/fa/ - Fashion

>>10695798
Cont.

One reason for this is that the look being worn as a derivative isn't even a new idea - the re-surgance of indie/garage guitar bands in the early 2000s went hand-in-hand with this vague "retro" look updated. Any of the bands starting with "The". Camden town. MTV2. NME. Watch an episode of The Mighty Boosh where Vince tries to reduce his leg mass to squeeze into skinny jeans in order to front The Horrors. We've been there, we've done this and hardly long ago. It wasn't original that time either, it was an intentional throw-back and retro-imitation was a big part of it (both in dress and the sound of the bands). Certainly fashion has certain cyclical trends but it's so hard to get worked up about a brand's entire look being yet another derivative of something that's been done over and over.
This issue of the brand's uninspired/unoriginal mission statement would be fine (and hardly a lone offender in that category) but at least the brand itself makes/shows some interesting (ish) pieces and designs. However, this is scarcely represented by its consumer base who flock in droves to the following items:
black jeans that are smaller than other black jeans
jeans that have holes in them (how novel, how very much not played-out)
chelsea boots/jodphurs
plain black leather jackets
conventional plaid flannel shirts in a slim cut

fuccbois BTFO
RAF SIMONS BTFO
TURBONERDS BTFO

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/25/fashion/25Prep.html