/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.6623843]

So let's talk about "quality".

A lot of you justify high prices because of "quality", but just what do you define as quality?

Quality in the sense of nicer looking stitching and details such as buttons/zippers being more elaborate is one thing that i suppose is nice.

But whenever anyone brings up a low end brand people all start whining about it falling apart and wearing out.


I've been wearing cheap clothes all my life and none of them other than shoes ever "fall apart" or "wear out".

Do all of you roll around in dump trucks full of gravel or what?

[Anonymous No.6623860]

>>6623843

low end brands DO fall apart more. Just because yours don't, doesn't mean everyone has that luck.

Go to a kmart/walmart/whatevercountrypoorpeoplestore and look at the piles of shirts they have there. I guarantee you'll see pulled threads, missewn parts etc.

[Anonymous No.6623946]

The whole "it'll fall apart" thing is fallacious and I've always pointed that out when I've seen it posted. On some occasions you will have things fall apart, particularly along the seams, but it's not all that common and not why you should buy more expensive clothes.

>what does quality mean
Literally everything about the garment. The fabric itself (the amount of material used to construct it, the density or lushness of it, the hand feel, the durability of it), the types of fabrics selected (cheap polyester vs polyamide for instance), the dyes used, the time and effort put into assembling the garment, the neatness and density of the seaming, the way it fits, the way it holds up over time after repeated washes, the metals used in the rivets and buttons (this is more obvious just by looking at it than you might think), and also the wage the workers and designers are paid.

[Anonymous No.6623957]

>>6623843
It's like a '94 honda civic versus a fresh new Maybach. They'll both get you to California.

[Anonymous No.6623963]

>>6623946
I should also note that price doesn't always correlate with quality. They're different things and there are different ways of running up costs during production (true religion spending over 9000 hours sewing gay shit on back pockets, paying designers exorbitant wages, etc)

[Anonymous No.6623991]

What are some brands you guys can recommend where you are almost only paying for the garment's quality and not the name of the fag who made it?

[Anonymous No.6624014]

>>6623991
There's a lot. Either way you've got to hit sales to get your money's worth

[Anonymous No.6624019]

>>6624014
so name some.

[Anonymous No.6624049]

/fa/ has a massive superiority complex. They enjoy nagging at others about "quality" because it justifies their own expensive purchases and makes them feel better.

[Anonymous No.6624052]

>>6624019
No, go fuck yourself.

[twerk it No.6624042]

go drop a pair of levi's 501 into a bucket and tell me what color the water turns
fwiw my pbjs never bled in water. they didn't last as many wears as 4.5 pairs of levi's probably would have, but they did withstand frequent washing without fading, they did last over 900 wears with modest repairs, and they did survive falling off of a fruity vespa clone at ~20mph with nothing more than a knee blowout and some scrapes on the rivets. 10/10 would buy again if i wanted jeans

[Anonymous No.6624056]

>>6624052
i'm sure you have lots of friends

[Anonymous No.6624066]

>>6624042
>my pbjs never bled in water
really? Were they indigo dyed?

[Anonymous No.6624080]

poorfags always deliberately refuse to acknowledge the fact that low quality shit LOOKS cheap and nasty.

18 months of use out of real english made shoes beats 3 months of use out of glossy, creased, collapsing, cardboard-lined, plastic-soled, polyurethane garbage.

[twerk it No.6624075]

>>6624066
of course. indigo is not water soluble.

[Anonymous No.6624077]

>>6624056
And you're a pathetic whining cunt who want everything spoonfed.

[Anonymous No.6624092]

It's be nice to do this scientifically, ten white ts of varying cost, lined up and compared.

[Anonymous No.6624102]

>>6624075
so wth does levis use to dye their jeans?

[Anonymous No.6624101]

>>6623991
the other guy doesn't know b/c he's only been tot he mall

James Perse and Reigning Champ make great basics. Not so much for trousers but you can go to epaulet for those

[Anonymous No.6624112]

if you are buying something "quality" the material will feel better against your skin and it will fit really well

you can even see differences of quality within a single brand. i have a hanes t-shirt that fits alright but the cotton feels rough and thick, but my boyfriend has a hanes t-shirt that feels soft.

[twerk it No.6624114]

>>6624080
i think your time scales are a little bit off. traditionally constructed leather shoes with a welted outsole could last most of the rest of your life or even outlast you with proper care and some resoling. i'm sure you'll get more than three months out of aldos too.

here's the pair of 1,500+ wears rick heels i keep posting. every single day for five years less the days they were in the cobbler's shop. beautiful :')

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624109]

>what do you define as quality?

a combination of things

a compelling concept, innovative or distinctive construction, well designed fabric (aesthetically pleasing weave, texture, and color.), comfort, ease of use, the shape or how it looks on the body.

garments i can learn from i also consider to be high quality, if the person who created it thought of something i wouldnt have, or didnt think of.

[twerk it No.6624127]

>>6624102
also indigo, but indigo isn't just indigo, there's a lot of variety and even then the process they use and the additional chemicals they use are totally different.

my pbj's use more indigo than anything levi's makes, they dyed it using a rope dye process that gives better fiber penetration, and they used proper fixatives to ensure that the indigo is as bound to the fabric as possible. levi's doesn't. that's why they mostly lost color only on areas of wear.

[Anonymous No.6624134]

>>6624127
You're retarded. Rope dyed denim bleeds even more than the hard washed made in mexico shit. That's why suede or white leather will get marked fast.

[Anonymous No.6624135]

>>6624127
yeah i soaked my levis once and the water was blackish. thx for the info

does anyone know if acne jeans will bleed when soaked (black ones)

[Anonymous No.6624136]

>>6624127
>only on areas of wear

like YOUR DICK ahaaaa...

[twerk it No.6624151]

>>6624134
what? hard washed jeans won't mark shoes because they've washed excess indigo away. any indigo dyed garment will leave marks because indigo is so susceptible to abrasion.

>>6624136
>implying my baby dick caused any fades
i don't even have to tuck

[Anonymous No.6624159]

You have to be able to use common sense when throwing tons of money around on clothes, like sometimes some shit just looks really thin and easily torn (lots of rick shit for example), so even though it is expensive it probably isn't as premium as the price suggests. With that said, if you're willing to spend more dosh on clothes, than you'll definitely find obvious differences in the "quality." Also, the buying experience itself is just better, you can expect something will fit how it's supposed to and not seem a size larger or smaller than you ordered it in or w/e. Things stop being about "quality" and more about design once you hit the 300/400 mark, I'm supposing. I really like Wolverine 1000 mile boots, but they don't really fit proportionally with the rest of my body (wide shoes my nigga, I need dem narrow chaussures), so I would be willing to spend 100/200 more on shoes that are about the same quality but have superior design that fits me better.

And sometimes you just have to spend more money to get the style you want. If you really love goof ninja, you can't replicate it cheaply, you'd need to spend quite a bit more on clothes than you're comfortable with. It sucks but to some people it's worth it to achieve that level of self expression and blah blah blah.

With that I still think people shouldn't exclusively get pricey clothes, like I think spending more than 100 on a dress shirt is fucking ridiculous because rarely is there a notable difference in design or quality. Shit, I even have an oxford or two from Asos, but that's because I'm not a retard and was able to judge whether or not the modeled picture was "too good to be true" or whatever.

Relevant side note: I had a pair of sneakers from Aldo that I bought 2 months ago, I've worn them sparingly, but one of the shoes is already like separating from the sole of the shoe, it's fucking frustrating. I decided "fuck it" and expedited a pair of similar looking y-3 sneakers while they were on sale.

[Anonymous No.6624171]

>>6623860
if you really want to see what unquality looks like try looking at the kmart shoe section. it's awful.

[Anonymous No.6624168]

>>6623957

if I was caught in the zombie apocalypse and I had both those cars in my garage and no possibility of replacement parts I'd take the 94 civic

[Anonymous No.6624183]

>>6623843
Quality pertains to the experience of using the object, too.
A quality mainline tee might look flimsy, but wearing those fabrics & cuts is a different experience than downmarket basics.

[twerk it No.6624188]

>>6624159
>like sometimes some shit just looks really thin and easily torn (lots of rick shit for example), so even though it is expensive it probably isn't as premium as the price suggests.

this is a question of durability, not quality. rick's tissue jersey is high quality in spite of lacking durability.

>Things stop being about "quality" and more about design once you hit the 300/400 mark,

this is so simplistic. a good suit jacket will cost a lot more than this at retail and even the cheapest good suiting will have a wide gap in terms of design and execution from something that costs more than your first car.

rest of this post is just you establishing tropes to justify having asos in your wardrobe tbh. i'm not saying that you can't have asos in your wardrobe, just that comments like "like I think spending more than 100 on a dress shirt is fucking ridiculous" are a bit silly m8

[Anonymous No.6624214]

>>6624168
That's great on account of how many spare Honda parts you'll find on the road but you're not in a Zombie Apocalypse, you're in late-capitalist America or Europe and you'd probably prefer to ride in style with a banging sound system and seats that keep the crack of your ass just cool enough to prevent sweat from ever forming.

[Anonymous No.6624257]

>>6624188
>this is a question of durability, not quality. rick's tissue jersey is high quality in spite of lacking durability.
"Hey, it's really quality, it just doesn't last long."
Like sure, I understand the point, but it'd still be ridiculous if someone spent a fuckton on something that doesn't last. Just because some people are willing to spend as much just on one meal at a nice restaurant doesn't really justify it on this end.

>this is so simplistic. a good suit jacket will cost a lot more than this at retail and even the cheapest good suiting will have a wide gap in terms of design and execution from something that costs more than your first car.
Yeah, okay, I'll concede this here, I wasn't considering suits at the time of the first post.

>rest of this post is just you establishing tropes to justify having asos in your wardrobe tbh. i'm not saying that you can't have asos in your wardrobe, just that comments like "like I think spending more than 100 on a dress shirt is fucking ridiculous" are a bit silly m8
Unlike you, I'm still anonymous on 4chan, so I don't care to justify having Asos in my own wardrobe, no one knows me here anyway. I'll stand by the dress shirt comment, mind you that my definition of a dress shirt is something that you actually wear exclusively to "dress up" with, like a solid white shirt or some gingham shit. The only time I could see spending more than 100 would be for something that has some really cool and unique shit with the collar, like something from older Thom Browne stuff. My current goals in life involve me "dressing up" on a day to day basis, even then I can't see myself spending that much on dress shirts.

[twerk it No.6624273]

>>6624257
i could spend more than $100 on fabric and notions before making the first snip into the bolt, let alone drafting it out, prototyping and hiring only the finest shirtmakers in the business. *you* don't think it's worth it, which is fine, but no one really cares about your personal cost:value analysis. to suggest that no one anywhere should ever pay that much or charge that much is silly.

[Anonymous No.6624274]

>>6624214

No, I think the Civic would be less finicky and wouldn't be as prone to breaking down due to poor conditions. I'm not even talking about the amount of unneeded attention I'd get in an expensive car. There was this guy who sold his house and traveled across the country in his Lamborghini and he spent another fortune just keeping it running. Meanwhile the Volvos and econoboxes don't give a fuck.

[Anonymous No.6624284]

>>6624273
Oh shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.6624292]

>>6624274
Fair point. I much prefer the older Mercs, and some of the older Volvos are on par with (then) higher end cars in terms of reliability and construction.

[Anonymous No.6624286]

>>6624257
>but it'd still be ridiculous if someone spent a fuckton on something that doesn't last. J
kinda like drugs liquor cigarettes fast food etc etc....

>"don't spend your money on this, spend your money on what I spend *my* money on"
is what you're saying

[Anonymous No.6624296]

>>6624273
No, I'm sure that there's no legitimate reason to spend that much on shirts, by suggesting to people they shouldn't pay that much on something that doesn't even have extra cool fashiony bullshit design to it, I'll probably save people quite a bit of money that they can then use to go to college so they don't end up as worthless and spoiled as you.

>>6624286
>kinda like drugs liquor cigarettes fast food etc etc....
Yeah, I advise you don't do that shit either.

>is what you're saying
Yeah, I wouldn't spend my money on shit if I didn't think it was a good idea, so of course I think others should do it too. Grow a pair before you start throwing that "omg ur a bully" bullshit around and feeding off of guttural responses.

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624297]

>>6624273

>*you* don't think it's worth it, which is fine

thats the crux of it right here, i feel like i see an argument rise out of this every time i read a thread.

people dont realize that their values are exclusive to themselves, and start to form conclusions about how other people should think/act.

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624300]

>>6624296

>>6624297

[Anonymous No.6624306]

>>6624297
In this context, there's no way you can justify spending outside of the parameters I was suggesting, and I'm being very loose with my utility calculus here.

[Anonymous No.6624318]

>>6624306
You're also dealing with artists, not engineers. You need to give them creative leeway or the end result won't be up to par. If you can't afford the creative leeway one designer needs to express themself, find another designer.

[Anonymous No.6624313]

>>6624306
I sound pretentious here, please recognize that I'm not actually a faggot, kthx. :smooch:

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624323]

>>6624306

yes there is, i just have a different definition of quality than you do.

[Anonymous No.6624327]

>>6624313
uhuh

[Anonymous No.6624345]

>>6624318

>You're also dealing with artists, not engineers. You need to give them creative leeway or the end result won't be up to par.

So engineers can't have creative leeway and the process of clothesmaking does not involve constructing something to meet a need or a set of goals?

I must have forgotten how engineering is all about feeding spreadsheets into The Brain from I, Robot and then having it make whatever you want out of textureless silver metal.

[Anonymous No.6624353]

>>6624345
It's a different mentality, that's all.

[Anonymous No.6624363]

>>6624323
Or you're just financially irresponsible, that seems more likely.

[Anonymous No.6624354]

>>6624318
Sure, but keep in mind I was talking about dress shirts specifically, I know this is kind of lame and a more general topic would be cooler but w/e. At some point it stops being creative and it's just marketing tactics.

For example, here's this Ann Demeulemeester shirt. I'm being generous by using this example because it does actually have design to it there in the collar, right? This shirt was originally sold for like 400 dollars, which is fucking stupid considering the only thing anyone will ever notice is the collar thing. You can find it on Yoox for like 200 now, but still, you're paying for a fucking collar.

>>6624345
Also, I agree with this guy.

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624370]

>>6624354

no, youre paying for the shirt, not just the collar. every shirt will be different than the next if its made by a different pattern maker and fitted to a different fit model.

youre paying for the design.

>At some point it stops being creative and it's just marketing tactics.

great, draw your line anywhere you want, it only applies to you.

[Anonymous No.6624371]

>>6624345
>So engineers can't have creative leeway and the process of clothesmaking does not involve constructing something to meet a need or a set of goals?

it's not that it's just that you nerds are all about "muhh efficiency" so you couldn't comprehend why anyone would want to spend so much on a shirt

+ you've been conditioned by your parents to believe that $5-20 is what you should spend on a shirt, anything more and you're being ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.6624374]

>>6624354
There is soooo much more to that shirt than the collar.
You really think that what gives a detail value is when other people notice it? You think you're paying for the collar? No, no, no.
I'm sorry, I haven't the energy to be polite and expository about this.

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624378]

>>6624363

nope, doing great. i spend my money in all the places i want to, thanks for your concern.

[Anonymous No.6624386]

why buy x when y looks similar and is a fraction of the price

because x is not y and someone wants it

[Anonymous No.6624411]

>>6624370
>>6624374
I know there's more to it than just the collar, but this shirt is set apart only by the collar. Sure, the buttons are probably genuine horn, who gives a shit, you can find that at J. Crew. Sure, the cotton is probably comfy as fuck, again, you can find that at J. Crew. I'll admit that J. Crew probably won't fit as nicely, but you can shop around and find something with all 3 of those qualities elsewhere.
>You really think that what gives a detail value is when other people notice it?
Not just other people, but the buyers themselves. I don't care what others think of my clothes usually, though I try not to be autistic, I mostly do it for me. This shirt wouldn't do it for me, it's not really that quality for the price and other people would be lying to themselves if they reached a different conclusion.

Keep in mind that I'm definitely not financially conservative, especially when it comes to fashion, but after a while it becomes this thing where you're just a stupid, white, exclusively English speaking asshole that spends money on fucking nothing.

[Anonymous No.6624429]

>>6624386
this

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624433]

>>6624411

>you can find that at J. Crew

nope

>but you can shop around and find something with all 3 of those qualities elsewhere.

hint: you cant

find me the exact same shirt. go ahead. I will buy them both and do exact knockoffs of each shirt. I bet when i line the patterns up to each other i can find variations.

>other people would be lying to themselves if they reached a different conclusion.

this basically all inaccurate

[Anonymous No.6624455]

>>6624371

You're just stereotyping engineers as people who don't really care about what they wear.

I'm saying that, the process of designing a garment or an outfit: picking out the materials, deciding on a visual aesthetic, balancing appearance with practicality, making it and revising it -- this process is not so different from designing a car, a shopping cart, or even sitting down and writing code. To say that engineering isn't a creative process is ignorant. To me, there's little that separates a good engineer from a good designer.

Of course this similarity is more apparent in certain styles of clothing than others.

[Anonymous No.6624477]

>>6624363
What if I told you that you sound like a pretentious dick coming into a board for the discussion of fashion to tell people to not buy clothes, acting all high and mighty because you don't spend more than 100 dollars on any clothes? Would you go into a Chinese restaurant to tell people to stop eating Chinese food?

You really want to tell people how to live their lives? As if you have so much fucking life experience. Give me a break. You're probably in your 20s, just like most of the rest of us. You're not some wise sage.

So what if I spend my own money on my own clothes? Is it wrong to enjoy myself?

We don't buy clothes for just no reason whatsoever. Some use it as a hobby. It might not be the best hobby ever, but it can be really fun. Sure, there are different things to do, but it's easier said than done to just quit what YOU like doing. It's very easy to say to "stop spending money" and all that jazz. But in the real world, things don't always work out YOUR way.

People are going to continue to buy clothes whether you like it or not, and you're not doing anyone any favors by acting condescending and talking down to people, telling them to stop. You're really full of yourself if you think you can convince people to stop doing something which they enjoy by making a few posts on an internet message board.

Get over yourself.

I usually don't make negative posts, but really, you should just stop posting here. Seriously.

On a final note, we're not all extremely irresponsible people. A lot of us know something called moderation.

[Anonymous No.6624514]

>>6624433
Mind you that I wasn't talking about the collar bullshit, that's probably unique (if tryhard), I'm talking about the quality of the shirt with the material, fit, etc. So, going off of that alone and not the collar shit because w/e, here's what I found:
http://www.jcrew.com/mens_category/shirts/washedfavoriteshirts/PRDOVR~68015/68015.jsp
This would be a fine substitute if you're wanting a cotton dress shirt with a similar texture to the material and all that bullshit. Hell, it'd even fit just fine and probably be comfy.
Sure, there's going to be variations, but who gives a flying fuck? The shirt of J. Crew would then, arguably, be just as artistically valuable because no one could replicate the exact pattern if they tried, but it's just a white cotton button down shirt. Shit dude, you're not even like expressing yourself through fashion or w/e at this point.

>>6624477
>on any clothes
You fucked up, dude. I'm talking exclusively about dress shirts there because exclusively dress shirts have no artistic merit beyond 100 dollars.
And yeah, some people should tell others how to live their lives, because some people are fucking retarded. And spending money on nothing is never good, regardless of whether or not you're enjoying yourself, you'd probably just develop some shopping addiction at that point and fuck yourself hardcore.
>Would you go into a Chinese restaurant to tell people to stop eating Chinese food?
Hell, I told all my friends to stop eating meat because it's objectively wrong and unhealthy to do so, but I'm not socially retarded enough to do what you're saying specifically.
>I usually don't make negative posts, but really, you should just stop posting here. Seriously.
No, you should. 4chan has never been welcoming to pussies, and you seem like the biggest fucking pussy I've met thus far on this board.

[Anonymous No.6624526]

>>6624477
>>6624514
Oh, also, I wasn't acting "high and mighty," I was pretty much just stating what I go by and what I think others should go by. At the end of the day I recognize I still spend too much on clothes, not something I'm proud of.

[Anonymous No.6624531]

>>6624477

Clothing gets a particularly weird response from the uninitiated because it's seen primarily as a practicality thing. It's something everyone does so it's easy to compare yourself and how much you spent on clothes. Whereas if someone races sailboats or whatever, there's no point of comparison because it's not something that people think they know anything about.

Anyway what I've found is that, in terms of any hobby, if you aren't as passionate about it you aren't likely to appreciate the higher cost stuff. It's the same with practically any interest.

>How much did you spend on your computer? I saw a 500GB at Costco for like $200!

>How come you paid that much for a model airplane? I saw one at Radioshack for $15!

At the end of the day the $400 sneakers with the gold letters on the side are not for everyone and that's fine.

[Anonymous No.6624542]

>>6624514
>exclusively dress shirts have no artistic merit beyond 100 dollars
Okay, I'll ask you a question.

Have you physically seen every dress shirt ever produced -- and sold at retail for more than 100 dollars?

Yes or no answer only.

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624549]

>>6624514

>So, going off of that alone and not the collar shit because w/e, here's what I found: http://www.jcrew.com/mens_category/shirts/washedfavoriteshirts/PRDOVR~68015/68015.jsp

sorry, just going by the measurements its different.

>The shirt of J. Crew would then, arguably, be just as artistically valuable because no one could replicate the exact pattern if they tried, but it's just a white cotton button down shirt.

sure, maybe to you.

my only point is that youre free to have your own opinion about clothing, but dont bother extending that opinion to how other people should dress to define the quality in their clothes. its personal, unique to you.

[tomato No.6624552]

>>6624433
yo
wear could i get fabrics like the kind you get online? i hear you get yours at a local place. i would do the same but i live in a shit area...

[tomato No.6624556]

>>6624552
where*

[Anonymous No.6624563]

>>6624542
"Have you physically seen every bottle of snake oil ever produced? No? Then you can't judge the quality of snake oil at different price points."
Fuck off, faggot.

>>6624549
Nooooo no no, I don't want to be understood as some dick who's telling other people how to dress, I'm just saying that at some point, with certain areas of fashion, people are spending money on nothing. In this specific case with the Ann D. shirt, I wouldn't be too judgmental if a friend bought it because they could argue that they couldn't find anything decently fitting and such with that kind of collar and they wanted that specific collar. I would, however, be pissed if they went and bought some plain white Charvet bullshit. I guess the lines got blurred at some point so I'm a faggot, w/e.

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624575]

>>6624563

>I would, however, be pissed if they went and bought some plain white Charvet bullshit.

thats exactly what im talking about. maybe he has a different standard for quality and wants a different look than you do. that doesnt mean his choice is bullshit, it means he has different preferences than you, which is totally fine.

>>6624552

denver fabrics if youre in the us. but avoid buying online, and if you do, order swatches before hand. its really important to be able to look at fabrics in person and be able to feel them and see them in real life to judge quality.

[Anonymous No.6624596]

>>6624549

>to define the quality in their clothes. its personal, unique to you.

Let me play devil's advocate for a second here.

1. The concept of quality is interesting from a philosophy standpoint, and if I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying the concept of quality is entirely subjective. I'd say this is equivalent to saying that the concept of theft is entirely subjective. I think it's entirely possible to have a reasonable and unreasonable definition of both terms.

2. If there are two identical garments but one is slightly different in terms of stitching, but costs say 10x more, I think it's reasonable to say that the quality of the more expensive does not justify its price, generally speaking. This is because the asking cost is way out of proportion of what it took to make it. I completely understand that t shirts that drape a certain way or have an interesting cut may be worth way more, to you if not everyone, and this seems reasonable. but you're saying that how much the variation is worth is entirely up to the individual, no discussion allowed, and there is no such thing as a generally reasonable or unreasonable cost. I don't agree with that.

[Anonymous No.6624599]

>>6624575
But why should I have standards in the first place if apparently everyone's opinion is correct? Some people's standards say that they should only wear wrangler shit from Wal Mart and I think everyone here would agree that's dumb, but if we apply your reasoning then that guy is /fa/ as fuck.

[tomato No.6624605]

>>6624575
thanks. do you need a specific machine to make seams?

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624622]

>>6624596

>I'd say this is equivalent to saying that the concept of theft is entirely subjective.

its not. whoever has an apple stolen loses an apple.

people define quality in a multitude of ways that are affected by their interests, hobbies, working, and life experiences among other things, and since no one's life is exactly the same, no one ever has the exact same definition of quality.

>If there are two identical garments but one is slightly different in terms of stitching, but costs say 10x more, I think it's reasonable to say that the quality of the more expensive does not justify its price, generally speaking.

Sure, but more often than not, in the garment industry, if something costs 10x more, there are many more differences in the garments that meet the eye.

>there is no such thing as a generally reasonable or unreasonable cost. I don't agree with that.

thats fine, i dont expect everyone to agree with my viewpoints. i mean if you personally feel that the cost of a product is unreasonable, dont pay for it.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6624633]

diverging from the autism...

>>6624354
found an ann d stockist in auckland!
#hola

will report back on exceptional quality B)

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624636]

>>6624599

>But why should I have standards in the first place if apparently everyone's opinion is correct?

because personal standards are for the betterment of yourself and achieving your personal goals. it has nothing to do with what some dude that shops at k-mart is.

>if we apply your reasoning then that guy is /fa/ as fuck.

not to me personally, but maybe to other people who empathize with his style.

>>6624605

to sew woven fabrics, set zippers, and baste stitch, you need a single needle lockstitch machine. to sew knit seams, it helps to have an overlock machine. to hem knits it helps to have a coverstitch, and if youre doing lots of home sewing, it would be good to get an iron, ironing board, and a tailor ham

[Anonymous No.6624646]

>>6623991
uniqlo
american apparel

[Daniel de Nîmes No.6624663]

There are cheap low-grade clothes that are highly rugged and durable, OP.

They're durable not because there was a high degree of workmanship that went into them. They;re durable because they were designed to be.

Case and point: Military BDU's. They're designed to be cheap and easy to mass produce, but also highly functional.

Another example: doc martens. Cheap corrected grain leather, huge clunky rubber sole... there's nothing pretty or subtle about them... nothing that suggests craftsmanship or artistry. But they're durable as fuck.

[Anonymous No.6624657]

>>6623991

Probably taking your question too literally but I'd liketo see a list of profit margins by company.

But you can buy some super hipster made in NYC shit and practically only pay for the labor and materials but it'll still be super expensive and people may still buy it for the brand name.

[tomato No.6624670]

>>6624636
>tfw i'm gonna have to pay thousands of stacks just to make a few pieces of clothing

[Anonymous No.6624693]

>>6624636
A'ight. I kind of don't see the point in furthering this because it's not really to the betterment of either of us and I honestly don't see your position as silly, I just disagree on the basis of personal standards and I feel the need to control everyone and everything so yeah.

[banana No.6624702]

>>6624670

[Anonymous No.6624707]

>>6624670

a stack is 100

if you meant to say that you're paying that much, then we're gonna have some serious disagreements on what you're spending your money on

[Anonymous No.6624718]

>>6624702
top lel

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624720]

>>6624670

take a sewing class and use their machines. honestly random home machines are more trouble than theyre worth. get a juki/consew/pfaff/nakajima or 70s-80s japan made industrial machine on craigslist for $100-400

then just get patterns for simple woven shirts and get some cotton poplin (no poly) and cut and sew man

>>6624693

sure man, i feel u

[Anonymous No.6624723]

>>6624707
stop attacking random people on the internet

[Anonymous No.6624732]

>>6624723

stop attacking random people attacking random people on the internet

[tomato No.6624734]

>>6624702
yo
i made this for you a couple days ago

[Anonymous No.6624731]

[Anonymous No.6624738]

>>6624732
thats not funny
i know you want to keep posting about ur internet autism fight but you don't have to bring random people into it just to get replies

its just stupid

[Anonymous No.6624747]

Quality has 3 parts:
Material durability
Material aesthetic
Construction

Just because something is designer doesn't mean it has construction or durability. It means that the aesthetic value of the item is very high. This is not to say designer items can't be very durable, but a pair of $200-$300 red wings goodyear welted will definitely last longer than a pair of designer boots with a glued sole and fashion zippers on the sides.

This isn't a big deal though because high fashion is generally a rich person's hobby, and replacing a pair of shoes after a while isn't such a big deal. People into fashion usually have many pairs of shoes as well to rotate.

[Anonymous No.6624758]

>>6624738

see, you're doing it now too

we're two of a kind

[Anonymous No.6624765]

[banana No.6624769]

>>6624734
ctrl+s
this image displays the opposite of how I feel about this image

super duper thank you :)))))

[banana No.6624778]

>>6624765
wtf no

[Anonymous No.6624793]

[Anonymous No.6624790]

>>6624633
where?

only stockist in wellington is womens only

[Anonymous No.6624798]

>>6624765
You're a true american hero scalper.

[Anonymous No.6624799]

>>6623991
a great example would be the american shoe manufacturers like red wing, oak street bootmakers, russell moccasin.

russell moccasin doesn't even advertise to the fashion market. they advertise to hunters, many of whom swear by the brand. the japanese order cool styles because, you know, made in america is big there.

the key thing with some of the american shoe manufacturers (I'm thinking rancourt, quoddy, russell moccasin, to a much lesser extent oak street) is that they aren't marketing themselves on design; they let the customer or the retailer place custom orders. What you're paying for is the construction and the materials. oak street is more style conscious but they stay competitive price-wise and quality-wise. with brands like yuketen you pay a little more for the design.

but because their role is essentially manufacturing and there is real competition between them, the price to quality ratio is very good.

red wing has made quality the basis of their marketing (well, that and US company town nostalgia). it's the brand's raison d'etre. if they didn't have it they wouldn't be successful. that seems to be keeping their main line of shoes in good shape.

and of course, all of them are taking the old "built to last" philosophy as their aesthetic ideal. So the design process does not necessitate paying designers to make high-concept 'art'.

>>6624077
asking for advice is how people get knowledge. it's not the same as asking to be "spoon fed". don't be a cunt.

[Anonymous No.6624807]

niggas forgetting that brand/label and place of production amongst a number of other variables contribute to garments perceived 'quality' to the individual.

maybe not quality, but value i guess

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6624824]

>>6624790
Wunderkammer Jewellery

not been in myself, word of mouth

[Anonymous No.6624830]

>>6624633
where fgt.

[Anonymous No.6624839]

>>6624824
>Wunderkammer Jewellery
those feathers gon b expenny :)

did u get a free sruli gift in the end btw?

[Anonymous No.6624846]

>>6624720

>then just get patterns for simple woven shirts and get some cotton poplin (no poly) and cut and sew man

Is this a good way to practice or what?

[banana No.6624851]

>>6624799
holy fucc this is gigaclever
#fear #hecomes

>>6624799
i fkin love well written posts ty

Also the OP was pretty much answered with this >>6623946 so I'm pretty confused as to why the thread anusploded

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624870]

>>6624846

yeah, itll teach you how patterns work, and sewing shirts out of cotton poplin is really challenging to do perfectly and youll be able to see mistakes easily and correct them.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6624878]

>>6624839
oh no, it says jewellery but it stocks clothing as well
it's apparently run by 2 people - zara and Sai.
Zara runs the jewellery and Sai does all the ann d, CDGPH and costume national stuff.
so i've heard, ill go in next week

Yes, 300e pants B)
I dont wear them a lot though

[banana No.6624907]

>>6624851
meant for
>>6624793

sorry :((((

[Anonymous No.6624920]

>>6624870
Not that other guy but

I want to register for some nearby sewing classes, and they have machine intro and intro to fitting/patternmaking. Which do you think is more useful to take a class on, I know I should take both but I don't even have a machine and am going to start by hand first. My mom has a machine that needs to be repaired but i'd rather look into your suggestions and get my own machine

[User !2XhiKUKGEo No.6624926]

>>6624920

machine intro first, you should have familiarity with sewing before you learn pattern making and fitting or lots of things the instructor does will not make sense to you.

[turnleft !!t/GvfGACpW7 No.6624931]

>>6624926
check email

[Anonymous No.6624962]

>>6624926
alright I'll do thay first, yeah I was looking into it and they said you wanted to have some knowledge like how to sew waistbands etc

I guess I'll buy a machine and register before anything else thx

[Anonymous No.6625018]

>>6624563
why are you so fixated on the collar

it's not even the most interesting part of that shirt imo

[Anonymous No.6625176]

>>6624514
>I told all my friends to stop eating meat because it's objectively wrong and unhealthy to do so
You sound like a dick

[Anonymous No.6625220]

>>6624514
how is it objectively wrong to eat meat? animals were put on this earth specifically for the purpose of feeding us, and as such dont have soled.

mfw i know people who actually believe this.

[Anonymous No.6625239]

okay, thread over

everyone out

[Anonymous No.6625247]

>>6625239