# Patagonia and Social Class



## cycliste1 (May 27, 2008)

Dear Gentlemen:

This is in response to the Patagonia vs. LL Bean, Lands' End and the like question but I wanted to start a separate thread about this.

I am interested in members' feedback on my rambling below. Is it true or just silliness?

In certain circles, at least where I grew up and went to college on the East Coast, the brand of, say, your Gore-Tex shell, fleece jackets, down vests, and the like were important as an identifier of social class. Wearing Patagonia or Arcteryx or Mountain Hardwear conveyed a certain moneyed outdoorsy private school posh look. Patagonia really being the gold standard when it comes to preppy outdoor clothing. When I was in high school in the mid to later 90s, North Face was already becoming sort of an inner city brand and less socially acceptable. Wearing an LL Bean parka simply wouldn't be acceptable. However, LL Bean for camp mocs, Bean boots, flannel shirts, and bote and totes, always acceptable. Likewise, Lands' End button downs, chinos, and the like, always acceptable, outerwear--about as sexy as driving a Honda (they may be great cars, I couldn't say, but so dull). Patagonia on the other hand, is like wearing a classic Range Rover. 

To this day, because of this admittedly silly brand snobbery, I still abide by these rules that I have now briefly touched on above. And I assure you, walk around any posh liberal arts school or Ivy campus on the East Coast...or around any swell upper crust town, and you will understand what I am saying. 

And it is kind of funny to see my parents, who are in their early 60s, still get excited about a new fleece or jacket from Patagonia themselves. 

All best,

J


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

I had to chuckle at that now that I have been out of school for a couple of decades. I know exactly what you mean but I could (as many could) swap out the brands you mentioned and replace them with a few that pre-date back to the early 1980's (for me anyway). 

The connection of social circle to brand label will fade out like Calvin Klein jeans and Lacoste "alligator" polo shirts have for me. Neither of the two items I just mentioned would be anyones idea of a gold standard today but when I was young they really made a statement about you.

The reason is that they are fashion items and fashion cycle driven brands. Some can stay on top longer than others the way U2 can still sell albums but Phil Collins is basically MIA and even U2 isn't as hot as they once were. 

About the time you shake that connection in your mind the brands will either crater or be busted out with the word "patagonia" being printed on a t-shirt at walmart and then it will crater to be replaced by something else. 

Often the first hint that the wheels are coming off has already been stated in the other thread, the "made in Canada" label now says "made in China" likely followed by Vietnam and then who knows.


----------



## aluminiumfish (Feb 19, 2009)

i iamgine Land's End as a brand for people who don't like clothes shopping because its mail order over mostly in the UK .Very safe choice of clothing for the middle classes but a complete no no for the uppers and lowers.You can't hold a L'End iten in your hand and know. ..its Land's End.Its a very generic middle class mundane leisure wear....mass produced somewhere.

Outdoor North Face jackets are popular amongst the 'BBC' types...media outdoor folks and still has cachet....for its techincal well thought out build quality and great outdoor abilities.

I've only seen a Patagonia fleece once but it looked just like the all the other fleeces in the world ( I'm sure a North Face would be just the same).
But its interesting that are such sutble cues to class in clothing because that is one of the subconscious reasons for wearing a fabric/colour/garment.

Over here...a covert coat is a sure signifier of a upper upper middle class to upper class person who went to private school.Red-pink cotton chinos..are worn only by country folks..( of means) as are yellow corduory trousers.....and so on.

A long time ago in England...when a few of general masses began to afford better clothing..there was a ban on certain types of clothing being worn by the newly dressed-up...because the ruling classes could not keep the distinction they thought essential for the hierachy of the day.


----------



## The Swedish Chef (Feb 16, 2009)

Patagonia is generally referred to as "Patagucci" in US climbing circles, although most of those people take pride in their extremely thrifty lifestyle.

I don't see any connection between mainstream outdoor brands and class over here, it more a question of money.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Ah yes, real clothing for the real world. None of these labels would last a full season, let alone work half so well as any number of natural materials. Pick up A Winter Wilderness Companion by the Conovers and learn about real clothing.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

I have found the technical/outdoors brands to be more often cut for athletic builds. This makes sense because they are supposedly intended for "athletic" people, and because a scrawny person flapping around in a tent of a jacket will loose a lot of heat pumping hot air out. 

My REI fleece and Columbia shell/liner fit MUCH better than a "Chaps" fleece I have. 

If looking "upper" class is partly about looking good, and looking good is all about fit, I can sort of see a connection.


----------



## Pengranger (Apr 13, 2008)

Don't get me wrong, I do buy brands, but buying a brand doesn't always buy you quality.

When I'm looking for "outdoor" clothes I will normally look for the quality of the material. Goretex and Windstopper are my "go to" fabrics, and as long as I like the look of the item, I'll buy it irrespective of brand. 

When buying Patagonia and the like, you are buying into a brand, just as much as you would be with Burberry, Gucci, LV. If you are happy to pay over the odds for a name, be my guest, but you are often buying it for one thing, the label.

I found out long ago that buying so called "technical" clothing from the likes of Ralph Lauren/Calvin Klein is nearly always going to be worse quality for a similar price of product built with great technical fabrics.


----------



## tinytim (Jun 13, 2008)

Kav said:


> Ah yes, real clothing for the real world. None of these labels would last a full season, let alone work half so well as any number of natural materials. Pick up A Winter Wilderness Companion by the Conovers and learn about real clothing.


What you're saying is true. But you're so far off the mark as to the OP it hurts to read. He isn't talking about how good the clothes are. He's talking about status.

In the real world function has nothing to do with status.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

*Cyclist*

My friends, Cyclist

I beg to differ with your thoughts though. I agree, you see the gear at schools. Mostly North Face, Patagonia.
If you are a serious outdoor type. You will know and understand the gear. What is best.
I have camped, climbed, rapelled, white water raft, parachuted, ski diving. I have 25 years of the military. And am an advid winter packer. Have been to both poles.
I disagree with your comment about the gear.

Mountain hardwear makes a great tent, sleeping bag. Archterryx makes a great pack. My first pack is like 20 year old.Canada Goose, the best down.
Patagonia, makes the best baselayer in their capiline.
These all are great companies. 
IMO, this is why most people buy these things.
I have a son who is in his 3rd year of grad school, who wear these things. He is an outdoor type.
My daughter, a recent college grad, the same.
With my 20 yo daughter, I went skydiving with her!
Long story short. There are many people, that appreciate true, quality stuff. Who understand layering, because they have used it in the outdoors.
Nice day my friend


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

I went through a phase where I thought Patagonia had a certain appeal, but now I find it to be a bit fuddy. Perhaps if I lived in a more crunchy area things would be different.

Quality wise it's pretty good, but I agree not incredibly durable if you really play hard. I've got a waterproof jacket that I've barely even used and the lining in literally falling apart. Perhaps the recycled materials aren't that good in the long run!

-spence


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

This thread makes me wonder where I would fit in with with winter status clothing. I am an Eastern Mountain Sport fan. If they have what i need I chose their goods. I stay warm at half the price! However does this make my social status above or below Lands End or Cabella's.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I know that teenagers are like this, but I thought that this kind of immature behavior ended with adulthood in most people.

As for driving a Honda not being sexy, Danica Patrick drives a Honda and I find both she and her blue Honda to be quite sexy. :icon_smile_big:

https://img520.imageshack.us/my.php?image=11343051.png

Cruiser


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

Country Irish said:


> This thread makes me wonder where I would fit in with with winter status clothing. I am an Eastern Mountain Sport fan. If they have what i need I chose their goods. I stay warm at half the price! However does this make my social status above or below Lands End or Cabella's.


EMS gives you that practical Northeastern look. It's great stuff and when on sale an incredible deal. Certainly above Lands End and more snooty than Cabellas. The Patagonia class might look down at your practical nature though.

-spence


----------



## ChiliPalmer (Nov 18, 2008)

Patagonia is like Ralph Lauren. It's well known, and quality stuff in a very broad sense.

But for each product they make, you can find somthing superior made by a company who specializes in said product. 

The specialized stuff, however, isn't usually conspicuously branded. You don't get to advertise anything.

But people in the know, know.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

DukeGrad said:


> Mountain hardwear makes a great tent, sleeping bag. Archterryx makes a great pack. My first pack is like 20 year old.Canada Goose, the best down.
> Patagonia, makes the best baselayer in their capiline.
> These all are great companies.
> IMO, this is why most people buy these things.


IME most people buy these things because they think the brand is cool, mostly because people like you know *which* product the company makes that is worth buying.

I'd bet that the average "nights in a sleeping bag outdoors" among Patagonia, Mountain Hardware etc. owners is less than 1.

Some may engage "outdoor" activites like hiking, skiing/boarding etc. where such gear is useful, but in those situations the cheaper stuff is so close to being "as good" as to be indistinguishable.

I've got a ~14 year old Columbia Parka that has served me through Chicago Winters, served as a motorcycle rain jacket in California (not often mind you, but once and a while), done some nordic skiing (not back country, just touring) in the Sierras, and protected me from the wind and dust (and one or two drizzles) here in Iraq. It's worn as heck right now, and probably isnt' waterproof anymore, but it's still hole and functional.

Regards,
Petro.
:wq


----------



## em36 (Feb 10, 2004)

cycliste1 said:


> Dear Gentlemen:
> 
> This is in response to the Patagonia vs. LL Bean, Lands' End and the like question but I wanted to start a separate thread about this.
> 
> ...


----------



## GreenPlastic (Jan 27, 2009)

This has absolutely nothing to do with my social class, but I cannot spew enough hatred and venom upon all that is The North Face. What a ridiculous brand. It seems that you can walk into a North Face store and pay close to $500 for a button-down shirt and a pair of socks. Crap quality, too, to say nothing of the lack of style.

It should also tell you something that 99% of the Midwestern kids on my campus wear North Face.  I have nothing against Midwesterners -- good, friendly, hard-working people! -- but I don't exactly take my fashion cues from them. To me, North Face is the epitome of the "I don't know how to dress myself, so I've just given up on the concept" look. It's the best way possible to spend a great deal of money to look very cheap.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Spence said:


> EMS gives you that practical Northeastern look. It's great stuff and when on sale an incredible deal. Certainly above Lands End and more snooty than Cabellas. The Patagonia class might look down at your practical nature though.
> 
> -spence


That is a relief. I was afraid I would going to have to choose between warm and practical or snooty and fashionable. Three out of four ain't bad.
Of course I would still be interested in a Feathered Friends coat if anyone feels generous.


----------



## budrichard (Apr 3, 2008)

Well I can commiserate with your parents because I am in that age range. I didn't attend an Ivy League School but a Big Ten University and at that time Yvon was still selling climbing equipment. His first product was the 'standup shorts', just about bullet proof and when he made more money selling just the shorts than climbing gear the handwriting was on the wall. For a long time, hardwearing technical gear was only from Patagonia and Yvon developed a social responsibility that was appreciated then and now. If ANYTHING EVER went wrong with the gear, send it back and you got a new piece of which I took advantage of once. We outfitted our children from young ages with Patagonia and thier gear was passed down and then on to cousins, friends and grandchildren. As more sophsticated gear such as Arcteryx came along, my wife anf I purchased sets and the quality and function was great. I still purchase Patagonia for myself and for Xmas my oldest grandaughter got a new Patagonia Down vest from me because she liked the one I have. It was the favorite Xmas present for a 10 year old child which in this digital age says a lot.
As I type this i am wearing Patagonia fleece pants, a Patagonia shirt and DAS parka since its about 20F today in Wisconsin and the dog will soon want to go out! 
As to class, I purchase well made technical gear that can support my hours outside. I would prefer it made in North America as Arcteryx once was but if not made in North America, from a socially responsible company. Yvon still owns Patagonia and has chosen not to sell out but to keep the company at its present size versas Arcteryx that has sold out and it appears the present owners are only looking at the bottom line.
I only frequent the Campus at Madison Wisconsin where I got my degrees but most of the time it seems that sports and beer are more important than the barnd of gear worn. Of course the 'Hoofers' are still going strong
and who knows what gear present day members wear?-Dick


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*I agree*

with what most have said, notwithstanding Cruiser's off-base notions about Hondas.

My stylish Boulder/Mendocino son and his wife wear and look good in Patagonia. They are both quite athletic and outdoors-active. She told me that LL Bean was not fashion forward enough. Although for northern California winter, Bean's outerwear is suitable and affordable. (Of course, I keep dry in Barbour and Filson, depending on mood and destination.)

Glad to know Feathered Friends still in business. Down bag and down vest holding up well.

If I am in the market for something and Patagonia makes it, that's what I buy. Their stand up shorts are excellent shorts and also conjure up memories of Yosemite some years back and climbing before sponsorships. (I think they have finally brought the stand up shorts back, now that they have organic cotton.) The main thing, for me however, is that Chouinard has not sold out, conducts his business in a way that I appreciate, and supports causes I care about.

There was a time when Eddie Bauer was known for making the best down gear available. Now they sell foreign-made clothes.

Norm Thompson used to sell fly-fishing equipment and pipe tobacco. Now they sell foreign-made clothes.

Glad to hear EMS is still in business. In the early seventies I bought a pair of Swiss-made climbing boots at their Armonk, NY store. At that time Leon Greenman was still in business in Manhattan selling gear to Gunk climbers.

What's hot and with whom changes as companies follow the progression adumbrated in some of the posts. There was a time, I think, when LL Bean stuff was fashionable among preppies. But that was a while ago. Now LL Bean sells foreign-made clothes.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## bbcrock (Feb 13, 2009)

I had a friend in high school who was obsessed with Patagonia. Every year he got a new Patagonia jacket. I still can't look at them without thinking of Britches Great Outdoors in Washington, DC which was THE place for affordable rugby shirts and generally preppy activewear around 1984-1987.

I am not sure that we had exactly the same social class associated with Patagonia, but I remember that I thought they were more expensive than I wanted to spend and less urban/cosmopolitan than I wanted to wear.

This was the same time I switched over to wear indoor soccer shoes by brands like mitre- weird, low to the ground compared to nike, all leather. I wasn't going to stomp around in butter-colored timberlands w/ a rugby shirt and patagonia jacket by 16 if I was catching the subway to downtown record stores.

Preppy this far south sometimes rubs into more rural, horsey attitudes that were eschewed. The wealthy in my neighborhood often had a eurotrash component.

The more european-focused at my high school almost universally wore Descente ski jackets:
https://www.descente.com/

THOSE symbolized the European ski vacation. Patagonia symbolized the local hiker.

North Face was nonexistant, but in Washington, DC today it's THE UNIFORM.


----------



## bbcrock (Feb 13, 2009)

GreenPlastic said:


> ...
> To me, North Face is the epitome of the "I don't know how to dress myself, so I've just given up on the concept" look. It's the best way possible to spend a great deal of money to look very cheap.


In the city, in Washington, DC, as late as 4 years ago, North Face symbolized:

I'm hiding a gun.


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*shibboleths*

Honestly I had no idea that Patagonia was considered a better brand than, say, Columbia (I have a pair of their hiking shoes which are unbearable). I make no pretense of outdoorsiness though.

Oddly I found myself sneering at a coworker's LE parka (made in China) hanging in the coat rack and reminisced to the late '80s when the LE Squall, preferably in a bright primary color, was a signifier of upper middle-classdom.

David Brooks makes the point in _Bobos in Paradise_ that they buy 'the best' not to flaunt wealth or status, but to display how smart they are in even the most mundane of purchases. I have no expertise in whether a Patagonia fleece actually has any merit over an Old Navy one.


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

Patagonia as an "identifier of social class"? Let's put it this way: Has anyone ever seen a black person(Ivy League students aside)wearing anything Patagonian?


----------



## Beefeater (Jun 2, 2007)

*Interesting*

Interesting thread. One of my best friends works at an independent "Outdoors" store here in Dallas. He goes back country hiking about 4-5 times a year, hiked the AT from Georgia to Maine, worked as a ski-bum in CO for awhile. I got into hiking about 2 years ago and had him outfit me, a combination of stuff from all the brands mentioned here, some not, and some of what I already owned.

Honestly, the only time I wear the stuff is when I am hiking or camping, so the social status issue puzzles me a bit. I look for functionality and comfort. Most of it, to me anyway, is aesthetically lacking. My friend's store, however, is located near a very wealthy part of Dallas, and he does tell me that there is social connotation to "this or that brand" and he just laughs it off as people wanting to look the part that have no idea whatsoever. He even explains to people that you can get "so and so" for less expensive without the logo, brand, etc. And, he tells me, most folks will pay more for the label. FWIW.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

budrichard said:


> Yvon still owns Patagonia and has chosen not to sell out but to keep the company at its present size versas Arcteryx that has sold out and it appears the present owners are only looking at the bottom line.


There are a number of Patagonia branded products that are made in China. Nobody who has products made in China can claim to care about human rights, worker exploitation, or the environment with a straight face.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Was anybody else expecting this thread to be about Welsh emigration to Argentina in the nineteenth century ?


----------



## rwjones (Jan 29, 2009)

This thread has gotten way off topic, but to reply to the OP: I know exactly what you're talking about. I just graduated from Cornell last year, where it's frigid enough to warrant these brands daily and the student body is wealthy enough to afford them. North Face jackets are ubiquitous - I myself own three and honestly have no idea why I bought them other than because that's what I saw everyone wearing from the moment I stepped on campus as a Freshman and assumed they were the best for the weather in Ithaca. That's completely arbitrary, of course - it may as well have been Patagonia or EMS but I believe TNF provides both decent protection against the weather AND doesn't look goofy when not climbing a mountain. The logo is also associated with a pricetag that brings status, just as you said. 

There was a short-lived column in the Cornell Daily Sun that poked fun at the school by providing "rejected new college crests" - one of them was the outline of our real crest with a BMW logo, a North Face logo, and a picture of Long Island in the center.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Barbour over all of the above for me, personally. Everyone else at my high school is in North Face and Patagonia, but I don't think they're indicative of a higher social class.

Just my opinion.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

JibranK said:


> Barbour over all of the above for me, personally. Everyone else at my high school is in North Face and Patagonia, but I don't think they're indicative of a higher social class.


North Face - commoner (John Public in US) with a bit more money or someone who saved up

Patagonia - commoner with a bit more money, may be found outside Harrods on Saturday with an anti-fur poster and leather shoes/trainers


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

dbgrate said:


> Patagonia as an "identifier of social class"? Let's put it this way: Has anyone ever seen a black person(Ivy League students aside)wearing anything Patagonian?


I would just like to point out that this quote came from someone from Boston, not from the southeast.


----------



## Portly_polar_bear (Oct 15, 2008)

In the UK the weather is rarely so bad you need proper outdoor gear and most people only use it to transit between their car and office/shop/house. People who spend a lot of time working outside are more likely to be seen in a waxed jacket or a yellow fluorescent one, both of which are more practical for standing around all day in drizzle and wind. Patagonia also looks so expensive that it comes across as a bit vulgar. A long black or charcoal wool overcoat is the autumn-to-spring uniform of the middle classes from sixth form onwards.

Personally I think wearing expensive climbing or skiing gear in the street in the UK is overkill and makes one look a bit of a clueless poser. In certain areas, such as Newcastle, it would mark you out as a softy and/or southerner to wear anything more than a t-shirt in any weather.:icon_smile_wink:

However, amongst climbers the social signals sent by your gear (with tongue firmly in cheek) would probably be something along the lines of:

1. North Face -- dog walker, unless it dates from the mid-90s or before in which case see number 4.
2. Patagonia, Arc'Teryx, Mountain Hardware -- sponsored, very hardcore (if it's wrecked) or, most likely, more money than sense.
3. Rab, Mountain Equipment, Lowe Alpine -- serious enough to buy ok-quality gear.
4. Cheap ratty gear -- probably climbs Grade VII and E5.
5. Prana, Moon, A5 -- boulderer. Why you need to pay so much for cheap cotton trousers and wool hats is beyond everyone.
6. European Brands -- European. Your natty clothing and nonchalant air arouses suspicion.

A sneaky look at the condition of your climbing rack would determine more closely where you fit. Largely, the older and more knackered the higher you stand.


----------



## The Swedish Chef (Feb 16, 2009)

Portly_polar_bear said:


> 5. Prana, Moon, A5 -- boulderer. Why you need to pay so much for cheap cotton trousers and wool hats is beyond everyone.


:icon_smile_big:
Brilliant post


----------



## dbgrate (Dec 4, 2006)

SlowE30..Yup,the quote didn't come from the southeast..nor from the southwest,the midwest,the west coast,or even Hawaii..now that that's clear,what is you're point?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

I agree that the main "class signifier" in a brand is price/exclusivity. Once The North Face was an expensive, elite well made brand. Now every other person I see on the street or at the mall has one of those ubiquitous fleeces with the nylon covering on the shoulder and sporitng the TNF logo on the back and the front. My 8 yr. old daughter says she wants one. Now that TNF has been corrupted, it will be interesting to see what other presently elite brands will rush downhill to fill that void.

Just about all of my casual outerwear is LE or Bean (squall parka, bean down coat, bean flying tigers leather jacket). I like these brands because their stuff is reasonably well made, reasonably priced, guaranteed for life, has no logos and is very plain in design and style. They are coats I can wear for years and years without looking dated.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

All this talk about functionality is beside the OP's point. He said nothing about that but a lot about status. If Patagonia is the "status" brand wherever he happens to be - Monmouth Beach is it? - then by all means that is what he and all those concerned with status over all should be wearing.

If, on the other hand, someone is looking for something to wear for a particular outdoor activity, rather than just looking as though they might be "into" that sort of thing, then they should go to the most reputable local gear outlet and start asking pertinent questions.

Oh, yeah, and be sure to avoid North Face, because that brand is being slimed by all those _declasse_ "inner city" types. _Quel horreur_!


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

I think it was J.P Morgan who said: "If you know how much money you have, you're not rich." 

Similarly, f you need to rely on your Patagonia jacket to convey your social status, you don't have social status.


----------



## cycliste1 (May 27, 2008)

In defense of my initial post, I was more interested in other's reactions. Although I do think that everyone has social signifiers to what they wear whether they are conscious or not. I just find the topic so interesting.

And I couldn't agree more with the anti-status status argument. I went to summer camp with two of the Newhouse boys (SI's sons). I remember SI coming up to visiting weekend in a beat up old Toyota Camry. Reverse status one upmanship.



charlie500 said:


> I think it was J.P Morgan who said: "If you know how much money you have, you're not rich."
> 
> Similarly, f you need to rely on your Patagonia jacket to convey your social status, you don't have social status.


----------



## Kosh Naranek (Apr 24, 2008)

petro said:


> There are a number of Patagonia branded products that are made in China. Nobody who has products made in China can claim to care about human rights, worker exploitation, or the environment with a straight face.


Indeed. In addition, a glance at any of their catlogs showing trendy yahoos riding trail blkes through fragile ecosystems pretty much puts paid to any pretense of environmentalism. Comparing their earlier US made products with the current off shore pieces shows how far they have fallen.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

ToryBoy said:


> North Face - commoner (John Public in US) with a bit more money or someone who saved up
> 
> Patagonia - commoner with a bit more money, may be found outside Harrods on Saturday with an anti-fur poster and leather shoes/trainers


Where does my dear Barbour fit in?


----------



## ChiliPalmer (Nov 18, 2008)

Kosh Naranek said:


> Indeed. In addition, a glance at any of their catlogs showing trendy yahoos riding trail blkes through fragile ecosystems pretty much puts paid to any pretense of environmentalism. Comparing their earlier US made products with the current off shore pieces shows how far they have fallen.


A mountain range can hardly be classified as a fragile ecosystem.

The company actively tries to minimize environmental impact, not completely eliminate it.

Price is part of the reason Patagonia has the cache it has.

But if you flip through their catalog, few of the people in the action photos are in Patagonia clothing. Sometimes you'll see another brand's logo prominently displayed. The photos aren't staged the way other brands are. It's more realistic, more pure, so to speak.

It has the effect of making you believe that, by buying Patagonia, you aren't susceptible to marketing. You're more about substance than style.

Whoever figured that out is a genius.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

JibranK said:


> Where does my dear Barbour fit in?


People do not wear Barbour because they want to look hunters, which is not always the case with outdoor-gear. 
When I was in school, some of the older students and even teachers would wear technical The North Face jackets when a basic TNF fleece jacket, etc would be appropriate. This is where I learnt about the associations with some of the brands and people who are not climbers, mountaineers, etc.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Ah, yes. I see the same at my school, sometimes to the point of absurdity (TNF products that are very obviously made for some activity or other.)


----------



## akatsuki (Oct 15, 2007)

I suppose everyone wants to look like they do more and live a life they don't. Of course, it takes a life on its own and becomes something not even connected to the original... TNF is the worst, throwing away all their authenticity for sales.

Whenever I see someone wearing technical gear, I mostly just wonder why they bought whatever it was they did. Often if it is something a bit tough to get, like RAB or Montane here is the US, or Westcomb, I know that they are serious about it and really are looking at technical performance. If they are wearing Arc'Teryx, it is a bit of a toss-up - good stuff, but people buy it because it is the most expensive at the local shop. Patagonia is definitely a bit more lifestyle, but I don't think they pretend to be otherwise and they definitely try to make good products for what they do.

Then again, if you want to see brand snobbery in sporting apparel, nobody can get even close to women's skiwear...


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

akatsuki said:


> *Whenever I see someone wearing technical gear, I mostly just wonder why they bought whatever it was they did.* Often if it is something a bit tough to get, like RAB or Montane here is the US, or Westcomb, I know that they are serious about it and really are looking at technical performance. If they are wearing Arc'Teryx, it is a bit of a toss-up - good stuff, but people buy it because it is the most expensive at the local shop. Patagonia is definitely a bit more lifestyle, but I don't think they pretend to be otherwise and they definitely try to make good products for what they do.


You could get a serious climber wearing Patagonia or The North Face as general wear, but you have so many people that are not. In the cycling world, Nike is the equivalent of Patagonia and TNF, but a lot of serious cyclists wear Nike for basic and technical gear. I suppose the association with Nike could be used for other activities and sports too.

I have worn my cycling jacket to uni as general wear in the spring, but then again a lot of campus knew I cycled.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

akatsuki said:


> Then again, if you want to see brand snobbery in sporting apparel, nobody can get even close to women's skiwear...


https://www.guardian.co.uk/travel/2006/oct/08/travelfashionadvice.skiing

"Can supermarket ski wear be chic? Does designer gear mean a wet bum? Gemma Bowes tests the outfits"

Wal-mart is branded Asda in the UK


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

Well, the answer to your question would depend a little on how you define social class and much about how much you know about the real world.

Social class, if you define it as just money than wearing clothes from a certain brand could give the illusion, if you define it as something else a brand will not be very relevant.
In some instances wearing any visbile logo would actually get you considered as of "lower social class".

Real world, relatively low income people eat just bread and potatoes to be able to afford expensive clothes from famous brands. Do they belong to a high social class? maybe, if they come from old aristocratic families (impoverished gentelmen are something as old as the idea of nobility) but most of the times they will belong to a relatively low social class.

Either way linking class and brands together does not really work well.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## sartorial_1 (Sep 21, 2008)

cycliste1 said:


> Dear Gentlemen:
> 
> This is in response to the Patagonia vs. LL Bean, Lands' End and the like question but I wanted to start a separate thread about this.
> 
> ...


J - I grew up on the east coast and now live in Southern California.

I understand your perspective, sir, as the east coast is a very simple to understand place.

You owe it to yourself to live in SoCal (or maybe even Norcal) to get a fresh perspective on things.

I can tell by your post that you are a thoughtful and objective individual, maybe more so than myself.

I have lived in SoCal for 3 years and I value expanding the way that I look at the world (I may not have had this value on the east coast - no incentive to)

If you live in SoCal for 3 years, I think you will come to the conclusion that, in general, the east coast is *a bunch of idiots*, although it does have its standouts.

I think if you live in SoCal for 3 years you will be able to answer your own original post.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Phileas Fogg said:


> Well, the answer to your question would depend a little on how you define social class and much about how much you know about the real world.
> 
> Social class, if you define it as just money than wearing clothes from a certain brand could give the illusion, if you define it as something else a brand will not be very relevant.
> In some instances wearing any visbile logo would actually get you considered as of "lower social class".
> ...


+1. I agree completely and would add, while it clearly happens on a disturbingly frequent basis, the logic behind the linking of brand labels with one's social class totally escapes me!


----------



## bbcrock (Feb 13, 2009)

sartorial_1 said:


> J - I grew up on the east coast and now live in Southern California.
> 
> I understand your perspective, sir, as the east coast is a very simple to understand place.
> 
> ...


Heh.
Converts are always the biggest proponents.

I work with and am friends with Los Angelenos who abandoned SoCal for Washington, DC, not because of the weather which is nominally better in SoCal, but for the educational levels and discourse. Where I grew up in Montgomery County, MD there exists the largest concentration of PhDs in the country. You probably should ask yourself about all the things that make SoCal so unpleasant to warrant so many residents to move to a city like DC which offers none of the natural beauty of Oxnard or Inglewood.


----------



## sartorial_1 (Sep 21, 2008)

bbcrock said:


> Heh.
> Converts are always the biggest proponents.
> 
> I work with and am friends with Los Angelenos who abandoned SoCal for Washington, DC, not because of the weather which is nominally better in SoCal, but for the educational levels and discourse. Where I grew up in Montgomery County, MD there exists the largest concentration of PhDs in the country. You probably should ask yourself about all the things that make SoCal so unpleasant to warrant so many residents to move to a city like DC which offers none of the natural beauty of Oxnard or Inglewood.


I didn't intend to spark an east coast - west coast rivalry


----------



## Nick (Jan 16, 2005)

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I grew up in Connecticut in the 70-80s. This was pre-Patagonia. Brands like LL Bean and Abercrombie ruled the roost.

In outer wear the definitive brand was "CB". I think they went out of business a few years ago. Walking around in a CB shell was like a membership card in Riverside and Old Greenwich.


----------



## GreenPlastic (Jan 27, 2009)

bbcrock said:


> Heh.
> Converts are always the biggest proponents.
> 
> I work with and am friends with Los Angelenos who abandoned SoCal for Washington, DC, not because of the weather which is nominally better in SoCal, but for the educational levels and discourse. Where I grew up in Montgomery County, MD there exists the largest concentration of PhDs in the country. You probably should ask yourself about all the things that make SoCal so unpleasant to warrant so many residents to move to a city like DC which offers none of the natural beauty of Oxnard or Inglewood.


Comparing the best parts of DC to the worst parts of SoCal is not really a fair comparison. Inglewood or Oxnard are better compared to the slums of DC, and not the more educated and ritzier parts of the DC-adjacent area.

As a native Los Angeleno who has spent four years on the East Coast and (going on) two years in the Midwest, I can say without hesitation that SoCal is the best of all those places. Traffic notwithstanding, of course.


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

*We must travel in the same circles...*

This is a great post...I was thinking of posting a similar question because as someone who grew up on the west coast and is now back near home, but long lived on the east coast, and went to one of those posh little liberal arts colleges (where incedentally one of the Newhouses was also a student), I've found that the jacket code holds out here in Seattle as well. 
And this information is more relevant to most 20-somethings than bespoke shoes. 
I had no idea about the code when I was a freshman in college almost 10 years ago, I just wore what an upper middle class, private school educated, suburbanite wore, Patagonia fleece and an Arc'Teryx jacket, which I bought when it was a relatively local brand from B.C. and used for backpacking, snowboarding and skiing. Yet, it was considered "cool" in the Philly suburbs, although this was a bit before Arc'Teryx went national. From a Seattle perspective top down shells:

Top tier: well worn Marmot, Patagonia, Arcteryx, or OLD North Face in a terribly gaudy color (eg, bright green), at least 10 years old, bonus points if you are a lean, greying, 50 year old Cardiothoracic surgeon who lives on Bainbridge Island and went to Lakeside, Dartmouth (or Reed, or Brown, or Oberlin, or Amherst), and UW med, and did your residency somewhere with good skiing, like Colorado or Utah and you still ski on stiff, 200s using those ugly orange Nordica boots and drive and drive an ancient volvo or land cruiser

2nd tier: newer Marmot, Patagonia, Arcteryx in a "tasteful" color, like blue or black, bonus points if you are a shaggy haired larcosse player from Roosevelt (kicked out of Seattle Prep), on his way to play at St. Lawrence or Bucknell

3rd tier: Columbia, Helly Hansen, REI house brand, OR, bonus points if you are a Boeing engineer who went to UW and furiously pace the sidelines at saturday afternoon club soccer games from Federal Way to Mill Creek

Bottom: New North Face, bonus points if you are a 15 year old girl from Holy Names Academy, or a poseur who buys their outdoor gear from Nordstrom


----------



## akatsuki (Oct 15, 2007)

ToryBoy said:


> You could get a serious climber wearing Patagonia or The North Face as general wear, but you have so many people that are not. In the cycling world, Nike is the equivalent of Patagonia and TNF, but a lot of serious cyclists wear Nike for basic and technical gear. I suppose the association with Nike could be used for other activities and sports too.
> 
> I have worn my cycling jacket to uni as general wear in the spring, but then again a lot of campus knew I cycled.


Yeah... I suppose you could, but frankly, why would you bother having more than one technical shell, and especially one for casual wear? Better to have a Barbour or equivalent if you are going to buy a second jacket. Or maybe a Paramo if you want an "outdoors" brand with some obscure elitism behind it.

To get back to the thread, basically if you want a shell that will be top-end, reasonably well known in the right circles, and have hardcore authenticity - buy a Westcomb. If you need to be recognized as having a top end brand by the "masses", buy Arc'Teryx. If you want a bit of lifestyle branding thrown in but are willing to give up on the technical merits of your clothing, buy Patagonia or Nau.

BTW- Nike is mostly rebadged Giordana cycling wear. I suppose Rapha or Assos might qualify for top snob appeal cycling wear.... And I would probably say that Nike cycling wear is mostly worn because Lance is sponsored by them, not because of its technical merits. After all - Lance retires, Nike stops producing cycling gear, Lance comes back, Nike starts making stuff again - shows a certain lack of dedication to the sport which I think a lot of roadies (including me) aren't really willing to deal with. Rapha stuff is superior in comfort, manufacture is a bit questionable at times though. Assos stuff is pretty impressive overall, but more synthetic in feel.


----------



## The Louche (Jan 30, 2008)

The OPs thread makes a certain amount of sense to me. When I was in high school (exact same time) Patagonia was certainly a label of outerwear that a certain brand of "cool" kid wore. The rest of the look that these kids affected included chinos, Wallabees, Polo shirts, OCBDs, shaggy hair, SUVs and BMWs. They certainly wouldn't have wanted to wear many other brands conspicuously.

But to the issue of class: were these kids "classy?" Some were and some weren't. Some had money and some just thought and acted as if they had money - they likely had piles of credit card debt. 

To equate one's dress and wealth with class is a slippery slope. Appearances can be deceiving. Yes, many truly classy people happen to be wealthy as well. But there are just as many people out there that are rich and completely classless. 

Class has to do with the way you conduct yourself and treat others. Its associations with wealth are usually and largely made in error.


----------



## ToryBoy (Oct 13, 2008)

akatsuki said:


> Yeah... I suppose you could, but frankly, why would you bother having more than one technical shell, and especially one for casual wear? Better to have a Barbour or equivalent if you are going to buy a second jacket. Or maybe a Paramo if you want an "outdoors" brand with some obscure elitism behind it.


I mean the person wearing it as casual wear as an option, but the main purpose being activity place. I do the same with cycling jackets in the spring and summer sometimes because they are thin and comfortable.



akatsuki said:


> BTW- Nike is mostly rebadged Giordana cycling wear. I suppose Rapha or Assos might qualify for top snob appeal cycling wear.... And I would probably say that Nike cycling wear is mostly worn because Lance is sponsored by them, not because of its technical merits.


The Nike cycling is mostly de-badged and made in Italy, which is why it is more readily available in the UK and in some cases cheaper then in the US. Lance 10/2 and Discovery Channel range were not the main options in the Nike range we had available, even the independent cycling/tri-stores stock the plain Nike range from jerseys to windstoppers. Gore and Santini are also popular options, Assos is seen as the rich-man's brand but some not so rich hardcore cyclists wear the brand (some winter gloves retailing for £130).


----------



## gopunk (Sep 30, 2006)

Fascinating thread. I had no idea people on the east coast were even aware of brands like Patagonia and Mountain Hardware... this after having lived there for three years. My personal opinion is that, at least on the west coast, more affluent people tend to wear Patagonia, Arc'Teryx, etc. but that this is because they perform better (and also often look better). Maybe I'm not in high enough social circles (feel free to let me know if this is the case, I won't take it personally), but the brand I see most often worn by affluent people who know nothing about the outdoors is North Face.



ChiliPalmer said:


> Patagonia is like Ralph Lauren. It's well known, and quality stuff in a very broad sense.
> 
> But for each product they make, you can find somthing superior made by a company who specializes in said product.
> 
> ...


I love Patagonia's capilene baselayers, so I'd be very interested in hearing what is superior...


----------



## ChiliPalmer (Nov 18, 2008)

gopunk said:


> I love Patagonia's capilene baselayers, so I'd be very interested in hearing what is superior...


After discovering Icebreaker merino, my Capilene goes unused. Merino doesn't smell no matter the number of consecutive days you wear it. And it doesn't itch when mixed with sweat.


----------



## gopunk (Sep 30, 2006)

ChiliPalmer said:


> After discovering Icebreaker merino, my Capilene goes unused. Merino doesn't smell no matter the number of consecutive days you wear it. And it doesn't itch when mixed with sweat.


I have some Icebreaker tights (and have tried their shirts) and admit they are nice. But I can't say I prefer it to Capilene - perhaps because I don't run into the same problems as you with it. I wore two Capilene shirts up Kili and didn't run into any odor or itching issues. How long ago did you purchase your Capilene? I know that the earlier version had odor issues, but these were resolved a couple years ago.


----------



## ChiliPalmer (Nov 18, 2008)

gopunk said:


> I have some Icebreaker tights (and have tried their shirts) and admit they are nice. But I can't say I prefer it to Capilene - perhaps because I don't run into the same problems as you with it. I wore two Capilene shirts up Kili and didn't run into any odor or itching issues. How long ago did you purchase your Capilene? I know that the earlier version had odor issues, but these were resolved a couple years ago.


I know, the new stuff has Gladiodor, otherwise known as pulverized crab shells. I have the new and the old. The new is a definite improvement. Capilene doesn't itch. Never has.

I just find that I prefer Merino for most uses. Absolutely speaking, there is nothing wrong with Capilene.


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

I don't think it's fair to judge a brand just because a bunch of "Philistines" choose to adopt it as a show-off status symbol. Rolex is still the same fine watch it was before the hip-hop crowd decided to flash it in peoples' faces. Same with Patagonia.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I don't think it was just the hip hop crowd. It was basically every group of nouveau riche in existence.


----------



## Brax (Dec 3, 2005)

Kingstonian said:


> Was anybody else expecting this thread to be about Welsh emigration to Argentina in the nineteenth century ?


19th Century? I was in Gaiman in November and things are pretty much as they were 200 years ago. BTW, I was wearing Patagonia and Marmot gear during this trip in Patagonia.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

This winter while getting into winter outdoor sports I decided for the first time ever I needed light weight down...for me the fit was with Marmot, I tried many brands and this one worked best. For my daughter a fleece from Marmot as well for fit and style. Now to the poster who posted about China, I hate to wear anything made in China but just try to buy something in down today not made there, very difficult.

For other outdoor clothing REI is fine as are some other items I found such as Outdoor Research (OR), where I got some nice hiking/snowshoeing pants, and a wonderful windproof jacket. Again, try to find these not made in China where all of the companies have set up there workshops. Maybe they are out there but I have not been able to find them, and these items are not at the bottom of the price point, even with sales.

Ad far as Patagonia, I love their summer shirts, straight bottom, short sleeve, but I will never again buy from them directly, they are a disaster on shipping and handling returns...My local shop, with much lesser selection will get my business, or an online retailer that has their merchandise should I want anything from them.

Lands End is out in my house, not happy with the quality, LL Bean is still a great brand for most items.


----------



## jon44 (Jan 30, 2007)

Interesting thread.

I'm a pretty avid outdoorsman and get "pro-form" on all my winter stuff. To me it looks ridiculous to see late middle aged people walking around Harvard Square with the latest Arc'Teryx high tech jacket "system." These days, you can get just as functional clothing with no labels and nicer fabrics.

As for Patagonia, it's called "Patagucci" for a reason. Seems like it's becoming associated more and more with poseurs. For example, I have a friend who teaches at Holderness School (very outdoorsy prep school) and none of the kids I saw were wearing Patagonia--more into obscure snowboard brands I never heard of. 

Personally, because I think a lot of their clothes are a rip-off (justifying cheapness through "elegant simplicity"), I kind of think people wearing it have been had...

jon


----------



## magnum P.I. (Mar 11, 2009)

E-frat


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

Well I wear a lot of Patagonia and Arc'Teryx in the outdoors because I think it performs better than a lot of stuff. I've tested this stuff, as well as others, in some pretty extreme conditions and have always gone back to those two brands. I simply think they perform better. I was a whitewater raft guide for several summers and most of my fellow guides agreed because pretty much everybody wore it. Occasionally we would try other stuff because we got it for free but it was never quite the same.

Now, I agree North Face sucks for the outdoors. It just doesn't hold up as well under really tough conditions. However, North Face is great for what most people who wear use it for, walking around the city.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Nearby Oxnard california is situated on an alluvial floodplain and still holds remnants of soft coastal chapparrel, marshlands and oak riparian woodland. 
It is site for many complex aracheologic sites from early,mid,late level Chumash to Californio and early anglo occupations.
The farming community, with a large number of chicano WW2 war veterans opened it's arms to many european refuggees, many who started alongside cmapesinos in the strawberrry and green onion fields. Today Oxnard boasts a onion domed russian orthodox church and jewish temples from those immigrants alongside california mission stuyle roman catholic churches and many protestant denominations.
Nearby Point Magu naval base has added a mix of military retirees, many filipino bringing Oxnard fame as a place to find quality food from that land.
Oxnard is home to John Steinbeck's son, a screenwriter of no small reputation.
Oxnard has suffered from gang violence, but no more than other US cities. A major gang task force has reduced the criminal element considerably, and continues to push for their elimination. 
People of Ventura County are blessed, having the Pacific ocean and nearby Channel islands, one of the 6 largest wild land areas in the northern continent and freeway close access to the state's many cultural and educational resources.


----------



## In Mufti (Jan 28, 2005)

I started buying Patagonia back in the early ‘80s when all they made were canvas shirts and pants. No one had ever heard of them except serious hikers and mountaineers and the hard core surfers in northern California (my group). The allure was that the clothing would last forever and didn’t have obvious labels. 

I got in the habit of buying their stuff more out of laziness over the years and bought most of it through their catalog (I just wanted to replace the shirts and jackets and stuff I had worn out). I bought the stuff because it was durable and somewhat generic. 

About ten years ago a woman made a comment to me about my Patagonia parka—implying that I was trying to make a fashion statement. I laughed off her remark because I wasn’t aware that most people even knew what Patagonia was—and couldn’t imagine how it could possibly be considered “stylish.” But it got me to start looking around and I had to admit that their stuff seemed to have become popular with the yuppie crowd.

A couple of years ago, I stopped by a Patagonia store opening near my home. The people attending the thing were the biggest bunch of snobs, phonies and poseurs I have ever seen. Everyone was eating exotic cheese and sipping wine and trying to impress each other. In short—a bunch of as*****s. So, unfortunately, I would have to agree that Patagonia has in fact become a label that is popular with people who want to show you how special they are.

I buy very little from Patagonia anymore—mostly because they had gotten in the habit of discontinuing their most well-established lines and replacing them with some new trendy stuff—just like Saks. I slowly got out of the habit of looking at their catalog when I needed something. I only buy Patagonia stuff from their outlet place now—and only if I get a GREAT deal on it. I still like their swim trunks. 

As they have become more fashionable, they have become a lot less durable and practical. I have switched to other brands that, like Patagonia 25 years ago, are just making tough practical clothing.


----------



## jon44 (Jan 30, 2007)

gopunk said:


> I love Patagonia's capilene baselayers, so I'd be very interested in hearing what is superior...


I second Merino, which IMHO is superior in every way to Capilene (which is really just branded polyester, that may offer 0.0004% extra wicking). A good quality Merino polo baselayer looks like a nice polo shirt when you hit the pub after an adventure, while a polyester top just looks like crap. And it last forever, is good for the environment, never smells, and never looses its insulation causes of wet coming from within or without.

And to another poster's point that in every particular category, there is always somebody better than Patagonia (or Arc'teryx for that matter), I couldn't agree more. Here are my preferences:

Insulation = Merino: Ibex (becoming the super-chic New Englander's brand of choice), and Icebreaker (nice outerwear too)

Ski Clothing: Salomon and Outdoor Research have much more sophisticated fabrics and designs. (Arc'teryx seems hyper gimicky in this category.) Mammut has best fitting stuff for hardcore adventures and offers the inimitable Schoeller fabrics. Super trendy New Englander's wear Ibex's softshell stuff for skiing as well.

Packs: I think this is a great example of where Patagonia give you a shapeless bag with some shoulder straps sewn on and calls is "elegantly simple." I vote for Osprey or Mammut in this category (and Osprey has amazing travel luggage now, which I started to use for business because it's so light and well-designed.)

On the general point of clothing signifying status--to me there's a difference between status coming from substance (e.g., a coat of high quality cashmere) versus entirely superficial things (e.g., wearing the collar of your polo shirt up). So I vote for an aristocracy based on quality....

Jon


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

jon44 said:


> I second Merino, which IMHO is superior in every way to Capilene (which is really just branded polyester, that may offer 0.0004% extra wicking). A good quality Merino polo baselayer looks like a nice polo shirt when you hit the pub after an adventure, while a polyester top just looks like crap. And it last forever, is good for the environment, never smells, and never looses its insulation causes of wet coming from within or without.
> 
> And to another poster's point that in every particular category, there is always somebody better than Patagonia (or Arc'teryx for that matter), I couldn't agree more. Here are my preferences:
> 
> ...


While I disagree with you on the clothing (Arc'teryx is definitely my favorite and patagonia is my favorite base layer) I 100% agree with you on Osprey Packs. They are wonderful and the best that I have used.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

jon44 said:


> I second Merino, which IMHO is superior in every way to Capilene (which is really just branded polyester, that may offer 0.0004% extra wicking). A good quality Merino polo baselayer looks like a nice polo shirt when you hit the pub after an adventure, while a polyester top just looks like crap. And it last forever, is good for the environment, never smells, and never looses its insulation causes of wet coming from within or without.
> 
> And to another poster's point that in every particular category, there is always somebody better than Patagonia (or Arc'teryx for that matter), I couldn't agree more. Here are my preferences:
> 
> ...


I love my ibex because I love my wool...I have two pieces on right now.


----------



## jon44 (Jan 30, 2007)

dlion0721 said:


> While I disagree with you on the clothing (Arc'teryx is definitely my favorite and patagonia is my favorite base layer) I 100% agree with you on Osprey Packs.


Thank you for the civil manner in which you disagree (hope I wasn't too strident).

I wouldn't argue that Arc'teryx has very high quality stuff. Going back to the idea of status, though, it seems like Arc'teryx (and someone like Cloudveil) go out of their way to create a mystique around their products. So, besides the fact that they won't give me pro-form discounts  , what bothers me is they seem to try to manufacture status through the equivalent of putting their polo collars up (and encouraging all the kool kids to do the same) at the expense of more substantive innovation and design quality.

(As an example--Cloudveil has openly admitted that they just went to Europe and copied Mammut's softshell clothes to create the design of Cloudveil's signature jacket.)

Jon


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

jon44 said:


> Thank you for the civil manner in which you disagree (hope I wasn't too strident).
> 
> I wouldn't argue that Arc'teryx has very high quality stuff. Going back to the idea of status, though, it seems like Arc'teryx (and someone like Cloudveil) go out of their way to create a mystique around their products. So, besides the fact that they won't give me pro-form discounts  , what bothers me is they seem to try to manufacture status through the equivalent of putting their polo collars up (and encouraging all the kool kids to do the same) at the expense of more substantive innovation and design quality.
> 
> ...


Well, I try to be civil. For the purposes of what I used my outdoor gear for I never found anything better than Arc'Teryx. Everybody who worked with me in the outdoors agreed (except for one old man who swore by wool sweaters from a local thrift store; can't say I ever tried them because they were hideous). Tried tons of gear and a lot of stuff was given to us for free. Put it through the test of living in the outdoors out of a tent for 4 to 5 months at a time as a professional guide and it simply kept me the warmest, driest, and was the most durable. Same goes for Patagonia and their base layers. Out of the many I've tried they always worked the best for my pupose.

One thing that I never did find that suited me well were a good pair of hiking boots. Never could wear them for very long and always went back to my basic tennis shoes. Other guides would always suggest stuff and I never ended up liking it. Have you found a hiking boot/shoe that you like a lot?


----------



## jon44 (Jan 30, 2007)

dlion0721 said:


> Have you found a hiking boot/shoe that you like a lot?


Well, that's tough because finding a manufacturer who offers a last that fits your particular foot shape is so important. (And to quote Yvon Chouinard--founder of Patagonia--if you ever find a boot that fits your foot, immediately buy a few pair. I guess that company can't be all bad...)

As a water sports person, I assume you know about *Chaco's*. I just learned that they'll customize sandals for you (important to me, as I have very narrow feet).

For boots, I've always had an old-school dedication to *Scarpa* (and they fit really well). It's also quite striking how long a pair of Scarpa's will last compared to newer brands. I think they're still considered top quality. *Lowa* is another European-made shoe that gets raves (I've never tried them) and a few of their boots come in width sizes. Other possibilities are New Balance (many widths offered; great fit; not really top quality) and Salomon (happen to fit me well and I've alway thought their ski boot heritage counts for something.)

Personally, I think there's nothing wrong with tennis sneakers in the backcountry. A recommendation for that approach is to get a pair of *NEOS* overboots (LL Bean has them) which are completely waterproof and work great for the occasional stream crossing (and to thoroughly protect dress shoes when you're digging your car out of snow, etc.)


----------



## Lowndes (Feb 25, 2008)

Thanks for the tips. I might give Lowa a try as I have heard good things about them as well but never have tried them out either.

Ahh Chaco's, I've never worn a shoe so hard in my life. they are great and unbelievably durable. Actually, had a buddy hike the whole Appalachian trail in a pair of chaco's. Had only one pair my whole time as a guide and I wore them every single day. I haven't been rafting in a while, since I started law school, and am packing for a trip down to Arizonia right now. Just pulled out my Chaco's and they are still going strong.

I agree that tennis shoes are suitable for just about every hiking experience I've come across. As a raft guide we really didn't do too much hiking. On overnights we would go on short hikes to check out waterfalls, etc. but nothing that you would really need hiking boots for. On our free time one of hobbies was climbing 14ers and that is when I wished I had a good hiking boot sometimes. 

My wife and I are looking to do a longer backpacking trip through Banff National Park at the end of the summer and am looking into getting an actual hiking boot for that.


----------



## jon44 (Jan 30, 2007)

Just checked to see if they still offer the Scarpa boot I use for backpacking. Here's are "Trailspace" tidbits:

"The* Scarpa SL M3* is the classic and quintessential backpacking boot. Recommended by NOLS, and just about every guiding service you'll sign up for, the SL M3 sets the standard for durability and stability. One of the best boots available today, in a world where good boots are hard to find anymore."


----------



## thesartorialist (Feb 17, 2009)

I wish I had read this whole thread sooner. I go to a small private school with a seriously ingrained social-climber mentality where the uniform is pretty restrictive: navy blazer, white OCBD, khakis. The only deviations allowed are boys' ties and girls' choice of pants or skirts, and shoes. Since this is what these kids have grown up wearing, they don't know much else, sartorially speaking. Whenever there is an out of uniform day, or whenever I am with people out of school, The North Face becomes the new uniform. Everyone wears a TNF fleece at every opportunity; if not that, Patagonia. Many own several pieces from each brand. Even when the uniform IS enforced, most students wear North Face outerwear in the winter, and North Face backpacks are ubiquitous. It is interesting to me how the uniform and the frequent access to the unlimited parental credit line has led my peers to the selection of "designer fleece" as the go-to item.

That being said... I think a lot of the stuff that Patagonia and TNF makes is pretty good looking, and don't apologize for the couple of things that I own. As others have said, they serve quite well for light use. Just found it interesting that this phenomenon applies to my school. (Perhaps I've fallen victim!)


----------



## Khnelben (Feb 18, 2005)

*Not really ...*

participating in this class discussion (although I enjoy it) as I have not seen any proper US students for some time, wanted to comment on clothes brands generally.

I think that most brands that are associated with a sport/ type of activity - have BOTH professional and fashion lines. And these are different.

For example, I recently came across Helly Hansen yachting clothes - professional water proof range - really liked them - but I was on a boat. HH also has general sports stuff for everyday wear.

There is Paul & Shark - I know it mostly as a fashion house but they calim to have a pro line. I never saw anybody wear it - but then again I not that experienced a sailor.

Generally, I tend to avoid wearing things that can be associatd with a profession to which I do not belong. Luckily I play rugby and sail ))

P.S. I highly enjoy these US/UK class posts - these things are different over here so I can't really tell you anything Russian.

What was the latest good post on class wear at Ivy League / US generally ? I seem to recall an old one from the Trad Forum but that's in the archive now.

Andrey


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

I am sure happy I grew up the son of a truck driver, never had the chance to attend a private school and feel the kind of pressure that is obviously very blatant there. Also I think I am happy with my station in life, not a blue blood, not a blue blood wanna bee, and not even remotely interested in being thought of as upper station in life. As my very dear friend Popeye used to say, "I am what I am"

It is a bit saddening to read of the things that are so important to people (the ones that have been discussed, not the posters) with so little importance to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the true path of being well dressed, not to define a social station but because you like fine clothes, these are not one in the same, or as least they are not always one in the same.

Interesting read.


----------



## afjag (Mar 10, 2009)

Wow, times change. I thought Patagonia was "old school." I hadn't seen in around in awhile (North Face is/was everywhere) and in fact forgot about it until I was looking to replace an old columbia fleece I had destroyed. I had no idea it has become so trendy/popular. I remember seeing a piece here and there from my time in high school (int the south) in the 80's and early 90's. I still don't see it much, but I'm in the midwest right now.


----------



## edward9 (May 8, 2009)

Folks, it's "polyester", not "fleece". Fleece means sheep's wool. 

Wow, it's interesting that people at private schools all over the place wear these outdoor nylon clothes when they're not outdoors. I thought it was primarily a Seattle thing, Seattle being the home of REI and some of these other brands.


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

I've enjoyed reading this discussion, I agree with most of the comments, but never spoke them out in order to avoid a bad face.

It wasn't but until a couple of years ago that I realized that Patagonia was/is a fancy brand, and actually nobody has ever been able to explain me where the name came from.

I myself lived in the actual *Patagonia* for almost three years, skied in "El Fraile" and extensively wandered on both Chilean and Argentinan side of it. For what I've seen in southern Chile, most of the brands you are mentioning can be seen on foreign tourists, mostly retired people, whereas professional expeditioners are always wearing brands very uncommon for the average consumer, unless they're sponsored by a big-fancy brand.

Now I live in Santiago and every once in a while I enjoy seeing people walking their dogs on ridiculously overpriced mountain outfits. I myself have a lot of mountain clothes, which I use for ice climbing and nordic skiing, my brands are Mountain Hard Wear and Jack Wolfskin, and I would never use any of them in the "city".


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

guitone said:


> I am sure happy I grew up the son of a truck driver, never had the chance to attend a private school and feel the kind of pressure that is obviously very blatant there. Also I think I am happy with my station in life, not a blue blood, not a blue blood wanna bee, and not even remotely interested in being thought of as upper station in life. As my very dear friend Popeye used to say, "I am what I am"
> 
> It is a bit saddening to read of the things that are so important to people (the ones that have been discussed, not the posters) with so little importance to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the true path of being well dressed, not to define a social station but because you like fine clothes, these are not one in the same, or as least they are not always one in the same.
> 
> Interesting read.


+1 and it could not have been said, any better!


----------



## Brogue (May 18, 2009)

Reading about this upper middle class northeastern patagonia fleece branding gives me a headache. Its like watching an E! marathon, or eating 20 pounds of cotton candy, or listening to Milli Vanilli or Spice Girls on unending loop.

The shallowness, the hollow craving for WASPicity while professing diversity, the sound of the credit cards slapping up against the reader, the clickety clackety of the register keys, the receipts being sputtered out, the crinkling shopping bags with pictures of scantily clad children posed erotically, the "who likes who" gum-smacking discussions.

Repent!

For the record, LL Bean is a good value in oxford dress shirts.


----------



## Packard (Apr 24, 2009)

The Swedish Chef said:


> Patagonia is generally referred to as "Patagucci" in US climbing circles, although most of those people take pride in their extremely thrifty lifestyle.
> 
> I don't see any connection between mainstream outdoor brands and class over here, it more a question of money.


Not always true. Before Patagonia split from Chouinard (which became Black Star or something like that), Patagonia was the cutting edge of climbing apparel. The clothing line became more important (financially) and it split off to protect itself from law suits on the climbing side.

Likewise, North Face made top notch climbing equipment that later became a fashion statement. Now I would not consider either as serious climbing suppliers.


----------



## inq89 (Dec 3, 2008)

As a sophomore in college in NC, technical brands didn't become popular until 4-5 years ago when I was still in high school. I remember seeing a girl friend become the first person in school wear a North Face jacket, and I thought it looked pretty cool. Then, like rainbow sandals, North Face jackets became the "it" thing and by my senior year in high school, everyone had one. (I didn't, because I refused to follow that trend and just bought a cheaper Columbia).

Hardwear got popular next, but haven't seen much Patagonia around until this past winter. Mostly yuppies wear that brand. I agree with the OP because I also consider Patagonia to be the classiest one out of the bunch. I bought a vintage Made in USA Patagonia snap sweater for $4 off eBay for my brand-whore purposes, and couldn't be happier :aportnoy:


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

The Louche said:


> To equate one's dress and wealth with class is a slippery slope. Appearances can be deceiving. Yes, many truly classy people happen to be wealthy as well. But there are just as many people out there that are rich and completely classless.
> 
> Class has to do with the way you conduct yourself and treat others. Its associations with wealth are usually and largely made in error.


+1; clothing isn't "classy" - people are.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

guitone said:


> I am sure happy I grew up the son of a truck driver, never had the chance to attend a private school and feel the kind of pressure that is obviously very blatant there. Also I think I am happy with my station in life, not a blue blood, not a blue blood wanna bee, and not even remotely interested in being thought of as upper station in life. As my very dear friend Popeye used to say, "I am what I am"
> 
> It is a bit saddening to read of the things that are so important to people (the ones that have been discussed, not the posters) with so little importance to live, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the true path of being well dressed, not to define a social station but because you like fine clothes, these are not one in the same, or as least they are not always one in the same.
> 
> Interesting read.


This is why conversations like this used to be held in private, so those not in the know wouldn't get upset.


----------



## inq89 (Dec 3, 2008)

Forgot to mention:

https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/03/11/87-outdoor-performance-clothes/


----------



## Ricardo-CL (Mar 31, 2009)

inquirer89 said:


> Forgot to mention:
> 
> https://stuffwhitepeoplelike.com/2008/03/11/87-outdoor-performance-clothes/


I'm not white and neither my country is, and yet the article depicts a specific segment of people here, a very predictable one...

On the other hand, this guy loves the Patagonia, actually he/it lives there.... ic12337:


----------



## Mazama (May 21, 2009)

inquirer89 said:


> As a sophomore in college in NC, technical brands didn't become popular until 4-5 years ago when I was still in high school.


Styles go around and around. North Face, Sierra Designs, et al., with mountain boots (aka waffle stompers) were common on many campuses 35 or so years ago when the first wave of mass backpackers hit the trail. The syhthetic clothes coexisted with the Woolrich/Pendleton look.

Chouinard/Patagonia was more hardwear than soft goods then and it was their pioneering synthetic pile garments and synthetic underwear for serious outdoor use initially put them on the clothing map.

The bottom line businesswise is that the campus/street/resort market is the way to grow a business beyond the realtively small scale nichewear.


----------



## At Law (Apr 15, 2008)

Northface is so common you are beginning to see it on every
class of person. It is inexpensive and readily available.

Approx. 8 years ago, when I was in undergrad at a private university,
you could always spot the private school students from the public
school kids. Northface was private school; and Columbia was
public school. Now everyone wears Northface.

Patagonia is what I wear now and like the fact that certain
groups of people don't know what the brand is. It is similar
to wearing the BB Golden Fleece in certain areas of the country.

Today, Northface is equivalent to Carthart. Not that there is
anything wrong with that. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

I don't understand why so few, relatively speaking, wear Barbour on campus. I was the only one at my school.


----------



## cumberlandpeal (May 12, 2006)

I have a grey fleece w/ snaps that I bought in the mid-1980s that has to be one of the best outdoor items I have ever purchased. Still going strong after nearly thirty years and functioning exactly as advertised. Not stylish then nor now in my opinion but I have used it as an atheletic sweat shirt, a sweater a bath towel


----------



## DCLawyer68 (Jun 1, 2009)

JibranK said:


> I don't understand why so few, relatively speaking, wear Barbour on campus. I was the only one at my school.


Not cheap, not broadly available here at places where college kids shop (Orvis is the only big distributor I can think of and they're pretty small relatively thinking) and what college kids probably think of as "fussy old style" are my guesses.

My Barbour Classic Beaufort is one of my most treasured possessions. Worth every cent my then girlfriend (now wife) paid for it and then some.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Ricardo-CL said:


> I'm not white and neither my country is, and yet the article depicts a specific segment of people here, a very predictable one...
> 
> On the other hand, this guy loves the Patagonia, actually he/it lives there.... ic12337:


A huemul, right? Critically endangered now, the poor things!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

guitone said:


> I am sure happy I grew up the son of a truck driver, never had the chance to attend a private school and feel the kind of pressure that is obviously very blatant there. Also I think I am happy with my station in life, not a blue blood, not a blue blood wanna bee, and not even remotely interested in being thought of as upper station in life.


I can relate. I've lived in the public housing projects and two mobile homes in my lifetime, not to mention the garage I lived in while going to college on the GI Bill. And it was still a garage. :icon_smile_big:

In my world you were considered uppity if you wore Docker's clothing since it was somewhat expensive compared to what most wore. Until I visited this forum I was not consciously aware of Barbour, and Beaufort was the small town in South Carolina where I was stationed for two years in the military.

As for Patagonia, I'm still not sure I know what that is; although I have completed the U.S. Marine Corps mountain warfare school where I successfully completed the mountaineering program. If any of the stuff we used was Patagonia I'm not aware of it.

I must admit that when I first started reading this forum and read about guys and their private schools and expensive clothing being handed down to them by their fathers and grandfathers, I simply had no point of reference. I never knew my grandfathers; but one was a traveling snake oil salesman, gambler, and street preacher until he was murdered by my other grandfather over cheating in a poker game. My father had a much less colorful life working on the floor of a slaughterhouse and meat packing plant. Needless to say no suits were handed down to me by any of them.

I don't mean this in a demeaning way, but I sometimes wonder if many of the guys posting here really have any idea how some of us grew up. Like I said, sometimes I just don't relate at all. To be honest, I really don't think some of the members here realize how much like spoiled rich kids their comments make them sound. At least I hope they don't realize it.

Cruiser


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I can relate. I've lived in the public housing projects and two mobile homes in my lifetime, not to mention the garage I lived in while going to college on the GI Bill. And it was still a garage. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> In my world you were considered uppity if you wore Docker's clothing since it was somewhat expensive compared to what most wore. Until I visited this forum I was not consciously aware of Barbour, and Beaufort was the small town in South Carolina where I was stationed for two years in the military.
> 
> ...


I grew up rather spoiled, and I always knew I was spoiled because I had more then most, if not all, of my friends. I managed to stay somewhat grounded because of the nature of my family's means of income. My mom's family owned a garage/gas station and my dad's family owned a printing company. Both families made their money by owning businesses that provided "blue collar" services.

I ended up going to middle and high school at a nice Memphis private school. Most of my best friends to this day come from that school. Going to a private school opened my eyes a bit to the difference between upper-middle income families (myself and most of my friends), high income families, and what I would call truly wealthy families.

Most high income families are just that, they make a nice income but aren't really wealthy. They had nice cars, homes, country club memberships and the like. These kids were usually the snobs, obsessed with having the newest and best things and having no connection to the real world. Now that I'm an adult and have met more of these type of folks, I can say that I'm glad I don't make enough money to join their social circle. The "keeping up with the Jones" effect is truly sickening to me. They all compete for the best house in the best neighborhood with the best car parked in the driveway and the kids going to the best private school. This is usually the type that Cruiser would call "spoiled".

Now a couple of my best friends are truly wealthy. They are the 3rd or 4th generation of their family to have tons of money and success. They are also genuinely nice people and understand and appreciate the value of their family's and their own hard work. They give a ton of their time and money to enhance other, less fortunate, people's lives. They also have more pressure to succeed in work, play, parenting, etc. then I could ever imagine. I was able to coast through college and then start working for the family business. They had to be summa cum laude because their grandfather, father, and brother did. They had to go to a great law or medical or business school because previous generations did. They had to get on with the right firm or medical group. They can't do anything less then what previous generations did without feeling like they are letting down or embarassing their family. I've seen what it does to them, and I would never want to be put in their shoes.

I don't know if any of this is related to the topic or if it's cohesive in any way. The point I'm trying to make is that the grass isn't always greener on the other side. There is a lot of freedom in being raised "average" or even slightly poor. There aren't a lot of expectations placed upon your shoulders.


----------



## At Law (Apr 15, 2008)

It is very difficult for a lower social class kid to be able to rise into a higher social position and secure a position in life which affords them a higher lifestyle than their parents.

Many have tried to break out of their lower socioeconomic background,
however, they are ultimately unsuccessful. They may even purchase
a BMW, a comfortable house, and try to look the part.

However, their roots always come back to haunt them. It is the
way they carry themselves, the way they talk, and the people they associate with. What these people think is "higher class" is, in fact, "lower class." Often times these people
are much more into talking about how much their personal belongings
cost, as a way to attempt to show other people how they do "fit" into a higher class. Higher class people do not talk about how much money they make and how much their possessions cost.

One of the biggest problems with these lower class folks are the type of people they associate amongst. These type of people still feel comfortable around people like themselves. They may be considered "rich" among their type of people, however, they are comparing themselves to people who are lower in class than then even they are. This makes that person feel even better about themselves. 

Although, ultimately, these people give up 
on trying to climb the social ladder and resort back to the class from which they are
born. What usually fuels this decent backwards is the person they marry. Similar classes always marry similar classes, very few exceptions apply. The lower class person
attempting to be higher class may date out of the their class, however,
this typically ends in a breakup. Mostly because the parents of the
higher social class do not truly accept the lower class person's behavior
and background. In addition, the higher class person cannot change the lower class person's values and behavior to adapt to their own class--even though he or she may have tried. The lower class background cannot be covered up.

****As a disclaimer, I am not belittling or insulting one social class
or another. I am simply stating my opinion and oberservations. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## cbender (Dec 5, 2007)

Lowndes said:


> One thing that I never did find that suited me well were a good pair of hiking boots. Never could wear them for very long and always went back to my basic tennis shoes. Other guides would always suggest stuff and I never ended up liking it. Have you found a hiking boot/shoe that you like a lot?


I'm a bit late to the party here, and am not going to touch the social class stuff with a pole of any length. (I've always been served well by my Columbia parka, Marmot tent, Gregory pack, and REI clothing).

I can offer some input on the 'boot' question, if the questioner hasn't already solved it. If you have a wide foot (I usually go for 3E or 4E widths), try Garmont. My last pair survived for close to 10 years, with varying amounts of usage over that time, but probably around 500 miles. I purchased a new pair of the Syncro Plus GTX model about a year ago and couldn't be happier with them. You may have to go to some lengths to find them in a store, but the search is worthwhile. Construction is top notch, and the fit is very comfortable for wide feet.

On the other side of the width spectrum, Lowa makes a very nice boot. My gf has a pair (she has very narrow feet) that she loves.


----------



## DPC3 (Jun 15, 2009)

If you would like to have really excellent boots I would get the MTM option from West Coast Shoe Company. The packer boot is an excellent choice for mountaineering. I have a pair of Wesco boots and they have been resoled three times. I cannot imagine a more comfortable, versatile, or better made boot. There web address is: https://www.westcoastshoe.com/wesco/ . I think if you are serious about a pair of boots that you would choose them. They are relatively expensive, but well worth it. 
-DPC3


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

At Law said:


> What usually fuels this decent backwards is the person they marry. Similar classes always marry similar classes, very few exceptions apply. The lower class person
> attempting to be higher class may date out of the their class, however,
> this typically ends in a breakup. Mostly because the parents of the
> higher social class do not truly accept the lower class person's behavior
> and background. In addition, the higher class person cannot change the lower class person's values and behavior to adapt to their own class--even though he or she may have tried. The lower class background cannot be covered up.


These small behavioral things are indeed annoying. And few women will put up with being lectured. Then mom gets upset.


----------



## DPC3 (Jun 15, 2009)

I am not certain of what social class I would necessarily belong to because as you find yourself amongst those in the upper middle class the border between middle and upper class seems to increase to a level which is far beyond what most middle class individuals would consider to be a part of the upper class. I was told over and over again that I was to dress for the event and situation that I was attending to. I was also instructed many times by my family that clothing for the upper class was a function of their activity. I guess I had clothing for tennis, golf, skiing, horseback riding, hunting, shooting, sports, casual events, and more formal attire. When I was slightly older I became a realtor and saw fit to wear an outfit of BB clothing with a coat or blazer to work, and change immediately when I got home into a BB casual outfit, and then again if I was going out for the evening. I guess I always felt that this was a duty to dress for what I was doing. Now I think that anyone would agree that Patagonia is necessarily designed for outdoor activity and those who wear it as a casual outfit are destine by the before mentioned system to be outside of what would be described as the cultured of classed.
Now I will go further into something more relevant. I live in Minnesota, and it gets very cold here for part of the winter, between 0 and -30F. I noticed many individuals not wearing traditional outerwear and substituting The North Face for their outerwear when it was this cold. I noticed over time that even the outdoor news reporters on the major networks were wearing North Face. I always had owned North Face jackets and ski wear for alpine skiing. For awhile I would wear these jackets in the winter, but over time I felt that it was not proper any longer. I still do not know exactly what one should do in this circumstance - perhaps a heavy wool barn jacket. If you have ideas explain them to me.
I have noticed that as you move into the middle, not even lower class, that you see many individuals crossing over their interests to their casual and evening attire. This is totally against what I have been taught to do, but seems to be popular and even fashionable for these individuals. I think it has developed into a look for them and seems to be something to advertise their adherence to skiing, mountaineering, or climbing. This thread has taught me otherwise that it is simply a fashion not an attribution of their fascination with particular activity. 
Really I think this is a phenomenon of the middle class. I see the lower class wearing Charhartt, Wranglers, and cheap athletic shoes or work boots. The Middle class seems to gravitate toward this cross-over of their way of living; whereas, those who appreciate a role to play in society see fit to dress to the occasion. I guess I don't believe that anyone who truly wishes to act their class would wear something which is totally off for the activity they are engaged in. Everyone in society follows the folkways of their peers , sub-culture, and role in society. It happens that those in different classes are driven to dress in the way they are. I am not certain that it is a marker of class, but a good derivative for most individuals. The one exception perhaps being -10 to -30F weather. . . maybe.
-DPC3


----------



## At Law (Apr 15, 2008)

dcahill3 said:


> I am not certain of what social class I would necessarily belong to because as you find yourself amongst those in the upper middle class the border between middle and upper class seems to increase to a level which is far beyond what most middle class individuals would consider to be a part of the upper class. I was told over and over again that I was to dress for the event and situation that I was attending to. I was also instructed many times by my family that clothing for the upper class was a function of their activity. I guess I had clothing for tennis, golf, skiing, horseback riding, hunting, shooting, sports, casual events, and more formal attire. When I was slightly older I became a realtor and saw fit to wear an outfit of BB clothing with a coat or blazer to work, and change immediately when I got home into a BB casual outfit, and then again if I was going out for the evening. I guess I always felt that this was a duty to dress for what I was doing. Now I think that anyone would agree that Patagonia is necessarily designed for outdoor activity and those who wear it as a casual outfit are destine by the before mentioned system to be outside of what would be described as the cultured of classed.
> Now I will go further into something more relevant. I live in Minnesota, and it gets very cold here for part of the winter, between 0 and -30F. I noticed many individuals not wearing traditional outerwear and substituting The North Face for their outerwear when it was this cold. I noticed over time that even the outdoor news reporters on the major networks were wearing North Face. I always had owned North Face jackets and ski wear for alpine skiing. For awhile I would wear these jackets in the winter, but over time I felt that it was not proper any longer. I still do not know exactly what one should do in this circumstance - perhaps a heavy wool barn jacket. If you have ideas explain them to me.
> I have noticed that as you move into the middle, not even lower class, that you see many individuals crossing over their interests to their casual and evening attire. This is totally against what I have been taught to do, but seems to be popular and even fashionable for these individuals. I think it has developed into a look for them and seems to be something to advertise their adherence to skiing, mountaineering, or climbing. This thread has taught me otherwise that it is simply a fashion not an attribution of their fascination with particular activity.
> Really I think this is a phenomenon of the middle class. I see the lower class wearing Charhartt, Wranglers, and cheap athletic shoes or work boots. The Middle class seems to gravitate toward this cross-over of their way of living; whereas, those who appreciate a role to play in society see fit to dress to the occasion. I guess I don't believe that anyone who truly wishes to act their class would wear something which is totally off for the activity they are engaged in. Everyone in society follows the folkways of their peers , sub-culture, and role in society. It happens that those in different classes are driven to dress in the way they are. I am not certain that it is a marker of class, but a good derivative for most individuals. The one exception perhaps being -10 to -30F weather. . . maybe.
> -DPC3


Very well put. 
Northface, be gone with you.


----------

