The 100k ‘Birkin’ that Francesca Eastwood ruined was fake? (update: video)


Update: E! Online sent us this video clip from “Mrs. Eastwood and Company” of Tyler presenting Francesca with the bag and telling her it’s real and that she has to destroy it. On the video, the bag looks SO FAKE to me. It’s shiny and cheap looking. He goes on to denounce it as “just a bag.” This is a publicity stunt for the show, and it worked.


One of the big stories yesterday was about a series of photos of Francesca Eastwood, 19, taken by her 30 year-old boyfriend, celebrity photographer and fameho extraordinaire, Tyler Shields. In the photos, Tyler and Francesca were shown destroying what they claimed to be a Hermes Birkin crocodile bag, which retails for $100,000 and up. In a post to his blog with the photos, Tyler wrote that “Destruction is a beautiful version of freedom” and asked people if they would want the bag, and if they were “sad to see me destroy it.” People were understandably outraged at the stunt, and pointed out all the good that could have been done with the amount of money the bag was worth. Francesca supposedly told TMZ that she didn’t understand the fallout from the photos, and that she felt that people “didn’t understand art.” A lot of people countered that she didn’t understand how hard it is to make ends meet in the real world.


It turns out this little stunt might have been done with a fake Hermes Birkin. Reader “thatsh*tcray” points us to this post on The Purse Blog forums that claims the bag is fake, and gives a little more insight as to whatever (tired, obvious) point they were trying to make/provoke:

Two things to note:

1. It’s a fake bag.

2. The statement they are wanting to make, I guess, is this: People who can afford to buy a croc Hermes have “money to burn”. That would be the literal interpretation!

Ergo, it’s just a point of view. One could ask the same of Damien Hirst’s sliced up animals, and many other works of installation or performance art. What was the point of all that?

[From The Purse Blog]

I don’t think that dissecting a cow or filling a room with oil is equivalent to torching a $100,000 item, but what do I know? There’s expense associated with everything, and some of Hirst’s art has been outrageously expensive.

Also, I never knew the story of how 90s British band The KLF burned a million pounds in real money as part of an “art” exhibition in 1994. That’s much more outrageous to me, and you can read about it here. (Thanks to Tapioca for pointing this out.)

Getting back to whether the bag is a cheap replica, now that I’m looking at it closely I believe it is. Here’s a link to a website where you can buy a knockoff red “crocodile Birkin” for $279. It looks shiny and cheap with fat seams, just like this bag. The difference is that the gold “lock” on the bag is a cheap looking crocodile print instead of a more realistic lock on the real version. In the bag that Tyler and Francesca are destroying, there is no lock that I could see. Also, there are higher end knockoffs made with real crocodile leather that sell online for around $9,500. So it’s possible it’s just a copy.

If it was a fake, does that make this stunt less offensive? I hope I don’t sound callous when I say I’m impressed by it on some level. I still find it obnoxious, though. They destroyed a $300 item and got press for destroying a $100,000 item. That’s what this Tyler Shields character is all about, controversy.

Knockoff Birkin Bag, $279:

Real Birkin Bag. Retails online for $69,000. This bag is more matte than shiny.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

70 Responses to “The 100k ‘Birkin’ that Francesca Eastwood ruined was fake? (update: video)”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. marie says:

    Either way, it’s still not art..

  2. StopItLuke says:

    It’s just even more pathetic…

  3. TheOriginalKitten says:

    Is this chick seriously comparing herself and her boyfriend to Damien Hirst?? Bitch PLEASE.
    It’s still incredibly lame. It’s just slightly less obnoxious if it wasn’t a $100,000 bag. Here’s an easy way for Francesca to understand art-her father is an ARTIST, Tyler Shields is not.

  4. grabbyhands says:

    I guess it’s better than wasting $100k for this stunt but I’m still offended by her attitude. The “if you don’t like it, you don’t understand art” remark could only have been said by an overpriveleged teenager with no concept of what things cost for normal people. Because I’m pretty sure that neither she nor Tyler Shields lead the lives of starving artists or waster time thinking about how wasteful most celebrities are about how they spend money.

  5. kristiner says:

    It probably is fake and they got what they wanted: People talking about these two. Especially Francesca.

    Where is Frances Fisher? She always seemed level headed. She’s been letter her daughter stay with fameho step-mommy and dad and it’s ruining her brain.

    This is what they wanted. The whole point of that stupid show. They’re so try hard it’s ridiculous. I actually think Keeping Up With the Kartrashians is more realistic than Mrs. Eastwood and Fake Company.

    They wanted Francesca and Morgan to be “stars” and relaunch Dina’s career. Mayhaps Dina thinks Clint’s days are winding down and she needs some fame so she won’t just be Clint’s widow but Clint’s celebrity widow and celebrity daughters.

    • Raven says:

      Have you watched the show??? Francesca is a spoiled LA princess, who has no thought but for herself. Morgan, Dina’s daughter, is sweet and age appropriate. I know which parent I’d want taking care of my kid.

    • Karma says:

      Fame ho…please.

      So what you are saying is that is would have been better for Dina to stumble onto the band that provided a lot of the music to her husband’s film…and then ditch them in South Africa? That would of been a proper celeb wife response!?

      “Thanks for entertaining us while in town and helping with the soundtrack on the film. Bye!”

      Frankly, I think it is one of the more honorable attempts at helping an unknown band on a soundtrack. Clint who usually finds or composes himself the original music for his movies is being supportive of his wife’s efforts because he genuinely loves music. And due to the fact he isn’t a selfish jerk, nor is he married to a jerk, who would leave them in South Africa to rot with their soundtrack accomplishments and nothing else.

      She traded on her own limited fame, exposed herself to ridicule, and false accusations to support the band she found rather than leave them.

      Sorry, but your point lacks when asking the simple question. When have Kardashians helped anyone but themselves?

      Geez…the Kardashians have even exploited their fans with their product endorsements. That grifter credit card and those diet supplements are flat out theft. You can keep them…the ‘realistic’ ones….LOL!

      • kristiner says:

        Don’t you think it’s possible for Dina to be an act.

        People don’t do reality shows without some fame-ho aspirations.

        They shop at Marshell’s. Oh lookie how normal we are. Please. It’s probably an act.

      • Jai Robts says:

        I don’t usually respond to comments; felt the need to do so. I think the step mom is more then appropriate when she cautioned Francesca about extreme excesses! I don’t care that she’s stretching herself & is
        Clint’s wife! She seems to have a true belief in how money should be spent. It’s also wonderful that she can be generous as well as so self-disclosive and funny!

  6. Ken says:

    She’s just saying it’s fake b/c of the backlash she got over it.

  7. Krill says:

    I’m no expert but their Birkin bag looks real. It has the exact same detailing as the bag in the photo that you’ve indicated is the real one… the shape of the handle, the dart shape at the base where the handles are attached, the “belt” and the lack of leather detailing under it. I think you can even see the white Hermes stamp on their bag.

  8. meg says:

    That a $100,000 bag exists seems far more disturbing to me than these two destroying a real or fake version of it.

    • Raven says:

      This was the point Dina was making on the show. She said it is saying F*ck you to honest working people who would take several years to make that much money.

    • Cathy says:

      You’re right. If I had $100,000 there are alot more practical things I could do with that money than buy some purse. Like say pay my house off and still have money left.

    • Veruca says:

      @meg — my first response, “For a purse?”

      Your statement couldn’t sum it up better.

      ***Oh, and who’s up for a future boycott of the show/all future articles on this spoiled brat?

      End her 15 minutes a few minutes early…

    • MissyA says:

      Exactly. Investing that much money into your image is incredibly arrogant and wasteful – which is exactly the sentiment they attempted to convey.

      I don’t know much about this Eastwood character, but from what I glean from the comments, she’s something of a rich bitch with a hard-on for attention. If that’s the case, I think her photo shoot loses a lot of impact if she used a $300 knock-off. I mean, she probably owns multiple (legitimate) Birkins. . . If you’re making a statement, why not stick to your guns?

  9. Riana says:

    Real, Fake. Why do we stil care. Giving them all this attention is a reward to them. I liked the one photo of the bag in flames but the test were crappy. None the less there is a point there, if they’d set fire to money people would be loading up the angry mobs and setting up the torches and pitchforks. Art doesn’t always go right, sometimes it looks dumb as he’ll and the attempt doesn’t to right.

    But if that was their attempt with their money then they have a right to it. Stop feeding their egos, before you know it they’ll do a whole series.

  10. Bad Fairy says:

    Yeah its definitely better that its fake. She’s still a pretentious ass tho.

  11. Laurie M. says:

    Unless the bag is lined in palladium with a platinum handle…why does it cost $100k anyway?!

  12. Adrien says:

    I’ve seen better Birkin knock-offs in HK and Manila. The fake one pictured above looks too kooky to pass as authentic. The bag they defaced could be the real deal but it was damaged anyway.

  13. Listerino says:

    I’d just like to say what is a 19 year old doing dating a 30 year old anyway? That’s just kind of creepy.

    • KJ says:

      Yep, that’s a huge red flag for me.

      What is going on with Clint Eastwood’s family? His daughter is some attention seeking famewhore who’s under Tyler Shield’s ass, and his wife has a reality show on E trying to become the next Kris Jenner.

      My image of him has been shattered forever by his trashy family.

    • qwertygirl says:

      I know, right? Clearly a stunt for publicity, regardless of how much the bag cost, but why is a teenager dating a 30 year old man?!? Although from the sound of it, they’re both about as emotionally mature as a couple of 15 year olds, so maybe it works for them.

  14. Mary jones says:

    I actually like this show…Dina told Francesa that it was a waste to spend that much on a bag. And that it cost more than Dinas father makes in three years. Dina seems thrifty and she said she shops at outlet stores even took Francesca and Morgan to Marshalls or one those stores.

    • Jill says:

      The show is a bit slow, but I like Dina and the show itself also. They live in a nice, but not celebrity-extravagant home. She doesn’t have an attitude, she dresses like a normal person and seems pretty grounded in general. I don’t get all the hate for her.

      She wants the band to succeed and clearly Clint does too or he wouldn’t have included so much of their music on the Invictus soundtrack and helped bank roll their move to America as well as agreed to have a show filmed at his home and make a brief appearance here and there. His son composed all of the other songs that didn’t feature Overtone on the soundtrack and its well known that Eastwood takes the music for his films very seriously. I don’t see any need for the “poor Clint” argument. He’s a grown man, he has okayed this process. She knows that the exposure of this show could help them. To get people to watch, of course she is using the draw of her husband and the family. Would anyone honestly watch a reality show about an unknown South African band and a no-name manager? Very doubtful.

      I’m not thrilled that her 15yo is on a reality show, but I do like Dina. I’ll admit when I first heard of the show, I also was disappointed thinking it would be a “K” level famewhore show. But I’ve been pleasantly surprised.

      As long as it doesn’t come out in the future that Dina is sleeping with one of the guys in the band (and there has been no indication of that so far) then it seems like an okay show.

      However, I don’t like any of the story line having to do with Shields. I object to any exposure he gets not necessarily for his “art” but b/c he seems like a manipulative, conniving little sh*t. And I would be very upset if my daughter was dating him at any age. But, if she were 19, there might be very little I could do about it.

      And I don’t see anything wrong with burning a repro to make a statement about the f’ing ridiculousness of the Birkin. It IS ridiculous IMO. As I posted yesterday, just from looking at the initial photos it was a knock off. Clint Eastwood would not buy something like that, Francesca probably cannot afford it on her own (and it doesn’t seem like Clint gives her that much “play” money) and Shields has not earned enough yet to just blow that amount. People were mad when they thought it was real, then they’re mad when it’s a fake. For me, I find it better that it was a fake. But that’s just my opinion, and I know others feel differently.

  15. Jazz says:

    Tyler Shields is a hack. And Clint’s stellar reputation is slowly coming undone with this trash fest.

  16. Lilo says:

    I don’t get it. Why do people get so upset about some tutz destroying a 100.000 dollar bag, when we live in a world where there ARE 100.000 dollar bags? I find THAT more disturbing than burning them.

  17. Nonny says:

    Anyone who knows their handbags knows this bag is a fake. Anyone who knows their art knows this art is a BIG OLD LAME JOKE.

  18. lucy2 says:

    Better that it’s fake, sure. But it doesn’t help her image of a self-important, spoiled brat with no connection to reality.

  19. Alecto says:

    After watching this video I’ve come to the conclusion that she’s a twit.

  20. Eleonor says:

    He is the same “photographer” who portraied Tamara Ecclestone ironing money. This girl is sooo stupid.

  21. Jenna says:

    Yep, I’m completely out of touch with fashion, this cements that 100%.

    In the 17 YEARS I’ve carried a purse (32 now, mom started yelling at me at 15 that in order to be ‘ladylike’ I had to have a purse) I have, MAYBE, just possibly spent the $279 bucks of the fake purse on bags. All of them. Together. In total. And that is likely still way over the actual amount – and allowing me to add in my far more often carried wallets as well as including the $50 I spent on getting a really well made custom made leather messenger’s bag from a leather working friend of mine.

    So in my little bumpkin brain – if she torched ‘merely’ the fake, THAT is a horrible waste of cash as well as an obnoxious display of bad taste in the face of the current economic state.

    I just don’t understand the mindset that smug destruction of an expensive item is in some grand way ‘art’. Perhaps because my ‘kind’ of art tends towards more ‘craftsmen’ style (IE – taking the time to create beautifully made objects with soul, beauty, as well as extra bonus points if they have a function beyond ‘looking pretty’) I don’t have much appreciation for art that has no purpose other than to, at best, illicit feelings of irritation from the viewer. Art should evoke something, and I guess that since the photos of the destruction of the bag make people feel annoyed, angry, or even just repelled – that counts as art.

    But to my mind and eye – it still counts more as merely stupid and childish. Different strokes for different folks though.

  22. lover says:

    i dont care how much money i have you would have to be an idiot to spend 100k on one bag.

  23. Angie says:

    just because that’s what it would cost to own it doesnt mean that’s what it is worth. burn the f*cking thing for all I care; if there were 100k dollar bills in there, then I’d gaf.

  24. Kim says:

    I dont think people thought it was real did they? She doesnt the kind of money to buy a real Hermes. Still stupid and not art. I can see why she pulled the stunt because the show is terrible & ratings are probably terrible also.

  25. WHY!!! says:

    It is beyond my comprehension – WHY anyone who is already famous wants to be even more famous!

    Clint Eastwood is one of the finest actor/director, a true legend, until his wife decided to do this show. I want to ask her – WHY Dina?!

    In fact I like Dina and her slightly over the top behavior which I find sorta sweet. I believe she is genuine and good at heart. But why in the world one wants to be on the same channel and level as Kim Kartrashian!

    I’ve preferred the mystery of Clint Eastwood, not his dirty laundry. Too late now…

    • Karma says:

      Yeah, because it’s totally better to exploit that band’s talent for a soundtrack and then dump them. /s

      Come on….Dina is still being genuine and good at heart by standing by that band. Would you leave them to rot in South Africa? Sadly, I think a lot of rich people would leave them to rot. While either of us saying we would help them, is nice, we aren’t rich or connected.

      That she is a loyal, goofball, who wears her heart on her sleeve, and would help the band succeed, shows why Clint would fall for her. So I disagree about the dirty laundry comment.

      And the fact that Dina knows a newscaster can only trade on reality, shows it’s savvy way of achieving the goal of making that band a success.

      If you break it down, it actually makes sense to take it to reality tv.

  26. Jay says:

    I don’t know about the criticism. People waste money. Rich people have more to waste. Surely more than $100,000 in cars were destroyed for the Avengers movie, but no one was making death threats that I saw saying that the money could be put to better use. Yeah, that movie entertained a lot of people and made the money back. This probably entertained some too. So now we’re just in a gray area where money spent by one group for the sake of entertainment is valued by another who may or may not be the intended audience. It didn’t entertain me, but $300 or $100,000, it’s their money and I expect they got value out of it because in a 24 hour news cycle world, publicity isn’t cheap.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      I STILL don’t understand the rational behind “rich people have more money to waste so they’re allowed to waste it”.
      Wastefulness is WRONG regardless of how much money you have. Most material goods use up earth’s valuable resources to produce. A consumerist lifestyle is NOT a sustainable way of life. If you care about your children’s future and the future of this planet then you shouldn’t be buying stuff you don’t need (just because you “can”) or worse yet buying stuff and destroying it just for fun. NOR should you be condoning the wasteful behavior of others. Amazing how little awareness people have…

      • Jay says:

        “Allowed” is a funny choice of word. It’s allowed in any democratic free society by definition. The point I’m trying to make is if you put restrictions on how a person or group is allowed to waste money it’s a dangerous slope. Where do you draw the line? Perhaps having a house vs. communal living is frivolous? Perhaps the amount of food you’re allowed to have should be regulated. I prefer freedom and freedom means allowing other people to do things you would not. And, like I said, given it bought publicity it wasn’t even just “money up in smoke” anyway. Whether it was a good deal is for them to decide.

  27. benny says:

    I don’t see the controversy. That bag is not “worth” $100k, even if someone is stupid enough to pay that amount. But more importantly, it’s not like she was going to sell the bag and donate the money to charity.

    So the bag was worthless whether it was destroyed or not, because — even if NOT destroyed — it would not have made anyone’s life any better.

  28. JudyK says:

    What is going on w/ this site? It says 52 comments, but only 1/2 that many appear. This happens all the time now, but never used to. ???

  29. skuddles says:

    Well whether bag is real of not (and I suspect fake looking at pics now) I imagine she’ll think twice before pulling another stunt like this – in light of all the death threats she received in the wake of the vid. People may not “understand art” as she so naively puts it but they sure do understand economics baby!

  30. FingerBinger says:

    The boyfriend is creepy & sickly looking.

  31. Lucretias says:

    for good or bad, i find what they did brilliant. they got heaps of publicity, which i’m sure would have cost more than the $100K would have cost and made a point about commercialism. i think it is appalling that a bag can $100k, but i think it’s more appalling to see some people upset over a bag used to carry stuff and there are sites where the comments point that as the main concern (bagsnob.com) people can choose how to spend their money how they want including $100k on a bag, but don’t critize someone else for buying a bag and using it for publicity/art/whatever just b/c you think carrying it/placing it on a closet to admire/ giving to charity/flashing it for others to be jealous of is a better use of the bag.

  32. YashaK says:

    What people are not realising that REAL Birkins have a waiting list – one simply does not go and buy one. These waiting lists can be for years…

  33. sarahtonin says:

    The Hirst thing is a good point. If his hideous trash can be called art, then so can this. Modern art doesn’t have to be beautiful. As long as it evokes a response, good or bad, then it is valid. She has made a statement and got people talking so I guess it’s done its job, ridiculous as it is.