# Absurdly Overpriced Poor Quality Clothing......



## ErnstStavroBlofeld (Jan 8, 2013)

This is something that's gotten me kind of angry for a while but why do some Fashion Brands like Prada, Gucci, Boss, Burberry etc. charge WAY More then what their products are feasibly worth?

Ex. Gucci charges $2,000 at a minimum point for their men's suits and they aren't even half-canvassed but instead entirely fused. Same thing with Armani too.

Another thing that I find even more outrageous Prada men's shoes retail at $1,400 and use corrected grain leather while they are produced in China and most likely just sent to Italy to get the "made of Italy" logo on them. That sounds like a scam to me to be honest!

My question is why the hell for would someone pay for anything like this(even the brand obsessed people). Esp since going for name over quality seems like an expensive proposition in the long run with brands like these?

Then again I figure consumers usually aren't rational and people like the AAAC crowd are a small minority.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

You have answered your own question.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

People are morons. Fashion is but one manifestation of this. They value brand names over quality, durability, suitability and style, and they have no imagination - they see an expensive label and that's it.

The underlying problem is more serious - people are taught what to think, not how to think. In fact, independent thought is actively discouraged; this helps to produce the compliant slaves that modern governments require. The fashion industry simply exploits this.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> People are morons. Fashion is but one manifestation of this. They value brand names over quality, durability, suitability and style, and they have no imagination - they see an expensive label and that's it.
> 
> The underlying problem is more serious - people are taught what to think, not how to think. In fact, independent thought is actively discouraged; this helps to produce the compliant slaves that modern governments require. The fashion industry simply exploits this.


Exactly.

The worst part is: I imagine there are many people who simply cannot afford yet purchase this stuff anyway because they think they are getting "quality."


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

SammyH said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The worst part is: I imagine there are many people who simply cannot afford yet purchase this stuff anyway because they think they are getting "quality."


Indeed. You highlight another reason why the fashion industry is utterly loathsome.

Of course they get away with producing poor quality rubbish because none of the victims, or customers as they erroneously called, wear the rubbish for very long. I'm convinced that the absurdity one sees in so much of the industry's output is deliberate - for if they produced classic styles that actually suited people and lasted, how would these toot-wallahs convince them to shell out on next season's offerings?

By ensuring that their customers look ridiculous said toot-wallahs ensure that they are only too willing to discard expensive items they purchased mere months earlier. And where do these poor (and, thanks to injudicious purchases, getting poorer) souls look for inspiration? To vacuous, vulgar "celebrities" who lack taste, discrimination and refinement and so simply go for what is transient, tacky and very expensive - namely, the effluvium produced by the alleged designers that the OP drew our attention to above.

And on it goes, forever and ever.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Ignorance and insecurity. Who teaches "quality" in clothing anymore? _Esquire_ and _GQ_ gave up the ghost long ago, and advise buying $3000 wool-blend or cotton suits. Parents are a long way from the day when things had to last, because there was, literally, no money. So buyers are basically fodder for advertisers, who push STATUS. Buy this, or you're obviously poorer and of lower class than your contemporaries, and they will gather on the other side of the schoolyard, and point at you and laugh. I wish it was more complicated than that, but, alas, I fear not.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> You have answered your own question.


+1...


----------



## Spex (Nov 25, 2012)

Nothing to get angry about really. Simply do not buy these items. They are for the over-paid and under-confident (as well as products that splash big logos). :icon_jokercolor:


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Ah, but if people are buying them at full price then they are not overpriced. If some unknowing soul wants to buy something from you at a 900% mark-up and you have in no way done anything fraudulent who's to say you're wrong to oblige them? We're not talking something like a fake Rolex sold as real, a cubic zirconia sold as a real diamond, a bottle of apricot pit extract sold as a cancer cure. I have little sympathy for those who don't take time to educate themselves. And the converse is probably also true. The rush they get from buying Gucci or Prada or knocking off a $750 bottle of 2012 cabernet may be what keeps them coming back. While we value reliability and quality, they may actually value disposability.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

By definition nothing overpriced will sell.

Put another way; 'There's a sucker born every minute'.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

It's nothing to get angry about. Folks have the right to charge whatever the want for an item, and consumers can decide if they want to pay. Consumers place different values on different traits - you see it in all sorts of sectors. Take food as an easy example - should someone be similarly angry because consumers do not pay the most for food that is most nutritious? Of course not, because some people may value on taste, scarcity, branding, etc.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

pleasehelp said:


> It's nothing to get angry about. Folks have the right to charge whatever the want for an item, and consumers can decide if they want to pay. Consumers place different values on different traits - you see it in all sorts of sectors. Take food as an easy example - *should someone be similarly angry because consumers do not pay the most for food that is most nutritious? * Of course not, because some people may value on taste, scarcity, branding, etc.


I speak as someone who is not angry about this, but simply bemused. But your analogy in emphasis is specious.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

Balfour said:


> I speak as someone who is not angry about this, but simply bemused. But your analogy in emphasis is specious.


In what respect? A person may believe that one trait in an item is the trait that should primiarly drive it's value/price, and others may weigh the value of those traits differently.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

pleasehelp said:


> In what respect? A person may believe that one trait in an item is the trait that should primiarly drive it's value/price, and others may weigh the value of those traits differently.


Because the premiss of the thread is that fashion brands charge a brand premium that is not reflected in the quality of the products they sell. For example, corrected grain leather Prada shoes that cost more than Crockett and Jones or the same as Edward Green.(*)

By contrast, a meal can be nutritious, but neither tasty nor well-cooked, served in a poor quality environment, by rude staff, etc. All of those factors go to the quality of the dining experience. As a result, your analogy did not reflect the point that the original poster was making and attempting to use it to undermine that point was unconvincing.

As you say in the text quoted above, it is of course open to others to put value on a brand. Just as it is open to the original poster (and me for that matter) to think that this is silly.

(And, as some other posters have pointed out, the value some people place on a brand may in some cases not reflect an informed choice. Instead they may wrongly think that a premium brand will supply a quality product.)

(*) Northamptonshire shoe-makers are a good example of where there is a well-functioning market, and the price generally bears a good correlation to the quality of the product.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I disagree with the premise that these brands are of low quality. The quality of their advertising is top notch.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

Balfour said:


> Because the premiss of the thread is that fashion brands charge a brand premium that is not reflected in the quality of the products they sell. For example, corrected grain leather Prada shoes that cost more than Crockett and Jones or the same as Edward Green.(*)
> 
> By contrast, a meal can be nutritious, but neither tasty nor well-cooked, served in a poor quality environment, by rude staff, etc. All of those factors go to the quality of the dining experience. As a result, your analogy did not reflect the point that the original poster was making and attempting to use it to undermine that point was unconvincing.
> 
> ...


Think about it more, and you'll realize that you're supporting my analogy. The fact that people are paying X for these items means that the sum of the traits associated with these items is worth X or more to the consumer. The OP is applying his personal appraisal to these traits and deriving a value <X, which is fine. However, others will apply different values to these traits and the result is a willingness to pay X or more. These traits may include the shopping experience, the happiness with the brand, the particular look of the item, the ability to associate with a certain social class, etc.

The same dynamic applies to food, with one trait being the nutrients. The nutrients of food may be the most valuable trait to a particular consumer. However, that's clearly not the only trait that drives consumers, and we all know that different consumers will value the various traits differently.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> I disagree with the premise that these brands are of low quality. The quality of their advertising is top notch.


That hits the nail on the head. It is effective marketing that leads to premium pricing - nothing necessarily to do with quality of the product.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

Langham said:


> That hits the nail on the head. It is effective marketing that merits premium pricing - nothing necessarily to do with quality of the product.


I'm not sure that "merits" is the proper word here.


----------



## Stubbly (Jul 26, 2013)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> People are morons. Fashion is but one manifestation of this. They value brand names over quality, durability, suitability and style, and they have no imagination - they see an expensive label and that's it.
> 
> The underlying problem is more serious - people are taught what to think, not how to think. In fact, independent thought is actively discouraged; this helps to produce the compliant slaves that modern governments require. The fashion industry simply exploits this.


+1 for critical thinking skills

I would say, many people go for style over substance. However, with of many big brands even their styling is dubious.

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
-- Benjamin Franklin


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

pleasehelp said:


> Think about it more, and you'll realize that you're supporting my analogy. The fact that people are paying X for these items means that the sum of the traits associated with these items is worth X or more to the consumer. The OP is applying his personal appraisal to these traits and deriving a value <X, which is fine. However, others will apply different values to these traits and the result is a willingness to pay X or more. These traits may include the shopping experience, the happiness with the brand, the particular look of the item, the ability to associate with a certain social class, etc.
> 
> The same dynamic applies to food, with one trait being the nutrients. The nutrients of food may be the most valuable trait to a particular consumer. However, that's clearly not the only trait that drives consumers, and we all know that different consumers will value the various traits differently.


No, you need to think about my earlier points further.

And you're redefining your argument here. I took issue with your original analogy about the OP's point being the equivalent of getting angry with people for spending money food for reasons unrelated to its nutritional value. That took much too narrow a view of the issue (as the OP's point was about price:quality, and in the context of food nutritional value is only one factor relevant to quality). Anyway, not sure if you're trying to be deliberately obdurate and I'm done trying to explain the point to you.


----------



## pleasehelp (Sep 8, 2005)

Balfour said:


> No, you need to think about my earlier points further.
> 
> And you're redefining your argument here. I took issue with your original analogy about the OP's point being the equivalent of getting angry with people for spending money food for reasons unrelated to its nutritional value. That took much too narrow a view of the issue (as the OP's point was about price:quality, and in the context of food nutritional value is only one factor relevant to quality). Anyway, not sure if you're trying to be deliberately obdurate and I'm done trying to explain the point to you.


No - perhaps you read a different message into my analogy than I intended, but if you read back you'll see that there's nothing inconsistent or incorrect in my chain of posts.


----------



## Question (Jun 18, 2014)

The short version is, because they can get away with it.

The long version : Businesses have now realised that quality products are no longer necessary to making a large profit. In the old days, when marketing and management theory was not well established, it was commonly believed that you needed to justify higher prices with quality.

These days we can sell worthless rocks (diamonds) at ultra high prices because the consumer THINKS they are rare and valuable, so is willing to pay that price.

Nobody is going to blink an eye at a $2000 Gucci suit. The average consumer is going to think "Gucci? Man it must be hand tailored in some French or Italian cottage by a Master Tailor with 50 years of experience using top quality silk or something, i don't know." They are not going to know what are indicators of a quality suit. Some executives don't even care, they just know they can wear a Gucci suit and automatically qualify as well dressed. If someone "in the know" starts pointing out the flaws, they can just pull the "It's a Gucci!" card and justify everything. And then tell each other how wrong that guy was because "A Gucci can't possibly be low quality! What a joker!".

You see the same thing in watches. Simple stainless steel quartz watches going for thousands of dollars, simply because of the brand name. The average consumer doesnt know or care what makes a quality watch. The brand name alone justifies eveything and they automatically assume they receive a quality product. Meanwhile you show them a $200 automatic watch with sapphire crystal and they conclude it must be cheap crap.

In my experience attempting to discuss quality with these people generally does not work well. Responses usually range from outright hostility to patronising nods and smiles along with "advice" to "come back when you can appreciate the finer things in life". The fact that you can get a much better product for a fraction of the price simply does not register with them...either they do not believe that is possible or do not care. For many, the brand name is the most important thing for a product. Nothing beats the ability to name drop some expensive brand name in the middle of a conversation and impress your business partners or the lady you are trying to pick up at the bar. I hear this all the time on watch forums : "I need to have a watch from a famous swiss brand because i work as a lawyer/banker/executive and need to be able to name drop it in conversations". Is that REALLY true? I don't know, because i've never had the chance to test it.

I'm reminded of the Ipod shuffle. Competitors were convinced that this little mp3 player, that didn't even have the ability to select the track you wanted to play, would bomb. Far better players were released years ago at a fraction of the price they reasoned. Who would want a mp3 player that couldn't even select the track you wanted to play, let alone make a playlist? That was sooooo 10 years ago. But Apple potrayed it as an incredibly "hip" thing to have and consumers bought it, hook, line and sinker. That's the power of marketing.

I'm also reminded of an article some guy did. He opened up a Rolex and compared it to a watch from a little known brand (i can't remember if they were at similar price points). He was comparing on things like quality of the finishing, etc, and noted that the Rolex had a very simple, rough and badly finished movement among other flaws (although the Rolex still worked well). I believe his conclusion was that Rolex was terribly overhyped and overpriced. As you can imagine, there was no small amount of readers who responded with disbelief and anger. Rolex themselves got very interested in trying to find the author's whereabouts and contact details, although the publisher refused to give it to them.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Reference to "an article some guy did" may interest some. For a more specific link to Rolex prices and quality, try the link below.

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f2/interesting-topic-rolex-price-increases-1059754.html


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

You're actually paying for the brand, that's why names like Armani, Gucci and Louis Vuitton are so expensive and costs a lot.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Howard said:


> You're actually paying for the brand, that's why names like Armani, Gucci and Louis Vuitton are so expensive and costs a lot.


Correct. However, some people assume that the brand is associated with quality, which often isn't the case. A phenomenal book on the subject is "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster". It's really quite eye-opening and would consider it a must-read for this group.

A few points on the subject as well that I think merit consideration/discussion:

1. I would place the "overpriced" brands into two categories: those where all you are getting is the name, and those where you are receiving a quality product, but you are paying more for it than you would without the name.

The former category would include brands like Gucci and Prada, and increasingly the lower end from Ferragamo and Armani. The latter category would include the likes of Hermes, Ralph Lauren Black/Purple Labels, Brioni, Zegna, IWC, Breitling, Panerai and Omega. Sitting in between would be the middle-to-higher end from Armani and Ferragamo, LV, Tod's and Bottega.

Those labels which haven't become "brands" enough to command a price premium far beyond their quality would include (IMO): Oxxford, EG, C&J, Belvest, Valextra, Canali, Caruso, Jaeger LeCoultre and Vacheron Constantin.

2. This discussion of enormous markups is also a bit misleading in a way similar to the criticism of pharmaceutical companies for selling drugs at 5,000x their production cost. Fashion houses, similar to pharma companies, aren't making astronomical profits (the former are always on the edge of bankruptcy) but have to absorb the massive costs of marketing including market research, advertising, PR/events and prime B&M space. It's similar to how the pharmaceutical industry must absorb all the costs of R&D, marketing and the development of failed drugs into the "cost" of the blockbusters, in addition to the actual production of those products.

3. One of the most interesting companies in this regard is Rolex. The production numbers and prices only keep going up, but they never experience the cost-cutting that others do. In fact, in spite of the fact that I prefer the older models, the newer pieces have only been getting more solid and luxurious feeling. And one thing sets this company apart from all of its rivals in the luxury goods business: it is owned entirely by a foundation which donates all of its profits to orphans (as the founder of the company was, himself, and orphan).


----------



## ruvort (Mar 11, 2014)

TimelesStyle said:


> Correct. However, some people assume that the brand is associated with quality, which often isn't the case. A phenomenal book on the subject is "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster". It's really quite eye-opening and would consider it a must-read for this group.
> 
> A few points on the subject as well that I think merit consideration/discussion:
> 
> ...


Thank you very much for these insights and making me aware of that book. I will definitely be looking into getting myself a copy.

Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

TimelesStyle said:


> 3. One of the most interesting companies in this regard is Rolex. The production numbers and prices only keep going up, but they never experience the cost-cutting that others do. In fact, in spite of the fact that I prefer the older models, the newer pieces have only been getting more solid and luxurious feeling. And one thing sets this company apart from all of its rivals in the luxury goods business: it is owned entirely by a foundation which donates all of its profits to orphans (as the founder of the company was, himself, and orphan).


How refreshing to read a sensible, informed post about Rolex. The link below is in the same spirit.

https://forums.watchuseek.com/f2/interesting-topic-rolex-price-increases-1059754.html


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

I don't think it's appropriate to label those who purchase Prada, Boss and other marketing-oriented brands as "morons." They likely prize status over quality of construction, but that's their prerogative and doesn't correlate at all with intelligence.

With that said, few of us here fall into that cohort of the population; if we did, we wouldn't need to learn, but merely purchase based on the advertising we see in the Robb Report and similar publications.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

TimelesStyle said:


> Correct. However, some people assume that the brand is associated with quality, which often isn't the case. A phenomenal book on the subject is "Deluxe: How Luxury Lost Its Luster". It's really quite eye-opening and would consider it a must-read for this group.
> 
> A few points on the subject as well that I think merit consideration/discussion:
> 
> ...


Off topic, but that won't be a problem once marijuana is legalized worldwide. For medicinal purposes, it will only be legal once a day before bedtime for people 4 and over.

For recreational use, it will be legalized for people 18 to 21 and over with all of the restrictions of alcohol for people 18 to 21 and over. Like alcohol, marijuana for recreational use will be illegal for those under 18 to 21 and over.

Marijuana for medicinal use will be illegal for people under 4. 18 and over, 21, over, between 19 or 20 and over, under 18, under 21 and under 19 or 20 entirely depends on the country.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> I don't think it's appropriate to label those who purchase Prada, Boss and other marketing-oriented brands as "morons." They likely prize status over quality of construction, but that's their prerogative and doesn't correlate at all with intelligence.
> 
> With that said, few of us here fall into that cohort of the population; if we did, we wouldn't need to learn, but merely purchase based on the advertising we see in the Robb Report and similar publications.


+1. One can discuss the relative merits of fashion brands and discuss them in the context of value, but to refer to someone as a moron for making such choices is overtly harsh and snobbish.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

My face every time is glance through an Esquire style spread and spot an OTR cotton dress shirt marked at $1500+...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Oh, Grayson - this one looks much more like you. Consider it my gif(t)


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

I would actually be interested to learn which brands are grossly overpriced, i.e. to learn when a name is a proxy for quality. I have a lot to learn, even about lower-end products, say, BB's different lines. I'm not so interested in listening to old men kvetch about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

Just placed an order on Amazon for "Deluxe" and am looking forward to reading it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SlideGuitarist said:


> I would actually be interested to learn which brands are grossly overpriced, i.e. to learn when a name is a proxy for quality. I have a lot to learn, even about lower-end products, say, BB's different lines. I'm not so interested in listening to old men kvetch about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.


A simple rule of thumb is this - if a product is aspirational then often as not it is overpriced junk.

Most of the quality/value items available are the 'niche' products commonly spoken of on gentlemen's forums but rarely by people idly day-dreaming about what they would buy if they ever won the lottery.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

One of the very few modern actors that I find worth watching. Some of his performances are genuinely superb.



SlideGuitarist said:


> I would actually be interested to learn which brands are grossly overpriced, i.e. to learn when a name is a proxy for quality. I have a lot to learn, even about lower-end products, say, BB's different lines. I'm not so interested in listening to old men kvetch about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.


Won't get that from me. Going? It was gone a loooooooooooong time ago.

As far as grossly overpriced goes, I think there are plenty of obvious ones. Versace is terrible - absolute junk. Prada is ridiculous. As a general rule, if vapid, vacuous slebs like it, proceed with great caution.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Shaver said:


> A simple rule of thumb is this - if a product is aspirational then often as not it is overpriced junk.
> 
> Most of the quality/value items available are the 'niche' products commonly spoken of on gentlemen's forums but rarely by people idly day-dreaming about what they would buy if they ever won the lottery.


I don't think it's quite as simple as that; take a look at the breakdown I did a few posts ago. There's "overpriced junk" and then there's just plain "overpriced". Both tend to include aspirational brands. The difference is that I wouldn't want the junk under any circumstances, while I'd want the other stuff, just not at retail prices.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

SlideGuitarist said:


> I'm not so interested in listening to old men kvetch about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.


Life on this forum must therefore be most tedious for you.


----------



## SammyH (Jan 29, 2014)

SlideGuitarist said:


> I would actually be interested to learn which brands are grossly overpriced, i.e. to learn when a name is a proxy for quality. I have a lot to learn, even about lower-end products, say, BB's different lines. I'm not so interested in listening to old men kvetch about how the world is going to hell in a handbasket.


I'd say any brand that advertises in those expensive, glossy magazines that women peruse is liable to be overpriced. 

Everyone knows the world went to hell in a Gucci handbag.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

32rollandrock said:


> I disagree with the premise that these brands are of low quality. The quality of their advertising is top notch.


Except when the ads look like gang rape. Otherwise, they just seems like the same ads from any other fashion brand. There's no personality whatsoever.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Grayson said:


> My face every time is glance through an Esquire style spread and spot an OTR cotton dress shirt marked at $1500+...


Funny, considering the prices of the clothing Sherlock wears. Seriously, look it up. (His micro-lapel suit at the beginning of the third season was atrocious, by the way.)


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

adoucett said:


> Just placed an order on Amazon for "Deluxe" and am looking forward to reading it.


I wasn't that impressed. It's mainly the LVMH story with a brief visit to Chanel, Hermes and China.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Tempest said:


> I wasn't that impressed. It's mainly the LVMH story with a brief visit to Chanel, Hermes and China.


Ditto


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

pleasehelp said:


> Think about it more, and you'll realize that you're supporting my analogy. The fact that people are paying X for these items means that the sum of the traits associated with these items is worth X or more to the consumer. The OP is applying his personal appraisal to these traits and deriving a value <X, which is fine. However, others will apply different values to these traits and the result is a willingness to pay X or more. These traits may include the shopping experience, the happiness with the brand, the particular look of the item, the ability to associate with a certain social class, etc.
> 
> The same dynamic applies to food, with one trait being the nutrients. The nutrients of food may be the most valuable trait to a particular consumer. However, that's clearly not the only trait that drives consumers, and we all know that different consumers will value the various traits differently.


I guess what you're saying is that buying Prada would be like going to that chic, new fusion restaurant in San Francisco or New York, where you pay a premium to be seen in a hip spot instead of enjoying a great meal.

I enjoy great clothes and great meals. I'm not rich but these are the two areas where I can splurge and feel like a millionaire. I don't buy Prada (although my wife does, but women's style rules are different than men's), and I don't eat at pricey, hip restaurants.

I buy high quality clothes that make me look good and that I can wear for years, and I eat at high quality, established restaurants that provide exceptional dining experiences. My guess would be that those who are slaves to fashion would rather go to the hip, overpriced restaurant as well where the services is bad and the food is mediocre.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Luxury labels seem to be a form of purchasable social proof. 

Most people wouldn't recognise well made clothing these days because we don't really value it much anymore (apart from certain niches such as iGents and city boys). Nevertheless, it's easy enough to recognise expensive clothing -- because of the label proudly emblazoned on it. I guess insecure dressers can also make up for cluelessness in dress sense by purchasing mundane/bland items from expensive brands and going for the social proof that way.

It's an easy mistake to make though if you are ignorant about clothes. I shudder at all the money I wasted in my 20s on all sorts of designer monstrosities.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

I also recommend that one read _Deluxe _: https://www.amazon.com/Deluxe-How-L...ie=UTF8&qid=1406058520&sr=8-1&keywords=deluxe






https://fora.tv/2007/08/27/Deluxe_How_Luxury_Lost_Its_Luster

I hope that everyone has caught up with the Joneses ! :biggrin:

" We buy things we don't need with money we don't have to impress people we don't like."

- Dave Ramsey


----------



## Question (Jun 18, 2014)

It doesnt help at all that its so difficult to find out how to tell if a piece of clothing is high quality or not, so people make assumptions on price, brand and country of origin.

Are there any short and simple guides in bullet point form? Im still trying to figure out how to tell if a shirt is going to wrinkle a lot before buying and wearing it...i have some shirts that while not wrinkle free, practically are (i never need to iron them) and other shirts that i can iron perfectly flat on the board but instantly become wrinkled when i hang it up. 100% cotton labels don't help at all because they don't tell you the quality of the cotton...and retailers never seem to know.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> As far as grossly overpriced goes, I think there are plenty of obvious ones. Versace is terrible - absolute junk. Prada is ridiculous. As a general rule, if vapid, vacuous slebs like it, proceed with great caution.


what about other brands?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Just like shirts and colognes, I'd rather purchase the better brand instead of some cheap brand.


----------



## Question (Jun 18, 2014)

Howard said:


> what about other brands?


For watches, i would have to say most swiss watches. Theres a lot of hype about "materials" and "workmanship" but the simple truth is that you are paying a lot for the "Swiss Made" words on the dial, not to mention the retail space in high class boutiques with classy wood furniture.

You would probably be shocked to discover how little it costs to buy a case, dial and Swiss ETA movement and have a watchmaker put them all together (i've been advised that its mostly a matter of fitting the dial and then the movement). IIRC ive seen someone offer to make a brand new case out of damascus steel, custom made dial and fit a Swiss ETA movement for less than $1k, and that's the price for a custom made product using exotic materials. Off the top of my head, a swiss eta movement costs significantly less than $100 if you buy it from a watch parts supplier, even less if you buy it in bulk like the big brands do.

For $1k, you would be getting a generic quartz from a big swiss brand.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Howard said:


> what about other brands?


Gucci have got a t-shirt for sale on their website with a large, smudged print on it. They're looking for 250 sovs for the privilege.

I'm guessing at this stage they're trading on the name more than producing genuine, lasting quality for a reasonable price.

To be fair, it is probably a good quality t-shirt. Shame they slapped a load of crap on the front of it.

https://www.gucci.com/uk/styles/359894X3B051165#


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Question said:


> For watches, i would have to say most swiss watches. Theres a lot of hype about "materials" and "workmanship" but the simple truth is that you are paying a lot for the "Swiss Made" words on the dial, not to mention the retail space in high class boutiques with classy wood furniture.
> 
> You would probably be shocked to discover how little it costs to buy a case, dial and Swiss ETA movement and have a watchmaker put them all together (i've been advised that its mostly a matter of fitting the dial and then the movement). IIRC ive seen someone offer to make a brand new case out of damascus steel, custom made dial and fit a Swiss ETA movement for less than $1k, and that's the price for a custom made product using exotic materials. Off the top of my head, a swiss eta movement costs significantly less than $100 if you buy it from a watch parts supplier, even less if you buy it in bulk like the big brands do.
> 
> For $1k, you would be getting a generic quartz from a big swiss brand.


With ETA-powered watches, there used to be an "in between" level, where a watch maker (IWC comes to mind) would buy the ETA movement as a bag of parts, replace certain key parts, then assemble the watch themselves, using their watchmakers. Not sure how much of this is done by hand vs. machine. Rolex, for example, in spite of doing everything in-house, has automated much of its process.

As far as which watch brands represent true "craftsmanship" (not necessarily value, mind you) I think they need to either have an in-house movement (or one purchased from a higher end source, such as JLC, Zenith or GP) and be made by hand (the movement; don't care about the case too much).

Don't forget, too, that even when watches use ETA bases and are largely assembled by machine, it still took great feats of engineering to develop them.

And then there is the issue of "tradition/craftsmanship", perhaps one of the most ambiguous terms in watchmaking. The makers which most embody the word as I see it are PP and Rolex. Yes, that's right, PP and Rolex. PP is, to my knowledge, just about the only watchmaker which has been manufacturing continuously, by hand, independent from a parent company, for over 100 years (closer to 200). Rolex, on the other hand, is a monster, producing over a million watches per year, largely by automated process. However Rolex's "tradition" is one of engineering; I cannot think of another company which has made as many contributions to modern watchmaking that we now take for granted. And the fact that Rolex innovations show up all over the place today, but were once very unique, puts Rolex at the height of science, not art, in the world of horology.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> Gucci have got a t-shirt for sale on their website with a large, smudged print on it. They're looking for 250 sovs for the privilege.
> 
> I'm guessing at this stage they're trading on the name more than producing genuine, lasting quality for a reasonable price.
> 
> ...


Worst example I ever saw, personally, was at a Ralph Lauren/Polo outlet. They wanted $85 (this in about 1980) for a "jacquard knit" rugby shirt, with a nice old fashioned horse racing scene on it; marked down from about $200, being considered a "second". Only problem was, it had obviously gotten caught in the machinery, and was _*absolutely, literally ripped to shreds*_. It could not have been worn at all, except perhaps as part of a DIY Halloween costume. It barely qualified as a carwash rag, but the little perky salesclerk thought it was a great buy, I mean, being POLO and all. Seems like it was about this time that the "pre-destroyed" jeans started to appear, too.

While I can sort of understand buying a "status" brand if the garment is in new condition, I've never been able to comprehend purchasing intentionally worn out goods for new price. My parents came of age at the start of the Great Depression, and were deadly value-for-dollar shoppers. Over my adolescence and some past, I've fallen victim to "fashion" and advertising on occasion, and regretted it every time. Thanks to them, it wasn't as often as it could have been.

My folks regularly said "we can't afford it", on supposed luxury stuff. I get the impression that a lot of Boomer parents would rather choke than say those words


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Part of the problem is status. If it's from a high priced designer, then the wearer feels it gives them a certain cache in their social circles. Part is ignorance, thinking that a high priced designer item is going to naturally be well made from high quality materials. Part is convenience, just go to a store, buy what is currently "in fashion" and you're "guaranteed" to look good.

It takes time and effort to learn what stylish well fitting clothing looks like. With the dearth of role models, clueless fathers imparting their poor sartorial knowledge, and the sensory overload being foisted upon the unsuspecting by ads, what is a young person supposed to do? 

It takes even more time to shop for well made stylish clothing in an era where stores that carry them are far and few between, and the SA are as clueless as the customers. One has to almost stumble across a forum such as this and the OF to even begin to get the idea that there is another way to dress. The idea that clothes can be designed to flatter, to enhance your function in various environments, and to change peoples initial impressions of you are things that need to be learned.

All we can do is set an example. The way the members of this forum dress is not outlandish, but different from the typical cacophony of dreck that forms the vista of humanities clothing. That makes people notice. They may not understand what we're wearing, why we're wearing it, or agree with our sartorial choices, but they do seem to notice that we look different, but in a good way. This may be expressed in a complimentary way, sarcastic remarks, disdain, envy, but sometimes it inspires. I have a number of vendors who since seeing my style of dress, have upped their own game, and thanked me for giving them not only an example of how to dress properly for business, but asked advice on numerous occasions. This has even occurred from the SAs in some of the stores I frequent, even those with "better" clothing.

So light a candle in the darkness, and change the world one person at a time. We will not be able to make a huge dent in the sartorial drift, but can create a few islands of enlightenment.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

I am not a super taster. I have a friend who has 10X the taste buds I have. He can appreciate the nuances of a fine French wine. They are lost on me. I have a photo of me with a glass raised in the cellars of Chateau Lafite (Long story, they don't do tours). When asked what I was thinking I say "How much more I'd rather have a case of good California Zinfandel than a glass of this French S***. The same is true of clothing. I appreciate quality and longevity, but there are many members here that get things I just don't get. And there are those out there who may perceive passing fancies are worth more to them than the things we value.
Bless us all.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

cdavant said:


> I am not a super taster. I have a friend who has 10X the taste buds I have. He can appreciate the nuances of a fine French wine. They are lost on me. I have a photo of me with a glass raised in the cellars of Chateau Lafite (Long story, they don't do tours). When asked what I was thinking I say "How much more I'd rather have a case of good California Zinfandel than a glass of this French S***. The same is true of clothing. I appreciate quality and longevity, but there are many members here that get things I just don't get. And there are those out there who may perceive passing fancies are worth more to them than the things we value.
> Bless us all.


And who says again that a California Zinfadel can't be better than a French wine? As with clothing, it's more important to go with quality and good taste over brand and price. That's why the guys who think a Prada suit is the epitome of men's quality and style are so wrong.


----------



## Spex (Nov 25, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> Part of the problem is status. If it's from a high priced designer, then the wearer feels it gives them a certain cache in their social circles.


I think this is perhaps the greatest factor and interests me the most. I think some "visitors" to sites such as AAAC might first assume that we are a group of men that spends an exorbitant amount of money on clothes. Granted, some members have more financial resources than others, and own more expensive items, and more of them. But my experience overall from the comments on this site is that most members value quality over quantity and the brands that deliver this are not ones that splash their names all over their products, and even if they did, would not be recognized by the general public.

This goes back to my original reply to this thread, that our style of dress allows us to feel confident because we feel well dressed and comfortable in a way that (hopefully) lets us forget about how we're dressed once we step out the door and simply walk with confidence. On the flip side, flaunting expensive name brand clothes seems to me a cry for attention, as if to announce to the world that you can afford these items. Only an under-confident individual would feel the need to compensate in this way.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

TimelesStyle said:


> ...However Rolex's "tradition" is one of engineering; I cannot think of another company which has made as many contributions to modern watchmaking that we now take for granted. And the fact that Rolex innovations show up all over the place today, but were once very unique, puts Rolex at the height of science, not art, in the world of horology.


I'm afraid nothing would induce me to buy a Rolex. There are so many fakes, for one thing.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Langham said:


> I'm afraid nothing would induce me to buy a Rolex. There are so many fakes, for one thing.


I wasn't trying to convince anyone to go buy one, or that it's the best watch on the market today, etc. What I hoped to get people to see is that while today's may be mass-produced and have the same accuracy/reliability/features of others, Rolex has been possibly the greatest innovator when it comes to the technology incorporated in 100% mechanical timepieces.

Off the top of my head, a few interesting things I can think of are:

First automatic wristwatch
First waterproof wristwatch
Truebeat movement (a mechanical that ticks like a quartz, intended for a physician taking someone's pulse)
Only movement I know of where the date will go backwards (GMT Master II, Explorer II w/jumping hour hand)


----------



## craenor (Jul 17, 2014)

Langham said:


> I'm afraid nothing would induce me to buy a Rolex. There are so many fakes, for one thing.


Fair enough. I inherited my father's Oyster Perpetual Datejust Stainless with the Jubilee band and a black face in 1991. He'd owned it for about 8 years at the time of his passing. Other than an exceedingly rare few times for work or when it was out for cleaning/maintenance, it hasn't left my wrist since.

Showering, bathing, swimming, etc. It's always there. Runs like a top, keeps spot on time.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

craenor said:


> Fair enough. I inherited my father's Oyster Perpetual Datejust Stainless with the Jubilee band and a black face in 1991. He'd owned it for about 8 years at the time of his passing. Other than an exceedingly rare few times for work or when it was out for cleaning/maintenance, it hasn't left my wrist since.
> 
> Showering, bathing, swimming, etc. It's always there. Runs like a top, keeps spot on time.


And what I think is so cool about Rolex isn't that its watches can do this today, it's the fact that there was a time not too long ago when you _needed _a Rolex in order to achieve that level of accuracy and durability. That gets lost now that everyone can do that, but Rolex is largely the company which started all of it.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

But don't you guys want to wear designer brands? Maybe be a show-off. I don't mind wearing clothes that have a brand on them and get compliments from people. It makes me feel good.


----------



## Spex (Nov 25, 2012)

Howard said:


> But don't you guys want to wear designer brands? Maybe be a show-off. I don't mind wearing clothes that have a brand on them and get compliments from people. It makes me feel good.


Can you explain why it makes you feel good, Howard? When someone compliments you on a piece of clothing because it's a brand, what does that mean? Are they complimenting you or the clothes?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Howard said:


> But don't you guys want to wear designer brands? Maybe be a show-off. I don't mind wearing clothes that have a brand on them and get compliments from people. It makes me feel good.


Howard, which brands do you enjoy wearing.....can you give us some examples?


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

That's why I never take the arm tags off all my Kiton jackets. Why buy something expensive if folks can't tell how much you paid for it? Pass the Lafite...


----------



## Fred G. Unn (Jul 12, 2011)

Howard said:


> But don't you guys want to wear designer brands? Maybe be a show-off. I don't mind wearing clothes that have a brand on them and get compliments from people. It makes me feel good.


I try to be as unbranded as possible. I have a few BB and Paul Stuart polos, but other than that I don't wear anything with logos. True, a Barbour zipper is a giveaway, but I certainly don't wear the silly pin that came with the jacket.



Spex said:


> Can you explain why it makes you feel good, Howard? When someone compliments you on a piece of clothing because it's a brand, what does that mean? Are they complimenting you or the clothes?


Exactly. Sure, we all appreciate compliments to some degree but I'd much rather be complimented on the clothes, shoes, accessory, etc, than the label attached to it.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Howard said:


> But don't you guys want to wear designer brands? Maybe be a show-off. I don't mind wearing clothes that have a brand on them and get compliments from people. It makes me feel good.


Howard, you've been on this forum for a decade. How on earth have you arrived at this conclusion?


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Jovan, you've been on this forum for almost a decade. How on earth did you miss a bit of (please) sarcasm...


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

cdavant said:


> Jovan, you've been on this forum for almost a decade. How on earth did you miss a bit of (please) sarcasm...


I can assure you that Howard's comments and questions are 100% sincere and free of sarcasm. Again, anyone who has been around here for any period of time understands. You're not the first to have doubts. I can recall a lengthy thread several years ago in which members had a spirited debate over whether Howard was a real person, or a troll-born character that only exists in cyberspace. As I recall, someone even went to the Pathmark store where Howard works to confirm his existence. I, for one, have appreciated Howard's honest commentary and pearls of simple wisdom over the years.

Jovan does have a bit of a point here, though.


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> Gucci have got a t-shirt for sale on their website with a large, smudged print on it. They're looking for 250 sovs for the privilege.
> 
> I'm guessing at this stage they're trading on the name more than producing genuine, lasting quality for a reasonable price.
> 
> ...


A few years ago I took my daughter to a thrift store, and while waiting for her to do her shopping I looked around in the men's department. I saw a hideously ugly brown acrylic sweater, checked it out purely out of curiosity, and saw that it was made by Gucci. I bought it for six dollars and sold it on Ebay for over $250. For that amount of money, you can probably buy five or six fully canvassed Hickey Freeman suits (being from Rochester NY, I am partial to Hickey Freeman). The "aspirational" test mentioned previously is a fairly good one, and Gucci is aspirational.

As for California zinfandels, I cannot recommend Scott Harvey's 1869 Zin too highly. Magnificent.


----------



## smithey (Jun 27, 2014)

Established and luxury brands have more at stake and manufacture their products in Italy for example and the rest of Europe where labor cost can be more expensive, hence the seemingly insane price tag. However, as a consumer, you can always choose to buy or not to buy products.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Well it's just due to marketing. They market the clothes as high end, so people perceive them as high end.

I will say I bought one jacket from Gucci and I love it. It always gets compliments when I wear it. But yes it was extremely expensive (I bought it for myself as a birthday present, otherwise I definitely wouldn't have been able to justify the price tag).


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Just a theory, but here it goes:

The fashion brands seem to have a greater following with the ladies (Gucci, Prada, etc.). Everyone on this forum, at some point, has been out looking at clothes only to notice how many men will defer to their wives/girlfriends for opinions on what to get with a range of advice from "do you like this" to outright having the woman pick the clothes. 

I wonder if this is one reason why most men end up buying these things? Just a thought.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Just a theory, but here it goes:
> 
> The fashion brands seem to have a greater following with the ladies (Gucci, Prada, etc.). Everyone on this forum, at some point, has been out looking at clothes only to notice how many men will defer to their wives/girlfriends for opinions on what to get with a range of advice from "do you like this" to outright having the woman pick the clothes.
> 
> I wonder if this is one reason why most men end up buying these things? Just a thought.


I know I read once (more than once) that women account for half of all menswear purchases. Whether accurate or not, the number is not insignificant. This would support your theory.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> Just a theory, but here it goes:
> 
> The fashion brands seem to have a greater following with the ladies (Gucci, Prada, etc.). Everyone on this forum, at some point, has been out looking at clothes only to notice how many men will defer to their wives/girlfriends for opinions on what to get with a range of advice from "do you like this" to outright having the woman pick the clothes.
> 
> I wonder if this is one reason why most men end up buying these things? Just a thought.


Sounds right. How many times have you gone through a dept. store and seen couples in the men's dept., or heard a friend say "my wife took me to..."?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

phyrpowr said:


> Sounds right. How many times have you gone through a dept. store and seen couples in the men's dept., or heard a friend say "my wife took me to..."?


It's remarkable how quickly some men will resort to becoming infants when in that situation. I mean literally infants, where they'll have almost no say in the matter and the wife/girlfriend pretty much dresses them.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> It's remarkable how quickly some men will resort to becoming infants when in that situation. I mean literally infants, where they'll have almost no say in the matter and the wife/girlfriend pretty much dresses them.


Well, they've been hammered with that "women know fashion" and "men are just stupid fanboys" crap from one side (TV sitcoms being the worst offender), and "I ain't got no time for frills" hogwash from the other, so it's little wonder that so many guys just gave up. I was taken to a good men's store from an early age, and I mean like eight years old, and the salesman and owner (Mr. Flowers and Mr. Sugar) felt no compunctions in overriding my Mom's "oh, so cute" ideas, and in helping me learn how a male dresses.

Where is that now? They used to be all over, every town of any size, but these days it's few and far between.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Spex said:


> Can you explain why it makes you feel good, Howard? When someone compliments you on a piece of clothing because it's a brand, what does that mean? Are they complimenting you or the clothes?


They're complementing you on both.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

FLCracka said:


> Howard, which brands do you enjoy wearing.....can you give us some examples?


Izod, Polo, Brooks Brothers just to name a few.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Jovan said:


> Howard, you've been on this forum for a decade. How on earth have you arrived at this conclusion?


Jovan, to be honest I don't know.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

FLCracka said:


> I can assure you that Howard's comments and questions are 100% sincere and free of sarcasm. Again, anyone who has been around here for any period of time understands. You're not the first to have doubts. I can recall a lengthy thread several years ago in which members had a spirited debate over whether Howard was a real person, or a troll-born character that only exists in cyberspace. As I recall, someone even went to the Pathmark store where Howard works to confirm his existence. I, for one, have appreciated Howard's honest commentary and pearls of simple wisdom over the years.
> 
> Jovan does have a bit of a point here, though.


Cracka, I'm not a troll, just trying to fit in with the crowd after a decade. I apologize if my words come off as sarcastic, I'm just trying to explain myself, it is difficult in words.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

What you have posed regarding what you preceived as over price average quality items is nothing new. It's marketing. Knowing 
the market and providing a product that will be successful in that market is what achieves success. Companies spend 
thousands of dollars in marketing and in surveys to determine who will buy what. If you miss the results can disable a company , but if you are correct the gains can be outstanding !
Jeans for years were sold as work clothing , some very bright marketer came up with a great idea , it worked, now jeans are fashion items.
Athletic shoes anther example it to has become a fashion statement. $ 200.00 and up for a pair of basketball shoes. 
The list is endless , smart marketing men and women have made for themselves and their companies millions by simply knowing
and exploiting the market place. It may have all started with breakfast cereals. Breakfast of Champions or Cheerios and the Lone Ranger.
We are all effected by smart marketer's young and old , wise and unwise.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Howard said:


> Cracka, I'm not a troll, just trying to fit in with the crowd after a decade. I apologize if my words come off as sarcastic, I'm just trying to explain myself, it is difficult in words.


Howard you are unique and famous across the menswear forums, don't ever change. :thumbs-up:


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Curiously enough, and I have, I think, remarked on this before, although my work colleagues, male and female, think me well dressed in a general sense, the only times that I've actually been told "you look smart today" are when I've been wearing my only Armani jacket (bought from Ebay). My conclusion can only be that it *does* look smart.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Curiously enough, and I have, I think, remarked on this before, although my work colleagues, male and female, think me well dressed in a general sense, the only times that I've actually been told "you look smart today" are when I've been wearing my only Armani jacket (bought from Ebay). My conclusion can only be that it *does* look smart.


Or, I've found that if I wear sometime stylistically out of my usual attire, people notice and nice people, who want to comment, will say something positive about it. Hence, I think if your Armani jacket is atypical of your clothes, the compliments might be a way of for people to acknowledge the difference in a positive way. That, or it is a really great looking jacket.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Fading Fast said:


> Or, I've found, that if I wear sometime stylistically our of my usual attire, people notice and nice people who want to comment, will say something positive about it. Hence, I think if your Armani jacket is atypical of your clothes, the compliments might be a way of for people to acknowledge the difference in a positive way. That, or it is a really great looking jacket.


I normally reply words to the effect "Are you suggesting that I don't normally?".
It isn't atypical really; I have a rotation of jackets for work, by Zegna, Pal Zieri, Gieves, Canali, Lewin, and two by Cerruti, if the weather isn't too warm, with a variety in linen or linen/silk mix for warm weather. They are all good fits and, to me, very smart, but its only the Armani that has ever got remarks.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Most of the compliments I get are from my wife's friends, but I did get a lot in general on the suit I wore to our wedding (mostly because it was a bolder choice than most grooms would choose; guarantee none of them had ever heard of Belvest) but when I get complimented I know it has a lot more to do with fit and my ability to choose/coordinate colors. And I know that because none of my clothes or shoes, even the few pieces from the makers which are the subject of this thread, are identifiable as being from a particular label. 

The closest thing I consistently wear to a "logo" are Rag & Bone jeans, which have the tiny "rb" stitched in the corner of the back pocket. Most of my dress shirts are, for all intents and purposes, no-name (Tyrwhitt), my short sleeve shirts are all Banana or J. Crew and my every day shoes are RL, Barney's house brand, or a couple pairs of Prada that make good bad weather dress shoes. Even the "brand name" stuff I have (suits, ties, nicer shirts) isn't identifiable unless someone asks me what it is.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> Howard you are unique and famous across the menswear forums, don't ever change. :thumbs-up:


I'm sorry if I don't dress like you all, shirts, ties and suits, I'm just an average Joe who just enjoys dressing up, looking nice and neat.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Howard said:


> I'm sorry if I don't dress like you all, shirts, ties and suits, I'm just an average Joe who just enjoys dressing up, looking nice and neat.


And that's all that ever really mattered Howard. Feeling good about yourself and dressing neat.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

SG_67 said:


> And that's all that ever really mattered Howard. Feeling good about yourself and dressing neat.


Thanks SG. Karma to you. +1.


----------



## Loribyn (Oct 6, 2014)

triklops55 said:


> ... I'm not rich but these are the two areas where I can splurge and feel like a millionaire. I don't buy Prada (although my wife does, *but women's style rules are different than men's)*...


 (my emphasis)

Actually, ladies' style rules are not different to gentlemen's at all, which I why I enjoy reading this forum and eventually joined, even though it is about men's style, for I agree with almost everything that's been said here, and could quote countless examples from women's-wear.

Anyone of taste, regardless of gender, wants a top quality piece, in a superb fit, that is going to last; so called 'fashion' has little to do with it, and the rest is overpriced, over-branded, off-the-rack crap, smothered with obvious, largely tasteless corporate logos -- exactly what you've all been saying.

But then, this is from a lady who _doesn't_ wear Prada, Donna Karan, et cetera, because I wouldn't waste my money. I can't always buy high-end, I admit it, but when I do they had better be wool and leather, *not* polyester and vinyl, and the brand that pads out their range with same will never inspire my custom. My scarves don't have to be Hermes, though some are, and though Bally and vintage Burberry are both found in my wardrobe, their branding has nothing to do with why; while the superfine vintage handbag label that most women today have never heard of (because Miss Sleb, as someone else so rightly termed the species, hasn't carried it on any not-quite-red nylon carpet) - Waldybag - is _my_ handbag of choice ~ my 'arm candy' (to use that allegedly 'hip', god-awful expression!).

My respects gentlemen,

[HR][/HR] "PVC-canvas at crocodile prices -- I don't think so."​


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

"Absurdly Overpriced Poor Quality Clothing"? That's yet another one of my 50 reasons why I sometimes look at secondhand shops for some clothing, where, if you have good eyes, you can find "Absurdly Underpriced High-Quality Clothing" (perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement, but I think that if you're lucky that day, this can be the very case).

-Quetzal


----------



## filbert_turtle (Apr 5, 2014)

This thread can and has gotten very self-congratulatory very quickly, and I do agree in general with everything said here, but there is another layer of dynamics at work in this phenomenon. People associate wealth, incorrectly, with many other qualities. Even we here prefer all the little touches of a more expensive garment: surgeons cuffs or the odd angle of an Oxxford notch. But most people only know brand names and desire these products because they rightly believe it will give others a more favorable opinion of them. Its a classist thing: people trying to build better lives for themselves, whatever tgat means to them, try to leverage the social capital that brands buy them. Its nothing new, its just more symbolic than ever, because for the first time in history most people can afford functionally adequate clothing.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Loribyn, welcome, and feel free to chime in when we get too crazy about "women's ideas of fashion". I know several women who only buy quality and timeless style, and who know a bit about good men's clothes...doesn't stop me from the odd slightly misogynistic remark.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Loribyn, 

Welcome, you and my girlfriend share a similar viewpoint. She avoids all the same nonsense - high fashion, over-priced designer labels - that you do and looks for quality and timeless style. Her frustration is that quality-for-quality, in many, not all, cases, women's clothes are much more expensive than men's. She marvels at the quality I get versus what she can buy for the same money. 

Anyway, always great to have new voices and a woman's perspective.


----------



## espressocycle (Apr 14, 2014)

Status and style. I saw a pair of Prada shoes at Nieman Marcus that looked like nothing else I've seen due to the particular type of corrected leather and coating. If money was absolutely no object, I would have bought them just because they looked cool. Not being wealthy, however, I didn't even consider them when I saw them marked down to $200 at the Last Call a few months later.


----------



## damon54 (Dec 12, 2007)

Here is a curious brand from Italia.
Marina Militare & Aeronautica Militare. Think of the most over the top RLP Polo Jersey with large #'s , throw in a Crest or two 
& Squadron Logo's & now attach this to your Countries Armed Forces. Their collared Golf style shirts sell for 80€ plus & are made in China.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Another egregious example. OK, I've no certainty about the quality, but about the absurd overpricing, absolutely. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/fashion/shopping-at-band-of-outsiders-in-soho.html


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

"Absurdly Overpriced Poor Quality Clothing...... "
That's simple... Hermes ties! Nowhere close to being worth their absurd retail price and utterly flimsy


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

drlivingston said:


> "Absurdly Overpriced Poor Quality Clothing...... "
> That's simple... Hermes ties! Nowhere close to being worth their absurd retail price and utterly flimsy


Well, I kinda disagree. They are very well made IMO, though expensive. But buying Hermes will get you something for your money. The lightness are a sign of quality and something Hermes chooses to do, as I understand it.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Well, I kinda disagree. They are very well made IMO, though expensive. But buying Hermes will get you something for your money. The lightness are a sign of quality and something Hermes chooses to do, as I understand it.


Your disagreement is noted and welcomed. However, it does not alter my position. I am speaking of bows and long ties. I have owned only two Hermes bows and they frayed after minimal use. Yes, I tie and untie properly. They are just weak. As far as the long ties are concerned, the material is prone to fraying and pulls. Admittedly, they are beautiful to look at and have a nice feel. I can think of several brands that are comparable in price but superior in quality and longevity.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

StephenRG said:


> Another egregious example. OK, I've no certainty about the quality, but about the absurd overpricing, absolutely. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/fashion/shopping-at-band-of-outsiders-in-soho.html


Oh, no, you're dead wrong , a corduroy Harrington jacket for $800 is just a terrific bargain, and I..HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
Damn, I thought I could get all the way through that without breaking up.


----------



## Tomayto (Sep 10, 2014)

I'm actually kind of proud of myself that it never dawned on me to look up these ubiquitous fashion brands when I started to properly obsess myself with menswear. Everyone has heard of Gucci, Prada, Armani, etc etc. However, up until this year, I had never heard of many of these "real" menswear companies whose prices are (mostly) justified by their quality. Hell, since I only ever got one Brooks Brothers shirt in a department store once, I used to think that BB only made shirts. I had never even heard of Allen Edmonds, either. Of course, being a college student and all, the law of diminishing returns starts to kick in for me very quickly. 

The main trick here is that the fashion brands go out of the way to advertise their name and associate it with high style. That's because the brand is all they have and, unfortunately to some, all they need to justify their ludicrous prices. For the most part, if you want to find companies who actually focus on the quality of their product, you'll have to do just that: find them yourself. Research them and make up your own mind. It's what I had to do when looking for parts to build my own desktop computer, and it's what I'll have to do begin constructing a proper wardrobe.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Bill's Khakis.


----------



## ridethecliche (Jan 7, 2014)

drlivingston said:


> Your disagreement is noted and welcomed. However, it does not alter my position. I am speaking of bows and long ties. I have owned only two Hermes bows and they frayed after minimal use. Yes, I tie and untie properly. They are just weak. As far as the long ties are concerned, the material is prone to fraying and pulls. Admittedly, they are beautiful to look at and have a nice feel. I can think of several brands that are comparable in price but superior in quality and longevity.


I guess it's like buying a jacket with super light wool. Looks great, but doesn't last as long.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

ridethecliche said:


> I guess it's like buying a jacket with super light wool. Looks great, but doesn't last as long.


^^My point exactly!!


----------



## damon54 (Dec 12, 2007)

Moncler & Commes Des Garcon both have startling price tags.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

DG123 said:


> Bill's Khakis.


ROFL! You'd better be prepared with a better defence than you had with Allen Edmonds.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

While I generally agree that most name/fashion brands are pretty bad, I have to defend Prada. I have a suit, 2 pairs of pants and a pair of shoes, all bought at heavy discount. The suit was marked down heavily at a posh shop in L.A.; the shoes were from Off Fifth (when they had such items); one pair of pants was from a consignment shop (NWT) and the final pants were from Loehmann's. Yes, it is true that I would never ever pay full price for Prada, or even walk into a Prada store, but the products I have are exceptional quality and have lasted several years and are still in my rotation. I have practically beat that suit to death and you can't tell I bought it in 2002 - it is that nice and has stood up very well indeed.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

Nearly all high-end women's shoes. The famous Christian Louboutin red soles that are meant to degrade immediately. However, there are high-end-of-the-low-end brands that are arguably far more overpriced, e.g. Tory Burch shoes, which, despite being available at suburban malls, and being obvious rubbish, have somehow become aspirational. 

10 years A&F was aspirational for teenagers, and was grossly overpriced (an A&F T-shirt is overpriced at any price).


----------



## damon54 (Dec 12, 2007)

Prada may throw their name on a suit but they certainly did not make it.
your Prada is most likely made by Belvest. No shame in that!


----------



## ridethecliche (Jan 7, 2014)

peterc said:


> While I generally agree that most name/fashion brands are pretty bad, I have to defend Prada. I have a suit, 2 pairs of pants and a pair of shoes, all bought at heavy discount. The suit was marked down heavily at a posh shop in L.A.; the shoes were from Off Fifth (when they had such items); one pair of pants was from a consignment shop (NWT) and the final pants were from Loehmann's. Yes, it is true that I would never ever pay full price for Prada, or even walk into a Prada store, but the products I have are exceptional quality and have lasted several years and are still in my rotation. I have practically beat that suit to death and you can't tell I bought it in 2002 - it is that nice and has stood up very well indeed.


Not sure what you paid, but chances are high that you could have done better for the price.

Then again, if it fits and looks good and you could afford it. Kudos!

Some of their shoes cost as much as AS, C&J, Vass. Etc. It's silly.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

ridethecliche said:


> I guess it's like buying a jacket with super light wool. Looks great, but doesn't last as long.


Personally, I think non-super heavyweight (minimum of 400 grams for fresco and worsted and a minimum of 455 grams for other wools and 90s and lower thread count) wool looks and feels much better than that junky super lightweight (under 285 grams and super 100s and higher thread count) wool. Plus, the non-super heavyweight wool will last much longer to far longer than that super lightweight junk.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

damon54 said:


> Prada may throw their name on a suit but they certainly did not make it.
> your Prada is most likely made by Belvest. No shame in that!


Sure, but how much of that is just paying for the name and style? Isn't it just better to go to Belvest directly?


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

I did not know that Belvest made my Prada and that is good news to me. Anyway, here is the pricing: Suit - $699.00; shoes - $169.00; Loehmann's pants (forward pleated, with side tabs) - $179.00 and Consignment pants (single reverse pleat, with a button fly) - $125.00.

I think I did OK. All these look great, are well constructed and have stood up well.


----------

