Do you like something less because everyone else has it?

This happened to me when I bought a chrome messenger bag, not knowing that it was a very popular item around the bay area (berkeley), considering the store originated in SF. Its not as popular as, say jansport, but when someone has a chromebag, that belt buckle just stands out.

So, I'm looking for a new pair of sunglasses, and I'm thinking about getting the persol 2720s, the bond persols. I like how they look, but I'm reluctant to get them because they're the "Bond persols" that everyone seems to have. Do you guys ever alter your fashion sense because of the popular trend?

I tend to avoid things that everyone seems to be picking up on until a few years after the trend dies down and then see if I should pick it up or if I need the item now I just find something different that is just as cool.

One thing in particular was ray ban aviators that everyone in my town seemed to have 3-4 years ago but I really liked and they stuck in my head. At first I bought some AO aviators for driving with but I bought some ray bans just last month that I wear out and have gotten plenty of compliments on them so far.

Originally Posted by quanfer

Click to expand...

Do you guys ever alter your fashion sense because of the popular trend?

the 'popular trend' usually revolves around brands with their logos plastered over every article of clothing they sell. so no, definitely not, in that regard.

Yes.

In Joris-Karl Huysmans A rebours there is a nice paragraph about it. Though He's referring to a few of Goya's etchings he never hung up because they got popular it's the same problem basically. I'd quote it, but I just have the German translation.

For me it goes both ways. I'll like something less if I see a lot of people trenwhoring it out, but, I always try to consider SuFu resale value when making a purchase that I'm not 100% sure on.

I've only stopped wearing a particular brand once because it got "popular", but it's a little more complicated. For me, it was The North Face gear.

I am an avid hiker and camper. To me camping is not "let's drive to the campsite and set up shop". It doesn't count unless you're taking everything on your back and going into the deep of Montana, England or wherever. So I have a lot of quality gear, because my equipment gets used and abused.

Back in the day (late 80s-early 90s) I picked up a good amount of TNF gear from Campmor. It was good stuff back then. I still have most of it today, even though some of it is rather ragged (e.g. my TNF jacket which has been back to the factory for repairs for scorched and punctured panels from hot rifle barrels and barbed wire).

Fast forward to the late 1990s and early 2000s. TNF went bankrupt in the 1990s and was resurrected as a "fashion brand". The quality of the gear suffered, but every college kid and soccer mom was wearing a TNF Denali or Mountain Light jacket. They still are, if you look around. To these folks, the idea of "roughing it" is probably staying in a three star hotel but to them it probably brings an air of ruggedness from TNF's former stature as hardcore mountaineering equipment.

While I'm normally not overly concerned with what image my clothes project, I draw the line at "poser". I don't feel like being labeled one, even if the label is not true. I don't carry pics of my assaults into GNP or the Lake District in my wallet to prove otherwise (mainly because I don't carry a wallet).

So that's the story ... I don't wear my TNF gear out on the street because I don't want to be associated with the current gaggle of blissninnys who wear them thinking that it brings some sort of association to hardcore outdoor use. I still use it out in the woods, as my early-era TNF gear is still good stuff, especially compared to current issue TNF.

yeah, definitely. some brands i won't go near because everyone is hypin it up too much. unless it's some classic like the APC NS...but Lanvin for example, i bought a cotton suit i liked in ss 07 and then a pair of AW 07 sneakers, then i found out that there was a massive thread on the sneakers at superfuture and since then i have not been so fond of the brand...not just for this reason alone, but is it coincidence that when something gets this hyped up, the integrity of the brand decreases as well? I mean up to that point Lanvin wasn't doing a lot of entry level street pieces, but apparently looks like they got a lot of basic tees and polos now and a billion styles of sneakers as opposed to the few that were released during the initial run of them in aw 07, just what happened to dior homme.

cannot fault them though, at the end of the day fashion is a business.

yup

Yes, probably why I won't ever wear/buy raw denim. I'm not hip enough for it anyway.

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

Click to expand...

yup

socal i've been meaning to ask you your opinion on this: Do you think Raf's work is reaching that "bottle neck" point?

i had a discussion with the 'rents at dinner, we were discussing Jil Sander...and i was musing on how the current JS womenswear has strayed quite, quite far from Jil's own work. If you think about it, Jil was never really about radical proportions or experimental silhouettes; in fact i would say her clothes are kinda "ugly" in their shape...definitely epitomized minimalism, her work attracted me because it seemed like totally faceless and robotic clothing, but very very well made and nobody except Miyake has paid as much attention to fabric. Looking at what Raf has done for the house, the mens sometimes nails the same spirit but overall it is not very "Jil Sander" any more to me.

Well he is working at a house with a great legacy, he can't just pump out the same **** from her archives now can he? I also wouldn't say that Jil Sander was a "minimalist", well I would; but, I prefer the term "reductionist" more. I think the fashion press use minimalism since it is easier to understand and comprehend. I love his work for the women's line.

Sure there are some airy and new silhouttes that he is playing with; but, his tailoring for women is cut on a razor's edge and I think Jil herself is resting easy when she sees these things because to her the house she started is going in the right direction.

Probably my best find ever for only $15: Original press photo from 1975.

reductionist is a much better description your'e right

the difference to me is, the jil sander of today is something i can see young girls in their teens and early 20s lusting after...particularly the dresses of this season. I never would have pictured the same scenario happening with the JS of old. I associate it more with that German chancellor woman Jil is apparently a wardrobe consultant to these days. it's stoic and powerful in its starkness rather than flighty and playful

of course it would be redundant to just churn out archival work...look at what happened to HL. But to me it is another Raf Simons line, not JS.

yes

Has Jil ever commented on what she thinks of Raf's direction with her name? I would assume she might have some ill will towards the Prada group or whoever it was that owned her name but I'm curious about what designers think when someone else takes over their name for them. I'd imagine Helmut Lang isn't very happy though...

I stopped buying raf when Socal started copping.