I was reading GQ yesterday and they were advertorializing on behalf of a $795 sweater. Does anyone really walk around wearing an $800 sweater? I've had the opportunity in my life to meet a healthy number of rich people, and still I'm blown away by the price tags on the clothing I see in magazines whenever I break out of the sad political magazine ghetto.
« Unripe Technology Blogging | Main | Electrified »
Question of the Day
26 May 2008 09:39 am
Comments (67)
Much of the clothing at upscale dry-goods emporia (e.g., Barneys) is in the $800-sweater range. Remember, the top 1% have gotten a lot richer recently--spending that kind of money is no big deal for them.
Plenty of people wear expensive clothes, but those who do really have much more money than you would imagine.
It is hard to square the people who have $800 sweaters with the people who can't afford health insurance. Viva capitalism!
Actually, this effect strikes me more when I see someone driving a car worth more than my house (which I rent).
My grandfather was a banker and at his house when I was a kid we'd meet Old Money from time to time. The women all dressed to kill, but the men were all 1950s guy-frumpy. I've never been able to square that original masculine reserve with any of the kinds of crap that men wear these days. Muscle shirts, spandex, big shades, high fashion, whatever. A man dressed to disappear into the background. Period. An $800 sweater isn't simply ostentatious. It's silly.
I work part time for a lady who designs and sells sweaters. It's not a store, it's a studio, and people can shop by making an appointment or by being invited. Those sweaters start at 600. So yes, a sizeable chunk of people can afford to, and will, pay almost anything for a nice top.
It's ironic that Marx chooses a coat for so much of Das Kapital; the $800 sweater is priced based on Book I. They're sewn by people whose time is very valuable, and made of materials outside of the economy of scale.
They should be thought of more as art. Then again, I don't know why you'd wear a Picasso outside.
I'd wear $800 sweaters except for the fact they don't go very well with my $10 watch.
I recently sauntered into a Nieman-Marcus on a whim and, since I needed a few new dress shirts, thought I'd take a look. The cheapest men's shirt was $195. And people were buying. The store was not as crowded as Macy's across the mall, but the cash registers were ringing. Besides, who needs volume when one N-M shirt equals 6+ Macy's shirts?
As if a trust fund scumbag like you doesn't have an entire mansion in Newport ri expressly dedicated to housing your thousand dollar sweaters. We're on to you yglesias!
A man dressed to disappear into the background. Period.
How do you know they weren't paying big money for those suits that made them "disappear into the background"? Those old money men you met might have dressed poorly, but they were probably paying big money to do so (which is the same aesthetic of DC politicians, actually).
To compound the perversity, a good number GQ readers probably buy the rag specifically to gawk at the price tags. Those who actually buy the items in the ads do not need to be sold on them. I understand from good authority that there are magazines targeted at women that have done away with everything except advertisements promoting decadence. And we wonder why our buildings get blown up.
I would imagine that most of the people who wear $800 sweaters are quite wealthy, but some are not. I know older men who have no dependents and live alone in homes they own who really like clothes and who are willing to spend big money on something they really like.
If I gave up parmigianos reggiano I could probably buy an $800 sweater every couple years, but that's just not my priority.
APS
There are many who just put stuff they can't afford on their credit cards and pay the minimum monthly installment. An $800 sweater could end up costing them thousands.
The expensive clothes come from a couple different angles. First, you have the people who don't really know better. They don't have enough fashion sense to find good clothes on their own, so they have to let Neimann Marcus sort things out for them. Then there are the people rich enough so that it just doesn't matter. They want really nice clothes, and they spend the money so they don't have to think about it. they have plenty of disposable income and literally nothing better to do with it. That sweater isn't worth close to $800, but chances are it's cashmere with really good colors and a striking look. Like you can tell it's a really nice sweater, even if the price still doesn't make sense. The clothes are also made for the markdown, in my opinion. You can take that down 80% and it's still extremely profitable. What's more, a normal person might be willing to spend $160 on a cashmere sweater. I would definitely spend $80 on one if I wore sweaters a lot. But I think the key is that it's easier to sell a $800 sweater marked down to $160 then the same sweater for $160 (no markdown).
A lot of the people who buy $800 sweaters probably do a bunch of "buy up, buy down." You spend a lot of money on the core pieces (sweater, shirts, suits, etc.) and then buy cheap but decent looking slacks, shoes, belts, etc. If you have on an Armani suit and a nice silk tie, no one is going to notice or care that you paid $15 for your belt and $50 for the shirt. In fact, having decent but not as fine pieces combined with more expensive, finer pieces can just underscore how nice the Armani suit is. Similarly, the type of GQ reader who buys the $800 sweater is probably going to pair it with $60 slacks from The Gap or something.
I hadn't heard the "decadent sluts caused 9-11" thesis before. Charming opinion. Tell everybody about that one.
APS
I hadn't heard the "decadent sluts caused 9-11" thesis before. Charming opinion. Tell everyone about that one.
APS
Ape Man, considering this is GQ, wouldn't this be the "metrosexuals and Queer Eye enthusiasts caused 9/11" theory?
"The clothes are also made for the markdown, in my opinion. You can take that down 80% and it's still extremely profitable. What's more, a normal person might be willing to spend $160 on a cashmere sweater. I would definitely spend $80 on one if I wore sweaters a lot. But I think the key is that it's easier to sell a $800 sweater marked down to $160 then the same sweater for $160 (no markdown).
Posted by mpowell | May 26, 2008 10:46 AM"
Good point. You see that sweater in GQ, remember it in the back of your mind because it had a price tag of $800 and then you'll remember it if you see it for $200 or less. Then you can buy it, knowing you own a $800 sweater without having to pay full price. If you're the type of guy who would brag about owning an $800 sweater, no one will know you bought it at Marshall's or the outlet mall at a huge discount. A lot of publications like GQ market in aspirations. They want you to think that if you're seen reading GQ, people will think you're the type of guy who can buy such expensive clothes if you so choose. They also want you to somehow connect in your mind that if you read GQ, you'll eventually become the type of highly successful person who can buy such clothes.
If you have on an Armani suit and a nice silk tie, no one is going to notice or care that you paid $15 for your belt and $50 for the shirt.
Actually, there's it's a known stereotype of the sort of guy who puts all of his money into suits and then skimps on the shirt. However, for $100, you can probably get a shirt that avoids this look, and if you already spent the money for an Armani suit, that extra money on the shirt isn't going to be that big of a deal.
Also, mpowell understands the dynamic pretty well: everyday shlubs who wear those things are them on markdown for 66-75% off. The list price is for the people who have a rotating wardrobe for every season and tend to have more money than sense.
A lot of publications like GQ market in aspirations.
The all-time best publication for this is the Financial Times' "How To Spend It" Saturday supplement.
People spend their money differently. Some folks buy $800 sweaters while others stand in line all night to buy $600 iPhones.
"The list price is for the people who have a rotating wardrobe for every season and tend to have more money than sense."
If you have enough money, you can buy common sense. Duh. You can also pay someone to read for you all of Petey's e-mails calling you a "trust fund scumbag."
"The all-time best publication for this is the Financial Times' "How To Spend It" Saturday supplement.
Posted by Tyro | May 26, 2008 11:01 AM"
I've never thought of looking that up. It sounds good for a laugh. The self-parody in the title is almost self-refuting.
How do you know they weren't paying big money for those suits that made them "disappear into the background"? Those old money men you met might have dressed poorly, but they were probably paying big money to do so (which is the same aesthetic of DC politicians, actually).
Posted by Tyro | May 26, 2008 10:42 AM
It's true. Personal stealth field prices have gone down since the 50's, but you still have to see them to believe them.
See, I thought the racket was to promote the sweater at $800, mark it down to $200, and then some GQ-reader goes "omigod, the $800 sweater is 75% off!" and buys it.
When the sweater cost about $30 to make & ship, of course.
Take a look at the graphs and numbers on this page.
We're living in a new Gilded Age, in which a moneyed aristocracy buys yachts and airplanes and mansions while almost all the rest of us have to worry about the price of gasoline.
To those in the top tenth of one percent of U.S. households, an $800 sweater is a bagatelle, the price not worth noticing.
The creation of a society with such stable and extreme class stratification and such class markers has been an important goal of this Bush Administration's domestic policy, and in this they have largely succeeded.
1) There are actually some very wealthy people who dress in nice but subdued clothes for several reasons:
a) Good manners.
At the parents' weekend at Phillips Exeter, everyone dressed simply and without ostentation.
So that the parents of kids there on scholarship wouldn't feel out of place.
Even at graduation, most men and boys simply wore a navy blazer and khaki pants--NOT Armani. Which really came from the sailboat cruising world -- it lets you wear plain rugged clothes at sea and then throw on a navy blazer to go to restaurants when you are in port.
Those manners are instilled in the students --and stay with them. There are always exceptions -- some of whom don't graduate.
b) Survival
If you want to get out and engage the world, it's practical to blend in. Even though the risk of kidnapping/ransom is much lower in the USA than
in South America, it is useful for several reasons to move around without recognition.
American sedans are perfectly servicable and let you blend into a lot more neighborhoods than a Bentley. And people deal more openly with you.
c) Nostalgia
Southwick and J Press have been making American clothes forever. They're not really cheap but they're not that expensive either. Good sensible quality.
Plus there are plenty of good tailors --here in Philly and elsewhere -- that make custom-fitted clothes that are indistinguishable from off the rack items -- except to the wearer.
d) Reverse Pride
There's the idea that if you have to worry about displaying your money on your sleeve, you must not have much.
Re Reality Man
Armani suits? Real men wear Oxxford suits.
In regards to the old rich men who "fade into the background" or whatever, I think that's hardly a generalization you can make. A distant relative of mine (I unfortunately wasn't the financial beneficiary of him) owned several blocks of down town Minneapolis. He was about as rich as they come, but had his wife make all of his suits at home.
But for every man like him, there's a "Great Gatspy" type who adorns himself with Cartier wristwatches and our $800 sweaters. It's just a cultural thing.
When you have that much money, you can do whatever the hell you want. That's why we all want to have that much money too.
I've had several LL Bean Shetland sweaters that I've worn for over 20 years. All told, I think I have 14 of them--crewnecks, v-necks, vests, and cardigans. I get one every two or three years. Oh, and I have two beautiful Fair Isles I got in Scotland in 1984, and I'm still wearing them. Of course, not one of this sweaters is "stylish." Then again, I'm a thrift-driven New Englander and I was taught to never buy anything that might go out of style.
Never, ever, would I buy an $800 sweater. My wedding dress cost less than $300. Our country is screwed up big time.
"Armani suits? Real men wear Oxxford suits.
Posted by SLC | May 26, 2008 11:54 AM"
No, real men wear leather. Everything leather.
Granted, $800 for a sweater is a bit over the top, but people seem to be rather selective when criticizing prices, it's always about clothing and food. There are tons of middle class people who continuously spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on hobbies such as motor cycles, cars, home entertainment systems, computers, cameras, model railways or what have you without anybody batting an eyelid.
I don't buy clothes very often, but when I do I tend to go for the upper middle or upper price ranges, simply because the stuff tends to last and look good for a couple of years, if you know what to look for.
One perhaps surprising experience I have had is that the old time high end men's clothing stores are surprisingly friendly and will talk to you at length and let you try on almost anything even if you've made it clear that you couldn't come close to the price tag. I'm thinking primarily of Wilkes Bashford in San Francisco (leading customers, Willie Brown and Herb Caen), also of John Helmer in Portland. I once tried on a six thousand dollar sport coat in W-B, and had the impression that if I had the money it would have been worth it. On the other hand, most of the clothes such places sell are quality rather than showy. (Take that, Needless Markups!)
Lest I come across as terminally weird, the way I stumbled into this peculiar hobby was by having a son who likes formal hats, which, at least on the West Coast, are very hard to find.
Lest I come across as terminally weird, the way I stumbled into this peculiar hobby was by having a son who likes formal hats, which, at least on the West Coast, are very hard to find.
Posted by Gene O'Grady | May 26, 2008 12:01 PM
Would you plead to harmlessly eccentric?
I saw an add for a $400 Che Guevara cashmere sweater once in Ecuador.
"Does anyone really walk around wearing an $800 sweater?"
No. They walk around in seven hundred and ninety five dollar sweaters. Christ, this is why the MSM will always pwn you bloggers. Yglesias Fail.
Re Reality Man
Leather is for fags.
"I saw an add for a $400 Che Guevara cashmere sweater once in Ecuador.
Posted by aleks | May 26, 2008 12:33 PM"
Part of me wishes I could go back in time and try to sell that to Che.
"Re Reality Man
Leather is for fags.
Posted by SLC | May 26, 2008 12:35 PM"
The joke isn't funny if you give away the punchline.
There are also OTHER benefits to a custom-fitted jacket or the old Brooks Brothers sack suit.
Heh heh heh
"When he prepares for a day at work, he puts his handgun in a holster, clips his cellphone and radio on his belt, and tucks handcuffs into his waistband, letting one of the cuffs dangle outside where he can easily grab it.
And then, in a well-worn tradition that has endured for more than a century, Detective Schroeder adds one more crucial piece of gear. He puts on a tailored suit jacket that has been cut with extra material around the waist.
That way, there are no unsightly bulges from gun and gear.
“I like room in it because of my pistol, my handcuffs, my radio,” Detective Schroeder said. “You want it a little bigger than you normally would get.”
Note that you also want enough room in the shoulders of a jacket to hold a handgun in the two-handed Weaver grip.
That's the trouble with those Armani wussies -- they're always bringing a switchblade to a gunfight.
That's the trouble with those Armani wussies -- they're always bringing a switchblade to a gunfight.
Posted by Don Williams | May 26, 2008 12:55 PM
That sounds like the opposite of wussy.
Rick Havoc writes:
"And we wonder why our buildings get blown up."
Um... I guess I am a little thick. Because I still wonder. Are you suggesting it's because terrorists hate sartorial splendor, especially as expressed in American magazines? That's a new one for me.
TDE writes:
"It is hard to square the people who have $800 sweaters with the people who can't afford health insurance. Viva capitalism!"
Yes. Because other systems offer far greater social equity. You'd never see an $800 sweater in Stalin's Russia. Mostly because you'd be dead, though. Viva socialism!
As for being shocked by what other people spend on things... Yawn. This strikes me as a weak version of George Carlin's riff on driving. Anyone who drives faster than you is a lunatic. Anyone who drives slower is a dottering old lady.
Similarly, anyone who spends more than you do on anything is a wasteful wretch. Which is weird coming from a group of people who, like me, forked over $40,000-a-year for a liberal arts degree.
Rest assured, you spend a tremendous amount of money on something other people think is stupid. Oranges from Whole Foods for $8 a pound? Craft-brewed beer that costs $35 a case? Some sort of single-malt scotch that costs $50 a bottle? An apartment in DC that costs $2,000 month? Some kind of potent marijuana for $400 a quarter? A painting that costs $40 million? A coffee that costs $4?
Almost all of these things--$800 sweaters, $40,000 colleges--are at least as much about social positioning as they are about "higher quality." Great. Just keep in mind that it's just as dumb when you do it.
And you do it.
Moreover, you would likely do more of it if you could afford to.
By the way... How's you iPhone?
I'd plead to "harmlessly eccentric" because the harmless bit may be more than I deserve.
The strange thing is that my kids are stranger than I am. Like a son who dresses up in suit for casual Fridays, or a daughter who moved back home revealing the dark secret that she had a collection of DVD's of old Bing Crosby and Bob Hope movies. Bing I could see, but while Hope was great doing comedy routines on TV the movies are pretty excruciating.
In a post earlier, MY noted that the elevated price of a penthouse apt was part of a "framing effect" to sell the other units. Might this work for sweaters? There's usually some for $250.
"Yes. Because other systems offer far greater social equity. You'd never see an $800 sweater in Stalin's Russia. Mostly because you'd be dead, though. Viva socialism!"
The only 2 options are laissez faire American style capitalism and Stalin style communism.
Have to say I enjoy the "How To Spend It" supplement in the FT. Yeah, it's totally tongue-in-cheek and knows full well that the average person--or even average FT reader--isn't going to purchase the stuff in there. Most of it is the equivalent of bibelots and amuse-gueules to throw one's money away on. It does have good articles on culture, travel, and the like.
"Lest I come across as terminally weird, the way I stumbled into this peculiar hobby was by having a son who likes formal hats, which, at least on the West Coast, are very hard to find."
Who is your son Mr. Peanut?
Armani wussies
I don't know, Don, at least over here most women find Armani suits very attractive, while they regard the more frumpy stuff with the same disdain we might have for HRCs pant suits.
The strange thing is that my kids are stranger than I am.
I fear the opposite problem: if I have children, I worry that they're going to join the lacrosse team and go on to become investment bankers.
Armani is considered "wussy" by people like Don Williams because Armani suits are cut for slender people, and the Don Williams/Brooks Brothers fans are on the frumpier side of things and choose their clothing accordingly. Basically: middle-aged jealousy towards thinner Armani-wearers who are either younger or took the time to lose the spare tire at the gym. And even Brooks Brothers is just the poor man's Oxxford. And J. Press is the poor man's Brooks Brothers. The sad part is that I studied engineering in part because I didn't want to have to bother myself with all of this useless knowledge, yet somehow it trickled into my brain, nonetheless.
owned several blocks of down town Minneapolis.
Toon Town:LA::Down Town:Minneapolis.
Armani is considered "wussy" by people like Don Williams because Armani suits are cut for slender people, and the Don Williams/Brooks Brothers fans are on the frumpier side of things and choose their clothing accordingly. Basically: middle-aged jealousy towards thinner Armani-wearers who are either younger or took the time to lose the spare tire at the gym. And even Brooks Brothers is just the poor man's Oxxford.
This is usually true. But Brooks Brothers does have a practical side to them that Armani lacks. Brooks Brother has an awesome tapered cut style dress shirt. The great thing about them is that the material stays pressed-looking all the time. You can wear them repeatedly and wash them without ironing and they'll still look better at the end of the day than your typical ironed shirt. They're not stylish enough for the dance club, but they do fine in semi/formal settings with enough of a taper to take advantage of your lack of enormous midsection (if you are so fortunate). And these shirts cost about $80.
Re novakant's comment "I don't know, Don, at least over here most women find Armani suits very attractive "
------------
Well, if you make your money the hard way --i.e., live off your women -- I suppose that has some value.
And in that case, you definitely want to work hard to keep that waistline slender.
Y'know that tan plaid scarf that everyone in New York wears all winter?
For a scarf.
(On the plus side, Pammy Atlas and Michelle Malkin won't mistake it for a keffiyeh....)
Real men wear Oxxford suits.
George W. Bush wears Oxxford suits. So, the premise is flawed.
I'm with novakant: there are times to pay decent money for clothes, not least when it's rewarding the maker rather than the buyer's sense of entitlement. Is it worth paying $250 for a hand-knit sweater that took 20 hours to make? at $10/hr plus materials, not really.
People pinch on food, in particular, and clothing next, because it feels more discretionary than the cable bill, the restaurant check or some other luxury spending. Though the media phenomenon of showing off clothes is different: it's all Veblen and Bourdieu.
(Thrift-shopping can be fun if you live in Old Money country in New England.)
Well, if you make your money the hard way --i.e., live off your women -- I suppose that has some value.
Well I'm sure there are a few call boys, who are into Armani, but cops and robbers also seem to appreciate his style and even engineers can be prettified by his efforts. As for myself, I just like to look good on the occasional night out.
Re pseudonymous in nc
"George W. Bush wears Oxxford suits. So, the premise is flawed."
Every president, except Carter, wore Oxxford suits, starting with Kennedy.
Every president, except Carter, wore Oxxford suits, starting with Kennedy.
And every president since Johnson has worn suits by a guy called Georges de Paris. Sounds rather wussy to me. Besides why in the world would you want to look like the American president?
"Um... I guess I am a little thick. Because I still wonder. Are you suggesting it's because terrorists hate sartorial splendor, especially as expressed in American magazines?"
No.
See Steve Coll's new book for more.
Rest assured, you spend a tremendous amount of money on something other people think is stupid
I bet there are plenty of people who read this blog who struggle to get by and don't spend a stupidly tremendous amount of money on anything.
Lately, I've been spending a stupidly tremendous amount of money on gas driving to non-essential pursuits: hiking, camping, mountain-biking. There's not much to say in defense of it other than it keeps me feeling happy and alive. Perhaps $800 sweaters for fashionistas or $200 dinners for foodies serve the same purpose, and aren't all that excessive in comparison.
I'm fascinated by how people spend money: what they indulge in, where they skimp. Money's effect on people's decisions is almost as irrational as sex's effect.
Couture and high fashion clothes have always had a high price tag and yes, some people wear them.
It is hard to square the people who have $800 sweaters with the people who can't afford health insurance. Viva capitalism!
Apparently, leprosy is easily cured by a course of antibiotics, but is still a big problem in some places in the world. Lots of diseases are like this--easily cured or prevented with a shot or a mosquito net something cheap.
Smartest thing Nicky Hilton ever said was, "I don't care who made it, I'm not paying $3,000 for a T-shirt".
Paris - not so much.
"That sounds like the opposite of wussy."
It's more properly called "stupid". However, if you're GOOD with a knife...
Combat handgunning expert Evan Marshall once said his worst nightmare was being caught in an elevator with an expert knife fighter. He figures he'd win, but he'd lose an arm doing it. And he's really good with a gun. Your average cop would die.
There are training videos out for cops where it is demonstrated that a good knife fighter can close on you from fifteen feet in two seconds - about the time it takes most cops to get their gun out and in position IF they're well trained - and cut you bad.
Best knife fighting movie I ever saw was "A Grande Arte" (1991) with Peter Coyote, set in Rio de Janeiro. Very, very gritty and brutal movie with some very realistic knife fighting - and some fabulous cinematography of the Brazilian country.
There is precious little difference between the person who buys a $800 sweater in the belief that it will make them happy, the person who spends $20,000 on house renovations in the same belief, and the person who has a kid in the same belief.
In every case, yeah, sure, you might be the one exception to the rule, but chances are that you did bugger all serious analysis of what you were doing; you simply followed your peer group, and ignored all research into the subject.
So yeah, I'm not going to get much worked up about $800 sweaters, especially since the same people complaining about how stupid it would be to buy one have probably wasted at least $8000 so far in their lives by not structuring their finances correctly (taking advantage of IRA/401k, tracking their mutual fund expenses etc etc). It's much more fun, after all, to mock someone else for wasting $800 than it is to spend three hours reading a fscking book that might save you $8000.
No, no, you use the $800 sweater you saw in GQ to guide you when you are deciding which $40 sweater you are actually going to buy. Nothing wrong with that, everyone wants nice sweaters.
I was reading GQ yesterday
Why?
I have a $800 sweater. My wife is into fiber arts. She got some hand carded, hand spun, vegetable died, non defatted Icelandid lopi wool, and she knit me a sweater. It took around $80 of wool and around 30 hours of a skilled artisan's labor to make. It looks good. It is very warm, and it is waterproof. Rain ( we live in Oregon ) beads up on it and is shed. A retail price of 800 smackers would be a bargain for it.
There is a community of artisan knitters here. They use luxury wools such as cashmere, llama, and sheep's wool produced by small craft producers who typically handmake every step.
Their products are worth it. I have a cashmere sweater that I got in 1966 that looks new still. The Icelandic lopi was intended as skiwear; it is too warm for skiing. I wear it for fishing in the winter. I plan to leave it as an heirloom.
If you can save up the money, a good sweater is a reasonable purchase.
BTW, are poor people hurt when rich people buy luxuries?
A few observations
Reality Man is a bit of a dandy.
Only chavs and Americans wear Burberry.
America is the land of discounted clothes
and poor taste
Comments closed June 09, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I saw a shearling coat at Club Monaco on sale for $300 from $2400!!!! I almost bought it, just so I could own a $2400 item of clothing. Maybe it would make me more accepted by the upper crust.
Posted by Chris B | May 26, 2008 9:59 AM