[hn_throwaway_99]

> Everything else ("it's handcrafted!", "it's durable!") is a reverse justification from there.

Thanks for this, exactly. It's the same thing with designer bags. After the rise of "superfake" luxury bags that cost literally a tenth of the real thing, I remember reading some blogs trying to argue why people should buy authentic, basing it on BS "handcrafted quality!" reasons (the reason they were called "superfakes" in the first place is because the quality was basically as good as the original). Sure, some of the reasons were actually true (it does cost a lot more to pay workers in France compared to China), but any rationale besides "I want other people to know I spent a lot of money on a bag" is just post hoc rationalization.

[selcuka]

> Sure, some of the reasons were actually true (it does cost a lot more to pay workers in France compared to China)

Even that, is not a problem that the consumer has to solve if the superfakes can attain the same quality using cheaper labour. In that case supporting local jobs could be a justification, not quality (again, assuming that the quality is the same).

[MichaelZuo]

Or better yet something without any fake logos whatsoever that is even higher quality than the 'real' thing.

e.g. Even Louis Vuitton for their most expensive bags doesn't use the absolute highest quality leather, so there's room for improvement.

[eru]

> Sure, some of the reasons were actually true (it does cost a lot more to pay workers in France compared to China), [...]

Though that's mostly a rational for why the 'real' bag does costs more, not a rationale for why you should prefer it. 'Is' vs 'ought' distinction.