Back in the late '80's, in the days of "M" Magazine, many of us bought the brand instead of the clothes. Take Charvet: 150-year old house, retail headquarters in a mansion in a "good" part of Paris, expensive (and therefore exclusive), and pictured as being worn by various wealthy (and well-dressed) members of the French aristocracy. Well, that's how an M reader wanted to picture himself, so he'd buy Charvet for the "image" (yes, someone else's image). M never really discussed quality of construction. Now we have mass-marketing (chiefly of logos), EBay (where a real Charvet tie starts at "$1 NR"-not very "exclusive", and legions of Asian fakes copying "logoed" brands that are too easily recognizable (e.g. the ratio of Hermes tie fakes to real on EBay must be 20:1 and "Hermes" belts start at $9.95). SF emphasizes knowledge of quality and construction, not a "famous old name" (unless the name itself is high quality). It's opened my eyes in this regard (though I admit that I'm continuing the bad habit of buying Hermes ties). Apart from Japan, I wonder if, in 10-15 years time, the "prestige" Vuitton, Hermes, Rolex, etc, brands will still enjoy reputation and high mark-ups or will "name" for most consumers just be related to familiarity with style (inexpensive Polo goods all made in Asia?). What's your opinion and does it matter at all?