terminat
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2006
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 0
I was having lunch with a friend the other day, and she randomly remarked that all clothing - even casual - tended to be a sign of social class (whatever that means exactly, basically rich or poor.)
I disagreed, saying that while that might usually be true for work clothes (e.g. a guy in a bespoke Hugo Boss suit with an expensive leather briefcase probably has a higher-paying/more prestigious job than someone in cleaning overalls) it wasn't for work clothes. She said that it was, and gave two examples, of so-called "chavs" who tended to wear tracksuits, baseball caps and cheap hoodies, as opposed to "preppies" who wore designer jeans and expensive sneakers, t-shirts/polo shirts and hoodies. She then went on to say how I looked "quite rich" myself in my casual clothes (Ralph Lauren jeans, Lacoste trainers, a print t-shirt and stylish Topman jacket) and to be fair I do come from a reasonably comfortable background.
This made me think quite a bit - since I'd never really made first impressions about how much money a person has based on their casual clothes. Sure, I (and most people probably) do on things like cars and suits/work clothes, but casual clothes? If I see a person dressed stylishly with subtle designer labels, I just think "trendy" and "cool" rather than necesarily "rich." Obviously most people can tell between a tramp and a person wearing Gucci, but well... what do you guys think about all this basically? Do you tend to make first-impression value judgements (and think other people do the same?) on whether a person is rich/poor / background/profession based on their casual/street clothes, as you might on what suits they wear or what cars they drive? (i.e. the clothes he is wearing look expensive and good, so he must be well-off?)
Sorry if this sounds idiotic/stereotypical or anything
(what I've said isn't necessarily my opinion, just something to be discussed)
I disagreed, saying that while that might usually be true for work clothes (e.g. a guy in a bespoke Hugo Boss suit with an expensive leather briefcase probably has a higher-paying/more prestigious job than someone in cleaning overalls) it wasn't for work clothes. She said that it was, and gave two examples, of so-called "chavs" who tended to wear tracksuits, baseball caps and cheap hoodies, as opposed to "preppies" who wore designer jeans and expensive sneakers, t-shirts/polo shirts and hoodies. She then went on to say how I looked "quite rich" myself in my casual clothes (Ralph Lauren jeans, Lacoste trainers, a print t-shirt and stylish Topman jacket) and to be fair I do come from a reasonably comfortable background.
This made me think quite a bit - since I'd never really made first impressions about how much money a person has based on their casual clothes. Sure, I (and most people probably) do on things like cars and suits/work clothes, but casual clothes? If I see a person dressed stylishly with subtle designer labels, I just think "trendy" and "cool" rather than necesarily "rich." Obviously most people can tell between a tramp and a person wearing Gucci, but well... what do you guys think about all this basically? Do you tend to make first-impression value judgements (and think other people do the same?) on whether a person is rich/poor / background/profession based on their casual/street clothes, as you might on what suits they wear or what cars they drive? (i.e. the clothes he is wearing look expensive and good, so he must be well-off?)
Sorry if this sounds idiotic/stereotypical or anything