/fa/ - Fashion

>>17549042
Wait why is the rich guy wearing cheap clothes?

>>17549053
Saves his money

>>17549042
Left is bladee

>>17549042
a 6 thousand dollar phone?
also the stuff tech billionaires wear only looks modest, its all loro piana shit that costs twice as much as any Gucci or LV gear

>>17549042
The person who made this is poor LARPing as rich. First, cell phones don't cost $6k, they never had any never will. You also don't wear a watch on the outside of your coat, not ever the more gorilla nigger american rapper does that.
Second, their sole exposure to rich people have been "aw shucks golly gee" tech nerds they saw on TV like Bill Gates and they assume all rich people are like that because they are poor and dumb, also they are american so that's probably redundant. The upper class in Britain, France, Spain, Saudi Arabia, Dubai and god help me India don't dress like the drone on the right. Even in a country filled with communist sub human bugs they don't dress like the right. The poor dumb fuck heard a trite saying that the rich don't waste money on clothes to show off,and at a certain level of wealth that's sort of true. The truly rich don't buy products with tons of branding, why should they give a company free advertising? They have their own tailors and they get an obscene amount of free gifts from companies. You think the mega rich buy shit like LV handbags? Fuck no, the amount of free shit rich people get is staggering and I honestly believe if more people truly understood the amount there would be more riots. Rich Woman A gets a free LV handbag and poses with it, and then a hundred upper middle class women who can barely afford the bag go and buy it. When it comes to fashion cost loses all meaning past a certain level of income.

Tldr: The artists version of a rich man is a quasi fantasy who only represents a sliver of how wealthy people actually dress, and it's mainly an american thing.

>>17549053
It's his authentic cultural garb.

I feel like this mentality took over fashion and completely changed the meta once everyone started to realize how true it is that rich people don't actual flaunt their wealth through clothing. Poor people are still spending an outrageous amount of money on clothing, but rather than being brand centric people are flexing through the lens of actual creativity, which is nice.
This is why people now brag about how little they spent on pieces that they either thrifted or got on depop, because it's now corny to walk around wearing Off White or Supreme, and thank god that's the case, but we still see poor people walking round in Fear of God Essentials because poor people are desperate.

>>17549042
It's hilarious that americans actually believe rich people become rich by means of some virtuous frugality.
I guess it's some sort of cope

>>17549098
>6 thousand dollar phone
a vertu

>>17549126
I grew up rich. There were mansions in my neighborhood, a nice golf course, and from what I could gather about my dad complaining about having to pay 35% in taxes, occasionally seeing checks he got from clients, and generally the shit he buys without thinking twice about, he's making at least 300k, and in their neighborhood he's pretty middle of the road in terms of income.
Consistently the men I would see around would just be wearing normal ass collared polo shirts and khakis, by choice, in their off time. No one was walking around in overly nice clothing, and few people were driving outwardly nice cars. There were Mercedes and BMWs throughout the neighborhood, but not sportscar convertible "look at me" shit, just normal ass sedans.
The difference is that while rich people are buying nice things, they are buying nice things that will last because they buy actual quality products rather than shit they can show off, because they have no reason to show off. This has been consistent with all the rich people I've met above the age of 35. Young rich people are a different story, but they're also cringe and likely don't deserver their wealth honestly.

>>17549183
So you are extrapolating the experiences you had in one rich neighbourhood to all rich people on earth? This is actual retardation

>>17549190
>SOURCE? SOURCE? YOU GOT A SOURCE FOR THAT?
People are allowed to have anecdotal evidence. Take your appeal to authority to reddit

>>17549190
In my part of America this is a reality, and I've been on vacation with my family in the nicer parts of California and while the rich guys weren't wearing polos and khakis like they are where I'm from, they also weren't wearing Supreme and Gucci. They were just wearing normal ass clothing.
The ratio of people that are interested in fashion, whether it be for flexing culture or for genuine interest, is going to be fairly consistent between tax brackets. I'd imagine a similar percentage of poor people are interested in this stuff as rich people, and it's a small percentage.
I've had jobs in both the rich side of town and the poor side of town, and a few in between, and I'll say I don't think I've ever seen anyone other than the rich children wearing shit like Off White or Supreme on the rich side, but you see that shit constantly on the poor side by grown adults. The most you see if LV bags or maybe some Gucci glasses if the rich women are really trying to be corny.
On the rich side it's fairly obvious that everyone is wearing fairly nice clothing, and not nice as in designer, but nice as in it was bought at retail price, new, it's real, and it's going to last. Like the rich people aren't walking around wearing faux-nice clothing like CDG Play or whatever, they're wearing North Face and Banana Republic with jeans from Walmart because they have no need to let people know they have money because everyone already knows they have money. Because everyone has money.

>>17549042
rich is right but its all tailored

>>17549104
This. This post kills the meme. It has to be some out of touch boomer who made it.

>>17549042
left is modern right is old raf

>>17549214

I would also just say that “hood rich” attire just doesn’t fit with rich upper middle class people. What from LV or Supreme looks appropriate on a guy working as an SVP in some F100 corporation?

Those “luxury” brands have been catering to their new target demographic (broke hood rats) for a while now. Very little of what they put out would look reasonable on a regular citizen. The hood pandering has even taken over the watch world. It’s not just factory “iced out” watches anymore. AP put out that ridiculous Captain Nigger Wakanda Royal Oak a few years back. What Engineering Manager at Apple is gonna wear that shit?

In short: most luxury clothing brands are for niggers now. Wealthy people don’t want the association

Middle classoid wage slave cope image

>>17549190
You are a gay nigger. He was responding to a post about American perception of wealth with a story about growing up in a wealthy American neighborhood.

>>17549104
cell phones don't cost $6k

vertu phones did.

>>17549042
The one on the right has 0 sex appeal and can get laid only due to his status and the one on the left probably gets no strings attached blowjobs every weekend from young hotties.
Yeah, and the guy on the right is probably famous so he has to appear "humble", while the left guy would be invisible if he had no drip.
Really dumb image. You can't apply logic that works for Bill Gates or Steve Jobs to an average Joe.
When you are weak, appear strong.
When you are strong, appear weak.
Do the opposite of what normies expect.
If you are a rich corporate overlord or a celebrity you want to look humble.
If you are nobody then at least by dressing flashy you can appear higher status.

Only tech rich people dress like ops pic

>>17549190
This is 4chan you dolt. Why put an inordinate amount of effort into a post that will be deleted in 2 days?

>>17549104
you're completely right. it's all fake rich larpers who post shit online about 'building an empire' by spending 80 hours a week at their job and 'hustling' on the side by scouring swap meets for yugioh cards
>nah bruh i bought a $500 android phone instead of that dude over there with the $600 iPhone he will never be rich id rather BUY stocks in apple and own a piece of the company real money moves in silence emoji emoji
>yeah i drive a 93 honda legend im not buying a mercedes they're for fakers did you know ludacris has an acura?? mixed with his lambos sure but see! REAL RICH people drive hondas and im part of that club! d-did you also know there's some ceo in hong kong who wears a seiko?
kinda energy

>>17549104
Who cares, it's the based and correct way to dress if you're rich, if you're lured into buying "luxury brands" then you are a golem, a rich golem

>>17549042
I'm poor and I wear $10 pants and $30 sneakers. I do look like shit but at least I don't spend too much money on doing it

But I don't want to look rich, I want to look /fa/.

>>17549042
Unassumingly expensive.

where do reps fall into this equation

>>17549053
They typically don’t dress up. It’s a simple aesthetic and they keep clothes forever. Old money look this way.

The striving middle class on the other hand (who have good cash flow) and are new rich like to show it off.

>>17549356
Well I'm not even entirely sure about that to be fair. I think that happens in some cases within certain brands, but at the core brands like Chanel, Dior, and Iris Van Herpen will always be for truly rich people. The main difference is when brands try to cater to a more casual audience, because a lot of high fashion isn't meant to be worn casually on a day out, and honestly I don't think many high fashion brands actually do that shit outside of making simple tee shirts with their logo on it.

>>17549183
>Consistently the men I would see around would just be wearing normal ass collared polo shirts and khakis
Polos that cost $150 and khakis that cost $200 mind you

>>17550203
>but at the core brands like Chanel, Dior, and Iris Van Herpen will always be for truly rich people.
Lol most of what dior sells are fucking hoodies with their name on them.

>>17550217
I never said they don't buy quality, because RL polo shirts are definitely quality, they just don't often flaunt their wealth. Also, khaki doesn't cost that much and you know it. It can, but these guys weren't wearing the best possible khakis, they were just wearing normal pants, albeit nice pants so probably not Walmart, but likely Target or something their wives got them. And for the record the women mostly just wore t shirts and athleisure.
All I'm saying here is that while rich people aren't a perfect caricature of what the artist drew there, it isn't actually far off, and in my neighborhood growing up you would never see a person wearing a Gucci belt or glasses, or a Chanel branded shirt, or honestly anything with outright branding at all other than something minimal you'd have to be closer to notice.
>>17550227
Maybe Dior was a bad example, but to be fair I only really pay attention to the runway shit for most brands. And to be fair, Dior makes some really cool dresses and womenswear in general, but after a quick Google search it does seem like that happened to that brand as well.

>>17549098
it's pointing at a ring

Why don't rich people dress cool anymore? Now they look like faggots. I guess it just goes to show, money can't buy class.

>>17549042


>me on the right but I wear a $20k watch

As a man, nothing matter but your fitness and your watch.

>>17550848
Royalty still dresses like this on occasion.

The poor one will be wearing fake designer gear he bought from the local market. Also, when a tech ceo wears jeans and polo neck to appewr relatable, it's still from an expenaive brand.

>>17550915
Shoes, smell, smile.

>>17549183
>300k
>rich
Is this bait?

>>17550848
That’s military dress you fucking spastic

>>17550915
>As a man, nothing matter but your fitness and your watch.
Watches are the most gay larpy thing ever

A good haircut, strong facial features, thick eyebrows, thick eyelashes, nice teeth and good fitting shirt/nice shoes will mog your impractical piece of wrist jewelry

>>17550231
>but these guys weren't wearing the best possible khakis, they were just wearing normal pants, albeit nice pants so probably not Walmart, but likely Target
Bullshit, I grew up around lake guys and no one was wearing target clothes.
> And for the record the women mostly just wore t shirts and athleisure.
Once again, no. All the soccer moms I grew up around always chose to buy the most expensive versions of the simplest things and were never afraid to show off gaudy jewelry or dresses on special occasions
>and in my neighborhood growing up you would never see a person wearing a Gucci belt or glasses, or a Chanel branded shirt, or honestly anything with outright branding at all other than something minimal you'd have to be closer to notice.
Once again, no. All the wasps where I grew up creamed themselves over North Face and Chanel

Also, I worked at a Dry Cleaners for a short period, and all the shit that was brought in was expensive. Whether polos, button up shirts, jackets, pants, etc. It was all a $100+ or $200+ version of something


White people don't wear gucci t shirts or giant versace belts or tacky armani hoodies or whatever else Asians and Blacks do. But they absolutely have their own version of buying overpriced nonsense for the sake of showing off around each other

>>17549356
Correct assessment. Another side effect I noticed is that brands like Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein, Tommy, etc. used to be associated with middle or upper middle class and had small subtle embroidered logos to reflect that, now go to any mall and their logos are 20x bigger and the brand name is all over the article of clothing in giant block letters anyone can read from 10 miles away.

>Why yes I'm poor. How could you tell?

>>17551255
LEL

>>17551026
Unless you’re raising a family in Manhattan 300K income is absolutely rich you fucking sperg
>no but you see by “rich” I meant something different than what 90% of the population would consider rich

>>17551317
Is this bait?

>>17550848
>monarchs at the formal diplomatic meeting
>they must have dress like this all the time

>>17551181
Depending on which store you go to, and the area also totally depends on the stock Ralph Lauren has. Go to a mall in some shithole and it will be rugby polos with gigantic logos, go to a Ralph Lauren standalone store in a nice place and it will be small logos, a bit of RRL, some home stuff and all that Mystic Pizza looking stuff

>>17550160
>they
>old money
>new rich

you're mentally unwell, gross idealization won't help you in life

>>17550160
Actual rich people can dress any way from borderline hobocore to everything being bespoke designer wear. Money means little to them, they can wear whatever they want. Even when they wear plain looking clothes they still might've dropped hundreds or thousands on a single garment, it just looks plain to poor people.

>>17551317
$300k income from working = "rich"
$300k income from assets = wealthy