Talk:Louis Vuitton/Archives/2013

Why is the brand so famous ??

The article doesn't cover WHY a suitcase manufacturer became so famous ?? WHY ?? Is there, or was there, a single celebrity or defining moment when LV's star was born ?

Reason for recent deletions on article?

I recently expanded this article to cover information on the "Modern Age of Louis Vuitton" (which covered Vuitton's merge with Moet et Chandon and Hennesy to create the LVMH conglomerate) and the "Millenium Age of Louis Vuitton" (which covers the company hiring Marc Jacobs to create the company's first Prêt-à-Porter line, as well as recent design developments, including collaborations between Jacobs and Takashi Murakami). These sections were deleted, and I am wondering why.

Also, there is currently a link to someone's personal "fan site" for the company. I placed a link to eLUXURY, which is an official site for the company, and it was removed, despite the fact that the "ILoveMyLouis.com - Unofficial Louis Vuitton Fan Site" remained as a link. What is going on?

Vincentanton

Yes, but this article is not about eLUXURY. I posted a message explaining to the talk page of yout IP address. I'll repost it to your talk page now that you're logged in. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... but that doesn't quite answer my question as why the information I added about the modern developments of the company was deleted. Vincentanton 23:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I probably didn't see that you had multiple edits when I hit the revert button on the external links and managed to remove some of your other contributions in the process. I'll go back and take care of that. My mistake. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That was indeed the case. I've restored your other contributions. I think I got it right, but you should probably go and check that I didn't make another error. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate your help. Thanks for the clarification. Vincentanton 23:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Vuitton's Success

Who said he never succeeded until after his death? The official site says otherwise (as do other biographies). I'm going to change this, so if anyone disagrees please message me or comment here or whatever.

Manufacturing?

The article says "Since the 19th century, manufacture of Louis Vuitton goods have not changed: Luggage is still made by hand." (emphasis mine) but http://www.newsweek.com/2010/11/12/the-looming-battle-for-hermes.html says

Britain’s Advertising Standards Agency banned two Louis Vuitton ads for allegedly misleading customers about how its wares are made. One ad showed a seamstress sewing a handbag along with text that read: “A needle, linen thread, beeswax and infinite patience...?” Today the majority of Louis Vuitton leather goods are made by machine on an assembly line.

So, which is it? Is Newsweek correct? Is there a distinction between "luggage" and everything else LV makes? If so, should the word "goods" be changed? The Contemporary Fashion book by Richard Martin which is the source of this article's citation is now 15 years old. BrianAshe (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement?

Reads like an ad? Pcb21| Pete 13:55, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Not really. I have, absolutely no ties with LVMH, and I was trying to highlight their involvement that people rarely know about the company. Realize this was my first article, and there may be a bit of POV. Sean 20:15, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Counterfeitting

Contrary to what many people believes Louis Vuitton does not have serial numbers inside products (just a date code that is not related to the authenticy of the bag, just dat a date on the day of manufacture which can be found in another bag exact same style, or from another collection or no number at all, so if you need to authenticate a product the only way is visiting a Louis Vuitton store for them to verify authenticity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.37.171.156 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd really like to see a section on counterfitting Louis Vuitton.

It's one of the most copied products in the world, and it's reached a level where the counterfeits are even exclusive - people are 'proud' to have a counterfeit, just because it's similar to the real thing.

Good idea? Kirkbroadhurst 1642 70205 AEST.

We need a citation on the claim that the LV logo was originally designed to combat counterfeiting. AidanBC 06:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This information is covered in an article in the International Herald Tribune, viewable in the link below:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/25/business/google.php

Hope that helps. Vincentanton 23:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a portion regarding the successful lawsuit with Britney Spears as part of their fight against counterfeiting. --Pmedema (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The section on Britney Spears says: "shows fingers tapping on the dashboard of a hot pink Hummer with what looks like Louis Vuitton's "Cherry Blossom" design bearing the LV logo". This is ambiguous. Is the design on the dashboard, on her fingers, or is she tapping the dashboard with something (what?) containing the design?124.197.15.138 (talk) 18:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

War time allegations

I deleted an article from the Guardian that was inserted unedited into the text. The article was not so much about Louis Vuitton as about the book and its (lack of) reception in France, making the usual "where there's smoke there's fire" arguments. Just not encyclopedic (only for an entry on the book). DocendoDiscimus 10:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Vuitton was the first trunk-maker to create a flat-topped trunk or an airtight trunk.

"Vuitton was the first trunk-maker to create a flat-topped trunk or an airtight trunk." Flat top that is also water proof? --24.94.190.164 16:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How is Louis's surname pronounced? I say the first syllable should be pronounced like "vweet", but it seems everyone else says "voot". Can we have an expert opinion, please? 213.94.247.66 17:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"vweet" is correct, "voot" is the bastardized American translation.

I've heard it more pronounced like "veet," at least by every employee that's ever answered the phone at any of their stores in the US that I've called. And in Singapore as well. Vincentanton 00:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Monogram Canvas

The article speaks of the Monogram Canvas. What's meant with that: the VL logo alone () or the flower symbol pattern printed on the leather? --Abdull 10:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The Monogram Canvas is the brown canvas printed with the LV logo, the flowers, and the quatrefoils. Vuitton does not manufacture a canvas with only the LV monogram, nor does it manufacture a canvas with only the flowers and quatrefoils. The original Monogram Canvas (a brown background with gold symbols on it) is by far the company's most popular and profitable line. Other lines by the company use the same pattern (the LV plus the flowers plus the quarefoils) in different materials and different colors, but the design does not vary (except on very, very limited edition items that are not available for sale to the general public). --Vincentanton

What exactly is the monogram canvas made of? I know it is not leather, is it vinyl?

It is canvas made of Egyptian cotton which is covered in resin to make it water resistant and durable, and then the monogram pattern is silkscreened on. Tom (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Enjo kosai addition

My addition on enjo kosai/enjo kousai in Japan (it is transliterated both ways) will be controversial. However, just Google "Louis Vuitton" and "enjo kosai" together and you will see how many people have made the connection. Teenage girls in Japan are regularly "turning tricks" in order to obtain LV handbags! Oddly, in France the bags are less common than in Japan, especially with young irls.

I hope other Wikipedians will support includion of this topic and will help develop a wording whihc is acceptable to most.

This does not belong in the LV article. It is not LV specific and as far as we know is completely a creation of the tabloids. (which in japan tend to sensationalize sex rather than UFOS). Even if true this "phenomenon" is really not related to LV in any way, LV just happens to be popular in japan. And momentary popularity among women in japan is hardly worth a whole section in the article. Smells like a hoax, but I am RVing based on its irrelevence to the LV article, and unecyclopedic nature. --Darkfred ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Darkfred. That has no place on this article--it is irrelevent and belongs in a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia. --Vincentanton 16:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)RRSanzio

It's easy to dismiss the article as tabloid but it's sadly based on fact. The social pressure on young Japanese girls to "conform", in a country where brands such as Vuitton have convinced consumers that part of "conforming" is buying grossly overpriced handbags, was especially intense in the 1990s and early part of the last decade. Many young Japanese girls did turn to sex for favors, usually with men old enough to be their fathers, and the favor was often a designer handbag (not limited to Vuitton). Whether one believes this should be a part of Wikipedia I guess depends on whether one believes a company has a duty to be socially responsible and whether its failures in that duty are or are not a part of its history. There is no doubt that companies often cause social damage in the search for profit but it is of course a two sided responsibility; parents and educators cannot simply blame big business for exploiting (or creating) conditions in which young girls feel its worth sacrificing their virginity to own a branded handbag. In Japan parents reacted strongly to the realization of what some of their teenage daughters were doing and that has in part caused a gradual backlash against brands such as LV here. I live in Japan and have done continuously since January 1993. Chris ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.196.81.31 (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup / Edit

I've done a little cleanup of the article, mostly by deleting some of the article's bloat. There were a lot of unnecessary details included (especially in some lists) which really didn't belong in an encyclopedia article.

For example, the list of celebrity adherents to the brand was way too long, so I've cut that down a bit. Some of the details in the company's history was also definitely extraneous, such as the note about other companies which also used the Malletier name, which in no way relates to Vuitton.

Vincentanton 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)RRSanzio

Vandalism

Looks like someone is having a bit of fun with the last section. and I like Cheese?

I agree that there does appear to be increasing vandalism in the article. For example, the information about Vuitton's birth, early life, and apprenticeship have been deleted multiple times. For what reason? I'm not sure. Additionally, someone keeps adding a paragraph about the fact that some French philosophers mentioned trunks and their manufacture one hundred years prior to Vuitton founding his company... and that does not relate to the article at all! And so if an American philosopher mentions water I suppose any article about water must include this mention? I think not! Vincentanton 03:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Simple enough. I've protected the page. Supergeo 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)RRSanzio

Discount for Louis Vuitton

Discounted Louis Vuitton does exist. LVMH does sell their products at a discounted rate to employees and out-of-season products are also sold at an extreme discount to employees. This is not a well known fact and LVMH certainly does not want their 'no-sale' policy tarnished. There has been sightings of Louis Vuitton products at Costco as well. The website http://mypoupette.com/seconds.php is not a valid source - it is a website of a cartel of sellers of second-hand Vuitton products and certainly extremely bias. I will remove the line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.195.224.254 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC). RRSanzio

A markdown to employees is not a discount... it is a privilege given as part of compensation. - XCalibra28 -

Mess

This article is a total mess. The layout needs to be cleaned up. It is just a list of disjointed dates of marginal notability. The only section that shouldn't be tossed is the counterfeiting area. I will revert any further additions to the list of dates. I intend to rewrite this article as an encyclopedic article in the next few days. Orangemarlin 19:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Only 1% not counterfeit?

I can't find anything in the source linked to confirm the following:

Ironically, Louis Vuitton has become the most counterfeited brand in fashion history, with just over 1% of all items branded with the Vuitton logo not counterfeit.^[1]

The [1] refers to the following article about LV taking Google to court; fascinating, but not relevant: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/06/25/business/google.php?page=1

It's annoying, because I really, really, wanted it to be true. Kayman1uk 15:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately mass-produced counterfeit luxury brand products are flooding out of Asian in increasing numbers. Moves to free up trade will only make the problem worse. The Chinese Communist regime has no interest in stopping the flood - in fact for ideological reasons may even be behind it. However, to the article. Are there are sources for the percentage of goods which are genuine/counterfeit?124.197.15.138 (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't agree with the introduction

i don't agree with the introduction which says that LV is a fashion company. it was 'known' as a fashion company but now is a huge fashion clothing and accessories retailing giant... Wireless Fidelity Class One 12:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

hello —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.196.20 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

POV

"Having started in 1854, Louis Vuitton is not only one of the oldest, but also one of the most legendary houses of fashion in the world." I added the flag in the header because of statements like this in the article.--Xris0 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More like weasel words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.39.48.135 (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to have been removed. I've removed the warning accordingly. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Is there any picture of Louis Vuitton himself?--77.180.174.245 (talk) 13:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Article moves

I'd suggest that WP:COMMONNAME would imply Louis Vuitton should be about the brand and the biography moved to Louis Vuitton (designer) or Louis Vuitton (entrepreneur). Certainly they shouldn't have been moved without discussion here first. On the other hand, there's so much duplication between the articles I'm not sure that readers would not be better served by merging the two? It's pretty common for fashion house articles to combine the biography and the brand in one article.Le Deluge (talk) 11:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I moved this article before seeing this thread, after a request and brief discussion on my talk page. That said, I believe the reader is served best by having a brief biography in this article and then a link to Louis Vuitton (designer) for those that would like more details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

..........Its Denmark again

Here is a section of how some Danes view this company. I have just been on a Danish cartoon site called Wulffmorgenthaler. In the background, it appears as if the letters W, M and T have been morphed in to a certain logo. Is that reason to make a new lawsuit? --85.164.220.141 (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Masaryk Louis Vuitton.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Masaryk Louis Vuitton.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Masaryk Louis Vuitton.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Square exhibit controversy - Nov 2013

Somebody should add this story to the section on controversies.77Mike77 (talk) 13:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)