# Ralph Lauren: A National Treasure



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Not too polarizing, eh? :wink2:

I started to write this as a comment on Rambler's observations about Sir Cingle's Rugby jacket on today's WAYWT thread, but I thought it best to give the thought room to stretch its legs. 

With Brooks Brothers abandoning all but one or two sacks a season and making their supima cotton OCBDs so scarce that I am still awaiting fulfillment of a large order placed before Christmas and looking to further water down the brand by distributing through mall anchor stores AND Press taking up scattershot collaborations and abandoning the true essence of TNSIL in many of their garments, who can we look to for true American style?

Ralph Lauren, of course. 

If you visit the Rugby website you'll find not only a general homage to campus shops, but specifically the proud introduction of genuine sack coats. Having dabbled for some time in darted 3/2 numbers, the site specifically advertises the spring line of sack coats. Visiting their shop today to kill some time I was delighted to find that many have gone back to sizing by chest and come in short, regular, and long. The fit is nearly identical to the vintage Brooks & Corbins in my closet. Price points are truly in line with a campus shop ranging from $198 to $598 with the promise of truly deep discounts at the end of the seasons. 

Then, buying a few fashion magazines to read on the train, I was further surprised to see GQ highlighting a RL Blue Label sack suit as the true American style and arming readers with knowledge of the many details so they can seek the out while shopping. These RL coats run much higher, from around $798 to $1,300, but as with most higher-end Ralph, the quality is impeccable. 

I know that many hear are either unimpressed or outwardly hostile toward Ralph, but the scope of the brand is like a Smithsonian of American clothing. There is practically no corner of American style that hasn't been expertly explored in one line or another.

So as I lament the ridiculously built-up shoulders of my recent Press jackets, and become less and less interested in even killing time in a Brooks Brothers, Ralph Lauren continues to produce the most authentic, highest quality, and ultimately wearable American clothing in the industry. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Yes, I have thoughts. I think that I agree completely with what you said and I really like the way you said it. Of course I don't give a crap about sack suits, but am glad to see that RL is attempting to please those that do. He is the man.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Well said. I get irritated at those who dismissively refer to "Ralfie Lifshitz," purposely ignoring the man's achievements and all that he has done for American menswear.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

"Smithsonian" is well said. RL rubs some people the wrong way for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that it has for some time simultaneously been occupied with making nice clothing on the one hand, and grabbing cash via cheap-o lines on the other hand. The quality is inconsistent. Of course, this is just good business, and Brooks is not too far behind with 346. But this is a big reason RL has seemed to some like an imitation of something more authentic. But I agree, anyone willing to produce and celebrate a sack jacket at reasonable prices, deserves our admiration.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

It's important to remember that Ralph Lauren has, for a very long time now, maintained several lines simultaneously, both in quality (from Lauren up to Purple Label) as well as style (RRL to RLX, etc). The quality within those labels is completely reliable. If you're considering the half-zip pullovers at Macy's alongside the merchandise in his stores, it will certainly seem all over the map.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

There are always pieces I dont like, and I wish he'd take the logo a lot of pieces. However, I really like a ton of stuff at any given time and the fit is often dead on for me.


----------



## JakeLA (Oct 30, 2006)

Trip English said:


> Visiting their shop today to kill some time I was delighted to find that many have gone back to sizing by chest and come in short, regular, and long. The fit is nearly identical to the vintage Brooks & Corbins in my closet. Price points are truly in line with a campus shop ranging from $198 to $598 with the promise of truly deep discounts at the end of the seasons.


So they have jackets in the stores that aren't on the website? I can only find one chest-sized jacket in their web store.

BTW, there always seem to be a few NWT Polo Dartmouth jackets on eBay. If I remember it's darted, but otherwise it's a beautiful jacket.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

No doubt this thread could take any number of turns, and could launch plenty of passionate, multi-paragraph replies.

For my part, I do think there's something great about the son of a Russian immigrant housepainter from the Bronx becoming synonymous with everything WASP. No wonder he did the clothing design for the _Gatsby _movie.

As for the clothes, I have plenty of RL in my (logo-free) wardobe.

Trip has really piqued my interest in Rugby, from what I'd seen online I had written it off as an Abercrombie clone, but I'm eager to check it out in person.



Orgetorix said:


> Well said. I get irritated at those who dismissively refer to "Ralfie Lifshitz," purposely ignoring the man's achievements and all that he has done for American menswear.


I used to think people where being dismissive and anti-semitic when they called him Ralph Liftshitz, but I've since seen him referred to as Ralph Liftshitz in a number of Jewish cultural life blogs and magazines.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

JakeLA said:


> So they have jackets in the stores that aren't on the website? I can only find one chest-sized jacket in their web store.
> 
> BTW, there always seem to be a few NWT Polo Dartmouth jackets on eBay. If I remember it's darted, but otherwise it's a beautiful jacket.


Yes. It's not like they have dozens of jackets, but there were several that I don't see on the site. Apparently the spring stuff just came in so it may go up soon. They're pretty good at keeping the store and web in parity.


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

JakeLA said:


> So they have jackets in the stores that aren't on the website? I can only find one chest-sized jacket in their web store.
> 
> BTW, there always seem to be a few NWT Polo Dartmouth jackets on eBay. If I remember it's darted, but otherwise it's a beautiful jacket.


Jake: Rugby carries a lot of things in its stores that don't appear on the Web site. It's worth popping into a store to see what's in stock. Also, as Trip says, Rugby offers very good discounts at the end of seasons.

I used to buy Rugby stuff, and now I find myself doing so far less often, even though I search around the Rugby Web site from time to time. I agree with Trip: There's a lot to like about Ralph Lauren in general, and Rugby in particular.

But there are some irksome things about Rugby. You have to wade through a lot of trendy garbage with logos to get at the decent stuff. I find their pants too slim fitting for my tastes, and Rugby often takes a nice traditional item and offers an annoying twist. Like, say, the shaggy shetland sweaters... with elbow patches. Or jackets with lapels made to be "popped." Or nice, comfortable argyle socks... with the Rugby logo on them.

I agree the shoulders on most recent Press offerings are too bulky. But, other than that, I actually prefer the Press jackets. And Press in store often offers very nice discounts. Still, Rugby has its benefits. Let's hope it prospers. As Trip says, the advertising of a sack jacket is a nice turn!


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Sir Cingle, funny thing about those elbow patched shetlands. I'd picked up 2 because I knew I'd like the fit and they were ~$60 on sale. I originally didn't love the elbow patches, but I've really grown to adore them. It helps that each time I wear them I get at least 5 compliments from girls on the patches specifically. 

Rugby can be great, you just have to sort through it. The 15% student discount is nice, as well, and much appreciated. Rugby is probably my favorite of RL's lines for casual wear.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Good point on the student discount. Also worth noting that many items that are displayed with patches do not have to have the patches on them.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Trip English said:


> Good point on the student discount. Also worth noting that many items that are displayed with patches do not have to have the patches on them.


Ya, I actually intended to de-patch the sweaters. I've since changed my mind. I only wished I'd picked up a couple of other colors.


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

Ralph has an excellent, historic eye for traditional clothes. The austentatious labels are very disappointing.

Also, for anyone over 6 feet tall, his sizing is ridiculous. For some reason, most of his over-the-counter jackets maintain an 18 inch shoulder even for a 44 or 46 chest jacket. Also, the tiny collars on OCBDs look ridiculous on taller people. I have stopped buying his stuff because it is generally cut for young students (and I am thin).


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

Tom Buchanan said:


> Ralph has an excellent, historic eye for traditional clothes. The austentatious labels are very disappointing.
> 
> Also, for anyone over 6 feet tall, his sizing is ridiculous. For some reason, most of his over-the-counter jackets maintain an 18 inch shoulder even for a 44 or 46 chest jacket. Also, the tiny collars on OCBDs look ridiculous on taller people. I have stopped buying his stuff because it is generally cut for young students (and I am thin).


 I'm 6'3 and 172lbs (as of monday, hopefully more by next month) and I've found his clothes, if anything, to be too large in the shoulders. At least when sized s-m-l. I do agree on the collars, though, which is terribly disappointing for me because Rugby OCBDs fit me brilliantly. Luckily, Brooks ESF and plain slim fits fit me very well.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Count me as another RL fan. Wearing Polo back in the 80s was my entre into Trad. I don't like everything he puts out, but the Polo Blue label jackets I own are fantastic with completely unpadded shoulders. I will need to check out a Rugby store.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm all about it. I honestly think I just need a primer, with all those labels...Lauren...Polo...Purple. But I'll get there.

The Rugby site has some smashing looking stuff. The Newbury Herringbone jacket, the one in linen/silk: I want that, to wear it with trim stone khakis from J. Crew and a nice navy/white gingham shirt, and a pair of boats. And a solid navy knit tie, maybe even a cotton one!

Thanks for posting.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

One could dress entirely from the Ralph Lauren stable of brands. Can you say that of anyone else? 

When Ralph is good, he's very, very good.


----------



## statboy (Sep 1, 2010)

Joe Beamish said:


> I'm all about it. I honestly think I just need a primer, with all those labels...Lauren...Polo...Purple. But I'll get there.


+1 on that. And where are the blue label sacks online?


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

*Purple Label* -- Ralph's premier line, tip top quality, sometimes overly fashiony styling. In the early days it was mostly made in England, but has since moved to Italy. Made in England shoes made by Edward Green.

*Black Label* -- I'll defer to others on this, as I don't know much about it. I understand it's a half-step up from, maybe a little more fashion forward than, Polo RL.

*Polo* -- The main line and old stand by. Ralph has worked to upgrade it some in recent years. It can be extremely good, but you have to be picky. Tailored clothing made in Italy by Corneliani. Made in England shoes are very good, recently began using Allen Edmonds for USA made shoes.

*RRL* -- Another hobby/niche line for Ralph that has more of a Western focus, but also draws heavily from early workwear stuff. It's not easy to find, at least online.

*Rugby* -- His newest line, aimed at the college crowd. Trads can find some very good things here, some items will be trendy/JCrewish.

Lauren, Chaps, et al are diffusion lines, steer clear.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Hmm, this thread is a lot less "polarizing" than I thought it would be. I was unfamiliar with the Rugby line, had no idea it was a Ralph Lauren brand. I think the idea of a student discount is wonderful. I do think referring to him as Lifshitz in the way some people do _is_ kind of anti-semitic, whether it appears in Jewish publications or not, and ignorant of the very major role of Jewish garment makers in developing the Ivy look. But, ignoring that, as one should, I agree that he has a great eye for fabric and cut, and along with some embarassing drek, has produced lots of wonderful garments.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Lauren (Green Label) - low rent
American Living - JCP collaboration. I'm told it's a treasure hunt. 
Polo (shares label designs with Blue Label, but occupies Macy's, outlets, et al) - semi-low-rent
Rugby - youth oriented. pretty good quality.
Blue Label - high quality, most basic American designs, most designs at any given time
RLX - insane space-age active wear
RRL - originally western themed, now encompasses workwear. high quality
Black Label - very high quality, very trim, "european details" from both British & Italian styles 
Purple Label - among the best clothes made. anywhere.

aaaaaaand beaten by Alan.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

By the way, thrifting has convinced me that Chaps has not always been diffusion line junk. I came across an old Chaps for Saks Fifth Avenue sportcoat recently. I think it was originally pretty decent stuff.

This thread will never reach Ralph Nirvana without input from Knower-of-All-Things-Ralph Jamgood.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Ralph Lauren is a marketing genius. There's no other word than genius for someone who has managed to position his clothes as a prestige line for every income level from the very poorest people in the country to the very richest. As mentioned above, for the vast majority of the world, Ralph and Levi-Strauss ARE American clothes. Its hard not admire genius. 

I think a comparable figure is Walt Disney. Both are people who put their fingers on some vital part of American culture, cleaned it up, boiled it down to its bare essentials, and repackaged it for a mass audience. Both are, in a way, hate figures for a lot of people who look at their products as so pre-processed and drained of personality as to be an insult to the original element. 

There's not doubt that he puts out a great quality product and has done off-shoring better than almost anyone. He's done a lot of great shoulders and I would definitely be interested in seeing his sack suits and jackets.

(I also hate his OCBD's from the collar to the logo to the sleeve. Terrible. Also, the big logo'ed polos are an abomination. I would prefer to wear a Massengill logo. Means the same thing. )


----------



## Mississippi Mud (Oct 15, 2009)

Trip English said:


> Polo (shares label designs with Blue Label, but occupies Macy's, outlets, et al) - semi-low-rent
> Blue Label - high quality, most basic American designs, most designs at any given time
> aaaaaaand beaten by Alan.


To one up Alan, I charge you with distinguishing between these two labels in a photo essay.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Trip,

I think you're wrong about Polo and Blue label being different.

For a while some higher-end polo clothes came with a blue tag with "Ralph Lauren" written in script, but IIRC these were still under the polo umbrella.

Somewhere I have an old store design book from when the Polo Mansion was remodeled and it goes into a bit of detail on the different labels.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

AlanC said:


> By the way, thrifting has convinced me that Chaps has not always been diffusion line junk. I came across an old Chaps for Saks Fifth Avenue sportcoat recently. I think it was originally pretty decent stuff.
> 
> This thread will never reach Ralph Nirvana without input from Knower-of-All-Things-Ralph Jamgood.


The older Chaps stuff can be nice, because the design was more conservative their suits and sportcoats hold up a little better than the equivalent polo stuff from the same era.
Those old polo jackets are often made well, of beautiful fabrics, but have very big shoulders, low buttoning points, close button spacing etc etc.

For what it's worth Chaps was sold to Van Heusson at some point, not sure who owns it now but it's Kohls-exclusive and Ralph has no input or connection anymore (they stopped putting ralph's name on the Chaps stuff).

I think the licensed "Lauren, Ralph Lauren"/Green Label line may also be owned by someone else now.

When it came out in the 90s _RRL _was a western line in the Aspen/Santa Fe crowd's style. It had some very nice stuff like $2k handmade horsehair belts and other artisan made stuff.
I'm not sure if it ever went away, but it's now more workwear oriented.
While not trad, the quality is still top-notch.

There's also the "_Ralph_"(or "_Ralph, Ralph Lauren_", blue tags block print) which is a line of suits exclusive to Dillards, better styled than the "Lauren" line, probably equivalent to HSM but a bit younger looking, used to be all Canadian made.

_Polo Sport _was the streetwear line for years, it's gone now. 
Mostly junk, though some of the old items have massive followings, old ski jackets, sweatshirts and cookie boots that go from hundreds or thousands on ebay.
There's some hip-hop subculture (poloheadz?) that dresses in all vintage polo or polo sport, big teddy bear sweaters and the like.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

About Ralph Lifshitz(Lauren). All I see is a lot IMO tacky looking stuff 'imported' from *China* and other cheap labour countries, being sold for way over the odds.

"The Emperor's New Clothes."


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Interesting thread. I've been thinking about the relative virtues of a few companies. My take on OCBDs is that Brooks is peerless, LE too short (causing a strange bunching around my waste, and I'm a fairly thin guy), and RL Polo decent stuff that I'd like better without the logo. When it comes to jackets, I'd consider Polo hit or miss, but when it's a hit, it is really good. Furthermore, the discounts are great. I'm glad RLP is around for a lot of reasons, not least because they preserved a lot of American style when it didn't have many fans.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

I guess I don't quite "get it" - why is Ralph Lauren/Rugby/whatever introducing sack suits now? I can't remember, though Jamgood could correct me if he was still around, RL ever selling sack suits/sport coats in the past. RL worked for Norman Hilton - the acknowledged master of the RTW sack suit - but still only offered darted cuts in his early years. It strikes me as simply another advertising ploy designed to capitalize on the "Trad"/Mad Men phenomenon - note Rugby calls their collection "Trad Men" (is "trad" really gaining that much attention amongst designers?). My other problem is the presentation of the "sack" suit - they all look overly tight and drastically short. Combine short/tight sack jackets with low rise pants, short vests, and whathaveyou doesn't make for a great look.

Two of Rugby's sack jackets

















For whatever reason, RL's introduction of the sack jacket is receiving a lot of compliments in this thread, but I've mentioned the re-introduction of Norman Hilton sack jackets last fall (with new jackets coming out in the spring) and all I heard were crickets. Granted, the new Norman Hilton Look Book isn't doing the brand any favors in my eye (jackets presented as too short, not emphasizing the sack cut), but I would have expected new Hilton stuff to have received at leaset as much attention as the Rugby sack jackets. For my money, I'm going with the Hiltons.

Three of the new(er) Norman Hilton sack jackets


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Cards, I agree the NHs look great, but limited and expensive. For RL to adopt the cut has a greater impact on American menswear. Many people have never heard of Norman Hilton and still won't.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> I think a comparable figure is Walt Disney. Both are people who put their fingers on some vital part of American culture, cleaned it up, boiled it down to its bare essentials, and repackaged it for a mass audience. Both are, in a way, hate figures for a lot of people who look at their products as so pre-processed and drained of personality as to be an insult to the original element.


The difference being that most RL products are made to noticeably higher standards than the ones they replicate. Another difference being that, in contrast to Disney, most fashion designers agree that RL deserves the accolades. Mark McNairy, for example, remarked something like "he's so good it makes you want to stop designing."

Doesn't mean you have to like him, but his role in fashion is well understood.


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

Your point is well taken, Cards, and certainly those Norman Hilton jackets look nice. As Trip wrote, however, they are both expensive and hard to come by, unless you live near Norman Hilton. Like the Andover Shop and Eddie Jacobs, the minimal Web presence makes it difficult for non-locals to buy. Frankly, I've never bought a new jacket that I haven't tried on. Perhaps that's why I own so many Press jackets: the place is a few blocks away from my apartment.

As to the smallness/shortness of the jackets, this is really just the trendy way Rugby is marketing them. Brooks Brothers has done the same thing with their spring line and Black Fleece does it to a ridiculous degree. It doesn't mean you have to wear the jackets as the models do. After having skipped out on Rugby for quite awhile, the sacks are compelling me to visit the store again.

That said, I am not always impressed with Rugby's quality. The shirts are unsuitable for wearing with a tie: the collars are too short and they are sized S-M-L-XL. Also, I find the collar on many of the shirts flimsy and don't look great after a wash or two.

Still, Rugby has its strengths. Naturally, if I were offered either a free Norman Hilton or a free Rugby sack, I'd choose the Norman Hilton. But it's nice to have Rugby around.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

^^ Head over to Eddie Jacobs and tell them to carry the Norman Hilton line. While it's not in Greenville, Ben Silver is supposedly going to carry the new Hilton jackets sometime this year so at least I'll be able to see them in person at some point.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Unfortunately, the garishness of RL, Polo, et al, has turned me off completely.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

^^^ Yes, and I'm sure Ralph is beside himself with grief over losing YOU as a customer. He probably misses the exclamation marks.



MikeDT said:


> About Ralph Lifshitz(Lauren). All I see is a lot IMO tacky looking stuff 'imported' from *China* and other cheap labour countries, being sold for way over the odds.


Mike, you're not dumb. Don't write dumb stuff like that.


----------



## tsweetland (Oct 2, 2006)

Thoughts?

You have a lot of time on your hands.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

Trip English said:


> The difference being that most RL products are made to noticeably higher standards than the ones they replicate.


I'm glad you mentioned this. I started buying Polo in 1976 and have never had even a single quality control issue with anything. A good number of these items were favorites or go-to items during their service lives. I've found his clothes to be extremely well-made, well-fitting, and long-lasting - perhaps the best build quality commonly available in the Trad world.

Also, that RL can suck all the stodginess out of Trad staples without changing their essence shows an eye for appropriateness that goes well beyond genius level. It doesn't surprise me that RL's peers in the rag trade regard him so highly.

RL's lines have always required lots of picking and choosing for me, but I don't mind digging for the kind of gems I know he can produce. I can't wait to try on one of his sack jackets.

As for the Norman Hilton jackets - they're beautiful, almost unspeakably so. But I'll have to travel to try one on.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> ^^^ Yes, and I'm sure Ralph is beside himself with grief over losing YOU as a customer. He probably misses the exclamation marks.
> 
> Mike, you're not dumb. Don't write dumb stuff like that.


So how come when I browse the RL site, apart from tailored garments, pretty much everything else I see is described as 'imported'? Which is used for when items are 'Made in China' etc. Many US clothing website use the word 'imported', for cheap labour country made stuff.

Last year I was looking at a quite an expensive pair of RL chinos, about £100 GBP. 'Made in Macau'.

https://www.ralphlauren.com/product...&cp=1760781.1760809&view=99&parentPage=family
$165 USD cotton polo shirt *'imported'*. I wonder which Asian or South American country this come from? $165 is probably about a months wages for the person who made it.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

But do you actually _own _any PRL or are you just dumping on it based on the acreage where the factory sits?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> But do you actually _own _any PRL or are you just dumping on it based on the acreage where the factory sits?


I did have a PRL shirt once about 15 years ago. I think it was a gift from someone.

Thing is I know the people who make this stuff, and I know how they live. So I do have quite strong opinions on designer labels who get stuff made on the cheap in China, and then sell it for high prices.

If I was paying a high price for a polo shirt. I would expect to see 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England' on the label.


----------



## JakeLA (Oct 30, 2006)

Trip English said:


> Mark McNairy, for example, remarked something like "he's so good it makes you want to stop designing."


If only he would.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

tsweetland said:


> Thoughts?
> 
> You have a lot of time on your hands.


That seems awfully harsh considering we're all spending time on a website dedicated to discussing clothing.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> If I was paying a high price for a polo shirt. I would expect to see 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England' on the label.


Most of the RL pricey stuff has Made in Italy on it.

(In his boutique stores, NOT Macy's)


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

In my college days, I found with a modest income I could (and did) dress almost exclusively in Polo. It wasn't for logos sake, just that the clothes wore well and looked great. It also helped enormously that in the 97-01 years they had a fantastic line of streetwear that contained the logo on the lower left side of the shirts, rendering it difficult to see.

On the side of tradliness, given enough time, even the imitator may surpass the originator. I don't give him good odds at besting Barbour or some of the other brands he imitates, but at least he supplies these things places where they can't be easily had (for instance, I had to import my Barbour from England in college days for lack of a shop nearby).

I also think Ralph has done an ENORMOUS service to college students and young men everywhere by producing the modern "campus shop" in American Living at JCP. How can I say this? We seldom wore suits on campus even a decade ago, but the clothing sold by AL is classic and affordable to even the poorest of college students. Good khakis for $20, madras for even less? Bravo, sir. You are manufacturing young Trads.

Finally, as to his "All American-ness", there are few more effective ways to get rich than by allowing everyone at every income level to have a piece of the American ideal - dressing as well as you can on your income level. For many, Polo still represents a brand to be aspired to. Once they understand what some of the originals are that he re-creates, they can then move on to those brands as well.


----------



## Mississippi Mud (Oct 15, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> I did have a PRL shirt once about 15 years ago. I think it was a gift from someone.
> 
> Thing is I know the people who make this stuff, and I know how they live. So I do have quite strong opinions on designer labels who get stuff made on the cheap in China, and then sell it for high prices.
> 
> If I was paying a high price for a polo shirt. I would expect to see 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England' on the label.


These are excellent points, Mike, and certainly needed ones. Because of an increasingly global economy, American culture often allows a screen to develop between the consumer and the product. The history of the particular garment in question (I mean how the fiber is grown, how it is woven and assembled and by whom at what cost) is just as important as the cut or style. Divorce the two at everyone's expense.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Mississippi Mud said:


> These are excellent points, Mike, and certainly needed ones. Because of an increasingly global economy, American culture often allows a screen to develop between the consumer and the product.


This can be said of urbanization in general.

No one wants to see how the sausage is made!!


----------



## Ed Reynolds (Apr 13, 2010)

> Originally Posted by *Mississippi Mud* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1192373#post1192373
> These are excellent points, Mike, and certainly needed ones. Because of an increasingly global economy, American culture often allows a screen to develop between the consumer and the product.
> 
> This can be said of urbanization in general.
> ...


Agreed. Did you happen to catch "Kill it, Clean it, Cook it" on Current TV? People have to kill their food and watch how it is processed. Many people change their eating habits thereafter.

To return to clothing, I think the BBC did a series a while back with a bunch of late teens/20 somethings and brought them to countries being exploited for natural resources and workers. One of their jobs was to make dresses/garments in India/Malaysia/whatever Asian country was doing the exporting.

The kids were basically able to make like a handful of garments in an hour, while the workers banged them out one right after the other (they are paid per garment so it makes sense). But it gave me an insight into the whole worker exploitation thing I never thought about. ​


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Ed Reynolds said:


> The kids were basically able to make like a handful of garments in an hour, while the workers banged them out one right after the other (they are paid per garment so it makes sense). But it gave me an insight into the whole worker exploitation thing I never thought about.


I'm not buying all of that....

Put the same kids on a UK or USA fishing vessel, or on a roof with a bag of shingles and the same thing would happen.

They'd cry, pee their pants, but no fish would get caught and no roof would be on!!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Aside from the fact that shingles don't come in bags, I basically agree with you. And why has this degenerated into an exploited workers thing, since there is really no such thing as an exploited worker.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Aside from the fact that shingles don't come in bags, I basically agree with you.


Don't nit pick. I'm sure he _meant_ canister.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Mississippi Mud said:


> These are excellent points, Mike, and certainly needed ones. Because of an increasingly global economy, American culture often allows a screen to develop between the consumer and the product. The history of the particular garment in question (I mean how the fiber is grown, how it is woven and assembled and by whom at what cost) is just as important as the cut or style. Divorce the two at everyone's expense.


My thinking is. If an outfit like Wal*Mart or Primark wants to have have stuff made cheaply and sell it cheaply, then fair enough. Not everyone wants to be spending $165 USD on a casual shirt. But when designer brands like RL, Armani and Burberry get stuff made cheaply overseas and then sell it for high prices. I find this totally inexcusable and is just pure greed.

I know there are many on AAAC, especially in 'Trad', who like to see and wear things that are 'Made in USA' and 'Made in England'. They are available if you look. 'Ralph Lauren: A National Treasure' sadly is NOT one of them, except for their most expensive stuff.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Let's move this back to Ralph _qua_ Ralph rather than Ralph as outsourcer. I understand some find this an integral part of RL, however this is getting close to becoming an Interchange thread. Yes, I prefer USA/England made goods, too. However, outsourcing is a reality for most things.

Ralph knows and appreciates the heritage of the Anglo-American clothing tradition like really no one else. He pulls items straight out of the '20s and '30s just because he wants to. Nobody else could/would do it.


----------



## Bermuda (Aug 16, 2009)

He is really TRAD in capital letters. I have no problem buying Chaps, American Living, or Lauren. From my teacher point of view, I've purchased items from those labels that would fit right in with what natty ivy league professors were wearing in the early 60s


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

AlanC said:


> Let's move this back to Ralph _qua_ Ralph rather than Ralph as outsourcer. I understand some find this an integral part of RL, however this is getting close to becoming an Interchange thread.


Ok fair enough Alan, subject closed as far as I'm concerned.



AlanC said:


> Yes, I prefer USA/England made goods, too. However, outsourcing is a reality for most things.


I know outsourcing from personal experience hence... 'An Englishman in the People's Republic.'.


----------



## jimmyfingers (Sep 14, 2010)

I have had the pleasure of working for this company in a few different areas. The lowest of low being the outlet store. For all I know, these outlet items are made with the same garments/factories/people that make other outlet clothes (Gap, J Crew, etc)
The only difference is the PRL items have a much higher price tag and people storm in to purchase. The outlet stuff never really goes on sale. They might offer 'OCBD by 2 at 40 a pop) instead of 50 for 1. The clearance rack is small and the items are only marked down a few dollars. Anytime they have an item where a percentage is taken off (20%), the item is marked up. So in the end, you pay the same. I have yet to come across a steal in the outlet and we all know employees get first dibs on the steals. This is very different from some of the other outlets I have worked out where I would come out with button ups for 5 dollars, or dress pant for 9.

I worked briefly at an outlet in PA about 5 years ago, and I still see many of the exact same items today at the outlet store in Georgia. I am pretty sure everything in the outlet is china, india, etc. It is amazing the amount of people that come in and buy this stuff.

I worked in a boutique RL store at a large mall for a brief period where they sold the made in Italy, PL, and other quality items.
I was once again amazed at the amount of people who would come in and pay full price. These items get marked down heavily.

RRL is my favorite brand. Quality clothing items that are durable, rugged, and yet classic and stylish. The garmets are built to last. 

The American Living clothing line isn't that bad for the price. 

He seems to literally have a piece of clothing for everyone regardless of who you are.

Excellent business principles to be able to cater to Joe Blow all the way to Trip English

It is well known that his employees get paid much lower than other companies, but they are willing to sacrifice this to be able to gain exp. and resume credit.

My full time job is just too much right now so I am quitting my 4hrs a week part time job. 30%off outlet clothing 50%off boutqiue and online 40% off boutique and online sales.


----------



## Pugin (May 15, 2010)

Nick's new Norman Hilton tweeds are (in line with his general style) very, very soft. If you're interested, you should call him now. He's about to place the last order of F/W stuff before moving on to Spring.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Trip English said:


> The difference being that most RL products are made to noticeably higher standards than the ones they replicate. Another difference being that, in contrast to Disney, most fashion designers agree that RL deserves the accolades. Mark McNairy, for example, remarked something like "he's so good it makes you want to stop designing."
> 
> Doesn't mean you have to like him, but his role in fashion is well understood.


Disney won 26 Academy Awards and unlike Ralph Lauren was an artistic innovator. As for the above quote. I have to agree. Ralph Lauren is so good he makes me want Mark McNairy to stop designing.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I've got a few things from Ralph — via someone else, of course. The only time I ever bought something new was a pair of chinos at the outlet store in Lee, Mass. —and then only because they were a) grey b) 35 x 29 and c) fit well. (jimmyfingers' remarks about pricing, above, make complete sense.)

I've got a grey herringbone jacket/vest combo (got that from Andy his ownself several years ago, when upon joining AAAC the new member got a bespoke beanie and after a hundred posts, a propeller.)

A tweedy check jacket with dual exhaust and ticket pocket; a tweed suit, two-button; a standard grey suit, two-button; a natty charcoal chalkstripe 3-piece; an elegant charcoal chalkstripe DB. These are all from the straight Polo line; I didn't plan that, it just worked out that way.

What they all have in common is they button low, which isn't necessarily a bad thing unless you spill food or cigar ash a lot (I do); they all have what seems like just the right amount of structure; I don't wear them as much as I should, because they are all too nice.

That last reason is exceptionally stupid, I realize. 

I have a few shirts, too. And odd trousers. Jeez, now that i think of it, there is a large Ralph presence here. I am going to start calling my apartment "The Mansion." or maybe "The Manse." Is a manse smaller than a mansion?

I do wish Ralph would stop slapping the stupid logo on everything. It's annoying and at this point has no unspoken meaning other than "I switched from Bud to Old Milwaukee so I could have more gas money to drive to this outlet mall and buy socks with horseys on them."


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

AldenPyle said:


> Disney won 26 Academy Awards and unlike Ralph Lauren was an artistic innovator. As for the above quote. I have to agree. Ralph Lauren is so good he makes me want Mark McNairy to stop designing.


It's a funny analogy you've made, since Disney's claim to fame was the re-telling of classic fairy tails.


----------



## sjk (Dec 1, 2007)

Paul Goldberger, architecture critic for the NY Times, has made the RL-Disney connection for some time.

www.nytimes.com/1992/02/02/arts/architecture-view-25-years-of-unabashed-elitism.html?src=pm

(Skip down to page 3 if you're in a hurry...)


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Well, _someone_ must weigh in with an opposing viewpoint. At a macro level I agree with the assessment -- marketing genius, interpreter of American style, blah blah blah -- so how can I explain how it just isn't "trad"? The argument that RL makes some nice, high quality clothes -- as if trad were a way of shopping.

Perhaps it's a generational thing. We didn't shop at Brooks or Press because they had a certain kind of clothing (or shoulder, or lapel, or pleats, or darts, or any of that stuff), we bought a certain kind of clothing because that's what was available at Brooks or Press. A generalization, of course, with many exceptions that people will have fun with, but if it was from Press, it was by definition trad -- not the other way about. It's the same way I feel currently about O'Connell's. I have a difficult time explaining why RL is ersatz; but when I think about the experience of RL and the experience of O'Connell's I feel like the difference intuitively is obvious and to RL's disadvantage.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I understand the point of view that certain shops were where you shopped. I don't think I'd go so far as ersatz, but I see your point there, too.

To me, the reason that these designers like Michael Bastian, Ralph Lauren, Mark McNairy, etc. are so interesting is that they're trying to recreate a time and a feeling and in so doing are putting out a more refined and concise version than some of the originals. It's like when conviction politicians harken back to great eras in the past that only seem so cut and dry after the passage of time and the winnowing down of the collective memory to a few salient details.


----------



## Bradford (Dec 10, 2004)

I don't currently own a lot of stuff from Ralph Lauren because I seem to have moved more to Brooks Brothers, Nordstroms, Vineyard Vines, etc. However, I have great respect for Ralph Lauren because he has sold and promoted classic American styles for the past 43 years, even during periods when they were not in style. Yes, he's now doing more sack suits and I'm sure that's because he and his designers have always been good at recognizing trends and using them as inspiration for the current designs. I'm glad to know that after this current preppy/trad fad has passed and J. Crew, Banana Republic and others have moved on to the next trend, I will still be able to find a selection of classic American style from Ralph Lauren.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Sartre said:


> Perhaps it's a generational thing. We shopped at Brooks or Press not because they had a certain kind of clothing, we bought a certain kind of clothing because that's what was available at Brooks or Press.


I guess I'm agreeing with this, though maybe not the conclusion.

If you have lived in a time that is later being referenced, you sometimes go, really, I never knew that then, should I know it now? We wore what was offered then because that was all that was offered then. We didn't know we were Take Ivy. Or cared, because there was more on our minds than the clothes on our backs.

Then came its revival and we realized how we'd forgot about all that, but the memory was good because we remembered not so much wearing the clothes, we remembered what we did while wearing them. Now the clothes are back. But the times aren't, so it seems slightly out of whack. I prefer Ralph Lauren because it seems timeless, dipping further back than sacks and 50s, further back than me even. There's a comfort in wearing forefather clothing because if you don't have intimate knowledge of the period then you don't have the other memories to mess it up.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

sjk said:


> Paul Goldberger, architecture critic for the NY Times, has made the RL-Disney connection for some time.
> 
> www.nytimes.com/1992/02/02/arts/architecture-view-25-years-of-unabashed-elitism.html?src=pm
> 
> (Skip down to page 3 if you're in a hurry...)


Yeah, that seems about right.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

To what extent is the appeal of Ralph Lauren (the institution) tied to the age of the person offering his/her observations and thoughts? Reading through the responses to this thread and reaching conclusions, based on my assumptions as to the relative ages of the various posters, it seems that Ralph Lauren appeals far more greatly to the younger set, that to those of us in our 60's and beyond...and perhaps, that is by design (pun intended)! I will admit, in my experience, RLP's clothing offerings appealed to me far more in my younger years, than they do today. LOL. Ironically, in the case of most national treasures (using my definition of such), such institutions seem to become more precious to me, as the aging process continues, rather than less!


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

eagle2250 said:


> ...it seems that Ralph Lauren appeals far more greatly to the younger set, that to those of us in our 60's and beyond...


I have read hundreds of your posts and by now I'm supposed to be getting an idea of how you dress, but I dunno. All I'm getting is you in a tattered USAF greatcoat with golden scrub-brush epaulets duct taped to your shoulders and a scabbard lashed around your belly stuffed full of back issues of the AARP monthly. Am I close? We really need pictures.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Ralph is a master of marketing and presentation. Walk into the Michigan Avenue store or the Mansion in NYC. Both stores look, sound and feel like a men's clothing store should. The same stuff that is sitting on plastic shelves in Macy's suddenly looks better when it is displayed with dim lighting, mahogany paneling, persian rugs, and leather furniture. Nobody presents or edits his stores better than Ralph. It isn't even close.

That said, I find the quality and fit to vary considerably. I don't have any experience with Purple Label or Black Label. They are too expensive for me, but the design and quality appear to be top notch. Both hit their target audience perfectly. Ralph doesn't have any input in Lauren, Chaps, or RALPH Ralph Lauren, so they aren't really worth discussing.

The Polo line, which is the same thing as Blue Label, is such a mixed bag. I don't understand the rationale of having pieces with the same exact label having completely different quality levels. The department store stuff is 90% crap. I don't even bother looking anymore. The stuff in the boutique's is different. I swear the polos are better quality, but it may just be the presentation. The Polo tailored collection is beautiful. Great shoulders, great fabrics, great fit, great details. Like someone else said, when Ralph is good he is awesome, but when he is bad he is downright horrible. See exhibit A from this spring's collection below:









The problem is I don't live anywhere near a Polo boutique, so I either buy the Macy's stuff or I buy elsewhere. Lately I choose the later. I'm fortunate to have several excellent independent specialty shops at my finger tips. Polo's chinos don't stand a chance against Bills. Their OCBDs have nothing on the Gitman shirts. I think Peter Millar is turning into a modern day Polo of the 80s. The folks at Peter Millar do almost everything now, and they do it all very well and they do it with a lot of color and an excellent attention to detail.

If I was in NYC or Chicago, I could probably fill my entire wardrobe with RL. The problem is that if I'm paying close to retail, I find my local specialty shops to better serve my needs and provide better value than the RL stuff I can get my hands on.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> To what extent is the appeal of Ralph Lauren (the institution) tied to the age of the person offering his/her observations and thoughts? Reading through the responses to this thread and reaching conclusions, based on my assumptions as to the relative ages of the various posters, it seems that Ralph Lauren appeals far more greatly to the younger set, that to those of us in our 60's and beyond...and perhaps, that is by design (pun intended)! I will admit, in my experience, RLP's clothing offerings appealed to me far more in my younger years, than they do today. LOL. Ironically, in the case of most national treasures (using my definition of such), such institutions seem to become more precious to me, as the aging process continues, rather than less!


Yes, I do think part of it may simply be an age thing. I am not in my 60s but just hit 50. When I was in college _one did not wear_ RL. I have changed -- own a number of his items, some of which are quite good -- but overall I probably still carry some of that old bias.

What I was getting at in my earlier post, a personal feeling which I am in no way trying to push on others, is that it is not just the item that's important, it is the whole experience involved in acquiring the item. Over Christmas I took my son into J. Press; he was dumbfounded. Really, really loved it, and like most kids it was an eye opener to him that clothing existed outside of hooded sweatshirts and cargo pants. "Dad, when I'm bigger I'm going to buy my clothes here"; cute. I was reminded of the post at the Daily Prep blog where the woman talks about her father's routine (https://www.muffyaldrich.com/2010/07/recollections-of-j-press-and-my-father.html); something in that. I also realize, sadly, with the decline of the Ivy or "university" shop, that this is an experience that has been denied to (a) many of the young and/or (b) many who live outside major metropolitan areas.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

As to the age issue, I can't remember a time when Ralph Lauren was not. I had never heard of J. Press before joining AAAC.

I recognize my own background has no bearing on whether RL is "authentic" or not, but I suspect my perceptions are not unique.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

^ I share them.


----------



## THORVALD (Jan 30, 2007)

For me RL's clothes quality has always had its highs & lows. However his fashion marketing skills of the preppy, old money, club image has never been anything short of SUPERB!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> I have read hundreds of your posts and by now I'm supposed to be getting an idea of how you dress, but I dunno. All I'm getting is you in a tattered USAF greatcoat with golden scrub-brush epaulets duct taped to your shoulders and a scabbard lashed around your belly stuffed full of back issues of the AARP monthly. Am I close? We really need pictures.


Huh(!)? LOL. The truth be known, I wear nothing at all, except a full body application of camo-grease paint but, only on those occasions that I am not wearing my 3R2 Sack jackets, crisply pressed chinos, OCBDs and a shell cordovan pick of the day. While I cannot claim to pass muster as "a national treasure", perhaps some might consider me as a lovable eccentric? :crazy:


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

I think the whole Ralph Lauren as perpetual defender of American classic clothing thing is a little misleading... He made his early mark selling extra wide kipper ties and Great Gatsby suits because he was sick to death with American classic clothing.

I'd say Ralph was really more of an Anglophile to begin with. Why he changed, I'm not sure.

During some reverse trolling over at Devil's Island, Quay actually let loose some very interesting info on the secrets to Ralph's success.



> *How did Ralph Lauren make that entire lifestyle in a few short years?*
> 
> Yes, of course, the marketing. Naturally. But what about the goods?
> 
> ...


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Hilarious, Katon, thanks for posting. That Quay is a droll fellow indeed, and gets at some real 'felt truth' there. The overstuffed furniture phase was a blot on the interior landscape for quite a while, or at least the design pages of the Sunday _Times. _To me, the most ludicrous phase was RL's cowboy period, which probably grew out of the discovery that the English aristocracy preferred authentic ranch hands to Americans who tried to ape their style.


----------



## jimmyfingers (Sep 14, 2010)

That was a funny read.

I wish their was some consistency throughout the PRL line of clothing. I remember unpacking giant boxes of Classic Polo Shirts of the same color. Their would be 2-4 different countries of production in the one box and when the country changed, so did the shirt. It was subtle, but I am sure most members on here would notice the difference of stitching, buttons, etc. and even the actual fabric would vary. I have a good many polos from PRL and they all differ in quality. The top two (regarding quality) that I own were bought at an actual PRL boutique and were made in Egypt I believe. The worst seem to be from TJMax and the outlet stores. 

A large majority of people shopping at this level seem to be concerned with a visible 'pony' and matching this colored pony with the rest of the outfit. Numerous customers have passed over unlabeled PRL for labeled items with the visible Pony. Also, they love the items that have famous RL graphics such as the teddy bear, etc. One of the reasons why I think he came out with the giant pony on his stuff. 

PRL is the most common brand he seems to be selling due to its presence at all types of different stores. I just wish a specific article of clothing would be the same regardless of purchasing it at an outlet, Marshalls, Macys, boutique, or online.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

I thought this was kind of an interesting bit of history from Allan Flusser, Clothes and the Man, 1985
https://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch2.htm

"The 1950s are best remembered for the "gray flannel suit" worn by the conservative businessman. Now men were back to the natural-shoulder silhouette. As reported in Apparel Arts '75 Years of Fashion, "No style was ever so firmly resisted, so acrimoniously debated - or more enthusiastically received in various segments of the industry. Natural shoulder styling eventually became the major style influence. Brooks Bros., once a 'citadel of conservatism,' became a font of fashion as the new 'Ivy Cult' sought style direction. Charcoal and olive were the colors."

In addition to the introduction of man-made fibers, this period also saw the arrival of the Continental Look from France and Italy, featuring short jackets and broad shoulders, a shaped waistline, slanting besom pockets, sleeve cuffs, short side vents, and tapered, cuffless trousers. This "slick" look made little inroad on those who were staunch adherents of the more conservative Ivy League look, but it was a significant phenomenon nonetheless, as it moved Americans further away from the stylish elegance of the 1930s.

The sixties brought the Peacock Revolution - a phrase popularized in this country by George Frazier, a former columnist for Esquire magazine and the Boston Globe - which began on Carnaby Street in London and featured a whole array of new looks, including the Nehru jacket and the Edwardian suit. In contrast to the fifties, during which time choices were limited, a wide range of alternatives was now available as the focus moved to youth and protest. The designer Pierre Cardin even created an American version of the slim-lined European silhouette, which, along with the immense popularity of jeans, led to the acceptance of extreme fittedness in clothing - a far cry from the casual, comfortable elegance of preceding generations.

During this period, the American designer Ralph Lauren was attempting to convince the American male that there was a viable alternative to this high-style clothing. This alternative was a version of the two-button shaped suit with natural shoulders that had been introduced by Paul Stuart in 1954 and briefly popularized by John Kennedy during his presidency. Lauren updated the Stuart suit by using the kind of fabrics usually reserved for custom-made suits and dramatizing the silhouette by enlarging the lapel and giving more shape to the jacket. Lauren's following remained small, however, as most men leaned toward the jazzier Cardin-style suit.

The seventies were the era of the designer. They were also a time of intense fashion experimentation, coming at a point when the largest growth in the number of people buying fashions occurred and manufacturers tried desperately to capture the one- third of the buying public that was spending two-thirds of the money. Toward the end of the decade, after years of following the fitted clothing styles of Milan and Paris, there was a dramatic turnaround as a number of European designers and manufacturers began biting off pieces of the American style of dress. Brooks Brothers' baggy garments and button-down shirts, both indigenously American, began to be produced in European versions, for Europeans had suddenly become attracted to the looser, more comfortable style of dress and were eschewing the tight-fitting silhouette they'd embraced in the past.

While the European look still retained a foothold among American men (represented by designers such as Giorgio Armani, Basile, and Gianni Versace), the pendulum had begun to swing in the direction of a less stylized, more natural-fitting garment. A new generation of American designers joined Ralph Lauren in presenting an updated, purely American style of clothing."


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

nolan50410 said:


> Ralph is a master of marketing and presentation. Walk into the Michigan Avenue store or the Mansion in NYC. Both stores look, sound and feel like a men's clothing store should. The same stuff that is sitting on plastic shelves in Macy's suddenly looks better when it is displayed with dim lighting, mahogany paneling, persian rugs, and leather furniture. Nobody presents or edits his stores better than Ralph. It isn't even close.
> 
> The Polo line, which is the same thing as Blue Label, is such a mixed bag. I don't understand the rationale of having pieces with the same exact label having completely different quality levels. The department store stuff is 90% crap. I don't even bother looking anymore. The stuff in the boutique's is different. I swear the polos are better quality, but it may just be the presentation. The Polo tailored collection is beautiful. Great shoulders, great fabrics, great fit, great details. Like someone else said, when Ralph is good he is awesome, but when he is bad he is downright horrible. See exhibit A from this spring's collection below:
> 
> The problem is I don't live anywhere near a Polo boutique, so I either buy the Macy's stuff or I buy elsewhere. Lately I choose the later. I'm fortunate to have several excellent independent specialty shops at my finger tips. Polo's chinos don't stand a chance against Bills. Their OCBDs have nothing on the Gitman shirts. I think Peter Millar is turning into a modern day Polo of the 80s. The folks at Peter Millar do almost everything now, and they do it all very well and they do it with a lot of color and an excellent attention to detail.


The shop fixtures and furnishings are often the most expensive thing in any polo store (or polo section of a dept store).
I've heard antidotes from polo employees that they were instructed not to pursue shoplifters _unless _they were stealing the decorations.

I'm with you in regards to the other stuff as well, now that I'm hours away from a polo store.

The dept. store polo stuff is overpriced and bland, but I don't think the quality is bad.


----------



## erbs (Feb 18, 2008)

Katon - do you have a link to the original exchange?


----------



## CM Wolff (Jun 7, 2006)

erbs said:


> Katon - do you have a link to the original exchange?


I'm not Katon, but here is the link.

https://forums.filmnoirbuff.com/viewtopic.php?id=6569&p=3


----------



## erbs (Feb 18, 2008)

^ thanks


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

AP, thanks for providing the link to Alan Flusser - the first time I've read him. A superbly compact and to the point essay. I found his distinction between "the sack" and "the American Silhouette" to be an interesting one, a distinction not usually made on the Trad forum, where it's usually "sack" or "everything else" (ie, English or other Eurotrash:biggrin2. I suppose that "sack" is understood to mean undarted, with appropriate Ivy-style details, particularly the 3/2 design, and above all, a soft shoulder. But that silhouette is generally unsacklike (not boxy, and body-hiding) when worn by the sharpest dressers on the forum. It's a soft shouldered 2 button with a gently shaped waist, with a third lapel button that is both an ornament and a totem. In short, it's the American Silhouette, which Flusser credits RL and Paul Stuart with advancing, and quite different from the sack, as he describes it.


----------



## Charles Saturn (May 27, 2010)

I like how Flusser defines TNSIL, "casual, comfortable elegance."


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

The Rambler said:


> AP, thanks for providing the link to Alan Flusser - the first time I've read him. A superbly compact and to the point essay.


 More available
https://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/index_current.html


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

(I've just added a point about what he says to my post, above).


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Being a Lifshitz fellow, I was going to stay out of this, but Katon is dead on. Yes, RL makes some nice stuff, but he is known for getting his best ideas from thrift stores. And he, more than anyone else, popularized the wretched visible logo on shirts and the backsides of trousers. That, alone, makes him a national disgrace, due respect to TE.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Yes, RL makes some nice stuff, but he is known for getting his best ideas from thrift stores.


Hey, I'm in good company!


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Thom Browne's Schooldays said:


> The shop fixtures and furnishings are often the most expensive thing in any polo store (or polo section of a dept store).
> I've heard antidotes from polo employees that they were instructed not to pursue shoplifters _unless _they were stealing the decorations.


Probably because the 'Polo' people know the true wholesale cost of the high-markup garments they're selling. Much more expensive to replace stolen and damaged fixtures and fittings than to replace stolen stock.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Being a Lifshitz fellow, I was going to stay out of this, but Katon is dead on. Yes, RL makes some nice stuff, but he is known for getting his best ideas from thrift stores. And he, more than anyone else, popularized the wretched visible logo on shirts and the backsides of trousers. That, alone, makes him a national disgrace, due respect to TE.


Getting ideas from thrift stores is good, no? Those dreadful logos, and it isn't just that it's a logo, it's a polo-playing logo, are a big minus, there are so many cringeworthy RL innovations, but you have to take the bad with the good with these creative types. Hard to put a dollar value on some creative things, you just have to go with what the market will bear.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

jimmyfingers said:


> A large majority of people shopping at this level seem to be concerned with a visible 'pony' and matching this colored pony with the rest of the outfit. Numerous customers have passed over unlabeled PRL for labeled items with the visible Pony. Also, they love the items that have famous RL graphics such as the teddy bear, etc. One of the reasons why I think he came out with the *giant pony* on his stuff.


Oh it really was RL which started that. TBH I thought that started with the knock-offs here in China, a country which loves brand whoring.

I can go to the local supermarket and buy a low-cost jumper, which has an absolutely huge RL 'pony' logo on it. It doesn't even pretend to be genuine, by the Chinese brand name on the tags and labels. Similar for many other famous luxury designer brands and logos.


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

I have been a Polo fan for many years and have several items, including dress and polo shirts, ties, sport jackets and coats. For some reason his stuff just hits me where I live, although I am selective about what I buy. I find Ralph's new "skinny" stuff not for me. His "Siena" line of trousers (no longer available" ) were the best I have ever owned; in wool, flannel and cotton chinos better than Bills, in my opinion. Don't forget the "Polo University" line which can still be found at the thrifts. I love his andrew line of point collar shirts, no logo, and perfect for pinning. I have found his OCBD shirts behave better and roll nicer if you buy them 1/2 size larger.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

For my 1,000th post, I'll jump back on my Ralph soap box.

Lately I've been seeing a ton of Rugby stuff on WAYWN and Style Forum. It seems RL is sort of hitting the same group with the Rugby stuff and much of the Polo line. I'd love to see RL expand the Rugby line by incorporating much of the Polo pieces that are clearly aimed at younger, slimmer, folks who enjoy washed and worn clothing. That would leave Polo open for a bit of a makeover, with an attempt to restore it to it's glory days of the early 80s. 

Wouldn't it be awesome if the heavily washed S-M-L-XL oxford cloth button downs were moved to Rugby, and Polo was once again the home of a true OCBD dress shirt that could compete with Brooks and Gitman? I'd love some chinos that rival Bills, maybe a made in USA collection of tailored clothing, and some casual shirts that don't look like American Eagle or Hollister.

For the last decade or so Black Label, Purple Label, and Rugby have all grown at the expense of Polo, the line that got Ralph where he is. I don't want Hollister, Armani, or Saville Row...I want Polo. It seems that people like me might just have to stick with specialty shops, with a little Paul Stuart or Brooks Brothers mixed in, to find the clothing we used to find by walking in a Polo store.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

^^^
+1...I very much agree.


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

Here, Here.. I got a pair of his cords last week and had to return them for being too skinny, although they were my size and did fit as intended.
Most of my Polo is from the 80's, in great shape and still going strong.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

fred johnson said:


> Here, Here.. I got a pair of his cords last week and had to return them for being too skinny, although they were my size and did fit as intended.
> Most of my Polo is from the 80's, in great shape and still going strong.


I really dislike the "custom fit" shirts, too. My husband wanted rugby shirts for kicking around and I bought him two of them because they didn't have any classic fit styles on the website (they just arrived) and they're just...cut too slim. That custom fit cut just doesn't look right to me for things like OCBDs and casual shirts.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

VS said:


> I really dislike the "custom fit" shirts, too. My husband wanted rugby shirts for kicking around and I bought him two of them because they didn't have any classic fit styles on the website (they just arrived) and they're just...cut too slim. That custom fit cut just doesn't look right to me for things like OCBDs and casual shirts.


Personal preference, which is why there are multiple cuts. Personally, I like my shirts to only be able to fit 1 of me.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

hookem12387 said:


> Personal preference, which is why there are multiple cuts. Personally, I like my shirts to only be able to fit 1 of me.


5 years ago about 1/3 of the shirts were custom fit. Today, I'd bet only 1/3 (maybe even 1/4) of the shirts are classic fit. So people who don't go for the Hollister look pretty much only get the basic Polo items. It's the same with trousers and casual pants.

Ralph and his posse seem to be making enough money to stay fat and happy. But the cold, hard truth is that he has completely lost a huge portion of the customers who made his brand what it is. With a little work, the right marketing, and the right retail structure, Ralph could have had his cake and eaten it too. Instead we are forced to wear Hollister Polo, plain-ole basic Polo, or shop elsewhere. It isn't a hard decision, trust me.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

^ I'd like some data cited on the above comment about losing a huge portion of his customers that "made his brand what it is." Things like that have a distinct "I just made this up because it's how I personally feel" kind of ring to them.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Trip English said:


> ^ I'd like some data cited on the above comment about losing a huge portion of his customers that "made his brand what it is." Things like that have a distinct "I just made this up because it's how I personally feel" kind of ring to them.


Do you think that Polo circa 2011 is anything remotely close to Polo circa 1984? Do you really think this crap is the stuff Ralph was selling in the 80's when he was building his empire? I can assure you that the Polo line was not catering to J. Crew and Hollister hipsters. What Ralph is doing now is akin to what Tommy Hilfiger did to all but destroy his brand in the mid 90s. Tommy catered to the urban-rapper theme of the mid 90s, and it killed the brand. Ralph is making the same mistakes, he's just making them 15 years later.

Purple Label and Black Label are different. They have a very clearly defined target customer. I'd never wear Black Label, but I can appreciate the quality of both the design and the construction of the collections; same goes for Purple Label and Rugby. But take a look at the Polo goods and tell me who they are marketing to. Who is it that wears 75% of the crap in the Polo line?

Ralph built his empire selling a certain type of clothing, a certain aesthetic, if you will. It's fascinating to me that, with the exception of Purple Label (which very few can afford) and some of the Polo tailored collection, that aesthetic has mostly vanished from Ralph Lauren, and most notably in the Polo line.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

How is Polo currently different today than in 1984?

On what do you base the "crap" assessment of the current merchandise?

You live in Mississippi according to your profile. What's your personal experience with Black or Purple label (since you seem to readily exclude them from your judgement)? What's your personal experience with Blue label? Rugby? RRL? Just curious where you're able to get your hands on enough merchandise to level your assessment. 

Also, you use the phrase "I can assure you" but forgot to accompany it with assurances. Just a heads up.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Trip English said:


> How is Polo currently different today than in 1984?
> 
> On what do you base the "crap" assessment of the current merchandise?
> 
> ...


If you don't know the answer to your first question, I don't know how the majority of this thread has made any sense to you. Do a search for Polo catalogs. There used to be a few threads on here that had scans of vintage Ralph catalogs. Polo of the 80s was top of the line stuff. If you took the best of today's Polo, Brooks Brothers, Paul Stuart, and J. Press, and added more color, better fabrics, and better patterns, you would have 1984 Polo. It was literally a one stop shop. A Lacoste polo was the equivalent of a Wal Mart polo in the 80s. The little pony polo shirt was the only polo shirt you wore if you had money. My how things have changed. Most of my friends wouldn't be caught dead wearing a pony-emblazoned shirt.

It's crap because when you talk about retail prices, you can get far superior goods for the same (or even lower) prices. You couldn't say that about the old Polo.

My business and personal travels bring me all over this country and a couple others. Us Mississippians have the same benefits of modern travel that you yanks enjoy. I've spent more time in the Michigan Avenue RL than I have most of my best friends' homes. I have a few ebayed Purple Label items. I don't like the fit of Black Label, but I can appreciate it for what it is. Black Label is infinitely smaller in scale than Polo of the 80s, but the collections are produced with same focus and attention to design and construction that you saw from Polo way back when . Once again, they take their target customer, and the make an entire collection that perfectly caters to that customer. They do the same with Purple Label, Rugby and recently RRL. Somewhere along the line, they stopped doing that with Polo. All of the other lines occupy niches in the retail market. Polo has just become the line for mass produced crap for Joe Blow who won't mind paying for it when it's 50+% off.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Trip English said:


> How is Polo currently different today than in 1984?


To me the Polo stuff is not much different now to as I remember it in the late '80s early '90s. especially the shirts, i.e. paying a premium just to have a pony logo.

At the time I could get just as a good quality polo shirt from Matalan, for a lot less than the PRL ones. Only difference, it didn't have a pony logo.

BTW whatever happened to Tommy Hilfiger in the end? I remember seeing their gear everywhere, even in the local Asda supermarket. It was sports casual stuff if memory serves, and not expensive either. Same with Kappa, another brand I remember been popular in the UK. Although Kappa is now popular here in China, and it mostly isn't knock-offs AFAIK.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

How is RL stuff different today?

As others have said, it was more exclusive. Today, it is ubiquitous. In 1984, there weren't many things that were truly awful. Today, there are (large logo polo shirts being Exhibit A). In 1984, the idea of out-sourcing was shocking. Today, it is not.

Just a few ways that RL is different.

I have immense respect for TE--his thoughts and posting are among the best on this forum. But I cannot worship on the same altar of Lifshitz.


----------



## hookem12387 (Dec 29, 2009)

nolan50410 said:


> 5 years ago about 1/3 of the shirts were custom fit. Today, I'd bet only 1/3 (maybe even 1/4) of the shirts are classic fit. So people who don't go for the Hollister look pretty much only get the basic Polo items. It's the same with trousers and casual pants.
> 
> Ralph and his posse seem to be making enough money to stay fat and happy. But the cold, hard truth is that he has completely lost a huge portion of the customers who made his brand what it is. With a little work, the right marketing, and the right retail structure, Ralph could have had his cake and eaten it too. Instead we are forced to wear Hollister Polo, plain-ole basic Polo, or shop elsewhere. It isn't a hard decision, trust me.


Perhaps this goes back 5 years, perhaps it's more like 15, but older shirts I have, be it Polo or Brooks or Press, are trimmer in the 'standard fit' than they are currently. I just chalk it up to America not always being a nation of, well, fatties. Whatever the cause, standard shirts used to be trimmer, thus the need for a trimmer fit was not as necessary, IMO.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> How is RL stuff different today?
> 
> As others have said, it was more exclusive. Today, it is ubiquitous. In 1984, there weren't many things that were truly awful. Today, there are* (large logo polo shirts being Exhibit A).*


I think the obvious high profile Polo pony branding may have backfired on RL big-time, especially in China. Because of all the fakes everywhere, which bare the same logo. I'm sure RL is one of the most copied brands here, second only to Louis Vuitton. RL is anything but exclusive as a result.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> If you don't know the answer to your first question, I don't know how the majority of this thread has made any sense to you. Do a search for Polo catalogs. There used to be a few threads on here that had scans of vintage Ralph catalogs. Polo of the 80s was top of the line stuff. If you took the best of today's Polo, Brooks Brothers, Paul Stuart, and J. Press, and added more color, better fabrics, and better patterns, you would have 1984 Polo. It was literally a one stop shop. A Lacoste polo was the equivalent of a Wal Mart polo in the 80s. The little pony polo shirt was the only polo shirt you wore if you had money. My how things have changed. Most of my friends wouldn't be caught dead wearing a pony-emblazoned shirt.
> 
> It's crap because when you talk about retail prices, you can get far superior goods for the same (or even lower) prices. You couldn't say that about the old Polo.
> 
> My business and personal travels bring me all over this country and a couple others. Us Mississippians have the same benefits of modern travel that you yanks enjoy. I've spent more time in the Michigan Avenue RL than I have most of my best friends' homes. I have a few ebayed Purple Label items. I don't like the fit of Black Label, but I can appreciate it for what it is. Black Label is infinitely smaller in scale than Polo of the 80s, but the collections are produced with same focus and attention to design and construction that you saw from Polo way back when . Once again, they take their target customer, and the make an entire collection that perfectly caters to that customer. They do the same with Purple Label, Rugby and recently RRL. Somewhere along the line, they stopped doing that with Polo. All of the other lines occupy niches in the retail market. Polo has just become the line for mass produced crap for Joe Blow who won't mind paying for it when it's 50+% off.


I was asking so as to get you to explain yourself further. This thread had been remarkably thoughtful and in general we like to avoid throwing around generalizations. That's why I personally have racked up so many posts. I simply can't find this level of decorum anywhere else on the internet among any forum devoted to my interests.

So when someone splashes a big old opinion around I like to challenge it a bit, especially when I disagree with it.

Of course I'm aware that planes regularly fly in and out of Mississippi, but asked since I've heard plenty of assessments based on the RL section at Bloomingdales and if this thread has done anything it's shed light on just how wide a net is cast under the Polo brand. It's like the story of the blind men describing the elephant. Some budget minded folks may see American Living as a welcome addition to the JC Penney's sales floor, while some may look down their nose and consider it beneath the dignity of a once great icon.

Considering what I do for a living, I'm well aware of the perils of positioning yourself on the spectrum of quality and price and I generally admire the way Ralph Lauren is able to have his cake and eat it, too. While our opinions are often as subtle and "down the rabbit hole" as they come, the general public tends to see the RL brand as one worth draping themselves in (hence the big pony, both real and counterfeit) while the more cultured and monied clothing enthusiasts continue to view RL as highly desirable. Brands with much smaller scope have toppled themselves in much more modest attempts to broaden their base, and yet Ralph Lauren can sell 75% off zip front pull-overs by the billion and keep guys like me coming into the Rhinelander for the top shelf goodies.

And so that's why I challenge the rather over-simplistic assessment of the clothing as "crap." As a relatively care-free gent who owns as much Borrelli as L.L. Bean, I can confidently say that while you can find garments at every end of the price and quality spectrum under the RL banner, you cannot do better for the money in the majority of cases. I have to spend nearly $600 per shirt at Borrelli for the same quality I get for just over $400 from Ralph. That's just one example, but the comparison remains sturdy all the way down the ladder to the rummage sale at an outlet (where the dreck on offer at neighboring Banana Republic or Brooks Brothers is often beyond measured consideration) or at Penney's where I'm not even sure what is sold there at this point other than American Living.

So when you say things like "my friends wouldn't be caught dead wearing a pony-emblazoned shirt" it sounds like you're either hitting the hyperbole a little hard or have friends prone to an abortive vanity.

This is not to say that you have to like Ralph Lauren, of course, just that you have to add to the dialog if you're going to jump into it. Not just toss a rock and vanish. There's plenty of real-estate on the internet for that sort of thing.

And thanks 32R&R for the kind words. I do appreciate your point, but apply it more generally to manufacturing as a whole than specifically to our Uncle Ralph.


----------



## jimmyfingers (Sep 14, 2010)

Personally, the giant polo logo is an excellent move for Ralph. I used to have people walk in demanding to be directed to the big pony items. I do not care for the giant pony, but the masses do.

I am not sure about the quality of Polo during the 80s since I was not born.

Polo is one of the few stores where anyone regardless of wealth, age, sex and race can shop and be proud to wear. You see gangster thugs, older retirees, teenagers, infants, and women all shopping in the same store. 

I would say it is closer to 50% classic and 50% custom fit. 

The slim fit is what is 'fashion forward' at this moment. Even the gangster thugs who once wore extremely baggy clothes are buying the slimmer cuts.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

He's not my uncle, and he would not be welcome in my house for dinner or any other occasion. It is true that out-sourcing would have happened regardless, but Mr. Lifshitz led the way. Not the sort of pioneer worthy of worship. As for $400 shirts, I once had one thrown at me by a SA at the Michigan Avenue store--I kid you not. And if you think I hate Mr. Lifshitz, you should talk to Mrs. 32, who was there and as mad as I've ever seen her, and she never gets angry at anything. It did not help matters that Mr. Lifshitz did not respond to my letter of complaint, nor did he see to it that any of his staff responded. All we got, end of the day, was a giant FU from Mr. Lifshitz, which I readily admit has colored my opinion of RL ever since. There may be some good in his wares, some of which I own (all thrifted, for the record), but I am eager to point out any flaw in his game, of which I think there are many, odd sizing rising to the top of the list.

Having a RLPL shirt thrown at me by a salesperson in Chicago drilled home one lesson that is true across the board in matters sartorial, but rarely in as brutal a fashion: There are haves and there are have-nots, and if we think that you are the latter, then you are not worth warm spit. Mr. Lifshitz exacerbates this by positioning himself as a supplier to all levels, from folks who pay way-too-much for made-in-China polo shirts to those who pay way-too-much for RLPL boxer shorts. He is, in my view, the essence of a snob. Press, CCC, Andover Shop, none of these cherished institutions do business the way that Mr. Lifshitz does business. That's why they are cool and he is not. I've never had a shirt, or anything else, thrown at me in any of these other places, and if I had, something would be done about it. With Mr. Lifshitz, all I got was silence. And that spoke volumes.

YMMV, of course. But Mr. Lifshitz, in my view, is an opportunist, not a treasure. If he thought he could make a buck selling latex polo shirts, he would.

And, again, respect to TE.



Trip English said:


> And thanks 32R&R for the kind words. I do appreciate your point, but apply it more generally to manufacturing as a whole than specifically to our Uncle Ralph.


----------



## 16128 (Feb 8, 2005)

jimmyfingers said:


> Personally, the giant polo logo is an excellent move for Ralph. I used to have people walk in demanding to be directed to the big pony items. I do not care for the giant pony, but the masses do.
> 
> I am not sure about the quality of Polo during the 80s since I was not born.
> 
> ...


Yeah but... "fashion forward" isn't really what the trad customers want. Ralph has to make money, and he does because he gives people what they want, but he also makes money catering to people who don't want big ponies or clothes that are either fashionably snug or very baggy.

Baggy is what sunk Tommy Hilfiger, along with ginormous logos, because EVERYTHING he had was like that. Thankfully not all RL stuff is trendy, and there's a lot of variety, but in the case of my shopping, the only classic-stripe rugbys were slim fitting, so there wasn't any choice, and that's kind of a basic item, like polo shirts or OCBDs, which it's nice to also offer in the classic fit. People are used to a certain cut and buy things over and over (people with over-40 physiques). 

ETA: I have a grey one, one of the men's styles, from ages back...maybe 2001, and it's great. Thick, hearty cotton, it didn't shrink, etc. I was hoping this would be like the old ones.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> from folks who pay way-too-much for made-in-China polo shirts to those who pay way-too-much for RLPL boxer shorts.


Even in the late '80s and '90s, from what I can remember, much of the Polo stuff came from Asian countries and still had quite high prices. So we're back to Ralph as outsourcer again. :wink2: Polo has always been quite a big brand for toiletries as well, I believe.

I've never heard of RL's other more exclusive lines until I joined AAAC, like Black and Purple Label, Rugby, etc, Certainly never seen these lines in shops and department stores in the UK or China. USA only? I have heard though that RL also does a line of furniture and interior design.

RL may be a 'national treasure' to some on there. But to me it's just another designer luxury brand that I tend to avoid, albeit an interesting one.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Trip English said:


> I was asking so as to get you to explain yourself further. This thread had been remarkably thoughtful and in general we like to avoid throwing around generalizations. That's why I personally have racked up so many posts. I simply can't find this level of decorum anywhere else on the internet among any forum devoted to my interests.
> 
> So when someone splashes a big old opinion around I like to challenge it a bit, especially when I disagree with it.
> 
> ...


The main problem I have with Ralph, and his Polo line, is that you now have to go to Michigan Avenue or the Mansion to find things of good quality, but with pricing normally reserved for excellent quality. Imagine if Ford sold the same cars, under the same brand name, with the same item name, across the country, but the ones sold in Chicago or New York were the only ones worth purchasing. I nearly swallowed my tongue when I was in one of said stores last summer, only to be told that none of Ralph's dress shirts would have number sized sleeve lengths. Not only was he already forcing his customers to buy average length sizes (which is BS to begin with), but he was now saying that was too good for them, and they needed to be happy with one sleeve length for every neck size. I'm not real keen to the idea of getting sleeve alterations on a $85 or $125 dress shirt. I'll just shop elsewhere. The issue with the sleeve lengths, in a nut shell, says everything that needs to be said about Ralph and the state of the Polo line in 2011. Somewhere along the line, he just stopped caring about providing excellent clothing. He accepted his fate as a brilliant marketer of mediocre goods.

My friends would not be caught dead wearing the pony. The deep south can be about as preppy as it gets, especially around your SEC schools. I'd say Vineyard Vines has a far better brand image than RL does, and that says a lot because VV sucks out loud. It's no longer cool to be wearing that pony, no matter what size it is. It looks to me like Southern Tide is the new RL of the south. I can't imagine things are much different in other parts of the country with the well healed set. That pony simply doesn't mean what it once meant.

Like you said, I don't have to like RL, and contrary to what you think, I don't have to add anything to the dialog. I can toss as big of a rock as I care and vanish for as long as I wish. I don't see anywhere in the Forum Rules that says I need to spend half a day defending my opinion. I can offer it and check out as fast as I want to. Pucker up.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I was referring to the early 80s. IIRC, RL was not out-sourcing then.



MikeDT said:


> Even in the late '80s and '90s, from what I can remember, much of the Polo stuff came from Asian countries and still had quite high prices. So we're back to Ralph as outsourcer again. :wink2: Polo has always been quite a big brand for toiletries as well, I believe.
> 
> I've never heard of RL's other more exclusive lines until I joined AAAC, like Black and Purple Label, Rugby, etc, Certainly never seen these lines in shops and department stores in the UK or China. USA only? I have heard though that RL also does a line of furniture and interior design.
> 
> RL may be a 'national treasure' to some on there. But to me it's just another designer luxury brand that I tend to avoid, albeit an interesting one.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> I was referring to the early 80s. IIRC, RL was not out-sourcing then.


I don't think RL was exporting either.

Sure I'd never heard of them in the early '80s, and 'polo' was a game, a mint or a VW car in the UK, but not clothes.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

32rollandrock said:


> I was referring to the early 80s. IIRC, RL was not out-sourcing then.


Ralph was experimenting with out-sourcing as early as 1982, mostly to Hong Kong. His split with Ike Behar (Ralph's original shirt maker) in 1983 was influenced by his out-sourcing practices.



Men's Wear said:


> GENTLEMAN'S SHIRTMAKER
> 
> by Jane Golden Reilly
> 
> What makes Ike Behar different from other private label shirtmakers is a near-fanatic devotion to craftsmanship. One retail account says of his product, "It's a gentleman's shirt . . . not so much conservative, as more refined." Private label shirtmaker Ike Behar is taking his label nationwide, and is determined to bring his reputation for quality (and near-fanatic devotion to craftsmanship along. "Every shirt is a pearl button; there are no two alike," instructs Ike Behar, summing up what might be described as Ike's Pearl Button Philosophy of Shirt Making. Not only does he use pearl buttons on all of his dress shirts- requiring an operator to position all of the individually-sized buttons by hand- he also believes such attention to detail is necessary in all of the other 20-to-25 steps involved in shirt making in order to produce a truly fine, well-crafted garment. Like pearl buttons, Behar sees each shirt as a unique creation. He's a master craftsman who has raised (or returned) apparel making to an art form. "You should make a shirt like you should love your mother," says Behar, with the same care and sense of devotion. If that attitude sounds rare, so is Ike Behar. Until recently, he was a fairly well-kept secret known only to a handful of better men's traditional stores who carried his goods on an almost strictly private label basis. But no more. His men's and women's shirts are now in 125-or-so top stores around the country, and a major drive for nationwide recognition is planned for fall '83. His account includes such retail standouts as Paul Stuart, Brittany Ltd., At Ease, Britches, FR Tripler, Carroll's, Louis of Boston, Norton Ditto, Perkins Shearer and Dunhill Tailors, for whom he produces the entire shirt supply on an exclusive basis. Behar is free to pursue new accounts because for the first time in more than a decade, he's not tied to one company. *Last September, he severed a 12-year tie with Ralph Lauren. Although questions persist, Behar insists the split was amiable and that the two are as friendly today as they were when a piece goods manufacturer first introduced tie- maker Lauren, looking to expand his furnishings, to master shirtmaker Ike Behar. Organized as a separate Polo division, Behar moved his operation in 1970 from West 34th St. to his current headquarters, a then three-year-old factory in New York's Westchester County. The two clicked from the start, Behar's associates say: "Ralph, the stylist; Ike, the craftsman." Together they grew, slowly at first. Behar even kept his old accounts until the introduction of Lauren's women's wear lit the spark in men's wear, too. Before the women's division was parceled and sold, Behar had made all the Polo and Ralph Lauren shirts and blouses. Then, Lauren began moving Polo production off-shore. Eventually, half his shirts were made in Hong Kong; the other half, in Westchester, and the two groups were shipped to stores together in the same box. With so many other goods also coming from Hong Kong, Behar felt there now was a void, in traditional stores, especially in the shops he had started with, for domestic, quality-produced shirts.* Quietly, he let word out that he was taking orders again. The way the calls came in convinced Behar, or actually his wife, Jean, that there was a market for the type of quality, handcrafted garments he manufactures. Quality is his byword. "Other men look for ways to cut corners. I look for ways to put more into a shirt," he says. It's always been that way, even back in Cuba when his father, a tailor, first taught him how to sew. He learned his trade well. By 17, he was making shirts to complement his father's clothing offerings, and at 20, had moved to New York to work as a sewing machine operator. He later took over the firm, but that was after his tailoring skills had earned the destitute soldier a car and an apartment while stationed in Pearl Harbor. Returning to New York, he and a cutter took over his old ailing company, renamed it R'n'R Shirtmakers, and immediately started manufacturing shirts for the best retailers in the city. "Our biggest and most demanding account was DeFrees," he says, describing the stately Madison Avenue men's wear specialist which closed its doors upon the owner's retirement, rather than risk a new owner destroying the name. "He was my favorite account," Behar recalls. "The tougher the customer, the more inspired I am. I feel that way about Paul Stuart today. People who demand the most get the most out of me." It's demands like these that encourage Behar "to constantly look for ways to improve a shirt," like those pearl buttons on dress shirts; diamond quilted collars that hold up in pressing; split yokes that hug the shoulders; handkerchief roll seams; 18-to-20 stitches to an inch; 1/16-to-1/32 inch edge stitches, and all single-needle stitching. "Maybe the customer doesen't understand the difference between single- and double-needle stitching. But single-needle is the best way. And I can't change," he says. Behar also selects the finest fabrics available. While other shirt makers use 40 and 60 yarns, Behar concentrates on 100-yarn, two-ply Egyptian cotton and uses even 145 yarns in sea island cotton. The result is a silkier, more luxurious hand. Almost all of his fabrics are imported from Italy, England and Japan, yet he says he is constantly pursuing new markets to avoid carrying the same predictable plaids and stripes as other shirt manufacturers. His target store is the the better men's or women's traditional shop (women's wear accounts for 50 percent of his volume) with a discerning clientele capable of detecting the quality and craftsmanship of his shirts and also able to pay the rather steep price points. [. . .]


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Trip English said:


> American Living - JCP collaboration. I'm told it's a treasure hunt.


I have expounded on what merits AL _did_ have several times in the past, but my heart just isn't in it any more. The last few seasons have shifted to collections appealing more towards the hipster and hip-hop demographics (The writing's been on the wall, but I hoped they weren't that stupid). Even the standard fare in dress shirts seem thinner, and the madras patterns are awful. They've totally dropped the AL rebranded Polo Sport boots and CVO's, in fact, all AL footwear is discontinued. Plus, they are also introducing the ty-dye and Chaps-esque patterned polo's.

What I once considered cheap entry-level trad attire, is beginning to make Izod look good. With that, and JCP possibly dropping Sperry (!), I find less and less reasons to venture into Penny's short of a crock pot.


----------



## redcorals (Jan 7, 2012)

cud someone help me with identify this RL label?


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

It comes across blue in the picture, but that looks like purple label.


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

^Right. I'm by no means a RL expert but I've never seen that writing on anything other than Purple label.


----------



## redcorals (Jan 7, 2012)

CMDC said:


> ^Right. I'm by no means a RL expert but I've never seen that writing on anything other than Purple label.


well it isnt RLPL, its not Corneliani Caruso or Chester Barrie. It is made in USA with imported fabric. Classic Cut 2B, center vent, non working cuff buttons, pleated+cuffed slacks with belt loops. Hilton Era seems a lill too early for it has darts, but it is union made. This is the second time I have ran into the label but cant put a finger on it.

I have asked TBS to shed some light on it.


----------



## SCsailor (Jul 2, 2008)

My first job after law school was as a clerk for a judge. I distinctly remember noticing during guilty pleas one week how many of the defendants were wearing t-shirts emblazoned with enormous designer names and logos like: Polo, or POLO Sport, or Tommy Jeans. I remember thinking, why, on the day they were pleading guilty to a crime and possibly going to jail would they not dress up, at least try to make a good impression? Put on a tie? Maybe a suit? Later I realized that they thought they were dressed up. They were wearing their nicest t-shirts. The only thing that made their t-shirts different that the fruit of the loom under my OCBD was a giant designer's name on the front. That is sad, pathetic really.

That realization led me to take stock of my own inventory - while the emblems on my RL clothes were small, were they really that different? Did I really need a polo player - like a stamp of approval - on my shirt? I don't wear RL clothes with emblems anymore. I rarely wear anything with a designer emblem.

Still, RL has something that no one else has matched. There is something about the ads, a certain romance, that is simply amazing- it draws you in. His stores are something else too. It feels like stepping into one of his ads. He's captured the essence of American style and packaged it up with a heavy dose of romance and a hint of nostalgia. 

It has been years since I bought anything by RL, but I still enjoy walking through the stores.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

After reading his biography, _Genuine Authentic,_ by Michael Gross, I confirmed some of the specifics in other sources and decided to buy no more of his products. There is just too much contrivance around the man. A bit of moral compromise is that I continue to wear the RL items that I already have.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

On a recent trip to NYC, I was reminded of the enigma that is RL. The mansion was, as always, a remarkable shopping experience. I even got one of the spring royal oxford dress shirts in a coral orange. What was still disconcerting was the obvious lapse in design of the Polo floor (not including tailored, which was stellar) compared to the Purple and Black Label floors. I really wish they could sharpen the focus of Polo, as they have with the more upscale or modern lines.

We also went to the Rugby and RRL stores in the Village. Rugby is a fantastic idea, and my wife loves their clothing. It's all a bit slim and overly styled for my tastes, but it is very well done. The new RRL tailored store is a site to behold. There isn't anything like it.


----------



## fred johnson (Jul 22, 2009)

I have to admit that I have a ton of PRL clothing items, including shoes, most of which are more than 10 years old. I even have OCBD's from before he started giving them names. I have always liked the fit of his stuff, until lately with the shift into the slimmer fit and big pony stuff. My last purchases were golf trousers and straight point collar shirts from the web site, which are excellent and on sale. His stuff does last, especially with decent rotation and good care. One of the current weak points are the trousers which can't hold a candle to the older styles in terms of fit, although I'm glad he is still making a limited number of forward pleated models.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

redcorals said:


> cud someone help me with identify this RL label?


If that is Purple Label, someone came away with a steal at $36!


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

^ Pretty sure it wasn't. The signature-blue-label line was discontinued in 06 or 07, and it sat between PRL and RLPL in the pecking order. It was made by Corneliani, usually at a higher level of quality than Polo, but not quite the St. Andrews-level quality of RLPL.


----------



## Thom Browne's Schooldays (Jul 29, 2007)

Yeah, I'm never sure what to call that label.

Not sure exactly when it started, but some of the "signature label" stuff was american made, I've come across a few suits and trousers with that label, and don't recall a Corneliani tag in any of them.

I also had a pair of "signature" flannels (though in retrospect they may have been orphaned grey flannel suit trousers) with the blue signature label, but with "polo ralph lauren" on the buttons.

I'd say it's about on par with the Caruso PRL stuff, better than the old american made polo stuff, only because it's actually wearable (the old made in USA polo stuff all seems to have tight button stance, big shoulders, low buttoning point that looks really dated).


----------



## Doctor Damage (Feb 18, 2005)

I didn't want to start a new thread just to post some news and this one's worth reviving for other reasons. According to the article below, Ralph's "Fifth Avenue Polo" store will be closing. I haven't cross-checked other sources, and I don't know if that's the Rhinelander Mansion store or something else.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...at-a-record-pace-as-amazon-chews-up-retailers


----------



## tda003 (Aug 16, 2009)

The Mansion is staying open.

There's a thread w/ more detailed information on the Fashion Forum.


----------



## Danny (Mar 24, 2005)

The Mansion is on Madison Ave...so presumably they mean the store on 5th in the central shopping district. To be honest though...I would not be surprised if the whole brand vanishes in the next 5 years.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Here you go, DD. Fixed that first sentence for you.....



Doctor Damage said:


> I didn't want to start a new thread because there have already been two AAAC threads started on this exact same news item.....


----------

