Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-14-2011, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,410 posts, read 36,915,433 times
Reputation: 15560

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by movingsoon2020 View Post
I'm just trying to see if you are comparing their workmanship to a couture collection or to a line that's priced the same. Don't mean to offend, we can agree to disagree, I'm just curious and always looking to learn more so if there are stitching techniques or particular cuts that you think set a collection above others, please share. I found The Row to be great off-the-rack but I can't sew to save my life and generally just compare everything to the lines that we produce at the company I work at.
No you didnt offend me at all, I was afraid I didnt make myself clear, you know?
I've compared the workmanship to other similar lines made in the US, I just dont think the quality is there for the prices they are charging.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-14-2011, 01:59 PM
 
2,053 posts, read 4,807,431 times
Reputation: 2410
Sadly, many shoppers shop for brands, not for quality.

I have seen several items which had less-than-perfect quality but a big logo on their tags, fly off the shelves; for most shoppers, honestly, I guess that is what matters most.

After all, many shoppers say "oh, my so-and-so item is so pretty!" when they cannot really distinguish quality, it is just bc the brand is famous - relatively famous, to say the most - and expensive, that it is considered "fashionable" to own one.

Don't get me wrong, certain brands have a ton of quality, good materials and prime craftsmanship, but many of the so-called "fashionable" brands, without the "glamorous" name (still, the concept of "glamor" is debatable) would certainly be barely different than lower-end store items.

Brand and quality are most certainly not (necessarily) the same thing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 02:06 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,088,332 times
Reputation: 32578
Miaiam: Can't rep you again but you are sooo right.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 07:56 PM
 
Location: The Hall of Justice
25,901 posts, read 42,622,264 times
Reputation: 42767
If I had to pick a better icon for "dumpster chic," I'd pick Helena Bonham Carter. She is amusingly weird and seems to dress with good humor.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 08:12 PM
 
2,053 posts, read 4,807,431 times
Reputation: 2410
Excellent, perfect example!

Helena B. Carter's quirky, fun elegance is completely effortless; she does not try () to be whimsically chic, she really is!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 09:33 PM
 
Location: a swanky suburb in my fancy pants
3,391 posts, read 8,759,892 times
Reputation: 1624
Joan Rivers. I don't know what she looks like under all that paint and plastic but on TV she looks fantastic and always dressed perfectly, never a mis-step, and always up dating herself, not frozen in time. Forget that she's in her '70's.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 10:35 PM
 
230 posts, read 620,404 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miaiam View Post
Sadly, many shoppers shop for brands, not for quality.

I have seen several items which had less-than-perfect quality but a big logo on their tags, fly off the shelves; for most shoppers, honestly, I guess that is what matters most.

After all, many shoppers say "oh, my so-and-so item is so pretty!" when they cannot really distinguish quality, it is just bc the brand is famous - relatively famous, to say the most - and expensive, that it is considered "fashionable" to own one.

Don't get me wrong, certain brands have a ton of quality, good materials and prime craftsmanship, but many of the so-called "fashionable" brands, without the "glamorous" name (still, the concept of "glamor" is debatable) would certainly be barely different than lower-end store items.

Brand and quality are most certainly not (necessarily) the same thing.
Very much agreed. I think this really applies to accessories like handbags - enough with the Juicy Couture and Gucci bags, the leather is not that amazing! As for clothes, I think most people don't shop at Bendels or Barneys, clothes have become so mass produced that you can be very fashionable with an outfit from H&M.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 10:37 PM
 
230 posts, read 620,404 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia View Post
If I had to pick a better icon for "dumpster chic," I'd pick Helena Bonham Carter. She is amusingly weird and seems to dress with good humor.
That woman scares the crap out of me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2011, 10:47 PM
 
230 posts, read 620,404 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia View Post
Oh, I know what they're doing now. But a huge piece of their fortune comes from years of shilling Walmart stuff. Their names and faces were on clothes, hair accessories, beauty products, bedroom decor, art supplies, etc. And it's not like either of them is really designing this stuff now. I think some of it is very pretty, but as for Mary-Kate's personal style, she's a poseur. Bohemians are starving artists, and "dumpster chic" is a paradox.

In 50 years, women will still be talking about Jackie O and Audrey Hepburn. Mark-Kate Olsen is a flash in the pan because she's quirky, and unfortunately she will always be tied to Full House and Walmart. I do think it's great that both of them became successful people, unlike many other child stars.
The Olsens are part of a new breed of fashionistas, like Chloe Sevigny and Alexa Chung, we can't keep admiring Audrey (or ummm...Givenchy) and Jackie O solely. That's the fun part of fashion - there will always be new muses.

I'd also like to add Gaga to the list. She gave McQueen some serious mainstream appeal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2011, 03:48 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 37,088,332 times
Reputation: 32578
Quote:
Originally Posted by JustJulia View Post
If I had to pick a better icon for "dumpster chic," I'd pick Helena Bonham Carter. She is amusingly weird and seems to dress with good humor.
I love her!!!

I never get the feeling that she's had a stylist saying, "Oh, Look what XXX gave you to wear. Don't forget to mention that name." She's a total original and probably doesn't give a flying fig what we think of her. Love people who can step outside the box like that and be freeeeeeeee!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Fashion and Beauty

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:53 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top