Ok, so far today I....
Have managed to resist eating anything more than one Freddo from the pop-up candy store my workplace has become. See, I need to get a job in a clothes shop then I wouldn't want to buy clothes.
On that note, I read this article about an out-of control shopaholic and couldn't help but feel a little bit freaked out at how similar we could be (the way she tries to justify things, the way she manages to spend money without really thinking about it). If I had a credit card I worry I'd turn into the same kind of irresponsible person. Thankfully I have vowed never to get one, and so far all I have is a Topshop store card which I pay off as soon as I can. I may spend more money than I should, but it's always my own money, not the taxpayers'.
The article is also pretty irritating because of the 'humerous' posed photos of her sitting in her shoe closet looking coyly exasperated.Love, you owe more money than it cost for me to go to university. Stop allowing a newspaper to let you make light of a situation. You could have used it as an example of how bad things can get for those that can still stop the spiral.
What am I saying, it's in The Sun!
Anyway.....I actually got onto that subject because I was photo-hunting for this post. I read something in Grazia today about the myth of 'investment' spending.
For this is what such a dangerous myth can do to you, your wardrobe/storage issue, and your bank balance.
In the column, Polly Vernon reports on a report (yeah I know) by an American financial journalist that a so-called investment piece will not gain enough value over a defined period to warrant its misleading title. Whoah how wordy was that?! So, basically, you're far better off putting your money in the bank than buying a Chanel 2.55 and waiting for Ebay.
Yeah, 'cause a bank statement is JUST as much fun to carry around as a bag.
The idea of an investment piece is an excuse used since women began to shop, and it seems fairly logical that it has no real merit, as the idea of what's classic probably changes every year. But now a more realistic and slightly more dangerous interpretation of the idea of investment shopping has appeared; the allure of the 'basics'. This is one I myself use; upon payday I will hop out and buy some simple, cheap pieces that will carry me through the next season. Some tops, a pair of trousers, the usual. But is that any better than buying one Chanel bag after 4 months that costs as much as a computer?
Since I myself don't really see the need for designer clothes (as I am paranoid about getting dirt on anything so most of my hypothetical designer pieces would go unworn), I should probably revert to the more traditional idea of investment dressing, and buy the 'investments'.
But not as we know it.
The idea of buying an expensive and once-in-a-lifetime designer piece should go hand-in-hand with your personal style staple. There's no point buying a Chanel bag, some Dior shades or some Louboutins if it a) isn't something you'd wear if it wasn't designer, and b) if it isn't even your style. The key to be understood about investment dressing is you're investing in timeless personal style, not a bag everyone else will covet but you will only truly love because everyone else does.
Just one little thing can be the greatest investment you ever make. And like Carrie, it could cost you next to nothing.
So, in a very roundabout way, I agree that 'investment' shopping is a total farce and tired excuse. But I also agree that an Alexa bag is well worth saving for. And I know that when my true investment piece comes along, it'll be worth it.
Besides, if the vintage trends are anything to go by, and all the bloggers who raid Ebay and their mums' closets as well, one decade's basic is another's investment. Only time will tell.