The Official "Designer" discussion thread

[Big Pun]

Originally Posted by kelvinsense

post whatever you want homie DBSS had an insane kid mohair knit with a pink block on the arm, i really wanted that thing too.
I think I saw that on Blackbird site awhile ago, it looked cool. Now I'm a little worried about buying expensive knits, that DBSS looks pretty fragile. I snagged my Raf rothko knit the other day.

 

[Listi]

Don't worry about SF aesthetic in this thread, SF aesthetic is "looking better than normal people, while blending in." Wearing any legit designer ****, you won't blend in. SF aesthetic is often boring, gonna try to break away from it over the summer quite a bit hopefully. I haven't seen much legitimate designer stuff in real life, generally, except some of the things I've bought off here and ebay. They really are worthy of artistic appreciation... Looking forward to more from this thread. Don't have any pieces to add at the moment, DBSS sweater is awesome, and that Dries print is pretty ballin too. I feel the problem with designer stuff is that if you buy the really interesting stuff, you have got to commit to buying a lot of expensive stuff to go with it or it will probably look awkward. I feel like I'll dabble once I have a steady income, which won't be for a while the way things are looking for me though haha

 

[jet]

Let's keep this a real designer thread ie no jv please.

Listi you really can't wear cheap ass **** with that stuff but you don't need to have a full dries fit or whatever. If you have a good eye it's possible to put together a cohesive fit with that piece and basics.

 

[RFX45]

Originally Posted by jet

Let's keep this a real designer thread ie no jv please.
What defines a real designer though? JV isn't considered a real designer? It seems like Jil Sander, MMM, Raf Simons, Marc Jacobs would fit in this thread but what about the more mainstream designers like Gucci, Prada, LV, YSL, etc...?

 

[toothsomesound]

Originally Posted by RFX45

What defines a real designer though? JV isn't considered a real designer?

It seems like Jil Sander, MMM, Raf Simons, Marc Jacobs would fit in this thread but what about the more mainstream designers like Gucci, Prada, LV, YSL, etc...?

What does mainstream even mean in context to what you're talking about? Those brands you listed second are just much more well known fashion houses which have been around long enough and have enough brand currency to become fashion empires. Recently those brands have been less than consistent with creativity. Also, the big fashion houses have lots and lots of diffusion lines, perfume lines, sunglasses, all kinds of other **** that allows them to rake in the dough and increase name recognition and status...

If you like those designers though feel free to talk about it. Jet called out JV because his vision is lame, materials and construction are piss poor, fit is just as bad, and generally JV is worn by 30-60 year old rich dudes who don't know anything about fashion but want to wear something "luxe" "brand name" and "hip". JV is frequently worn by the same F***ers who wear or once wore Ed Hardy.

 

[RFX45]

Originally Posted by AndrewRyanWallace

What does mainstream even mean in context to what you're talking about? Those brands you listed second are just much more well known fashion houses which have been around long enough and have enough brand currency to become fashion empires. Recently those brands have been less than consistent with creativity. Also, the big fashion houses have lots and lots of diffusion lines, perfume lines, sunglasses, all kinds of other **** that allows them to rake in the dough and increase name recognition and status... If you like those designers though feel free to talk about it. Jet called out JV because his vision is lame, materials and construction are piss poor, fit is just as bad, and generally JV is worn by 30-60 year old rich dudes who don't know anything about fashion but want to wear something "luxe" "brand name" and "hip". JV is frequently worn by the same F***ers who wear or once wore Ed Hardy.
Any of those are hardly the point though, and by mainstream I just meant more known to the public ( I highly doubt the general public knows much about MMM or Raf Simons or Ervell) but designer is designer no matter how crappy and expensive their clothes maybe to some. And for this thread to work I think what constitutes as "designer" has to be distinguished. I mean style and look is subjective, I actually like plenty of the thing JV comes out with, JVs quality isn't bad and JV USA is tolerable and fit is consistent overall, it's jut that they fit a bigger frame than what SF is accustomed to. I think you're assessment it a generalization, so I guess LV and Gucci aren't allowed here because it is worn by rappers and hip hop artists? The people that wear these stuff were the same people who wore Fubu and Phat Farm. Because the type of people that wear a certain brand doesn't necessarily disqualify the brand from being a real designer and I don't really think that is what Jet meant. By the way, it may look like it but there was no sarcasm in my question, I really did want to know what qualifies as a real designer and why JV isn't being considered as one? For the sake of not ruining the thread though, I'll just stay out. I'll just be an avid thread lurker, unless I have a more SF worthy designers in hand.

 

[DLester]

Originally Posted by RFX45

I guess LV and Gucci aren't allowed here because it is worn by rappers and hip hop artists?

Not necessarily. The last Gucci runway show was pretty good, and people might be interested in discussing better pieces from that. Just not the logo whoring gear.

 

[RFX45]

Originally Posted by DLester

Not necessarily. The last Gucci runway show was pretty good, and people might be interested in discussing better pieces from that. Just not the logo whoring gear.

Well that comment was somewhat sarcastic to show how he generalized people that wear JV. The same can be said with JV, he makes some nice and interesting pieces that are worth discussing as well.

 

[toothsomesound]

Originally Posted by RFX45

Any of those are hardly the point though, and by mainstream I just meant more known to the public ( I highly doubt the general public knows much about MMM or Raf Simons or Ervell) but designer is designer no matter how crappy and expensive their clothes maybe to some. And for this thread to work I think what constitutes as "designer" has to be distinguished. I mean style and look is subjective, I actually like plenty of the thing JV comes out with, JVs quality isn't bad and JV USA is tolerable and fit is consistent overall, it's jut that they fit a bigger frame than what SF is accustomed to. I think you're assessment it a generalization, so I guess LV and Gucci aren't allowed here because it is worn by rappers and hip hop artists? The people that wear these stuff were the same people who wore Fubu and Phat Farm. Because the type of people that wear a certain brand doesn't necessarily disqualify the brand from being a real designer and I don't really think that is what Jet meant. By the way, it may look like it but there was no sarcasm in my question, I really did want to know what qualifies as a real designer and why JV isn't being considered as one? For the sake of not ruining the thread though, I'll just stay out. I'll just be an avid thread lurker, unless I have a more SF worthy designers in hand.

I don't think you get what I'm saying...first of all, feel free to contribute whatever you like dude. Second of all, I said, what you really meant was, "what about "designers" [actually labels or fashion houses] that are more well known?" There are a lot of reasons why those designers don't come up in this forum, someone could probably write a dissertation on that, but to get back on topic, they are still designers. However, I think you might be correct in assuming that maybe the OP wasn't seeking to generate discussion around LV or Gucci. My description of John Varvatos is how I, and I think a lot of people, not just members of this forum, perceive that designer brand. The materials really are poor for the most part (I will allow there are some good pieces every season), and USA and Converse are just worse, I've owned a number of pieces and they just feel like **** after extended wear or don't hold up well. Not to mention that it just seems to be designed with a similar vision as Diesel, 7 For All Mankind, Rock and Republic, maybe D&G...it's just populus rocker design ****, it's trying to be hip and cool and laid back and stylish and fails; rite and pretty distasteful, way over priced...could go on for a while. You're right in that people who wear a brand don't necessarily make the brand suck...but you've got it backwards now, those people that suck, they tend to wear bad clothes. JV is often bad clothes. JV is bad because of the above reasons, not because it's worn by guidos and fifty year old LA sugar daddies. EDIT: Kev is explaining much better below.

 

[driveslowk]

Originally Posted by Listi

Don't worry about SF aesthetic in this thread, SF aesthetic is "looking better than normal people, while blending in." Wearing any legit designer ****, you won't blend in. SF aesthetic is often boring, gonna try to break away from it over the summer quite a bit hopefully. I haven't seen much legitimate designer stuff in real life, generally, except some of the things I've bought off here and ebay. They really are worthy of artistic appreciation... Looking forward to more from this thread. Don't have any pieces to add at the moment, DBSS sweater is awesome, and that Dries print is pretty ballin too. I feel the problem with designer stuff is that if you buy the really interesting stuff, you have got to commit to buying a lot of expensive stuff to go with it or it will probably look awkward. I feel like I'll dabble once I have a steady income, which won't be for a while the way things are looking for me though haha
+1 artistic appreciation. I feel as far as "going with things", like jet said, you don't really have to be decked out in full designer outfits. If you cop a nice simple knit from dries at 40-60 off, pair it with a clean buttondown that fits you well, pants that are hemmed and tapered correctly, and decent shoes, you have the look. Once you get a few knits to rotate, take good care of them, you will look great a majority of the time and they will hold up well. Good thing is that this palette can go with tons of the "crazy knits". I had grenson kirks (black shoes) and a few pairs of uniqlo pants that I had tapered/hemmed and wore that with everything for a while, until I got better ****. Invest in a leather/nice jacket for wearing with casual fits and you're set for a while. A lot of the more expensive stuff you get is for yourself. Nobody around you is going to know what it is. You find something you love, that you like to look at when it's in your closet/shelf and just feels great when you wear it. That's money well spent. You also have to remember to not buy things just because they are margiela/etc. This can be a problem with yoox, deep discounts, etc. I know for me, right when I see a cool piece I like in the store I automatically think of some things to go with it, if I need to get anything else that would be fire with it, etc. I try to keep an eye on certain pieces if I can't afford the retail to see if they can hit sale. There really is a lack of information online so you have to do a bit more work, but you end up only spending a bit more than the mid-range labels.

Originally Posted by RFX45

What defines a real designer though? JV isn't considered a real designer? It seems like Jil Sander, MMM, Raf Simons, Marc Jacobs would fit in this thread but what about the more mainstream designers like Gucci, Prada, LV, YSL, etc...?
Gucci and YSL has come out with some dope stuff. I think when it comes down to it, those lines have a ton of the "mainstream" things you are thinking about that sells well because it is marketed and branded well. If you posted something up that was awesome, I wouldn't knock it just because it was LV,Gucci, etc. Like what Fok said about consistency, the reason SF has a couple of beloved "designers" is because they are consistent with their quality and good design, whereas most of the stuff we see from Gucci and LV is monogrammed and cringe-worthy to us. I didn't know JV had that connotation according to ARW, but from what I remember most of it is normal but the shoes look pretty decent, can't comment on quality. I'd take some of the gucci/ysl runway stuff over that all day.

 

[RFX45]

Originally Posted by AndrewRyanWallace

My description of John Varvatos is how I, and I think a lot of people, not just members of this forum, perceive that designer brand. The materials really are poor for the most part (I will allow there are some good pieces every season), and USA and Converse are just worse, I've owned a number of pieces and they just feel like **** after extended wear or don't hold up well. Not to mention that it just seems to be designed with a similar vision as Diesel, 7 For All Mankind, Rock and Republic, maybe D&G...it's just populus rocker design ****, it's trying to be hip and cool and laid back and stylish and fails; rite and pretty distasteful, way over priced...could go on for a while.

You're right in that people who wear a brand don't necessarily make the brand suck...but you've got it backwards now, those people that suck, they tend to wear bad clothes. JV is often bad clothes. JV is bad because of the above reasons, not because it's worn by guidos and fifty year old LA sugar daddies.

I honestly do not see what makes JV so bad. Materials aren't as poor as you say, to me quality isn't so bad really. Of course I would not pay retail (who here really does for the most part though?) but I have a several JV clothes that is holding up well. As for design/style, again I think that is subjective. Overall I think their design is subdued outside of their graphic tees and some pieces that are a bit out there but nothing I'd consider bad or horrible. Maybe it is just me?

 

[driveslowk]

^ what you described is exactly why I've probably labeled it as pretty normal. It's probalby like vince, in the category of higher end simple clothing that's not bad but not particularly good.

 

[toothsomesound]

Everything is subjective though. Gotta take it all with a grain of salt. I love Damir Doma, some people think it's marsupialed. I'm being a bit hyperbolic with the JV hate here, but as a brand/designer I just feel like there is a lot of better stuff.

 

[RFX45]

Originally Posted by kelvinsense

Gucci and YSL has come out with some dope stuff. I think when it comes down to it, those lines have a ton of the "mainstream" things you are thinking about that sells well because it is marketed and branded well. If you posted something up that was awesome, I wouldn't knock it just because it was LV,Gucci, etc. Like what Fok said about consistency, the reason SF has a couple of beloved "designers" is because they are consistent with their quality and good design, whereas most of the stuff we see from Gucci and LV is monogrammed and cringe-worthy to us.

Yeah well Gucci and LV is an example of the extreme because when it comes to designer stuff, I think they are the ceiling with some of the stuff they come out with the monogram patterns but on the other hand they do have some nice stuff as well. From all the time I've been in SF, it's just that some designer stuff gets hate just because of the name. I mean sure the monogram patterns can be bad (I'm not embarrassed to say I do like some of them) but I have seen people hate on Gucci for the simple green/red/green stripe or Pradas small red stripe just because it is there even if the article of clothing is a simple tee or sweater.

 

[ppllzz]

im pretty sure none of the gucci/lv runway is logo'd, and jv runway stuff isn't bad at all. fit is boxy though.