Adventures in Copyright Feb 2, 2009 @ 11:48am

Adventures in Copyright: Buckle Down

by Britt Aboutaleb

jeffrey campbell does marcs boots.jpg The worst rip-offs are the ones that hit particularly close to home.

Take, for example, these buckled Marc by Marc Jacobs boots. Our good friend developed a not-harmless crush on them after she watched Tanya D and Abbey Lee storm the Fall 08 runway.

But then they cost almost $1000 until she stumbled upon what the Barney’s salesperson told her was the “last pair in the universe” for one third of the original price just a week before Christmas. Of course, the rest is history.

Or was, until she discovered this Jeffrey Campbell copy at Oak. Campbell’s straps are a bit thinner, the toe is pointier and the heel’s not as chunky, but they’re the same and barely $50 less than she paid for Marc’s.

Of course, she also has the thrill of waiting, lusting, craving and finally getting the original - it’s like ice cream and frozen yogurt, no matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise, the real thing is always better.

« Ali Skips the Season, Too

Fashionista Main

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 1:13PM

But Jacobs ripped them off 1980s 8th Street boots that were EVERYWHERE.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 1:27PM

yes #1, I was just about to say I had these boots back in 1984 or so.

I prefer frozen yogurt.

posted by AmandaMichele

Feb 02, 2009 1:32PM

Jeffrey Campbell shoes are almost always inspired by the shoes on the runway, I like his shoes for the same reason I like pinkberry better than icecream-no buyer remorse over numbers (caloric or dollar).

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 1:49PM

I do sincerely love Fashionista, and am usually annoyed with all the negative comments, but I'm getting tired of these sort of posts. Yes it is unfortunate, but I bet everyone here will agree that in all these situations the original deserves credit for its quality and design. The constant dilution of high-end, well crafted, design products into, and across the spectrum of, consumer markets is hardly newsworthy, especially in a case like this when the original is referencing a past trend so explicitly. Besides, while I think everyone would prefer to invest their money in quality pieces from the likes of Marc Jacobs or Martin Margiela, its a recession, its not what you wear but how you wear it, and I would personally rather sink $1000 into a trenchcoat and handbag I'll have forever instead of a very passing trend.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 2:46PM

OK I get it, the originals are better than the knockoffs. This 'Adventures in Copyright' post is getting unnecessary and annoying.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 3:36PM

so i see your point. its annoying to see a knock off of something you salivated over, saved up for, and then spent a whole lot for. i get it--but wouldn't this problem be avoided if you just didnt buy the real? buy the fake! then it wouldn't be an issue, and you'd be fine. Also, if having the real deal is just better for you, then seeing it elsewhere, knockoff or not, shouldn't bother you-right?

www.nolabelleinthecity.blogspot.com

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 3:38PM

Sorry to say, they're both ugly.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 3:42PM

I wish this wasn't called "Adventures in Copyright," since technically shoes are not protected by copyright law. I'm sorry for being annoying just every time I read the heading title it bothers me.

It would be kind of fun if you did something like this when RTW references older designer stuff, street culture, or make random cultural/ethnic references. It might be a little more highbrow and interesting. Just a suggestion feel free to ignore.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 5:12PM

I completely agree with #8. I would rather read about the trends/cultures/objects etc. that current RTW references, not tips on where to find knockoffs of shoes I can't afford.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 5:23PM

These posts would get hated on a lot less if that attitude was dropped. Magazines like Lucky and InStyle do the exact same feature but offer it as "affordable" alternatives. Praise the original, acknowledge the better make/design/material and then show the knock off as an interesting version.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 6:59PM

Haha if you think "Marc" was the first to make those then....your the people who work at Fashionista...

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 7:18PM

i think the jeffery campbell ones look better..

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 8:31PM

knock-offs are never "interesting versions," merely shitty, awful versions of items that should never be impersonated in the first place. saying it isn't worth pointing these out simply bc they seem inevitable at the moment is like saying it's worthless to point out a professional athlete that takes steroids, or that it's pointless to point out a business that steals ideas from smaller businesses. just bc it's common doesn't make it ok.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 10:07PM

I have the Jeffrey Campbell ones -- NOT because they're knock-offs (I didn't even know Marc Jacobs made the "original") -- but because I did, in fact, simply see them on Oak's website and loved them. They're chic, comfy, reasonably priced, and look less Fashion Victim than the so-called "real thing." Don't hate me (or Jeff Campbell) for being savvy and stylish.

posted by yedinstvo

Feb 02, 2009 11:08PM

Darlings, this is getting incredibly annoying. It's understandable to mourn the loss of an original design to a blatantly profit-seeking rip off, but to call "Copy!" on any reproduction of a reproduction of a reproduction on fad after countless fad from decades ago is just pointless!

If you were enthused by fashion as you claim to be than surely you would recognize these as throwbacks to a past subculture.

posted by guest

Feb 02, 2009 11:36PM

i, too, was obsessed with the marc by mj boots when i first saw them. anyone know if there is anyway to still get a hold of a pair...besides ebay? thanks!

posted by guest

Feb 03, 2009 11:11AM

are we supposed to feel bad for your "friend"

posted by sherrykay

Feb 03, 2009 2:04PM

Not to beat a dead horse but...once upon a time, designer brands (even their lower priced RTW offerings) were geared to a particular price point; the customer who bought a designer item and someone else who bought a lower priced knock off were so far apart as to only have one thing in common-perhaps reading Vogue magazine. Now we have the strange situation where designer duds are being slashed so much that they have come into the range of those 'knock-offs' (I would actually use Steve Madden as a better example) and although we know the economic downturn (to put it euphemistically) has forced these fire sales, customers who bought the higher priced goods should well be asking, "WHY?" This is the issue that designers have not taken up with the public. Why are they so uninvolved? Name recognition (and not merely licensing their name as a brand) alone will not cut it with most customers. Paying exorbitant prices for clothing and accessories was supposed to mean something-even for those who could afford it. It was not about throwing money around just because one could, nor was it about 'design' alone, since fashion is by its nature derivative, and RTW is not art. The argument about quality, craft, and longevity is missing, but after all, most apparel and accessories are mass produced in China and most luxury brands are owned by multinational companies who need a profitable bottom line first.

posted by guest

Feb 03, 2009 8:01PM

I agree with #5. Plus, Jeffrey Campbell's schtick is copying runway. Dont know why hes in trendy "boutiques"

posted by Pretty Young Thing

Feb 03, 2009 8:46PM

Yeah, we all know the real ones are best. How many times will these ridiculous "adventures in copyright" continue? It's like the Harper's Bazaar investigative articles on design originals that never seem to end. Everyone can't afford designer. And when they're tasteful, classic copies (as in this post) or more inspired-by a designer item, it shouldn't be news-worthy.

To #8 and #9: http://pytmedia.com frequently does posts referencing music/streetwear/cultural influences on current trends (Madonna, Peggy Fleming, Hugh Hefner, Spice Girls...).

posted by guest

Feb 03, 2009 10:30PM

It would be more interesting to read about what 80s designer Marc was copying when he designed his boots. How about writing about fashion history? This treatment only of right now is so superficial, when there is so much rich fashion history. More depth, please!

posted by guest

Feb 07, 2009 6:43PM

The jeffrey campbell collection is one of the top at it's respective pricepoints. Its equal parts, vintage, trend and runway interps. The amazing thing about the line is it is orchestrated by five people---which seems to not justify copying---but when you think of how many amazing JEFFREY Campbell shoes you see in the oddest of stores---it's pretty remarkable. I say...VIVA LA JEFFREY. I love being able to find his shoes at OAK---its a refreshing price at that store--and the buyers of OAK buy his line SO PERFECTLY...it sits so well. I guess thats the amazing thing about buyers like that and a line like this.