A lot of sewing machine brands have really gone downhill. People seem to be resistant to paying more than about $150 for a home machine, even though the machines have become much more sophisticated and computerized. Something’s gotta give, and in most cases, it’s the quality. I’ve sewn on good quality machines, and I’ve attempted to sew on cheap machines.
Now, I don’t need a machine that can do a complete embroidery panel all by itself, but I DO want one that will sew without having the bobbin thread snarl up every 15 minutes.
She lives in Pennsylvania, too, only she wears a Steelers jacket.
Louis Vuitton is having the same problem. What was once their classic brown-and-tan pattern morphed into colors, probably to appeal to a younger demographic who is status-conscious enough to want Louis Vuitton, but who doesn’t want to look like they’re carrying their grandmother’s purse. And since LV doesn’t make money on grandma’s hand-me-downs, they’re too happy to oblige. And the color patterns are ugly.
[hijack] Am I the only person here that thinks the classic LV print looks like shit?
First time I saw one it was a coworkers wife who had been bragging about getting a LV purse. Then I saw it. I came >| |< this close to asking what 99 cent store she got that purse at. [/hijack]
I actually don’t like it either. As a matter of fact, it is interesting that MsRobyn doesn’t like the colorful turn it took with the Sprouse design, because, that, I actually did like. Not to get all Miranda up in here, but I don’t think a lot of people realize how much that graffiti design influenced fashion across the board. But I know a lot of people despised it and thought it either ghetto or just plain tacky.
Alice, that handbag is going to last you forever! And not only will it last for ever, but you have wisely chosen the kind that gets even better with age. Lucky you. It will be quite some time before I am able to splurge on a nice bag again. Thank goodness the bags that I have can last.
As for the OP, I think Gray Ghost gave the perfect answer. Isaac Mizrahi used to be very high end…now he makes cheap clothes for the shopping network and fake leather shoes for Target.
I suppose this is probably site specific - in the city I live in there are 2 actual Coach stores located in higher end malls, and one Coach Outlet located in the outlet mall - at the actual Coach stores it’s almost exclusively their Legacy Collection and any letter bags they have tend to be in their cognac colouring (i.e. the brown on brown) whereas the outlet has fabric letter bags as far as the eye can see, and any leather bags they have tend to be of lower quality than the ones in the regular stores. The department store here that carries Coach is almost exclusively the Legacy Collection as well.
I imagine in cities where there isn’t an outlet, the regular stores and department stores carry a wider selection.
Now, to the OP, I think Panasonic used to be considered top drawer as far as electronics went (stereos, anyway), and now I think they’re much lower down the scale.
Considering your previous knowledgeable posts here that I’ve enjoyed, I’m flattered that you think so, Nzinga. I haven’t stuck my head into a Coach store recently—there is a very nice one though in the Houston Galleria—but my GF loves finding older leather Coach bags, and still carries hers around happily. I’ll have to see if the high end Coachs are as durable and elegant as the older bags.
In the wine world, I’ll nominate Jordan and Cakebread, maybe Silver Oak too, as examples of brands that used to be thought of as fairly prestigious, dominating restaurant wine lists, and now aren’t thought of as highly. (Though Silver Oak isn’t cheap by any stretch. Unless you’re a tycoon.) Maybe Beaulieu and Heitz too, if we go back far enough. I wonder what the equivalents are in France and Italy?
Macy’s. I’m not sure what it used to be like back in the day – Wikipedia makes it sound like it was mid-range even then – but the name had some kind of glamorous/classy connotation for those of us outside of New York. Heck, the NYC flagship was a destination for shoppers worldwide. Now, after nationwide expansion through the purchase (and gutting) of regional chains, it just seems like a bland department store chain barely a step above JC Penney.
In health, beauty, and cosmetics departments, it seems like a lot of brands that start out as top-tier brands (if not prestigious) end up going down after a while. A lot of former top-of-their-category brands (Anacin, Chloraseptic, Luden’s, Mentadent, etc.) end up becoming ghost brands, or the trademarks are sold off to “brand acquisition” companies who sell cheap products under once well-known names. Nuprin, formerly one of the big three ibuprofen brands, is reduced to being a CVS generic label. Prell, the premium 1970s concentrated shampoo, and VO5 are now cheap haircare brands positioned in the “cheaper than Suave” tier.
The trademark rights to a number of prestigious old bicycle brands have been acquired by Pacific Cycles, and others who mass produce bikes in Asia. The current versions of Windsor, Schwinn, Mercier, Motobecane, and many others have no relationship to the bikes that built the reputations formerly associated with those brands. In some cases the bikes are OK, or even pretty good deals, but some of them are pure crap as well, and the name on the frame is no indication of which.
I’ve read that a lot of the designer names actually have two seperate divisions that make goods under their names. The higher end upscale division, and the low end outlet stores division. They make completely different quality of products.
Coach is a big example of this. The stuff at their outlet stores in not anywhere near the quality of the botique line.
I found this out a long time ago with Tommy Hilfiger. I had a few pricy TH items from Norstroms that were great. Never shrunk, never faded, soft fabric. I loved the stuff.
Then when I discovered their outlet stores I bought a bunch of the outlet goods. Very crappy subpar goods. They all shrunk or deformed after the first washings.
I’ve heard the Ralph Lauren Outlet clothes are the same way.
No, they certainly don’t carry the outlet quality items in the regular shops here either; however, they also don’t seem to carry the ‘outlet-ish’ items either - they crazy letter bags in hideous colours - the Halston Collection, I think.
The outlets seem to only have hideousness in them - my mom bought a black leather bag at the outlet because I told her that Coach was a decent brand and the leather was nice quality - honestly the thing is a piece of junk - not well made, shitty lining, just totally sub-par. I feel bad that I suggested it, but I didn’t know at the time that the outlet stuff was so crappy. However, mom also wouldn’t spend $400 on a bag from the regular store (well, unless she was buying me a birthday gift :D), so there you go.
I think Hampshire has it just right - many ‘upscale’ brands have come out with an outlet quality product - the Banana Republic outlet is the same. Quite shitty quality and much less style than the regular store - you can tell the items are cut by machine.
This, along with licensing prestigious names to companies that use it on lower-quality products, has always confused me. And in some cases made me sad. I suppose it’s just done in the name of short-term profit. Because I can’t imagine that the owners of these brands don’t know that using the same name on crappy stuff will dilute the brand so that eventually the low price, low quality stuff is all they can sell. I suppose if you can make more money selling 10 million cheap things instead of 1 million expensive things, it’s the logical business decision to do so. But in a lot of cases, those cheap things are popular only because of the aura of the expensive things. Especially in the case of fashion, the people who buy the expensive things won’t want to any more once the brand is ubiquitous. And then the expensive things stop selling, the aura diminishes, and the appeal of the cheap things lessens too.
Is this not true? Is it not obvious to the people running the companies? I guess if you’re an investor, you might not care of the company dies in 10 years, if you can make millions for a few years first…
I hope this isn’t a hijack, but outlet stores in general are not what they used to be. A long time ago, you went to an outlet store and it sold like last years line of clothing or items that hadn’t sold the previous season. You had to look hard for your size because it wasn’t guaranteed they’d have it. It was what they had left and they were selling it at a discount. Sometimes they also sold seconds. The purse with stitching that wasn’t straight, or there was some other flaw that made it not nice enough for the proper department stores or boutiques, but still perfectly serviceable.
Now outlet malls are just row after row of shops selling basically cheap knock-offs. Only it’s the actually brand or designer making their own knock-offs.
I actually think a large part of the motivation is to foil counter-fitters. There are lots of people (I’ve seen threads on this board, even) who want to have a brand-name item but are unable or unwilling to pay the brand-name price - enter counter -fitters who create shitty knock-offs (or even ok knock-offs) for a fraction of the price and that consumer will buy.
I think the prestige brands started to recognize this and figured if brand was going to be diluted with cheap quality stuff, at least they could get some of the $$, and have some control over the final item. I mean an outlet quality Coach bag is still far superior to most of the fake crap I’ve seen - the leather may not be as good, but at least it’s actual leather, and the finishing may not be as precise, but at least the stitching matches the bag or whatever.
I do think most people would probably prefer to pay the reduced cost for the outlet quality item than pay the same for a shitty knock-off.
This is a bit of a diversion from the fashion-oriented turn this thread has taken, but my first thought was IMAX. Until a few years ago, virtually all IMAX theaters had true giant screens (60x80 feet, on average) and showed 70mm film.
Then IMAX Corp. started selling their new digital system to multiplex theaters, retrofitting existing auditoria with screens as small as 24x48 feet. And showing Hollywood features that weren’t shot with IMAX cameras or made with giant screens in mind, anyway.
Now, the vast majority of IMAX branded theaters are digital IMAX in multiplexes that don’t offer anything like the original you-are-there experience that defined the IMAX name for almost 40 years. It may be better than the average multiplex show (which isn’t setting the bar very high), but it’s not the real IMAX.
