fakes are wrong and stink, save up or buy somethign else !

Posted by: legallybrunette | July 30, 2007 10:39 AM

I think we really have to make a distinction between a shoe that is claiming to be a geniune Jimmy Choo, and a shoe that has been inspired by it. One is a fake, the other is not.

I also wonder if Jimmy Choo really thinks that they are competing in the same market as Oasis/New Look/M&S. Seriously - those women who can afford Jimmy Choos buy Jimmy Choos. They don't choose New Look and save the cash. That option is for those of us who have not yet made our fortune in hedge funds or married a footballer.

If they really want to scoop up this end of the market they should do a diffusion line, and directly compete with those brands. Stamping their feet and bleating about copyright makes them look churlish and mean.

Rather than denying poorer shoppers the chance to wear a little JC inspired glamour, they should put up and shut up with a cheaper line, or be pleased that they are setting the fashion agenda to such an extent that they are being imitated.

Posted by: ericajane | July 30, 2007 11:04 AM

Hear, hear Erica. Well said!

Legallybrunette:
Battling designer inspired cheaper versions will only lead to an increase in true fakes. Everyone wants and deserves beautiful things in their lives, why should they be available for privileged people only. This is taking us back to medieval times and class segragation. I cannot afford a pair of Manolos, but at least I can go to a high street shop and buy something in that style. It is not as if Oasis made shoes similar to Jimmy Choos and put JC label on them. That would be really faking it. Instead of buying something from our high street shops and helping the economy, people will be forced to go back to buying cheap fakes labelled JC or Gucci or whatever else from Ebay or local markets. Would you prefer that? Stop and think before writing your comments.

Posted by: arelya | July 30, 2007 12:07 PM

while the previous comments do make a point, I don't think it's particularly fair for a high st company to plagiarise someone else's efforts in designing, marketing, promoting their own product. Yes, these are big companies, and a few copies aren't going to affect their pockets dramatically, but it does detract from the overall impression of their brand in the wider scheme.

I also don't buy this 'designer prices = class segregation' nonsense. I don't earn lots and love my high st stuff, and only splash out on designer items occasionally after saving up, plus with online retailing it is much easier for 'ordinary' folk to buy into designer goods, without dealing with the intimdating elitist attitudes of an actual boutique that may have been prevalent a few decades ago.
But it just feels like a con when you see something in primark or topshop etc which is just so blatantly 'inspired' by a designer original. Especially considering that many high st prices are now escalating. It feels as if they couldn't be bothered to come up with their own stuff. It is one thing to allude to a catwalk look with a general shape or colour, but I don't want to blow money on some poorly made xerox copy made in cheap fabric and bad prints. And I don't know if there is a huge distinction between lining the pockets of Phillip Green with a 'legitimised' High st fake, or lining the pockets of an ebayer with their own fakes. From my experience, their is not necessarily a lot of difference, quality wise, in both end products.
I'd much rather make my contribution to the high st economy on their own original designs. Topshop's 'unique' and boutique ranges, as well as their own designer diffusion ranges, do this very well. Unfortunately many other diffusion ranges do not deliver on this front...
At the end of the day, a design is still someone's intellectual copyright, and it is important to respect this, regardless of the size of the organisation who owns it.

Posted by: maya | July 30, 2007 2:27 PM

Grecian inspired...so Choo copied the Ancient Greeks yes?

Posted by: Helen | July 30, 2007 6:43 PM

I agree with Helen. These are SHOES and in this day and age hardly anything is original anyway, designers are inspired by something, just as the high street can be inspired by designers. Even if I could afford the originals, I doubt I'd buy them.

The snobbery shown towards "fakes" and "copies" just makes me laugh - a lot of fake handbags are actually made in the same factories as the originals. This is especially true of handbags and in many cases you'd have to open the bag to know for sure it's a fake. Designers manufacture in the Far East to make even bigger profits so I have no sympathy for them when the factories start a sideline in fakes.

Posted by: Joyce | July 31, 2007 12:34 AM

Maya:

Even if you are lining pockets of Philip Green some of that money is retained by British economy, paying somebody in Hong Kong via Ebay ensures that none of it does.

Class segragation - the fact that you do not want to go to an intimidating boutique and would rather buy off the internet already speaks volumes. I do not believe you are looking at the situation honestly.
Let's say that designer inspired pieces are not avaialable on High street. It will be even more obvious as you walk down the street where your price range/earnings lie. I am not saying buy something in Topshop and then pretend it is Gucci, but at least you will not be so easily put into a bracket.

Posted by: arelya | July 31, 2007 12:57 PM

A small note to "Maya" who wrote above
'Even if you are lining pockets of Philip Green some of that money is retained by British economy, paying somebody in Hong Kong via Ebay ensures that none of it does.'

Virtually all high street stores produce their items in poor eastern countries so why does it matter whether your money is going to these countries via topshop or directly via ebay?

Posted by: laura | July 31, 2007 11:27 PM