Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Out of your price range desires

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16


    I don't look at super high end stuff too much, but to my eye, only this and Ralph Lauren Purple Label have elicited such a visceral reaction from me. Just effing gorgeous stuff. The velvet coat and the plum corduroys look amazing in the catalogue photos.


    I always wonder why the lower end labels have shittier patterns. Like really, does it cost more to have nicer *patterns*? I understand having inferior fabrics and craftsmanship. But the patterns of lower end brands just look inferior and low-grade.

    Comment


      #17


      @CharlesMartel Those look great. I'd love to see people wearing those around town. Most of it is kind of bold for me, but there are a few things from there that I would love.


      Purple label is one of the few things I really like about the Ralph Lauren brands. Largely because it is less about its branding and has a lot of great looking stuff.


      I wonder about the patterns in lower end brands too. Same thing with cars. Sure, it is cheaper materials, but does a cheaper car really have to be shaped like an ugly shoe? The price wouldn't be upped that much by some nicer metal shaping. Wish cheap companies would stop looking like bad cheap companies so often.

      Comment


        #18


        Yes, that's exactly my thought, and I've thought the same about cars before too. It's like there's collusion among car makers, to make their cars look only as good as their price point.


        It does seem to be improving though lately. I saw the new Kia Optima before I knew it was a Kia, and thought it looked pretty good. And the Audi A5, IMO, is one of the best looking cars under $100k, and it's ~$38k.

        Comment


          #19


          Hyundai also stole design details from nicer cars, especially older Jaguars.

          Comment


            #20


            I'll relate this to the topic by the end: I think Jaguar does a great job of looking far more pricy than they are nowadays, though that is largely because their design is extremely similar to the pricier Aston Martins who share the same designer. Overall though, I agree, it is improving even though it seems that cheaper cars are ugly on purpose. The thing is, companies like Ford and Nissan have an interest in making their cheaper brands look cheaper because, like many other companies, they own a higher end brand that won't sell unless it looks way better and worth its price (a thought that they make happen by putting their cheaper and uglier brands next to them. A Ford is ugly so that the pricier market for Lincoln stays afloat). I think it is largely on purpose because brands like Audi and Mercedes offer low end models in the $30k range that look waaay better than $30-40k cars from Ford or any other non luxury company. It is a design choice. Mercedes doesn't make a cheaper brand, so their cheapest model can look like heaven because it benefits them through and through.


            Old Navy makes you look fat so that Gap looks normal and Banana Republic flatters.


            Well, I realize I typed a bit much for how simple that common sense explanation was. Sorry 'bout that.


            As an out of my price range desire that would be part of my outfit even if it isn't clothing per se, I will add an Aston Martin (any model will do, though DBS is high on the list since it is Bond's most recent choice). It is part of Bond's suit

            Comment

            Working...
            X