Would you consider yourself a clothing elitest?

[Alias]

I hate snobs of any sort. I'll never use the words "for the average man" except in terms of body proportion or build.

 

[nighttrain7404]

Originally Posted by Alias

I hate snobs of any sort. I'll never use the words "for the average man" except in terms of body proportion or build.

There's some people on the forum who use that phrase and "for the common person" quite generously.

 

[chobochobo]

Speaking of Armani, it's funny (in a way) how my Armanis, Agnes B etc are now my everyday-don't care if they get damaged suits

I save my Oxxfords for special occasions.

 

[luk-cha]

cloths are to be worn, wearing the right clothing for the right activity is paramount, so this you you have no need to worry about anything!

 

[kitonbrioni]

Developing a personal style is the key. Quality items are often good for years (if not decades) of wear. Avoid, fashion items (unless the are of good quality and fit your personal style and you intend to wear them for years).

 

[NYCESQ]

While I have always enjoyed fine clothing, I think that SF has contrbuted to turning me into a "clothing elitist". But, beware fellow SF members, don't fall into the same trap that I did. Instead of purchasing functional, everyday clothing, I began seeking out only the very best as per SF consensus. While I have assembled a collection of beautiful clothes, they are not necessarily the most functional. For instance, the majority of my suits are made of Super 150's to 200's fabric, and they are just too delicate for everyday wear. Often, they are wrinkled by lunchtime. And then there are a bunch of very expensive cashmere sweaters that I can only wear a few days per year...weather permitting. The point that I am trying to make is that while it is ok to be a "clothing elitist" and to purchase the finest quality garments, it is equally important to make sure that you have a functional wardrobe. Having learned this valuable lesson, there is only one thing left to do...go shopping.

 

[Leaveitothexperts]

Originally Posted by zjpj83

I like well-made clothes.

I don't hate somebody who doesn't wear and/or cannot afford well-made clothes.

I don't hate, but do lament the people who can afford and do in fact buy expensive clothing but choose to buy a "label" that is by and large crap. I think that mentality is shared by many here, and if anything I think it's sort of anti-elitist in the sense that it's a waste of good money to buy a label sewn on a piece of crap.

+1. I also agree with what someone said earlier about differing priorities. While we may care about our Kiton, Borrellis, Lobbs, and what have you, other people may actually think WE are weird . . . . At the same time they spend tons of money on the latest technological advancement or the latest version of Playstation . . .

 

[chobochobo]

Good points, but I do recall many discussions regarding the pros and cons of the finer fabrics and that most people do suggest a more 'functional' cloth for everyday wear.

I have bought a mixture of clothing, some new, some second hand. Most are what I would regards as 'quality' though nothing 'top notch'. I am happy with what I have - after all I probably have more than I could possibly wear, but I'm getting there. Trying harder to put things into the rotation. I used to be tempted to 'save' things for special occasions particularly when I still used to hang on to most of my old wardrobe, but after a purge and giving away stuff to charity, I am wearing more and more of my stuff. Clothes are for wearing

Originally Posted by NYCESQ

While I have always enjoyed fine clothing, I think that SF has contrbuted to turning me into a "clothing elitist". But, beware fellow SF members, don't fall into the same trap that I did. Instead of purchasing functional, everyday clothing, I began seeking out only the very best as per SF consensus. While I have assembled a collection of beautiful clothes, they are not necessarily the most functional. For instance, the majority of my suits are made of Super 150's to 200's fabric, and they are just too delicate for everyday wear. Often, they are wrinkled by lunchtime. And then there are a bunch of very expensive cashmere sweaters that I can only wear a few days per year...weather permitting. The point that I am trying to make is that while it is ok to be a "clothing elitist" and to purchase the finest quality garments, it is equally important to make sure that you have a functional wardrobe. Having learned this valuable lesson, there is only one thing left to do...go shopping.

 

[Lamo]

nothing wrong with being a snob

 

[Quirk]

Not at all. I like to look good, but I'm not particularly obsessed with clothing, and don't care at all what others wear -- don't even really notice unless it's either particularly stylish or beat-me-over-the-head disgusting. To each his own!

 

[Huntsman]

No.

I wrote this in the past:

I wasn't raised conformist or nonconformist, though I can't deny that I posess a rebelious streak that manifests itself in my attire and mannerisms; one which I revel in at times. Suits and such may seem a mild rebellion, but for a young guy in college in a fairly rural area, I'm afraid I'm fairly shocking on occasion. I do get treated better by faculty, which is a perk I tolerate with great pleasure.

All the same, I try to hang onto my savior faire, and acknowledge -- if only to ensure that I am always, always seen as respectful of my fellow beings -- that society has changed some and the connotations of respectful attire over which we make so much fuss have changed with it. If I wore what I liked best all the time, I would find a hundred examples a week of my attire being seen as disrespectful of my fellow man here. Over at SF we had a poster, at times brilliant and at times batty, who spoke of going to Wal-Mart in his custom suit, and how all the slovenly creatures disrespected him with their street clothes. He didn't realize that it was he who was being disrespectful.

People who are basically clean, haven't dressed with an aim to offend and who conduct themselves decently never, ever anger or upset me or steal the magic of an experience. If I'm sitting in the Gramercy Tavern next to some guy in sandals (which I abhor above all sartorial sins) and a Yankees cap I will undoubtedly think "ugh, man, I don't need to see that," but if he's not otherwise loud, boorish or obnoxious I have another sip of wine and thank God for the wonderful food and atmosphere.

Again, clothing does not a slob make, and while I may think many of my peers look 'stupid' it is in a very lighthearted sense that carries no burden of prejudice. If it did, I would find it reciprocated with that particular sneer that overdressing can bring about. In that moment, over that narcissism of such a minor difference, a fragment of humanity gets parsed into Me and Him, an enemy is made and one of the great daily tragedies has occured.

The decency that everyone owes as a debt to life is paid with behavior that is not actively offensive and attire of commensurate attitude, be it Birkenstocks, construction boots, or John Lobb. While I so greatly appreciate it if my peers use their clothing to make some acknowledgement of a great symphony of music, food, or other affairs of gravity, in the end it is how they act that is the touchstone.

 

[Alias]

Originally Posted by nighttrain7404

There's some people on the forum who use that phrase and "for the common person" quite generously.

Well they can burn with their clothes, then.

Having the opportunity to wear nice clothes doesn't make you better than someone else. See my signature.

A great example would be good old Marc G. Great clothes from a great tailor, acted like a total dick on the Internet. No, I'd rather not let clothes make personality judgments for me.

 

[rach2jlc]

I don't think I've ever used "for the common person" on this forum, but keep in mind that when it is used, it isn't necessarily from a snobbish point of view. I'm sure that there are some members who have leaned in that direction, but in general I doubt it.

We don't have an aristocracy (LabelKing notwithstanding, j/k), so I think that such a sentiment just means that it isn't something that the average guy on the street would ever even consider wearing (or getting excited about). Members around here are certainly not the average guy; I'd say we probably represent a tiny percentage of men (after all, isn't that why we like this forum so much? Finally we found people who were like us!).

So, in saying that Men's Wearhouse might be good enough for "the common person," I read it as simply meaning that the regular, statistically general guy on the street, picked at random from a group of 100, who probably wouldn't ask about its thread count or whether or not it had full canvassing. I don't ever read it as saying that the person is therefore "less advanced" than somebody who would wear Castangia (again... maybe some do, but I don't think that most of us would).

 

[Soph]

Snobs give others something to aspire to.