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

Lacoste fans

post #1 of 22
Thread Starter 
Just letting you all know - the deals on eBay are not too good to be true as you might think them. The Lacoste polos that are cheaply priced and are made in India are pieces of shit. The gator is sewn on, not even embroidered on the shirt, and the quality of the material and buttons is absolutely dispicable. Do NOT waste your money on these. The good Lacostes were previously made in france, and are now made in Peru. I would probably advise against the shirts made in Argentina as well. At least mine only cost $19
post #2 of 22
so it's true, then - the higher quality lacoste shirts from france and peru have a croc that is embroidered onto the fabric of the shirt - not an embroidered patch that is subsequently sewn on? how about older shirts, i.e. from the Izod-Lacoste partnership? do they have a patch or real embroidery? /andrew - can't believe how flooded the market is with second quality and fakes...
post #3 of 22
Thread Starter 
Here are examples: Here is one made in France: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws....99&rd=1 Notice the embroidering, and the detail along the color (not pictured here is the fact that the French shirts have side vents) Here is an Indian made one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws....69&rd=1 Note that the gator looks awful (something I never noticed until I received my said piece of crap), the buttons are of awful quality, and there are not any side vents at the bottom. (not pictured). Grrrrr. Can you sense my frustration?
post #4 of 22
Showing a brand is silly, but showing a cheap brand like Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Boss, and such the like is just absurd. So why bother buying Lacoste in the first place, they are poor quality polo shirts, and all you pay for is the brand. At least with Gucci, Prada, Versace etc. you are getting a high quality, possibly mercerized, rather than pique, cotton polo shirt.
post #5 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
so it's true, then - the higher quality lacoste shirts from france and peru have a croc that is embroidered onto the fabric of the shirt - not an embroidered patch that is subsequently sewn on? how about older shirts, i.e. from the Izod-Lacoste partnership? do they have a patch or real embroidery? /andrew - can't believe how flooded the market is with second quality and fakes...
Yea, that is to the best of my understanding. Mine is DEFINITELY a patch that has been sewn on. It looks awful, it gets creased and protudes a few mm off the fabric of the shirt, instead of being properly embroidered.
post #6 of 22
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Showing a brand is silly, but showing a cheap brand like Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Boss, and such the like is just absurd. So why bother buying Lacoste in the first place, they are poor quality polo shirts, and all you pay for is the brand. At least with Gucci, Prada, Versace etc. you are getting a high quality, possibly mercerized, rather than pique, cotton polo shirt.
Actually, I much prefer the Lacoste polo shirt, and the ones that are made in France/Peru are of very high quality (perhaps not to touch Gucci or Paul Smith, but still very good). I think they fit well to go with my age group (college), and I remember wearing Izod/Lacoste shirts since I was 5 years old. I'm not too concerned with making a purchase on a shirt that will last forever or make girls go "Oooh my gawd he is totally wearing Gewchi." I also prefer the pique to mercerized fabric, as it looks more basic, so to speak, and the texture brings out whatever jeans I'm wearing. Edit: When I say "basic," I mean it doesn't  have that sheer look, or that stretchy look, or that almost shiny look that you get with designer polos.
post #7 of 22
Quote:
Showing a brand is silly, but showing a cheap brand like Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Boss, and such the like is just absurd. So why bother buying Lacoste in the first place, they are poor quality polo shirts, and all you pay for is the brand. At least with Gucci, Prada, Versace etc. you are getting a high quality, possibly mercerized, rather than pique, cotton polo shirt.
Lacoste is the best for polo but there are many fakes
post #8 of 22
Quote:
Quote:
(kalra2411 @ 23 July 2004, 09:17) Showing a brand is silly, but showing a cheap brand like Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Boss, and such the like is just absurd. So why bother buying Lacoste in the first place, they are poor quality polo shirts, and all you pay for is the brand. At least with Gucci, Prada, Versace etc. you are getting a high quality, possibly mercerized, rather than pique, cotton polo shirt.
Actually, I much prefer the Lacoste polo shirt, and the ones that are made in France/Peru are of very high quality (perhaps not to touch Gucci or Paul Smith, but still very good). I think they fit well to go with my age group (college), and I remember wearing Izod/Lacoste shirts since I was 5 years old. I'm not too concerned with making a purchase on a shirt that will last forever or make girls go "Oooh my gawd he is totally wearing Gewchi." I also prefer the pique to mercerized fabric, as it looks more basic, so to speak, and the texture brings out whatever jeans I'm wearing. Edit: When I say "basic," I mean it doesn't  have that sheer look, or that stretchy look, or that almost shiny look that you get with designer polos.
Yes, you have good reasons; Lacoste is indeed pretty decent for sport and college. Moreover, pique does look better with jeans, but with some deep indigo jeans, I would not be afraid of wearing a mercerized polo shirt. On a side note, for a step up from Lacoste, you could try Helmut Lang (no branding. And a better fit) or Paul and Shark, who are an Italian brand, and make some quite nice polos (But arrgh. Again with the branding). Those brands tend to steer away from the mercerized or shiny look, which you do not like, and make more use of pique. The fact of the matter is that on sale you can get Gucci and such the like for similar prices, just look at Luisa Via Roma
post #9 of 22
Quote:
Here are examples: Here is one made in France: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws....99&rd=1 Notice the embroidering, and the detail along the color (not pictured here is the fact that the French shirts have side vents) Here is an Indian made one: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws....69&rd=1 Note that the gator looks awful (something I never noticed until I received my said piece of crap), the buttons are of awful quality, and there are not any side vents at the bottom. (not pictured). Grrrrr. Can you sense my frustration?
it's difficult for me to tell from the photos much difference between the logos. someday i'm going to have to stop in the lacoste store in union square to check out the embroidery. maybe talk to the store people and see if they know anything. in order to really tell in a photo, you'd have to see the inside of the shirt where the logo is. or a *really* closeup shot of the logo so you could see the threads penetrating the fabric. /andrew
post #10 of 22
I bought a Lacoste for children polo for my nephew for his birthday. Children's siize 2. http://www.bensilver.com/fs_stor....ay=3982 It says "Designed in France, Made in Morocco" on the label. The alligator is sewn on, but the whole shirt seems well made. If this shirt is the quality version (and I think it is), this kid is wearing a better polo than his uncle. Isn't that what uncles are for?
post #11 of 22
So are these the high or low quality ones These
post #12 of 22
The funny thing is that about six years ago, when I bought some Lacoste polos in India, the quality was superb - excellent buttons, lovely cloth, tennis tail, and the croc *was* embroidered on. When someone bought me some two years ago, however, the quality was as abysmal as you describe. Since both sets were made in India, I have no idea what is going on. Something is rotten in the state of Lacoste.
post #13 of 22
Quote:
Large (Tag 4) 36/38" XL (Tag 5) 38/40" XXL (Tag 6) 40/42" XXXL (Tag 7) 42/44"
is triple-XL really the official description of a 42-44 chest? sounds like they're trying to appeal to vanity...like i really believe a size 4 is a 'large'. maybe a large leprachaun.
post #14 of 22
Quote:
Quote:
Large (Tag 4) 36/38" XL (Tag 5) 38/40" XXL (Tag 6) 40/42" XXXL (Tag 7) 42/44"
is triple-XL really the official description of a 42-44 chest? sounds like they're trying to appeal to vanity...like i really believe a size 4 is a 'large'. maybe a large leprachaun.
Yes, is does sound odd, but in the UK below is what is genraly accepted: 34/44 X Small 36/46 Small 38/48 Medium 40/50 Large 42/52 X Large 44/54 XX Large 46/56 XXX Large Maybe that is different in the US?
post #15 of 22
As I mentioned in a previous thread, I recently purchased my first Lacoste (ok, my parents used to purchase me Lacoste shirts all the time, but that was over a decade ago) at the Lacoste store in Palm Beach. I had to buy a size 16, since a "˜S' was not as slim as I would like; I am at the office at the moment, so I can't recall if the logo was embroidered on or merely placed on. Also I can't recall if it was made in Peru, but I think it was. And, now I'm questioning the quality of my Lacoste...(damn forum, Now I'm all preoccupied on a Friday about a polo shirt. ) Jon.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Lacoste fans