or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Conspicious consumption
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Conspicious consumption - Page 3

post #31 of 53
Quote:
I myself am a rather large fan of Rene Magritte, and the allusion of "This is not a pipe." by Magritte I thought quite clever. The usage of this by D&G I think is soemwhat unoriginal.
Don't give D&G too much credit guys. I thought of the depiction of the pipe also, but it said "This is a FAKE Dolce and Gabbana Shirt," not "This is not a Dolce and Gabbana shirt" (even so, the shirt is still not clever since the designer clearly would've completely misunderstood the point of Magritte's work).
post #32 of 53
Cuffs on the bottom of trousers? It sounds interesting, but I'm sure how that would work. Also, wouldn't you look like a monkey, walking on your hands? Granted, as a kid, it was fun to use a coat as a pair of pants... The visual purpose of "punking up" shirts is to call into question the conventions associated with that garment, (take, for example the turtlenecks Carol Christian Poell put out last fall, which wre meant to be worn with a tie). Recutting shirts, making tuxedo shirts out of several dress shirts, sewing the front of a dress shirt to a sweater, these things all have rather obvious purpose. The shirt cuffs thing, though, I have to admit, I don't really get.
post #33 of 53
Quote:
Case in point is that I have a pair of Tod's Ferrari driving loafers, but rarely wear them since sadly people have no understanding of what Tod's is (that and the fact that they're also suede on the bottom, so I want them to last for a while). I've met a local gal that had the same complaint when it came to her Tiffany bracelet. At least she appreciated the Tod's. One last note is that you don't need a logo on the front for it to be "conspicuous consumption" item, just look at the Burberry plaid fad.
You should wear your Tod's Ferrari loafers because they are well-made and superbly-comfortable footwear. If no one recognises them, your feet will thank you anyway. Oh yeah, and Burberry plaid is a logo. Peace, JG
post #34 of 53
To explain, since maybe I was vague with what I said about the pants, is that it is common in running pants (and even more sporty casual slacks) to have a zipper along the side seem that allows the pants to be opened up. My idea was to simply have some buttons and buttonholes on a pair of dress slacks, instead of a zipper, which would thus look more like a shirt cuff. I'm sure this has been done before, but I have never seen it yet. Though I remember seeing some brown Miu Miu pants many years ago that had darker brown nylon between a split seem that you could close with a buckle. Hopefully you get a better idea of what I'm talking about, for it is nothing THAT radical to look as absurd as the walking on one's hands joke. As to the whole Tod's shoe issue I was just using it to state that there are different levels of conspicuous consumption depending on the person's environment. Meaning that I could flaunt my Tod's shoes around in NY City in a conspicuous manner since people there will recognize them for what they are. Now here, in my local town, that is not an issue since no one will have a clue to what they are beyond some bright red loafers. So depending on your environment some efforts are wasted; either because what you're wearing is considered trendy & trashy like a Moschino labeled t-shirt in LA, or it is too high label that it is beyond the recognition of your peers like a Kiton suit is here. The fact about conspicuous consumption is that your peer group needs to be informed enough about the "expensive" item in question or you're just pìssing into the wind. I think I've pounded this drum enough to almost wear a hole into it, so laters.
post #35 of 53
wow, almost four years.
post #36 of 53
To me its a question of integration. LV, Coach, Burberry all combine /repeat versions of logos into patterns or some sort of visual graphic. In my opinion some of these can become quite elegant and distinctive without just being a stand alone logo. How this is integrated into the product is the other half of the equation, some work better than others.

I think a tie by Hermes is distinctive graphically, and the logo is not the focal point. To me eye they have secured a tradition and a brand without having to keep throwing the logo at us.
LV would be an example of a brand(like them or not) that has successfully used this logo pattern as
part of their product.

The only stand alone "logo" that worked (IMO) was the original crocodile on Rene Lacoste's original garments.
Though not sure if it really qualfied as a logo at the point of inception.
post #37 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
What are all of your opinions of conspicious consumption? What I mean are logo laden clothing and flamboyant displays of things like gold pens, Hermes scarves Louis Vuitton luggage, and such. Just a thought.

These days, some would tag anyone in a suit, or even a jacket and odd slacks, as a conspicious consumer.
post #38 of 53
I tend to avoid buying items with labels that can't be removed. Sometimes the logo on metal can be sanded down.
post #39 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by designprofessor
The only stand alone "logo" that worked (IMO) was the original crocodile on Rene Lacoste's original garments.
Though not sure if it really qualfied as a logo at the point of inception.

what about the pocket stitching on Levi's? seems to me to be a stand-alone logo par excellence, though I guess its success can be faulted for all the obnoxious business gracing buttocks accross the world...
post #40 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel_Cairo
what about the pocket stitching on Levi's? seems to me to be a stand-alone logo par excellence, though I guess its success can be faulted for all the obnoxious business gracing buttocks accross the world...

Good call.
post #41 of 53
I have a Hermes belt that I wear occassionally but outside of that I try to stay logo free.
post #42 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timothy
I would like to add another factor to this equation, and that would be the environment in which one lives. Personally I live in the Harrisburg Lancaster area of PA. Here most people may know of Gucci and Prada, but very few wear those labels let alone more discreet designers like Jil Sanders and ilk. If you're talking about logowear here it's the style G.H.A.P of Gap, Hilfiger, Abercrombie, and Polo.

One of the advantages of being out of the major metro areas is a freedom to wear quality items, logo-bearing or not, without being conspicious. Case in point: my wife does a lot of bussiness in Pittsburgh and I am what I call a "traditional luzury buyer"---I buy quality items with the intent of long-term use---so a number of the things she owns are high-end items (though many are bought vintage). While, in DC, people know she is carrying a Bottega or wearing Saint Laurent, in Pittsburgh, no one seems to notice. That works out well because what is matter of course in DC would be over-the-top in western PA. Its a shame that luxury has become about flash and not old-world quality. I find the latter a lot more compelling because, with care, such items are investmests whose costs, amortized over time, represent a better value than many cheaper and lesser quality items.
post #43 of 53
A lot of good comments here.

My view is that much quality clothing and accessories often has the more subtle or (ideally) missing logo. I have learned to be quite suspicious of logos and heavy branding/marketing. I also see parallels with consumer electronics whereby the more the name recognition, often lower the quality.

How many people have heard of Edward Green, John Lobb, or Oxxford or Kiton? Not many typically.

Unfortunately, one does not get recognition versus someone with a possibly lower quality but recognized brand like Armani, Hermes (love the ties, hate the shirts), etc. But we who know are probably self-confident enough to handle that.
post #44 of 53
Quote:
I find the latter a lot more compelling because, with care, such items are investmests whose costs, amortized over time, represent a better value than many cheaper and lesser quality items.

Very, very true. I see it in shoes, suits, shirting, neckwear. Quality is surely the best investment.
post #45 of 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by stach
I tend to avoid buying items with labels that can't be removed. Sometimes the logo on metal can be sanded down.

sounds like the kind of measures taken by the Cayce character in William Gibson's Pattern Recognition. She has a selective brand aversion, however.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Conspicious consumption