or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Why do you buy used clothing?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why do you buy used clothing? - Page 7

post #91 of 124
Thread Starter 
I have no political agenda. I only went in that direction when someone or several suggested that their thrift store shopping helped the betterment of those less fortunate, and that I was not doing my part to help our fellow man because I only buy new clothes. I found that insulting, so I played the elitist card. It is also a bit off to suggest that anything new lacks character. Who can't see the character in an old garment. I bet you can even smell it (a joke I can't resist). Sean Connery as James Bond, or Cary Grant are often admired here. Their clothing set a course for many who aspire to be stylish. One can find originals and be happy with the acquisition of their treasures, and others can have new ones made and perhaps those will be enjoyed by a future generation. All I intended was to understand why anyone buys, and more specifically, regularly wears used clothing. Perhaps I should request the removal of this thread. If anyone thought my unprovoked responses were self-serving and condescending, look inside yourself. For those who called troll, I took some posts too personally. Put yourself in my shoes - if you buy other than new.
post #92 of 124
I keep an eye on my favorite vintage stores and haven't found in a thing worthy of getting in years. Maybe the ebay boys get there first.
post #93 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
Another reason I don't buy used clothes is because of the opportunity costs. It takes a long time to go thrifting or to browse ebay for just the right thing. If I spend 5 hours a week doing that (which isn't too unreasonable - in fact, I'm willing to bet that a lof of you spend a lot more time than that thrifting), that's 5 hours I could be billing - over the course of a year that' 250 hours. That could be another $10k added to my bonus - which can buy a lot of suits, shirts and shoes.
Good point, although it can actually work the other way, too. Most of the clothes I buy are new. But when I do buy used clothes, it's usually something I buy off ebay on a flyer - and not a wardrobe staple but something that is in that ambiguous "maybe cool, maybe retarded" zone, or something that is sufficiently outside my normal palette that I'm not sure if I'll actually wear it that much. That allows me to play around and experiment a bit while minimizing both my time and my economic investment. In other words, I might be willing to risk $30 on a potentially cool pair of shoes or a jacket from ebay, whereas there'd no way I'd drop $400 (or whatever) on the item new without taking time away from either work or time with my wife and daughter, driving to the store, getting irritated with the store for not having enough parking, dealing with some unhelpful idiotic salesperson, finally trying it on in person, debating whether I'll really wear it enough to make it worth it, and then probably not pulling the trigger because by this point I'm in a crappy mood.
On the other hand, when I've been pleasantly surprised by how much I like the style/fit/whatever of one of my ebay impulse buys, that makes me much more comfortable about buying something similar at full retail.
post #94 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite42
I know that anyone who spells the word like that is laughed at amongst anyone in the legal community. I know my subject quite well.

EDIT: You may also want to look up the meaning of "ad hominem attack" and read the passage of yours that I quoted again. Hope that helps.
Dammit, I hate it when I'm the only one in the legal community who doesn't get the joke! How is it supposed to be spelled?
FWIW, those few members of legal community who are physiologically capable of laughter tend to be far more amused by raunchy things like the rule against perpetuities and lis pendens than by Latin spelling issues.
post #95 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
Dammit, I hate it when I'm the only one in the legal community who doesn't get the joke! How is it supposed to be spelled?
FWIW, those few members of legal community who are physiologically capable of laughter tend to be far more amused by raunchy things like the rule against perpetuities and lis pendens than by Latin spelling issues.
Ah, it wasn't a Latin spelling issue - just the spelling of "judgment." As for my source of laughter, I often look to the current Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
post #96 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite42
Ah, it wasn't a Latin spelling issue - just the spelling of "judgment." As for my source of laughter, I often look to the current Commerce Clause jurisprudence.
Ah, I see. Now ERISA, that's some funny shit.
post #97 of 124
Whoa, this thread has blown up a bit. I don't plan to read all of it, but I don't like not responding to questions put to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
Your statement is a bit flawed, because if you purchase new electronic devices (e.g. cell phones, stereos and tv's), how much care is invested in these mediocre things that are obsolete by tomorrow. We really have no other choice when it comes to mass produced consumer items, except to not purchase them, and then only at the expense of our loss of convenience.

I said that I prefer to buy 'cheap' goods and engage in rampant consumerism (I shall adopt your term as it is more aligned with my thoughts in the matter) as little as possible, not that I divorce myself entirely. Those things (this computer, in fact) are what allow me to surf eBay, etc, so I can't reject them, nor can I or do I reject market societies. The legacy of the invisible hand is a massive part of why America is what it is today, both the good and some of the bad, and if abject poverty and hunger is ever going to be eliminated we need more of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
I appreciate tyour sentiment to want to preserve the joy one gets out of a bespoke garment, even if it was made for someone who is now deceased.

Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey

As for consumerism, without it the world would be a very poor place. Rampant consumerism, which is a masked term intended for envy and greed, is an undersirable quality in any person.

I agree, hence my adoption of your term -- rampant consumerism is what I mean, though most US consumerism these days is rampant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
If one eats at a McDonald's or Burger King, or Cheesecake Factory, is he merely eating a meal because he is hungry, or is he really endorsing mediocrity? Could be both.

Can be, but the balance is shifting daily. I have had a discussion many times about the McDonald's analogy, and my conclusion is that some days a cheap cheeseburger is fine, but you can't lose sight of what could be, and the majority of people are doing just that at a logarithmic rate. Burger King et al indulge them by stacking ever more patties, ever more disjecta membra of decent food, between the buns, and this separates people even further from an honest meal. The commercial on TV has a woman looking in the fridge for dinner, and being hit on the head with a Subway sandwich. This is our dinner now. On the other side, the best restaurants are pushing $40/entree, segregating beauty in food from people like art in a museum, which makes it an object now subject to class distinctions, and the trappings that brings.

This can happen with clothes, too. After a steady diet of Mani and polyester, not only do you lose sight of Attolini, but it does get further away and is devalued at the same time.

What I would like is if people as a whole started clamouring for intrincsic quality rather than masses of worthless detritus. We certainly have the machine to produce it if we want it. Does that mean that we should not mass produce anything? OF course not, who wants hand rolled tolied paper? But cars are fairly lifeless inside and this computer is a balck hole for beauty (and half the time, for function). I don't really think it has to be that way. Yeah, I have a cell and a computer, but I don't go along with planned obsolescene if I can avoid it (my cell is three years old) and pick other goods in a similar manner. Why not?
[/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
I like civil discourse.

As do I. Don't feel committed to reply; I know I would not have the time to keep up with this thread.

Regards,
Huntsman
post #98 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
Taking care of the poor is not a social obligation, it is an individual obligation. It should be the work of charities, not the government. Lyndon Johnson was not able to wipe out poverty through welfare programs. So when you say you that providing for "these people" aren't you describing a social order. My beef is that someone could be so arrogant as to think their thrift store shopping is their donation to the poor.

You self-righteous left-wingers ought to spend more time in soup kitchens or building houses with Habitat for Humanity, than justifying your penchant for buying used clothing.

I have not advocated that one should know his place and act accordingly. I just don't pretend to be a humanitarian in a stunning old suit.

Carey, if you read what I wrote and then read your reply you will see that you are quite adept at hearing what you want to hear. But please resist the temptation to put words into my mouth. I never said anything about my thrift store shopping being my donation to the poor. Didn't suggest it, didn't imply it, didn't infer it in even the most oblique way. In addition, my remark about social obligations rather than individual obligations was merely to point out my belief that poverty and related ills cannot be solved by individuals going out and giving away their money rather than buying used clothes. I said nothing about government programs.
So, please, Carey, just cut the crap. I'm not pretending to be anything. I've demonstrated no arrogance. Nothing I've said should lead you to a tirade about self-righteous left-wingers hitting the thrifts rather than volunteering in soup kitchens or building houses for the poor. If you had a shred of decency you would apologize.
post #99 of 124
A question for those that have a phobia/aversion/revulsion/etc. about wearing used clothes . . . How do you stay in hotels?
post #100 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolo
A question for those that have a phobia/aversion/revulsion/etc. about wearing used clothes . . . How do you stay in hotels?
I know some people who bring their own sheets, comforters, etc. I also know someone who, whenever he travels to China, brings his own bottled water, towels, and even foodstuffs like ham.
post #101 of 124
..........and how do you eat food that has been prepared out of your sight by no-one you know
post #102 of 124
Coming to this thread late, but:

1. I buy thrift store and e-bay clothes because it is the only way to acquire the wardrobe I desire within my means. If I had unlimited money, probably would only buy retail to avoid clothing.

2. I am a not-so-self-righteous very left winger. I believe that aiding the poor is the responsibility of the government as well as other social institutions. I also believe that the aid can come in a variety of ways short of a cash grant.

But, I also believe that your argument re: Johnson's war on poverty is fallacious. One cannot logically argue that the goal was wrong simply because the implementation was flawed. There are many, many ways that Johnson's programs could have been more effective and other programs that would have been more effective than the ones Johnson championed. That said, it is not germane to the question of whether the overall grand strategy was the correct one.
post #103 of 124
I'd point out that when it comes to places like the Salvation Army, the person who actually buys an article of clothing is being far more generous than the person who donates the clothing. The clothing, unless it's bought by someone, is worth, at most, a couple pennies. Americans throw away so much clothing that thift shops are drowning in it. The vast majority of donated clothing is bought by mass exporters who sort it grade, bale it up, and ship it to (largely) the third world. Upon arrival, local sellers will buy the bales and sell the pieces individually. While you might think that that's a good thing, it often works to knock out the local clothing industry and makes the country more dependent on foreign goods (of course, so much of the clothing bought in the US is from third world factories...). You don't have to subscribe to left-wing argument to understand that the meaning and impact of donating one's clothing has changed dramatically in the last 50 years. Now it's largely an excuse for people to throw away perfectly fine clothing and think that they're doing someone a good turn. I remember reading an article on a homeless man who said that he'd never wash his clothing, there was so much donated clothing that he'd just throw it away when it got dirty.

Lastly, if you don't believe in the magic of soap, do you ask for plastic plates at restaurants?
post #104 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad
Ah, I see. Now ERISA, that's some funny shit.

ERISA: "Every Ridiculous Idea Since Adam"
post #105 of 124
I won't get into the political, the who's more righteous, and otherwise surprising angles this thread has birthed. I will simply answer the question, as some others here have done. I choose to buy CERTAIN used clothing, because otherwise, on my honestly earned income, I could not afford it without saving for months, after taking care of the mortgage, the car note, and my other obligations. That said, I do not feel any piece of clothing I could possibly wear is worth months of savings...not to me. Therefore, if I happen to enjoy an Oxxford or a Brioni suit...and I do BTW, and if I can obtain such an item for...say...98% off retail, I will purchase said item. Now, as far as who's boys have been where, and i'll be blunt here...where some used slacks have become discoloured (hahaha), err...discolored that is...in that crotch area, I choose to choose not! If the clothing is obviously stained with bodily fluids, I suspect not many of us will make the purchase. But where used garments appear to be in mint condition, an additional cleaning removes any fear I have of John Doe's germs. Additionally, for the germiphobes, few viral pathogens are hardy enough to live long on inanimate objects...I don't figure something I get used is a threat to my health. So, if I see something out of place on a garment, I don't have to buy it, and if I don't see "it"...it's probably not there. I happen to own 2 Brioni suits that have some other gentleman's name on the inner tag...perhaps I could pretend that I am Mr. ? when I wear "his suit"...but I just choose to thank Mr. ? for putting such a fine garment on the secondary market. So, choosing wisely, I can wear Oxxford, Brioni, Versace and the like, and I can still take my lady to the finest restaurants, and I can still drive a C43, and I can still...etc.
More power to all who can afford and choose to purchase brand new whatever. Surely, I could, albeit on a more patient basis; but since I don't think a suit is worth 4-5K of my yearly salary, I will always choose used unless I can find the same new at the same percentage off of retail.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Why do you buy used clothing?