Oops, cross-posted with Gaylene and Una. Oh the delights of posting from a mobile.

Off to shower, having Stairmastered and eaten undecorated, sliced-from-chilled-log gingerbread. Would love to return to actual discussion, if that happens.

Whoa, Amy! Those links are like a giant lightbulb over my head! Perhaps you can guide me on how to talk about this somehow? I feel like I've been doing this all my life but never knew it was a concept of its own. "Language to talk about language"... I see stars!

Off to reread and then take your challenge...

Actually, Una, I wasn't bothered by your post/s. And I absolutely understand examples and harsh language sometimes necessary to advance a different, higher, level of discussion. I don't feel that the knee-jerk reaction about DeBeers (which was broken up) and diamonds was in following with that desire for thoughtful discussion. Talking about the "tribes" of people who wear certain things is certainly applicable; how one feels about wearing diamonds or brands is applicable. And actually the "branding" behind diamonds is also applicable.

It was specifically the reference to the controversy about mining them in a referenced article that bothers me, as there is ethical debate about almost any consumer good.

Regarding not trusting the judgement of anyone who wears diamonds, would that attitude also transfer to those who wear any precious metal or brands? Given that your attitude would not change regarding sims, as you believe they still perpetuate the diamond trade, would wearing knock-offs of designer brands count as better, worse or the same for you, Amy K?

Such an interesting discussion. What I find most interesting is the thought of particular items/brands being social/cultural currency. And the further thought that we all accept different currencies. Let's use Burberry plaid as an example. Una, with her love of Burberry, accepts this particular social/cultural currency. She knows the real thing from imitations, it evokes certain thoughts and feelings, and she seeks it out as something of value that adds to her life. I, on the other hand, don't really accept this particular form of currency. I can't tell real from imitation, have a rather 'meh' reaction to it, and I don't seek to add it to my wardrobe. (Sorry, we don't take American Express). However, Chanel is a whole different story. Not that I can afford it, but I would have lots of it if I could. It says something to me. But like regular currency, it fluctuates in value. For me, Karl Lagerfeld really jumped the shark with this: http://www.nydailynews.com/lif.....-1.1172796 You'd have to pay me to carry this.

And see? Here we go again with different strokes... I feel like that ginormous Hula Hoop purse was hilarious, and I have to think (hope) it was meant to be hilarious. Right? Right? I have to think he did it tongue-in-cheek, knowing he would get tons of press and buzz for it, and not really expecting anybody to actually buy it and carry it.

Thanks for clarifying, Echo. I am still trying to get my head around meta-language but I hope we can continue this discussion somehow. Maybe diamonds weren't the best example... I was trying to think of items with iconic significance (red lipstick, diamonds, Burberry, Levis), and maybe that speaks to my point that significance varies by individual.

What I wanted to get at was this question: how can I be more aware of why certain items speak to me so much more strongly than others?

Refugee, yes, that's what I'm getting at, or trying. And I am completely unoffended that my currency has no value in your world, as long as you don't crash my economy. (Although I don't think I WOULD know a real from a fake, having only set foot in a Burberry store once.) I have gone so far as to wonder if it has to do with some weird obsession with history and colonialized India.

Why does Chanel speak to you?

AmyK, you say "I'm the worst kind of snob" as kind of a humblebrag, but honestly, I think there's a huge element of privilege in being able to turn up one's nose at certain luxury items because one doesn't want to get one's ethical hands dirty with, for example, the diamond trade.

Meanwhile, most of us (me, for example) who feel icky about buying diamonds still eat meat or at least wear leather (factory farming), buy fast fashion from China and other developing nations (deplorable labor conditions including child labor), and almost certainly do all manner of other things that harm the earth and our fellow creatures.

Don't get me wrong: I think it's completely reasonable to pick one's battles (I try not to eat meat and as I said, I don't purchase diamonds), but I tend to agree with Echo that none of this be-careful-what-you-consume stuff is nearly as simple as it seems. And to say "I don't trust anybody who wears [what looks like] diamonds," as if that were the only important fact about that person, seems a bit short-sighted to me.

Una, I feel I need to throw this out there, Does the marketing of the Burbury plaid create this feeling for you without your realizing it? Does Chanel do this for others? These companies market on their history therefore creating the sense of the small company from whence they came. Most of us know these companies are now part of a large corporation catering to the share holders and in the business paradigm of making more money this year than last.

I'm not Una, but my answer is OF COURSE it's the marketing! Because it's all marketing...the fashion shows, the product placement, the ambience in the stores, the quirky and/or aspirational figurehead (Karl Lagerfeld, Jenna Whatsername of J Crew, Ralph Lauren) all of it.

Oh yes, Deb - it's totally about marketing. As in, I desperately want that "casual-cool rich British schoolboy on holiday" look and all that it implies, because in reality I have to get up, make scrambled eggs for a cranky 10 year old, and then slog to work in a cold dark climate.

How can I be aware of this inner dialogue and STILL want a real Burberry scarf? Because I sure would not turn down Santa if he delivered it.

What I don't get is that we are all here because we want to look better. We want to portray a certain image.
Otherwise you'd be doing this
http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING.....ect.dress/
http://onedressprotest.com/why/

You are right, Anna. I am curious to explore WHY? You have raised the issue of my own UWP fantasy when as you now know, in reality I am a peace-loving weaponless Hindu girl. What gives?

Why? Because we all have things we think are cool. And we do want to signal what we think is cool.

For Anna (if I may be so bold), "cool" is "I follow fashion super closely because I think it's an art form, and I choose to signal my knowledge of and appreciation of that art form by wearing high-end, cutting-edge designer items."

For Una, it's something like "I think it's cool to be a little quirky but I also appreciate great workmanship and great materials and oh by the way my heritage is Indian and I'm strangely fascinated by the whole British Colonial thing for some reason."

For me, it's "I follow fashion closely enough to know that Burberry is a 'thing,' but I am far too cool to actually splash out the money required to have a real Burberry scarf, because I am an intrepid world traveler and I would rather splash out my money on a luxury river cruise to a developing country where not many Americans have yet been as tourists." AKA "Oh, this old thing? It's fake -- I got it on a Cambodian riverbank!"

I don't see anything wrong with any of it, as long as we are all respectful of the fact that coolness (and snobbiness) are in the eye of the beholder and generally we all have our quirks and Achilles heels and blind spots, and the thing that makes this fun is that we're all different but we all love fashion!

/rant

If you want to completely opt out of fashion then you can, easily.
But by visiting this blog, reading and participating in the forum, you are not opting out.
Fashion is a huge billion plus dollar industry.
And yes your choices affect many things. How and what you wear can change others perceptions of you.
For me, I stand pretty firm in my fashion territory. I am sure I get judged, not just on here, in real life too, a lot.
I just find hugely disingenuous to be judged too fashiony on a fashion forum.

Mary Kay-I hope it was meant that way. If it was, the joke was obviously lost on me.
Una-I promise not to tank your economy
Chanel speaks to me on a number of different levels. It is timeless classic understated elegance. I am also fascinated with the changes that she caused in fashion. Her personal story and the story of the House of Chanel are most intriguing as well.
Also, since watching the BBC series The House of Elliott I have become enamored of early 20th century costume dramas and love to wear anything that hearkens back to those dramatic changes that took place in fashion.

Anna, who's judging you as "too fashiony"? Honestly, I see mostly respect for and admiration of your style here, almost more so than any other member.

Of course we are here for fashion, but does that mean we need to check the rest of our aware, questioning selves at the door or else opt out?

For me the crux of the question is what makes a certain recognizable scarf worth so much more than a Kmart plaid your grandpa might wear? I think I lack the back story many have alluded to and that's why I don't get it.
Conversely, if you like and buy said scarf, absolutely no need to apologize or defend it. If you love it, go for it!

I should add that maybe I lack imagination, as the threads with back stories behind the outfits completely lose me as well. I just see an outfit. period. Shapes, colors, fit, textures.

Mo, you know you were the reason I started this thread! Sounds like you are one who is unswayed by backstory - is that true of everything? What about zippers and hardware: don't those tell the story of a cool rocker chick on vacation incognito in Florida? Or is that just me riffing on you?

Hee hee! I am way too analytical for my own good I think. I just visually like them as a design. That's why I never did pyramid studs like punk rockers on belts, etc. Not a design I like. Weird, huh?
Same goes for prints - I'm very specific with slightly abstract geometric or geometric prints. And galaxy or cloud design.
I think I'm a repressed scientist in a bartender's body. I see everything at face value.

This discussion is reminding me of a conversation I had with a friend once regarding our school rings (to bring in a less loaded thing that people debate). Our school rings are super recognizable, and I mentioned that the reason I had shelled out a bunch of money to get them was that I'd been told that they were useful in interviews and networking. The other reason I didn't mention but was also true was that I loved my school and was happy to be associated with it. My friend was pretty upset though because he felt like that meant he was "lesser" in some way when it came to interviews etc because he didn't want to pay for the ring, and that it was an attempt to get ahead by "cheating" because you were using the ring to smooth the way rather than rocking the interview. I think in actuality though, the main issue was that he hated our school and didn't want to be reminded of it/associated with it.

Regarding the question people have about marketing and the validity of what items signify, I think that while it's true that associations with products are generally created by intentional marketing pushes, that doesn't make those associations any less valid. The marketing has made it so that you associate the cool British schoolboy look with Burberry, and that's true for other people who look at you as well! So the fact that it sprung forth from marketing doesn't mean that it's any less effective in conveying what you want. We've been talking about the marketing like it's a bad thing (and in many ways, it is), but it's also made clothing into another medium through which we can communicate with each other. And like any other form of communication, it's often easily misinterpreted thanks to lack of clarity/the backgrounds of the people involved in the discussion, but I think that it's still a very valuable thing.

Now I'm rambling though, and I'm not actually sure if it made any sense ...

These are the type of discussions I really get into because they make me think about my opinions, confirmation bias, life experience, etc., and I do believe that this is very much related to fashion and style.

I don't think this discussion would be complete without introducing the term Veblen goods http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good and on a related note or tangent, didn't some members here in the past comment on how once an item becomes a popular fashion trend and "common" that they no longer enjoy it as much and look for the next leading edge look or item? In the wiki article, note the "snob effect" and "bandwagon effect" as related concepts to Veblen goods.

Jacky, your ring story is so on point. An item can open doors that way, can't it? I remember working as a temp doing secretarial work after college so I could travel, and being treated like dirt by the male accountants at one firm until one of them spotted my college ring. He literally said "My daughter goes to that college. Where did you get that?" When I told him I had just graduated, his entire attitude changed. And of course that ticked me off because the other secretary and I were in total solidarity, and she was a high school dropout.

Claudia, I remember learning in my linguistics class about how the Boston upper crust would pick up and drop their Rs in an effort to distinguish themselves from the unwashed masses, who would promptly copy the change. Sneeches on beaches, Dr. Suess fans?

I don't know much about Burberry, but wanted to shed a side note on diamonds, which I happen to know quite a lot about. The same way in which we obsess about cut and proportions in the things we wear, is the same level of detail and discourse that surrounds the science of the " perfect " diamond. Diamonds are a rock, yes, but the science is in the cut. Each angle is selected with painstaking detail, to maximize light reflection. The artisan needs to make decisions, based on the conditions and natural imperfections of the raw diamond, that usually demand a tradeoff: Size over light reflection etc. Once you get into it, it becomes a beautiful science. If you ever want to see similar discourse to what we do here, visit (deleted). They do there what we do here, only with diamonds and precious stones. I think saying that " diamonds are just a rock" can be as off- putting as someone coming in here and telling us that " they are just clothes". I think this goes to exemplify that the intrinsic value of what we choose to buy, is not easily determined.

I'm guessing someone jacked Zap's ID and I reported the above post as spam. If that's not the case, I'm sorry but I'll take the risk to protect a Fabber friend! Zap, you can email me if I'm wrong.

Umm? Una, what do you mean? I did write that post jeje. I'm a diamond afficionado. I guess I am "multi-faceted". Lol.

Oops, sorry! It sounded so unlike you for some reason. And the reference to another site had me concerned what with the recent forum discussion about spammers. I TAKE IT ALL BACK! Did you go back and edit to add that last sentence?

*slinking away*

Una, there are whole swaths of people who do not comment on my posts or outfits. But I do see their comments on other threads.

Haha, no problem. Yes, I added the last part. I will delete the reference to the website, and thank you for being a good friend and looking out.

The resale price of even the best diamonds: http://www.marketplace.org/top.....investment

Okay, and now that I know it's you, I understand what you are saying in your last sentence. What I meant to say was that "TO ME, diamonds are just a rock." It would be hard to make me want one, because I don't see a need for it in my life.

I could probably try to convince someone else about the value of Burberry (Mom!) to no avail. She would say "But you can get the same thing at Target! And then buy diamonds instead!"