Could someone please explain the allure of Supreme to me? Seriously.

[sliver]

As a prefatory note, I understand that fashion is situated on a continuum between practicality and art. D&G can make a plain white dress shirt and sell it for $350 because it's got some wacky extra seam somewhere, and Dior or Helmut Lang or whoever can make awfully minimalist jeans and justify their pricing with not just an established brand name but good tailoring and use of the best fabrics/looms/whatever. Some people see this kind of haute couture production & consumption as de rigueur, some (poorer/unenlightened) people see it as utterly ridiculous and profligate. There are two diametrically opposed perspectives on the whole realm of fashion; I get it.

But with that in mind ...

Where did Supreme come from? Why does anyone like them? I've never seen a single piece of their clothing that wasn't ugly (and I mean that as in boring and uninspired, not too-wacky-and-cutting-edge-for-my-taste like Bernard Wilhelm or something, which at least can be defended as art).

Based on everything I've seen of the brand, it's just boring crap with a brand name plastered all over it. Dsquared without the style. AE without the prep. What's left? And why the hell would anyone want to pay 200 bones for a plain blue hoodie with the word Supreme on the front? I see no detailing, no luxury fabrics, no design innovations, just straight up Walmart templates with a dumb logo.

Is it just a "thug"/"hip-hop" brand like Bape? Why is it that this forum, which is home to fashionista elitists who fawn over Dior, CCP, CDG, NDG, BoO, CoN, Lanvin, various virtuoso raw denim brands, and all the rest, seems to be nearly as preoccupied with Supreme, Bape, Crooks and Castles, and other such "streetwear" brands that Saks 5th Ave. would probably rather nuke itself than carry? (Why no Rocawear or Sean John or Artful Dodger? What's the distinction?)

I'm honestly just trying to understand here. Enlighten me. I am willing to listen if there's something I am totally missing. So chime in.

EDITED for niceness

[James St. James]

For me, and I'd imagine a few other people as well, it's more of what the brand has done than what the pieces portray. If you look at the history of the company, they've done a lot for not only NYC skate culture but skate culture in general.

Another thing I could suggest would be that for some it might mean being part of something. Not necessarily some hypebeast ideal, but something much greater than that.

But that's probably taking it too far.

I also dig the whole plain and simple aesthetic they use a lot. I haven't seen many busy pieces from them. Some people might agree.

Or the label could simply just appeal to their personal brand, there are a ton of possibilities.

[Fabulaz]

People think my Dior t-shirt is American Eagle

I tell them it's American Eagle

We agree and proceed in our own directions, content.

[sliver]

... it's more of what the brand has done than what the pieces portray. If you look at the history of the company, they've done a lot for not only NYC skate culture but skate culture in general.

...

I also dig the whole plain and simple aesthetic they use a lot. I haven't seen many busy pieces from them.

See, that's a helpful response already. I don't know shit about their history (as I mentioned), and based on the little I've seen posted on SuFu I thought it was just a thug brand, didn't realize it had a skate culture link/connotation.

Do you think you would like the clothes/accessories more or less if they were exactly the same but had subtler or nonexistent branding?

People think my Dior t-shirt is American Eagle

I tell them it's American Eagle

We agree and proceed in our own directions, content.

Interesting, but very tangential, unless I'm missing your point (?). Most people don't recognize Dior. (Does it have an eagle on it? Why AE specifically?)

[jonathanschley]

i was going to make this exact same thread a few days ago and then remembered how many red blocks i have and decided i didn't need anymore.

[newaesthetic]

People think my Dior t-shirt is American Eagle

I tell them it's American Eagle

We agree and proceed in our own directions, content.

OMG YOU SURF? BROOOOOOOOO!

On topic: I didn't get it for a while either until I read up on some of the history. While Supreme isn't something for me, I definitely do understand why it is where it is now. There are a handful of reasons various people gravitate towards it too; just like everything else, there's bound to be people who "get it", and those who just feed on it being hype. Oh, and the resellers.

[Servo2000]

You clearly haven't seen a great deal of it (or your aesthetic just leans in completely the other direction) if you associate the brand with "thug whatever" which frankly sounds pejorative and borderline racist in context. I'll probably delete this thread unless someone feels the need to make a substantial contribution: otherwise I feel the question can answered through your own research rather than our regurgitation.

[kunk75]

thank you. been meaning to ask this myself.

As a prefatory note, I understand that fashion is situated on a continuum between practicality and art. D&G can make a plain white dress shirt and sell it for $350 because it's got some wacky extra seam somewhere, and Dior or Helmut Lang or whoever can make awfully minimalist jeans and justify their pricing with not just an established brand name but good tailoring and use of the best fabrics/looms/whatever. Some people see this kind of haute couture production & consumption as de rigueur, some (poorer/unenlightened) people see it as utterly ridiculous and profligate. There are two diametrically opposed perspectives on the whole realm of fashion; I get it.

But with that in mind ...

Where did Supreme come from? Why does anyone like them? I've never seen a single piece of their clothing that wasn't ugly (and I mean that as in boring and uninspired, not too-wacky-and-cutting-edge-for-my-taste like Bernard Wilhelm or something, which at least can be defended as art).

Based on everything I've seen of the brand, it's just boring crap with a (really stupid) brand name plastered all over it. Dsquared without the style. AE without the prep. What's left? And why the hell would anyone want to pay 200 bones for a plain blue hoodie with the word Supreme on the front? I see no detailing, no luxury fabrics, no design innovations, just straight up Walmart templates with a dumb logo.

Is it just a thug-nagger brand like Bape? Why is it that this forum, which is home to fashionista elitists who fawn over Dior, CCP, CDG, NDG, BoO, CoN, Lanvin, various virtuoso raw denim brands, and all the rest, seems to be nearly as preoccupied with Supreme, Bape, Crooks and Castles, and other such "streetwear" brands that Saks 5th Ave. would probably rather nuke itself than carry? (Why no Rocawear or Sean John or Artful Dodger? What's the distinction?)

I'm honestly just trying to understand here. Enlighten me. I am willing to listen if there's something I am totally missing. So chime in.

EDIT: pictures

[DJ2xTech]

Use the search button. This same exact topic has come up many times already.

[operationjake]

kinda ironic, when you put it that way.

what it exactly is it that makes [brand] "supreme" . . . [modifier] supreme?

[Wesley Pipes]

Is it just a thug-nagger brand like Bape?

Was this necessary?

[sliver]

does this picture really have any supreme in it?

Not as far as I know, and I didn't even mean to imply that; it was more my challenge to respondents to disprove the association I (apparently erroneously) came to have between Supreme and, shall we say, "hip hop culture." The sad thing is, I'm sure there are people in the world who make the same association with Louis Vuitton just because Pharrell and Lil Jon (or whoever) wear it.

You clearly haven't seen a great deal of it (or your aesthetic just leans in completely the other direction) if you associate the brand with "thug whatever" which frankly sounds pejorative and borderline racist in context. I'll probably delete this thread unless someone feels the need to make a substantial contribution: otherwise I feel the question can answered through your own research rather than our regurgitation.

I admitted from the get-go I haven't seen a great deal of Supreme clothing. Every instance of it I have seen on this forum has been in line with my assumptions (flat brimmed New Era style hats, tees with Biggie and weird pop culture characters on them, etc.), so I drew the only conclusions that seemed logical to me.

The connotation of "thug" is pejorative, to be sure, especially in the context of haute couture. I didn't mean for racism to enter the equation, but I referenced rap/"thug" culture, whose sartorial trappings closely match all of the Supreme I have come across (one word may have been uncalled for)

And the thread can't be totally unjustifiable if two other people have already posted to say they were wondering the same thing. Explanation is not regurgitation, and it's explanation I'd like. The whole purpose of the forum is for discussion, is it not? I just wanted to hear people's thoughts on the brand, and if I'd just searched the forum endlessly I surely could have come across plenty of supreme clothing but might never have independently concluded what anyone familiar with the brand could easily lay out for me in a few sentences (for example, the skater connection).

Was this necessary?

No, I've removed it.

[Servo2000]

Quoted form their own website:

In April 1994, Supreme opened its doors on Lafayette Street in downtown Manhattan and became the home of New York City skate culture. At its core was the gang of rebellious young New York skaters and artists who became the store's staff, crew and customers.

Supreme grew to be the embodiment of the downtown culture, playing an integral part in its constant regeneration. It's not just an institution, it's quality, history, authenticity and most of all lifestyle. And like any true lifestyle, you can't buy it. Skaters, punks, hip-hop heads - the young counter culture at large - all gravitated towards Supreme.

While it grew into a downtown institution, Supreme established itself as a brand known for its quality, style and authenticity.

Over its 13 year history, Supreme has worked with some of our generation's most groundbreaking designers, artists, photographers and musicians - all who have helped continue to define its unique identity and attitude.

[sliver]

What about Crooks and Castles, then? All I see on their tees is Gucci colours, LV flowers, Balenciaga logos (that one actually might have been a different brand, Big-something, but it was the same trademarked BB logo), and literal ripoffs of other haute couture brands. (Is that even legal?) Why is it that no one bats an eye if C&C shows up in the SuperMarket, but when someone tries to sell Prada, Polo, Cavalli, et al, they get laughed at? How does that make any sense?

I guess I didn't focus the thread very well. I was most interested in the relationship between European couture and US-centric "street" brands on SuFu (apparently Supreme doesn't fall into the latter category the way I thought it did, so my point/question got thrown out of whack)

Thanks for the quote Servo, by some coincidence i typed most of this before i saw your post, even though it seems to follow logically from your response

[Servo2000]

The brand's "history" is all but undeniable according to those who "know" whose word I'm willing to take. The appeal for that aspect is in the ability to the clothing to give a "context" to otherwise co-opted outfits. Those who dress like idiots in Supreme look like ignorant hypebeasts but for whatever reason it can turn an average nice-fitting outfit of levis and vans into something greater as it ties it into something greater than the sum of its parts.

Also: some people just find the aesthetic appealing. I like some of their outerwear. I don't plan on buying any and I don't have any interest in reference skate culture / history but it's pleasing and fairly neat stuff a bit of the time.

What about Crooks and Castles, then? All I see on their tees is Gucci colours, LV flowers, Balenciaga logos (that one actually might have been a different brand, Big-something, but it was the same trademarked BB logo), and literal ripoffs of other haute couture brands. (Is that even legal?) Why is it that no one bats an eye if C&C shows up in the SuperMarket, but when someone tries to sell Prada, Polo, Cavalli, et al, they get laughed at? How does that make any sense?

Because no one gives a shit about a dude selling an ugly $20 shirt. However, you're going to get laughed at / e-mocked for paying $200 for an equally ugly t-shirt / polo / gaudy shit and then trying to sell it off to some other sap.

[sliver]

Because no one gives a shit about a dude selling an ugly $20 shirt. However, you're going to get laughed at / e-mocked for paying $200 for an equally ugly t-shirt / polo / gaudy shit and then trying to sell it off to some other sap.

That's fair, I just feel as though a shit storm would descend upon anyone who tried to sell AE/A&F/Hco/Gap/Old Navy/etc. on here, even if it was dirt cheap -- whereas whatshisname took flak for his "gaudy" over-priced shit despite the presence of generally SuFu-approved items (Helmut, Chalayan, Factory X, whatever else) amongst the more offensive ones.

The interplay between one category of brands and another, and the forum's various "standards of acceptance" (so to speak) still elude me, but I feel as though I'm getting closer.

It's been a genuinely interesting and enlightening thread so far, but I'm off to bed. Thanks for the replies.

[DJ_Flame]

Is it just a "thug"/"hip-hop" brand like Bape? Why is it that this forum, which is home to fashionista elitists who fawn over Dior, CCP, CDG, NDG, BoO, CoN, Lanvin, various virtuoso raw denim brands, and all the rest, seems to be nearly as preoccupied with Supreme, Bape, Crooks and Castles, and other such "streetwear" brands that Saks 5th Ave. would probably rather nuke itself than carry? (Why no Rocawear or Sean John or Artful Dodger? What's the distinction?)

A good majority of the superfuture populace, me included, don't lust after Supreme or assorted "streetwear".

I guess Supreme is the perceived premier label when talking about "streetwear" since it has tons of credibilty amongst both scene old-timers and . IMO, it's like buying into a "i'm down with skate & hiphop etc" lifestyle.

Can't add further cause I've never experienced NY life.

[DJ_Flame]

Also, this has been beaten to death in this thread, but Supreme's aesthetic differs greatly from the other brands mentioned.

And yes, resellers and asian kids make up a large number of the customer base. For resellers, enough said. For the asians, Supreme, as well as other assorted streetwear, is sort of the de riguer otufit for those into the culture or just blatantly buying into w/e their peers/idols/celebrities do.

I have owned few Supreme piece from them in the pass (bags, outerwear, accessories) and while the design is not some Helmut / Berhard Wilhelm level, the quality is more than acceptable and the pieces are simple enough to be wardrobe staples.

[krsone_eightyeight]

I see many valid points here made about Supreme; the appeal of the brand I believe evolves more around the street credibility behind it - their construction and garment designs def fall flat when compared to the brands most people sweat on this site. It's more of a canvas for respected graph and more recently underground pop artists to put their work on or their name to - the look is also more muted and mature than the loud crap from other streetwear brands . It's not a type of collection you wear head to toe in, but key selections of pieces can be mixed in well. Supreme is far from Wal-mart and far from C&C, Crooks is straight up ghetto without the finesse - falling to the waysides of a baby blue "05" FUBU football jersey of years past. In anycase, in terms of streetwear Supreme does reign Supreme for their street cred, in terms of design - very weak. I've been in a transition between streetwear and highend a few years ago but Im now fully converted.

1

[jb1910]

more of a canvas for respected graph and more recently underground pop artists to put their work on or their name to - the look is also more muted and mature than the loud crap from other streetwear brands .

Graph? Ohhhh, you mean graf.

Underground pop artists? How are you underground and pop at the same time? Koons? Murakami?

[Charlie Delta]

[ProfMonnitoff]

paging some 'thug naggers' to this thread

for example where is milspex

he is a 'thug nagger'

[vjiforlife]

silver that "the nagger" shit was fucked up. normally, it wouldn't fade me. it was just be some fake ass racist ass internet fuck ass who's speaking through his ass. i must admit, that one touched me a bit. however, it seems you are a bit ignorant, but i were to ever meet you i would have to fuck you up proper "nagger style".

[vjiforlife]

where my "thug naggers"!!!

[artificialsky]

the allure of supreme is that only skaters wear it.

[jcotteri]

whats a thug nagger? i am not down with this lingo!

[vjiforlife]

you know, they be niggers. shit, i'm sorry, black males.

[black's reconstruction]

edit 10 char

[Photos]

It started as a skate shop.

I don't like it, but it kinda is a thug hip hop style for skaters.

At least it ain't like tight ass dior leggings, i mean jeans.

[Servo2000]

Are we done now?