# Lacoste Polos--Worth the $$$?



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

My stepson insists on getting Lacoste polo shirts. The damn things cost in the vicinity of $75. I can't see a nickel's worth of difference between them and what I get at Target for $13 or $14. When I raise this topic, he wrathfully proclaims that I am simply too sartorial obtuse to perceive the obviously superior fit, material and workmansip of the the Lacoste. I think he is paying about $60 for that silly crocodile on his chest. I am not much of an aficionado of polo shirts in any event. Anyway, who is closer to the truth here--my boy or me?


----------



## captainjz16 (Nov 20, 2005)

the new lacoste shirts have nothing in common with their older izod label. the new company is located in france and their polos are hand made. at least that what they told me at the products meeting when i worked at Nordstrom.


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

I was just about to start a thread on polo shirts so this is timely.

I have had a number of Lacostes over the years and tend to agree with your son, although of course one is partly paying the the cachet associated with Lacoste. I have found them to be a far superior product to anything you will find at Target and a great deal more stylish.

I have also been through a number of Ralph Lauren polos which I liked - when I was in Britain they had a cool Cape Cod sort of reputation, not sure if that translates over here.

Personally I like Fred Perry polos. Great range of colours, superb fit and style. They have a bit of a rough following in the UK, being associated with skinheads and football hooligans, but I get a good reception wearing them here in Canada. I usually wear them with khakis or jeans, untucked. Probably not to the taste of everyone here but a good casual look. I may throw a blazer on to to keep warm and smarten the look up a bit.

------------------


----------



## gmac (Aug 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by gmac_
> 
> I was just about to start a thread on polo shirts so this is timely.
> 
> ...


------------------


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

The fit is a little different from standard-- enough for me, anyway. Also, the ones made in France are famous for wearing like iron. Not sure if this also applies to the Peruvian ones, which are too new to comment on. They do come with a MOP button, and a nice variety of standard colors and a bunch that rotate through year by year.

So the short answer is, I think they're worth $75. Now, if I were still growing and likely to outgrow them in 6 months, or if I were less long-waisted, then I'd say that it would be worth looking for an alternate source.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

I posted a lengthy post some time ago, how Lacoste dropped their quality significantly in tandem with move to Peru and a marketing blitz (since your nephew knows about them it's obviously working).

To summarize: the current shirts are not on par with old "made in France" kind. Some of the old (15+ yr old) shirts are better looking than some new ones that went through 2 washings.

I still think they are better than Target brand, but by no menas worth $75 - if you can find some old stock, that's a different story.


----------



## nerdykarim (Dec 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> Anyway, who is closer to the truth here--my boy or me?


I think you're closer to the truth. In my opinion (which is probably not very well founded since I haven't actually owned one of these shirts), you're paying for the name, but you also get a slimmer fit (and MOP buttons, according to another poster).

Is it worth almost $60 over the alternative? I think not, unless you really value the slim fit and that little alligator (which a lot of people do). But to justify the vast difference in terms of quality seems difficult for me to understand.

...reminds me of middle school, when I tried to argue that Tommy Hilfiger t-shirts were worth $30 because of superior quality. I'd like to think I've learned my lesson.


----------



## P.J. (Jan 24, 2006)

Honestly, I have never worn them. I could never get past that ugly logo on the chest. Also, I would not want to be mistaken for the groups of people I usually see wearing them.

I do own a number of RL polos though. I can barely stand that logo either, but I usually get them for 25-30 dollars and I like the cut and material.

Also, I don't see why anyone would want to spend that much on a polo. To me, that is like spending as much on socks as shoes. 

One of my favorite polos are made by St. Johns Bay. They can be picked up at JCPenny. They are much better than the Target ones. I have one that is a few years old and the collar has not turned up and the color still looks good.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by P.J._
> 
> Honestly, I have never worn them. I could never get past that ugly logo on the chest.


But...but...he's _le crocodile!_

Seriously: Jan, we all know "worth" is on the torso of the beholder. It's been a while since I've even see a Lacoste polo, and they've evidently changed, so I don't know the answer. What I do know is this: if the little fart is paying for his own shirts, the that's more money for the Allen Edmonds outlet!


----------



## tricket (Aug 23, 2003)

A & F polos feature higher collars than the conventional RL, Fred Perry or lacoste polos and pair will with sports coats or blue blazers, IMHO.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Teacher_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The "little fart" is incessantly mooching money off me. Otherwise he is mooching money off his mother, which often as not comes out of my hide ultimately!

About the only consolation is that I am pretty much A-E'd out! There have been at least a half-dozen units introduced in the Fall 2005 and Spring 2006 collections that I should have liked to have added to my wardrobe. Unfortunately (or fortunately, as the case may be), neither the #2 last nor the new #8 last fit well on my feet. In any event, finding closet space for another half-dozen pairs of A-Es would present a serious logistical problem. As it now stands, about the only things in the current A-E lineup that I find somewhat appealing would be the Shelton in burgundy and black and the Wilbert in caramel. Some of the recently discontinued numbers have some appeal. However, in 15 or 20 years when I am lying on my deathbed reviewing my life and thinking of the things I left undone that I ought to have done, somehow I don't think passing on the Slayton in chestnut or the Bergland in merlot will rank too high!

I am pretty sure the bulk of my sartorial $$$ in the next couple of years will be going to Kowloon (W.W. Chan) rather than Cabazon.


----------



## Drinking and Drafting (Jun 23, 2005)

I think they are probably worth $60, not the $72 they charge for them now. I have enjoyed the Vineyard Vines polos lately, they are comparable in quality (made in Peru), feature MOP buttons and are in some nice colors, nowhere near as vibrant as some of the Lacoste shirts, which is a good thing.
https://www.vineyardvines.com/index...egoryID/e34da889-9e98-4589-a99a-bfe8e07fd684/
I like Perlis polos as well, I get a lot of compliments and questions about the little red crawfish on my shirt. I'm not sure where they are made now, Peru I believe, but they were previously made here in South Carolina and were pretty good quality. They are not as nice as Lacoste or VV, and feature horn buttons, but are fairly cheaper than the other brands
https://www.perlis.com/index.php?cPath=1_2
I have not been really impressed with Burberry polos. I like the novacheck inside the lapel and the equestrian knight logo but they quality is not near the level of the asking price, they just aren't very soft. Nor are they very long, not good for a tall guy like myself. 
I wonder if Barbour polos are much the same as Burberry's given their similar design and history.
Bobby Jones makes some nice polos (and some hideous designs as well), and are of superior quality to all else I have tried but the fine cotton makes the shirts a bit shiny, which I don't prefer.

_Until a man is 25, he still believes, somewhere deep in his mind, that if the circumstances were right, he could be the baddest motherf***er in the world._

- Snowcrash, Neil Stephenson


----------



## nerdykarim (Dec 13, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Drinking and Drafting_
> 
> I think they are probably worth $60, not the $72 they charge for them now.


They actually go on sale quite often, now, and can also be found at Marshalls/TJ Maxx/etc. in the $30-$40 range. if you keep an eye on deal sites like slickdeals or fatwallet, someone will usually post when there's a deal on 'em.


----------



## upstarter (Dec 3, 2005)

Who make sthe best logo-less polo for under $40 ($35 is better)?

Thanks


----------



## random102 (Jul 12, 2005)

J. Crew makes decent polos. Their fabric is not up to Lacoste or RLPL but they can also be had for like $10 on sale. Plus no logo.



> quote:_Originally posted by upstarter_
> 
> Who make sthe best logo-less polo for under $40 ($35 is better)?
> 
> Thanks


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> The "little fart" is incessantly mooching money off me. Otherwise he is mooching money off his mother, which often as not comes out of my hide ultimately!


I don't normally give parenting advice, Jan, but it sounds to me like the "little fart" needs a swift size-nine attitude adjustment!


----------



## Tomasso (Aug 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Drinking and Drafting_
> 
> Bobby Jones makes some nice polos , and are of superior quality to all else I have tried but *the fine cotton makes the shirts a bit shiny*, which I don't prefer.


Bobby Jones also offers polo's in a pique knit, which does not have the shiny finish. I also like the fact that the front of the shirt is not branded, only a tasteful signature in script of the same color, on the left sleeve.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Teacher_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Size 13D, actually!


----------



## andrei67 (Dec 7, 2004)

I bought half a dozen of Lacoste polos some ten years back in their shop in Moscow and they do wear well (but they were genuinely made in France). Actually my other favourite is Fred Perry.


----------



## ThomasGreenC (Aug 25, 2005)

You don't have to pay $72 for one, nobody should. At the end of a season various stores put them on sale. I have purchased some for as little as $33.


----------



## topcatny (Feb 24, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by ThomasGreenC_
> 
> You don't have to pay $72 for one, nobody should. At the end of a season various stores put them on sale. I have purchased some for as little as $33.


If you have a Sam's Club nearby, see if they have any. I've seen tables full for around $47.00 recently.


----------



## shuman (Dec 12, 2004)

If he wears a size XL, we may be able to work something out. I have some Lacoste shirts only been worn once or not at all, that I was going to put on Ebay, but would love them to go to a good home, so am going to post on the Sales Forum. The were all purchased brand new at a local dept. store. As discussed on this forum a while ago, Lacoste changed their sizing a few years ago,and they claim a size 8 is a XXL, but to me it fits like an XL. I have about 5 shirts, and will take a picture and post them when I have time, if anyone is interested. Thanks.


----------



## Hanseat (Nov 20, 2004)

Let me say first that I have never purchased a Lacoste in the US. I have bought several in Germany however that were 'made in France', the last as recent as december. At least the made in France still deserve their excellent reputation, and since they have changed the cut to fit leaner people better, there's nothing better out there for me. I have some that are almost 7 years old and still look great (got some character by now in that there is some fading on the placket, but that's absolutely it- for a polo I have abused in every conceivable way [maybe not every...]: Tennis, beach and lots and lots of launderings). I see the same with my father's, which are a lot older than mine. Great product- it just feels right because it's not as soft as a RL!

Speaking of RL- they're nowhere near the quality of Lacost- the colors fade quickly, badly sewn-on plastic buttons and the collar looks frayed after a few washings. Can be had for a lot less though.

Overall I would say though- go with the croc. I wish the world were full with so many products that are truly that much worty the investment!

Disclaimer: This goes for 'made in France' Lacoste's, don't know about Peru. See it as an investment.


----------



## tripreed (Dec 8, 2005)

At least your stepson wants wear nice clothes instead of looking like a homeless person like a large number of kids in his age group.

Trip


----------



## SartoNYC (Feb 22, 2005)

JLibourel, 

Of course youâ€™re right! Itâ€™s a $15 shirt and a $60 croc. 

Since I absolutely HATE wearing any kind of label, I contacted the wholesaler OUTER BANKS and bought a number of heavy pique shirts and love 'me, the best quality I've seen, and sans logo!

As a younger man your stepson may well wish to show that he too has the insouciance to wear the croc, or the polo player, but as he matures and gets a better sense of himself and his own style, he will undoubtedly follow in your footsteps.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Regarding the quality of Lacoste. I believe the new made in Peru are light years ahead of the Izod-Lacoste shirts that flooded the US during the pre-Polo RL years.

In fact, the poor quality and irregular sizing of those shirts helped lead their demise and gave RL a foothold. Remember how his shirts in '81 and '82 seemed so much better than Izod?

What folks here must understand is this: mass-manufactured clothing is ungodly expensive to make in advanced countries. Once a brand is successful, their domestic suppliers can not keep up with the volume, and quality drops as well. And maybe not with shoes or suits, but sometimes even better quality can be had in smaller countries because the labor skills are widely available to do it.


----------



## slim shady (Sep 26, 2005)

Like many of those on this board, I'm not a big fan of logos emblazoned onto clothes. I did buy several Lacoste polos in the past year, though. The reason is simply because of the fit.

I'm rather slim, and I wear either the Size 2 or Size 3 Lacoste polo depending on the style (one has a longer tail than the other). The shirts fit very well for my physique compared to other brands I've tried in the past.

I do also like the Fred Perry polos.

Nordstrom makes a brand they call Pure Stuff, and I found these to fit very well. (I don't know if all Nordstrom polos fit like these since I haven't bought any from them since.) The ones I bought were on sale for about $20 during one of their Half-Yearly sales about a year ago.

To me, fit is important, so I'm willing to spend a bit more. But I'd still buy the Lacoste only when they're on sale.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

To clarify (any) confusion,

Izod labeled polos were NOT made by Lacoste, but by Izod under name/logo licencing deal, and were terrible shirts. They were ways below the qulaity of Lacoste then, and below their current "Peru" oferrings too.



> quote:_Originally posted by I_Should_Be_Working_
> 
> Regarding the quality of Lacoste. I believe the new made in Peru are light years ahead of the Izod-Lacoste shirts that flooded the US during the pre-Polo RL years.
> 
> ...


----------



## JBZ (Mar 28, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by upstarter_
> 
> Who make sthe best logo-less polo for under $40 ($35 is better)?
> 
> Thanks


I'm actually really impressed with the LL Bean polo. Well constructed with very thick fabric. The base price is something like $17.50. They probably don't have the range of colors you would get from Lacoste or Polo, but they have all of the basics. The only warning I would give is that they are cut pretty full (I am 6'2" and 185 pounds and I take a medium). Quality wise for the price, however, I think they're tough to beat.

With regard to Vineyard Vines polos, I've had a bad experience. Thin fabric and color that ran significantly after just one wash. The ones I purchased definitely didn't have MOP buttons. Perhaps their quality has improved.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

I basically liked the Bean cotton/linen herringbone polo, but the buttons didn't hold up so well.

Outer Banks does a nice job-- I usually see them logo'd with sailing or golf-type embroidery so they might mostly be wholesaled.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by hreljan_
> 
> To clarify (any) confusion,
> 
> Izod labeled polos were NOT made by Lacoste, but by Izod under name/logo licencing deal, and were terrible shirts. They were ways below the qulaity of Lacoste then, and below their current "Peru" oferrings too.


Ok, so were the old Chemese Lacoste (SP?) that were labled in sizes 'Patron', 'Grand Patron' made in France. Were these before the Izods?
Cheers


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Before, during, and after. Izods were the US down-market option.


----------



## bigCat (Jun 10, 2005)

Chemise Lacoste labeled ones should be the French ones. Even during Izod years you could purcase the real ones outside of US.



> quote:_Originally posted by mpcsb_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## M. Kirk (Aug 11, 2005)

Patagonia makes a great polo shirt. They are a little on the heavy side but, IMHO, the best made polo shirt for the $$$$$ available today.

https://www.patagonia.com/za/PDC?OP...5&sku=52823&ws=false&promo_cat=&promo_cat_id=


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> My stepson insists on getting Lacoste polo shirts. The damn things cost in the vicinity of $75. I can't see a nickel's worth of difference between them and what I get at Target for $13 or $14. When I raise this topic, he wrathfully proclaims that I am simply too sartorial obtuse to perceive the obviously superior fit, material and workmansip of the the Lacoste. I think he is paying about $60 for that silly crocodile on his chest. I am not much of an aficionado of polo shirts in any event. Anyway, who is closer to the truth here--my boy or me?


In your step-son's defense, aren't you saying what others might say to you about MTM shirts. Sure, you can get an all cotton shirt at JCPennys, does that mean the quality is as good as a MTM shirt? You like your nice clothes, so does he. Encourage his desire to wear quality clothes and it will carry over to when he is older.


----------



## nole_guapo (Jan 20, 2006)

I actually love my Lacoste's....They have lasted a veeeerrrry loong time, and still look good.....Can't say the same for most of my RL golf shirts....Yes they are mostly still alive, but are horribly faded...Just my two cents....

"A countryman between two lawyers is like a fish between two cats...." B. Franklin


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I appreciate the sentiments. I might mention that I have both custom tailored shirts and a goodly number Costco BD dress shirts in my wardrobe. I think the issue here is not encouraging him to wear quality. He needs little encouragement for that, believe me! Rather, I am trying to inculcate in the dear lad an ability to differentiate between seeking genuine quality and mere label snobbery, as well as a sense of value shopping. If I thought the Lacoste polos were worth the extra $60 over the Target ones, then I wouldn't necessarily fault his choice. In point of fact, the damned Lacoste shirts have not been very satisfactory. A number of his have discolored after the first or second wearing from sweat and deodorant and just don't impress me as being very colorfast. I have had no such problems with my cheap Target polos.


----------



## Tomasso (Aug 17, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by JLibourel_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good luck, you've got you work cut out for you. I've given up. Labels rule their adolescent lives. It's all about fitting in with their group, mind you I seen this behavior in adults as well.


----------



## Trying (Feb 21, 2006)

I would never buy one of them regardless of price or quality...I can't stand that ugly logo on the front.


----------



## Russ (Feb 20, 2006)

Last week I'd intended to begin my participation in this fine forum by starting a thread on the topic of Lacoste polos, but never got around to posting. I'm glad I waited! 

I love polo shirts, and wear them almost daily, at work and at home. I started purchasing "Peruvian" Lacoste polos two years ago and so far, so good. The colors start to fade, slowly, after half a dozen washings, until they have a nice, lived in look. My first purchase has been with me 18 months, has seen at least 30 washings, and still looks quite presentable. The weave is light, and breathes well. It's too short to tuck in, but is a great polo for a summer weekend. It isn't worth $72 to me, but many Lacoste retailers offer clearance sales on the seasonal colors after Christmas and Father's Day, which brings the price into a more attractive $54-57 range. 

I also have a RL polo, purchased from an outlet store. Not bad for $40, but the arm holes are too wide.

Several years ago Land's End used to make very good, very inexpensive mesh polo shirts. I still have a few, now ratty, that have endured weekly washings for over five years. The quality of the $19 Land's End polos I purchased two years ago isn't as good, with collars that pilled and warped after only a few washings. Two weeks ago I purchased a $22 LE performance mesh polo, which is chemically treated to resist wear. It's too early to tell about longevity (FWIW the shirt looks brand new after three washings), but the chemicals used on the fabric itch and burn a bit. I wear this to work with an undershirt, which eliminates the itching, but won't buy any more. I'll be looking into several of the suggestions posted above as I try to replace my aging collection of LE polos.


----------



## LabelKing (Sep 3, 2002)

But doesn't your stepson also have a fondness for A&F?

*'Naturally, love's the most distant possibility.'*

*Georges Bataille*


----------



## manicturncoat (Oct 4, 2004)

I like Le Tigre


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by LabelKing_
> 
> But doesn't your stepson also have a fondness for A&F?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, yes! Not long ago he walked into the South Coast A&F and was offered a job on the spot! He evidently has the "look" they want...and he is indeed a good-looking young fellow if I do say so myself.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

What was that "look"? Was he naked?


----------



## auto (Feb 28, 2006)

I wore them as a kid. At my prep school, they were damn-near the unofficial uniform. Then came the early 1980s preppie craze and suddenly everyone was wearing them. That's when I stopped.

To me, only preppies wear them. That little alligator is the whole point. Are they better shirts than RL, Brooks, Perry -- who cares?

It's kind of funny that on this site people are claiming that LLBean or Target makes shirts that are every bit as good as Lacoste or better values for the money. 

I thought we're all clothes-obsessed fops and dandies for whom bang- for-the-buck concerns are irrelevant. We want the best and we're prepared to pay to get it. To hear someone say Target's polos are just as good -- wow.

What next -- is someone going to argue that because $15 dress shirts from Costco are functionally the same as Borrelli, we're all wasting our money if we pay more?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

> quote:_Originally posted by auto_
> 
> What next -- is someone going to argue that because $15 dress shirts from Costco are functionally the same as Borrelli, we're all wasting our money if we pay more?


Well, in point of fact I AM wearing one of my Costco button-downs (except it only cost $13 or $14 back when I bought it). The sad fact is, a goodly percentage of my co-workers would neither notice or appreciate the difference between the Costco shirt and the Borelli.

However, the Borelli is indubitably a much finer garment than the Costco. This seems a lot more open to question in the case of the Lacoste vs. Target polos...or so it seems to me. Whether the extra cost of the Borelli over the Costco is worth it would depend on the amount of disposable income available to you and how badly you wanted the Borelli. I am just glad I am able to get these Costco shirts that enable me to turn myself out pretty decently at minimal expense. And, yes, I do have better shirts (mostly W.W. Chan) for when I really want to try hard. Nothing so fine (or pricey) as Borelli, however.


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

[/quote]
Good luck, you've got you work cut out for you. I've given up. Labels rule their adolescent lives. It's all about fitting in with their group, mind you I seen this behavior in adults as well.
[/quote]

Labels rule all of our lives. Who amoungst us wouldn't want to show off a RLPL or Kiton, especially if we are in the right company who would know what they are. We love labels and we pay for the status that label affords us.


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

> quote:_Originally posted by Trenditional_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hand to God, I really dislike logos. They break up the look of the garment, and sometimes it looks like one is wearing them _just to_ show off (especially if that person is head-to-toe logos). I've passed on many a great deal because of logos.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

*Negative!*

Absolutely not. Why would one pay $79.50 for a polo made in El Salvador in order to be accounted among the chav circles?


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Is it still true that Lacoste polo shirts sold in France are still _made_ there?


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

1. I wouldn't put money on it.
2. In answer to the OP's original question, in a pig's eye!
3. For the money put out, the quality of the material provided by Land's End is unsurpassed.
4. Frankly, given how much strain and stress I put on my polo's (read golf shirts, I refuse to buy a shirt without a pocket!) in the garden, the shop and especially in the kitchen, I put Duluth Trading Company at the top of the list. My only complaint with them is the limited choice of colors.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Strange how these ancient threads get resurrected! Just in the interests of clarity, I want to state that my remarks about Target's polos referred to the old "Cherokee" polos made in the Dominican Republic. The newer "Merona" line made in Indonesia are not nearly as nice. I used to think Target had some pretty nice duds for the money, especially in casual attire like khakis, polos, etc. I even would have sprung for one of their khaki cotton suits had they made jackets in my size. I fear, however, they have taken the dismal route of cutting quality to keep a very low price point. 

Any future apparel of that sort I may wish to buy in my comparatively few remaining years on this earth, I'll probably get from Lands End, as Oldsarge recommends above. LE seems to offer a very good quality/cost ratio.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Interesting. In the last few years of shopping, I have found Merona to be of a far higher quality than Cherokee, although both are bottom-barrel dept. store labels. Some halfway decent items have been marketed under the Merona label at Target, though. (Search "Targyle" socks) Aside from that, LE is a safe bet for reasonable quality at reasonable prices (especially with their discounts). 

Going by your post, I assume "old" Cherokee to be different than what is produced under that label in the last few years. These days, I find Puritan (Walmart) surpasses it in quality.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Nope... A lot of money to be paying for a diddy green alligator on the front. I had a couple of Lacoste shirts in 1986, but not now.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Taken Aback said:


> Interesting. In the last few years of shopping, I have found Merona to be of a far higher quality than Cherokee, although both are bottom-barrel dept. store labels. Some halfway decent items have been marketed under the Merona label at Target, though. (Search "Targyle" socks) Aside from that, LE is a safe bet for reasonable quality at reasonable prices (especially with their discounts).
> 
> Going by your post, I assume "old" Cherokee to be different than what is produced under that label in the last few years. These days, I find Puritan (Walmart) surpasses it in quality.


I haven't seen any items under the "Cherokee" label lately (not that I've been looking hard). I thought that perhaps Target had dropped the name because the Indian tribe had protested, the Indians being more sensitive about that sort of thing these days.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

The brand still exists, and is apparently sold elsewhere in the world as well.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Some clothing is sold under the 'Cherokee' brand by Tesco in the UK, usually lady's and children's items.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Well, the Lacoste "fitted" (whatever it's called) actually fits some people pretty good and there aren't too many substitutes. RL and J Crew are the only two I can think of.

Other than that, they never go on sale so yes, overpriced.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

They are still the original. No other brand offers that. 

And since they are good quality as well, I wouldn't consider them overpriced. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## TRUTRO (Jun 8, 2011)

I find that considering the quality and workmanship of Lacoste, I have some very old ones and some recent ones as I tend to wear them everyday during the summer unless its a very formal event and they all look brand new without a single thread coming loose. They also look great with a suit and give you a very comfortable and casual look for the workplace, especially in the summer when ties can be cumbersome. due to this I find that not only are Lacostes priced fairly but that they could get away with charging even more.


----------



## euroman (Feb 26, 2006)

I have worn Lacoste for a while, Ralph Lauren (Polo) for more than 10 years and lately I shifted to Brooks Brothers. Not too expensive (they sometimes have deals where you get 3 for the price of 2) and they fit very well. They seem most comfortable to wear. And the quality is good.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I picked up three Lacoste polos on 3 for 2 a couple of years ago and at that price was reasonably satisfied. I think they can look particularly good if you have the colouring to wear the stronger colours they offer (which I dont...)

There is a lesser quality fabric version which i see knocking around at airports at steep prices (though apparently 'duty free') so buyer beware


----------



## Avers (Feb 28, 2006)

I think Lacoste polos are overpriced, I'd rather get something along the lines of Polo RL on sale.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Leighton said:


> Well, the Lacoste "fitted" (whatever it's called) actually fits some people pretty good and there aren't too many substitutes. RL and J Crew are the only two I can think of.
> 
> Other than that, they never go on sale so yes, overpriced.


One may currently buy them on sale at Lord & Taylor for 25% off. There is an additional discount for opening a charge account.

https://www.lordandtaylor.com/


----------



## qtlaw24 (Nov 28, 2007)

I enjoy the Lacoste polos because they have a better cut for thin people and their collar and placket are more proportional (Lauren Polos collars are too big IMHO.)


----------

