Random fashion thoughts

if you only knew his history with duds and doodads you'd have thought twice...

pic of jil knit forthcoming

**** i love hookups

hookups are for plebs

hookups are for betas only. alphas have harems

Originally Posted by kojnglsmith

Click to expand...

I have a pretty random question about high-end denim. When I try to explain to people the idea behind paying over $200 for a pair of jeans I generally talk about how they're made using high quality materials and constructions similar to those used before companies like Levi sacrificed quality in order to make jeans as efficiently and quickly as possible--so basically they're made like jeans "used to be made". Their response is invariably to ask , if they cost so much today, how the hell people "back then" could possibly afford them. Can anyone offer any insight? Am I just wrong in my argument?

they didnt buy 6 to 8 pairs every year. they bought one and wore the **** out of them. if they got ripped they patched them up and then wore them some more instead of throwing them out or buying a new one every time a small hole appeared or a new pair became fashionable.

also next time just dont argue about ****. you never create converts unless they're initially open to the idea. you dont have to justify your purchase to anybody

Originally Posted by kojnglsmith

Click to expand...

I have a pretty random question about high-end denim. When I try to explain to people the idea behind paying over $200 for a pair of jeans I generally talk about how they're made using high quality materials and constructions similar to those used before companies like Levi sacrificed quality in order to make jeans as efficiently and quickly as possible--so basically they're made like jeans "used to be made". Their response is invariably to ask , if they cost so much today, how the hell people "back then" could possibly afford them. Can anyone offer any insight? Am I just wrong in my argument?
In the past people spent a greater percentage of their income on clothing than they do today. The more expensive production techniques and materials of the past seemed affordable at the time because everyone was accustomed to paying more than they are today and there were no cheaper options. The situation is analogous to what's happened with food. Average quality of food consumed was higher 100 years ago than it is today. But with cheaper production techniques and lowering of quality achieved via processed foods, few go hungry anymore in the richer countries. Yet ask the average person if they're willing to pay for higher quality meat sold at luxury grocery such as Whole Foods. Most will label it "unaffordable", viewing it in the same light as those $200 jeans. Society has conditioned them to accept McDonnald's and TV dinners as acceptable forms of food that they actually enjoy, so why pay more? But the money they saved will likely still find a home in other high priced products. Perhaps a $200/month iPhone family plan with unlimited messaging for mom, pop, bro, and sis will be viewed as "affordable"? That's $2400 a year-- hardly cheap! If your tribe says you must have something as a normal part of life and there are no cheaper options, you can expect most will pay the price. It is based more on emotion than logic.

The more expensive production techniques and materials also went with significantly cheaper labor. 1) The tailors making these jeans did not live nearly as well as Roy or Daiki for that matter. 2) There were many, many more local sources of clothing, both from individuals and also local textile mills and local sweatshops (!! remember, fair labor practices did not exist in the good old days!), so labor costs were necessarily much lower.

In short though, I think it's silly to try to convince people that $200 denim is worth it because they're like they 'used to be made'. There's very little about the economics (which is what we're talking about when we're talking about price, right?) of Japanese designer jeans that's comparable to the '44 designs they're trying to copy. The fact is they're a luxury item and if you want to convince someone that they're worth it, you can try to convince them that they're more pleasant to wear than any jeans they've ever worn.

Just read through the sufu varsity thread where toj was first debuted. fuuuuck. makes me wish I had found sf/sufu/toj sooner so I could have copped a toj varsity.

Originally Posted by BB1

Click to expand...

In the past people spent a greater percentage of their income on clothing than they do today. The more expensive production techniques and materials of the past seemed affordable at the time because everyone was accustomed to paying more than they are today and there were no cheaper options.

The situation is analogous to what's happened with food. Average quality of food consumed was higher 100 years ago than it is today. But with cheaper production techniques and lowering of quality achieved via processed foods, few go hungry anymore in the richer countries. Yet ask the average person if they're willing to pay for higher quality meat sold at luxury grocery such as Whole Foods. Most will label it "unaffordable", viewing it in the same light as those $200 jeans. Society has conditioned them to accept McDonnald's and TV dinners as acceptable forms of food that they actually enjoy, so why pay more?

But the money they saved will likely still find a home in other high priced products. Perhaps a $200/month iPhone family plan with unlimited messaging for mom, pop, bro, and sis will be viewed as "affordable"? That's $2400 a year-- hardly cheap! If your tribe says you must have something as a normal part of life and there are no cheaper options, you can expect most will pay the price. It is based more on emotion than logic.

+100

Also, I always find it pretty funny how many people have that $200/mo Iphone plan and a $500k+ house, yet refuse to buy clothes more expensive than Eddie Bauer or Gap because they deem anything nicer to be "too expensive."

Originally Posted by Meis

Click to expand...

+100

Also, I always find it pretty funny how many people have that $200/mo Iphone plan and a $500k+ house, yet refuse to buy clothes more expensive than Eddie Bauer or Gap because they deem anything nicer to be "too expensive."
Priorities

Apples to oranges. What you should be looking at is comparative marginal utility.

You also have to take into account the general lack of interest in clothing most people share. Over the last few decades our society has down played the importance of dress codes to the point where it's now ok to attend funerals and business meetings in polos and jeans. It's just so casual now. I blame the baby boomers and the importance they place on "comfort".

Originally Posted by Cool The Kid

Click to expand...

Priorities

not really. It's more cheapness / unwillingness to spend on a certain area. Its not like those people don't still have the $$ left after the iphone+house to buy at least somewhat better clothes.

Originally Posted by snake

Click to expand...

Over the last few decades our society has down played the importance of dress codes to the point where it's now ok to attend funerals and business meetings in polos and jeans. It's just so casual now. I blame the baby boomers and the importance they place on "comfort".

So true. After my graduation from law school I went out for a nice dinner with my family. The 3 of us were all wearing suits. Now I don't think that dressing up to that extent is necessarily for such a place...maybe slacks and a dress shirt???.... but the baby boomers at the table next to us were all wearing stonewashed jeans, trainers, and polos.

they can be blamed for a lot of things, particularly creating a cultural atmosphere emphasizing materialistic obsessions that nobody here is guilty of