i want to add to this discussion, but i'm not the most elegant writer, so please bare with me.
for me there is a certain status is a label, and there is an element of wanting to signal my belonging to a certain tribe. why, becauase it shows that i acheived what for generations what out of reach for my family. my dad was 1st generation american jew. he was a child of the depression. in my grandfathers home country, as a Jew, we would not have been equal citizens, and would not have had equal oppurtunities. that my dad could get to where he did, and then raise children that could go even farther, its a very big deal. but i also value everything that got me here, the education, the hard work, and the value system of a country that promotes equality (even if it doesn't always achieve it, but thats for another day).
and amyk, while you may believe that you are not signaling your tribe by your choice of electronic devises, you are. just ask everyone who waits on line for the new iphone, xbox, play station etc. and i'm ok with that. we each have our own reasons for what and how we spend our money and our time.
i hope this didn't sound harsh or snobby, and i really thought long and hard before posting this.

Exactly (Wink)
you are hilarious Una. You made my day with the " report post" bit lol. Angie is going to have a good laugh. I love you to pieces.

kkards, thank you - that was perfectly eloquent. I feel much the same as a child of immigrants. I know my extended family is secretly disappointed when I show up in ratty jeans, unbecoming of my status in their minds. It's along the same lines of when they come camping and say "Why did we leave the village and work so hard to succeed here if you didn't even want indoor plumbing?!"

Regarding Zap's comment about diamonds, it's perhaps useful to this discussion to note that things don't really have intrinsic value or worth. The value or worth of an object is set through often unspoken social contracts and context. The diamond-water paradox touches on this

To think I reported one of my favorite Fabbers whom I've actually MET! I am as beet red as a brown girl can get. XOXO back at you, Zap - as I said, you are a true diamond - beautiful and resilient even in the face of being reported as spam.

Jacky, that Is so right. I have often thought how so many beautiful things I've spent money on would be utterly useless in a natural disaster, or a zombie invasion, or a post-apocalyptic world. That's why it's so compelling when form and function merge. I think of my cashmere sweaters this way, They are beautiful and feel great, but they are also genuinely WARM.

@jacky, it also goes to the heart of the saying, "Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it."

Has anyone else seen this 60 Minutes segment on eyeglasses, Sticker shock: Why are glasses so expensive? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voUiWOGv8ec

The thing I have trouble with on this & other threads is when someone (in this case Una) is honest how they feel about a subject & want to explore it & others think they are somehow being judged. What is that?

I don't see how me not liking diamonds or not liking certain books says anything about YOU they are MY choices. I feel more judged by the people who get defensive when certain topics are raised than I do by someone honestly expressing their likes & dislikes.

Agreed, Caro! Thank you.

Caro, I understand what you mean but I think it is human nature to some extent. It is what makes the conversation so interesting and thought provoking. We are also very lucky to be able to have these types of conversations. I believe the emotional buttons they push come from out past experience and/or personality.

Hear, hear, Caro! It comes back to the challenge of having a conversation without taking any of it personally. Some got it, some don't. It's easy to get distracted and start picking at (and misinterpreting) details out of context. We're especially prone to that when we take things personally, and it's easy to take things in personally when we're not equipped with meta-conversation skills.

Jacky's ring, well shucks. It's one I recognize from afar and have very positive biases about. Now I'm going to mull over what that says about my own awareness and values.

Yes, it's great, interesting, thought provoking when it remains a conversation. That is not always the case.

Caro, while I agree that this particular thread is quite civil, there have been times when people have posted, for example, "All people who wear visible name brands do so because they are shallow and want people to know how much money they have." That is not a statement about one's personal preferences, but is most definitely a judgement about others, and I can totally see why such statements inspire defensiveness.

Not, I hasten to repeat, that such a thing is occurring on this thread.

And thank you all so much for taking this particular thread in the spirit intended. My real job involves doing my best to remain objective and unbiased about things that often are disturbing and controversial, that sometimes would offend me in a different, personal context. So perhaps I'm more impervious to what others might see as uncivil, though I hope not.

In any case, I am still fascinated by, and would love to hear more about, what DOES attract you to a certain fashion house or type of item - even if it is simply "I like the status associated with X" - because , to address the elephant in the room head-on, is there anything wrong with that? The Chanel example was a good one - I personally feel no pull there, but I see how it parallels my Burberry cravings.

Yes to everything that Caro said!

ETA: MaryK, I can't remember anyone ever making such a blanket condemnation on this forum, but I agree such a comment would be rather brutal. Still, it is just one person's opinion, nothing more. My feeling has always been to look at the source, consider the comment, and then decide if I want to accept the opinion as something I ought to consider. I couldn't have survived 30-odd years of student comments without holding this attitude.

My "pull," I think, is for items and outfits that look stylish and new and high-quality. I am a Pinterest addict and as you know, I like to copy Pinterest looks. I guess the "tribe" with which I would most like to be associated is "fashion bloggery but not too fashion bloggery." I'm not too drawn by labels and brands (can't imagine spending the money on a Chanel bag, for example) with a few notable exceptions (Rockstud pumps? Yes, please!). Sometimes that involves recognizeable brands and sometimes not.

I guess I'm a gigantic contrarian in that I'm not super into wearing recognizeable labels or brands for myself, but I also get my hackles up at the idea of poo-pooing all recognizeable brands and labels as tacky or snobby or whatever (again, with a few notable exceptions of brands that have negative associations for me).

ETA: Gaylene, that's so funny! "Consider the source" is one of my mom's favorite aphorisms, and yes, I have often applied it myself in this very context!

AmyK: I'm glad you have good associations with my ring. I think it just means you have good taste I generally avoid telling people where I've gone to school (and am being sort of squirrelly about it here) because I have gotten some negative/weird reactions when it comes up in conversation.

To answer Una's original question: I am super drawn to McQueen scarves. The reason for this is pretty simple though - I am obsessed with skulls (much to my parents' chagrin). I've been plotting for a while to get one, but it's a pretty big expense that I can't really justify right now.

I guess for me, I am looking for an upgraded experience, nicer fabrics, better seams, little details, woven details instead of printed. For me, one of the things that sets Burberry apart, is that the plaids line up on the seams.

I guess the point I was trying to make is that value is in the eyes of the person purchasing the item. I'm no one to determine what is valuable to others. I can only determine what is of value to me. Case in point, my fiancée and I were buying little Zap a certain backpack yesterday. To me, it is the most useless little backpack ever created but it is what she wants, not what I want.  Once it got rung up and we left the store, my fiancée goes "Well, is that such and such money? I can't believe it". My response to him, "Well, who are we to say, it is what's valuable to her" and I truly believe that.

As a side note, I have decided that not everything I do or say has to be a huge stance about something. I have allowed myself the chance to be shallow and inconsequential.

But back to the original question. Some people said they don't like Burberry because of the Chav association in the UK. Unless you live in the UK, that makes about as much sense as hating tattoos because they are associated with Yakuza in Japan.

But, but... I think both those things make sense! I am aware that there is such a thing as a chav, and that it isn't an image with which I wish to be associated. Similarly, I wouldn't want to be associated with Yakuza and if it were the only real association I had with tattoos (and if I already hadn't decided tattoos are a spectator sport only for me), it might be enough to dissuade me from getting one.

Anna, I think I was the one who made that association between Burberry and "chav". And it is just that, my personal association, nothing more. Associations are rarely logical; they just exist in our minds--some are enjoyable, other not so much. To tell me that my association doesn't make any sense, doesn't make any sense, at least to me. We aren't alike.

Interestingly on the diamond aspect of things, DeBeers became associated with price control and cartel images instead of respected as a design house. FWIW, DeBeers pioneered cutting and some of the artistry we associate with jewelry today. Sure, they also price controlled when they were allowed, but so do fashion houses with their twice yearly price increases.

And as for judging those who wear clear, sparkly stones, keep in mind that anyone reading a mass produced magazine (generally speaking, anything over a million copies) or insert is participating in the diamond trade. Most of those pieces are printed via gravure, which uses diamond heads to engrave the printing cylinders. Yes, they use industrial grade diamonds, but that's what the majority of diamond mining is for anyway (industrial purposes). No, diamonds aren't rare, but gem-grade diamonds are comparatively rare.

Again, my main point is that while we all make judgements based on what someone wears or how they present themselves, we are easily fooled into thinking that WE don't contribute to X, Y or Z problem. But we do. Chances are very good that if you live in the US or above the middle class anywhere in the world, you contribute fairly directly to almost everything you think you stand against.

I wanted to buy a Burberry scarf when I was younger, in my undergrad. My dad told me not to - he said no one would believe that a young girl would have a real Burberry scarf and everyone would think it's a fake.

He recently told me that I'm at the right stage in life to get a Burberry scarf. I had one as a gift, and someone on the train asked me if it was real. I didn't know what to say, but my friend was like, "Of course it's real, she's a doctor!"

I think it implies something - like when Kate Middleton shows up in a Zara necklace with crystals, everyone assumes they are diamonds. It's about social status. No one ever would believe I had that many diamonds :p

What Gaylene said. It's a bit strange, in a thread about subjective reactions and associations, that some choose to participate by wildly paraphrasing segments of and picking apart details of others' mindfully written posts.

lyn* that's interesting that you mention social status as being a determining factor in whether people believe something is real or not. My mother was recently shopping for diamond stud earrings, but was shocked at the price. I gently suggested that given her age and position, she could wear CZ and no one would think twice about them being anything other than diamond. She scoffed and replied that she wouldn't wear anything except the "real thing" at her age.

I always default to assuming something is genuine, unless it is a mockery of a fake. But for many people, age, social status, job position, etc. makes a huge difference in how they perceive someone.

To turn all of this around, how do people feel about brands wanting to distance themselves from certain celebrities/groups? For example, there were alcohol brands that attempted to distance themselves from rap artists, and Burberry flat-out refused to allow rapper Ja Rule wear any of their products for an Esquire Magazine shoot. How do you feel about luxury (or otherwise) brands distancing themselves from certain market groups? Like the Chav association for some with Burberry, would association with rap artists "taint" your view of a brand? Or would them distancing themselves from certain groups negatively affect your opinion of them?

Okay, so what Gaylene said also underscores what I meant . What we prefer and why doesn't always make sense to others, or in my case, even to myself at times. And it doesn't have to! Quoting Zap - we absolutely can enjoy "the chance to be shallow and inconsequential."

For me, the enjoyment is in understanding thought process and analysis of my own choices. Thinking about how we think is my favorite game (Amy, is this getting to what those links were about?). Of course that's not everyone's idea of fun, but I truly love hearing from everyone who wants to go there and share their own ideas.

*lyn, you make a great point! And now we are onto authenticity - does someone like Kate M. lend the appearance of authenticity (whatever that even means) to whatever she dons, by virtue of her status and fashion cred?

Less Wrong is certainly about thinking about how we think and make decisions. (I only scanned the posts so I can't speak to the rest of them.) A lot of Less Wrong and the Rationalist movement in general is interested in figuring out how we think and what our biases/fundamental assumptions and principles and figuring out where we're getting in our own way or where things don't quite match up and fixing those pain points. Internal consistency in thinking is considered very valuable (I think whether or not it actually is desirable is actually a differently interesting discussion).

echo, i agree context is everything...age, race, job, perceived social class/status, even where and when things are worn. one vuitton handbag worn on the el from the evanston to south shore. perception of that bag and the wearer will change (real vs not, etc...) even if the item and the wearer haven't.

re brands controlling who wears them, to me, it's a business decision and part of their marketing strategy.