# Brooks Brothers image



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

I've seen a couple of people say they don't like wearing shirts with a BB logo because they don't like the image associated with BB. I've been exposed to it all my life and have no idea what kind of negative image it could be conveying, in fact to me it conveys a very positive image. Am I missing something? Was there some type of BB scandal that happened before my time?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

The problem I have isn't with the BB logo, it's ANY logo!!


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The problem I have isn't with the BB logo, it's ANY logo!!


That makes sense, but it seems like there are some people who have a problem with BB specifically, which is what I'm wondering about.


----------



## Cary Grant (Sep 11, 2008)

Dunno- maybe they find it's to trad/wasp/stuffy/conservative/yacht club? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

The image that I think many see is that people who can afford Brooks Brothers must be snobs or elitist. However, this certainly isn't the case, but many people I know seem to have this view.:icon_smile:


----------



## Sebjames (Mar 25, 2010)

My guess is it has to do with class issues. People associate Brooks Brothers with a certain type of person (white, rich, Republican), and they may be uncomfortable with that. Not that it is a correct assessment of all the customers, but it is the image. Just look at their catalogs and locations for photo shoots.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Whenever a certain term comes up, like Nascar fan or hippie or Dungeons & Dragons player, unbidden certain images come up. We can't help it-say the phase and the picture follows. BB has cultivated a certain image of the old school Wasp and some people like it and some don't.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

In the film version of _Murder in Greenwich _(about the Martha Moxley murder case), Christopher Meloni as Mark Fuhrman steps into a Greenwich, CT, bar along with his editor/researcher, glances around, and exclaims: "We've stepped into the Brooks Brothers catalogue!"

It's plainly not meant as a compliment. The screenwriter obviously saw a BB reference as convenient shorthand for a certain ethos of clubby, wealthy, white exclusivity that the Fuhrman character was going to "take on" (with some inside help, it is true) in his (successful) effort to reopen the case.

The association is not entirely fair to BB, but I'm sure they're aware of it. It would be an interesting bit of research to look back thru BB catalogues and pinpoint precisely when they began depicting nonwhite models (male and female black models are always included now, tho' interestingly, I can't recall seeing any models who look East or South Asian or Latino).


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Thanks for the answers. Seems like there's nothing negative about it at all, and anyone who would immediately judge you as being "snobby" just for wearing it probably isn't someone worth associating with anyway.


----------



## Thurnau (Apr 14, 2010)

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/

Would you want to be associated with the guy on the home page? Does he convey a good image? or a weird self image? Is he well dressed?

I shop at BB often, but I wouldn't dress like that guy.

Wayans Brothers or Dave Chappelle made a fun of it in a show. 
i wish I remembered more details. 
It was either the Wayans brothers in white chicks, or Dave Chappelle dressed up as a white guy.


----------



## Thurnau (Apr 14, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> Thanks for the answers. Seems like there's nothing negative about it at all, and anyone who would immediately judge you as being "snobby" just for wearing it probably isn't someone worth associating with anyway.


I agree, but I think the people that don't like Brooks Brothers never really set foor in the store. I don't think they would even reconize the logo.


----------



## mlongano (Feb 3, 2010)

ZachGranstrom said:


> The image that I think many see is that people who can afford Brooks Brothers must be snobs or elitist. However, this certainly isn't the case, but many people I know seem to have this view.:icon_smile:


True.


----------



## pand (Apr 12, 2010)

Is the whole Thom Browne/Black Fleece solely aimed at attracting a younger, new customer and would the existing customer be horrified by the collection? Can't fault BB for quality imo.


----------



## calcio (Apr 6, 2010)

Hate logos on polos and other clothing. Wish they offered a no logo option.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

ZachGranstrom said:


> The image that I think many see is that people who can afford Brooks Brothers must be snobs or elitist. However, this certainly isn't the case, but many people I know seem to have this view.:icon_smile:


This has been true at least since 1863, which during the New York City Draft Riots of the Civil War an angry mob attacked the Brooks Brothers store on Broadway and Grand streets and vandalized and set the building on fire. During the mid 19th century Brooks was perceived as a clothier to America's wealthy elite class.

In 1988, when George H.W. Bush was running for President he was famously accused by a journalist as being a Brooks Brothers Republican at a Yale University press conference and subsequently revealed the J. Press label in his jacket.

In 2000, at a protest rally by Republicans in front of the Miami-Dade County Courthouse during the 2000 Presidential Election Recount the media dubbed the Bush supporters as the Brooks Brothers Brigade and the rally as the Brooks Brothers Riot.

In 2009, when both Democratic and Republican members of Congress went on tours to debate the health care bill at town hall meetings the "grassroots" supporters of Barack Obama's health care bill were accused by the opposition as fakes who wore Brooks Brothers suits while wearing a suit was seen as a bad thing by those against the "grassroots" supports.

Disclaimer: sorry to implant politics into the discussion, please keep the thread about clothes.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

thefancyman said:


> In 2009, when both Democratic and Republican members of Congress went on tours to debate the health care bill at town hall meetings the "grassroots" supporters of Barack Obama's health care bill were accused by the opposition as fakes who wore Brooks Brothers suits while wearing a suit was seen as a bad thing by those against the "grassroots" supports.


Did I read that wrong or did you say the Obama supporters were the ones wearing Brooks? That seems off.


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

a!!!!1 said:


> Did I read that wrong or did you say the Obama supporters were the ones wearing Brooks? That seems off.


Yes it was the Obama health care bill supporters that were accused of wearing BB suits and were seen as being elitist by those against the bill.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

thefancyman said:


> Yes it was the Obama health care bill supporters that were accused of wearing BB suits and were seen as being elitist by those against the bill.


When I think of BB I definitely don't think of Obama or health care bill supporters. In fact "elitist Democrat" almost sounds like an oxymoron.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

thefancyman said:


> Disclaimer: sorry to implant politics into the discussion, please keep the thread about clothes.


An excellent idea.


----------



## FrontHeadlock (Dec 1, 2009)

Thurnau said:


> https://www.brooksbrothers.com/
> 
> Would you want to be associated with the guy on the home page? Does he convey a good image? or a weird self image? Is he well dressed?
> 
> ...


I'll be honest, I don't like any of the three pictures.


----------



## Flashy (Mar 15, 2006)

With the current group of models, its that Arfican-American man and woman who seem most comfortable and most at-ease in the clothes they're modeling. The young, Caucasian male models always look uncomfortable or genreally p!ssed off. Like they did too much blow at the party last night and woke up with a headache and a Brooks Brothers suit in front of a camera.



PJC in NoVa said:


> The association is not entirely fair to BB, but I'm sure they're aware of it. It would be an interesting bit of research to look back thru BB catalogues and pinpoint precisely when they began depicting nonwhite models (male and female black models are always included now, tho' interestingly, I can't recall seeing any models who look East or South Asian or Latino).


----------



## OldSchoolCharm (Apr 12, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> I've seen a couple of people say they don't like wearing shirts with a BB logo because they don't like the image associated with BB. I've been exposed to it all my life and have no idea what kind of negative image it could be conveying, in fact to me it conveys a very positive image. Am I missing something? Was there some type of BB scandal that happened before my time?


Every time I have been in a Brook Brothers store I have been treated well.

The BB store in my town changed from a large store to a much smaller one. I wondered if BB was in financial trouble.


----------



## YoungTrad (Jan 29, 2010)

calcio said:


> Hate logos on polos and other clothing. Wish they offered a no logo option.


Do you not see BB without logos? Or are you talking another brand? Because I see BB with no logo all the time.


----------



## comrade (May 26, 2005)

thefancyman said:


> Yes it was the Obama health care bill supporters that were accused of wearing BB suits and were seen as being elitist by those against the bill.


A very dated comment. Among the sociologically aware, the BB and 
elitist connection faded in the late 80s through the early 90s. Among
the elite, however you define it, BB is a step or two above Jos. A Bank.
Of course those against the "Bill" represent, to a great extent, downwardly
mobile "values" voters from the heartland, a demographic whose symbols,
eg. BB, are a generation or two out of date. I lived in this part country
for 17 years and that impression was regularly reenforced


----------



## GFH (Jan 22, 2008)

I am not a fan of the logo on any shirt.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

What the devil does wearing a Brooks suit have to do with anything? They're not even the most expensive out there! It's like accosting people for driving a Honda. It's a good value and lasts.

Oh, and as to the matter at hand: I'll wear an occasional (polo with a) crocodile or pony, but no sheep. That said I have some 346 t-shirts with the logo, but it's the same color, on a pocket, and no one knows what it is. (Presents from Mother).


----------



## KRMaley (Mar 28, 2010)

+1 on not wearing logo's. Unfortunately there is always some type of image associated with every logo. Same logo to one could say something to one person and something different to another. 

KM


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

Doesn't the RL polo pony logo convey the same WASPY-y image that Brooks might? Everyday I see about a dozen people wearing an RL shirt or polo. Does this mean that people who aspire to this station in life wear RL and then when they have "arrived" they start wearing Brooks? Makes no sense. I also for the record loath logos on anything.


----------



## Francisco D'Anconia (Apr 18, 2007)

*BB Catalog Models: The Ladies Are Worth A Look*



WouldaShoulda said:


> The problem I have isn't with the BB logo, it's ANY logo!!


^ +1. Prefer no logo but will make exceptions. I suspect though that few "civilians" recognize the BB logo as the BB logo. Maybe it has somethng to do with the sheep hanging in the sling. To the unfamiliar it looks like animal cruelty?



Thurnau said:


> https://www.brooksbrothers.com/
> 
> Would you want to be associated with the guy on the home page? Does he convey a good image? or a weird self image? Is he well dressed?
> 
> I shop at BB often, but I wouldn't dress like that guy.


Looks **** that guy is auditioning for the HR Haldeman role in the Frost-Nixon prequel.



Flashy said:


> With the current group of models, its that Arfican-American man and woman who seem most comfortable and most at-ease in the clothes they're modeling. The young, Caucasian male models always look uncomfortable or genreally p!ssed off. Like they did too much blow at the party last night and woke up with a headache and a Brooks Brothers suit in front of a camera.


Remarkable observation and narrative. They do look off. I liked the way you describe it. They look too earnest.

OT, the men in the BB catalog don't look right, but at least one of the ladies does IMHO...


----------



## mlongano (Feb 3, 2010)

Just curious...why do some people her object to logos?


----------



## Sebjames (Mar 25, 2010)

mlongano said:


> Just curious...why do some people her object to logos?


They don't want to be free advertising for the company


----------



## Epaminondas (Oct 19, 2009)

mlongano said:


> Just curious...why do some people her object to logos?


What's the purpose of a logo other than to advertsise for the manufatcurer and/or to announce to others where, and how much, you spent on a garment? It's a cheesey marketing gimmick to make someone feel as if they belong to a subgroup and that they are differentiated from other people. Buy a RL polo and become part of the Ralph Lauren lifestyle with its sumptuous images........vulgar, marketing nonsense.

Why would a man need/want a logo on anything - your personality and intellect should be your branding.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

burnedandfrozen said:


> Doesn't the RL polo pony logo convey the same WASPY-y image that Brooks might?


No, it conveys an image of a poseur wearing a RL pony logo.



burnedandfrozen said:


> Everyday I see about a dozen people wearing an RL shirt or polo. Does this mean that people who aspire to this station in life wear RL and then when they have "arrived" they start wearing Brooks? Makes no sense. I also for the record loath logos on anything.


Those that arrived, arrived a long time ago. Those that didn't, have a hard time figuring it out. That's part of the fun.


----------



## OldSchoolCharm (Apr 12, 2010)

Epaminondas said:


> What's the purpose of a logo other than to advertsise for the manufatcurer and/or to announce to others where, and how much, you spent on a garment? It's a cheesey marketing gimmick to make someone feel as if they belong to a subgroup and that they are differentiated from other people. Buy a RL polo and become part of the Ralph Lauren lifestyle with its sumptuous images........vulgar, marketing nonsense.
> 
> Why would a man need/want a logo on anything - your personality and intellect should be your branding.


A small tasteful logo can be stylish. I like the small RL polo logo, but not the enlarged logo. I like the Lacoste logo. They are nice and add charm.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

I can't think of more than a handful of people I know that could even recognize the golden fleece logo in a lineup.


----------



## C. Sharp (Dec 18, 2008)

I am not sure how old you are but Brooks Brothers has been having a corporate identity crisis for about 20 plus years. They were accused of abandoning their old core customer and chasing a younger hipper crowd.
I love the Golden Fleece both in relation to Brooks Brothers history and the history of the trade. Both merchants in England and colonial America have used the symbol. I am not going to throw away my old golden fleece braces but I do not see myself buying any more Brooks logo products since, I do not see myself in sartorial sync with company anymore.



a!!!!1 said:


> I've seen a couple of people say they don't like wearing shirts with a BB logo because they don't like the image associated with BB. I've been exposed to it all my life and have no idea what kind of negative image it could be conveying, in fact to me it conveys a very positive image. Am I missing something? Was there some type of BB scandal that happened before my time?


----------



## philidor (Nov 19, 2009)

You could just use your Ralph Laurens to wear under your button down shirts when it's cool enough outside. No one will see the logo anyways. Same goes for the Brooks Brothers polo. Now, Hermes has an H symbol on their shirts. I never did like pockets on a short sleeved shirt, but I heard they are very comfortable. They also make great equestrian stuff.

I think that Ralph Lauren is popular for the same reasons as grammar checkers (such as https://www.whitesmoke.com/ ), and that is people accurately sense that there is a great deal of social profiling. At least Ralph Lauren isn't Abercrombie


----------



## philidor (Nov 19, 2009)

Thurnau said:


> https://www.brooksbrothers.com/
> 
> Would you want to be associated with the guy on the home page? Does he convey a good image? or a weird self image? Is he well dressed?
> 
> ...


He's dressed just like a regular guy, the pants are a signal that it is a time for leisure instead of work. I'll even give him +1 for wearing navy boat shoes.


----------



## philidor (Nov 19, 2009)

Sebjames said:


> My guess is it has to do with class issues. People associate Brooks Brothers with a certain type of person (white, rich, Republican), and they may be uncomfortable with that. Not that it is a correct assessment of all the customers, but it is the image. Just look at their catalogs and locations for photo shoots.


Maybe it is merely upper-class social proofing on the part of the advertisers to make upper-middles think they are copying uppers? It is the closest thing America has to a Royal Warrant, with the exception that instead of the actual upper-class issuing the seal, it is advertisers hoping to make money from upper-middle class individuals with aspirations.

The actual upper-class (and nouveaux-riches, who are working, middle, and upper-middle class but with more money. One is born and raised middle-class and carries those values, beliefs, tastes, relatively limited cultural capital, and outlook with him/her into the higher economic bracket) is pretty much all bespoke, with maybe the occaisonal Hermes, Gucci, Paul Stuart (especially for the more WASPy Upper-class) etc thrown in for good measure.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Pink and Green said:


> What the devil does wearing a Brooks suit have to do with anything? They're not even the most expensive out there! It's like accosting people for driving a Honda. It's a good value and lasts.
> 
> Oh, and as to the matter at hand: I'll wear an occasional (polo with a) crocodile or pony, but no sheep. That said I have some 346 t-shirts with the logo, but it's the same color, on a pocket, and no one knows what it is. (Presents from Mother).


Many who don't understand clothing perceive Brooks as the most expensive out there and find it to be elitist. I disagree, but that is probably what is happening with most people (other than Bespoke Clothing Fanciers) who dislike Brooks Brothers.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

philidor said:


> He's dressed just like a regular guy, the pants are a signal that it is a time for leisure instead of work. I'll even give him +1 for navy boat shoe.


Only people who frequent clothing message boards or maybe who attended a boarding school out east or something would think of that guy as being dressed like a "regular guy." I've been a member here for five years and I think he looks like a fictional character.


----------



## philidor (Nov 19, 2009)

I've also read something about Brooks Brothers in "That's no Angry Mob, That's My Mom!" I rolled my eyes in disgust, especially having the brand associated with the tea-party movement (something of which I associate with NASCAR, American beer, Fox News viewers, and fans of the Blue-Collar Comedy Tour who don't even realize they are exacerbating their own class oppression by conceiving it acceptable to open cans of beer at a funeral, have mattresses on the lawn, etc). 

The book also made use of the word "got" or "get" when "received" or "are" would be appropriate. Also mentioned was a complaint that the bottom 50% only pay 3% of taxes. That sounds outrageous at first, until you discover that the bottom 50% only have 2% of the country's wealth and resources.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Please keep the conversation limited to clothes and not tax policy or politics.

This is an interesting topic and it would be a shame to move it to the interchange.


----------



## philidor (Nov 19, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Please keep the conversation limited to clothes and not tax policy or politics.
> 
> This is an interesting topic and it would be a shame to move it to the interchange.


Mine apologies. I was highlighting a Brooks Brothers reference to a book. I don't care for either political party myself.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

There's a diametric opposition in the American character that celebrates personal advancement in areas of business, education, etc. while applying hyper-skepticism toward the fruits of excellence, be it the production of a superlative product or the acquisition of tremendous wealth. We are expected, in other words, to pull ourselves up by our boot-straps, but not too far.

I can't help but attach the anti-elitism attitude so rampant in certain subsets of the American population to the decline in first-rate American manufacturing. Most Americans aspire to save 15%-20% at the Macy's 2-day sale rather than investing in a pair of American made Aldens so that they will have a better product and an American craftsman will make a living wage. 

At the end of the day it's not enough to have a Chevy in your driveway. If you care about America, then pay the premium to keep Americans working. Reward American excellence instead of trying to undercut it (I'm looking at you Wal-Mart shoppers). In other words, I'd like to see Americans to make cars that are truly competitive with German automobiles, clothing that's on par with Italy, furniture on par with Denmark, etc.* and not simply have American standards lowered to accept anything with a Made in The USA sticker on the box.

*I am well aware that there are many such products being lovingly produced in small batches all over America, but it is not being sought out by a large enough population to allow them to grow beyond the boutique scale, nor has the aspiration to quality prevailed in the American identity.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Well, this is interesting. I was assuming that the problem on the forum with BB had nothing to do with elitism or whatever, but rather the opposite. That their quality had declined, they no longer stood for a particular style, that they had become another ersatz mall vendor, who slipped in shoddy asian goods. However, I recently bought a BB shirt, and quite like it.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Flashy said:


> The young, Caucasian male models always look uncomfortable or genreally p!ssed off. Like they did too much blow at the party last night and woke up with a headache and a Brooks Brothers suit in front of a camera.


Please, dude--they are male models. Obviously they are practicing their own versions of Derek Zoolander's famous "le tigre" and "blue steel" looks.


----------



## burnedandfrozen (Mar 11, 2004)

I'd like to see the same things Trip English, but as we all know Americans want cheap prices. We've somehow lost the idea that quality in many cases in the long run is a better value then buying cheap goods made by (almost) slave labor in China, India, etc. People may cry all day about the social injustice of it all, but then they go to Wally World and ultimately vote with their dollars.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Only people who frequent clothing message boards or maybe who attended a boarding school out east or something would think of that guy as being dressed like a "regular guy." I've been a member here for five years and I think he looks like a fictional character.


A regular guy is right. Just about everyone I went to school with looked and still looks like that. I'm not sure why you find it to be a fictional world if it clearly exists, and Brooks Brother is simply a stereotypical shop that sells midrange goods to regular guys.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Trip English said:


> There's a diametric opposition in the American character that celebrates personal advancement in areas of business, education, etc. while applying hyper-skepticism toward the fruits of excellence, be it the production of a superlative product or the acquisition of tremendous wealth. We are expected, in other words, to pull ourselves up by our boot-straps, but not too far.
> 
> I can't help but attach the anti-elitism attitude so rampant in certain subsets of the American population to the decline in first-rate American manufacturing. Most Americans aspire to save 15%-20% at the Macy's 2-day sale rather than investing in a pair of American made Aldens so that they will have a better product and an American craftsman will make a living wage.
> 
> ...


VERY WELL PUT. This is why Brooks Brother introduced the sack in the first place.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Many who don't understand clothing perceive Brooks as the most expensive out there and find it to be elitist. I disagree, but that is probably what is happening with most people (other than Bespoke Clothing Fanciers) who dislike Brooks Brothers.


To menswear aficionadoes BB may be just an upper-midrange brand, albeit a very old one, but to many in the general public the name still carries fairly exclusive connotations, for good or ill.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

WouldaShoulda said:


> The problem I have isn't with the BB logo, it's ANY logo!!


Amen.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

PJC in NoVa said:


> To menswear aficionadoes BB may be just an upper-midrange brand, albeit a very old one, but to many in the general public the name still carries fairly exclusive connotations, for good or ill.


I'm getting off topic a little but BB is one of my favorite brands, do people here not really like it and perceive it as only midrange? If Brooks is in the middle, what are some brands in the high-end range (only talking about RTW stuff)?


----------



## butterfly320 (Apr 14, 2010)

The Brooks image is so distinctive American authors have used it in their work: Mary McCarthy wrote a short story called, "Man in the Brooks Brothers Suit." F. Scott Fitzgerald dressed his characters in Brooks clothes, just as they were worn by John O'Hara's good guys.

​


----------



## Wrenkin (May 4, 2008)

butterfly320 said:


> The Brooks image is so distinctive American authors have used it in their work: Mary McCarthy wrote a short story called, "Man in the Brooks Brothers *Shirt*." F. Scott Fitzgerald dressed his characters in Brooks clothes, just as they were worn by John O'Hara's good guys.
> ​


FTFY.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

At typical list prices (which no one with an ounce of savvy has to pay, but anyway they're handy as an index), a typical 'full-line' Hickey-Freeman suit will cost more than half again as much as a BB 1818 suit costs (something like $1500 vs. $900), and an Oxxford RTW suit will start at another grand on top of that:

https://www.bensilver.com/fs_storefront.asp?root=3&show=39&display=12290&group=1

Whether paying $2500 for _any _OTR suit really makes sense is another question.


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 24, 2008)

a!!!!1 said:


> I'm getting off topic a little but BB is one of my favorite brands, do people here not really like it and perceive it as only midrange? If Brooks is in the middle, what are some brands in the high-end range (only talking about RTW stuff)?


Go to Barney's, Saks, or Neiman for brands like Canali, Kiton, Isaia, Ermenegildo Zegna, and Ralph Lauren Purple Label.

That being said, a great many people would consider BB rather expensive.


----------



## saiyar1 (Feb 18, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> Thanks for the answers. Seems like there's nothing negative about it at all, and anyone who would immediately judge you as being "snobby" just for wearing it probably isn't someone worth associating with anyway.


Technically true, but not that simple.

Would some people have an issue with a black 20 year old college student? Barring the obvious racist, no. But kids of all background like the hiphop clothing style.... if this same kid was walking around late at night wearing baggy pants, timberland boots, and a hooded sweatshirt I think some men would be on the alert and some women would clutch their purses tighter as the "gangster" walked by.

Not to make this a racial issue whatsoever... but it's a great example of the need to giving thought to how you are perceived. I happen to wish the world was as simple as the point your statement makes, but it's not.



Trip English said:


> There's a diametric opposition in the American character that celebrates personal advancement in areas of business, education, etc. while applying hyper-skepticism toward the fruits of excellence, be it the production of a superlative product or the acquisition of tremendous wealth. We are expected, in other words, to pull ourselves up by our boot-straps, but not too far.
> 
> I can't help but attach the anti-elitism attitude so rampant in certain subsets of the American population to the decline in first-rate American manufacturing. Most Americans aspire to save 15%-20% at the Macy's 2-day sale rather than investing in a pair of American made Aldens so that they will have a better product and an American craftsman will make a living wage.
> 
> ...


I understand everything you're saying. However, I feel you are almost to the point of being delusional... this sounds like misplaced nostalgia.

I think that, although totally natural and inevitable, becoming enthusiasts makes us less in touch with reality, so to speak. We drift further and further in mindset from the average person. For us, we demand higher quality to the point where an acceptable level is actually quite high to the non-enthusiast.

With that said, Trip English, you represent a certain market. The Walmart shopper who wants discounted good and is willing to accept lower quality in exchange represents another. There is no reason why a market other than yours should not be served. The problem/issue you have is this: The "Walmart shopper who demands items at a lower price point" is a far bigger market and you would prefer to have America reflect your tastes instead. Totally understandable, but unreasonable.

There is still a large offering available to people,such as yourself, who appreciate a well crafted American product. The reality of our world is that the labor is not as cheap as it once was. This starts with inflation and is impacted by many more influences. Quality vs. price is an age old argument, and in the end people usually end up paying the same. Some buy one item for a lot of money which lasts 10 years and other pay little for 10 items with last one year each.

Keep this in mind.... the companies that produce your favorite products owe much of their success to the beauty of capitalism. If that is the case, then there can't be sour grapes when capitalism steps up into the global arena and it doesn't have "America's worker" as it's main beneficiary.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

azlawstudent said:


> Go to Barney's, Saks, or Neiman for brands like Canali, Kiton, Isaia, Ermenegildo Zegna, and Ralph Lauren Purple Label.
> 
> That being said, a great many people would consider BB rather expensive.


Oh ok I know those brands, I didn't realize we were just talking about suits, dress shirts, etc. Are there much better brands for casual clothes as well?


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Sayari1: thoughtful post. At the end of the day the "elite" are a small group, who are partly defined by the "regular." There is no shortage of superb handmade American arts and crafts, furniture, clothes, you name it: just a shortage of people who can afford it.


----------



## NYtoNOLA (Dec 31, 2009)

Brooks is definitely in a price range that makes it too expensive for most people. While there is definitely an eschelon above it, the thing is there are so few people who can afford that echelon above it that these brands are virtually unknown.

If you asked 1000 people what crocket and jones is, I would wager maybe 2 would have heard of it (that might be generous). If you asked what Allen Edmonds is, I would guess 400 or so might have _heard_ of it. These people may not wear it, but they have perhaps seen it and know it is generally expensive. This gives AE the image as an expensive dress shoe to the lay person, while crocket and jones is known neither for being expensive or inexpensive...it is simply not known.

BB is the same way. It is the most expensive clothing that normally well off people can afford (or at least thats what it symbolizes). That is why it is seen as an uppercrust clothing company, because it is expensive while still being reasonablely enough priced for it to become pervasive among the upper middle class and above.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Bog said:


> A regular guy is right. Just about everyone I went to school with looked and still looks like that. I'm not sure why you find it to be a fictional world if it clearly exists, and Brooks Brother is simply a stereotypical shop that sells midrange goods to regular guys.


I suppose you may be right about parts of the East Coast. Believe me, except for there and maybe down south, you almost never see a bow tie, much less the red pants.


----------



## At Law (Apr 15, 2008)

NYtoNOLA said:


> Brooks is definitely in a price range that makes it too expensive for most people. While there is definitely an eschelon above it, the thing is there are so few people who can afford that echelon above it that these brands are virtually unknown.
> 
> If you asked 1000 people what crocket and jones is, I would wager maybe 2 would have heard of it (that might be generous). If you asked what Allen Edmonds is, I would guess 400 or so might have _heard_ of it. These people may not wear it, but they have perhaps seen it and know it is generally expensive. This gives AE the image as an expensive dress shoe to the lay person, while crocket and jones is known neither for being expensive or inexpensive...it is simply not known.
> 
> BB is the same way. It is the most expensive clothing that normally well off people can afford (or at least thats what it symbolizes). That is why it is seen as an uppercrust clothing company, because it is expensive while still being reasonablely enough priced for it to become pervasive among the upper middle class and above.


This post makes perfect sense.

Sure there are brands which are much more expensive than BB, Polo,
etc., however, to the vast majority of consumers, BB and Polo are
simply way out of their comfort level.

One also has to consider how much money one wants to invest
in clothing. BB and Polo are expensive, however, for a high wage
earner and beyond, these brands represent a high level of quality
at an albeit, high price, it is a price that high earners and people
with high net wealth are comfortable with.

I think $899 to $2,000 for a Brooks Brothers suit is a lot of money.
However, this is a price I am willing to pay for a higher quality suit
which should last me several years.

Do I want/need to spend $3,500 ++ on an Oxxford bespoke or 
other suit--No. I don't see the value, even though, if I absolutely
felt it was necessary for me, I could make the purchase.

There is a dollar to value formula that everyone follows.

It is similar to automobiles. Just because you can afford a driveway full
of Aston Martins, doesn't mean you will make the purchase.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

butterfly320 said:


> The Brooks image is so distinctive American authors have used it in their work: Mary McCarthy wrote a short story called, "Man in the Brooks Brothers Suit." F. Scott Fitzgerald dressed his characters in Brooks clothes, just as they were worn by John O'Hara's good guys.​


Absolutely correct. My "Amen" was directed to the (any) logo, not BB, which I am very fond of.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

For crying out loud. The logo is a sheep hung by a noose around its middle. Not the most appealing image to wear on one's chest. Has anyone thought not thought of the obvious? If I'm being redundant and someone has mentioned this already, excuse me. The thread started rambling so, I gave up and skipped to the end. To paraphrase..."It's the sheep, stupid!" No offence intended:devil:


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Saltydog said:


> For crying out loud. The logo is a sheep hung by a noose around its middle. Not the most appealing image to wear on one's chest. Has anyone thought not thought of the obvious? If I'm being redundant and someone has mentioned this already, excuse me. The thread started rambling so, I gave up and skipped to the end. To paraphrase..."It's the sheep, stupid!" No offence intended:devil:


You mean this logo?

Ironically, I'm pretty sure people who get tattoos on their chests are not part of BB's target market :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## VinceRich (Apr 15, 2010)

Sebjames said:


> My guess is it has to do with class issues. People associate Brooks Brothers with a certain type of person (white, rich, Republican), and they may be uncomfortable with that. Not that it is a correct assessment of all the customers, but it is the image. Just look at their catalogs and locations for photo shoots.


The above quote says exactly what I was thinking. "White, rich, republican" is the image the I would assume BB stirs up in a lot of minds...."Elitist" and "racist" may be other adjectives that come up. Whatever the case is, shops like BB can create uneasiness because of their appeal to exclusivity. Does that mean that BB is run by diabolical super-villains? No. However, some people would prefer not to buy into companies that exploit (and dare I say, promote) classism so blatantly.


----------



## VinceRich (Apr 15, 2010)

At Law said:


> This post makes perfect sense.
> 
> Sure there are brands which are much more expensive than BB, Polo,
> etc., however, to the vast majority of consumers, BB and Polo are
> ...


hahaha. If I could rationalize being able to afford a driveway full of Aston Martins, I would most certainly make the purchase....Of course, I would have to be ridiculously wealthy to convince myself that I could afford them.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Flashy said:


> With the current group of models, its that Arfican-American man and woman who seem most comfortable and most at-ease in the clothes they're modeling. The young, Caucasian male models always look uncomfortable or genreally p!ssed off. Like they did too much blow at the party last night and woke up with a headache and a Brooks Brothers suit in front of a camera.


I've always thought this guy looked comfortable. For instance, he -- like the young black model -- actually SMILES. I'm not sure why scowls or blank looks are fashionable now. Logically, models who look like they're having a great time in their clothes would sell the product better, but I digress.

https://www.brooksbrothers.com/IWCa...lor=BLACK&sort_by=&sectioncolor=&sectionsize=


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

VinceRich said:


> However, some people would prefer not to buy into companies that exploit (and dare I say, promote) classism so blatantly.


Group affiliation in dress is what mens' clothes are all about.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Personally, I object to any logo. But I live with them because I just can't get a better deal sometimes.

I don't like advertising for free. Or to be more specific, to pay to advertise.

As for BB's image. I think of them as WASPy, conservative, very preppy, very upper middle class, very white... Guess I should say I'm none of those.


----------



## Ed Reynolds (Apr 13, 2010)

If I may...

I am a newbie, both in terms of the board and in establishing a finer wardrobe than just jeans and t-shirts. I grew up in a city environment, surrounded by baggy jeans and hoodies. 

There is something to the BB logo that I think turns some people off. I don't think I would wear their polos because of it. (I do have a general distaste for logos in general) Do they make fine clothing? Absolutely. Do I have Brooks Bros shirts? yes. Would I get an 1818 line suit? Of course. 

I still get goaded when I go home "why are you so dressed up?" when I have on a button down shirt, jacket and odd trou. I feel like telling them I've basically just rolled out of bed.


----------



## ArchieHicox (Apr 20, 2010)

I cannot speak for everybody here but as i saw it, the reason that Brooks Brothers wasn't taken so seriously was that they were the stereotypical clothing of middle class America. My girlfriend is an American and her father works for a bank. He buys all of his clothes in Brooks Brothers as do the vast majoirty of his co-workers. Whenever you see a film or tv programme featuring government employees in America they are almost exclusively wearing Brooks Brothers button down collar shirts. I think it mentioned in one of the James Bond books, something along the lines of "Americans wear Abercrombie and Fitch in the sunshine and Brooks Brothers in the boardroom". 

I like certain pieces that they make and like many others on here am not a huge fan of logos full stop. For me though, Brooks Brothers will always produce an image of the typical American office worker.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

VinceRich said:


> the image the I would assume BB stirs up in a lot of minds...."Elitist" and "racist"


This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

VinceRich said:


> No. However, some people would prefer not to buy into companies that exploit (and dare I say, promote) classism so blatantly.


Welcome to America!!


----------



## Virtuti (Apr 11, 2010)

a!!!!1 said:


> When I think of BB I definitely don't think of Obama or health care bill supporters. In fact "elitist Democrat" almost sounds like an oxymoron.


Agreed. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Virtuti said:


> Agreed. :icon_smile_big:


+1. Not possible.

Maybe a little self righteous, but not elitist.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Please don't feed the trolls.


----------



## Pshrynk (Apr 14, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *VinceRich* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1089808#post1089808 
_the image the I would assume BB stirs up in a lot of minds...."Elitist" and "racist"_



Racer said:


> This is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read.


X2


----------



## dmbfrisb (Apr 17, 2010)

elitism:

In 1976, when the company lowered the top button on its suits by half an inch, it was considered a cataclysmic step by die-hard customers. All of this was very much in keeping with the principle laid down by the founder, namely "to make and deal in merchandise of only the best quality, to sell it at a fair profit only, and to deal with people who seek and appreciate such merchandise."​ This attitude of exclusivity was best summed up by Frederick Brooks, company vice president, in 1889. He closed the store on Saturdays because of the "outsiders" who crowded the premises on that day. "Who are all these people?" he asked. "We must save the merchandise for all our regular customers."​ Of course, it was exactly this brand of elitism, carried on through the years, that made Brooks Brothers a world-famous institution, and indeed lured "outsiders" into the store.

From *Removing the Ivy League Stigma: Plimpton on Brooks*

https://www.ivy-style.com/removing-the-ivy-league-stigma-plimpton-on-brooks.html#more-1074


----------

