or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Casual Clothing - a sign of social class?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Casual Clothing - a sign of social class? - Page 3

post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
There are some people out there who look exceedingly bourgeois, and middlebrow with wearing what they think are "rich clothing", and driving very prosperous cars.

It's always amusing in a pathetic way.

Class sensibilities often have little to do with monetary wealth.
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toiletduck
I know business owners who are worth billions (and some ironically own clothing companies) who prefer to buy cheap $10 clothing.

Different people have different priorities, and money doesn't change them sometimes.
Most of the rich people quoted in this thread are newly rich in the sense that they were likely poor or at the very least middle-class types who managed to make themselves very wealthy, which attests to the lack of care for their wardrobe, etc.
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nantucket Red
It's always amusing in a pathetic way.

Class sensibilities often have little to do with monetary wealth.
The Babbitt mentality.
post #34 of 43
I always thought social status in the United States was indicated by the age of the bimbo you were with relative to your age.
post #35 of 43
In that I'm reading a student's draft thesis on clothing and images of self and others, here's some references:
O'Cass (2001) proposed that fashion clothing says how important an individual is, how much status the individual has, and what the individual is like. Johnson's et al. (2002) research determined that people do form impressions of others based on their dress at least some of the time. They also stated that their participants felt that other people used their dress cues to form impressions of them.

O'Cass, A. (2001). Consumer self-monitoring, materialism, and involvement in fashion
\tclothing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 9(1), 46-60.

O'Cass, A. (2004). Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion
\tclothing involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 869-882.
Johnson, K., Schofield, N.A., & Yurchisin, J. (2002). Appearance and dress as a source of
information: A qualitative approach to data collection. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20(3), 125-137.

Sontag, M.S., & Lee, J. (2004). Proximity of clothing to self scale. Clothing and Textiles
\tResearch Journal, 22(4), 161-177.
post #36 of 43
I see some guys here consider Boss suits lower class..

Well maybe yes compared to $4000 Brionis, but regularly a standard Boss suit in an standard shop cost around $850 retail, a price for a suit "lower class", or an standard young student couldn't afford....

Boss suits and the like in my opinion are worn by people as a higher end business suit ...

I myself wear different levels of suits according to the occasion...

example ( those are real/sale prices and not retail )

a $150 "disposable" suit when I go to places where it could be easily damaged, like a disco or club...

a $450 suit for a standard day in the office...

a $900 suit for an special event...

I'd never wear a $4000 suit, I have the money to buy it but I prefer to do other things with my money...
post #37 of 43
From what I've read on the forum, Boss seems to be considered relatively poor quality for the price compared with other brands. This assessment is not necessarily a comment on the inherent class associations of the brand.

I think the need to wear a brand with a high level of recognition or the need to wear visible logos as if to show the world you paid a lot for clothing or accessories is indicative of lower-class aspirations to what is perceived as upper-class sensibilities.
post #38 of 43
Yes, I agree with your point...

Anyway Boss is not high quality, we know that, but it is not cheap and their logos are not so visible...

People in the know would get better clothes for the same price, but for most the uninformed out there... they consider Boss a quality suit... and not only the lower classes
post #39 of 43
Ahhh, research: kitonbrioni, you're my hero! Two of the papers are freely available:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kitonbrioni
O'Cass, A. (2001). Consumer self-monitoring, materialism, and involvement in fashion clothing. Australasian Marketing Journal, 9(1), 46-60. O'Cass, A. (2004). Fashion clothing consumption: antecedents and consequences of fashion clothing involvement. European Journal of Marketing, 38(7), 869-882. Johnson, K., Schofield, N.A., & Yurchisin, J. (2002). Appearance and dress as a source of information: A qualitative approach to data collection. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 20(3), 125-137. Sontag, M.S., & Lee, J. (2004). Proximity of clothing to self scale. Clothing and Textiles Research Journal, 22(4), 161-177.
The last is summarised in http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/modrr/rr556098.html
post #40 of 43
So much of this depends on culture.

Where I live, there is a broad mix of cultures, mostly middle class. These are all stereytypes that fit quite well for the area.

The Anglos amongst us tend to place less value on appearance, dress. More money tends to go on toys (such as plasma televisions) than outward signifiers of wealth.

The Chinese culture values appearances of wealth, and nearly without exception they have better houses, better cars and better clothes than the guy next door.

The Europeans tend to value appearance in dress, but it is more about gloss than substance. They are more similar to the Anglos, tending to put money into toys.

The Vietnamese culture is similar to the Chinese but seems to place more of a premium on functionality.

The Indians and Sri Lankans place very high value in the position of employment that someone is engaged in. It is a very common question.

So, it's all relative to culture. I choose to dress well, not just for myself, but because I know that while my other Anglos may not appreciate it so much, a Chinese customer might base his decision on it. Even in casual dress I pepper my wardrobe with discreet logos because I know they will appreciate it. (Indeed, am often complimented.)
post #41 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jared
Ahhh, research: kitonbrioni, you're my hero! Two of the papers are freely available:


The last is summarised in http://web1.msue.msu.edu/imp/modrr/rr556098.html

And you would be mine. Your input into this thread totally changed the style of thinking going on in here!

Adding metrics and anthropology to the situation allows graphing possible, which would allow this to be tracked --Awesome practical nature.

--WadeM
post #42 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newton
So much of this depends on culture.

Where I live, there is a broad mix of cultures, mostly middle class. These are all stereytypes that fit quite well for the area.

The Anglos amongst us tend to place less value on appearance, dress. More money tends to go on toys (such as plasma televisions) than outward signifiers of wealth.

The Chinese culture values appearances of wealth, and nearly without exception they have better houses, better cars and better clothes than the guy next door.

The Europeans tend to value appearance in dress, but it is more about gloss than substance. They are more similar to the Anglos, tending to put money into toys.

The Vietnamese culture is similar to the Chinese but seems to place more of a premium on functionality.

The Indians and Sri Lankans place very high value in the position of employment that someone is engaged in. It is a very common question.

So, it's all relative to culture. I choose to dress well, not just for myself, but because I know that while my other Anglos may not appreciate it so much, a Chinese customer might base his decision on it. Even in casual dress I pepper my wardrobe with discreet logos because I know they will appreciate it. (Indeed, am often complimented.)

I think your cultures tho are not speicific to your area but to the heritiage of the people. This is where subcultutres come into the picture.

--WadeM
post #43 of 43
I think that the OP's premise is very sound, if perhaps not well enough defined. in general. one of the problems we have in america of judging people's class is the number of very wealthy people who are self made, and are therefore of one class based on their socilization, and another based on their bank account.

I belive casual clothes show a great deal about a person - it is easier to learn what to wear for business, and it is easier to justify spending money on good clothes for work. casual clothes allow a little peak into a person's soul, in a way. 3 observations:

1. wealthy people might very well not be wearing extremly expensive or fancy casual clothes, but a solid casual wardrobe from good trad suppliers, with good trad casual shoes tells you a lot about a persons culture. my boss wears very casual clothes from a chain to work, but his casual wardrobe holds a lot of very good quality trad casual clothes. he is 3rd generation midwest money, and his casual wardrobe shows it much better than his day to day.

2. I find that a lot of the time men who work in work clothes (work with their hands) try to dress "fancy" on the weekends, in cheap suits and ties. this is their "casual" clothes, and it tells a lot about them.

3. a lot of people stretch their income to dress well for work, and then end up in old navy on the weekend. tells you something about them (I put myself in this catagory, by the way)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Casual Clothing - a sign of social class?