Thoughts on STEALTH WEALTH?

[whacked]

Originally Posted by sonick

I do the opposite. I buy cheap, but well fitting clothes that look more expensive than they are (e.g. today's outfit: $30 M65 from Target, $30 W+H Sample-Sale Hoodie, $12 Gap T-shirt, $80 Earnest Sewn and $70 Adidas Rod Lavers from Winners)

That's it. I am starting a "buy whacked an airplane(train works too) ticket to Vancouver for CYC Sample Sale" foundation tomorrow. Donations via PayPal, GoogleCheckout or concealed cash, please.

 

[cldpsu]

Chrono,

You're a cool cat but what honestly makes you believe that 300 dollars is justifiable for a dior homme sweater? It's just not justifiable. They can get away with it though and that drives me so god damn crazy.

Not to mention something like NIKE, 160 dollar hi top shoe or something that was made in god knows what ridiculous fraction of time. Did you know they time their workers to the thousandth of a second to ensure no losses? They also make their workers take birth control pills. So nobody try to drop the labor wrap on this kind of stuff...

I won't deny the fact that I buy expensive clothes but I will never say any of this stuff has been a good deal. It's getting fucked everytime.

 

[ghulkhan]

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

90% of Margiela's pieces have the trademark 4 label stitches...which are basically a logo.

however it is the world's sickest logo

 

[jet]

I think some people just haven't handled some of the items nor have worn/lived with any of the stuff in question. When I go to HM, I realize it's disposable clothing unlike others. I am disgusted when I try on anything at banana republic. I cringe when I touch a target blazer. If you don't have access to this stuff because you don't live in ca or ny, it would be really easy to comment in favor of cheap stuff however that's not to say everything expensive is good.

 

[ghulkhan]

Originally Posted by cldpsu

Chrono,

You're a cool cat but what honestly makes you believe that 300 dollars is justifiable for a dior homme sweater? It's just not justifiable. They can get away with it though and that drives me so god damn crazy.

Not to mention something like NIKE, 160 dollar hi top shoe or something that was made in god knows what ridiculous fraction of time. Did you know they time their workers to the thousandth of a second to ensure no losses? They also make their workers take birth control pills. So nobody try to drop the labor wrap on this kind of stuff...

I won't deny the fact that I buy expensive clothes but I will never say any of this stuff has been a good deal. It's getting fucked everytime.

would you think that my 80 dollar margiela germany army sneakers were a good deal since they were marked down from 370?


what about my junya m65 for 300 marked down from 1k?

im just wondering....

because I think those are great deals

 

[ghulkhan]

Originally Posted by jet

I think some people just haven't handled some of the items nor have worn/lived with any of the stuff in question. When I go to HM, I realize it's disposable clothing unlike others. I am disgusted when I try on anything at banana republic. I cringe when I touch a target blazer. If you don't have access to this stuff because you don't live in ca or ny, it would be really easy to comment in favor of cheap stuff however that's not to say everything expensive is good.
+1
yea,

I think premium you pay for a lot of things is worth it. For example I would not spend hundreds on a lot of different clothing. I might like something at DH that might be worth 300 or 500 but I really doubt I would like any DH. I think all the margiela and VB ive bought hve been worth the money for sure. Not everything is worht the moeny but certainly lots of items are. If you say they are not , then maybe you just dont have a clue as to what you are talking about....

 

[cldpsu]

Originally Posted by ghulkhan

would you think that my 80 dollar margiela germany army sneakers were a good deal since they were marked down from 370?


what about my junya m65 for 300 marked down from 1k?

im just wondering....

because I think those are great deals

I'd say they're better deals

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by LA Guy

You are obviously unfamiliar with Margiela and Jil Sander's work. Both Margiela and Jil Sander are very well known for both their characteristic cutting and innovative use of fabrics. Jil Sander, in particular, having started as a textile engineer, was very concerned about using just the right fabric for a piece.
I think I may have worded that badly. Their characteristics are not as obvious as say Yohji which tends to strike the viewer--voluminous blacks such as in the case of Yohji Yamamoto. Most Jil Sander pieces I've seen are typically innocuous looking, with perhaps a sheen to the fabric or special little details. It's the same with Margiela and his artisanal goods; many of their items certainly would not strike the casual or unknowing viewer as being expensive or especially desirable, which was the point I was making especially in contrast with something like Haute or say, CCP which tends to favor a certain flamboyance in the design and presentation. I've owned numerous items by them so I am also drawing from experience. In my opinion, Jil Sander's Tailor-Made line was also very understated in a way that wouldn't strike anybody as much as say an Huntsman would, given the relatively form-conscious nature of Huntsman's cut.

 

[celery]

Yes, I'm a new poster (been lurking for a few weeks, have looked at the first 100 pages of both the streetwear and men's clothing forums just to see what's going on here).

Anyway, this topic interested me because it really hits the mark of "what is fashionable?" and "what is style?".

Personally, I like to think that style and a sense of fashion means more than just wearing well fitted clothes. Granted, clothes should fit well and it will enhance your look, but when it comes to what you guys are calling "stealth wealth" I think style plays a much bigger role than it's being given credit for.

Basically, it boils down to this:

If you are wearing a $300 hoodie, $500 jeans, $200 t-shirt and vans, and you claim to be fashionable or have a sophisticated sense of style, you're basically saying that 99% of skaters also have great taste . . . except they just have less money.

It's the same as getting a suit made on Saville Row and then claiming you have style. No, what you have is an amazing and expensive suit; knowing what to do with that suit (other than just put it on) is a totally different thing.

Imagine if you will, someone like Bill Gates on his own without a personal image consultant on hand to help him trying to shop. He can afford anything, but does he know anything about how to dress?

Just like if Bill Gates bought evey music CD in the world, would he be a music expert just because he owns them all?

This also works in reverse, what if you took someone like Tom Ford and said, "you have $300 to buy a complete outfit" . . . would he suddenly forget everything he knows about clothes, style, fashion?

Money allows you to enhance your look by buying top quality and nicely fitting pieces, but you still have to know what you're doing with it.

Having expensive clothes and having a sense of style are seperate from each other.

/rant

 

[Ludeykrus]

I love 'stealth wealth', personally. Most of the time, at least.

I equate it to a fast 'sleeper' street car.

Also, I can't help but think of James Bond when this subject came to my eyes. Something about the well-worn expensive luggage and other aspects of his wardrobe/accessories....

 

[A Harris]

People on the street wouldn't know what band of outsiders is but I think they notice that there is something different about it though they wouldn't be able to put their finger on it I imagine.

This was well said. For instance, when it comes to tailored clothing I can spot a guy in a good suit and shoes from 100 feet away because that is my area of expertise. I am not as knowledgeable about streetwear but would generally know something is up if a guy is wearing some nice pieces. Stealth wealth to me means buying items that are superior in cut/quality/materials but that are not ostentatious. When worn right they would not scream expensive but would definitely have more impact than more average clothing.

Of course, I like to wear stealth wealth stuff but have no wealth

So I suppose I am more stealth poor.

 

[LA Guy]

Originally Posted by SoCal2NYC

90% of Margiela's pieces have the trademark 4 label stitches...which are basically a logo.

This is true of most of his tops, but the four stitches (which actually have interesting construction, I cut the tag off one piece just to see the stitching underneath) are invisible on outerwear, suits, and trousers, as well as all footwear and accessories.

 

[Brian SD]

I'm late to this discussion, but it's always an interesting topic.

First off, I think people kind of confuse stealth wealth with just subtlety. I think the guy who said it was right - most of the time you can tell someone is really stylish, or that there's something striking about a particular garment but you can't quite put your finger on what it is. That's being subtle. For example, LA Guy is always looking sharp and knows his own style well, even when I met him and he was just wearing a simple t-shirt over a thermal and some relaxed-fitting jeans, it was obvious that he had good style.

When I think of "stealth wealth" I tend to think of clothing that fits so poorly it requires justification, like "you fools just don't know how expensive this **** REALLY is."

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by Arethusa

Ok, I don't really see much that's new about it. We've had conspicuous consumption for some time, but now that we have relatively democratic access to information thanks to technology, class striation has broken down at an aesthetic level (admittedly, that's about the only place). Solution? Inconspicuous consumption: black macbooks, $200 Earnest Sewns, etc. What I find obnoxious is everyone trying to pretend that it has some kind of aesthetic or intellectual legitimacy, or worse that there's something inherently noble about it. It's crass and silly. But I guess I should be careful about voicing that opinion on a forum full of people for whom respect comes from how much money you can manage to wear every morning.

(Just to be clear, Jason, this isn't a shot at you or Paul personally.)

You seem to misunderstand conspicuous consumption as having a value-judgment (aside from the utilitarian one Veblen proposed) and element of aesthetics attached to it. Most consumption today is non-utilitarian in nature (superfluous) and can be classified as status motivated, at least in part (say you need a vehicule to go to work but you get a Mercedes, most of the consumption is still conspicuous even though the vehicle also serves an utilitarian purpose). Stealth-wealth is conspicuous consumption plain and simple, not a new way to spin the concept.

Now where I don't follow you is that you seem to think that aesthetics and Veblen's brainchild are somehow related and that the very nature of this kind of consumption precludes it from having any aesthetic or intellectual value. I thought the link between aesthetics and morality was entirely shattered when we rejected classicism and entered modernity but it seems you disagree, care to elaborate on that?

To be clear: CConsumption=non-utilitarian consumption aimed at affirming status=an economic term. Link to aesthetics=0. Your text about it:wtf!!

 

[SoCal2NYC]

Originally Posted by ghulkhan

would you think that my 80 dollar margiela germany army sneakers were a good deal since they were marked down from 370?

And I thought I was getting a good deal when mine were marked down 40% from $370.