+364 I don't see why people would even consider buying clothes for over $100 (Excluding shoes). I mean, they're usually ugly with the brand printed in big font. The funny thing is that you can get something with a similar design for a much cheaper price in stores like Winners. amirite?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

That's so true. Its just as if these clothes you are wearing are publicity material for their respective brands to attract even more people into givin them more free publicity. The brands make money, get publicity and make their products better known. Only a win win situation for them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ugh! I know! That's why I never anything with letter print or the brand showing or brandless.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

me too. I usually avoid common clothing. By common i mean 'popular'. I prefer to buy things that are original and unique. If that means that i have to put the price for them, i might do it but only if the clothes are real classy :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I wouldn't buy shoes for $100. I would buy a suit for several hundred or a coat for up to $200.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Almost agree. Training shoes or other athletic shoes with the appropriate insoles can get up to $100, unless they're just runners, then they are usually below $60. And MAYBE a suit, but I was referring more to casual clothes.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Shoes: Depends. I like my real uggs better than my bearpaws, but I wear my uggs just for certain situations. For my Ed Hardies, only once for my birthday, and I keep them in top condition though, I use eBay for my others, or Macy's when they are on sale. shirts: Efff nooo. I use ebay for my Ed Hardy shirts and they are only about 10-25 dollars so... yeah. Pants: Nope. For a whole outfit maybe, it depends on the brand. I love abercrombie/hollister pant's feel, so maybe that, a shirt from metropark and some shoes. But individually no. That's why I hate buying Juicy Couture, some of the cutest things in the world, but it's ridiculously expensive for nothing. Even the outlets are expensive.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yeah individually is silly. Some brands do have better fabric than others, but if I were to buy branded clothes, I would only get them when there' s a sale.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

THANK YOU! Some people don't understand. I would rather buy an abercrombie shirt than a random shirt from ross that looks similar because the quality is just so much better.... but not so much that I will pay 40 for a tshirt.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Yes, I think it's funny how people pay to advertise for the brand

by Anonymous 13 years ago

My dad once bought a simple black shirt for $7oo. I just about killed him -.-

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I have Lucky Brand Jeans. Probably the most confortable jeans I've ever owned. There are no annoyingly huge labels. The only label is the one that is under the belt I always wear.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

You're paying for the quality. I only wear Brooks Brothers or Ralph Lauren polos. They last longer, fit more comfortably and are tapered better than anything from a normal store or even Abercrombie or American Eagle. Most of these shirts I've had for more than 2 years and they still look brand new. It's not brand recognition or showing off, it's paying for the quality,

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I think that the worst are from LV. They put the logo all over their products and you pay thousands just to get those and advertise their products for them.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I would only pay a lot of money for something that actually seems worth it, like a genuine corset (ranging over 100-500 usually) but they are Pieces of art, and will make you look like art-no labels either. The most expensive shoes i have are $150 Doc Marten steel toe boots, I have had them over 5 years now and I probly have another 5 years of wear in them, so totally worth it. I would not pay over 100 for jeans or a jacket (unless it was a fucking badass trench or something) Or 50 for a cotton tee-shirt, that is a waste I also like to customize my own clothes and whatnot, so im spending less money and looking more unique than any of those bee-otches

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Like Anonymous said, you are paying for the quality. I'd rather pay more for something that's going to last longer. Plus, buying clothes under $100 is so... middle-class. Gross.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

What do you mean "excluding shoes"? Why would you EVER spend 100 bucks on shoes? (unless there's some sort of medical reason) Shoes are meant to protect your feet, you should be spending, at most, $90 on them. Plus don't they teach you to not look at the ground, but to always look people in the eye? If that's true, then what do you need $100+ shoes for?

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Excluding shoes because some people do need medical purpose shoes like correcting something with your foot. Plus, if you've read the previous comments, I also said that shoes that are designed for a certain sport will usually cost a lot. If they are simple runners, or casual shoes, then they shouldn't extend $70.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I did read the previous comments Unfortunately, I did not read who each comment was by, and I apoligize for said mistake. (though I do think that the whole medical shoes thing should be more apparent in the post)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Haha, yea it probably should have.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Because some people but expensive shoes like Uggs, Jimmy Choo and etc..

by Anonymous 13 years ago

I thought this too, until I got a well paying job and moved to Georgia. Haha there's a Marc Jacobs store right down the street. It's expensive, but it doesn't have the brand written all over it, and its really good quality so I'll probably wear it forever. If you have the money, I think quality is the most important :)

by Anonymous 13 years ago

i agree that clothes are overpriced, but why are shoes the exception? they're overpriced, too.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

The only thing I'd pay that much money for is a good winter coat.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Levi jeans are like $150 and I would pay that for them because they're the best fit. I'd pay over $100 for a jacket in the winter or a nice dress in the summer.

by Anonymous 13 years ago

Ew. Buying for quality is much more intelligent. I'd rather have one pair of expensive jeans than three pairs of shitty jeans that I would just throw out in a month. And it's not always practical to go to outlets and sales and such. Lacoste, Ralph Lauren, J Crew etc are subtly branded and well worth what they cost. On the other side of the argument are Ed Hardy and Armani. Those brands make some of the ugliest clothes I have ever seen and I understand completely why someone would think they are a waste.

by Anonymous 13 years ago