^^^ Only 13yo girls that cosplay as Wednesday Addams would save up for those loafers: They look very DIY sloppy— maybe Hot Topic at best. Tom’s Gucci did it right with his platform loafers. If I were looking for loafers, I’d never even consider Gucci’s. The brand image is so consumer-end now, when even as much as I never cared for Alessandro’s wimpy wallflower childrenswear, his campaigns were impressive from start to finish. This guy’s? Very outlet billboard circa 1999 Tom’s Gucci-wannabe on a budget. All the best to him with his attempt of surpassing 3 billion projection with such mediocrity.
Thom’s sartorial take on bespoke tailoring, down to the detail of the nametag on the shirttails, is more of a nod to bespoke tradition; because the shirt would be tucked under the pant, so no one would see the label. …God forbid a gentleman would walk out in public with his shirttails untucked LOL But not only leaving the label on the left sleeve intact— but Gucci siting it as a major point of attraction, is nothing but ghetto. And although it was a trait that Alessandro already employed (and made sense for his awkward wimpy kid in grandparents' suits aesthetic), this brand is just for the juvenile now.
Since there’s no flex in it, people that leave the vents stitched shut just don’t know any better; but it does give the impression that they’re going to return the merch once they’ve worn it a few times. Labels like Gucci and Vuitton have become the go-to brands for Americans that don’t see any issue with flexing these brands while living on Section 8 and using food stamps. And the promotion of a dumb cloth label that should be removed before wearing as a flexing incentive just adds to the official ghettoizing of a brand. It won’t be long before the paper stock hang tag is a leather/fabric one— complete with the retail price, for you to flex with as another selling point— and of course the fabric/leather will add another $500 increase to the already offensive pricetag.
