This is some sort of sick joke, right?

[lindyhop]

Hmm. I saw this line of shirts a few months ago. The Bambi one wasn't there at the time, what I remember is some shirts with some very cool vintage designs and very high price tags. The material was flimsy and thin and nothing I would wear but I knew they weren't made with me in mind anyway. They were interesting to look at so I did and moved on.

On a later visit I saw the Bambi shirt and noticed they had made more of a little vintage display area with a chandelier and other accessories and it looked pretty cool. The shirts were still way overpriced but I liked seeing something different. I consider shopping to be entertainment and I'm entertained by seeing something different or creative or just weird even it's nothing I'd ever want.

No one's being forced to spend money on these shirts. If someone wants to, fine. If they don't sell they'll be gone in no time, retail floor space is much too valuable.


However, if Paris Hilton shows up anywhere wearing one I think they should torch the entire collection.

[MouseWife]

To those commenting on my quest for opinions:

LOL No, I don't think someone who goes to work out in sweats has given up on life. But, the quote made me want to ask, in this thread of fashion, what were peoples' opinions on sportswear and what people think of people in different types of it. I probably was vague but I have been noticing other people a lot more {walking alone gives me too much time to notice too many things} and wonder what others think.

Not that it matters but a lot of times you can look at someone and sort of gauge what they are thinking. But, in this, I really didn't.

I get the point that what is worth a certain amount may not be worth that to someone else. I like to go to concerts, Disneyland and Yosemite. People think I spend too much by going too often. They don't see the value of spending time in those places so often. Or seeing the bands I want. But I do.

Oh, and BTD, I imagine you working out hard and I doubt if you care if anyone doesn't like what you wear!!

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

CP, do you feel your practical thriftiness has anything to do with your jewishness?

GD had a fantastic response to this.

Personally, my parents were cheap, but terrible with money, and always broke. The only reason I used "Jew" in my post was because I thought GD was making a Jewish joke about being thrifty....didn't realize it was because it was a Xmas ornament. That's what I get for trying to power through the thread during my break...

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

For me, the only part of fashion that I find truly perplexing is when people are only paying for a name attached and not the product.

For example, I can understand absolutely loving a Thomas Kinkade painting (even though I think his stuff is just atrocious) and being willing to pay $1,500 for a piece. But I don't understand why the exact same painting would no longer be worth $1,500 to you if the factory person who actually painted it had his name put on it.

The exact same painting in both cases. $1,500 if it says "by Thomas Kinkade" on the card next to it; $150 if it says "by Joe Schmoe." And it is the same with clothing fashions. If the only way you know it is worth $100 for a particular t-shirt for you is if you first look at the tag and see Fred Segal instead of Kathy Lee on the label then I'm lost.

Becasue sometime you are paying for a name, a connection to the actual artist, hence all the business with "certificates of authenticity." Sometime we only accept art or fashion if it is made by a specific artist/designer.

This is kind of what I was getting at earlier with my reference to Marcel Duchamp - but I'm betting you don't appreciate dada either. As an artist, he has the power of making something art simply by assertion. You or I generally lack that power (though many of us on these boards have considerable power of decalring "swank").

A forgery may be nice, but sometimes we want the connection to the artist designer maikng it authentic. There may be no basis in logic, it may be delusional having no basis in reality (assuming there is some objective "beauty" to which to measure things by). Yet the distinction is real if we believe it so - and so we do make a big deal about lables, signatures, and scholarly assessments that assert authentic art or fashion.

To go on a bit about fashion, often the big designers are taking their inspiration from the street. The pull out what resonates with them and repackage it for their public. Your bedazzler design may not command much on the open market, but Fred Segal stealling your idea and churning out designer versions will - becasue after all he is "authentic."

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

It is Arrested Development. I can't find the episode though, but it is in Season One./ I believe it was said about Lindsay by Michael, but it really could've been said by Lucille or by Lindsay.

GC......Do you remember the episode?

Google is making me think it came from a Seinfeld episode

[Not Afraid]

Jerry to George:
"You know the message you're sending out to the world with these sweat pants? You're telling the world: 'I give up. I can't compete in normal society. I'm miserable, so I might as well be comfortable.'"

Seinfeld "The Pilot"

But, that's not it.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Becasue sometime you are paying for a name, a connection to the actual artist, hence all the business with "certificates of authenticity." Sometime we only accept art or fashion if it is made by a specific artist/designer.

I'm not saying that this isn't or shouldn't be the case, just that it is the point where I get left behind. The person behind the art, or clothes, or architecture, or novels is almost completely irrelevant to me. When I make recommendations or suggestions on such things I almost never recommend a person but rather specific pieces.

I'm sure this also feeds into why I don't collect anything since I don't get a feeling of connection with a person through possession of objects.

If name alone makes something more valuable to you then I certainly have no problem with it, I just don't understand it. Especially with factory "artists" where the limit of their involvement was likely signing off on sketches.

But me not understanding why someone would pay $100 for a t-shirt is not the same as me condemning it. Even if in less serious moments I mock it (as I do people who watch Joey; even though I mock I don't really care).

[innerSpaceman]

This ia one step removed from label-worship ... but I have two Disneyland attraction posters. One is a Haunted Mansion reproduction, and the other is an Adventure thru Inner Space original (complete with, ahem, certificate of authenticity). They both look really good. But they are not the same animal.

The one that really hung somewhere in Disneyland at some point in time is precious to me. It has an imaginary connection that (with it being an inanimate object and all) exists only in my head, but I cannot "pretend" the same thing about the fake one.


I would have said the same thing about labels as Alex, when it comes to apparel. But I seem to have something going on when it comes to memorabilia. It was worth more money to me to have something with an actual connection that I could wrap my imagination around.

For some it's watches, for others it's art, still others it's clothes. Most of us probably have some area in which we place value on an intangible.

[LSPoorEeyorick]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

You know, I'm not going to be taking my money with me when I die.

Absolutely. But I don't want to leave my debt behind for the people who outlive me. So I try to hit a balance between managing debt and enjoying some comforts; we just don't have the resources to enjoy all creature comforts. A $60 dress from Torrid now and then, maybe. Designer? Not on your life, not if it means that I have to use a credit card.

[MouseWife]

{Quoting:Alex Stroup}
But me not understanding why someone would pay $100 for a t-shirt is not the same as me condemning it. Even if in less serious moments I mock it (as I do people who watch Joey; even though I mock I don't really care).{end quote}

I've been mocked before for watching this show!!! Are you a curmudgeon???

Back to topic, sort of:

Knockoffs, copies. If it doesn't effect the performance, I go for it. But, we do the swapmeet a lot and I never buy their 'copies' of anything. Even little things. Mostly because I know they are not made to the same standards and will not last as long as I'd like and also I am concerned about what it is made of, normally also not to standards.

A lot of things the copy just won't do. If it is clothes, I do understand that a more well made dress will more often be made to fit better, lay better on the body, and move better when you walk. They often show in the fashion mags 'knock off's' and an outfit for up to a grand and here you can buy it for under $200. But, is the material the same? Will it really fit the same? And, you have to ask, does that matter?

For me, {back to topic} that t-shirt wouldn't work for me. I have other shirts the same material and I have found the lesser expensive thicker shirts look better on me. So, that is even more of a factor than the price. I have a $200 pair of jeans in my closet. If I don't eat for a while I can fit them. I think I'll eat and wear my $20 Levi's.

Thanks Lisa for the quote from Seinfield, I can hear him say it. And, I can hear Joey saying about the mocking 'Aw, come on!!!' then 'Hey, how YOU doin'?

Happy Friday!