This, to me, is just so wrongheaded, for so many reasons... For one, all clothes -- mall brand, designer, etc. -- fit different people...differently. What you'll look good in has very little to do with price. For another, I doubt most can actually distinguish 'generic mall stuff' from the SF-sheeple brands. My best fit pic? A military sweater I said was Dior. :P Hell, 99% of the prized 'hobbyist' looks are just rehashes of other, cheaply available clothing anyway. You can look like a rail worker w/o spending $500. And Lane, the Colombine killers nailed your aesthetic for much less. It's a little dispiriting, seeing the kidz logging-on and being taught to revere the affiliate brands and dropping all their student loan money on these doll-sized ToJs indistinguishable from the Macy's house brand; it's even worse, a few months later, having to endure their sermons on 'quality', watching them become unpaid evangels for high-priced dreck, when all they might really need -- I'm looking at you, here, Lane -- is maybe just a hug and a cup of tea and perhaps a little tip-off that Evil BJ Novak is not a good look for *anyone*. Creativity: yes. Variety: yes. Unreflective brand-whoring: no.