Comments on: Update: Maggie Gyllenhaal WAS Wearing Real Fur. Did Louis Vuitton Change Site?

By: Cast Your Vote For Worst-Dressed Celebrity Of 2009 // Archives // ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 15:33:44 +0000

[...] uncouth to tell people who you voted for, but I just had to vote for Magpie after last year’s big furry let down. You broke my heart Maggie, you broke my [...]

By: Maggie Gyllenhaal Helps Fisher-Price Support American Zoos // Archives // ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip

Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:44:37 +0000

[...] all know about Maggie Gyllenhaal’s fur catastrophe, but lets try to put that behind us — for now — and look at this as objectively as [...]

By: Duke Antifur Dog

Duke Antifur Dog — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:10:01 +0000

If you care about the animals in the fur industry, please sign a petition to stop Google from advertising fur all over the world:

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/Google-Ban-Fur

By: mel

mel — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 06:02:20 +0000

just an fyi – faux fur can also mean cat or dog fur depending on where it’s coming from – in particular China. google it – it was a big controversy last year with major brands in big retail chains like nordstroms, etc.

By: Fur Farmers

Fur Farmers — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:10:55 +0000

Synthetics can never be eco-friendly. They are made from oil. See http://www.furcommission.com/resource/perspect999ce.htm for more. Cold weather clothing should come from natrual fibers to be considered eco-friendly.

By: HSUS Suing Famous Designers And Retailers Over Fur Mislabeling // Archives // ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:14:48 +0000

[...] the whole Maggie Gyllenhaal fur controversy, we are quite sensitive to the mislabeling of fur products. The HSUS feels our pain and has taken [...]

By: Jeanie

Jeanie — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 00:16:42 +0000

I was about to say what Lex said. A luxury brand as ostentatious as Luis Vuitton would never put faux fur on anything.

By: amy

amy — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:43:31 +0000

fun conspiracy theory but…

why would LV feature a fake fur vest in a major ad campaign:

http://www.ilvoelv.com/2008/08/womens-ad-campaign-louis-vuitton.html

guess no one around here reads fashion magazines, that ad was all over them.

and since when does LV use faux? lol!

By: Mia

Mia — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 21:11:00 +0000

I already began to think that there’s something wrong with my eyes when I kept reading FOX FUR on LV’s website, instead of faux fur. Thank you for clearing this up.

I have a couple of questions on my mind.

1. Case Louis Vuitton: Did Louis Vuitton mess up with the faux/fox thing on a purpose? With the “high class” reputation they have, I’d assume that they wouldn’t. But on the other hand, how would they make such a mistake on accident? And why on earth they’d lie about this fur issue when they are well known for their leather (=dead animal skin, duh) products, like bags and … pants?

2. And oh-dear, Maggie: Did Maggie Gyllenhaal think that the fur is faux? I’m looking forward to hear some explanations. Does she want to represent the values of fur industry? That kind of a piece of animal skin is a statement, and she should carry a responsibility about it.
—
erin, I found a scan of German fashion magazine which said the fur jacket costs about 4800 euro. (http://img375.imageshack.us/my.php?image=darkdesires10tm2.jpg)
Another source (US based fashion mag called Riviera) said $ 6,780… (http://trendmag.trendoffset.com/article/Black_To_The_Future/33742/1/article.html … Page 163 on the mag).

By: steph

steph — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:37:46 +0000

FYI- I tried to pull my web history for that page that said FAUX, but thanks to flash….no dice