My first post in MC in a while so I will do it in black. "Lacoste or Burberry?" is a very ugly question. As if these are the only two brands that exist. Where is the "neither" selection? The sad thing about people who wear Lacoste and Burberry is that you're brand-whoring the weakest stuff ever. Although I'm against clothes with logos for the most part, I fully endorse having a couple items with brand recognition, because there is a time and place for everything. Like if you're going to be going to college parties to hook up with drunk chicks, for example, a brand-whore polo would be a very good choice for an evening. But here is my take on the brands: They make you look like a tool and at the same time like a boring, golf playing, middle-income, white, dorkus malorkus who's trying too hard. At least if you had a Gucci polo you'd have *some* exclusivity because most people can't or won't afford it and it doesn't have a nerd-trying-to-look-affluent image associated with it. Value for money, Polo holds up very well and is a bit cheaper. The reason they're not mentioned is because I assume we're going for brand recognition so you opted for a couple of slightly more expensive (but still relatively cheap) brands. So in that case, Ralph Lauren has little competition at every price point, including Black Label polos, which come with a much rarer "RL" logo that will at least not be totally pathetic. Also, their RLPL polos have a nice amount of stretch and a sheen to them that makes them look luxurious and you get them with no logo, small logo, or large double horse logo (I forget what it is actually called, you can see the smaller version on the RL website). And why no mention of Fred Perry? They're as pervasive as Polo RL in EU, but relatively uncommon in US compared to the other brands mentioned, and they've got some cool stuff like a polo made with 22% copper. I fully concede that this is tl;dr but god, you just look so fucking stupid with that alligator. I am not exaggerating here: I can't name one person I know who I think is cool who owns a Lacoste or Burberry polo (no offense to the SF posters, I don't know you guys in person so maybe it's possible?). The one person I know who adored Lacoste was my freshman roommate in college, and literally everyone who met him thought he was a giant tool. There is a whole world of fashion brands out there, many of which will make your unknowledgeable, middle-income female acquaintances cream themselves. Rather than go drop $70 on a Lacoste or Burberry, wait for a sale on something nice and rare. For example, the last time I spent $70 on a polo it was on a John Varvatos silk/cotton blend polo that was originally $200, it's one of the nicest shirts I own and with no logo it still oozes "this is an expensive shirt." Only because I can't resist being helpful: If you insist on going for Lacoste, which it seems at the start there was a 50% chance of, spring for either the Club line which is a little more expensive and a lot less common. The logo is much more nicely done and doesn't look like it was stamped on as an afterthought. OR the vintage line where the alligator is much larger, but is the same color as the shirt. I don't think I've ever seen this on someone in person, but it looks kind of cool. The Lacoste polos shrink a lot and continue to shrink after the first wash, so size up. But seriously, go on Yoox and grab a Dior bumblebee polo. GoldenTribe: Can you give more info on Morphine Generation?