My point at the start (and now, even after other good points have been raised) is that $654 is a lot of money. Period.
I’m not saying that investment in clothes isn’t worthwhile, or that there aren’t certain things that are overpriced and others that are worth the money. But when you conflate cost/wear with total cost you lose sight of the fact that money is still money.
If you spend $250 (or $500 or $1000) on a sport coat, that’s a lot of money.
$400 shoes? A lot of money.
Maybe it’s worth it, maybe not, maybe you’ll have it for 30 years and it’ll cost you only pennies per wear, but it still costs $250 up front, you don’t get to put that shit on a payment plan.
So buy investment pieces. Buy nice things, maybe even expensive things (if you can afford them). But don’t forget that whether you’re “wasting” your money or “investing” your money, you’re still spending it.
As Stylepoints said, clothing is an expensive hobby. I get that, I understand where the money goes if you buy some crazy high end Italian cashmere jacket with 60 hours of handwork. It just bums out many of us to read that “dressing well doesn’t have to cost a lot of money” and then see fits that… well… cost a lot of money.
(Also, Kudos to #menswear for addressing this so calmly and rationally. A welcome respite from the #shotsfired mentality that so often co-opts these discussions.)
This is a lot of money. So if I spent that on an outfit, I would be “spending a lot” (presumably to “look good”).
If the majority of the $654 spent on this outfit went toward sport coat or shoes, I’d be inclined to say that he did not, in fact “spend a lot”. I understand that objectively, to most people $654 is a lot of money to spend on a single fit, but quality jackets and shoes do not come cheap. When cared for properly, both shoes and jackets can last for years, making them good so-called investment pieces.
The problem with calling this a budget fit is that he spent $150 on the shirt and $232 on the jeans. The shirt, while dope as fuck, is a trend piece. If you don’t think a cutaway collared oxford cloth popover is a wardrobe staple, then more power to you. In all likelihood it’ll look pretty played three seasons from now. The jeans are a good value proposition, if you’re into denim…I mean really INTO denim. I do believe that you’d have to search long and hard to find someone who thinks $200+ isn’t a lot to pay for jeans. Even people who wear $200+ denim know that they’re paying a lot, they just thing it’s worth the expense.
Clothing is an expensive hobby, and make no mistake, if you’re reading this, your wardrobe is one of your hobbies. There are those among us who have the disposable income to buy whatever they want. There are even more who are skipping meals to save enough money to “kop some jawnz”. The majority of us are somewhere in the middle. I’d like to hope that all of us understand our financial realities.
Those who make their living selling clothes or delivering eyes to those do have a vested interest in making the expensive seem affordable. They get a pass. It’s their job. There are those, on the other hand who do it for fun. You’ve seen the blogs. These people are at best insensitive, and at worse assholes. If you have a tumblog, take a second and think about what you’re saying. Think about the message you’re putting out into the worls.
This is good writing. Loving these points.
I think less in what an outfit costs, and think more of the items individually. Many of my shirts are 4-6 year pieces. Jackets are like 10 year purchase, at least. Shoes, when bought well, are 20-30 year numbers. Shoot, the orange tie I wore on Monday was a gift from 1998. Take care of your stuff and it will last. That is a major reason why I don’t like “this is what this outfit costs” as the sole metric of intelligence of purchases.
AFOS lives/works in a thrifting goldmine, so his reluctance to spend heavy is wise on his part. For the rest of us whose thrift stores are filled with rubber soled pull up leather kmart dress shoes, a big spend on high quality shoes is wiser than going cheap on junk.