Clothing items that aren't supposed to be expensive.

[Anonymous No.13568537]

I'd like to hear what others think about this. I'm exclusively talking about men's clothing. To me, there are certain clothing items that aren't supposed to be expensive. Not because you can buy them for cheap, because that really goes for anything, but because that particular item being relatively cheap is the whole point of that item. It's the reason why it exists and spending a boat load of money on such an item is disingenuous to that article of clothing.

Affordability is relative, but I'm just talking about the principle. For example, you can buy an $8 t-shirt. It can fit you just fine and look great. Or, you can buy a $350 Versace t-shirt. Well what are you getting for that price? A flashy logo? Higher quality materials? Well it doesn't really matter, does it? It's still just a t-shirt. I could have all the money in the world and I still wouldn't want one. It just totally defeats the purpose of the item.

I think t-shirts, jeans, casual button ups, sweatshirts, hoodies, shorts, casual socks, swimwear, house clothes, and workout clothes all fall into this category.

Everything else is fair game in my book. Backpacks, belts, wallets, shoes, watches, jackets, coats, high quality workwear, formal anything, etc.

Personally I spend the bulk of my clothing money on shoes, jackets and pants. Jackets and shoes you can wear every day and really get your money's worth. I think there's a big difference between shitty pants and high quality pants. Having a fancy card holder and some belts is fun.

So if I were to put together an outfit from my wardrobe, I'd see no problem in throwing on some Prada sneakers, some Outlier pants, a Gucci belt (I don't actually wear those tacky things anymore), a gator skin card holder, Burberry coat and a well fitting department store t-shirt. I don't see any need to "elevate" the shirt up to the level of everything else and I don't think the shirt brings down the rest of the outfit.

[Anonymous No.13568566]

>>13568537
For t-shirts I agree. I've bought t-shirts that were 20 quid and are great quality, nice thick and soft material that has held up very well over the years. Spending more just seems ludicrous.

For jeans though? No, there are clear indicators of quality and manufacturing that warrant a higher price tag. All these expensive Japanese denim clothes makers produce clearly higher quality denim items, and the manufacturing process is longer and more laborious. Visvim make jeans with all these crazy traditional methods of dyeing etc. that take a long time, and have taken a lot of effort to source and reproduce. If you look at what they then sell for in Japan it's fairly understandable. Quality of clothing matters, but actually having taste and good fits matters more. Still, if your clothes are poorly made then they will never look as good as something that has the subtle aspects of high quality material and manufacturing.

If you know nothing about clothes you may not be able to really tell that a pair of jeans made from a great Japanese brand is really THAT much better than some shit from H&M, but you can probably just see that it is. But then you wonder why you can't find any jeans quite like the Japanese ones you saw... why no one is making them like they do. It's obvious, but people still don't get it, they look slightly different because they're better quality. That subtle difference sets you apart from everyone else. They may just be a pair of jeans but you can guarantee you'll always be wearing the best pair.

And desu, I think there's nothing worse than someone trying to look like they wear expensive clothes by buying the cheaper 'knock-off' versions of them. It always looks shit to anyone who can notice, and they're the only people you should want to impress anyway.

[Anonymous No.13568567]

I'll disagree with jeans

When you have decent - high quality jeans, they age well. And they are expensive.

Only what I think mate, not necessary the truth.

[Anonymous No.13568576]

What do you considered expensive jeans? 200 or 700?

It's worth it to get some Acne, APC etc in the 150 range but it's not to get some Amiri or Saint Laurent ones, at least for retail.

[Anonymous No.13568580]

>>13568537
The difference is in FIT
For 8$ you would have default "I dont care" fit t-shirt.
If you are INTO FASHION and wanna muscle fit/relaxed fit/skater fit/tight sleeves/long sleeves/mock neck/deep round neck you should pay.
NOT FOR THE FUCKING LOGO
And it's not "just a t-shirt". It's the staple piece for most people in summer.
And jeans are even better example. It's all about how they fit and what "core" you are into.

[Anonymous No.13568592]

>>13568576

For me ? Would be starting from 150-200. I have APC jeans (that i'm not using for the entire summer because it's 40+°c) and they feel/look pretty nice.

With sales, it's really not that hard to get a good one.

[Anonymous No.13568626]

>>13568566
I've never owned Japanese denim. Maybe I should give it a try. My whole point about the jeans is that as far as I know, jeans come from the same place as t-shirts. They were cheap work clothes. I think think those products should emulate that. With that said, all of my jeans had sticker prices north of $200, but I only bought them because they were on sale. But I haven't bought jeans in a long time and my taste in jeans is shifting.

>>13568567
My opinion on jeans is a new one. I only own "high quality" jeans, but that was before this shift. I think high quality pants make all the difference, but I think jeans having their roots in being cheap workwear shouldn't be forgotten.

>>13568576
I'd consider expensive jeans to be anything north of $160. That's about what I paid for all my jeans, but I bought them on sale. North of $200 and I start to think that's too much. I haven't followed denim in a long time. I remember Acne being the brand that had some of the best cuts, but not the best fabric. Is that still the case?

>>13568580
I'm an olympic weightlifter, so my upper body is fairly muscular, but I'm really bottom heavy, so good pants are really hard for me to find. I've tried the "high-end" t-shirt thing and it didn't sit too well with me. Maybe I didn't go high end enough, but I find that I can throw most t-shirts on and they'll look good on me if they're the right size. I'm open to trying new things though. I'm still looking for a good scoop neck like the one the Goose wears in Only God Forgives.

[Anonymous No.13568640]

Here's the thing.

Everything is relative.

What's a cheap $8 t-shirt to you is someone's monthly salary in Africa.

What's an expensive $350 t-shirt to you is some investment bankers lunch money.

This is why any debate or discussion about price and it's relationship to clothing is always retarded. It makes more sense to not even bring price into the equation because it's so incredibly relative.

Especially when you bring personal values into the equation. I know broke people that would genuinely argue the $350 t-shirt is worth it. I know multi millionaires that wouldn't even buy the $8 t-shirt (they only wear the dorky free corporate t-shirts they get in gift bags and shit).

Price is a fucking dumb discussion that never leads to anything remotely productive.

[Anonymous No.13568643]

>>13568626
> They were cheap work clothes. I think think those products should emulate that.
The expensive ones do emulate the old, 'cheap' clothes. The high quality denim nowadays is produced by the same sorts of machines that were being used in post-war USA. Nowadays it's possible to make ultra-cheap, truly cheap, jeans because of the newer manufacturing techniques, but these jeans are of worse quality and design. People today don't want to buy clothes that are going to last forever, they want whatever tickles their fancy at the time, that's why they're so cheap today.

It's weird how, even though as a society we seem more obsessed with fashion now than ever, we don't expect to spend a significant amount of money for the clothes we wear everyday. 200 dollars is barely more than a couple of days work at most for the majority of people with jobs. I don't know how much jeans cost back then, but it seems likely to me that, in real terms, people used to spend more on their clothes. Of course, our perspective of money and our purchasing power is totally fucked nowadays. We can buy jeans for 20 dollars, about an hour of work, but most people nowadays never stand a reasonable chance of being able to buy a house over the course of their entire working lives. We are undeniably very strange consumers today.

[Anonymous No.13568644]

>>13568640
>some people have more money than others, so a good can't ever be too expensive
Neck yourself, I've got 3 quid for your family

[Anonymous No.13568665]

>>13568640
it's not retarded to talk about price.

Most of the users here belong roughly to the same economic group as in early 20ish, probably student, can put a couple hundred maybe up to 500 a month to clothing.

[Anonymous No.13568682]

Actual costs for designing, manufacturing and shipping a good ...

Tee/T-Shirt $50
Casual pants $70
Casual shirt $80
Dress pants $100
Dress shirt $120
Thin Pullover/Sweatshirt $80
Winter Pullover $120
Thin Jacket $120
Winter Jacket $180
Winter Coat $250

You paid significantly (more than 25%) above that? Congratulations, you overpaid for the brand and meme value.

[Anonymous No.13568705]

>>13568566
>If you know nothing about clothes you may not be able to really tell that a pair of jeans made from a great Japanese brand is really THAT much better than some shit from H&M, but you can probably just see that it is. But then you wonder why you can't find any jeans quite like the Japanese ones you saw...

That’s really what made me wonder recently.

I want to buy a wine red wool pullover like pic related. I saw it from a designer brand, whew it costs €180/$200 (not even the upper boundary, I know).

“Bit pricey”, I thought, so I started looking for cheaper brands. But their stuff was obviously not up to par, in a way even amateurs could tell. So I discarded budget brands.

But what made me truly wonder is that even “middle class” brands like Tom Hillfiger, Superdry, Abercrombie, Superdry had nothing *quite* like this pullover.

Either the seams were visible, or the color hue was somewhat off, or the fabric felt just not right...

So I’m still thinking about purchasing this pullover that’s three times as expensive as a “middle class” brand one, despite a constrained budget.

[Anonymous No.13568708]

>>13568705
Oh fuck, here’s pic related

[Anonymous No.13568715]

>>13568682
>good winter coat
>$250
keked

>>13568537
You're only taking quality into account whereas there are people who are genuinely into fashion and are looking for specific designer cuts and details. When that's what you're after there is no "right" price, as the value of a designer's work entirely depends on what people are willing to pay for his designs

[Anonymous No.13568738]

>>13568682
Here in Canada, a good winter coat will run you $800+.

[Anonymous No.13568741]

>>13568537
I think you're not accounting for the constant drop in quality of your average piece of clothing, like jeans. They were a utilitarian piece of clothing, made to last and be affordable. Over the years the quality of affordable jeans has consistently dropped. Brands that have maintained the original standards can now charge a premium.

This isn't just true for jeans. Just go look at a 20 yr old t shirt at a thrift store. The weight and stitching are way higher quality, and that's still post-outsourcing.

I'm not justifying dropping hundreds of dollars on a T shirt, but if you want quality, expect a higher than normal price.

[Anonymous No.13568748]

>>13568705
I notice this with sneakers. You'll have a shoe. A hightop for example. Something normal, like a Nike, Converse, whatever. It's a good looking shoe. Then look at a YSL sneaker, or Common Projects for low tops, or even some of the tame Gucci stuff. They just get the proportions better. From a visual aspect alone, they just took that typical design and altered a few things here and there and really polished it all up and it makes a world of difference. The Prada hightops I own, they're just brown hightop sneakers. They're not flashy. There's no visible branding anywhere on the shoe, expect on the bottom of the sole, which nobody can see when I'm wearing them. By all accounts they're nothing spectacular. But every time I wear them, I get compliments. They're a good looking shoe, that's why I bought them. But just average people hone in on them for some reason. I'm not sure why.

[Anonymous No.13568755]

>>13568741
I'm no denim expert. I can't shop in malls for clothing, so all my denim is from boutique stores, that I bought on sale. I don't even recognize most of the brands most of the time. What clothing company would you say truly makes average quality jeans? What company makes the gold standard in jeans? What company sets the quality benchmark upon which all other brands should be measured to?

[Anonymous No.13568759]

>>13568755
>average quality jeans
h&m

>gold standard in jean
artisanal Momotaros

>What company sets the quality benchmark upon which all other brands should be measured to?
APC

[Anonymous No.13568770]

>>13568705
Let me tell you something, and I speak as an authority, as someone who has wasted thousands on new clothes that were never worn or just worn once. DO NOT buy clothes that you think are just 'fine' or okay. Only ever buy clothes that you really think are great and that you would want to wear all the time. If something is always 'not quite right' it will always be 'not quite right'.

There are plenty of reasons why clothes might seem like this for you: maybe the colour simply isn't right for your skin and hair tone, maybe it just isn't your style even though you like how it looks on other people, but most likely is because the quality is just not good. Most people don't have the time or desire to actually learn what makes something good or bad quality, but nowadays more than ever this is essential. Most clothing manufacturers nowadays make shit clothes because they're cheaper to manufacture and ultimately ends with them making huge profits. Think about it, with these brands you listed you're also paying for branding, shipping, and for shareholders to make considerable profit, so ultimately you aren't really paying for the quality of the design and manufacturing. The majority of clothes nowadays are simply shit, but we're so deluded today into thinking that everything must be better quality because technology has improved. This technology was only ever 'improved' for the purpose of increasing profits, and the way to do that has been to create lots and lots of cheap products quickly. Don't fall for the trick that because something is 60 dollars that it's somehow going to be good quality because you can get something similar for 20 dollars. It's almost always going to be shit.

[Anonymous No.13568776]

>>13568770
It's extremely difficult nowadays for any brand to just make good quality clothes. They're competing in an industry that has conned everyone into thinking that 40 dollar jeans are the norm and that anything above that denotes an unusually high standard of quality. Unless you can stand out in some way, you're going to seriously struggle because you're competing against brands that are selling similar products at less than half the price and also have the money to market themselves effectively.

[Anonymous No.13568845]

>>13568759
H&M is average quality? I thought H&M was the worst quality you could find outside of a Walmart. I would have said Levi's was average in terms of quality.

[Anonymous No.13568852]

>>13568537
>a gator skin card holder
see this kinda shit is pants on head retarded to me
its a utility thing, not a fashion statement thing
and I wear t-shirts like 95% of the time Im awake, buying cheap shit just doesn't cut it when I know I could be more comfortable getting something that is way nicer to wear

[Anonymous No.13568853]

what u on about?

I just like flexin

[Anonymous No.13568859]

>>13568537
> wallet fade
> dip can fade

Is that a woman wearing man's pants?

[Anonymous No.13568867]

>>13568682
>Actual costs for designing, manufacturing and shipping a good ...
Are you implying that say the 50 bucks for the tee is the consumer price?
Cause if thats the case, the actual cost of designing, manufacturing and shipping the apparel for the brand making the shit is in the case of the tee for example is like 6 bucks

[Anonymous No.13568872]

>>13568852
>Having a fancy card holder and some belts is fun.

I don't find more expensive t-shirts to be any more comfortable than plain department store t-shirts. I've got plain t-shirts from Armani (I forget which sub-brand, but it wasn't Exchange), Ralph Lauren and Hugo Boss. The solid color Ralph Lauren polo shorts are my favorite and they must have only cost me $10 per shirt. I just wish they didn't have the horse logo. What do you wear?

[Anonymous No.13568877]

>>13568859
What if it's a man wearing man jeans?

[Anonymous No.13568889]

>>13568845
I thought you meant average in the sense of "most common". Then yes I guess it would probably be regular Levis. Don't underestimate h&m though, their outrageous quantities, low margins and nonexistent design costs make them extremely competitive in terms of value. The exact same pair would probably cost twice as much if it was being sold by a small brand.

[Anonymous No.13568892]

>>13568872
>I've got plain t-shirts from Armani (I forget which sub-brand, but it wasn't Exchange), Ralph Lauren and Hugo Boss
yeah I mean Id wager those are probably all shite
I wear rick owens tees exclusively, there are couple of other brands making as thin and soft cotton tees but the fit works for me and they are easily available for relatively cheap

[Anonymous No.13568895]

>>13568889
I've never even walked into an H&M store. I'm actually thinking about checking one out tomorrow.

[Anonymous No.13568896]

>>13568852
>its a utility thing, not a fashion statement thing
Clothing in general is an "utility thing", you are not making any point here

>>13568859
Any pair of jeans will fade. Materials other than denim fade as well. Raw denim is not exclusive to menswear. The more you know

>>13568853
This is an 18+ board

[Anonymous No.13568899]

>>13568867
More like $8 with reasonable retail & wholesale margins imo

[Anonymous No.13568901]

>>13568872
yeah maybe because Armani and Boss are absolute garbage tier

you should try actual brands

[Anonymous No.13568902]

>>13568895
to be fair there are always 1 or 2 pieces to cherry pick that can be interesting purchases at H&M, in particular during sales. But you need to really know your shit to spot them and tell them apart from the ocean of garbage that is surrounding them

[Anonymous No.13568910]

>>13568738
you mean canadian dollars?

these aren't actual dollars, m8. we use them as scribble paper here

[Anonymous No.13568911]

>>13568896
wow some conservative bitch boy tryna start shit
i know u just poor

[Anonymous No.13568916]

I like cheap clothes and 2nd hand shit. To me even like 30 bucks for a hoodie or a pair of jeans is kinda pricey. To me clothes are disposable. I usually manage to stain and rip my clothes in couple days of use, so tbqh Iwould be a retard if I spend more money on them.

I'm not saying it's stupid to buy expensive clothes, I'm just too reckless.

[Anonymous No.13568917]

What percentage much of the cost is designing?

I mean, it costs nothing absolutely nothing in comparison to producing & shipping. Even if you pay a designer $200k a year, it's still one guy.

I don't see what's preventing budget brands from stepping up their design game.

[Anonymous No.13568933]

>>13568901
I literally asked for recommendations in that post.

[Anonymous No.13568943]

>>13568910

[Anonymous No.13568948]

>>13568911
Lol I'm on a lazy friday outfit and I could still pay your rent with what I'm currently wearing, you tremendous underaged fuckwit

>>13568917
>it's still one guy
lmfao

no

[Anonymous No.13568949]

>>13568943
What brand is that? I’ll compare to what is costs in Germany when I’m at home.

[Anonymous No.13568952]

>>13568948
>it’s still one guy?

What?

Have you read the post you’re replying to?

[Anonymous No.13568957]

>>13568949
Moose Knuckle.

[Anonymous No.13568967]

>>13568952
do you seriously believe that designing a whole collection is one single man's work ? Really ?

[Anonymous No.13568968]

>>13568643
>I don't know how much jeans cost back then, but it seems likely to me that, in real terms, people used to spend more on their clothes

They simply had less clothes.

Those top-tier suits and shirts blue collar workers wore in 50s movies and photos were the only good piece of clothing they had.

Blue collar workers today wear lower quality stuff, but they have clothing in different colors and cuts, for different occasions.

[Anonymous No.13568971]

>>13568967
Why not? Hire one good designer and make him create one good piece per month.

[Anonymous No.13568978]

>>13568896
>you are not making any point here
did you miss the other part of the sentence you quoted
>not a FASHION STATEMENT thing
or are you just retarded?

[Anonymous No.13568980]

>>13568968
Yeah that's what I mean, just different attitudes towards clothes back then. Nowadays it's all about profit over anything else.

[Anonymous No.13568987]

>>13568770
>DO NOT buy clothes that you think are just 'fine' or okay. Only ever buy clothes that you really think are great and that you would want to wear all the time.

That’s a difficult thing to do once you get into designer brands, since clothing you can afford will stop to satisfy you 100%.

[Anonymous No.13568993]

>>13568537
hoodies shouldnt be expensive at all

[Anonymous No.13568996]

>>13568980
>Nowadays it's all about profit over anything else.

You have more choice now than ever, if you have a good job. You can buy $1000 Yoji Yamamoto tees or $10 H&M ones.

[Anonymous No.13569001]

>>13568640
here's comes the raging faggot who's always compare shit. First of all, not all Africans monthly salary is $8, you racist enormous ignorant fuck, second of all, stop generalization about everything you hipster fuck.

[Anonymous No.13569011]

>>13568948
ye sure bitch
you sound poor with ur rent shit
u just a bitch poor bitch

[Anonymous No.13569017]

>>13568845
H&M is a trash, never liked Levi for personal taste, but can you list some of your fav brands with a good/decent qaulities?

[Anonymous No.13569019]

>this one le epic troll faggot that ruins good discussions

[Anonymous No.13569060]

>>13568987
quit being a poorfag then

>>13569011
lmfao what a nigger

[Anonymous No.13569067]

>>13568640
>only decent post in this thread
>roasted by OP for making a point
summer has to end eventually

[Anonymous No.13569139]

>>13568626
Have any recs for jeans for guys with big thighs?

[Anonymous No.13569156]

>>13568566
Rec me some Japanese denim senpai

And Japanese fashion brands in general

[Anonymous No.13569159]

>>13568580
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.13569218]

agree with belts because the functionality is so binary: it just needs to work.

[Anonymous No.13569242]

>>13568580
b2highschool pls

[Anonymous No.13569263]

>>13568759
>H&M
>average quality
I've unironically owned second hand hollister jeans that are better quality and fit than HM

[Anonymous No.13569283]

>>13568537
just wanted to share that this post makes me feel so good about myself for spending 1400 dollars on this YSL jacket

in terms of OP i conjure re: t-shirts and other layer clothing and sport goods, but denim already has quite noticeable difference between selvage and non-selvage, which usually comes in play at around 100 dollar price mark

[Anonymous No.13569293]

>>13569283
TWO TOUSSAND EURO SAND LAREIN JACKED

[Anonymous No.13569294]

on the topic of jeans, anyone know any good relatively cheap ($40-60), brands that are high waisted and skinny?

[Anonymous No.13569295]

>>13569139
check bonobos if in US

[Anonymous No.13569305]

>>13569293
did i get memed

looking forward to combine this with red uncaged ultraboosts, black drop crotch pants, black backpack and shades related

[Anonymous No.13569309]

>>13569263
no wonder, hollister is also more expensive and brands itself as middlebrow, not budget

[Anonymous No.13569311]

>>13568537
I'd say the majority of clothing does not HAVE to be expensive but usually if it is and you still want that piece it's for good reason, it's usually for an increase in quality or for a unique look or fit.
If that mark up is worth the exchange for any of those things then your extra money spent should be justified, but its a subjective thing because that ratio of money to what makes something unique or cool to you is totally relative.

[Anonymous No.13569312]

>>13568987
Trust me breh I know, I'm a Visvim guy.

[Anonymous No.13569313]

>>13569156
There were some threads about this yesterday and the day before, but maybe they're buried now. Visvim, Momotaro, Blue Blue Japan etc.

[Anonymous No.13569481]

>>13568682
and the actual cost for the leather, wood, other parts and labor of an eames chair is definitely not $5,500. what you, OP, and others often fail to recognize is that design is a commodity in and of itself. to use a more literally artistic analogy, people aren't bidding on paintings for the cost of the paint, canvas, and artist's time. there is an abstract, artistic element for which there is no empirical measure except the price people are willing to pay on an open market.

>>13568537
i dont disagree, blue jeans after all are supposed to be a common working man's item, but appropriating culture is what high fashion is all about. working class culture is no exception

[Anonymous No.13569492]

>>13569481
i know design is worth money

but its difficult to draw a line between reasonable and unreasonable overprice

uniqlo offers (actual) merino wool sweaters for $50. some designer brands sell the same merino wool sweaters in a bit different, arguably slightly better hue for $500

where's the truth here?

[Anonymous No.13569505]

>>13568971
making the design more stylish will inevitably alienate customers. this goes against their business model, which is profit by moving large volume. you could step up the design, but you would secure 1 customer while losing 4 others.

also design does not cost "absolutely nothing." firms compete for talented designers by offering competitive salaries. talented and original (relatively) designers command a high price for their time. what makes one design more expensive than another? thats the subjective part, even if you dont agree with the consensus of what people find desirable in design, you have to at least recognize that this constitutes the "demand" side of the supply and demand equation.

>>13568917
as another poster mentioned, design, especially for fast labels that put new clothes on the rack every 2 weeks, is not a one-man show. for the sake of exploring the idea lets just take an absurd example and say one person is repsonsible for all of H&M's design. it would be a literally impossible demand on one person's time to make new designs for all mens outerwear, knitwear, tailoring, underwear, accessories, basics, jeans, activewear--all the same for women plus dresses and skirts, and childrens wear on a two week schedule.

there are people that bridge the abstract design to a reality on the shelf. eg the designer works with a patternmaker, the patternmaker submits their project or proposal for cost analysis, where someone calculates cost on a per-yard basis of fabrics chosen, unit count of hardware like buttons, trim, per hour for labor, QC, shipping, etc. in fast fashion there are also definitely people whose professional role is to monitor and report on fashion trends for designers to interpret (or in many cases straight rip off), this approach folds neatly into fast-fashion's risk-averse business model. not to mention peripheral jobs to this department like payroll and accounting

[Anonymous No.13569530]

>>13569492
>its difficult to draw a line between reasonable and unreasonable overprice
it's unreasonable if it doesn't sell

[Anonymous No.13569534]

>>13569505
for you, where is the treshold between a "industrial" piece of clothing and a genuinely inspired one?

does it lie in price? in target audience? in originality?

[Anonymous No.13569548]

>>13569492
'reasonable' is subjective. another posted said it earlier in the thread, thats based on your income. your 'reasonable' might be insane to someone who thrifts exclusively, sees no point in fashion beyond utility, and buys their jeans for $4 a pair.

your 'unreasonable' is easily someone else's floor. when you make a million dollars a year $500 is nothing. is it possible to isolate the exact dollar value of that different red hue? probably not. what if its that a wealthy hollywood actor who is essentially a patron of the brand (looking at you, john mayer for visvim) simply enjoys the customer service and his relationship with the brand? maybe thats why he bought it, and he didnt have a second thought about the color and how there might be a cheaper one out there.

youre looking at the question of reasonable/unreasonable subjectively from your own income, instead of objectively by considering the behavior of the whole market. if people pay for it and if the business profits, the price is substantiated. the other posted who replied to you put it more succinctly than me, but these kinds of topics and discussions are interesting to me so ill send you this long reply anyway.

[Anonymous No.13569595]

>>13569534
for me personally? its a subjective and dynamic matter. what i think is inspired someone else will think is ugly trash. i take ownership of my taste and dont think that this or that garment is objectively superior to another in terms of design. another analogy: however much i like a painting, i still understand that, taking a view detached from human narrative, the painting is more or less a square of cotton with oils spilled on it randomly by an animal

[Anonymous No.13569759]

>>13569548
>'reasonable' is subjective. another posted said it earlier in the thread, thats based on your income. your 'reasonable' might be insane to someone who thrifts exclusively, sees no point in fashion beyond utility, and buys their jeans for $4 a pair.
>youre looking at the question of reasonable/unreasonable subjectively from your own income, instead of objectively by considering the behavior of the whole market. if people pay for it and if the business profits, the price is substantiated.
Not the one you're replying to, but I'll chime in. I disagree with your point. You're not really looking at it from an 'objective' point of view, that of the market, you're just validating everyone else's subjective view of the product's worth in relation to their budget. Fine, but part of being absurdly rich is being able to make unreasonable purchases, in fact many brands specifically, and with no hint of subtlety, market themselves to people who are looking to do just that. Supreme would be completely unsuccessful if they didn't sell their products at such unreasonable products. It's hedonism for rich people, if it were reasonable it wouldn't be enjoyable anymore.

The issue is that, even though everything I said above is absolutely correct, there still remains, beyond concrete factors like manufacturing, materials, labour of designers, marketing etc. that determine price, more abstract factors. Maybe a product is rare or in limited supply, maybe the design and creative concepts are very niche and so the consumer base is limited, or maybe it is such that it carries a symbolic, sublime element. All of the above makes clothes by Visvim, for example, reasonable. Maybe not reasonable for your budget, but reasonable when the different factors that go into their creation are measured.

[Anonymous No.13569819]

>>13569139
I don't actually. That's something I'm still trying to figure out. It genuinely seems to me that once you have a small waist, big ass and thick thighs, you're getting stretch fabrics from here on out. Otherwise you either get pants with insane waist gap. I know /fa/ has some aversion to stretch denim, but I've never even touched the stuff, so I'm not sure why. Perhaps some people think stretch fabric is an excuse to not have a perfect cut?

[Anonymous No.13569824]

>>13569283
I've never owned selvaged denim. That just refers to the seam stitching, right?

[Anonymous No.13569844]

>>13569505
How often does H&M rotate their designs?

[Anonymous No.13569849]

>>13568537
Is that the old Acne logo (pre- Acne Studios) on the jeans?

[Anonymous No.13569861]

>>13569759
>in fact many brands specifically, and with no hint of subtlety, market themselves to people who are looking to do just that
HELLO MASTERMIND

HELLO VETEMEMES

supreme is a cheap brand though, I don't understand why you quoted them

[Anonymous No.13569870]

>>13569819
Stretch pants look hideous on muscular legs

What you want to do is to buy your bottoms oversized and have the waist narrowed by a tailor

[Anonymous No.13569902]

>>13569824
yes, you are right, but it implies that more care has gone into the manufacturing process

[Anonymous No.13569903]

>>13569824
>selvaged
Lol no, that's called "selvedge".

It has absolutely nothing to do with stitching. Selvedge denim is simply a fabric that has a finite end, as opposed to regular denim that has raw edges. Look it up, it's hard to explain it in an understandable way with a few words without walking you through graphs and shit.

In theory there is no added value in wearing selvedge jeans, apart from having this finite edge that is a pretty nice looking detail (see pic related). In practice though since selvedge costs more to produce, brands tend to use it for higher grade and heavier denim. Also since it is a sought after denimhead detail, most brands that do selvedge will try to appeal to this public through other purist details and the use of good construction / fabrics. That's why selvedge is quite often wrongly seen as synonymous with high end denim.

[Anonymous No.13569910]

>>13568537
Why does her ass look so good even though she has no ass?

[Anonymous No.13569913]

>>13569759
I think there actually is a subjective aspect, but I'll draw parallels to other topics. I like cars and I like guns.

You can buy a Miata. It's the cheapest pure bred sports car on the market. Or you can buy a Porsche GT3. The difference will be stark, to say the least.

You could buy a $20,000 pickup truck and it could probably handle almost every job you can reasonably throw at it. If you need to tow a large boat around, you may need to spend $45,000 on a larger, more powerful truck with stronger springs. But there's really no point in buying a $200,000 pickup truck, if one were to exist. That just defeats the purpose of that type of vehicle. No reasonable person would ever hire some artist to paint a mural across a pickup truck that's actually used for work. If you need to haul a house around, you don't use an even more expensive pickup. You use a semi-truck. You change the type of vehicle. If you need to haul even more around, you use a train. If you need to haul even more and the environment allow you to, you use a ship. At certain points, the tool you use need to change depending on what you want to accomplish. There's no point in trying to complete a semi-truck job with a fleet of pickup trucks.

In much the same way you wouldn't outfit an economy car with Hermes leather seats. That entirely defeats the purpose of that type of car. The key point here being that you don't gain much by doing such a thing and that if you're looking for something more, you're best off looking for an entirely different type of car. I think a lot of clothing items fall into this category.

[Anonymous No.13569929]

>>13569870
The idea isn't to squeeze myself into stretch pants. The idea is to allow ease of movement and to get a better fit around the waistband.

[Anonymous No.13569948]

>>13569870
The idea isn't to squeeze myself into stretch pants. The idea is to allow ease of movement and to get a better fit around the waistband. It's a lot easier to get full range of motion in a pair of pants when you have narrow legs. All you need is a little bit of breathing room and you're good to go. But when your legs are already thick, you need more breathing room and pants sometimes don't scale up that well. If you can get a normal fit that has just enough give at the limits, so that you're not staining the fabric or seams, you're good to go.

[Anonymous No.13569952]

>>13569913
>I think a lot of clothing items fall into this category.
Sorry, but I've read this post several times now and it makes no sense at all. You haven't actually made any comparisons, you're just talking about cars. I mean, I kiind of get where you're trying to go but it's impossible to make an argument against it.

>At certain points, the tool you use need to change depending on what you want to accomplish.
What is this whole thing meant to mean with regards to clothes and whether the price is reasonable or unreasonable? And like...same for the rest of your post... what does it have to do with clothes.

[Anonymous No.13569956]

>>13569903
Kek, I just copied and pasted what he wrote and added a past tense suffix. But,

>not wanting vag involved in the manufacturing process of your pants

[Anonymous No.13569964]

>>13569910
I'd argue that her ass isn't the focal point. It's her small waist and nice back.

[Anonymous No.13570015]

>>13569294
Weekday

[Anonymous No.13570022]

>>13569952
I was attempting to draw parallels to certain clothing items. Some people are saying that price is subjective, and it absolutely is. But price being subjective doesn't move the bar in terms of diminishing returns and what is objectively reasonable.

You can buy a cheap t-shirt that's comfortable and fits well. You can keep buying t-shirts that are made from increasingly more comfortable or more durable materials with better cuts, but you're going to reach a ceiling fairly soon. Why? Because it's a simple item and it was designed to be. It was never intended to be more and it's not a platform that takes well to people trying to do more with it. If you want to accomplish more with a t-shirt, either in terms of comfort, durability, you're better off choosing something that's not a t-shirt. Even in terms of style, you will reach a point where you will no longer have anything else to gain, faster than with other articles of clothing.

Now take a sports coat. A much more complex piece of clothing. You could spend much more time talking about fabrics, construction, details, function, etc. Is it casual, is it formal? Is it a hunting jacket, for example. Is it going to be rough like tweed or smooth like a business suit? Does the outer fabric match well with the interior liner. The fact that it's designed to be worn with as a layer with other garments is something that needs to be considered.

I can tell that this whole thing has been rambly but I at least hope that I've illustrated my idea well enough to be understood.

[Anonymous No.13570079]

>>13570022
The thing is that your opinion clearly only relies on your lack of knowledge / interest for the work of actual designers. Tee shirts can perfectly be very intricate pieces that elevate an outfit to another level

[Anonymous No.13570116]

>>13570022
No, I agree here, no problem. Analogies are overrated.

For me, I am a big Visvim fan. I think that the prices are reasonable, and let's forget about these pointless concepts of subjectivity and objectivity for now and just say what we mean to say without trying to shyly obscure it.

Obviously Visvim clothes have all the markers of high quality manufacturing and material. This already puts them in the mid to high-end range. But I'm not just looking for quality, because otherwise I would certainly look to other brands that are several times cheaper. Firstly, I really appreciate the design, aesthetic, and attention to detail, which I can't get from other brands. Secondly, I enjoy the fact that the clothes were made using traditional techniques. Not only do they give the clothes an interesting physical appearance and character, they give the clothes a symbolic aspect. They represent a traditional, artisan culture with a modern edge, and this makes them much more beautiful to me. Finally, I like that they're organically 'marketed' and are relatively exclusive, which means the price must be raised because they can't sell as many products. For whatever reason, that is appealing to me. I like to carry that around on my body.

This is my justification for why I would simply state that Visvim products are reasonably priced. Could someone make a similar justification for other brands like MASTERMIND WORLD? Not sincerely, beyond what I already proposed about rich people enjoying wearing unreasonably priced clothes. My justification may not be 'objective', but it's as good as for what someone day to day would call objective, we aren't arguing over metaphysics here.

[Anonymous No.13570142]

>>13570079
Show me one then.

[Anonymous No.13570155]

That is a huuuuge condom fade. She must be into BBC

[Anonymous No.13570182]

>>13569759
thanks for the thoughtful reply. its not validating everyone's subjective view, it's a market question: does this item sell? if yes, its reasonable/fair. you are taking the concept of "reasonable" for granted. i dont like using the word because its already loaded. reasonable with respect to what?

and i didnt include this factor in my analysis but i agree with your point about exclusivity. some brands cultivate exclusivity by pricing their products out of the reach of many. but one can easily chalk that up as the value of exclusivity.

>>13569844
not rotate, but i mentioned it in my post, every two weeks. its not as if they move everything out and all new things in every two weeks, but they have new product on the shelf that often.

>>13570116
its not pointless. objective = the literal costs of production. subjective = abstract aspects of the garment. the portion of the price that myself and others *believe* a garment is worth. you can have two paintings that are identical in terms of how much the canvas, frame, and oils cost, but they can fetch a difference in price in the millions of dollars. the objective value of the paintings is the same, their subjective valuation is different. i am saying what i mean here, there is nothing to obscure.

[Anonymous No.13570214]

>>13569759
>Supreme would be completely unsuccessful if they didn't sell their products at such unreasonable products

way to out yourself as a dumbass who doesnt know shit

supreme is NOT expensive at retail

[Anonymous No.13570244]

>>13569139
I have a 29in waist at 6'1 and have an affinity for hi bar back squats.

I only wear pants these days. Not denim.

[Anonymous No.13570277]

>>13570182
> it's a market question: does this item sell? if yes, its reasonable/fair.
This is implying that the market is a priori reasonable or fair, which it isn't. I'm not saying that the market (for clothing at least) isn't usually reasonable, simply that it isn't inherently reasonable. Again, returning to the example of Supreme, it's undeniable that the appeal of Supreme clothes lies simply in the fact that there's no way to justify the price point. Does something not require reason to be considered reasonable? In fact, the only reason IS that it's unreasonable, which really proves perfectly my point that the market is capable of being unreasonable.

>its not pointless. objective = the literal costs of production. subjective = abstract aspects of the garment.
But surely you have already been implicitly arguing that the 'objective' value of a product is determined by its market price? Is the objective value, like a share price, not determined by what people are willing to buy or sell it for? So why now are you stating that it's the costs of production? You're not talking about objectivity here at all, you're speaking purely in material terms, which isn't equal to objective ones. A Picasso original cannot seriously be considered 'objectively' to be worth only the costs of production, when it is imbued with so much historical and cultural significance. That isn't a subjective point, nor does it have anything to do with material.

[Anonymous No.13570280]

>>13570214
>way to out yourself as a dumbass who doesnt know shit
Maybe because I don't give a shit about shitty brands made for bumboys like you? It literally makes no difference to my point, now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.13570472]

>>13570155
All women are

[Anonymous No.13570532]

>>13570277
again, you are letting your own personal levels of comfort or perspectives on what is or isnt expensive color your interpretation of the market. is there demand for x product at y price? if yes, thats all you need to know. again i ask, reasonable with respect to what? ill also echo what the other poster said about supreme, its not expensive. if you think supreme's price points are not justifiable, you might die of shock upon browsing hermes' online store.

>but sure you have already been implicitly arguing that the 'objective' value of a product is determined by its market price?
no, i am saying that a product price contains two parts: a) the objective, measurable costs of production and b) what people are willing to pay beyond that

>So why now are you stating that it's the costs of production?
no, you just have poor reading comprehension. i am stating that this a framework for analyzing garment prices. there is one part that is the raw cost of materials and labor, then there is another part that has to do with subjective factors

>imbued with so much historical and cultural significance. That isn't a subjective point, nor does it have anything to do with material
yes, that is subjective. significant to whom? historical to whom? subjective humans that decide history and culture are important. thats not an objective property of the *object* itself, which is canvas and oil, its a mental attachment projected onto the object. even if its by a great number of people, its still a subjective. individual judgments may be subjective, but get enough people together to agree on something and i would call it intersubjectivity. there are similarly significant, if not more historically and culturally significant objects and paintings that do no command as high a price as picasso, for example goya.

[Anonymous No.13570550]

ASCOLOUR MAKES THE BEST QUALITY TO PRICE RATION T SHIRTS

PERIOD

FIGHT ME

[Anonymous No.13570628]

>>13570550
I've never heard of them. I like their prices. What would you compare their quality to?

[Anonymous No.13570631]

>>13568537
agree except for socks. gotta have some nice ass socks. fuck target fruit of the loom shit

[Anonymous No.13570793]

>>13569305
it seems more like you memed yourself

[Anonymous No.13570851]

People in 1940 had clothes WAY better than most of what is made today: but they didn't have dozens of fits. They had a couple and a lot of their stuff was made by the wife/mother.
The choice we have collectively made is to have lots of okay clothes rather than a "capsule wardrobe" of superb clothes.

[Anonymous No.13571113]

>>13570142

[Anonymous No.13571115]

>>13570142
also

[Anonymous No.13571117]

>>13570142
or

[Anonymous No.13571123]

>>13570280
Well supreme is tremendously successful without unreasonable pricing, so your example is completely irrelevant and you also showed off your lack of knowledge of the market. Since your point did not rely on any objective and verifiable (apart from what was obviously false kek) then yeah it makes a difference. Fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.13571128]

>>13570280
Well supreme is tremendously successful without unreasonable pricing, so your example is completely irrelevant and you also showed off your lack of knowledge of the market. Since your point did not rely on any objective and verifiable fact (apart from the one that was obviously false kek) then yeah it makes a difference. Fuckwit.

[Anonymous No.13571145]

>>13571113
>>13571115
>>13571117
Thanks anon, I needed that.

[Anonymous No.13571164]

>>13570532
>no, you just have poor reading comprehension
We can either be civil or I can start relentlessly tearing your asshole apart. I never lose so...

>ou are letting your own personal levels of comfort or perspectives on what is or isnt expensive color your interpretation of the market. is there demand for x product at y price? if yes, thats all you need to know.
No I'm not, and all I need to know for what reason?

>no, i am saying that a product price contains two parts: a) the objective, measurable costs of production and b) what people are willing to pay beyond that
Why are you arguing this as if I have ever disagreed? I can only assume you are implicitly making another point, because otherwise you're not even arguing against me. We're talking about VALUE, not costs.

>yes, that is subjective. significant to whom? historical to whom?
Why does Egyptian cotton cost more than South Asian cotton? Is there any way to decide its quality that isn't a matter of opinion? And that reflects in the cost of the material - its apparently 'objective' measure of value.

>but get enough people together to agree on something and i would call it intersubjectivity.
Nobody needs to decide or agree on anything for its value to be substantiated. A room full of people staring at the Mona Lisa may all unanimously decide that they don't like it, but they're incapable of denying its value. It's a value that exists FIRMLY outside of their personal judgments, in the symbolic order itself. It doesn't matter how shit I think it is, I cannot help but see its value (and I'm not referring to any potential for profit), simply value that is inherent to the painting. It has NO VALUE to me, I don't like art, but the symbolic attachment to it isn't dependent on that. I'm not interested in discussing the semantics of subjectivity and objectivity because they're advanced metaphysical concepts. I'm perfectly capable of making my point without them.

[Anonymous No.13571174]

>>13570532
> reasonable with respect to what?
I already stated what I consider to be reasonable above. If a person can make a sincere justification for the price point then it can be considered reasonable. Literally able to reason.

>>13571128
It doesn't matter who's actually selling the product, you fucking idiot. The product is still Supreme and it sells for unreasonable prices. My god, imagine actually having a sniveling little pipsqueak brain like yours. I guarantee that your life will end in a horrifying and excruciatingly desperate suicide.

[Anonymous No.13571220]

>>13571164
>We can either be civil or I can start relentlessly tearing your asshole apart. I never lose so...
What a tremendous faggot

>>13571174
Topkek you are genuinely the least intelligent person I have met in a long time. I tried to explain it to you in simple words for your simple mind, and yet you still found a way to proudly come up with more pointless nonsense

Don't worry about my life though, with a good looking face, a toned body, world class uni education, contacts in worldwide firms and an IQ that has one more digit than yours I'll be just fine. I'm concerned for you though. You're going to hurt yourself with all that edge and projecting

Also please keep trying to hide your lack of arguments with random ad hominem attempts, it's entertaining to read

[Anonymous No.13571229]

>>13569001
>First of all, not all Africans monthly salary is $8, you racist enormous ignorant fuck
This. They're not all rich.

[Anonymous No.13571231]

>>13571145
You're welcome, my summerpleb friend. Hit me up if you need more entertainment material !

[Anonymous No.13571237]

>>13571229

[Anonymous No.13571245]

>>13568537
>t. Poorfag

Materials in cheap underwear like t-shirts are awful. I believed the cheap t-shirt meme but tried some higher quality fabrics after a couple of years. Will never go back.

[Anonymous No.13571259]

>>13571220
I'm not worried about your shitty life. I think it's a good thing that you're inevitably going to kill yourself, the real tragedy would be if when the time came you didn't have the balls to go through with it.

>random ad hominem attempts
wow le intellectual here. You don't need to tell me that I'm insulting you, I know I'm doing that. Only a fucking moron EVER whines about le ad hominem. I'm just insulting you, because you're a fucking idiot with no taste and no brains. No amount of money will ever change that. I GUARANTEE I am better looking, in better shape, more intelligent, more educated (and to that end, have had a more privileged education than you). And you know even if I didn't have all of that, nothing would change the fact that you have no taste and no brains.

[Anonymous No.13571260]

>>13571259
>Not knowing what ad hominem means in the context of an argument
>Being that delusional
Ahahaha I'm starting to wonder if I'm getting trolled since the beginning

[Anonymous No.13571261]

Wow.

127 posts and a whole lot of words for one person to still not understand the very first thing you learn when getting into fashion.

"Price is irrelevant."

[Anonymous No.13571264]

>>13571260
I've made all of the points I've wanted to make, and any legitimate point made against me has been argued against properly. The insults are just decoration on top of my arguments, not in place of them. If I'm insulting you I want you to know it, not reduce its meaning by involving it into some argument.

[Anonymous No.13571276]

>>13571264
>I've made all of the points I've wanted to make
>any legitimate point made against me has been argued against properly
BWAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.13571288]

>>13569293
What’s that video called again?

[Anonymous No.13571335]

>>13571261
>"Price is irrelevant."
Nonsense.

[Anonymous No.13571770]

>>13569305
gotta be bait.

[Anonymous No.13571816]

>>13571770
jokes on you

[Anonymous No.13571826]

>>13570628
ive never owned any expensive t shirts but ive washed my ascolour shirt like 50 times and no pilling its still perfect

[Anonymous No.13571935]

>>13571816
Well to be fair, in this case the joke would rather be on you