Label masturbation and the concept of Style

[keysonawire]

This post prompted me to start a thread. The flamewar that took place was mostly jest, but the reactions witnessed clearly raise some interesting points.

Certainly, an obscure style that also looks good is something to be admired. The point raised was whether or not purchasing "high-fashion" labels, that are inherently unique or obscure due to the price/production quantity, is automatically something admirable.

You can walk into [your high-fashion label of choice] and buy an entire outfit and look good in it and, moreover, be one of few who owns it (i.e. achieve obscurity). Are you considered fashionable? I suppose the knowledge of the brand's existence, and the fact that you've invested considerable time (perhaps in researching the collection, even on this website) and money is admirable. Of course there are also choices to be made about purchases within the same collection. Some personal "taste" is required.

You can also research the same brands, find out which styles you prefer, and mix and match different pieces between brands, even dreaded "mall brands," for less money but possibly more time investment (depending on one's aesthetic sense?).

In a recent post by the Sartorialist (ref. here and here), his aversion to mall brands was mentioned and subsequently refuted.

How do designer/boutique labels alter your perception of what is fashionable? How does one's style come to be evaluated on the basis of the tags on their necks? How is credit for fashionable style choices given? When and when isn't it deserved?

[goldengloves]

That prompted an entirely new thread?

I believe there are plenty of conversations like this around these parts to reference what most here think.

Quality>Quantity

Booyah.

[keysonawire]

Delete this and re-start it in Superfashion.

Do I have the power to do this? (Realized this was the wrong forum right after posting.)

[Analog]

^ Too late.

goldengloves is right -- if you browse around Superfashion you'll find threads that cover this already.

[keysonawire]

That prompted an entirely new thread?

I believe there are plenty of conversations like this around these parts to reference what most here think.

Quality>Quantity

Booyah.

I think Quality>Quantity on the topic of clothes is uncontested.

[goldengloves]

But isn't that somewhat what started this thread?

If by that rational (what I base spending my hard earned money on), one would rather spend $400 on a cardigan with impeccable quality than spend $400 on 4 cardigans of mediocre quality. And this, is what I think brands like BR, GAP, Zara, etc. are for. Supplying clothing that is not meant to be timeless but meant to achieve a certain look or aesthetic.

[keysonawire]

But isn't that somewhat what started this thread?

If by that rational (what I base spending my hard earned money on), one would rather spend $400 on a cardigan with impeccable quality than spend $400 on 4 cardigans of mediocre quality. And this, is what I think brands like BR, GAP, Zara, etc. are for. Supplying clothing that is not meant to be timeless but meant to achieve a certain look or aesthetic.

So then by that logic, the richest are also the most fashionable? I would contend that some people do prefer to pay a lot for that one particular item like you said, but aren't affluent enough to do that in every case. Because we don't all live in one cardigan.

Now consider the cost of one outfit: $100 for each of 4 items versus $300 for 1 very nice item, and 3 $30 items.

Also, I'm not sure any cardigan, whether it's $400 or $4000 is going to be "timeless." Clothes depreciate, just like cars.

[goldengloves]

No, you don't have to be rich, just choose nice pieces. I'm also not saying that someone can't be fashionable/stylish/whatever with cheaper brands, that would be crazy. But I think most people buy for the 'here and now' and not for what they might be wearing down the road. This is a major flaw with brands mentioned above, or, mall brands.

I say timeless as in, quality and aesthetic that doesn't run one season.

[Analog]

keysonawire :

Gap, Zara, H&M – these sell largely disposable items. They're not designed for longevity, both in terms of quality and style. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But if you're arguing in terms of item cost, then it's something to consider.

BR is somewhat different IMO, in that they put out essentially the same (conservative) look every season. Dependable, easily assimilated into the average office environment, and boring (by necessity).

[keysonawire]

No, you don't have to be rich, just choose nice pieces. I'm also not saying that someone can't be fashionable/stylish/whatever with cheaper brands, that would be crazy.

Agreed.

But I think most people buy for the 'here and now' and not for what they might be wearing down the road. This is a major flaw with brands mentioned above, or, mall brands.

I say timeless as in, quality and aesthetic that doesn't run one season.

Now here we differ on the topic of timelessness. I would argue that something isn't timeless just because it costs more or comes from Brand A. Timeless style is independent of label. You can't achieve a desired style from buying one item of clothing, regardless.

Moreover, I think that quality is hugely misrepresented in the fashion world. Quality and aesthetics are also two entirely different concepts, and "timelessness" is an aesthetic, unless you're talking about durability?

[goldengloves]

Analog- Good way of putting it.

P.S. I'm gonna go watch Seinfeld. (Now that motherfucker has steez)

[keysonawire]

keysonawire :

Gap, Zara, H&M – these sell largely disposable items. They're not designed for longevity, both in terms of quality and style.

By and large, you are correct, but surely there are plenty of anecdotes to refute this. Besides, all clothes are disposable after enough use.

[goldengloves]

I didn't say only expensive items are timeless, but for the most part, items that are expensive are of higher quality. (For the most part) And this runs the gamet of not only clothing, but electronics, cars, cigars, etc.

It is true that some brands charge more because they are 'X' brand, but a lot of them attach the quality part to it as well.

Timelessness is an aesthetic, it's one that doesn't wear out within one season's use.

And what do mean about misrepresentation?

[keysonawire]

I didn't say only expensive items are timeless, but for the most part, items that are expensive are of higher quality. (For the most part) And this runs the gamet of not only clothing, but electronics, cars, cigars, etc.

It is true that some brands charge more because they are 'X' brand, but a lot of them attach the quality part to it as well.

Yes, higher prices generally denote/reflect better quality in products across industries.

Timelessness is an aesthetic, it's one that doesn't wear out within one season's use.

You missed my entire point, which was that, in the scenario that you save money to purchase one high quality item, you consequently have to spend less on other items. Should no credit be given to those cheaper items that essentially fill in the gaps? Assuming that cheaper items are in fact of lower quality, can cheaper items not be stylish? Can you not achieve a "timeless" aesthetic (independent of quality) with cheaper clothes?

And what do mean about misrepresentation?

Maybe misrepresentation is the wrong word. I was just relating the law of dimishing returns to some of the absurd price points in high-end fashion.

[owl]

similar thread...

http://www.superfuture.com/supertalk/showthread.php?t=22469

[keysonawire]

Hmm, you're right. Sorry if I broke some forums rules not dredging that up. Oh well. Was a fun spur of the moment discussion here.

[goldengloves]

[herpsky]

Hmm, you're right. Sorry if I broke some forums rules not dredging that up. Oh well. Was a fun spur of the moment discussion here.

Quit being a bitch and go buy some next level shit that are "overpriced."

[Analog]

Wait for the 10K CCP jacket. Wear it with a nice AA v-neck and the chicks won't know what hit 'em.

.

[keysonawire]

Wait for the 10K CCP jacket. Wear it with a nice AA v-neck and the chicks won't know what hit 'em.

.

Rather get my girl a diamond.

[goldengloves]

Wait for the 10K CCP jacket. Wear it with a nice AA v-neck and the chicks won't know what hit 'em.

.

Booyah.

Girls swoon for $10,000 jackets.

[Analog]

Rather get my girl a diamond.

Talk about wasting money on an arbitrary tradition.

[herpsky]

basically any item you can find at l'eclereir

they carry 10,000 USD leather jackets

STOOP

but seriously, wearing nice clothes makes me feel good. personal satisfaction no?

[herpsky]

A CCP jacket would have a better resale value than some diamond!!111

[goldengloves]

"Haven't you ever thought that there is more to life than being rediculously good looking?"

[keysonawire]

Talk about wasting money on an arbitrary tradition.

True true.

[goldengloves]

I want 10K to furnish my new digs. That would be outstanding.