Balenciaga is a pretty rare thing to find outside of a high-end store, but I thought I had found one at the Goodwill. So I bought it, and then did a lot of research on Facebook. It was fake.
I no longer have photos, but it looked pretty convincing. The cut was the same, and the material was of high quality. The stitching was clean.
The tag, however, was pink, and had a little bit of Korean embroidered into the label.
This quality fake made me question the nature of fakes versus “real”, when it comes to branded product. The brand is a sign of quality, but it is not “quality” itself. The brand is a name or a sign, but it’s not the object.
In the consumer market, however, the brand is often more “real” than the objects.
People associate a brand with different things, like expensive materials, quality of construction, price, and so forth.
When an object with the brand doesn’t conform to the expectations surrounding the brand, people become upset. We all know this, and some do this.
The funny thing is, the qualities of an object are inherent in the object, regardless of brand, yet, if we have been propagandized about the brand enough, we experience the brand as the more “real”.
In the online marketplaces like Ebay, brand is absolutely more real than the object’s qualities.
I recently sold a high quality copycat of a “rabbit” cork remover. It didn’t get as much money as the real thing.
It’s entirely possible that this object was made in the same factory as the “rabbit” and made by the same people, using the same materials, with a slightly modified design.
None of that matters.