when i was young my mom taught me that i should only buy "classic" styles that i never had to throw out because they were never out of style. of course, at the time i took "classic" to mean retro, started dressing like a hippie, still wear a pair of jeans i purchased fifteen years ago... and she begs me to throw out my heavily patched clothes. of course i have my "nice" outfits for meetings and interviews... but they make it out of the closet once a year and will also last forever. thanks for the advice mom! may i never need to shop again. :)
Am I the only one who doesn't really stay the same size long enough for "investment" and/or vintage stuff? I only just stopped growing in the last year or so. I wear a US 12 in shoes, which is impossible to find unless I shop online, and I'm MURDER on footwear. I'm just shy of six feet tall, and my weight is constantly in flux. If I bought a great-fitting upscale jacket today, it wouldn't fit me in a year or two.
I do have a few pieces that I've worn for over five years, but they're all from, like, Gap and H&M and JC Penney. I do a lot of my own minor repairs and alterations by hand. Seams blow out, cuffs get beat-up, buttons fall off, clasps and fasteners go missing in the wash--I feel like it's a better idea to take care of the stuff I have, than to freak out because my wardrobe isn't luxurious enough.
@tscheese: My mom bought me a bunch of businessy stuff when I was 17, under the logic that "it'll last you a long time and it's good to have classic pieces."
Unsurprisingly, I am no longer the same size that I was when I was 17. I suspect it was wishful thinking on her part.
Investment pieces don't have to mean thousands of dollars.
When I first started regularly carrying a daytime purse, I bought a series of black ones at H&M and Marshalls for $40 or less. Within a few months, they'd fall apart and I'd have to buy a new one.
I ended up buying a black Kate Spade bag at a sample sale for $100 and its held up for 5 years. Even if I'd paid full price for it, it was cheaper in the long run.
Disposable fashion often ends up costing you more in the long run than a slightly high end brand.
My grandmother would have called this "buying things as if you were rich, so they last as if you were poor." Which is basically a cost-benefit analysis about the stuff you buy. And realizing that not all of them have the same value (a white dress shirt? Sure, how nice if you can afford an expensive, well-tailored one, but if you have to choose, it would be better to have a good coat instead).
@Casquivana: Pretty much how I shop. I try to find gently-used things on eBay, where quality matters more than quantity, and then they'll last and I didn't pay anything like full price.
It seems to me lately that cheap clothes are getting even cheaper. I've lost count of the number of my standby Old Navy t-shirts have lost hems and topstitching lately, and the fabric is noticeably thinner. Try our Tissue Tees! They've got a great profit margin!
Stuff, even cheap stuff, was better-made five or ten years ago.
The only clothing items I have seen to consistently hold value or appreciate are Fluevog shoes and certain types of cowboy boots. Even they are taking a pounding on eBay of late.
I bought four pairs of Fluevogs in an (at the time) ill-advised bout of retail therapy in the late '90s and sold them eight years later for a total profit of $150. They hadn't been worn much, owing to being rather impractical, but I loved them so.
I wonder if this is true for vintage clothing as well. I've often thought that quality vintage pieces will retain their value in a way that newly manufactured goods won't, but trends are also at work in the vintage industry so maybe I'm mistaken.
@fishlikesequins: It depends on the era and the item in question--cocktail dresses from the '20s and '30s are as safe a bet as you can make, as 1) the construction and materials are fabulous and 2) they ain't making them any more. Crazy polyester disco gear from the '70s appeals to a... certain subset of shopper, and they tend to rotate what they find appealing a lot more.
Hmm. But who are these people talking to? It seems to me that they're trying to advertise to the people who *can* afford the splurge but feel guilty about it and don't want to be seen spending exorbitant amounts of money when other people are losing their homes. There is a class of people in this country who are completely untouched by the financial crisis and have tons of money to spend on Chanel dresses and Fendi coats. And they honestly do support lots of people by spending that money -- the fact that they're slowing down or stopping when they don't have to is a very bad thing, and they should be encouraged to spend in any way that works.
@Penny: Perhaps high-end stores should start making less obtrusive bags. Put the $6000 dress in a brown paper bag, so that if asked, the buyer can say she's on her way to donate it to Goodwill.
Call me cheap but spending more than 50 bucks on a purse is expensive. Recession or not. Even if I had the money, I think I'd continue to shop at H&M (and others) because to put it simply, its more bang for your buck. Why have one shirt for $200 when you can have an entire outfit for $200 and still look chic. This is the problem I have with fashion (coming from a "fashionista"): people equate being fashionable with having the latest designer garments.
@s_ve: I said this in another post too, but yeah, I like cheap clothes (or ebay), but when it comes to bags I'll spend the money on something nice. Same with my other accessories. I think the shoes/bag/jewelry/scarfs/etc make the outfit. It will make your whole "look" look more expensive and pulled together with quality accessories. They also don't go "out" as soon as clothing does.
So I'm all about the H&M dress, just with the Marc Jacobs bag.
@greengrey: I totally agree. I also find that I save money in the long run by investing in good pieces... For instance if I shell out for a bag, I absolutely love it and use it forever. However, if I buy a couple impulse bags for the price of the expensive bag, and end up giving them away, it is wasteful. So I'd rather buy one awesome thing than 5 bad things just because they weren't as expensive. I think if you don't do this, you basically end up spending the same amount in the long run. Also, when I have fun accessories I am more likely to buy neutral clothes and I keep those forever.
@Jen82: but there is definitely a difference between the cost of value and the cost of luxury aka "looking expensive." 60 bucks or even a hundred bucks for a quality bag that you will use for years is smart; 250 bucks seems less smart to me.
@morninggloria: if you can find someone who is willing to pay you $6,000 plus for said Birkin. I've always been suspicious of those bags sold on the Web.
@Penny: It's a good episode! My only complaints: it doesn't go into what happened after that episode leaves off, because that's where the interesting stuff started happening. I also wish that it would have spent more time on the rumors/speculation that helped drive Bear Stearns down.
I see it as an "investment" in that if a piece is of excellent quality and will last me for years, I get more use out of it so my pay-per-use turns out to be VERY low in the end.
That being said, most of my clothing is from Target and I'm STILL looking for a suit of good quality (aka an "investment" suit)
@tomatoheart: You are correct, but the term "investment" probably doesn't apply to what you're talking about. By definition, an investment doesn't just save you money, it makes you money.
And the buying one fabulous "investment" handbag idea only really works if you don't buy any other handbags after that.
...it was more like designers cut rates on the girls they were paying at all, cut payment-in-trade on the girls they never were paying to begin with, and we all ate it.
This has confused me since I started reading your posts, Tatiana. How do models make a living if they don't get paid for their work? Also, how is payment-in-trade legal?
@baraqiel: Wasn't there a post a while back or a link to an article a while back about how modelling is in some particular class of employment to which general labour law doesn't apply? I'm trying to find it, but having no luck, but I'm sure I saw some sort of explanation of this here/somewhere before.
@baraqiel: We do a lot of other work besides shows and editorials (which pay little/nothing). Like catalogs, and other more commercial jobs. Those bridge the gaps.
As for how payment in trade is legal, it's still a mystery to me.
05/21/09
05/20/09
I do have a few pieces that I've worn for over five years, but they're all from, like, Gap and H&M and JC Penney. I do a lot of my own minor repairs and alterations by hand. Seams blow out, cuffs get beat-up, buttons fall off, clasps and fasteners go missing in the wash--I feel like it's a better idea to take care of the stuff I have, than to freak out because my wardrobe isn't luxurious enough.
05/20/09
Unsurprisingly, I am no longer the same size that I was when I was 17. I suspect it was wishful thinking on her part.
05/20/09
When I first started regularly carrying a daytime purse, I bought a series of black ones at H&M and Marshalls for $40 or less. Within a few months, they'd fall apart and I'd have to buy a new one.
I ended up buying a black Kate Spade bag at a sample sale for $100 and its held up for 5 years. Even if I'd paid full price for it, it was cheaper in the long run.
Disposable fashion often ends up costing you more in the long run than a slightly high end brand.
05/20/09
05/20/09
It seems to me lately that cheap clothes are getting even cheaper. I've lost count of the number of my standby Old Navy t-shirts have lost hems and topstitching lately, and the fabric is noticeably thinner. Try our Tissue Tees! They've got a great profit margin!
Stuff, even cheap stuff, was better-made five or ten years ago.
05/20/09
05/20/09
I bought four pairs of Fluevogs in an (at the time) ill-advised bout of retail therapy in the late '90s and sold them eight years later for a total profit of $150. They hadn't been worn much, owing to being rather impractical, but I loved them so.
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
Second: Aspirational consumers probably get all their shopping done at outlets. Last Call Neiman Marcus just opened near me and I am SO. STOKED.
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
Even if I had the money, I think I'd continue to shop at H&M (and others) because to put it simply, its more bang for your buck. Why have one shirt for $200 when you can have an entire outfit for $200 and still look chic.
This is the problem I have with fashion (coming from a "fashionista"): people equate being fashionable with having the latest designer garments.
05/20/09
So I'm all about the H&M dress, just with the Marc Jacobs bag.
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
If not, that's ok.
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
We'll talk about this more offline :)
05/20/09
05/20/09
05/20/09
That being said, most of my clothing is from Target and I'm STILL looking for a suit of good quality (aka an "investment" suit)
05/20/09
And the buying one fabulous "investment" handbag idea only really works if you don't buy any other handbags after that.
05/20/09
This has confused me since I started reading your posts, Tatiana. How do models make a living if they don't get paid for their work? Also, how is payment-in-trade legal?
05/20/09
05/20/09
As for how payment in trade is legal, it's still a mystery to me.