/fa/ - Fashion

>>10596504
here's your (you)

if you don't understand then there's no use explaining it to you. >>/r/frugalmalefashion

>>10596521
You're so smug about being bad with your money

>>10596522

Lol'd cause it's true. You're right btw, OP, but if you have the money and it makes you happy, why not?

from a marketing perspective
this is premium pricing strategy
Customers perceive a high value and exclusivity from the high price

like buying a Ferrari
You don't need a Ferrari, a civic would transport you just fine. It represents status and basically the grown up way of saying neener-neener I'm better than you

>>10596522

you don't know anything about my finances. not everyone is 18 and broke

Serious question why would you buy a steak for $50 when you can get a beef burrito from taco bell for 99 cents?

>>10596504
Why is it never a serious question when someone says "serious question"?

Serious question.

>>10596504
basically OP, your 100% right. but this analogy >>10596584 is perfect. its just a luxury item that lasts a little longer but will get just as dirty, just as quick and is expensive as fuck

if i had 400 to spend on common projects i wouldnt, i would rather spend 400 on new pairs of white sneakers repeatedly instead of blowing it off on one pair

>>10596698
What's confusing though is there's no indication that it's expensive
I don't get why people spend hundreds on blank sweaters and basic shoes
At that point you aren't even buying for the brand you're just waisting money

>>10596698

nobody actually pays $400 for new common projects. 60-65% of that is more common.

when i was in college literally everyone i knew had like 10 pairs of ugly ass vans shoes. i'd rather have one or two really nice things than 10 pieces of trash.

>>10596504
it's a meme

>>10596584

a ferrari is fast and looks like a ferrari

if a ferrari was simply an expensive civic with different badges people would not buy them

generally I think CPs sell because of marketing and 'craftsmanship'

i'm willing to spend more on items if they are indeed bolder and perhaps more functional. $1k+ for geobaskets makes a lot more sense to me than $400+ for CPs

>>10596710
this, normies don't even know what common projects are

>>10596710
once you grow up and start finding hobbies of your own, you will learn that money is better spent on things you enjoy and can appreciate rather than spending it trying to impress people

>>10596710
>>10596723

people don't buy acne and common projects and other minimalist blanks to "flex expensive clothing"

when you want to flex, you buy prada, givenchy, gucci, versace, and other tasteless gaudy shit like that

>>10596687
because it tastes better ?

>>10596710
Because I have a love of beautifully made things. I have a Visvim coat that I've never worn but the material and the fabric is beautiful and unique. I could stare at it and touch it all day.

I have a pair of sneakers made from beautiful soft calf leather that feel amazing against my feet. My woolen cardigan feels 100 times better than any cardigan you could find in a mall.

All these things are also made to last way more than any pair of vans or adidas (I know, I've owned all these things). My leather belt thas got a beauitful patina that no H&M belt could have, because they simply wouldn't last as long (5 and a bit years now).

>>10596740
They last longer because you're more cautious in them

so you can get the same silhouette but but feel better than everyone else and look cool to your fashion friends.

>>10596736
>>10596736
but anon i can get 50 burritos for the price of that steak and eat beef for a whole month, you're just wasting money trying to impress people

>>10596747
I wear my belt exactly the same way I do my other belts. The simple bit of stitching on the sole of the shoes make them last 10 times as long as the shitty glue Adidas or vans uses to designed to hold them together for a year at max

>>10596751

ah yes, silhouette is all that matters.

i can make you shoes out of printer paper with the same silhouette as your converse. $2.

it's the same silhouette so it's exactly the same thing, right?

>>10596754
Steak taste good and is healthier than fast food
Your analogy is shit. SHIT.
Clothes that look the exact same are different obviously

>>10596759

they don't look the same. more importantly, they don't feel the same. the sense and aesthetic experience is not the same.

your lack discerning ability in silhouette, materials, construction, and general quality does not make my analogy flawed. it makes your perception of my analogy flawed.

>>10596759
confirmed for never owning/touching a designer piece in your life.

enjoy your h&m wardrobe

>>10596777
>>10596776
What are you going to do that gives your clothes so much wear and tear? Go out for coffee? Post on your blog?

>>10596759

>tastes better
>is of better quality

oh, so you mean food is about more than just filling your body with calories?

it's about the total experience, right? you want good quality food that tastes good, smells good, feels good, looks good, and is good for you.

you don't just want calories to put into your stomach.

similarly, people who buy common projects or [insert thing about which you are outraged] are looking for more than any physical barrier between their skin and the elements. it's about the total quality of the experience - from visual aesthetic to material tactility.

>>10596785
shoes worn even moderately often will last 5 years tops

let alone regularly, once the soles go then you're completely fucked. Build quality matters jack shit when there's nothing left on the bottom.

>>10596785
who said anything about durability? if I wanted that I'd buy carhartt (not wip) or another workwear brand that didn't sell out to the chinks.

if you aren't a complete retard and can be critical about your opinions, i challenge you to wear a gildan shirt and ur favorite cheap sweater to a department store. try on a T by wang shirt and a cheaper jumper, maybe something knit by apc. just touch a few articles of clothing without assessing the dollar value. touch the margiela jeans.

now without thinking of the dollar value of these, try to think of attaining and wearing these items as a potentially attractive hobby. it might feel nice to wear fabric that doesnt cost a cent per shirt. it might be nice to formulate outfits with this nice stuff. if it appeals to you at all could you not slightly alter your budget to make room for expenditure on a new hobby? do you not have a clothes budget already?

>>10596785
The shorts I used to wear in high school all got holes in them within months simply from my phone wearing through he fabric as I walk. I'm currently wearing a pair of shorts that I've had for over 2 years now, have played sport in a climbed mountains in and don't have a single hole in them.

>>10596795

yo i agree with this sentiment but you picked some pretty shit examples of brands.

you'd want to make the contrast readily apparent for this child who's stuck in the mindset of LOOKS THE SAME TO ME.

have him compare his gildan shirt to loro priana so that his feeble mind can comprehend the difference

>>10596584
except ferraris are worth the money they cost, there is no way in hell this shoe that cost $5 to make is worth $400.

>>10596504
Actually these are based off af1s

>>10596806
>ferraris are worth the money they cost
diminishing returns m8

if you think you aren't paying double the manufacture cost for one then you're probably retarded

>>10596806
> $5 to make

hey m8 if it's so easy and cheap to make CPs you should make a company to undercut them. they only take $5 to make, right? sell the exact same thing with the same materials and construction for $30 and make a killing!!

>>10596758
i've had vans that were made out of real nubuck that lasted 10 years of hard use. please tell me why these are worth 4x as much as my old vans?

>>10596795
LOL T by Wang, APC, Margiela (jeans). Your argument would be stronger if you didn't list overpriced garbage. Most Margiela quality is fine, but they certainly aren't known for jeans, and at the price they charge for denim there are a myriad of better options.

the fucking mods on this shitty ass website are running wild.

i keep getting banned for simply participating in the conversation. mods wut are you 12 years old m8? r u srs

>>10596809
>if you think you aren't paying double the manufacture cost for one then you're probably retarded

yeah you do, but you also get one of the best performance cars in the world that actually has tangible value, and usability. what kind of performance do you get out of your overpriced shoes? what actual value do they hold?

>>10596812

i lived on 99 cent taco bell burritos for ten years and i'm not only alive but in perfect health. please tell me why steak is worth 50x as much as my taco bell burritos?

>>10596823

see
>>10596792
>>10596795
>>10596776
>>10596758

>>10596826
i'm sorry, i didn't know you could eat shoes

>>10596830
>comparing overpriced knockoff shoes to one of the best car manufactures in the world

are you delusional?

>>10596834

ah yes, that was definitely my point. that shoes are to be consumed. i am glad that you were able to use your great powers of reading comprehension and understanding of simple analogy to come to that conclusion. ten upvotes for you, m'nubuckvans

>>10596801
>>10596816
i picked things that someone new to nicer clothing could easily find at deeply discounted prices. those brands make pretty nice basics,

although i do agree that t by wang and apc are quite overpriced

>>10596836

none of the posts i quoted mentioned cars. not even once. the closest is when someone said "carhartt" which is not a car, but a clothing brand.

there is no mention of cars in any of the posts i quoted. even if there were (which there isn't), simply saying "are you delusional?" would not be a counter argument.

it's a lost cause. it's like trying to explain what music is to someone who's never heard it. you come to this board, make a thread about a topic for which you've already made up your mind, and then ask for arguments against your position without any good-faith effort to understand those arguments, but rather using every ounce of your being to retain your original position.

you'll just never understand. and you know what? that's fine. go buy your vans. but in the back of your head, you know you're wrong, and that's why this bothers you so much. that's why you come here and shitpost.

>>10596521

/thread

>>10596826
it cost a lot to raise a cow to maturity and then cut it up
maybe thats why you fucking tard
you could buy cheap steak where the abundance of muscle is or an expensive steak where the fine meat is thats in smaller quantity
Taco bells meat is low quality

>>10596849

oh, so there's a qualitative difference between steak and taco bell beef burritos?

then may i direct you to this post, where i already covered that topic:
>>10596792

Nice ZARA shoes faggot

>>10596854
Except it's the same shoe
Honestly vans are probably even better than CP because theyre made for sports

>>10596861
>Except it's the same shoe
Just as an Aston Martin is the same as a Corolla

>>10596861
lol I guess by the same logic a Ford F150 truck is better than a McLaren, because it can tow a car. This is a fashion board not utilitarian/frugality board.

>>10596861

>vans are probably even better than CP
confirmed for troll.

show me one pair of vans that even remotely looks like a pair of common projects, or is even remotely made with similar grade materials. tip: you can't

>>10596863
They're not
They are built differently
You're shoes, built the same
literally

>>10596861
vans probably has some of the worst quality control I've ever seen in a shoe manufacturer

i skateboard and go through a lot of cheap shoes.

i made the suggestion previously to go try on clothing, that doesn't work as well for shoes, so the challenge is to buy a >100$ pair of shoes off grailed from a nice brand and wear them for a week then post a review of their function as shoes vs vans

>>10596866
see
>>10596865

>>10596866
>You're shoes, built the same
Confirmed for nothing absolutely fucking nothing about fashion.
Get the fuck out

why are chinks and teens so obsessed with them?

>>10596870
they're nice simple versatile shoes; babbys first expensive piece. Also the hype train has a million carriages

>>10596865
any pair of vans or basically any other brand of shoe ever.

those things look like knockoff converse sold at payless. it's hilarious they couldn't even come up with their own designs. shameful tbhfam

also on the materials bit, like i said before, vans are made out of real leather/nubuck/suede. i've had pairs that have lasted over 10 years of actual use(not hanging out in starbucks). if that's not a testament to the quality of the materials i don't know what is

>>10596884

no dude. post pics of a pair of vans that look like a pair of CPs. you can't.

quality is not necessarily about durability, this has been covered extensively in the thread.

>>10596896
explain what you mean by quality then. durability and comfort seems like a huge part of the quality equation to me, which vans have both of.

also i can't post a pic of vans that look like those because those things are the epitome of generic design. even the ugliest pair of vans looks better than those things. they literally just took some addidas and took the stripes off.

you're just butthurt you actually spent that much money on an inferior product just because of the name.

you claim to know about fashion yet you champion a copied design. hilarious

>>10596906

>also i can't post a pic of vans that look like those

so basically you just btfo your own argument?

>>10596909
walk down to payless and you can find some that look just like your precious knockoffs.

>>10596873
wow man you actually explained them quite nicely

Anyone who thinks that a pair of CP's looks no different to a pair of adidas or vans needs to get the fuck off this board and stop ruining genuinely good discussion with this tired, repetitive and baseless argument

this thread is full of fucking retarded analogies
>>10596504
>66 replies 18 posters
Jesus Christ OP

>>10596756
This is a stupid argument. Cheap shoes are plenty durable. You can buy af1s with a stitched cupsole for $98

>>10596806
when common projects entered the market at $260/pair they were taking a loss with every sale. sorry you cannot comprehend quality materials

>>10596719
>>10596723
yes, now imagine if that civic wasn't made with shit quality materials and had a conservative but well thought-out design. it would no longer be anything like a Honda civic, except for the fact that it's still a small car. The type of logic you guys are rooting for is just.. sad. Buy your clothes for you, not them. Only people that actually pay attention to detail will notice that you're wearing high quality shoes. And this brings me to my next/main point

CPs look fucking great. they are slim, the leather is soft as fuck, and sliding your feet into the all-leather lining feels amazing. If you think that they look like other shoes, I'm gonna guess you've never seen a pair in person. You must also have shit attention to detail.

I still skate my vans. Suede vans are durable as fuck and will last until there's nothing left. But if you think your sub $100 shoes are made of anything more than bargain materials you are seriously unintelligent that there's no use trying to make any more of an argument

>>10597142
the hilarious thing is you can't clearly see the blatant design ripoff. the other hilarious thing is you've actually convinced yourself these super generic sneakers look good. the cheapest pair of nike dunks look better than these . they look like something a 4 year old would wear from oshkosh begosh

stop trying to rationalize why you wasted $400. you could have had 3 pairs of shoes that actually looked good for that price.

>>10597164

Why do you go out of your way to waste so much time and effort trying to convince people that "your way" is the best. It almost comes across as you trying to justify "your way" as better, that way you have this (fabricated) logic to fall back on when you realise that, unlike those who do buy CP's, you simply can't afford to buy a pair of $400 shoes.

The more you argue, the more transparent it becomes that you just envy the very people you criticise. If this weren't the case, you'd be banging on about how Rod Laver's are a rip off of Blazer lows - and of course you're not, for reasons we no longer need to explain

>>10597180
why bursting this poor kid's bubble ?
he's sad now

ITT: Can't tell if OP is legitimately retarded or simply trying to reach a new low for Godwin's Law.

Enjoy your shit clothes, pleb.

>want aesthetics
>want better than shit quality
>doesn't want to spend $$$

Buy a good replica from China tbqh, I've saved a lot of money over the years.

>>10597180
>you just envy the very people you criticise

biggest kek. i haven't seen one decently dressed person on this whole board. i've literally seen bums get better outfits from thrift stores. you peoples clothes don't even fit properly and you look like absolute tryhards.

>you simply can't afford to buy a pair of $400 shoes.

kek. i'd never spend that much money on any shoe besides an actual hiking boot. i actually have important things to spend my money on like my car and maintaining my property.

remember to save up your paychecks so you can buy your expensive shoes to walk around the city in, but just remember when women see you they laugh internally.

i agree Op

>>10596719
>a ferrari is fast and looks like a ferrari
>if a ferrari was simply an expensive civic with different badges people would not buy them

What The Fuck Am I Reading?

>>10597200
>kek
>i'm from reddit
>women see you they laugh internally.
dear god

>>10597164
>>10597200
I don't need to rationalize my purchases to anyone but myself.. And like I said in my original post: if you have to save up to afford these shoes, you should not be buying them. Also, "women laughing internally?" Did you just walk straight out of r9k? Dressing just for the opposite sex is pathetic

I can't see the blatant design rip-off? You think that I just happened to lay those four styles on a table by coincidence? Pull your head out of your ass. A design homage and a design rip-off are entirely different things. There are about 9,000,000 designer shoes based off of the af1 cut. As an adult, wearing af1s looks childish. Wearing a slimmed down high quality version on the other hand.. totally different story. But if you're in high school, maybe I can see your point. A high schooler in cps would look ridiculous.

Which brings me to my next point. Even if the shoes were identical in superficial appearance, they would still be worth it on quality alone. Most people don't care about that you say? Well you're on a fashion board, so maybe this is a shock, but some people here choose their clothes based on quality

Your only valid point? The waywt here almost always sucks. And that's because the people who are here to discuss fashion aren't posting in the waywt looking for validation.

One day when you don't live in a flyover state and you have real disposable income you might begin to understand why people dont just stick to shit quality ~$100 sneakers

>>10596504
why does cps cause so much fractured ass on this board ?

if you don't like them don't buy them :^)

>>10597204
he's saying your cp's are the civics shoe world.

>>10597228
>be an adult
>brag about wearing overpriced sneakers
>wearing any sneakers at all besides running shoes as an adult


grow up kid :^)

>>10597229
>wearing pro ked knockoffs, skinny jeans and 4 t-shirts underneath a cosby sweater

do you people actually think you look good? you look like san francisco bums, you're just missing the used needle hanging out of your arm.

>>10597337
>being this poor and butt mad over shoes.

this board is 18+ you need to leave.

>>10597337
>do you people actually think you look good? you look like san francisco bums, you're just missing the used needle hanging out of your arm

haha you tell them /b/rother! boys have swag real men have class

>normies dont recognize the difference
>there's too few people who would give a damn about it
as far as i can see its for self fulfillment i guess?

>>10597200
Please post fit

OP is a goddamn idiot. I don't even like Common Projects, but I see why people do.

It's the minimalist design. This is actually very hard to find nowadays. The shoe that they "ripped off," won't have it - because they didn't just rip off the design, but instead stripped it down, removed all fluff. 99% of sneakers you see have this fluff; whether it's Vans (stitching, branding) or some Payless shoe.

Note that having these extraneous design elements isn't necessarily bad - but when people buy Common Projects, they don't want anything to do with them.

Finally, I won't justify the pricetag. No one can; an item is worth whatever the purchaser will pay for it.

>>10596504
if you buy cps for 400+ you are dumb. you can get them for in the 300s anywhere

>>10597696
original fit jeans(only lee's and wranglers since they still use thick denim, which i need because i actually do more than walk around a city and sit in a classroom), a t-shirt/shirt, and boots. it's nice and simple and i actually look like a man, not some vagrant orphan wearing 3 layers of trash bags and knickers.

>>10597765
What boots? What style of shirts?

Come one, man, you need to be more specific here. This is a fashion board, after all.

>>10597796
i like to wear clogs and a cowboy shirts with rhinestones and tassels. i was lying before about the original fit jeans, i only wear baggy and/or carpenter fit.

Guys do achilles low fit TTS? No one answered me in the fuccboi general? :(

>>10597968
i think they fit a size large, but don't take my word for it.

>>10597968
>>10597989

Yeah dude I've heard the same thing, If you're generally an 11 go for 10, etc.

>>10596504

Its a meme you dip

if you can understand that you can understand CPs

if not, lurk more

>>10596504
Real leather

>>10597968
they fit a size large, get a size down from whatever you normal italian size is

>>10597729
Accurate, honestly
>>10597744
this too, I bought mine for less than 150 from some obviously desperate drug addict, treated them for 5 minutes and they've lasted an eternity