PDA

View Full Version : Clothes brands.


Aykhan Mammadov
12-11-2005, 11:46 AM
Just for information exchange: which brands ( men-women clothes, not sportive) are very prestigious in yr city/country ?

Docalex007
12-11-2005, 01:12 PM
Well, some nice brands that are also what I call "status brands" (meaning they reveal (or falsely coverup) social status) would be brands like:

Kennith Cole
Old Navy
Abercrombie
American Eagle
Lacoste
Gap
Tommy Hillbillyfinger

..... yeah, stuff like that.

Matthew
12-11-2005, 01:38 PM
Abercrombie and Fitch
Hollister
Banana Republic
Express

arky-tennis
12-11-2005, 02:37 PM
Stuff that I don't buy.. Overpriced.

MegacedU
12-11-2005, 02:59 PM
Armani Xchange
Seven for All Mankind
Hudson
Polo/Blue Label Ralph Lauren
J. Crew
Lacoste
Uggz (I <333 my Uggz)
Coach
Dooney & Bourke
Puma (for like casual sneakers)

Return_Ace
12-11-2005, 03:04 PM
O.o the only ones that i recognise so far are:

Lacoste - Yeah, pretty expensive.
Ralph Lauren - Yeah, megah expensive
Puma - Yeah, like are they really that expensive over there? pretty cheap here :/

Ash_Smith
12-11-2005, 03:15 PM
any designer who has a boutique in the Quadrilatoro d'Oro in Milan or on Bond Street/New Bond Street/Sloane Square in London. I suppose the UK based brands who fit this bill would be anything on Saville Row (Kilgour, Alexandre, Nick James, Chester Barrie, Gieves and Hawks) and Aqcuascutem. Oh, and Burberry of course - now hijacked by the chavs/neds - see the British slang thread!

MegacedU
12-11-2005, 03:24 PM
I have two of the same pair of Pumas in different colors. Each were 90 dollars and they're not even leather.

SwissServe
12-11-2005, 04:06 PM
Paul Smith
Blue Cult (Women, they have some more expensive Jeans collections)
Alprausch (Swiss brand)
Ermenegildo Zegna
comme des garçons
Duffer of St.George
G-Star (more casual style)
Strellson (Swiss brand)
Navyboot (Swiss brand, leather shoes and gear)
Akris (Women, Swiss brand, also known at fashion weeks NYC etc., very expensive!)
Bikkemberg
and of course the classics like Dolce & Gabbana, Boss, Jil Sander, JOOP!, Louis Vuitton, Gucci etc.

FedererUberAlles
12-11-2005, 04:08 PM
Paying for a name...

SwissServe
12-11-2005, 04:11 PM
Paul Smith
Blue Cult (Women, they have some more expensive Jeans collections)
Alprausch (Swiss brand)
Ermenegildo Zegna
comme des garçons
Duffer of St.George
G-Star (more casual style)
Strellson (Swiss brand)
Navyboot (Swiss brand, leather shoes and gear)
Akris (Women, Swiss brand, also known at fashion weeks NYC etc., very expensive!)
Bikkemberg
and of course the classics like Dolce & Gabbana, Boss, Jil Sander, JOOP!, Louis Vuitton, Gucci etc.

Find most of the brands flagship stores at "Bahnhofstrasse" in Zurich City, a few nice jewellerys (with the world famous Swiss watches) are there too. Be sure to carry your big wallet with you (or leave your girlfriend/wife at home :D)

SwissServe
12-11-2005, 04:13 PM
double post, sorry

oscar_2424
12-11-2005, 05:26 PM
armani exchange
hugo boss

Phil
12-11-2005, 06:10 PM
What an incredibly inspirational thread. I'll just stand aside for Deuce to "weigh in" here, in 4...3..2...1...

BreakPoint
12-11-2005, 06:29 PM
Well, some nice brands that are also what I call "status brands" (meaning they reveal (or falsely coverup) social status) would be brands like:

Kennith Cole
Old Navy
Abercrombie
American Eagle
Lacoste
Gap
Tommy Hillbillyfinger

..... yeah, stuff like that.

I hope you're not saying that Old Navy and Gap are status brands, are you? Within that company, Banana Republic is their status brand. The Banana Republic stuff is priced about 3-4 times higher than the Old Navy stuff. I always thought of Old Navy as clothes for either economically challeged people or people on a serious budget. Kind of like Wal-Mart clothes.

MTChong
12-11-2005, 06:47 PM
I hope you're not saying that Old Navy and Gap are status brands, are you? Within that company, Banana Republic is their status brand. The Banana Republic stuff is priced about 3-4 times higher than the Old Navy stuff. I always thought of Old Navy as clothes for either economically challeged people or people on a serious budget. Kind of like Wal-Mart clothes.

Yeah, you're right; but from the high school perspective, I guess Gap can have some status when a large portion of the kids are wearing no-name clothing. But generally speaking, you're definitely right - Gap does not belong on that list.

oscar_2424
12-11-2005, 07:27 PM
I hope you're not saying that Old Navy and Gap are status brands, are you? Within that company, Banana Republic is their status brand. The Banana Republic stuff is priced about 3-4 times higher than the Old Navy stuff. I always thought of Old Navy as clothes for either economically challeged people or people on a serious budget. Kind of like Wal-Mart clothes.
So you think that you are less "economically challenged" because you dont buy at OLD NAV???

Phil
12-11-2005, 07:52 PM
I hope you're not saying that Old Navy and Gap are status brands, are you? Within that company, Banana Republic is their status brand. The Banana Republic stuff is priced about 3-4 times higher than the Old Navy stuff. I always thought of Old Navy as clothes for either economically challeged people or people on a serious budget. Kind of like Wal-Mart clothes.

Where has your head been buried? It must have been for you to make such an ignorant statement like that. Old Navy is just another brand that inner city kids, predominately black, took to...as a "status symbol" if you will. Doesn't have much, if anything to do with being "on a serious budget", although that is certainly another reason to shop there, I guess. The same way that they made Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Timberland and Ralph Lauren popular among younger (and less privleged people)-and those aren't exactly "budget" brands. Later, Hispanic, white, Asian and other kids caught the "wave" of this inner-city fashion, which is why, in my old Brooklyn neighborhood,the Arab kids were walking around looking (and talking) like rappers.

I know you post a lot here, but you may do better to stick to the racquet section-when you discuss social issues, your bigotry seems to come out, without a lot of prodding.

Ronaldo
12-11-2005, 07:57 PM
So like what happened to Baby Phat and BeBe?

BreakPoint
12-11-2005, 08:24 PM
Where has your head been buried? It must have been for you to make such an ignorant statement like that. Old Navy is just another brand that inner city kids, predominately black, took to...as a "status symbol" if you will. Doesn't have much, if anything to do with being "on a serious budget", although that is certainly another reason to shop there, I guess. The same way that they made Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Timberland and Ralph Lauren popular among younger (and less privleged people)-and those aren't exactly "budget" brands. Later, Hispanic, white, Asian and other kids caught the "wave" of this inner-city fashion, which is why, in my old Brooklyn neighborhood,the Arab kids were walking around looking (and talking) like rappers.

I know you post a lot here, but you may do better to stick to the racquet section-when you discuss social issues, your bigotry seems to come out, without a lot of prodding.

Phil, what are you talking about? Are you arguing that dirt cheap and status symbol are NOT usually mutually exclusive? The other brands that you mentioned, i.e., Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Timberland, and Ralph Lauren ARE status symbols BECAUSE they are expensive brands. Old Navy is NOT. Old Navy clothes are cheaper than the clothes they sell at Target. I certainly wouldn't brag to people that I buy my clothes from Old Navy nor would I feel proud of having the Old Navy logo branded across my chest just as I wouldn't exactly feel proud of having the Target or Wal-Mart logos on my chest.

The Gap Corporation has three distinct retail chains and brands. Old Navy is the budget, low-priced brand and store. The Gap is the mid-priced brand and store. While Banana Republic is the high-priced, status brand and store. I'd bet all three brands' clothes are likely made in the same Asian factories, but they are priced very differently to reach different segments of the market.

Would you consider BMW's and Mercedes-Benz status symbols? Why? Because they are expensive! Would you consider a Hyundai or Kia status symbols? No, because they are cheap. Which is considered a status symbol, a Rolex or a Timex? I'll give you a hint. One is more expensive than the other and the more expensive one is usually considered more of a status symbol.

Gee, it's not rocket science here. :rolleyes:

Phil
12-11-2005, 08:36 PM
Phil, what are you talking about? Are you arguing that dirt cheap and status symbol are NOT usually mutually exclusive? The other brands that you mentioned, i.e., Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, Timberland, and Ralph Lauren ARE status symbols BECAUSE they are expensive brands. Old Navy is NOT. Old Navy clothes are cheaper than the clothes they sell at Target. I certainly wouldn't brag to people that I buy my clothes from Old Navy nor would I feel proud of having the Old Navy logo branded across my chest just as I wouldn't exactly feel proud of having the Target or Wal-Mart logos on my chest.

The Gap Corporation has three distinct retail chains and brands. Old Navy is the budget, low-priced brand and store. The Gap is the mid-priced brand and store. While Banana Republic is the high-priced, status brand and store. I'd bet all three brands' clothes are likely made in the same Asian factories, but they are priced very differently to reach different segments of the market.

Would you consider BMW's and Mercedes-Benz status symbols? Why? Because they are expensive! Would you consider a Hyundai or Kia status symbols? No, because they are cheap. Which is considered a status symbol, a Rolex or a Timex? I'll give you a hint. One is more expensive than the other and the more expensive one is usually considered more of a status symbol.

Gee, it's not rocket science here. :rolleyes:

No, it's not rocket science, but it's a lot more complicated than your little explanation makes it out to be. "Status" is not always about price tags. There are status symbols that become status because of their price, and there are status symbols that become that way because people or groups DECIDE that those brands are what they want to wear to identify with a particular aesthetic. Some of the latter may be ultra expensive, and yet, they may not always be-Old Navy, Timberland and other brands were "chosen" as a group's fashion choice, for reasons beyond price (Timberland boots are moderately priced). Toyota SUV's were late 90's status symbols for drug dealers in my neighborhood, replacing BMW's (which is a more "obvious" status symbol). In the city where I now live. LV bags are status symbols, but so are canvas Chuck Taylor Converse All Stars.

I KNOW you have more Ivy degrees than I have brain cells, but this topic is beyond you, obviously. It's more to do with society and culture as a whole, than mere price tags.

BreakPoint
12-11-2005, 08:39 PM
So you think that you are less "economically challenged" because you dont buy at OLD NAV???

Did I say that I don't buy at Old Navy? I'm saying that I don't consider Old Navy a status symbol brand in the least. Why? Because the clothes there are dirt cheap. Status symbols by definition are expensive items, unless you want to show-off your status of being too poor to buy expensive clothes. That's probably why Old Navy is so popular amongst poor colege students. I guess the rich kids would be wearing Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie, etc.

And since I'm not into status symbols, I do own some Old Navy stuff and I DO NOT own any Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie, Armani Exchange, Tommy Hilfiger, etc. nor any overpriced designer brands. I buy whatever fits, looks good, feels good, is on sale, and is of good value compared to comparable items from other stores, regardless of the brand. Brand is irrelevant to me. I still can't believe some people pay over $100 for a pair of ripped up designer jeans. What's up with that? :confused: BTW, I also shop at Target.

BreakPoint
12-11-2005, 08:50 PM
No, it's not rocket science, but it's a lot more complicated than your little explanation makes it out to be. "Status" is not always about price tags. There are status symbols that become status because of their price, and there are status symbols that become that way because people or groups DECIDE that those brands are what they want to wear to identify with a particular aesthetic. Some of the latter may be ultra expensive, and yet, they may not always be-Old Navy, Timberland and other brands were "chosen" as a group's fashion choice, for reasons beyond price (Timberland boots are moderately priced). Toyota SUV's were late 90's status symbols for drug dealers in my neighborhood, replacing BMW's (which is a more "obvious" status symbol). In the city where I now live. LV bags are status symbols, but so are canvas Chuck Taylor Converse All Stars.

I KNOW you have more Ivy degrees than I have brain cells, but this topic is beyond you, obviously. It's more to do with society and culture as a whole, than mere price tags.

Toyota Land Cruiser SUV's are very expensive! That's why they are status symbols. Just like Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades are. Some Timberland shoes and boots can be expensive and most of their clothes/coats are relatively expensive. LV Bags are obviously expensive everywhere but I'd be willing to bet that Chuck Taylor Converse All Stars are much more expensive in Japan, where you are, than in the US, and are likely more difficult to obtain, which raises their market value, and thus, status.

I think you may be confusing "status symbol" with "popularity". By definition, a "status symbol" is an item that shows off one's socio-economic status. "Popular" just means that the item is worn by a lot of members of your peer group. It doesn't convey socio-economic status as much as it conveys inclusion or belonging to a certain group. Unless, of course, the "status" that you want to convey is one of low socio-economic status.

Phil
12-11-2005, 09:01 PM
Toyota Land Cruiser SUV's are very expensive! That's why they are status symbols. Just like Lincoln Navigators and Cadillac Escalades are. Some Timberland shoes and boots can be expensive and most of their clothes/coats are relatively expensive. LV Bags are obviously expensive everywhere but I'd be willing to bet that Chuck Taylor Converse All Stars are much more expensive in Japan, where you are, than in the US, and are likely more difficult to obtain, which raises their market value, and thus, status.

I think you may be confusing "status symbol" with "popularity". By definition, a "status symbol" is an item that shows off one's socio-economic status. "Popular" just means that the item is worn by a lot of members of your peer group. It doesn't convey socio-economic status as much as it conveys inclusion or belonging to a certain group. Unless, of course, the "status" that you want to convey is one of low socio-economic status.

You don't get it. It's not always about the price tag in the inner city. A "status symbol" doesn't have to "convey socio-economic status". It may covey PRIDE or exclusivity of a group. I am definitely aware of the difference between a status symbol and something that is merely popular, although sometimes it's a fine line between the two. Toyotas and Hondas-not "cheap", but not even close to the Caddies and Lincolns, and, the people that drove these things, COULD afford the more expensive models.

Chuck Taylors are not difficult to find in Japan, and they, like EVERYTHING in Japan, are more expensive than they are in the USA, but still not ridicuously so.

BreakPoint
12-11-2005, 09:30 PM
You don't get it. It's not always about the price tag in the inner city. A "status symbol" doesn't have to "convey socio-economic status". It may covey PRIDE or exclusivity of a group. I am definitely aware of the difference between a status symbol and something that is merely popular, although sometimes it's a fine line between the two. Toyotas and Hondas-not "cheap", but not even close to the Caddies and Lincolns, and, the people that drove these things, COULD afford the more expensive models.

Chuck Taylors are not difficult to find in Japan, and they, like EVERYTHING in Japan, are more expensive than they are in the USA, but still not ridicuously so.

I'm pretty sure the word "status" in the term "status symbol" means "socio-economic status". "Exclusivity of a group" is the same as "inclusion or belonging to a group", and certain clothes that are "popular" within a group affords this. Air Jordan shoes were also status symbols in the hood, but that's because they were expensive. I suspect Old Navy is popular in the hood because they are deemed "cool", not becasue they are "status symbols".

BTW, I looked up the MSRP prices for the 2006 models, and for the 4WD versions before options, the Toyota Land Cruiser is $57K, the Cadillac Escalade is also $57K, and the Lincoln Navigator is only $53K. So not only is the Toyota close to the others in price, but it meets or exceeds them.

Phil
12-11-2005, 09:41 PM
I'm pretty sure the word "status" in the term "status symbol" means "socio-economic status". "Exclusivity of a group" is the same as "inclusion or belonging to a group", and certain clothes that are "popular" within a group affords this. Air Jordan shoes were also status symbols in the hood, but that's because they were expensive. I suspect Old Navy is popular in the hood because they are deemed "cool", not becasue they are "status symbols".

BTW, I looked up the MSRP prices for the 2006 models, and for the 4WD versions before options, the Toyota Land Cruiser is $57K, the Cadillac Escalade is also $57K, and the Lincoln Navigator is only $53K. So not only is the Toyota close to the others in price, but it meets or exceeds them.

So why would't being "cool" be as much of a criteria for status as having something expensive? Cool is, in its own right, a type of "currency". That is what STATUS is-perception. It goes beyond price in certain socio-economic groups. Again, it's not all about the price tags. Lincoln and Caddy will ALWAYS be perceived of as "Higher" in status than Toyota, regardless of the MSRP, but, thanks for doing the research on that-I was actually considering the Toyota model-good to know the price. Again, you don't seem to get it. Look up the prices of Timberlands while you're at it...at one time they were the most poorly-made outdoor shoes, for the price, on the market.

supersmash
12-11-2005, 11:10 PM
Hurley
Volcom
Independent
Billabong
Quicksilver

croatian sensation
12-12-2005, 04:59 AM
Diesel
Replay
Lacoste
Tommy Hilfiger

Of course these are not the most expensive but are quite popular among young people who can afford them (for example a pair of Replay jeans trousers costs 162 € and the average monthly salary in Croatia is around 530 € so you do the maths how affordable these clothes are- and yes, we're a poor country)

Docalex007
12-12-2005, 05:35 AM
I hope you're not saying that Old Navy and Gap are status brands, are you? Within that company, Banana Republic is their status brand. The Banana Republic stuff is priced about 3-4 times higher than the Old Navy stuff. I always thought of Old Navy as clothes for either economically challeged people or people on a serious budget. Kind of like Wal-Mart clothes.

No need to repost everything Phil has said, but i'll state in my own words my way of explaining it to you.

"Status"

Doesn't being popular in say, a school, a community, a country have a "status" element? Social status can be defined on many such levels. For example, the rich and popular kids in school may wear this new item on their wrist. Its cool, its popular, its a status. The thing may cost $1 which is in everyone's budget, but if you don't have it, your not "in". So schoolers look at other fellow schoolers and either see the wristband and say they have this status or they do not have this status. This type status can indeed be very important and may play a role in a students life so big that it could determine things such as friends, girlfriends, respect, etc. These are all....status elements.

It IS in fact true that most of these popularity items are expensive items showing ones socio-economic status. But not always as you can clearly see.

So, lets say Old Navy was indeed popular (which it was in my school only a few years ago) and all the preppy/rich/athletic kids/adults wear this. If you decide to wear this brand...then you will be partaking in this status. And thats whether you like it or not.

Docalex007
12-12-2005, 05:39 AM
Try not to think one-dimensional Breakpoint.

Now lets go solve some more problems. (ie US and Kyoto)

gscone
12-12-2005, 06:53 AM
Work clothes: Banana Republic, Kenneth Cole, Cole Haan, Ecco shoes, Panerai, Omega, Rolex Daytona watch, Ralph Lauren.

Daily clothes: gap, old navy, banana republic, timberland shoes/boots. anything comfy.

BreakPoint
12-12-2005, 12:30 PM
I still maintain that for something to be a "status symbol", it would have to be hard to obtain or exclusive. Yes, something can be "popular", "cool", or "inclusive" which makes you feel you are part of a certain group. But if that thing is very easy to obtain or very affordable, it no longer confers status. Just like being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company confers status, but being a janitor in that same company does not. Why? Because anyone can be a janitor but not anyone can become the CEO.

Old Navy clothes are easily obtainable and very afforable (I'd say just about the most affordable branded clothes around). So for anyone that wants to be part of the "in" group that wears Old Navy, it's very easy for them to go out and buy Old Navy clothes and wear them, too. In that way, it's no longer exclusive to the "in" group, and therefore, no longer has any status associated with it. As more and more people wear Old Navy, it becomes just common clothes with little status or exclusivity. For example, if only the "cool" kids in school wore Old Navy, but then all the geeks, nerds, etc. started wearing Old Navy because they also wanted to be part of the "in" group and since they're so easily obtainable, Old Navy would no longer be cool nor have any status associated with it, would it?

To confer real status, it needs to be something exclusive (i.e., expensive) to prevent the low status or undersirable people from easily obtaining it, too. Otherwise it loses its cache and luster, as well, as its status symbol aura. For example, would BMW's still be considered a status symbol if they cost $5,000 and everyone and their grandmother owned one? Probably not.

Tour90
12-12-2005, 12:43 PM
for me,


Seven For all Mankind
Citizens of Humanity
Banana Republic
Lacoste
North Face

MegacedU
12-12-2005, 12:46 PM
Breakpoint, I agree with you. I was hoping someone else would say it. Status symbols are expensive things that people enjoy because the fact that not a lot of other people have them, makes them special. I love my Prada backpack, but the fact the no one else, that I know of at least, has it, makes it all the more fun to carry it.

No one else around here, at least.

Docalex007
12-12-2005, 02:08 PM
Breakpoint, your actually right in the argument your laying forth. But we are arguing two different things here.

You pointed out that if Old Navy is so cheap, it wouldn't take long for it to become saturated with members who own Old Navy clothing making it no longer an "exclusive item of status". This is true, so in my explanation of a status symbol, I used it as being a short term thing that loses its status quality after everyone has it. This is not so with a BMW.

But like I said, we have two different ideas about status....like Phil, I did not describe it has having only an element of expense, but rather one of popularity as well. In your description, it is strictly concerning wealth. Either way, I'm hungry and might go grab me a burger from Mcdonalds....which might reveal to you my current socio-economic status as a college kid. :)

PM_
12-12-2005, 02:19 PM
For work: Pierre Cardin, Ralph Lauren, Tristan America, Perry Ellis.

For play: Guess, Kenneth Cole, Northface, 4You, Point Zero.

Aykhan Mammadov
12-12-2005, 02:39 PM
I asked about prestigious brands in post 1. Prestigious brand's products can't be cheap. Otherwise everybody is able to obtain it and hence it losts it's prestige. By the way, it must be better known in USA (very rich country) than here in Azerbaijan.

In this meaning I agree with BreakPoint and despite my respect to Phil and Docalex007 I couldn't understand what they are trying to explain here.

But not yr discussion is important, important thing is that

1) u called a few brands which are prestigious but not enough in my understanding. Say Lacoste or Hilfiger I heard about are not very expensive, they are simply for people who earn enough money. The term "enough" means not very much.

2) u called a few brands ( not to say many) brands I never heard in my life.

3) it seems to me that notions here in one side of ocean, and there in another side are different ( similar to cars probably, say we heard about Americans brands like Ford, Crysler and etc.. but their cars are not here so popular).

4) one poster from UK called Milano and London. OK. In a serie of brands a few posters called Zegna Ermenegildo. It's definetly much higher than Lacoste and for 2 different groups of people probably.

OK, I want to reformulate - just interesting to hear - which clothes brands are MOST prestigious and MOST expensive in yr city/country ?

PM_
12-12-2005, 03:30 PM
Western Canada:

Fendi
Prada
Channel
Dolce and Gabbana
Lakoste
Hugo Boss
(you get the picture I'm sure it's the same everywhere!)

edit-LOL how could I forget Versace????????????

matchpoint
12-12-2005, 03:31 PM
I asked about prestigious brands in post 1. Prestigious brand's products can't be cheap. Otherwise everybody is able to obtain it and hence it losts it's prestige. By the way, it must be better known in USA (very rich country) than here in Azerbaijan.

In this meaning I agree with BreakPoint and despite my respect to Phil and Docalex007 I couldn't understand what they are trying to explain here.

But not yr discussion is important, important thing is that

1) u called a few brands which are prestigious but not enough in my understanding. Say Lacoste or Hilfiger I heard about are not very expensive, they are simply for people who earn enough money. The term "enough" means not very much.

2) u called a few brands ( not to say many) brands I never heard in my life.

3) it seems to me that notions here in one side of ocean, and there in another side are different ( similar to cars probably, say we heard about Americans brands like Ford, Crysler and etc.. but their cars are not here so popular).

4) one poster from UK called Milano and London. OK. In a serie of brands a few posters called Zegna Ermenegildo. It's definetly much higher than Lacoste and for 2 different groups of people probably.

OK, I want to reformulate - just interesting to hear - which clothes brands are MOST prestigious and MOST expensive in yr city/country ?

Aykhan,

What is the point of this post? This is not going anywhere, because I can tell you here in the States even homeless people wears Tommy Hilfiger, Guess, Ralph Lauren and any expensive brands you can think of.

I can't remember who said it before, that here in the States welfare recepients go on strike in their cars. Only rich people have cars in other countries. :mrgreen:

Aykhan Mammadov
12-12-2005, 04:20 PM
Matchpoint, u are not right that in other countries only reach people have cars. In my city Baku there is not free place from cars. Not rich people buy non-expensive cars.

I didn't have any special goal in my post, I just wanted to get what people living in different countries ( 33% of this forum is not from USA) know about most prestigious brands. To the moment I didn't hear a lot, mainly intermediate brands were called and among them a lot of unknown for me.

U know , Matchpoint, here we talk a lot around tennis, but since there are a lot of people from different so-to-say worlds it is simply interesting to share information on different topics.

Breaker
12-12-2005, 04:35 PM
All the brands people have said before and...THE NORTH FACE. Everyone and their grandmother has one of these and not for the cold either. These aren't necessarily expensive but seem to be the new "in clothes" for my school. My school is really annoying, notorious for making fun of all of the "poor kids" (less than $100,000 income to give a range). Social status...such a pointless issue. Yet everyone eventually gets sucked in by it...

BreakPoint
12-12-2005, 04:45 PM
But The North Face coats ARE expensive relative to the coats you can buy at Old Navy, Wal-Mart, K-Mart, Target, and many other "no name" cheaper brands.

Breaker
12-12-2005, 04:57 PM
Ok you are very right, I had never bought one with my own money but just checked the price and they are pretty expensive coats. You're argument is pretty much true about cost relevant to the social status of people. Which is why livestrongs went out of style, after the "unpopular" kids began to get a hold on them they just...died. The low cost indirectly made the fad go away...Correct me if I'm wrong someone. I'm sure that isn't why they died out for adults.

matchpoint
12-12-2005, 05:02 PM
To the moment I didn't hear a lot, mainly intermediate brands were called and among them a lot of unknown for me.


I'm sorry Aykhan, I am not referring to your country when I said that only rich people have cars in other countries. You country must be a very rich country that you call intermediate, the brands that were metioned here. So you guys make gold shirts and silver pants Baku style? :D

Phil
12-12-2005, 05:21 PM
I still maintain that for something to be a "status symbol", it would have to be hard to obtain or exclusive. Yes, something can be "popular", "cool", or "inclusive" which makes you feel you are part of a certain group. But if that thing is very easy to obtain or very affordable, it no longer confers status. Just like being the CEO of a Fortune 500 company confers status, but being a janitor in that same company does not. Why? Because anyone can be a janitor but not anyone can become the CEO.

Old Navy clothes are easily obtainable and very afforable (I'd say just about the most affordable branded clothes around). So for anyone that wants to be part of the "in" group that wears Old Navy, it's very easy for them to go out and buy Old Navy clothes and wear them, too. In that way, it's no longer exclusive to the "in" group, and therefore, no longer has any status associated with it. As more and more people wear Old Navy, it becomes just common clothes with little status or exclusivity. For example, if only the "cool" kids in school wore Old Navy, but then all the geeks, nerds, etc. started wearing Old Navy because they also wanted to be part of the "in" group and since they're so easily obtainable, Old Navy would no longer be cool nor have any status associated with it, would it?

To confer real status, it needs to be something exclusive (i.e., expensive) to prevent the low status or undersirable people from easily obtaining it, too. Otherwise it loses its cache and luster, as well, as its status symbol aura. For example, would BMW's still be considered a status symbol if they cost $5,000 and everyone and their grandmother owned one? Probably not.

Sorry, bud, but you're looking at the term "status" from a very narrow and rigid perspective and it's not. Different groups have different ideas about status-you're looking at it from your own, limited experience.

I'm not gonna go back and forth with you, because you've obviously not been around the block, and are set in your own beliefs, which, in this care, are flat wrong. But one last thing-maybe you don't realize this, but most "status" symbols by your definition, are NOT "hard to obtain". I can go into Filene's or Century21 in NYC, or any outlet mall and find practically any so-called status brand that exists. Most things other than the totally outragious, like, for example, a Rolls Royce or diamond-encrusted Patek Phillippe wrist watch, are accessible to just about anyone with a few bucks-even to those minority masses that you seem to look down on so often in your posts.

FedererUberAlles
12-12-2005, 06:17 PM
I get my clothes at army surplus stores, and goodwill. Sometimes I will stencil shirts too.

BreakPoint
12-12-2005, 10:46 PM
Sorry, bud, but you're looking at the term "status" from a very narrow and rigid perspective and it's not. Different groups have different ideas about status-you're looking at it from your own, limited experience.

I'm not gonna go back and forth with you, because you've obviously not been around the block, and are set in your own beliefs, which, in this care, are flat wrong. But one last thing-maybe you don't realize this, but most "status" symbols by your definition, are NOT "hard to obtain". I can go into Filene's or Century21 in NYC, or any outlet mall and find practically any so-called status brand that exists. Most things other than the totally outragious, like, for example, a Rolls Royce or diamond-encrusted Patek Phillippe wrist watch, are accessible to just about anyone with a few bucks-even to those minority masses that you seem to look down on so often in your posts.

I thought it was obvious that "hard to obtain" means that it's expensive. That's what makes them hard to obtain, because not everyone can afford it, which is what makes them exclusive or a "status symbol". If everyone can afford it (and I'm pretty sure everyone can afford Old Navy stuff, even people on welfare.), it's no longer exclusive is it? Thus, it no longer conveys someone's status as someone that has the means to afford it.

Is a Ferrari a status symbol? Yes. Is it hard to obtain? Anyone can walk into a Ferrari dealer any buy a Ferrari, but you'd better have $200,000 in your back pocket. That's what makes it hard to obtain, and thus, a status symbol. The fact that it takes a person of means or status to obtain or buy one which means it excludes most people. That's why it's a symbol of someone's status in the world.

Since everyone can afford Old Navy clothes, it is not exclusive nor hard to obtain, thus, it is not a symbol of someone's status of having the means to afford Old Navy clothes. Rather, it is just cool, popular, chic, inclusive, makes one feel like part of a group of like minded people. Sort of like having the latest hairstyle.

BTW, when did I ever "look down" on minorities? I thought it was established that I'm a minority myself. I've also stated that I'm totally anti-status symbols and anti-elitist. Heck, I drive an 8-year old Ford.

michael2kul4u
12-12-2005, 11:26 PM
Well, some nice brands that are also what I call "status brands" (meaning they reveal (or falsely coverup) social status) would be brands like:

Kennith Cole
Old Navy
Abercrombie
American Eagle
Lacoste
Gap
Tommy Hillbillyfinger

..... yeah, stuff like that.

same here

michael2kul4u
12-12-2005, 11:27 PM
LA trends come and go though

Phil
12-12-2005, 11:58 PM
I thought it was obvious that "hard to obtain" means that it's expensive. That's what makes them hard to obtain, because not everyone can afford it, which is what makes them exclusive or a "status symbol". If everyone can afford it (and I'm pretty sure everyone can afford Old Navy stuff, even people on welfare.), it's no longer exclusive is it? Thus, it no longer conveys someone's status as someone that has the means to afford it.

Is a Ferrari a status symbol? Yes. Is it hard to obtain? Anyone can walk into a Ferrari dealer any buy a Ferrari, but you'd better have $200,000 in your back pocket. That's what makes it hard to obtain, and thus, a status symbol. The fact that it takes a person of means or status to obtain or buy one which means it excludes most people. That's why it's a symbol of someone's status in the world.

Since everyone can afford Old Navy clothes, it is not exclusive nor hard to obtain, thus, it is not a symbol of someone's status of having the means to afford Old Navy clothes. Rather, it is just cool, popular, chic, inclusive, makes one feel like part of a group of like minded people. Sort of like having the latest hairstyle.

BTW, when did I ever "look down" on minorities? I thought it was established that I'm a minority myself. I've also stated that I'm totally anti-status symbols and anti-elitist. Heck, I drive an 8-year old Ford.

Geez, BP, nice that you went out of your way to clarify your anti-elitist stance and establish your "street creds":rolleyes: . As part of the capitalist machinery designed to suck the money out of people's pockets, I'm not anti-elitist and nothing I said above indicates that. I just don't think you fully understand the concept of "status" in western culture today. You only understand the most obvious aspect. At one time, what you paid for something WAS all there was, but it's a bit more complex than that now. As to minorities, your ranting on the affirmative action thread was somewhat repulsive, though you're entitled to your opinion.

Deuce
12-13-2005, 12:58 AM
BreakPoint wrote:
"I've also stated that I'm totally anti-status symbols and anti-elitist. Heck, I drive an 8-year old Ford."

But BreakPoint also wrote:
"I certainly wouldn't brag to people that I buy my clothes from Old Navy nor would I feel proud of having the Old Navy logo branded across my chest just as I wouldn't exactly feel proud of having the Target or Wal-Mart logos on my chest."

Smells like a contradiction to me.

Meanwhile...

"They make their pride in making their dinner cost much. I make my pride in making my dinner cost little." ~ Henry Thoreau.

BreakPoint
12-13-2005, 01:38 AM
BreakPoint wrote:
"I've also stated that I'm totally anti-status symbols and anti-elitist. Heck, I drive an 8-year old Ford."

But BreakPoint also wrote:
"I certainly wouldn't brag to people that I buy my clothes from Old Navy nor would I feel proud of having the Old Navy logo branded across my chest just as I wouldn't exactly feel proud of having the Target or Wal-Mart logos on my chest."

Smells like a contradiction to me.


??????:confused: How is that a contradiction? NOT bragging about the brands I wear nor the things I own is exactly what being anti-status symbol means. I wear lots of clothes from Old Navy as well as Target, but do I need to be proud of it? No, I just wear it. If I were indeed proud of the brands that I wear, then I'd be pro-status symbol, wouldn't I? :rolleyes:

And, no, I'm not proud of my 8-year old Ford, either. I haven't even washed it in over two years and it looks absolutely disgusting. But do I care? No, I just drive it anyway. I couldn't give a hoot what other people think. That, my friend, is the epitomy of "anti-status symbol". :rolleyes:

Deuce
12-13-2005, 01:58 AM
The insinuation of
"I certainly wouldn't brag to people that I buy my clothes from Old Navy nor would I feel proud of having the Old Navy logo branded across my chest just as I wouldn't exactly feel proud of having the Target or Wal-Mart logos on my chest."
is that there are brands of clothes that you would be proud of wearing.

If you would not be proud of any line of clothing, why then do you single out only those clothing lines which you believe are indicative of a 'lower status'?

Further, the fact that you introduce the very notion of pride - and/or the potential for feeling or not feeling it - indicates that you do certainly recognize status.

BreakPoint
12-13-2005, 02:02 AM
Geez, BP, nice that you went out of your way to clarify your anti-elitist stance and establish your "street creds":rolleyes: . As part of the capitalist machinery designed to suck the money out of people's pockets, I'm not anti-elitist and nothing I said above indicates that. I just don't think you fully understand the concept of "status" in western culture today. You only understand the most obvious aspect. At one time, what you paid for something WAS all there was, but it's a bit more complex than that now. As to minorities, your ranting on the affirmative action thread was somewhat repulsive, though you're entitled to your opinion.

Again, a status symbol has to be by definition, something exclusive that not everyone and their grandmother can have. It has to be something that differentiates you from the masses (such as a Ferrari or a Patek Philippe watch). If everyone has access to them (i.e., can afford them), how can it confer any status, as every person can have them, and every person would, thus, be the same as another? So it cannot be an indicator of your status vis-a-vis anyone else.

A cell phone used to be status symbol ten years ago when not everyone had them, and really only people that could afford them had them. But nowadays, everyone and their grandmother has a cell phone, so guess what? Cell phones are no longer a status symbol are they?

If everyone can get them, a status symbol loses its status as a status symbol. So to restrict access by the masses, expensive items become status symbols.

BTW, just because you're anti-affirmative action doesn't mean that you can't be a minority. Just like you don't have to be white to be a Republican nor does being black mean you're a Democrat. Some people just want equality for everyone regardless of race and shun racial stereotypes.

Deuce
12-13-2005, 02:13 AM
As others have said, you're wrong on this, BP.

Nike is very much a status symbol, despite the widespread availability of their products. The status in this case is belonging to a 'cool' group of people.

Nike created their own social status via very heavy marketing - largely to psychologically vulnerable persons (children, insecure persons, etc.). Now, at any given school, for example, if you have Nike stuff, you're 'cool'; you're accepted into a certain 'group' which, while it may not be 'exclusive' in the traditional definition of 'exclusive', it still sets them apart from those who don't have Nike stuff.

Hell, even no-name stuff can become a symbol of status - and it has happened. A group of 'anti-establishment' people simply get together and establish that no-name clothing will be their symbol. With a little bit of time and personal advertising, their status within the environment they inhabit - however large (country) or small (school) - is established.

A 'status symbol' is simply a carving out of a supposedly 'unique' niche within one's environment; it is a social status. And social status can be low or high or any point in between.

Phil
12-13-2005, 02:33 AM
Again, a status symbol has to be by definition, something exclusive that not everyone and their grandmother can have. It has to be something that differentiates you from the masses (such as a Ferrari or a Patek Philippe watch). If everyone has access to them (i.e., can afford them), how can it confer any status, as every person can have them, and every person would, thus, be the same as another? So it cannot be an indicator of your status vis-a-vis anyone else.

A cell phone used to be status symbol ten years ago when not everyone had them, and really only people that could afford them had them. But nowadays, everyone and their grandmother has a cell phone, so guess what? Cell phones are no longer a status symbol are they?

If everyone can get them, a status symbol loses its status as a status symbol. So to restrict access by the masses, expensive items become status symbols.

BTW, just because you're anti-affirmative action doesn't mean that you can't be a minority. Just like you don't have to be white to be a Republican nor does being black mean you're a Democrat. Some people just want equality for everyone regardless of race and shun racial stereotypes.

Sorry, bud, but you're still wrong. Still hung up on price tags. Specific groups decide what status is, and some groups choose things that AREN'T necessarily expensive. Think of Punk, New Wave, Urban/Rap and any number of cultural movements in which status was confered on items NEVER considered "luxury". Unique, maybe, but not necessarily. As MUCH AS IT absolutely KIILS ME to say it, what Deuce just wrote basically nailed it; and you're just flat clueless. Keep hanging on, though, poodle-you sound like a broken record.

BreakPoint
12-13-2005, 02:37 AM
The insinuation of
"I certainly wouldn't brag to people that I buy my clothes from Old Navy nor would I feel proud of having the Old Navy logo branded across my chest just as I wouldn't exactly feel proud of having the Target or Wal-Mart logos on my chest."
is that there are brands of clothes that you would be proud of wearing.
So if I wouldn't feel proud of winning a tennis tournament means I would feel proud of winning a golf tournament? :confused:

If you would not be proud of any line of clothing, why then do you single out only those clothing lines which you believe are indicative of a 'lower status'?
Uh, because they're dirt cheap? And dirt cheap things are usually considered of lower status. And that's why I buy them. Because I'm dirt cheap. ;)

Further, the fact that you introduce the very notion of pride - and/or the potential for feeling or not feeling it - indicates that you do certainly recognize status. Of course, I recognize status! What am I stupid? But it doesn't mean I would pay a red dime for status. I know that a Mercedes-Benz is a status symbol and that's why I avoid them like the plague. Just because I don't get hung up with status symbols, doesn't mean that I don't recognize them as such, does it? I mean how can you be anti-status symbols if you don't even know what they are? :rolleyes:

Deuce, did you not read my previuos posts, especially post #22? Here it is in its entirety:

Did I say that I don't buy at Old Navy? I'm saying that I don't consider Old Navy a status symbol brand in the least. Why? Because the clothes there are dirt cheap. Status symbols by definition are expensive items, unless you want to show-off your status of being too poor to buy expensive clothes. That's probably why Old Navy is so popular amongst poor colege students. I guess the rich kids would be wearing Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie, etc.

And since I'm not into status symbols, I do own some Old Navy stuff and I DO NOT own any Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, Abercrombie, Armani Exchange, Tommy Hilfiger, etc. nor any overpriced designer brands. I buy whatever fits, looks good, feels good, is on sale, and is of good value compared to comparable items from other stores, regardless of the brand. Brand is irrelevant to me. I still can't believe some people pay over $100 for a pair of ripped up designer jeans. What's up with that? BTW, I also shop at Target.
I wear whatever fits, looks good, and is comfortable regardless of the brand.

I mentioned those particular brands because other posters had referred to Old Navy as a status brand or symbol or prestigious or whatever. I'm saying, that to me, Old Navy has about as much prestige as clothes from Target or Wal-Mart. Why? Because they are all dirt cheap! Do you agree that things that are dirt cheap are also considered to be of lower status than things that are much more expensive?

If you're having trouble answering that question, here's a test:

Which is generally considered lower status and which is generally considered higer status?

1. Timex and Rolex
2. Hyundai and Porsche
3. Neiman-Marcus and K-Mart
4. Prada and Old Navy
5. Flying first class and flying coach
6. Park Avenue penthouse and basement studio in the Bronx

Note that in each case, the more expensive item is considered higher status, and the cheaper item is considered lower class. Did you pass?

BreakPoint
12-13-2005, 02:43 AM
Sorry, bud, but you're still wrong. Still hung up on price tags. Specific groups decide what status is, and some groups choose things that AREN'T necessarily expensive. Think of Punk, New Wave, Urban/Rap and any number of cultural movements in which status was confered on items NEVER considered "luxury". Unique, maybe, but not necessarily. As MUCH AS IT absolutely KIILS ME to say it, what Deuce just wrote basically nailed it; and you're just flat clueless. Keep hanging on, though, poodle-you sound like a broken record.

There are items that indicate that you "belong to a group", but they do not indicate your status within that group, which is the whole purpose of a status symbol.

BreakPoint
12-13-2005, 02:57 AM
As others have said, you're wrong on this, BP.

Nike is very much a status symbol, despite the widespread availability of their products. The status in this case is belonging to a 'cool' group of people.

Nike created their own social status via very heavy marketing - largely to psychologically vulnerable persons (children, insecure persons, etc.). Now, at any given school, for example, if you have Nike stuff, you're 'cool'; you're accepted into a certain 'group' which, while it may not be 'exclusive' in the traditional definition of 'exclusive', it still sets them apart from those who don't have Nike stuff.

Hell, even no-name stuff can become a symbol of status - and it has happened. A group of 'anti-establishment' people simply get together and establish that no-name clothing will be their symbol. With a little bit of time and personal advertising, their status within the environment they inhabit - however large (country) or small (school) - is established.

A 'status symbol' is simply a carving out of a supposedly 'unique' niche within one's environment; it is a social status. And social status can be low or high or any point in between.

If wearing Nike makes a kid "cool" and accepted as part of the "in" crowd, why dont' ALL kids wear Nike then? I mean all kids want to be cool, right? It's because Nike IS indeed expensive, and therefore, exclusive. You can buy the same Dri-Fit-type shirts at Wal-Mart with no name brands for 1/4 of the price of a Nike shirt. Let me ask you, how many average or lower income kids can afford to pay $55 for a Nike tennis shirt?

Sure, people can get together and choose anything and agree that anyone wearing red, for example, is part of that group. But that doesn't make red a status symbol. It just means that if you wear red, then you're part of the red group. It doesn't indicate your superior status within the red group nor does it mean that you're any better or of a higher status than the blue group. It's an indicator of affinity, not status.

Docalex007
12-13-2005, 03:38 AM
I'm sorry Breakpoint, but your facing an impossible armada here who have a modern and more complex view of what status is and what represents status in modern culture and society.

I think we in part agree to your basic analysis of status and that it is at times hard to obtain. But, it seems your brain is not capable of processing this complex information of which we speak of. You sound very much like a text book speaking. Very limited and very one dimensional.

To use your example of wearing red. Yes, it takes nothing special to wear red right? Right. And anyone can wear it right. Right. If they wear red on a certain day, they will be associated with this red group correct. Correct. Well, wouldn't this still be an example of status?!? Your status that day will be that your in the red group...and it may be hip that day since it was say, picked to be so by some group of cool guys....which means you will have hip/cool status for that day because you partook in the event.

Docalex007
12-13-2005, 03:47 AM
It may just be me and my deep philosophical thinking, but everything in my educated mind is telling me i'm correct.

Old Navy might be dirt cheap, but you should believe me when I say it held a status in my school for about two years. AND, that status was associated with preppy people. I remember we almost automatically labelled someone wearing Old Navy without ever speaking to them. Why? Because there was a status associated with this brand...but easy to obtain. Remember not everyone would want to have "preppy" status. So although they could afford to buy it, they choose not to.

Simple, Academic, and Intelligent. Fertig.

Docalex007
12-13-2005, 03:51 AM
BTW Breakpoint, this is only a discussion remember that. Therefore I do hold any grudge or put you on some hate list of mine. I would hope this works the other way around as well. :cool:

BreakPoint
12-13-2005, 04:05 AM
No, Docalex007, I hold no grudge against you whatsoever. :D

However, I still think many people here are confusing status with affinity. Wearing red identifies you as having affinity with the red group, just as wearing Old Navy identifies you as having affinity with the preppy crowd. It shows people that you belong to a certain group. However, I don't think it confers any status within that group or outside of that group, as it doesn't show that you are better, or richer, or smarter than anyone else, but only that you belong to a certain group.

BreakPoint
12-13-2005, 04:15 AM
I just looked up the online dictionary for the word: "status"

Here's the definition:

2 a : position or rank in relation to others <the status of a father> b : relative rank in a hierarchy of prestige; especially : high prestige

Thus, a status symbol needs to show heirarchy or your rank in relation to others. It needs to show that you are better, richer, smarter, etc. than your peers, i.e., placing you at a higher rank or hierarchy over others. I don't think neither wearing red nor Old Navy accomplishes that. They only make you equal within a certain group and equal compared to other groups. Perhaps different, but nevertheless equal (i.e., no better than people in the blue group or the Gap group).

equinox
12-13-2005, 05:44 AM
Fabiani, BigW brand special clothes.

ohplease
12-13-2005, 06:43 AM
Status is completely dependant on the context and the metric you use to rank. For some, like BreakPoint, it's money. For others, it's not. He should look up nouveu riche, btw.

There's a big difference between joe schmoe flying coach and working in a cubicle and a CEO doing those things. That's context, that's managing perception relative to your group memberships.

Money in some cases is simply the status game's barrier to entry. Sort of like needing a tennis racket to play tennis. Having either doesn't necessarily mean you know what you're doing. Tennis, at least, has an impartial metric on who's better than whom - and even then we get endless arguments about style points. Why? Because some have a different metric, a different definition of what makes one person a better player than another.

Status has no such metric, and you honestly expect to come sort of conclusion here? Who decides what's better or worse? Along what criteria? Do others agree? Do others even care?

In fact, look up modernism and post-modernism while you're at it.

Docalex007
12-13-2005, 06:44 AM
Ahhh, you see. To use an example in your definition:

"status of father". So fatherhood is a status I would assume from that statement. It does indeed show ones status in relation to other family roles. Now, is fatherhood hard to obtain? Nope. Can all people acquire fatherhood status? No, only fertile males, but thats still a lot of people and includes males who are homeless and can't even support themselves.

As you can see, some types of status hold no relation to one's affluence.
So as you imply with your definition 2a: "position or rank in relation to others" One can clearly see how status is always relative to a second variable.

ie:

- A mother's status as a mother is only valid for her daughter or son.
- President Bush's status as President is only valid for US citizens.

So as you can see:
1. one's status is relative
2. one's status may be short term
3. one may hold several status' in society at any given time

I see and acknowledge your points. Many of which are perfectly true. But status is broad in nature by its bland definition.

ohplease
12-13-2005, 06:49 AM
Oh, and just to drag this further into late night dorm room nonsense territory - a claim: even those railing against status symbols are ultimately defined by them, only by knee-jerk reaction instead of blind subscription. Oh, but I'm sure that's not you. Or so you say. How would we ever know?

I'd go on, but this conversation is best left to undergrads.

Aykhan Mammadov
12-13-2005, 06:57 AM
I'm sorry Aykhan, I am not referring to your country when I said that only rich people have cars in other countries. You country must be a very rich country that you call intermediate, the brands that were metioned here. So you guys make gold shirts and silver pants Baku style? :D

Not really. USA is a democratic country where more or less everybody has something. In my country 5 % of population maybe own 95% of wealth of the country. Baku doesn't produce anything of extra-class except oil and caviar, that is the same world famous Italian brands are in use here.For men the most expensive brands are:

Kiton
Ermenegildo Zegna
Brioni
Canali

Kiton's suits are for 5,000$ and higher.

while say such brands as Versace, Boss, Dior, Pierre Kardin and etc.. are regarded for a step lower, at least for men.

One extra step lower so-to-say intermediate are regarded Lacoste, RL, Hilfiger and etc...Say Nike here in sports range sometimes more expensive than Lacoste.

I'm just interested in are they most expensive in yr city also or another brands are famous in USA?

Aykhan Mammadov
12-13-2005, 07:33 AM
After all, I see it's quite meaningless discussion about status and etc... Posters here either simulate that they don't understand BreakPoint, or they just themselves don't want to recognise division of people by money they own.

Yes, it is right even not so rich man can collect money and go buy Patek Philippe watches for 15,000$ without any diamonds on it, just because he has such a dream. But this fact neither rise his status, nor decline the status of the brand. But the same intermediate man will not be able to buy Ferrari for 1,000,000 $.

Status = the quantity of money u have. When a man has got millions, not to say billions they are not going only for super quality but for a super brand name corresponding to their status. Because higher some normal price limit ( say 1000$) every men's suit is quite good and acceptible but they ( not every from them) don't buy Boss for 700$, they buy Kiton for 15,000$. For them to spend these amounts is like a change. And why not if u have got money ?

Of course, not all of them obey these rules. Some may wear cheaper things and not pay attention to his status in clothes. I know one famous billioner who's driver is ruling an ordinary Mercedes produced 20 years ago, and he is telling that why to change it if it still serves good?

That is I don't understand how can't u agree that there are different levels of richness, what I call different status ?

Ash_Smith
12-13-2005, 03:57 PM
The status of a brand is also relative to the group in which it is portrayed, for example I could wear a Patek Phillipe watch, a 3 piece bespoke Kilgour suit and a pair of Brioni shoes to some of the schools I coach in and those names would mean nothing to the kids. They'd be taking the **** because I wasn't wearing a Hilfiger hoodie, Lacoste trainers and a casio g-shock as big as a brick! Status can only be defined by the ideology of the group within which it is placed - has anybody seen the scene in American Psycho where Bateman and the board are comparing the status of their business cards? Exclusivity also has a bearing on what could be defined as carrying status. What started off as a bit of an inane thread is actually turning out to be very interesting!!

Deuce
12-14-2005, 01:32 AM
So if I wouldn't feel proud of winning a tennis tournament means I would feel proud of winning a golf tournament? :confused:

Uh, because they're dirt cheap? And dirt cheap things are usually considered of lower status. And that's why I buy them. Because I'm dirt cheap. ;)
Of course, I recognize status! What am I stupid? But it doesn't mean I would pay a red dime for status. I know that a Mercedes-Benz is a status symbol and that's why I avoid them like the plague. Just because I don't get hung up with status symbols, doesn't mean that I don't recognize them as such, does it? I mean how can you be anti-status symbols if you don't even know what they are? :rolleyes:

Deuce, did you not read my previuos posts, especially post #22? Here it is in its entirety:


I wear whatever fits, looks good, and is comfortable regardless of the brand.

I mentioned those particular brands because other posters had referred to Old Navy as a status brand or symbol or prestigious or whatever. I'm saying, that to me, Old Navy has about as much prestige as clothes from Target or Wal-Mart. Why? Because they are all dirt cheap! Do you agree that things that are dirt cheap are also considered to be of lower status than things that are much more expensive?

If you're having trouble answering that question, here's a test:

Which is generally considered lower status and which is generally considered higer status?

1. Timex and Rolex
2. Hyundai and Porsche
3. Neiman-Marcus and K-Mart
4. Prada and Old Navy
5. Flying first class and flying coach
6. Park Avenue penthouse and basement studio in the Bronx

Note that in each case, the more expensive item is considered higher status, and the cheaper item is considered lower class. Did you pass?

But why then are you not proud of your Target wardrobe, for example? By your own description, you should be proud of the fact that you obtained adequate clothing at a fraction of the cost that some other persons pay - in much the same way that Thoreau felt pride in how little his dinner cost, while being as adequately fed as those whose dinners cost more.

If you are "certainly not proud" of wearing your Target, etc. clothes, then what clothing would make you proud to wear it? If you are deliberately saying that you are NOT proud in wearing certain clothing, then it logically follows that there are clothes that you WOULD be proud to wear. You cannot have but one side of a coin. If you can feel "not proud", then you can also feel "proud". That you claim you are not proud to wear certain clothes indicates that, as I said previously, you do recognize status - and that you recognize it within your life. For you to say that Target clothes are not worthy of your pride clearly indicates that there are some clothes which are worthy of your pride.

Which ones?

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 02:14 AM
But why then are you not proud of your Target wardrobe, for example? By your own description, you should be proud of the fact that you obtained adequate clothing at a fraction of the cost that some other persons pay - in much the same way that Thoreau felt pride in how little his dinner cost, while being as adequately fed as those whose dinners cost more.

If you are "certainly not proud" of wearing your Target, etc. clothes, then what clothing would make you proud to wear it? If you are deliberately saying that you are NOT proud in wearing certain clothing, then it logically follows that there are clothes that you WOULD be proud to wear. You cannot have but one side of a coin. If you can feel "not proud", then you can also feel "proud". That you claim you are not proud to wear certain clothes indicates that, as I said previously, you do recognize status - and that you recognize it within your life. For you to say that Target clothes are not worthy of your pride clearly indicates that there are some clothes which are worthy of your pride.

Which ones?

:confused: ???? I don't fully understand why you're interpreting my comment in this manner. Like I said, if I said I was NOT proud of winning a tennis tournament, then does it necessarily follow that I MUST be pround of winning a golf tournament or any other sport?

I don't take pride in any clothes that I wear regardless of brand. It could be Target or Old Navy or Nike or Calvin Klein or Banana Republic, it doesn't matter. I would be just as proud or just as not proud of wearing any of them. They are just clothes that keep me from going out naked. I buy whatever looks good and fits well, NOT what brand it is or whether or not I'd feel proud wearing it. My comment was to indicate that I don't understand why anyone would be proud of wearing Old Navy or Target clothes because they are so dirt cheap. What is there to be proud of? However, I can understand why some people would be proud of wearing Giorgio Armani or other expensive designer brands. Just not me. That's why I don't buy them.

Oh, and of course I recognize status! I'm not braindead after all. I recognize that a brain surgeon has more status than a janitor, that a CEO has more status than the mailroom clerk, that a Bently has more status than a Hyundai, etc. If you don't, then you must be an outcast from society. One can recognize status symbols without trying to obtain them. In fact, if you couldn't recognize status symbols, how would you know what to avoid? You would be like, "Oops, I didn't even know that Mercedes I just bought was a status symbol. Darn it!" You don't want to make that mistake, do you? ;)

Deuce
12-14-2005, 02:47 AM
BreakPoint wrote:
I don't fully understand why you're interpreting my comment in this manner. Like I said, if I said I was NOT proud of winning a tennis tournament, then does it necessarily follow that I MUST be pround of winning a golf tournament or any other sport?

And I don't understand your tennis/golf tournament analogy. At all.

BreakPoint wrote:
I don't take pride in any clothes that I wear regardless of brand. It could be Target or Old Navy or Nike or Calvin Klein or Banana Republic, it doesn't matter. I would be just as proud or just as not proud of wearing any of them. They are just clothes that keep me from going out naked. I buy whatever looks good and fits well, NOT what brand it is or whether or not I'd feel proud wearing it. My comment was to indicate that I don't understand why anyone would be proud of wearing Old Navy or Target clothes because they are so dirt cheap. What is there to be proud of? However, I can understand why some people would be proud of wearing Giorgio Armani or other expensive designer brands. Just not me. That's why I don't buy them.

To say that you can comprehend why someone would take pride in wearing expensive clothing, while at the same time saying that you are not proud of wearing inexpensive clothing indicates that you yourself possess your own personal hierarchy of which products are worthy of pride, and which are not. And you personally draw the dividing line at how much an item costs.

To say specifically that you "certainly wouldn't be proud" of wearing Target, etc. brand clothing because they cost little indicates that you do place a status value on these clothes - a low status value. And so, if inexpensive clothing specifically is unworthy of your pride, then it corresponds that there must be clothing which is worthy of your pride - and in this case, the obvious choice would be the opposite of inexpensive clothing.

BreakPoint wrote:
My comment was to indicate that I don't understand why anyone would be proud of wearing Old Navy or Target clothes because they are so dirt cheap. What is there to be proud of?

If you abhor the phoniness of superficial status as much as you claim, I would think that you would see that one can certainly take pride in inexpensive clothing, for the same reason that Thoreau took pride in his inexpensive meal. Pride, like status, does not need to be associated with high financial cost.

BreakPoint wrote:
I recognize that a brain surgeon has more status than a janitor

Not in a filthy bathroom, he hasn't. Again, as others have stated, status is often very relative to the circumstance.

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 04:10 AM
Well, I clip coupons, too, so yes, I'm proud that I saved 50 cents on that box of Cheerios. Are you happy now?

You said that if one is not proud of wearing something then it MUST follow that he must be proud of wearing something else. Why? Why can't one be not proud of wearing anything? That's why I used the tennis/golf analogy. If one is not proud of winning in tennis, why does that necessarily mean that he must be proud of winning something else? Perhaps he's just not proud of winning at ANY sport because he's mild-mannered and not arrogant? Just like if one says he's not proud of his last job. Does that necessarily mean that he's proud of any job that he's had? No. Perhaps he's not proud of ANY jobs that he's had. Or if one says that he's not proud that he stole money from John. Does that necessarily mean that he's proud that he stole money from Jim, Bob, and Mike? Of course not!

BTW, are you saying that you don't understand why anyone would be proud of driving a Rolls-Royce? Or have a supermodel on his arm? Or be wearing a $4,000 Brioni suit? Or to have a billion dollars in the bank? Or getting a $50,000 raise? If so, then you must not get out much.

BTW, the definition of status IS hierarchy. And hierarchy goes from low to high. Stuff costs from low to high. Low cost = low hierarchy. High cost = high hierarchy. Status symbols are used to show everyone that you're high up in that hierarchy. No one has ever accused a Timex watch or a Hyundai car of being status symbols. Why? Because they're cheap which makes them non-exclusive. Whereas Rolex watches and BMW's are commonly recognized as status symbols. Why? Because they're expensive which makes them exclusive.

So if you're asking if I recognize expensive things are indicators of higher status? The answer is, of course, YES!!! Because that's the definition. And also because I'm not blind and I'm not stupid. However, I shun those expensive things that are considered status symbols.

Why, don't you go back and read all of the OP's posts in this thread? He also defines status as expensive and that's what he wants to know about, i.e., what brands are the most expensive and therefore indicate the highest status.

ohplease
12-14-2005, 05:39 AM
1) BTW, the definition of status IS hierarchy.
2) And hierarchy goes from low to high.
3) Stuff costs from low to high.
4) Low cost = low hierarchy. High cost = high hierarchy.

Change out "cost" with "cred" or "race" or "gender" or "style" or "height" or "caste" - pick a noun, any noun. Doesn't have to be money. Accent, family lineage, carriage, facial features, prison time, birth order, loyalty, innovation, charisma - and a ton of other things you can't really buy off the shelf.

Why, don't you go back and read all of the OP's posts in this thread? He also defines status as expensive and that's what he wants to know about, i.e., what brands are the most expensive and therefore indicate the highest status.

His very first post uses the word "prestigous." If you want to equate prestige with wealth or expense, you could, but I dare you to claim that everyone else, in the whole wide world, both should and does.

That you always pick money, that you can't even understand a metric that isn't money, says tons about you. Why not power? Why not fame? Does the valedictorian buy his place? First chair violin? First string quarterback? Roger Federer?

There are a ton of ways to keep score. How about one where people who understand complexity and subtlty and evaluate with different measures and contexts? Those who don't get it (i.e. you) are at the very, very bottom.

Docalex007
12-14-2005, 06:35 AM
Breakpoint, you are severely outnumbered and outwitted.....we are demanding your unconditional surrender. If you do not comply, we will be forced to drop Little Boy and Fat Man on you. ;)

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 12:45 PM
Change out "cost" with "cred" or "race" or "gender" or "style" or "height" or "caste" - pick a noun, any noun. Doesn't have to be money. Accent, family lineage, carriage, facial features, prison time, birth order, loyalty, innovation, charisma - and a ton of other things you can't really buy off the shelf.

His very first post uses the word "prestigous." If you want to equate prestige with wealth or expense, you could, but I dare you to claim that everyone else, in the whole wide world, both should and does.

That you always pick money, that you can't even understand a metric that isn't money, says tons about you. Why not power? Why not fame? Does the valedictorian buy his place? First chair violin? First string quarterback? Roger Federer?

There are a ton of ways to keep score. How about one where people who understand complexity and subtlty and evaluate with different measures and contexts? Those who don't get it (i.e. you) are at the very, very bottom.

So it's just a coincidence that typically money = power, that fame = money, or that first string quarterback = money? I don't think so. Most famous people have money, most powerful people have money, most first string quarterbacks have money. Not all, but most. Even Roger Federer has money. Coincidence? Hardly.

BTW, can you not read? The OP wants to know what are the most expensive, and thus, prestigious brands in our countries. That means products, NOT facial features, prison time, birth order, height nor any of the other nonsense you listed above. And the easiest way to make a product exclusive, and thus prestigious, is to make it expensive so that's it's beyond the reach of just anybody. If everyone in the country went to Harvard, it wouldn't be prestigious anymore, would it? Just like if everyone in the country owned a Rolls-Royce, that wouldn't be prestigious anymore either, would it? High price keeps a product exclusive, and thus, allows it to maintain its prestige.

Here are some excerpts of the posts from the OP, which you obviously haven't read yet:

I asked about prestigious brands in post 1. Prestigious brand's products can't be cheap. Otherwise everybody is able to obtain it and hence it losts it's prestige. By the way, it must be better known in USA (very rich country) than here in Azerbaijan.

In this meaning I agree with BreakPoint and despite my respect to Phil and Docalex007 I couldn't understand what they are trying to explain here.
<snip>
OK, I want to reformulate - just interesting to hear - which clothes brands are MOST prestigious and MOST expensive in yr city/country ?

Another post:

After all, I see it's quite meaningless discussion about status and etc... Posters here either simulate that they don't understand BreakPoint, or they just themselves don't want to recognise division of people by money they own.
<snip>
Status = the quantity of money u have. When a man has got millions, not to say billions they are not going only for super quality but for a super brand name corresponding to their status. Because higher some normal price limit ( say 1000$) every men's suit is quite good and acceptible but they ( not every from them) don't buy Boss for 700$, they buy Kiton for 15,000$. For them to spend these amounts is like a change. And why not if u have got money ?
<snip>
That is I don't understand how can't u agree that there are different levels of richness, what I call different status ?

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 12:52 PM
Change out "cost" with "cred" or "race" or "gender" or "style" or "height" or "caste" - pick a noun, any noun. Doesn't have to be money. Accent, family lineage, carriage, facial features, prison time, birth order, loyalty, innovation, charisma - and a ton of other things you can't really buy off the shelf.


BTW, are you implying that there's status or hierarchy in one's race?

ohplease
12-14-2005, 01:10 PM
You're confusing money as consequence vs. money as cause. Where does Federer's prestige come from? His wealth?

No. Bzzzzzzt. You lose. Thanks for playing.

There are any number of in-groups, in any number of contexts, in any number of cultures, where I don't care how much money you might have, or what you buy with it, you ain't getting in. And yes, sometimes those reasons involve race, especially in certain contexts. Are you saying those situations don't exist? Because if you are, that's an even more ludicrous position than insisting there's some cannonical ranking of brands.

Tell you what, you post your brand ranking. If we can get everyone to agree that your ranking is correct - then you must be right. Good luck with that, btw.

And in quoting the original poster - notice you need to go to his "reformulation" where he himself needs to specifically mention "expensive." Why does he do that? Why didn't he say "expensive" in his very first post (which I notice you didn't quote from - hm)?

Again: in the context of this discussion, you're at the bottom of the heap.

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 02:02 PM
And in quoting the original poster - notice you need to go to his "reformulation" where he himself needs to specifically mention "expensive." Why does he do that? Why didn't he say "expensive" in his very first post (which I notice you didn't quote from - hm)?


I guess you really can't read.

The OP himself clarifies what he meant in his original post in his subsequent posts. Obviously, he didn't realize that there were so many Einsteins like you on this board that don't know that expensive brands ARE the prestigious brands that he wants to know about. Thus, he reluctantly felt he actually needed to spell it out for you geniuses here: :rolleyes:

I asked about prestigious brands in post 1. Prestigious brand's products can't be cheap. Otherwise everybody is able to obtain it and hence it losts it's prestige.

OK, I want to reformulate - just interesting to hear - which clothes brands are MOST prestigious and MOST expensive in yr city/country ?


And, yes, Roger Federer as a BRAND is expensive. How much does Nike and Wilson pay him? Thanks for playing. Next......

Aykhan Mammadov
12-14-2005, 02:08 PM
The status of a brand is also relative to the group in which it is portrayed, for example I could wear a Patek Phillipe watch, a 3 piece bespoke Kilgour suit and a pair of Brioni shoes to some of the schools I coach in and those names would mean nothing to the kids. They'd be taking the **** because I wasn't wearing a Hilfiger hoodie, Lacoste trainers and a casio g-shock as big as a brick! Status can only be defined by the ideology of the group within which it is placed - has anybody seen the scene in American Psycho where Bateman and the board are comparing the status of their business cards? Exclusivity also has a bearing on what could be defined as carrying status. What started off as a bit of an inane thread is actually turning out to be very interesting!!

Not really. What you touched has no relation to status at all. It is the question of "what would u wear in different life situations ?" If u're billioner and u go swimming in a pool u definetly will not go there in yr Kilgour suit. So the question u rised has not any relation to status.

But again if u so much like this word that u want to call the case u described as a status, then agree that even if one case/group demands from u Hilfiger and this is their status, then it is possible to compare it with status of another group where Brioni is necessary, that is all "statuses" are comparable, and first is much lower than second simply by cost, and the cost in pounds is universal scale and very objective which in any case as a side doesn't argue anything and doesn't participate at this forum.

That is we are coming again to comparison of different "statuses" and they maybe low, intermediate, high and etc.. It is possible to introduce some universal scale ( money) to compare them. In this thread I asked about high status clothes.

ohplease
12-14-2005, 02:11 PM
Obviously, he didn't realize that there were so many Einsteins like you on this board that don't know that expensive brands ARE the prestigious brands that he wants to know about. Thus, he reluctantly felt he actually needed to spell it out for you geniuses here

Then he should have said expensive. There's a reason "so many" people made him need to spell it out. There's a reason you didn't quote his first post. And that reason is:

A) Prestigious and expensive are hardly the same thing.
B) You're wrong
C) And frankly, are a pretty sloppy thinker.
D) All of the above

Pick one. There's no wrong answer, and you sort of need to be right. At least once. Am I right? I'm right, aren't I?

MegacedU
12-14-2005, 02:15 PM
Breakpoint - I understand what you're saying and there's no reason why you should back down from it.

When someone thinks of pretigious colleges, what do they think of? The Ivys. As an IVY applicant, I can say, that these schools cost the most money. And, in a lot of cases, the student body has a lot of money to pay the schools. When I see a guy in an Armani Tux, I don't exactly think, oh all hail the manager of McDonalds. Personally, I don't see how you guys could either.

MegacedU
12-14-2005, 02:33 PM
Double post

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 02:36 PM
There are any number of in-groups, in any number of contexts, in any number of cultures, where I don't care how much money you might have, or what you buy with it, you ain't getting in. And yes, sometimes those reasons involve race, especially in certain contexts. Are you saying those situations don't exist? Because if you are, that's an even more ludicrous position than insisting there's some cannonical ranking of brands.


OK, go ahead. Let's see you rank the prestige or status of the races. In any context you prefer. I dare you.

BTW, you must be the only person that can't pick out the Top 4 most prestigious brands from this list:

Lexus, Geo, BMW, Hyundai, Mercedes, Kia, Porsche, Saturn.

Too difficult for you? I thought so.

Oh, and BTW, what makes certain brands on this list more prestigious? I know you have no clue so I'll tell you. It's because they are EXPENSIVE, and thus, EXCLUSIVE!! :rolleyes:

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 02:54 PM
Then he should have said expensive. There's a reason "so many" people made him need to spell it out. There's a reason you didn't quote his first post. And that reason is:

A) Prestigious and expensive are hardly the same thing.
B) You're wrong
C) And frankly, are a pretty sloppy thinker.
D) All of the above

Pick one. There's no wrong answer, and you sort of need to be right. At least once. Am I right? I'm right, aren't I?

You've proven once again to everyone here that you can't read. How sad. :(

How many times do I need to re-copy his post for you? The reason why the OP didn't mention the word "expensive", but the word "prestigious", is because he had assumed that anyone with more than two brain cells would know that a prestigious brand IS an expensive brand. He assumed correctly but he didn't realize that there were a few people here with less than two brain cells.

Thus, he felt it necessary to clarify and explain what he meant in his subsequent posts to you slower folks that didn't get it the first time. So I'll oblige again and re-copy for the 3rd time:
I asked about prestigious brands in post 1. Prestigious brand's products can't be cheap. Otherwise everybody is able to obtain it and hence it losts it's prestige.

OK, I want to reformulate - just interesting to hear - which clothes brands are MOST prestigious and MOST expensive in yr city/country ?

I didn't bother to quote his original post because I thought what he was asking was obvious. I "got it" the first time. Thus, no need for me to reiterate it.

Like most people, he knows prestigious brands ARE the expensive brands. That's why he can't even understand what the heck some of you are talking about. Do you "get it", now? :rolleyes:

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 03:03 PM
A) Prestigious and expensive are hardly the same thing.

It is when it comes to brands of products (as the OP is asking about).

B) You're wrong

Nope, I'm actually right.

C) And frankly, are a pretty sloppy thinker.

At least I'm able to think. :rolleyes:

D) All of the above

I choose all of my above answers as being correct.

ohplease
12-14-2005, 03:11 PM
OK, go ahead. Let's see you rank the prestige or status of the races. In any context you prefer. I dare you.

BTW, you must be the only person that can't pick out the Top 4 most prestigious brands from this list:

Lexus, Geo, BMW, Hyundai, Mercedes, Kia, Porsche, Saturn.

Too difficult for you? I thought so.

Oh, and BTW, what makes certain brands on this list more prestigious? I know you have no clue so I'll tell you. It's because they are EXPENSIVE, and thus, EXCLUSIVE!! :rolleyes:

So your example works for demonstrably stupid strawmen. Now show me how expensiveness can differentiate in cases that aren't stupid: Toyota, Nissan, Chevrolet, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Pontiac, Volkswagen.

How do you want to do this? For your theory to work, the price of each brand (what price? average? most expensive in lineup? least expensive?) when ranked, top to bottom, has to correspond to a ranking that exactly matches up with the relative status ranking - such that when you ask any man on the street, anywhere, they'll agree. From Tokyo to Detroit. Now tell me again how expensiveness matters. How cost dictates status level.

Let's do the same thing with just Ivy League schools. Rank them in order of total tuition cost. That's going to be exactly the same order as their relative academic prestige, right? Wait, no. Prestige = expensiveness. I guess we must really mean their relative academic expensiveness!!! And what of Oxford's expensiveness, or rather, prestige?

Put it this way, if your model only works when it's easy, then your model stinks. Your model doesn't even come CLOSE to working in these examples - because the distinctions are somewhere altogether different than how expensive something is.

And most importantly: why is the original poster even asking the question? Could it be his cultural context IS DIFFERENT than other posters on this board? Doesn't say much for your absolute status/prestige ranking, now does it? Shouldn't he already know? Shouldn't all the brands be the same all over, because they're so obviously and easily ranked?

And as far as race: try being black in the jim crow south. Tell me there wasn't a racial status ranking in that context.

MegacedU
12-14-2005, 03:21 PM
The Ivy's are basically the most expensive and the most prestigious. Are you seriously trying to contend that ohplease?

DashaandSafin
12-14-2005, 03:26 PM
Ok back to the topic to help out Akykan over here.
Don't really listen to some of these people Akykan they kind of know clothes but really dont.
Sure everyone knows Polo Ralph Lauren and Lacoste but the REAL status brands are:
Emporio Armani
Salvatore Ferragamo
Dolce Gabbana
Hugo Boss (kind of their reputation is dropping)
FCUK <--- personal favorite of mine :)
Dior
Versace
Burberry
Benetton
Calvin Klein (also kind of)
Ralph Lauren Purple Lable <---- Buy their shirts or suits, very fine
Louis Feraud
Yves Saint Laurent
Most kids around here wear either Lacost, Polo, Le Tigre is making a showing and so is Burberry

For purses (i assume you have a wife):
Louis Vuttion
Gucci
Chanel
Versace
Just stick with those. Try not to stray to Burberry or something.
Coach + Prada is great for younger people.

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 03:26 PM
So your example works for demonstrably stupid strawmen. Now show me how expensiveness can differentiate in cases that aren't stupid: Toyota, Nissan, Chevrolet, Ford, Honda, Mazda, Pontiac, Volkswagen.

You really don't get out of your cave much, do you? Everyone in the US knows that a Mercedes is a prestigious brand. It doesn't matter what the actual cost is, it's the perceived cost. Yes, you can buy a $30,000 Mercedes or a $30,000 Volkswagon. But guess what? Mercedes will still be a more prestigious brand than Volkswagon in the US.

Just like if you bought a Giorgio Armani suit on sale for $500 instead of the regular $2,000, it doesn't make the Giorgio Armani brand any less prestigious to the general pubic. Again, it doesn't matter what the actual cost is, it's the perceived cost.

Just like there are some schools that are even more expensive than the Ivy League schools, but the Ivy League schools are still perceived to be more expensive.

DashaandSafin
12-14-2005, 03:28 PM
The Ivy's are basically the most expensive and the most prestigious. Are you seriously trying to contend that ohplease?
Pretty much but there are still colleges in the U.S. that are just as expesnive as the Ivys if not more.
University of Chicago
Georgetown
Northwestern
To name a few im sure there are plenty more.

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 03:34 PM
Ok back to the topic to help out Akykan over here.
Don't really listen to some of these people Akykan they kind of know clothes but really dont.
Sure everyone knows Polo Ralph Lauren and Lacoste but the REAL status brands are:
Emporio Armani
Salvatore Ferragamo
Dolce Gabbana
Hugo Boss (kind of their reputation is dropping)
FCUK <--- personal favorite of mine :)
Dior
Versace
Burberry
Benetton
Calvin Klein (also kind of)
Ralph Lauren Purple Lable <---- Buy their shirts or suits, very fine
Louis Feraud
Yves Saint Laurent
Most kids around here wear either Lacost, Polo, Le Tigre is making a showing and so is Burberry

For purses (i assume you have a wife):
Louis Vuttion
Gucci
Chanel
Versace
Just stick with those. Try not to stray to Burberry or something.
Coach + Prada is great for younger people.

And what do ALL of these "status" brands have in common? They are all EXPENSIVE!!!

Right on DashaandSafin!! Way to go!!! Good post!! You're one of the ones here that "get's it". :D

ohplease
12-14-2005, 03:39 PM
You really don't get out of your cave much, do you? Everyone in the US knows that a Mercedes is a prestigious brand. It doesn't matter what the actual cost is, it's the perceived cost. Yes, you can buy a $30,000 Mercedes or a $30,000 Volkswagon. But guess what? Mercedes will still be a more prestigious brand than Volkswagon in the US.

Just like if you bought a Giorgio Armani suit on sale for $500 instead of the regular $2,000, it doesn't make the Giorgio Armani brand any less prestigious to the general pubic. Again, it doesn't matter what the actual cost is, it's the perceived cost.

Just like there are some schools that are even more expensive than the Ivy League schools, but the Ivy League schools are still perceived to be more expensive.

Oh I see, so it's not how expensive a brand is, it's how expensive a brand is perceived to be. I'm sure that model will work in tough cases. Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Honda - what's the perceived cost ranking there everybody? Should be easy, right?

How about Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown, UPenn? Well, look - your new model works there, too! It's so obvious what their perceived cost is relative to one another!

Hahaha. Um, no.

So if it's not raw cost, and it's not perceived cost, please do enlighten us with whatever model is sure to work in these particular examples.

Anyone want to help BreakPoint out? He's sort of struggling here.

theJuniorACE
12-14-2005, 04:14 PM
Dolce & Gabbana
G Star
7 For all Mankind
JCrew
Ben sherman(i love ben sherman)
INC-international concepts
Gucci
Hugo Boss
Micheal Korrs
Ralph Lauren Purple Lable

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 04:25 PM
Oh I see, so it's not how expensive a brand is, it's how expensive a brand is perceived to be. I'm sure that model will work in tough cases. Toyota, Mazda, Nissan, Honda - what's the perceived cost ranking there everybody? Should be easy, right?

They are ALL mid-priced brands, and thus, are afforded the level of prestige appropriate for their price level. Nope, no real distinction in the level of prestige between them. If someone is not impressed by your Honda, they likely won't be impressed by your Mazda, either.

How about Columbia, Cornell, Dartmouth, Brown, UPenn? Well, look - your new model works there, too! It's so obvious what their perceived cost is relative to one another!

They are ALL prestigious schools. The differences in the level of prestige between them are negligible. They are ALL Ivy League schools, so if you went to one of them, then you went to an Ivy League school. That has prestige associated with it in and of itself. It doesn't really matter which one as far as prestige is concerned.

BTW, I should know as I went to those schools. Oh, and the differences in tuition costs between those schools are small enough that they are essentially negligible, hence, the negligible differences in prestige.

Why don't you just give it up already? You're just making a bigger fool out of yourself. Even the OP that started this thread is laughing at you. :rolleyes:

Docalex007
12-14-2005, 04:36 PM
whoa whoa whoa...wait....stop! It is taking way too many words to explain this. In mathematics we always like to simplify. :)

Breakpoint, like I said in an earlier post of mine, having a prestigious status does not always require it to be expensive or even perceived to be expensive.

Listen to these two examples that clearly depict prestigious status without an expensive element.

- A normal middle class soldier fights in a war and later receives a medal of honor award. This gives him immense prestigious status that he can display to anyone and everybody in the public who would look up to that and recognize it as a "status symbol". Lets see, does it fit your requirements for it to be a status?

1. It is exclusive
2. not everyone can get it easily and is hard to obtain
3. its a physical object, much like a shirt, shorts, shoes, car, whatever
4. 1-3 put together already equal it being then also prestigious

cost: priceless :)

Example two....i'll make it quick since I think the first already did it.

- A regular church member, through his devout religious commitment and popularity with the people, is sent through the church hierarchy until becoming a Bishop. Being a Bishop is something he earned and is a prestigious status that is not easily obtained. He may STILL be poor...though he is looked upon as a prestigious man....since his status as Bishop reflects this.

This is a perceived status that only exists because we know it takes great virtue and dedication to hold such a status in the church.




What did we learn? One's status in society is NOT always....I repeat NOT always dictated by money!

ohplease
12-14-2005, 04:46 PM
They are ALL mid-priced brands, and thus, are afforded the level of prestige appropriate for their price level. Nope, no real distinction in the level of prestige between them. If someone is not impressed by your Honda, they likely won't be impressed by your Mazda, either.

They are ALL prestigious schools. The differences in the level of prestige between them are negligible. They are ALL Ivy League schools, so if you went to one of them, then you went to an Ivy League school. That has prestige associated with it in and of itself. It doesn't really matter which one as far as prestige is concerned.

BTW, I should know as I went to those schools. Oh, and the differences in tuition costs between those schools are small enough that they are essentially negligible, hence, the negligible differences in prestige.

Why don't you just give it up already? You're just making a bigger fool out of yourself. Even the OP that started this thread is laughing at you. :rolleyes:

I see, so the metric of perceived cost doesn't really work unless we're looking at huge distinctions. How useful!

Hey the perceived cost of the Wilson nCode n1 Force would be universally recognized as being higher than PS 6.0 85, right? So that must mean the n1 is therefore a more prestigious racket, right? I mean, to everybody? There's a huge difference there - maybe not orders of magnitude, but at least a factor of two in perceived cost, yeah? That's big enough for your perceived cost metric to work, right?

And in cases of negligible perceived cost difference, there really should be no arguments or discussion or loyalties between, say, the POG, vs. the PS 6.0 vs. the prestige (wait, no - the Head Expensive), right?

Hm. That doesn't appear to be true. Maybe all those arguments are due to perceived cost differences between Prince and Wilson and Head?

Don't worry, I'm sure your system will work eventually. You just need to think of a case special enough. Don't give up!

Phil
12-14-2005, 05:03 PM
They are ALL mid-priced brands, and thus, are afforded the level of prestige appropriate for their price level. Nope, no real distinction in the level of prestige between them. If someone is not impressed by your Honda, they likely won't be impressed by your Mazda, either.

They are ALL prestigious schools. The differences in the level of prestige between them are negligible. They are ALL Ivy League schools, so if you went to one of them, then you went to an Ivy League school. That has prestige associated with it in and of itself. It doesn't really matter which one as far as prestige is concerned.

BTW, I should know as I went to those schools. Oh, and the differences in tuition costs between those schools are small enough that they are essentially negligible, hence, the negligible differences in prestige.

Why don't you just give it up already? You're just making a bigger fool out of yourself. Even the OP that started this thread is laughing at you. :rolleyes:

You've been bashed around this thread forever-still don't see it, do you? If you DID go to an Ivy school as you have claimed on numerous occasions, it was either Ivy Community Junior College or else you were in some sort of tech field-'cause you can't hold your own here or in any other non-racquet discussion. Either way, I've lost even more respect for the Ivies (or else, Ivy JC). But you do have 5,000 posts, and now I can see why. You were completely OWNED back in #76, or earlier. Give it up, Jack, and move on, idiot.

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 05:10 PM
I see, so the metric of perceived cost doesn't really work unless we're looking at huge distinctions. How useful!

By golly, I think he's finally got it!! :rolleyes:

Hey the perceived cost of the Wilson nCode n1 Force would be universally recognized as being higher than PS 6.0 85, right? So that must mean the n1 is therefore a more prestigious racket, right? I mean, to everybody? There's a huge difference there - maybe not orders of magnitude, but at least a factor of two in perceived cost, yeah? That's big enough for your perceived cost metric to work, right?

And in cases of negligible perceived cost difference, there really should be no arguments or discussion or loyalties between, say, the POG, vs. the PS 6.0 vs. the prestige (wait, no - the Head Expensive), right?

Hm. That doesn't appear to be true. Maybe all those arguments are due to perceived cost differences between Prince and Wilson and Head?

The perceived differences in cost, and thus prestige, between Prince, Wilson, and Head are negligible. Has anyone here ever said that playing with a Head racquet is more prestigious than playing with a Wilson racquet?

However, golf is generally considered more prestigious than bowling. Why? Because golf is more expensive to participate in. Thus, which sport do more CEO's and millionaires play? Golf or bowling?

There's really no point to continue to argue with someone that's so obviously and patheticaly clueless. You really ought to get out once in a while. Perhaps even make some friends that can explain the world to you.

ohplease
12-14-2005, 05:15 PM
By golly, I think he's finally got it!! :rolleyes:

The perceived differences in cost, and thus prestige, between Prince, Wilson, and Head are negligible. Has anyone here ever said that playing with a Head racquet is more prestigious than playing with a Wilson racquet?

However, golf is generally considered more prestigious than bowling. Why? Because golf is more expensive to participate in. Thus, which sport do more CEO's and millionaires play? Golf or bowling?

There's really no point to continue to argue with someone that's so obviously and patheticaly clueless. You really ought to get out once in a while. Perhaps even make some friends that can explain the world to you.

Will they teach me to only use examples that suit my argument? I really like how you do that. Did they teach you to do that in one of your prestigous universities? I ask because many of my friends went to those schools, too - and they sure don't structure their arguments like you do.

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 05:16 PM
Docalex007,
This thread is about brands of clothes or products, NOT anything else. Please go back and read all of the OP's posts.

Of course, one can gain prestige or status in many other ways that have nothing to do with money. But in this discussion, we are only talking about branded clothes and products. Would you agree that brands of clothes and products that are considered to be the more prestigious brands also tend to be the more expensive brands?

That is what the OP believes and that's what I believe and that's what the OP wants to know about. That's all. :)

ohplease
12-14-2005, 05:28 PM
Docalex007,
This thread is about brands of clothes or products, NOT anything else. Please go back and read all of the OP's posts.

Of course, one can gain prestige or status in many other ways that have nothing to do with money. But in this discussion, we are only talking about branded clothes and products. Would you agree that brands of clothes and products that are considered to be the more prestigious brands also tend to be the more expensive brands?

That is what the OP believes and that's what I believe and that's what the OP wants to know about. That's all. :)

Right! That's precisely why the nCode n1 Force generates so much buzz around here! Because it's so expensive, right? Relatedly, just the other day, I saw this guy try to play in a ratty old t-shirt, against someone in head-to-toe Polo Sport(TM - Don't you love Ralph? Isn't he the dreamiest?)! It was unbelievable. I couldn't believe the t-shirt guy didn't just die from shame (i.e. "the lack of prestige") RIGHT THERE!

I mean, why do we even bother to play matches? It's SOOOOO obvioulsy about how good we look. No, wait - how much we spent. Because really, why have your name on some ratty old tennis trophy when you can just go out and buy prestige?! And wear it, even?!

BreakPoint
12-14-2005, 05:49 PM
The nCode n1 Force is a model name, NOT a brand! If you knew anything about tennis racquets, you'd know that.
Besides, the cost differences between tennis racquets are not great enough to garner any tennis racquet more prestigious than another. Tennis racquets are relatively cheap compared to other luxury items, so one tennis racquet is not considered more of a status symbol than another.
Costs of new model tennis racquets generally run between $120 to $280. Compare that the cost difference between a $10 Timex and a $25,000 Patek Phillipe watch. Or the cost difference between a $10,000 Geo and a $300,000 Aston Martin.

And what does what you wear have anything to do with winning tennis matches? :confused:
You obviously care much more about prestige, or lack thereof, than I do if you care about what people wear to play tennis in.

You really need to buy yourself a clue, man. I mean, seriously. :rolleyes:

Slazenger
12-14-2005, 07:47 PM
Armani Exchange - status brand???? no no no no no.

Here's a start
Carolina Herrera, Michael Kors, Marc Jacobs, Oscar de la Renta, Vera Wang.

Not stuff you go to some mall and buy.

When Armani puts out Armani Exchange, and Kenneth Cole puts out Kenneth Cole Reaction (the cheaper brands), yes they increase market base, but prestige also goes down.

As for Tommy Hilfiger, I cannot for the life of me understand why urban youth like his clothes. Gaudy, loud, garrish colours with horrible Hilfiger prints all over them. (I dislike Versace for this very reason).

Status today is all about exclusivity; in other words custom-made.
Sooner or later you'll run into someone holding your oh-so-exclusive Luis Vitton bag.

<Sigh> In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king </sigh>

MegacedU
12-14-2005, 07:52 PM
Armani Exchange - status brand???? no no no no no.

Here's a start
Carolina Herrera, Michael Kors, Marc Jacobs, Oscar de la Renta, Vera Wang.

Not stuff you go to some mall and buy.
<Sigh> In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king </sigh>
I've been to many malls up and down the east coast and I've NEVER seen an Armani Exchange in a MALL. How bout you take pictures of all your status clothing, and show us all your VW gowns, then maybe we'll take you seriously. Marc Jacobs is just about equivilent to AX in my mind. Unless Oscar de la Renta is designing FOR you, I suggest you do some more research. Consider this, of my school of 2000, I'm the only one I've ever seen with AX on.

DashaandSafin
12-14-2005, 08:56 PM
AX is kind of like a casual version of Armani. I dont really wear AX, i prefer the prep type of clothing (Lacoste/Polo).
You dislike Versace? They make great sunglasses...
As for:
Carolina Herrera, Michael Kors, Marc Jacobs, Oscar de la Renta, Vera Wang
Oscar de la Renta, as Meg said, isnt all that unless hes actually desinging for you.
Besides, normal or rich people dont really even wear that stuff. Its pretty much celebrities. Most of the rich prefer a nice silk Armani suit or something similar.

ohplease
12-14-2005, 09:48 PM
What's this? A disagreement about the relative status of A|X? Why won't you agree?! BreakPoint's theory of perceived cost needs you to agree!!! Otherwise people could judge brands regardless of their perceived cost. Then prestige is divorced from expense! Then all heck will break loose. HECK. Just you watch.

And The ONLY place I've ever seen A|X stores were in malls. That's LA, the OC, Honolulu, and Chicago. Frankly, I think it's one of those places where suburb kids go to buy the look city kids invented several seasons ago.

And while I'm flying my snob flag, high end off the rack stuff is just social climber costuming. All it really says is that you and your donkey rode in from somewhere that doesn't know enough to go to a decent cutter.

Deuce
12-14-2005, 10:55 PM
BreakPoint wrote:
"This thread is about brands of clothes or products, NOT anything else. Please go back and read all of the OP's posts."

Yet it is also he who has perpetually brought Mercedes, Hyundai, Timex, Rolex, K Mart, etc. into the discussion...

The evolution of this thread has been mildly interesting. The evolution of BreakPoint's posts in particular. Round about post #75, likely due to sensing trouble and needing to change his strategy, BreakPoint rather suddenly begins invoking the OP's original intentions with this thread.

Others were running circles around BreakPoint's self-perceived 'logic', and so BP desperately latched on to Aykhan's 'meaning', or 'purpose'. The thread, of course, had already evolved, with BP's full and voluntary participation, to a discussion which was several layers beyond Aykhan's original intention. But BP obviously didn't like the way things were going, and so said, in effect, "Woah... let's very conveniently back up here. We've gotten off the original topic. Let's pretend none of the past 30 posts have occurred, and start fresh from the beginning. Please?"

So let's see, now... in his argument, BreakPoint thus far has had the unrelenting support of a man who is admittedly quite unaware and ignorant of how North American culture functions, not to mention of its principles and values, as well as the support of a 16 year old 'Daddy's arrogant little rich girl' spoiled brat.

Well, that settles that.

BreakPoint
12-15-2005, 12:49 AM
BreakPoint wrote:
"This thread is about brands of clothes or products, NOT anything else. Please go back and read all of the OP's posts."

Yet it is also he who has perpetually brought Mercedes, Hyundai, Timex, Rolex, K Mart, etc. into the discussion...


Uh....the last I checked, Mercedes, Hyundai, Timex, and Rolex are all brands of products, and K-Mart is a brand of store that sells products. They are NOT achievements, race, facial features, prison time, groups, Roger Federer nor anything else that other posters have injected into this thread that have nothing to do with the prestige or status one dervies from clothes and/or products. That's not to say that one cannot attain prestige and/or status from things other than clothes or products or other non-material or non-monetary things, but that is NOT the purpose of this discussion. Just read the title of this thread - "Clothes brands". Clothes are a product that you buy with money, right? Many designer brands trancend just clothes, and also include other products like fragrances, shoes, watches, bags, home furnishings, linens, etc.,. Brands like Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger, Kenneth Cole, etc. That's why name brand products were also included in this discussion.

BTW, if you still can't understand why I could not be proud of wearing one thing and ALSO not be proud of wearing something else, here's a prime, and actual example:

I wear a Timex digital watch. Am I proud of it? Not particularly. Why? Well, for one thing, I paid only $11.98 for it at a discount store, and for another, it's made of cheap plastic. Would I be more proud of wearing another brand of watch? No, not at all. So would I be more proud if I were wearing a $5,000 gold Rolex? No, not particularly. Like I said, it doesn't really matter to me what brand it is. It's totally irrelevant. As long as it looks OK and is functional (i.e., tells time accurately and reliably), I'm happy. In fact, I would more likely feel ashamed to be wearing the Rolex as it would make me feel that I was an idiot for spending $5,000 for a stupid watch! Especially one that doesn't tell time any better (in fact, worse) than a $12 digital Timex!

Deuce
12-15-2005, 01:48 AM
But the fact is that you said you were not proud of your Target, Old Navy, etc. clothes because they are inexpensive. Further, you said that you cannot fathom how anyone could take pride in wearing such inexpensive clothing - yet you can fully comprehend how one can take great pride in wearing expensive clothes.

This tells us that you view pride as relating to financial cost - just as you recognize status as relating to financial cost. That you ignore all other measures of status - and perhaps thus of pride, as well - is revealing. That you place such a high value on how much an item costs - to the point of excluding all other units of measure - tells us from which perspective you are viewing the civilized world.

BreakPoint
12-15-2005, 02:50 AM
But the fact is that you said you were not proud of your Target, Old Navy, etc. clothes because they are inexpensive. Further, you said that you cannot fathom how anyone could take pride in wearing such inexpensive clothing - yet you can fully comprehend how one can take great pride in wearing expensive clothes.

This tells us that you view pride as relating to financial cost - just as you recognize status as relating to financial cost. That you ignore all other measures of status - and perhaps thus of pride, as well - is revealing. That you place such a high value on how much an item costs - to the point of excluding all other units of measure - tells us from which perspective you are viewing the civilized world.

Just because I recognize and understand how some people would take pride in wearing expensive brands DOES NOT mean that I would. But I'm not stupid and I'm not blind. Are you seriously saying that you're unable to comprehend why anyone would be more proud to wear a Rolex watch and a Brioni suit than a Timex watch and a K-Mart suit?

Yes, most NORMAL people (which you evidently are not) associate prestige, pride, status or whatever when it comes to brands of clothes and/or products with financial cost. At least in this world, although I'm not quite sure what kind of skewed world you happen to reside in. You might be the only person that thinks a Hyundai is more prestigious than a BMW.

Have you ever seen the movie, "Glengarry Glen Ross"? The scene with the Alec Baldwin speech? He says - "Who am I?" "You drove here tonight in a Hyundai and I drove here in an $80,000 BMW, THAT"S who I AM!" No further explaination needed to determine who he is and who's of higher status. Everyone in the movie knows and everyone in the audience knows, except maybe Deuce sitting in the corner asking, "What does he mean by that? I'm confused." Alec Bladwin later shows Ed Harris his gold Rolex watch and tells him - "You see this watch? This watch cost MORE than YOUR CAR!!" Again, no explaination required as the audience fully understands this dialogue was used to firmly establish who had more status and who was higher up in the heirarchy of employees working at the firm.

BTW, when it comes to brands of clothes and/or products, cost is the most commonly used measure of prestige, NOT other units of measure. We're not talking achievements, people, nor anything else. We're talking BRANDS!!!! You might be the only person that DOES NOT EVER use cost as a measure of a BRAND's commonly recognized level of prestige and status.

Of course I place a high value on cost. The two words are often used interchangeably. When someone asks you what the value of your house is, they are asking you what it would cost to buy it. No one is going to give me a free house, so yes, I do place a high value on its cost.

Here's Deuce, perhaps the only person who thinks a $100 Wal-Mart suit is more prestigious than a $4,000 Brioni suit, and perhaps the only person that would be proud to be on welfare. :rolleyes:

Bartelby
12-15-2005, 04:11 AM
The strange fact is that advanced tennis racquets are less expensive than beginners' tennis racquets due to the fact that "technology" functions as a prosthesis, so advanced players need less and therefore pay less. More expensive in the tennis world equals less prestigous.

DashaandSafin
12-15-2005, 04:34 AM
What's this? A disagreement about the relative status of A|X? Why won't you agree?! BreakPoint's theory of perceived cost needs you to agree!!! Otherwise people could judge brands regardless of their perceived cost. Then prestige is divorced from expense! Then all heck will break loose. HECK. Just you watch.

And The ONLY place I've ever seen A|X stores were in malls. That's LA, the OC, Honolulu, and Chicago. Frankly, I think it's one of those places where suburb kids go to buy the look city kids invented several seasons ago.

And while I'm flying my snob flag, high end off the rack stuff is just social climber costuming. All it really says is that you and your donkey rode in from somewhere that doesn't know enough to go to a decent cutter.
You can get your Aramani suits customized and tailored, as most people do.
Stuff off the rack isnt bad. But of course im sure you fit your Dior T-shirts dont you.

ohplease
12-15-2005, 06:41 AM
You can get your Aramani suits customized and tailored, as most people do.
Stuff off the rack isnt bad. But of course im sure you fit your Dior T-shirts dont you.

You're obviously mistaking me for someone who cares what you think about Armani. Why should you care what I think? Isn't that brand's prestige tied to its perceived cost, immune to outside opinion? Doesn't everyone perceive it to be the same? Everywhere? Or do we need to start qualifying where, like Breakpoint has begun to do?

Oh, I see why you're so troubled. That whole bit about perception, where my perception, your perception, in fact every person in the entire world is likely to have a different perception of the Armani brand.

If you think about the world in this way, you absolutely need me to agree with your status rankings, otherwise your precious brand is worthless. Since I don't, this hurts your feelings. Poor you.

On the other hand, if you subscribe to what I've been saying all along, that status rankings are completely different depending on context, then you can just write me off as some snob that gets custom cut Dior t-shirts.

Hey look! You do that already! GOOD JOB! And you disagree with other brand concious posters about the status of A|X, too.

This blows poor BreakPoint's prestige=expense theory out of the water, though. Please don't tell him.

Let's be more snobby: I personally think the people that care most about brands are those that come from second world cultures rapidly moving from communism to hyper-capitalism, or from people trying to prove they belong in a higher social rung. That's your Eastern Europes, your mainland Chinas, your middle-class whiz-kids being slaved in your multinational investment bank.

It's no secret that in certain contexts, real wealth and power can come to work in t-shirts and shorts, while the salaried help has to come in suits. Those must be really expensive/prestigious t-shirts, right?

Aykhan Mammadov
12-15-2005, 07:32 AM
DashaandSafin,

yr list in the post 91 is completely confusing. Yes, brands u listed are expensive for our people ( may be for Americans - not so expensive), but they are not very expensive and most exclusive. Say men's suit of Louis Feraud we can buy here for 500 $ while Zegna Ermenegildo is not less than 1500$ and Kiton is not less than 5000$, sometimes 15,000$.

Some companies like Boss may produce suit for 400$ and for 1400$ so they are not among most prestigious.

The situation as in the case of watches. Say Longine has watches for 15,000$ and also for 500$ so their even very expensive one is not considered as very prestigious. While Patek Philippe u can't buy ever for 3000$.

Anyhow coming back: which clothes brands are MOST expensive in yr city?

Docalex007
12-15-2005, 09:11 AM
^^^Do you find these facts interesting? I mean, knowing the most expensive brand of clothing gives you what?

If I were filthy rich I could not imagine me going out and buying that expensive crap. The wealthy only buy it because it gives them that extra sense of authority and accomplishment. Its pathetic. Now buying because of quality is something totally different.

MegacedU
12-15-2005, 12:21 PM
BreakPoint wrote:
So let's see, now... in his argument, BreakPoint thus far has had the unrelenting support of a man who is admittedly quite unaware and ignorant of how North American culture functions, not to mention of its principles and values, as well as the support of a 16 year old 'Daddy's arrogant little rich girl' spoiled brat.
Well, that settles that.
Who says I'm rich Deucey? I could be as poor as poor can be with a vast knowledge of expensive stuff. Don't bring my Daddy into this. Make that 96%.

Brettolius
12-15-2005, 12:42 PM
Who says I'm rich Deucey? I could be as poor as poor can be with a vast knowledge of expensive stuff. Don't bring my Daddy into this. Make that 96%.

He probably used context clues like -" I love my Prada backpack, but the fact the no one else, that I know of at least, has it, makes it all the more fun to carry it."

Yeah, 'cuz you probably got it at Target, right? -" When I see a guy in an Armani Tux, I don't exactly think, oh all hail the manager of McDonalds. Personally, I don't see how you guys could either."

Thank ya', apply that to chicks prancing around with Prada gear.

"Consider this, of my school of 2000, I'm the only one I've ever seen with AX on."

Why is this?

BreakPoint
12-15-2005, 12:54 PM
This blows poor BreakPoint's prestige=expense theory out of the water, though. Please don't tell him.

It's no secret that in certain contexts, real wealth and power can come to work in t-shirts and shorts, while the salaried help has to come in suits. Those must be really expensive/prestigious t-shirts, right?

Ohplease seems to think that just because someone is wealthy, they must also want prestige. Nothing could be further from the truth. The two are mutually exclusive.

Steve Jobs, the CEO of Apple and Pixar, is a multi-billionaire, but he wears nothing but blue jeans and a black turtleneck shirt. Whenever he's seen on stage or in public, that's what he always wears. His entire outfit probably cost him $50. Yes, he's super rich, but that doesn't mean that he wants to show prestige through his clothes. Meanwhile, you have a minimum wage worker on the factory floor who drives a new Mercedes. This person is obviously striving for prestige that otherwise doesn't exist in her life. However, that doesn't make the Mercedes brand any less prestigious, since after all, it's still a very expensive car relative to many much cheaper alternatives. And it doesn't make $30 blue jeans and $20 black turtlenecks any more prestigious since they are still dirt cheap compared to a $5,000 Brioni suit (which Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle prefers). (Funny that Jobs and Ellison are close friends.)

BTW, yes, I can afford to buy a Rolex but I CHOOSE not to. I'd rather wear my $12 plastic Timex digital watch. Why? It serves its function, in that it tells time accurately and reliably, so it's just as good (perhaps better) in doing what I need a watch for, which is to tell time.

As I've said, brands are irrelevant to me. Thus, I don't pay EXTRA for brand names. I look for function, value, looks, and fit when I choose my clothes (or accessories, etc.). I couldn't care less what brand it is. If it happens to be dirt cheap too, fine. If it happens to be expensive, that's fine too, but it has to have more function, value, etc. than the alternatives, and NOT just some name brand. (Of course, I prefer things that are dirt cheap, though. :D )

However, none of this changes the fact that most expensive brands tend to have more prestige associated with it than dirt cheap brands within a society that recognizes these brands. (Notice I said BRANDS, NOT people, race, tennis, face shape, penis size, hair color nor any other irrelevant attribute you've tried to inject into this discussion).

You could go to Japan and not recognize some high-end Japanese brands that the local Japanese find prestigious but you have never heard of, so of course, you associate no prestige with those brands. I'd bet there are some brands of ultra-expensive Swiss-made watches (of which there are hundreds) or ultra-expensive custom made Italian suits that you've never heard of, so for you, you wouldn't find those brands prestigious in the least. However, for people "in the know", they would be impressed and find those brand names prestigious. So it really depends on what group or circles you run in. Believe me, there are brand names of very expensive things (e.g., jewerly, wine, watches, clothes, accessories, yachts, etc.) that the ultra-rich recognize but the average person has never heard of. However, that doesn't make those things any less prestigious, because whether you know it or not, those brands are still very expensive. It just makes you uninformed or uninitiated. Just like if you've been living in a cave and have never heard of Harvard does not make Harvard any less prestigious of a university.

Aykhan Mammadov
12-15-2005, 02:58 PM
^^^Do you find these facts interesting? I mean, knowing the most expensive brand of clothing gives you what?

If I were filthy rich I could not imagine me going out and buying that expensive crap. The wealthy only buy it because it gives them that extra sense of authority and accomplishment. Its pathetic. Now buying because of quality is something totally different.

Docalex007, is it question to me ?

If it is - I'll answer. It gives me some information. Do u find in knowing most expensive brands of clothes something harmful ? I don't think there is something bad for u or for me if we know that Ferrari and Maybach are very expensive cars or Patek Philippe is very expensive watches' brand.

This kind information can't damage and can't be regarded as something bad for anybody on the planet.

Then if tomorrow I'm going to buy some prestigious Swiss watches I know that I'll go for Breguet, Patek Philippe or say Audemars Piguet. Not for advertised intermediate brands like Omega or Rolex. That is this kind information is also useful for some people.

I don't agree with yr thought u stated in the 2-nd part of yr post - that one'd go for the quality, not for the name or prestige. Everybody must go for the quality, but those who have got a lot of money - also for the name (or prestige). Examples: 1. If we talk about quality - then some Citizen or Casio watches for 50-100$ may serve u 50 years. Hence there is no need according to u to buy most expensive things and many Swiss manufacturers must be closed.

Some Toyota car may serve u doezns of years. Then why does this "stupid" Mercedes produce also Maybach ? Or why did "stupid" BMW own also Rolls-Royce ?

My answer: most expensive things have the same right to exist as all other things. Of course u will not take things with u into another world when u die but if to think - most time of their life people are busy with "things" (houses, cars, clothes, [racquets, shirts, shoes if we talk tennis-related], earning money, working, a lot of things in the life of humans are related with things). So that when a man has got a lot of money - say 10 millions why not to buy very expensive watches, cars and etc.. ? Life is short and why to keep yr extra money always in businesses, banks ? Why not to feel yourself very comfortable wearing what u deserved with yr money accroding yr status ?

Conversely, I'd count a man who has got 10 millions USD and wearing watches for 20$ as somebody very narrow-minded.

Knowing very expensive things also help in choosing right things. As I wrote Longines produce very good quality watches ( one I have for 700-800$) for 500-15,000$. Despite it's exceptional quality ( mine doesn't make 1 second mistake in a year) it never will be regarded same kind prestigious as Breguet because last never is going to produce cheap watches and is keeping it's brand name up to the mark. That is when u have got a few millions ( what I wish to u and to all forum members including myself) u will know which watches to buy. Very expensive things not always but mainly imply very high quality.

One more example: VW is ver big car manufacturer, it is bigger than BMW and Mercedes ( alone without Crysler). When it produced some car ( Phaeton) which it wanted to position as analogue of S-class Mercedes it completely failed. Becuase millions think as me - why to buy very expensive VW for the price of Mercedes ? Brand name did it's job. Without knowing the brand name "Mercedes" and it's prestige u could make mistake when u've got 1 million USD.

I agree that car and watches are apparently observed and seen when u carry them ( or drive them). Coming back to clothes - here not always is seen what u wear if u don't open yr coat and don't show it's label. Anyhow knowing that u've got millions and wearing the coat for 100$ will not make u comfortable.

Since this field - clothes is very uncertain I asked my questions in this thread to get more information about. An the goal wasn't to hear well-known brands like Gucci, Versace, or Boss, or Valentino which we heard millions of times and saw in every mall world-wide, the goal was to hear extra expensive brands only for millioners, for example the name "Kiton" was a discovery for me when I first heard that this is the most expensive men's suit.

I'm sure that intermediate (or low-high range) brand names which DashaandSafin for example listed in post 91 are well known for everybody. While more expensive brands like Ermenegildo Zegna, Kiton are known for less quantity of memebers ( as I see). Let's share this kind information: clothes which are only for millioners/billioners, very expensive brands. If u regard some of well-known as very expensive, OK call it also.

DashaandSafin
12-15-2005, 05:29 PM
Let's be more snobby: I personally think the people that care most about brands are those that come from second world cultures rapidly moving from communism to hyper-capitalism, or from people trying to prove they belong in a higher social rung. That's your Eastern Europes, your mainland Chinas, your middle-class whiz-kids being slaved in your multinational investment bank.

It's no secret that in certain contexts, real wealth and power can come to work in t-shirts and shorts, while the salaried help has to come in suits. Those must be really expensive/prestigious t-shirts, right?
People who care about brands care about how they look. Look im Asian and my parents came from Taiwan. They were dirt poor when they came here and made it here in the word. My dad worked hard and move up and now owns his own company. Im not going to sit here and lie and pretend to make a case, he is pretty rich. But i can wear whatever the hell i want. I could choose to shop at Wall-Mart or go on a shopping spree in Versace. But i CHOOSE to look nice and buy nice clothes becuase i belive its, in most cases, a sign of status.
Of course my dad always said, those guys in Mercedes S600's with their Armani suits and 30k Rolex watches were not real rich people. Real rich people choose to wear crappy clothes and enjoy the fact that they are wealthy and have the ABILITY to buy whatever they choose. This is pretty true but of course it has numerous exceptions. I know a guy his dad is the CEO of some company ( no names here ) and he chooses to wear stuff he gets im guessing at wallmart. My other friend, his dad owns a large amount of real estate and is in the same class as the first friend. He, however, chooses to wear the most expensive things he can find and has numerous yachts, cars etc.
Both are White, Western Europeans.

You criticize people from various countries that try to make a better life here, to try to give thier kids a better life by urging them to work hard. Why? To make yourself, a (im assuming) superior White Western Eureopean person feel better? Well its the kids who are going to be laughing when they turn out to be your boss. Then its they who are going to be laughing.

DashaandSafin
12-15-2005, 05:35 PM
One more example: VW is ver big car manufacturer, it is bigger than BMW and Mercedes ( alone without Crysler). When it produced some car ( Phaeton) which it wanted to position as analogue of S-class Mercedes it completely failed. Becuase millions think as me - why to buy very expensive VW for the price of Mercedes ? Brand name did it's job. Without knowing the brand name "Mercedes" and it's prestige u could make mistake when u've got 1 million USD.

I agree that car and watches are apparently observed and seen when u carry them ( or drive them). Coming back to clothes - here not always is seen what u wear if u don't open yr coat and don't show it's label. Anyhow knowing that u've got millions and wearing the coat for 100$ will not make u comfortable.

Since this field - clothes is very uncertain I asked my questions in this thread to get more information about. An the goal wasn't to hear well-known brands like Gucci, Versace, or Boss, or Valentino which we heard millions of times and saw in every mall world-wide, the goal was to hear extra expensive brands only for millioners, for example the name "Kiton" was a discovery for me when I first heard that this is the most expensive men's suit.

I'm sure that intermediate (or low-high range) brand names which DashaandSafin for example listed in post 91 are well known for everybody. While more expensive brands like Ermenegildo Zegna, Kiton are known for less quantity of memebers ( as I see). Let's share this kind information: clothes which are only for millioners/billioners, very expensive brands. If u regard some of well-known as very expensive, OK call it also.
Very good point there with the VW. Pity, it was a nice car...
You say you didnt want to hear well known brands, well some of the brands on my list some people have not heard about. Most wealthy people would hear of probably all of the things on my list back there. However, i have never heard of Kiton. Where is it manufactured and made? This goes to show you one can wear a 20k ( i dont know how much it is im just making a rough estimate which can be completly off) suit and still not be recognized for it. Im postive that you can walk down the streets in NYC and 99.99% of the people will never have heard of Kiton.

Phil
12-15-2005, 06:25 PM
People who care about brands care about how they look. Look im Asian and my parents came from Taiwan. They were dirt poor when they came here and made it here in the word. My dad worked hard and move up and now owns his own company. Im not going to sit here and lie and pretend to make a case, he is pretty rich. But i can wear whatever the hell i want. I could choose to shop at Wall-Mart or go on a shopping spree in Versace. But i CHOOSE to look nice and buy nice clothes becuase i belive its, in most cases, a sign of status.
Of course my dad always said, those guys in Mercedes S600's with their Armani suits and 30k Rolex watches were not real rich people. Real rich people choose to wear crappy clothes and enjoy the fact that they are wealthy and have the ABILITY to buy whatever they choose. This is pretty true but of course it has numerous exceptions. I know a guy his dad is the CEO of some company ( no names here ) and he chooses to wear stuff he gets im guessing at wallmart. My other friend, his dad owns a large amount of real estate and is in the same class as the first friend. He, however, chooses to wear the most expensive things he can find and has numerous yachts, cars etc.
Both are White, Western Europeans.

You criticize people from various countries that try to make a better life here, to try to give thier kids a better life by urging them to work hard. Why? To make yourself, a (im assuming) superior White Western Eureopean person feel better? Well its the kids who are going to be laughing when they turn out to be your boss. Then its they who are going to be laughing.

Oh Please is right on this...The former third worlders are just about the tackiest when it comes to waving "brand name" merchandise in your face. I can spot a party of Taiwanese or noveau rich mainland Chinese a mile away by all the tacky gold they're wearing (BTW, a Hong Kong friend of mine first pointed this out to me). People from Singapore and Hong Kong? Bahhh...they don't need to bother. They've "Made" it and their taste is a bit subtler, though not cheap. Russian mobsters? Take a walk through Brighton Beach in Brooklyn and you'll spot 'em in front of the clubs, wearing those shiny Armani pimp costimes and the Hermes ties. And the watches? So much gold and silver that the reflection off of them could take down an airplane at 15,000 feet by blinding the pilot. Saudi Sheiks? Solid gold BMW's and gold palaces-showey wealth that they didn't do a day of work to obtain, and they DEMAND "respect" from their much poorer subjects and the outside world.

Maybe these are transition stages for such groups of people, where they are STRIVING not only for wealth, but for recognition that they've "made" it. The REAL rich are laughing at this. They don't need ostentatious displays-you either KNOW they're rich based on reputation, or you DON'T-either way, they don't care what YOU think. They don't need bling bling to make a point that they're higher up the chain than you are. Though not rich myself, I laugh at these tacky displays of wealth and "brand ideology" because I realize that these people are still, even with their money, not secure in their position. I am. Though I could use a few bucks.

Aykhan Mammadov
12-15-2005, 06:29 PM
http://www.kiton.it/kiting/indexg.htm

roddick_rulz
12-15-2005, 06:31 PM
holt renfrew is kinda expensive i bought a pair of pants the other day. It was on sale, only 400 buckz!!

ohplease
12-15-2005, 06:56 PM
People who care about brands care about how they look.

Wrong. People who care about brands care what other people think. Big difference. You equate the two.

And now wealth and the desire for prestige are mutually exclusive? I thought prestige = expensive?

Maybe the best one of them all: "it really depends on what group or circles you run in." Also: "if you've been living in a cave and have never heard of Harvard does not make Harvard any less prestigious of a university." Way to stick to your clothing brands only special case, btw.

So which is it? Is prestige relative to context or isn't it? I've been saying it is, all along. Now you're saying it, too. But you're also saying it isn't.

That's what a mutually exclusive choice looks like, btw. Just so's you know. Did they not teach you that at your Ivy?

Phil
12-15-2005, 07:19 PM
That's what a mutually exclusive choice looks like, btw. Just so's you know. Did they not teach you that at your Ivy?

I think we've firmly established that he attended "another" Ivy.

http://www.ivytech.edu/

Aykhan Mammadov
12-15-2005, 07:22 PM
I don't know which countries/nations are called as 2-nd world cultures ? I'd preffer not to use the word "culture" at all, better to separate world by economical power. In this regard it is possible to talk about 2-nd grade or 3-rd grade countries (or worlds) but not about their cultures, because culture is not possible to buy for money as well as it doesn't necessarily correlate with the economical power. It is history, architecture and etc...

I think also some posters here overestimate as if all super millioners and billioners wear cheap shirts and whatever. Yes, they can let them and this is some kind of show off also. Meanwhile probably there are thousands of them who are normal people ready to use money they earned thanks to their work. And why not to use money if u've got it ?

In this regard it is surprising for me such an attitude of some posters from "first" world who by all means try express their great respect just to those a few narrow-minded billioners who don't want to spend their money for expensive things. As if they are loking some kind of support from rich people. This behavior very close resembles me communists who never liked in their soul rich people and resembles me poor workers who made socialist revolution in 1917. As if some posters want to demonstrate that they as human beings are higher than "things", as if they ashame recognise they like and they feel better if they wear expensive clothes, watches, whatever...

All these things are not real. Don't u want to assure us that same billioners live in small houses of 100 sq.meters, and go in small cars ? Or by stating this u feel better ?

No my friends, they get very huge villas, many luxury cars, many servants, very luxury clothes, own aircrafts and delicious jewellery and etc...and I don't respect when after all these they show off in the cheap shirt. Let them wear very expensive shirt for 1,000$.

Also don't count yourself much higher than "things" and don't ashame to like good things. The life is the game which the God created for stupid people. From birth u start playing with things (toys) till yr death.

BreakPoint
12-15-2005, 07:43 PM
And now wealth and the desire for prestige are mutually exclusive? I thought prestige = expensive?

Maybe the best one of them all: "it really depends on what group or circles you run in." Also: "if you've been living in a cave and have never heard of Harvard does not make Harvard any less prestigious of a university." Way to stick to your clothing brands only special case, btw.


*Sigh...* You still don't get it do you? Perhaps you're a bit weak on vocabulary? Yes, expensive = prestige, but wealth does NOT equal prestige nor does prestige equal wealth. Didn't you read my examples of Steve Jobs, and of the minimum wage worker driving a Mercedes? Wealth does not equal expensive. Is that too hard a concept for you to comprehend? Someone could be wealthy but buy only inexpensive things like Timex watches and Wal-Mart clothes, as illustrated in examples by several posters above. Just because you're wealthy does not mean that you want or seek prestige through brand name clothes/products. If you saw Bill Gates walking down the street and did not recognize him, but based just on the way he looks and his clothes, would you think he's the richest man in the world?

The fact that you equate wealth with expensive says a lot about how you think.

One can be wealthy and only buy cheap clothes/products and one can be poor but only buy expensive clothes/products. It just depends on how one views the world and how one wants the world to view them. There are lots of people out there that spend a lot of time and money seeking prestige and status through the wearing of expensive brand name clothes/products. I guess you can call these the "pretenders". You can also go to Singapore and see a lot of poor people driving around in Mercedes or BMW (which cost 5 times more than they cost in the US due to the exorbitant taxes, so a mid-range Mercedes sedan costs more than US$300K there), but these same people live in cheap, slum apartments. Why? This way they can show off to people while driving around in public to fool people into thinking they have status and/or are rich.

I used Harvard as an example because I presumed that you've heard of Harvard (since you listed all those other Ivy League schools), and would agree on its prestige. And, you know what? Harvard IS a brand and a product you pay for, unlike facial features or race or whatever. :rolleyes: I could have used some obscure high-end Japanese, Italian or Swiss brand name, but you likely would have never heard of them so they wouldn't have been a good example to illustrate my point.

DashaandSafin
12-15-2005, 07:50 PM
Wrong. People who care about brands care what other people think. Big difference. You equate the two.

And now wealth and the desire for prestige are mutually exclusive? I thought prestige = expensive?

Maybe the best one of them all: "it really depends on what group or circles you run in." Also: "if you've been living in a cave and have never heard of Harvard does not make Harvard any less prestigious of a university." Way to stick to your clothing brands only special case, btw.

So which is it? Is prestige relative to context or isn't it? I've been saying it is, all along. Now you're saying it, too. But you're also saying it isn't.

That's what a mutually exclusive choice looks like, btw. Just so's you know. Did they not teach you that at your Ivy?
Wait wait, you are only referring to me at the begining of your argument right?
Anyway regarding Phil's opinion, Im sorry if i came off like that. I dont flash my wealth nor do my parents. When I say i like to dress nicely I like to do it becuase its
1. Proper: I was brought up this way
2. It just simply looks nice
I don't have a need to flash wealth, it has never intrested me. I always have thought of it as showing off. As to the Russian mobsters and HK people you are talking about I understand. I don't really see them where i live because, well, they dont live near me. But i see them in New York and other places. To wear that much gold is just plain ugly and stupid. It just shows you are trying to show that you somehow belong in a higher place in society.
However consider the other scenerio.
P. Diddy owns....what doesn't he have? The guy has more bling than anyone. He still wears it and throws his million dollar yacht parties. He clearly does not need to elevate his status as a celebrity.

BreakPoint
12-15-2005, 07:51 PM
In this regard it is surprising for me such an attitude of some posters from "first" world who by all means try express their great respect just to those a few narrow-minded billioners who don't want to spend their money for expensive things. As if they are loking some kind of support from rich people. This behavior very close resembles me communists who never liked in their soul rich people and resembles me poor workers who made socialist revolution in 1917. As if some posters want to demonstrate that they as human beings are higher than "things", as if they ashame recognise they like and they feel better if they wear expensive clothes, watches, whatever...

All these things are not real. Don't u want to assure us that same billioners live in small houses of 100 sq.meters, and go in small cars ? Or by stating this u feel better ?

Also don't count yourself much higher than "things" and don't ashame to like good things. The life is the game which the God created for stupid people. From birth u start playing with things (toys) till yr death.

Can't wait to see Deuce's response to this one. ;)

DashaandSafin
12-15-2005, 07:52 PM
Akyhan.
Wow there was a Kiton store right under my nose and I have never heard of the brand. Very nice store, the history could be better.
How much do they run?

BreakPoint
12-15-2005, 08:12 PM
People who care about brands care what other people think.

Usually, but not always.

For instance, when I buy clothes I look for value, looks, fit, function, etc., which means sometimes I do buy brand names (only on sale, though) because they happen to fit, look better or have more function than the non-brand name alternatives I can find. However, this doesn't mean that I care what other people think. In fact, as you've probably noticed by my frankness and the way I speak my mind on this board that I couldn't give a hoot what other people think. ;) :cool:

MegacedU
12-15-2005, 08:48 PM
He probably used context clues like -" I love my Prada backpack, but the fact the no one else, that I know of at least, has it, makes it all the more fun to carry it."

Yeah, 'cuz you probably got it at Target, right?
Why is this?
Yeah, because everyone buys their Prada at Target. Non-leather Prada is actually pretty reasonable.

ohplease
12-15-2005, 09:07 PM
I think we've firmly established that he attended "another" Ivy.

http://www.ivytech.edu/

I don't doubt that he did go to one. There are plenty of alumni like BreakPoint running around diluting the brand equity of those schools. Just like there's plenty of trashy new money fronting Prada or Armani. You can wear the label, but that don't mean you make it look good.

If the class could handle it, this could move the discussion into how one's own actions bear weight on the ebb and flow of the prestige of brands you namecheck. But seeing as we're still stuck on how prestige = expense, and how that's more like freshman humanities 102, we don't want to go there; somebody might pull a muscle or something.

Phil
12-15-2005, 09:40 PM
I don't doubt that he did go to one. There are plenty of alumni like BreakPoint running around diluting the brand equity of those schools. Just like there's plenty of trashy new money fronting Prada or Armani. You can wear the label, but that don't mean you make it look good.

I can think of at least one other Ivy alumni-who has not one but two Ivy degrees-who has diluted those schools' brand equity much more than even BP could. I won't disclose his name, but he's a VERY prominent individual, though through no fault of his own, and it's enough that his name is so often bandied about in the political threads.

Deuce
12-15-2005, 10:15 PM
DashaandSafin wrote:
"P. Diddy owns....what doesn't he have? The guy has more bling than anyone. He still wears it and throws his million dollar yacht parties. He clearly does not need to elevate his status as a celebrity."

No - but he desperately feels the need to maintain it...

When the Crips and Bloods began identifying themselves by wearing blue and red shoelaces respectively, color was the chosen symbol of their status within first the Los Angeles community, and, eventually, the North American community. The members of each gang wore their colors with great pride. This defined their place, or position, or status, within a given society - so much so that the wearing of blue or red shoelaces was banned in many schools.

How much money do shoelaces cost?

The same status effect has been accomplished by hundreds of thousands - aye, Millions - of different groups within the North American culture alone. Whether it be the color of shoelaces, or 'Gap' clothing, or torn jeans, or a headband, or a nose ring, or a tattoo, or a hair style, many groups have thus established their place, position, and status within a given environment, or society.

It is quite clear that BreakPoint, in his unceasing argument that status and pride are measured by financial value exclusively, reveals himself as one who has no clue as to context.

BreakPoint
12-15-2005, 11:45 PM
I'm sorry, Deuce, but what BRAND are those red shoelaces? Because you know, those Ermenegildo Zegna red shoelaces cost a lot more, so are a lot more prestigious, than your run-of-the-mill Wal-Mart red shoelaces. ;) LOL.

This is a discusiion only about BRAND NAMES! So what brand name are those hairstyles, tattoos, and nose rings? You do know that the Brand X nose ring is a lot more expensive, and thus, more prestigious than the Brand Y nose ring, don't you? And you surely must know that those Seven for All Mankind torn jeans are much more expensive, and thus, more prestigious, than those torn Wrangler jeans, right?

Yes, believe it or not, some brands are more expensive than other brands. Whether I like it or not, I am forced to place a financial value on the expensive and prestigious brands. Why? Because they cost more! So as much as I'd like to buy a Zegna suit for the price of a Wal-Mart suit, if I really wanted a Zegna suit, I'd have to shell out the $3,000, not just the $100 for the Wal-Mart suit. So yes, when it comes to choosing BRANDS, prestige comes at a price, or financial value as you like to put it.

Since you don't seem to believe there's any relationship between cost and prestige or status of clothng BRANDS, why don't you name for us some very expensive and exclusive BRANDS of clothing that are NOT also prestigious?

BreakPoint
12-16-2005, 12:05 AM
When the Crips and Bloods began identifying themselves by wearing blue and red shoelaces respectively, color was the chosen symbol of their status within first the Los Angeles community, and, eventually, the North American community. The members of each gang wore their colors with great pride. This defined their place, or position, or status, within a given society - so much so that the wearing of blue or red shoelaces was banned in many schools.

How much money do shoelaces cost?

The same status effect has been accomplished by hundreds of thousands - aye, Millions - of different groups within the North American culture alone. Whether it be the color of shoelaces, or 'Gap' clothing, or torn jeans, or a headband, or a nose ring, or a tattoo, or a hair style, many groups have thus established their place, position, and status within a given environment, or society.


Nope, all those things just indicate that you belong to a certain group, they don't indicate that you're any higher up in the hierarchy either within or without the group. It just means that you belong to the red group and not the blue group. It doesn't mean that you are of a higher status than the blue group.

Same with the other items. If you wear Gap clothes then it just indicates that you're part of the Gap group. It does not indicate that you're of a higher status than the Abercrombie & Fitch group. To show your status, you must first establish a hierarchy, and that hierarchy, when it comes to clothing brands, is commonly established by price.

Deuce
12-16-2005, 12:10 AM
BreakPoint wrote:
why don't you name for us some very expensive and exclusive BRANDS of clothing that are NOT also prestigious?

"NOT also prestigious" to whom? To you, or to my neighbor? or my aunt? or my tennis buddy?
You still refuse to understand context; to understand that you and my neighbor are different persons, whose perception of 'value' can be entirely different.

and:
And you surely must know that those Seven for All Mankind torn jeans are much more expensive, and thus, more prestigious, than those torn Wrangler jeans, right?

Torn Wrangler jeans will have a higher status value among some persons and within some groups and some environments than will a much more expensive brand of torn jeans. Why do you refuse to comprehend this simple fact?

Truth is, I have never heard of 'Seven for All Mankind', or of 'Zegna'. That you know these brands - and many others that I've never heard of - most of them being expensive - shows that you concern yourself with expensive things things far more than I do. Interesting, too, that you equate status and pride with high financial cost exclusively. No wonder you know all about the high priced stuff...

Deuce
12-16-2005, 12:21 AM
Nope, all those things just indicate that you belong to a certain group, they don't indicate that you're any higher up in the hierarchy either within or without the group. It just means that you belong to the red group and not the blue group. It doesn't mean that you are of a higher status than the blue group.

Same with the other items. If you wear Gap clothes then it just indicates that you're part of the Gap group. It does not indicate that you're of a higher status than the Abercrombie & Fitch group. To show your status, you must first establish a hierarchy, and that hierarchy, when it comes to clothing brands, is commonly established by price.

And what you are saying is that only your version of the hierarchy - of what is more valuable, and what is less valuable - is the right one. This is your entire argument. You refuse to recognize any hierarchy other than the one which you yourself have defined.

I'd like to see you go and tell the Crips or the Bloods that they have no higher status than anyone else. To them, they do. And within certain contexts, others would agree. They also have a status as being dangerous, for example.

The same can be said of people who wear 'Gap', or 'Timex', or any other inexpensive brand name. Within certain contexts, and among certain persons - themselves included, they most certainly can be viewed as being of a higher status than those with more expensive stuff.

Most importantly, as I and others have stated several times, status need not be 'high'. There is high status, low status, and everywhere in between status. Status is merely a position - a rank - within a given environment. High, low, good, bad... it's all status.

BreakPoint
12-16-2005, 12:32 AM
Truth is, I have never heard of 'Seven for All Mankind', or of 'Zegna'. That you know these brands - and many others that I've never heard of - most of them being expensive - shows that you concern yourself with expensive things things far more than I do. Interesting, too, that you equate status and pride with high financial cost exclusively. No wonder you know all about the high priced stuff...

It's called marketing. I also read. Just because I know the names of expensive brands doesn't mean I want them. It just means I'm very knowledgable. Just because I've heard of Bently and Aston Martin doesn't mean that I own one nor even want one.

Phil
12-16-2005, 12:49 AM
Nope, all those things just indicate that you belong to a certain group, they don't indicate that you're any higher up in the hierarchy either within or without the group. It just means that you belong to the red group and not the blue group. It doesn't mean that you are of a higher status than the blue group.

Same with the other items. If you wear Gap clothes then it just indicates that you're part of the Gap group. It does not indicate that you're of a higher status than the Abercrombie & Fitch group. To show your status, you must first establish a hierarchy, and that hierarchy, when it comes to clothing brands, is commonly established by price.

Japanese women often carry LV bags, but, as everyone who has been there knows, these women are almost always middle class-some work in offices and many still live at home with their parents. NO ONE thinks they are of a higher status because they went out and spent one or two week's salary on a plastic tote bag with a brand name on it. Most foreigners think it's close to insane. They just buy it to be part of a group (the group of young women who have coughed up a lot of yen to look like every other woman). This goes against your "Status is Price, all the time" theory.

However, in the military and other heirarchial organization, STATUS symbols, which are INSTANTLY recognizable have nothing to do with cost. Certain badges and medals/ribbons indicate the wearer's rank (status) and competency (another form of status which is recognized and admired in the military). Now, some ***-hole who drives a Porshe and wears a Patek is just going to laugh at that-"Just "worthless" trifles.", in line with your thinking, BP. But this stuff is real-it represents real achievements and confers status, and from the inside, the people wearing the medals are sneering with contempt at the Porshe-driving disco boy. This is also contrary to your "theories". For MANY people, status is EARNED, not bought.

Deuce
12-16-2005, 12:52 AM
It's called marketing. I also read. Just because I know the names of expensive brands doesn't mean I want them. It just means I'm very knowledgable. Just because I've heard of Bently and Aston Martin doesn't mean that I own one nor even want one.

Yes, I know of some high priced brands, as well. But you clearly know of many more than I do - ones which seem remote and obscure to me. Ones which are surely not as well known as Mercedes Benz, or Rolex, for example.

These obscure expensive brands you mention have no value to me, nor do I have any use for, or interest in, them. Therefore, I don't know about them. Before you mentioned it here, I quite honestly would have had no clue as to whether a 'Zegna' suit cost $70 or $3000. Because I have no need to know. Why do you have a need to know?

If you truly place no more value in these high priced items than you do in inexpensive ones, why do you know so much about them?

As well, this facet of the discussion in which we are currently involved began as a discussion about status symbols, as I recall. What is a symbol of status. You have since, for some reason, and rather unilaterally, turned it into a discussion about 'high status' in particular.

BreakPoint
12-16-2005, 01:34 AM
Japanese women often carry LV bags, but, as everyone who has been there knows, these women are almost always middle class-some work in offices and many still live at home with their parents. NO ONE thinks they are of a higher status because they went out and spent one or two week's salary on a plastic tote bag with a brand name on it. Most foreigners think it's close to insane. They just buy it to be part of a group (the group of young women who have coughed up a lot of yen to look like every other woman). This goes against your "Status is Price, all the time" theory.

Yes, but if another group of Japanese OL's started carrying even more expensive bags (perhaps Prada, Gucci, or whatever brand is more expensive than LV), then they would now feel that they are higher in the social hierarchy than those women that merely carried those relatively cheap LV bags, wouldn't they?

You're right though. These women are essentially of the same social status, which is why they gravitate to expensive, prestigious brands in an attempt to distinguish themselves as being in a higher social status than they really are. Nothing but a bunch of wannabees really. It's the common Japanese/Asian preoccupation with status (generalization here, so don't hate me. :D )

However, in the military and other heirarchial organization, STATUS symbols, which are INSTANTLY recognizable have nothing to do with cost. Certain badges and medals/ribbons indicate the wearer's rank (status) and competency (another form of status which is recognized and admired in the military). Now, some ***-hole who drives a Porshe and wears a Patek is just going to laugh at that-"Just "worthless" trifles.", in line with your thinking, BP. But this stuff is real-it represents real achievements and confers status, and from the inside, the people wearing the medals are sneering with contempt at the Porshe-driving disco boy. This is also contrary to your "theories". For MANY people, status is EARNED, not bought.
All true. However, again, we are supposed to be talking about BRANDS of clothes/products as they relate to prestige/status, not achievements nor anything else. As a reminder, please look at the title of the thread again.

BreakPoint
12-16-2005, 01:46 AM
These obscure expensive brands you mention have no value to me, nor do I have any use for, or interest in, them. Therefore, I don't know about them. Before you mentioned it here, I quite honestly would have had no clue as to whether a 'Zegna' suit cost $70 or $3000. Because I have no need to know. Why do you have a need to know?

Did I say I have a need to know? I just happen to know, that's all. Just like I know that the new King Kong movie just came out. Do I need to know? No.

If you truly place no more value in these high priced items than you do in inexpensive ones, why do you know so much about them?

Perhaps because I've been exposed to them from having lived in New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Beijing, etc.? Have you ever lived in a major metropolitan city with lots of wealthy people?

As well, this facet of the discussion in which we are currently involved began as a discussion about status symbols, as I recall. What is a symbol of status. You have since, for some reason, and rather unilaterally, turned it into a discussion about 'high status' in particular.
Not I. If you re-read all of the OP's posts, you'll see that he keeps reiterating that ALL he wants to know about are what are the MOST EXPENSIVE, MOST PRESTIGIOUS, and MOST HIGH STATUS BRANDS of clothes/products in our countries. That's been the point of this whole thread.

Phil
12-16-2005, 01:59 AM
Yes, but if another group of Japanese OL's started carrying even more expensive bags (perhaps Prada, Gucci, or whatever brand is more expensive than LV), then they would now feel that they are higher in the social hierarchy than those women that merely carried those relatively cheap LV bags, wouldn't they?
They might feel "higher", but, and you've been to Japan, after about a week, they would ALL have these bags, which would, once again, cease to be true status symbols." It's not ABOUT being higher than someone else, it's about actually being LEVEL with everyone else-blending in.
You're right though. These women are essentially of the same social status, which is why they gravitate to expensive, prestigious brands in an attempt to distinguish themselves as being in a higher social status than they really are. Nothing but a bunch of wannabees really. It's the common Japanese/Asian preoccupation with status (generalization here, so don't hate me. :D )
I don't hate you-it's quantifiably true, and if you look at the perecentage of worldwide sales of, say, MHLV, that is in Asia, you can see it clearly.

All true. However, again, we are supposed to be talking about BRANDS of clothes/products as they relate to prestige/status, not achievements nor anything else. As a reminder, please look at the title of the thread again.
You can't separate achievement from status. As I said before, there are other "currencies" besides pure cost/monetary value, and achievement DOES equate to status in MANY, MANY organizations. If you want to LIMIT this discussion to just status equals price, fine, but the subject is much more complex, and, as often happens in these discussions, has gone beyond the very narrow parameters that you have assigned it.

Deuce
12-16-2005, 02:08 AM
BreakPoint wrote:
Did I say I have a need to know? I just happen to know, that's all. Just like I know that the new King Kong movie just came out. Do I need to know? No.

You obviously have much more of a need to know than I do - because I don't know.

Perhaps because I've been exposed to them from having lived in New York, San Francisco, Hong Kong, Singapore, Tokyo, Beijing, etc.? Have you ever lived in a major metropolitan city with lots of wealthy people?

Marketing works on you, then. The advertizing tells you that a given product is prestigious because it is expensive - and you believe it. So much so, that you will argue the point relentlessly.

Not I. If you re-read all of the OP's posts, you'll see that he keeps reiterating that ALL he wants to know about are what are the MOST EXPENSIVE, MOST PRESTIGIOUS, and MOST HIGH STATUS BRANDS of clothes/products in our countries. That's been the point of this whole thread.

No. At one point in the thread, you, I, and some others, not including Aykhan, were discussing what constitutes a symbol of status. Then you suddenly - and conveniently - reverted back to Aykhan's original post, mentioning 'OP' about a dozen times within 3 or 4 of your posts, because it served and aided your position, argument, and agenda to do so.

Jonnyf
12-16-2005, 02:39 AM
i myself must admit i do get alot of expensive and well known brands (prada,polo,lacoste etc) but i don't think it makes me or anyone else for that matter more important socially or practically. Does it make me any more important that i've got Prada's for school shoes, No, why do i have them? they're comfy and nice and i wanted to buy myself some nice shoes but it doesn't mean i'm any more important than someone who spends £10 on school shoes from Asda or somewhere else. We both go to the same school, same classes or play in the same rugby team, hang around with the same people.

And before someone like Deuce (no offense you just have a habit of doing it to me even though i don't mind you) attacks me all of the £165 spent on the Prada's was from Me not my parents, ME! just had to say that

BreakPoint
12-16-2005, 02:44 AM
You can't separate achievement from status. As I said before, there are other "currencies" besides pure cost/monetary value, and achievement DOES equate to status in MANY, MANY organizations. If you want to LIMIT this discussion to just status equals price, fine, but the subject is much more complex, and, as often happens in these discussions, has gone beyond the very narrow parameters that you have assigned it.

Yes, true, achievement is related to status. No disagreement here. And, I agree there are other "currencies" used to determine one's status. However, when it comes to BRANDS of CLOTHES AND PRODUCTS, which is the scope of this thread and the only thing that the OP is interested in knowing about, COST is the most commonly used form of "currecy". When it comes to BRANDS OF CLOTHES AND PRODUCTS, high cost usually equals high status or high prestige and low cost usually equals low status or low prestige. You yourself mentioned the LV brand as an example of an expensive brand used by Japanese OL's in an attempt to raise their perceived status, although they don't really fool anyone. However, they are certainly not buying expensive brand names to lower their status, are they?

BreakPoint
12-16-2005, 02:51 AM
Marketing works on you, then. The advertizing tells you that a given product is prestigious because it is expensive - and you believe it. So much so, that you will argue the point relentlessly.


Not so much marketing and advertising. But when you walk down 5th Avenue in NYC on the way home every day from work and look into the windows of the ritzy shops and then see the prices, you are automatically exposed to it. And just from knowing people that own or talk about these expensive brands.

Besides, most people (except you, of course) naturally associate very expensive brands with prestige. They certainly don't need to rely on advertising to have to tell them that.

Klippy
12-16-2005, 07:17 AM
Everyone in Oz wears Billabong, Ripcurl, Rusty and Roxy

croatian sensation
12-16-2005, 04:48 PM
i myself must admit i do get alot of expensive and well known brands (prada,polo,lacoste etc) but i don't think it makes me or anyone else for that matter more important socially or practically. Does it make me any more important that i've got Prada's for school shoes, No, why do i have them? they're comfy and nice and i wanted to buy myself some nice shoes but it doesn't mean i'm any more important than someone who spends 10 on school shoes from Asda or somewhere else. We both go to the same school, same classes or play in the same rugby team, hang around with the same people.

And before someone like Deuce (no offense you just have a habit of doing it to me even though i don't mind you) attacks me all of the 165 spent on the Prada's was from Me not my parents, ME! just had to say that

LOL At first when I saw that have Prada shoes I thought you were Italian...and then I saw where are you from :-)

Btw. So what if you spent so much money on shoes..let me see who'll try to judge you...I spent almost 200 on a pair of jeans 'cause my butt looked damn good in them :-D (and it was my parents' money...the money they gave me to buy some clothes which wasn't enough of course..so I also spent the money they gave me to pay my french lessons :-) )

Jonnyf
12-17-2005, 05:43 AM
LOL At first when I saw that have Prada shoes I thought you were Italian...and then I saw where are you from :-)

Btw. So what if you spent so much money on shoes..let me see who'll try to judge you...I spent almost 200 on a pair of jeans 'cause my butt looked damn good in them :-D (and it was my parents' money...the money they gave me to buy some clothes which wasn't enough of course..so I also spent the money they gave me to pay my french lessons :-) )

LOL i do get alot but as i said i don't feel bigger than anyone (exept when i have my DG jeans that are like 5 sizes too wide lol

Clayplay
12-17-2005, 06:27 AM
Everyone in Oz wears Billabong, Ripcurl, Rusty and Roxy
in australia so many people wear surfbrands like billabong, roxy, rusty, quicksilver etc. i think it's because of the climate and the nice beaches (even though there are so many sharks there) hehehe

Clayplay
12-17-2005, 06:28 AM
Everyone in Oz wears Billabong, Ripcurl, Rusty and Roxy
in australia so many people wear surfbrands like billabong, roxy, rusty, quicksilver etc. i think it's because of the climate and the nice beaches (even though there are so many sharks there) hehehe

jonolau
12-17-2005, 07:13 AM
The brand you wear is irrelevant. Indecent flaunting of wealth does not necessarily make the clothes a status symbol. The person wearing it does. Imagine a homeless vagrant wearing an Armani suit, and Pierce Brosnan wearing the same suit - which looks more appealing?

SwissServe
12-18-2005, 03:35 PM
Everyone in Oz wears Billabong, Ripcurl, Rusty and Roxy

I know that Billabong is from Oz, but what about stuff like Hurley, Zero, Atticus, Zoo York, Stussy, Volcom, Triple five Soul?

I like also brands like Spiewak (NYC, functional and stylish imo), Pepe Jeans London, G-Star (very popular Jeans here in Switzerland) etc. Okay I like, let's call them streetwear (design follows function) :)

Another thing which is nice from Switzerland: Freitag (Messenger-Bags), which were made of used truck planes and seat belts, now you can cut your own bag direct out of diff. planes online. Then they will put it together and send it to you.... www.freitag.ch

DashaandSafin
12-19-2005, 08:19 PM
I know that Billabong is from Oz, but what about stuff like Hurley, Zero, Atticus, Zoo York, Stussy, Volcom, Triple five Soul?

I like also brands like Spiewak (NYC, functional and stylish imo), Pepe Jeans London, G-Star (very popular Jeans here in Switzerland) etc. Okay I like, let's call them streetwear (design follows function) :)

Another thing which is nice from Switzerland: Freitag (Messenger-Bags), which were made of used truck planes and seat belts, now you can cut your own bag direct out of diff. planes online. Then they will put it together and send it to you.... www.freitag.ch
Hurley, Atticus etc are all American brands. Atticus was started by Blink-182, the band.
Suprised you actually know those brands. Those brands are for skater/punks/emo here in American.

Baseline Basher
12-19-2005, 08:22 PM
Honestly, I usually just wear Champion Gear. Cheap, comfy stuff you get at your local friendly Target.

I can't justify spending mad loot over a shirt...not worth it to me...

Klippy
12-19-2005, 10:04 PM
I like DIESEL Indutries. MAD MAD MAD gear.:D

SwissServe
12-20-2005, 01:20 AM
Hurley, Atticus etc are all American brands. Atticus was started by Blink-182, the band.
Suprised you actually know those brands. Those brands are for skater/punks/emo here in American.

A few years ago I was a big fan of Blink 182, but there was not one shop which carried Hurley. So I ordered online from loserkids.com, so I found out that there are other brands like Atticus, Macbeth etc.

And because I like brands, which not everybody wears (e.g. many people here wear Quicksilver or Volcom today, soon Hurley), does not matter if cheap or expensive :D

croatian sensation
12-21-2005, 02:42 AM
I like DIESEL Indutries. MAD MAD MAD gear.:D

You have Diesel down there? Didn't know that

fishuuuuu
12-27-2005, 04:36 PM
For teens around here in the 'white wash or otherwise not black' stereotype of dress 'status' clothes include; Hollister, Abercrombie (and Fitch?), American Eagle, Aeropostale, GAP, Express, Armani Exchange, RLP, Lacoste, and all the stuff punks and emos wear that have popular names/faces on them. That's all I can think off the top of my head.

fishuuuuu
12-27-2005, 04:38 PM
The brand you wear is irrelevant. Indecent flaunting of wealth does not necessarily make the clothes a status symbol. The person wearing it does. Imagine a homeless vagrant wearing an Armani suit, and Pierce Brosnan wearing the same suit - which looks more appealing?

It depends. Does the vagrant have a license to kill?

nuskool
12-28-2005, 12:51 PM
Quiksilver,hurly,billabong,rusty,and ugg boots these are popular brands in socal.

joe28601
12-28-2005, 02:21 PM
O.o the only ones that i recognise so far are:

Lacoste - Yeah, pretty expensive.
Ralph Lauren - Yeah, megah expensive
Puma - Yeah, like are they really that expensive over there? pretty cheap here :/


lacoste is more expensive than ralp lauren....

MegacedU
12-28-2005, 10:02 PM
For teens around here in the 'white wash or otherwise not black' stereotype of dress 'status' clothes include; Hollister, Abercrombie (and Fitch?), American Eagle, Aeropostale, GAP, Express, Armani Exchange, RLP, Lacoste, and all the stuff punks and emos wear that have popular names/faces on them. That's all I can think off the top of my head.
abercrombie (with a lower case a) is the kid's store. Abercrombie and Fitch is the adult store. However A&F does sell a line called Ezra Fitch which is far more expensive than Abercrombie.

rilokiley
12-29-2005, 03:58 AM
abercrombie (with a lower case a) is the kid's store. Abercrombie and Fitch is the adult store. However A&F does sell a line called Ezra Fitch which is far more expensive than Abercrombie.
Ha, I didn't know that. Do kids like "destroyed" jeans? lol

roddick_rulz
12-29-2005, 07:03 AM
American Eagle and Abercrombie and Fitch are the best.

slice bh compliment
12-29-2005, 08:42 AM
This thread inspired me!

To make all of my own clothes.
Homespun, baby. And when that is not possible, to live (and shop) more simply.

Best regards from status symbol land.
--Slice BH compliment.

P.S.
For me, this thread amounted to:
1] Aykhan trying to show us how hip he is (on the apparel tip at least). And not relenting.
2] Several people completely taking the bait. And not relenting. Then trying to justify it. And not relenting.
3] Others sharing some wisdom. BTW, I loved the Henry David Thoreau line. Well played, Deuce (among others of you).
4] Subsequently and surprisingly, more people taking more of Aykhan's bait, then sharing ideas on wasting more money on street clothes.

Oh, yeah, and I also feel more inspired now to play more tennis (and help others do the same). I consider myself a 'richer' person for having read every single post in this thread.

MegacedU
12-29-2005, 09:13 AM
Ha, I didn't know that. Do kids like "destroyed" jeans? lol
Actually, they're a big seller. However, the distressed ones are the most popular. Perfectly worn in, but still wearable.

Ash_Smith
12-29-2005, 09:38 AM
I love clothes too much!! They're my vice I reckon!!

slice bh compliment
12-29-2005, 10:54 AM
Anyone ever see Easy Money? Early-ish Rodney Dangerfield. The Regular Guy look.

legolas
12-29-2005, 11:29 AM
Well, some nice brands that are also what I call "status brands" (meaning they reveal (or falsely coverup) social status) would be brands like:

Kennith Cole
Old Navy
Abercrombie
American Eagle
Lacoste
Gap
Tommy Hillbillyfinger

..... yeah, stuff like that.
yep