Your recent purchases

[beardown]

beating a dead horse.. but..
completely tired of hearing the "jewelry is ornamental thus unnecessary" spiel. Is that true? Yes. But how is wearing a paper thin, super long t-shirt that cost $300+ necessary? I'm not picking sides as I wear both daily but if that's your argument just buy some fucking Hanes and stop logging on.

Was that really a substantial part of the discussion? Eternal mentioned it as small part in his post but I didn't really see anyone get worked up over the idea that jewelry is ornamental and thus unnecessary. It was much more focused on the aesthetic of CH, possibly the disconnect between the logos/identity and the quality of the product and the similarity to several other pop culture brands that are currently trending in the midwest.

Did I miss a page of debate or something?

[Fuuma]

It is pretty interesting that on a board mainly dedicated to brands that are for a large part either camp or at least stand outside the boundaries of good taste, CH would be singled out. Sure it's gaudy LA movie biker jewellery but then have you actually critically looked at Poell pieces or all those fucking leather shirts?

[BSR]

plus RO whose aesthetics partly derives from bikers classics (stooges, denim jacket w/ leather sleeves), Julius and the leather cargos and stuff... i find CH totally coherent with SZ, if there is anything like SZ 'codes'

[beardown]

I don't feel like it's been 'singled out' as much as the discussion came from a specific post and, like so many other posts, it sparked some debate. We've seen quite a few labels/brands take a beating around here, in shopping and non-shopping threads.

I don't think it's the motorcycle culture influence that bothers most people. I think that's a classic part of style, personally. But there's a fine line between the subtle influence of leather sleeves or a specific collar or cuffs vs very loud, overt imagery.

That's my 2 cents. I like subtlety. And prefer it when it comes to identity and aesthetic. Pop culture brands are infamous for branding the fuck out of everything, peppering shirts with splashy, trendy type and imagery. I think a lot of the brands discussed here are the exact opposite of that. With labels like MA+, LUC, poell...you almost have to know them to recognize them. They're not littered with logos and images and outer labels. You pay for the quality of the tailoring, cut and materials.

And when we look at general fashion, (popular culture brands like Loius Vuitton) it seems way more about the logo and the icons. So they blow those logos up and run them up and down their garments and bags and belts...it's like a virus that spreads.

That's the best way I can put my own opinion into perspective. A lot of a lot of SZ discussed brands have almost revolted against that idea of logo and imagery over everything else.

I think that's why rick's t-shirts aren't very popular around these parts. Those can be really gaudy and over the top with logos at times. Remember the CCP puff ink t-shirt from a few years back? (I think it was some heat printing process but it looked like vinyl).

People were cringing at the idea of poell branding anything conspicuously. And when I see CH, I see that over the top conspicuous branding that is (in my opinion) almost a direct representation of what is lamentable about brands like Affliction that are super busy, the opposite of subtle and seem to think that the more logos and the more gothic looking images and type you can cram onto a product, the more you can charge for it.

And also personally, I think crosses are kind of the lowest common denominator archetype you can brand to sell. It's been exploited to all fuck and I associate it with low quality trends. (outside of the context of religion).

I could say the same about the iron cross and a lot of military signage and icons. It just screams chintz to me...it reminds me of really bad suburban malls and kids who are starting to rebel against their parents in their teen years. I can't help it...that's my experience with that kind of thing: overt branded toughness identity over subtlety and I just don't buy it.

[BSR]

sorry beardown, i don't get anything here: what's 'branding'?
***is is a name (/logo) that is put in the middle of products? in that case, i follow you: obviously an item that sets apart only thanks to its logo is without interest.
***is it a symbol that embodies a company/institution, like the monogram for Vuitton? same applies here, unless you like the symbol, for its shape or its meaning.
For CH jewellery (like theaddict, i can't bear the clothing, but it's derivative) i don't think the branding thing applies.

And i can't think of the distinction between brands that are subtle vs brands that are 'pop' as anything but secondary, since it is only a very contextual one. I try to avoid these reflexive criteria to shape my own taste (to like only what most dislike or anything of the same nature), even if it's probably more of an ideal rule...

[Peasant]

Was that really a substantial part of the discussion?

No. But it's always mentioned in this debate.
Good points made, BSR and Beardown. But I really don't think you can use the gaudy clothing in your arguement when nobody hear wears it or is defending it.

[Faust]

It is pretty interesting that on a board mainly dedicated to brands that are for a large part either camp or at least stand outside the boundaries of good taste, CH would be singled out. Sure it's gaudy LA movie biker jewellery but then have you actually critically looked at Poell pieces or all those fucking leather shirts?

That's bullshit. What are the boundaries of good taste, loafers and pocket squares? Hollister sweatshirts?

[Faust]

plus RO whose aesthetics partly derives from bikers classics (stooges, denim jacket w/ leather sleeves), Julius and the leather cargos and stuff... i find CH totally coherent with SZ, if there is anything like SZ 'codes'

Really? A little hyperbolic perhaps? A ring here, a bracelet there, maybe. But most CH is closer to Ed Hardy in esthetic than to Rick Owens. Surely, a man of your keen observation can tell a difference between a goth ninja and a leather daddy.

[Faust]

sorry beardown, i don't get anything here: what's 'branding'?
***is is a name (/logo) that is put in the middle of products? in that case, i follow you: obviously an item that sets apart only thanks to its logo is without interest.
***is it a symbol that embodies a company/institution, like the monogram for Vuitton? same applies here, unless you like the symbol, for its shape or its meaning.
For CH jewellery (like theaddict, i can't bear the clothing, but it's derivative) i don't think the branding thing applies.

And i can't think of the distinction between brands that are subtle vs brands that are 'pop' as anything but secondary, since it is only a very contextual one. I try to avoid these reflexive criteria to shape my own taste (to like only what most dislike or anything of the same nature), even if it's probably more of an ideal rule...

Beardown is not talking about your own taste, but the cultural currents. These may indeed shape your own taste in a reactionary way, but I don't see a problem with that since, as you yourself would say before me, all style is contextual.

[kunk75]

i think it's the overt branding that is most disgusting like suburban women and their vuitton bags. I prefer labels remain tucked away on the inside; in fact, i prefer people not have the faintest idea what I am wearing. ornamentation and labels just remind me of the painful high school days where you weren't shit if you didn't have a polo logo or tommy hilfiger flag on your shirt. there's just something more elegant about identifying a brand by zipper or small stitch details than with a giant fucking iron cross.

[KingJulien]

That's bullshit. What are the boundaries of good taste, loafers and pocket squares? Hollister sweatshirts?

Do you really think that leather pants and $5,000 jackets are any less gaudy than CH, albeit in a different way?

Also how has this not been mentioned:

[Lane]

when branding becomes a form of status symbol it just loses all appeal. The overall tackiness becomes obtrusive to the eyes. I don't want to be associated with something I'm not.

[cjbreed]

this debate is funny. so funny that i am confuse. there may be a cultural disconnect here. like a geographical thing.

i can understand the chrome hearts jewelery thing and why all the atelier guys are into it. i think it is good quality and craftsmanship and the antique silver with the bold, in your face, chunky, rocker styling of it all is a nice contrast with the bbs, ccp, rick, atelier look. its fun, it has personality, but it is also severe, and when styled correctly, kind of dark. it works. and thats the end of it. no need to philosophize any further about it.

BUT, there is no way you can think that this: chrome hearts apparel, in any way fits in with what is commonly called the SZ aesthetic or philosophy. not in design, or in business model. they stamp their name in 5 different places on anything they can find and will do a collaboration with anyone who will agree to it. everything about it screams trendy, temporary, hollywood, status, label whoring, empty, vapid, consumerist, jersey shore garbage. just sayin.

[kunk75]

^not sure.

typed this on my iPad wearing rick sunglasses, cologne and beach towel

[cjbreed]

while reaching into your drkshdw/eastpack bag to find your rick owens wallet so you can find a phone number and pull your iphone out of your rick owens iphone case to call and pre-order the rick owens ipad case.

lol oops pardon me while i go delete the rick reference.