Brands you hate- and why

[andrew96]

What brands don't you like? Why?

Personally, I dislike Ralph Lauren, I don't think his quality is good, and I think it's marketed to low class folks that think if they buy it they will become the aristocracy. Though, Lauren himself is a genius of marketing, and I would love to meet him and discuss business. Man I bet Brooks Brothers is pissed!

I don't like Coach, they've destroyed their quality and turned they're stuff into logo covered crap. It's the Buick of leather.

Louis Vuitton, because it's logo covered rubbish, I can't stand logos.

I like traditional quality, Canali, Brioni, and Brooks Brothers are some good ones. Pendleton is very good, I just with they had mroe men's stuff. Modern brands like Armani, Hugo Boss, etc are for the most part lower quality than those older more traditional brands.

In all, I think too many people are fashion whores, they can't think for themselves. Timeless is what I like.

PS: Fashion sneakers, Nike, Puma, etc. I don't like them either, they're damn sneakers! What happened to new Balance, quality, for running, and sports, not for fashion.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

I believe there is a thread about this already on the main page.

 

[SpallaCamiccia]

Gucci.

Dolce.

Armani.

 

[L'Incandescent]

I hate all brands that contribute to lessening the perceived social distance between me and my inferiors. You see, I am better than others. I have certain qualities that the underclass cannot fully appreciate, but that they can crudely mimic. And when they do, by wearing things like Chaps or Mani or Canali, then I don't appear as superior as I really am. To reiterate, I am better than others, owing to certain qualities. I hope I haven't been too unsubtle in expressing that point. But you know, it's hard to be subtle when you're naturally better than others, such as the kind who wear Chaps, Mani, and Canali.

 

[alt.don]

You were not too subtle at all kind Sir. These types of diatribes help me realize my place in society and in the universe at large. I would be only too happy to serve you as foot servant and fart catcher at large.

I for one salute your caste system,

Brigadier Corporal Huuppunkrup

 

[andrew96]

Originally Posted by L'Incandescent

I hate all brands that contribute to lessening the perceived social distance between me and my inferiors. You see, I am better than others. I have certain qualities that the underclass cannot fully appreciate, but that they can crudely mimic. And when they do, by wearing things like Chaps or Mani or Canali, then I don't appear as superior as I really am. To reiterate, I am better than others, owing to certain qualities. I hope I haven't been too unsubtle in expressing that point. But you know, it's hard to be subtle when you're naturally better than others, such as the kind who wear Chaps, Mani, and Canali.

And so humble too.

 

[westinghouse]

Originally Posted by andrew96

Personally, I dislike Ralph Lauren, I don't think his quality is good, and I think it's marketed to low class folks that think if they buy it they will become the aristocracy.

You've obviously never been to the mansion in NYC.

 

[Klobber]

Originally Posted by L'Incandescent

I hate all brands that contribute to lessening the perceived social distance between me and my inferiors. You see, I am better than others. I have certain qualities that the underclass cannot fully appreciate, but that they can crudely mimic. And when they do, by wearing things like Chaps or Mani or Canali, then I don't appear as superior as I really am. To reiterate, I am better than others, owing to certain qualities. I hope I haven't been too unsubtle in expressing that point. But you know, it's hard to be subtle when you're naturally better than others, such as the kind who wear Chaps, Mani, and Canali.


Ah my dear sir, you are indeed superior to me. At your behest, I would drop my trousers so as to receive a good bottom sniffing or rimming if that pleases your majesty

.

There is a thread like this one by the way. As for brands: Generally dislike anything seen as pretentious or perceived as "must own".

Andrew96: Ralph Lauren aint all bad, his purple label and black label stuff is as good as anything out there that is pullable off a rack. I would not say the level of these two lines is any lower than Brooks Brothers - contrary to that, I actually rate these better than Brooks. I only buy BB over RL due to BB's kindness to my bank account

. If you are talking of Polo - well, indeed, I dislike Polo also - suits are on the correct side of OK though. Rest is overpriced junk, but I would buy one of their shirts provided no logo and under $20 on sale.

Originally Posted by SpallaCamiccia

Gucci. <----- ? Not that good, but not despicable either.

Dolce. <---- D&G = Pretty ****, suits bad, shirts bad. Mainline Dolce = dont know or care.

Armani. <---- I dont like em that much, but are they really loathesome, say compared with an abomination like Lacoste?

 

[lasbar]

Originally Posted by SpallaCamiccia

Gucci.

Dolce.

Armani.

Couldn't agree more..

D&G.....

 

[Master-Classter]

there's an interesting talk HERE.... one of the points she makes is that you can't copyright a DESIGN... But you can Trademark your logo... so the only thing you can do is cover everything in your logo and make IT the design so people can't copy. That's actually an explanation which seems to make more sense then, 'these high end designers are suddenly stupid and screwing their brand equity by pasting logos everywhere and making their high end stuff look tacky'...

 

[hermes man]

seriously people who says Giorgio Armani stuffs lower quality and inferior are really silly

obviously they ve never seen or touch brand new Giorgio Armani stuffs from Giorgio Armani boutiques before ...

if u say Emporio Armani (EA) or Armani Jeans (AJ) has lower quality then I agree but for too quickly to say that Giorgio Armani stuffs are low quality or lower quality u are ignorant

its really silly that to claim 100$-200$ BB shirts to be of higher quality than Giorgio Armani shirts that cost 500$-1000$

overpriced yes

inferior not

low quality certainly not

 

[Klobber]

Originally Posted by hermes man

seriously people who says Giorgio Armani stuffs lower quality and inferior are really silly

obviously they ve never seen or touch brand new Giorgio Armani stuffs from Giorgio Armani boutiques before ...

if u say Emporio Armani (EA) or Armani Jeans (AJ) has lower quality then I agree but for too quickly to say that Giorgio Armani stuffs are low quality or lower quality u are ignorant

its really silly that to claim 100$-200$ BB shirts to be of higher quality than Giorgio Armani shirts that cost 500$-1000$

overpriced yes

inferior not

low quality certainly not


Giorgio Armani shirts? Price has nothing to do with the level of quality - that is Armani label markup.

I have bought MTM shirts at less than the Armani Black Label price, that I felt were better constructed, better materials, customized buttons (one of my shirts I had Horn rather than MOP buttons) etc.

Make no bones about it, Armani Black Label (Giorgio Armani) is good quality - I speak with some experience, I must have owned about 5 of these shirts in the past and I still have 3 shirts I wear from time to time.

But, they are no better than the cheaper Ralph Lauren Purple Label, or indeed that big step up from Brooks Brothers either. I agree that their shirts are better quality than BB, but not much much better, just a bit better.

 

[Rayson]

There was a programme on BBC radio here a few weeks ago that touched on the prominence of logos on clothes. The high-end designers say plenty of people in emerging markets prefer the logos prominent, so it certainly isn't a sign of stupidity on the part of those designers. It's simple supply and demand.

Logos put me off, though. Does that mean I think I'm better than people who like them? Do the people who wear high-end clothes with logos think they're better than people who don't? I'd just avoid that narrow stream of thought entirely. It'll drive you mad.

Here's what happens.

Bob says, "You think you're better than me."

This has two implications:
1. It's bad to think you're better than another.
2. Bob doesn't do this.

So when Bob says, "You think you're better than me" he thinks he's better than me.

 

[alt.don]

There is a certain cachet or false pride in having a visible logo on your clothing. Personally I prefer a well constructed and comfortable piece. For those who have an eye on the finer things in life it will impress for those who don't it won't matter. Either way, it's win/win.

 

[long_knives]

Originally Posted by L'Incandescent

I hate all brands that contribute to lessening the perceived social distance between me and my inferiors. You see, I am better than others. I have certain qualities that the underclass cannot fully appreciate, but that they can crudely mimic. And when they do, by wearing things like Chaps or Mani or Alfani, then I don't appear as superior as I really am. To reiterate, I am better than others, owing to certain qualities. I hope I haven't been too unsubtle in expressing that point. But you know, it's hard to be subtle when you're naturally better than others, such as the kind who wear Chaps, Mani, and Alfani.

Fixed