Brands that mean mediocrity

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

Click to expand...

Vox,
in my experience the average business person buys Silver Label RL, or worse Green Label RL, Joseph Abboud, hugo boss, JABank. In comparison that crowd, whats available from Brooks brothers is a huge step up in quality.

Brooks is not competitive with brands like Oxxford, Kiton or Brioni, where the cost is 3-5x that of Golden Fleece.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moo

Click to expand...

Too many people on this forum forget that we are, at most, 1% of the American population that cares about better clothing. Most people love Brooks, and are probably blown away by and intimidated by Paul Stuart. To most, these are not mediocre brands at all.

Well, there is truth to what you two are saying. In a TIME magazine poll from 2006, American men considered Brooks Brothers (22%) to be the best clothing brand followed by Ralph Lauren (15%) and Armani (12%).



- B

Facconable is junk.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

Well, there is truth to what you two are saying. In a TIME magazine poll from 2006, American men considered Brooks Brothers (22%) to be the best clothing brand followed by Ralph Lauren (15%) and Armani (12%).



- B

And there is it. Do you know how many people I know who worship Armani Exchange? Worship. Like, jeans/shirt/shoes/hat from A/X, every day. It's... wild stuff.

Originally Posted by Mr. Moo

Click to expand...

Right, to you. But to Joe Zay Banks from Detroit whose standard of excellence is the Men's Wherehouse, a trip to Brooks Brothers could be a life altering experience.
Absolutely. But at least those people don't pretend to know the difference between quality and dreck. In many ways, they're the victims of sartorial drape.

Originally Posted by comrade

Click to expand...

Facconable is junk.

Their ties are great. Some outerwear isn't bad, either.

Originally Posted by comrade

Click to expand...

Facconable is junk.

Facconable is not junk at all. they got some of the most aesthetic looking ties in the market and the best priced for such a luxurious hand (albeit not 7fold/6 fold or anything like that)

lot of their coats and such are made by very respectable companies like Cantarelli i believe.

Originally Posted by pejsek

Click to expand...

Back in the day Brooks had lots of gradations. Once you got out of kids clothes it was essentially a cradle-to-grave operation. You started out at Brooksgate and then went on from there. Once you got to the tailored clothing you could spend a lot of money. The Brooks English shoes and shirts were always a good deal more expensive than their American counterparts (nothing being made in Malaysia at the time). And then for real luxury there were always plenty of one-off items from England as well as the whole Peal line. I never recall thinking about any of it as good, honest clothing (not that it wasn't that). And I never felt any real Yankee vibe their either--BB was really a NYC store; you had to go to more regional NE outfitters if you were looking for that taste of austerity and forbearance.
I'm not seeing how it's all that different now. Start out with a Fitz, move up to a GF. Spend your life wearing better shoes than most people could ever appreciate. Let me clarify something on the "honest" remark: I get my taste for clothing from my grandfather, who believed in buying the best he could, thinking it a good investment. But he'd be absolutely baffled by much of the stuff we fixate on here. He had no concern about hand stitching or waist treatment; he just bought his clothes and wore them. When I say Brooks has an honesty to it, that's a compliment, not damning with faint praise. But even that's been lost these days. My point is that what Brooks sold then was not what SF praises to the skies now. As Manton mentioned:

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Some of it is definitely that standards have changed. For instance, I don't think anyone used to believe a BB shirt was mid-quality. However, by today's standards, they are a scandal! Box pleat, messy shirred sleeve cuff, no pattern matching, plastic buttons, all machine stitched, sailcloth-like fabric. Similarly, BB did a lot of swelled edges, but always with a machine stitch. Any luxe outlet now would not stock such an abomination. Even those crummy one-off stores on 5th and Madision selling Italianate junk show visible pick stitching (which may be by machine but looks like hand). No one in the '70s would have thought a machined edge on a tweed jacket was a sign of inferior quality, but the modern iGent can't tolerate that crap.
People may have perceived Brooks' stuff as the best then, but not so much today. But what's the alternative? Should Brooks take up the RTW arms race? Try to compete with styles and designs it never offered? I think we've seen what happens when it tries that. If Brooks delivered the standards of 1964, I'd be happy. But that would still pale in comparison with the razzle dazzle of many of the SF-approved brands. Doomed to mediocrity, I suppose. I have all sorts of complaints about Brooks -- the offshoring of production, the tepid styling, the frequent changes in course. But the world's a different place than it was a half-century ago, and I'm willing to cut them some slack. I'd rather have something similar to what Brooks was than what PS is.

BB as mediocre? Right now, their GF suits are 50% off, many at $800. I dare anyone to find a higher quality off the rack suit at that price in staple colors. None of this purple glenplaid Isaia stuff.

Originally Posted by needshoehelp

Click to expand...

BB as mediocre? Right now, their GF suits are 50% off, many at $800. I dare anyone to find a higher quality off the rack suit at that price in staple colors. None of this purple glenplaid Isaia stuff.

the thing i didn't like about golden fleece, IMO the pants are too full, and no pick stitching on the lapels. But a true staple color at $800 is pretty solid.

I have never been to Brooks, but it never occurred to me to consider it a luxury brand (a term which, whilst not in the thread title, features prominently in the OP). I think of it as an on-line place to get OCBDs (the original cotton, tent-like construction and all ) and shorts for summer. I know they are opening a store in Toronto this Fall, so I will pay a visit just to have a look around. Perhaps then I will have a better sense of the place.

For me, the apotheoisis of luxury mediocrity in Canadian terms is Harry Rosen's: http://www.harryrosen.com/?gclid=CMH...FVRM5Qod8TRFoA. Plain old mediocrity in Canadian terms is Moore's: http://www.mooresclothing.com/mor/index.jsp.

Originally Posted by eg1

Click to expand...

I have never been to Brooks, but it never occurred to me to consider it a luxury brand (a term which, whilst not in the thread title, features prominently in the OP). I think of it as an on-line place to get OCBDs (the original cotton, tent-like construction and all

) and shorts for summer. I know they are opening a store in Toronto this Fall, so I will pay a visit just to have a look around. Perhaps then I will have a better sense of the place.

For me, the apotheoisis of luxury mediocrity in Canadian terms is Harry Rosen's: http://www.harryrosen.com/?gclid=CMH...FVRM5Qod8TRFoA. Plain old mediocrity in Canadian terms is Moore's: http://www.mooresclothing.com/mor/index.jsp.
Many of BB's accessory items are certainly in the luxury league. Luggage, shell brief cases, some shoe styles, and various other accessories currently and in past years have been outstanding.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

Brooks used to have their own fabrics milled in England for their entire range...and there wasn't a great variety of fabrics compared to what we are used to today for MTM and bespoke. So, Brooks was a very important, high volume customer of English woolens, and what they got was probably as good is it was possible at that time. I don't know anything about Greenfield's stuff for BB, but I have read that the fabrics are not the best. So, yes, I guess I think the quality was better. The old BB tailored stuff was very much put together by hand, even if there was no concern whatsover over visible evidence of hand work. As for looking American: a lot more of the world looks American today than forty years ago. But, it is not the BB look.
Missed this post. I'd argue that this:

I don't know anything about Greenfield's stuff for BB, but I have read that the fabrics are not the best. So, yes, I guess I think the quality was better.

Click to expand...

suggests that you're comparing Brooks with an ideal in your head, rather than what it was and what it is. That's OK -- quite common, really -- but let's be direct about what we're discussing, as that very much shapes the possibility of Brooks ever meeting that ideal. As far as the world, Brooks was never a Ralph Lauren, and I would not want it to be. I do, however, find it disappointing that so few Americans appreciate the American look, though at least the Japanese and, to a lesser degree, the Italians have taken up the cause.

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

Click to expand...

very much suggests that you're comparing Brooks to an ideal in your head, rather than what it was and what it is. That's OK, but let's be direct about what we're discussing, as that very much shapes the possibility of Brooks ever meeting that ideal.

Well, I'm trying to work from memories from boyhood through college. Those are naturally prone to idealization given my advanced age now.

I think that I understand your point, which is that the attributes Brooks had at the end of its glory days for the physical make of their garments would fall short of what buyers associate with the top of the tailored clothing pyramid today. I can only agree with the part of this viewpoint that reminds us of the unavoidable archaism of something historical compared to the contemporary.

On the other hand, I am not willing to go along with your conclusion completely for two reasons. First, the quality of typical make was very high even by many of the standards that one might propose as generally accepted today (quality of fabrics and the degree of hand operations in the contruction of the garment, for example) and even Sulka would have been hard pressed to shame their accessories. Yes, the umbrella at Brooks was Brigg. Second...and I admit this might be a bit subjective...I still assert that where the old Brooks was very firm was in not doing anything that would be viewed as failing to represent the best. It is that standard that once existed but has been lost.

This is what makes Brooks mediocre today. The loss of what it was. It might bob a bit higher in a sea of wider mediocrity of clothes from other stores...that only makes me more sad.

My old Brooks seersucker suits gave up the ghost finally about four years ago. I've demurred replacing them all this time, but thought to end this drought by stopping by Brooks earlier this summer to look at their current stuff. Shocking. Going up to the old suit floor at the Boston BB felt like going into a mall store. What charm the building itself maintains was completely negated by stacks of cheap, generic clothing and by a staff that struck me as equally generic.

Do I dislike this change? Yes, I do...although as part of the 80s exodus from Brooks taste (in my case, to Louis and the largely new Italian makers it championed), I suppose I wasn't much help.

- B

You are not bigtime until you have a bespoke cotton suit.