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 5

post #61 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
Also, cut can be subjective BS, not just with jeans but with any article of clothing. .


Not to mention how something fits on you can be widely different to how it fits on me. 501s sized up are the closest I'll ever get to skin tight jeans
post #62 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
To a SW&D guy like me, buying those $30 Levi's at Sears has about the same level of "authenticity" as buying a Gucci bag on Canal St. or a dvd copy of Cars 2 off an alley in LA's garment district. As with any product, if you want the real-deal "authentic" version it comes at a price. The problem is that most outsiders scoff at that price because they don't understand the level of work and attention to detail that it takes to achieve, preferring to carry over their "pure hype" analogies of pop fashion brands and apply them to reproduction or heritage brands. It's bullshit.

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.
post #63 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post
They're cheap, tough and usually made in Mexico instead of China!

Does that really make any difference? Cheap labour is cheap labour, whether it be in China, Mexico, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Honduras, etc. Rather like comparing the virtues of fæces is it not?

Great thread by the way, MC meets SW&D.
post #64 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.
Alternately, it's that you and the suit 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 suits. That's fine if you're on a suit internet forum, but it comes off goofy when you take it anywhere else. You either care how and where your clothing is made or you don't.
post #65 of 178
Quote:
What makes Seven for all mankind and Hudson jeans so expensive?
Fashion is not priced on a cost plus basis it is priced on a what the market will pay basis. This applies to all men and women's fashion. If you buy your clothes anywhere but the supermarket you are paying huge mark ups and even at the supermarket there are higher priced lines. Yes cost of production does come in there somewhere but for factory produced clothes it is not the most significant factor.
post #66 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by laphroaig View Post
Alternately, it's that you and the suit 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 suits. That's fine if you're on a suit internet forum, but it comes off goofy when you take it anywhere else.

You either care how and where your clothing is made or you don't.

Exactly. I don't understand how some of these guys can show so much appreciation for subtle differences in cut/material/construction of their MC clothes that nobody on the street would notice or give a shit about even if they were made aware of it and then completely write off people who appreciate the intricacies of high end denim as suckers falling for marketing/hype or whatever. It completely boggles my mind.

The fact is there are reasons some brands demand the respect that they have. Whodini explained them well. Like he said, it seems like you guys just don't understand denim and don't really care to. But if the latter is the case, then I think it's relatively logical to assume that these opinions on the value (whether aesthetic or monetary) and manufacturing of these denim brands are pretty meaningless.

Like I said before, different strokes for different folks, but we can't ignore facts.
post #67 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGuy View Post
^^ Uniqlo jeans are ugly as hell!

haha what, they look better than most of what MC wears. How exactly are they ugly? We're not talking predistressed crap. They're very plain, boring jeans like they should be.
post #68 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
Those are nice theories, but they're just that. You can also claim that preference of Levi's, Rustlers, Lee, Wrangler, etc. can also be generational and I've noticed that at times. But the real answer as to why Wranglers are preferred is that they were one of the first brands (if any) to produce a pair of jeans specifically with cowboys in mind. Next time you pick up a pair, ask yourself what's the one thing that separates it from everyone else. The answer is the inseam. If you'll notice, on a pair of Wranglers the inseam is stitched flat and smooth while the outseam has a stitched "lip;" With other jeans, the opposite is true. The reason for the difference is cowboy comfort as a fabric lip on the inseam can prove uncomfortable when pressed against a saddle during a long ride. Wrangler recognized this and the rest is history.

I like information like that.
post #69 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThatGuy View Post
^^ Uniqlo jeans are ugly as hell!

BRB thinking if something is boring looking, it represents classic styling.

The raw/ selvedge denim look is so overdone in the Western countries. Look at pink shirts and cufflinks. LOL at all the lemmings.

They have standard dark wash selvedge. How is that "ugly as hell!"? That would make almost all pairs of selvedge jeans "ugly as hell!"
post #70 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
And when you say "ridden in," you just mean jeans that look authentically "worn" or that someone has worn in pre-distressed jeans?
I mean like ridden in as in on a horse. People who are doing equestrian sports -- and I don't mean just cowboys -- often wear jeans for everyday stuff and they would never get pre-distressed ones as that would defeat the purpose. The wear marks are quite distinctive by discipline. You can usually tell if some regular jumps or barrel races or plays polo or whatever just be looking at their jeans.
Quote:
But the real answer as to why Wranglers are preferred is that they were one of the first brands (if any) to produce a pair of jeans specifically with cowboys in mind. Next time you pick up a pair, ask yourself what's the one thing that separates it from everyone else. The answer is the inseam. If you'll notice, on a pair of Wranglers the inseam is stitched flat and smooth while the outseam has a stitched "lip;" With other jeans, the opposite is true. The reason for the difference is cowboy comfort as a fabric lip on the inseam can prove uncomfortable when pressed against a saddle during a long ride. Wrangler recognized this and the rest is history.
I have compared some old Wrangler jeans with some other brands I have and you are correct. Very impressive. By the power vested in me, I hereby appoint you, Whodini, as Official Jeaneologist to the Men's Clothing Forum. Welcome and congratulations! But it also has something to do with the fact that you can get them for $12.
Quote:
"Authenticity" can be described as the honest origin of a product, correct? What, sir, is "authentic" about a pair of $30 Levi's made with wide-loomed denim in a third-world country without the bells and whistles of buttons, a leather patch, and hidden back pocket rivets? To a SW&D guy like me, buying those $30 Levi's at Sears has about the same level of "authenticity" as buying a Gucci bag on Canal St. or a dvd copy of Cars 2 off an alley in LA's garment district. As with any product, if you want the real-deal "authentic" version it comes at a price. The problem is that most outsiders scoff at that price because they don't understand the level of work and attention to detail that it takes to achieve, preferring to carry over their "pure hype" analogies of pop fashion brands and apply them to reproduction or heritage brands. It's bullshit.
First, I should clarify some terms. When I have been talking about SW&D, I haven't really meant to point at you or any particular group of people posting on the SW&D SF forum. I have been using that to refer to the general SW&D scene. I have no doubt that the SW&D forum has its own versions of Manton, Vox & Co. who are serious connoisseurs. I have a fair amount of respect for such specialized knowledge even if I don't quite get the fascination. My understanding of the SW&D aesthetic is that it is based around the idea that Street Wear ought to look like it had been worn on the streets and that the wearer was supposed to project a certain streetwise aura. In other words, a sort of "real clothes for real people" look. Obviously, there are many "sub-looks" you could go for and, to a certain extent, it is mix and match. So when I'm talking about authenticity, I don't mean, "This is authentic Japanese raw denim that sells for $300 a yard!" I mean authenticity in the sense that the clothes should be (or appear to be) clothes that were worn by real people in real life. Sometimes, this is extremely unfortunate, as in the my-baggy-pants-are-falling-off-because-they-don't-let-you-wear-belts-in-jail look. Other times, this actually overlaps, at least theoretically, with the MC aesthetic. See, for example, the MC fascination with Barbour Beaufort waxed jackets. Is my understanding of the SW&D aesthetic wrong? If so, please explain 'cause I really am interested to learn. Even if my basic idea is more-or-less right, please fill in the details.
Quote:
What, sir, is "authentic" . . .
Hah! I knew it! You're a closet iGent! It's OK. We understand. You don't have to pretend any more. You're among friends now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post
Scoffing at something you know nothing about is a sign of profound philistinism. Next up: Jackson Pollock sucks because my 3 1/2 year old can do the same shit.
Modern art was not, perhaps, your best example. There is widespread agreement that 98% of modern artists are talentless hacks. There is widespread and bitter disagreement, however, as to which 2% are geniuses. If you want to analogize MC to classical music and SW&D to late 20th century music, I'm sure MC would agree with you. I think the analogy is actually pretty illuminating.
post #71 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamapuaa View Post
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?
Others have already chimed in and have done well in calling out the holes in your argument, but at the risk of beating a dead horse I'll answer you. The fact that concerns like yours exist after this many pages and my long-winded responses can only mean that there are still many like you reading this and still not getting the points. I'll admit it's getting to be a bit like hitting my head against the wall but I'd prefer to make things crystal for the record.

Believe it or not, denim is a hobby. No one is pushing you at gun point into a store like Self Edge and demanding that you enjoy your $300 purchase. Whether you care or don't about the history of a garment doesn't take away its intrinsic value; you don't get a discount for not giving a shit.

How can you write with a straight face that if you purchase the cheapest possible versions of a product, you'd "expect that they'll last forever?" Need I remind you of the kind of forum of which you are currently a member and of the threads in which you read and post?

Pay attention, folks: Denim enthusiasts purchase "expensive" jeans for many reasons, of which often its longevity may not be top priority. Compare this with suits, shoes, cars, homes, and condoms. Simply put, most would prefer a purchase last a lifetime but if it doesn't satisfy for a myriad of other reasons then it's basically worthless. This is a basic general concept of the human condition; if it's lost on you then I'd suggest you stop reading here and perhaps back away slowly from this forum.

Your understanding of the "festishization" is poor and is clearly drawn partly from limited information and mostly from filling in the gaps yourself via preconceptions, misconceptions, and bias. Perhaps because you equate jeans with cowboys and miners, or "working men," you assume that our fascination extends to their current-day counterparts and their spending habits. To give you a comparison, this is like asking a man who owns a custom 1950 Chevy Bel Air why he didn't buy a 2010 Chevy Cobalt if he cared so much about what a poor "working man" would buy.

As I explained before, authenticity is the honest origin of a product. "Working man" jeans sold for $30 today are not the same jeans working men purchased back then. Jeans were revolutionized in the 60s to be produced and sold cheaper, and later third-world outsourcing further emphasized bottom-line price over quality. The same can be said for virtually every branch of the garment industry and many other industries as well. Denim enthusiasts willingly and happily pay a premium for products that are near-exact reproductions of items from 50-100 years ago, or products that take a similar approach in fabrication but add their own twist. Authentic. Reproduction.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kamapuaa View Post
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.
One button, two button, three button, single breast, double breast suits. Saddle, brogue, monk, and plain toe shoes. I'm pretty sure most MCers are familiar with historic trends, albeit the more obscure ones.


For most mouth-breathers outside this forum, jeans are rather classic and iconic. Some have chosen to pay more attention to this trend than others.
post #72 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post
But it also has something to do with the fact that you can get them for $12.
If I had thought you might be a cowboy up until now, consider my mind changed. No cowpuncher worth his hide would purposely pick the cheapest equipment just to save some quick cash. I get that you're implying that cowboys, like most people, like a good deal but as my ex-girlfriend once told me when I called her a drunk bitch, you don't exactly have a way with words.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post
First, I should clarify some terms. When I have been talking about SW&D, I haven't really meant to point at you or any particular group of people posting on the SW&D SF forum. I have been using that to refer to the general SW&D scene...

My understanding of the SW&D aesthetic is that it is based around the idea that Street Wear ought to look like it had been worn on the streets and that the wearer was supposed to project a certain streetwise aura. In other words, a sort of "real clothes for real people" look. Obviously, there are many "sub-looks" you could go for and, to a certain extent, it is mix and match.

So when I'm talking about authenticity, I don't mean, "This is authentic Japanese raw denim that sells for $300 a yard!" I mean authenticity in the sense that the clothes should be (or appear to be) clothes that were worn by real people in real life. Sometimes, this is extremely unfortunate, as in the my-baggy-pants-are-falling-off-because-they-don't-let-you-wear-belts-in-jail look. Other times, this actually overlaps, at least theoretically, with the MC aesthetic. See, for example, the MC fascination with Barbour Beaufort waxed jackets.

Is my understanding of the SW&D aesthetic wrong? If so, please explain 'cause I really am interested to learn. Even if my basic idea is more-or-less right, please fill in the details.
In a word: yes. In several words: holy sweet Jesus, yes. Speaking for myself, I frankly don't care what "real people" wear; if I did, I'd dress like every other man my age and wouldn't be a member of this forum. Last time I checked, I'm a real person and I dress like me. If you think that I or others in the SW&D crowd dress like rappers then you're confusing the term "streetwear" that we use to describe causal designer wear with a complete other genre specifically geared towards what has traditionally been the hip-hop community. Our streets are typically not their streets.

Venture through our WAYWT threads and see how our palate for "causal" can run a wide spectrum from 1950s reproductions to 2011 avant garde.
post #73 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post

Extra credit if you know why Wrangler is a favorite brand among cowboys.

Because it's what cowgirls like.
post #74 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post
Hah! I knew it! You're a closet iGent! It's OK. We understand. You don't have to pretend any more. You're among friends now.
I had to close with this. I'm going to venture a guess that you joke that I'm a closet iGent because I referred to you as "sir" and perhaps because of my sentence structure. The former implies a note of shared respect while the latter implies a note of education. This thread has unfortunately exposed that while your brethren may openly participate in one, there still might be quite a few who wish to ignore the other. I think I'd prefer to decline my invitation to iGentism at this time.
post #75 of 178
Quote:
Originally Posted by whodini View Post
If I had thought you might be a cowboy up until now, consider my mind changed. No cowpuncher worth his hide would purposely pick the cheapest equipment just to save some quick cash. I get that you're implying that cowboys, like most people, like a good deal but as my ex-girlfriend once told me when I called her a drunk bitch, you don't exactly have a way with words.
Uhm, I detect a slight humor impairment. And, if you want to be serious, yes, price is a big factor for people who people who view jeans as work clothes and shop in Walmart. These are jeans, not welding googles or climbing ropes.
Quote:
In a word: yes. In several words: holy sweet Jesus, yes. Speaking for myself, I frankly don't care what "real people" wear; if I did, I'd dress like every other man my age and wouldn't be a member of this forum. Last time I checked, I'm a real person and I dress like me. If you think that I or others in the SW&D crowd dress like rappers then you're confusing the term "streetwear" that we use to describe causal designer wear with a complete other genre specifically geared towards what has traditionally been the hip-hop community. Our streets are typically not their streets. Venture through our WAYWT threads and see how our palate for "causal" can run a wide spectrum from 1950s reproductions to 2011 avant garde.
Fine. My impression is wrong. That's why I asked. So please describe the aesthetic. What are you -- and I don't necessarily mean you personally, though I am curious about that, too -- going for? How do you critique a look and decide what is "good" and what is "bad?"
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?