Not to hound you, but wouldn't these things just be aspects of design? (Aside from "precise folds and stitches." I don't know what that refers to).
There are plenty of jackets that many of us would consider to be high quality, but don't have reinforcements on high stress areas or Talon zippers. Some (gasp) even have YKK zippers. But we'd still call them high quality.
I feel like when someone asks about whether something is "high quality," like that poster who asked earlier about MMM, they're asking for something more objective. What they get, however, are people giving their subjective opinions on design aspects (maybe they don't like washed leather or whatever).
To give an extreme example, this is like someone asking "Is this high quality?" And someone answering "No, it is red, not blue."
Quality and design seem to be separate things. At least in their ideals. I realize things kind of meld together in fashion, but it seems kind of useless if and when the topic of quality comes up, people just talk about whether they like the design.
Well first of all, I would never even begin to compare MMM to Aero. The only thing they'd have in common is that they're constructed with the hide of a dead animal.
So let me attempt to be more objective here:
- Aero offers FQHH leather, a leather which simply has different properties than other more common leathers. It has a different sheen, grain, heft, patina. It's similar to the difference between shell cordovan and calf skin.
- Aero jackets are made by highly trained *single* machinists as someone else pointed out above, as opposed to being made in Asia by an assembly line.
- Someone in the ToJ thread noted that they feel like they could poke a hole in their jacket with their bare finger. On the other hand, I feel like I couldn't rip apart my Aero jackets unless I used some power tools.
So, a different rarer leather, made in a storied highly trained leatherworking shop, made to last for generations. To me, that's quality.
Edited by LaymanX - 10/17/14 at 8:15am