Luxurious Demise

[rue]

Just to explain myself, I don't buy the products that I mentioned because of the name, I buy them because I know they hold up. My mother has purses and shoes made by them that are over 30 years old and they still look new and they are timeless.

Personally, I would rather buy one purse for a grand that will last 50 years then buy a thousand dollars worth of purses that fall apart after a year.

 

[rue]

Personally, I think Hermès leather goods are unsurpassed in quality and you won't find a sewing machine in their atelier. Of course it helps when you operate several of the world's finest tanneries in order to insure that you work with the highest quality leather. And their competitors line up to pay top dollar for what they don't use.

Oh definitely! My Hermès saddle still looks great even after 28 years

 

[Haversack]

Luxury can mean different things. One definition of 'Luxury' is based on perceptions of quality and exclusivity. Another is based on the quality of materials and manufacture. Yet another is based on how non-essential or pampering a good or service is. Some things manage to be all three. A Morgan automobile for instance.

Unfortunately, there are now so many brands that at one time built a reputation for luxury on the second definition and have since cut standards so much and traded on the first definition that they have skewed popular perceptions of what is luxury. Actual quality doesn't enter into it.

On the other hand, there are now some goods beginning to be considered luxury goods simply because they are well made and of good materials but which were never intended to be luxurious. Some examples of this are: Pendleton shirts, Redwing boots, Estwing tools, Filson clothes and luggage.

Haversack.

 

[Tomasso]

On the other hand, there are now some goods beginning to be considered luxury goods simply because they are well made and of good materials but which were never intended to be luxurious. Some examples of this are: Pendleton shirts, Redwing boots, Estwing tools, Filson clothes and luggage.

That would be quite a stretch to place classic work-wear brands in the lux category. But I have noticed in recent years several lux brands paying homage to work-wear styles, albeit using lux fabrics and materials. I have a few cashmere overshirts that from a distance can pass for work-wear.

 

[Widebrim]

Oh definitely! My Hermès saddle still looks great even after 28 years

I just passed by the Hermès store on Rodeo Drive today, rue, and had to think of you...

 

[Widebrim]

LV had some issues a while back. A lot of the lux houses play loosey goosey with the definition of handmade. Just because hands were operating the sewing machine doesn't make something handmade.

Personally, I think Hermès leather goods are unsurpassed in quality and you won't find a sewing machine in their atelier. Of course it helps when you operate several of the world's finest tanneries in order to insure that you work with the highest quality leather. And their competitors line up to pay top dollar for what they don't use.

Just wondering, have you ever been to the Hermès atelier?

 

[rue]

I just passed by the Hermès store on Rodeo Drive today, rue, and had to think of you...

lol That's sweet Lee

 

[Tomasso]

Just wondering, have you ever been to the Hermès atelier?

Yes and I've been given a tour of their museum as well.

 

[Widebrim]

Yes and I've been given a tour of their museum as well.

Very nice.

 

[C-dot]

Unfortunately, there are now so many brands that at one time built a reputation for luxury on the second definition and have since cut standards so much and traded on the first definition that they have skewed popular perceptions of what is luxury. Actual quality doesn't enter into it.

You've hit the nail on the head. People these days pay exorbitant amounts of money for a label. Not only that, said label is splashed all over the garment, so they look like walking advertisements.

 

[Edward]

Branding, at least 10 years ago, was one of the biggest things that companies were working on. In the ultra-competitive market, you need to sell your brand. Given the fact that there are equal quality goods, you want to keep people coming to you because of the *experience* you sell. When you wear, consume, etc. that brand, you are not just getting something, but you are taking part in an experience. And that experience is highly constructed by advertising and efforts by the company who manufactures that experience.

Take for instance, "coca-cola"- the name itself is supposed to bring up certain feelings. Refreshment, images of their labeling, glass bottles, community work, etc. They want to make people rabid supporters- even marketers- of the brand. Hence why there are "coke families" and "pepsi families." In most tests, people can't tell the difference. But if you asked them, they'd immediately state why their brand is better.

I know people who do this type of thing for a living. They don't sell false advertising, but they do create a script for their goods and what type of experience you'll get by having that brand. And if people like the script and want to partake in it, they buy the product.

Well, I get branding and its importance in the contemporary marketplace.... I just don't buy into the perceived value of any brand in and of itself. [huh]

Just to explain myself, I don't buy the products that I mentioned because of the name, I buy them because I know they hold up. My mother has purses and shoes made by them that are over 30 years old and they still look new and they are timeless.

Personally, I would rather buy one purse for a grand that will last 50 years then buy a thousand dollars worth of purses that fall apart after a year.

I understand that, I often would be the same myself. What I object to is the popular notion that equivalent quality goods are somehow worth more because of a logo or brand. The "two dollar shirt with a six dollar lizard" phenomenon.

You've hit the nail on the head. People these days pay exorbitant amounts of money for a label. Not only that, said label is splashed all over the garment, so they look like walking advertisements.

Yeah. Usually - not always, but usually, IMO - you can pinpoint the decline of quality of a brand by the point at which the logo become fashionable and moves to the outside....

 

[rue]

I understand that, I often would be the same myself. What I object to is the popular notion that equivalent quality goods are somehow worth more because of a logo or brand. The "two dollar shirt with a six dollar lizard" phenomenon.

Aligator shirts.... pretend RL Polo shirts

 

[Tomasso]

Alligator shirts....

Chemise Lacoste may be the first branded item of apparel. Funny that they're referred to as alligator shirts when the company was founded by René "the Crocodile" Lacoste.

 

[C-dot]

Chemise Lacoste may be the first branded item of apparel. Funny that they're referred to as alligator shirts when the company was founded by René "the Crocodile" Lacoste.

Lacoste really hasn't changed its philosophy since it's beginning, which I think is admirable. It's good quality, and distinctive without being garish.

Besides, the little crocodile is cute

 

[Tomasso]

Lacoste really hasn't changed its philosophy since it's beginning, which I think is admirable.

Well, for many years they granted licenses for various regions with varying degrees of success. Their North American partnership with Izod, though very profitable, got a little schlocky near the end. I think that they're out of the licensing game now.

 

[rue]

Well, for many years they granted licenses for various regions with varying degrees of success. Their North American partnership with Izod, though very profitable, got a little schlocky near the end. I think that they're out of the licensing game now.

Izod is what I was referring to. It was huge when I was a kid in the 80s, but they weren't as popular as Polo.

 

[1961MJS]

Izod is what I was referring to. It was huge when I was a kid in the 80s, but they weren't as popular as Polo.

Hi Rue

From what I saw at University of Illinois in 1979-83, Izod came first, then Polo took over. By the late 1980's I had a bunch of Polo shirts. Mad Magazine sold paraplegic frog Polo shirts or something like it in the early 1980's too, never bought one.

Later

 

[rue]

Hi Rue

From what I saw at University of Illinois in 1979-83, Izod came first, then Polo took over. By the late 1980's I had a bunch of Polo shirts. Mad Magazine sold paraplegic frog Polo shirts or something like it in the early 1980's too, never bought one.

Later

hmmm.... I was only 10-13 years old then so I just know what my friends thought was cool in California. Izod was not cool for whatever reason and if you had one you were labeled as a dork [huh] I already had enough help in that direction having buck teeth at the time.

I'm certainly not an expert in the whole polo shirt thing

 

[Tomasso]

I wore the Chemise Lacoste that were made in France. But when the Izod made shirts blew up in America I retired them in favor of unbranded shirts by Bobby Jones (until they began branding) and now John Smedley.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When did "Polo shirt" become a brand name? The generic "polo shirt" was in use in the thirties -- did Mr. Lauren actually think he could get away with trademarking a generic? Who in the USPTO did he have to bribe for that to happen?