I know this is an outragous an probably the most off-topic thread since any troll but pls just read it and then delete it mabye.
I just finished a short trip to NY. And there is a store where i saw a jacket ( which i couldn't afford ), but i will remember it forever because i loved it so much. But i never took a photo of it. Its in the show-window, a blue leather jacket. The designer is Salvatore Ferragamo and the Store is on 655 fifth Avenue. So maybe some of you guys lives in NY and has some spare time left for me. I would highly appreciate a good picture of that named leather jacket. It has Shoulder-patches, just in case you can't find it.
Thank you.
ps: don't ban me pls. this is serious. at least semi-serious.
On July 25 2009 06:22 Kennigit wrote: Despite my brain saying "close this garbage", my heart this "this is a completely reasonable request and you should leave open"
On July 25 2009 07:20 paper wrote: he's saying the jacket he couldn't afford is 3.5k >__>
thats right. there were no prize labels on the front and as i moved in to ask i said to myself ( ok 400dollars are your limit ) so i got kinda smacked..
ask cambium for a gilt invite, there are always leather jackets from good designers on there (although not salvatore), and they're usually like 70% off and shit it's nuts
I figured he meant the business card scene from american psycho, but he kind of just goes insane over other people having better cards than him. This is the best business card
If you type the street address into google maps and go to street view, you can see the front of the store quite clearly, but not clearly enough to see the jacket =(
Is it imperative that you get this picture soon or can it wait until next week? I go through Grand Central every day to work and I may be willing to take a little walk and bring a camera.
Don't count on it, but if I do decide to head over there I just want to make sure it's not in vain.
On July 25 2009 10:04 Phyre wrote: Is it imperative that you get this picture soon or can it wait until next week? I go through Grand Central every day to work and I may be willing to take a little walk and bring a camera.
Don't count on it, but if I do decide to head over there I just want to make sure it's not in vain.
it can wait. but as you see guys are already goin' crazy, so maybe you hurry up ^^
On July 25 2009 07:58 floor exercise wrote: I figured he meant the business card scene from american psycho, but he kind of just goes insane over other people having better cards than him. This is the best business card
ok.. so my brother took a picture of it. at first everyone in my family said none took a picture, but apparently my brothers GF (who was with us) took one and didnt tell us ^^
i'm very sorry but at least we all get to see it now. let the metro bashing begin haha. enjoy it.
its not even the best, so maybe you can make better ones if you want to
thanks to all of you, it was very heartwarming after all.
On July 25 2009 10:22 thopol wrote: It looks good. If it were like 5 bucks at the thrift store instead of a jillion at the 'spensive store I'd get one.
same and I'll be honest, that does not look like 3.5k dollars worth quality.... at least from the outside view...
On July 25 2009 10:27 Liquid`Zephyr wrote: how is that jacket $3500
This is what I wonder too..... can the OP please specify how such a jacket is 3500 dollars?? I mean really now, I live in NYC and during my adventures of shopping in Manhattan, I never saw such jacket that looks like costing that much.... even Macy's Super Store has better clothes for 1/10 of the price...
Nice jacket...like the collar, but those wide pockets are pretty ugly. Of course, it's kind of hard to evaluate something that only an insanely rich person would buy.
mehhh yea, i guess there's the whole brand factor. In terms of outer looks, if you shop around, you can find some pretty similar looking jackets with similar frames to that one for a lot, lot less.
On July 25 2009 06:22 Kennigit wrote: Despite my brain saying "close this garbage", my heart this "this is a completely reasonable request and you should leave open"
Reasonable for someone to want to ascertain the identity of one jacket in one of the world's largest metropolei.
I have a better chance poppin' a wood to Terry Schiavo.
On July 25 2009 06:22 Kennigit wrote: Despite my brain saying "close this garbage", my heart this "this is a completely reasonable request and you should leave open"
Reasonable for someone to want to ascertain the identity of one jacket in one of the world's largest metropolei.
I have a better chance poppin' a wood to Terry Schiavo.
So we had two awesome things happen in this thread.
On July 25 2009 06:22 Kennigit wrote: Despite my brain saying "close this garbage", my heart this "this is a completely reasonable request and you should leave open"
Reasonable for someone to want to ascertain the identity of one jacket in one of the world's largest metropolei.
I have a better chance poppin' a wood to Terry Schiavo.
not really that hard tbh, collections are limited and unlike the gap where they have millions of versions of differnet jackets jeans etc. he also gave the exact specific SF store, all that was needed was someone who had the time to go and take a pic.
On July 25 2009 14:55 evanthebouncy! wrote: the pocket location looks really awkward, i can't imagine putting my hands in them and feeling comfortible
the pockets are really the only downside on that thing. i was inside the store and touched it, although it doesn't look like leather it is. and it really felt damn good. but not 3,5k damn good, TBH. but thats 5th avenue + Designer Brand i guess.
But such things motivate me to get rich and then i buy these thing
There are many girls that look like Rachel Mcadams walking down the street, and frankly there is nothing exceptionally special about her, but you would wish to go out with Rachel Mcadams instead of random pretty girls on the street right? Some collectors are willing to pay millions of dollars for a tissue once used by Mona Lisa when in reality it's just a dirty old tissue. You are buying that moment and the experience. It's true that you can buy just as good quality jacket for $200 else where rather than paying $3000, but it's just not the same feeling. You are paying for the history and the premium of the brand which represents class. I may be a bit superficial, and while I wouldn't spend 3 grand on a single jacket I own heaps of brand clothing including LV, D&G, Armani, Christian Dior, Roberto Cavalli, Vivienne Westwood, Gucci, Burberry and Versace etc.
Why don't You try to find it somewhere else or contact distributor? If it's one piece item, then what's really a reason to cherish it if You can't get it. But that's my ideology.
My sister works in a boutique in Mayfair, London. People walk in with £20,000-£30,000 (approx. 35-50k US dollars) and blow it all on clothes in about 6-7 hours. So yeah a $3,500 jacket is nothing compared to what they sell in top boutiques.
Financial crisis my ass. All the super rich are not even bothered. It's the poor that are losing their jobs/houses etc.
Also why would you pay 3500 USD for a jacket? My entire wardrobe probably doesn't even come out to 500 USD. No single article of clothing is good enough to be worth that much.\
Also, to maximize the value of what i carry in my pockets i would carry kilograms of crystal meth.
On July 25 2009 23:48 ghermination wrote: ITT: (failed) Viral advertisments
Also why would you pay 3500 USD for a jacket? My entire wardrobe probably doesn't even come out to 500 USD. No single article of clothing is good enough to be worth that much.\
Also, to maximize the value of what i carry in my pockets i would carry kilograms of crystal meth.
because if it was a $200 jacket lots of people would own it. By buying 3.5k jacket, not only do you get the ego stroking of wasting a fuck ton of money on label, but you pretty much guarantee you never run into someone with the same jacket.
Alright look OP, you're in NYC and you're shopping in NYC??? then tell me something, HAVE YOU VISITED AND WENT TO THAT GIGANTIC 7 FLOOR STORY SUPER MACYS STORE at 34th Broadway??? If not, I suggest you should go there for your jacket needs, I mean it's nice you saw a jacket on the street (nonetheless *cough* $3500, wtf?? *cough*), but you gotta go to a real DEPARTMENT STORE for variety, choices and quality! So where is that?
#1 Biggest Macys store. Go there, I'm telling you now, it will make it worth while better than that jacket of *cough* 3.5k *cough*
On July 26 2009 02:34 LosingID8 wrote: lets go to dong dae mun
I lol'd...
On July 26 2009 02:15 dinmsab wrote: I bet you can find an exact looking jacket in china for less than $35
On July 25 2009 20:37 1tym wrote: There are many girls that look like Rachel Mcadams walking down the street, and frankly there is nothing exceptionally special about her, but you would wish to go out with Rachel Mcadams instead of random pretty girls on the street right? Some collectors are willing to pay millions of dollars for a tissue once used by Mona Lisa when in reality it's just a dirty old tissue. You are buying that moment and the experience. It's true that you can buy just as good quality jacket for $200 else where rather than paying $3000, but it's just not the same feeling. You are paying for the history and the premium of the brand which represents class. I may be a bit superficial, and while I wouldn't spend 3 grand on a single jacket I own heaps of brand clothing including LV, D&G, Armani, Christian Dior, Roberto Cavalli, Vivienne Westwood, Gucci, Burberry and Versace etc.
You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis.
Class and money don't really relate to eachother much anymore in todays world. Having money helps you participate in high society but money doesn't make you think like that.
On July 25 2009 20:37 1tym wrote: There are many girls that look like Rachel Mcadams walking down the street, and frankly there is nothing exceptionally special about her, but you would wish to go out with Rachel Mcadams instead of random pretty girls on the street right? Some collectors are willing to pay millions of dollars for a tissue once used by Mona Lisa when in reality it's just a dirty old tissue. You are buying that moment and the experience. It's true that you can buy just as good quality jacket for $200 else where rather than paying $3000, but it's just not the same feeling. You are paying for the history and the premium of the brand which represents class. I may be a bit superficial, and while I wouldn't spend 3 grand on a single jacket I own heaps of brand clothing including LV, D&G, Armani, Christian Dior, Roberto Cavalli, Vivienne Westwood, Gucci, Burberry and Versace etc.
You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis.
Class and money don't really relate to eachother much anymore0 in todays world. Having money helps you participate in high society but money doesn't make you think like that.
Good point. I found the tissue used by the Mona Lisa to be a funny comment :p
Still, if you make more money than you can spend, you're free to buy whatever you want and enjoy the perks that come with it.
Nice looking jacket, if I made buku bucks then I would buy it. However, I do not make much money so I stick to fashion that suits my taste and economic situation. Im pretty sure the jacket is hand made and throughly inspected before it reaches the store. I would say the jacket is worth about 2500 at most. I would not be suprised if there were a few left over and sold for 2500 at a sale. I can't critisize people who have the money and want to spend it on the jacket. Thats like me critisizing all of TL.net for wasting time playing a game. Time and money are resources and no one has the right to critisize how others decide to spend those resources.
i cant believe no one sees that jacket for the economic stimulus package it really is. overpriced luxury items are the only real taxes that the rich pay. just be happy about it.
On July 25 2009 20:37 1tym wrote: There are many girls that look like Rachel Mcadams walking down the street, and frankly there is nothing exceptionally special about her, but you would wish to go out with Rachel Mcadams instead of random pretty girls on the street right? Some collectors are willing to pay millions of dollars for a tissue once used by Mona Lisa when in reality it's just a dirty old tissue. You are buying that moment and the experience. It's true that you can buy just as good quality jacket for $200 else where rather than paying $3000, but it's just not the same feeling. You are paying for the history and the premium of the brand which represents class. I may be a bit superficial, and while I wouldn't spend 3 grand on a single jacket I own heaps of brand clothing including LV, D&G, Armani, Christian Dior, Roberto Cavalli, Vivienne Westwood, Gucci, Burberry and Versace etc.
You're not your job. You're not how much money you have in the bank. You're not the car you drive. You're not the contents of your wallet. You're not your fucking khakis.
Class and money don't really relate to eachother much anymore0 in todays world. Having money helps you participate in high society but money doesn't make you think like that.
Good point. I found the tissue used by the Mona Lisa to be a funny comment :p
Still, if you make more money than you can spend, you're free to buy whatever you want and enjoy the perks that come with it.
It is a valid point because I was pointing out that something that can be very dear to you can be worthless to someone else. Same with Starcraft right? The value of the clothes is not merely determined by the raw cost used in production, material and design. Also when I said it represents class, I didn't mean money represents class, but the brand itself represents class. Remeber in Pretty Woman where the girl (Julia Roberts) was refused to purchase clothes in a boutique because she was dressed like a hooker even though she had the money?
I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
On July 26 2009 09:44 maleorderbride wrote: i cant believe no one sees that jacket for the economic stimulus package it really is. overpriced luxury items are the only real taxes that the rich pay. just be happy about it.
It's not tax if the money filters right back to the people who own the fashion industry, which I assure you are not the working class. The actual workers in the fashion industry are paid below minimum wage in developing countries. The models get a cut of the money, which they then hand over to drug dealers and sleaze boyfriends/agents.
On July 30 2009 10:06 CharlieMurphy wrote: I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
That was exactly what I thought to use the money on. Talk about aesthetic vs. function.
Having nice things makes me feel good about wearing them. I feel accomplished when I wear my expensive clothes.It reminds me that I'm successful and that brings me happiness, even if it is material. Expensive clothes are also much more fashionable and more comfortable and last way longer.
$30 for jeans is a joke unless you're eating ramen for dinner.
On July 30 2009 10:31 CrownRoyal wrote: $30 for jeans is a joke unless you're eating ramen for dinner.
LOL.... You're views on clothes and status are very convoluted.
so is your view on spelling
(if you're going to put in the effort to exclusively type "you're" for "your" and vice versa, you'd think people would grasp their meanings before they repeatedly abuse either.)
On July 30 2009 02:36 PJA wrote: My $150 leather jacket will outlast that piece of shit by at least 10 years, and that's without me taking good care of it at all.
Haha, not at all. Ferragamo is quality stuff. Their shoes last for fucking ever too. $500 a pair though.
By the way, guys, just as a thought... women can tell the difference between $2 jeans and $200 jeans. Having expensive clothes is a DHV, and a good one. And the women that can tell the difference are the hot ones, normally. I know everyone's preference in women is different, but there is good reason to spend a lot on clothes.
On July 30 2009 11:59 Draconizard wrote: He did not commit a spelling error but rather one of diction. He knows perfectly well how to spell the words, just not which one to use.
On July 30 2009 10:31 CrownRoyal wrote: $30 for jeans is a joke unless you're eating ramen for dinner.
LOL.... You're views on clothes and status are very convoluted.
so is your view on spelling
(if you're going to put in the effort to exclusively type "you're" for "your" and vice versa, you'd think people would grasp their meanings before they repeatedly abuse either.)
Yes, generalize my grammar knowledge based off of a single careless mistake. Are you really so smug?
On July 30 2009 11:59 Draconizard wrote: He did not commit a spelling error but rather one of diction. He knows perfectly well how to spell the words, just not which one to use.
On July 30 2009 02:36 PJA wrote: My $150 leather jacket will outlast that piece of shit by at least 10 years, and that's without me taking good care of it at all.
Haha, not at all. Ferragamo is quality stuff. Their shoes last for fucking ever too. $500 a pair though.
By the way, guys, just as a thought... women can tell the difference between $2 jeans and $200 jeans. Having expensive clothes is a DHV, and a good one. And the women that can tell the difference are the hot ones, normally. I know everyone's preference in women is different, but there is good reason to spend a lot on clothes.
this. plus, $200+ jeans generally feel a whole lot different from the shit you buy at the gap, although the gap is actually pretty decent for what it is.
and while brands like ed hardy and christian audigier automatically scream "douchebag" to most people, women love it.
the stuck up girls in Vancouver love true religion and rock and republics! all around 300 dollars. But those jeans (especially rocks) are pretty fukin dope
On July 30 2009 11:59 Draconizard wrote: He did not commit a spelling error but rather one of diction. He knows perfectly well how to spell the words, just not which one to use.
On July 30 2009 02:36 PJA wrote: My $150 leather jacket will outlast that piece of shit by at least 10 years, and that's without me taking good care of it at all.
Haha, not at all. Ferragamo is quality stuff. Their shoes last for fucking ever too. $500 a pair though.
By the way, guys, just as a thought... women can tell the difference between $2 jeans and $200 jeans. Having expensive clothes is a DHV, and a good one. And the women that can tell the difference are the hot ones, normally. I know everyone's preference in women is different, but there is good reason to spend a lot on clothes.
this. plus, $200+ jeans generally feel a whole lot different from the shit you buy at the gap, although the gap is actually pretty decent for what it is.
and while brands like ed hardy and christian audigier automatically scream "douchebag" to most people, women love it.
Yeah, you don't have to buy Ed Hardy though, there are tons of brands that are better. And if you know where to look you can get them for significantly less than full price. But absolutely there is a difference in quality. My 7 for all Mankind jeans feel a LOT better than the $30 jeans I bought at Pacsun, or the slightly more expensive ones from express.
On July 30 2009 13:04 BalliSLife wrote: the stuck up girls in Vancouver love true religion and rock and republics! all around 300 dollars. But those jeans (especially rocks) are pretty fukin dope
On July 30 2009 11:59 Draconizard wrote: He did not commit a spelling error but rather one of diction. He knows perfectly well how to spell the words, just not which one to use.
considering how clear-cut either word's use in the english language is, i wouldn't be so sure he knows how to spell.
diction -- style of speaking or writing as dependent upon choice of words
On July 30 2009 10:31 CrownRoyal wrote: $30 for jeans is a joke unless you're eating ramen for dinner.
LOL.... You're views on clothes and status are very convoluted.
so is your view on spelling
(if you're going to put in the effort to exclusively type "you're" for "your" and vice versa, you'd think people would grasp their meanings before they repeatedly abuse either.)
Yes, generalize my grammar knowledge based off of a single careless mistake. Are you really so smug?
yes, generalize people's life based off a single article of clothing. Are you really so smug to brush off all excess materialism beyond your own materialistic consumption?
On July 30 2009 13:44 TheMusiC wrote: women love da sevens/R&R and TR's ;p
unfortunately.
@lemons, i find the make/construction of my imperials to be superior to that of my other jeans. i am convinced that if it is denim you are looking for, imported japanese selvedge cannot be topped.
however, i am similarly convinced that most girls are ignorant and will go for the known brands even if they're .... bad. so that point must, sadly, be conceded.
and yes, if you don't really care about the quality of your denim and only care about the look/style then just stick with the standard sevens/true religions. denim-wise they'll never be as good as the japanese selvege you can get, but shit like apc's and kmw's generally don't really have a distinct look to them like your R&R's or true religions do... nudies and imperials are sexy as hell though
On July 30 2009 11:59 Draconizard wrote: He did not commit a spelling error but rather one of diction. He knows perfectly well how to spell the words, just not which one to use.
considering how clear-cut either word's use in the english language is, i wouldn't be so sure he knows how to spell.
diction -- style of speaking or writing as dependent upon choice of words
On July 30 2009 10:31 CrownRoyal wrote: $30 for jeans is a joke unless you're eating ramen for dinner.
LOL.... You're views on clothes and status are very convoluted.
so is your view on spelling
(if you're going to put in the effort to exclusively type "you're" for "your" and vice versa, you'd think people would grasp their meanings before they repeatedly abuse either.)
Yes, generalize my grammar knowledge based off of a single careless mistake. Are you really so smug?
yes, generalize people's life based off a single article of clothing. Are you really so smug to brush off all excess materialism beyond your own materialistic consumption?
I never said I didn't like material things? I fully understand that people enjoy luxuries, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Crown took it a bit too far when he basically insulted people with cheap clothes. People with Levi's jeans are poor now? Please. I'm criticizing him based on his somewhat elitist statements while you're showing your ego because of a misplaced apostrophe and "e". Anyway, enough of this petty dispute. Let's stick on topic in this thread...
On July 30 2009 13:44 TheMusiC wrote: women love da sevens/R&R and TR's ;p
unfortunately.
@lemons, i find the make/construction of my imperials to be superior to that of my other jeans. i am convinced that if it is denim you are looking for, imported japanese selvedge cannot be topped.
however, i am similarly convinced that most girls are ignorant and will go for the known brands even if they're .... bad. so that point must, sadly, be conceded.
Yeah, I know/knew it wasn't as good as Japanese denim, but it's still considerably better than $30 jeans, and such. The price may be inflated, but...
On July 30 2009 11:59 Draconizard wrote: He did not commit a spelling error but rather one of diction. He knows perfectly well how to spell the words, just not which one to use.
considering how clear-cut either word's use in the english language is, i wouldn't be so sure he knows how to spell.
diction -- style of speaking or writing as dependent upon choice of words
the issue isn't style at all rofl
On July 30 2009 12:50 Hiphopapotamus wrote:
On July 30 2009 11:50 paper wrote:
On July 30 2009 10:58 Hiphopapotamus wrote:
On July 30 2009 10:31 CrownRoyal wrote: $30 for jeans is a joke unless you're eating ramen for dinner.
LOL.... You're views on clothes and status are very convoluted.
so is your view on spelling
(if you're going to put in the effort to exclusively type "you're" for "your" and vice versa, you'd think people would grasp their meanings before they repeatedly abuse either.)
Yes, generalize my grammar knowledge based off of a single careless mistake. Are you really so smug?
yes, generalize people's life based off a single article of clothing. Are you really so smug to brush off all excess materialism beyond your own materialistic consumption?
I never said I didn't like material things? I fully understand that people enjoy luxuries, and I wouldn't have it any other way. Crown took it a bit too far when he basically insulted people with cheap clothes. People with Levi's jeans are poor now? Please. I'm criticizing him based on his somewhat elitist statements while you're showing your ego because of a misplaced apostrophe and "e". Anyway, enough of this petty dispute. Let's stick on topic in this thread...
This thread has been massively derailed anyway. But I do agree with your point of view.
I may as well just ask this here, does anyone know where the hell I can buy these brands in or near Chicago?
uhhh not sure about chicago, but shopping-wise it's fairly similar to NYC/LA i think, so you should be able to find a lot of those brands if you look around. try barney's co-op, i know for sure they stock nudies and PC&D. also try the upscale department stores, saks/neiman sometimes carry them.
Maybe there's a difference between $10-15 jeans and $200 jeans, but my jeans feel perfectly comfortable to me. Why would I want to pay 20 times as much for something that's just going to make the jeans that feel good now feel worse? Plus, any girl who would date me because I wear more expensive brand name clothing probably wouldn't get along with me very well.
If I'm going to spend 200 dollars on clothing, it's going to be some kind of formal attire, not a type of clothing I would go hiking or play sports in. I'd pretty much only get to wear them on dates, since other times I'd worry about wearing a hole in them.
I like 7 and Diesel Jeans. They feel nice and don't ride up my ass like True Religion does.
edit: Also noobs, you never buy designer jeans for full price! You buy them at black friday (70~90% sale), off season jeans (20~30% sale), Christmas Sale (30~50%), THANKZGIVING (40~60%) and clearance sales! Who the hell would pay full price for that shit.
You save shitloads of money and the girls find your pants sexy. DOUBLE WIN
On July 30 2009 10:06 CharlieMurphy wrote: I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like new cars. It's gonna wear, get scratched, maybe driven into something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new house.
Just saying you can put your own emphasis on things. Currently I'd rather pay more for awesome clothes (still not 3.5k, but maybe 500) and drive a rusty old car. Everything is going to wear and tear.
On July 30 2009 10:06 CharlieMurphy wrote: I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like new cars. It's gonna wear, get scratched, maybe driven into something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new house.
Just saying you can put your own emphasis on things. Currently I'd rather pay more for awesome clothes (still not 3.5k, but maybe 500) and drive a rusty old car. Everything is going to wear and tear.
that is possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard. If you really think of the basic need/use of an item then a jacket is a jacket. A car can serve for many things, a home away from home, transportation.... do I need to go on ?
They have two physical stores, one in San Fran and one in NY
the NY store just opened. if you have any sizing questions, you can go to the superdenim forum i linked to earlier and ask there in the small questions thread or in the specific brand's thread. a self edge thread is in there too and the owner of self edge (kiya) frequently posts. iirc, it helps knowing your size in one company's denim to determine your sizing in another, esp since theyll stretch as you wear them and shrink if you decide to soak them. just dont talk about true religions or sevens and shit and youre good ; )
On July 30 2009 10:06 CharlieMurphy wrote: I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like new cars. It's gonna wear, get scratched, maybe driven into something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new house.
Just saying you can put your own emphasis on things. Currently I'd rather pay more for awesome clothes (still not 3.5k, but maybe 500) and drive a rusty old car. Everything is going to wear and tear.
that is possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard. If you really think of the basic need/use of an item then a jacket is a jacket. A car can serve for many things, a home away from home, transportation.... do I need to go on ?
Yes you do . A car isn't a home, who lives in a car? It's just a method of transportation at it's core. Clothing ranks higher than transportation in basic life necessities. And with both of them often a cheap version will suffice for it's main purpose, but more expensive versions are for showing off or w/e.
On July 30 2009 10:06 CharlieMurphy wrote: I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like new cars. It's gonna wear, get scratched, maybe driven into something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new house.
Just saying you can put your own emphasis on things. Currently I'd rather pay more for awesome clothes (still not 3.5k, but maybe 500) and drive a rusty old car. Everything is going to wear and tear.
that is possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard. If you really think of the basic need/use of an item then a jacket is a jacket. A car can serve for many things, a home away from home, transportation.... do I need to go on ?
Yes you do . A car isn't a home, who lives in a car? It's just a method of transportation at it's core. Clothing ranks higher than transportation in basic life necessities. And with both of them often a cheap version will suffice for it's main purpose, but more expensive versions are for showing off or w/e.
People live in cars all the time, mobile + a place to sleep > clothing
On July 30 2009 10:06 CharlieMurphy wrote: I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like new cars. It's gonna wear, get scratched, maybe driven into something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new house.
Just saying you can put your own emphasis on things. Currently I'd rather pay more for awesome clothes (still not 3.5k, but maybe 500) and drive a rusty old car. Everything is going to wear and tear.
that is possibly the worst analogy I've ever heard. If you really think of the basic need/use of an item then a jacket is a jacket. A car can serve for many things, a home away from home, transportation.... do I need to go on ?
Yes you do . A car isn't a home, who lives in a car? It's just a method of transportation at it's core. Clothing ranks higher than transportation in basic life necessities. And with both of them often a cheap version will suffice for it's main purpose, but more expensive versions are for showing off or w/e.
People live in cars all the time, mobile + a place to sleep > clothing
On July 30 2009 15:37 MrHoon wrote: I like 7 and Diesel Jeans. They feel nice and don't ride up my ass like True Religion does.
edit: Also noobs, you never buy designer jeans for full price! You buy them at black friday (70~90% sale), off season jeans (20~30% sale), Christmas Sale (30~50%), THANKZGIVING (40~60%) and clearance sales! Who the hell would pay full price for that shit.
You save shitloads of money and the girls find your pants sexy. DOUBLE WIN
Wait, what?
You buy them at Thanksgiving for 40-60% off, or at black friday for 70-90% off?
Thanksgiving is Thursday. Black Friday is, Friday. The next day. What (and thanksgiving gets the caps)? Huh?
Why are you nit-picking his post. The point is to buy during sales do you really need to point out something so tedious as that.
On topic - I like true religion and diesel jeans the best. Monarchy also is a good brand for jeans as well. I go to outlet malls to buy jeans though because like mr hoon stated the regular prices are quite ridiculous. You can always find good deals at the outlets no matter what time of year it is.
On July 30 2009 15:37 MrHoon wrote: I like 7 and Diesel Jeans. They feel nice and don't ride up my ass like True Religion does.
edit: Also noobs, you never buy designer jeans for full price! You buy them at black friday (70~90% sale), off season jeans (20~30% sale), Christmas Sale (30~50%), THANKZGIVING (40~60%) and clearance sales! Who the hell would pay full price for that shit.
You save shitloads of money and the girls find your pants sexy. DOUBLE WIN
Wait, what?
You buy them at Thanksgiving for 40-60% off, or at black friday for 70-90% off?
Thanksgiving is Thursday. Black Friday is, Friday. The next day. What (and thanksgiving gets the caps)? Huh?
You know, there are different countries that celebrate Thanksgiving on different days than America right...? Maybe he was talking about Canada/UK? Have you thought about other plausible situations before assuming other people are idiots?
I thought I would never pay more than 50$ for jeans till I went to EVO in vegas this year and decided to get me 2 pair of True Religions... dude those pants are worth every single penny... they look so flashy and fit perfectly.. I dunno how to explain it
On July 26 2009 09:44 maleorderbride wrote: i cant believe no one sees that jacket for the economic stimulus package it really is. overpriced luxury items are the only real taxes that the rich pay. just be happy about it.
It's not tax if the money filters right back to the people who own the fashion industry, which I assure you are not the working class. The actual workers in the fashion industry are paid below minimum wage in developing countries. The models get a cut of the money, which they then hand over to drug dealers and sleaze boyfriends/agents.
The more important point is for them to be able to keep the manufacturing factory operating within their own respective countries. While most of the low to mid class fashion brands have re-loacted their manufacturing factory over to China long time ago, luxury brands such as Versace, Louis Vuiton and Chanel etc still produce locally in Italy and France etc. This is only possible because they charge a shit load of money for premium. In the face of the economic crisis, there is always a news of factory workers losing thousands of jobs daily, and as their skills are limited to basic factory production, they're unable to find alternative jobs locally.
On July 30 2009 15:37 MrHoon wrote: I like 7 and Diesel Jeans. They feel nice and don't ride up my ass like True Religion does.
edit: Also noobs, you never buy designer jeans for full price! You buy them at black friday (70~90% sale), off season jeans (20~30% sale), Christmas Sale (30~50%), THANKZGIVING (40~60%) and clearance sales! Who the hell would pay full price for that shit.
You save shitloads of money and the girls find your pants sexy. DOUBLE WIN
Wait, what?
You buy them at Thanksgiving for 40-60% off, or at black friday for 70-90% off?
Thanksgiving is Thursday. Black Friday is, Friday. The next day. What (and thanksgiving gets the caps)? Huh?
HUH HUH WHAT WHAT? HUH HUH WHAT WHAT? HUH HUH WHAT WHAT?
you do realize Black Friday Sale lasts for 1 day and there are endless and endless of people in line yet THANKZGIVING sale lasts for a whole week?
HUH WAHT COMMON SENSE WHAT
Edit: And its THANKZGIVING, the BESTEST holiday evarr
On July 31 2009 06:19 Last Romantic wrote: you too
oh no
don't hate on the true religions
they don't deserve it? ;p
re: LV, they're slowly shifting over to Chinese manufacturing, following the Coach trend. Of all handbags, they make among the highest profit margins, charging something like 12x-13x cost to make. Coach is around 10x.
The sales figure for LV have dropped recently following economic downturn so it's possible to make partial transfer, but they will never make the full transition because they know their strong competitiveness lies in the quality assurance and the brand value. Shifting manufacturing over to China will detoriate their brand value. (Not that there is anything wrong with China manufacturers)
On July 31 2009 06:19 Last Romantic wrote: you too
oh no
don't hate on the true religions
they don't deserve it? ;p
re: LV, they're slowly shifting over to Chinese manufacturing, following the Coach trend. Of all handbags, they make among the highest profit margins, charging something like 12x-13x cost to make. Coach is around 10x.
:o
I always thought Coach was rather inexpensive for "luxury" leather goods. Surprised to hear that they run a profit margin that of that magnitude.
On July 31 2009 06:19 Last Romantic wrote: you too
oh no
don't hate on the true religions
they don't deserve it? ;p
re: LV, they're slowly shifting over to Chinese manufacturing, following the Coach trend. Of all handbags, they make among the highest profit margins, charging something like 12x-13x cost to make. Coach is around 10x.
:o
I always thought Coach was rather inexpensive for "luxury" leather goods. Surprised to hear that they run a profit margin that of that magnitude.
I wouldn't classify Coach anywhere near LV's range
YSL belongs somewhere in that list, around Fendi/Brby afaik.
Yeah, Coaches are cheap to make and relatively cheap to buy, explaining their relative ubiquity. They're entirely made-in-China, which lets them do so.
On July 31 2009 06:19 Last Romantic wrote: you too
oh no
don't hate on the true religions
they don't deserve it? ;p
re: LV, they're slowly shifting over to Chinese manufacturing, following the Coach trend. Of all handbags, they make among the highest profit margins, charging something like 12x-13x cost to make. Coach is around 10x.
:o
I always thought Coach was rather inexpensive for "luxury" leather goods. Surprised to hear that they run a profit margin that of that magnitude.
I wouldn't classify Coach anywhere near LV's range
On July 31 2009 06:19 Last Romantic wrote: you too
oh no
don't hate on the true religions
they don't deserve it? ;p
re: LV, they're slowly shifting over to Chinese manufacturing, following the Coach trend. Of all handbags, they make among the highest profit margins, charging something like 12x-13x cost to make. Coach is around 10x.
:o
I always thought Coach was rather inexpensive for "luxury" leather goods. Surprised to hear that they run a profit margin that of that magnitude.
I wouldn't classify Coach anywhere near LV's range
On July 31 2009 06:19 Last Romantic wrote: you too
oh no
don't hate on the true religions
they don't deserve it? ;p
re: LV, they're slowly shifting over to Chinese manufacturing, following the Coach trend. Of all handbags, they make among the highest profit margins, charging something like 12x-13x cost to make. Coach is around 10x.
:o
I always thought Coach was rather inexpensive for "luxury" leather goods. Surprised to hear that they run a profit margin that of that magnitude.
I wouldn't classify Coach anywhere near LV's range
My girlfriend owns about 15 luxury handbags. I'm an expert on both male and female brands.
at Romantic: What's 'paper'?
Haha, is she Asian? Must be
Paper is another member of the forum... he's a valk if i'm not mistaken. Look back a few pages, I think he posted some jeans brands that started this whole derailment.
On July 30 2009 10:06 CharlieMurphy wrote: I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like new cars. It's gonna wear, get scratched, maybe driven into something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new house.
Just saying you can put your own emphasis on things. Currently I'd rather pay more for awesome clothes (still not 3.5k, but maybe 500) and drive a rusty old car. Everything is going to wear and tear.
I'm not against people putting emphasis on any thing in particular. It's spending outrageous amounts on ANYTHING unnecessary that I find stupid. Someone who buys an overly expensive sports car that has no utility over a car that's 20k cheaper and someone who spends as much one 1 pair of jeans as I do on 15 are equally unappealing to me.
I guess I wouldn't have a problem with any of it if I didn't know a plethora of adults who buy overly expensive things and whine about how they have to get part time jobs to pay for their house/car/kids education/whatever else that is more important than 300 dollar jeans.
On July 30 2009 10:06 CharlieMurphy wrote: I wouldn't even pay over 50$ for a pair of jeans (and more likely 30$). 5 for 10$ 4 life.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like this. It's gonna wear out or get stained, or ripped, or something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new car.
I don't understand why people pay so much for stupid shit like new cars. It's gonna wear, get scratched, maybe driven into something. And the shit will be ruined. Then what? You just lost a down payment on a new house.
Just saying you can put your own emphasis on things. Currently I'd rather pay more for awesome clothes (still not 3.5k, but maybe 500) and drive a rusty old car. Everything is going to wear and tear.
I'm not against people putting emphasis on any thing in particular. It's spending outrageous amounts on ANYTHING unnecessary that I find stupid. Someone who buys an overly expensive sports car that has no utility over a car that's 20k cheaper and someone who spends as much one 1 pair of jeans as I do on 15 are equally unappealing to me.
I guess I wouldn't have a problem with any of it if I didn't know a plethora of adults who buy overly expensive things and whine about how they have to get part time jobs to pay for their house/car/kids education/whatever else that is more important than 300 dollar jeans.
So your beef is not as much with people buying outrageously expensive things, but rather with people who can't afford it buying outrageously expensive things. That's pretty valid, just lay off the people who can.
WUT. HANDBAG BRAND DISCUSSIONS ON MY TL.net?!?! In a demographic that is predominantly undergrad/grad age males? WHAT HAS THIS WORLD COME TO? BRING BACK THE ZERGLINGS THAT ARE BURROWED IN SHAME!!!
On July 31 2009 12:13 Last Romantic wrote: Jimmy Choo shoes are okay. I'd not buy them for my gf but I can understand people who would.
But yeah I had no idea he made handbags o-oi it seems passing strange to me!
YSL bags are so underrated.
YSL is following the trends of other brands, it used to be one that the (actually) rich went to, but a combination of wanting to appeal to lower consumers and their bad luck of people finding out about it as a 'legit luxury brand' has devalued its name a lot. When lots of people save and 'splurge' on basic items like plain t-shirts with the logo, you know it's going downhill. And Coach is worth nothing except to people who pretend like they can afford luxury.
On July 31 2009 12:13 Last Romantic wrote: Jimmy Choo shoes are okay. I'd not buy them for my gf but I can understand people who would.
But yeah I had no idea he made handbags o-oi it seems passing strange to me!
YSL bags are so underrated.
YSL is following the trends of other brands, it used to be one that the (actually) rich went to, but a combination of wanting to appeal to lower consumers and their bad luck of people finding out about it as a 'legit luxury brand' has devalued its name a lot. When lots of people save and 'splurge' on basic items like plain t-shirts with the logo, you know it's going downhill. And Coach is worth nothing except to people who pretend like they can afford luxury.
As of like... two? years ago they were still okay. The YSL Muse continues to be a solid, if pricey, bag.
But yeah I'd not get a YSL Tee and I have no idea of the company's direction since YSL himself died.
edit: omg retracted YSL Muse II is the ugliest pos i've seen in awhile. Muse I was still really good tho.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7296/207l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://overallsuccess.net/monthlyideas-Jan-1.jpg)
. A car isn't a home, who lives in a car? It's just a method of transportation at it's core. Clothing ranks higher than transportation in basic life necessities. And with both of them often a cheap version will suffice for it's main purpose, but more expensive versions are for showing off or w/e.
![[image loading]](http://img190.imageshack.us/img190/676/salv.jpg)
