Death of the Handbag

A new taste for understatement is making more women prefer a bicycle basket over Bottega’s basket-weave. The handbag has become a victim of its own ambition.

It wasn’t long ago that hot handbags that featured logos,monograms,buckles and tassels were the must-haves for every self-respecting woman. It-bags—that began with Fendi’s Baguette (2000) and picked momentum with Balenciaga’s Lariat (2001),Chloe’s Paddington (2002) and Mulberry’s Bayswater (2004)—pronounced us all as fantastic foxes. Bags that said LV or GG or Double C were ranked higher than an MBA or even IIM.

These bags always elicited envy amongst those who cared (and there were many) even though they implied that the woman was all about money,if not good taste.

Handbags are not about fashion,they are about acquisition. Bags are not about selling the idea of an ideal woman. They are a ‘manufactured demand’ created by some corporate types fooling you into believing you need a new one every year. Most big labels’ businesses are funded by handbags (followed by sunglasses and perfume): accessories account for two-thirds of Prada’s profits and 80 per cent of Gucci’s.

Companies often call their latest offering a ‘limited edition’,produce a wait-list as long as a toilet roll and then make a lakh pieces of the item. They forget that the foundation of fashion lies in being special,not following a retail herd (even though I suspect the latter is often true).

Fashion licensing is a two-headed monster. On the one hand,it keeps the money coming; on the other,it kills authentic manufacturing and exclusive appeal. Licensing began with Yves Saint Laurent in 1973,when he promoted ready-to-wear so brilliantly. He gave birth to a Frankenstein’s monster. He signed up with a company called Mendes for his Rive Gauche line (the same one that sells a beautiful napa bag this year for almost 2,000 pounds) to control manufacturing,distribution and quality. It was easy,but empty,like a house of mirrors. YSL earned millions from the royalty for this. But others,like Pierre Cardin,signed their names on everything and ruined their brands.

Then there is the issue of fakes. Of course,fakes are for fakes and even if nobody else knows better,at least you do. But I really don’t have much sentiment here. It’s like stealing from a designer who is rolling in your money not made by creating something beautiful for you,but by signing on a dotted line.

(namratanow@gmail.com)