At left is the Chloe Gladys bag, which was sold at Neiman Marcus and other retailers last year for $2,000.
At right is a similar bag, which is currently available at the Gainesville, Georgia Target for $6.74.
I’m just sayin’.
Comments (9)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
To me, those two bags are obviously different given the pictures shown. Whether you feel the same or not, most clothing and accessories sold at Target, Walmart, and other low-cost, big box chains are designed to very closely resemble fashions on the runways at much lower prices. If a woman is shopping for a purse at Target, chances are she has better things to do with the remaining $1,993 that would be needed to purchase the designer bag. Like buy food or something silly like that.
posted by Katie on 11-9-2006 at 3:16 pm
They’re not the same bag?
posted by patti on 11-9-2006 at 4:00 pm
The Target bag looks so vinyl-ly that is reflective shine is being muted only by the distinctive off-gassing vapors eminating from it’s derivitive design.
I am a purse snob who loves Target but wouldn’t be caught dead carrying that hot mess.
At least the Chloe design (as ugly as it is) was born of an original thought. And, I presume, does not smell like a DuPont factory.
I can spot a real bag from a fake from forty paces….like that is a marketable skill. haha
posted by irish e on 11-9-2006 at 4:37 pm
Yeah, I have to be honest, I wouldn’t pay $6.74 for either of them.
posted by Mary on 11-9-2006 at 5:14 pm
But it’s CHLOE!!! Target vs. Chloe: Chloe whips the ever-loving dogshit outta Target. I love Target. I’m just saying…
posted by Amanda on 11-9-2006 at 5:58 pm
Sure. And if it were a Chloe Edith, or a Chloe Paddington, I might be willing to pay slightly more than $6.74. This scary early-’80s throwback, not so much…
posted by Mary on 11-9-2006 at 9:53 pm
Both uglier than…something REALLLLY ugly. However if I were to hit my head (a lot harder, and many more times than I normally due in a day’s time), and they were both $6.74 whatever I would go for the original because it is a lot less ugly. One says I grandma purse, the other says fake eyelashes, peroxide, and a whole lotta drinks…lol.
posted by Ellen on 11-9-2006 at 10:42 pm
I’m sorry, but I don’t see how this qualifies as intellectually enriching commentary.
I think the bags look very different from each other. No doubt, the quality of the craftsmanship differs as well.
yes, many things are overpriced. but please remember there is some truth to “you get what you pay for.”
posted by mandy on 11-10-2006 at 12:00 am
I wouldn’t be caught dead carrying either one of those bags, but I could agree to be paid to carry the chloe bag faster than I could agree to accept money to carry the target knock-off…That looks like the knock-off of a knock-off. It’s so shiny, it looks like someone passed it through a McDonalds kitchen and slapped some grease on it.
posted by Maureen on 11-10-2006 at 8:38 am