Uber-High Fashion - Please Debate

[goldengloves]

But I think everyone has already touched on the fact of some of these designer's craftsmenship, quality, and attention to detail. But for some reason this post keeps coming back to a tee shirt? I can't answer the whole phenomenon about a $300 tee because I have never spent that much on a tee shirt, nor have I purchased anything from Margiela. But I am guilty of buying an $80 sheer long sleeve from Ann as well as a $200 pair of trousers from her as well. Why? Because, as I've said before, I love the quality, fabric, design, and attention to detail in her clothing. I have yet to find another designer that evokes as much emotion in clothing as Ann, 'cept for CCP (Which I have no clothing from).

I think you are indeed right about the absurdness of a $300 tee and there is no doubt someone out there is buying it strictly because it is margiela. But this happens with everything; furniture, cars, realestate, etc.

The thing Tiranis was trying to get at is that some people 'just like it'. Sometimes this is genuinely what a persons' answer is.

I think the problem with this topic is that you have yet to get one of those consumers who buys strictly for the label.

[Tiranis]

I've said in my first post that it's about things like design or what the brand stands for, what the designer stands for, etc. But you don't want to listen. I've said it so many times my head hurts.

I'll be back later to offer more explanations, but for now one more thing: if you made this thread solely about designer t-shirt then I would've possibly agreed with you. Many of them are rip-offs, even though not necessarily. But you've mentioned even things like knits and jackets and I just can't agree with that.

So, I wonder if you're going to stop bugging me if I put what I said in terms of your quesiton + answer thingy:

"Tiranis, why did you buy that $2000 Rick owens jacket, aren't there cheaper options?"

And Tiranis would say: "I believe that the design is very unique, the leather is soft, and craftsmanship is good enough for me not to worry about it. I've also supported Rick Owens for a very long time and I believe in the brand image that he has created. The jacket also blends very well with my style and I don't have enough time to search for a cheaper option, as the amount of time I could spend on searching could possibly be worth more than the jacket."

That's the same thing I've been saying the whole time in a quote, hopefully you'll understand it this time.

[artificialsky]

i find it ironic that guys on the SZ don't blink an eye at a $300 black ANN D (OMG) t-shirt, but when the topic of $40 supreme t-shirts is breached, you can almost start to see the veins in their neck starting to throb.

[evisu 2000]

^haha i read that too...

sz is to sf is to hb is to hf is to etc

[implicit]

hi england.

i'll try to answer to the best of my ability why some of the things i buy are, to me, worth it.

first, i'm not a wealthy guy. i can't afford to bleed money all the time. as such, i'm incredibly choosy as to what i buy. to me, i'd much rather have one shirt that is constructed of fantastic materials, cut impeccably, and will last over time than to have 5 shirts of crap (or even mediocre) quality/design/fit. the same goes for the rest of my wardrobe.

i like the aesthetic of some ccp pieces. those that i own i've gotten at a discount (the same for most of the rest of my wardrobe). each piece that i own is constructed incredibly well. it's apparent that a lot of time went into both the design and construction of the garment. the things i like could be considered his less avant-garde stuff, but that's just because i prefer a more "classic" look with a slight twist.

it's the same thing that, to me, justifies spending $2-300 on a pair of jeans.

i'm not interested in the exclusivity or any of that garbage, only those pieces that are constructed well and of materials worth the increased price, are of an aesthetic i enjoy, and are meant to last.

i hope that helps.

[sbw4224]

I think the think is Bandwagon is that not all designers are pretentious themselves. I would have to argue that it's the consumer that makes the image into an elitist image. You guys realize that because production of "designer" goods other than the big houses costs quite a bit more than something that is made on a much larger scale. Poell, who produces leather jackets that sell for 5000 dollars, only produces 4000 pieces a season.

Why does he do this? Probably because he can't afford to pay more people to make more clothes, and probably because the peopel he pays live relatively well. And why shouldn't they? Fashion is as much a business as it is talent and "art."

I see this issue as a more personal one than one that has an answer that goes across all boundaries. I hate relativism more than anyone, but I think most people have a right answer here. Goldengloves likes certain looks and clothes for his own reasons, England loves Visvim shoes for specific reasons, I like other brands because I'm attracted to them. Are items wicked expensive at retail? Sure they are. But avantgarde clothing attracts a very small crowd who see something different in it. Who cares, let people enjoy hobbies and fascinations...

What it comes down to is you either like it or not. Its only clothes. We all like them. Some people just like more expensive ones than others.

[englandmj7]

But I think everyone has already touched on the fact of some of these designer's craftsmenship, quality, and attention to detail. But for some reason this post keeps coming back to a tee shirt? I can't answer the whole phenomenon about a $300 tee because I have never spent that much on a tee shirt, nor have I purchased anything from Margiela. But I am guilty of buying an $80 sheer long sleeve from Ann as well as a $200 pair of trousers from her as well. Why? Because, as I've said before, I love the quality, fabric, design, and attention to detail in her clothing. I have yet to find another designer that evokes as much emotion in clothing as Ann, 'cept for CCP (Which I have no clothing from).

I think you are indeed right about the absurdness of a $300 tee and there is no doubt someone out there is buying it strictly because it is margiela. But this happens with everything; furniture, cars, realestate, etc.

The thing Tiranis was trying to get at is that some people 'just like it'. Sometimes this is genuinely what a persons' answer is.

I think the problem with this topic is that you have yet to get one of those consumers who buys strictly for the label.

I was mostly referring to the more basic items these brands make, as they are easier to 'substitute' per say. This is why the "t-shirt" keeps coming up. I can understand the markup of a crazy sheepskin leather jacket or some well-made boots to more of an extent that a piece of cotton that has 4 seams on it, a tag, and nothing else to justify it's markup.

I've said in my first post that it's about things like design or what the brand stands for, what the designer stands for, etc. But you don't want to listen. I've said it so many times my head hurts.

I'll be back later to offer more explanations, but for now one more thing: if you made this thread solely about designer t-shirt then I would've possibly agreed with you. Many of them are rip-offs, even though not necessarily. But you've mentioned even things like knits and jackets and I just can't agree with that.

So, I wonder if you're going to stop bugging me if I put what I said in terms of your quesiton + answer thingy:

"Tiranis, why did you buy that $3000 Rick owens jacket, isn't there cheaper options?"

And Tiranis would say: "I believe that the design is very unique, the leather is soft, and craftsmanship is good enough for me not to worry about it. I've also supported Rick Owens for a very long time and I believe in the brand image that he has created. The jacket also blends very well with my style and I don't have enough time to search for a cheaper option, as the amount of time I could spend on searching could possibly be worth more than the jacket."

That's the same thing I've been saying the whole time in a quote, hopefully you'll understand it this time.

Ha hah. Use of my Q+A format has nothing to do with me appreciating this post.

Your justification for a Rick Owens jacket makes sense. Thank you. And no, you haven't been saying that the whole time; you previously said things to the extent of: "I buy them because I like how they look......so there."

As I said to Goldengloves, as you will notice in my first post, I never mentioned any items that were not basic (i.e. not including knits, jackets, shoes, etc. even though these are often overpriced as well, but maybe not as much). These are what I am most interested in as most of the mentioned brands focus heavily on a 'minimalist' approach and have many items that fall under the "basics" category.

[goldengloves]

I really shouldn't have no say in this debate, since I don't know anything about those high fashion brands, but then, I really don't give a fuck what some pretentious twat with a fashion degree shits out and sells for a few grand. Even if it's made by communist lesbian albino midgets in Lapland, I don't care. Exclusivity is bullshit served on a silver platter to noveau-riche suckers who are more looking forward to not wearing it anymore than they are to wearing it. I'll take a good compromise of functionality, durability and style over overpriced avantgarde bullshit. If you can afford said bullshit at 90% off, more power to you. Even at that price I still wouldn't be interested. I like England's points in this... and I'd drain my stumpy green e-peen of rep juice for him.

*sigh*

In the words of Jerry Seinfeld, "Let's keep this sophisticated."

[Bandwagonesque]

*sigh*

In the words of Jerry Seinfeld, "Let's keep this sophisticated."

This is supertrash, not StyleForvm

[englandmj7]

Implicit and SBW4224, I appreciate the input; thanks guys.

Aargh.

It is hard to come off on a subject like this without seeming offensive.

[sbw4224]

i find it ironic that guys on the SZ don't blink an eye at a $300 black ANN D (OMG) t-shirt, but when the topic of $40 supreme t-shirts is breached, you can almost start to see the veins in their neck starting to throb.

Don't generalize one person's actions towards an entire group. SZ peeps are fairly genuine and more than helpful and open towards anyone who wants to learn more about different sides of fashion. No need to keep perpetuating negativity.

[sbw4224]

I was mostly referring to the more basic items these brands make, as they are easier to 'substitute' per say. This is why the "t-shirt" keeps coming up. I can understand the markup of a crazy sheepskin leather jacket or some well-made boots to more of an extent that a piece of cotton that has 4 seams on it, a tag, and nothing else to justify it's markup.

England, those basic items are marked up to ridiculous amounts of money to allow the designers to produce the really expensive leather jackets etc etc. Putting something in reach of a different income group allows people to buy "designer" items and have something they regard as elite or cool (ie Russia). Expensive tee's are the same as diffusion lines. They are definitely overpriced, but they sell. Bottom line is these pieces keep the designer afloat.

[goldengloves]

I also think these basics are 'overpriced' because it creates some kind of semblance in the line. It wouldn't make much sense to have a $5000 jacket and a $40 tee. Usually a company will determine who thier customer is and make all thier products aimed towards that customer, big or small.

[englandmj7]

England, those basic items are marked up to ridiculous amounts of money to allow the designers to produce the really expensive leather jackets etc etc. Putting something in reach of a different income group allows people to buy "designer" items and have something they regard as elite or cool (ie Russia). Expensive tee's are the same as diffusion lines. They are definitely overpriced, but they sell. Bottom line is these pieces keep the designer afloat.

True; good point.

However, this may be the case in certain instances with smaller designers, but this doesn't encompass EVERY high-priced t-shirt making designer.

In lieu of this being Supertrash, please take a moment to smile, and enjoy a sneak preview of Ann D.'s 2008 uber-limited $7K-a-piece swimsuit line (models not included).

[artificialsky]

Don't generalize one person's actions towards an entire group. SZ peeps are fairly genuine and more than helpful and open towards anyone who wants to learn more about different sides of fashion. No need to keep perpetuating negativity.

whatever you say, kid. we didn't start this shit. we didn't start generalizing, YOUR BOY did.

got any more choice words for us about keeping this postive, you toy?

[implicit]

i'll have you know that the one on the left is made of rare bolivian lambskin. it was buried in the deserts of afganistan for 2 years to take on that patina!

[minya]

whatever you say, kid. we didn't start this shit. we didn't start generalizing, YOUR BOY did.

got any more choice words for us about keeping this postive, you toy?

Enough drama.

Period.

[Fuuma]

I'll try to address a few points here:

1)You alluded that you found some "business wear" items better value, I know this might not have been the specific point you were trying to make but, intentional or not, it clearly jumped at me. This might perfectly apply to your present and (planned) future lifestyle but you have to understand that this might not be the case for others. In fact, nowadays, most fields do not require wearing business formal wear, making those fancy suits a pretty extravagant purchase for most wearers, no? You also have to understand that wearing Brioni does not guarantee a great fit and that suit cuts and fabrics tend to change, even if subtly, every few years, so you might no keep that Kiton that long, hence possibly making it a bad investment. What good is durability if obsolescence comes first? Anyway, just wanted to point out an England bias, although a very positive one (you do consider your lifestyle when valuing clothes).

2) The fashion market is like this, some items have a higher markup, hence are cash cows for fashion houses or even corporations like Kiton, while some are prestige offerings where no or even negative profit is derived (i.e. Haute couture). I would say that, as long as you have the information, it is then a matter of taste and means to decide if you want those items or not. For example, I tend to shun fashion houses for accessories and go straight to, let's say jewelers for rings and such. The last item of jewelry I bought was an Ugo Cacciatori ring and I certainly think it’s more interesting and better priced than CCP accessories. I also rarely buy tees from fashion houses, but when I do it is because I am really digging a combination of things not to be found in the same level in lesser makers: fit, construction, materials, design, you get the drill.

3) I would say that SZ posters tend not to buy items at full price and are avid Y! Japan, Ebay, sales, etc. shoppers. Additionally, if you look at many posts (I remember Faust giving some advice about what is overpriced or not from AnnD) they will mention that they generally go for outerwear, shoes and jackets, which is in line with what you value…

4) About the usefulness of brands (recycling of part of a post I made on SZ):

“Once you know what you want to project, brands start coming in handy; these are basically filters that will help you navigate the almost unlimited amount of information and offerings of the fashion world, they’re like those tags you see in some threads. Tom Ford’s Gucci would have, as an example, “sexy†“glamour†“nightlife†“luxury†“velvet†“flashy†“celebrity†etc. associated to it and our aforementioned worker cowboy probably wouldn’t give it much attention, instead concentrating on, let’s say, Sugarcane “workwear†“traditional†“quality†“American†“levi†“tough†tags. He might also look for some info on brands he’s not aware of but that have related tagging. Now that doesn’t mean he could not come across a Gucci shirt that would be a great addition to his wardrobe, just that, the odds being unlikely, he shouldn’t put too much energy into Gucci. The return on time/energy investment is pretty low considering his criteria, especially when there’s Engineered Garment around.

At some point in his fashion evolution the workwear guy might also decide that his view on the fashion world and relative brand positioning in this world are now an important factor and just say fuck Gucci, as a matter of principle (see Faust’s post). I’ll avoid discussing that view but let’s just say this ties in to both lifestyle brands and market realities (fashion realpolitik, so to speak); if I don’t like the lifestyle Gucci puts forward and even think they have a negative impact on the market I won’t send my money their way, which means I won’t even consider their items.â€

This could explain to you why I find brands useful and why I might even shun some and greatly favor others, which might appear irrational to you. Call it enlightened brand-whoring if you will….

5) To me, Borelli is something very different than the deconstructivist designs I favor. If I had to put this in a harsh light I would say that a Borelli shirt being artisanship, holds much less value than a C. Diem tee (I’m using an extreme example here, bear with me). We’re taking about an original idea, which is never changed over the years, only updated. There is no design, no innovation, no reflection of our times, no art and no soul in it; it’s just a stupid garment, which some craftsman somewhere learn to build more efficiently year after year, time after time…just an empty item, devoid of meaning and distinction. On the other hand, the Carpe tee is designed by a present day artist, who imbues what he makes with meaning and reflect the zeitgeist of our time, comparing his work to Borelli is like comparing Picasso to a house painter. Great designers combine things in such a way that an item becomes greater than the sum of its part, and that is appealing to me.

So that's my 2 cents...

[xcoldricex]

England, those basic items are marked up to ridiculous amounts of money to allow the designers to produce the really expensive leather jackets etc etc. Putting something in reach of a different income group allows people to buy "designer" items and have something they regard as elite or cool (ie Russia). Expensive tee's are the same as diffusion lines. They are definitely overpriced, but they sell. Bottom line is these pieces keep the designer afloat.

that should be the answer to your question, england.

but i don't think most of the people really buy these really basic items that are on here or over at SZ (excepting the ones that have a lot of money to throw around and don't really care about the price) so your question isn't going to be answered by the right people. i do however have some basic shirts from linea/lmaltieri/cdiem - i probably paid something like 80% of the retail though - the cut was reason enough for me to buy them (and the fact that i could probably sell them down the line without losing any money).

[mis]

This is a good thread, hopefully it dosent turn into flames.

I personally dont own many high fashion items, but I definitely have an interest in them. Whenever I see an insanely high price tag on any brand, I'll naturally be interested, mainly because I want to know what justifies the price tag. Brands like, WJK, CCP, Ann Dem, Julius comes to mind, brands that the layperson on the street would probably never have heard of.

I'll definitely buy some of the brands you listed, not because I like them, but probably because I'm curious. I bought a WJK vneck tee recently, and to be honest, if there wasent a tag on the t shirt, I really wouldnt know it was wjk. That being said, alot of the uber expensive outfits I see on SZ, I wouldnt think that it's comprised of expensive and exclusive brands, an expensive outfit does not always equate to a stylish outfit.

But maybe the t shirt IS really made using some super high quality cotton, and I'm the ignorant one that cant tell the difference. But the point is I dont really give a shit, some people care about superior quality in their garments, and I dont.

The question is what you want to get out of clothing. Make you look good? Show off your wealth? Clothes that can last you a lifetime? Is it wrong to sacrifice practicality over aesthetics? Its all about your priorities really.

[Kasper]

England, those basic items are marked up to ridiculous amounts of money to allow the designers to produce the really expensive leather jackets etc etc. Putting something in reach of a different income group allows people to buy "designer" items and have something they regard as elite or cool (ie Russia). Expensive tee's are the same as diffusion lines. They are definitely overpriced, but they sell. Bottom line is these pieces keep the designer afloat.

the problem is that many people who wear high-end brand like the ones mentioned in this thread are much much more influenced by brand name than what they would like to admit. paying 800 $ for a bland sweater just cause it's from Ann D or Raf Simons is as ridiculous as paying 300$ for some ugly ass SB just cause they are rare. the thing is ppl buying 800$ boring sweater will usually try to reason their purchase with some kind of moral superiority, saying ppl don't understand, quality is awesome, etc. and i totally agree that quality, craftmanship etc, definitely justify the price on many avant-garde pieces.

[englandmj7]

I'll try to address a few points here:

1)You alluded that you found some "business wear" items better value, I know this might not have been the specific point you were trying to make but, intentional or not, it clearly jumped at me. This might perfectly apply to your present and (planned) future lifestyle but you have to understand that this might not be the case for others. In fact, nowadays, most fields do not require wearing business formal wear, making those fancy suits a pretty extravagant purchase for most wearers, no? You also have to understand that wearing Brioni does not guarantee a great fit and that suit cuts and fabrics tend to change, even if subtly, every few years, so you might no keep that Kiton that long, hence possibly making it a bad investment. What good is durability if obsolescence comes first? Anyway, just wanted to point out an England bias, although a very positive one (you do consider your lifestyle when valuing clothes).

You're right, this is a good point, and one I knowingly made. Definitely bias, but not to as much of an extent as it might seem. I am interested in hearing a defense of all items someone like Ann D. makes, but more so, a defense of the "simple" items that do not necessarily warrant much in the way of time spent on construction, durability/rarity of materials, etc.

In regards to the suits, however, at those price ranges we are talking 100% bespoke. Overpriced? Of course! But you are getting a 'decent' value in that these suits are made to fit you perfectly and the materials used to make them cost alot of money. Still, I truly can't justify a suit of that price entirely, and would most likely use the argument of "because I'm rich bitch" if I were to ever purchase one and someone asked me why I did so.

2) The fashion market is like this, some items have a higher markup, hence are cash cows for fashion houses or even corporations like Kiton, while some are prestige offerings where no or even negative profit is derived (i.e. Haute couture). I would say that, as long as you have the information, it is then a matter of taste and means to decide if you want those items or not. For example, I tend to shun fashion houses for accessories and go straight to, let's say jewelers for rings and such. The last item of jewelry I bought was an Ugo Cacciatori ring and I certainly think it’s more interesting and better priced than CCP accessories. I also rarely buy tees from fashion houses, but when I do it is because I am really digging a combination of things not to be found in the same level in lesser makers: fit, construction, materials, design, you get the drill.

3) I would say that SZ posters tend not to buy items at full price and are avid Y! Japan, Ebay, sales, etc. shoppers. Additionally, if you look at many posts (I remember Faust giving some advice about what is overpriced or not from AnnD) they will mention that they generally go for outerwear, shoes and jackets, which is in line with what you value…

4) About the usefulness of brands (recycling of part of a post I made on SZ):

“Once you know what you want to project, brands start coming in handy; these are basically filters that will help you navigate the almost unlimited amount of information and offerings of the fashion world, they’re like those tags you see in some threads. Tom Ford’s Gucci would have, as an example, “sexy” “glamour” “nightlife” “luxury” “velvet” “flashy” “celebrity” etc. associated to it and our aforementioned worker cowboy probably wouldn’t give it much attention, instead concentrating on, let’s say, Sugarcane “workwear” “traditional” “quality” “American” “levi” “tough” tags. He might also look for some info on brands he’s not aware of but that have related tagging. Now that doesn’t mean he could not come across a Gucci shirt that would be a great addition to his wardrobe, just that, the odds being unlikely, he shouldn’t put too much energy into Gucci. The return on time/energy investment is pretty low considering his criteria, especially when there’s Engineered Garment around.

At some point in his fashion evolution the workwear guy might also decide that his view on the fashion world and relative brand positioning in this world are now an important factor and just say fuck Gucci, as a matter of principle (see Faust’s post). I’ll avoid discussing that view but let’s just say this ties in to both lifestyle brands and market realities (fashion realpolitik, so to speak); if I don’t like the lifestyle Gucci puts forward and even think they have a negative impact on the market I won’t send my money their way, which means I won’t even consider their items.”

This could explain to you why I find brands useful and why I might even shun some and greatly favor others, which might appear irrational to you. Call it enlightened brand-whoring if you will….

These are great points. Thanks Fuuma.

I wholeheartedly support people pursuing their favorite brands at discount prices, even if it is just for the name. I guess I am just very interested on hearing of instances where people may have paid full price for things like the $800 converse-look alikes Lowrey mentioned, or that absurd $600 cashmere pot leaf beanie someone posted on here a few days ago (which some poor soul, is of course, going to buy).

5) To me, Borelli is something very different than the deconstructivist designs I favor. If I had to put this in a harsh light I would say that a Borelli shirt being artisanship, holds much less value than a C. Diem tee (I’m using an extreme example here, bear with me). We’re taking about an original idea, which is never changed over the years, only updated. There is no design, no innovation, no reflection of our times, no art and no soul in it; it’s just a stupid garment, which some craftsman somewhere learn to build more efficiently year after year, time after time…just an empty item, devoid of meaning and distinction. On the other hand, the Carpe tee is designed by a present day artist, who imbues what he makes with meaning and reflect the zeitgeist of our time, comparing his work to Borelli is like comparing Picasso to a house painter. Great designers combine things in such a way that an item becomes greater than the sum of its part, and that is appealing to me.

So that's my 2 cents...

That is where we would disagree.

You might put more emphasis on the originality / innovativeness of an item, whereas to me, a time-tested formula for fit / beauty / solid construction / simple elegance would be far more important.

To use your painting analogy: Something "classic" yet "refined" to me (such as Borrelli) would be much more along the lines of Picasso (or more aptly, something by Van Gogh, or Monet), whereas something obscure by the likes of Raf Simons would be more like a Jackson Pollock painting: sort of a mixture of "Hmm, this is crazy and innovative, but is it crazy and innovative enough to warrant a $1 million price tag, or is it horrible overhyped crap that my 5 year old could make..........."? He heh.

Either way, we can save the modern vs. classic art discussion for another uber-chaotic England thread........

[sbw4224]

Kasper, this is true. We all have a little hypebeast in all of us .

[goldengloves]

the problem is that many people who wear high-end brand like the ones mentioned in this thread are much much more influenced by brand name than what they would like to admit. paying 800 $ for a bland sweater just cause it's from Ann D or Raf Simons is as ridiculous as paying 300$ for some ugly ass SB just cause they are rare. the thing is ppl buying 800$ boring sweater will usually try to reason their purchase with some kind of moral superiority, saying ppl don't understand, quality is awesome, etc. and i totally agree that quality, craftmanship etc, definitely justify the price on many avant-garde pieces.

This is just a generalization. In some cases I'm sure you're dead on but who is to know if you don't know the consumer in question. Although like sbw said, we all have some sort of 'I want' inside of us.

[englandmj7]

I think this thread wins for "most text per page of any thread in all of history............ever"

[Bandwagonesque]

I think this thread wins for "most text per page of any thread in all of history............ever"

There's text on this page? I'm still looking at the fat chicks... I like the one with dual kegs for a stomach.

[Servo2000]

I think the issue with this thread is that it seems like there's a bit of a disconnect between the original post and what we're talking about in a lot of cases. To me, the first post introduces almost too many things to discuss, although I think Fuuma hit many of them, including the relative value of money to different people, the value of name brand to different people, the value of new design versus the value of classic ideals versus interesting fit, the value of 'fashion' overall, etc...

Here's a series of reason why people might spend so much on a $300 shirt:

1. They breathe money. The value of their dollar to yours makes price irrelevant such to the extent that their is no reason for them to consider the implications of spending so much on a shirt, for whatever other reason.

2. They truly find or believe something about the design makes it worth the price, either on sale or at full price depending on their means. To me, it's no different than an Eames chair. I don't see why it's worth the price, although I love the design. Chairs don't mean that much to me at this point, so a $300 shirt might get more use and be a more reasonable investment. I'm sure there are people out there who believe that said pieces mean something important to them in some way, and I won't begrudge them said spending.

3. Different values. I have a friend who lives in a shit house and drives a decent car to save money to buy clothing. His values are different, so spending $300 on a shirt might seem as reasonable to him as my one day spending large sums on an expensive car, for instance. Again, you can argue that mine cost more to make, etc.. but it's relative more to the person than real world economics when it comes to the area of luxury goods.

For instance...

You might put more emphasis on the originality / innovativeness of an item, whereas to me, a time-tested formula for fit / beauty / solid construction / simple elegance would be far more important.

I agree with you, but I don't have the same tastes as you. My interestes may be more on the originality / innovativeness of an item, and perhaps I consider said $300 t-shirt just innovating enough to be worth the price. Your values are different than mine.

4. They believe in the designer and want to support him, they like his work enough to be interested in buying it. They are interested and live the lifestyle that these designs represent and have the means to live it, and don't necessarily see anything wrong with paying $300 for a shirt.

5. They want the label.

Now, to put it in context, I would not pay $300 for a t-shirt.

Anyway, there's some reasons, by my way of looking at it. I think that covers most of them.

It seems to me that you've already agreed that other people have different values and whatnot than you earlier, so I don't see what you're still looking for, it seems like that's more or less the solution. This has been a fascinating discussion, surprising it's lasted this long in the trash.

If any of this sounds like me being an asshole I'm really not trying to be, but I don't have time to proofread this. Tear it to pieces, if you will. We learn more that way.

edit: ended on a dickish note that I didn't to do. Anyway, changed it a little

[will_i_am]

I also think these basics are 'overpriced' because it creates some kind of semblance in the line. It wouldn't make much sense to have a $5000 jacket and a $40 tee. Usually a company will determine who thier customer is and make all thier products aimed towards that customer, big or small.

took the words out of my mouth.

+rep

whatever you say, kid. we didn't start this shit. we didn't start generalizing, YOUR BOY did.

got any more choice words for us about keeping this postive, you toy?

i've been calling everybody toy since i watched style wars for the first time last week.

+rep.

ok. enough of my rep whoring.

[Kasper]

This is just a generalization. In some cases I'm sure you're dead on but who is to know if you don't know the consumer in question. Although like sbw said, we all have some sort of 'I want' inside of us.

sure it was a generalization, but the thing is that in the thread, some ppl have explained how they justify buying very expensive creative, fashion-forward quality pieces. i'm down with ppl paying a lot for something that is really special and creative and also do this without any guilt or anything. the point i was trying to make is that there can no other justification when buying a real expensive basic item from a designer than i bought it cause it's from ___(name your designer here). i actually don't mind at all if someone wants to pay 300$ for a white t-shirt, but then don't try to tell me it's worth it cause of the quality, rareness, etc. i just don't buy it. personnel, i don't find anything wrong with someone saying "i bought this sweater from designer ___, i know i paid too much, that there is no difference between this sweater, and one that is 30-40% of the price except the label, but i did it cause i can afford it, i like this designer and its more fashion-forward pieces and wearing it makes me feel good". i think england was looking for a answer similar to this (correct me if i'm wrong).

[Vitamian]

I don't dress for conventional appeal and most of my clothing is probably rather intimidating in a sense. That's why I like that type of "ultra-high fashion".

However, I don't buy things like Jil Sander tee-shirts, mostly because I don't wear tee-shirts.

Anna Piaggi is also the ultimate style icon:

Or for males, Kenneth Tynan who wore a gold lame suit for his first date with his wife. When he was rowing the boat, it ripped and he actually weeped.