Dear Countess, my deepest apologies...

I have learned something unnerving about Chanel's line of designer clothing. I must admit it has me feeling a tiny bit guilty. In the past, I have purchased Chanel gowns as little trinkets with which to tickle the fancy of some of the women in my life. These were low moments, but, be honest now, who amongst us hasn't occassionally stooped to purchasing Haute Couture in times of desperation?

Recently, one of my Belles became interested in a certain gown from last season. How gauche, I know. She has always been difficult this one. Impossible really, but my my, she certainly is gorgeous. Although I'm sure that you would all be interested to know more about my personal life, I think I will have to return to the point I was making.

I realized Karl was working for Chanel now; so I had Alphonso call and ask him about securing the aforementioned gown. Alphonso came to me in the study to inform me that apparently Chanel always destroys last year's gowns if they remain unsold. I would have had to pour myself a glass of Hennessy's Timeless, but luckily I already had a glass of Timeless in my hand. What shocking news? I would have to think of another plan to bring a smile to she of the astronomically high maintenance level.

But that aside -- Do you, gentle reader, see the implications of this destruction of property? The thinking is this: The type of stores that carry Chanel products would never be caught dead displaying last year's line. (Well I can think of one instance, but the owner really did die.) As a result, the gowns can no longer appear in the prestigious stores, but they must go somewhere no? So, they are sent back to France. But they cannot simply be placed in a warehouse in France, some employee might liberate some and they might appear in discount retailers of some kind. Remember that episode of the Simpson's where Marge finds the Chanel dress and is invited to the Country Club? Ha ha, what situational comedy. We all know this could never happen. Chanel dresses can not ever appear on sale, because the entire point of Chanel dresses is that they cost so much fucking money as to make one's eyes bleed just thinking about it. So; they are all destroyed to maintain the value of the brand.

Only in a pre-apocalyptic society would it be possible to make more money by making very elaborate and luxurious things and destroying half of them instead of selling them.

William Ashley does the same. An acquaintance of mine once worked in their stock room. Any products which were off-coloured or chipped had to be completely destroyed so that they could not be purchased for an affordable price by the masses. If every Tom, Dick and Harry had William Ashley where would we be? I would be fine, because of my 1802 piece set of original 1802 Flora Danica, but some people might be quite miffed I would assume. My acquaintance wasn't even allowed to bring the dishes home, he had to take them and smash them, virtually to dust, with a hammer.

If you remember my recent post about Fridge-o-Vision (which I'm sure you do, since I know most of my readers make the effort to memorize my communiques) I made an observation about the supposed efficiency of Capitalism. This sign only serves as further evidence for that argument. Capitalism is most certainly not the most efficient system for meeting our needs, it is structured such that it is efficient at turning a profit at any cost. In this case it is more profitable to expend more effort making less things. This is not what is generally considered efficiency.

I've been thinking deeply while writing this post and I have come upon a startling new revelation: I think I'm going to have to break-up with the Countess. But don't worry, I'll let her down gently. Many a lady has commented that, until the implications sink in, being dumped by me is almost as melodic and rapturous as being picked up by me. This cognac is quite good though, maybe I'll have Alphonso do it.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

As Von Mustard's Official, but Occasional Editor, I thought it would be best to bring to his reader's attention the fact that he didn't actually get this information by calling Karl Lagerfeld. I'm not even sure that he knows Karl Lagerfeld. To give credit where credit is due, he read it in a recent style advice column in the Globe and Mail. His friend who used to work at William Ashley is in fact, my friend who used to work at William Ashley, Joseph Crampton.

Matt Lie - Paehlke

2:23 p.m.  
Blogger Matthew Lie - Paehlke said...

Watch yourself Lie - Paehlke! I of course know that you are simply joking, but perhaps my gentle readers will not see the humour in your apparent slander. I have been good friends with Karl Lagerfeld ever since I saved him for that terrible Zeppelin accident in Melbourne.

If you're not more careful you may find yourself the Ex-Official, but Occasional Editor.

2:26 p.m.  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Matteus Von Mustard,

I and an esteemed colleague, Justin Davenport the third, began to wonder about the bizarre rituals of Canadians. We wondered, do they not celebrate Thanksgiving? I postulated that Canadians have nothing to be thankful for, their socialist overlords snatching the bread from their cold, stiff fingers before it ever reaches their drawn, pinched mouths. Monsieur D. 3, disagreed, saying, "While Canadians have little, they do have a keen appreciation for the glory that is history and will celebrate America's holiday's with her as they lack their own significant events to cherish." We decided we would leave the question to you, and put our hard thinking into how we would cram the next slice pumpkin pie down our already stuffed esophagi.



11:25 a.m.  
Blogger Matthew Lie - Paehlke said...

Canadians do indeed have Thanksgiving! In fact, because we have so much MORE to be thankful for, we get over-excited and give our thanks on the first Sunday in October. The end of November? You guys so missed the boat. Hell, we've already had Christmas and next weekend is New Year's.

We also have two extra Thanksgivings -- "Bush-is-not-our-president-thanksgiving" and "Free-healthcare-thanksgiving." These are days we have set aside to give special respect to these things, so they don't get lost amidst all the other things we have to be thankful for. We're also thinking about having "No-war-on-drugs-up-here-thanksgiving" and "Never-even-heard-of-Bill-O'Reilly-thanksgiving."
I could go on you know.

11:19 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home