« Historical Document: Holbrooke on Iraq, January 2001 | Main | This Seems Like a Big Problem » The Annals of Inequality19 Nov 2007 03:14 pm
Check it out, it's the Gucci Baby Carrier, "recommended for baby 3 to 9 months or up to 20 lbs." It can be yours for just $850. And since Gwen Stefani has one, I don't see how you can afford to do without. Purseblog remarks: When I first laid eyes on the Gucci Baby Carrier, I was a fan but still a tad skeptical. It did seem a bit over the top. But now that I saw the proud new mommie, Gwen Stefani, carrying her adorable little Kingston in one, I am in love! I think it's still over the top. Comments (36)
Dude, you should wander around the Gucci store on 5th Avenue when you're back in NY. Last time I was touristing there, I discovered the canine section right by the front door. Think $2,000 dog bowls made of Sterling Silver. 
From the looks of it, it's basically a baby bjorn design, which is one of the worst in terms of comfort. There are way better slings and wraps out there- ergo's the best, also hotslings, and mei tie and didymos wraps. If it were more functional it might be worth more (we bought a $400 stroller and it was worth it) but this is just paying more to look fashionable while hurting your back.
We live in a sick culture.
I would've expected it to cost more, actually.
That has to be the most impractical baby carrier I have ever seen. I guess it would be ok if you always have a personal assistant around to help you buckle the child in, but if that's the case, why are you bothering to carry your own baby?
Agree with SP - doesn't look very comfortable. And in the Gwen Stefani picture, the headrest looks huge. Our Ergo Baby Carrier is quite comfortable - highly recommended. My wife liked the mei tei, but a guy would need to be more secure than I am to wear it. But this is likely not the point of the post.
Matt, Or should I call you iPhone boy - you know what they say about people in glass houses.
I suppose we shouldn't expect more from a "purseblog" but my god, what a moron.
Personally, I'm more concerned with the kind of inequality that prevents the majority if Americans from affording college.
As the son-in-law of an ailing gentleman I eagerly await a Burberry line of adult diapers.
Matt reads purseblog so you don't have to!
On the plus side, I think that brown pattern would probably do a decent job of camouflaging baby puke stains.
It'll be interesting to see if there's a significant market for used versions of these suckers. Their use is nominally limited to about 6 months, so a used one would probably still be in pretty good condition. I wonder what a used one would go for? On the other hand, the people who buy them probably won't feel the need to raise funds by selling their used baby gear. Less wealthy moms might be able to get ahold of a like-new model through simple dumpster diving.
It's not just over the top, it's ugly.
I think it's really cool Gwen Steffani named her son after the capitol of Jamaica. She's been mining that ska vein for years now and it seems only fitting that she should pay hommage to her muse via her son's name. If she has a daughter I'm betting she names her Irie.
When our son was a wee lad (sorry, I am in love with "wee lad") we could hike using some simple, lightweight and cheap baby carriers. Now my son is in graduate school, but I know a young couple with a baby who are keen to hike, and the baby was a bit fussy so I thought that they should get a baby carrier. What we seem to have on the market are car seats with straps, totally uwieldy contraptions that weight a ton and cost 100+ dollars. The weight was not that much of a problem (the mother is really athletic! on edit: the father too) but the baby was fussing even worse so the seat went back to the store. Gucci stuff looks actually reasonable, and would they offer for 40 bucks, one should give it a try. Anyway, another cute expression (besides "wee lad" or "bairn") that I read is "soo middle class". Allegedly, young rich people disparage various things or people by noting lack of style and opulence. Thinking that 400 dollars for a gismo is too much is soo middle class. Some people got so much money that not only they buy Gucci gizmos for several thousands dollars, not only they buy condos for several million dollars etc. but they top it by contributing to Democrats so they could have higher taxes! Although, from what I read, the insanity of the rich has some limits. Yes, they contribute to Congressional and Senate campaign funds run by Emmanuel and Schumer, but Kucinich is not swamped with their dollars yet.
I don't know, in the great scheme of things it doesn't seem that outrageously expensive - a night at the opera and a meal for two can easily cost the same and you're carrying your baby around in such a thing for half a year. Sure, it's naff, but there are better examples for making fun of rich people. I wholeheartedly agree with c (rastamon) w on Kingston though.
I'd pay $850 to have Gwen Stefani carry my baby but not $850 for Gwen's baby carrier.
I don't know, in the great scheme of things it doesn't seem that outrageously expensive Maybe you should reexamine your grasp of the "great scheme of things" then. Most of the world's six billion people live on less than 2 dollars a day.
On second glance, this thing is terrible. It has belt buckles instead of snaps as on the bjorn, presumably because buckles are more fashionable. However, when you're trying to hold a baby with one hand and fasten the carrier with the other, buckles are ridiculous. So now it's not just 9x the price for the same functionality, it's 9x the price for something functionally inferior.
I don't know, in the great scheme of things it doesn't seem that outrageously expensive - a night at the opera and a meal for two can easily cost the same If you are the kind of person who routinely drops over $800 on a night out - i.e., not just on your anniversary or whatever - you have no idea what it means to be an actual human being on this planet. And anyone who owns one of these things should be shot.
The Luxist link says that it was only $760, not $850. Maybe Gwen got hers at Costco. Also, what SP said about the straps. Seriously. WTF?
See, we parents must purchase $800 futuristic Alternamom strollers and $850 celebrity baby carriers and we need brand new gas guzzling SUVs because they are the only things big enough to fit more than one of the mandatory gargantuan car seats. Kids now have to ride in carseats until they are 10 years old and in addition, each child must be fitted with a protective helmet. It takes 20 minutes to get each kid out of the helmet and carseat and into the stroller or carrier for any outing. There are no quick stops. We parents need more tax breaks. I have no idea why any woman would choose to do it alone.
That reminds me, what is it with Yglesias and wildly expensive baby gear? First, a post about the Stokke and now this.
It's background research. His biological clock is ticking and he can hear the patter of little feet in the distance.
Wasn't there a time when we considered people who declared themselves "in love" with inanimate objects to have a psychological disorder?
I don't want Stefani or that thing.
If you are the kind of person who routinely drops over $800 on a night out - i.e., not just on your anniversary or whatever - you have no idea what it means to be an actual human being on this planet. Oh, come off it, I'm sure Gwen Stefani won't be buying baby carriers on a weekly basis. I was simply pointing out that people regularly spend similar amounts of money on far more transient and less tangibly useful things - and its not just the upper class either, as a visit to a travel agency, computer retailer or auto accessory store would reveal.
Keep in mind, Gwen didn't pay for hers. Gratis from Gucci. The publicity is worth way more than $850.
I was simply pointing out that people regularly spend similar amounts of money on far more transient and less tangibly useful things The distinction to be made is whether people spend big money on transient and less tangibly useful things because the only way to obtain them is to spend big money; or whether the same exact thing can be had for far less, yet they pay up because of some entirely superficial distinction. A perfectly good baby carrier similar to the Gucci model can be had for around 50 bucks. If you want center orchestra tickets to the Met, they will cost a certain amount. But what if there were certain "Gucci" seats selling for ten times more, right next to the regular seats, with the same view? This can be applied across the board. If there's a trendy mega-$$$ restaurant whose food is no better than the reasonable restaurant next door, normal people will generally have the same reaction to those who are paying ten times as much for the same transient, not-so-useful pleasure, only because of some nominal difference. It's fucked up no matter where it crops up.
Kingston is also a nice town in Massachusetts. Seems like a stupid name for a baby, though, albeit better than Pineapple or Orange, or whatever celebrity airheads are naming their kids these days.
The nice thing about being Gwen Stefani is that once the kid outgrows it you can auction it off on ebay for three times what you paid for it because you're Gwen Stefani. Pity the poor yuppie suckers who bought the 7k (adjusted for inflation) Gucci luggage back in 89 lost a fortune in the dot com mush and are now scrounging for previously chic stuff to sell off for pennies on the dollar.
For those with more money than brains.
Check out the site: $90 for a bib. What do you think the profit on that is?
Comments closed December 03, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Megan McArdle wears one as a jockstrap.
Posted by Izzy Kaline | November 19, 2007 3:31 PM