Understated Luxury.

[farfisa23]

I have been obsessed with the idea of understated luxury lately. This is a great story on a woman's store in NYC, but the ideas apply to everything this forum stands for. Watch the video too. What is your take on a logo-less, perfectly made world? Also, name some brands you think fits into this category. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195...iews_days_only

 

[LabelKing]

Is this stealth wealth?

 

[farfisa23]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Is this stealth wealth?

I think they are different things that are similar and overlap.

 

[FIHTies]

While the proprietor seems intent on quality and detail over mass marketing appeal , the clients seem to be more focused on the Exclusive nature of her product more than its quality.

In that way it differs totally from this fora and others of its ilk.

A quality mens suit will be a lifetime investment because if its quality.

Most of these womens items will be a 6 month-1 year deal.

 

[blnee]

The idea of "logoless" apparel is similar in approach to custom men's clothing. It forces the buyer to educate themselves about quality and to spend time determining their preferences at the risk of overpaying.

However, women's clothing seems so different in approach because it is so fleeting (as was mentioned before). Certainly there are some staples that are timeless but in contrast I could pick up a suit from the 1920s and not seem out of place.

I do like the idea of purchasing products without labels. As someone with a reticent personality I don't like things that tell people more than I need them to know. A label always seems to come with preconceived notions about willingness to pay, knowledge of product, social status, etc. however right or wrong.

 

[Dragon]

When Ms. Markbreiter bought an Oscar de la Renta handbag recently, she removed the logo tag

Why bother? Isn`t the tag on the inside of the bag anyway? Besides, no one will recognize an Oscar de la Renta bag.

 

[JayJay]

Originally Posted by blnee

I do like the idea of purchasing products without labels. As someone with a reticent personality I don't like things that tell people more than I need them to know. A label always seems to come with preconceived notions about willingness to pay, knowledge of product, social status, etc. however right or wrong.

I agree. I have worn visible logos and still wear a few items that have them. However, my preference is to avoid them.

 

[erdavis]

I don't wear anything with a logo, ever. The reason is that the style and design should be its calling card.

Also, I figure why should I be a billboard for someone by wearing their logo?

 

[J'aimelescravates]

Originally Posted by erdavis

I don't wear anything with a logo, ever. The reason is that the style and design should be its calling card.

Also, I figure why should I be a billboard for someone by wearing their logo?

+1. While I can't say that I never wear anything logoed b/c I still have some things with subtle logos on them from my pre-SF.Net days. Most are t-shirts and even then most have been relegated to the gym wardrobe drawer of my armoire. That being said, I do agree with the quote above and like to think that my current wardrobe is slowly evolving (and maturing) in that direction

 

[Viktri]

Originally Posted by erdavis

I don't wear anything with a logo, ever. The reason is that the style and design should be its calling card.

Also, I figure why should I be a billboard for someone by wearing their logo?

Agreed

 

[Britalian]

On a tangent, the logo-free philosophy is practised to a greater extent by others. I remember reading a blog by someone who removed the names/logos from everything, not only clothes. I saw a documentary on Will Self who had the logo of his car's name removed not only from the exterior of his car but the manufacturer's name was ground off the engine block. Commitment indeed...

I can't understand why anyone would buy the vulgar LV products. Of course those who buy LV buy because of the logo, I suppose.

 

[farfisa23]

That is the coolest thing ever...

 

[TCN]

I think the removal of logos and swearing off ever wearing them may be a bit too far in the other direction. I'm not a fan of logos, I avoid them, but I'm not going to go out of my way to avoid having the stupid little polo pony on a casual shirt . . . now if it's the "big" pony on the other hand . . . something like that is so obtrusive that it actualy interferes with the look of the garment.

I'm torn on the LV issue. I hate what the brand has become, and the monogrammed everything, I mean it's truly absurd (and neither my wife or I buy it anymore for that reason), but I have some respect for the historical significance of the monogram for the brand. I think the LV monogram and the Burberry tartan are probably two of the saddest examples of the decline of a logo; not only are they overused, but they were once great.

 

[Cantabrigian]

I suppose reverse label snobbery is better than regular garden variety snobbery but it isn't all that different.

At then end of the day, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a logo that I think looks okay. I don't care much for the look of large logos but I won't avoid buying something that I consider good looking and well made simply for the fact that it has some sort of logo.

 

[Edward Appleby]

I can understand having a preference for logo-less clothing (in many cases I do) but removing labels from the inside of clothes just seems silly and pointless.