Uber-High Fashion - Please Debate

[transactionfee]

I read this today. I feel is applies to the thread.

"The $275 dollar question"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/15/BUGDROL38G35.DTL

Aronson added that when a brand like Armani is able to sell its merchandise for hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars, it hardly makes sense for it to sell a black T-shirt for $15.

"In a luxury store like Armani, he's not going to price items that are disconnected from each other," he said.

[RAISED BY WOLVES]

Alot has been mentioned here, and people are making some incredibly intelligent observations.

That's good.

I'm about to rant...so if you dont like to read, dont like me, or don't like the way I write, feel free to skip to the next post. You have been for-warned...

Since much of what I would have said has already been discussed, I'll just bring up one point relative to me specifically, as well as to the discussion at large, that I felt was overlooked, and try and keep with the spirit of England's initial question.

I think we have failed to take into account the process that leads people to pay what some consider exhorbant prices for "simple" items by "Uber high-fashion" designers. No one is born ready to spend 3 bills on a tshirt. I dont think that can be argued. What happens between there, and "here" is what I find interesting. I think without question it begins at a young age with parental and societal ideas of "percieved value".

My pops spent much of his teenage life climbing in the High Sierra. This seemed to instill in him an appreciation for a sense of quality that was directly proportional to an items function, in what could quickly become a life threatening situation. This is the first way I as a child was taught to relate to clothing. I wasnt allowed Jordans much as I lusted after them. their performance as a basketball sneaker was not, in my parents mind, in reasonable proportion to their cost. But when it came to work wear/outdoors gear, or formal wear (much of which in my dad's case is traditionally "WASPY" brands) they were more "lenient' in their spending, because buying me a quality garment that would last seemed worth their while, and mine.

As I grew into my teenage years, I went through the stage of rebellion during which almost everything I wore was falling apart to the point that my mom once told me that she was going to throw out my "heroin addict" sweatshirt if I didn't stop wearing it. When you're raised with nice stuff, you are bound to go through some sort of a phase like this. Graffitti and skateboarding didn't lend themselve to fancy clothes. This would be the stage of ones life that I would say is often dominated by "lifestyle wear", in an attempt to differentiate from ones parents, and begin to establish ones own values as an independant being. Many of these items are fairly low cost, and a premium is placed less on their quality, or "value", and more on their position as social signifiers that identify the wearer as part of something.

Towards the end of this stage (lets say final years of high school), is where it seems that people begin to establish some sort of more conciously measured personal style. There are exceptions (I see you Corbin law) but I think Poly once said something along the lines of: "at 16 you should be cutting class, smoking blunts, and fucking stunts, not worrying about starching your $200 jeans!" (total misquote). I agree.

What began to happen to me at this point (and what sparked this whole rant) is something that I think is best described as "the ratchet effect".

It began when I was 17. Fresh out of highschool, and living on the cheap in the South Bronx, I had myself 2 jobs, which combined, provided me with more money than I had ever had at my disposal prior. It was 2001, the towers had just fell, and for the first time, I had complete control over my destiny. I used this control to do something that might have previously seemed brash, or just straight up impossible. I went in to Autumn skateshop, and in one fell swoop bought myself a pair of "dirty" jeans (diesel rip-offs), a pair of shoes, and two t-shirts. In the next few months, I started hitting thrift stores, picking up stylish old button downs, which we dubbed "lady-killers", and stepping my sneaker game up, as a way of compensating for what I couldnt have as a kid. Thus the ratcheting began.

You start with something simple. You start with something inexpensive....but slowly, as you begin to accumulate more things, you develop an understanding of the different choices that were previously unavailable. Accordingly, you discover that there are shops created for people just like you. Places that capitalize on your lust for that "next shit". Soon, what started as a wide-eyed appreciation for all the new options before you becomes the quest for items that better suit your taste, fit better, and are made of better materials. You are becoming "refined" *shudders*.

This is where it gets murky. This is when the concepts of quality, design, usefullness, etc...become intertwined with brand-recognition (or in many cases lack-there-of), and the ideas of exclusivity. Slowly, what you are willing to spend to achieve these ends increases. I myself dont own any tshirts that cost more than $60, however, I probably will own some as the ratcheting increases, because I sure as fuck couldn't have seen myself owning a $60 one 6 years back when $28 was considered a princely sum. Additionally, as I get older, I begin to see the merits of purchasing someone's idea or (I use this term with some hesitation) "vision". That's why when someone finds out how much my steel (not silver, not gold, but steel) necklace costs and raises an eyebrow, I genuinely don't give a fuck. I purchased it because, in my estimation, their idea was worth my money.

When your friends and community consist entirely of people whose interest mirror yours, the insular nature of these relationships is bound to help enforce your behavior. When you spend your whole work day on SF or SZ, you may actually begin to believe that this is just the way things are, and for you, it is. Someone here or there may introduce a question like this one, but lo and behold, that same person owns a couple pairs of $300 dollar shoes. When you are in this bubble, things just begin to justify themselves for you. And you are right even when you are wrong.

I wear nice clothes. I live outside my menas. I buy Items that may or may not be worth the money. I buy items that I hadn't heard about until last week on superfuture just to see if I like them. Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I Bought a pair of used Visvims for $8. They look kind of stupid. I don't know people who are into fashion like I am, but I know alot of stylish motherfuckers. I'd like to keep it that way. It's Honest.

The ratcheting may not stop. You may see the Wolves of tomorrow dipped up in some Julius pants, Margiela T, Rick Owens shearling, and CCP boots. I like the look of all those items, and even with my measly sallary, could probably make it happen. But I don't want to yet, so I dont.

Just be honest with yourself, and ultimately, though this is really interesting to discuss, It will probably become a moot point.

Wow...

[englandmj7]

I read this today. I feel is applies to the thread.

"The $275 dollar question"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/15/BUGDROL38G35.DTL

Ha hah. Very relevant.

RAISED BY WOLVES -

I didn't listen to your disclaimer: I don't like you, but I still read your rant.

But anyway, I think that damn near every person on this board is in a similar boat as you are. The difference is, that out of the thousands of members on here, I am betting a handful will eventually escalate to a level where they can afford a $300 t-shirt, while simulatenously being interested in buying a $300 t-shirt. I am sure that at some point, all of us SF'ers have bought at least one item that was genuinely overpriced, and I am sure we all have decent reasons for doing so.

The thing is, I have never bought a full-price item from Ann D., or Margiela, or Cloak, etc. but I am really interested in hearing the stories of those who have. To see how it feels and what motivates them to do so; asking essentially "why did you pay this price for this item, and why did you feel the price was justified"?

I'm no stranger to garrish spending; I spent $3500 on a watch about 6 months ago, but purchases like this are very far and few in between, so I don't really know how it feels persay, to be a collector of uber-high fashion. At the end of the day, we are all consumer-whores and I am sure that most of us might feel inclined to buy a solid gold toilet if we had the money, just so we could say we owned it and 99.999% of the population did not.

Maybe Ann D. can whip one up?

[artificialsky]

DIPPED IN JULIUS AND ANN D, YO!

hahah

[horriblyjollyjinx]

first of all, the discussion is based on faulty premisses; a price is only established at the point of sale and the term 'overpriced'(as well as 'overrated' I might add, if something is called out as overrated it isn't actually rated high in the first place) is therefore contradictive - in a free market all parties involved benefit from the trade.

Every price is a fair price per se, but of course you'd always like it to be lower as the buyer, and higher as the seller. But when you agreed to the deal you agreed with the price.

In fact two parts are subjective, the value of the goods and the cost of it. If I'm a billionaire(in the right currency), most things are practically free.

the line between fairly priced and overpriced is also drawn completely arbitrarily, Tiranis makes a good point with his Target/AA analogy.

I personally do not like any designer pieces, in fact I have a aversion to things that are priced above a certain level. I do think that the people at styleasafdz are making bad decisions in buying their clothes, but I also realise that this is my OPINION and not an objective truth. I don't feel any need to tell people who're wearing this that I don't agree with their decisions, as I understand that my opinion is of no value what so ever to anyone but myself, and the same thing applies to you and your opinion.

I believe that the only things that matters in this world is actions made by an individual's free will and if you take some time to think about it, you should come to the same conclusion.

In a perfect world this discussion would never have taken place, but the average sfer is not perfect or as enlightened and intelligent he thinks. It's a good thing to keep in mind that you may not have all the answers.

[denimdestroyedmylife]

using chainstitch, your train of jeans is fading wind

[todesengel]

I completely agree with the OP.

That said, in this regard, the average stylish person who almost exclusively thrifts all their clothes is to the average superfuturian as the average superfuturian is to the person who exclusively buys uber-luxury brands.

Why do people here spend $300 on jeans as opposed to buying $30 thrifted jeans? Fit and quality, for sure, but it also helps that most of the posters here are in a financial situation where they can afford to drop $300 on jeans. This probably seems completely insane to the thrifter.

It's the exact same thing with people who buy super luxury brands. Are they in a situation where they feel they can blow $2000 on a sweater? Given the fit, details, quality and brand, probably. Does this seem crazy to me/you/99% of the population? Of course. But, to some people money isn't a factor, and for those buying these brands when money is a factor, they've probably adjusted their lifestyles to accomodate for their tastes. Is it any more crazy than spending $50000 on a BMW and pimping it out for another $20k? If you look at fashion as a hobby (in the same line as cars, etc), the prices that those people pay start to look a little more reasonable.

[alterion]

this needs to gte mover to super fashion minya so people " DON'T SHIT UP THIS THREAD" because its the best read on SF since the thread on ethical denim purchasing

[englandmj7]

In a perfect world this discussion would never have taken place, but the average sfer is not perfect or as enlightened and intelligent he thinks. It's a good thing to keep in mind that you may not have all the answers.

Horriblygrumpyjinx.

I'm sorry man, but this doesn't make any sense.

That is the purpose of discussing something. Hopefully, everyone is able to see a different perspective on the issue. No one (including me) has said that they are 100% right about their opinion, but rather, have posed their opinions and been open to criticism and alternate views. I may be adamant about opposing someone or playing the devil's advocate, but it isn't because I think they are 'wrong' persay. I simply ask that a more in-depth explanation be made to support their point.

Either way, you don't seem to have read through the thread because you have brought up several repeat points.

Your whole logic of a "free market" doesn't apply in this instance at all. No one is disputing that 99% of consumers are idiots and will buy whatever is put on the market, just as no one will argue the point that there isn't alot of wealthy people who are absolute morons with their money (see Liberace, for instance). What you fail to realize is that even a billionaire KNOWS when he is paying an excessive amount for an item, but if he is contributing to this argument, he would cast aside his common response of "I'm rich and don't care about the price" to divulge his justifications on a purchase he made (please see private jet example).

The point is that there is a fine line regarding an 'overpriced' item. And no, it isn't at all applicable to an item being 'overrated.' It has to do with weighing the work that went into it, the brand value, the artistic value, and the cost against the retail price. If an item shows a "good" ratio of this (which is subject to buyer's opinions) then it isn't necessarily overpriced. Just as I said, if you yourself have purchased a $300 t-shirt, please tell me why you feel it is 'better' . I want to know this, not because I want to tell you you are an idiot, but because I want to understand what goes through your head.

[oOmegaOo]

This fashion shit is for the birds, man.

[Servo2000]

The point is that there is a fine line regarding an 'overpriced' item. And no, it isn't at all applicable to an item being 'overrated.' It has to do with weighing the work that went into it, the brand value, the artistic value, and the cost against the retail price. If an item shows a "good" ratio of this (which is subject to buyer's opinions) then it isn't necessarily overpriced. Just as I said, if you yourself have purchased a $300 t-shirt, please tell me why you feel it is 'better' . I want to know this, not because I want to tell you you are an idiot, but because I want to understand what goes through your head.

I think the answer is what you just said, in their opinion, when they weighed

the work that went into it, the brand value, the artistic value, and the cost against the retail price.

They decided that the piece was worth their money. It's completely subjective. If there was an "objective" reason that people spent $300 dollars on a T-shirt then we would all at least consider it, simply because there is a "fact" why the $300 is worth more.

That said, there are "objective" differences. For instance, say a person is most concerned about fabrics. Perhaps the fact a the $300 shirt has metal woven into the cotton to give it a strange effect. To me, that's not the worth the $280 that makes the difference. To them, it is. They would say that they bought it because of the metallic fibres woven into the cotton, which is an objective difference, however, subjectively, said "overprice determining ratio" is different from different perspectives, so to you and me that might seem insane. There is ultimately no objective way to decided how much that fabric is worth. You could argue that the fabric itself may only cost $25 a yard, but the different between cost and value is astronomical. The person who buys it may value the fabric substantially more than it actually cost, so thay plays no objective role.

As well, your $3500 watch seems like a completely insane purchase to me, just as much or as little as buying a $300 shirt might. I don't underestand expensive watches. You could argue that they're "classic," and you'll "get a lifetime of use out of them," but to me that's largely irrelevant, despite that those are values intrinsically Superfuturianm, they are not necessarily true. I don't wear a watch, but if I did, I'd rather buy cheap ones that I can go through easily so when I get tired I can try a new one. In that way, I consider your watch "overpriced," just as I might for the shirt, because your subjective viewing of the "value" of the watch is much higher than mine.

Having established the "value" versus "cost" concept, the reason that people would purchase such an item seems inarguably to be such: they value the garment enough to pay that sum for it. There simply is no arbitrary line where something enters the area of "overpriced." For someone buying a $300 shirt, perhaps if that shirt was $500 it would then become overpriced, so their line is much higher than ours.

Consequently, the distinction here about "why would someone pay $300 for a t-shirt" becomes less relevant than "what sort of upbringing and values create a consumer with the ideals necessary to value a t-shirt at $300?"

The answers were as I mentioned before: too much focus on fashion, too much or just enough money, and appreciation for a designer, designer parents, and so and so on...

Just as I said, if you yourself have purchased a $300 t-shirt, please tell me why you feel it is 'better' .

To play devils advocate, if I bought a $300 shirt, it would have to have an absolutely perfect fit, be made with some amazing fabric, and have something else that I've basically or never seen before. It would have to be, to me, "the end all be all" t-shirt, and in all honestly probably have some way of showing how much I paid for the fucker.

I do in fact realize that I spent most of that post rambling, sorry about that.

[englandmj7]

Good points Servo.

Your analogy with the 'obscure' metal thread t-shirt is a good way to describe this. To most people, they wouldn't care whether or not it had metal thread in it, let alone enough to spend $300 on it. But see, what you have done is given me a reason why someone would buy that shirt. The difference is, however, that alot of these 'premium' items do not have anything "special" about them, and if there is, I fail to see it.

This is why I would like people to chime in and stress how they would pay Ann D. $300 for a basic t-shirt because (and these are all made up reasons for example's sake) A.) she is a great artist and only makes 2 of each item B.) The shirt has impeccable fit C.) It uses a very soft cotton that is in very short supply, and so forth.

Again, people feel inclined to use examples that aren't related to the specific 'uber-high fashion' we are discussing here (hell, even I have gone off topic to try to explain), such as the watch I mentioned. Well, you might think I am an idiot for having bought it, but the thing is I know I got a decent price because the watch was essentially hand made (which took many, many hours), has platinum coating, small rubies seen through the back side, an exquisite alligator strap, and will last for multiple generations. See, those are straight-forward reasons. They may not be good enough reasons to justify a $3K watch to the masses, but to many they will suffice.

It seems like I keep repeating myself, because in essence, the point is getting skewed. A perfect situation would be for someone who paid $800 for some Margiela cargo pants to post the picture of them and say: "This is why I feel these are worth it: A.), B.), C.)." We don't need to involve any discussion of why people buy Ferraris, or Patek Philippe watches, or condos in Mystique........I know why people buy these things; whether or not I agree with their purchases is irrelevant; I understand their logic and thought process in making these decisions. I do not, however, know how the AVERAGE person (as in most members of fashion forums) justifies some of the purchases they make. This is what I would like to learn.

If it is simply because these designers are visionaries in the way of a modern artist such as Damien Hirst or such, and thus, their prices simply reflect their artistic ability, then say it! I, however, fail to see how they reflect "art" in every piece single piece they make, which is why I am interested in hearing alternate reasons.

[englandmj7]

^^ And see, if that truly is their reason that is completely fine with me. I have no problem with that.

I would, however, be interested to see how many people on here/Stylezeitgeist, etc. would actually list that as a reason.

[Servo2000]

I think the problem so far is that except for one or two guys on SZ, no one on here buys these items. Most of the people who buy the "basic" items seem to either go for alternative designers that are cheaper or get them off of eBay, etc...

I think a lot of people go to these designers for their "outstanding" pieces. Shoes, jackets, etc... and usually you can tell why by looking at them. It seems like a lot of the people who post on SZ or SF have seperated Brand from their consideration and to more interested in quality or design (generally) to just enough or more of a degree to know when they're being gouged for a basic item and to look elsewhere.

[superdupersang]

this is the price we pay to live in this image concious world.

its like someone prefering an plain t shirt form supreme over aplain t shirt from AA coz its supreme and it only cost a little extra.

now for the wealthy, that "little extra" could stretch to a lot of money to you and me, but not them

im not sure what im trying to say. im gunna look at cat pics for a while

[englandmj7]

If that is true, then I guess I wouldn't find a well-rounded answer here.

It seems, as you say, that many of the people posting on forums that are into these items/brands are trying to get them at bargain prices to start with, and that they very rarely, will buy items like this at full retail.

[chub rock]

i buy over-priced, avante guard uber-high-end fashion for two reasons:

1. to validate an otherwise meaningless existance. im terminally apathetic, but i do find a few fashion brands especially intiguing and i celebrate that by buying their stuff because i don't care about anything else. and obviously there are cheaper alternatives but i don't care about them.

2. party loyalty: i like to support brands like ann d because keats and yeats are on your side but you lose...annd and raf are on mine. i think of these brands as friends. and as a consumer, they get my vote. the way i see it a GARMENT can never really much merit its price. because the price always has to cover any and all costs that a consumer shouldn't technically be accountable for PLUS turn a profit. even if you buy a garmment at a 50 % discount your still probably paying more than the supplier paid and even the price they pay has to cover all marketing, lightbulbs, mop and glow etc etc costs of running a business. so i only spend my money on brand i support and want to succeed for as silly of a reason as i think its funny when ann d goes on about fucking horses. oh wow AA v-necks are so cheap BLAH BLAH, who gives a hang those guys are losers.

[Servo2000]

I think this may be the only thread in history to leave Supertrash and enter the "legitimate" boards.

I'm considering trashing it so it goes back.

[chub rock]

also, while its obvious beyond mentioning that most people buy into luxury brands for the socio-economic implications i think people buy the expensive avante guard shit primarily to demonstrate FASHION DEVOTION. whats the expression? "fashion is for fashion people." and to a large degree it is. i mean yeah quality, construction blah blah those are all great perks but basically that all stems from the general notion that when you pay the big bucks for a garment you want it to secretly whisper into the ears of everyone who sees it: FASHION IS IMPORTANT TO ME and i honor that by buying the brands that are generally well regarded as THE BEST. because seriously, have you ever looked at a kid in an AA shirt and been impressed or intimidated?? or said OMG i bet they stuff their bra with subscriptions to ID and bake stefano palati cheese and patato perogies too WE MUST BE FASHION SOUL MATES. NO, cheaper alternatives say I DONT CARE AS MUCH AS THE PERSON WHO BUYS THE REAL THING. so, yeah if you lack any semblance of dignity or self worth its easy to buy the 80 dollar cashmere sweater peice of shit like a fucking worthless prole. and sure, the majority of people could never tell what youre wearing or who its buy but that people who are on your level can and will and thats all that counts.

[chris]

i havent actually read through this thread (i dont enjoy migraines much), but i just keep seeing the words "boring" and "plain" followed by triple digit numbers, and thought i would chime in.

ill be honest. there are certain pieces that i wouldnt mind spending my entire paycheck on. said pieces do not (and will probably never) include plain, $500 t-shirts. not even if that shit was threaded with rick owens' foreskin, ok? there are people who would, either for the sake of being label whores (or, in this case, just plain disgusting).

but, like i said, there are certain items that i just dont mind splurging on. take those raf zipper boots, for instance. i fell in love with them, and actually considered paying retail for them at one point. not just because they're gorgeous, and (imo) well constructed, but because honestly, where the hell else would i find boots like that? GAP?

some people think im wasting my money. well, i couldnt give less of a shit. ill buy what i like.

[xcoldricex]

If that is true, then I guess I wouldn't find a well-rounded answer here.

It seems, as you say, that many of the people posting on forums that are into these items/brands are trying to get them at bargain prices to start with, and that they very rarely, will buy items like this at full retail.

i said this a long ass time ago.

[derdankhund]

lots of good points made...I'll second something coldrice said a few pages ago...I try to buy all the ludicrously retail priced stuff at a level that I can then resell it for months or a year or two later. Being a student I can't possibly afford most of the brands already mentioned (or the uber-hypebeasty brand featured in my avatar), but I do own pieces from them. Many boutiques don't sell out of all their items, but they sell enough to the "people that breath money" that both the designers and boutiques can afford to relinquish the rest at sale prices, employee discounts, etc.

[wild_whiskey]

i fell in love with them, and actually considered paying retail for them at one point. not just because they're gorgeous, and (imo) well constructed, but because honestly, where the hell else would i find boots like that? GAP?

This is exactly my sentiment when it comes to justifying expensive purchases. I see something I want, sometimes I can explain why and sometimes I can't, but the point is that I can't get it anywhere else, which is why I end up parting very quickly with my money. IMO it's as simple as that.

I was reading an interview with Jean Touitou where he was talking about the difference between the Asian market and the Western market, and said that in general, Asians do not try to justify purchasing things. If they see something they like, the buy it. If they can't afford it, they buy something else or save up to buy what they want. It's not so much that any given item has to have a minimum of quality or provenance or foreskin involved, just that it's there, it's what you want, you can't get the exact same thing anywhere else, so buy it.

[shwanger]

different perspective or not, waste is waste.

[lil brown brother]

wow .. a thread that made it out of the trashbin .....

[horriblyjollyjinx]

Horriblygrumpyjinx.

I'm sorry man, but this doesn't make any sense.

That is the purpose of discussing something. Hopefully, everyone is able to see a different perspective on the issue. No one (including me) has said that they are 100% right about their opinion, but rather, have posed their opinions and been open to criticism and alternate views. I may be adamant about opposing someone or playing the devil's advocate, but it isn't because I think they are 'wrong' persay. I simply ask that a more in-depth explanation be made to support their point.

Either way, you don't seem to have read through the thread because you have brought up several repeat points.

Your whole logic of a "free market" doesn't apply in this instance at all. No one is disputing that 99% of consumers are idiots and will buy whatever is put on the market, just as no one will argue the point that there isn't alot of wealthy people who are absolute morons with their money (see Liberace, for instance). What you fail to realize is that even a billionaire KNOWS when he is paying an excessive amount for an item, but if he is contributing to this argument, he would cast aside his common response of "I'm rich and don't care about the price" to divulge his justifications on a purchase he made (please see private jet example).

The point is that there is a fine line regarding an 'overpriced' item. And no, it isn't at all applicable to an item being 'overrated.' It has to do with weighing the work that went into it, the brand value, the artistic value, and the cost against the retail price. If an item shows a "good" ratio of this (which is subject to buyer's opinions) then it isn't necessarily overpriced. Just as I said, if you yourself have purchased a $300 t-shirt, please tell me why you feel it is 'better' . I want to know this, not because I want to tell you you are an idiot, but because I want to understand what goes through your head.

You're still saying that there is an objective value, that's what I'm getting at. If you persist, you'd also need to prove it as it is an affirmation. You'll have a lot of trouble with that.

Until you've proved it, there is no objective value to a good, the concept of opinion still exists and the value of something is in every given situation decided by those in it, and for themselves and no one else.

When I buy things I want them to feel authentic in their style or have a meaning. I don't like printed tees and sweats in general, but I like Studio D'Artisan's because they mean something - they've remade old Levis, Lee and Wrangler prints with their own accents. They also have an older style with wide cuffs and a boxier fit. This could very well be negative for someone else.

When I buy jeans I'm looking for the same thing. I don't like modern fits too much, I want my jeans to at least be a slightly remade, old model from Levi's or Lee etc, or exactly the same.

I place value in these things that you don't and there is no way that you can argue that I'm making a bad decision buying what I buy.

The exact same thing applies to the $300 t-shirt that I've never bought and to the shirts you've bought.

[LA Guy]

Goldengloves touched on the right answer re. basic pieces at really high prices (the $200-$300 tee being the favorite example here, it seems, but my favorite are the $300 belts and $200 card holders) back on page 3 or so. Lines are priced depending on the market segment the designer is trying to capture, and the price of individual pieces reflect this moreso than the production costs of those pieces. Of course, having high prices allows designers a lot more latitude re. production minimums, materials, trims, and construction methods used, but this is often secondary. Designers have essentially 2 ways of keeping their lines exclusive. The first is to limit distribution. The second is to keep their prices high. Usually, they do both.

Adam Kimmel is one of the few designers who deliberating goes against the grain on the pricing part of this strategy (he says so in an interview in a glossy), but even so, when is the last time someone saw a $50, or even $100, Adam Kimmel piece?

<tangent>

It should be noted that designer lines don't actually make huge profits, nor do they have the potential to. This was (at least it was widely speculated) the cause of the initial rift between Jil Sander and the Prada group, which operated as a luxury brand, which is quite different than a designer brand. Apparently, Jil Sander was unwilling to cut production costs by going to less pricey materials (not surprising, seeing that Jil Sander's background was in textiles, and the premise of her work was basic, well cut pieces in amazing materials), and also unwilling to divest much of her energy into building up an accessories or fragrance line. Take into account the costs of production, substantial overhead, and relatively low sales, and even the most successful designer lines are unlikely to make the designer incredibly wealthy. Well off, sure, but not swimming in money wealthy.

Staff owns (still, I think) both Maison Margiela and DSquared as well as Diesel. Although Margiela and Dsquared are much more expensive than Diesel, Diesel is undoubtably the money maker, and the other two are there for the prestige.

</tangent>

[masuerte]

SORRY if I didn't read this whole thread first... I'll delete this if it's already been said, but did anybody make any points about retail mark-ups? That alot of these stores that sell haute-ish-brands (barneys) mark up their prices so that they'll still make money after their 50% and 75% off sales?

Man aside from some a few trip-ups this whole thread has been very useful and attracted the more thoughtful posters on superfuture. Good job england and a pat on the back for the rest of y'all.

[styleofmind]

uhhh... i dont know if anyones said this and i'd feel like a dumbass if its already been mentioned but has anyone actually thought about the lifestyle that the brands project?

so far, just quickly scrolling through, i see the main point of contention on stuff like quality and resale. and yeah sure quality's important and everything but maybe at some point, it turns out that buying the brand actually defines who you are?

the clothes maketh the man

i dont know how many of you agree with that statement, and if so, to what level.

but consider this. for a lotta people, especially teenaged asian girls, having a monogrammed LV or gucci bag isnt just because it looks good. but because its gucci. it shows up to you that you're rich and loaded and you can afford to drop anything from several hundred dollars to 4 digit figures on ONE bag. and we all know girls have many different bags. it'd be like me blowing 3k on a pair of jeans.

in a way, some brands give a certain credibility to a lifestyle. eg. wearing a technics t-shirt, might mean that you're a DJ or have some interest in dj-ing. not just because you think it looks good. buying a ferrari 360 modena shows that you're a spoilt rich person or someone who really gives a shit about automobiles. but a volvo would show that you're a person who cares about vehicle safety etc.

i know people who bought dior hommes not because it looks good or they love the fit. just because its dior. i know its stupid, but in many cases, its really just for that little print/label on the front/all over the article of clothing.

this is particularly evidenced when i asked a pretty credible source if i should drop 350 on a supreme backpack or 150 on one from TheNorthFace. to be honest, to me, it looked the same and i just wanted a 2nd opinion. he said..... the only difference between the both of them quality wise, would be the big Supreme label on the front of the bag.

louis vuitton jeans can be hideous, gaudy and ridiculously expensive. still, people buy them because of the image they portray. they're not a clothing company but people still buy their jeans because... well... its LV. its like how gucci sells so many more wallets as compared to their clothing. but then supreme sells so much more clothing as compared to... lighters. or belts.

okay. not the most eloquent or articulate post ever. but i think most of you will get my drift.

[lowrider]

Wow, I learnt a lot from this thread. Just felt that I should thank everyone who took the time to put post up.

I'm just getting into fashion (I was like 99% of guys out there who hated shopping and didn't give a shit about how I looked) and this thread has offered me new perspectives and insight into some posters' mind sets - posters whose opinions I value.

There's so much for me to learn and I know it's going to be a wonderful experience. For someone in the early stages of style development like me, threads like this are good guides, if nothing else but to make me think through all the motivations behind why I'm spending $XX on something.

Cheers.