or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Cognitive Dissonance: "Polo = Prole/hiphop/Outlet brand" vs. "Ralph Lauren/RLPL is not"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cognitive Dissonance: "Polo = Prole/hiphop/Outlet brand" vs. "Ralph Lauren/RLPL is not" - Page 9

post #121 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post

Thanks, tone76.
Here are some pics to accompany your post.
FYI, it looks like the E class has the same massive logo as the A and B class.
A Class
221
B Class
205
E Class
169


I think it's just the current trend with car design, rather than a brand whoring type thing.
331
295
284
Honda, Audi and VW, all with massive silver logos on their grills, plus I can think of Citroen and Peugeot as well.

...but then having giant logos on cars is not exactly a new idea..
258
...a 1956 Citroen 2CV. One can't really brand whore with one of these things and try and pass it off as luxury. I believe the 2CV was originally designed as a cheap car for French peasants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post

S Class
233

Looks like Mercedes is doing a 'Rolls Royce' type thing with the S Class, The brand logo as an actual object above the grill, gives it an air of prestige and luxury.

I think brand recognition has always been important with cars. More so these days with so many cars looking very similar to each other, with joint manufacturing agreements, cross licensing, etc. With many older cars, even without branding, they're instantly recognisable, 2CV, Mini, Beetle, etc. With those modern Mercedes A, B and E classes, without any branding it's probably quite difficult tell what they are, they could be from any manufacturer.
Edited by MikeDT - 11/5/11 at 8:42pm
post #122 of 264
You people do know the whole grill on that S class is basically a logo? The same way the Jeep headlights and grill used to be.

You people know an A or B class is basically a MILF city car? That in many European cities a S class can't even fit down some roads?

Of course people wearing hush puppies and a ball cap to cover up wouldn't know these things.
post #123 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post

You people do know the whole grill on that S class is basically a logo? The same way the Jeep headlights and grill used to be.

Yup indeed.

Take the current Mini...
254
The actual branding is really quite discrete. But on the other hand the whole car is basically a logo. The unique and distinctive shape says 'Mini', it can't be anything else. Similarly with the current VW Beetle.

Most newer cars are really just wind-tunnel optimised generic blobs. There is really no way to tell what they are, apart from the branding.

The Mercedes grill has been a distinctive trademark of their cars for a long time, notable by its absence on the smaller cars. It's like a Rolls Royce grill, remove the silver lady and any other branding and it's still obviously a Rolls Royce.

It's like with casual shirts or something, probably the only way to tell Ralph Lauren casual shirts from anyone else's casual shirts, is that they put a distinctive pony logo on them.
Edited by MikeDT - 11/5/11 at 10:49pm
post #124 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDT View Post

The Mercedes grill has been a distinctive trademark of their cars for a long time, notable by its absence on the smaller cars. It's like a Rolls Royce grill, remove the silver lady and any other branding and it's still obviously a Rolls Royce.

That's true. However, for a long time, the shape of the grille and the subtle Three Pointed Star on the top was enough branding. As M-B started chasing volume, particularly among the more status conscious markets, the branding has become more blatant on their lower tier product lines ... not unlike Ralph Lauren.

I just wish I could find an electronic version of that damn article. It was far better written than anything I could ever come up with. baldy[1].gif
post #125 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeDT View Post

The Mercedes grill has been a distinctive trademark of their cars for a long time, notable by its absence on the smaller cars. It's like a Rolls Royce grill, remove the silver lady and any other branding and it's still obviously a Rolls Royce.

Except when it's a Bentley (this comment only applies to the pre-break up RR/Bentley models)
post #126 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTribe View Post

Purple Label > Black Label > Polo (which is Blue Label) > Rugby > Lauren by Ralph Lauren (which is Green Label), and Chaps is owned by a totally different company
RRL is either just above or just below Rugby; I don't pay much attention to either one so I always forget which one it is that Ralph supposedly puts all his energy into these days.
Armani is more confusing because some of his lines don't exist any longer.

I disagree with this a little.

Purple Label > or = Black Label

Black Label > Polo

RRL > or = Rugby/Polo

Polo & Rugby are > or = or < each other (Meaning that the quality differs item to item)

Rugby & Polo > Chaps

His energy is spread out since each brand is run sort of like a separate company internally, but they don't necessarily have to compete.
post #127 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post

Funny what hypocrites some SF posters are. They bash people for wearing certain styles of clothing (square toed shoes, giant untucked shirts, Cole Haan, Hugo Boss, black suits, etc) or tacky "fashion" brands, then turn around an insist anyone who recognizes class differences is an asshole. LOL. Either way, yet another Reev thread that clocks in at 100+. Obviously this topic strikes a chord with more than just me.

You know, I initially replied to your threads on the off chance that you're not a troll, that you might just be an stupid.

But you must be a genius to be able to weave such discriminatory undertones into troll posts. That, and also sick.

The apparent inability to understand the difference between calling something distasteful or tacky, and openly mocking a so-called "low-class" person for wearing nikes (?) is a master stroke.

Another good one is not understanding that Ralph Lauren (green, black and purple labels) are all "tacky fashion brands", as is Nike.

Amazing. Disgusting.
post #128 of 264
Thread Starter 
Hendrix,

A Polo sneaker wearing, NASCAR watching, Tim Mcgraw listening dude is considered in a lower class than the AE wearing, US Open watching, Rachmaninov listening dude. I find it comical that this is so offensive to you. Newsflash: There are different classes in this country. There is lower class, middle class, upper middle class, the 1%, etc. Are you that much of a pretentious ass to deny such basic truth? Hate to break it to you, but a plumber is not considered in the same class as a doctor. I am not the one who is sick, clueless, and just plain stupid ....it is you. Grow up, kid.

This is hardly a troll post. It is a debate centering around brand dilution issues.

As far as not knowing the distinctions b/w RL brands, the only RL I own is a RLPL knitted tie.
Edited by Reevolving - 11/6/11 at 5:39am
post #129 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reevolving View Post

Hate to break it to you, but a plumber is not considered in the same class as a doctor. I am not the one who is sick, clueless, and just plain stupid ....it is you. Grow up, kid.
.

Well pardon me Sir! People working different professions earn different salary – true. Therefore, there is Low/ Middle/High income earner in the society. However, dividing people into class based on their job or personal interest is totally wrong. I am sorry but I respect people for who they are; whether they are doctors or plumbers.
Honestly, some people needs to weak up and realise that we are living in the 21st century.
post #130 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenTribe View Post


Purple Label > Black Label > Polo (which is Blue Label) > Rugby > Lauren by Ralph Lauren (which is Green Label), and Chaps is owned by a totally different company
RRL is either just above or just below Rugby; I don't pay much attention to either one so I always forget which one it is that Ralph supposedly puts all his energy into these days.
Armani is more confusing because some of his lines don't exist any longer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saturdays View Post

I disagree with this a little.
Purple Label > or = Black Label
Black Label > Polo
RRL > or = Rugby/Polo
Polo & Rugby are > or = or < each other (Meaning that the quality differs item to item)
Rugby & Polo > Chaps
His energy is spread out since each brand is run sort of like a separate company internally, but they don't necessarily have to compete.

Booth of your hierarchic flowcharts are slightly incorrect. Only the biggest Polo aficionado knows that:
Polo = RLPL
Polo = RLBL
Polo = RRL
Polo = Rugby
Polo = Chaps
Polo = LRL
etc.

also, paper copies of newspapers and tokens are for use by old folks (except the occasional Chuck E. Cheese visitor, legally).
post #131 of 264
.
Edited by F. Corbera - 11/7/11 at 2:13pm
post #132 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post


...
post #133 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by NORE View Post

...

I just got an angry PM from Reev. It saddens me.
post #134 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

I just got an angry PM from Reev. It saddens me.

lurker[1].gif
post #135 of 264
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post

lurker[1].gif

If I ever walk into that sports bar, I guess there might be fisticuffs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Cognitive Dissonance: "Polo = Prole/hiphop/Outlet brand" vs. "Ralph Lauren/RLPL is not"