or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › NY Times: Why Designer Clothes Cost So Much
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NY Times: Why Designer Clothes Cost So Much - Page 2

post #16 of 293
thanks for sharing the article.

i don't have the luxury of being able to base all of my clothing decisions on the factors I would like; But being aware of why brand x costs what it does makes me think of the cost of clothing somewhat differently.

I think Mauro sort of hit the nail on the head, people aren't as willing to invest in their clothing. I know that I certainly am not. I understand a particular thing has more value,quality,et cetera... but with trends (don't pretend you aren't affected by trends) I'd rather have options than 1 'perfect' pair of pants, 2 perfect shirts, and a perfect pair of shoes.

This is why I have a hodge podge of clothing that only works for me occasionally.

If people with less to spend were content with owning less more people would dress in a manner that this forum approved of.

But the democratization of 'fashion' or 'fast fashion' or whatever has created need justified solely by want.

many of us would rather have a less expensive version of the less expensive version that so and so designed 3 or 4 years ago (if not sooner)

i'm sure there are other factors as well

also this topic is one that seems to come up in one form or anotheratleast once or twice a month.
post #17 of 293
Who would buy an ipad over jawnz? Also didn't realize Bastian stuff cost more than TB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johdus Fanfoozal View Post
1. I was an apprentice to Salvatore Abbelogini in Milan for nine months. 2. I know my fit better than anyone (see Our Bodies, Ourselves: Bespoke Edition). 3. My idea of fun is bathing my white, casual trousers in tea for five days to produce an authentic khaki color like our lads did in the Subcontinent.
Psh, come back when you've apprenticed on the Row
post #18 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cool The Kid View Post
$500 chinos... wow, now I have really seen it all.

You really haven't.

And LOL @ bastian how is this clown even still around? Du is not a real designer.
post #19 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet View Post
You really haven't.

And LOL @ bastian how is this clown even still around? Du is not a real designer.

my ex girlfriend is now dating some guy with the same name. Fuck the designer and fuck him.
post #20 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johdus Fanfoozal View Post
3. My idea of fun is bathing my white, casual trousers in tea for five days to produce an authentic khaki color like our lads did in the Subcontinent.

Please elaborate. This type of arcane minutia interests me.
post #21 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneeightyseven View Post
my ex girlfriend is now dating some guy with the same name. Fuck the designer and fuck him.
Booo fcking hoo
post #22 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal View Post
Please elaborate. This type of arcane minutia interests me.
Well there is a more modern way to do this than what my great-gramps did using a wash basin, limestone and 130 degree heat of the Jaipur sun. First, make sure you have the right type of trousers. And that means all-cotton in a manchebo twill. (Bleached white is okay, but a raw twill will look more cream in color and absorb the tea more evenly.) You want your trousers to be an inch or so wider in the waist and an inch or two longer in the inseam with what you're about to put them through. I boil a large pot (four to five gallons) of water and then add one pound of loose black tea. I use a blend I pick up at a Coffee/Tea import shop just down the road heavy, of course, on the Darjeeling and Assam. You really can't go wrong with either. I lay the trousers as spread out as possible in a bath tub. And pour the still boiling tea on them (straining the leaves). To weigh them down I put small river rocks inside the trousers so there will be no imprints on the outside. To keep the mix warm, I attach two heat lamps above the tub - connected to the fail safe to prevent any accidents. And I let them sit for five days untouched. The mix will begin to evaporate and turn slowly into a tea concentrate of sorts. Make sure that every part of the trousers remains submerged. The next step is to blend so the dying is even and finally dry. More later...
post #23 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johdus Fanfoozal View Post
Yet another article validating my decision to buy fabric in bulk and design my own trousers.

While cool I don't think this has much revelance. Very few people cn make their own pants hence they buy them, you are quite the outlier.
post #24 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
I personally won't purchase goods from designers that don't have a body of work I'm interested in. And yes that doesn't me the individual piece can't be nice.

We are the opposite here. I buy individual pieces based on their merits, and actually really like to buy the single piece that some fledgling designers put out that has any merit. It's an entire different approach to fashion that probably accounts for my hodgepodge, streety, look and your coherently "designer" looks. There are lots of other factors, of course, but I'd put that one up there near the top, since it is a rather important conceptual difference.

Re. The Row - the stuff is really nice, and pretty much anyone who has seen the stuff in person can attest to that. The materials and construction are really nice, and really, the best thing about the collections, imo, and the overall feel is sort of like... urban Ralph Lauren. My criticism is that it is maybe a little too commercial, which is code for sorta boring. The womenswear for FW2010 is has harder elements (nearly always in black, and often incorporating leather), soft elements (in, predictably, white), and then some country pieces (in chambray, woot). The tailor is great, but yeah, not super exciting by any means. It really is meant to be a commercial line, I think.

You guys stop your griping. You all would love the Row. It's SF approved to the max, down to luxurious knits. It's essentially that. Very well tailored basics - suits, jackets, overcoats, slim trousers, well cut tees and shirts, etc... in blacks, greys, browns, and sometimes, an accent. I even like some pieces from Elizabeth and James, which generally has a more laid back, dude relaxing in La Jolla after some beach time, feel.
post #25 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johdus Fanfoozal View Post
Well there is a more modern way to do this than what my great-gramps did using a wash basin, limestone and 130 degree heat of the Jaipur sun.

First, make sure you have the right type of trousers. And that means all-cotton in a manchebo twill. (Bleached white is okay, but a raw twill will look more cream in color and absorb the tea more evenly.) You want your trousers to be an inch or so wider in the waist and an inch or two longer in the inseam with what you're about to put them through.

I boil a large pot (four to five gallons) of water and then add one pound of loose black tea. I use a blend I pick up at a Coffee/Tea import shop just down the road heavy, of course, on the Darjeeling and Assam. You really can't go wrong with either.

I lay the trousers as spread out as possible in a bath tub. And pour the still boiling tea on them (straining the leaves). To weigh them down I put small river rocks inside the trousers so there will be no imprints on the outside.

To keep the mix warm, I attach two heat lamps above the tub - connected to the fail safe to prevent any accidents. And I let them sit for five days untouched. The mix will begin to evaporate and turn slowly into a tea concentrate of sorts. Make sure that every part of the trousers remains submerged.

The next step is to blend so the dying is even and finally dry. More later...

Doesn't just have to be trousers, but cotton twills and jerseys hold the color best. I've done this with tees and shirts (it's pretty easy), and you can mix things up to get the color and effect that you want. Also, I did something similar recently (thanks Rye) with jeans to give them a darker cast.
post #26 of 293
I think this article really validated SF's support of BoO. It's good to hear they are getting some positive press. I hear from time to time that they are on the verge of going broke so many times, but then again that could just be gossip.
post #27 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
Re. The Row - the stuff is really nice, and pretty much anyone who has seen the stuff in person can attest to that. The materials and construction are really nice, and really, the best thing about the collections, imo, and the overall feel is sort of like... urban Ralph Lauren. My criticism is that it is maybe a little too commercial, which is code for sorta boring. The womenswear for FW2010 is has harder elements (nearly always in black, and often incorporating leather), soft elements (in, predictably, white), and then some country pieces (in chambray, woot). The tailor is great, but yeah, not super exciting by any means. It really is meant to be a commercial line, I think.
I kept thinking this reply was towards me (in that the Row meant Savile Row) until I read back.... MK+A should have named their brand MKA-Ultra
post #28 of 293
the NYT article about $500 chino's really validates my love of finding $50 pants that fit great.

he'll i'll even splurge on $10-$15 on hemming if the pants are long.

but at the same time reading the article i understand why some $500 chinos are in fact $500... so if I ever buy $500 chinos i better be sure that they actually are worth it like the ones in the article, not just because it has label/patch.

also $500 chinos better fit, because well, they should.
post #29 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
We are the opposite here. I buy individual pieces based on their merits, and actually really like to buy the single piece that some fledgling designers put out that has any merit. It's an entire different approach to fashion that probably accounts for my hodgepodge, streety, look and your coherently "designer" looks. There are lots of other factors, of course, but I'd put that one up there near the top, since it is a rather important conceptual difference.

Re. The Row - the stuff is really nice, and pretty much anyone who has seen the stuff in person can attest to that. The materials and construction are really nice, and really, the best thing about the collections, imo, and the overall feel is sort of like... urban Ralph Lauren. My criticism is that it is maybe a little too commercial, which is code for sorta boring. The womenswear for FW2010 is has harder elements (nearly always in black, and often incorporating leather), soft elements (in, predictably, white), and then some country pieces (in chambray, woot). The tailor is great, but yeah, not super exciting by any means. It really is meant to be a commercial line, I think.

You guys stop your griping. You all would love the Row. It's SF approved to the max, down to luxurious knits. It's essentially that. Very well tailored basics - suits, jackets, overcoats, slim trousers, well cut tees and shirts, etc... in blacks, greys, browns, and sometimes, an accent. I even like some pieces from Elizabeth and James, which generally has a more laid back, dude relaxing in La Jolla after some beach time, feel.

Going to have to side with fuuma on this me and him are the same.
post #30 of 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by jet View Post
Going to have to side with fuuma on this me and him are the same.

There is no really siding. Just because they are opposite doesn't mean that hey are opposing points of view.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Streetwear and Denim
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Streetwear and Denim › NY Times: Why Designer Clothes Cost So Much