why do you guys hate designs?

[Spencer Young]

In addition to what has been said, I think it's a form of risk aversion. Whereas eventually (hopefully!) Sevens and True Religions will be recognized as overplayed and trashy, minimalist jeans are protected from much of the trend cycle. It's easy to see the huge pockets with the horseshoe being out of fashion... but well fitting, quality jeans? Doubtful. If you're spending upwards of $300 on jeans, I think most of us would agree that we'd like for them to last for longer than a season or a few years.

 

[PG2G]

Good point, the pocket designs can potentially take what could have other wise been a classic piece and turn it into a trendy one.

 

[drizzt3117]

I think True Religion is trying to tone down their back pocket design and belt graphic as of late, clearly some of their past offerings were just garish, and they're trying to continue their fad popularity with better quality denim offerings.

Seven has changed their back pocket design and offered many jeans with different back pocket designs. I rather like the braided look of the Slimmy and some of the other ones. While many here don't particularly like their jeans I've always been happy with the fit and softness of the denim, as well as some of their washes (some are garish). Clearly the lighter denim they use contributes to quicker wear, but I'm satisified with the durability. I finally wore down a pair of Seven Relaxed to the point where it was unwearable and it took about 300 days of wear or so over the course of three years.

 

[jet]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

I especially hate when people are more fascinated with the brand than with the actual clothing design.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y...this goes for everything I buy. Key word=understated. I'm paying this much because of it's fit, quality, exclusivity not b/c of it's branding. When you're confident and assertive you don't need other things speaking for you besides your words.

Originally Posted by Spencer Young

In addition to what has been said, I think it's a form of risk aversion. Whereas eventually (hopefully!) Sevens and True Religions will be recognized as overplayed and trashy, minimalist jeans are protected from much of the trend cycle.

Hedging against trends, I love it.

I personally despise sevens and agree with it equalling tool identifier.

 

[Kid609]

Funny how those who say they hate "branding" are easily the biggest brand-whores here....

 

[DNW]

Originally Posted by Kid609

Funny how those who say they hate "branding" are easily the biggest brand-whores here....

There are some things some people will never get.

 

[drizzt3117]

I was going to reply along the same lines. Those of you who are anti-labelwhores are guilty of exactly the same thing the brand whores are, namely limiting the clothes that you deign to wear based on factors other than your personal opinion of the clothes in question. If you like something, then wear it.

 

[dusty]

How can anybody even say they despise a clothing brand? You despise it because it's popular? Sevens aren't great, they're decent, they certainly don't deserve to be despised. Some of you guys are out of control about this stuff; it's just pants.

 

[Spencer Young]

I think it's entirely reasonable to be anti-brand while being a brand whore. At their core, brands are just proxies for a set of attributes and characteristics. If I am wearing Sevens, that brand communicates things to other people; it says I am trendy, fashionable (in a mall/Saks sense) and am not into the "mechanics" of denim. A brand like APC has another basket of attributes. I think people on this forum tend to like brands that proxy for construction characteristics - selvedge, quality denim, beautiful fading, etc - rather than what I'll call impression characteristics - somebody at a bar recognizes your brand, you feel a sense of fulfillment by wearing jeans featured in GQ, etc. In a simplified nutshell, there are two kinds of brands; the anti-brand people here are mostly anti-impression branding, but whore out for brands backed up by construction associations. It's one thing to pay more for jeans when they, in an of themselves, are more valuable; it's another to pay more because everyone else thinks they're valuable because they cost a lot.

 

[drizzt3117]

I agree with these comments to some degree, but there are two issues here. The first issue is preference, and that's wholly a matter of personal opinion. Clearly everyone has the right to like whatever kind of denim they value most, be it because of construction, fit, popularity, whatever.

The second issue is attitude, and by labeling people as tools for wearing a particular brand, anti-brand proponents are being every bit as snobby as the label whores who look down on people for wearing Old Navy.

 

[j]

Is it still okay to hate stripey shirts?

 

[LA Guy]

Originally Posted by j

Is it still okay to hate stripey shirts?

I decree no. But you are allowed to hate the untucked stripey shirt with trendy jeans and boots combo. Especially when combined with Faux-hawk or the Lee Hottie haircut, in which case you are obligated to strike the offender. Excelsior.

 

[kitonbrioni]

Maybe it's reverse snobbery, or maybe it just that Costco jeans are a fine product. The jeans cognoscenti seem to prefer raw jeans or obsure makers over the highly processed jeans (cf. NYT article on instant vintage jeans).

 

[DNW]

I couldn't care less about what's printed on my clothing, as long as it's well made and fit properly, and I'm not a walking billboard. It might be APC, or Levi's, or Target. Some premium brands got where they are because they make well constructed garments. And most of the time I happen to identify with the philosophy of the that brand's designer. Why don't I buy clothes from Wal-mart or Costco? First, most of them are poorly made. Second, they're cut like potato sacs. Third, I almost never have the need to shop at Costo. To the guy who said "it's just pants," I assume you wear the potato sacs commonly found at Wal-mart or Costco for clothing?

See, the difference is some people I know wear a pair of Seven or Citizen jeans for the sake of wearing them. I have too often overheard conversations about how much somebody paid for a pair of jeans because it's the latest and the greatest, or because it has crystals glued on the back pockets. Most of the time, these people have no idea what made that pair of jeans expensive, or why a similar looking pair of shoes costs three times as much. While they'll be buying the latest designer's offerings next year, I'll continue to treasure my pair of 45rpm or APC.

I appreciate the fact that somebody is trying to dress well. However, I have a distaste for the people who wears Armani, Seven, or Burberry so they can show the rest of the world how much disposable income they have.

 

[Flame]

Originally Posted by DarkNWorn

I appreciate the fact that somebody is trying to dress well. However, I have a distaste for the people who wears Armani, Seven, or Burberry so they can show the rest of the world how much disposable income they have.
Yes, those are whom I refer to when I said "consumer masses". I find it distasteful when people have to proclaim how "high-end" their clothing is.