Appleseed

On 9/11/2020 at 11:53 PM, scamster said:

don’t understanding manufacturers proclivity to wanting to use it in clothing other than areas of high abrasion such as shoulders on jackets for backpacks wearers.

please correct me if I’m wrong (it’s how we learn) but being used as lining/membrane in a 2l situation like the new sisp leather jacket seems folly, none of the benefits of dyneema only the trade offs. that's me corrected @snsnsn but can't imagine it's breathable, personally can't envisage this being comfortable.

Thankfully, there are other ways to use Dyneema - the woven stuff that Outlier has played w/ comes to mind. It's categorically different from a full membrane application, but I would agree  that a non-breathable fabric is less-than-ideal in a typical jacket. Seems like something of a step backward, IMO.

Ok, very good to know - they need to get their branding in check. I'd assumed Infinium was more HD based on the Gore info page (didn't realize this also included the FO (ShakeDry?) product(s) too), which, if heavier and less-breathable than the Burly.....means a no-go, unfortunately. Will have to swing by and see what the FW20/21 iteration is like.

Interesting - I guess I need to check them out in person. The only Infinium stuff I've handled was insulated. I would have equated the Burly Double Weave w/ 'lifestyle windstopper package,' which still seems to be in use on the Align MX. Is reg. Infinium going to be thinner / lighter than the Burly?

Agreed. Too bad those Indisce Pants are Infinium....

^ Yeah, but the Sediment color almost makes up for it. Any clue whether the Range is coming back in non-IS ver. for SS? I didn't see anything that was a total match in the imgur dump....

My orig. reaction was about approach (to the culture / 'hobby') and the use of the 'collective-centric' term, which frankly, just wasn't something possible 10~15 years ago. You had people here, 5thD....a few on that UK forum (blanking on the name?). A handful of otaku spread across the globe like a Gibson novel. It was a relief to find community, but nobody was getting into it because of the community. We can argue good/bad/right/authentic, but for better or worse there are obviously a lot more options for accessibility (and group-making, e-congregation, etc.) now, which allows for more of the diversity and differences since described.

Personal motivation to sell-off could be related (or not?), hence the question-

1 hour ago, beepy said:

Some real rough psychology

How thin do we get to slice this tho - i.e., separating motivation from behavior? This is what I meant by objectivity; should be obvious that individuals' choices are pretty much always going to be individual-centric in this context, for reasons that @TEKsevenZERO and others have mentioned. In the real-world, this topic mostly operates in a vacuum.

15 hours ago, erictheninja said:

my own current personal definition of being individual-centric

Ok, but that doesn't somehow make this technically correct. Just makes you one of the more selfish bee's in the hive! Not even arguing whether this is 'good' or 'bad'.

While these things come down to personal choices, you need to step back and look at them more objectively.

Certainly up for discussion - and while we keep throwing these terms around loosely, they're actually pretty well defined in some circles. @erictheninja's last post talks about currying favor for personal gain as individual-centric, but if you're feeding / contributing to the group (to whatever end), it's actually collective-centric, regardless of whether you get personal benefit out of it or not.

14 minutes ago, hooper said:

That being said, what could possibly be un-individualistic with sticking with something that happens to become popular?

bingo

52 minutes ago, hooper said:

I used to have this kind of discussion with a friend who was really into Supreme. Even 6 years ago the brand had already hit a saturation point where he felt wearing certain items was communicating the wrong message. It's a really interesting dilemma and I'm not ready to pick a side, but I'm not sure if I would agree that modifying your behaviours/interests because of what's popular or what other people are doing necessarily makes you less individually-centric. This friend of mine demonstrates individuality more than anyone else I know.

This hits a key point for me, and is why I phrased things they way I did. Might have been head-to-toe, but you wouldn't know it because no blatant logos / signaling. The saturation and association (both Supreme and ACR) have absolutely tweaked some of my own behaviors, but not to the point of the OP where one is selling everything off (or losing actual interest - perhaps more importantly e.g., 'clothes' vs. culture and symbolism).

That said, isn't 'modifying your behaviours/interests because of what's popular or what other people are doing' the literal definition of collective-centric behavior? Maybe I'm being too pedantic (or not enough?). How stand-alone do you have to be for a negative reaction to actually become individual-centric behavior instead of just plain-old contrarianism? Lots of gray area for sure...

Yeah, I dunno. Do obnoxious concert-goes somehow make Mayer a lesser-guitarist? Do the Bryan Lee's of the world somehow takeaway from ACR's actual output or make it objectively less-interesting?

To me, changing behavior and/or interests because of others is the literal opposite of an individual-centric pursuit. If you'd linked ERLSN's SJW Twitter regurgitations to your being out-of-alignment, I could understand a logic behind wanting disassociation.

Regardless, this is exactly what I was hoping people would get into after @jeddyhsu's remark; so thanks for going out on a proverbial limb.

I think you're misreading. Stock ≠ work

1 hour ago, JoseRizal said:

He constructed about 10 sentences. Hardly "putting so much work." At least it was constructed better than the Rough guy few pages back 

I think the point was more about 'feels' over the fanbase. This directly relates to the individual-centric vs. collective-centric idea mentioned earlier, and while I can empathize, I've not personally reacted the same way.

Funny enough, I was in head-to-toe Supreme yesterday, not that anyone could tell. At the end of the day, they're just clothes. T-shirts and shorts. Black jackets and green pants. Nobody is forcing you to style them like an @archive reject (or centerfold) OR embrace that particular association. @erictheninja hits on plenty of cringe moments, but none of them actually outmode technical outerwear in any sense. Plenty easy to stay disassociated from the FB / Reddit / IG circlejerk.

This is mostly worth responding to because of @jeddyhsu's reference to 'collective-centric' behavior. One could easily argue that prior to ACR being on places like FB/IG/Grailed, (i.e. back when this thread started on SuFu) it was much more of an individual-centric pursuit. Putting 'fans' in quote marks seems apt - as I can't think of too many ppl from back-in-the-day who've purposely ditched their whole collection (not to say individuals haven't aged-out or stopped / slowed purchasing for whatever reason).

Perhaps @emilpops, you could cite some examples? Curious.

1 hour ago, Orientalq said:

I am implying that people cross-shop those brands on a cost-to-value equivalency.

But you didn't say that, and I'm not a mind-reader. Even if that's what you genuinely meant, I have a hard time believing that there's a sizable number of people cross-shopping reps (as you wrote) and the genuine article. There is literally too big of a gulf; in both actual performance and cost / value ratio, no equivalency exists.

Regardless...when discussing brand equivalency, there are far more factors to consider than just cost. You can reply ad nauseam, but it doesn't change anything.

20 minutes ago, Orientalq said:

 

1) "Cross-shopping the listed brands (+ including replicas, really?) does not make them equivalent" -> Cross shopping =/= equivalency.

2) "The implication is that you and/or others believe that there is enough equivalency amongst those brands to bother cross-shopping." -> Cross-shopping = enough equivalency.

Please explain to me what you mean by equivalency, because in one post you're saying that cross-shopping does not equate to equivalency and in the other, you're accusing me of equating Acronym with other brands because they can be cross-shopped.

 

You implied that ppl are cross-shopping those brands, and they are therefore equivalent. It doesn't, and they aren't. Not sure how much simpler I can make that.

You're now contradicting your earlier post (see below) and are feigning confusion. It's ok, the world will keep spinning.

28 minutes ago, Orientalq said:

Cross-shopping does not equate to a conclusion of equality.

37 minutes ago, Orientalq said:

Okay. Under the assumption that the cross-shopping of two goods makes them equivalents, I'll stand by my point that at a cost-to-value basis there is a point at which the other brands are in that sense equivalent to Acronym. It seemed to me you were referring to Acronym as an equivalent-less brand based on design/functionality alone, excluding price, but if we're counting price it should be a no-brainer. Cost-to-value wise an enfin-leve DS pant exceeds that of a P10, so explain to me how Acronym has no equivalents in that regard.

 

Sorry, but I've stated nothing to that effect.

Cherry-picking single metrics cannot, on any-basis, be reasoning for proving / disproving equivalency. Again, as a 'design enthusiast' you should know that the sum constitutes many parts - some of which are intangible. The fact that you claim that, and are ok lumping in rip-offs and replicas in the same brand grouping is pretty astounding.

1 hour ago, Orientalq said:

Where did I say they were equivalents? You're misconstruing my argument.

4 hours ago, Orientalq said:

[to you there is no equivalent to Acronym. But to others,]

...I mean, you get how the english language works right? The implication is that you and/or others believe that there is enough equivalency amongst those brands to bother cross-shopping. I give zero fucks about your personal shopping habits (or justification), and am simply pointing out the false posit.

1 hour ago, Orientalq said:

Yes, to you there is no equivalent to Acronym. But to others, there are a LOT of people who cross shop between ACR and Outlier, enfin leve, SISP, Riot Division, and many other ACR derivatives (including replicas). It's not a zero sum game and our opinions are not mutually exclusive. I don't mind the negative reps, but it's not like I'm wildly wrong. It's probable that the people who don't have as much brand loyalty to ACR wouldn't browse this forum. I'm a design enthusiast and a customer, but maybe the prices are reason for me to reconsider the latter.

Cross-shopping the listed brands (+ including replicas, really?) does not make them equivalent, period. A self-proclaimed 'design enthusiast' should be able to understand the differences.

1 hour ago, Orientalq said:

When pricing causes your brand to appeal to older people exclusively that's how you kill a brand.

Some of ya'll need to get smacked.

1 hour ago, kenwiryadi said:

Thats kinda false imo.

Its a tool to get creative, when you are stuck and cant think of designing something, then sometimes you gotta create your own problems to solve.

Or when you have a certain idea that you want to realize, a number of problems will surely arise when you are trying to solve your own design idea.

If this mindset aint here, then we would have monotonous output everywhere, especially in the fashion industry IMO.

Why should there be designers in the first place?

We wouldn’t have come to modern design if designers didnt think that the absence ornaments and decorative attributes of architecture could be aesthetically pleasing. (Which there is some more thinking than just the aesthetics)

Not that the old designs are bad, but there certainly are advancements in design with “this kind” of thinking.

Regarding getting respect, sure some gets their respect in forms of prestigious awards etc. For what? For their groundbreaking ideas of what architecture and designs could be.

Even chefs who create groundbreaking dishes gets their james beard or michelin award and all that shit.

Am guessing there's a bit of a language barrier happening here. Creating problems that don't exist (so that you can then 'solve' them) is not pragmatic creativity. Designing in a vacuum is just masturbation (tho of course there's value to be mined from that process).

But as you point out in your third line, there are always problems to solve (even if they're not sexy or fun).

Point being: contemporary architectural education loves to foster ego over practical skill, but that shit catches up and'll humble you real fast in professional practice. Academia lives on an island - we all know the saying about those who can 'do,' and those who 'can't do,' yes?

1 hour ago, kenwiryadi said:

I myself have a background in architecture and i will always remember what my professor told me : “if there are no problems to solve in design, create your own problems to solve.”

What absolute bullshit. This is why architects (esp. the academic kind) get so little respect in the actual, built / owned world.

No 2-way zip, but it does include an AuxZip^æ[F] which is not mentioned or shown in the product images. Surprised nobody has pointed that out.

1 hour ago, DROVES said:

Hanon seems to no longer charge VAT for out of UK purchases so effectively 20% off for american consumers, just a heads up as this is news to me after Montrose was the cheapest distributor for a while, but seems to have stopped carrying acr over the weekend?

They're not supposed to collect VAT for non-UK/EU purchases (and Hanon certainly didn't back in the day). I've previously brought this up with 18montrose and told them to politely fuck off when they refused to discount that on a US purchase. The retailer gets said VAT amount refunded from the local agency on these kinds of international sales, so it's some pretty un-ethical (and illegal?) profiteering on their part.

Plenty of other retailers out there, vote with your wallet-

Back in the day, there was much theorizing (by ppl who actually used GORE-TEX as god intended) that some individuals sweat affected the membrane (or adhesives?) much more aggressively than everyone else on the bell curve. This was supported by anecdotal manufacturer Q&A, though I don't remember if it was ever formalized or published.

Chest delam. is not very common, even with packs or carry-rigs. Will usually see face fabric abrasion before that occurs.

Of course - if you're cosplaying in ACR at your local ramen joint on a balmy evening, then all bets are off.