I came across this thread while searching for the one about divisibility by seven.
Are 50-quid jeans really that bad? At similar prices in the U.S., we don’t expect to get the super hot brand of the moment, but we do normally expect to get something decent in quality and appearance–the kind of jeans that can look good on nearly anyone, as long as they’re correctly chosen for fit, style, etc. To guarantee getting really horrible-looking and poorly made jeans we usually have to go a lot lower, like to $30 or even $20.
My only question for you is this…do you actually wear (and wash, and treat the same) the $170 jeans as often as you do the “Abercrombie, Hollister, Levi’s etc.”. In my experience, most people don’t. They pay more for for the expensive brand, then say they last longer, but then don’t wear them as often the inexpensive ones that get worn 3 times a week.
If you wear the $170 jean twice a month for 4 years, you have (1224=) 96 wearing of them for $170 which come to $1.77 cost per usage. But my Old Navy Jeans that I wear 3 times a week, and last a year (52*3=) 156 wearings, and cost $30, which comes to $0.19 per usage…
Maybe, but you see, to me, if a pair of 120 euro jeans makes me look, say, 10% better than a 50 pair then, presuming I have cash, I am still going the buy the 120 pair. It’s not a mathematical equation in the way you describe.
IPhones, and other smart phones that require data plans do seem extravagant. I thought long and hard before taking the plunge, but I get so much use out of the features on mine that it’s worth every penny. I think it’s the same with jeans–I like the French system of amortizing the expense over the wearing life of the garment.
Kylede, IME expensive jeans usually stand up to washing and and wearing at least as well as cheap ones. For those who wear jeans most of the time, there’s no reason they’d only wear the expensive ones four times a month, unless they’re working at the Clorox plant or something. Or otherwise engaging in the type of work wear any jeans would tend to get ripped or stained.
I can get Levi’s 501s for around $35 a pair. I like the original style - not pre-washed, and you’ve got to buy them big enough to allow for shrinking. They last for years. They seem to be pretty much indestructible.
I can’t imagine paying $300 for a pair of jeans. Or $200, or $100. Hey, I work for my money. I’m not going to hand it over to some marketer for the privilege of wearing a label.
And, by the way, many fashion brands are owned by just a few companies, who license the rights to use the name to pretty much any Chinese factory that wants to churn out the product.
Actually, 501s or sometimes 505s (same thing only with a zipper rather than buttons) were my go-to jeans for a long time. I always liked the fit better with them than with any other brand or style. Until about ten years ago, when they changed the 501 cut quite a bit, along with other features such as size and placement of back pockets. And they started crowing about something they called the “anti-fit” on their website…that was enough for me. I’ve bought other styles of theirs in the years since, but I was sad to see the 501s change the way they did.
I’d like the answer to this too. I don’t remember clothing prices in the UK being that much higher than in the US. Higher, sure, but not to that extent.
I linked to this a few weeks ago, but this article from the New York Times might be relevant. It goes into detail how a pair of khaki slacks from the Band of Outsiders label (Don’t worry; I never heard of it either) sells for $550 at Bergdorf Goodman. It adds up the cost of two yards of a cotton “gabardine fabric” (whatever that is) at $27 a yard and four hours of union labor in Brooklyn at $13 per hour to arrive at a wholesale cost of $110. The designer marks this up to $220 and then Bergdorf Goodman marks that up 250% so that explains why you can pay $550 for men’s khaki slacks.
Holy fucking shit, feed those poor models something before they starve to death. I swear, their legs are about the diameter of what my arms were when I was thin :eek: