Enough with the logos

[Matt Deckard]

I'm tired of wearing the Ralph Lauren shirts with the pony, or seeing the Borsalino with the word Borsalino on the ribbon, or the pin on the side of the hat or the sweater that has RL monogrammed on the front My sweater and if any it should be my monogram.

Brooks is pushing the lamb on the polo, Ralph has the blazer with the patch and everyone has the khakis with the whopping log on the seat.

 

[J. M. Stovall]

Blame that darn alligator.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

But don't anyone dare attack Oviatt's for its 1938 logo!

 

[Matt Deckard]

Inside logos are fine... I dig for them in suits and dresses all the time... if you put it on the outside it takes away the fun.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Agreed.

And how do we feel about personal monograms on, say, shirt cuffs?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

monograms might be a good idea if you are constantly encoutering one of those incredibly rare occasions when a whole bunch of mens shirts are being hung together (a locker room without lockers, for example) and you need to find your shirt and not get someone elses.

bk

 

[flat-top]

If a logo is not embroidered on, I always remove it. Some people are trying to show off the brand, while I'm trying to hide it!

 

[Lauren]

I heart monograms.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

Some people are trying to show off the brand, while I'm trying to hide it!

(Playing devil's advocate here, below.)

But look at it this way: an artist signs his/her work for all to see. In many parts of the world, architects put their names on the corners of their buildings. Why, then, shouldn't a clothing designer sign his/her creations? That way, if someone sees your shirt and likes it, he/she will be able to know (without having to ask you) that the shirt was made by so-and-so ... and can be bought at that designer's store.

 

[Vladimir Berkov]

The difference is that artists sign their work so that one-of-a-kind pieces can be authenticated as theirs. And if an artist is good, the signature shouldn't be even necessary to tell the art is theirs.

Clothing with logos is mass produced, and usually the only difference between the logoed clothing and the non-logoed clothing is the logo itself. The logo is essentially a way of taking a normal, everyday item of clothing and by virtue of adding the logo, transforming it into a desireable, fashionable (and more pricy!) item.

And think about it, why would a person want to wear a logoed instead of a logo-less item? Either they really, really enjoy the design of the logo (highly unlikely) or they are looking to impress other people with how much they paid for their clothes or how fashionable or trendy they are.

Logos are really just a current, dumbed-down form of fashionable dress. Whereas in the past, the way a man tied his cravat or the quality of his suit material, or the precise break of the trousers over his shoes might be seen as a sign of his fashion-sense. Today you can just buy a shirt with a big logo which will say "I am with it, I am wearing the cool clothes" to the world.

 

[Matt Deckard]

corner of the building, not dead center in a contrasting color.

I can do a monogram. I like the cream on white sometimes. Never on the cough.

Forearm of my shirt perhaps in Navy in a deco letter style.

Corner of the handkerchief in cream

Inside of the suit jacket

Inside leather band of the hat

Matt Deckard in black silk screen repeated along the waistband of my boxer briefs

 

[flat-top]

Well, since I dress in 95% vintage, the 5% new stuff I wear has to LOOK vintage! A logo would certainly kill that illusion. I found a Tommy Hilfiger shirt a few years ago that looked great, but had the "flag" logo embroidered on the pocket. I bought it and actually removed the entire pocket!

 

[Quigley Brown]

I like showing off my Dali and Countess Mara vintage neckties.

 

[KAT]

Matt Deckard in black silk screen repeated along the waistband of my boxer briefs

your girlfriend will never ever forget your name again

 

[PrettySquareGal]

I'm tired of wearing the Ralph Lauren shirts with the pony, or seeing the Borsalino with the word Borsalino on the ribbon, or the pin on the side of the hat or the sweater that has RL monogrammed on the front My sweater and if any it should be my monogram.

Brooks is pushing the lamb on the polo, Ralph has the blazer with the patch and everyone has the khakis with the whopping log on the seat.

I am so with you on this, and it makes shopping very difficult. I think if I help advertise a brand that I should receive a discount.

 

[Marc Chevalier]

I like showing off my Dali and Countess Mara vintage neckties.

Good point! They were hardly one-of-a-kind.

 

[Matt Deckard]

your girlfriend will never ever forget your name again

Sorry kid, no girlsfriends in my immediate future... For now I'm off the ticket in that regard.

 

[Wild Root]

I’m not a billboard… I don’t wear brand names on the out side… in the old days, people could tell the brand by the way it was designed. Mostly the wealthy and famous women of those days could tell if it was a Lillian or Don Lopper or, Sears. But, they had the tag inside, not printed on the outside. Monograms aren’t bad, just a little to uppity for my taste I do have some vintage handkerchiefs that have an “R” monogrammed on the corner, that’s cool but, I’d keep my shirts free of such. Initials on the inside of the suit or hat are a good idea to have.

Now, neck ties such as Dali's and such are to be signed because they were painted by a world famous artist! Mr. Brown, I’d love to see the Dali's you have in your collection!!!

Remaining logo free,

=WR=

 

[Matt Deckard]

The hand painted tie I can accept... A Wild Root original perhaps, though the signature would have to be discreet.

For example, the dollar coin... the artist's signature does not mar the face of liberty

 

[KAT]

forget the girls...think about yourself....
get your whole adress on it ..in case you get piss drunk..the cab driver will always know where you belong to ..and...you will always remember your own name...