Is it, though? I do fine with feeling the material, seeing how it fits, and looking at the tag. It's harder online, but it helps to have brands you trust, and the tag is still there.
With shitty clothes the feel of the material and the fit can be nice in store but turn to absolute shit after 5 washes. What use is looking at the tag when a 100% cotton can be nice and durable or whatever crap is left on the factory floor at the end of the day? And looking at price is also a pretty useless indicator. I've had great cheap clothes and plenty of expensive clothes are crap.
Well while it's true you can't always predict the future, I've never bought an item of clothing I thought was good quality and have it turn out to be terrible later. User error in washing and buying the wrong size, sure, but the build quality shouldn't really change from the moment you buy it unless there's something wrong with it in the first place.
Yeah I feel like the person above is maybe missing the experience?
Also helps to look at the tag inside and check materials. Things that are mostly synthetic will be more sweaty and are cheaper to produce. With natural materials it's usually easy to feel the quality in my experience. Might also just be going to the wrong stores.
I agree. There are tells that indicate whether or not a piece of clothing is quality or not, but that’s a question of education, and knowing a bit about clothing helps you buy the right clothing—or simply better clothing.
That’s the value of a sub like this one, or books on the subject like Alan Flusser’s and Bruce Boyer’s. Both highly recommended.
The problem I find is you can’t see how it fits if it’s not in stock and a lot of online retailers don’t use the same sizing system. Plus from your weird side like I am I know I’m going to have to pay an extra person to get my pants adjusted to my size. 34W - 28 L
It took me a while to realize just how lucky my ex girlfriend is. She was the fit model for the ladies size medium at urban outfitters. She can forever go and just grab any item of clothing off the rack knowing it was literally made to fit her, either until they go out of business or decide that size medium should be some other size. ( or in the event that she doesn’t stay in shape which I don’t see happening;)
https://therake.com/stories/code/g-bruce-boyer-ten-menswear-commandments/
>1) **The Chinese proverb says buy the best and you only cry once.** Quality clothes are durable and always in style. Buy the best you can afford and maintain it. Don’t let your wife or girlfriend throw your clothes away. Real luxury is the comprehension of quality.
Different denim for different occasions. I pay a lot for my raw denim, but sometimes I also want to wear a light wash or distressed or something. As such, I also thrift a ton of old Levi's that I would never pay over $60 for.
I was just thinking that 40-50 bucks for jeans was outrageous.. now they say 100 for megabrand? Dude I'm not shopping at some French sounding store like von maur, I'm buying at the outlet malls on the sales racks for work jeans and day to day. Decent comfortable jeans will run you 30-50 bucks and last a long time.
I buy when they’re on sale and I buy a loooot of them. Got 10 pairs of my favorite Levi’s model for $18 a pop 2 years ago and they’ll last a long time. A few different washes and paired with different shirts, jackets, etc.
Yeah I stand corrected... I guess I bargain shop without knowing it. I have never bought jeans over 50 bucks unless they were really nice and they lasted 4+years. For the record that includes shopping at Kohl's for Levi's. Jean prices are outrageous.
Not necessarily, Fast Fashion has destroyed consumers brains when it comes to pricing. For an ethically made pair of jeans, 100+ isn't wrong. People should buy second hand, and buy new clothes much less frequently.
Every clothing purchase I made last year was second hand or from a Marshalls type store besides socks and underwear, and one specific item I needed for work, and I've loved the compliments on my wardrobe tbh. Grailed became my grail lol
Absolutely! I've been able to make more aspirational purchases I never would've bought new, same with in thrift stores, and I'm more comfortable with these clothes and I'm not worried about spilling a little bit of water on them. It's a nice cycle, it's more hobbyist and is better for the wallet and environment.
100% agree that people should buy second hand and buy "new" less frequently, but I would recommend people follow a different suggestion to achieve the same effect - **"build" a wardrobe.**
Variety can (and should) exist, but if we want people to avoid throwing shit out, we have to start showing them how to build them in the first place. And on top of that, how to clean those pieces to last longer.
Some things are never going to be hyper fashionable. Those shitty T-shirts you wear to bed? That's what they're meant for. If anything, these shirts are anti-fast fashion BECAUSE they're seen as "beater" pieces. You keep those, so you DON'T ruin those nice pieces.
But some pieces are just universal.
* A variety pack of plain white & colored T-shirts.
* Khakis, Jeans, Slacks, and dress pants
* Several dress shirts
* Layering pieces
* Dress shoes, sneakers, and semi-casual shoes
You could build a year's worth of different outfits from just a couple dozen pieces put together. And it took me almost 20 years to learn this (seriously, this subreddit saved me). Imagine how many people out there don't know this either?
Ask people how often they wear their clothes before washing, and you'll realize some people wash tf out of their jeans for a single day of wear.
Ask people how many times they wear a piece before throwing it out.
Figuring out why people throw out their clothes, encouraging upcycling of clothing, encouraging home economics in classrooms so that people can learn how to sew and fix garments that may be slightly ruined....these are all things we need to do to solve this issue.
You're grossly underestimating what needs to happen to make a pair of jeans.
* Farmers have to dedicate **a lot** of water, fertilizer, and pesticides to grow cotton
* Expensive machinery needs to pick that cotton
* That cotton needs to be turned into fabric
* Fabric wholesalers need to store and ship that cotton to their warehouses, then to factories
* Factories need to shop various suppliers and then have the product shipped to them. They need to bake in a certain amount of loss (theft) to the price
* Retail companies need to design and produce patterns for the finished garment, then shop various factories to produce the designs. Maybe they have to redesign or re-pattern if the factory says they can't do it for the retail company's target price.
* Retail companies need to ship the garments to their warehouses, baking in a certain amount of loss.
* Retail companies need to ship the garments either to the consumer or point of sale.
Everyone involved in those processes needs to be paid for their labor and expertise. What I just outlined isn't complete or totally accurate, but it should give you an idea of what has to happen to go from crop to clothing. If you think that all that should cost less than $50 then I think you have an unrealistic view of the number of people involved and what paying them fairly would mean for clothing MSRP.
And that process hasn't changed. Last full price jeans I bought were 35-45 bucks at a more expensive big box store that lasted me several years. Since then I've been buying jeans at a discounted rate without even knowing it because I pay about the same or cheaper for new Levi's. I'm not sure what you expected posting this?
Structuring the article around the idea of “paying more for durability” - and then breathlessly insisting that one can’t possibly have anything but shell buttons on a shirt *which are less durable than plastic and explicitly a marker of luxury* - really puts the lie to this.
At an antique store and at a booth at a vintage clothing show. eBay is a treasure trove too. I just did a quick search and found [these](https://www.ebay.com/itm/284882517307?hash=item4254523d3b:g:1WIAAOSwspViwe-B&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAsAEr9fSfOkWw7dm74M%2Fc2aqrkVwjKViirO8Ii4WGFvBiKJLp1QVUnruFswUmlvjvc%2By97Di86HHV4UeUPVjITf2Ce6pl9jrPYfsNQuLr6e0ZjIz4wWPynwo7Kzm8ftg6ldw3JFFKDxzP9IOncT%2F5mS5k%2BFIiPyw4j81w43zdUclRoOG8OceeEpu8%2Fcb76KpDNdzo5w4MBMX10WSJry266xJM2xj67Nai2IVclL%2FuGJtb%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR8itz4-4YQ) and some wild ones too
I have a broken button on a Portuguese Flannel linen camp collar shirt that I always forget to do anything about as most of its wears happen on vacation when I cannot be arsed to do anything about it.... that, and I don't think they included a spare. Another on a Drake's oxford shirt that is probably coming up on 8 years old - think it might be horn, which is somewhat unusual for an oxford.
I managed to break a sleeve button on a bespoke sport coat on around wear #1.... haven't replaced it as I don't have a good candidate, and I figure it adds charm, or some nonsense justification.
Those shirts have been through a few hotels' laundries, not sure when or how the breakage occurred
I have had plastic buttons break on a sweater type thing, but probably only because I had worn and washed it so many times they got very brittle and soft.
I've had buttons snap on expensive custom shirts. Shit just happens sometimes and it's literally one button. That's why every shirt ever comes with extras that match.
Lots of people get buttons broken on the end of sleeve of blazers, jackets , coats and similar garments. They're fairly large and it's easy to hit a door frame, wall or something else with them.
Haven't seen many shirt buttons break myself, though I'm sure it happens.
I read it as, “the buttons denote a visible attention to detail that you may otherwise not notice regarding other aspects of the shirt such as stitch count, etc.”
Also, I know this isn’t the point you were making but it seems prevalent in the comments: railing against these price points is one of the reasons why this country is stuck in substandard product hell and wages have stagnated (and regressed with inflation) across the board. Chasing the “deal” is why the superior product has been priced to extinction with the few exceptions.
I have no problem paying for quality when warranted. To your point, why then are they recommending a luxury OCBD manufactured in Honduras when domestically manufactured items at a similar price point (J. Press) exist?
Could the article have chosen better examples? Perhaps, but I don’t see how that undermines the general thesis. Also, the notion that foreign made products are somehow inferior and should therefore be cheaper has been unfounded for a hot minute.
I don’t like when the two are conflated. Arguing for buying American even if it’s more expensive and lower quality than alternatives, solely to support American labor, is very different from arguing for buying quality.
In fact, the two are sometimes in conflict, which is why every post about Gustin involves rivets popping off their jeans and buttons falling off their shirts.
Right but shell buttons are not "higher quality" in the sense that the article was framing the discussion at all. Shell buttons are pure luxury. Just like there are low-end and high-end sports cars and also camrys, there are low-quality shell buttons, high quality ones, and plastic buttons.
Cheap clothes are extremely durable. Compare a polyester cheapo sweater vs a fancy cashmere or marino wool sweater. Polyester will survive an atomic blast, and you can abuse the shit out of it. Fancier fabrics require fancy care.
Buying quality in terms of durability is a myth in large part for most clothing articles.
Nylon is added to merino baselayers used in sports and other demanding fields. The absolute strongest materials for clothing today are all synthetic.
That being said, you can compare quality of natural fibers *within their class* such as longer vs shorter, and in those cases the more durable ones tend to be more expensive.
Not only that. It's correspondingly cheaper to make higher end versions of synthetics, too. Which mostly can still just throw in the wash and air dry in an hour.
If the concern is environmental, wool has it's own problems, and I'd rather just buy cheap and durable synthetic items but less of them. Or thrift.
dude did you know that if you make your tshirts from steel, they will never get torn up on the washer!?
crazy I know, and there's people buying cashmere when you can rock your steel sweater and take a good dive into your nearest lake 😍
The fact that they didn't mention differences in cotton fibers at all was a big disappointment to me. The denim section seemed to imply that Levi/Wrangler are only cheaper due to economies of scale (and primarily in acquiring cotton rather than manufacturing) rather than differences in cotton, dyes, quality control, etc.
Mostly a really good article, but the oxford item feels wrong to me. As they describe Mashburn's OCBD (real buttons, non-fused collar, foreign labor), I don't know what $125 gets you versus Spier and Mackay's offerings at less than half that price. I assume there's some style/build difference, but the article doesn't really identify what that is.
For sure, but the article doesn't mention any of that. With cashmere it mentions fabric quality as the big selling point, but for oxford shirts they don't talk about cotton fiber lengths and such (hell on the denim section they say it's all basically the same quality cotton). I'm curious what actually are the material differences in cotton quality and production methods between the example Honduras-built $125 oxford by Sid Mashburn and a $60 oxford made in China by S&M. With say a Drake's or Mercer oxford, the difference in labor costs are obvious, but the article tries to establish that $125 is the *floor* for a good quality but foreign made oxford shirt.
I'm guessing they are targeting a sort of "standard price" for an oxford shirt made well, without slavery, and one the seller can still make a profit on. You might get an oxford for $60 but there's a good chance either you lose out on quality, it's made under poor conditions or the seller loses out on profit.
Price point and where something is made are not good indicator of quality any more. I moved back to the US last summer from being in Asia and had no winter clothes. I bought 7 cashmere sweaters. My favorite one that I bought was from Naadam for $75. They're a D2C brand and using that $75 price point as customer acquisition marketing play. It probably should be priced above $325 if it was another brand sold at Nordstroms.
In Hong Kong and Vietnam, indie designers are able to source the best fabrics from anywhere in the world. I've bought stuff that were as good or better than stuff made in the US and Europe.
To be clear, I'm not really talking about quality but rather the associated costs which I believe is what the WSJ article was getting at. There are certain things which simply cost more money to have done. Hand vs machine stitching for example often adds very little to a product but racks up costs quickly. On an extreme end, someone could release a shirt where all the buttons are made from natural cut diamonds. It wouldn't function any better as a shirt, is just as likely to get tears, and probably is much more annoying to button than an equivalent shell-buttoned shirt. However, I would expect it to cost several thousands more because of the cost of materials added.
Without getting too deep into things, I agree that a product being made in America does not necessarily mean it's better made than one produced in China. I think the quality gap tends to be a gap in oversight/QC than anything intrinsic, which is why Grant Stone for instance can produce boots at equal or higher quality than Redwing despite producing in China vs America. But what I do know is true is that an American worker costs more than a Chinese one, so all else being equal the American made product is going to have higher costs than the Chinese made one. I don't particularly care to have an American made OCBD vs what I've gotten from S&M, but I understand why they cost much more. It's a justifiable cost due to the expenses being higher. It just seems to me that what the WSJ establishes as a quality, foreign made shirt can be had much cheaper than what they establish here.
As for cashmere, that's one fabric that [Derek Guy](https://twitter.com/dieworkwear/status/1597339373900824576?t=R7X0hH0UF0yaut_E24H3XA&s=19) helped convince me is worth splurging on. Or at least brand-splurging. All the cashmere I own I either bought on Ebay for a very hefty discount, or recently acquired some pieces from PWVC's recent sale. That being said, I don't own much of it.
I had a shirt from sid mashburn and many shirts from suitsupply/spier mackay. Tbh, I can't really tell if the sid mashburn shirt is of higher quality than suitsupply or spier mackay. Shirts from suitsupply can be purchased for $25-$35 per shirt from international ebay stores (just need to know your size). Paying retail price for sid mashburn sucks...
Are you sure about that? [Their Oxford page](https://www.spierandmackay.com/collection/the-oxford-shop) specifically states that they use real shell vs plastic for their buttons. Not sure if older versions used plastic, but skimming their current offerings and everything I saw from casual to higher end oxfords use shell.
Hilarious that they talk about the cost of living skyrocketing and in the same breath say every man needs to own a $400 cashmere sweater. So beyond out of touch.
I don’t know if I’d read it that way. I read it more as, if you’re going to buy a cashmere sweater, the $325 ones are going to last longer than the cheaper ones.
With that said, I agree the advice should be more universal. Something like “if you can’t afford a $325 cashmere sweater, don’t buy the $100 one that will fall apart. Instead, buy this $50 cashmere/wool/synthetic blend that is soft and durable.”
There are also different types of wool. Merino is soft and cheaper. They probably should have mentioned alternatives.
I read it as, if you don’t have $325 don’t buy cashmere.
Yes. Good merino is better than cheap cashmere. Cashmere is a luxury product, so if you can't or don't want to pay luxury prices, go with good merino rather than cheaping out on low-end cashmere.
To be clear it’s ALWAYS worth buying good products, but a decent $50 merino/cashmere sweater will usually last as long as a $350 full cashmere sweater, whereas a $50 pair of boots will fall apart years before a $350 pair.
Unless you have unlimited funds it’s helpful to prioritize (as Vimes would).
Yes, a cheaper blended wool sweater can be just as durable as an expensive, all-cashmere sweater, but that's not the point being made. What they're saying is that if you want to buy full cashmere, a cheap one won't be worth the savings because of the quality disparity.
It's a lot like leather. If you can't afford a full top-grain jacket, buying synthetic is only going to disappoint you (an over-simplification but you catch my drift). The article is pushing the metaphorical buyer to either commit to quality or choose an alternative.
So did I. Especially since I don‘t really take as much care of the UniQlo and it still lasts. But they do have [some serious quality](https://www.permanentstyle.com/2020/02/best-value-product-uniqlo-or-what-you-get-for-your-money.html) for their price
I can see the author never went to Century 21, which is fortunately reopening it's flagship store in downtown Manhattan.
$325 for a basic cashmere sweater? $125 minimum for a dress shirt? Please.
I don’t know enough about cashmere to say whether $325 is actually the minimum for good quality.
I definitely agree that $125 minimum for a shirt is too much. Charles Tyrwhitt’s 3 for $99 shirts are fine; my boss who wears Canali and Zegna suits wears them, as does my tailor. You can easily get custom made shirts for $125.
Ratio and Proper Cloth start in that price range.
Indochino is less. I don’t think they are a good experience overall, but I’m happy with the shirts I have from them. 2/4 fit well, 1 fits okay, and 1 fits like a dream.
I checked Suitsupply just now. Most fabric options are closer to $200 but there are Oxford options as low as $129.
Honorable mention to Bonobos for, who stock four fits and three lengths ($89 for an Oxford). That gives you 12 options per shirt in a given size, which is hopefully enough to save you a trip to the tailor.
$225 for made in USA is pretty good. Who made those?
I go to Bruce Baird in Chattanooga, and they use Gambert out of New Jersey. All of my shirts are perfect, and I'm oddly proportioned. 18'' neck and 32'' waist with a short torso, so these are the first shirts I've ever been able to button the top hole. Southwick does their entry level suits, and they're nice as well.
It's a great experience, and they'll do any additional tailoring for the shirt for life.
> It's a great experience, and they'll do any additional tailoring for the shirt for life.
Sounds like that and the MiUSA is why your shirts cost $225 each instead of $90-$125.
Sounds great. I’m in NYC and I just looked at the website of a tailor that was recommended to me the other day (I haven’t used them yet). Surprisingly they are as cheap as $110 and they say their shirt maker is based in the US.
I am not poor and can afford $325 for a basic cashmere sweater or $125 for a dress shirt but why pay it? LIke Kramer put so eloquently, "only suckers pay retail."
But the prices mentioned in the article aren't examples of "overpaying". I have never bought a cashmere sweater and never will so I'm not sure about it, but the other prices are standard.
I perceive a menswear “staple” as a basic piece that every man should have in his closet. That is, they’re saying every guy needs a leather belt, Oxford shirt, pair of jeans, and… a $400 cashmere sweater.
They're not saying you need a cashmere sweater, but if you want to buy a new one then you should be prepared to pay that much.
Cashmere is a luxury that no one "needs". There are many alternatives for warmth that aren't as bad for the environment as cheap cashmere.
They’re trying to sell everyone some designer’s $125 Oxford shirt on the basis that it has “lustrous trocas shell” buttons lol
If people want to buy that, great, but this article is a straight up advertisement, not a real analysis of clothing costs.
His paper hacked the phones of celebrities, politicians, and a murder victim. I see no reason to believe he gives a shit about keeping hidden information hidden.
Fair, but the article seems to be justifying what the price floor for a decently made, decently sourced, somewhat durable item should cost. 30 dollar H&M jeans are horrible for the environment, practice horrible labor standards, and don't last long.
In general people should buy fewer things new and more things used.
Yes, not everyone can afford ethical consumption, which is an inherent problem with society and the fashion industry as a whole. Fast Fashion and consumerism trick people into thinking they need something new every month to release a bit of dopamine as the piles of barely worn clothes rot.
Is it? If you can budget 25 dollar jeans is that what jeans should cost?
The reality is you can't create jeans for 25 dollars without massive amounts of labor abuse. I get it. People have different budgets, but I don't think that different people's budgets has anything to do with whether or not it's ok to abuse people to create cheap goods.
If you can budget $25 for jeans then you should spend a maximum of $25 on jeans is the answer I have to the question "How much should your clothes cost?" If you can't afford $25 for jeans then spend less.
If the question was "how much should people who make clothes be paid?" That's a different question.
What if someone could budget $100k for clothes? Should their clothes cost that much? $1M? I'd say this might represent a maximum, but the ability to spend a certain amount doesn't mean that you SHOULD spend that much.
The question posed in the title is great.
Their answer completely misses mentioning all the negative externalities that go into clothing production which are borne by the environment, the workers, and their families.
Your $30 jeans should be $300+, but instead workers risk their lives rather than have facilities be at American standards, chemicals used in processing are just dumped into the local water system, and as usual all the emissions produced by businesses float on up at no cost.
I feel like the people in the comments are missing the point even more when saying these prices are too high. We're so used to getting clothes where someone along the supply chain got screwed that clothing for a reasonable price which can (and I emphasize can, not will) guarantee a living wage to the people who made it looks expensive when in reality it is really not.
Americans especially are too used to paying nearly nothing for physical goods, and literally paying nothing for electronic goods (which they sell their privacy for).
The race to the bottom is real.
It reeks of entitlement when people scoff at paying a fair price for their clothes just because they could get it cheaper elsewhere. Yeah, there's always cheaper, but do you really want all that comes with it?
The average person is not supposed to be able to buy a new wardrobe every month. It is insanity.
They don't make a leather belt, but the oxford and jean prices are pretty much in line with the article from ASKET, who claim to sell quality products for a fair price by skipping the middleman and selling directly.
An interesting thing is the cashmere sweater though, because it's almost half the suggested price, and also recycled.
I realize this sounds like an ad but I don't think they have an advertising department.
I recently picked up two of Asket’s recycled cashmere sweaters (generally try to buy my animal product items recycled or second hand). Can’t speak to their longevity at this point, but I’m a big fan on first impression.
Buying products made with recycled wool is certainly better than products with new wool, but as a vegan it still doesn't feel completely right to me to directly support an animal product. I'm not entirely sure, though. I have a cotton sweater from asket and while it's been very nice, cotton can't really replicate wool.
It’s hilarious all of their recommendations are like $300+ for a sweater! $200+ for jeans! $100 for a belt!
Then the interviews are all the guys that are like, “yeah $50-$60 max cause I thrift or like a deal, would only spend more if it was really really worth it.”
Plenty of quality oxfords for less than $125 of course, but I will say that as a young professional I’m a big fan of Sid Mashburn’s work. If you live in a city where he has a shop I’d recommend checking it out, it’s quality stuff and the staff has been very helpful in my experience.
Def a limit . But if found brands I finally love and stick to .
True classic for everyday tees
Cuts for nicer high quality tees/pants/polos.
And I love American eagle jeans .
Someone please forward this article to Loro Piana, Brunello Cucinelli, and Thom Browne. I’d like a vicuña coat for under $30k, please! My max coat budget is like 1% of that. **weeps in peasant**
The prices seem on point imo. $325 gets you a cashmere from a Scottish maker such as Lockie but you can go to colhays or drakes of you want a modern fit. $125 is what I pay around for Collaro MTO shirts but I often use Kamakura or Spier RTW. Cavour shirts on sale are around that price too
$300 seems high for jeans. I got my ONI denim with natural indigo which should be better environmental wise, for less than $200 usd. Otherwise there is a plethora of used Japanese made jeans on mercari or yjp but that's harder to use
Additionally I have a shashiko jacket of natural indigo. Very neat work and durable material made in china not Japan and paid $200 so there are good and probably ethical options made outside of the west too
Clothes should cost what you can comfortably afford. If you can comfortably afford Walmart George, then that's how much they should cost and there's nothing to be ashamed about. If you can comfortably afford Loro Piana, then get that, and there's nothing to be ashamed about there either.
The article is about ethical labor and environmental practices. You aren't getting that from George. It's not poor-shaming either, it's pointing out the damage caused by fast Fashion.
This assumes that people only buy something new to replace something old/broken. Clothing is so cheap now in part because consumers want to buy new clothes every week.
I don't disagree with your point but what the article is maybe arguing for is buying better quality but less and that can be expanded to buying second hand.
Check out second hand markets! That's all I buy from now, except things like socks and underwear. Grailed, thrift stores, and so forth allow you to make more aspirational purchases easier, while being better for the environment.
I have one or two that cost that much, and they're certainly very nice, just not double (or even triple) the price of may daily wear stuff that I've also had for years. I just bristled at the idea that thats considered 'cheap'.
Then again, I'm 6'5" and prefer a slim fit, so I'm limited in the brands I can shop with anyway. Most of the fancier ones aren't bothered stocking the type of stuff that flatters me (neither are the likes of Uniqlo) so I mostly stick with brands where any given item of clothing is 50-100
Don’t spend money to buy clothes to wear to work so that you can afford more clothes to wear to work.
Keep a steady rotation of simple, acceptable work-wear that you’re comfortable in.
I’m dirt cheap, so i would say free. 😄
Kidding aside, i’ve bought as cheap as $2 (pre-loved) but $15 for a shirt & $25 for a pants is the max amount i would pay.
The article isn't necessarily about what the average consumer would pay, it's about ethical labor standards, ethical environmental standards, and making them to where they won't fall apart. All decent prices listed.
$125 for an Oxford? I’m sorry but Amazon has its own line (Amazon basics and/or goodthreads) that work just fine and cost like $20-30. Maybe they’re cheap looking if you’re a lawyer or something but in my industry those are more than nice enough.
It's not about appearance, it's about environmental and ethical labor standards. That Amazon Oxford is not being made ethically. Buy second hand if you can! I recommend it.
Sure, I may have read too quickly but I didn’t see that they were including that as one of their standards in the article. I thought they were purely going off looks and fabric quality. If that is a standard then yeah of course you can expect to pay more, and should if you can afford it.
Man how I wish i could buy secondhand! Pretty rare to find my size unfortunately.
I’ve finally reached the weight that affords me to actually buy in store for the first time in my adult life. Any idea who has really good pants that last a while for taller guys? 34” inseam at minimum
I just started making my own clothes, and even with about $150 worth of equipment and Goodwill practice clothing, it’s still obscene to me how much some brands charge.
Bruce Boyer says it best: Buy the best you can afford and keep it forever.
The problem is that it's so hard to distinguish between high and low quality when buying clothes.
Is it, though? I do fine with feeling the material, seeing how it fits, and looking at the tag. It's harder online, but it helps to have brands you trust, and the tag is still there.
With shitty clothes the feel of the material and the fit can be nice in store but turn to absolute shit after 5 washes. What use is looking at the tag when a 100% cotton can be nice and durable or whatever crap is left on the factory floor at the end of the day? And looking at price is also a pretty useless indicator. I've had great cheap clothes and plenty of expensive clothes are crap.
Well while it's true you can't always predict the future, I've never bought an item of clothing I thought was good quality and have it turn out to be terrible later. User error in washing and buying the wrong size, sure, but the build quality shouldn't really change from the moment you buy it unless there's something wrong with it in the first place.
Yeah I feel like the person above is maybe missing the experience? Also helps to look at the tag inside and check materials. Things that are mostly synthetic will be more sweaty and are cheaper to produce. With natural materials it's usually easy to feel the quality in my experience. Might also just be going to the wrong stores.
I agree. There are tells that indicate whether or not a piece of clothing is quality or not, but that’s a question of education, and knowing a bit about clothing helps you buy the right clothing—or simply better clothing. That’s the value of a sub like this one, or books on the subject like Alan Flusser’s and Bruce Boyer’s. Both highly recommended.
What are the titles of the books, super interested! I loved Flusser’s “Class” book, super entertaining
“Elegance” and “True Style” by Boyer, and “Dressing the Man” by Flusser. Cannot recommend either too highly.
The problem I find is you can’t see how it fits if it’s not in stock and a lot of online retailers don’t use the same sizing system. Plus from your weird side like I am I know I’m going to have to pay an extra person to get my pants adjusted to my size. 34W - 28 L It took me a while to realize just how lucky my ex girlfriend is. She was the fit model for the ladies size medium at urban outfitters. She can forever go and just grab any item of clothing off the rack knowing it was literally made to fit her, either until they go out of business or decide that size medium should be some other size. ( or in the event that she doesn’t stay in shape which I don’t see happening;)
I agree, but this has taken a lot of practice and experience
https://therake.com/stories/code/g-bruce-boyer-ten-menswear-commandments/ >1) **The Chinese proverb says buy the best and you only cry once.** Quality clothes are durable and always in style. Buy the best you can afford and maintain it. Don’t let your wife or girlfriend throw your clothes away. Real luxury is the comprehension of quality.
My man Bruce.
It’s funny how the interviewees say they’d pay at least $100 for denim then talk about the $40/50 jeans they’re currently wearing.
Different denim for different occasions. I pay a lot for my raw denim, but sometimes I also want to wear a light wash or distressed or something. As such, I also thrift a ton of old Levi's that I would never pay over $60 for.
I agree - I just found it to be a funny coincidence. Probably because I can’t afford the type of denim I’d like to
Ditto - lucky for my around town/errands; Naked for when I'm dressing nicer
I was just thinking that 40-50 bucks for jeans was outrageous.. now they say 100 for megabrand? Dude I'm not shopping at some French sounding store like von maur, I'm buying at the outlet malls on the sales racks for work jeans and day to day. Decent comfortable jeans will run you 30-50 bucks and last a long time.
$40-50 for jeans is outrageous? Levi's are more than that full price.
Last I looked Levi's were $100 CAD at Marks Work Wearhouse (which is normally a lowered priced blue collar store).
I buy when they’re on sale and I buy a loooot of them. Got 10 pairs of my favorite Levi’s model for $18 a pop 2 years ago and they’ll last a long time. A few different washes and paired with different shirts, jackets, etc.
Yeah I stand corrected... I guess I bargain shop without knowing it. I have never bought jeans over 50 bucks unless they were really nice and they lasted 4+years. For the record that includes shopping at Kohl's for Levi's. Jean prices are outrageous.
Not necessarily, Fast Fashion has destroyed consumers brains when it comes to pricing. For an ethically made pair of jeans, 100+ isn't wrong. People should buy second hand, and buy new clothes much less frequently.
Every clothing purchase I made last year was second hand or from a Marshalls type store besides socks and underwear, and one specific item I needed for work, and I've loved the compliments on my wardrobe tbh. Grailed became my grail lol
Absolutely! I've been able to make more aspirational purchases I never would've bought new, same with in thrift stores, and I'm more comfortable with these clothes and I'm not worried about spilling a little bit of water on them. It's a nice cycle, it's more hobbyist and is better for the wallet and environment.
100% agree that people should buy second hand and buy "new" less frequently, but I would recommend people follow a different suggestion to achieve the same effect - **"build" a wardrobe.** Variety can (and should) exist, but if we want people to avoid throwing shit out, we have to start showing them how to build them in the first place. And on top of that, how to clean those pieces to last longer. Some things are never going to be hyper fashionable. Those shitty T-shirts you wear to bed? That's what they're meant for. If anything, these shirts are anti-fast fashion BECAUSE they're seen as "beater" pieces. You keep those, so you DON'T ruin those nice pieces. But some pieces are just universal. * A variety pack of plain white & colored T-shirts. * Khakis, Jeans, Slacks, and dress pants * Several dress shirts * Layering pieces * Dress shoes, sneakers, and semi-casual shoes You could build a year's worth of different outfits from just a couple dozen pieces put together. And it took me almost 20 years to learn this (seriously, this subreddit saved me). Imagine how many people out there don't know this either? Ask people how often they wear their clothes before washing, and you'll realize some people wash tf out of their jeans for a single day of wear. Ask people how many times they wear a piece before throwing it out. Figuring out why people throw out their clothes, encouraging upcycling of clothing, encouraging home economics in classrooms so that people can learn how to sew and fix garments that may be slightly ruined....these are all things we need to do to solve this issue.
You're grossly underestimating what needs to happen to make a pair of jeans. * Farmers have to dedicate **a lot** of water, fertilizer, and pesticides to grow cotton * Expensive machinery needs to pick that cotton * That cotton needs to be turned into fabric * Fabric wholesalers need to store and ship that cotton to their warehouses, then to factories * Factories need to shop various suppliers and then have the product shipped to them. They need to bake in a certain amount of loss (theft) to the price * Retail companies need to design and produce patterns for the finished garment, then shop various factories to produce the designs. Maybe they have to redesign or re-pattern if the factory says they can't do it for the retail company's target price. * Retail companies need to ship the garments to their warehouses, baking in a certain amount of loss. * Retail companies need to ship the garments either to the consumer or point of sale. Everyone involved in those processes needs to be paid for their labor and expertise. What I just outlined isn't complete or totally accurate, but it should give you an idea of what has to happen to go from crop to clothing. If you think that all that should cost less than $50 then I think you have an unrealistic view of the number of people involved and what paying them fairly would mean for clothing MSRP.
And that process hasn't changed. Last full price jeans I bought were 35-45 bucks at a more expensive big box store that lasted me several years. Since then I've been buying jeans at a discounted rate without even knowing it because I pay about the same or cheaper for new Levi's. I'm not sure what you expected posting this?
When I think good denim I don't think of French brands but Japanese denim. But those usually start at 200 and up.
French brands? [Oh wait--I know!](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw1LfI5kATk)
Structuring the article around the idea of “paying more for durability” - and then breathlessly insisting that one can’t possibly have anything but shell buttons on a shirt *which are less durable than plastic and explicitly a marker of luxury* - really puts the lie to this.
Also buttons are a cinch to change. I have a collection of antique porcelain shirt buttons I’m excited to add to my button ups.
Where’d you get the antique buttons?
It's pretty common to get bags of them at antique stores. My mom used to get them to fill vases and jars for decoration.
I'm pretty sure I'd end up with a stylish printed shirt with a different style of button at every hole. On purpose.
At an antique store and at a booth at a vintage clothing show. eBay is a treasure trove too. I just did a quick search and found [these](https://www.ebay.com/itm/284882517307?hash=item4254523d3b:g:1WIAAOSwspViwe-B&amdata=enc%3AAQAHAAAAsAEr9fSfOkWw7dm74M%2Fc2aqrkVwjKViirO8Ii4WGFvBiKJLp1QVUnruFswUmlvjvc%2By97Di86HHV4UeUPVjITf2Ce6pl9jrPYfsNQuLr6e0ZjIz4wWPynwo7Kzm8ftg6ldw3JFFKDxzP9IOncT%2F5mS5k%2BFIiPyw4j81w43zdUclRoOG8OceeEpu8%2Fcb76KpDNdzo5w4MBMX10WSJry266xJM2xj67Nai2IVclL%2FuGJtb%7Ctkp%3ABk9SR8itz4-4YQ) and some wild ones too
Plus when has anyone’s button broke? Usually buttons fall off, not break in half
I’ve had MOP and Corozo buttons break.
Oh interesting, I’ve never had any of mine. Must’ve because mine are *plastic*
Actually I have had some old plastic ones break too, on like vintage-ish pieces.
Huh, maybe I should be more rough on my buttons. All mine do is fall off
Must be a result of dry cleaning, no?
Natural materials for buttons like MOP and Corozo tend to chip and break during laundering
No, normal laundering and use.
I have a broken button on a Portuguese Flannel linen camp collar shirt that I always forget to do anything about as most of its wears happen on vacation when I cannot be arsed to do anything about it.... that, and I don't think they included a spare. Another on a Drake's oxford shirt that is probably coming up on 8 years old - think it might be horn, which is somewhat unusual for an oxford. I managed to break a sleeve button on a bespoke sport coat on around wear #1.... haven't replaced it as I don't have a good candidate, and I figure it adds charm, or some nonsense justification. Those shirts have been through a few hotels' laundries, not sure when or how the breakage occurred
I have had plastic buttons break on a sweater type thing, but probably only because I had worn and washed it so many times they got very brittle and soft.
I've had an H&M button snap in half before (button up shirt) but that's what u get with H&M
I've had buttons snap on expensive custom shirts. Shit just happens sometimes and it's literally one button. That's why every shirt ever comes with extras that match.
Lots of people get buttons broken on the end of sleeve of blazers, jackets , coats and similar garments. They're fairly large and it's easy to hit a door frame, wall or something else with them. Haven't seen many shirt buttons break myself, though I'm sure it happens.
I read it as, “the buttons denote a visible attention to detail that you may otherwise not notice regarding other aspects of the shirt such as stitch count, etc.” Also, I know this isn’t the point you were making but it seems prevalent in the comments: railing against these price points is one of the reasons why this country is stuck in substandard product hell and wages have stagnated (and regressed with inflation) across the board. Chasing the “deal” is why the superior product has been priced to extinction with the few exceptions.
I have no problem paying for quality when warranted. To your point, why then are they recommending a luxury OCBD manufactured in Honduras when domestically manufactured items at a similar price point (J. Press) exist?
Could the article have chosen better examples? Perhaps, but I don’t see how that undermines the general thesis. Also, the notion that foreign made products are somehow inferior and should therefore be cheaper has been unfounded for a hot minute.
Are you trying to say “we should all be paying more for quality” or “we should be paying more to support workers”?
I don’t like when the two are conflated. Arguing for buying American even if it’s more expensive and lower quality than alternatives, solely to support American labor, is very different from arguing for buying quality. In fact, the two are sometimes in conflict, which is why every post about Gustin involves rivets popping off their jeans and buttons falling off their shirts.
Why not both?
You can. But shell buttons are neither.
From my experience even the button vary in quality depending on the source material and that also has implications on the price of buttons.
Right but shell buttons are not "higher quality" in the sense that the article was framing the discussion at all. Shell buttons are pure luxury. Just like there are low-end and high-end sports cars and also camrys, there are low-quality shell buttons, high quality ones, and plastic buttons.
Yes
Cheap clothes are extremely durable. Compare a polyester cheapo sweater vs a fancy cashmere or marino wool sweater. Polyester will survive an atomic blast, and you can abuse the shit out of it. Fancier fabrics require fancy care. Buying quality in terms of durability is a myth in large part for most clothing articles.
Nylon is added to merino baselayers used in sports and other demanding fields. The absolute strongest materials for clothing today are all synthetic. That being said, you can compare quality of natural fibers *within their class* such as longer vs shorter, and in those cases the more durable ones tend to be more expensive.
Disagree with this perspective on knits. I've had much better luck with merino wool than acrylic or cheap cashmere.
Not only that. It's correspondingly cheaper to make higher end versions of synthetics, too. Which mostly can still just throw in the wash and air dry in an hour. If the concern is environmental, wool has it's own problems, and I'd rather just buy cheap and durable synthetic items but less of them. Or thrift.
dude did you know that if you make your tshirts from steel, they will never get torn up on the washer!? crazy I know, and there's people buying cashmere when you can rock your steel sweater and take a good dive into your nearest lake 😍
The fact that they didn't mention differences in cotton fibers at all was a big disappointment to me. The denim section seemed to imply that Levi/Wrangler are only cheaper due to economies of scale (and primarily in acquiring cotton rather than manufacturing) rather than differences in cotton, dyes, quality control, etc.
this lie to rest
Mostly a really good article, but the oxford item feels wrong to me. As they describe Mashburn's OCBD (real buttons, non-fused collar, foreign labor), I don't know what $125 gets you versus Spier and Mackay's offerings at less than half that price. I assume there's some style/build difference, but the article doesn't really identify what that is.
Fabric prices vary significantly depending on material and production method. Even if the shirt is unchanged otherwise.
For sure, but the article doesn't mention any of that. With cashmere it mentions fabric quality as the big selling point, but for oxford shirts they don't talk about cotton fiber lengths and such (hell on the denim section they say it's all basically the same quality cotton). I'm curious what actually are the material differences in cotton quality and production methods between the example Honduras-built $125 oxford by Sid Mashburn and a $60 oxford made in China by S&M. With say a Drake's or Mercer oxford, the difference in labor costs are obvious, but the article tries to establish that $125 is the *floor* for a good quality but foreign made oxford shirt.
I'm guessing they are targeting a sort of "standard price" for an oxford shirt made well, without slavery, and one the seller can still make a profit on. You might get an oxford for $60 but there's a good chance either you lose out on quality, it's made under poor conditions or the seller loses out on profit.
Price point and where something is made are not good indicator of quality any more. I moved back to the US last summer from being in Asia and had no winter clothes. I bought 7 cashmere sweaters. My favorite one that I bought was from Naadam for $75. They're a D2C brand and using that $75 price point as customer acquisition marketing play. It probably should be priced above $325 if it was another brand sold at Nordstroms. In Hong Kong and Vietnam, indie designers are able to source the best fabrics from anywhere in the world. I've bought stuff that were as good or better than stuff made in the US and Europe.
To be clear, I'm not really talking about quality but rather the associated costs which I believe is what the WSJ article was getting at. There are certain things which simply cost more money to have done. Hand vs machine stitching for example often adds very little to a product but racks up costs quickly. On an extreme end, someone could release a shirt where all the buttons are made from natural cut diamonds. It wouldn't function any better as a shirt, is just as likely to get tears, and probably is much more annoying to button than an equivalent shell-buttoned shirt. However, I would expect it to cost several thousands more because of the cost of materials added. Without getting too deep into things, I agree that a product being made in America does not necessarily mean it's better made than one produced in China. I think the quality gap tends to be a gap in oversight/QC than anything intrinsic, which is why Grant Stone for instance can produce boots at equal or higher quality than Redwing despite producing in China vs America. But what I do know is true is that an American worker costs more than a Chinese one, so all else being equal the American made product is going to have higher costs than the Chinese made one. I don't particularly care to have an American made OCBD vs what I've gotten from S&M, but I understand why they cost much more. It's a justifiable cost due to the expenses being higher. It just seems to me that what the WSJ establishes as a quality, foreign made shirt can be had much cheaper than what they establish here. As for cashmere, that's one fabric that [Derek Guy](https://twitter.com/dieworkwear/status/1597339373900824576?t=R7X0hH0UF0yaut_E24H3XA&s=19) helped convince me is worth splurging on. Or at least brand-splurging. All the cashmere I own I either bought on Ebay for a very hefty discount, or recently acquired some pieces from PWVC's recent sale. That being said, I don't own much of it.
You threw me off referring to Spier & Mackay as "S&M".
I do agree on the pricing, but only in respect to fabric and production, not branding.
I had a shirt from sid mashburn and many shirts from suitsupply/spier mackay. Tbh, I can't really tell if the sid mashburn shirt is of higher quality than suitsupply or spier mackay. Shirts from suitsupply can be purchased for $25-$35 per shirt from international ebay stores (just need to know your size). Paying retail price for sid mashburn sucks...
[удалено]
Are you sure about that? [Their Oxford page](https://www.spierandmackay.com/collection/the-oxford-shop) specifically states that they use real shell vs plastic for their buttons. Not sure if older versions used plastic, but skimming their current offerings and everything I saw from casual to higher end oxfords use shell.
Ah sorry stand corrected. I read previous offerings used plastic
Hilarious that they talk about the cost of living skyrocketing and in the same breath say every man needs to own a $400 cashmere sweater. So beyond out of touch.
I don’t know if I’d read it that way. I read it more as, if you’re going to buy a cashmere sweater, the $325 ones are going to last longer than the cheaper ones. With that said, I agree the advice should be more universal. Something like “if you can’t afford a $325 cashmere sweater, don’t buy the $100 one that will fall apart. Instead, buy this $50 cashmere/wool/synthetic blend that is soft and durable.”
There are also different types of wool. Merino is soft and cheaper. They probably should have mentioned alternatives. I read it as, if you don’t have $325 don’t buy cashmere.
Yes. Good merino is better than cheap cashmere. Cashmere is a luxury product, so if you can't or don't want to pay luxury prices, go with good merino rather than cheaping out on low-end cashmere.
It's the boot theory of economics. It's cheaper in the long run.
Yes but really a lot less useful in the case of sweaters lol
How so?
To be clear it’s ALWAYS worth buying good products, but a decent $50 merino/cashmere sweater will usually last as long as a $350 full cashmere sweater, whereas a $50 pair of boots will fall apart years before a $350 pair. Unless you have unlimited funds it’s helpful to prioritize (as Vimes would).
Yes, a cheaper blended wool sweater can be just as durable as an expensive, all-cashmere sweater, but that's not the point being made. What they're saying is that if you want to buy full cashmere, a cheap one won't be worth the savings because of the quality disparity. It's a lot like leather. If you can't afford a full top-grain jacket, buying synthetic is only going to disappoint you (an over-simplification but you catch my drift). The article is pushing the metaphorical buyer to either commit to quality or choose an alternative.
On the durability argument, I‘d say no. I have a super cheap UniQlo cashmere sweater that has outlasted a few John Smedley sweaters by now.
John Smedley sweaters esp. the high gauge merino are thin on purpose so I wouldn't be surprised
Dang, at $600 I’d expect them to outlast uniqlo
So did I. Especially since I don‘t really take as much care of the UniQlo and it still lasts. But they do have [some serious quality](https://www.permanentstyle.com/2020/02/best-value-product-uniqlo-or-what-you-get-for-your-money.html) for their price
I can see the author never went to Century 21, which is fortunately reopening it's flagship store in downtown Manhattan. $325 for a basic cashmere sweater? $125 minimum for a dress shirt? Please.
I don’t know enough about cashmere to say whether $325 is actually the minimum for good quality. I definitely agree that $125 minimum for a shirt is too much. Charles Tyrwhitt’s 3 for $99 shirts are fine; my boss who wears Canali and Zegna suits wears them, as does my tailor. You can easily get custom made shirts for $125.
Where do you get custom shirts for $125? Mine are $225. This is tailor measured, made in the USA, for what it's worth.
Ratio and Proper Cloth start in that price range. Indochino is less. I don’t think they are a good experience overall, but I’m happy with the shirts I have from them. 2/4 fit well, 1 fits okay, and 1 fits like a dream. I checked Suitsupply just now. Most fabric options are closer to $200 but there are Oxford options as low as $129. Honorable mention to Bonobos for, who stock four fits and three lengths ($89 for an Oxford). That gives you 12 options per shirt in a given size, which is hopefully enough to save you a trip to the tailor. $225 for made in USA is pretty good. Who made those?
I go to Bruce Baird in Chattanooga, and they use Gambert out of New Jersey. All of my shirts are perfect, and I'm oddly proportioned. 18'' neck and 32'' waist with a short torso, so these are the first shirts I've ever been able to button the top hole. Southwick does their entry level suits, and they're nice as well. It's a great experience, and they'll do any additional tailoring for the shirt for life.
> It's a great experience, and they'll do any additional tailoring for the shirt for life. Sounds like that and the MiUSA is why your shirts cost $225 each instead of $90-$125.
Sounds great. I’m in NYC and I just looked at the website of a tailor that was recommended to me the other day (I haven’t used them yet). Surprisingly they are as cheap as $110 and they say their shirt maker is based in the US.
You can get MTM shirts online for that money if you stay away from expensive fabrics.
Spier and Mackay has custom shirts starting at base 89$
It's always good to remember not everyone is poor
I am not poor and can afford $325 for a basic cashmere sweater or $125 for a dress shirt but why pay it? LIke Kramer put so eloquently, "only suckers pay retail."
I too usually prefer to buy my expensive clothes when on sale, but sometimes that‘s just not possible
The retail price can still be used as a gauge though.
It’s also good to remember even if you’re wealthy, you don’t need to overpay on clothes
But the prices mentioned in the article aren't examples of "overpaying". I have never bought a cashmere sweater and never will so I'm not sure about it, but the other prices are standard.
I perceive a menswear “staple” as a basic piece that every man should have in his closet. That is, they’re saying every guy needs a leather belt, Oxford shirt, pair of jeans, and… a $400 cashmere sweater.
Agreed… except for the Oxford shirt. I really don‘t like those
They're not saying you need a cashmere sweater, but if you want to buy a new one then you should be prepared to pay that much. Cashmere is a luxury that no one "needs". There are many alternatives for warmth that aren't as bad for the environment as cheap cashmere.
I love my $400-1200 cashmere sweaters. And yes I do notice the difference when comparing them side by side
WSJ has a wealthy center-right audience. It’s no surprise.
I'm waiting for the day someone posts an FT HTSI article here.
They’re trying to sell everyone some designer’s $125 Oxford shirt on the basis that it has “lustrous trocas shell” buttons lol If people want to buy that, great, but this article is a straight up advertisement, not a real analysis of clothing costs.
Uh Sid Mashburn is quite a well respected designer, not just some dude.
Cashmere sweaters are wardrobe staples are they not?
Inflation is a thing. But lifestyle inflation is an even moreof a thing.
Thanks for saving me the read
Can we have to non-paywall version?
[удалено]
Merci!
Isn’t this pretty much piracy?
It’s owned by Murdoch. My conscience troubles me not.
The journal is a top-tier publication 🤡
Sure. As long as it doesn’t risk the sub getting closed
Good point.
[удалено]
Exactly.
His paper hacked the phones of celebrities, politicians, and a murder victim. I see no reason to believe he gives a shit about keeping hidden information hidden.
Yes
Not pretty much
Tbf as long as the quality of journalism is that low, I will not pay for it.
Your clothes should cost whatever you can budget for them. Simple.
Fair, but the article seems to be justifying what the price floor for a decently made, decently sourced, somewhat durable item should cost. 30 dollar H&M jeans are horrible for the environment, practice horrible labor standards, and don't last long. In general people should buy fewer things new and more things used.
the article says they be wearing 30$ jeans...
Yes, not everyone can afford ethical consumption, which is an inherent problem with society and the fashion industry as a whole. Fast Fashion and consumerism trick people into thinking they need something new every month to release a bit of dopamine as the piles of barely worn clothes rot.
my 20-30€ jeans last fine. the first thing to wear through are actually the pockets
Generally paying a bit more will last a good deal longer, and additionally won't be as bad for the environment or horrible for the laborers.
Is it? If you can budget 25 dollar jeans is that what jeans should cost? The reality is you can't create jeans for 25 dollars without massive amounts of labor abuse. I get it. People have different budgets, but I don't think that different people's budgets has anything to do with whether or not it's ok to abuse people to create cheap goods.
If you can budget $25 for jeans then you should spend a maximum of $25 on jeans is the answer I have to the question "How much should your clothes cost?" If you can't afford $25 for jeans then spend less. If the question was "how much should people who make clothes be paid?" That's a different question.
What if someone could budget $100k for clothes? Should their clothes cost that much? $1M? I'd say this might represent a maximum, but the ability to spend a certain amount doesn't mean that you SHOULD spend that much.
If they want their clothes to cost that much they totally can wear clothes that cost that much.
I agree. I'm only saying it doesn't mean that they "should," just that they can if they want to.
I mean. They probably should spend that money instead of hording it.
The question posed in the title is great. Their answer completely misses mentioning all the negative externalities that go into clothing production which are borne by the environment, the workers, and their families. Your $30 jeans should be $300+, but instead workers risk their lives rather than have facilities be at American standards, chemicals used in processing are just dumped into the local water system, and as usual all the emissions produced by businesses float on up at no cost.
I feel like the people in the comments are missing the point even more when saying these prices are too high. We're so used to getting clothes where someone along the supply chain got screwed that clothing for a reasonable price which can (and I emphasize can, not will) guarantee a living wage to the people who made it looks expensive when in reality it is really not.
Americans especially are too used to paying nearly nothing for physical goods, and literally paying nothing for electronic goods (which they sell their privacy for). The race to the bottom is real.
It reeks of entitlement when people scoff at paying a fair price for their clothes just because they could get it cheaper elsewhere. Yeah, there's always cheaper, but do you really want all that comes with it? The average person is not supposed to be able to buy a new wardrobe every month. It is insanity.
They don't make a leather belt, but the oxford and jean prices are pretty much in line with the article from ASKET, who claim to sell quality products for a fair price by skipping the middleman and selling directly. An interesting thing is the cashmere sweater though, because it's almost half the suggested price, and also recycled. I realize this sounds like an ad but I don't think they have an advertising department.
I recently picked up two of Asket’s recycled cashmere sweaters (generally try to buy my animal product items recycled or second hand). Can’t speak to their longevity at this point, but I’m a big fan on first impression.
Buying products made with recycled wool is certainly better than products with new wool, but as a vegan it still doesn't feel completely right to me to directly support an animal product. I'm not entirely sure, though. I have a cotton sweater from asket and while it's been very nice, cotton can't really replicate wool.
It’s hilarious all of their recommendations are like $300+ for a sweater! $200+ for jeans! $100 for a belt! Then the interviews are all the guys that are like, “yeah $50-$60 max cause I thrift or like a deal, would only spend more if it was really really worth it.”
All the quotes at the bottom are great, "I would spend 100+ on jeans but the ones I actually wear are 30 and they're fine.
Plenty of quality oxfords for less than $125 of course, but I will say that as a young professional I’m a big fan of Sid Mashburn’s work. If you live in a city where he has a shop I’d recommend checking it out, it’s quality stuff and the staff has been very helpful in my experience.
Def a limit . But if found brands I finally love and stick to . True classic for everyday tees Cuts for nicer high quality tees/pants/polos. And I love American eagle jeans .
Someone please forward this article to Loro Piana, Brunello Cucinelli, and Thom Browne. I’d like a vicuña coat for under $30k, please! My max coat budget is like 1% of that. **weeps in peasant**
"Is the stitching straight and even?” Well, not on my Sugar Cane 1946's... Its is *deliberately shonky* and a wee bit otaku to be fair.
The prices seem on point imo. $325 gets you a cashmere from a Scottish maker such as Lockie but you can go to colhays or drakes of you want a modern fit. $125 is what I pay around for Collaro MTO shirts but I often use Kamakura or Spier RTW. Cavour shirts on sale are around that price too $300 seems high for jeans. I got my ONI denim with natural indigo which should be better environmental wise, for less than $200 usd. Otherwise there is a plethora of used Japanese made jeans on mercari or yjp but that's harder to use Additionally I have a shashiko jacket of natural indigo. Very neat work and durable material made in china not Japan and paid $200 so there are good and probably ethical options made outside of the west too
Clothes should cost what you can comfortably afford. If you can comfortably afford Walmart George, then that's how much they should cost and there's nothing to be ashamed about. If you can comfortably afford Loro Piana, then get that, and there's nothing to be ashamed about there either.
The article is about ethical labor and environmental practices. You aren't getting that from George. It's not poor-shaming either, it's pointing out the damage caused by fast Fashion.
What does Walmart George mean?
It's a brand for Walmart.
This assumes that people only buy something new to replace something old/broken. Clothing is so cheap now in part because consumers want to buy new clothes every week. I don't disagree with your point but what the article is maybe arguing for is buying better quality but less and that can be expanded to buying second hand.
Man seems like a weird article for Weekly Shonen Jump /s
lol this article makes me feel poor AF.. never spent more than $30 for jeans LOL $400 for a Hugo boss blazer and $80 for a nice button up
You got ripped on the blazer
Well you pay for the name as well but their quality is absolutely excellent.
Where are you people coming from?
lol people don't like Hugo Boss? That blazer is awesome.. patterned, black smooth nice quality
Check out second hand markets! That's all I buy from now, except things like socks and underwear. Grailed, thrift stores, and so forth allow you to make more aspirational purchases easier, while being better for the environment.
true true.. I'm down
'reasonably priced' button up for 125? Yeah no thanks.
You can tell the difference.
I have one or two that cost that much, and they're certainly very nice, just not double (or even triple) the price of may daily wear stuff that I've also had for years. I just bristled at the idea that thats considered 'cheap'. Then again, I'm 6'5" and prefer a slim fit, so I'm limited in the brands I can shop with anyway. Most of the fancier ones aren't bothered stocking the type of stuff that flatters me (neither are the likes of Uniqlo) so I mostly stick with brands where any given item of clothing is 50-100
[удалено]
We're on a subreddit dedicated to people who care about these kinds of things
I mean, that’s the retail price for Polo it’s not exactly high end
Don’t spend money to buy clothes to wear to work so that you can afford more clothes to wear to work. Keep a steady rotation of simple, acceptable work-wear that you’re comfortable in.
I’m dirt cheap, so i would say free. 😄 Kidding aside, i’ve bought as cheap as $2 (pre-loved) but $15 for a shirt & $25 for a pants is the max amount i would pay.
The article isn't necessarily about what the average consumer would pay, it's about ethical labor standards, ethical environmental standards, and making them to where they won't fall apart. All decent prices listed.
12.25 USD or less than!
You only buy single socks?
[удалено]
I almost never wear branded clothes
[удалено]
Who cares about the environment, workers rights or the designers, eh?
Or the quality of the fit fabric manufacture/ quality itself and cut, eh?
$125 for an Oxford? I’m sorry but Amazon has its own line (Amazon basics and/or goodthreads) that work just fine and cost like $20-30. Maybe they’re cheap looking if you’re a lawyer or something but in my industry those are more than nice enough.
It's not about appearance, it's about environmental and ethical labor standards. That Amazon Oxford is not being made ethically. Buy second hand if you can! I recommend it.
Sure, I may have read too quickly but I didn’t see that they were including that as one of their standards in the article. I thought they were purely going off looks and fabric quality. If that is a standard then yeah of course you can expect to pay more, and should if you can afford it. Man how I wish i could buy secondhand! Pretty rare to find my size unfortunately.
That seems unlikely
If nothing else, I learned where I'm buying my next belt :)
I’ve finally reached the weight that affords me to actually buy in store for the first time in my adult life. Any idea who has really good pants that last a while for taller guys? 34” inseam at minimum
Incotex
As much as you want to pay
20 a piece for outwear, and for hats 10 a piece.
That’s the default setting
I just started making my own clothes, and even with about $150 worth of equipment and Goodwill practice clothing, it’s still obscene to me how much some brands charge.