or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Which brand do you find the most annoying?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Which brand do you find the most annoying? - Page 13

post #181 of 304
I am most annoyed by the underwear and sock companies that advertise on AAAC.
post #182 of 304
1. D&G
2. Armani Exchange
3. Gucci
4. Ed Hardy
5. Abercrombie & Fitch

I hate all those brands and the people who wear them are douches.
post #183 of 304
Mark Nason "shoes"
post #184 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post
If you're looking at the entry models they are often stripped to qualify for various tax break. Audi,BMW and even Mercedes does this. The basic models are stripped down so they get the full tax write off in various countries. If the cars had higher prices then they couldn't tax the business write off. At least in most of Europe.

Most of the companies in Europe are buying the small engined diesel models. They get them VAT free. Keep them 1 to 2 years. So at most an oil change for scheduled service. Flip them back to the dealer for the latest model. Between the low running costs (The cars tend to make things like Priuses look like hummers at the pump) , the tax write off and them minimal depreciation they end up very cheap .

BMW around here charges extra for floor mats last time I checked.

OTOH they all tend to offer packages with the common choices for a fraction the cost of picking them one by one. It saves the factory a lot of hassle in building the cars. You save money.

If you're looking at the bigger models it's just the companies trying to force you to buy a package. It's all about keeping the assembly line moving.

Interesting. In the US the German brands, at least at the high-end, come fully- equipped.
Very few options other than special paint jobs, heated seats and mirrors for colder climates.
I have an older Audi A-6. The only option was the winter package, which is not needed in
coastal California. Everything else was included at a high price.
post #185 of 304
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carrevi.../bmw_320d.html On mainland Europe I think the vast majority of BMW sold are that model. It's basically a company car aimed at people senior enough to get a car but not senior enough to get something bigger/faster. I'm fairly sure the same sort of volume breakdown exists for the other German luxury brands . Audi sells a version of the A3 called the youth package with even better MPG then the BMW.
post #186 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post

Funny, it has a GPS which is an upgrade on many cars here (Australia). So is leather.
post #187 of 304
Leather steering wheel -) I don't see a GPS mentioned. I'm fairly sure it's a fairly expensive option.
post #188 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post
Leather steering wheel -) I don't see a GPS mentioned. I'm fairly sure it's a fairly expensive option.

I think it has leather seats too. GPS is in the iDrive on the dashboard.

post #189 of 304
Oh you're going by the pictures. You can't trust the pictures. Test cars tend to come with extras to impress the reviewers. You need to check the spec list. The spec list doesn't list either. I bet adding both would add at least 2K to the price and more likely 3 or more.
post #190 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artking3 View Post
Audi is in no way more reliable than BMW. 2 of my friends Audi's have so many issues that it put me off considering Audi for good. As for resale value, autotrader begs to differ on your assessment.
Your two friends must have any Audi model or trim level from 1998 to 2004. Audi models and trim levels from 1998 to 2004 are typically problematic. There are a small number of Audi models and trim levels from 2005 to present that are are typically problematic. However, a majority of Audi models and trim levels from 2005 to present are typically trouble free. The following BMWs are typically far more problematic than all problematic Audis, old and especially new: the 2007 3 Series with the twin turbocharged gasoline inline six, the 2002 to 2005 7 Series, the 2004 5 Series with all engines, the 2005 to 2007 5 Series with the V8 (only available in normally aspirated gasoline form), the 2006 to 2010 M6 and all 2008 to present BMWs. Here is the truth about Audi from 2005 to present: In dependability, durability, quality, reliability, satisfaction and service, the following is what dragged down Audi in Consumer Reports-or CR for short and True Delta-or TD for short. Screw what JD Power & Associates-or JD P&A for short and Strategic Vision-or SV for short have to say unless what they have to say 100% matches what CR and TD have to say. Overseas, Audi, for the most part, is one of the best in dependability, durability, quality, reliability, safety, satisfaction, security and service. There are a lot of problems with all versions of the 2005 and early build 2006 A6s as well as the 2009 to 2011 A6 3.0T. These 2005 to 2011 A6s are 80% of Audi's North American A6 sales (and, therefore, 80% of CR's and TD's North American A6 data). Otherwise, the A6/S6 is one of the best since mid build 2006. There are a lot of problems with the 2005 A8 4.2 and 2004 and 2005 A8L 4.2. these A8s and A8Ls are 80% of Audi's North American A8 and A8L sales (and, therefore, 80% of CR's and TD's A8 and A8L data). Otherwise, the A8/A8L/S8 is one of the best since 2006. There are a lot of problems with the 4.2 and 3.0T versions of the Q7 for all model years. These versions of the Q7 are are 80% of Audi's North American Q7 sales (and, therefore, 80% of CR's and TD's North American Q7 data). The Q7 is also near the bottom of it's class in most areas of performance. Otherwise, the Q7 is one of the best (since introduction). There are a lot of problems with the 3.2 version of the 2009 and early build 2010 Q5. The 3.2 version of the 2009 and early build 2010 Q5 are 80% of Audi's North American Q5 sales (and, therefore, 80% of CR's and TD's North American Q5 data). Otherwise, the Q5 is one of the best (since introduction). There are a lot of problems with all versions of the 2007 to 2009 A3. All versions of the 2007 to 2009 A3 are 80% of Audi's North American A3 sales (and, therefore, 80% of CR's and TD's North American A3 data). Otherwise, the A3 is one of the best (2007 and 2010+). There are a lot of problems with all versions of the 2008 to 2010 TT. All versions of the 2008 to 2010 TT are 80% of Audi's North American TT sales (and, therefore, 80% of CR's and TD's North American TT data). Otherwise, the TT is one of the best (2008 and 2011+). The steering and front suspension issues with the 2009 and early build 2010 A4s, 2010 and early build 2011 S4s, 2008, 2009 and early build 2010 A5s and S5 and the water pump issues with the early build and some mid build 2010 S4s and S5 convertibles are nowhere near as bad as North American Audi financiers, leasers and owners on AudiWorld and other Audi message boards would lead (or mislead) people to believe. However, these problems are enough to only allow for average instead of above average or much above average ratings from CR and TD for the 2009+ A4, 2010+ S4 and A5 and S5 that they would otherwise get. Like all other Audis from 2005 to present, the 2009+ A4 and 2010+ S4 have safety and security at or near the top of their classes. The 2009+ A4 and 2010+ S4 are recommended by CR and TD. Until there are crash tests for the A5/S5/RS 5 in North America, CR and TD cannot recommend the A5/S5/RS 5. The problems with the 2005.5 to 2008 A4/S4/RS 4 are nowhere near as bad as North American Audi financiers, leasers and owners on AudiWorld and other Audi message boards would lead (or mislead) people to believe. However, these problems are enough to only allow for average instead of above average or much above average ratings from CR and TD for the 2005.5 to 2008 A4/S4/RS 4 that they would otherwise get. Like all other Audis from 2005 to present, the 2005.5 to 2008 A4/S4/RS 4 have safety and security at or near the top of their classes. All of the above is from Consumer Reports and True Delta (the automotive gods). All of the above is also outside of the occasional lemon, incompetent dealer or any combination of both.
post #191 of 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post
Oh you're going by the pictures. You can't trust the pictures. Test cars tend to come with extras to impress the reviewers. You need to check the spec list. The spec list doesn't list either. I bet adding both would add at least 2K to the price and more likely 3 or more.

Yeah, you are correct - I read up the BMW UK website, vertex cloth is stock, as is the 'Professional radio'.
post #192 of 304
I think it's easier to list the brands that do not annoy me.
post #193 of 304
Filson? They are maybe expensive, but worth it. Cowboy.
post #194 of 304
A few brands which annoy me: D&G: I can't speak for their suits or their brand as a whole, but the pricing of their shirts and their advertising (which, as of the 2011 season, comprises alternating shots of a greasy-looking man with oversized sunglasses and shots of half-dressed miners staring into nothingness). I recently saw some D&G "Gold" dress shirts selling for $275 at Harry Rosen - quality-wise, they're not worth a sixth of that amount to me. Ed Hardy: It's a given - garish, nightmare-inducing trash. My current boss was big on this stuff. I didn't have the heart to tell him he looked like a fool wearing it. Point Zero: As another poster mentioned earlier. It looks like the type of crap you pick up at BiWay (which, if anyone who is Canadian knows, was the place to go if you wanted cheap clothing in the 90's). Garish looking jackets, shirts and boots that wouldn't pass muster anywhere outside our country. Hugo Boss: A brand stuck halfway between designer and mass-market appeal. They've tried so hard to diversify their line over the years (Orange, Green, Black, Kids, etc.) that the brand has become diluted. Stars: In Canada, these suits comprise roughly half of the stock you'll find at any given thrift store. They claim to be proudly Canadian, but their suits are cheap, low-grade and fall apart ridiculously fast.
post #195 of 304
Every brand has clothes you personally would not buy. There are some brands that just bad like Ed Hardy or Abercrombie, but beyond that it is difficult to say. Most brands like Burberry, Dior, and Gucci are simply following trends for their fashion and sportswear items. The classic menswear items in all these brands are pretty much the same-- a nice Italian cut. It really is your personal preference. Other brands like Barbour and LlBean make very traditional clothes and their brands rely on a few key items like the wax jacket or bean boot. These brands rely on providing an item people need. However, it would be stupid to ignore that they too are victim to trends.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Which brand do you find the most annoying?