Is Luxury Still Worth It ?

“Is it still an investment or just a symbol?”

INTRODUCTION – Luxury between myth and reality

For centuries, luxury meant something quite specific. It was about objects made slowly, carefully, and by hand, pieces that carried the weight of tradition and the skill of artisans who had spent lifetimes perfecting their craft. The houses behind them have not been built overnight. They have accumulated prestige across generations, and this prestige gave their products a meaning beyond the material. Owning a piece of true luxury has never been about money. It is about belonging to a world that most people could only observe from the outside, a world governed by discretion, quality, and a certain understanding of what genuinely rare things look and feel like.

This world has not disappeared, but it has changed in ways that would have been difficult to imagine even twenty years ago. Social media has arguably been the single most disruptive force in this transformation. When a handbag can go viral overnight, when an unboxing video reaches millions of viewers, and when the same piece is photographed in the arms of influencers across three different continents in the same week, the old idea of quiet exclusivity starts to feel like a distant memory. Luxury grew louder, and with that shift came a deeper tension: visibility and exclusivity are, almost by definition, in conflict with each other. Most brands did not try to s this tension. Instead, they pursued growth on both fronts; entering new markets, raising prices, and broadening their audience, until even their most devoted customers started to take notice.

What followed was a shift in how people think about buying luxury. Somewhere along the way, the conversation moved beyond pure desire, the pleasure of falling in love with something beautiful, and started incorporating a different kind of reasoning. People began asking whether a bag would hold its value, whether a watch could be resold at a profit, and whether the purchase was, in some meaningful sense, an investment. Resale platforms made this reasoning easier, and price tracking tools gave ordinary consumers access to data that had previously been available only to specialists. Luxury began to sound, at least in some circles, like an alternative asset class.

This shift did not emerge from nowhere. It was fed by years of low interest rates that pushed people toward less conventional stores of value, by a pandemic that upended financial habits redirecting significant spending toward tangible goods, and by a cultural moment in which the boundaries between fashion, status, and finance became genuinely blurry. For a period, it seemed almost reasonable to compare a Chanel bag to a share of stock or an ounce of gold.

But reasonable is not the same as accurate, and that is precisely where this analysis begins. Luxury goods do not generate income. They are illiquid in ways that financial assets are not. Their value depends heavily on perception, timing, and the kind of cultural relevance that can shift quickly and without warning. The gap between the investment narrative and the investment reality is wider than it might appear. Understanding that gap matters, both consumers making purchasing decisions, as well as anyone trying to understand where luxury is headed. To ground up this discussion in something concrete, we will focus on one of the most talked-about objects in the contemporary luxury market: the CHANEL Classic Flap Bag. Its story over the past decade captures, better than almost anything else, the tensions and contradictions that now define what luxury means and whether, in any real sense, it is still worth it.

THE CHANEL CASE – From iconic accessory to financial asset

In order to gain a better understanding of luxury items as financial assets, we will analyze the case of the CHANEL Flap Bag as a possible investment. This bag is probably one of the clearest examples of how luxury has shifted in recent years. It is still a fashionable accessory, but people do not really talk about it in the same way anymore. It is now surrounded by conversations about investment, valuation and resale. 

A main driver for the idea of investment in CHANEL items is pricing. The Flap Bag was listed at around 4,500 euros in 2016, while today it is priced at approximately 10,000 euros, depending on the market. That is an increase of over 100% in ten years, and while this bag’s value was gradually increased, the price was altered even two or three times in one year, often by 5% to 10% each time. 

If we were to compare this to inflation over the same period of time, which remained significantly lower at roughly 20-30% cumulatively, we would observe that CHANEL has clearly outpaced it. The bag has moved from being a relatively accessible luxury item to sitting on the top end, close to Hermès. 

For this reason, the buyer mentality has shifted. People, now, don’t just buy it because they like it, but because they started observing that it holds value and appreciates over time. But now a suitable question follows: “Are these price increases really coming from the product itself or are they more about how the brand positions it?”. For the untrained and unknowing eye, it is hard to answer this question. If we look at the bag on its own, not much has changed visually. The design is almost the same, preserving its iconic status in the fashion world, something buyers appreciate. The materials, the craftsmanship, the construction, still reflect a high standard, even if some consumers question whether quality has remained fully consistent over time. 

CHANEL still positions the Classic Flap as a product rooted in traditional savoir faire. The Classic Flap is made with high quality leather, usually lambskin or caviar. The construction is complicated, involving multiple steps especially around the quilting and finishing details, making it obvious that it is not a mass market product, and part of the price derives from that. On the other hand, CHANEL produces far more bags than brands like Hermès, where craftsmanship is more time consuming and, by osmosis, output is more limited.  Additionally, many agree that the increase in price is not proportional to the increase in quality, an opinion that owners of older models of the Flap Bag agree with. So, we can draw the conclusion that part of the price has to come from a different source, such as the brand itself and what it represents. 

CHANEL has formed a strong brand image and reputation, so the weight of carrying a Flap Bag goes beyond the item itself. Owning such a piece signals a certain status, power, success, interlinked with taste and elegance. This symbolic aspect is not easily quantifiable, but it certainly matters. Another aspect worth mentioning is the limited availability. Compared to Hermès, CHANEL is not as exclusivist, as it doesn’t have waiting lists, but it has still increased the difficulty of acquiring such a bag, through less online presence, more controlled distribution, fewer items visible at any given time, which changes the feeling around the product. 

Over time, a pattern starts to form. Prices rise, resale follows, which gives buyers some reassurance: if they feel like they can resell without too much depreciation, spending that much upfront seems more acceptable. This makes further increases in price justifiable and viable. 

The CHANEL Flap Bag’s value is based on desirability, scarcity, brand strength and status, rather than on generating constant revenue, unlike assets such as real estate. This luxury item functions as a store of value, but it is dependent on trends and positioning of the brand. It is clearly more than just a bag, but it does not fully behave like a financial asset either. In many cases, what people are paying for goes beyond the object itself.

COMPARISON WITH HERMÈS – The Birkin & Mini Kelly Effect

If Chanel represents the moment when luxury started to look like an “investment”, Hermès represents the opposite: a system where value was never constructed through pricing alone but engineered from the very beginning.

In a previous article written over a year ago, Birkin bags were described as almost ideal “trophy assets”: objects capable of steadily increasing in value, sometimes even outperforming traditional assets like gold.

At the time, this narrative appeared almost unquestionable. Today, while much of that logic still holds, the context has evolved and this makes the comparison with Chanel even more revealing.

Hermès operates in a segment often defined as ultra-luxury, but what truly distinguishes it is not simply price. It is the way scarcity is constructed and preserved. Unlike Chanel, which has progressively increased prices while maintaining relatively broader availability, Hermès limits access at every level. A Birkin or a Mini Kelly is not something one can simply decide to buy, it is something one is eventually “offered”. This distinction is crucial.

Each Birkin is handcrafted by a single artisan and takes around 20 to 25 hours to complete, which naturally limits supply. However, limited production alone does not fully explain the bag’s exceptional demand and cultural significance. The real mechanism lies in distribution: purchase history, client relationships, and selective allocation create an entry barrier that transforms the act of buying into a process.

Scarcity, in this case, is not just a feature of the product, it is the root of the product. This structural difference directly translates into how value is perceived and sustained over time.

In stark contrast to Chanel, Hermès, on the other hand, follows a more controlled approach. Price increases, typically in the range of 5–10% annually in recent years, appear gradual and consistent, reinforcing a perception of stability rather than acceleration. The resale market makes this contrast even clearer. Chanel bags, including the Classic Flap, have benefited from rising demand, but have also shown signs of volatility.

As highlighted in recent trends, some models have experienced price corrections, suggesting that rapid increases may have reached a point of resistance. Hermès, by contrast, has maintained a more stable trajectory, with demand consistently exceeding supply. Birkin and Mini Kelly bags continue to command strong premiums on the secondary market, particularly for specific sizes, colors, and materials, where buyers are willing to pay significantly more to bypass waiting lists. However, revisiting the earlier idea of the Birkin as a “perfect investment” requires some nuance. Compared to a few years ago, the market has become more transparent and, in some ways, more efficient.

Information about pricing, availability, and resale values is now widely accessible, reducing the asymmetries that once led to extraordinary returns. Not every Birkin guarantees appreciation, and performance increasingly depends on selectivity, timing, and market conditions. The asset narrative still holds, but in a more moderated form.

Simultaneously, broader shifts in consumer behavior are beginning to interact with this model. The rise of resale culture and the influence of younger consumers lead to faster cycles of demand, driven by visibility and trends. Chanel, being more exposed to these dynamics, appears more sensitive to fluctuations in attention.

Hermès, by contrast, remains relatively insulated. Its strategy, based on discretion, limited exposure, and long-term desirability,continues to protect it from the more volatile aspects of the luxury market.

Ultimately, the comparison between Chanel and Hermès reveals two fundamentally different approaches to value creation. Chanel increasingly relies on pricing power and brand positioning, while Hermès builds value through restriction, patience, and control. For this reason, Hermès bags are, within the luxury market, the closest thing to an “asset”. Not because they behave like traditional financial instruments, they clearly do not, but because their value is supported by more stable and less reactive mechanisms. Demand is less dependent on short-term trends, and more anchored in scarcity and access.

Luxury, in this term, does not fully become an asset. If one brand comes close to that definition, it is Hermès, and that difference isprecisely what defines whether luxury is still “worth it”.

THE RESALE MARKET & LIQUIDITY

Growth of platforms such as Vestiaire Collective and others

The idea that luxury goods can function as investments is closely linked to the rapid expansion of the secondary market. What was previously a fragmented space has become more structured, thanks to platforms such as Vestiaire Collective or The RealReal, which are global online marketplaces for second-hand luxury fashion. These platforms not only increased access to resale, but also improved transparency, particularly through authentication processes and more visible pricing. The scale of this market is significant. The global luxury resale market is currently estimated at around $30–35 billion and is expected to reach between $50–60 billion by 2030, with annual growth rates of roughly 8–12%. At the same time, the broader second-hand fashion market is projected to reach $350–360 billion by 2030, expanding at a faster pace than the primary luxury market (BCG x Vestiaire Collective report, 2023). The report also highlights a shift toward more circular consumption, with a growing share of consumers buying luxury items with resale in mind, supported by increased price transparency and platform-based transactions. As a result, price formation does not stop at the point of purchase. Once a product enters the secondary market, its value becomes subject to demand conditions, product characteristics, and timing. Resale prices are continuously adjusted, which makes it possible to observe how value evolves beyond retail pricing.

Liquidity levels compared to traditional financial assets

At first glance, certain luxury items can appear relatively liquid. Highly desirable Hermès bags can sell quickly, and iconic Chanel models generally maintain steady demand. But this liquidity is conditional rather than structural. Luxury goods only partially satisfy these conditions. Compared to traditional financial assets, the difference is immediate. Public equities are traded in deep, centralized markets with continuous price discovery. A stock can be sold in seconds, with transaction costs often below 0.1–0.5%, and with minimal price impact. Similarly, assets like gold benefit from standardization and global pricing, which ensures high liquidity.

Luxury goods operate very differently. Several dimensions highlight this gap. First, time to liquidity remains a key constraint: even for high-demand items, selling is not instantaneous. While a Birkin may find a buyer within days, many products (especially those outside the “iconic” category) can remain on the market for weeks or even months, exposing sellers to real liquidity risk. At the same time, transaction costs are structurally high, with resale platforms typically charging between 15% and 30%, which significantly reduces net returns. In addition, the absence of standardized pricing leads to an implicit bid-ask spread, as the difference between listing prices and final transaction prices can reach 10–25%, reflecting negotiation dynamics and uncertainty. 

In practice, this means that prices observed on resale platforms are often more indicative than immediately realizable. An item might be listed at a certain level, but actually converting it into cash depends on timing, demand, and the willingness of buyers to meet that price. The Chanel Flap illustrates this quite well. While it often retains around 80–100% of its retail value, once fees, time delays, and negotiation margins are considered, the realized return is often limited. From that standpoint, Hermès bags tend to perform better, as stronger demand supports faster transactions, partly due to their higher craftsmanship and more consistent product quality, though they remain subject to the same frictions. 

Liquidity in this market is therefore not stable. It depends heavily on desirability at a given moment. When demand is strong, selling feels relatively easy; when it weakens, liquidity can deteriorate quickly.

Role of hype and demand cycles

A key feature of the luxury resale market is its exposure to hype cycles, which plays a central role in price dynamics. A hype cycle is a pattern in which an asset experiences a rapid increase in attention and demand, often driven by visibility, followed by stabilization or decline once that attention fades. In luxury, these cycles are less about fundamentals and more about cultural relevance and social signaling, often shaped by short-lived trends and micro-trends. Social medias have significantly accelerated these dynamics. Platforms such as Instagram and TikTok directly influence desirability, as products featured by influencers or celebrities can experience immediate spikes in demand. In many cases, these are not long-term shifts. Attention usually concentrates on specific items for a limited period before moving on, driving the rapid change of resale prices. The Chanel Flap provides a clear example in this case. Continuous price increases, exceeding 60% between 2019 and 2023, combined with strong online visibility, pushed resale prices upward. However, more recent trends suggest price corrections of around 10–20% for certain models, showing how quickly demand can shift once attention moves elsewhere. This makes us understand that once attention fades, prices tend to stabilize or decline, even if the product itself does not change. What emerges is a market where value is mostly driven by perception, but more specifically by the intensity and duration of trends. Microtrends play a key role, as they can temporarily increase demand and prices, but rarely provide long-term stability. Unlike traditional assets, price movements are influenced by attention, trends, and cultural dynamics, making them more volatile than they might initially appear.

Generational shift: is Generation Z redefining luxury consumption? 

The expansion of the resale market is closely linked to a generational shift, particularly the rise of Generation Z, which is expected to account for around 40–45% of global luxury spending by 2030 (BCG, True-Luxury Global Consumer Insight, 2023). This generation engages with luxury differently. More than 60% of Gen Z consumers have already purchased second-hand products, according to recent data from BCG and Vestiaire Collective (BCG & Vestiaire Collective, Resale Market Report, 2023), and resale is increasingly seen as a normal and even preferred way of consuming luxury. This shift increases overall market participation, which supports liquidity at an aggregate level. At the same time, it changes ownership patterns. Luxury goods are no longer necessarily held long-term. They are often circulated, with shorter holding periods and higher turnover. This behavior aligns closely with hype cycles. Items are bought not only for their intrinsic qualities, but also for their current relevance, and are often resold once that relevance declines. As a result, value becomes closely linked to timing. Digital culture reinforces this mechanism. For Gen Z, luxury is strongly connected to visibility and identity, which further increases the role of perception in price formation and contributes to market volatility. At the same time, global luxury demand is also shaped by strong regional dynamics, as observed in Asia. Chinese consumers have been a key driver of growth in the luxury sector over the past decade and account for roughly 20–25% of global luxury spending, a share that has been significantly higher when including purchases made abroad (Bain & Company, The Chinese Personal Luxury Goods Market, 2025). However, recent data suggests increasing volatility, with demand becoming more sensitive to macroeconomic conditions and shifts in consumer confidence. This adds another layer of uncertainty, as global luxury performance becomes increasingly dependent on both generational and regional consumption patterns.

COMPARISON WITH OTHER ASSETS

The chart displays the performance of three assets from a common January 2017 baseline: the Pricing Culture Rolex Index (^CLTBROLEX) in blue, Gold spot price (GC=F) in yellow, and the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (VNQ) in pink. The latter was selected as a proxy for listed real estate given that the Dow Jones U.S. Real Estate Index (^DJUSRE) was excluded due to inconsistent availability of historical data on public financial platforms, such as Yahoo Finance. It is important to note that VNQ captures publicly traded real estate in the US rather than physical residential properties.  As of March 28, 2026, the chart shows that, over the period, gold is the asset with the strongest performance (+274.34%), driven largely by a combination of macroeconomic and geopolitical factors, such as central bank buying, inflation concerns, and rising global uncertainty, which contributed to pushing prices above $5,000 per ounce in early 2026 (Edwards, 2026). Although at the end of February 2026 gold declined by more than 20% following the outbreak of the Iran war, UBS analysts assert that this reflects just short-term volatility, confirming gold’s role as a long-term portfolio hedge (O’Brient, 2026). 

On the other hand, the Rolex index, which accelerated significantly during the pandemic, peaked at around +150% above the baseline in early 2022, followed by a sharp correction that lowered the index to +37.22% by 2026. The significant increase in value, until 2022, has been defined by analysts as a pandemic-era bubble. This condition was mostly driven by specific circumstances, such as excess liquidity and time, strong performance in adjacent markets such as crypto, and the rapid expansion of online resale platforms, which led new participants to join the market (Sor, 2026; Deloitte, 2025, p. 40). This pattern is not unique to Rolex watches but instead it reflects broader dynamics within the luxury asset market. For instance, the Knight Frank Luxury Investment Index (KFLII), which tracks a diversified basket of collectibles including watches, art, coins, wine, and cars, recorded a decline of 3.3% in 2024. This suggests that the luxury collectibles market is undergoing a general post-pandemic correction phase, implying also that scarcity alone is no longer sufficient to sustain returns across all segments of the luxury market (Knight Frank, 2025, p.70). 

Lastly, real estate, represented by VNQ, is performing at +5.62%. According to Morgan Stanley, the performance reflects a stagnant period for commercial real estate, due to persistent inflation and higher-than-expected interest rates which suppressed publicly traded real estate valuations in the US market (Charles, 2026). Despite the slow global value growth in 2025, the sector is expected to approach a potential recovery phase in 2026.

In summary, the performance of these three categories of assets reinforces the central question of this paper: while Rolex delivered a positive return over the period, its outcome was highly dependent on timing. 

When viewed alongside the KFLII’s breader performance, the Rolex index appears consistent with a wider trend of post-pandemic adjustment across luxury collectible assets. Unlike gold or real estate, it generates no income, and its liquidity remains conditional and tied to market sentiment and cultural relevance. Yet, this asset occupies a distinct space where financial value intersects with craftsmanship, heritage, and status. Although it lacks the institutional depth of traditional assets, its enduring desirability within the luxury market suggests that its value cannot be assessed purely in financial terms. These characteristics will be explored further in the following section dedicated to risk and liquidity analyses.

Historically, Rolex watches have exhibited relatively low volatility, with steady price appreciation supported by consistent demand and strong brand positioning. However, price movements during the pandemic period suggest a shift in this pattern. The sharp rise followed by a correction reflects the growing influence of demand cycles, speculative dynamics, and the increasing role of cultural trends and consumer preferences.

Although Rolex has shown signs of stabilization in recent periods and has delivered strong long-term price appreciation, the risk associated with it as an investment has increased. While the asset remains relatively stable over the long term, its performance has become more sensitive to market conditions and shifts in sentiment. This reduces the predictability of future returns and introduces greater timing risk, as short-term fluctuations and price corrections now play a more significant role than in the past.

Within the luxury goods market, Rolex watches also display relatively strong liquidity, supported by sustained demand, particularly for highly sought-after models such as the Submariner and Daytona.

The Daytona, one of Rolex’s key models, is among the most liquid watches on the secondary market, supported by consistently strong demand. While it has been popular since its introduction in 1963, its role as an investment became more prominent after 2015, with prices rising steadily until 2020. Due to variations in materials and specifications, prices differ across models; however, stainless steel Daytonas, which are the most traded, provide the most representative benchmark. As availability at retail became increasingly limited, demand shifted to the secondary market, driving prices to a peak in 2022 where, in some cases, they reached nearly three times their retail value, exceeding $50,000. Following the subsequent correction, prices declined significantly but remain above pre-pandemic levels, currently ranging approximately between $28,000 and $36,000 for stainless steel models.

A similar pattern can be observed for the Submariner, another highly sought-after Rolex model. While generally less extreme in its price movements compared to the Daytona, it also experienced increased secondary market premiums during the pandemic period, followed by a stabilization phase. As with the Daytona, price levels vary depending on materials and specifications, but stainless-steel models remain the most liquid and widely traded. Average secondary market prices for the Submariner peaked at nearly $19,000 in 2022, which has since dropped by 8-10%, settling at an average of around $17,000 today. 

The strong demand for these models supports relatively high liquidity, with some of the most traded variants often being sold within a few weeks, and in certain cases in as little as 7–14 days, although liquidity varies significantly across models, with more niche or higher-priced variants requiring longer selling periods.

Nevertheless, this liquidity remains conditional rather than structural, as it depends on market sentiment and evolving trends. Compared to traditional financial assets, Rolex watches remain less liquid due to transaction costs, resale frictions, and the time required to convert them into cash.

A similar dynamic can be observed when examining listed luxury companies, which provide a financial market perspective on the sector. Major groups such as LVMH, Hermès, Kering, and Moncler, representing different positions within the luxury spectrum, have experienced increasing volatility in recent years. While the sector showed relatively stable and consistent growth prior to the pandemic, the post-2020 period has been characterized by more pronounced price fluctuations and uncertainty. More recently, several luxury stocks have recorded weaker performance, reflecting a normalization after the post-pandemic boom, as well as declining demand in key markets such as China. Even LVMH, widely considered the global benchmark for the industry, has faced declining growth rates and increased pressure. In the first quarter of 2026, LVMH recorded its weakest performance since its listing in 1987, reflecting an ongoing negative trend in recent years and highlighting a broader shift in market conditions.

At the same time, significant differences emerge within the sector depending on brand positioning. Hermès has demonstrated greater resilience, supported by its scarcity-driven model and more controlled growth strategy, which has allowed it to maintain relatively stable performance despite broader market fluctuations. In contrast, Kering has experienced a more pronounced decline, reflecting both macroeconomic pressures and brand-specific challenges, particularly in relation to Gucci, which has undergone changes in creative direction and is navigating a repositioning toward a more “quiet luxury” profile. These variations illustrate how the financial performance of luxury companies is closely tied to both external demand conditions and internal brand dynamics. More cyclical players such as Moncler further illustrate this sensitivity, with performance more directly linked to fluctuations in consumer demand and seasonal trends. As a result, even when structured as listed financial assets, luxury companies remain sensitive to shifts in consumer sentiment, economic cycles, and evolving preferences.

On the other hand, gold prices fluctuate over time in response to changing market conditions, but these movements are generally less extreme than those of speculative assets and more structured than trend-driven ones, making gold moderately volatile. Its long history of value retention and strong performance during periods of heightened geopolitical risk contribute to its perception as a relatively low-risk asset. Gold’s value is not primarily driven by trends or speculation, but by macroeconomic conditions and its role as a hedge.

However, the gold index still experiences periods of rapid increases and high returns, as well as episodes of decline. Very strong performances, such as the 47.75% increase recorded over the last 12 months as of March 28, 2026, are exceptional and largely driven by external shocks, rather than representing consistent growth.

Gold also exhibits high liquidity, particularly when held through financial instruments such as ETFs, which can be traded quickly and at low cost. Even in physical form, it benefits from a deep and global market, making it significantly more liquid than luxury assets such as Rolex watches.

In contrast to both gold and Rolex watches, real estate is also strongly dependent on market conditions but reacts to these changes more gradually. While the prices of the other assets observed are highly sensitive to economic events and can adjust rapidly, real estate prices typically evolve slowly and structurally. This creates an appearance of stability but can also mask underlying long-term risks. During periods of geopolitical or economic shocks, adjustments occur over time, yet long-term cycles can be significant, as illustrated by the 2008 financial crisis, when listed real estate prices in Europe declined by up to 78%. As such, low short-term volatility does not necessarily imply low long-term risk in the context of real estate.

In addition, real estate is a highly heterogeneous asset, and the level of risk it carries as an investment depends on multiple factors, including location, type, purpose, and quality. The impact of economic crises varies across segments depending on their nature. For example, restrictions on businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic led to widespread closures of retail stores, significantly affecting retail real estate values. Even in more stable economic periods, properties located in highly desirable areas tend to carry lower risk and higher liquidity compared to similar assets in less sought-after locations. 

Nevertheless, real estate remains a relatively illiquid market overall, characterized by substantial transaction costs and extended time horizons required to complete a sale.

The comparison with traditional assets highlights clear differences in how value is formed and sustained. While gold and real estate are supported by macroeconomic factors, structural demand, and more predictable dynamics, luxury assets, whether in the form of physical goods such as Rolex watches and the CHANEL Flap Bag or listed luxury companies, remain more dependent on market sentiment, cultural trends, and timing.

Although these items can exhibit strong price appreciation and, in some cases, retain value over time, their performance is less stable and more sensitive to shifts in demand. As a result, luxury goods may partially function as investment assets, but they do not fully replicate the characteristics of traditional financial instruments. Their value ultimately lies at the intersection of financial potential and symbolic significance.

CONCLUSION

So, is luxury still worth it? The answer is not as straightforward as it might seem. Over the course of this analysis, we have seen how luxury has gradually moved away from being purely about craftsmanship and exclusivity and has started to be seen as an “investment” in the eyes of many consumers. Items like the Chanel Classic Flap or Hermès Birkin can hold their value, and sometimes even increase in price, which explains why people increasingly approach them with a financial mindset. However, as we have shown, luxury goods do not behave like traditional assets: they generate no cash flow, they are not easily liquid, and their value depends heavily on trends, perception, and timing.  

The comparison between Chanel and Hermès makes this even clearer. Chanel, with its rapid price increases and wider visibility, seems more exposed to shifts in demand and changing trends. Hermès, instead, builds its value through scarcity and control, which helps maintain a stronger and more stable perception over time. This difference suggests that while some luxury goods can come close to behaving like assets, they never fully reach that status.

In the end, luxury is not just about money, and it never really was. Beyond prices and resale value, these products carry meaning. They represent status, identity, and personal taste. For some, that symbolic value is what truly justifies the purchase, far more than any potential financial return.

To whether luxury is “worth it” or not, it ultimately depends on what the buyer is looking for. If the goal is purely speculative, then traditional investments like stocks, gold, or real estate remain more stable and established options. But if the goal includes emotional satisfaction, self-expression, or social signaling, then luxury still holds a unique kind of value that cannot be measured in purely economic terms.

In that sense, luxury today is best understood as something in between: not quite an investment, nor just consumption, but a mix of both. Its worth, more than ever, is subjective.