Epaulet shop - Official Affiliate thread - Page 1247

Very sweet but I don't see Moss Bedford on their site. What pair is it?

^ I believe those are the Bedford cords - you can find them in the same section as the other Rivet chinos. They changed the name of the color on these from Moss to Sand, but they're the same pair.

Bedford cords are great. Tempted by the sand. wj4 wearing them well here.

Correct. The ones I have are the older style when it was still "EP" with metal rivets. Don't quote me on this, but I think the wales on my pair are finer than the ones currently sold.

Thanks for picking up the chinos, and my apologies for the seam issue. Drop us an email: we'll typically put through a $15 partial refund to cover the repair cost on that. It can be fixed by any tailor or dry cleaner, and it's usually very cheap or (sometimes) free.

All of our trousers have a significant amount of hand work, so it's rare but possible to have a mis-stitch on a seam. As long as the hole appears on a seam and not in the middle of the fabric, then it's easy to repair - you can turn the garment inside out and see how this is done.

We're always fighting to put as much value into our products relative to their retail price. With the cost of quality materials and first-world labor, it's always a challenge, but well worth the effort.

As an interesting point, Clothing and Footwear as a whole are actually cheaper now than ever before:

"Americans spent almost $338.1 billion on clothing and footwear in 2010 (data here), which as a share of disposable personal income (data here), was the lowest ever in U.S. history, at only 2.97%. Spending on clothing as a share of income has fallen in 21 out of the last 23 years, from 4.78% in 1988 to less than 3% in both 2009 and 2010. Compared to 1950 when spending on clothing was 9% of income, spending last year was less than one-third that amount, and compared to spending on clothing of 6% of income in 1970, spending last year was half of that share.

In other words, clothing is now cheaper than at any time in history, when measured as a share of disposable income. "

Now, this picture is distorted by the very cheap "fast fashion" that dominates much of the global clothing trade. But if all clothing sold was of the same old-school made in USA quality that we had even up to the mid-80's, then our prices would be much more in line with the mass brands of today.

Here's a personal story to that. I went to Catholic school as a kid and wore a uniform every day. I have clear memories of shopping for dress shirts with my Mom at JC Penny. I remember asking for a dark green shirt in 1989 so that I could look more like Prime Minister Pete Nice from 3rd Bass.

My mother made a big deal that this shirt was $25, which was $5 more than the usual white and blue shirts that I wore.

Nowadays, you can get a dress shirt at JCPenny for $15

It's hard to think of anything else that got cheaper since 1989. When you think how much cars, houses, gas, and food costs now compared to then, it's crazy. They've done this by knocking down the labor and materials costs to its barest bones. I'm sure that my 1989 shirt was made somewhere in the Northeast USA, out of decent fabric. I used to wear the living hell out of those arrow shirts.

(Ari Gold: this wasn't meant to be a huge-ass retort to your post, which was totally valid. I've actually been thinking to post up these thoughts for a while, and your point prompted me to it)

Awe shit! We could have gone out as a crew and hit up the Lotus nightclub in NYC. I would have ordered us bottle service so we could make Grey Goose cosmo's while the first Strokes album comes through the PA.

Sorry about that - we only produce size 28 through special orders these days. Drop us an email anytime if you want to order one. It takes about 4-6 weeks, but the price is the same.


Most likely next week. I'm going to assemble all the possible fabrics tomorrow.

Thanks, and glad that you're so pleased with them! I agree on the side tabs, we're going to use those a lot in the future. I found a perfect American khaki canvas cloth, and we put side tabs on that pant. I also have a rad tone-on-tone gingham short with side tabs too. Both should be here in less than a month.

Excellent, thanks for ordering them! The Forest is a true medium width. I believe that the Detroit is actually Carmina's widest last, but we stay away from that one because of the square-ish toe.

But, the Forest can be ordered in a wide fitting, which we make quite a bit of. The Forest Wide is the widest fit that Carmina offers. It's roughly equivalent to a generous American "E" fitting - like an "E" that you would get from Alden.

All Styleforum members get a 14-day refund policy on any full-price merchandise. It's in my signature, but I know that some guys (me included) have signatures and avatars shut off to make the scrolling faster. But no worries, you can send them back for a full refund up to 14 days after you receive them.

 

Thanks Mike!. No worries about the partial refund, I got it. I really have enjoyed all the Epaulet pieces I've purchased, and will continue to purchase from Ep..

 

And for additional context, we should also consider that $25 in 1989 money is $45.59 in 2012 money, so they haven't just cut their retail prices by $5 or $10 but by a measure of about 2/3. That's pretty damn significant.

Did you give her The Gas Face?

(No disrespect to your moms.)

Hi all,

 

I have ordered the button-down shirts from the recent factory find. I ordered them in small but am thinking that I should change to a medium. This is my first shirt purchase with Epaulet so I am not familiar with the sizing. My chest measurement is 38.5 and shoulder is about 17.5. If this helps, I am about 155lbs and 5'8". Based on the measurement chart on Epaulet website, this should be a no brainer that I should switch to medium, right? because small will be too tight on the chest. Thanks, K.

 

small too tight fo shizzle

Haha!

3rd Bass-related jokes absolutely never get old for me. That group was the greatest. Pete Nice owns a baseball museum in Upstate New York these days. And don't get too jealous, but I'm the proud owner of an Mc Serch alarm clock:

Guys, I'm in need of a quick fit hint. I'm trying to figure out the proper length for my FF tweed walts (I'm a total noob in what concerns more or less dress pants). I threw them on quickly with the navy suede LWBs that had just arrived (hello, Rob ), just to have an idea, I'm not planning on wearing them together  I'm thinking they might lose a bit more length in order to reduce stacking, what do you think? Also, I'm wondering if I should let out the thighs a bit...

Sorry for the poor pic and TIA

 

Yup, too long. Try to find a balance of minimal puddling and enough length to cover your socks.

Went to college with Pete Nice back when he played BBall and wasn't famous. Nice guy too...

Those aren't really that long, but it's more about preference. You can have them hit right at the shoe for no break, but if you plan to wear them w/ various shoes keep in mind that effect how they look. Shorter w/ less break is a little more contemporary, a little more break is more traditional. Sort of depends on your own style.