Are dupes actually worth it, or are we just convincing ourselves?”

Dupes - everyone has an opinion. Here’s mine. 

Let’s talk about three pairs of shoes fighting for airtime on my Instagram right now.

Tab one: the Jimmy Choo Faiz 100 — ivory lace pumps, sculpted stiletto heel, scalloped edge, ankle strap. AUD $2,150. Tab two: the Girls with Gems “Diana” Lace Heels — almost identical silhouette, same lace, same ankle strap, same pointed toe. AUD $289. Tab three: the Tony Bianco “Nina” Pumps, also lace, also ivory, also ankle-strap — currently on sale at David Jones for AUD $129 (down from $219.95).

Same shoe. Three prices. A $2,021 gap between the cheapest and the most expensive.

So what are we actually buying when we choose one over the other? And more honestly — when we choose the dupe, are we making a smart financial decision, or are we just telling ourselves a story?

The Shoes, Side by Side

Jimmy Choo Faiz 100 — AUD $2,150
Italian craftsmanship. Structured lace. Leather sole. A shoe built to last decades and resell on luxury platforms. This is the original the other two are chasing.

Girls with Gems “Diana” Lace Heels — AUD $289
The classic dupe play. Visually near-identical in photos. Marketed under their “Sneaky Link” category — they’re not even hiding what they’re doing. Likely synthetic lace, man-made sole, glued construction.

Tony Bianco “Nina” Pumps — AUD $129 (sale) / $219.95 RRP
This is the interesting middle ground. Tony Bianco is an established Australian brand, sold through David Jones, with a real reputation to protect. It’s not a dupe in the same sense — it’s a mid-market shoe inspired by the same aesthetic trend. Quality sits between the other two, though reviews of the brand are mixed, with some customers reporting soles separating and sizing inconsistencies.

The Case For Buying the Dupe

The most powerful argument is also the simplest: not everyone can spend $2,150 on shoes. Fashion has always trickled down from runway to high street, and dupes simply accelerate that process. A woman heading to a wedding, a formal event, or a shoot deserves to feel beautiful regardless of her budget. Accessibility matters, full stop.

Then there’s the microtrend argument, and this one is genuinely airtight. Lace heels are having a major moment right now — but will they carry the same energy in three years? Probably not. If a style is trend-driven rather than timeless, spending four figures on it is hard to justify. For microtrends, the dupe might be the smarter financial decision. Wear it for a season, enjoy it, move on without the guilt.

It’s also worth being clear: a dupe is not a fake. None of these three shoes claim to be Jimmy Choo. There’s no stolen logo, no counterfeit label. They’re inspired by an aesthetic — and that’s legal, widely accepted, and has been the foundation of high street fashion for decades.

The Case Against

Here’s where the story starts to get complicated.

Materials and durability are where the gap becomes real. Jimmy Choo uses Italian craftsmanship, quality leather soles, and structured lace that holds its shape wear after wear. At $289 — and especially at $129 — you’re almost certainly working with synthetic lace, man-made soles, and glued rather than stitched construction. In a photo, and honestly on a night out, you may not notice the difference. But after ten wears? The lace frays. The sole separates. The heel wobbles. The dupe that felt like a win starts to feel like a regret.

The resale argument is the one most people completely overlook. Jimmy Choo has a thriving secondhand market. Pre-owned pairs regularly sell on platforms like Farfetch and The RealReal for hundreds of dollars. When you’re done with them, you can recoup real money. The Girls with Gems pair and the Tony Bianco? Their resale value is effectively zero. So the true cost comparison isn’t $289 versus $2,150 — it’s $289 versus whatever you net after selling the Choos. For well-kept designer lace heels, that gap closes significantly.

This brings us to what I call the timeless test. The rule is simple: if it’s a microtrend, dupe it. If it’s timeless, invest in quality. Ivory lace heels sit in interesting middle ground — they feel romantic and classic, particularly for a wedding or formal occasion, but they’re unlikely to become a shoe you rotate season after season. For most people, that shifts things toward the dupe. But if you’re a bride? If these are the shoes for a day you’ll remember forever? That’s when materials, craftsmanship, and keeping them beautifully for decades starts to matter enormously.

When Dupes Stop Being Harmless: The Sabo v. Kmart Case

Here’s the part of the dupe conversation that tends to get glossed over: at scale, this industry causes real harm — and it’s increasingly ending up in court.

Australian brand Sabo Skirt has taken 16 retailers to court, including Kmart and fast fashion giant Shein, accusing them of copying its designs across 36 patterns, prints, and sketches, and selling them at lower quality and significantly reduced prices — claiming the “blatant copying” has impacted sales and harmed its reputation.

The reputational damage argument is particularly striking. Sabo alleges the copies were not crafted with high quality materials or craftsmanship — meaning consumers were experiencing an inferior product and, if they didn’t realise it was a copy, potentially associating that poor experience with the Sabo name. That’s a subtle but devastating consequence of the dupe economy that rarely gets discussed.

The defence being mounted is equally revealing. Kmart submitted close to 50 images predating Sabo’s design registrations, arguing those earlier works were identical or substantially similar — effectively claiming Sabo didn’t invent anything truly original in the first place. It’s the central paradox of fashion IP law: inspiration is legal, copying is not, but the line between them is expensive, murky, and inconsistently enforced.

What makes this case particularly striking is the Shein element. Shein had already entered into a settlement with Sabo in June 2024 over one copied item — and then allegedly violated that agreement by continuing to sell the dress anyway. A settlement is only as good as its enforcement, and right now, enforcement is struggling to keep up with the scale of the problem.

The case is ongoing. But it signals that the era of dupes operating with zero legal or ethical consequence may be drawing to a close.

What About Makeup Dupes? (A Different Story Entirely)

Here’s where things get genuinely interesting — because the dupe debate looks very different when you move from shoes to skin.

Charlotte Tilbury is currently the most duped luxury makeup brand in the world. The Flawless Filter, the Pillow Talk lip liner, the Magic Cream — all have a dozen affordable alternatives being recommended across TikTok and Reddit daily. And unlike fashion dupes, many of these actually hold up under scrutiny.

Beauty chemists who have compared Charlotte Tilbury’s Magic Cream with the Revolution Pro Miracle Cream found the formulas to be approximately 87% identical — same hyaluronic acid, peptides, Vitamin C, shea butter, niacinamide, and glycerin — at a fraction of the price. The e.l.f. Halo Glow Liquid Filter has been widely praised as performing on par with the Flawless Filter. MCoBeauty’s Pillow Talk dupe delivers nearly the same nude-pink shade and creamy formula for a fraction of the cost of both the liner and lipstick combined.

But — and this matters — not every makeup dupe performs equally. Some cheaper formulas accentuate texture, oxidise differently on skin, or deteriorate faster once opened. Skincare-makeup hybrids in particular, where the ingredient quality genuinely affects results on your skin, are where the luxury price tag is sometimes justified.

The makeup dupe rule of thumb: For colour products — lipstick, mascara, blush, bronzer — dupes frequently perform just as well. For skincare-makeup crossovers — primers, tinted moisturisers, hybrid foundations — it’s worth researching the ingredient lists before assuming the dupe is equivalent.

The other key difference from fashion? There’s no resale value on either side. A $44 Flawless Filter and a $14 e.l.f. alternative both end up in the bin when finished. Which means the financial case for makeup dupes is almost always stronger than for fashion — especially when the formula genuinely holds up.

So, Are They Worth It?

Here’s an honest framework:

Buy the dupe if: It’s a microtrend. You’ll wear it a handful of times. Budget is a real consideration. You’re talking about colour cosmetics where affordable brands have genuinely closed the gap.

Invest in the real thing if: It’s a significant occasion. You’ll wear it repeatedly. You might resell it. It’s a skincare-forward beauty product where ingredients actually matter. Or it’s something you’ll keep for years — because cheap materials show their age, and timeless pieces deserve timeless quality.

Consider the middle ground: The Tony Bianco approach — a reputable mid-market brand, sold through established retailers, with a real return policy and a real reputation to protect — is often the smartest option that gets the least airtime in the dupe debate.

The question isn’t really are dupes worth it. It’s: worth it for what, and at whose cost?

Because sometimes the $129 shoe is the smartest choice in the room. And sometimes it’s just a very convincing story we’re telling ourselves.