I wouldn't be able to tell.

If I were her, I'd be b!tch slapping Vanity Fair. Really lame.

can't tell the difference

I would be mad if I was Kate, but I'm not anti fur so I woulda been rolling all over that thing and then taking it home with me when I was done

I don't think I could tell... But that's because I don't know if I've even ever touched real fur anything!

I agree, VF was way out of line on this one.

It's pretty easy to tell just by the texture and how it feels. Though I can't tell from this picture because of obvious photoshopping, I bet if I actually felt/saw it, I'd be able to tell in a heart beat.

i'm not sure- it depends on how good of quality the faux was! i'm not around fur often, so i'm not sure i could

You can definitely tell the difference. Especially if it's fox fur. I find it hard to believe she didn't know, but if she really just couldn't tell, then I feel bad for her.

Hmmmm I'd like to think I could but some faux is pretty legit quality so who knows. She must be so pod'!

Her hair is SO hot in that pic- just had to say it

Brian, I don't think there's anything about the picture that isn't hot. Except the real fur, if you're not into that.

You can def feel the difference btwn real and fake fur. And if she is so against fur - why pose with something that everyone thinks is real?! Just pose with something else.

Shop, I was thinking the same thing. Even if it's fake, it looks real, and it's glamourizing fur. If you're that anti-fur, why would you want to glamourize it?

If I touch it, yes.

It depends on the quality of faux ... sometimes it's really obvious but I've already seen high quality faux and wasn't able to see the difference with real fur.

Vanity Fair should donate the value of the fur Kate unknowingly posed on to the charity of her choice...

That's TERRIBLE that they did that to Kate. So wrong.

Good idea, danielle!
There's a charity I read about on HSUS where you can donate your real fur to orphaned wild animals. They find the fur comforting, somewhat like a surrogate mother, AND you get to rid yourself of tacky fashions. That fur blanket could probably calm a LOT of baby animals...

That is majorly effed up! Poor foxies.

she looks HOT

Why would they put her on 1 $14,000 fur to begin with? I guess Vanity Fair has not been a victim of recent economical woes...

Emms it's not like Vanity Fair has to pay for it. Designers give them stuff for free, happy to have the free advertising.

If she's anti-fur, then she probably has not touched a lot of fur and wouldn't be able to tell the difference. I know I wouldn't.

Most likely not.I wouldn't be able to tell.If I was Kate I know I would be really mad seeing as I'm 200% against fur

this is a great shot, she looks pretty incredible. as for the fur/faux-fur debate, i've never seen faux-fur that looks or feels anywhere close to the real thing.
growing up in europe, i was used to having items made of fur, but it seems its become a cultural taboo in north america.. probably for good reason..

W O W ... stunning

Most of the time.

a) she looks stunning...
b) does anyone know if there was any photoshop..cuz I totally want her trainer now
c) i have never touched fur as I am totally against it..so I would never have been able to tell..maybe she is the same?

I am anti-fur. Although, I do have several rabbit and chinchilla stols that belonged to my great grandparents. I keep them only for sentimental purposes, and do not wear them.

really, really high quality faux is almost like fur to the touch, but if I can see the fiber, I can tell.
It's blatantly obvious that it's fox fur. If she was rolling in it, she should have noticed it was real.

Probably not.

Not okay, VF. Definitely NOT okay.

That's such a sexy picture! It would have been just as sexy without the fur though. I think Kate Winslet would look sexy draped in polyester!

That was awful...and it reminded me of what designers and magazines used to with a Brazilian model (Fernanda Tavares) -- she cried during an interview where mentioned how sad and disgusted she was when she realized that what she was wearing was real fur.

I hate both, real and faux -- the first is a really cruel thing and the second glamourizes the previous one.

This photo shoot seems like it's been a real pain for her! Too bad because it's so beautiful.
I once saw a coat that I thought was so pretty and my mom ended up buying it for me as a surprise. When I put it on there was a PETA card in the pocket. I felt so awful. Now a days I tend to agree with 'eveday' in that fake glamourizes the real.

I'd just like to say to all of you who think she should have known that it was fake that we know she either ASKED if it was real or was TOLD that it wasn't real. What more do you expect? I'm sure she figured she'd be able to trust their word.

There is no comparison.

I never want to be able to tell them apart. Fur and fake fur = gross.

i wonder if kate will ever do VF again with all the controversy...

I agree with Eva. Poor Kate... I wouldn't be able to tell either (I can't even remember if I've ever seen/touched a real fur coat). VF's looking pretty shady...

No longer classy in my eyes.

I'm truly glad that so many of you have an anti-fur stance. If you care about animals at all, then their dead pelts really should repulse you. I always feel disgusted when I see celebs wearing fur. There's nothing glamorous or attractive about cruelty (can someone please explain this to MK & Ashley Olsen!). Poor Kate. I'm sure she never intended to pose with real fur. Shame on Vanity Fair!

totes obvi

I'm not really anti fur per se because i don't like to believe propaganda. However, real fur kind of makes me recoil. It's so very soft and luxurious but I'd rather have a pet bunny.

Mix-up? Yeah, right.
Vanity fair duped her. Hellooo