Thoughts on STEALTH WEALTH?

[Garage/Surf Rock]

+85 what Bridgen said

 

[wiru]

Originally Posted by Brigden

Thus, enter pretension and the gent who insists on making obvious statements regarding his material worth via his clothing. He has no style... "Stealth wealth" is a joke.
I don't follow this. The whole idea of 'stealth wealth' is not to make a conspicuous display of worth. As for image polluting fashion, I think this is factually incorrect. There was never a time when fashion was innocent and pure, and then got debased. Clothing has always indicated social and economic status -- not just in our society, but in every society. I'd go so far as to say that this is clothing's primary function, beyond aiding survival. Maybe you think clothing should be pure art, but that's not the way it is or ever has been.

 

[Brigden]

Originally Posted by wiru

I don't follow this. The whole idea of 'stealth wealth' is not to make a conspicuous display of worth.

As for image polluting fashion, I think this is factually incorrect. There was never a time when fashion was innocent and pure, and then got debased. Clothing has always indicated social and economic status -- not just in our society, but in every society. I'd go so far as to say that this is clothing's primary function, beyond aiding survival. Maybe you think clothing should be pure art, but that's not the way it is or ever has been.

Clothing has the potential to be art, but rarely is, as I previously stated. I don't refute that clothing is not or should not be about image. In fact, in my previous post I suggest it is. Because we have always employed clothing as part of an image package, factors such as retail value have a huge impact on what is considered desirable, but I digress.

My main point suggests that wearing seemingly slovenly clothing that costs ridiculous sums of money, especially when it resembles similar or identical garments at a exponentially lower price and only slightly inferior quality is not only pointless, it is foolhardy.

Should an individual truly be concerned with avoiding making gratuitious and conspicious displays of wealth, one should wear generic clothing, or low-cost designer knock-offs if they inisist on maintaining a particular motif.

If one insists on wearing a $1600 sweat shirt and more closely resembles the $10 variety, go right ahead! But do so because you enjoy the label, it's branding, and the image, but not because you think it affords you the appearance of invisible material wealth.

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by wiru

I don't follow this. The whole idea of 'stealth wealth' is not to make a conspicuous display of worth.

....or to not post it on internet fora...

 

[bant]

Originally Posted by wiru

I don't follow this. The whole idea of 'stealth wealth' is not to make a conspicuous display of worth. As for image polluting fashion, I think this is factually incorrect. There was never a time when fashion was innocent and pure, and then got debased. Clothing has always indicated social and economic status -- not just in our society, but in every society. I'd go so far as to say that this is clothing's primary function, beyond aiding survival. Maybe you think clothing should be pure art, but that's not the way it is or ever has been.
the whole idea of stealth wealth IS to make a conspicuous display of wealth in a manner that is designed to appear subtle or unintentional. the very phrase itself reeks of pretension. reminds me a lot of the hipster movement

 

[Rye GB]

This thread should be moved to the Men's Forum. It would be interesting to see how the opinions change when a Brioni suit versus a 3 day suit broker special or a Franck Muller versus a timex knock off are used as part of ones argument.

 

[LA Guy]

Originally Posted by Rye GB

This thread should be moved to the Men's Forum. It would be interesting to see how the opinions change when a Brioni suit versus a 3 day suit broker special or a Franck Muller versus a timex knock off are used as part of ones argument.

Oh, I know what the responses would be there. The thread will descend quickly into a tedium of pickstitching and handbasted floating front canvas construction and fabric quality.

The difference between Men's Clothing and Streetwear is that in MC, there is an objective standard of quality, quality being defined here as the quality of the raw materials and the workmanship. The debate is no less relevant here as there, but the apparatus for argument is distinctly different.

 

[lawyerdad]

Originally Posted by LA Guy

The difference between Men's Clothing and Streetwear is that in MC, there is an objective standard of quality, quality being defined here as the quality of the raw materials and the workmanship. The debate is no less relevant here as there, but the apparatus for argument is distinctly different.

I admit that I'm coming at this from a position of relative ignorance, but is that really the case? I don't doubt there are people who would maintain that the standards of "quality" in MC are more objective. But from my sporadic observations, it doesn't seem that there's that much difference between discussions of the quality of denim and workmanship in, say, Dior v. 5EP jeans and discussions of the quality of materials and workmanship in, say, Kiton v. Canali suits. It seems to me that in both areas different people value differently the mix of relatively "objective" factors (quality of denim or wool, amount/quality of detail/handwork, durability, etc.) and much more subjective factors (cut/styling, color/patterns, etc.) Certainly even within the MC "community" you'll find substantial disagreement about the value and importance of buying only fully-canvassed jackets or whether functional buttonholes are a mark of "quality".

The one difference I do see is that MC items are more often (although obviously not always) worn in settings where there are more firmly established stylistic conventions (thus the relevance of Manton's conservative business dress-scold bit, etc.) But this seems to go more to the issue of style than quality.

Just my random musings, obviously.

 

[JBZ]

I have a tendency to agree with lawyerdad. There is some objectivity, to a point, but other things factor in. Off the top of my head, fit, style, and even location of manufacture come into play. For example, I prefer buying Alden shoes even though there are many brands that are manufactured to a higher standard. This is because I enjoy buying American made products and, in particular, products made in New England.

Of course, since I rarely wear suits anymore, and since I can't wear jeans other than on the weekend, I'm kind of stuck between the two fora. I generally don't get into the nitty gritty of the construction quality of [whatever] threads.

Sorry if this is a derailment of the original topic.

 

[dopey]

Originally Posted by lawyerdad

I admit that I'm coming at this from a position of relative ignorance, but is that really the case? I don't doubt there are people who would maintain that the standards of "quality" in MC are more objective. But from my sporadic observations, it doesn't seem that there's that much difference between discussions of the quality of denim and workmanship in, say, Dior v. 5EP jeans and discussions of the quality of materials and workmanship in, say, Kiton v. Canali suits. It seems to me that in both areas different people value differently the mix of relatively "objective" factors (quality of denim or wool, amount/quality of detail/handwork, durability, etc.) and much more subjective factors (cut/styling, color/patterns, etc.) Certainly even within the MC "community" you'll find substantial disagreement about the value and importance of buying only fully-canvassed jackets or whether functional buttonholes are a mark of "quality".

The one difference I do see is that MC items are more often (although obviously not always) worn in settings where there are more firmly established stylistic conventions (thus the relevance of Manton's conservative business dress-scold bit, etc.) But this seems to go more to the issue of style than quality.

Just my random musings, obviously.
To add an additional random element, bespoke clothing carries with it an investment in fit that is not present in streetwear. By that I mean that a significant portion of the $ paid is going into the cost of labor that has nothing to do with the quality of the garment but rather into making it specifically to fit you (and no one else). This is distinguishable from the quality of materials and from the quality of construction, and, in my entirely uninformed opinion, not relevant to streetwear. It also takes a trained eye to distinguish between something that fits well and something that is bespoke (probably more trained than my eye - I can tell if something fits really well but have a harder time telling if something is truly bespoke, especially if I don't look for highly correlative cues like materials, buttonhole finishing, non-RTW cloth patterns, etc.; on the other hand, I walked into the Huntsman suite and the cutter recognized the suit I was wearing as bespoke right away).