I personally don't wear logos except for athletic gear.

Anonymous wrote:LV bags are awesome if you have kids or are hard on things. They are easy to wipe down, never show wear and are pretty indestructable. I prefer the damier pattern, but the LV monogram is fine, too. These are work horse bags. Don't let the trumps on this thread get you down if you want one.

frumps. Ha. Trumps, too.

LV bags are awesome if you have kids or are hard on things. They are easy to wipe down, never show wear and are pretty indestructable. I prefer the damier pattern, but the LV monogram is fine, too. These are work horse bags. Don't let the trumps on this thread get you down if you want one.

Hate the MK bags.

Personally, I do not like logos. I have two handbags a Mulberry and an old J Crew handbag. I am probably not your target audience.

Anonymous wrote:Ha - I'm getting a LV ad in DCUM with a big picture of a logo bag that anyone who didn't know it was an expensive bag would think was really ugly. But suddenly you find out what LV stands for and everyone wants one.

My ads are for LL Bean totes. LOL.

OP, this thread is full of snobs. If you want an MK or LV bag - go for it. You do you. Don't let these turkeys get you down.

Anonymous wrote:I chuckle when I see people with LV bags because they are so expensive and so ugly. I think it says a lot about the person carrying it, and not in a good way. Kind of like the ugly burberry plaid scarves, shawls, etc. Nobody really thinks that plaid is good looking.

This exactly. It's like screaming I'm insecure everywhere you go.

The appeal of the logo bag is it casual enough to be worn dressed up or down and matches everything. I have lv and I don't care if anyone thinks it's fake because I'm not dressed to the 9's every time I leave the house with a toddler. Ridiculous. Besides, you can tell true lv patina or plastic lining a mile away. The only thing I don't like about logo bags (especially lv) is sometimes I'm afraid it could make me a target for crime.

My hate for logo bags started with LV bags. I didn't know know LV handbags were expensive but when I saw them I thought they looked cheap and I was in high school. I bought coach logo bags in college and after a couple of years it started looking tacky. I took all of my logo coach bags and gave them to my cousin in high school. I think from that point I decided logo bags were not for me. I donot like the MK logo bags either. I didn't need the world to know what my brand my bag is I just want the bag to last me for years. I keep buying more expensive everyday handbags and they don't survive my torture.

Anonymous wrote:I chuckle when I see people with LV bags because they are so expensive and so ugly. I think it says a lot about the person carrying it, and not in a good way. Kind of like the ugly burberry plaid scarves, shawls, etc. Nobody really thinks that plaid is good looking.

Agreed. They're hideous. MK is, as the kids say, "basic." It's ubiquitous and overdone and doesn't even convey "luxury" to me anymore. And LV, I've just never thought that combo of poo brown and pea soup logo writing was attractive at all. Get your own style that doesn't involve overdone advertising.

They look tacky and low. Usually Eurotrash or overly botoxed middle aged ladies carry them. A beautiful, expensive bag speaks for itself and doesn't need a logo.

I like my coach handbag with all the C's. My husband gave it to me as a gift. The LV bags are ridiculous. Why anyone would spend 2k or more on a bag is beyond me.

Ha - I'm getting a LV ad in DCUM with a big picture of a logo bag that anyone who didn't know it was an expensive bag would think was really ugly. But suddenly you find out what LV stands for and everyone wants one.

I chuckle when I see people with LV bags because they are so expensive and so ugly. I think it says a lot about the person carrying it, and not in a good way. Kind of like the ugly burberry plaid scarves, shawls, etc. Nobody really thinks that plaid is good looking.