or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › what makes Seven for all mankind and Hudson jeans so expensive?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

what makes Seven for all mankind and Hudson jeans so expensive? - Page 9

post #121 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamapuaa View Post
Alternately, it's that you and the jeans crowd seem to fetishize authenticity and small distinctions, despite the fact that they really make no difference and nobody cares except people on internet forums about denim. That's fine if you're on a denim internet forum, but it comes off goofy when you take it anywhere else. I am not a cowboy and in fact I think cowboys are mouth-breathing morons. Why should I care what brand of jeans they originally preferred? I don't baby my jeans, but if I purchase a pair of even the cheapest jeans, I expect that they'll last basically forever. So why should I care about one denim lasting longer than another? For all the fetishization of which pants get purchased by the working man, don't poor people just buy the $30 jeans from Wal-Mart or department stores? Why is that unauthentic? Is it, American working man from the 1950's? This is particularly true on a Men's Style forum, where people view jeans as casual clothes that you wear when you don't really care. Furthermore, people are presumably capable of choosing which cut looks good without consulting obscure historic trends.
first, I have a deviated septum and I do sometimes have to breathe through my mouth. that does not make me a moron. or a cowboy. and thanks to your post, I will now scoff at these dumb igents who pay a premium for full canvassed suits, goodyear welted shoes, mto shirts and wearing pocketsquares when they can save their money if they just purchased mw suits, glued cole haans, 3-in-1 packed shirts and just stuff a napkin from t.g.i. fridays to his chest pocket. igents.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvrhye View Post
I do wonder what percentage of all mankind could afford seven pairs of these jeans.
why, 7% of course! +++++++++++++++ just to share, and its no b.s., but I've worn non-SW approved denim and SW-approved denim and I do get some compliments from said SW-approved denim. I asked a friend once (who's unaware of what particular jeans I was wearing) who was complimenting my jeans what makes it different from other jeans he sees and he kind of gives a vague answer like "they just look good"
post #122 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
I think this is exactly why I'm going to start a denim thread in this forum.
We have one already but it doesn't contain enough snark to stay on the front page. http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=91068
post #123 of 178
Some thoughts: I think most of SW&D falls into either 1 of 2 major dichotomies - the referencers/authenticity folk and the avant garde. For the former group, to me subscribers put way too emphasis (and are willing to pay too much) for 'authenticity', the search for which is quintessentially a condition of youth culture. Which SW&D has in spades. IDK, but to me 'authenticity' is certainly not wearing shit once worn by now long-dead men when the person inhabiting said clothes could not be more different from the original - think the urban lumberjack kid, or the middle-upper class kid wearing 'authentic workwear' to sip lattes in surburbia while riding their fixed gear bicycles which they bought for a lot more $ than the multi-gear version. Just doesn't gel for me in my head - it's an exercise in contradiction, inherently dishonest, and wearing another man's skin in the hope some steeze rubs off. This is not the same as MC, where despite the ribbing we often get the clothes we wear are almost always never fascimiles of things done long ago, even if the occasional Sator does turn up to wear 16oz wool suits to the beach or commission... frock coats. The stuff you see here are evolutions, not reproductions. And the stuff that references too overtly - e.g. BBBF & the late 50s early 60s - always stokes controversy. In that sense I have more respect for the latter group - the avant garde. Yet they are not without their problems. Being, well - avant garde - craft often takes a backseat to art, things are not made to last, the taking of novelty as a self-evident plus engenders an inevitable (over)reliance on the seasonal cycle with designer/brand-driven trends/fads is to me - which is to me, its bête noire. Finally for some here in MC, the social implications of clothing worn plays a part as well. I think it is fair to say that SW&D is dominated by college-age folk, while MC is dominated by college-educated folk. A significant proportion of MC wear clothing that is job-appropriate - and I am sure a significant proportion of that would extend it to job-worth-doing-appropriate. I do not share these views, but I'm sure a lot of the snark-driven 'discussion' here is driven by this. Finally, I also think it is worth considering that for most SW&D is a phase, while for most MC is the final destination. You can grow out of SW&D, but some never grow into MC. All this is just my 0.02 - would be great to hear your opinions on my opinions.
post #124 of 178
No one on SF is hard core about denim authenticity, that's Superdenim. Once again, gross over-generalizations. And the Junya jean? Yeah, that's Junya, designer pieces are often pretty expensive. Your point? What makes a Nigel Cabourn Cameraman jacket worth 1K retail? 1.) The fact that people are willing to buy it and 2.) There's very few similar items, regardless of price points. Also at a distant 3.) It's kind of worth it. There's a bit of subtlety in terms of fit I can't quite place my finger on, but designers like Nigel and Junya are really talented and even if lower brands ripped off their stuff its just looks "off". Like trying to compare Macy's suits to Brooks Brothers Golden Fleece. Does no one here realize that the vast majority of SW&D members wear fairly plain denim ranging from APC, RRL, and really only the occasional member buys pricier stuff (300+) such as Somet, KMW, and Flathead. Or we could just continue with the over generalizations that everyone is rocking 1K+ Junya jeans, D&G drop crotch denim, and kefeyyiahs.
post #125 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post


Just because you have a pair of jeans tailored to your tastes doesn't make it a good pair of jeans. Actually, there are several details that any denimhead would scoff at the way an MCer would scoff at a fused suit: the lack of rivets around the front pockets, the lack of rivets in the coin pocket, using horn or plastic buttons, the lack of rear rivets, the "coin pocket," the non-tailored belt loops, etc. Sure, some of the jeans at a lower price range that I would recommend would lack a few of these details, but together what you have here isn't a pair of jeans, it's a pair of trousers made out of denim.

And I've never heard nor read that Porsche made engines for Yugo, but if so, wow. I couldn't have accidentally picked out a better example to showcase a mistake of legendary proportions.

But that's the thing. All those things you mentioned are details you can change.

It was (might still be) Lada that Porsche made engines for. My memory is going.

Considering Jeans comes from the French word for Genoa (Gênes) Denim being historically the cloth used by sailors out of Genoa. So you could argue historically denim trousers are the first jeans.
post #126 of 178
No. Because these trousers didn't have rivets.
post #127 of 178
and y'know what? I've never even heard of hudson jeans till now.
post #128 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
It might be easier if I explain my thought process when I see a new pair of jeans sitting on a rack from an unfamiliar brand and am trying to determine its "quality." Let's also assume that the pair I'm talking about is raw or a "dark wash" without any distressing or noticeable washing: [Detailed Explanation Follows.]
This detailed explanaton is the single most effective post you could possibly have made in this forum. At least half of the MC posters who read it are, at this very moment, standing in their closets speculatively eyeing their Levis. You may well have given Mafoofan an entirely new purpose in life and set off a search for the "one jean."
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
I think that's why some MCers have such a hard time with those punk kids in SW&D and their clothes: there's no guide book or formal education behind a look. We can't go to a tailor, drop off our clothes, and tell him to fix what's wrong. No, we deal in something far more difficult to explain: geared open-mindedness. We use a multitude of criteria that at the core sounds a lot like MC: fit, fabric, construction, color, and typically a preference for niche over mass-market goods. The difference is that MC judges in centimeters and SW&D in four-scoop banana splits. It's not much of an exaggeration because the concept is that while one SW&D outfit may appear loose and baggy and another bespoke, they can technically both work and fit. To use one of Fok's analogies, there's a bigger sandbox in which to play and to make friends. What can make an outfit good or bad sometimes has more to do with cohesion or lack thereof with regards to the aforementioned criteria than just "fit."
I am extremely curious about this and I hope you will expand. But first, to put the question in perspective, perhaps I should give you a potted philosophical history of the MC Forum. Once upon a time, in a clothing forum far, far away, there arose an evil poster whom We Do Not Name who began spreading poison in the ears of trusting iGents. At first, it was little things, like endorsing a shade of black for a belt that did not match the shoes because it "looked good." But soon it became an open rebellion. "Wear anything you want! The only thing that matters is whether you like it." The forces of darkness swelled and, eventually, the few who remained faithful fled the forum and came to SF. But the seeds of that ancient conflict have taken root even here. Philosophically, MC is divided into two camps. The Spooperites hold that dress is, at its core, an expression of individual taste. For a Spooperite, the thing that truly makes a look work is whether the wearer likes it and wears it with sufficient confidence. The Mantonians believe, instead, that there are rules and that these rules, to some extent, are objectively correct. Moreover, evidence for these rules can be found in history. Looks are, therefore, judged by these rules rather than by subjective criteria. This is not to say, BTW, that Mantonians agree on what the rules are -- that's what some of the most interesting arguments are about -- but they do agree, nonetheless, that there are rules. For myself, I lean toward the Mantonian camp. Even if there were not any rules, it would be necessary to invent them because they provide a framework for discussion, which is kind of the point of an internet forum. If there are no rules and everything is subjective, it is like having a forum devoted to favorite ice cream flavors. "I like Vanilla." "Are you crazy? I like chocolate!" There is not really much else to say after that, unless some freak is going to plump for strawberry. I also think that the "rules" of tailored clothing really can make people look objectively better. The key insight in tailored clothing is that it can be manipulated to make the wearer look taller (or shorter) or thinner or bulkier or whatever. By a judicious application of the rules, tailored clothing can make an extra ten pounds disappear. With that as background, how does SW&D work? Your post suggests that there are some SW&D rules and that it is not just a matter of liking/not liking. Is that correct? If so, could you explain, obviously very generally, some of those rules? I am very interested in the SW&D aesthetic and how it works and I am wondering if there might be more overlap with MC than most people realize.
post #129 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by pvrhye View Post
@who

Got a continuum here of quality? I'm a bit curious. I'm imagining things like Lees near the bottom and APC near the top.
God, no.

Levi's, Lee, and Wrangler have lines dedicated to both the average Joe and those looking for a little more. Levi's high-end program (LVC) is unquestionably the better of the three as they have a bigger collection every season of tops and bottoms not limited to denim, and they also have a better denim program. Lee has Lee 101 and Lee Gold Label, which run from expensive Japanese reproductions to made in Poland with Japanese selvage jeans that are in the lower-mid price range ($200). Wrangler has Blue Bell but it's a relatively small program.

The point being that just saying that someone has a pair of Lee's doesn't automatically mean they're crap.

That said, to answer your question I'd actually put Lee above APC as denim-wise Lee uses a better, well-known mill (Kaihara.) Keep in mind, APC is $175 retail and considered the ultimate beginner pair of jeans. Frankly, there are far more interesting jeans in that price range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by laphroaig View Post
We have one already but it doesn't contain enough snark to stay on the front page. http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=91068
Thanks!
Quote:
Originally Posted by apropos View Post
Some thoughts:
Yet another list of generalizations and misunderstandings. Great.

Most people on SW&D buy the jeans they do because of craftsmanship. You're stuck on the idea that our purchases are justified by the notion that we'll do anything to look like coal miners from the 1920s. Craftsmanship. Is there authenticity in craftsmanship? Absolutely, just as there is with a good suit. Typically, the craftsmanship is where the authenticity stops because a good chunk of SW&D doesn't wear jeans based off the 501 design; it's considered baggy and MC-like.

I'll ask it again: Why is that MCers have no trouble having their jeans built by robots or children in Tunisia using the cheapest materials but would GASP at walking into a JC Penney's and buying a OTR suit?

But for you to call MC "avant-garde" is absolutely, positively, 100% laughable. I invite you to take a scroll through our WAYWT and see how many 1950s ranchers you see.

Actually, the majority of people in SW&D are post-grad, myself included, who wear job-appropriate clothes when at work. Some are even professionals that do not have strict dress codes. Is it really that difficult to imagine a job that doesn't involve a suit doesn't necessarily require coveralls or a safety helmet?

Your $.02 point out just how out of touch you are with the SW&D community. Hopefully, that bothers you enough to investigate your prejudices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post
But that's the thing. All those things you mentioned are details you can change.
I'm not a mind reader but judging by the photos that didn't include any of those options I think it's safe to assume why I'd believe they're trousers for people who want to wear denim. Please correct me and tell me the kinds of denim, rivets, and buttons they offer because I was quoting the website directly.

And it still doesn't answer the question of why you'd go to a tailor for a jeans-maker's job and expect the same or proper outcome. It's MC thinking to solve a SW&D problem.
post #130 of 178
Whodini, what's your take on Nudies? I ask because I've seen it in stores to try on but not the stuff like KMW, Iron Heart, Momotaro, etc. RRL is another option here and I do like the pair I have but can be hard to find. I am considering getting a pair of APC though since $175 is worth a risk without trying on but not $350.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
Keep in mind, APC is $175 retail and considered the ultimate beginner pair of jeans. Frankly, there are far more interesting jeans in that price range.
Please go on.
Quote:
Just because you have a pair of jeans tailored to your tastes doesn't make it a good pair of jeans. Actually, there are several details that any denimhead would scoff at the way an MCer would scoff at a fused suit: the lack of rivets around the front pockets, the lack of rivets in the coin pocket, using horn or plastic buttons, the lack of rear rivets, the "coin pocket," the non-tailored belt loops, etc. Sure, some of the jeans at a lower price range that I would recommend would lack a few of these details, but together what you have here isn't a pair of jeans, it's a pair of trousers made out of denim.
Curious about this as well. Rivets seem self explanatory. They reinforce? What's the deal with the "coin pocket" and the belt loops? What am I looking for?
post #131 of 178
I still would happily wear my 10+ year old collection of diesel jeans before I bought most of the newer stuff that has come out since these did.
post #132 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
Keep in mind, APC is $175 retail and considered the ultimate beginner pair of jeans. Frankly, there are far more interesting jeans in that price range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HomerJ View Post
Please go on.


Yes, please tell. I like my APC NS's a lot: I really like the simple design. Fit is also nice, except for the waist which is about two centimeters too big, I think. Sizing down doesn't seem to be an option, because they're quite tight around the thighs already.

Is Alban perhaps a good alternative?
post #133 of 178
idiots with opinions... that is all. I'm unsure that jeans are made in real quality tiers like finer wool and silks are. When you find a cut of jean that works, stick with it..
post #134 of 178
Homer J and NOBD, I'm taking your questions over to Denim 101 so we can keep this orderly.
post #135 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wjleier View Post
idiots with opinions... that is all. I'm unsure that jeans are made in real quality tiers like finer wool and silks are. When you find a cut of jean that works, stick with it..

Well, I personally go with the idea that fit is the most important factor. My brother, who buys suits at discount, or at Sears, looks better than the majority of posters in the MC WAYWT, because he has a terrific alterations tailor. I have a pretty decent tailor as well. The difference between my brother and me, all other things being equal, is that my suit costs a few thousand dollars, and his probably cost under $300. I think that I look marginally better, but certainly not $3000 better.

That said, I really enjoy my beautiful suits and "proper shoes", though I wear them hardly at all. Why then should I not enjoy my casual clothing? A roundabout way to address your point, but yes, there are real quality tiers of denim, like there are tiers of finer quality wools and silks.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › what makes Seven for all mankind and Hudson jeans so expensive?