Are Hilfiger dress shirts with the logo flag near the pocket tacky?

[stylemeup]

One of my favorite dress shirts which I bought back in the day was a solid dark navy dress shirt made by Tommy Hilfiger. My local department stores that carry Tommy Hilfiger products don't even carry anything like that any more. Today I was in a Tommy Hilfiger store and they had a new version of what I'm looking for but they now put the flag logo near the front pocket of the dress shirt. On the old version I have of the same shirt, they had a vertical logo flag sewn onto the button strip, well-below the last button. Thus with the shirt tucked in, no one would see any logo at all. Actually I wanted a black one this time but they were using big buttons that piss me off on the black one (in addition the to flag logo where it shouldn't be), yet they still had the old, sleek buttons on the navy one (although the flag logo was changed on that one too). They also put big buttons on their chino pants now instead of the old sleek ones.

Anyhow the main thing about this thread is: I get the vibe that maybe the new version of the dress shirt where the logo flag is right near the pocket and therefore not concealable is tacky. Do you agree that this is tacky?

Is this more or less tacky than a monogram? How would you compare and contrast the tackiness of this with the tackiness of a monogram?

 

[BipgoBumpo]

Yeah, it's obviously tacky. It's the kind of thing that says "labels are more important to me than the way I look," which is a different sort of tackiness that an obvious monogram implies, which is," I have a high opinion of myself." If it's a nice shirt, is there any way you can remove the label without ripping the shirt apart?

 

[Dewey]

If you have to ask, I would say yes. Visible logos are tacky.

 

[Hard2Fit]

Originally Posted by Dewey

Visible logos are tacky.

+1.

 

[stylemeup]

Originally Posted by BipgoBumpo

If it's a nice shirt, is there any way you can remove the label without ripping the shirt apart?

Nope, they are embroidered right in with the new ones. But on the old one I could have removed the vertical flag logo on that one since it's just an extra piece of material that isn't even completely sewn on, just the ends of it are attached to the material and the middle part of it isn't even touching the cloth.

I guess the Hilfiger brand has gone to the dogs in recent years since Hilfiger himself sold the company.

It seems to be hard to find solid dark navy dress shirts in department stores like the Bay, Sears etc. these days. Guess I need to learn to how to find some good places that will let me choose a good color and then get my shirts custom made.

 

[JayJay]

Originally Posted by Dewey

If you have to ask, I would say yes. Visible logos are tacky.
+1

 

[nickwills]

Yea. Not a big fan of that look.

 

[imainish]

Thumbs down for both. No logos or monograms for me.

 

[Musketer]

Logos are tacky but you can wear this to work.

http://www.milanclothing.com/product....asp?id=4219#1

 

[dcdapper]

Yes, logos are tacky.

 

[Pylon]

Not a fan of the Hilfiger logo, at least, for me.

 

[BipgoBumpo]

Originally Posted by Musketer

Logos are tacky but you can wear this to work.

http://www.milanclothing.com/product....asp?id=4219#1

Who the hell would wear something like this? Unless you're a professional clown. The logo might actually improve it.

 

[Eagle]

While logos can be mildly objectionable and an item of clothing without a logo will always be preferable to one with a logo, is this case, is it all that bad? It's certainly not as crass as those over-sized RLPL logos! If you like the shirt, regardless of the logo, wear it.

 

[Doc4]

Well, I use the term "Hilfiger-itis" to refer to any brand that goes in for tacky logo over-exposure.