or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Random fashion thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Random fashion thoughts - Page 4701

post #70501 of 97791

happy new years fellow fashion victim :)

post #70502 of 97791
I want a pair of UGG boots *facepalm*
post #70503 of 97791

1000

 

 

for a sufu thread

post #70504 of 97791
anyone else take issue with paying for designer wares based on the 'build quality' aspect? i've come to understand why someone/I would pay a full retail price that's fairly high for a more niche brand label when it comes to either uniqueness, so there's just better design there or interesting features, etc, and then the pure economics of higher costs associated with creating those designs in everything from their time/creativity to interesting materials to smaller production runs, etc... but I've owned stuff ranging from the Gap and H&M to the mid-level guys like W&H, Ervell, etc and nothing's every really reached a stage where it's being worn down that the 'quality' differences are evident. Like if I owned one pair of jeans, in theory I'd only realize after 6-12 months that my Gap ones are junk and fell apart while my APC's would only show wear after a year, and then my Japanese repros are still holding up after 2-3 years (I don't own any of these jeans, just hypothetical), but nowadays I have such a large rotation of stuff and live such a low activity lifestyle that nothing seems to really get any real wearing that durability becomes a factor. So while I buy stuff for good cuts, features, fabrics, etc, buying it for durability seems like a moot point... I mean if I have 8 pairs of jeans and 10-15 other pairs of general pants, am I really going to see that the ones I bought are fading in better than the ones I could have bought? I'm not convinced. And when it comes to fashion items, even in a general public sort of way of 5 year trends, I'm more likely to sell or donate something because I'm just tired of wearing it long before it becomes an item that's actually worn out and needs to be replaced... I've reached a point where my wardrobe is just so full of stuff that even if i find some of it boring, I really can't justify buying another shirt becuase I have 30 practically new looking ones right here and they barely get worn...


anyone know what I'm talking about?
post #70505 of 97791
Not really, but it looks like you've opted for quantity over quality and are now bored with what you have.
post #70506 of 97791
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master-Classter View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
anyone else take issue with paying for designer wares based on the 'build quality' aspect? i've come to understand why someone/I would pay a full retail price that's fairly high for a more niche brand label when it comes to either uniqueness, so there's just better design there or interesting features, etc, and then the pure economics of higher costs associated with creating those designs in everything from their time/creativity to interesting materials to smaller production runs, etc... but I've owned stuff ranging from the Gap and H&M to the mid-level guys like W&H, Ervell, etc and nothing's every really reached a stage where it's being worn down that the 'quality' differences are evident. Like if I owned one pair of jeans, in theory I'd only realize after 6-12 months that my Gap ones are junk and fell apart while my APC's would only show wear after a year, and then my Japanese repros are still holding up after 2-3 years (I don't own any of these jeans, just hypothetical), but nowadays I have such a large rotation of stuff and live such a low activity lifestyle that nothing seems to really get any real wearing that durability becomes a factor. So while I buy stuff for good cuts, features, fabrics, etc, buying it for durability seems like a moot point... I mean if I have 8 pairs of jeans and 10-15 other pairs of general pants, am I really going to see that the ones I bought are fading in better than the ones I could have bought? I'm not convinced. And when it comes to fashion items, even in a general public sort of way of 5 year trends, I'm more likely to sell or donate something because I'm just tired of wearing it long before it becomes an item that's actually worn out and needs to be replaced... I've reached a point where my wardrobe is just so full of stuff that even if i find some of it boring, I really can't justify buying another shirt becuase I have 30 practically new looking ones right here and they barely get worn...

anyone know what I'm talking about?

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me you are conflating some different arguments/assumptions here. You say you understand paying higher price for unique design, just not "durability." But by the end of your post, you have made it clear durability isn't an issue, which says to me you should keep buying things for the designs you like, and then I don't know what's left except incredulity at the pricing.

If you're simply questioning the retail prices of expensive basics, then yes, they're ridiculous and unjustifiable. Look at new-season drops at Mr. Porter: A cotton-blend Burberry Prorsum bomber is now $2400, which was the price of "very expensive" leathers less than five years ago; an unlined Gucci sportcoat of pure viscose is $1450. Those are not prices for anyone but the reckless wealthy to pay, and they certainly aren't going to be fully justified by any standard of construction or durability. You only buy something like that for the design, and to say otherwise is in most cases to deceive yourself.

You end with "I really can't justify buying another shirt" -- but who's pushing you to? Buy a shirt when you need one or you see one you really like whether you need it or not if it's something you can afford. Then you amass a closet of shirts which you actually like and theoretically need, or at least use.

It becomes easier by the day to get caught in the current of general, mindless consumerism, and that's no accident -- all the "unjustified" portions of the retail prices are poured back into advertising to convince you to buy more.
post #70507 of 97791
Designer clothing is generally less durable than mall brands. But, you know, it's nicer.
Also I think one should live life in such a way that shirts get ruined pretty frequently.
post #70508 of 97791
23 pairs of pants? My goodness.
post #70509 of 97791
Happy new years, folks
post #70510 of 97791
I posted this on Harajuju, but I'll post it here too:

One thing that's important to discuss is that quality is not always correlative with durability. Quality is a difficult thing to define and I think it's going to differ from person to person. For example, I think we can all agree that fast-fashion clothing is bad quality, but how do we define something that is good quality? Is something like a very thin silk low quality simply because it is not durable?

Quality, for me, can generally be traced to either two things, depending on the type of material.

1. For "natural" materials, such as leather, is it high enough quality that treatments haven't been applied to mask its poor appearance? Does it have the traits which we would generally desire, such as the appearance of a real flesh, thickness, a lack of crinkling?

2. For processed materials, like woven fabrics, coated/treated fabrics, synthetic materials, does the processing show a high level of care and attention to detail? Is the end result visually beautiful under close inspection? For materials from which we can expect some level of durability, have measures been taken to ensure the maximum durability?

And then there are things that we can measure more easily, such as the quality of the stitching, symmetry, etc. But even then, sometimes we can lose things like symmetry depending on the way the item was constructed. Hand-made items often have more "imperfections", but are they lower quality?

Buying clothes that will last for a long time based on durability is a mistake, IMO. Inevitably, even the highest quality clothing are prone to defects or accidents. Some defects simply aren't acceptable (for example, my co-worker's Rick Owens boots had a peeling sole after just a month of wear), but things like stitching ripping along the seam, or small holes/tears just happen – that's the nature of something that you wear on your body every day.

When I buy something for its quality, it's not so that it will look the same five years from now as the day I bought it. Even if I think that would be nice, it's not realistic. I buy it for a quality material that looks nice now and will age well, and I buy it for the quality of its design. Quality and design are not separate concepts as your post seems to indicate. Lets take these Carol Christian Poell boots, for example (no particular reason for this example except I saw them recently and I like them):



If you took this exact same design and used low quality leather and treatments, the value of the shoe would be entirely absent. Because the beauty of it stems from the combination of high quality materials and good design. The material is a part of the design. The quality and the design are inseparable because they are one in the same.
post #70511 of 97791
regarding being tired of something long before it wears out: I know some people buy clothing expecting to own it until it "wears out." Just remember that it takes a long time to get there with some garments, and it may not happen that way, especially with unusual pieces. So be OK with getting rid of something before that point.
post #70512 of 97791
Quote:
Originally Posted by conceptual 4est View Post

1000



for a sufu thread

is this a bootskakke?
post #70513 of 97791
I am hanging on to my shit forever.
post #70514 of 97791
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTribe View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me you are conflating some different arguments/assumptions here. You say you understand paying higher price for unique design, just not "durability." But by the end of your post, you have made it clear durability isn't an issue, which says to me you should keep buying things for the designs you like, and then I don't know what's left except incredulity at the pricing.
If you're simply questioning the retail prices of expensive basics, then yes, they're ridiculous and unjustifiable. Look at new-season drops at Mr. Porter: A cotton-blend Burberry Prorsum bomber is now $2400, which was the price of "very expensive" leathers less than five years ago; an unlined Gucci sportcoat of pure viscose is $1450. Those are not prices for anyone but the reckless wealthy to pay, and they certainly aren't going to be fully justified by any standard of construction or durability. You only buy something like that for the design, and to say otherwise is in most cases to deceive yourself.
I'm not sure what I'm conflating here. Basically I'm trying to lay out a number of possible reasons why someone would pay more for a particular item. So it could be that it's got a more interesting design and they're paying for creativity, or better quality in terms of materials and construction, or wanting to be associated with the brand/lifestyle, or higher costs because of limited production volumes and distribution, etc. And the argument I'm putting forth, is that I don't understand how anyone can believe they're paying more because of the items quality of materials (as they relate only to durability) or construction. When I look at what I own in terms of rotation time and lifestyle, which I'm assuming is similar to most of you, I've rarely gotten rid of something because it was actually no longer functional (I'm not talking homeless level of function where pants are pants)... I'm not questioning people buying expensive items purely because of the brand where it's obvious to anyone that it's in no way related to the quality etc. Are people who pay the same money for CCP/Rick/KVA jeans etc thinking they're getting something that's 'better' than someone paying the same money for a Gucci pair of sweatpants?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTribe View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
You end with "I really can't justify buying another shirt" -- but who's pushing you to? Buy a shirt when you need one or you see one you really like whether you need it or not if it's something you can afford. Then you amass a closet of shirts which you actually like and theoretically need, or at least use. It becomes easier by the day to get caught in the current of general, mindless consumerism, and that's no accident -- all the "unjustified" portions of the retail prices are poured back into advertising to convince you to buy more
.
As for your point about consumerism, well yes, that's part of where the thought came from. I was just looking through the thrifting thread and new purchases thread as well as WAYWT and it always amazes me how much stuff people keep buying. Plus I work in retail so I always see people buying just volumes and volumes of clothes and I just don't know who needs all this stuff. Like I have so much clothing I couldn't possibly wear it all, it's a 2 month rotation if I wore each piece once and I don't even have that much (see below). So nobody's pushing me to, but I feel like maybe I'm missing out here when you guys are all picking up pieces from the new ABC collection, I just don't understand where the rest of the old clothes are going? Like, I appreciate that the designs are cool and interesting and the desire to own and wear them, but I can't justify throwing anything out on the basis of it reaching it's life in terms of durability, nor can I delude myself into believing it's out of date/style or I have such an ego that being bored with an item is justification enough to get rid of it... so when/how do you guys end up kicking items out of your wardrobe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwyhajlo View Post

23 pairs of pants? My goodness.
serious (0)? I think I have a well-rounded wardrobe but certainly not excessive. (only for casual wear) I probably have about 6-7 pairs of jeans and then 10-12 others from wool to khaki, etc. Then 25-30 basic t-shirts and polos, 25-30 casual button-ups, and 8-10 sweaters/cardigans. Then 4-5 mid-weight jackets and 2 heavier weight ones. Plus some summer rotation of 3-4 shorts, 3-5 other lightweight pants, and a different 15-20 t-shirts/polos for summer weather (lighter fabrics and colors). And then 3-4 boots and 5-6 various types of shoes. considering I'm 28 and have also worked in retail for 6-7 years, and have two older brothers so plenty of handmedowns, I don't think it's excessive, just basically well stocked. I've really tried to stop buying anything new (1 item per month?), and get rid of at least 3-5 items every summer and winter once I'm tired of them or they're worn out... anyone have a dramatically different setup?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ghdvfddzgzdzg View Post

regarding being tired of something long before it wears out: I know some people buy clothing expecting to own it until it "wears out." Just remember that it takes a long time to get there with some garments, and it may not happen that way, especially with unusual pieces. So be OK with getting rid of something before that point.
Ah, but do they end up doing that? how many of you are pulling out items from your rotation because they're actually worn out? isn't it just a really weak argument for paying more?
post #70515 of 97791
Yep that's an excessive amount of basics
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › Random fashion thoughts