Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Combatant Gentleman

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

  • batkins9
    replied
    Originally posted by CMAc7 View Post
    I think this is a distinction without a difference. Nobody is producing a $150 retail priced suit that is of remarkable or distinctive quality.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Yeah, well, you know, that's like your opinion, man.

    I have no idea what *you* consider "quality." I do know that to state your opinion as an objective fact is nonsense. Since the sentence "Nobody is producing a $150 retail priced suit that is of remarkable or distinctive quality" is, by definition, declaritive you are asserting your opinion as fact. Thus, it is nonsense. Left as an opinion, you are entitled to think what you want. My observation is that your opinion is judgemental and not based on direct experience with the subject of your opinion. Which reduces the value of said opinion.

    Leave a comment:


  • ryn
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    Won’t anyone think of the sheep

    I forgot where, maybe it was GQ, but one of the articles that mentioned the sheep and cotton farm suggested that both were sold even before they closed their doors. It must have been difficult for them to manage, but it would be worth a lot of capital.

    Originally posted by CMAc7 View Post
    Not so. I can see how you could take my commentary as written as a non sequitur, but I was really making two separate observations.

    I’m not looking for a glove slapping contest, but if I only had $150 to spend on a suit, I could get something with the same silhouette from the department store without the hucksterism.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    I never understood why their prices were considered so low or they were considered such a bargain. I think perhaps people used to reviewing high end stuff are pretty bad at reviewing budget items.

    Leave a comment:


  • CMAc7
    replied
    Originally posted by batkins9 View Post
    It's still a false comparison. Just because the price point is similar doesn't mean that the quality is the same. For example, Express charges at least $350 dollars for their fused, mostly synthetic suits. For that, I can get a suit from Spier and Mackay or Suit Supply that is much better. Same comparison here. The suit you get for $150 at CG is way better than suit you would get from JC Penny.

    I think this is a distinction without a difference. Nobody is producing a $150 retail priced suit that is of remarkable or distinctive quality.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • batkins9
    replied
    Also, to recap my point, I'm not saying CG was a great business. They had tons of logistical, marketing, and customer service issues. I just don't like the false dichotomy that's being presented in that they ran their business poorly, so everything they ever did must be fraudulent. They did a lot of things poorly on the business side, but still did a lot of things right on the product end. That's not say that their products were perfect, only that they had a value above their price tag. There are a few online vendors upon whose graves people seem all to happy to dance. I just don't get down with that kind of schadenfreude.

    Leave a comment:


  • batkins9
    replied
    Originally posted by CMAc7 View Post
    Not so. I can see how you could take my commentary as written as a non sequitur, but I was really making two separate observations.

    I’m not looking for a glove slapping contest, but if I only had $150 to spend on a suit, I could get something with the same silhouette from the department store without the hucksterism.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    It's still a false comparison. Just because the price point is similar doesn't mean that the quality is the same. For example, Express charges at least $350 dollars for their fused, mostly synthetic suits. For that, I can get a suit from Spier and Mackay or Suit Supply that is much better. Same comparison here. The suit you get for $150 at CG is way better than suit you would get from JC Penny for $150.

    [MENTION=2341]LesserBlackDog[/MENTION] I own 2 Spier and Mackey suits, a J Crew tux, and I've tried on a few suit jackets at Suit Supply and Brooks Brothers. I'm not saying that CG is the same as those places, but I am saying that it is incorrect to compare them to cheap department store suits.

    Leave a comment:


  • lax101
    replied
    Originally posted by LesserBlackDog View Post
    I'm curious if you own or have owned canvassed or partially-canvassed suits from other manufacturers to compare. (E.g. Suitsupply, Spier & Mackay, Benjamin Sartorial, Brooks Brothers, whoever.) Having seen a couple of CG suits in action in videos and pictures, I tend to lean more with [MENTION=11780]CMAc7[/MENTION] in terms of thinking they don't look significantly different from the typical entry-level department store fused suit. That's not a knock against them per se, and I've owned and worn my share of fused suits (including some Bonobos suits that are priced way above CG or department store suits). And that would be fairly in line with CG's pricing structure. I just wouldn't be surprised if their claims about suit construction are inflated as many of their other marketing claims have been. If they sourced their suits as haphazardly as it seems they did, it also wouldn't surprise me if some of the suits they sold were partially canvassed and others were not. *shrug*

    Obviously, CG developed quite a following in spite of their shady business practices and questionable marketing strategies, so the product itself must have been decent. I'm just not convinced they were really the screaming deal many believed them to be.
    I tend to agree. I bought two CG suits but have quickly moved on to SuitSupply, S&M, and occasionally Brooks Brothers, JCrew, Bonobos, etc.

    They might be half-canvassed (who knows) and the wool quality seemed to be a bit better than average, but there wasn't much else that put them ahead of an entry-level department store suit. Really structured, cheap padded shoulders, very annoying fashion-forward features like narrow lapels and hacking pockets, the fit on the pants was funky (tight in the seat and thighs, yet minimal taper at the leg opening), extremely cheap looking buttons, a somewhat high button stance, etc. Altogether, I think the JCF suits draped better due to less shoulder padding and a lower button stance.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Originally posted by batkins9 View Post
    Can't argue your opinion about their business practices, but your opinion about the product just doesn't match reality. The reason so many people are pissed at the company is that they had a pretty good product. Suits that are 100% wool and half canvassed.

    I have several suits from before they started shafting people and they've held up well to constant use. Their marketing is annoying and their response to complaints leaves a lot to be desired. The complaints about the product are almost entirely uninformed because they come from dissatisfaction from the logistics side. Effectively, you're saying "I hate those guys for lying (valid), and I bet their stuff sucks (not really valid)." It's the sartorial equivalent of a "yo mama" joke.
    I'm curious if you own or have owned canvassed or partially-canvassed suits from other manufacturers to compare. (E.g. Suitsupply, Spier & Mackay, Benjamin Sartorial, Brooks Brothers, whoever.) Having seen a couple of CG suits in action in videos and pictures, I tend to lean more with [MENTION=11780]CMAc7[/MENTION] in terms of thinking they don't look significantly different from the typical entry-level department store fused suit. That's not a knock against them per se, and I've owned and worn my share of fused suits (including some Bonobos suits that are priced way above CG or department store suits). And that would be fairly in line with CG's pricing structure. I just wouldn't be surprised if their claims about suit construction are inflated as many of their other marketing claims have been. If they sourced their suits as haphazardly as it seems they did, it also wouldn't surprise me if some of the suits they sold were partially canvassed and others were not. *shrug*

    Obviously, CG developed quite a following in spite of their shady business practices and questionable marketing strategies, so the product itself must have been decent. I'm just not convinced they were really the screaming deal many believed them to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • CMAc7
    replied
    Originally posted by batkins9 View Post
    Effectively, you're saying "I hate those guys for lying (valid), and I bet their stuff sucks (not really valid)." It's the sartorial equivalent of a "yo mama" joke.
    Not so. I can see how you could take my commentary as written as a non sequitur, but I was really making two separate observations.

    I’m not looking for a glove slapping contest, but if I only had $150 to spend on a suit, I could get something with the same silhouette from the department store without the hucksterism.



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • batkins9
    replied
    Originally posted by CMAc7 View Post
    I just want to know what happened to the sheep during the ownership transition. Presumably they were fed and watered accordingly, but I fear that they only received roughly as much attention as the paying customers of the company and therefore are no more.

    Seriously though, if you offer up cash to these crooks at this point you’re nuts. The suits don’t even look any better than JC Penny disposables anyway.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Can't argue your opinion about their business practices, but your opinion about the product just doesn't match reality. The reason so many people are pissed at the company is that they had a pretty good product. Suits that are 100% wool and half canvassed.

    I have several suits from before they started shafting people and they've held up well to constant use. Their marketing is annoying and their response to complaints leaves a lot to be desired. The complaints about the product are almost entirely uninformed because they come from dissatisfaction from the logistics side. Effectively, you're saying "I hate those guys for lying (valid), and I bet their stuff sucks (not really valid)." It's the sartorial equivalent of a "yo mama" joke.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Won’t anyone think of the sheep

    Leave a comment:


  • CMAc7
    replied
    I just want to know what happened to the sheep during the ownership transition. Presumably they were fed and watered accordingly, but I fear that they only received roughly as much attention as the paying customers of the company and therefore are no more.

    Seriously though, if you offer up cash to these crooks at this point you’re nuts. The suits don’t even look any better than JC Penny disposables anyway.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • ratman
    replied
    I won one of their Twitter contests for a custom shirt by guessing the correct half-time score for a basketball game. I know less than zero about basketball but managed to guess the correct score. Of course, I never got my custom shirt.

    Leave a comment:


  • LesserBlackDog
    replied
    Originally posted by Shife View Post
    I don't disagree with that, however an email list is incredibly easy to export. What has the hair on the back of my neck standing up is the claim they moved to a "new" system, yet the front-end, email templates, and everything else one can inspect is identical to the previous CG. I'd also expect an introduction or a least an industry mag reference regarding the new ownership which as of now is glaringly absent.
    TBH I suspect this "new ownership" claim is probably bogus and simply meant to mollify the concerns of those who have heard of their issues while not raising any suspicion among those of their customers who may not have heard of/encountered the problems.

    CG wants to wash away the sins of their past without any reckoning or accountability.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shife
    replied
    Originally posted by jordan View Post
    Correct. But generally those records would be kept in a CRM system that would house lots of other information, up to and including the sales history for that customer.
    I don't disagree with that, however an email list is incredibly easy to export. What has the hair on the back of my neck standing up is the claim they moved to a "new" system, yet the front-end, email templates, and everything else one can inspect is identical to the previous CG. I'd also expect an introduction or a least an industry mag reference regarding the new ownership which as of now is glaringly absent.

    Leave a comment:


  • jordan
    replied
    Originally posted by Shife View Post
    If I was buying a brand/company, one of the most valuable things in the transaction is often the client list. While I have no experience in clothing, the two most valuable assets my current company holds is our drawing package and our customer records. Their retention of email lists would be standard, assuming there is any real change here.
    Correct. But generally those records would be kept in a CRM system that would house lots of other information, up to and including the sales history for that customer.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X