# Reds refugee thread - the cheaper at any cost discussion



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

As promised, I'm starting a discussion outside the reds starter thread. The third page of an existing thread seems like a strange place to begin a discussion like this.

So here's the last point made:




127.72 MHz said:


> Your points are valid Trip. But perhaps there a middle ground here.
> 
> As has been mentioned by another reply I don't believe that most members here at AAAC are looking for a pair of trousers for $15-$20-.
> 
> ...


First of all, the $15-20 price point is a red herring as far as I'm concerned. I don't believe that anyone thinks that the median price for a pair of pants should be this low in this day and age. That being said, the pants ordered by the OP turned out to be... $14.99.

My argument was that there's general trend toward undervaluing products that stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how prices are established. No matter what the price of an item mentioned, there is a voice that chimes in, "it'll be worth it at 40% off."

This is, in my opinion, a terrible way of thinking for two reasons:

1. The price is the price for a reason. The retailer has made a calculation of the type of margins needed to operate his business and make a profit. Paying significantly less than this injures a retailer and furthers the odds that he won't be there in the future.

I posted a sort of mega-rant a while back about shopping at b&m versus online and voting with your wallet to support the mens chains that are vanishing from more and more towns. If we're constantly looking to pay less than retail, no matter what retail is, we're either squeezing any profit out of the transaction for the retailer or forcing him to raise is prices so high that he can still make money after the markdown. I suspect the latter is becoming truer and truer.

2. Have some self respect, or at least respect for your wardrobe. Reading through thousands of posts over the years a theme emerges: garment X isn't that great, but I'd pick it up if it were on sale. In other words, the garment is terrible in one respect or another, but if it's cheap I'll buy it.

127.72 Mhz, you make this point in your post above. You claim the Orvis pants are carelessly assembled in China and not worth the $90. You feel (apparently it's just a feeling and not a calculation) that they should be priced at $30. Why? How about we say that, if they're really as bad as you claim, that we just don't buy them? (I realize you don't claim that you'd buy them at that price, just that you feel that price to be appropriate)

This is what I mean about voting with our wallets. Entire generations are looking to the internet to learn how to dress. Between the dialog on forums and the countless blogs there's an opportunity to package a little lesson in with discourse. Good quality is worth paying for. It will last a long time and will be worth mending when the time comes. Bad quality is worth leaving on the shelf. Bad quality is worth ignoring until less of it is made.

Instead of setting your price, draw your line. If it's bad, it doesn't matter that it might be $9.99. Just leave it be and put the $9.99 toward the MTM suit.

With all the cash thrown into Lands End overstocks you could probably have a few pairs of bench made shoes from a custom last sitting in your closet.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

This sounds like it'll be a good discussion. I think there are a few reasons why there are what seem to be conflicting attitudes regarding the value of clothing. 

- Those of us who are under 35 (that's a rough estimate, the cutoff might be higher) most likely grew up in a culture of instant gratification, where the concept of putting money away a little at a time to make a large purchase is a foreign concept. We're used to getting what we want now, and if we don't have the cash or the credit available to have it immediately, we settle for something cheaper just to satisfy the urge to have something new. It's the result of the consumer culture.

- The widespread availability of cheap clothing and the constant turnover of fashion has undermined the value of quality products that last more than a season. In general, people expect to pay Walmart prices for clothes they'll wear for a year or two at most and then replace. Those who had this mindset before migrating to trad might have trouble shaking off that attitude.

- New converts to trad want to fill their closets ASAP. This is related to my first point. It's totally understandable that someone who discovers trad clothing might not want to keep wearing the same Kenneth Cole Reaction shoes until he can afford a pair of AEs or better and sees a cheap alternative that has the right style but not the substance. He can either buy the cheap shoes and have the "look" right away, or keep wearing clothes he doesn't like until he can afford high quality. 

In this case, I think thrifted and less expensive alternatives to the higher quality items have their place. Once the foundation is laid, you can acquire better quality items to supplement or replace what you've purchased at your leisure. Now, if you've accumulated 20 pairs of Dockers and are always complaining about the cost of Bill's, it's time to re-evaluate your consumption habits.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Orvis, I think, is a bad way to get this started. IMO, they are tremendously overpriced, about the most expensive place, for instance, to buy either Red Wing or Barbour. They, like Mr. Lifshitz, are selling a lifestyle, not necessarily clothing, and you pay extra for that. That said, I am an on-again-off-again fan of their tent sale--I've picked up some good bargains there. But am I going to pay the $1,900 they're currently asking for a made-in-China shearling barn coat? Uh, no. Not only no, but hell no.

Closer to home, there is a men's store here that's been around since the 1970s that I don't patronize. I absolutely, positively would, but they have nothing that suits my taste--Austin Reed is their high-end suit, with shirts by Enro. Now, the setting and furnishings are ideal, evocative of a Brooks Brothers mainline store, and right downtown to boot. But I'm consistently disappointed when I've gone in. Perhaps, though, I should buy a pocket square or socks now and again. That wouldn't hurt.

I don't think I'm alone here. Outside of big cities--and I'm talking at least Seattle size--there are few, if any, men's stores worth patronizing. JAB is considered high end. And so we have been been, as you say, educated via the Internet on how to shop, and I think you make an excellent point about Lands End. But the truth is, there is a line somewhere for lots of us. Someone like me who came from modest means and who is still of modest means simply can't/won't pay more than $400 for a suit. Sure, I could save my pennies here and there, ignore Tony Lumpkin's offerings on the exchange and in a couple years spend two grand on a MTM sport coat. And if I did that, I would feel absolutely, positively sick, the same way I would feel if I spent more than $200 on a pair of shoes (and I have never spent that much on a pair of shoes). When you get that kind of cash together, the concept of opportunity-cost comes home. Do I like nice clothes? Sure. Do I like them more than a trip to Jamaica with Mrs. 32? Nope.


----------



## Cardinals5 (Jun 16, 2009)

After filling my closet with thrift, eBay, and exchange finds, I find myself tossing many of them (though still purchasing some rarities) as they're replaced by purchases from the local traditional men's clothier here in town. I like the salesmen, they cater to your needs, remember your name and size, and actually call you on the phone when something you wanted has arrived at the store. The most recent example - I've been trying to downsize my coat closet and have two waxed cotton jackets - a black barbour bedale and a John Patridge light brown number - I decided to just purchase the barbour beaufort and get rid of the other two (on the thrift exchange in the near future). Instead of buying on-line for cheaper, I just decided to stop in Rush Wilson. Since they didn't have fall clothes out yet - not until October around here - they said they'd set one aside for me as soon as they came in and would call.

I'm willing to pay the little extra for such service.


----------



## CMDC (Jan 31, 2009)

I think I'm somewhere between 32 and Cards here. While I would love to pay full retail at Press, Brooks, and some of the other places worth supporting, the academic's budget simply doesn't allow for it. So I have to be selective. My Press jackets have all come during their sales; same for Brooks ocbd's, madras, etc. I just got a new pair of AEs that should be arriving this week (the Juneau) but could only justify pulling the trigger because they've been marked down pretty heavily. There's some irony here because without the discount, I wouldn't have bought them--that doesn't help AE; buying them does put some money into their coffers and, given their excellent service, ensures that I'll be back at some point. This isn't the ideal scenario for these retailers, as Trip suggests, but it is something. What's the proper balance? 

I suppose, to echo Hardline above, I've been in the volume accumulation mode since joining here a few years back--hence thrifting. Thrifting, I think we all realize, does nothing to support these few remaining menswear bastions. That said, it has its place.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

I value your opinion Trip but I've got to say I disagree with you on several points you've made.

Firstly I never said anything about a $15-20- price point, period.

On your next point I wholeheartedly disagree with the entire premise of your comment about *"The price is the price for a reason."* Why? Although it may be true that "The retailer made a calculation" that you've mentioned, what about if the calculation they made was based on ignorance, (of marketing) greed, (by most anyone's measure) or outright stupidity? From your post I believe you think the public should not buy it at any cost. (I guess)

Well I disagree with that. I'm not one who believes that one should always pay less than retail. But given the amount of clothing I purchased I have become somewhat is a savvy consumer when it comes to men's shoes and clothing. I don't think there's a sin in that.

The next point you make, (#2) Does this mean someone can have more respect for themselves if they pay more?

I will however agree with you one one assessment of my habits; yes I will buy a pair of the clearly inferior Orvis reds at a much reduced price because then can feel okay about wearing them to a clam bake where they might end up being puked on my my best friend's five year old! (true story) And I can't see one thing wrong about mentioning to others, who know clothing more than the average member of the public, as many AAAC members do, that the trousers are not worth half the asking price.

Yes I do feel, given my experience, that the reds I mention are roughly worth about $30.-. I've also received some very good advice from other members here at AAAC about the quality/price/value ratio of many different items. In my opinion that is one of the chief reasons I value this board so highly. From the tone and tenor of your post I get the feeling that you not only disagree with this but you've on the verge of ridicule. If I'm correct I must admit that I don't understand why you feel this way.

And finally, after reading this paragraph;
*"This is what I mean about voting with our wallets. Entire generations are looking to the internet to learn how to dress. Between the dialog on forums and the countless blogs there's an opportunity to package a little lesson in with discourse. Good quality is worth paying for. It will last a long time and will be worth mending when the time comes. Bad quality is worth leaving on the shelf. Bad quality is worth ignoring until less of it is made.*"

I do agree that good quality is worth paying for. I have a few bespoke suits, sport coats, and a blazer, and I value them very highly and believe that they are worth every penny of their purchase price.

But, given your assessment of "Bad Quality," while I will not purchase "Bad Quality," I will purchase middle of the road to lower end quality depending on my intended application for it in my wardrobe.

(I'm also the first to say when an item is a true bargain at a given price point)


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

A young man's perspective---

I totally agree with Trip that the line drawn in our minds should be quality, not price, and that it's easy to fall into the trap of buying the 90%-as-good item for 50% of the price. But those (like myself) who wear Land's End Canvas sweaters or J. Crew chinos, etc., simply are more flexible on quality than someone who insists on Pringle and Johnston's and Bill's. Fit must also be taken into account: the higher quality things tend to be cut for those who have had, err, a little more time to enjoy life. That said, once the basics are achieved I am all for slowly saving up for big-ticket items. Though a lowly student, I have vowed not to buy another pair of shoes until I can afford (or find used) a cordovan pair.

On the other hand, I think we need to face the hard truth that by and large, the internet is obsolescing men's shops. I like to walk into them as much as anyone else, but "buy clothing here at or above retail because it is the virtuous thing to do" just isn't a reasonable proposition. Unlike Cards, I am not willing to pay more for service, with the possible exception of shoes, where fit is so difficult and personal. I will buy the item I'm looking for for the cheapest possible price, and 9.9/10 times, this is online. I would have thought this is axiomatic, unless you are considering part of your purchase cost to be some sort of donation---call me a capitalist, but I think a business model that requires this sort of spontaneous good-will is a bad business model.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I agree with Hardline about the alien nature of saving and delayed gratification. I'm not sure, though, that it's a generational distinction so much as the era we live in. I think that there are plenty of folks in their 40s, 50s, and up who caught the convenience bug and would rather fill the closet quickly with the cash or credit on hand rather than build a wardrobe.

But if you listen to guys like Cards and myself who are (probably not the only ones) in the process of culling a leviathan mixed bag of a wardrobe, we'll be the first to tell you that a lot of our deals and steals were mistakes.

To 32's point about paying for the glamour of Ralph Lauren and other lavishly appointed retail environments, I'm happy to part with a little extra knowing that there's a slice of the budget that goes to such inspiring interiors. Maybe I'm lucky to be in walking distance of one flagship and an errand's drive to several more (including the Rhinelander), but there's nothing like a Ralph Lauren store in all of retail. Not in the great European department stores or high streets.

To build an analogy here, I work in the custom electronics industry and one of the most common things I'm putting together is a home media system with streaming music and video throughout the home. Amazing what technology can do in terms of storage and delivery, but the next frontier in content is _discovery_. There are glimmers of what's to come in services like Pandora and iTunes Genius, but they're woefully overmatched by the "antique" experiences of browsing through record stores and recommendations from friends. So the flip side to our recent ability to store terabytes of music at our fingertips is our total lack of ability to tease out of it what we really want at any given time or, what's even harder, to discover something new.

A good men's shop gives us that; whether by a knowledgeable salesperson or an artful bit of merchandising. I'm seldom compelled to try something new the way I am at a Ralph Lauren store. I run errands at Brooks Brothers, but I go to Ralph Lauren to be inspired. And even Ralph Lauren hasn't been able to translate the almost supernatural quality of his stores to the online space.

So it all goes back to thinking about where your money is going. I don't want Ralph Lauren stores to go away. I don't want Family Britches, the Darien Sport Shop, Richard's, Mitchell's or any of the other local shops that have shockingly survived to go away either. So I put my money where my mouth is and pay higher prices because not only am I getting the garment I want, but the store I want to buy it in, from the brand I want to make it, rung up by the salesperson who I want to sell it to me.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

unmodern said:


> On the other hand, I think we need to face the hard truth that by and large, the internet is obsolescing men's shops. I like to walk into them as much as anyone else, but "buy clothing here at or above retail because it is the virtuous thing to do" just isn't a reasonable proposition.


No virtue required. As I said above, you're meeting your own needs here, just a wider set of them. When you buy from J.Crew and Land's End Canvas, you're not just buying a cheaper product, but guaranteeing a young Chinese girl a future at a sewing machine in a hot factory. And to your point about high end goods being the sole province of the old and fat, go buy some slim Made in America khakis from . High quality, youthful fit, and you'll have them as long as you're thin! Would you be donating to Epaulet? No, you'd be buying the best product for your money and feeling good that some young entrepreneurs are able to start a new clothing business in the US.



unmodern said:


> Unlike Cards, I am not willing to pay more for service, with the possible exception of shoes, where fit is so difficult and personal. I will buy the item I'm looking for for the cheapest possible price, and 9.9/10 times, this is online. I would have thought this is axiomatic, unless you are considering part of your purchase cost to be some sort of donation---call me a capitalist, but I think a business model that requires this sort of spontaneous good-will is a bad business model.


Again, who's asking for a handout? You call yourself a capitalist, but you consider profit to be a donation? If you don't want to pay it or can't afford to pay it, let that fact stand on its own, but don't call a profit a handout.

And further on the point of considering this race to the bottom capitalism, all I can say is that it's a crude and thoughtless form of capitalism. It's what capitalism would be if 8 year olds ran the world. To think that capitalism can be boiled down to your immediate desire with no thought of an expanded context isn't capitalism. It's selfishness. The kind of selfishness you're scolded about in kindergarten. It's letting the block burn down around your own house. I'll allow that self interest can drive the economy, but I won't allow that self interest exists in a bubble built for one.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

The Internet cannot and will not make B&M men's stores obsolete. By definition, it is ALWAYS better to buy something that can be tried on before pulling the trigger, even if it can be returned. Would I pay a bit extra to buy in person? You bet. Unfortunately, the closest decent men's store is 100 miles away. Add to this that there will always be rich folks and the demise of the upscale store is much exaggerated, as a stroll down Michigan Avenue will instantly verify.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

I'm the OP in the reds thread that started this conversation, so I think this thread is pretty cool. I have seen elements of agreement in everyone's posts so far.

I think what I think all of this comes down to, is a discussion not about price, but about value. The I-buy-cheaper-online approach is not a price function, it's a value function. The I-buy-at-local-stores approach is, too. I don't think there is a right or wrong answer; and thankfully, no one here has tried to position his view as such. Some folks think the extra money paid for the service is worth, some don't. Both are correct, for that person.

I love the idea of a local, old-line men's store from which to buy. Unfortunately, none of them seem to carry goods that I find a suitable value. That's compounded by the fact I take large sizes. And to you guys who have value issues with local stores, try the big-and-tall world. For example, take a shirt that sells at Syms for $19.99 in a "normal" size. There is ONE local B&T vendor in my area, and one Rochester. The B&T guy sells the same shirt that's 20 bucks at Syms, the SAME SHIRT, for $79.99. And that's indicative of the markup on the rest of his products. Pretty much everything is full list price. Since he's about 30 miles away, there's not much incentive for me to shop sales, and his web site is atrocious (https://www.austinsbigandtall.com/). Yes, he's got Gitman...but that kind of stuff is aspirational for me, not wardrobe staples.

That's the other issue about this discussion, for me. I am going for an aesthetic in my clothes, a style, that projects what I consider myself to be as a person. I would love to be able to afford a closet full of Gitmans, H Freeman, Allen Edmonds, etc. It's not going to happen. I have a mortgage and an 11 year old that wants to go to college and a car that's 10 years old and on and on. I'm doing this from scratch, and although I would love to build a wardrobe, and am trying to do so as much as possible, I also need a decent quantity of stuff NOW.

Example: I wear a suit or sport coat/slacks, dress shirt, tie, dress shoes to work every day. I work in a small office with about 12 other people, including a team of two others that I manage directly. Wearing the same thing every day isn't an option. I need two pairs of khakis. I would love two Bill's, but my budget isn't $250, my budget is $60. So I'll buy two pairs of JABs when they're on sale (should be about 10 minutes from now!) and keep on rolling. I know I'd be better off with the Bill's, but that's not a choice.

Back to the reds that started this. I saw a pair on a guy at an event this summer, and thought, "that's a look I could pull off, and would like to." I know my best choice would be Murray's or VV. But for pants I'll wear a couple times a summer, at most, $80 isn't a good choice. $30 for the pairs I got from LE are better, and I can use that $50 for an OCBD that I can wear to work regularly.

I would love to someday be in a position to buy "the best," and ironically, since I started dressing better about a year ago, I've gotten on a career trajectory that will likely make that possible at some point. Until then, I'm in the mode Hardline and 32 referred to, doing what I can with what I've got, and what I've got access to.

Thanks for letting me rant and sticking with this post. This is a great board, mainly because of the diversity of views on stuff like this. I bet a post like this on SF would last about one post before the Style Police derided anyone who didn't want to buy 30 pairs of Aldens.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

There are different stages of wardrobe development at work here. Most of us start out being introduced to the concept of quality clothing, want it badly (and still discovering what it is), but then suffer from sticker shock. Then we're introduced to discount shopping (eg, STP)/thrifting/thrift exchange/ebay, etc. This is a time of wardrobe building (from nothing, usually), experimentation (no, Bill's MP1's aren't really the way to go) and learning.

Then there start to be those items that we haven't found, or can't find: grail pieces. Card's Barbour is an example. We start weighing wardrobe priorities, saving up and buying what we need/want.

Those of us who have been here for a long time are certainly in the last stage. There's not really anything we need. In fact, our closets are bulging. But although I'm in that last stage that doesn't mean that I'm interested in paying full retail, either. I have largely funded my own clothing purchases from thrifting and selling. It's a system that benefits everyone, allows me not to be a drain on my family budget (my wife and three daughters insist on eating) but buy those pieces that I really want and am willing to pay for.

I've spent full retail for Hermes cufflinks, custom beaver felt hats, a custom A-1 horsehide jacket and special order Alden shoes (a pair of cigar shell boots currently on order). I plan on ordering a tie from Sam Hober soon. But I was also very happy to thrift as new Venanzi and Saint Andrews suits and sportcoats a few weeks back. Those retail for $3000+ each. I'm simply not going to save enough in my current economic state to buy those at retail.

I agree with making decisions based on quality, and as we build our wardrobes we will keep moving that bar higher. I will also add as a final note, I actually like wearing my vintage stuff more than having everything new off the shelf. Sure, everyone likes something new, but I have items from thrifting, etc. in my wardrobe that I wouldn't trade for MTM.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

I agree with everything Alan said above, and I'll just add a note about retail pricing. While some retailers surely set their retail price at what they need to pay the bills and operate at a reasonable profit margin, I have *no doubt whatsoever* that many (most?) "pad" the retail price with discount room built in. Any manufacturer or retailer that did its budgeting and price-setting each year on the expectation of selling 100% of their stock at full retail would quickly go out of business. I'm sure that when the folks at Brooks Brothers or Ralph Lauren sit around deciding how much to charge for an item, they have a mass of data that shows them that 10% of the stock will be sold at retail, 20% at 10% off, 40% at 25% off, and 30% at 40-60% off. Or whatever. Yielding an average sale price of X% of retail. And if that's how the calculations work, then I'm happy to be in the latter 30% of customers, and I won't feel bad at all that I'm helping to drive the poor shop out of business.

If retailers can't survive by people buying their stuff on sale, then they need to make an oustanding product that creates high demand, and simply never allow discounts. It works for Alden.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

A note on thrifting...

Thrifting seems like the logical choice for someone eager to build a wardrobe who's short on funds. It provides better bang for the buck and the opportunity to become familiar with alterations tailoring. 

You want a slim pair of khakis? Buy something at the Salvation Army and have them hemmed and tapered. Perfect fit and probably still less than J.Crew on sale. 

Have shirts darted, sport coats pinched, button holes cut in, whatever suit you. 

Better to give a good garment a second life than midwife a new piece of crap into the marketplace. 

As someone who's already built a wardrobe and made a lot of these mistakes, I can tell you that the perfect knock-around chinos are the ones that were new 4 years ago. What better to rake leaves in than a beat up oxford that used to be the newest of the bunch. The point is that once you build a wardrobe from the top down and not the bottom up, a lot of things take care of themselves. I've heard just as many folks talk about picking up some cheap chinos just for weekends. That's what the 5 year old Bills are for!


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Orgetorix said:


> If retailers can't survive by people buying their stuff on sale, then they need to make an oustanding product that creates high demand, and simply never allow discounts. It works for Alden.


Excellent point. It's not just the customer who has to stop buying crap, but the manufactures who need to stop making it. Alden's a great example. No compromises. That would go a long way toward stamping out the abusive codependency that customers have with retailers.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Trip English said:


> And to your point about high end goods being the sole province of the old and fat, go buy some slim Made in America khakis from . High quality, youthful fit, and you'll have them as long as you're thin! Would you be donating to Epaulet? No, you'd be buying the best product for your money and feeling good that some young entrepreneurs are able to start a new clothing business in the US.


They look really nice. Decent rise length, too. (And everyone knows how I am about that.)



32rollandrock said:


> The Internet cannot and will not make B&M men's stores obsolete. By definition, it is ALWAYS better to buy something that can be tried on before pulling the trigger, even if it can be returned. Would I pay a bit extra to buy in person? You bet. *Unfortunately, the closest decent men's store is 100 miles away.* Add to this that there will always be rich folks and the demise of the upscale store is much exaggerated, as a stroll down Michigan Avenue will instantly verify.


Heard that. For me it's more like 500 miles though.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Trip English said:


> ...once you build a wardrobe from the top down and not the bottom up, a lot of things take care of themselves. I've heard just as many folks talk about picking up some cheap chinos just for weekends. That's what the 5 year old Bills are for!


You are wise!!


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

I have to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Trips points a few posts up. As an architect myself, I recognize and appreciate the tactility of any experience in a B&M versus on-line. I was working on Nassau St. when the Princeton Ralph Lauren store opened, and I have to echo Trips description of the experience. The question is, how much do you value the "retail experience" versus the purchased item on its own?

As an example, Orvis seems to be taking quite a beating in this and the original "reds" thread. Do they mark stuff up? Heck yes they do. But to date, my experience in their stores and with their staff is second to none as far as I'm concerned. 

I've taken both of the free fly-fishing classes that they offer at my local B&M. An experienced fly angler who was there for his wife attested to the fact that the free Orvis classes were better than the LL Bean classes (which they charge for) and just as good as the Orvis schools, with the exception of the beautiful mountain streams.

The Orvis employees all know me by name. The manager says "Hi" to my wife whenever she sees her at the supermarket. When I stop by the store with my wife (who is very pregnant at the moment and typically not interested in anything Orvis sells) they roll out a comfy seat by the TV and bring her some bottled water while I browse.

You would think that I spend loads of money there, but I don't. Besides the fly fishing courses, I've taken my Beaufort to them for reproofing and repairs (because they only charge $30 and send it to Barbour in NH for free), bought a few fishing odds and ends and picked up a pair of Rhinohide pants that were mismarked to half the price but was given the lower price anyway. Not only that, they had them hemmed for me for free since they didn't have the length I needed in stock. In total, I think I've spent $150 - $200 at Orvis.

So what's the point of all this? Well, whenever the day comes when I have to replace one of my beloved Barbours, I'm going to have to decide whether I want to spend $400 at Orvis, or order on-line from Best in the Country and spend $100 less. To someone who places no value on the experience of purchasing a quality item from a local retailer, that's a no-brainer- go with what's cheaper. But when you add all the other elements, the choice isn't so cut and dry.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

^ Well said.

Edit: This is almost my exact experience with the Orvis in Darien, CT. They are about the most knowledgeable staff I've encountered. It seems like most stores are staffed with zombies and have a few (if not a single) good egg. Orvis seems to be the opposite.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Heard that. For me it's more like 500 miles though.


I don't want to sound too hard headed about this, and I understand that it's easy for me to say this given my geography, but I still don't think it's an excuse to lower your standards. If you buy with care you don't need to shop every few days. Take a drive and make a day or a weekend of it.

While I may have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to mens clothiers, I have even less acceptable BBQ than I did in Maryland, where pickins were already slim. I don't eat Lloyd's out of the tub, I simply abstain until travel takes me somewhere where meat is served on newspaper.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Not to nitpick, but let's take the example of a MTM suit. Having never owned one, I can only go on supposition and what I've read on the Internet, but you have the initial visit for measurements and to pick a fabric. Then you have a follow-up when the garment is nearly complete for some fine-tuning. Then you have a third visit when the garment is done for final adjustments. Then you have a fourth visit to pick it up (which, I suppose, could be eliminated by having it shipped). My house is 200 miles from Chicago, which is 1,200 miles of travel if I have the finished suit shipped or more than halfway across the United States if I pick it up in person. And if you're not going to do it in person, you might as well not do it at all (see the recent critique of long-distance MTM on An Affordable Wardrobe).

I can do that, or I can either order OTR via mail or go the exchange/ebay route with GF or Pressidential--and thank God I have a good tailor. I guess I'm saying that clothes are different than good barbecue. They rely, I think, on relationships between people. If you are fortunate enough to live in a big city, then you can develop those relationships at Paul Stuart or BB or the like. If you live in JAB Land, then you develop those relationships online with folks you learn to trust and in person with your tailor.

QUOTE=Trip English;1238769]I don't want to sound too hard headed about this, and I understand that it's easy for me to say this given my geography, but I still don't think it's an excuse to lower your standards. If you buy with care you don't need to shop every few days. Take a drive and make a day or a weekend of it.

While I may have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to mens clothiers, I have even less acceptable BBQ than I did in Maryland, where pickins were already slim. I don't eat Lloyd's out of the tub, I simply abstain until travel takes me somewhere where meat is served on newspaper.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Point taken. 

After all, nothing is quite like good barbecue. 

And Joseph A. Bank land is a good description. They should merge with WalMart and form WalBanks. 

THIS WEEKEND ONLY!!! BUY ANY 4 EMPEROR LABEL SUITS AND RECEIVE SIX DRESS SHIRTS, AN ENTEMAN'S DONUT VARIETY PACK, ONE BAG OF TOP SOIL, TEN JARS OF POWER BAIT, AND A TIM McGRAW CONCERT DVD.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

Trip English said:


> No virtue required. As I said above, you're meeting your own needs here, just a wider set of them. When you buy from J.Crew and Land's End Canvas, you're not just buying a cheaper product, but guaranteeing a young Chinese girl a future at a sewing machine in a hot factory. And to your point about high end goods being the sole province of the old and fat, go buy some slim Made in America khakis from . High quality, youthful fit, and you'll have them as long as you're thin! Would you be donating to Epaulet? No, you'd be buying the best product for your money and feeling good that some young entrepreneurs are able to start a new clothing business in the US.
> 
> Again, who's asking for a handout? You call yourself a capitalist, but you consider profit to be a donation? If you don't want to pay it or can't afford to pay it, let that fact stand on its own, but don't call a profit a handout.
> 
> And further on the point of considering this race to the bottom capitalism, all I can say is that it's a crude and thoughtless form of capitalism. It's what capitalism would be if 8 year olds ran the world. To think that capitalism can be boiled down to your immediate desire with no thought of an expanded context isn't capitalism. It's selfishness. The kind of selfishness you're scolded about in kindergarten. It's letting the block burn down around your own house. I'll allow that self interest can drive the economy, but I won't allow that self interest exists in a bubble built for one.


I think you are rendering ethical what is more an economic reality. I am as in favor of US production as anyone, but it is up to companies to produce competitive products. The point of clothing IMO is having things that fit well, have the correct details, and last as long as possible. This is my definition of value. Supporting US manufacturing is a nice perk, but is not the reason I go out and spend. To act as though the persistence of RL, BB, and small men's shops is mainly due to the individual decisions of valiant purchasers, rather than large market forces beyond any one person's control, is silly.

I think there are plenty of examples of very competitive US-made products: blazers (BB, O'Connells, Hardwick, A-L), shirts (BB on sale), shoes (AE), coats (Sterlingwear), belts (Leatherman, various online custom belmakers), etc. Indeed, I own no foreign-made versions of any of these.

But then there are luxury-level versions of casual basics like blucher mocs (Quoddy), khakis (Bill's, Epaulet), rugbies (various online specialty shops), jeans (hipster brands, Americana brands spurred on by the Japanese market). To me these are not worth the money _vs_. the China- or Mexico-made stuff that someone L. L. Bean, J. Crew, and Levi's sells. This is simply a matter of value: they are way more expensive, but only somewhat better quality, and in many cases won't last any longer than the China-made version. In fact, in some cases (most notable blucher mocs from Bean and jeans from Levi's) the original styling is to be found in the 'inferior' product.

In summary, as someone who supports American jobs I will try to buy US made products whenever they are as good or a better value than the foreign-made equivalents. At the same time, I do not feel obliged to buy luxury items made in the US simply because they are luxury items made in the US, with no reference to quality. I submit that trads of the past would have laughed at someone who approached clothing purchases in this way, paying extra for the prestige of luxury or for political reasons. Trad has always been about value. I personally could never justify Quoddies over Bean mocs, because the Bean version has all the details I want in the shoe and costs about $170 less. (Actually, I own the Bass version that I scored for $15 off 6pm.com: a savings of $215 over Quoddy!) If you like the look of the Quoddies better, and can afford them, more power to you. And some will hold that J. Crew chinos are like pieces of plastic compared with Bill's. Fine. For instance, I do feel that way (as most of us do) about AE shoes versus J&M, Florsheim, etc. But these are ultimately aesthetic positions, not political ones. I just resent the implication that those of us whose sense of value does not lead us to purchasing, say, Quoddy mocs, are somehow betraying Mother America. Next you will be telling us never to buy things on sale, as this decreases the store's profit margin!

PS in light of 32's post: buying second-hand and thrifting are obvious a different case, since one does not have as much choice and the deals come by only intermittently. Of course it is better to thrift US-made Levi's in exactly one's size made in the US in 1964 than to buy new, but one can't count on a pair coming along.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

But I do agree with you about Lands End. I haven't bought much from them--a paintbrush shirt (for a Halloween costume) and a couple of custom-made shirts is all, IIRC. The stuff I run across whilst thrifting seems, well, pedestrian, although I do have a fabulous shetland crewneck sweater, old-school, purchased on the exchange.

Maybe a dividing line, at least for me, is this: There's no sense in buying LE when secondhand Bills and and BB OCBDs in excellent condition can be had for the same price or less.

Not to muddy the waters, but one of the great sartorial joys, IMO, is a brand-new BB OCBD. The cut and quality are good enough that if the stars/bank account align with one of BB's buy-three-at-a-discount sale, I'll pull the trigger, and at a price comparable to LE, which jacks the price tremendously for necks my size. Heck, a decent shirt is worth more money than something from LE any day, and that won't break anyone's bank. So it is that I splurged and spent $75 on a NWT RLPL FC a few months ago from ebay (before I started boycotting ebay), which I thought was a fantastic deal, and will one day acquire a Mercer straight from the maker. But a $300 shirt will never be in the hand I'm dealt.



Trip English said:


> Point taken.
> 
> After all, nothing is quite like good barbecue.
> 
> ...


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Trip English said:


> While I may have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to mens clothiers, I have even less acceptable BBQ than I did in Maryland, where pickins were already slim. I don't eat Lloyd's out of the tub, I simply abstain until travel takes me somewhere where meat is served on newspaper.


Some of the Pit Beef joints around Baltimore are OK.

But I prefer the SC style (Pig, sauce on the side and slaw) available in Virginia.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Unmodern - Trads of yesteryear didn't have to contend with nearly the landscape we have. Consumerism wasn't practiced on anything close to the scale it is today. Certainly their catalogs were the forerunners to our internet, but the sheer amount of purchasing things that comprises a modern American life is radically different than it was decades ago. 

Just as the organic grocer will try to turn your focus to the farming practices employed to bring you cheap perfect flavorless tomatoes, it's natural (especially for a group of enthusiasts) to widen their gaze. If you think that ethics are not attached to almost any action you take, you're wrong. For us to truly get what we want in a broad sense we have to give our best ethical considerations to what we do. If my cheaper gallon of milk hurts someone, I'm bound by my knowledge of that fact to decide for myself how that will weight into my decision. There's no such thing as a system where no-one gets hurt, but that doesn't mean you take your hands off the wheel, morally speaking. 

Some folks buy cage-free eggs, some by Made in America jeans. I'm not a rabid jingoist, but I can't have participated in my hobby for so long without looking into the practices of manufacture and retail that accompany it. For me to know the costs, monetary and otherwise, of my purchasing decisions and not do anything about it is irresponsible. 

I remember chiding a vegetarian friend of mine that his decisions would not change the farming or dietary habits of our culture and he replied very simply that at least it would not be on his conscience.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

WouldaShoulda said:


> Some of the Pit Beef joints around Baltimore are OK.
> 
> But I prefer the SC style (Pig, sauce on the side and slaw) available in Virginia.


I'm a pork man myself. I've found passable pork up here, but the side dishes don't seem to translate. I don't think they've heard of greens up here.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This is it!

I, too, have a pair of the infamous Bass blucher moc's scored for $15. I hate them. They are awful shoes, with cheap leather that will never, ever grow soft and comfortable. I also have a pair of Beans, which are nirvana. The point here is, the Bass version is stupid. Yeah, it was a whole lot less money, but it was also the proverbial case of getting what you pay for, even though, appearance-wise, they are virtually identical to the Beans. The only thing I use the Bass for is mowing my lawn.

Same holds true, IMO, with Sperry Topsiders. I can't imagine a more comfortable boat shoe. And yet, folks keep trying to re-invent it for lots more money. There is, in my estimation, no point--unless you like flushing your money away.

This has been said before, but there are some iconic items--Topsiders, Bean moc's, Levi 501s--that have been done so masterfully that there is no point in re-doing them, but re-do them retailers do, year in and year out. Folks who spend money on such re-hashes are, well, I don't know what they are doing, but I wouldn't do it. It is, in my estimation, mistaking expensive with quality and value.



unmodern said:


> I personally could never justify Quoddies over Bean mocs, because the Bean version has all the details I want in the shoe and costs about $170 less. (Actually, I own the Bass version that I scored for $15 off 6pm.com: a savings of $215 over Quoddy!)


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> This is it!
> 
> I, too, have a pair of the infamous Bass blucher moc's scored for $15. I hate them. They are awful shoes, with cheap leather that will never, ever grow soft and comfortable. I also have a pair of Beans, which are nirvana. The point here is, the Bass version is stupid. Yeah, it was a whole lot less money, but it was also the proverbial case of getting what you pay for, even though, appearance-wise, they are virtually identical to the Beans. The only thing I use the Bass for is mowing my lawn.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with this sentiment. I happen to actually like the Bass blucher mocs (I have the canoe mocs too---going strong and looking great after 2 years of wear), but I will probably go for the Bean version next since Bass no longer makes these. I would never advocate buying the Bass version simply to save money.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> This has been said before, but there are some iconic items--Topsiders, Bean moc's, Levi 501s--that have been done so masterfully that there is no point in re-doing them, but re-do them retailers do, year in and year out. Folks who spend money on such re-hashes are, well, I don't know what they are doing, but I wouldn't do it. It is, in my estimation, mistaking expensive with quality and value.


And yet, there is no shortage of threads complaining about how poorly made the current incarnations of the "icons" are nowadays. Frankly, I've owned many of the once-made-in-USA items that many remember fondly and I have been very disappointed.


----------



## Coffee Mug (Mar 27, 2011)

unmodern said:


> To act as though the persistence of RL, BB, and small men's shops is mainly due to the individual decisions of valiant purchasers, rather than large market forces beyond any one person's control, is silly.


I agree with most of your post, but I do object to this line of thinking. To act as though "market forces" free one from the ethical constraints of being a citizen and not just a consumer is also silly.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

hardline_42 said:


> And yet, there is no shortage of threads complaining about how poorly made the current incarnations of the "icons" are nowadays. Frankly, I've owned many of the once-made-in-USA items that many remember fondly and I have been very disappointed.


I'm in full agreement.
Bravo hardline.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Orvis, I think, is a bad way to get this started. IMO, they are tremendously overpriced, about the most expensive place, for instance, to buy either Red Wing or Barbour. They, like Mr. Lifshitz, are selling a lifestyle...


As the rest of your post presents a reasoned argument, written in the language of a mature adult, it seems out of place for you to act like a school yard bully, making fun of someone's name.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

Coffee Mug said:


> To act as though "market forces" free one from the ethical constraints of being a citizen and not just a consumer is also silly.


I didn't mean to imply that. Obviously there is an interface between large, uncontrollable forces and personal responsibility. But the question of how much disconnect between the two your wallet can bear is always primarily an economic one. We are talking about purchases with cold hard cash, not votes that require no more than a trip to the local school. Leaving aside the ultra-rich who can support anything they like, consumers always have to compromise between quality, quantity, price, and the political ramifications of place of manufacture.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Mr. Lifshitz and I go way back. My animosity stems from an incident at his Michigan Avenue store several years ago in which one of his employees, unprovoked, threw a shirt at me. Mr. Lifshitz did not do me the courtesy of responding to my letter of complaint. I have recounted the incident more than once on this forum. Suffice to say, I have not, and will not, buy anything from Mr. Lifshitz, although I will wear his wares provided I can be assured that Mr. Lifshitz does not receive any of my money.

In short, this has nothing to do with school yards. It has to do with the arrogance of a retailer who, in my view, doesn't give a hoot about his customers. Leastwise, that has been my experience with Mr. Lifshitz.



arkirshner said:


> As the rest of your post presents a reasoned argument, written in the language of a mature adult, it seems out of place for you to act like a school yard bully, making fun of someone's name.


----------



## Coffee Mug (Mar 27, 2011)

unmodern said:


> Consumers always have to compromise between quality, quantity, price, and the political ramifications of place of manufacture.


True enough; I suppose my frustration comes from the fact that "the market" has pretty clearly voted for cheap, low-quality goods from overseas that are all too often worthless at any price. That said, this forum has been a great resource for finding the stores and the businesses that do things differently.


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> Mr. Lifshitz and I go way back. My animosity stems from an incident at his Michigan Avenue store several years ago in which one of his employees, unprovoked, threw a shirt at me. Mr. Lifshitz did not do me the courtesy of responding to my letter of complaint. I have recounted the incident more than once on this forum. Suffice to say, I have not, and will not, buy anything from Mr. Lifshitz, although I will wear his wares provided I can be assured that Mr. Lifshitz does not receive any of my money.
> 
> In short, this has nothing to do with school yards. It has to do with the arrogance of a retailer who, in my view, doesn't give a hoot about his customers. Leastwise, that has been my experience with Mr. Lifshitz.


The man changed his name. Legally. Whatever else you say about him, however you choose to respect him or not or patronize him or not, you don't get to keep referring to him by a name that isn't his anymore.


----------



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

Great thread, many of you have articulately expressed thoughts I've felt, but struggled to put into exact words.

Like some of you here, my job takes me into this discussion often.






Trip, I share your love of Ralph Lauren, but is there a contradiction in that and supporting smaller men's shops?

The guy looking to spend $19 on khakis probably isn't taking business away from the local shop selling Bills for $110, but Ralph competes at that price level.

If you want Alden or C&Js shoes, Corneliani suits or handmade Scottish sweaters why buy them re-branded through RL? Why not support a smaller shop that carries those brands?
(I think for me the answer regrettably is "because the smaller shops don't have 40% off sales")

And while I've always had good service at RL stores, it's nothing spectacular. Most of the guys at the mansion, while nice, seem to be models first and retailers second.


I think the other thing is, while I agree that RL does store design better than anyone (hell I have back issues of store design magazines with his shops in them) there is part of me that hates in general when people get too much credit for that sort of thing.
I suppose it's the designer/builder in me, but it irks me to no end when someone has an original, clever design and a thousand hours of time invested in their idea, only to have some interior designer "find" it, buy it, mark it up 250% (the standard rate) and get all the credit.


Again, I love Ralph Lauren's clothes and his stores, and I love what people here are saying about supporting smaller retailers, but I'm unsure how to square that with my other feelings


----------



## Coffee Mug (Mar 27, 2011)

Trip English said:


> 1. The price is the price for a reason. The retailer has made a calculation of the type of margins needed to operate his business and make a profit. Paying significantly less than this injures a retailer and furthers the odds that he won't be there in the future.


I think this breaks down because people have an implicit notion of what a fair price is. Obviously, they can be wrong, and underestimate the costs involved. Like AlanC said, most of us probably experienced some sticker shock when first diving into the world of good clothing. But eventually one's compass orients itself correctly, and the concept of a fair price remains.

Allen Emonds shoes are a perfect example. To the uninitiated customer who's used to buying Sketchers made of glue and plastic from Kohl's (be sure to stack the 30% coupon with the 15%-off Memorial Day sale and the Buy 1 Get 2 Free special!), $325 seems like price gouging or self-indulgence. But that's what it costs to make high-quality, American-made shoes in a sustainable fashion. I (and I imagine most of us) are more than happy to buy them at retail price. The price is fair.

Compare that to the hostility reserved for companies that built up their reputations selling good things at a fair price, and have since replaced the good things with junk while keeping the price unchanged. Brooks Brothers (to take an example that's far from the worst) sells some great products, like the oxford shirts from North Carolina. Good things at a fair price.

But they also sell lots of clothing from the Industrial Argyle Socks and Microwave Oven factory in the country of Imported, and the prices on those pieces are the same as the prices on the classic ones that are made in the USA and Canada. Not a fair price. Result: we either avoid buying them altogether (the Zen masters of the forum), or barring that, refuse to buy unless it's heavily discounted down to the implicit fair price (the rookies).

See also, LL Bean.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

arkirshner said:


> As the rest of your post presents a reasoned argument, written in the language of a mature adult, it seems out of place for you to act like a school yard bully, making fun of someone's name.


Great thread and not to hijack it but I do make fun of Ralph Lauren and would myself expect to be made fun of if I were so ashamed of my name to change it. In my opinion this whole name change by Ralphie goes far deeper than just a brand and much more to do with his self image. And I do believe that public, non-violent ridicule, has it's place.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Try getting a shirt thrown at you. You'd call him Lifshitz--or worse.



Orgetorix said:


> The man changed his name. Legally. Whatever else you say about him, however you choose to respect him or not or patronize him or not, you don't get to keep referring to him by a name that isn't his anymore.


----------



## AldenPyle (Oct 8, 2006)

Interesting Thread. A couple of random points.

1. Buying apparel seems to be fraught with temptations of false economy. For me, buying "Made in USA" functions almost entirely as a bright line indicator to avoid those false economies. Its not always perfect, but it seems if you stay on one side of that line you avoid a lot of wasted purchases.
2. Price discrimination is part of the basic business model of many retailers. For some people, paying $200 for a pair of pants is exactly the same as paying $150 and if it saves them a scintilla of time or effort they are happy to do the former. I admit I am not one of those people and am willing w/o shame to wait for say, J.Press end of season sale to do the latter. [On the other hand, Norman Hilton has always sold out my size before the sale, so there I have had to jump first].
3. To my mind there is no ethical system in which, business people, small or large, are ever relieved from the obligation of delivering value for money. It seems nice to support the personal touch, but I can't help think of the counter-example of the much romanticized independent book shops who never seemed to have any of the books that I actually wanted. I'll take Amazon any day. 
4. Part of shopping for discounts is just shopping. We recently bought quite a few white goods for life cycle reasons. We didn't go sub-zero blah-blah luxury, but we did pay pretty much full price for higher end Made in OECD appliances because 1) I wanted to be out of the refrigerator store as fast as I could; and 2) I hope not to go back for as long as possible. I think if I was more interested in the details of ice-making I might have been willing to shop around more and got a better deal.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Orgetorix said:


> The man changed his name. Legally. Whatever else you say about him, however you choose to respect him or not or patronize him or not, you don't get to keep referring to him by a name that isn't his anymore.


Have to agree here. This "Lifschitz" shtick on clothing forums is getting old. I otherwise respect 32's opinions.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It's "Lifshitz," not "Lifschitz." Lifshitz. And "schtick," not "shtick." Not to quibble or anything.



Jovan said:


> Have to agree here. This "Lifschitz" shtick on clothing forums is getting old. I otherwise respect 32's opinions.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

My spell checker says both are correct!


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

I have to hear this shirt throwing story. Where can I find this thread??


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Interesting. Isn't one of the main problems the constant sales? It impacts the consumers (mine) appreciation of the brand so that buying at retail price rather than sale price seems 'risky'. If I wait, won't this jacket be on sale from brooks brothers? Because of sales, shopping becomes bargain hunting rather than the purchase of the items you really need and want. Less sales would be good. 

As for quality, you seem to equate American made and buying American with buying good quality. However, there's not just American or Chinese. That's not really the issue. Theres plenty of Italian, British, French, German, Baltic etc made quality clothes out there. If ever in Estonia, check out coats and OTR suits from local brand Baltman (funny name but decent quality). Buying American is something else. There's no need to ever buy American made if you want the best quality, that's something you do for other reasons. It confuses the issue slightly, IMO. Barbour for example, is British. 

If the line is drawn between buying American (quality), and buying anything else (crap), then you're muddying the waters. 

I would guess manufacturing costs are higher in the UK, Japan or Sweden than in the US. In fact, I know they are, if for no other reason than the tax wedge. 

I totally agree with the sentiments of people who have found their bargain finds to be less than a bargain in the long run, while solid investments at ordinary retail price have turned out to be solid investments. 

However: some manufacturers offer incredible value at a decent point of quality, for example TM Lewin for shirts. CT also do this. H&M offer decent quality jeans in many different fits that hold up well. You need a range of clothes in different price/quality/style areas to be able to dress to any occasion.


----------



## Coffee Mug (Mar 27, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Because of sales, shopping becomes bargain hunting rather than the purchase of the items you really need and want.


Agreed 100%.



Bjorn said:


> Theres plenty of Italian, British, French, German, Baltic etc made quality clothes out there... If the line is drawn between buying American (quality), and buying anything else (crap), then you're muddying the waters.


Absolutely true, and I don't mean to imply otherwise. I was using "made in the USA" as a lazy stand-in to describe three separate but related trends.

One, it's short-hand for "made in a sustainable way by a business that respects environmental regulations and pays its workers a decent wage". Obviously many American businesses fall short of that standard, and many non-American ones exceed it; parts of Europe and Japan have moved ahead of us in this regard. One can have some fun readings the countries of origin in a clothing catalog these days: the US, Canada, the UK, Japan, Sweden, Brazil, Germany, etc. are almost always mentioned explicitly. Other countries are euphemized as "Imported".

Second, the important-to-me but obviously parochial concern about dealing locally. Paying a little more to buy from the guy down the street who also sponsors a Little League team and helps organize the annual fireworks display makes for a healthier community, and is probably better for everyone in the long run, than driving out to the edge of town to save a few bucks at Wal-Mart.

And third, in the current American clothing market, "made in the USA" does serve, as AldenPyle said, as an imperfect but bright-line indicator of quality. With the exception of well-known brands that are clearly being sold on the basis of quality rather than low cost of manufacture (e.g. Barbour), almost everything for sale was at some point in the recent past made domestically. The rush to out-source everything in the last few decades was driven by a desire to lower costs, and revealed a previously-hidden preference for quantity over quality.

The people who are still making things here, by and large, are the ones who cared more about quality in the first place. In that sense, "made in Imported" is a symptom of the problem we're all lamenting, not the cause.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

I think I'm the one who provoked this discussion…I guess that's a good thing…when I suggested to the OP in the Reds thread that he might actually consider buying a pair of authentic Reds. One of the guys who replied said that Murrays' Reds, while of high quality, are made in China, and that he has foresworn all purchases from China because he wants to support American manufacturing. 

This post got me thinking about the connection between low price and the desire for Made in the U.S.A., both of which seem prevalent on this forum. In fact, several of the initial replies to the original Reds guy suggested trousers that could be had for $20, $12, and $14.97. It was my desire to remind people – which I think Trip has done well – that the offshoring of American jobs is a direct result of price pressures faced by American businesses – to which the inveterate discount shopper in his own small way is contributing. I’m not suggesting folks stop thrifting or price-shopping; I'm suggesting they soften the sanctimony when it comes from buying only American made stuff.

What I also wondered, but did not bring up, was how on earth, in a "trad" forum, it took six or eight replies before someone suggested the OP actually get a pair of authentic Reds? When I was a younger man, we could tell a pair of authentic Top-Siders at 30 paces, and the same goes for Nantucket Reds, Norwegian Sweaters, and such like items. Better to pay a bit extra for the real thing.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

But what if the "real thing" is no longer a great value or even well made compared to its imitators?


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Sartre said:


> What I also wondered, but did not bring up, was how on earth, in a "trad" forum, it took six or eight replies before someone suggested the OP actually get a pair of authentic Reds? When I was a younger man, we could tell a pair of authentic Top-Siders at 30 paces, and the same goes for Nantucket Reds, Norwegian Sweaters, and such like items. Better to pay a bit extra for the real thing.





Jovan said:


> But what if the "real thing" is no longer a great value or even well made compared to its imitators?


Or what if I'm not sure I can pull off/like reds, and don't have $80 to spend/don't want to spend $80 on something that might get worn only once or twice? (I'm the OP in the other thread)


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Jovan said:


> But what if the "real thing" is no longer a great value or even well made compared to its imitators?


This is a good point. I think there's also a confusion specific to the trad forum wherein "authentic" is often confused for "quality" because of a brand's history or provenance. Weejuns, Topsiders, Levi's STF, Bean Bluchers and many more were once hallowed examples of quality, Made in USA items that are now running on "heritage" alone.

It's taken me some time to shake this thought pattern as well. For example, I "know" Sperry AOs are (were?) the quintessential boat shoe but, as much as it pains me to say it, I think they suck. IMO, the Timberland 2-eye boat shoes are of much better construction with better features and out-of-the-box comfort for a better price. But it took me a long time to admit this to myself because Sperry's are "trad" and Timberlands are less so. And then, to add another layer, you have the Quoddy, Oak Street, and Rancourts of the world making "imitations" that far outshine the now-outsourced originals, albeit for a substantial increase in price.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

frosejr said:


> Or what if I'm not sure I can pull off/like reds, and don't have $80 to spend/don't want to spend $80 on something that might get worn only once or twice? (I'm the OP in the other thread)


Try them on in person if you can. If you have serious doubts, don't get them at any price point. Whether you spend $18 or $80, you'd still have some cash that you might wish you had saved for something else if they don't work out. If anything, at least try to find a retailer with a good return policy. That way you can wear them for a day and/or try them on with several different outfits and then decide if they're "you".

Just my opinion of course.



hardline_42 said:


> This is a good point. I think there's also a confusion specific to the trad forum wherein "authentic" is often confused for "quality" because of a brand's history or provenance. Weejuns, Topsiders, Levi's STF, Bean Bluchers and many more were once hallowed examples of quality, Made in USA items that are now running on "heritage" alone.
> 
> It's taken me some time to shake this thought pattern as well. For example, I "know" Sperry AOs are (were?) the quintessential boat shoe but, as much as it pains me to say it, I think they suck. IMO, the Timberland 2-eye boat shoes are of much better construction with better features and out-of-the-box comfort for a better price. But it took me a long time to admit this to myself because Sperry's are "trad" and Timberlands are less so. And then, to add another layer, you have the Quoddy, Oak Street, and Rancourts of the world making "imitations" that far outshine the now-outsourced originals, albeit for a substantial increase in price.


I own Bean Blucher Mocs and Levi's STF as of this year. They're not BAD so far, but I certainly see some opportunity for improvement. I actually wouldn't mind paying a bit more for bluchers made in Maine like the Bean Boots still are. That's saying something since Bean Boots cost the same as their overseas made footwear. Maybe it's only _marginally_ better in quality, but I'd still feel good about keeping some people in the States employed at fair wages.

Somewhat similarly, I wouldn't mind paying some more for Levi's STF that came with_ seven_ belt loops (which they used to IIRC) and had them stitched into the waistband. I have a pair of Gap selvage jeans with the belt loops stitched into the waistband. Still only five belt loops though. That annoys me as I always find my belt riding up to the sides, even when it's fairly loose and not cinching the waistband at all.

Some of the latter brands you mention might make those items better than the original companies did in the "golden age". I'm still wary of Quoddy though, given how many say they're not worth over $100 and have only increased in price due to being employed by J. Crew.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

If 20 years ago someone came to me and said they wanted a pair of "Reds" I would send them to Murray's. The thing is back then no one would ask you. As an owner of original made in the USA Murray's "Reds" there great, they are the original,iconic fill in the blank here with the appropriate accolade. That said they used allot of different contract makers and the appeal is really in the canvas fabric that fades. I have not seen a modern pair of "Reds" but past threads have said they are made in China, not the same weight or same color. If all of that is true, The difference between now and the past is that if you make a recommendation for Murray's today your almost obligated to offer caveats on the recommendation.


----------



## brozek (Sep 24, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Some of the latter brands you mention might make those items better than the original companies did in the "golden age". I'm still wary of Quoddy though, given how many say they're not worth over $100 and have only increased in price due to being employed by J. Crew.


I don't want to turn this into a Quoddy discussion, but it's crazy to me that people have this opinion. My canoe mocs were made in Maine from chromexcel leather tanned by Horween in Chicago. How anyone thinks that's worth less than $100 is beyond me.


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> This is a good point. I think there's also a confusion specific to the trad forum wherein "authentic" is often confused for "quality" because of a brand's history or provenance. Weejuns, Topsiders, Levi's STF, Bean Bluchers and many more were once hallowed examples of quality, Made in USA items that are now running on "heritage" alone.
> 
> It's taken me some time to shake this thought pattern as well. For example, I "know" Sperry AOs are (were?) the quintessential boat shoe but, as much as it pains me to say it, I think they suck. IMO, the Timberland 2-eye boat shoes are of much better construction with better features and out-of-the-box comfort for a better price. But it took me a long time to admit this to myself because Sperry's are "trad" and Timberlands are less so. And then, to add another layer, you have the Quoddy, Oak Street, and Rancourts of the world making "imitations" that far outshine the now-outsourced originals, albeit for a substantial increase in price.


Interesting. To me, the authentic item, even if of lower quality today, still has some cachet. And this is not mere fantasy. Clothes are what they are --- the trad style is what it is, in opposition to other styles --- largely because of a series of fantastic designs. My view when it comes to more casual clothes like jeans and blucher mocs is simply that we live in a world where the vast majority of production happens overseas. I am not happy about this but I am also uninterested in attempting to hold my breath until it changes. In such a world, one might as well buy the original styling (provided one likes it), since everything else of reasonable price is low quality _and _unclassic design (often). I feel about Quoddy and Epaulet and selvedge remake denim the way I feel about online custom tailors: you pay a lot more, but the item has lost some ineffable integrity. It is not _the _item, it is a best possible imitation of. Most of this high-end imitation stuff just doesn't strike me as very handsome compared with the original. It is difficult to produce a classic: that's why it's a classic. Of course, every now and again a company comes around and reproduces a classic that in every way outshadows the original. But I would argue that this is a lot rarer than one would think by reading the nth iteration of Quoddy threads.

Now, more formal items are a whole different story. These are expected to last a long time. Thankfully, there are plenty of sources for tasteful versions of blazers, dress shoes, etc.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

brozek said:


> I don't want to turn this into a Quoddy discussion, but it's crazy to me that people have this opinion. My canoe mocs were made in Maine from chromexcel leather tanned by Horween in Chicago. How anyone thinks that's worth less than $100 is beyond me.


I have no beef with Quoddy, nor do I own any of their shoes. But it seems that, way back before my time here, Quoddy's were priced way below what they're currently going for and the increase came almost overnight. That, coupled with what seems like a lot of QC issues as of late, has rubbed many members the wrong way. I do agree with you that I don't expect to pay less than $100 (more like twice that) for a Made in Maine, hard soled shoe. The only Made in Maine footwear I have that was under $100 is a pair of cowhide canoe moc slippers (double leather soft-sole).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

brozek said:


> I don't want to turn this into a Quoddy discussion, but it's crazy to me that people have this opinion. My canoe mocs were made in Maine from chromexcel leather tanned by Horween in Chicago. How anyone thinks that's worth less than $100 is beyond me.


Allegedly they were less than $100 just a few years ago. *shrug* Make of that what you will.

EDIT: Yeah, pretty much what hardline said.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

unmodern said:


> Interesting. To me, the authentic item, even if of lower quality today, still has some cache. And this is not mere fantasy. Clothes are what they are --- the trad style is what it is, in opposition to other styles --- largely because of a series of fantastic designs. My view when it comes to more casual clothes like jeans and blucher mocs is simply that we live in a world where the vast majority of production happens overseas. I am not happy about this but I am also uninterested in attempting to hold my breath until it changes. In such a world, one might as well buy the original styling (provided one likes it), since everything else of reasonable price is low quality _and _unclassic design (often). I feel about Quoddy and Epaulet and selvedge remake denim the way I feel about online custom tailors: you pay a lot more, but the item has lost some ineffable integrity. It is not _the _item, it is a best possible imitation of. Most of this high-end imitation stuff just doesn't strike me as very handsome compared with the original. It is difficult to produce a classic: that's why it's a classic. Of course, every now and again a company comes around and reproduces a classic that in every way outshadows the original. But I would argue that this is a lot rarer than one would think by reading the nth iteration of Quoddy threads.


Sorry UM, but the very assumption that you're buying the "authentic" item is a delusion in itself. It's the proverbial Ship of Theseus:

-These are authentic Bean Bluchers. Two seasons ago, we changed the design of the sole and quality of the leather and last season we built it on a different last and used cheaper thread, but it's still the same shoe.-

Interestingly, when I posted about my Rancourt bluchers in another thread as a replacement for a pair of Bean bluchers that I was unhappy with, some members mentioned that the Rancourts were more like the Beans of old than the new Beans were. I guess a blucher by any other name...


----------



## unmodern (Aug 10, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> Sorry UM, but the very assumption that you're buying the "authentic" item is a delusion in itself. It's the proverbial Ship of Theseus:
> 
> -These are authentic Bean Bluchers. Two seasons ago, we changed the design of the sole and quality of the leather and last season we built it on a different last and used cheaper thread, but it's still the same shoe.-
> 
> Interestingly, when I posted about my Rancourt bluchers in another thread as a replacement for a pair of Bean bluchers that I was unhappy with, some members mentioned that the Rancourts were more like the Beans of old than the new Beans were. I guess a blucher by any other name...


Sorry, but I disagree. I am not talking quality, I am talking aesthetics. You can argue back and forth on any given product, but in my opinion most of the high-end imitations are less well-designed than the originals. I thought your Rancourts were pretty good-looking, but not worth the money. I think Quoddies are just ugly, like a woman with too much make-up on. People can have different tastes, but there is only one original and even if it's now made in China it descends in a linear path from the original that started it all. Life is too short to own the 'almosts.'

Privileging the Platonic ideal of Bean bluchers from 1962 is the real delusion. At the end of the day, I'd rather buy the great-, great-, great-grandson of the 1962 shoe, continuously designed and updated by folks who, even if they moved production overseas, had the burden of a classic design on their consciences---than a shoe put out by some young Brooklynites who never wore the 1962 version in 1962, or some leathermakers in Maine who have quality leathers and great attention to detail, but miss the big picture. Like I said before, every now and again a company manages to out-classic the classic: my Bass blucher mocs are damn near identical to Beans, and cheaper. This is all a matter of taste, my point was just that in this zero-sum game for our dollars the original item still holds cachet for many.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

Jovan said:


> But what if the "real thing" is no longer a great value or even well made compared to its imitators?


This is a valid point, but in the case of Nantucket Reds, a theoretical one. I have two pairs of trousers and two pairs of shorts in my closet, one as old as 14-15 years, another purchased two summers ago, and while they are not all exactly the same, they are still of high quality, similar design, and hard wearing durability.

And there are no "imitators," in the sense that Murrays is the only comp[any, to my knowledge, that still makes them in cotton canvas. Buy a pair and you'll see why they are completely unique; they are not just a pair of faded red chinos.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

frosejr said:


> Or what if I'm not sure I can pull off/like reds, and don't have $80 to spend/don't want to spend $80 on something that might get worn only once or twice? (I'm the OP in the other thread)




To clarify, my interest was that no one even recommended them. You hadn't mentioned your price point.

And by the way, if you're concerned about "pulling them off," by all means stay away from the eye popping red versions and stick with the ones that are a faded brick red.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

Contemplating this thread, I have had an odd epiphany. Because some companies in the past have had strong corporate identities and cultures offered products we have embraced and even gotten emotionally attached to, It Is likely we have imagined having a relationship with a non entity. At the end of the day you can be devotee or detractor of product have positive feelings or negative feeling about the direction of a company but you can only have a real relationship with a person.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This is the smartest thing anyone has said on this thread.



C. Sharp said:


> Contemplating this thread, I have had an odd epiphany. Because some companies in the past have had strong corporate identities and cultures offered products we have embraced and even gotten emotionally attached to, It Is likely we have imagined having a relationship with a non entity. At the end of the day you can be devotee or detractor of product have positive feelings or negative feeling about the direction of a company but you can only have a real relationship with a person.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

hardline_42 said:


> I have no beef with Quoddy, nor do I own any of their shoes. But it seems that, way back before my time here, Quoddy's were priced way below what they're currently going for and the increase came almost overnight. That, coupled with what seems like a lot of QC issues as of late, has rubbed many members the wrong way. I do agree with you that I don't expect to pay less than $100 (more like twice that) for a Made in Maine, hard soled shoe. The only Made in Maine footwear I have that was under $100 is a pair of cowhide canoe moc slippers (double leather soft-sole).


When I had a couple of pair of Quoddy's made a few years ago I got the full story from a young lady who helped me throughout the course of several phone conversations.
Quoddy hit big in Japan. Having spent about a year in Japan on business I was not surprised at just how sought after Quoddy became almost overnight.

She recounted a story about how at one time Quoddy had changed their name from Quoddy Trail to just Quoddy. When they were Quoddy Trail they came in a off white shoe bag with a small piece of leather on the string that cinched the bag closed.

After the name changed sales dropped off significantly. So much so they brought back the little bag becuase Quoddys without the bag were thought to be inferior by the Japanese! and the shoes as well as the box they came in had to say "Quoddy Trail" or, said the Japanese dealers, they were not going to sell.

This young lady told me the Japanese market and the fact that they were willing to pay so much more for Quoddys is the reason for the almost overnight price rise of Quoddys.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> Sorry UM, but the very assumption that you're buying the "authentic" item is a delusion in itself. It's the proverbial Ship of Theseus:
> 
> -These are authentic Bean Bluchers. Two seasons ago, we changed the design of the sole and quality of the leather and last season we built it on a different last and used cheaper thread, but it's still the same shoe.-
> 
> Interestingly, when I posted about my Rancourt bluchers in another thread as a replacement for a pair of Bean bluchers that I was unhappy with, some members mentioned that the Rancourts were more like the Beans of old than the new Beans were. I guess a blucher by any other name...


Precisely.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

So much talk about what's authentic and what's not. This escapes me.

When I purchase anything it's because I like it, period. I don't give a hoot whether it's "Authentic" or not. Looking back over many years I will admit that I may become attracted to a given item because it's obviously of such high quality. (I love items that I call "One time purchases.") 

As an example the quality, the heft, of the fabric in Bill's Khakis is what attracted me to the product. 

On the other hand I have purchased items that are of obvious quality or style that I'm attracted to and if they end up being judged by AAAC members or by general consensus of the public at large as being "inauthentic," so be it because it makes no difference to me.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

127.72 MHz said:


> So much talk about what's authentic and what's not. This escapes me.
> 
> When I purchase anything it's because I like it, period. I don't give a hoot whether it's "Authentic" or not. Looking back over many years I will admit that I may become attracted to a given item because it's obviously of such high quality. (I love items that I call "One time purchases.")
> 
> ...


I think that's what we should try to aspire to - judging an item based on quality and not (perceived) authenticity. As I've mentioned before, a lot of these "authentic" brands are sailing by on the solid reputations their predecessors worked hard to cultivate and little else. I'm pretty sure they'll continue to do so as long as they can get away with it.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> ...When I purchase anything it's because I like it, period. I don't give a hoot whether it's "Authentic" or not...





hardline_42 said:


> ...I think that's what we should try to aspire to - judging an item based on quality and not (perceived) authenticity...


What exactly are you fellas doing on the trad forum?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Sartre said:


> What exactly are you fellas doing on the trad forum?


I'm talking about buying a pair of AE Kenwoods instead of Bass Weejuns or Bills instead of Duck Heads. Let's not throw the trad baby out with the fashion bathwater.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Sartre said:


> What exactly are you fellas doing on the trad forum?


Would you then define being trad as buying whatever the current operators of an old brand that was popular 50 years ago are making, wherever they are making it, to whatever quality and at whatever price?

Shouldn't staying true in style and in most items of clothing to the form and function, and basic quality standards, of traditional men's wear as worn by American men, be enough?


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Would you then define being trad as buying whatever the current operators of an old brand that was popular 50 years ago are making, wherever they are making it, to whatever quality and at whatever price?
> 
> Shouldn't staying true in style and in most items of clothing to the form and function, and basic quality standards, of traditional men's wear as worn by American men, be enough?


+1. I just looked at a pair of Bass Weejuns a couple weeks ago...they're crap. Ugly polished grain, plastic-looking leather. I'm always looking for a deal, but when I'm buying a staple, I'd do without instead of buy junk.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

hardline_42 said:


> I'm talking about buying a pair of AE Kenwoods instead of Bass Weejuns or Bills instead of Duck Heads. Let's not throw the trad baby out with the fashion bathwater.


I haven't seen the Kenwoods...but surely they're based on a classic design, if you are equating them with Weejuns? I don't see that as either inauthentic or un-trad (a word I hate, but we'll use it for the sake of argument). What is un-trad is to suggest that authenticity does not matter! Authenticity is central to the very notion of trad. The Kenwoods are beholden to the Weejuns, the Bills to the Duck Heads, etc. which is the nub of the idea of authenticity. I am not suggesting the silly definition adduced by Bjorn, that authenticity implies "buying whatever the current operators of an old brand that was popular 50 years ago are making, wherever they are making it, to whatever quality and at whatever price." But remember how this started, to wit, when a member asked about getting his first pair of Reds, folks suggested red Lands End chinos, which do not in any way, shape, or form (design, color, fabric, quality) relate to authentic Nantucket Reds.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Would you then define being trad as buying whatever the current operators of an old brand that was popular 50 years ago are making, wherever they are making it, to whatever quality and at whatever price?
> 
> Shouldn't staying true in style and in most items of clothing to the form and function, and basic quality standards, of traditional men's wear as worn by American men, be enough?


I think Sartre was only half serious, but there probably is some truth to the way you're suggesting trad is perceived by "outsiders."

By and large, I think that some of the more vocal members of the trad forum have no problem stepping outside the box to find items that are truer to the style. Trip is a good example. He often wears blazers and sport coats that are more Neapolitan in style because he values natural shoulders and softer construction more than being 100% faithful to Press and O'Connell's, who's shoulders just aren't that great anymore.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Sartre said:


> I haven't seen the Kenwoods...but surely they're based on a classic design, if you are equating them with Weejuns? I don't see that as either inauthentic or un-trad (a word I hate, but we'll use it for the sake of argument). What is un-trad is to suggest that authenticity does not matter! Authenticity is central to the very notion of trad. The Kenwoods are beholden to the Weejuns, the Bills to the Duck Heads, etc. which is the nub of the idea of authenticity. I am not suggesting the silly definition adduced by Bjorn, that authenticity implies "buying whatever the current operators of an old brand that was popular 50 years ago are making, wherever they are making it, to whatever quality and at whatever price." But remember how this started, to wit, when a member asked about getting his first pair of Reds, folks suggested red Lands End chinos, which do not in any way, shape, or form (design, color, fabric, quality) relate to authentic Nantucket Reds.


I think we might be referring to different things when we say "authentic." If, by "authentic," you're referring to the "tradliness" (ugh) of a particular _style_, then I'm in full agreement with you. Authenticity of a particular style is important, in varying degrees. If "authentic" is referring to a specific _item_, then I don't think we should imbue any intangible, unquantifiable value to that item based solely on it's history.

To continue with your example, I think that the leather-soled penny loafers are more authentic than, say, pimple-soled driving mocs. But the Bass Weejun is not better than the Kenwood simply by virtue of it's provenance.


----------



## frosejr (Mar 27, 2010)

Sartre said:


> remember how this started, to wit, when a member asked about getting his first pair of Reds, folks suggested red Lands End chinos, which do not in any way, shape, or form (design, color, fabric, quality) relate to authentic Nantucket Reds.


I actually asked myself if the Lands End was a good choice for my first reds. I didn't know anything about them before that post, except for seeing references to "reds."


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Sartre said:


> What exactly are you fellas doing on the trad forum?


Don't get me started. It just so happens that, as a rule, I like Traditional American men's clothing. But I am *not* "TRAD."

In my opinion this whole "Trad" thing with it's rules, (made up by heaven only knows) and etiquette remind me of something one might find in a Japanese uber-freak internet site which tries to capture a point in time or state of life that never actually existed.

I'm here because I like traditional American men's clothing and have met many fine people who share the same interest.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> Don't get me started. It just so happens that, as a rule, I like Traditional American men's clothing. But I am *not* "TRAD."
> 
> In my opinion this whole "Trad" thing with it's rules, (made up by heaven only knows) and etiquette remind me of something one might find in a Japanese uber-freak internet site which tries to capture a point in time or state of life that never actually existed.
> 
> I'm here because I like traditional American men's clothing and have met many fine people who share the same interest.


Myself. I'm not trying to craft nor appropriate a lifestyle. Can't even say I'm perpetuating a regional style I grew-up with, so I avoid stuff like Shaggy Dog sweaters, pink trousers, needlepoint belts and Nantucket reds. Pretty much the rest is stuff I wore or was familiar with.

If "Trad" is all you knew or wore, good on you. And if you're a name-dropping newbie convert zealot, good on you, also. Me, I'll wear what I want, and not have a hive mentality dictate participation here.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ I'm assuming that you're not directing this to me even though you've quoted me,....

Either way I agree with your post.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

hardline_42 said:


> ...I think that the leather-soled penny loafers are more authentic than, say, pimple-soled driving mocs. But the Bass Weejun is not better than the Kenwood simply by virtue of it's provenance.


No disagreement here. But I would go at least a half step further, and say that with respect to individual items, one ought to go to the original first. If the original is garbage, then move on.

Your comment about Press and O'Connell's in the previous post is interesting,as I am sometimes conflicted about that. A certain loyalty to the purveyor was critical to my generation.


----------



## Sartre (Mar 25, 2008)

127.72 MHz said:


> ...In my opinion this whole "Trad" thing with it's rules, (made up by heaven only knows) and etiquette remind me of something one might find in a Japanese uber-freak internet site which tries to capture a point in time or state of life that never actually existed...


It existed, friend. I know because I lived through it. And they're norms, not rules. When I first started coming here there were quite a few wise and experienced members from whom it was possible to learn something, if one listened.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

Sartre said:


> It existed, friend. I know because I lived through it. And they're norms, not rules. When I first started coming here there were quite a few wise and experienced members from whom it was possible to learn something, if one listened.


I agree. Until the wonderful world of the INTERNET I never encountered the suggestion that my personal history was in anyway arbitrary or capricious.


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

Sartre said:


> I haven't seen the Kenwoods...but surely they're based on a classic design, if you are equating them with Weejuns? I don't see that as either inauthentic or un-trad (a word I hate, but we'll use it for the sake of argument). What is un-trad is to suggest that authenticity does not matter! Authenticity is central to the very notion of trad. The Kenwoods are beholden to the Weejuns, the Bills to the Duck Heads, etc. which is the nub of the idea of authenticity. I am not suggesting the silly definition adduced by Bjorn, that authenticity implies "buying whatever the current operators of an old brand that was popular 50 years ago are making, wherever they are making it, to whatever quality and at whatever price." But remember how this started, to wit, when a member asked about getting his first pair of Reds, folks suggested red Lands End chinos, which do not in any way, shape, or form (design, color, fabric, quality) relate to authentic Nantucket Reds.


Pfft. I'm one who told him to get a pair of LE chinos. They were on sale for $14. Hell, at that price, he can get a pair and cut them off. I even threw out the caveat that I didn't like the fit. Don't make an assertion that I made them out to be the be-all-end-all. I just said they were an option.

And while we are on the subject of painting with broad brushes, The ORIGINAL Duck Head khakis (prior to them selling out and then shutting down the operation) were YEARS ahead of Bill's Khakis which started in 1990.

If we are going to have a purse-swinging fight on men's fashion, let's at least get the facts straight.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Mad Hatter said:


> Myself. I'm not trying to craft nor appropriate a lifestyle. Can't even say I'm perpetuating a regional style I grew-up with, so I avoid stuff like Shaggy Dog sweaters, pink trousers, needlepoint belts and Nantucket reds. Pretty much the rest is stuff I wore or was familiar with.
> 
> If "Trad" is all you knew or wore, good on you. And if you're a name-dropping newbie convert zealot, good on you, also. Me, I'll wear what I want, and not have a hive mentality dictate participation here.


Same here. I kind of just pick and choose what I like. Spread/point/button down collars, darted and sack coats, pleated and plain front trousers are all in my wardrobe. I also don't wear my plain front chinos with a turn-up, even though it's de rigeur according to the internet's definition of "Trad". However, without this forum I probably wouldn't know about certain things and go, "Ah, I kind of like that," and get it. I still don't really care for the Norwegian Sweater, tassel loafers, or "GTH" colours.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Trad-ish said:


> And while we are on the subject of painting with broad brushes, The ORIGINAL Duck Head khakis (prior to them selling out and then shutting down the operation) were YEARS ahead of Bill's Khakis which started in 1990.
> 
> If we are going to have a purse-swinging fight on men's fashion, let's at least get the facts straight.


I think you just proved my point. The current Duck Heads (you DID know they're back in business, right?) are a shadow of their former selves, while the relative newcomer, Bills, has surpassed them in quality despite their lack of history.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I find it interesting that Bills has become the whipping boy Du Jour on the different INTERNET clothing forums. It a little ironic since they predate some of their on line detractors and the medium in which they launch their attacks.


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> I think you just proved my point. The current Duck Heads (you DID know they're back in business, right?) are a shadow of their former selves, while the relative newcomer, Bills, has surpassed them in quality despite their lack of history.


Yes, I DO know they are back in business. You missed MY point. Yes, Bill's makes really good pants (I've got three pairs) but it's not like they are the be-all-end-all. People were wearing decent khakis way before Bill's got here.

As for Duck Heads, I wore them for years in college back in the 80's and I'm debating about getting another pair for the sake of nostalgia. I'm not expecting Bill's quality (they are half the price after all). Yet if I stuck with the "Bill's or nothing because they are made in the US" line then I wouldn't have the fun of picking up a pair a pants that were a staple of my younger years.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Trad-ish said:


> Yes, I DO know they are back in business. You missed MY point. Yes, Bill's makes really good pants (I've got three pairs) but it's not like they are the be-all-end-all. People were wearing decent khakis way before Bill's got here.
> 
> As for Duck Heads, I wore them for years in college back in the 80's and I'm debating about getting another pair for the sake of nostalgia. I'm not expecting Bill's quality (they are half the price after all). Yet if I stuck with the "Bill's or nothing because they are made in the US" line then I wouldn't have the fun of picking up a pair a pants that were a staple of my younger years.


I'm afraid I'm not seeing your point. Bills are good pants. Duck Heads, and undoubtedly countless others that came before Bills but are no longer in business, used to be good pants. You want to get a pair of new Duck Heads, not because they're better than Bills, but for the sake of nostalgia (which is MY point). Unless I'm missing something, I think we're actually in agreement here.


----------



## ArtVandalay (Apr 29, 2010)

Trad-ish said:


> Yes, I DO know they are back in business. You missed MY point. Yes, Bill's makes really good pants (I've got three pairs) but it's not like they are the be-all-end-all. People were wearing decent khakis way before Bill's got here.
> 
> As for Duck Heads, I wore them for years in college back in the 80's and I'm debating about getting another pair for the sake of nostalgia. I'm not expecting Bill's quality (they are half the price after all). Yet if I stuck with the "Bill's or nothing because they are made in the US" line then I wouldn't have the fun of picking up a pair a pants that were a staple of my younger years.


The point is that the only thing that's likely the same as the Duck Heads you remember from years past is the label sewn on the pants.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Yes, the very distractingly yellow label that only I apparently dislike.  Weird how adding that one feature suddenly made them a must have item three decades ago.

Can Bills even really be compared? They were made to fill a specific niche, people who wanted something just like the WWII surplus khakis that were increasingly unavailable, and grew from there.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

Sartre said:


> It existed, friend. I know because I lived through it. And they're norms, not rules. When I first started coming here there were quite a few wise and experienced members from whom it was possible to learn something, if one listened.


Well to each his own because I have no rules in terms of the way I dress. I wear what I like. And while I'm here to learn about new things that interest me I have no desire to "Learn" about "Norms" which I must follow to be part of a group.

And I'm welcome here as much as anyone else.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

127.72 MHz said:


> Well to each his own because I have no rules in terms of the way I dress. I wear what I like. And while I'm here to learn about new things that interest me I have no desire to "Learn" about "Norms" which I must follow to be part of a group.
> 
> And I'm welcome here as much as anyone else.


In your post #77 you liken this forum to " a Japanese uber-freak internet site". I'm not sure exactly what a Japanese uber-freak internet site is, but I do not take it as a compliment. Speaking only for m self, I do not extend my welcome to one who insults me. Your opinions are welcome but your insults are not.


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ I have followed this forum quite closely over the past few years and I can say that what I mentioned has been discussed. I did not liken this forum, I said, or meant to say that the entire concept of what "Trad" is has, at times, gone waaaaay overboard in terms of what is "Allowed" in order to be part of the tribe. 

And I was saying I don't subscribe to it.

If you were insulted I will be a gentleman and say it was not intended and I apologize. 

If you want to know about the Japanese unber-freak comment do a search and see what a highly enthusiastic (borderline uber-freak) crowd of Japanese have done with what they consider to be "Traditional American," men's clothing.

After the search please report back and let me know what you would call it.. (This has been discussed before here on the "Trad" forum at AAAC.)


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Sartre said:


> It existed, friend. I know because I lived through it. And they're norms, not rules. When I first started coming here there were quite a few wise and experienced members from whom it was possible to learn something, if one listened.


I don't think there's a difference between rules and norms, when describing clothing. Norm is a little too vague, and rule describes pretty well what kind of normative statements is under discussion.

I think part of the point expressed here is that it's impossible to act in accordance with the rules of a different time setting.

In this instance, made evident by the fact that to such a great extent it is not possible to buy the 'same' items, because they will either be new, different, items, or old thrifted items that are used and for the majority of clothing items one wants to buy, are not available or will not withstand use. Also, it is very evident that there are completely 'new' items from new brands that compete for attention. Mostly, they reconnect to the older items in form.

The rules must then be reconstrued for the now, which is a valid point. If going to extremes, like the Japanese fellows, it ends up a caricature, perhaps for being too true to form. The Japanese are very good at being true to form. Out of it's time setting, with no intermediary pieces connecting it to the now, any clothing style becomes costume.

Trad then suffers from philosophical angst; who am I if I get a newer brand of khakis? Am I still as trad as if I'd have gotten an older brand that is now made to lower quality and worse fit than the old?

Perhaps recognising that 'trad now' is not trad 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago, would be good, as this is true of any style of clothing, that dressing traditionally isn't dressing exactly like they used to.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> In your post #77 you liken this forum to " a Japanese uber-freak internet site". I'm not sure exactly what a Japanese uber-freak internet site is, but I do not take it as a compliment. Speaking only for m self, I do not extend my welcome to one who insults me. Your opinions are welcome but your insults are not.


There are some similarities, which perhaps should be taken in account before taking offence, especially since he's arguing a point that is essentially valid: that taking trad to extremes to him isn't very trad (if I got that correctly).


----------



## 127.72 MHz (Feb 16, 2007)

^^ You did get it correctly. Your posts are on the mark.


----------



## Trad-ish (Feb 19, 2011)

hardline and ArtVandelay,

I think I am chasing my own tail here. I just think it's wrong to always turn up your nose at things just because they don't meet the cut for actual "Trad" items. If you want to buy something that's iconic and now the original just doesn't cut it (like Sartre pointed out a few posts above) then, yes, move on. But, if I buy a pair of Duckheads because I remember them fondly or a pair of LE "reds" because they were dirt cheap, I don't think it's right to throw stones. 

Ultimately, I think this all ties into the original thrust of this thread. What is the value of going cheap? In my case, since I have my basics covered, I can throw a little cash at some "disposable" clothes (the Duckheads and the dirt cheap reds) and have a little fun.


I'd wager just about everyone on this board dresses well. I'd also wager that 98% of the US population has no clue how we dress or that there is even a "Trad" style; they only know we tend to "dress up" in some form or fashion. These are such esoteric questions that we have fun with around here, like "Which LHS is the best?" or "Who makes the best OBCD right now?". I think we over agonize over this a little too much sometimes and have made some of the questions into a clothing versions of "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" These are just clothes we are talking about! It's about dressing well and looking good not dragging a magnifying glass out to check thread counts.


edited to correct the spelling error I found.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> Trad then suffers from philosophical angst; who am I if I get a newer brand of khakis? Am I still as trad as if I'd have gotten an older brand that is now made to lower quality and worse fit than the old?
> 
> Perhaps recognising that 'trad now' is not trad 50 years ago, or even 10 years ago, would be good, as this is true of any style of clothing, that dressing traditionally isn't dressing exactly like they used to.


I don't think too many of us are suffering from that angst. There's a variety of brands for any given item on display in the WAYWT threads that diverge from the "canon". In fact, I rarely see Top-Siders or Weejuns on here anymore. I personally fell into the trap over two years ago of buying Top-Siders online, when I could have found them locally had I done my research, and because they're THE ORIGINAL OH MY GOSH. Apparently Timberland are far better for the same price and, again, could be found at Journeys in the mall instead of having to pay for shipping on top of $75-80. You live and you learn. With what I've learned about modern Weejuns, I certainly wouldn't buy a pair unless maybe they were one of the high end models. The mainline ones, as another in this thread has said, are utter crap now.

As to the next paragraph, I think a good number of us acknowledge this. I've said this before and I'll say it again. While it's easy to say "Harvard 1965" describes everything Trad... it really doesn't. I have yet to see pictures of any kid at an Ivy League university circa the '60s wear surcingle/needlepoint belts, Norwegian sweaters, Nantucket/Breton Reds, Bean Boots, or even Sperry Top-Siders. At that time, they were probably worn by ordinary New England types and weren't part of any "look" besides being used for outdoor activities. Those came into fashion with the Preppy movement in the '70s and '80s. I'm sure there's more modern stuff circa the '90s and '00s that Trad includes as well. I don't think most of the forum believe that Trad is a look frozen in time, rather it's a variety of things that are considered to be uniquely American.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

^^ Well said, J-dawg.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

hardline_42 said:


> ^^ Well said, J-dawg.


I agree.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> There are some similarities, which perhaps should be taken in account before taking offence, especially since he's arguing a point that is essentially valid: that taking trad to extremes to him isn't very trad (if I got that correctly).


While I apparently misunderstood MHZ's uber- freak comment, your restatement of his argument is quite clear, and it is something with which I agree.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Thanks. But first J-money and now J-dawg? You're killing me here.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Thanks. But first J-money and now J-dawg? You're killing me here.


J-vizzy?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Don't you start too. I _will_ find the next flight to Sweden.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^LOL!


Jovan said:


> I don't think too many of us are suffering from that angst. There's a variety of brands for any given item on display in the WAYWT threads that diverge from the "canon". In fact, I rarely see Top-Siders or Weejuns on here anymore. I personally fell into the trap over two years ago of buying Top-Siders online, when I could have found them locally had I done my research, and because they're THE ORIGINAL OH MY GOSH. Apparently Timberland are far better for the same price and, again, could be found at Journeys in the mall instead of having to pay for shipping on top of $75-80. You live and you learn. With what I've learned about modern Weejuns, I certainly wouldn't buy a pair unless maybe they were one of the high end models. The mainline ones, as another in this thread has said, are utter crap now.
> 
> As to the next paragraph, I think a good number of us acknowledge this. I've said this before and I'll say it again. While it's easy to say "Harvard 1965" describes everything Trad... it really doesn't. I have yet to see pictures of any kid at an Ivy League university circa the '60s wear surcingle/needlepoint belts, Norwegian sweaters, Nantucket/Breton Reds, Bean Boots, or even Sperry Top-Siders. At that time, they were probably worn by ordinary New England types and weren't part of any "look" besides being used for outdoor activities. Those came into fashion with the Preppy movement in the '70s and '80s. I'm sure there's more modern stuff circa the '90s and '00s that Trad includes as well. I don't think most of the forum believe that Trad is a look frozen in time, rather it's a variety of things that are considered to be uniquely American.


After reading the preceeding accolades for our esteemed collegue, I reread his post #98 and find myself compelled to comment not only on the validity of his commentary, but must also point out the intellectual athleticism reflected in the presentation of his conclusions and which clearly illustrates the impact of his past four years of study at the university. Perhaps J-Dawg, J-money and J-vizzy are inadequate to describe the real issue to be acknowledged here. J-Mind seems ever so more descriptive of what we are witnessing. A young sartorialist has come of age! :biggrin:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Can we vote on permanently renaming him on the forum?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)




----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

My evil plan is starting to unfold...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Perhaps 'J. Mind' would be more trad...


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Trad-ish said:


> If we are going to have a purse-swinging fight on men's fashion, let's at least get the facts straight.


Perusing this thread from a forums search about shoes, I actually did laugh out loud on this one, thanks!


----------



## TheWGP (Jan 15, 2010)

zzdocxx said:


> Perusing this thread from a forums search about shoes, I actually did laugh out loud on this one, thanks!


Almost exactly a month later... same exact thing, same exact reaction!

Seriously, this was a very interesting discussion that devolved into some interesting antics... right, J-nizzle?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

You know, it's not very expensive to fly to Ohio either if I time it right...


----------

