A $695 Burberry Leather Dress — for Toddlers? Oy Vey and No Way
Is it just me or does it seem like this dress should be accessorized with a whip?
It’s not that I’m not opposed to other people spending lots of money on clothes (although that doesn’t mean I don’t reserve the right to judge those people, depending on what they buy and when and where they wear them) — to each her own. I once spent something like $600 on a pair of Ferragamo boots that I thought would be in style forever. I was so wrong, but they were so right at the time.
In general, if I had lots of money I wouldn’t regularly spend it on clothes for me because I’m frankly more comfortable dressing down. However, I wouldn’t mind spending lots of money on my daughters because I love little girls’ clothes. Thankfully since I don’t have lots of money I’m not faced with any kind of dilemma because my sister sends us her daughters’ hand-me-downs, and she has great taste. Besides, even if I weren’t the recipient of my sister’s generosity, the Gap makes some seriously adorable kids’ clothes.
Still, if I had lots of money, I definitely wouldn’t spend $695 on a Burberry leather dress for my toddler. Because there are so many things wrong with it, but mostly what’s wrong with it is that it’s a $695 leather dress for a toddler.
I’m not a vegetarian. But to slaughter a poor cow for an outfit that will only be worn a couple of times before it’s outgrown? That’s enough to make me switch to veggie burgers. Well, almost enough, anyway.
Spending $695 on a single article of clothing that my kid would be guaranteed to marinate in marinara sauce? Even if it is black leather and you could just wipe away most substances? No. Just no.
I have nothing against Burberry, and am, in fact, waiting for my cousin to send me a Burberry fall jacket that her daughter outgrew so my older one can wear it.
But a black leather dress? How unnecessary. How un-fun. There’s nothing fun about it. Unless your daughter is dressing up as a female Sprockets character for Halloween. Then it kind of makes sense and is kind of fun.
And then there’s the spending of $695 on a toddler. I watched the season finale of The Rachel Zoe Project the other night as she “pulled options” for her weeks-old infant son. Looking at baby Gucci loafers doesn’t turn me on. Maybe I’m missing some kind of fashion gene, or some kind of womanly gene. But spending that much on a kid just seems silly to me. And seriously yucky. Even if I had Oprah money it’s just not gonna happen.
By the way, any garment that needs to be dry cleaned by a leather specialist? Also not gonna happen.
Would you buy this dress if you had all the money in the world?
Image: Saks Fifth Avenue
God, I hate to admit it, but i think it would be precious with a bright sash and some Mary Janes. I don’t even spend $40 on shoes for myself, so there is so noooo way I’d ever buy it, or my kid, but I think the soft sheen to the leather and the classic cut are cute. I don’t see anything particularly sexy about it at all.
I totally agree with you on this one!! ICK! It isn’t even the money, the dress is just gross for a little girl.
we’ll leave that one for suri
This isn’t being marketed to the regular masses, this is for those who live in the “upper crusts” of society, so why make a big deal about it? They are the ones who buy luxury goods for themselves, so why wouldn’t they buy luxury goods for their kids too? We all tend to spend on our money on what our budget allows, and then some, this is no different, they are just in a higher tax bracket. Think about it, you’re not find a wealthy mom wearing the lastest high end designer clothing while her child is wearing clothing from the Gap. As a former nanny to the upper class, the majority of them are not shopping at the Gap for thier kids, believe that.