A life of luxury

We all deserve a little luxury.

Of course, the definition of luxury varies.

For restaurants, it’s small touches that respond to tighter wallets, with a cafe in Seattle offering an $17 iced matcha with a dollop of banana pudding spooned from a glass casserole dish. Each to their own, we guess.

Millennials and Zoomers are turning to boxed wine, which is more teenage PTSD than refined opulence, but apparently it’s good now. And Harper’s Bazaar released their ‘Luxury Gifts for Men’ list, which includes $200 slippers, $108 socks, and a $1000 infrared blanket. Less luxury, more lunacy. 

Chinese consumers are turning their backs on Louis Vuitton and Dior for local brands such as Songmont, a minimalist leather goods label, and Laopu Gold, a homegrown jeweler.

This is a problem for the names typically associated with luxury. Combined with trade wars and inflation, the sector has lost 50 million consumers in the last two years. That whole ‘quiet luxury’ thing was perhaps less about not flaunting wealth, and more about not having it.

Not known for subtly, luxury brands are hitting back. Gucci, Chanel, and Versace have all hired new creative directors with a remit to turn the volume back up through revolutionary ideas such as large and bold branding. ‘Make the logo bigger’ truly is universal feedback.

The Economist predicts this fresh (ish) approach, combined with ‘sensible prices’ (ahem, $108 socks), and integrated supply chains to meet consumer ESG demands will see a 2026 bounce back. 

But if it does, it will only serve to demonstrate a societal indifference to the growing inequality that defines it. Quiet fashion, and a shrinking of the sector, at least helped acknowledge the difficult economic reality in which we find ourselves. That appears to be over.

For those who can afford it, luxury is back. For those who can’t, a fancy goon bag will have to do.