why do you guys hate designs?

Discussion in 'Streetwear and Denim' started by blackplatano, Jul 16, 2006.

  1. cultpop 0217

    cultpop 0217 I, Manface

    Messages:
    582
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Location:
    the village
    another one for not minding back pocket designs. I like the nudie wave on back pockets quite a bit, but I don't like Imperial's "here's my ass" wave at all. So it's a case by case basis. And I agree with LAG that 7's scribble looks really good, even if it's become the denim symbol for "tool"


    have to agree with LA and jason here. i like nudies, seven, an occasional g-star (not really the jeans just the design[​IMG] some of the subtler diesels (although the embroidered back pocket that they use once in a while is cool) and of course levis, wrangler and lee! i think the dior dart/scratch is among the best designs ever. but i tend to love the simplicity of my designless julian reds and a.p.c.s the most. one thing i hate is the straight line (like express,prps, or a&f). but i definately lean towards a cleaner look in general.

    i like to collect obscure vintage jeans with interesting (and sometimes very ugly) back pocket motifs.
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    nothing really beats this though
    [​IMG]
     


  2. dusty

    dusty Senior member

    Messages:
    4,859
    Likes Received:
    20
    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2005
    Location:
    ohio
    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?

    You missed the point. I didn't mean all pants are the same, I mean it's crazy to get so worked up over clothes. It was directed at the guy who said he despised Seven.
     


  3. truestorytravis

    truestorytravis Senior member

    Messages:
    310
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    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.

    How do you differentiate between those who wear these brands because they want to show everyone that they have lots of money to spend and those who wear these brands because they fit into the wearer's personal aesthetic? Or are you saying that these brands proxy (to use Spencer Young's terminology) impressions and that this is bad or that they actually produce a poorly made product?

    My own question: Why is it looked down upon to wear clothing which proxys (is that a verb?) impressions? All clothing proxys impressions and it seems to me that we are all concerned with these impressions to a very high degree insofar as we have impressions of ourselves which we support by wearing certain clothing brands and styles.

    I don't think that our clothing choices are contained in a bubble of self-awareness. I think we (meaning those of us who are fashion/style conscious) have learned from early on that the way we dress gives information about ourselves to other people. We often have at least a general idea of the impressions we want to project, so we choose clothing that will allow to do this.

    To boil my point down, I disagree with anyone who says that clothing choices based on impressions are bad choices because impressions are necessary factors in our clothing choices.

    That said, the impression that I have of myself is that of a stylish individual and to me, branding is often not stylish but garish. As others have said, I like to let the clothes speak for themselves (whatever it is that I believe they say) and leave out the "look at me!" shouts of the designers' branding and avoid the judgements of others based on said branding.
     


  4. DGP

    DGP Senior member

    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    How do you differentiate between those who wear these brands because they want to show everyone that they have lots of money to spend and those who wear these brands because they fit into the wearer's personal aesthetic? Or are you saying that these brands proxy (to use Spencer Young's terminology) impressions and that this is bad or that they actually produce a poorly made product?

    My own question: Why is it looked down upon to wear clothing which proxys (is that a verb?) impressions? All clothing proxys impressions and it seems to me that we are all concerned with these impressions to a very high degree insofar as we have impressions of ourselves which we support by wearing certain clothing brands and styles.

    I don't think that our clothing choices are contained in a bubble of self-awareness. I think we (meaning those of us who are fashion/style conscious) have learned from early on that the way we dress gives information about ourselves to other people. We often have at least a general idea of the impressions we want to project, so we choose clothing that will allow to do this.

    To boil my point down, I disagree with anyone who says that clothing choices based on impressions are bad choices because impressions are necessary factors in our clothing choices.

    That said, the impression that I have of myself is that of a stylish individual and to me, branding is often not stylish but garish. As others have said, I like to let the clothes speak for themselves (whatever it is that I believe they say) and leave out the "look at me!" shouts of the designers' branding and avoid the judgements of others based on said branding.



    I think what is important is to judge each piece and outfit on its own, in determining whether the goal is to show off money or style. For example, a pair of dark 7s that are either four inches too long, or have crappy dry cleaner hems paired with a D&G shirt that really doesn't match and Prada sneakers is probably just trying to show off money. However, a pair of True Religions with the right vintage (or vintage style) tshirt, jacket and boots might look great, and demonstrate the wearer's eye for style. It all really depends.
     


  5. Spencer Young

    Spencer Young Senior member

    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    I don't think that our clothing choices are contained in a bubble of self-awareness. I think we (meaning those of us who are fashion/style conscious) have learned from early on that the way we dress gives information about ourselves to other people. We often have at least a general idea of the impressions we want to project, so we choose clothing that will allow to do this.

    To boil my point down, I disagree with anyone who says that clothing choices based on impressions are bad choices because impressions are necessary factors in our clothing choices.


    Very reasonable argument; I completely agree. We're not in vacuums, and in the end we want clothing that brings us benefits, both from our internal feeling and external reactions. Still, what I would contend is that SF'ers generally prefer the brands that signal the quality characteristics. It may be because they do not change, as do general societal tastes - some kind of beautiful, durable denim will always be that way, unlike the popular design of the day. In my opinion, this is what's going on with this forum.

    I've got a bit stronger of a theory: I think that the "construction characteristics" will always trump the "impression characteristics" due to human nature. Quality comparisons can be generally objective; the gradations may be fuzzy, but I don't think anyone will argue that Walmart denim vs Sevens vs bizarre Japanese denimhead doesn't follow some kind of hierarchy. People are insecure; while I can be fairly adamant about how my jeans are constructed well, and no matter what you say, I am sure of myself. Trendy impression brands, on the other hand, are fluid and changing... and from personal experience, as I'm sure we've all had, when we are doing something for the societal/impression benefits of being trendy, there's a sense of unease and insecurity. I can convince you that you're following a trend and just mindlessly following the masses; it's much harder to convince me that my jeans aren't constructed well. If you follow my line of reasoning, it sounds like those who wear the construction-oriented brands of jeans are occupying a dominant position. Perhaps SF'ers realize this on some level, and are really just out for some kind of fashion power?

    Thoughts?
     


  6. Get Smart

    Get Smart Don't Crink

    Messages:
    12,158
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2004
    Location:
    A town called Malice
    I think that the "construction characteristics" will always trump the "impression characteristics"

    doesnt it seem that the guy who wear the trendy $$$ jeans/clothes is going to reap better benefits, in a social sense (getting laid, getting "props" etc) than a guy who buys something that is supposedly "made better" but more esoteric and unknown and in which the extra quality you're getting might never be tested to where it's empirically proven to be a better product.

    Because I don't ride horses, work in construction, bike to school/work 10 miles day, "better constructed" jeans doesnt mean shit at the end of the day. A pair of $12 Rustlers will last as long as my Nudies.....but I'm an elitist who likes to have gear that's "exclusive" and looks good on me. And usually the pricier shit does indeed look better probably because more R&D was put into its fit than something quickly mass produced for the masses.

    so i kinda disagree that construction is a greater argument than impression since 99.9% of folks who see you in your jeans will not be impressed by the supposedly better construction.

    That said, I'm more into fit than construction or brand impression. I have plenty of gear that is poorer quality and zero brand recognition that i love and wear often because it fits so damn well.
     


  7. Spencer Young

    Spencer Young Senior member

    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    doesnt it seem that the guy who wear the trendy $$$ jeans/clothes is going to reap better benefits, in a social sense (getting laid, getting "props" etc) than a guy who buys something that is supposedly "made better" but more esoteric and unknown and in which the extra quality you're getting might never be tested to where it's empirically proven to be a better product.

    I think when I was tossing around the idea in my head, I was thinking in terms of some argument between a typical SF'er and someone who's just following the trends; I imagined the SF'er winning because of where people derive their benefit from the jeans given our inherent insecurities. It sounds like most of us get compliments based on the clothing itself, rather than the brands attached. Still, good point.

    I'd definitely agree with the fit comments - when I was thinking of the two broad categories of brand, fit/cut also went (unmentioned, my apologies) under the construction heading. The basic destinction was whether the jeans' value came from a symbol that generates a social reaction/signal, or all the rest (the denim, construction, fit, all the physical characteristics).
     


  8. sbbbjm

    sbbbjm Senior member

    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    just some random thoughts . . .

    i have an 'american jackass' friend who is truly a brand whore. 3 pairs of ugly true religions. a pair of decent zathan 772's which i think are a great lookin wash (extremely played out, but stille great looking), but he wears them so prissy -- they're hemmed perfectly so they don't touch the ground and there always a certain 'neatness' to them bc he dry cleans them. he wears indie band tshirts of bands he doesn't really know. ugh, i dunnno. he just reminds me of the suburban kids that grew up wearing abercrombie, but an urban outfitters opened up in the burbs and all of a sudden he thinks he's so unique and anti establishment bc he switched.

    he wears diesel green cologne. god it smells like a synthetic mess of crap. smells like bug spray! he had the nerve to tell me that the terre d'hermes, i wear, smelled cheap probably bc he had never heard of hermes.

    i showed him nudies but he didn't like em bc he said they looked like seven knockoffs and that they weren't flared enough.

    we were at the mall today and he was looking at sunglasses and he wants a pair of prada sunglasses. i really doubt he knows anything about the true prada aesthetic or that miuccia prada probably gives someone at the Safilo group (i think thats who makes them) free reign to design her stuff -- he probably doesn't even know who miuccia (sp?) is. every pair i picked out he turned down, i have no doubt it was bc the logo wasn't visible enough.

    this is just me, but i don't think seven will ever really fade out at least for women. they are too flattering to go out so quick.

    FYI the scribble yall keep referring to is actually a cursive letter 'V' in the word seven. citizens is similar but they use a cursive 'Z'
     


  9. tangerine

    tangerine Senior member

    Messages:
    698
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2006
    Location:
    San Francisco CA
    ^ interesting about the V and Z stitches, I didn't know that.

    Prada sunglasses are Luxxotica; Safilo has Dior (among others.)
     


  10. digital_denim

    digital_denim Big Lose

    Messages:
    531
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2006
    Location:
    San Francisco
    I think this thread has gone way over the head of the person asking the question!
     


  11. sbbbjm

    sbbbjm Senior member

    Messages:
    556
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    yeah, i knew it was something like that. i think most of the designer sunglasses i.e. gucci, fendi, chanel etc are under one of those groups. i mean rayban isn't even made by bausch & lomb anymore. i think they're luxoticca
     


  12. minya

    minya Senior member

    Messages:
    527
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2006
    That said, I'm more into fit than construction or brand impression. I have plenty of gear that is poorer quality and zero brand recognition that i love and wear often because it fits so damn well.
    you make a very good point, and in some ways, I agree with you completely.

    However, personally I feel that if I'm spending a lot of money on something (and I, along with pretty much all of the rest of us here, spend outrageous amounts of money on clothing) it should be made impeccably, or at least close to impeccably. If carelessness in construction or production is blatant or apparent, I'm much less inclined to buy it.
     


  13. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Likes Received:
    10
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    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.

    As opposed to proclaiming what clothing you recently purchased on a high-end clothing forum?
     


  14. Luc-Emmanuel

    Luc-Emmanuel Senior member

    Messages:
    1,586
    Likes Received:
    13
    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2005
    Location:
    Paris, France
    As opposed to proclaiming what clothing you recently purchased on a high-end clothing forum?
    Pretty much everyone on this board is a brand whore. The brands are just different: you just need to count how many people are jumping on the bandwagon and buying edward green shoes.

    !luc
     


  15. drizzt3117

    drizzt3117 Senior member

    Messages:
    13,141
    Likes Received:
    10
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Pretty much everyone on this board is a brand whore. The brands are just different: you just need to count how many people are jumping on the bandwagon and buying edward green shoes.

    !luc


    I agree, my point is there isn't much (if any) difference between fishing for compliments in real life and fishing for compliments on an online forum.
     


Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by