Perhaps being from Academia - the idea of wearing a product that is now part of the English language "in the Pink" appeals to me.
OKay, I can't let this pass. As an academic, you must certainly be interested in the development of such terms -- the genetic analysis, I believe a Comp Lit professor called it. Thomas Pink has nothing to do with the original, apocryphal 1700s tailor whose name allegedly spawned the phrase "in the pink". It was founded as a low-cost Jermyn Street-style shirtmaker in Fulham about 20 years ago by the Mullen brothers, marketing graduates. They gradually nosed up their profile from dressing signet-ringed wannabe real estate agents into a real Jermyn Street shop and into the LVMH stable. Somewhere along the way production shifted to the 3rd world. An analogy to this use of an unrelated name for marketing purposes is Sam Adams beer (except I'd actually buy Sam Adams beer) -- no relation to the 1700s brewer/patriot/rabblerouser except in name. Or, perhaps more aptly, the "Savile Row" range of junky clothing on sale in Macy's etc. Yes, by wearing it one may feel a frisson of elation in wearing clothes with a label recalling the very best of men's sartorial tradition... but apart from the name there's no relation whatsoever. Borrowed past, borrowed glory. Pandit RJman-singhji