Amun costume jewelry.
So the print magazine encourages its readers to buy outfits in the $2500-$3500 range, with $1000 shoes and $2000-$3000 handbags, but the website promotes $98 costume jewelry.

Hey, if anybody gets the whole 'look for less thing" it's moi.
But $2500 dresses and $100 terms of intrinsic value makes absolutely no sense.
Flat out, the better investment in terms of long term value is, of course, estate jewelry.

Vintage Tiffany Retro Aquamarine Brooch from

Vintage Van Cleef & Arpels Retro Ruby and Diamond Brooch from
I love big bold Retro brooches. These two just happen to be signed so definitely more on the pricey side. But there are lots of magnificent un-signed Retro brooches on that are perfect for a lifetime, and not just for this year's Forties trend.

Digg this


WendyB said...

I agree! I'd rather invest in something beautiful with a history.

Belle de Ville said...

It just annoys the hell out of me how the fashion industry mavens push super expensive clothes, that they know will be out of style in another 6 months, and then promote costume jewelry.
We need to tell Grace Coddington et al that Wendy B jewelry is the what the world needs...not Ben-Amun.

Savvy Gal said...

i am with you. even the women who could afford $2500 dress won't buy them now.

Add to Technorati Favorites