# does higher cost equal higher quality?



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

I know with men's clothing & accessories this will certainly be the case, but at what point does this cease being true? I was browsing the styleforum and came across a thread on the Canada Goose company. I invariably came across a few comments where members over there went on to say that Moncler is better than Canada Goose. Unless you were field testing both companies up in the Arctic I failed to see how Moncler is considered better than CG, other than being more expensive. granted, I take styleforum comments with a grain of salt, since everyone seems to consider themselves an authority on brands, style and trends.

what do you think?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> I know with men's clothing & accessories this will certainly be the case, but at what point does this cease being true? I was browsing the styleforum and came across a thread on the Canada Goose company. I invariably came across a few comments where members over there went on to say that Moncler is better than Canada Goose. Unless you were field testing both companies up in the Arctic I failed to see how Moncler is considered better than CG, other than being more expensive. granted, I take styleforum comments with a grain of salt, since everyone seems to consider themselves an authority on brands, style and trends.
> 
> what do you think?


Moncler (and parajumpers) is a little sharper in construction, fit and material than CG.

CG:

Moncler

PJ

CG is just a big square jacket with a huge logo. I'd much prefer any of the other two. The yellow strap and red logo on the pjs comes off...


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

gaseousclay said:


> I know with men's clothing & accessories this will certainly be the case


Sorry, but I don't agree. It is depressingly possible to pay a lot for junk.


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> CG is just a big square jacket with a huge logo. I'd much prefer any of the other two. The yellow strap and red logo on the pjs comes off...


But that's really just personal aesthetic preference and nothing to do with quality. Are the latter two better than the former in any objective ways? I've never handled either brand, but I certainly would have taken the Canada Goose jacket over the others from looks alone.

As far as price as an indicator of quality goes, I've always found it to be an extremely unreliable guide. Whatever the type of goods.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

There are a number of Canada Goose jackets (and a million Chinese fakes). I have the "Heli" which is close to the Expedition in fill and warmth, but cut in a way to make it easier for pilots to maneuver.

. You can buy a well made quality garmet on sale for less than a piece of junk at full price. I have a $5 thrifted Oxxford blazer you can't touch for 40 times that new. Cost only correlates with quality in some brands and then you must figure in sales, discounts, etc.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I just looked up Feathered Friends and Western Mountaineering, two acknowledged top brands for useful and effective goose down outerwear, and neither is nearly as expensive as that Moncler, which doesn't even give the loft specs in the ad. Looks like hipster wannabe to me. Probably keep you warm enough Just went to Moncler website, no info on loft there either, says "feather down inner"


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Belfaborac said:


> But that's really just personal aesthetic preference and nothing to do with quality. Are the latter two better than the former in any objective ways? I've never handled either brand, but I certainly would have taken the Canada Goose jacket over the others from looks alone.


exactly my point. when I look at CG coats versus Moncler coats the only differences are aesthetics and price, but which stands up better to frigid temperatures? I tend to lean towards CG if only because it seems a lot of individuals whose profession requires them to work in freezing cold temps seem to always wear CG


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Belfaborac said:


> But that's really just personal aesthetic preference and nothing to do with quality. Are the latter two better than the former in any objective ways? I've never handled either brand, but I certainly would have taken the Canada Goose jacket over the others from looks alone.
> 
> As far as price as an indicator of quality goes, I've always found it to be an extremely unreliable guide. Whatever the type of goods.


Have handled all three, various models. Have owned a pjs. I think bot Moncler and pjs is better made. Aesthetics is a part of quality, and the CG has a boxy, poorer fit. IMO...

That kind of fit isn't really that functional...

In Sweden, a CG comes with a certain late 90:s baggage. They are sturdy jackets though.

The quality option might be the Fjallraven Arktis, which is cheaper:

It's not as pretty though. But prettier than the CG. IMO...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> exactly my point. when I look at CG coats versus Moncler coats the only differences are aesthetics and price, but which stands up better to frigid temperatures? I tend to lean towards CG if only because it seems a lot of individuals whose profession requires them to work in freezing cold temps seem to always wear CG


If you don't want to pay for aesthetics, the CG is not an option. You pay a lot for the brand there as well. You can get a functional shell much cheaper, I bet.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Must be quite a sale.

https://www.ioffer.com/i/new-men-s-expedition-parka-goose-down-coats-jackets-524476618


----------



## Belfaborac (Aug 20, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Have handled all three, various models. Have owned a pjs. I think bot Moncler and pjs is better made.


That's fair enough, although if I was in the market for such a jacket I'd want specifics, rather than just "I think...".



> Aesthetics is a part of quality, and the CG has a boxy, poorer fit. IMO...


Well, yes and no. Aesthetics is part of quality, but only subjective quality. The clue being in the "IMO" you end with. My own subjective aesthetics are in this instance opposite to yours, in that I think the Moncler is entirely too fancy-looking for such a garment and the Parajumper simply hideous. And where fit, construction and everything else is concerned, there seems to be no shortage of people who feel that Canada Goose is the be-all and end-all in down jackets.



> That kind of fit isn't really that functional...


Hmmm. I think the Canada Goose jacket looks vastly more functional than the seemingly body-hugging Moncler. The Parajumper also looks functional, if only it didn't also closely resemble a shiny version of my late granny's winter jacket.

The Fjällreven jacket I like quite a lot.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

I don't really understand why... but this company manages to sell(?) T-Shirts for $400+ each.

https://www.ssense.com/men/product/givenchy/black_embossed_usa_flag_t-shirt/55752

I don't think there is a cost/quality correlation there.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Givenchy shirts are kind of a paradox. If you could understand paying $400 for a t-shirt, you would actually understand _less_ about the world than a person who didn't get it -- and that's a very rare situation.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Givenchy shirts are kind of a paradox. If you could understand paying $400 for a t-shirt, you would actually understand _less_ about the world than a person who didn't get it -- and that's a very rare situation.


Well, not exactly, as their target market is people with truly huge amounts of disposable income. They usually know how the world works, the world of money anyway, better than most of us. It is proof though that one can be smart as blazes in a lot of fields, and pig ignorant in others. If they want to pay mucho bucks for bragging rights of some kind, let 'em. At least the money is circulating, and not just sitting in Switzerland. It's a world I'll never know.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Belfaborac said:


> Well, yes and no. Aesthetics is part of quality, but only subjective quality. The clue being in the "IMO" you end with. My own subjective aesthetics are in this instance opposite to yours, in that I think the Moncler is entirely too fancy-looking for such a garment and the Parajumper simply hideous. And where fit, construction and everything else is concerned, there seems to be no shortage of people who feel that Canada Goose is the be-all and end-all in down jackets.


agreed. from what I can tell, the only reason why some people prefer Moncler over CG is because it costs twice as much and some like how it looks. I have yet to hear an objective opinion on how or why Moncler is better. I dunno. If i'm outside in -20 below weather my only concern is how functional my coat is and that it's keeping me warm, not how cool I think I look.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Not if one shops at Neiman Marcus aka Needless Markup.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

phyrpowr said:


> Well, not exactly, as their target market is people with truly huge amounts of disposable income. They usually know how the world works, the world of money anyway, better than most of us. It is proof though that one can be smart as blazes in a lot of fields, and pig ignorant in others. If they want to pay mucho bucks for bragging rights of some kind, let 'em. At least the money is circulating, and not just sitting in Switzerland. It's a world I'll never know.


Ehh, I think their target market is more like people who have so much money that they've become anesthetized to spending it. I know plenty of people with no idea how much money is worth, but the majority of them aren't the earners themselves -- of course, that's because I'm young, and so I know more young people than older ones.


----------



## stephenkarl (Dec 21, 2011)

With regard to Canada Goose vs. Moncler, I recall when Canada Goose (pre-Hollywood hype) was sold at a local hunting outfit for about $450. That has since doubled as it has become popular. I see no difference in quality. My impression of Moncler has been a fashion brand which looks sporting. I am glad an above poster commented on Feathered Friends and Western Mountaineering. For half the price of Moncler, Feathered Friends products are functionally at least equivalent - and they do detail the composition of their products. For my Swedish friends, I have a Haglofs winter parka I would choose over Moncler or Canada Goose in our -40 to -50 winters here in Canada. (FYI - Canada Goose is 625 or 675 fill down; Haglofs and Feathered Friends use 750 to 850 fill down.)


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

stephenkarl said:


> With regard to Canada Goose vs. Moncler, I recall when Canada Goose (pre-Hollywood hype) was sold at a local hunting outfit for about $450. That has since doubled as it has become popular. I see no difference in quality. My impression of Moncler has been a fashion brand which looks sporting. I am glad an above poster commented on Feathered Friends and Western Mountaineering. For half the price of Moncler, Feathered Friends products are functionally at least equivalent - and they do detail the composition of their products. For my Swedish friends, I have a Haglofs winter parka I would choose over Moncler or Canada Goose in our -40 to -50 winters here in Canada. (FYI - Canada Goose is 625 or 675 fill down; Haglofs and Feathered Friends use 750 to 850 fill down.)


Haglöfs is a good alternative to Fjällraven. Marmot is cheaper as well but I don't know the quality.

If I were to get a new jacket, I would either settle for a Haglöfs or Fjällraven or splash on a Moncler or PJS. Most probably the former option. The new shiny fabric on the PJS may be functional but I'm not sure I like it. The Monclers are very pricy... Especially the sturdier more functional models.

But I do have to wear that jacket for around 4 months per year.

My girlfriends Fjällräven may have held up slightly better than my pjs, quality wise. But the pjs has a nicer fit.

Some may want to select a non down filled for ethical reasons, the Swedish brands offer that. While PJS seems bent on the fur trimmed aesthetic. I took the fur liner off my pjs. It looked disturbingly close to my cat.


----------



## stephenkarl (Dec 21, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Some may want to select a non down filled for ethical reasons, the Swedish brands offer that. While PJS seems bent on the fur trimmed aesthetic. I took the fur liner off my pjs. It looked disturbingly close to my cat.


I've owned Marmot jackets before, and while nice lack the small details of Haglofs, Arc'teryx, and others.

Many, many (most?) brands offer synthetic insulation as an alternative to down; however, synthetic insulation simply does not compare in warmth for weight (with the exception of when wet - but if it is that wet, why is one wearing a heavy parka?). My winter Haglofs jacket has synthetic insulation, and is warm enough between car and home but would not want to spend inordinate amounts of time outside in it unless I had layers underneath.

In light of the original question of the thread, I think you have answered it yourself. "The Monclers are very pricy... Especially the sturdier more functional models." I don't begrudge anyone the choice of what they choose to purchase, but the higher cost in winter outerwear of Moncler does not mean higher objective quality of materials or construction.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

This is a subject about which I'm largely ignorant - but aren't there military spec'd parkas genuinely supplied to armed forces which are somewhat cheaper than some of the names mentioned above?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

I think it depends on how you define quality. Do you define quality as something that is more subjective like how the fabric feels on the skin or are you more objective, measuring quality by a metric like how long the item lasts? Shoes, shirts, suits, and pants are very good examples. There are a plenty of these items that are well-constructed but made of expensive materials that frankly don't last very long. You can definitely buy well-constructed items made of cheaper materials that will last considerably longer.

And so the answer is this: You should identify the metrics that are important to you and judge the "cost" of various items by how they satisfy your individual criteria for quality.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

StephenRG said:


> This is a subject about which I'm largely ignorant - but aren't there military spec'd parkas genuinely supplied to armed forces which are somewhat cheaper than some of the names mentioned above?


A readily available model is the m90 parka, which is such a genuine cold weather jacket. However, the quality of such garments may not be that great. Cost and a quality level that is "sufficient" are the guiding factors when the military buy such gear. The m90 also requires waterproofing.

Also, mostly they are identifiable as military garments. I would not wear part of a uniform as a civvie. It just doesn't look nice.

I go as far as my goruck backpack with mil looking gear but no further.


----------



## poorboy (Feb 23, 2012)

Having been up north as far as the 76th parallel, and having spent over 65 days north of the Arctic Circle working, I can say that I never saw anyone wear Moncler. Those who work outside wear Canada Goose. Canada Goose jackets are durable and practical. What's happened is they've somehow become trendy.

In my opinion, Parajumpers, Moncler and Canada Goose are not comparable.

Think of Canada Goose as being more of a jean jacket, which working cowboys wear and Moncler as a sports jacket. Both will provide some cover, but only one is practical.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

poorboy said:


> Having been up north as far as the 76th parallel, and having spent over 65 days north of the Arctic Circle working, I can say that I never saw anyone wear Moncler. Those who work outside wear Canada Goose. Canada Goose jackets are durable and practical. What's happened is they've somehow become trendy.
> 
> In my opinion, Parajumpers, Moncler and Canada Goose are not comparable.
> 
> Think of Canada Goose as being more of a jean jacket, which working cowboys wear and Moncler as a sports jacket. Both will provide some cover, but only one is practical.


At current retail price, buying a CG is indeed like buying a 900 $ jean jacket. 

My pjs jacket is extremely practical though.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

poorboy said:


> Having been up north as far as the 76th parallel, and having spent over 65 days north of the Arctic Circle working, I can say that I never saw anyone wear Moncler. Those who work outside wear Canada Goose. Canada Goose jackets are durable and practical. What's happened is they've somehow become trendy.In my opinion, Parajumpers, Moncler and Canada Goose are not comparable.Think of Canada Goose as being more of a jean jacket, which working cowboys wear and Moncler as a sports jacket. Both will provide some cover, but only one is practical.


thank you. this is the first objective response I was hoping to read. it sounds like these brand debates, especially with down coats, tend to focus more on what's considered trendy than what is practical. I have no doubt that there are a lot of people in Canada wearing CG, well, because it's Canada. But for the rest of us, seeing a couple of people wearing CG does not mean it's a played out trend. I've never seen anyone wearing CG in Minnesota. That doesn't mean there aren't any people out there who wear CG, but I just don't see it. the temps here are frigid -- in fact, it was 40 degrees outside today but it's supposed to dip below zero over the weekend. I bought a TNF Gotham coat last year and it really does a poor job keeping me warm, even with a thick underlayer. I ordered a CG Lodge vest last week and should be getting it next Tuesday but I think i'll save my money and invest in a CG Chilliwack parka next year.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

gaseousclay said:


> I bought a TNF Gotham coat last year and it really does a poor job keeping me warm, even with a thick underlayer.


oof. I was walking the dog this morning and the temp outside was around 0 with a -15 windchill. I froze my butt off wearing my TNF Gotham coat....even with the hood up. i'm kicking myself for not buying CG last year


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

There will always be an justifiable association between cost and quality with higher quality goods tending to cost more. After all, quality goods tend to cost more to manufacture and certainly when it comes to garments it is amazing how much better a well made garment wears over time. However, like most things sometimes you end up overpaying (usually for perceived quality because of a brand name association) or sometimes you get a bargain (something comes down to a reasonable price (on sale) despite its brand name) or alternatively sometimes you get a bargain by purchasing a well made product which perhaps doesn't have a hyped up price based on its brand name perception. The latter is perhaps the best bargain - and the real value of a bulletin board such as this where you can be introduced to well made items that don't suffer from hyped up designer labeling pricing.


----------



## emptym (Feb 22, 2008)

phyrpowr said:


> I just looked up Feathered Friends and Western Mountaineering, two acknowledged top brands for useful and effective goose down outerwear, and neither is nearly as expensive as that Moncler, which doesn't even give the loft specs in the ad. Looks like hipster wannabe to me. Probably keep you warm enough Just went to Moncler website, no info on loft there either, says "feather down inner"


+1. Moncler is mainly a fashion brand now, sold at Barneys and places like that. If you like the design, then it may be worth the price to you. But typically people aren't thinking about aesthetics when thinking about "quality." If I wanted/needed a down jacket, Western Mountaineering and Feathered Friends would be my top choices.


----------



## CLTesquire (Jul 23, 2010)

emptym said:


> +1. Moncler is mainly a fashion brand now, sold at Barneys and places like that. If you like the design, then it may be worth the price to you. But typically people aren't thinking about aesthetics when thinking about "quality." *If I wanted/needed a down jacket, Western Mountaineering and Feathered Friends would be my top choices.*


I agree with you wholeheartedly. Besides the people attempting to be trendy, I can't imagine why one would pay the premium on Canada Goose gear. WM and FF use equivalent, if not better goose down, and their garments weigh less as well.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

CLTesquire said:


> I agree with you wholeheartedly. Besides the people attempting to be trendy, I can't imagine why one would pay the premium on Canada Goose gear. WM and FF use equivalent, if not better goose down, and their garments weigh less as well.


I checked both the WM and FF sites and their coats don't look like anything special. FF had a down coat that cost $800+.....how is this a better perceived quality? I think what bugs me the most about all of the negative CG comments is that some people seem to begrudge others for wearing CG because their coats sell for $500+, and so there's this stigma attached to it, as if you have to be very wealthy to wear such a coat. Or, it's some Asian hipster posting a youtube video about how played out CG is, well, because the hipsters are pissed off the people are wearing the same coats they are. my question is, what the hell are people supposed to wear when it's -20 outside? Are they supposed to buy a brand that nobody knows about because it's cheaper? I resent the resentment that people have against those that choose to wear a decent brand. I mean for christ sake, practically everyone on this forum wears Allen Edmonds shoes -- does that mean they're played out and men should stop wearing them because someone thinks there are too many on the market? hipsters can be their own worst enemy.


----------



## CLTesquire (Jul 23, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> I checked both the WM and FF sites and their coats don't look like anything special. FF had a down coat that cost $800+.....how is this a better perceived quality?


First, I must clarify things a bit. I would favor Feathered Friends or Western Mountaineering over Canada Goose when using the jackets for their intended purposes (i.e. outdoor pursuits in the frigid cold). For casual wear, whatever. That being said, I perceive FF or WM as being a better choice because of weight, and the fill power of the down. Feathered Friends, as you referenced, uses 850+ goose down. Most places I could find say that CG uses 625-675 in their parkas (I think they use 725 or 800 in some of their lighter weight garments). As I'm sure you already know, if you use the same amount of 850 down versus, shall we say, 650 down, the 850 down will loft more and be warmer. This also means you can use less of it to achieve the same degree of warmth as a jacket with 650 down and as a result, you can make a lighter jacket.

Anyway, I used to backpack a lot, and still do when I have time. One of my primary concerns was always the weight of something as I'd be dragging it through the woods on my back. When talking about jackets and their *core* uses, that's what I put a premium on. This isn't to suggest that CG jackets aren't nice, functional, and well constructed. I'm sure they are. However, if I was dropping $800 on a down jacket for use in the outdoors, I'd choose that Feathered Friends jacket. If you're just trying to be warm at -20 from the car to inside, then whatever.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> I checked both the WM and FF sites and their coats don't look like anything special. FF had a down coat that cost $800+.....how is this a better perceived quality? I think what bugs me the most about all of the negative CG comments is that some people seem to begrudge others for wearing CG because their coats sell for $500+, and so there's this stigma attached to it, as if you have to be very wealthy to wear such a coat. Or, it's some Asian hipster posting a youtube video about how played out CG is, well, because the hipsters are pissed off the people are wearing the same coats they are. my question is, what the hell are people supposed to wear when it's -20 outside? Are they supposed to buy a brand that nobody knows about because it's cheaper? I resent the resentment that people have against those that choose to wear a decent brand. I mean for christ sake, practically everyone on this forum wears Allen Edmonds shoes -- does that mean they're played out and men should stop wearing them because someone thinks there are too many on the market? hipsters can be their own worst enemy.


The problem may be that:
1. They are priced at a premium but are not very fashionable, for the reasons stated above, and
2. They are not that much better than other, cheaper alternatives in term of function.

If you still feel like buying a CG jacket, then by all means. They are sturdy and functional, and you may like the look. I would either buy up from CG in terms of fashionability, or down in price, but to each his own. I just don't see a CG as offering either quality/price nor looks/price when compared to the rest.

You posted to receive comments, perhaps you should consider all comments above as objective, rather than just the ones who agree with you


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

emptym said:


> +1. Moncler is mainly a fashion brand now, sold at Barneys and places like that. If you like the design, then it may be worth the price to you. But typically people aren't thinking about aesthetics when thinking about "quality." If I wanted/needed a down jacket, Western Mountaineering and Feathered Friends would be my top choices.


Aesthetics is quality. I'm sure there's a functional jacket out there that is too ugly for you to buy... 

One thing I like about the Fjällraven Arktis is that breathability/water/wind resistance can be changed by applying their wax. I usually don't go for waxed garments in the cold but its supposed to work really well.


----------



## KevinP (Nov 26, 2012)

No, but it's a pretty good rule of thumb. At least up to a point.

I'm thinking about another hobby of mine: pipe collecting. You can get a cheap pipe for US$10 or so, or you could get one for well over $2000. There is a difference in quality between a $10 pipe and a $100, but thing is, after about $100 or maybe $200, it stops being a matter of quality. Then it's aestethics, brand name, the guaruntee (or illusion) of quality asociated with that name, etc. There are some other factors--where they get their briar, how much labor is involved in getting it to the carver, etc., And as always, there are exceptions. There are expensive pipes that smoke like crap and cheap pipes that smoke better than their price. Sometimes the biggest factor is the seller's markup.

I suspect it's largely the same in men's clothing, and really, in most things.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> The problem may be that:1. They are priced at a premium but are not very fashionable, for the reasons stated above, and2. They are not that much better than other, cheaper alternatives in term of function.If you still feel like buying a CG jacket, then by all means. They are sturdy and functional, and you may like the look. I would either buy up from CG in terms of fashionability, or down in price, but to each his own. I just don't see a CG as offering either quality/price nor looks/price when compared to the rest.You posted to receive comments, perhaps you should consider all comments above as objective, rather than just the ones who agree with you


but what is considered a premium cost for a down winter coat? $500+? my only objection to some of the other comments is that the posters didn't give me any objective data with which to compare CG and its quality (with the exception to CLTesquire and poorboy). The data provided was subjective and based largely on aesthetics and price (ie. Moncler is more expensive or Moncler has nicer looking coats, ergo, they make better winter gear). I want a down parka to keep me warm in subzero temps and something that won't break the bank -- aesthetics are secondary. I spent $200 on my TNF coat and i've been nothing but disappointed with it, and this is a coat that TNF customers think is a fashionable coat. I will concede that looks do play a very small part but I would prefer a coat that doesn't make me look like the Michelin Man or Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. The coat will only be used for when i'm walking the dog, going to work, or on rare occasions if i'm going ice fishing with my in-laws. $500-600 seems like a fair price to pay for a handmade parka. It's no different than buying shell cordovan shoes -- I paid $600 for my Alden cap toes, well, because I wanted shoes that would last me a lifetime and that wear well with any suit.


----------



## CLTesquire (Jul 23, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> but what is considered a premium cost for a down winter coat? $500+? my only objection to some of the other comments is that the posters didn't give me any objective data with which to compare CG and its quality (with the exception to CLTesquire and poorboy). The data provided was subjective and based largely on aesthetics and price (ie. Moncler is more expensive or Moncler has nicer looking coats, ergo, they make better winter gear). I want a down parka to keep me warm in subzero temps and something that won't break the bank -- aesthetics are secondary. I spent $200 on my TNF coat and i've been nothing but disappointed with it, and this is a coat that TNF customers think is a fashionable coat. I will concede that looks do play a very small part but I would prefer a coat that doesn't make me look like the Michelin Man or Stay Puft Marshmellow Man. The coat will only be used for when i'm walking the dog, going to work, or on rare occasions if i'm going ice fishing with my in-laws. $500-600 seems like a fair price to pay for a handmade parka. It's no different than buying shell cordovan shoes -- I paid $600 for my Alden cap toes, well, because I wanted shoes that would last me a lifetime and that wear well with any suit.


I wish I could help you more in terms of fashionable down parkas. But I can't. I live in Charlotte and have never needed to look into such things. If you wanted something technical I could rattle off ideas all day long. One consideration though. If you don't want something that makes you look like the Michelin man, find a jacket with box baffling. It's a sewing technique that allows the down in a parka to loft more evenly and will help smooth out the huge tubes of down you find in many down coats that have sewn-through construction. The coat won't have any cold spots and will be warmer for the weight in comparison.


----------



## gyasih (Aug 3, 2011)

Higher prices don't always equate to better quality. A lot of times, you're paying higher prices for marketing.


----------



## damon54 (Dec 12, 2007)

Sometimes there is no substitute and a David Clark 
S1030 cost what it cost. The price for poor quality is high indeed at 80,000 feet +! That was just under $85,000 a piece for an order of 10 in the late 80's.


----------

