1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Cognitive Dissonance: "Polo = Prole/hiphop/Outlet brand" vs. "Ralph Lauren/RLPL is not"

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Reevolving, Nov 1, 2011.

  1. NORE

    NORE Senior member

    Messages:
    5,495
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    Location:
    Back On Here
    

    :lol:


    Read it again. Polo items can be found with equal quality to other items of all of the other labels. The key is knowing how to sniff the better ones out.

    I stick to the Polo items that are at least on par with RLPL or RLBL (to simplify, think Polo made in England or Italy items). Anything less I would not buy.
     
  2. Xenon

    Xenon Senior member

    Messages:
    602
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    

    More truth has never been posted. Somewhere in a prestigious design studio is a large pink jelly bean displayed in a glass case. This priceless jelly bean is the inspiration of all car designers world wide
     
  3. Saturdays

    Saturdays Senior member

    Messages:
    2,612
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    

    Yeah I guess you are right, but like you said it depends on the item.

    My dad has a Lauren Ralph Lauren Tweed Herringbone Jacket with Leather patches and its half-canvassed, pretty decent quality. So I know you can find some decent things. But the consistence of quality of RLPL is > Polo.
     
  4. Klobber

    Klobber Senior member

    Messages:
    2,272
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    Location:
    San Francisco
    

    Correct. In suit / SC world, RLPL >> Polo, there is no comparison. Shirts, RLPL > Polo, for sure. Other items, it is possible to find Polo at about the same level of RLPL. But on average, RLPL > Polo. The price never lies ;)
     
  5. cptjeff

    cptjeff Senior member

    Messages:
    4,642
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    DCish
    

    You're deluding yourself. The US has incredibly large problems with class stratification. Pretending the problem doesn't exist only makes it worse. Yes, we have classes. We very obviously have classes. Respecting people is fine, but the problem of class is not one of a cultural lack of respect. Yeah, that might be nice, but it does absolutely nothing to address the deeper systemic issues that you seem to be completely ignoring.

    If you think that class stratification is such a bad thing, you need to acknowledge it and actually work to fix it, rather than being intentionally oblivious. But that's not actually related to this thread.
     
  6. marblehouse

    marblehouse Senior member

    Messages:
    1,708
    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Location:
    never odd or even
    

    Do you think class stratification is a good thing or do you think its inherent to free societies? Actually never mind, this thread sucks.
     
  7. hendrix

    hendrix Senior member

    Messages:
    9,452
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    

    Classes exist.

    The issue is with

    a) The idea that you can look at someone and decide what class they are in based on; what they wear, what music they are into, what sports they like, what jobs they work, and, dare i say it, the colour of their skin.

    b) discriminating against people based on their (real or perceived, it's irrelevant) class.

    exemplified to sickening effect here:


    As well as in the title - apparently "hip-hop brand" = outlet brand.

    So, rather than being a troll, i have concluded reevolving is:

    a) stupid
    b) repulsive.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  8. hendrix

    hendrix Senior member

    Messages:
    9,452
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    

    indeed.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  9. cptjeff

    cptjeff Senior member

    Messages:
    4,642
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    DCish
    

    I think it's a bad thing that's inherent to any free market economy. Which is part of why I think that free markets need to be reigned in and controlled so they don't get wildly out of hand and create massive social injustices. A free market is the best way to create a strong economy and to innovate the new products and ideas that make the world a better place, but that needs to be balanced with mechanisms that protect human dignity. Capitalism, left unchecked, creates the world of Upton Sinclair and Charles Dickens. Socialism, at an extreme, creates a different, but equally horrible system. You need a free market, but one checked by regulation that protects against, at the very minimum, the worst abuses of the system.
     
  10. cptjeff

    cptjeff Senior member

    Messages:
    4,642
    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Location:
    DCish
    

    a. The job they work is a big driver of class, so that one's valid. What they wear? Valid as a factor. There's a lot of individual variance, but there are certainly group commonalities. Race? There are often cultural differences that are also class dependent. Music? Individual variance again, but again, there are group commonalities. You're not gonna find a lot of poor black males listening to ballet, and you're not gonna find a whole lot of old money types listening to gangster rap. Or a lot of working class southern white men.

    You can admit that without making judgement. There are very real differences, and on a day to day basis, I don't have a whole lot of difficulties figuring out who's where in the social hierarchy. Pretending that all those factors are meaningless is just that- pretending. Judgement based solely on any one of those factors would pose significant hazard (well, apart from the job one. That would be a pretty reliable predictor), but that does not mean that they don't give you information about that person.

    b. Entirely different matter. Class based discrimination is something I regard as wrong. But that doesn't mean that you acknowledging that classes exist and that you can identify to what class somebody belongs is wrong.

    a is informational. The question is: To what group does this person belong? There are a huge number of factors that can go into it, and odds are you don't consciously realize most of them. They're pattern based, and a bunch of patterns that in and of themselves aren't always meaningful can add up to a pretty certain answer, pretty easily.

    b. is judgmental. The question asked there is about what value is attached to any particular class. You think that making those judgements is wrong. I would agree. But you're saying that I cannot answer a without taking a judgement in regards to b. I do not just disagree with that, I believe it's flat out wrong.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  11. hendrix

    hendrix Senior member

    Messages:
    9,452
    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2009
    

    There's a difference between knowing associations exist, and then making these associations to judge a person's "class". He's not conducting a census saying "all the people who have low-income coupled with a taste for hip-hop can be grouped into this particular class" for the purpose of statistics. He's looking at a real person on the street and making that judgement. That is discrimination.

    Finally, this whole thread reeks of the misguided assumption that people who buy RLPL and the higher RL labels are somehow buying into a brand that is any less supported by marketing and brand cache than the less expensive labels. People buy what they can afford, and what they like - which is strongly influenced by marketing. I'm no economist but i'd wager that that is the same across all "classes".
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
    2 people like this.
  12. Klobber

    Klobber Senior member

    Messages:
    2,272
    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2010
    Location:
    San Francisco
    ...........
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  13. Nicola

    Nicola Senior member

    Messages:
    2,952
    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2009
    Income has never really meant class. There have been poor upper class people. Wealthy people that would never be anything other then low class.

    Does anybody think any amount of money would give the OP class?
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. apropos

    apropos Senior member

    Messages:
    4,456
    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2008
    For someone so fixated on class, it is ironic that the OP has none of it.
     
    Last edited: Nov 6, 2011
  15. mktitsworth

    mktitsworth Senior member

    Messages:
    2,834
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I think this thread has finally illustrated to me why I spend so much time on StyleForum. It's not that all or even most of the topics being posted on are good, or that there's always wisdom to be had, or that the people are necessarily better behaved than on the rest of the internet. It's that SF is, imho, one of the last true bastions of free flowing, surrealistic thought processes on the internet. It blows my mind.
     
  16. MikeDT

    MikeDT Senior member

    Messages:
    4,276
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    Location:
    China, Mongolia and UK
    One thinks this threak should now be retired into DT.
     
  17. marblehouse

    marblehouse Senior member

    Messages:
    1,708
    Joined:
    May 17, 2009
    Location:
    never odd or even
    

    + 2!
     
  18. Alcibiades

    Alcibiades Senior member

    Messages:
    3,230
    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2009
    Location:
    New Yawk
    

    I am a pretty big RL guru - here is how I rank them

    1) Ralph Lauren Purple Label
    2) Ralph Lauren Black Label
    3) Ralph Lauren Collection. Go to the website and the store, an increasing number of items are simply branded "Ralph Lauren." These seem to be limited to accesories at the moment. Look at this list of shoes: http://www.ralphlauren.com/family/index.jsp?ab=ln_men_cs2_shoes&categoryId=1898623&cp=1760781&pg=1 A lot of the top English, American or Italian made shoes (including the Marlows) are branded "Ralph Lauren" while the cheaper sneakers and boots are branded "Polo Ralph Lauren."
    4) Polo Ralph Lauren. This obviously has the biggest range - tailored suits, blazers, cashmere sweaters, trousers, some outerwear, ties, etc are all high quality. The polo shirts and sport shirts are fine for what they are and can be had on deep discount. Contrary to what people say, I don't find much "garbage" in this line.
    5) Rugby

    I don't really rank RRL in this heirarchy because frankly a lot of their stuff (denim, flannels, oxfords, etc) are the best that the Ralph Lauren corporation has to offer. It's simply a different category.

    Stuff like Chaps, Lauren Ralph Lauren, American Living, etc are licensed, so I don't consider them. I've also never seen this "Denim and Supply" stuff that they now have in person, so I have no way to rank it. It seems as if it is essentially "Rugby" that can be sold in department stores as opposed to the unique Rugby Stores themselves (which only work in a few markets). Nevertheless, based on what I have seen online, I would likely rank it 5A or 6.
     
  19. F. Corbera

    F. Corbera Senior member

    Messages:
    4,908
    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    .
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2011
  20. Christopher Essex

    Christopher Essex Senior member

    Messages:
    434
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Location:
    Vancouver BC
    

    Held in trust until such time as he displays a modicum of class?
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by