The Birkin bag.
I used to think the idea of spending $10,000+ on a handbag was, in a word, ridiculous.
I mean, think of all the other things you could use that money for. Donations to a charity you love, for instance. Can’t we buy beautiful, designer bags at a lower price point and have some money leftover to do some kind of greater good?
It all sounds good in theory. And I’ll be the first to admit, I can’t imagine spending this kind of money on anything accessory-related at this point in my life, or maybe ever. Still, I can’t deny that the bag is all-sorts-of-amazing. It’s the epitome of luxury, but the inherent style isn’t flashy – the lines are simple and classic, and it will never go out of style.
I guess the way I’ve started to look at it, is that the bag isn’t just an accessory. It’s art. I’m not so much into art, that you hang on your wall, per se. It’s pretty and beautiful and nice to look at, sure, but I don’t know artists by name or anything like that.
The names are I know are Hermès. Louis Vuitton. Bottega Veneta. Chanel. Those are my artists.
The Birkin is not an accessory, it’s art. It’s like a diamond; something you can admire for years, take great care of and eventually pass along to your children and grandchildren.
Just ask my beloved Vicky B. She has over 100 of them.
Now that’s what I call an art collection.
Yes, for most of us it’s still a Fantasy. And a ridiculous one, at that. But what’s one to do when you have more money than you know what to do with? It’s my guess that our favorite power couple has given many more millions to charity than the cool $2 mil that Vic spent on her Birkins. So when this is the case, I say yes to the Birkin – it is, after all, an investment.
Only much more chic, than say, a portfolio of stock.
Images courtesy of Daily Mail UK
What do YOU think of the Birkin? Is it over-the-top excessive, or does it have its place in the closet of someone with infinite amounts of money?