Do we need to move away from fast fashion?

LirW

It was on my mind a lot lately, especially since soft plastic is currently the next thing that's heavily advocated against, rightly so.

Funnily enough it's very quiet when it comes to fast fashion. Granted it's an industry that draws in a ridiculous amount of money. People spend a lot of money on clothes, often it's about quantity than quality. So many households have wardrobes full of "nothing to wear".

Fast fashion brings a lot of problems, they're poor quality, they lose their value once you tear the tag off and nowadays a lot of fabrics are a blend of synthetic material and cotton, that stuff doesn't break down and landfills are full of them. Donated clothes that go to developing countries ruin the local industry because they can't produce as cheaply as they can resell pre-worn first world clothes.

If you're living on a budget you often have not much of a choice but buying from fast fashion brands because it's cheap.

In my opinion there should be campaigns educating about this problem just like there are campaigns to talk about microplastic or soft plastic.
Please discuss.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

It was on my mind a lot lately, especially since soft plastic is currently the next thing that's heavily advocated against, rightly so.

Funnily enough it's very quiet when it comes to fast fashion. Granted it's an industry that draws in a ridiculous amount of money. People spend a lot of money on clothes, often it's about quantity than quality. So many households have wardrobes full of "nothing to wear".

Fast fashion brings a lot of problems, they're poor quality, they lose their value once you tear the tag off and nowadays a lot of fabrics are a blend of synthetic material and cotton, that stuff doesn't break down and landfills are full of them. Donated clothes that go to developing countries ruin the local industry because they can't produce as cheaply as they can resell pre-worn first world clothes.

If you're living on a budget you often have not much of a choice but buying from fast fashion brands because it's cheap.

In my opinion there should be campaigns educating about this problem just like there are campaigns to talk about microplastic or soft plastic.
Please discuss.

The way they're manufactured is often environmentally suspect too. As an example, the Pearl River in China is used as a dump for indigo dyes from factories manufacturing cheap jeans for sale in the West in discount fashion shops.



That's before you get to the likely exploitation of workers all along the chain from the fibre production to the distribution, as well as the inevitable consequence of the item getting a few wears before being either binned or donated - equally damaging scenarios in different ways. All for something new and cheap to wear at the weekend.

People have come to expect novelty, people don't keep things until their useful life is over if they can buy new things cheaply and replace things they've become bored with. First you need to change expectations.

LirW

I think it's an issue that, unlike groceries, there's very little understanding how unsustainable and bad these clothes for the environment are. Not only the ethical problem it brings, but they're littering the landfills since they don't break down.

It's a problem that involves all of us because we need to wear clothes. But what's the point in having 100 dresses, 50 pairs of shoes and 20 pairs of jeans? You can only wear one at a time.

Consumers are so trapped in this fast fashion circle, since we're used to spend 7 Euros on a T-shirt, why spend 25 on one that's of better quality and will last you a lot longer and fits better, doesn't get ruined by washing?

I might give Project 333 a shot in spring.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

I think it's an issue that, unlike groceries, there's very little understanding how unsustainable and bad these clothes for the environment are. Not only the ethical problem it brings, but they're littering the landfills since they don't break down.

It's a problem that involves all of us because we need to wear clothes. But what's the point in having 100 dresses, 50 pairs of shoes and 20 pairs of jeans? You can only wear one at a time.

Consumers are so trapped in this fast fashion circle, since we're used to spend 7 Euros on a T-shirt, why spend 25 on one that's of better quality and will last you a lot longer and fits better, doesn't get ruined by washing?

I might give Project 333 a shot in spring.

We've become accustomed to too much novelty, to just having too many things. People regard shopping as a hobby, it's hard to shift attitudes like that.

I've never heard of that, I had to look it up. To be honest I wouldn't be far off that anyway, on a seasonal basis.

On the biodegradable front, it's becoming increasingly hard to buy a blouse/shirt in pure cotton, everything is either synthetic or a blend. I hate both, I much prefer natural fibres but the synths are cheap and wash cold and dry fast, so people like them.

Prominent_Dawg

Yes

Dravokivich

Eh... fast fashion?

OwaynOTT

We all need to wear our underpants till they disintegrate.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

Eh... fast fashion?

AKA disposable fashion.

When you buy a new outfit for a tenner for an event, then buy another dress the next week for another and pile up a collection of cheap clothes that end up as landfill or are donated, wind up being sold in markets in developing countries and decimating the local clothing market, and are usually environmentally disastrous in the manufacturing stages, as well as likely exploitative in the production chain from grower to distributor. That's fast/disposable fashion.

Flyingsnowball

Capitalism is the problem. A system that sets up a race to use up all of earths resources.

elperello

Charity shop is your friend.

LirW

elperello wrote: »

Charity shop is your friend.

The problem with charity shops is that more and more of their clothes are donated low quality fast fashion items that nobody wants. They might be in one piece, but are still ill-fitting, of bad quality and once they break they're mostly impossible to repair. Pretty bad cycle.

Dakotabigone

LirW wrote: »

The problem with charity shops is that more and more of their clothes are donated low quality fast fashion items that nobody wants. They might be in one piece, but are still ill-fitting, of bad quality and once they break they're mostly impossible to repair. Pretty bad cycle.

Full of sperm, mucus, blood, vaginal discharge.

Dakotabigone

Berties_Horse wrote: »

You discharge effluent from both of your holes.

So do you mate.

Flyingsnowball

Dakotabigone wrote: »

So do you mate.

Is your username da got a big one? Like your da has got a big one? Why would you put that as a username like it must be fricken huge. Tell your dad I said well done.

Flyingsnowball

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

Capitalism is the problem. A system that sets up a race to use up all of earths resources.

Yes, plus the planned (perceived) obsolescence that is rampant in the fashion industry that "outs" people who wear last years clothes as mank!
I often get criticized for wearing something that's "out of fashion", so fúcking what, it still does what it's supposed to do!

freshpopcorn

I buy clothes from various shops and wear them multiply times.
I've never bought something and only worn it once.
I know some women into what you'd call fast fashion. If they buy a dress in Penneys they'll wear it once to an event but if they bought a French Connection dress for example they'll still only wear it once. Dispite the fact nobody really cares.

JupiterKid

I understand the problem but its a trend that's going to be very very difficult to counteract.

People want cheap clothing and cheap food. The social, economic and environmental costs are well known and can be devastating.

Personally, I try to buy good quality clothing that costs a bit more and will last but I admit that the odd time I buy something cheap and instantly appealing in Pennys or TK Maxx. Looking at labels to see where clothing is made now is nearly pointless as it all seems to be made in third world, low wage countries.

I may be a gay man but despite the stereotype I'm not a "clothes" or "fashion" person. I go for things that last, don't fade after washing and feel comfortable with a few smart outfits for special occasions. I don't wear skinny jeans even though I am quite slim (they would look completely ridiculous on my now middle aged body) and I have six pairs of shoes. Six - that's it. My former partner is Imelda Marcos: he has about 40 pairs!!

I have a friend who used to literally get rid of clothes after just one use. WTF!!?? This was in his 20s when he had a pretty high disposable income but now that he's a family man in his early 40s I doubt he continues to do so.

Education is the key here to changing consumer behaviour. But not being preachy and holier than thou to people as that turns people off.

It will take years of change to really make a difference but the earlier a campaign begins, the better. It only took about a decade to change people's attitudes to fur coats.

Lastly, a lot of cheap clothing can actually work out more expensive to consumers in the long run. I myself destroyed an entire wash due to a cheap navy shirt which ran and dyed the other garments...lesson learned!!

freshpopcorn

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I buy clothes from various shops and wear them multiply times.
I've never bought something and only worn it once.
I know some women into what you'd call fast fashion. If they buy a dress in Penneys they'll wear it once to an event but if they bought a French Connection dress for example they'll still only wear it once. Dispite the fact nobody really cares.

There are far too many people who refuse to be seen in the same dress twice, if that really worries them, why don't they hire, rather than buy to dump in the back of the wardrobe never to be seen again.

freshpopcorn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are far too many people who refuse to be seen in the same dress twice, if that really worries them, why don't they hire, rather than buy to dump in the back of the wardrobe never to be seen again.

It's sort of a badge of honour at a wedding I find. Mainly women come out with "Oh I had to go out and buy this" because of the fear somebody will relies they wore something twice. It's sort of a psychology thing.
I don't think wearing a dress that's already worn would be good enough.

LirW

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I buy clothes from various shops and wear them multiply times.
I've never bought something and only worn it once.
I know some women into what you'd call fast fashion. If they buy a dress in Penneys they'll wear it once to an event but if they bought a French Connection dress for example they'll still only wear it once. Dispite the fact nobody really cares.

Fast fashion per definition is a high-pace output of 'fashionable' items. The turnaround time from developing a collection to being on the shelves is 2-4 weeks, so that's at least 26 collections a year. Most labels we buy from operate like that, Penneys for example cater a younger audience and sell cheaper, Zara caters a more sophisticated clientele and has higher margins. They all still produce on max output with poor quality, use cheaper materials that parish a lot easier.
The thought is to create a feeling of urgency to get things because they might be out of fashion soon.

Many people just don't throw these clothes away, they donate them or hand them on, donations get shipped out to developing countries and land in a hugely successful resale market that destroys the local garment industry and some stuff ends in our charity shops that fill up with more and more crappy fast fashion stuff.

I believe it's pretty important teaching people that they waste a lot of money buying that stuff, teaching them how to mend or alter clothes. Most people are simply not aware of it.

I'm not sure we'll ever convince people to mend or alter things, those skills are by and large gone and few items would be worth the cost of it being done professionally. I think the best bet is to convince people to buy fewer, better quality items. The fashion industry will be the enemy agent there, as will the be countless magazines, articles and influencers pushing the target consumer to buy more or be left behind.

I might be wrong but I imagine the biggest offenders are younger girls and women with a fairly low income, for whom spending 100 in Penneys would be an indulgence that would give them what feels like a good return on their money with lots of cheap items, instead of two better items that would last. It's hard to convince that demographic that getting 100's of wears from the same item is a good thing.

freshpopcorn

LirW wrote: »

I believe it's pretty important teaching people that they waste a lot of money buying that stuff, teaching them how to mend or alter clothes. Most people are simply not aware of it.

I suppose that can be done probably with a social media person.
Or make some things more affordable or socially acceptable.
I really wear clothes out and they'd be beyond mending or giving to charity.
I can turn something up or soe in a button/etc but I could never see myself altering clothing due to the style I wear.
I do know a few people into it and they spend a fortune in materials and they look mediocre at best.(They don't sell it)

Johnnyhpipe

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Full of sperm, mucus, blood, vaginal discharge.

Sorry, that was the cacks I dropped into Oxfam last week

JupiterKid

I have a feeling that women's clothing is more prone to "fast fashion" than men's garments.

Most men's stylish and special occasion clothing involves suits and sports jackets and shirts with chinos/designer jeans for the "smart casual" look which most guys would have no problem wearing many times over but I suppose with the advent of the more fashion conscious/victim male - aka the "metrosexual" guy, mens' fashion is moving in that direction too...

I think a lot of guys are dressed by their girlfriends/wives although that is changing. They pick out what they think looks good on their fella. And it happens with gay male couples as well - my ex always picked out items for me as I hate clothes shopping with a passion...give me a good bookshop any day instead!

The idea of wearing a dress only once because you might be worried to be seen wearing it more than once is preposterous - the fashion industry has a lot to answer for.

Also - there is a big difference between fashion and style. Style is timeless, and you either have it or you don't. Fashion is fleeting and ephemeral.

Lastly, if we all followed my lead the pyjamas and swimwear industries would collapse. I prefer (when conditions allow) to wear the most practical outfit for sleeping, swimming and sunbathing - my birthday suit!

Dravokivich

Candie wrote: »

AKA disposable fashion.

When you buy a new outfit for a tenner for an event, then buy another dress the next week for another and pile up a collection of cheap clothes that end up as landfill or are donated, wind up being sold in markets in developing countries and decimating the local clothing market, and are usually environmentally disastrous in the manufacturing stages, as well as likely exploitative in the production chain from grower to distributor. That's fast/disposable fashion.

Ah, that's never really been something I've been into. I've still got damn near every t-shirt I've had over the last 18-20 years.

JupiterKid wrote: »

I have a feeling that women's clothing is more prone to "fast fashion" than men's garments.

I'd be of the same mind, like when morning TV has regularly segments about finding cheaper alternatives to designer clothes.

Mrsmum

Hadn't heard of Project 333 before this but sounds like an excellent idea. I'm drowning in clothes of every price point. Think i'll give it a go.

LirW

Dravokivich wrote: »

Ah, that's never really been something I've been into. I've still got damn near every t-shirt I've had over the last 18-20 years.



I'd be of the same mind, like when morning TV has regularly segments about finding cheaper alternatives to designer clothes.

It's great when you're able to do this, as in, your clothes stay in a nice shape without damage for such a long time. Seriously, I envy that.

To give an example, last year when we moved house, money was very tight, I was post baby and I needed to get a few new pieces because my whole body was different. Since I have a very plain style of dressing I was looking for black basics.
I went to Penneys, that's all my wallet allowed at the time, and bought 3 pairs of black leggings. All of them are in the bin now, the last one went yesterday. The issue was that the fabric was badly woven and holes were forming that got bigger over time. The more I washed them, she more Ill-fitting they became. All these issues were impossible to mend, I'm not a novice with needle and thread and sewing machine but they were cases for the bin.
These clothes aren't made for everyday wear, they're not made for being "heavily" used, the bad quality makes sure of that.

It's getting increasingly harder to get good quality clothes and I made the decision I'm done with that and I'll change the way I'm buying entirely because fast fashion doesn't work for me, it's too frustrating. I'm not proud of the mountain of rubbish it creates and I'm sick of Ill-fitting clothes that just keep getting destroyed by everyday usage.

OldMrBrennan83

I don't really care. I just buy clothes when I need them and occasionally when I want them. If you were to give up everything that the environment headcases want you to then there's little point in being around at all so planet be damned.

LirW

Mrsmum wrote: »

Hadn't heard of Project 333 before this but sounds like an excellent idea. I'm drowning in clothes of every price point. Think i'll give it a go.

I have the tiniest wardrobe and selection of clothes so I initially said it's gonna be easy. When I opened my wardrobe I quickly realised that even though everything I have fits in 2 drawers, I will still have to get rid of things because I have too much that I don't wear.
I take the arrival of spring as an opportunity to be even more conscious about it.

super_furry

Yeah Penney's is an absolute false economy. You're much better off buying decent, well made clothes that would end lasting you far much longer.

LirW

super_furry wrote: »

Yeah Penney's is an absolute false economy. You're much better off buying decent, well made clothes that would end lasting you far much longer.

Yes but realistically where do you get them? The big names in chains are producing the same crap under the same conditions. You'll find twisting seams and gappy fabric in Penneys, H&M, Dunnes, New Loon and Zara...and many more. The price tag is no indicator of how well-made things are.
I watched a video yesterday of a French designer that explained how Fast-Fashion brands produce in terms of quality and why different labels charge differently even though the quality difference isn't big. Zara has insane margins for example because they market their stuff well.

Mrsmum

This sounds awful even to my own ears but the trouble, apart from the price, with really well made, long lasting clothes is that there's no wearing them out. That's ok if they are classic items but if they are 'on trend' items (and there is nearly always tell tale signs of what season they are from), their longevity is no match against the pressure to be current. As you get older, one doesn't mind so much but young people do mind.

meeeeh

I find this ideas about capsule wardrobe a bit tedious. People go through their clothes and discover they don't have capsule wardrobe they would like and buy more to make capsule wardrobe work. For me it's more important to buy something you really like and wear it a lot. I don't care if it's Penny's or Max Mara and an odd spur of the moment mismatched purchase of something you really like is not end of the world.

It's worth to point out that the biggest offenders by far in Europe are Brits (Ireland wasn't included in the survey but I suspect we are closer to them than to other countries).
https://www.scotsman.com/business/companies/retail/uk-consumes-clothes-at-fastest-rate-in-europe-1-4810182

Actually think there are a lot of reasons for that. Shopping seems to be even more of a Sunday hobby or a family day out, a lot of shops wouldn't even be open on Sundays in some other European countries. Social media has an influence, people are encouraged to buy more by Kardashians & co and women often don't want to put pictures of themselves on social media wearing the same dress. It's absolutely crazy in my opinion but until influencer culture changes this will persist. And third problem is simple lack of taste. People are too quickly happy with how they look in some cheap tat to actually invest an effort and money in something. And that is very often more obvious in more unequal societies. Yes fast fashion is a problem but there is more fertile ground for it some countries than others. I don't think telling people to buy more expensive clothing is going to solve the problem. There are positives though. The discussion is changing and new more sustainable brands seem to be emerging, journalists and some influencers are starting to write about using what you have and some fashion giants like Asos are growing slower. The problem is that brands selling worst tat like Boohoo or Pretty Little Things are actually growing. I suspect that more sustainable message is being heard by middle class and older shoppers but those with less disposable income (younger and poorer shoppers) are left out. But in general I think our lifestyle will have to change before our attitude clothes shopping really changes.

suicide_circus

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

Capitalism is the problem. A system that sets up a race to use up all of earths resources.

true but without capitalism we are going to have accept that we will go backwards in terms of global poverty. poverty is good for the environment.

Dravokivich

LirW wrote: »

It's great when you're able to do this, as in, your clothes stay in a nice shape without damage for such a long time. Seriously, I envy that.

Don't envy it. I've probably got about a couple of hundred t-shirts.

meeeeh

suicide_circus wrote: »

true but without capitalism we are going to have accept that we will go backwards in terms of global poverty. poverty is good for the environment.

It's actually not. Cheap clothing can only be produced if people making it are prepared to work in terrible conditions for minuscule pay just to survive.

suicide_circus

meeeeh wrote: »

It's actually not. Cheap clothing can only be produced if people making it are prepared to work in terrible conditions for minuscule pay just to survive.

yes but why are they prepared to work for this pay and conditions? because it's better than the alternative. capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else.

sbsquarepants

meeeeh wrote: »

It's actually not. Cheap clothing can only be produced if people making it are prepared to work in terrible conditions for minuscule pay just to survive.

True.

But what would happen to those people if they weren't paid to make cheap clothes?

It's not like Calvin Klein is going to hire them all and pay them $50 / hour. They'll probably starve!

That ship has sailed - as a society we have already definitively answered the question "What's more important - the exploitation of Asian kids, or cheap shít in the shops?" We just don't like to admit it!

Mrsmum

suicide_circus wrote: »

yes but why are they prepared to work for this pay and conditions? because it's better than the alternative. capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else.

My son was doing a project on sweatshops just last week and he asked me that exact question ie if sweatshops were closed down, wouldn't the workers be even worse off than before. I ended up telling him someone always pays the price. People want cheap clothes and plenty of them so the cost falls on the workers in sweatshops.

meeeeh

suicide_circus wrote: »

yes but why are they prepared to work for this pay and conditions? because it's better than the alternative. capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else.

There are different types of capitalism. And I refuse to believe that capitalism can only work if items are produced in crumbling factories and terrible conditions. People who work in those factories are not lifted out of poverty.

LirW

suicide_circus wrote: »

yes but why are they prepared to work for this pay and conditions? because it's better than the alternative. capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than anything else.

In the clothing industry people in huge areas are held hostage. It's either dangerous, health diminishing work and poverty or unemployment and severe poverty/starving because there aren't any other employment opportunities.

Also in the long run the environmental impact of non-degradable clothing is pretty damn bad. Cheap fabrics are blended with synthetics that don't break down, when these clothes break their place is on the landfill because you can't do anything with it, they're not good for anything else.

Since more expensive clothes aren't necessarily better in quality I believe it's important to question the very non-transparent fashion industry, teach people on how to recognize well-made clothes that will last and create awareness on how much a garment should cost in order to get get good quality, which doesn't have a horrible footprint as well and still paying a fair wage to workers.

On another note apparently the cotton industry reacted on the resource need of the fast fashion. Industry and more cotton farms grow varieties that grow fast with a higher yield but the quality of the product is worse, resulting in a lower quality fabric. It's getting increasingly difficult to source quality cotton.

OwlsZat

Pennys/Primark make their clothing in Cambodia. Where the average yearly wage is 960 and the state offers huge tax breaks.

Race to the bottom. As a side point the quality of the items mean they generally last half as long too!

meeeeh

sbsquarepants wrote: »

True.

But what would happen to those people if they weren't paid to make cheap clothes?

It's not like Calvin Klein is going to hire them all and pay them $50 / hour. They'll probably starve!

That ship has sailed - as a society we have already definitively answered the question "What's more important - the exploitation of Asian kids, or cheap shít in the shops?" We just don't like to admit it!

Actually the biggest customers of cheap **** are Brits who are also one of more unequal rich European societies. Swedish buy half as much clothing and I doubt it's because they can't afford it. I don't think every society has the same need for cheap ****.

Timmaay

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

Capitalism is the problem. A system that sets up a race to use up all of earths resources.

I don't think you can just trivially blame capitalism, if you reject capitalism, what's the alternative, back to soviet style central planning with zero businesses allowed, and all the massive social issues that all brings. I'd rather blame consumerism. Capitalism (in particular completely free and unregulated capitalism) is simply the tool that has allowed consumerism to spiral. Capitalism no matter what is here to stay, making it as well governed as possible is our only hope. The message we need to spread is that consumerism above a certain threshold (of having say sufficient housing, food, clothes etc) will lead to zero extra happiness, and the fast fashion industry is well and truly above this threshold, where you very rapidly get a diminishing dopamine kick from your purchases.

LirW

As long as especially girls grow up with the constant exposure to influencers promotion fast fashion on Social media as well as being taught that shopping is a girly hobby, a shopping Saturday is a really cool thing to do and "oh girls and women love clothes and shoes" I doubt that a lot will happen.
Maybe it would be a big difference if Kylie Jenner, Beyonce or another big figure would step up and talk about the issues of clothing production and the environmental impact, but there's no money to be made. There's this big fad with cruelty free make-up and beauty products and it does work, why can't this happen with clothes?

Also a pretty bad offender are children, at least indirectly. They're being drowned in piles of clothes that cost horrendous money, they don't get much wear out of it. I did the same with my first, with much regret on how much money I wasted on clothes that he doesn't wear.
When my second came I decided to buy a lot second hand and stick to the basics like vests that I'll buy. So many people try to get rid of their stuff for next to nothing because nobody wants it. I bought binliners full of baby clothes for 20-40 Euros, plenty of stuff still had tags on and most of it was practically immaculate.
I don't wanna stand here preaching with a Holier than thou- attitude, my wardrobe has a lot of fast fashion items in it to my regret, but dressing my daughter in second hand was an eye opener. There's so much wasted, there's so much overbuying happening. And the stuff is practically not worth a penny after leaving the store.

Not a big fan of H&M but they have a good recycling project going for a while now; you bring a bag of old clothes, the state of it doesn't matter and you get a 5 Euro voucher; they also have a Conscious clothing line where they make an effort paying better wages. It H&M but many people buy there, you gotta start somewhere.

meeeeh

I am actually big fan of two companies in H&M group: Arket and COS. Both have fairly timeless aesthetic and very well made clothes for the price. Especially Arket marks itself as sustainable brand although over buying their stuff isn't sustainable either. Uniqlo is great for cheap decent basics, they are my go to place to buy trench coats (old one needs to be replaced but it was worn for three years and it's probably most hard working item in my wardrobe) and children's winter jackets. None of those offer overly trendy stuff but most of us actually need good basics that fit us well. And if we would stick to buying basics that last and add to that some cheaper trendy items our consumption would fall.

Grayson

Timmaay wrote: »

I don't think you can just trivially blame capitalism, if you reject capitalism, what's the alternative, back to soviet style central planning with zero businesses allowed, and all the massive social issues that all brings. I'd rather blame consumerism. Capitalism (in particular completely free and unregulated capitalism) is simply the tool that has allowed consumerism to spiral. Capitalism no matter what is here to stay, making it as well governed as possible is our only hope. The message we need to spread is that consumerism above a certain threshold (of having say sufficient housing, food, clothes etc) will lead to zero extra happiness, and the fast fashion industry is well and truly above this threshold, where you very rapidly get a diminishing dopamine kick from your purchases.

capitalism and consumerism are linked. There's no denying it. And I'm not sure anyone is suggesting the only alternative is communism.

The thing is that humans consume a lot. We're like locusts that swarm across the planet gobbling everything up. Including other humans.

Educating people is a start but you need regulations too which will rein in the worst aspects of capitalism/consumerism.

Muckka

The worst pair of jeans I ever bought were the 7 for all mankind, they were very expensive in the early 00's

They fell apart, pocket's wore out until you couldn't put anything in.

They looked great but absolutely way overrated.

I've a pair of Hugo boss since 2003 and they've stood the test of time.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod note: Berties Horse, Dakotabigone, don't post in this thread again.


Buford T. Justice

gozunda

Muckka wrote: »

The worst pair of jeans I ever bought were the 7 for all mankind, they were very expensive in the early 00's

They fell apart, pocket's wore out until you couldn't put anything in.
They looked great but absolutely way overrated.
I've a pair of Hugo boss since 2003 and they've stood the test of time.

I'm hopelessly out of the loop of fast fashion I'm afraid lol. I have some clothes that are proberly as old as myself (or older) having inherited them! My underwear are probably the 'fastest' pieces of apparel that I currently own!

Muckka

gozunda wrote: »

I'm hopelessly out of the loop of fast fashion I'm afraid lol. I have some clothes that are proberly as old as myself (or older) having inherited them! My underwear are probably the 'fastest' pieces of apparel that I currently own!

Lol when a guy gets above 40 a rugged look far outshines the Jock or skinny ripped jeans look..

There's something odd about a guy in his 40s dressing like a teen-ager or a guy in his 20's

A fitted cheque shirt, Arran jumper's or chunky Polo neck, pair of Doc's, Redwing iron ranger's or something similar for the fall, winter and early spring and straight leg fitted Jean's you can't go wrong...

Holding onto a 32 inch waist and toned physique is absolutely necessary to hold off the rugged mature look.

Vintage style will never loose it's look.

I've jacket's from the 60's belonging to my grandfather....