or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › J. Crew Quality?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

J. Crew Quality? - Page 6

post #76 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
because the more expensive shoes end up being cheaper when amortized over their useful life
I'd buy that if it were true. I have not seen evidence to this fact as far as footwear are concerned.

Don't get me wrong. I like expensive, high quality shoes just as much as the next person. But I am clear about why I like them. I think they look and feel nicer, more "luxurious" if you will, and I can afford, if I so chose, to forgo value for that extra measure of luxury -- not because I indulge in the fantasy of buying a piece of English countryside living c. interwar years.

I ask again:
Quote:
And pray tell, are you typing on an Australian-made computer? Using Australian-made modems, routers, servers, etc.?

Or are you using "stuff" that is "guaranteed to be complete rubbish"?
post #77 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartorially Challenged
And pray tell, are you typing on an Australian-made computer? Using Australian-made modems, routers, servers, etc.?

Or are you using "stuff" that is "guaranteed to be complete rubbish"?

They certainly seem to be designed to be redundant, technological dinosaurs as soon as you buy the lastest model. Certainly not made to last like an EG or Lobb shoe I tell you.
post #78 of 115
Oh, yes. Now I remember. This is why I hate this forum.
post #79 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arethusa
Oh, yes. Now I remember. This is why I hate this forum.

Yes I am beginning to hate it too. Let's call a truce before someone get's hurt!!!!
post #80 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartorially Challenged
And pray tell, are you typing on an Australian-made computer? Using Australian-made modems, routers, servers, etc.?

Or are you using "stuff" that is "guaranteed to be complete rubbish"?

I've never considered wearing computers or related peripherals. I thought we were discussing clothes.
post #81 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartorially Challenged
I'd buy that if it were true. I have not seen evidence to this fact as far as footwear are concerned.

Don't get me wrong. I like expensive, high quality shoes just as much as the next person. But I am clear about why I like them. I think they look and feel nicer, more "luxurious" if you will, and I can afford, if I so chose, to forgo value for that extra measure of luxury -- not because I indulge in the fantasy of buying a piece of English countryside living c. interwar years.

I ask again:

As much as I hate to see this lovely thread go down this path, I have to ask:

Isn't buying the "luxury" as much a fantasy as buying them for bucolic imagery of cricketeering bootmakers?
post #82 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
They certainly seem to be designed to be redundant, technological dinosaurs as soon as you buy the lastest model. Certainly not made to last like an EG or Lobb shoe I tell you.
Actually, they are made to last just fine. I have computer equipment from 10 years ago that work perfectly okay (that I tinker with occasionally).

Of course, one would generally WANT to buy new equipment as the PPP-adjusted price is lower, performance several orders of magnitude higher and so on.

Again, I presume you buy this supposed "rubbish" in any case, rather than hand-made Australian computers?
Quote:
I've never considered wearing computers or related peripherals.
Funny thing. Wearable computers are slowly making their way into the market (they were orginally developed for military personnel). Rather like trench coats, I guess. Ha.
post #83 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Isn't buying the "luxury" as much a fantasy as buying them for bucolic imagery of cricketeering bootmakers?
For me, luxury (as defined not-so-elegantly as the merchandise feeling and looking nicer) has some tangible benefits. Whether the bootmakers play cricket or play Mah Jong during their time off, in my view, has no bearing on tangible benefits of paying extra at all. It relates to fantasy, an image, something that is utterly disconnected to the actual work and product in question.

That is the same reason why I buy, for example, Japanese cars (albeit "luxury" models) over, say, German cars. Mercedes-Benz can run commercials with Marlene Dietrich singing and images of its race cars from bygone eras, but we all know that such fantasies have zero bearing on what kind of cars M-B factories actually turn out these days.

Let me clarify again. I am not saying that EG shoes are not necessarily worth the money or not good value. They may be. I was merely suggesting that a person who considers products made in Asia to be "guarnateed to be rubbish" merely because they are made in Asia and who evokes images (or stories) of cricketeering English bootmakers as a sign of quality is indulging in fantasy rather than rational explanations of why one might buy high quality English shoes.

High quality is high quality, wherever a product is made. While it is true that certain historical forces favor a particular location for manufacturing certain items, those forces are never static. After all, there was a time when "Japanese electronics" was an oxymoronic term.

We are now living in an era when Hyundai is beginning to turn out vehicles with higher initial build quality than Ford or even BMW.
post #84 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartorially Challenged
For me, luxury (as defined not-so-elegantly as the merchandise feeling and looking nicer) has some tangible benefits. Whether the bootmakers play cricket or play Mah Jong during their time off, in my view, has no bearing on tangible benefits of paying extra at all. It relates to fantasy, an image, something that is utterly disconnected to the actual work and product in question. That is the same reason why I buy, for example, Japanese cars (albeit "luxury" models) over, say, German cars. Mercedes-Benz can run commercials with Marlene Dietrich singing and images of its race cars from bygone eras, but we all know that such fantasies have zero bearing on what kind of cars M-B factories actually turn out these days. Let me clarify again. I am not saying that EG shoes are not necessarily worth the money or not good value. They may be. I was merely suggesting that a person who considers products made in Asia to be "guarnateed to be rubbish" merely because they are made in Asia and who evokes images (or stories) of cricketeering English bootmakers as a sign of quality is indulging in fantasy rather than rational explanations of why one might buy high quality English shoes. High quality is high quality, wherever a product is made. While it is true that certain historical forces favor a particular location for manufacturing certain items, those forces are never static. After all, there was a time when "Japanese electronics" was an oxymoronic term. We are now living in an era when Hyundai is beginning to turn out vehicles with higher initial build quality than Ford or even BMW.
That is why you buy vintage cars. I've never owned a modern car.
post #85 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
That is why you buy vintage cars. I've owned a modern car.

Indeed. That post made me want a Packard again.
post #86 of 115
Thread Starter 
Quote:
That is why you buy vintage cars. I've owned a modern car.
Well, I am too practical to buy vintage cars. One seldom finds vintage cars in good condition. It often costs a lot to recondition them.

Even then they are never nearly as safe as high quality modern cars with up-to-date safety features. Vintage cars make good toys, to be sure, but they do not make good everyday cars, at least for me.
post #87 of 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartorially Challenged
Well, I am too practical to buy vintage cars. One seldom finds vintage cars in good condition. It often costs a lot to recondition them. Even then they are never nearly as safe as high quality modern cars with up-to-date safety features. Vintage cars make good toys, to be sure, but they do not make good everyday cars, at least for me.
There are plenty of practical vintage cars: BMW 2002, 2800, New-Six; Mercedes-Benz W107, W108, W111 W113, W123, W116; Volvo 122, P1800; Alfa Romeo Spider, GTV; Mustang; Datsun 280. Of course, with safety features, they are obviously not going to feature a lot of electronic items, but as B.B.King sang, the thrill is gone.
post #88 of 115
Thread Starter 
When I hear (or read) "practical" coupled with "Alfa Romeo Spider" (among other things), I realize suddenly that I am in a different company.

Ever drive one in deep snow?

Seeing as an auto accident is one of the leading ways to buy the farm, I like my vehicles with the latest safety features, including, yes, electronic ones.

I get my "thrill" differently, but to each his own, eh?
post #89 of 115
Some additional American companies that still manufacture products in America:

- Bill's Khakis
- Mercer & Sons
- Quoddy Trail Mocassin Company
- Russell Mocassin Company

As was mentioned above, Brooks Bros still has some made in the USA offerings (their original oxfords as well as their rebranded Aldens). LL Bean is one of my personal favorites, but most of their clothing is now manufactured overseas (the only clothing of theirs that I know is still manufactured in the US are their Bean Boots). I think Robert Talbott still makes some of their shirts in the US, and I believe (I could be wrong) that Levis still does some US manufacturing as well.

The streetwear folks can be more specific, but I think there are several denim companies that still manufacture in the US (PDC, Lucky, Earnest Sewn).
post #90 of 115
I don't know what the hell happened to this thread. Thankfully this is atypical.

For the record, J. Crew outerwear is of low quality. I have a pea coat that I bought in 2002, and I don't wear much, but which is starting to fall apart. As others have said, their shirts and sweaters are great, if they fit you and you can get them on sale.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › J. Crew Quality?