The consequences of affordable collections

[Karl.Popper]

KP.

You, on the other hand, are, in my opinion, splitting hairs.

How so? I have just pointed how it is entirely relevant to the debate on whether even lower quality, affordable fashion is fashion or not - just as lower quality education can still be education, so lower quality fashion.

The relevance is obvious. This splitting-hairs excuse when it is nothing of that sort is just an apology for addled, muddle-headed thought.

I like it when people make an argument, then can't follow it through when it's defects are pointed out . . . instead pretending that they have somehow gone off-topic or that the defects are unimportant.

I can hardly believe I need to point out that a contradiction in your MAIN ARGUMENT isn't "splitting hairs". It means your entire position is incoherent. Something you apparently have no trouble with.

 

[Karl.Popper]

He contributes very little to this discussion, His intent seems to be to seek out questionable arguments with the intent to refute them.
we still have yet to see him post his own views of the subject without making reference to a post by someone else.
worst of all is, his posts are never in validation or agreement with the views and opinions of anyone, only disagreeing with them in a condescending manner..............

Wrong again. I actually agreed with BaroqueRockstar in post #152, and expressed my own views on the subject re: Pugh and Galliano.

Why do you so persistently get things wrong? (Like the time you said you didn't mind spelling mistakes only to get caught nitpicking about the spelling of designers' names?)

Perhaps if you stopped disliking the person saying it, and actually read what I said with any degree of comprehension, you'd not find yourself making silly, embarrassing, amateurish, clumsy, and baseless accusations all the time. Only for me to refute them.

 

[DJCNOR]

KP,
I always hate to use this, but I have a Ph.D. and was a research scientist before becoming a textile designer. I do believe I know what "addled muddle-headed thought" is and isn't. And I'll make a reasonable assertion that my opinion on the relevance of your comments is at least as valid as yours. There is also a perfectly reasonable case to be made that putting a famous name label (or a fake famous name label or a subtle looks-like-a-famous label) on a low fashion item does not make it high fashion, but may, in fact, impact the selling of a higher quality line with a not-yet-famous label, or even the selling of a higher quality line with the famous name label. If you think otherwise, I know any number of guys hanging out outside of Macy's that would be delighted to sell you a watch.

 

[Karl.Popper]

KP,
I always hate to use this, but I have a Ph.D. and was a research scientist before becoming a textile designer. I do believe I know what "addled muddle-headed thought" is and isn't.

LOL! Another instance of a person desperate to list his or her certifications for my gratification.

Irrelevant, and just goes to show that you indeed, do NOT know what addled thought consists of. The fact that you list your certifications, as if they matter, is proof enough. The attempt to do so is simply the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam, or argument from authority.

Amazing that a Ph.D. doesn't know this? No wonder you changed careers.

And I'll make a reasonable assertion that my opinion on the relevance of your comments is at least as valid as yours.

Except that I actually back up my comments with reasons, while your opinion is merely an epithet you simply threw out without even the pretense of supporting it.

There is also a perfectly reasonable case to be made that putting a famous name label (or a fake famous name label or a subtle looks-like-a-famous label) on a low fashion item does not make it high fashion, but may, in fact, impact the selling of a higher quality line with a not-yet-famous label, or even the selling of a higher quality line with the famous name label. If you think otherwise, I know any number of guys hanging out outside of Macy's that would be delighted to sell you a watch.

Sure, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about affordable collections of the likes of Viktor & Rolf for H&M and similar collaborations. Quite topical really. Leave it to you, Frau Doktor, to miss the point.

 

[Karl.Popper]

And of course, "DJCNOR" still hasn't backed up what she said about "hair-splitting". Instead, she relies on the doubtless "validity" of her epithet (doubtless backed by her grand authority).

 

[reese06]

I used to actually like this thread. The quality of discussion has become mediocre though

 

[DJCNOR]

KP,
Actually that IS what we're talking about. That is all that we're talking about. And I don't need you to validate my credentials, My 20-some papers in Science and Nature among other journals did that. And I will not participate in the further degradation of this discussion.

 

[Alexandra8715]

I used to actually like this thread. The quality of discussion has become mediocre though

Yeah people use private messaging or something!! Stop harassing eachother!! It's gone really personal!! In the words of Mike Skinner "leave it ouuuuut....."

 

[Karl.Popper]

To clarify my earlier comments about V&R - I think they did a good job going out of their way to differentiate the product from the main line. Arrows, hearts and what have you - new motifs that are ostensibly not the vaunted wax seal.

The idea is that you're buying the design, if not quality of construction.

Most people understand this and do not kid themselves.

As for the risk of brand dilution, why would it matter? If it does matter to you, what does it say about your own attitude towards exclusivity?

Some have expressed disdain towards those who have money, but not necessarily the sophistication, to "truly" appreciate what they're wearing. They're just buying into a brand, goes the argument, and not really appreciative of fashion. Fine.

If we accept that, then aren't concerns about diluting the exclusivity of a label an expression of the same thing? If it's quality you're REALLY after, the profusion of an inferior second line, or even fakes, is irrelevant - they don't lower the quality of the mainline, even if they negatively impact the image of exclusivity.

And this is exactly why talking about fakes is point-missing: fakes have no impact on quality. A proliferation of fakes doesn't make the original any less well-made (if indeed it was well-made in the first place).

Accordingly, fakes do not 'cause' the quality of a brand to go down. Rather, if your clothing can be so easily and economically faked en masse, it would mean that it wasn't that high quality, or needful of man-hours, in the first place.

 

[Karl.Popper]

KP,
Actually that IS what we're talking about. That is all that we're talking about. . . . And I will not participate in the further degradation of this discussion.

In other words, you can't support the claim about what I said (namely, that it is an instance of hair-splitting).

Amusing.

 

[Karl.Popper]

And I don't need you to validate my credentials, My 20-some papers in Science and Nature among other journals did that.

Somehow I missed this.

1. How are your credentials relevant to this thread?

2. Where did I say you needed me to validate anything?

3. Maybe you misread 'gratification' for 'validation'. An easy mistake to make for a Ph.D.

4. lol.

 

[lucy92]

let's try and keep this thread directed towards fashion and not needlessly goad each other

i think that this "affordable collection" trend is bound to continue for some time as retailers will get addicted to having a set amount of items sell at full price. i think most americans are used to waiting around for items to go on sale, even high priced fashion items. however, the ideas of affordable collections preempt that because if consumers wait around too long the items can/will sell out.

the latest "affordable collection" rumour is jovavich-hawk for mango. that could be a great thing to kick off the opening of their stores in the USA this summer.

 

[DJCNOR]

KP,
I will only respond to the things you have posted that are relevant to this thread.

People and their circumstances change. They judge according to those experiences. For example, if they have bought a fake or a low-price item under a designer name, either of which fails to live up to the expectations they had, whether those expectations related to quality, or status gained, or having something different from what everyone else had (if their low-price Dior sweater was easily mistaken for Gap, to use a relatively absurd illustration), then they might come to the conclusion that there is no reason to buy designer goods even if their circumstances changed and their new budget would allow them to do so. Their experience with one designer label, if they have little experience, may well be transferred to other labels. Most people's budgets are limited. I care in general that people get good value for their money, with the extent of my caring varying inversely with their budgets. It's even more important for relatively non-affluent buyers to get their money's worth. The profusion of an inferior second line makes more effort necessary in order to do that. Here, my two years in Poland become relevant again, because it was actually a relief during those years, to have a lesser choice of goods, since it made it considerably easier to be confident that I had made the best choice for me. Fakes may not cause the actual quality of a name brand go down, but they can cause the perceived quality to go down, and it is the perceived value of a product that actually sells the customer.

 

[GorguzLaChick]

I don't see anything wrong about these new afordable collections.
I think it's pretty cool that someone actually care for making affordable clothes to people that can barely afford paying daily expenses.

IMO it's very arrogant and ignorant to classify someone who wears cheap clothes. And some of the expensive clothing line tends to be more tacky and uglier than the cheaper brands.

Who care's if it's not burberry or some mark!

Im sick of the snotty attitude of some people in fashion industry.

 

[Karl.Popper]

"Fail to live up to expectations"? You're buying a fake or obviously differentiated second line ffs! What did you expect?

Do you actually THINK people will extrapolate their experiences with a FAKE to the real thing? Good grief. Absurdity just about covers it.

Thankfully people are smarter than you give them credit for.

It's even more important for relatively non-affluent buyers to get their money's worth. The profusion of an inferior second line makes more effort necessary in order to do that.

When I say 'inferior' second line I meant inferior to its mainline. It could well be superior to anything else within their price range, and be well worth the money for many people who don't mind paying for the design alone, foregoing the quality of materials or construction that is usually accorded to the mainline. What makes you think "more effort is necessary" to get their money's worth? I don't follow.

Last I heard, consumers determine worth, not you.

Fakes may not cause the actual quality of a name brand go down, but they can cause the perceived quality to go down, and it is the perceived value of a product that actually sells the customer.

Nonsense. Does a proliferation of fake Rembrandts cause the perceived quality of the real Rembrandts to go down?

And EVEN if we assume, arguendo, that it does cause the perceived quality to go down, so what? This is more a result of the fakes being easily and economically copied - implying poor quality to begin with - in which case perception matches reality, and consumers will be right to avoid that brand or label.

 

[zamb]

. Only for me to refute them.

this effectively sums up your whole purpose of being here, to attempt to refuse arguments, but contribute very little.
a modern day Greek Sophist wannabe..............................

 

[fashionista-ta]

this effectively sums up your whole purpose of being here, to attempt to refuse arguments, but contribute very little.
a modern day Greek Sophist wannabe..............................

Yesterday I was considering defending KP ... today I regret to say you're right. Philosophy departments have a lot to answer for ...

KP, the ability to reason is great ... not being obnoxious, having a bit of compassion for others, and being a contributing member of a community is even better.

 

[Karl.Popper]

Yesterday I was considering defending KP ... today I regret to say you're right. Philosophy departments have a lot to answer for ...

KP, the ability to reason is great ... not being obnoxious, having a bit of compassion for others, and being a contributing member of a community is even better.

lol? Whoever said I was a philosopher? Law schools may have a lot to answer for but really, one shouldn't blame the system.

 

[Karl.Popper]

this effectively sums up your whole purpose of being here, to attempt to refuse arguments, but contribute very little.
a modern day Greek Sophist wannabe..............................

Why did you truncate my quote then, showing your swipes and attacks to have little merit and indeed, little basis in truth? Never mind the fact that refutation is in itself, a contribution. By showing you are wrong, one hopes that you won't be making the same mistakes, and travelling the same well worn ruts of error again and again, never learning from them.

Anyway, personal attacks are rude, don't you think? : -)

 

[Karl.Popper]

I think it's pretty cool that someone actually care for making affordable clothes to people that can barely afford paying daily expenses.

IMO it's very arrogant and ignorant to classify someone who wears cheap clothes.

Quite right. But in the frivolous world of fashion, giving the less well-to-do more options, is now regarded as doing them a disfavour. Why? Because they are apparently too naive to make the appropriate conclusions about what they buy.

Never mind that there are people who appreciate the effort, being not able to afford more expensive clothing.

Never mind that the entire premise of a second line is understood to be of lower quality - one is to assume that people will inexplicably think lower of the quality of the mainline as a result.

A more convoluted, circuitous and senseless argument I have rarely come across.