Poll - Favorite "preppy" brand of clothing?

[Pink Jazz]

If anyone is into the preppy style, I would like to know, what is your favorite preppy brand of clothing? It would be interesting to know what is your favorite.

I am pretty sure everyone here knows by now that I am an IZOD fan.

 

[Judge]

Not sure about-or even care as to what really is considered "preppy".

Though I seem to be a bit partial towards Michael Kors jackets.

However I wouldn't dream of paying retail prices for any of them.

 

[Pink Jazz]

Not sure about-or even care as to what really is considered "preppy".

Though I seem to be a bit partial towards Michael Kors jackets.

However I wouldn't dream of paying retail prices for any of them.

I don't really consider Michael Kors to be a preppy brand.

As for prices, of the brands I have listed, IZOD and Chaps are mid-range, Nautica is semi-premium, and Polo Ralph Lauren, Lacoste, and Tommy Hilfiger are premium.

 

[Judge]

I don't really consider Michael Kors to be a preppy brand.

As for prices, of the brands I have listed, IZOD and Chaps are mid-range, Nautica is semi-premium, and Polo Ralph Lauren, Lacoste, and Tommy Hilfiger are premium.

With just about any other article of clothing I'm indifferent to brand names and status symbols period. With that one exception- jackets. That one brand seems to stand out for me, for whatever reason. Overall style I suppose.

 

[ZebraAutismo]

I like the Holister not for the prepubescent for their seamless zippy hoodies.

 

[Bolletje]

You should realize that many people on these forums are not based in the US and therefore might not be familiar with all of those brands. Me included.

 

[pjcnet]

None I'm afraid, I don't have a favourite because I've never been in the slightest bit into fashion, I see clothes as having a purpose and that's all, I definitely won't pay more for a particular brand unless it's more likely to last longer and it's still quite cheap.

Fashion is mainly created by marketing and in modern times this is massively accelerated by the media, powerful fashion companies decide what the latest fashion will be and then publicise it all over the media, often by sponsoring pop stars, sports stars or other celebrities to wear it, they change fashion regularly on purpose while ensuring that previous fashion appears outdated in order to get people to waste money on a brand new wardrobe every season and so many people fall for it. Certain brand names or sometimes even styles often also advertise themselves as being behind a particular culture or even a movement to increase sales, then we have people who will swear by certain names and/or styles while paying much more for them, even if there's a near identical item of clothing that is just as good quality with a brand they don't like at a fraction of the price they won't be seen dead wearing it, then they'll often even look down at people that don't wear top names and/or styles like they're somehow inferior, no, they're just clever. I think part of fashion marketing even plays on our instinct to be part of a tribe and to be in a particular tribe you must make a statement by wear certain brands and styles of clothing which are of course normally very overpriced and the more you pay the more dedicated you are to your tribe. Fashion marketing is very clever and extremely manipulative, but I won't fall for it and never have done, even as a teenager.

 

[butterburp]

Izod fan here, I still remember when it was in fashion back in the 80's, along with a long-gone brand called Le Tigre. Ah, the turned-up collars and flat-top haircuts...

 

[Progster]

I think part of fashion marketing even plays on our instinct to be part of a tribe and to be in a particular tribe you must make a statement by wear certain brands and styles of clothing which are of course normally very overpriced and the more you pay the more dedicated you are to your tribe. Fashion marketing is very clever and extremely manipulative, but I won't fall for it and never have done, even as a teenager.

Same here, I've never been in the slightest bit interested in fashion. I occasionally have bought brand name items, mainly because I was looking for a item of clothing or footwear for a specific purpose. For example I bought a Nautica jacket because I was looking for a jacket that was tough, durable, suitable for outdoors in winter, and which was truly waterproof and not just splashproof, and I was recommended that jacket and bought it despite being a lot more than I'd normally pay - but because it met those criteria and not because it was a brand name or fashion item. If I buy brand names, it's always for practical reasons, usually outdoor working/hiking gear, and never out of any interest in fashion or wanting to have a specific style or image.

The thing I object most to is paying a ridiculous amount of money for an item which was probably mass-produced in a factory somewhere in Asia, where the workers are paid a pittance and have to work inhumanely long hours - the firm makes huge profits and then passes nothing back down to the workers - I'm not saying that it's necessarily the case for all fashion brands, but it certainly is for many of them - and then, the item has its logo or its name in large prominent letters across the front - so they want us to give them free advertising as well as charging disproportionate amounts of money for it. No, if they want me to advertise their product, then they should be paying me for it!! After all, they pay celebrities and sports stars vast sums of money to advertise a product, so why shouldn't they pay me too??

 

[AloneNotLonely]

Look at it from the bright side, without fashion designers we'd all still be walking around fully suited with tailcoats. If you think Ralph Lauren is expensive, try looking at a well made jacket and add 50% for the extra fabric needed for the tailcoat. So yay for fashion, now we can all wear polo and jeans and not be treated like "The commoner riffraff".

Here's the thing: You always buy a brand. People who always wear the same brand are sometimes rather silly try-hards, but many of them know that such a brand offers them what they want. H&M and C&A are brands just like Armani. Except they have a much broader public, less focused on appearance and more on comfort. These people "Don't care about brands", except they do. The brand appeals to them due to the cost and comfort, while Armani is just uncomfortable over-priced crap to them. And those that buy Armani don't like swimming in a shirt or jacket and think that appearance and fit is more important than comfort and price. Then you have Zara... which has a cheap price but focuses on appearance as well.

All brands fulfill a niche, to scoff at brands is simply silly as it's the most efficient way to sort things and they have a certain guarantee of what you are getting.

And yes, kids make these clothes for a quarter a day. Yes designers rake in millions (Or billions, in the case of Armancio Ortega). People that can sew clothes together are a dime a dozen. We have like a billion or more of them living on the planet, and another 5 billion could probably learn it within a few weeks. People that design and innovate are the ones that are rare, so therefore these people make the money. It's how it goes in medicine, in technology and apparel is no different.

What would you suggest the kids in Cambodia do? They can't program, they can't innovate and if they have nothing to sew they starve to death. It might offend our western sensibilities but the world isn't always butterflies and kittens. To blame some rich designer for the immutable laws of supply and demand (which they have to abide by or they would be as poor as the kids making their clothes) is missing the point.

There are "Fair wage" clothes. This is an option. The vast majority of people don't buy them, so what are the designers supposed to do? If everyone only wanted clothes that paid the laborers a fair wage, this situation wouldn't exist. And then we have the problem that virtually all companies that pay fair wages have their clothes made in Portugal, Turkey, etc. because there are less transport costs. So either way the kids in Cambodia lose.

 

[Mary Anne]

Look at it from the bright side, without fashion designers we'd all still be walking around fully suited with tailcoats. If you think Ralph Lauren is expensive, try looking at a well made jacket and add 50% for the extra fabric needed for the tailcoat. So yay for fashion, now we can all wear polo and jeans and not be treated like "The commoner riffraff".

Here's the thing: You always buy a brand. People who always wear the same brand are sometimes rather silly try-hards, but many of them know that such a brand offers them what they want. H&M and C&A are brands just like Armani. Except they have a much broader public, less focused on appearance and more on comfort. These people "Don't care about brands", except they do. The brand appeals to them due to the cost and comfort, while Armani is just uncomfortable over-priced crap to them. And those that buy Armani don't like swimming in a shirt or jacket and think that appearance and fit is more important than comfort and price. Then you have Zara... which has a cheap price but focuses on appearance as well.

All brands fulfill a niche, to scoff at brands is simply silly as it's the most efficient way to sort things and they have a certain guarantee of what you are getting.

And yes, kids make these clothes for a quarter a day. Yes designers rake in millions (Or billions, in the case of Armancio Ortega). People that can sew clothes together are a dime a dozen. We have like a billion or more of them living on the planet, and another 5 billion could probably learn it within a few weeks. People that design and innovate are the ones that are rare, so therefore these people make the money. It's how it goes in medicine, in technology and apparel is no different.

What would you suggest the kids in Cambodia do? They can't program, they can't innovate and if they have nothing to sew they starve to death. It might offend our western sensibilities but the world isn't always butterflies and kittens. To blame some rich designer for the immutable laws of supply and demand (which they have to abide by or they would be as poor as the kids making their clothes) is missing the point.

There are "Fair wage" clothes. This is an option. The vast majority of people don't buy them, so what are the designers supposed to do? If everyone only wanted clothes that paid the laborers a fair wage, this situation wouldn't exist. And then we have the problem that virtually all companies that pay fair wages have their clothes made in Portugal, Turkey, etc. because there are less transport costs. So either way the kids in Cambodia lose.

Love your wisdom. It’s really difficult to buy anything organic, environmentally good, and human made with every moral and social good cause aspect.

I won’t wear gold, or diamonds. But then silver mines also are bad for workers, and environment. I would love to buy organic, but it’s much pricier. I buy mostly used clothes, and some of them are designer, and of likely nefarious beginnings. I won’t buy synthetics, but cotton also uses up enormous amounts of water that humans are dying for. People refuse to buy or wear animal products, but petroleum is used to make plastic and both are destroying the world and environment.

I could go on and on, but I won’t. I once worked in the fashion industry, in NYC in the 1980s. It was exciting and glamorous but I knew it was all wrong. The idea of having to discard your clothes due to new fashion trends just makes me crazy. Young people are so into all this. You see them shopping every minute they can. What a damn materialistic world this has become!

 

[AloneNotLonely]

The best for the environment is to buy as little as possible. Also good for the wallet. Typical in my city is all these people that buy organic, environmentally friendly, etc. but they buy so much that they still have a humongous carbon footprint compared to me because I never buy anything.

 

[tducey]

Chaps for me. Shirt ad jeans though is my go to outfit.