The square tags tacked to the sleeves of suit jackets are merely a retail tool, making it easier for shoppers to flip through a rack of suits... When you get home, that outside label should always come off.
Once, I couldn't resist telling a 20something man that he had forgotten to remove that label. He countered that he had no intention of taking it off; the label telegraphed to his friends he was wearing a "designer" suit. While many folks favor showy logos and labels, I believe clothes should broadcast their quality through great style, craftsmanship and fit.
As for the basting designed to hold lapels and pleats in place until the garment is purchased—pull out those stitches before you get dressed. The lone exception is the stitching that sews jacket pockets closed. Many stylish wearers prefer to leave the pockets stitched tight. That renders the pockets useless but also prevents the fabric from bulging or sagging...
As for the logo patches on the back of jeans, which don't detach so easily— they still need to come off, in my opinion. I have never liked the billboard effect of those insignias...
07 January 2011
Do your clothes still have manufacturer's tags attached?
The fashion reporter for the Wall Street Journal comments:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is an issue? Actually, I've seen this here in Flint, MI, and I thought it was emblematic of the larger issue, the fact that consumers are primed from infancy to act as adverts for clothing designers, or all matter of commerce. Unreal.
ReplyDeleteHere in Flint, it's common to see formal school pictures which prominently display logos. I'm past appalled. I'm dismayed.
"While many folks favor showy logos and labels, I believe clothes should broadcast their quality through great style, craftsmanship and fit."
ReplyDeleteWhat she said!
If, however, you have a strong desire to flaunt your monthly income, you could just wear a print of your bank account balance around your neck ...
I used to tell my daughters that if they were going to advertise a manufacturer, they should be paid to wear the clothes instead of having to pay extra for the privilege. Now I hear them (except the oldest) saying the same thing to their kids.
ReplyDeleteBarbwire, you would love my aunt. When I was a kid & adidas t-shirts were the rage she'd say to me, "How much do they pay you to wear that shirt? When I was young men would walk around with a sandwich board and they would be paid for it so you should be getting paid too."
ReplyDeleteThere's a local brewery that I have a bunch of shirts from. I also have friends who work there and give me free beer sometimes so in that instance I suppose I am "paid" for wearing it.
I have also seen people in London leaving the "100% wool" tag on the cuff....I think they are so accustomed to labels and brands that they just don't realise about taking them off.
ReplyDeleteMy father worked all his working life at the high end of the textile industry.
ReplyDeleteThey'd make suitings so technically fine in quality that they could only be hand-sewn, that they could neither be washed or dry cleaned, without damage. That was okay, because the buyers were those people who are so unimaginably rich that wearing a suit twice was an alien concept to them.
In that world, no labels are affixed. You don't need a label to tell you that your choice has been okayed by thirty million know-nothings.
I recall, walking thtough Harrods with him, and he looking at the detail of the most expensive suits, a very superior type sales person moseyed over, to say what a fine selection sir had made...
"My dad said "Fine? it's rubbish man, feel that seam! Look how the pattern-match is uneven on the shoulders, rubbish, absolute rubbish."
That was his verdict on Armani. In my dad's world, no real man wore a ready-made suit.
we live now, in a world where people crave mass-approval. Where a label is a reassurance. Where we aren't certain of our own ability to detect quality.
And the label firms? They play on it. What, I may ask you, have most of these "designers" ever done to justify their label. If one sweatshirt is plain, and another, similar in material, construction, and cut, has a huge "Tommy Hilfiger" or "Ralph Lauren" banner on it, where's the added value?
What did Tommy Hilfiger ever design, I ask?
Demonstration of logos and other identifying marks also depends on the price of the item in another way.
ReplyDeleteIn "Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption"
marketing.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/.../Subtle_Signals.pdf
the authors reported that "While only 21% of sunglasses under
$50 contained a brand name or logo, for example, this increased
to 84% among sunglasses between $100 and $300.
But as price increased further, explicit branding decreased:
among sunglasses priced more than $500, for example, only
30% displayed a brand name or logo. A similar analysis of
handbags (see the appendix for full methods) found the same
pattern of results. While cheaper bags (i.e., those under
$100) had few logos or brand-related patterns and midpriced
bags (i.e., $200–$300) often contained brand identifiers,
signal explicitness decreased among higher-priced
bags. Bags more than $600, for example, had comparable
values of signal explicitness to the cheapest bags."
In other words, fewer explicit logos and markers were identified on higher end items, instead relying on quality of materials recognizable by "those in the know."
CLC
As a teacher in an urban school I have seen this quite a few times. As stupid as I think it is, I've started to realize there's certain cultural differences I just won't get. I'm sure these students think I look silly as well. It's simply a difference in cultural values. Is it wrong to think another culture looks silly? I don't think so. Does that make your culture better? No.
ReplyDelete