|
On November 16 2005 10:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:
that's true, it's not that expensive. but it's also no better looking than stuff that costs 1/3 of it, nor is it particulary more unique, more comfortable or more durable. =[
Ok, so a standard price of a Lacoste polo is 72, you're saying you can find something that is as durable/stylish for 24 dollars? Come on - you don't even play poker so you can't get the Pokerstars FPP polos -.- (will be getting one once I get the points)
The stitching and the color of Lacoste polos are certainly unique and vibrant. Some of their more "flashier" designs are hit-and-miss, but some I do like very much.
|
On November 16 2005 09:46 HULKAMANIA wrote:
For your information, work out SUPER HARD. I'd be willing to bet that I bench more than you, squat more than you, and deadlift more than your bench, squat, and deadlift combined. I also like writing and reading.
Will you also be willing to bet that you read more than he reads and writes combined?
|
HULKAMANIA is SUPER BUFF, don't mock him = )
|
Norway28915 Posts
ok maybe slightly more durable, definitely not 3 times as durable.
at least for me my lacoste clothing was less durable than my ck, dolce, ysl, sand and armani, and equally durable but way less attractive than my hugo clothing. (and less attractive than the other mentioned brands too. )
|
Isn't Dolce and Hugo _much_ more expensive though?
|
Norway28915 Posts
they definitely can be, yeah. dolce and hugo have more of a tendency to price their nice products extremely highly and their not-that-nice products (that are still much nicer than lacoste imo  ) lower (like in lacoste-range), while lacoste does not differentiate much.
|
Yes but they're more stylish, especially D&G. Anything unique in D&G is fairly expensive. Gio Armani or Armani collezioni are more expensive than D&G/Boss though.
|
On November 16 2005 11:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
ok maybe slightly more durable, definitely not 3 times as durable.
at least for me my lacoste clothing was less durable than my ck, dolce, ysl, sand and armani, and equally durable but way less attractive than my hugo clothing. (and less attractive than the other mentioned brands too. )
What's that all about with durability? So what if a polo/tshirt/whatever can be worn for three years without falling apart and losing colours, when I get bored of it in a year and don't want to wear it anymore?
|
Then put it in the clothing bin. There are many people in need. They'll be estatic to wear second hand Lacoste
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
|
Norway28915 Posts
On November 16 2005 11:58 Krzych wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2005 11:03 Liquid`Drone wrote:
ok maybe slightly more durable, definitely not 3 times as durable.
at least for me my lacoste clothing was less durable than my ck, dolce, ysl, sand and armani, and equally durable but way less attractive than my hugo clothing. (and less attractive than the other mentioned brands too. ) What's that all about with durability? So what if a polo/tshirt/whatever can be worn for three years without falling apart and losing colours, when I get bored of it in a year and don't want to wear it anymore?
then don't buy expensive clothing.. actually I generally don't think you should do that anyway.
|
On November 16 2005 10:56 Krzych wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2005 09:46 HULKAMANIA wrote:
For your information, work out SUPER HARD. I'd be willing to bet that I bench more than you, squat more than you, and deadlift more than your bench, squat, and deadlift combined. I also like writing and reading.
Will you also be willing to bet that you read more than he reads and writes combined?
That depends; are we counting forum posts as writing and forum browsing as reading?
And I don't consider myself super buff. I do, however, bust my ass in the gym on a regular basis, and I've learned a thing or two about moving iron. I'm not metro. That's for god damned sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
