I can spend big bucks on high quality items, or save a lot of bucks by buying knockoffs. Having experienced severe discomfort a number of times in my life due to clothing/gear failure, and since my life depends on things not failing (as well as on making good decisions), I choose to plump out the bucks for the top-quality stuff. In fact, that is just another good decision.

OK, maybe fashion choices do not have mortal implications, but the formula remains the same: you get what you pay for. Trying to pass a lesser product - or a knockoff - as the equivalent of the higher-priced “real thing” is dishonest at all times, even when it is not life-threatening.

I took a look at that dress designer, though, and compared it to Oscar pictures, and it really does look like all he’s done in some cases is ‘produce an outright copy using inferior materials.’ It reminded me of some of the faux iPods that you can buy, which almost exactly resemble the original except for maybe a slightly different screen ratio and, one presumes, a shorter life expectancy.

And as for the points, quite similar, made by dangster and ninjarina, I agree with you. More expensive shoes ARE better made, and feel better to wear. I just wonder how much of an appreciable difference you can credit when discussing a fundamentally uncomfortable shoe.

You’ve modified my opinion a bit with your detractions. I am still not offended by the process of knocking off (I think one of the bloggers called it ‘design stalking, which made me laugh) because I’m irrepressibly egalitarian, as ninjarina said. Power and style to the people, in my book. But he shouldn’t have used that photograph.

If for no other reason than it’s not a particularly flattering one, and it makes the gold piping look yellow.

The issue isn’t whether you could or should pay $700 for shoes. Certainly the Louboutins are of higher quality, though indeed, both they and the SM knockoffs are footcoverings and therefore of similar use. The entire fashion world knows that knockoffs happen — but there is a way to do that legitimately. ABS Allen Schwartz is the absolute king of this kind of industry. He looks at Oscar gowns and then reproduces the look in an “inspired by” kind of way at a much lower price point so that people who cannot afford the Versace gown can buy it. No one has a problem with that, really, since the customer buying the ABS dress could never have afforded the Versace in the first place.

It is fundamentally different, however, to be “inspired by” someone else’s design and to produce an outright copy using inferior materials. Then to have the temerity to underline your perfidy by not even bothering to produce your own photograph, but rather stealing a photo of the original and photoshopping it, is flat-out wrong and deeply offensive. No one is offended that Madden produces cheap shoes — you get what you pay for. What we are offended by is his effort to pass them off as something else — a groundbreaking design that looks as good as the originals. (I’m betting the plastic copies just don’t look as good.) It’s consumer fraud.

The problem with your logic Sarah is that you feel that fashion is egalitarian when it is clearly not. Style, elegance, and grace are up for grabs but if you feel like you need to wear whatever is in fashion that year, be ready to pay for it.

And as for the Suave commercials, their hair products really aren’t very good :/