KEY POINTS:
I love my new pair of diamond earrings. Or rather "diamond", given that they cost $11.99 from the Devonport Pharmacy, so I doubt they are even genuine cubic zirconia. I'm sure they are not as fabulous as the authentic rocks but they are still gratifyingly sparkly considering they
cost about one-hundredth the price.
I know it is terribly outmoded at a time when Vogue editor Anna Wintour has proclaimed we mustn't be too "Dubai" anymore, but I still love bling. The fact that we are all supposed to be looking grimly frugal just makes me crave frippery and gratuitous flashiness even more. Mind you, bling is different from luxury. Bling is just like Christmas decorations for people - imagine ballroom dancer Candy Lane and double it - whereas luxury these days is all subtly calibrated so you can do some sophisticated showing off looking as non-bling as possible.
Confused? Don't I know it. Status symbols these days are devilishly sneaky to decode. Is that ripped grey cardy deconstructed Jil Sander cashmere or a bargain from the Sally Army? Hard to tell. Think of Angelina Jolie in a donkey sack that probably cost as much as the national debt of Malawi but looks like she wrapped herself in a dusty curtain and you will understand the perversity of today's oneupmanship. Because despite what
Vogue says, we are not turning off conspicuous consumption - we are just more devious about it.
The democratisation of luxury has determined that in the middle classes the truly snooty will find new ways to signal their wealth. As economist Robert Frank wrote in his 1999 book Luxury Fever: Why Money Fails to Satisfy in an Era of Excess, everyone has been spending more on everything.
"The kinds of gifts you must give at weddings and birthdays, and the amounts you must spend for anniversary dinners; the price you must pay for a house in a neighbourhood with a good school; the size your vehicle must be if you want your family to be relatively safe from injury; the kinds of sneakers your children will demand; the universities they'll need to attend if you want them to face good prospects after graduation; the kinds of wine you'll want to serve to mark special occasions; and the kind of suit you'll choose to wear to a job interview."
Not that this is new. University of Chicago economist Thorstein Veblen coined the concept of conspicuous consumption in his 1899 book Theory of the Leisure Class. Veblen defined it as the waste of money or resources by people to display a higher status than others. And even when times are tough there are ways to skite. You might imagine with the economy tanking that luxury goods would be all but redundant. Not so. Clothes brand
Gucci (typical creation: a shell-print 60 per cent viscose dress for US$2695 [$5253] usually pictured on a greasy, sulky model) is only expected to open about 12 new stores this year compared to 22 last year. That's still a lot of overpriced It bags. Further down the pecking order there is the lipstick index. Cosmetics companies know when times are tough women spend more on lipsticks. For $20 it is a way to get a cheap thrill - although expensive compared to fake diamond earrings, don't you know?
deborah@coneandco.com
