/fa/ - Fashion

bump

>>13087605
It's shitty, ugly, cheap, poorly-fitting clothing.

It's from a time when people couldn't afford nice clothes, with about 3 decades of everything we've learned about producing quality clothing un-done.

It also happens to look gaudy and obnoxious, because it's the 80s.

With that said, I'd fully expect /fa/ to like it. Because worse is better.

>>13088071
>It's from a time when people couldn't afford nice clothes
were nice clothes more expensive back then? From my understanding purchasing power is lower now
>with about 3 decades of everything we've learned about producing quality clothing un-done.
I do not understand this at all

>>13088071
>It's from a time when people couldn't afford nice clothes
No its not. Its from a time when people were smart enough to save 600 dollars instead of buying Gucci sneakers. Saving money is always a better alternative than spending it but people will always spend money on designer and buy fancy clothes because fashion is some peoples thing.

>>13088137
>were nice clothes more expensive back then?
Everything was

As time goes by we get better at making things and the price lowers as the quality goes up.
The cost of a television in 1950 adjusted for inflation was several months of your salary.

>I do not understand this at all
There's nothing to misinterpret, it's just an objectively worse version of what we have now. Everything you could argue about the quality of fabric was many margins worse.

You know why all jeans used to be washed out? Because they couldn't retain the color and after a year of regular use and washing all the color drained out.
And no one ever thought this looked good, we just imitate it now because it's old. And old is good.

>>13088141
No really, this isn't by choice. This is just what the average youth wore when you didn't have the liberty of buying designer clothes.

About 30 years later we'd enter a stage of fashion where people would begin imitating cheap, tacky, shitty clothing with a sense of irony. And then forget they were being ironic.

>>13088338
Both of those are awful, yet for some reason the 2017 one seems more cringe

>>13088071

>>13088349
What's "cringe" about it?
It's quality and isn't intentionally ugly, cheap-looking and poorly fitting?
And isn't being worn by a nondescript white kid looking that want with his hands in his pockets looking apathetically into the camera?

If you can tell by my tone I don't browse /fa/ and I'm just here to lecture the pretentious toolboxes on this board with my basic fundamental understanding of fashion. Which seems to be more apt than anyone else here.

>>13087605
Wtc shorts like that guy is wearing? They’re awesome

jesus

>>13088438
chubbies

>>13088338
What the fuck is going on on that top picture

Fuck me, are we really going to analyze the fashion of dumb teenagers from some irrelevant suburban hellhole? If the timestamp wasn't 1986, we'd be mocking them but since anything ~nostalgic~ and ~vintage~ is cool, all of a sudden we look to these kids for inspiration.

I think if you go back to the early 20th century pretty much ALL clothes were nice. People just had less clothes and also women still made clothes for their families.

Some of the most prized vintage leather jackets today were made by Sears and you'd have to drop a grand to get a new jacket as good as them.

>>13088365
is this a real post?

Ally was Sovereign Queen Mother of 1985 high school fits:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3mupIlFIYQ

>>13088338
>negro cotton swab heads
>skinny fit pleat dress pants
i never thought something could make early 2000's fashion look good