Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Men's Clothing › Clothing fit of yesteryear
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Clothing fit of yesteryear - Page 3

post #31 of 142
12/28/11 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

That is, it's not that the high end stuff now isn't as good as the high end stuff decades ago. It's that the median garment isn't as good.

As I said above I fear I have gotten too luxury/forvm-specific with my arguments. In looking at my evolution of posts I dunno how I strayed so quickly and violently. I suppose it's been a while since I've had to write a thesis shog[1].gif

I think it's because there has been a tremendous growth in the men's and menswear "luxury" market (God only knows how to qualify "luxury") and that was where my mind wandered. I think I need a cup of coffee.
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 142
12/28/11 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

Everybody is always trying to buy high quality at low prices. Producers are trying produce high quality at low prices. That's how a competitive market works - it doesn't mean that everything ends up shitty quality and low prices. It results in the market we see now.

High end goods don't fit the normal market model. The target market for high end goods aren't trying to buy at low prices. They're actually less likely to buy at low prices.
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 142
12/28/11 at 9:36am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post


As I said above I fear I have gotten too luxury/forvm-specific with my arguments. In looking at my evolution of posts I dunno how I strayed so quickly and violently. I suppose it's been a while since I've had to write a thesis shog[1].gif

I think it's because there has been a tremendous growth in the men's and menswear "luxury" market (God only knows how to qualify "luxury") and that was where my mind wandered. I think I need a cup of coffee.

However, piggy-backing off of Vox's post that prompted the OP, wouldn't Brooks Brothers be considered a luxury or at least upper-tier retailer/manufacturer in the early to mid 20th century?

Not ultra-exclusive like my examples, but a higher quality name/brand?
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 142
12/28/11 at 9:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicola View Post

High end goods don't fit the normal market model. The target market for high end goods aren't trying to buy at low prices. They're actually less likely to buy at low prices.

A given customer may have upward sloping demand for some of these goods, but surely the aggregate demand curve is still downward sloping.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 142
12/28/11 at 9:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post

However, piggy-backing off of Vox's post that prompted the OP, wouldn't Brooks Brothers be considered a luxury or at least upper-tier retailer/manufacturer in the early to mid 20th century?
Not ultra-exclusive like my examples, but a higher quality name/brand?

I think so, yes. But the point is that even the mid- to lower-end stuff (like maybe stuff you could get out of a Sears catalog?) would be better quality than what you'd get today from Men's Wearhouse or whatever, and the owner would have it tailored to fit him.

(Edit: this is the point that I understand to be made, I have no personal experience with vintage 50s Sears garments as they compare to contemporary MW suits)
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 142
12/28/11 at 9:58am
This is a great discussion. My contribution to it is an observation that in the past, I think there was a greater tendency to fill a wardrobe with clothing all intended for special occasions. Saturday afternoon clothing, weekday work clothing, Sunday church clothing, etc. I sense that lives were a bit more structured, and the clothing that was worn benefited from this structure.

Today, I think clothing is intended to be much more versatile, as would be befitting a world where lines are blurred between occasions. I may wear the same thing to work that I wear for an active evening out that I wear for a trip to a cheap diner. My clothing then becomes necessarily more loose-fitting, more versatile, more blended of equal parts formality and informality. Likewise, in these old catalogs or photo albums, one rarely sees a man in a well-tailored suit pumping his first at the local sports bar when his team scores a touchdown. There is, after all, clothing tailored for regular wear vs. clothing tailored for posing for pictures.
Edited by swiego - 12/28/11 at 10:09am
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 142
12/28/11 at 11:49am

 

Quote:
I don't think this necessarily degrades worldwide style as a whole or is some epidemic that must be stopped, as that was not the focus of your OP. I merely contend that if a good portion of people buying and wearing quality high-end clothing are waiting on sales, or preaching that a $300 suit from an online "tailor" is the only way one should shop, and many of these people are trendsetters or have an audience to preach this right of refusal to pay MSRP to through the internet or elsewhere, the effects will be felt eventually.

 

I somewhat disagree. It's mostly the manufacturer/retailer to blame than the consumer for being smart with their money. You don't see Ferrari and Bugatti going on sale, ever, and they remain THE luxury cars.

If BB claims that 1818 costs $1200 but every other month the suit goes on sale for $700 - of course it would set in people's mind that the true price of the suit is $700 and the MSRP of $1200 is just a way for the store to screw you over. What would be my incentive to pay $1200 for a suit when I KNOW I can buy it for $700 in a couple of weeks?!?

 

 

 

Quote:
What was your reply (if any)?

 

I just smiled and said that this is what men wear. She was only with her mother (which may or may not explain it), but I did feel sorry for the girl regardless. The day my daughter thinks that a man in a suit is weird would be the day I know I failed as a father.

Reply
Reply
post #38 of 142
12/28/11 at 12:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

I would have said, just because your daddy is a slob doesn't mean everybody is.

"Oh snap you just got told"
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 142
12/28/11 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patek View Post

I was at the Zegna store in Vegas trying to buy a linen summer OTR jacket. My SA did not know the first thing about fit--both for me and himself. His black suit shoulder's seams were about two inches off his shoulder while the body of the jacket was about six inches too long and fit like a tent. His pants made him look like and inner-city pastor. This guy was trying to convince me that this sports jacket fit well. If he was a college kid, I may have given him a pass. However he was in his mid forties.
I understand that these people don't make much, but if you are selling $4,000 suits, you should not look like a used Buick salesman in NJ. Suffice to say, he did not sell me the jacket although I did pick up a shirt simply because I felt sorry for the guy.

This is Las Vegas though, a microcosm in its own right. Just about everyone there is garish, no matter what job their working. I don't agree with it, but that's how it works. I can't even begin to count the number of poorly dressed SAs I've come across, even in those higher end boutiques. They're staffed by low-paid joe-schoe's off the street too, and so there's very little respect for any given product (unless it's outlandishly branded, ie TR jeans, etc)

My uncle fits into this category though, as well. Lives in Chicago, has worked almost his whole professional life as an SA (don't totally remember where though) selling shoes in a mid-high level store. Can explain the product to you inside and out, and yet his wife buys him gift-cards to his favorite store for Christmas - Armani Exchange - and he loves it. I just don't comprehend the disconnect there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

There's also a fair number of attractive female SAs out there that know zero about how clothes fit but can sell lots of things just by telling their customers they look good in them. I'm always particularly wary of young female SAs for this reason....

Yup.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 142
12/28/11 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bourbonbasted View Post

However, piggy-backing off of Vox's post that prompted the OP, wouldn't Brooks Brothers be considered a luxury or at least upper-tier retailer/manufacturer in the early to mid 20th century?
Not ultra-exclusive like my examples, but a higher quality name/brand?

I'm sure most people today think Brooks Brothers is an upper-tier retailer. Most people won't venture outside the "lower tier" pyramid of stuff like Mens Wearhouse, Macys, JAB, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlrus View Post


I somewhat disagree. It's mostly the manufacturer/retailer to blame than the consumer for being smart with their money. You don't see Ferrari and Bugatti going on sale, ever, and they remain THE luxury cars.
If BB claims that 1818 costs $1200 but every other month the suit goes on sale for $700 - of course it would set in people's mind that the true price of the suit is $700 and the MSRP of $1200 is just a way for the store to screw you over. What would be my incentive to pay $1200 for a suit when I KNOW I can buy it for $700 in a couple of weeks?!?

Pretty standard psychology exercise these days. People are obsessed with "sales" (SF is no exception on this ground), and have a much more tenuous hold of absolute price value. They'd rather get something for "50% off" then buy something of the exact same quality for the same price, but not on sale. So retailers like Brooks Brothers had constant rotating sales. It seems like everyone does this. Stores like JAB are the pioneers and most egregious practitioners, but Lands' End, BB, etc all do it now too. I'm sure it works, makes you check in on the website a lot more often and probably leads to more impulse purchases when the "sale" finally appears, even with an informed customer.

The "luxury brands" operate in a different psychological spectrum, where people are buying them largely because of the higher price and would be less interested if the price were decreased or if they went on sale routinely. You see this a lot with liquor too, pretty good example. People don't really care about quality beyond a certain limited point, they want the appearance of luxury. The whole ultra-premium vodka market revolves around this principle.
Reply
Reply
post #41 of 142
12/28/11 at 12:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

A given customer may have upward sloping demand for some of these goods, but surely the aggregate demand curve is still downward sloping.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good
Reply
Reply
post #42 of 142
12/28/11 at 12:35pm
RTW dress shoe fit, yesteryear vs. today: discuss.
Reply
Reply
post #43 of 142
12/28/11 at 12:36pm
Thread Starter 
Yesteryear was better, clearly.
Reply
Reply
post #44 of 142
12/28/11 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Yesteryear was better, clearly.

Okay, what would be the reasons?
Reply
Reply
post #45 of 142
12/28/11 at 12:48pm
We are taking it as a given that the men of yesteryear were better dressed, but the proof of this is movies from that era? If you watch many modern films (James Bond, Wall Street, etc.) or TV shows, you will still find many examples of well dressed men.

I don't really know one way or another, but it seems we are making a very broad assumption here.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Men's Clothing
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Men's Clothing › Clothing fit of yesteryear