There are few things that I hate more in this world than people who show labels. We all know those people; they are the nouveau riche who will not buy anything with out an obnoxiously large print or label. Sadly, top designers are catering to this market. Even more traditional makers like Ralph Lauren are losing prestige in order to expand their customer base. His line of Big Pony attire is an eye sore and is beloved by the trashy worldwide. Well constructed, quality clothing speaks for itself. The cut, color, and design of a piece will show its value without the need to display its designer.
11 comments:
I agree 101%, Kipp! An exception might be made for the signature stitching on the pockets of Levi's jeans since, after all, they practically invented jeans. And Hermès does sell some scarves and ties which eliminate or minimize the logo. The tiny logo on some Timberland shoes is not very obvious unless somebody is examining them close up, which isn't likely when they're being worn! Louis Vuitton is trickier - that ubiquitous monogram can be annoying! Even Burberry plaid can get annoying if it's too visible (not just a lining) but - as with Levi Strauss - they did invent their best-known item, the trench coat, so a little tolerance is in order.
Let's avoid Hugo Boss. He is not a contemporary fashion designer. He was actually Hitler's tailor. Bizarre but true.
Personal or institutional crests or coats of arms are the easiest on the eye, on things like blazer buttons or signet rings. Well, on a ring it would probably be a family crest, and I think Richard has written about this. A small country club crest on a polo shirt or tie is fine but blazer patches, IMHO, are a bit outré. Same with lapel pins, unless you're attending an event pertaining to the organisation represented by the pin. Sorry but that even goes for the Legion of Honor and Papal knighthoods.
I'm a dogmatic old dog when it comes to these matters. In my defence I can only say that I grew up before the Ralph Lauren pony made its appearance and before Brooks started putting their golden fleece logo on everything under the Manhattan sun.
Hmm..I refuse to wear my family crest on a jacket or any piece of clothing I own. I would rather wear my Ralph jacket that his emblem on it as I think wearing my family crest is very show-offy. (I do however, have it displayed in my home.)
What you say is true to a degree, but I know a lot of 'pedigreed' people as you all would label them (although in actuality they would rather die than discuss it) who will wear a RL or BB logo.
Agreed! But it isn't just the nouveau riche who do this. It's also the nouveau middle class, or those who aspire to it. Abercrombie and Fitch and DKNY (among others) anyone?
Best Regards,
Ulrich von B.
I also agree 101%
Last year Brooks came out with big logo shirts, sweaters, etc. I don't notice them this year and have never known anyone to wear them.
RL goes for the bucks....so its no surprise there (he also sells to a larger and more obnoxious customer.
One should never wear a Brooks logo shirt
What about Richard's velvet pumps with the giant polo horse?
I don't show brand labels, but I do maintain a blog where I let everyone know which brands I am wearing.
Well put! Also, some more pics of you. You have a very nice physique.
KJM
This isn't something I worry about or take too seriously.
The only visible logo I wear is Lacoste.
Sometimes I fantasise about wearing a Polo shirt with the 'Big Pony' just to piss off the aspiring middle-class nouveaux riche set.
Kipp had something unflattering to say about Polo Ralph Lauren - further proof that she is not Richard!
Any of the large Polo logos on clothes are a bit garish! I personally wouldn't purchase them. I guess they were made for near sited people.
Post a Comment