.... Diamonds are for ever.....but a Swarovski is definitely for the ultimate pleasure....no ' tears' to fear....just and only just harmless dreams.....Beautiful to enjoy such boundless fantasies....

By Galileo's Universe at 15:59 Wed 28 Mar 2007 | reply to this >

Testament to the power of money and advertising, product placement, and ‘celebrity’ or in this case ‘designer’ association, Swarovski, in my opinion, have usurped all other marketing strategies that have gone before them, in order to place a previously non-existent, twee, lower middle class and rather vulgar product, and send it straight down the catwalk.
From a history of diamond etched 50th wedding anniversary celebratory champagne flutes, and mantle piece poised jumping dolphin statuettes, Swarovski have managed, through varying forms of product placement and sponsorship, to alleviate their brand and product and make it seem desirable.
I'm assuming the moment Paris Hilton was spotted discussing names for her next miniscule chi-chi puppy on her very possibly Swarovski encrusted mobile handset was the day the wheels of this marketing machine were first oiled, and it is this that is definitely worth keeping in mind the next time those shiny little beads of glass catch your eye on those ever so fetching MJ Vans pumps.
Ultimately who would really want to associate themselves with that level of glamour, I say glamour, when in fact another important thing to keep in mind is that Swarovski is ultimately just a rich (wo)mans sticky backed plastic rhinestone. Like the fashion equivalent of the coke or speed debate.
Personally I would rather have a bag of uncut base any day.

By William Oliver at 11:23 Thu 29 Mar 2007 | reply to this >

Lower middle-class? Vulgar? Just what kind of snob are you? Before you decide to anoint yourself as the high priest of all matters taste, William, you might want to think about dropping that grating de haut en bas tone you so often insist on - it really lets your argument down something chronic.

Aside from that, what's wrong with marketing something that looks great by helping young designers? Swarovski crystals are good for the very reason that they are cheaper than diamonds, they sparkle magnificently and, most important of all, they don't pay the same human cost. Don't you know ANYTHING about the atrocities that the big diamond cartels inflict on Africa?

And for that matter, didn't you read the blog? It said that Swarovski have been supplying the movies with crystals all last century - from Marilyn in Some Like it Hot to Judy in Wizard of Oz. Seems Paris Hilton's mobile phone appearance was a rather misplaced example in another of your over-inflated and badly researched rants.

By detlev at 13:37 Thu 29 Mar 2007 | reply to this >

Yea your right. I'm just like a total dick arent I. God. I am so embaressed by my own actions. Might as well go and staple some crystals to my face, take some photo's of topless boys on Fistral Beach and start post's about really cutting edge exhibitions like Face of Fashion.

By William Oliver at 14:11 Thu 29 Mar 2007 | reply to this >

....sounds like sour grapes and rather a mixture of unkind statements that have absolutely nothing to do with the subject !...
An intelligent analysis...a convincing argument...and a reasonable personal opinion without being totally rude is more likely to deserve the right attention....:):) LOL!

By Galileo's Universe at 16:27 Thu 29 Mar 2007 | reply to this >

....and you are very welcome :):):)

By Galileo's Universe at 17:00 Thu 29 Mar 2007 | reply to this >

I fuckin LOVE those dolphins!

By Sandrine at 12:02 Fri 30 Mar 2007 | reply to this >