There’s so much profit margin in clothes that it’s hard to tell if a $100 sweater costs $10 to produce or $2.

I've bought $2 underwear and $10 underwear. The $10 holds up in ways that justify the 500% price difference.

Top comment over there pretty much nails it. Putting my quality management auditor hat on, quality does not mean high end, it means fitness for purpose and meeting customer expectations, take designer dresses for example - some require the wearer to be sewn in, their expected service life may be just one evening, but they are undeniably high quality- they meet the wearer's needs and expectations exactly.

If your definition of low quality clothing is clothing which falls apart after a few uses, then by definition higher quality clothing lasts longer or wears better.

You don't have to pay through the nose for clothing which lasts, and you should never trust a brand or price point as evidence that an item will last. Things like higher thread counts, stronger stitching, higher quality zips, appropriate warp and weft of fabrics for their application will make for longer lasting clothing.

I mean are you looking for double blind peer reviewed studies on t shirts?

For workwear you can find testing videos. Project Farm has done a couple for example.

I doubt there is any proper research available, because it seems doomed from the start to me.

The first problem is how fast fashion nowadays is. We often have multiple collections per year.
The moment you‘ve collected the required data, drawn conclusions, peer reviewed and published it, said data is already outdated because the companies have produced a new collection.
It‘s just not repeatable that way.

Another problem is that said brands produce the same item in many locations, to sell in yet another different location, but sometimes production quality can differ between those individual factories.

You also have a problem with sample size and how to choose companies.
There is a lot of competition in clothing companies, which means a vast sample size is needed to adequately represent „high quality“ vs „cheap“.
You also need to choose whether to include one or multiple items per company.

For example: do I choose only one pair of jeans from company X to represent the quality of that company? And what if they produce multiple different jeans?

Since you want to compare „high quality“ vs „cheap“, that also means your little study is gonna cost you a lot of money just to aquire the sample items.

Another problem that I imagine could arise is that wear and tear on clothes can be simulated by different mashines, but that must not translate perfectly into real life.

For example, let’s say item X has better seams in general than item Y and only a few seams of Y are better on average. Now imagine that particular place that tends to rip more often for customers is the one that‘s better in item Y, just because said customers tend to do certain motions more often. They will notice that item X is less reliable than Y, even though it has better seams for the most part.

That‘s a problem that you could fix by handing out clothes to groups of people (aka participants) and interviewing them over a long period of time. Which would bloat the study even more and require much more money, because now you‘re looking for participants in a longitudinal study.

Another problem is not only the different ways people use the same item of clothing (for example I tend to sit in the so called lotus position a lot in my jeans, because it‘s comfy. This means the seam at my crotch needs to hold under more tension than when I sit straight at a table), but also the different ways people wash and store their clothes.
Tumble drier? Hanged for drying? Folded in the closet? Not folded? Rolled?

The problem with clothes is that unless you maintain exactly the same weight over your whole life typically you will need different sizing. Also you have to understand your use compared to others. There is no mileage on a shirt or pants. So you have no idea how it was used. I know with my cheap clothes I don't really care and will just throw them in the washer and dryer. Where as with a something more expensive I will hang it to dry or hand wash it. Typically, you will take care of something more if you paid more for it. And then there is how much you wear that thing. Your work pants might get more use then a pair of expensive dress pants so they just wear faster. That doesn't mean that they are better just that you didn't wear them as much.

Use patterns matter massively. And not everyone is the same. I run so I go through running shoes every 6-12 months. There is no running shoe I can buy that will really last longer than that. If instead I wore them only once every couple weeks they will last far longer in time. So when you see someone who wants running shoes to last for life I understand that isn't possible for me regardless of what I buy.

Higher quality fabric 100% makes a difference, everything from the quality of the threads to the density of the weave will have an impact. Higher quality clothes are often easier to alter to your body shape which can cut down on wear. Being able to alter easily also helps accommodate your body changing shape, which is a common reason people get rid of clothes. Then again no piece of clothing will last forever and keeping up with mending small holes as they form is necessary to stop them from becoming big holes.

Yes

did a quick google search and found this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/01/cheap-clothes-last-long-designer-items-new-study-finds/

Depends 99% on how they're taken care of. Or not taken care of.

Patagonia puts some (all?) of their items through a "killer wash" test, where they repeatedly wash it to check durability. Their website only talks about it for waterproof fabric, but I'm pretty sure they used to say they do it for other items as well. One of their goals is to make durable products, to reduce the environmental impact, and because it's part of their brand reputation. No one is going to keep paying a premium for their stuff if it falls apart in a year. With cheap alternatives, the priority is making it as cheap as possible.

I just can’t imagine much quality research would have been done on this because what kind of scholarly breakthrough is that going to lead to? Who do you imagine is paying to do this research? Best case scenario would be a clothing company pays to do the research, but 1. That increases the chance that they are aiming to get a specific answer from the study (bad research) and 2. Quality of clothing as it relates to price has endless relevant factors and permutations, how do you truly study that even if there was someone who cared to?

We all know anecdotally that generally speaking things made better will last longer, and that there is often a relationship associated with cost and how well things are made. But it’s so case by case, there are exceptions, this just seems impossible to get a definitive answer on. You may be able to find actual data about the durability of specific materials, and then buy based on materials used vs brands.

I think it’s mostly true but you can also find durability in cheaply made items depending on a few different factors. (Fabric content - I pay attention to that, I’m guessing stitching plays a role though I don’t know much about it) I’ve had a few clothing items that I bought literally in high school from fast fashion places that I still wear and that look fine. And I wash pretty much everything on a high heat sanitization cycle.

if you look more from the sustainability angle you can find a decent amount of work

https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/8906 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/21/9151

need to define "quality". you can buy a $5000 "designer" outfit that will shred in the laundry if you dont wash it correctly. so many different kinds of clothing go for different kinds of "quality"

r/minimalism is a circle jerk of I've ever seen one. They're almost as bad as r/onebag.

The nut slap.

I bought a couple suits a few years back, at about the same time. One was a really nice one and the other was a much cheaper version.

The really nice one is still in top shape. The leather only gets softer and more supple with age.

The cheap one let me down a long time ago. The vinyl got brittle and cracked, and the mouth zipper fell apart.

This is why I really companies that are transparent with their pricing. Everlane has this breakdown for their clothes (not that it’s all perfect all the time but that’s the example off the top of my head).

[deleted]

Firm believer in buying American made clothes. My red wing heritage boots and socks are on year 5. That’s one pair of boots and three pairs of socks for about 350 bucks that I’ve worn almost every day except for in the summer for the most part. Jeans, Imogene and Willie. My pair is on year 3 and is finally starting to tear and that was for 150 bucks. So for 500 bucks I haven’t bought new shoes, socks or jeans in 5 years. Pretty great.

So I bought some Eddie Bauer clothes back in 2018, pants and shirts. And a jacket in 2017. They are still in incredible condition today. Last year I went to try to buy more Eddie Bauer stuff to expand my wardrobe a little bit and the buttons on the pants came off within a month, all three pairs, and the shirts armpit seams started unraveling within two months.

My suggestion is look around and carefully examine the different parts of the clothing. You can feel and see the quality if you pay attention.

There is too much fluctuation to make it cut and dry like you have above. I have noticed the same thing with cars, houses, and many other things. There’s a name for it I just can’t remember what it’s called exactly.

No hard evidence like a peer reviewed study. But you can think about the things that cause clothes to wear out.

Fabric quality is one. The lint that comes out of the dryer used to be your shirt, for example. If you are buying a new shirt, better quality cotton fabric is made by spinning longer natural fibers into thread and knitting more threads per square inch. It’s tougher to yoink the long fibers out of the thread because they are spun in there over more twists, while cheaper, shorter staple cotton is more fuzzy and fragile. There’s also just more shirt left after each wash, because the thread count is higher to start with.

On the seams and hems, your high-quality shirt might have more stitches per inch, fewer stops and starts to the sewn thread, and more even stitching. Thanks to that, the sewing is not strained in spots by uneven tension. There are not dangling tufts of thread that can catch and be pulled out.

Finally, your better shirt will be cut better and will fit correctly (if you find the right one for your body, of course), which means it will not pull or rub or be subjected to as much strain.

Of course, you can mess all that up by laundering it on the most aggressive cycle every wash or eating a giant mustard sandwich without a bib, which is why it’s hard to get objective, controlled data.

Patagonia also sources organic cotton so their merchandise is less damaging to the environment. Consumers should consider extrinsic costs as well as intrinsic ones when analyzing quality.

This is an argument I've had about all the stuff in r/rawdenim before. My Levi's from Kohl's seem to last just as many years as the $400 Japanese stuff, yet people will swear that the higher end ones are more durable. Funkier fabrics, sure, but I don't think they're any more durable.

I've also got cheap H&M polos that I've worn for years with no changes in them. For most office workers, if you take care of your clothes, they will go out of style or not fit anymore long before they actually fall apart.

Yes, says my wardrobe

Your question lacks depth so there is no answer for you. Clothes. Tuxedos? Silk pajamas? Socks? Platform heels? All have unique use cases and metrics. What is high quality? That means many things to many people....to some this is based in Brand Name, cost or style, of which we don't know.

Okay so i have lucky jeans and i have walmart jeans. Out of the two, lucky is most comfortable but walmart jeans can take the abuse i put jeans through.

I have about a decade of my own data. I should crunch the numbers again some time.

Where does one find this information to assess clothing before purchasing? Where do you get thread count info as well as the other metrics you listed?

Project farm is the goat

Piggybacking off of this, I think that the average person treats items they spend more money on with more care.

Higher end stores have maintenance supplies available for purchase while you would never see leather conditioner in H&M near their shoes and purses. It reminds people that longevity is a byproduct of care.

A wool sweater will shrink in the dryer whether it’s $30 or $3,000, but if you spend $3,000 you’re going to triple check that tag before you wash it.

You got a leather suit?

In a word, no. And there probably won’t ever be.

Here’s why:

First, we would have to define “durability.” And then, how would we test that? And how would we know how accurately the tests replicate real-world “durability”?

And then, after we also determine which articles of clothing to test from which clothing brands and how many replicate samples are needed for each, we might have a decently designed study.

Then all that’s left is to find the $50-200K needed to purchase the clothing and carry out the study.

This is why all we will probably ever have is anecdotal evidence.

(Source: 25-year veteran product design and development engineer.)

That said, about 15 years ago I replaced all my socks with Smartwool and Darn Tough. Since then I haven’t bought any new socks, and I’ve worn out about four pairs. With about a dozen pairs left, I doubt I’ll ever have to buy socks again.

Some manufacturers list these details (thread count or weight per area), some will answer if asked, but for most it's a case of making a personal comparative assessment based on known good items, or knowing specific tell tales for certain items.

One thought I had when people mentioned high quality second hand items: could this be an example of survivorship bias? If an item is strong/quality enough to make it to the second hand market, then it's a strong/high quality item.

Interesting study, but that’s talking about designer items, not necessarily high-quality. I honestly think designer/luxury brands are milking their customers… they know people will buy their clothes just for the name

I was afraid of that lol. Based on your comment above, it sounded like there were actual, objective ways to determine quality vs. guessing…lol oh well.

theres a difference between crappy walmart and target brands and some decent mid level clothing, but like anything else you get diminishing returns. A $20 is going to feel and last like a $20 garment, and a $100 dollar garment will be a huge improvement. But dont expect a huge difference between $100 and $500 garments (barring things like leather/wool coats)

There are objective measures, but your requirements are different to my requirements and so you'll need to build on your experience to know what these are.

It's not quite guessing to take a known good item (I use my Rapanui t-shirts as a yardstick) and compare that to unknown goods to make a suitably assessment.

I wear moleskin trousers because I find them very hard wearing and their water resistant and tight weave qualities are good for cycling. An objective measure I use is to buy 250gsm or above fabric, it makes for heavy trousers but it suits my needs. If I were somewhere hot that measure would be useless because they would be too insulative to be fit for purpose, I'd be looking at lighter weight fabrics and need to find my own metrics.

Also when it comes to the world of clothing, the materials are really a minimal piece of the cost. A big portion is the labor that goes into it. Wool sweater of the same material may still range wildly (say, $100 vs $400) because of the ethical labor practices that they take. And sometimes it’s really just because of a brand name and their labor practices still suck.

Ok but if the requirement is durability or “shelf life” so to speak…like what do you look at to guage quality and durability? Heavy vs light for different climates is much easier to assess so I’m not worried about that. I’m saying like, what do you look at to guage whether or not a piece of clothing is likely to fall apart after 3 dozen washes vs something that is likely to last many years? For example, I go through jeans like nobodys business. I’ve tried spending more for “quality name brands” and choose jeans that feel really thick and solid and go with what feels high quality, but they just fall apart and I’m tired of spending $60+ per pair of jeans every 4-6 months.

So what are the objective metrics I can look at to determine what is better quality and will last longer?

Of course. All the top quality ones are leather. The cheap ones are vinyl.

I’ve had the opposite happen as well.

What do you mean by suit? I’ve never seen a leather or vinyl suit. Are you talking about, like, motorcycle gear?

A top quality suit where I live would be made out of wool or silk.

Gimp suit

[deleted]

This is important. Price tells you very little about the quality of the clothing you are buying.

In an ironic twist, the best way to really assess what you are getting is to examine it closely in person, yet the fairly-priced, high-quality clothing mostly comes from direct to consumer brands that sell exclusively online or at best, in a handful of tiny boutiques in New York, London, and Paris.

Hard evidence? No, but better garments properly maintained very much do outlast their lower quality counterparts. The issue is very few consumers can assess fabric quality, patterning/construction or fabrication much less know how to maintain or mend items. A well made garment will outlast a poorly made one and a well cared for item will outlast one that isn’t cared for. I do think quality has gone down quite a bit because the average person doesn’t know these things and the market rewards corporations for poorly made goods.

Sorry, I gave up on denim as I found it too susceptible to thorns and I grew tired of darning, although it is a very forgiving fabric to repair.

You'll be looking for a higher weight fabric and a high number of stitches per inch, but I don't know what numbers those should be.

If your wearing through in particular areas because your body shape isn't what jeans are designed around (I cycle so really struggle with thigh fit) you might benefit from buying a size up and getting them tailored to your actual shape.

I've been lead to believe that denim is particularly sensitive about how it's washed so you might want to look at that aspect too.

I think a lot of designer brands are actually well made. You can usually feel the stitching, material & overall quality when you handle those pieces. I have a $1k retail cashmere sweater I got at a thrift & it’s held up noticeably better than my $100-200 cashmere sweaters (also thrifted) even with the same care. It has longer threads or something so it hasn’t gotten as fuzzy as they have. It’s not a $900 difference though.

They just are over priced even for the quality because they ALSO add a massive brand tax on top of the quality price.

As someone who sews: 1000% percent. But it’s not “high quality” as in expensive it’s “high quality” as in well woven fabric and well sewn clothing. I can identify when I see it and also tell you that pretty much nothing you can buy at the mall or in a target meets this criteria anymore.

Ohh. If this is what you mean then what you need to do is talk to a fabric historian. (Yes thise exist). They can show you woven fabric from 100 years ago and 200 years ago vs today and you can see with your naked eye how a farmer in 1850 had higher quality clothing than anything you can get today and that’s why his clothing lasted 10 years despite being washed in kerosene and boiled vs your clothing that falls apart.

…. Yeah now that I think about it I’m sad because your question is essentially “why aren’t there scientific studies about this thing that is glaringly obvious to anyone who knows any textile history or has purchased old clothing” and I’m realizing a lot of things in the world are like that.

Edit: also your post is misleading. You asked about quality. What you actually care about is price. No, more expensive clothing is not objectively better than cheap clothing. That’s called marketing.

But where do you get the info about fabric weight and stitches per inch? I could figure out which numbers suit me if I new where to find the numbers in the first place. I could just test higher vs lower numbers and find what lasts, but I don’t know how to get that information.

It’s not my body shape. I do alot of welding/grinding and mechanical work so my clothes take a beating, but more than anything, it seems my jeans always fail in the pockets. The worst is when they start coming apart right in the corner of the back pocket, leaving me with a hole in the butt of my pants, cause then I literally can’t wear them anymore lol.

Completely skipped over the part where you mentioned mouth zipper! 😂

Ask an expert. I got talking to a tailor in a beer tent which is how I stumbled into moleskins.

Welding and grinding are going to put a lot of strain on any material, I wear overclothes when I am metal working these days for that reason.

Arse pockets failing isn't something I have had with denim, but I've holed some chinos that way, for work clothes (actually for general wear to be honest) you can often darn holes like that pretty invisibily.

Sorry I can't be more helpful.

This is a pretty good comparison for something simple like t shirts.

https://youtu.be/TyoU3mKwd6g

The more you pay the better you look after it !

This is so true. Also, modern washers/dryers likely have contributed significantly to clothing not lasting as long. People wash clothing more often now because it is easier to do.

All good, just sounded like you maybe had something with the stitches per inch and whatnot. I appreciate you responding though.

There are, but you need some knowledge of fabric, design and sewing/manufacturing techniques to be able to assess them. Get into conversations with salespeople in high-end stores. Or in a local boutique that features and promotes designers in the area. Many of those salespeople and shop owners have studied fashion (at least fashion merchandising), clothing design and/or textiles. They’ll share knowledge while, yes, trying to sell you designer goods. But “designer” doesn’t have to mean “label.”

Ive bought cheap shorts from China that fall apart after a few washes. Ive bought nice shorts from Thailand that last years.

Its all to do with the fabric and thread quality imo.

Theres probably a point at which super expensive is no better than mid range, since style seems to be more important than substance for those expensive brands. They are all made in sweatshops for pennies by underpaid workers.

I work in clothing production. There are literally tests for every kind of durability you can imagine, made to simulate real-world wear and tear. You send in sample garments from bulk production to a company that specializes in these tests and they put them on a machine that replicates say, two pieces of fabric rubbing against each other 1000 times, or pulling on a button until it pops off. Only some of these tests are legally required (the button pulling for kidswear, for example) but they are available to any brand that wants to know how durable their clothes are.

Ehh I dunno that’s the route I’d go. I can’t trust anything a salesperson steers me toward. They’ll tell you anything to get you to buy. Their goal isn’t to sell you the objectively best, but instead whatever they make the highest margin on.

I work in luxury clothing production. This sort of information isn't typically available to the public, but it exists. In terms of fabric, every textile we use has a technical data sheet we get from the mill that weaves it. That sheet has a ton of things on it including weight, colour fastness, warp and weft shrinkage etc etc. Construction details are in the tech pack for every garment, these are put together by the brand's product development/production team, people like me. It's a blueprint for how we want the factory to make the garment - seam types, fusing, linings etc. One of these documents is called the BOM or Bill of Materials and contains every little thing that goes into the garment right down to thread type. Some brands (good ones) have very detailed tech packs and BOMs and carefully control their garment quality, others are very basic and allow the factory to make a lot of decisions. Again, these documents are proprietary work product and not available to the consumer.

You can educate yourself on things like seam types and construction methods by looking at books on sewing and tailoring. Most of these are for home sewists and don't use industrial methods but will still give you some guidance on how to identify higher quality finishings.

A word on price. High price does not always indicate high quality but a low price always indicates either low quality materials/construction, or inhumane labour practices. It is simply not possible to make a tshirt for $5 with good materials and construction and pay people fairly to make it. We audit every supplier we work with and I visit our factories multiple times a year. They are clean, safe, decent places to work. We produce our own fabrics and I've been to the Italian mill that makes it. One of their print machines is literally the size of a small flat and cost €2 million. Quality costs money.

$2 is just disturbing. Even with the most brilliant supply chain, the fact a product like underwear can even make it on the shelf for that price is a serious red flag to me. What the hell is it made from? Who made it? How did it get transported here? There’s just no way quality was even remotely factored into the process.

Not necessarily, and not if you engage them in good conversation. And you don’t have to buy anything, just ask them “You say this is a high-quality fabric/construction — how do you tell?

I have a pair of Lucky Jeans that I’ve had for five and a half years now.

Cost me $125.

I’ve had to take them to a tailor twice for a hole in the crotch (not one hole twice but two different holes—I attribute that to leg growth from lifting).

Aside from that and obviously fading, they still look really good and feel great.

I’ve worn and washed them countless times.

In this case, I think you get what you pay for.

It's subsidized by wage theft and exploitation. All the externalities are someone else's problem

Wow, I did not expect such a response. I appreciate the clarity very much.

I have a hard time engaging in good conversation with people that are so disingenuous and only talking with you to work an angle and get your money. I could ask how they can tell quality and I won’t know if they’re being honest or just telling me things that reinforce their pitch for the stuff they want to sell to me.

Maybe if I happened to already be friends with somebody that was a high-end clothing salesperson that I could just have a straight conversation with instead of being sold to, but yeah, you can’t actually trust anything a salesperson is telling you. Their entire job is to tell you whatever they have to tell you to make a sale.

No offense, but I doubt this. The material and stitching of some shirts I have from the 90s is just vastly more durable than anything you can buy today. I have some Nutmeg Mills and Galt Sand shirts and sweatshirts. That stuff is bomb proof.

Yes, my dad's closet. I don't think he's bought a new garment since the early 2000s. Many suits from the 90s and earlier. The other thing is if you have classic tastes the tailoring for men never changes either. He benefitted from his dad being a textile engineer.

It’s actually a 400% price difference.

A lot of people maintain relatively consistent weights over time

That’s true, especially their legacy items. But a lot of other items just look like their fast fashion counterparts but with a different logo. I would trust the quality of those

I would start internet searching “textiles for jeans”, “textiles for work pants”; “traditional textiles fabrics for workwear”. You’re likely to get apparel design resources / leads on the type of fabric and what characteristics a manufacturer of workwear is looking for and then you could narrow down brands.

I wouldn't say "it holds up better enough to justify the price" , however, the experience is worth the price. I have to replace my costco underwear slightly more often than my saxx but the experience is worth the price over longevity cus you do get loads of pairs to bridge the gap if that's all you care about. If I had to quantify, the durability is like 20% superior and therefore durability to price isn't the value indicator to lean on.

Patagonia is awesome, they put the company in a trust to benefit the earth, the creator of the company spent a large chunk of money to buy land and make it a national park so it can never be destroyed, and they’ll send you materials + instructions to repair your clothes or repair them for you.

I recently burned a hole through my jacket and they offered to repair it for free (I didn’t have have to pay for shipping) even though it’s 100% my fault and not within the scope of any kind of warranty.

They’re just a level above the rest. It’s pricey but you get durable clothing and repairs along with it.

H&M is hit and miss for me but largely okay. They’re better than like an old navy or a forever 21 or Zara. But a brand like mango is pretty darn good. I love White House black market and Gap is good for the price. There’s some mid market gems that do a good job

Original comment was more just an observation of "Yes, some things can be worth the price" and not a blanket statement about all things. And I do agree with you that price shouldn't the main indicator of quality

For me it really comes down to justification of the price. I wouldn't mind trying a pair for $10 to see what it's all about, and that's what I did. The important part comes after the purchase and that's the evaluation of the product. However with an increase in price also comes more scrutiny. I may be less willing to overlook some things at that $10 price point than I would have for the $2 pair.

Thanks, I’ll try that!

I usually just want something that actually blocks the harsh weather. Something that actually functions as intended: to keep you protected from the elements be it the sun or the rain or the snow or the winds.

So far, wool’s been my shield of choice. Ooooooo, there should be a brand called “Shield of Choice”.

Anyway, it came down to wearing a lot of clothes and thinking they’d work for its intended purpose, but, unfortunately, they all did not get the job done. I was either left too cold in the winters or too sweaty in the summers (and I run hot). Layering wouldn’t help either because then I’d be too hot.

Recently found my dream clothes after 20+ years of unnecessary suffering in the cold/heat.

So for me, quality = functionality.

I would say that the definition of "high quality" when it comes to clothes is just that - how long they last. But does a high price equal high quality? No

It used to be.

What are you doubting? I didn’t say that material is less durable.. I said that washing machines and dryers are harder on clothing than hand washing.

They also have Worn Wear, where they take back used products and sell them at a discount. The fact that there are so many used items they can sell in good condition is evidence that their products hold up pretty well.

Your premise that people wash more than they used to. If we are talking 100 years, sure, but the diminished lifespan of most clothing has happened over the last 20-30 years, and ease of washing is likely not the culprit in that.

I actually was thinking a longer period of time than from the 90’s until now. Not sure when the washer & dryer were invented, but I would guess they go back further than the 90’s. Also I think it depends what kind of clothing you’re referring to, sure coats and sweatshirts hold up pretty well and probably always have, but that isn’t the case with underwear or some of the clothing made of finer fabrics.

Out of interest, have you watched project farms video on jeans? He does extensive testing on products (usually tools) but he did jeans recently and one test was which pair had the greatest resistance to back pockets tearing off and not all ripped a hole in the trousers when the pocket failed

No but that’s a great idea, I honestly never thought of that! I’ve seen a couple of his vids but never even thought to seek him out for this. I’ll have to look into that, thanks!

Start your wardrobe out with what Walmart has available and if don’t hate it then more power to you buddy. I won’t wear anything from there because of the way all of their clothes shrink, pop seams and wrinkles up worse than old Gorge Burns.

I find that the things I like to wear year after year are the clothes that continue to look as good as the day I bought them. Men’s clothes don’t change styles very much over time so if you hate clothes shopping then buy higher quality.

I have shirts from North Face, Arc’teryx, Patagonia and Smartwool that are all older than 10 years now and look nearly new still because they don’t stain wrinkle or fade. They also save me time since they don’t need folding or ironing to look great and take regular abuse.

[deleted]

yes, office dress shirts made of certain (thicker) cotton do last few years longer. I saw that fabric in Ralph Lauren shirts, now in Brooks Brothers (getting them on sale as am not into wearing this season’s fashion, quality is enough). Conversely, many costly products made of thin fabric (I’m looking at those crocodile logos) do not last in my experience.

Thus the question was asked incorrectly (quality vs cheap) as their antonyms (low quality and expensive) are not mutually exclusive.

Honestly I think a lot comes down to understanding materials and some logic.

Natural materials tend to be desirable and can be combined and even bolstered with synthetics to make a nice blend. 98% cotton with 2% spandex for women's denim that has to stretch more? That's reasonable. But 12%? Adding in some random 15% polyester? That sounds like a combo that is trying to save money by cutting down on higher cost materials... Already a red flag.

As for logic, I have to ask myself, is the product I am holding trying to take advantage of a trend by "duping" an existing product? Like a thick fuzzy sock that gives the impression of a thick merino wool sock but is actually pure synthetics? I'm not trying to get down on synthetics here, they have their place, but it helps to ask-- what are they trying to lure me in with?

I know there is a lot we don't know... One company's bottom of the barrel cotton against beautiful long staple cotton are both still just going to be "100% cotton" on a label, but taking the time to look at a product in detail can help a lot.

Quite right, I remember doing a class a few years ago while doing training. Expensive fashion is expected to be worn 10 times max. 1 season and done. Marks and spencers underwear is expected to be used till it wears out. So is always durable.

I have a lovely harris tweed jacket I bought on ebay, had it adjusted for me, I expect it will need relining in a year or so, I also expect it to last my lifetime and beyond.

ts not always about price, but also about purpose.