Schott x Shinki Jacket

[Monitor]

There is a difference between bespoke (pattern changes=what FL does) and custom (adding sleeve- or body length or a few other minor deviations on the basic pattern = what Aero does)

Yep, for sure. That's what I meant by air-bunnies around bespoke.

 

[Mich486]

It’s a pretty good entry level jacket. Shinki is very likely much more expensive than the average looking leather they normally use so I think the price is fair.

I’d also have a hard time believing anyone who spends more than one month on TFL could think there aren’t better options.

I don’t get the heritage argument. Based on that, how much a pair of Levi’s should cost if a no-name IH pair of jeans sells for $300?

 

[dannyk]

It’s a pretty good entry level jacket. Shinki is very likely much more expensive than the average looking leather they normally use so I think the price is fair.

I’d also have a hard time believing anyone who spends more than one month on TFL could think there aren’t better options.

I don’t get the heritage argument. Based on that, how much a pair of Levi’s should cost if a no-name IH pair of jeans sells for $300?

2 things about that.
1. No one said it has to make sense haha. People often pay a lot for labels and names. I don’t think it makes sense or is “fair.” But since it is a thing that exists and plenty of brands do and people pay for Schott has every right to do it. That’s my argument. I think it sucks and is lame, just they can do it if others do it. Why not?
2. Second most Levi’s are not constructed at all the same as IH. If Levi’s wanted to make more heritage styles which I mean they do in some lines, but if they really wanted to do that more, they would probably charge 400-500. Because people would pay for the name. But that’s not their money maker. Their money maker is from run of the mill mass produced cheap jeans. They sell millions and they are cheap to construct so they aren’t relevant to what IH are doing for the most part.

 

[Carlos840]

It’s a pretty good entry level jacket. Shinki is very likely much more expensive than the average looking leather they normally use so I think the price is fair.

I’d also have a hard time believing anyone who spends more than one month on TFL could think there aren’t better options.

I don’t get the heritage argument. Based on that, how much a pair of Levi’s should cost if a no-name IH pair of jeans sells for $300?

I agree that the Heritage argument is lost on me too.
McDonalds has a long heritage and has been doing their thing for 65 years, that doesn't mean they are any good and it doesn't mean they deserve to charge as much as they want because other burger places sell 50$ Wagyu burgers...

 

[dannyk]

I agree that the Heritage argument is lost on me too.
McDonalds has a long heritage and has been doing their thing for 65 years, that doesn't mean they are any good and it doesn't mean they deserve to charge as much as they want because other burger places sell 50$ Wagyu burgers...

You’re missing the point. It’s sucks and it’s lame but do companies charge more for their name? For their history? For what they represent? The answer is unequivocally yes. Does it suck in actuality and hold no water? Yes absolutely. But since it’s real and companies do it, Schott has the right to do it. They should to compete with the market. I don’t think we need to debate the fact it’s asinine and companies change over time and their name can mean more or less. But it’s certainly a legit thing.

 

[dannyk]

I would say Cal is a perfect example. Are there modern jackets just sooo much better than everything else on the market that they should cost what they do? Granted we haven’t seen many of those here so hey maybe they are haha. But no. You’d be paying for the name Cal, it’s heritage, what they represent, the LAPD, James Dean. That’s part of what’s in there cost.

edit added to tag @ton312 and @Monitor as I know they’ve handled plenty of Cals along the way. Have either of you come across in person any modern like 2000 eras Cals? Cause again I think they are even more so a perfect example of heritage cost as stated above.

 

[Mich486]

2. Second most Levi’s are not constructed at all the same as IH.

I fully agree. Is a Schott built like a RMC? Obviously not. It’s exactly the same argument so that’s why I think talking about Schott raising their prices based on heritage is absolutely nonsense. I’m sure heritage is already factored in in their current prices. There is only that much you can milk these intangibles. Once you put a Schott (which I believe are very decent jackets, don’t get me wrong) next to a higher end maker it disappears and I think the price differential is entirely justifiable. My subjective opinion obviously.

 

[Mich486]

You’re missing the point. It’s sucks and it’s lame but do companies charge more for their name? For their history? For what they represent? The answer is unequivocally yes. Does it suck in actually and hold no water? Yes absolutely. But since it’s real and companies do it, Schott has the right to do it. They should to compete with the market. I don’t think we need to debate the fact it’s asinine and companies change over time and their name can mean more or less. But it’s certainly a legit thing.

But why you think they are not doing it already?

 

[dannyk]

I fully agree. Is a Schott built like a RMC? Obviously not. It’s exactly the same argument so that’s why I think talking about Schott raising their prices based on heritage is absolutely nonsense. I’m sure heritage is already factored in in their current prices. There is only that much you can milk these intangibles. Once you put a Schott (which I believe are very decent jackets, don’t get me wrong) next to a higher end maker it disappears and I think the price differential is entirely justifiable. My subjective opinion obviously.

Agreed to some extent. Except again part of what changes the dynamic is where you live. Say I want a Schott 613S. I can get there to my door for like 1,000ish. My conversion rate on the dollar puts aero at that and then taxes and delivery puts it over. The Japanese makers are even more expensive off the bat and then taxes and delivery much more so. Being more expensive means they should be higher quality. Theoretically as we all know cost doesn’t mean quality. But that’s part of the equation. So to me the cost difference is either way too much or negligible depending on how you look at it.

 

[dannyk]

But why you think they are not doing it already?

They are absolutely. My comment was for anyone saying they don’t get the argument. I’m just saying I agree it’s a stupid thing. I don’t like it one bit to be fair haha. I’m just saying it exists and since it exists they have every right to include it in their price and their advertising as stupid as it may be.

 

[Marc mndt]

I guess its about 'brand value' which is something intangible which can't be explained by just looking at material- and construction quality. Once a company has established a name for themselves (which usually takes years if not decades) they are able to capitalize on that and ask more money for their products. Not only because of the heritage but also because their brand has become a quality signifier in one way or the other.

Take Eastman for example. They are a relatively young company and not too long ago the brand wasn't really know outside the niche market. Now that they are known, not just to enthusiasts but also to the bigger public, prices have risen substantially. Not because their products have become better (their Californian is still the same but twice the price), it's the brand value you're paying for.

 

[Carlos840]

Take Eastman for example. They are a relatively young company and not too long ago the brand wasn't really know outside the niche market. Now that they are known, not just to enthusiasts but also to the bigger public, prices have risen substantially. Not because their products have become better (their Californian is still the same but twice the price), it's the brand value you're paying for.

I don't think you can make that statement without more information...
For all we know the price increase could be linked to the devaluation of the pound following Brexit, it could also be a way to control demand if they are not currently capable of increasing production, it could also just be a price increase to put themselves in an upper market share. (ie some people are more interrested in things that are more expensive just because they feel "more expensive=better")

There are a bunch of way to explain the price increase which have nothign to do with the Eastman name itself.

 

[Monitor]

I’m just saying I agree it’s a stupid thing. I don’t like it one bit to be fair haha. I’m just saying it exists and since it exists they have every right to include it in their price and their advertising as stupid as it may be.

It's stupid but it's always been that way.

I'll be the first to admit Schott used to be... Well, to call it an inferior maker wouldn't really be fair as their jackets always held up to time so quality-wise that'd be a lie, not to mention how legendary they are BUT their product wasn't nearly as refined as it was 'round the Eastman, Aero, RMC and the other repro/heritage makers emerged.

Schott has changed since and like really changed - something that many people deliberately refuse to acknowledge and keep on comparing dunno, Fine Creek or RMC to some oldass 80's Perfecto (era which could've seen better QC for sure) - while Schott is no longer falling behind anyone in this game, and if the only argument to Schott's inferiority compared to whomever, is counting stitch holes under a magnifying glass - which, objectively speaking, is the only thing left for y'all to do... I'd say that pretty much negates any argument.

We will always be able to find something, some small detail on some particular leather jacket but overall, to say that there's any maker out there capable of making a jacket that's incomparably superior to this CXL 113 is, frankly, ridiculous.

Either that or I'm missing something here. Which could be true as well but personally, I'd honestly much, much, much rather have the jacket below materialize in my wardrobe than any RMC's J-24.

 

[Carlos840]

if the only argument to Schott's inferiority compared to whomever, is counting stitch holes under a magnifying glass - which, objectively speaking, is the only thing left for y'all to do... I'd say that pretty much negates any argument.

Why?
Why is it less valuable to your eyes to care about attention to detail in the stitchwork?
Why is that not as important as leather quality, pattern quality, hardware quality?
It seems you have decided that poor stitching was acceptable and we are all fools to care about it so much.

I for one value stitchwork and pattern quality far more than i do leather choice or heritage...

 

[Marc mndt]

I don't think you can make that statement without more information...
For all we know the price increase could be linked to the devaluation of the pound following Brexit, it could also be a way to control demand if they are not currently capable of increasing production, it could also just be a price increase to put themselves in an upper market share. (ie some people are more interrested in things that are more expensive just because they feel "more expensive=better")

There are a bunch of way to explain the price increase which have nothing to do with the Eastman name itself.

Fair point. There are a lot of factors that should be taken into account and of course this is just me speculating.
But I don't think Eastman would be able to ask the prices they are now asking if they weren't able to capitalize on their brand value. I can ask crazy money for anything just to pretend I'm a player in some high end market segment, but that usually doesn't last too long (that is unless people are willing to pay extra for your 'brand value').

 

[Hh121]

the only thing that stops me from buying Schott is their pattern (narrow shoulder, big waist).

 

[trainspotter]

But that's what I'm saying - It's the other way around and it always has been; Why would you pay Schott money for an Aero. If Schott is using the exact same material, same building technique AND you get their own proprietary design & style (arguable, I know, but for the sake of this discussion, let's say that Schott does hold moral high ground in calling the Perfecto their own style) and not a knock-off, what exactly makes Aero's cross-zip more valuable?

If Schott was your company and has been for over a 100 years and if you've made it a world famous brand, would you honestly believe that your jacket isn't worth as much as what other, relatively small-time makers that are directly copying what you have created, are asking for their reproductions? Of your jacket?

In reality, Aero has an edge in being "bespoke", so to say. Which, at BEST, should make their jacket compete price-wise with Schott in Horween but that's about it.

It's stupid but it's always been that way.

I'll be the first to admit Schott used to be... Well, to call it an inferior maker wouldn't really be fair as their jackets always held up to time so quality-wise that'd be a lie, not to mention how legendary they are BUT their product wasn't nearly as refined as it was 'round the Eastman, Aero, RMC and the other repro/heritage makers emerged.

Schott has changed since and like really changed - something that many people deliberately refuse to acknowledge and keep on comparing dunno, Fine Creek or RMC to some oldass 80's Perfecto (era which could've seen better QC for sure) - while Schott is no longer falling behind anyone in this game, and if the only argument to Schott's inferiority compared to whomever, is counting stitch holes under a magnifying glass - which, objectively speaking, is the only thing left for y'all to do... I'd say that pretty much negates any argument.

We will always be able to find something, some small detail on some particular leather jacket but overall, to say that there's any maker out there capable of making a jacket that's incomparably superior to this CXL 113 is, frankly, ridiculous.

Either that or I'm missing something here. Which could be true as well but personally, I'd honestly much, much, much rather have the jacket below materialize in my wardrobe than any RMC's J-24.

Here's mine

 

[Jin431]

Here's mine
View attachment 281397

Looks great on you

 

[Will Zach]

Greg, when he was selling his test Shinki jacket on TFL some time ago, wrote that raw materials cost about $500 - $600, if memory serves. Add to that labor and other fixed costs, a fair profit margin (should be at least 40% imo), and you can easily figure out what some are charging for "brand value". No rocket science here. Himel and Japanese makers are expensive given the numbers above, FL is not.

 

[Monitor]

Why?
Why is it less valuable to your eyes to care about attention to detail in the stitchwork?
Why is that not as important as leather quality, pattern quality, hardware quality?
It seems you have decided that poor stitching was acceptable and we are all fools to care about it so much.

I for one value stitchwork and pattern quality far more than i do leather choice or heritage...

No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Poor stitching is NEVER acceptable and I've stated several times throughout the thread that I admit overall method of stitching & attention to minute details is something Schott may be slightly lacking when put next to some (very few) other makers but at the same time, I don't consider the machining technique Schott is using to be inferior - provided of course there aren't any glaring mistakes as in the example you've provided. That sucks no matter the maker.

I'm not talking about mistakes. I'm saying that more stitch holes does not equate better machining. Many major fashion designers use very few stitch holes, sometimes in a deliberate manner, sometimes because it's sufficient.

All I'm saying is that one doesn't necessarily equate better than the other and doesn't automatically make every garment an inferior. It's simply how Schott is constructing their jacket.

Nobody is a fool for preferring denser stitching, caring for that sorta stuff is why we're all here but I am saying that claiming that 45 stitch holes on one jacket compared to 38 on another constitutes a pretty poor argument toward the superiority of a former and not a whole lot to hold on to.