or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The official thrift/discount store bragging thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The official thrift/discount store bragging thread - Page 1755

post #26311 of 122024

Quote:

Originally Posted by GMMcL View Post

Fourth: As a business, this is neither high profit nor low risk. As others on this thread are far better positioned to instruct: One must have a firm grasp of both quality and salability (which are non-equivalents, BTW). It's pretty easy to lose a good deal of money fairly quickly and end up with a closet full of clothing in sizes other than your own and that nobody wants to buy. Do that a few times when your whole goal was to get rich quick and you won't go back to the well. Those with true staying power do this because they a) love clothes; b) love the thrill of treasure hunting; c) are perennially cheap; d) like the idea of giving quality garments a second chance at life (see also b)); or e) all of the above.

IMO thirifting is the complete opposite. It is high profit and low risk. The main factor for me (and I'm guessing a lot of people here) from thrifting more is TIME. And yes, depending on how you value your time, it could cost a lot of money=time. Besides from that I have never bought anything I 100% knew I could not sell and break even on/make a profit on. $1-5 Brooks Brothers Shirts, $10 shoes, under $20 suits, etc etc. I knew I would not lose money, but I only shop true thrift store. If you start getting into consignment shops, that is not thrifting anymore in my eyes and the risk goes way up as the prices go way up. Any business with a 100-3000% markup is high profit in my book, but it just depends how much time and effort you want to put into it. If you go full time thrifting 8 hours a day/ 5,6,7 days a week  and your wife/girlfriend takes pictures and lists stuff I'm sure this could be a full time family business grossing $60-80K/year.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mexicutioner View Post


i'm not a trademark lawyer, but i don't think that's how trademark law works. i think the reason shows don't feature brands is to avoid giving out free publicity (which would diminish what they can demand for product placement) and not because the brand-owner stops them via trademark infringement lawsuit threats. anyone who isn't talking out of his ass care to chime in?
on a related note, how many other damned lawyers are in this thread? AndroFan outed himself, and i think a couple of dudes mentioned being in law school.


+1 I'm no lawyer but you see the guys on storage wars find "name brand" stuff all the time. What about those Big E jeans that Jarrod and Brandi found? I remember seeing the show...not sure if they showed the "tag" but they described them and if anyone was watching just had to pop onto google to get more info.... so what if they dont show the Oxxford or Brioni suit tag... pop onto ebay or google and anyone who's going to hit the thrift stores has one more name brand added to the list.

 

That all being said. I highly doubt this is going to have an impact...at least on me. there's nothing here in NJ to worth even thrifting (aka all you guys stay away) fight[1].giflol8[1].gif

post #26312 of 122024
[quote name="mexicutioner" url="/t/9006/the-official-thrift-discount-store-bragging-thread/26295#post_5215041"] i'm not a trademark lawyer, but i don't think that's how trademark law works. i think the reason shows don't feature brands is to avoid giving out free publicity (which would diminish what they can demand for product placement) and not because the brand-owner stops them via trademark infringement lawsuit threats. anyone who isn't talking out of his ass care to chime in? on a related note, how many other damned lawyers are in this thread? AndroFan outed himself, and i think a couple of dudes mentioned being in law school.[/quote] I have a lot of intellectual property litigation experience, not specifically in trademark, but the general principles are familiar to me. Mere use of a mark requires permission. Any use that tends to reduce the value of your good is compensible mark tarnishment. I strongly suspect this is the reason brands are blurred.
post #26313 of 122024
Quote:
Originally Posted by mexicutioner View Post


i'm not a trademark lawyer, but i don't think that's how trademark law works. i think the reason shows don't feature brands is to avoid giving out free publicity (which would diminish what they can demand for product placement) and not because the brand-owner stops them via trademark infringement lawsuit threats. anyone who isn't talking out of his ass care to chime in?
on a related note, how many other damned lawyers are in this thread? AndroFan outed himself, and i think a couple of dudes mentioned being in law school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMMcL View Post

[quote name="mexicutioner" url="/t/9006/the-official-thrift-discount-store-bragging-thread/26295#post_5215041"] i'm not a trademark lawyer, but i don't think that's how trademark law works. i think the reason shows don't feature brands is to avoid giving out free publicity (which would diminish what they can demand for product placement) and not because the brand-owner stops them via trademark infringement lawsuit threats. anyone who isn't talking out of his ass care to chime in? on a related note, how many other damned lawyers are in this thread? AndroFan outed himself, and i think a couple of dudes mentioned being in law school.[/quote] I have a lot of intellectual property litigation experience, not specifically in trademark, but the general principles are familiar to me. Mere use of a mark requires permission. Any use that tends to reduce the value of your good is compensible mark tarnishment. I strongly suspect this is the reason brands are blurred.


Couple reasons for the blurring: the big network shows that do this are supported by expensive advertising, and HP is not going to like it when everyone on 30 Rock is using a Mac. Second is that they don't like free advertising when people will pay for product placement. Also, yeah, tarnishment is a form of dilution, which is definitely actionable. I suspect a lot of the big networks choose to blur stuff out to preempt any dilution claims (imagine a scenario where the dumbest person on the show uses some product in a ridiculous way, especially if its a sexual way). But in the case of a thrifting show, it's highly unlikely filming people buying things in thrift stores is going to constitute infringement. Think about Storage Wars - they've never blurred a brand name on any of the stuff they find, just the brands people are wearing. And that's just out of a desire to advertise for free. 

 

Trademark infringement is all about confusion. You really got to show that an "appreciable number of ordinarily prudent consumers" are going to be misled into thinking the defendant's goods or services are related to the plaintiff's mark.

post #26314 of 122024
Quote:
Originally Posted by mexicutioner View Post

on a related note, how many other damned lawyers are in this thread? AndroFan outed himself, and i think a couple of dudes mentioned being in law school.

 

Yeah, I noticed that too. Not sure why, but my best guess: need for suits + law school debt. I know I'm not buying any new 8k Kitons at the moment!

 

Plus once you pay 10% retail for something like that, there is no going back.

post #26315 of 122024

Argh! Lawyers! I've fallen in with a bad crowd. 

 

I hit two places this morning (all the time I had) and found NOTHING. I don't think I've ever had an 0-fer before... Either my standards are higher now or places are depleted. 

post #26316 of 122024
Are the Made in USA BB shirts significantly different from the ones made in Malaysia?
post #26317 of 122024
Their retail is significantly more.
post #26318 of 122024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klobber View Post

There is no way Robert Graham shirts can be worth anything, eBay must be lying and adding an extra position in the number, instead of $7 it shows 70 facepalm.gif. It must be a conspiracy. They are by far the fugliest shirts I have ever had the misfortune to see (maybe as horrid as English Laundry). And all made in India as well from cheap fabrics - who does this Robert guy think he is to charge $200+ for absolute bullshit - and very very ugly bullshit as well?
Allow me to add to complements - a nice ensemble there. I am glad to see you posting pics of yourself. Oxxford is very nice, and looks fairly recent as well. A good score.

 

If people are dumb enough to pay for ugly things and I have said ugly things in my possession, well, to quote Ice Cube "They can't do nothin' but get the hell outta my way."
 

 

 

post #26319 of 122024
Quote:
Originally Posted by lastdonb View Post



One that throws me is the "Made in Italy" pants waistband, but then it's from Kirkland!

 

And did everybody in my city buy three pairs of dockers and then donate them?




Don't knock (modern) Dockers until you've tried them.  The D1 slim fit cut and the Alpha Khakis are A+ for fit and materials at their $65 MSRP.  I've yet to don a pair of Bill's, but you would still have a hard time finding that perfect pair of Bill's for $65, even at eBay prices.  I've only seen a few M3s on eBay and a handful on this thread, so if you need good fitting khakis now and price is a constraint, those newer Dockers are spot on. 

 

Ignore this if you love pleats and have a generously sized waist.

post #26320 of 122024
Quote:
Originally Posted by mexicutioner View Post

on a related note, how many other damned lawyers are in this thread? AndroFan outed himself, and i think a couple of dudes mentioned being in law school.

Guilty, your honor. shog[1].gif
post #26321 of 122024
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMMcL View Post



Fourth: As a business, this is neither high profit nor low risk. As others on this thread are far better positioned to instruct: One must have a firm grasp of both quality and salability (which are non-equivalents, BTW). It's pretty easy to lose a good deal of money fairly quickly and end up with a closet full of clothing in sizes other than your own and that nobody wants to buy. Do that a few times when your whole goal was to get rich quick and you won't go back to the well. Those with true staying power do this because they a) love clothes; b) love the thrill of treasure hunting; c) are perennially cheap; d) like the idea of giving quality garments a second chance at life (see also b)); or e) all of the above.

 

 

I agree with most of what you said, including the highlighted point, but I wanted to add this perspective:

 

We all generally know how the casts of reality shows work.  There are very few balanced emotions, with the focus being on bringing dramatic situations into the fold.  On Storage Wars, you have everyone save for the professional flipper (Dave) getting lost in this notion that things are worth money and these things have immutable values.  You see them trolling through the stacks of stuff placing $100 values on anything from coffee tables to guitars, as if they're already sold.  They "win" each episode by accumulating these appraisals as if they've already been promised the sale of these items.  I've watched about a dozen episodes and in every one, at least one person "loses" multiple hundreds to thousands of dollars.  I'm assuming most of this money is their personal investment, yet they seem undeterred by spending boatloads of money on a general loss.  The time they invest in going to these events, buying, moving, storing, and bargaining the sale of items is outrageous, yet they continue.

 

If like one poster said, people are flocking to these sales and throwing ever increasing amounts at the storage units, there's an even lower barrier to entry for thrifting.  You could buy a whole rack of items, possibly containing a gem, for far less than a single storage unit would go for.  I think the growth of thrift store shopping, even without media hype, has come to a point where I have trouble going through a store on the weekend.  If the traffic DOUBLED, would there be any fun left in the hunt?

post #26322 of 122024
Quote:
Originally Posted by acosbysweater View Post





Don't knock (modern) Dockers until you've tried them.  The D1 slim fit cut and the Alpha Khakis are A+ for fit and materials at their $65 MSRP.  I've yet to don a pair of Bill's, but you would still have a hard time finding that perfect pair of Bill's for $65, even at eBay prices.  I've only seen a few M3s on eBay and a handful on this thread, so if you need good fitting khakis now and price is a constraint, those newer Dockers are spot on. 

Ignore this if you love pleats and have a generously sized waist.

D1s are a little small in the seat for my hockey playing ass, but I'm a fan of the D2 fit. Not quite as slim in the leg as I would like, but pretty reasonable. D3 and D4 are the traditional dockers ridiculously baggy cuts.
post #26323 of 122024
Quote:
Originally Posted by mexicutioner View Post

on a related note, how many other damned lawyers are in this thread? AndroFan outed himself, and i think a couple of dudes mentioned being in law school.

A soon-to-be (unemployed) lawyer. I'm transactional, though, so no need to worry about me bringing the long arm of the law to bear on anyone.
post #26324 of 122024

I took my wife along on my Northern Thrift Loop yesterday. Found a number of sport coats but the highlight was this pair of shoes.  In my effin size too!!

 

Alden Shell Cordovan Perf Toe Style #9015

GEDC0468.JPG

post #26325 of 122024
^I want one, too.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The official thrift/discount store bragging thread