(via closetvisit.com)
Two days ago, H&M opened their 18th flagship store in Oslo, – a city of approximately 600 000 inhabitants – and this five-story store is the biggest H&M in Norway. Needless to say, the city isn’t exactly in need of more chain stores. Nowadays the shopping avenues of Oslo unfortunately mirror the consumers’ partiality towards disposable fashion at throwaway prices. Alas, independent clothing stores in Oslo hardly survive the overwhelming increase of fast fashion stores, and only last month the city lost two of its independent gems that were advocates of quality design.
Regardless, a reader tipped me off to this article in the Vancouver Sun. It talks about why one should invest in one’s wardrobe and the unethical and non-eco-friendly aspects of the fast fashion industry that we are irrationally engrossed in these days. To avoid the spending trap, the article also speaks about the so-called ’cost-per-wear’ formula, – total cost of the item / presumed number of days you will wear it = the cost-per-wear – which is a calculation that unveils the true value of an item.
Be that as it may, I hope this article manages to inspire you to reconsider your shopping habits and your prospective wardrobe.
The same way we’ve forgotten how to save our pennies, we’ve forgotten how to invest in our wardrobes. For the past decade and more, we’ve been on a reckless spend-o-rama, maxing out our credit cards with cheap, chic, disposable fast fashion.
But now — with rising concerns about the economy, the environment and worker exploitation in developing countries, not to mention a season of temptingly timeless modern classics — investment dressing is chic again.
But now — with rising concerns about the economy, the environment and worker exploitation in developing countries, not to mention a season of temptingly timeless modern classics — investment dressing is chic again.
Good thing, too. All those cheap Prada knock-offs were not only clogging up the landfills, they were overflowing the closets in our tiny condos, too.
The investment dressing trend is major news all over, according to everyone from the editors of fashion magazines to tastemakers like Holt Renfrew fashion director Barbara Atkin, to the designers themselves and right on up to politicians.
Just last week, England’s House of Lords’ Science and Technology Committee released a report that condemned cheap and chic insta-fashion, calling it “costly and socially unacceptable.”
The report pointed out that clothes from retailers like Britain’s uber-popular Primark and Top Shop are so cheap that there is no incentive to repair them, or even to hand them down or recycle them. And that, they say, is just wasteful.
Of course, the Brits aren’t the only ones who have been revelling in a frenzy of cut-price poly blends. International chains like Spain’s Zara and Sweden’s H&M have conquered the retail world by not only knocking off designer duds minutes after they appear on the runway, but completely restocking their stores with brand new fashions every two weeks or so.
That’s right: Where once there were two fashion cycles a year (spring and fall), now there are two a month. When clothes are this cheap, why not?
The thing is, when a dress costs only $20 or a pair of jeans is a mere $15, someone is paying full price for it, even if it isn’t you.
That someone is typically a garment worker in a developing country like, say, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka. There, millions of people — most of them women and children — work brutally long hours sewing clothes in squalid situations for less than $10 a week, which may be the legal minimum wage, but it’s not exactly a livable one. That’s all manufacturers can afford to pay, though, if they want to keep prices as low as customers demand.
The other way clothing companies keep costs down is to use cheap fabrics, typically energy-wasteful cotton or non-biodegradable synthetics. Producing these fabrics can create massive amounts of pollution — especially in regions with lax environmental standards.
Admittedly, it can be easy to forget about conditions half a world away when you’re looking at an adorable blouse that costs little more than your morning latte. To bring the harsh reality home, consider this: A closet crammed with cheap, disposable clothes is more expensive than a wardrobe of well-made, long-wearing classics.
It comes down to the cost-per-wear formula. Take the cost of your garment, divide it by the number of times you wear it and that’s what its actual value is.
For instance, a $20 top you wear once has a $20 cost per wear. A $500 jacket you wear every week for a year has a $10 cost per wear. The better value? The $500 jacket. Besides, those inexpensive garments just don’t last — which is why, back in the day, fashion guidebooks always used to say that women on a budget can’t afford to buy cheap clothes. That’s definitely something to consider given the current economic meltdown.
Something else worth considering: One of the reasons we all fell for fast fashion in the first place was to express our personalities through our clothes. Ironically, all we’ve managed to accomplish is looking like everyone else out there.
We’ve also devalued the very designers and labels we’ve been ripping off.
Given all that, it should come as no surprise that there has been a backlash against all this gross over-consumption of clothing. Just as fast food inspired the slow food movement, so has fast fashion inspired a new “slow fashion” movement that encourages shoppers to buy locally produced, ethically made, high-quality clothing that will last more than one season.
In fact, that’s how the world’s most stylish women have always shopped.
French and Italian women don’t buy a lot of fast fashion; instead, they are famous for having a few well-made basics that they update with well-chosen accessories. They look inside North American women’s closets and wonder how on earth we manage to dress ourselves with so much junk. Men don’t typically buy a lot of fast fashion either. Instead, they often expect to get a decade’s wear out of a coat or suit, so it has to be top quality — and that’s why menswear stores offer expensive, beautifully made clothes and complimentary tailoring.
Meanwhile, we women have been dressing ourselves in nasty, flimsy, scratchy, badly made and ill-fitting clothes, all for the sake of being on top of a trend that lasts about two minutes.
Sure, we want to have fun with fashion, and fast fashion can definitely be fun. And it’s great for teens, who are still trying on new styles to learn what suits them best and have small allowances to pay for it in any case. But for the rest of us, shouldn’t we know better by now? Shouldn’t fashion be a bit more luxurious than this? Shouldn’t it make us feel good? Shouldn’t it be, well, nicer?
Luckily for all of us, this fall is all about beautiful, modern, updated classics, the kind of clothes you’ll want to wear for a good, long time. Atkin calls it “stealth wealth,” clothing that is elegant and carefully crafted, but doesn’t shout its pedigree with all-over logos and bling.
And yes, it can be expensive, but maybe it’s time to bring back another outmoded concept: the idea of actually saving up to buy something special instead of racking up more debt on a whim.
This is a great season to begin investing in your wardrobe again. It’s a great season to invest in the building blocks of a timeless wardrobe, in luxurious fabrics, beautiful colours and flattering fits. It’s a great season to invest in creating your own unique style, and not following the same trends everyone else is.
It is, in short, a great season to invest in you.
(Credit: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/arts/story.html?id=0f2af413-2e6f-4df0-80d8-aa2be4d704cd)
What a well written article. I truly belive, and try to live by, what the author says. What's the point of spending $15 on a shirt, that as soon as you wash and dry it, will stretch and loose it's shape? I think the idea of saving up for something really gives you an appreciation and respect for it. So many people don't care about their clothes, shoes especially. Many cheap clothing store are selling cheap 'trendy' shoes that only last a season and are actually bad for one's feet. If you save up for a chic, quality pair of shoes they will last years and years, both due to quality and the amount of care with which you treat them. You feet and back will thank you for it…as well as the landfills.
- L: I completely agree with you. What struck me most about this article is this saying: "the idea of actually saving up to buy something special instead of racking up more debt on a whim.".. I appreciate my clothes and possessions so much more when I have to save my money so as to afford them.. and I derive much more pleasure from saving up for special things rather than being able to emulate every runway look.
What a great article. I completely agree.
Ånei, hvilke butikker var det som måtte stenge ?
what a lovely piece of writing. i like that it encourages readers to be more thoughful about their clothing, especially the part about saving up.
- Stephanie: :-)- Linda-Mari: Mint Edition og Secret Society. :-(- Kate: I agree!
I agree with both of you. Especially on the shoes. I've bought cheap shoes almost every season because after three months they were damaged and i couldn't wear them anymore. Now i bought expensive shoes twoo years ago and they're still good.I still buy my clothes at H&M but at a lower frequence. Sometimes i need clothes but can't afford the good items. I try to buy as less clothes as i can.I think i'm an exception because i repair my clothes and my shoes as much as possible. I even repair my H&M items because i like my clothes. Even when the costs of the repairing where higher than the price, i still repair them. Simply because i like my clothes and i feel good everytime i wear them.The clothes that i don't like anymore or became too small, goes to Algeria. I know a lot of people there that need some clothes. So all my clothes always find a good 'home'.
Veldig bra skrevet og er man slik som deg (og meg) så er det riktig å innstille seg kvalitet fremfor kvantitet, men det er ikkje alle som har råd til det. Ta vanlige studenter som eit eksempel, som dersom man bruker norsk definisjon på fattighet, lever under fattighetsgrensa. De har ikkje rå til Prada uansett, her er det mat og husleige som må prioriteres, dersom ein ikkje har ein (eller flere) deltidsjobber da. Det er heller ikkje alle designere som følger et såkalla "miljøvennlig og barnevennlig produksjonsregime", og ein rekke designerklær blir også produsert under ukontrollerte forhold i Asia (men dog kanskje mer kontrollert enn H&M?).For det andre har det også utvikla seg ein trend blandt mange fashinostaer og bloggere å kjøpe nettopp designerklær, og de bruker mottoet "kvalitet fremfor kvantitet", men de kjøper like mykje klær av den grunn! Me finner overproduksjon av klær både hos designere og billigkjeder, heile det postmoderne samfunnet er jo bygget på dette med å kunne "finne seg sjølv" i et hav av kaos (eller søppel om du vil). Eg er veldig enig i det du seier, og den eco-innstillingen man bør ha til klær og alt anna, men det er ikkje alltid så enkelt å definere kva som er rett og galt.
- Essia: I have repaired some of my Zara items that I bought a long time before I became a conscious shopper. I used to buy a lot of shoes like you too. I donated most of my clothes to Vietnam – a friend of my mother was collecting donatable clothes from her friends :)- Susanna: Man trenger nødvendigvis ikke å kjøpe dyre designerklær, det finnes mange mindre dyre merker som fører god kvalitet. Det er nok mer kostbart i lengden å hele tiden måtte erstatte billige klær fra H&M som blir ødelagte ganske raskt enn å investere i en kvalitetsgenser (som varer mer enn en sesong) til samme pris av 3 på H&M.
This is a great article. Thanks for sharing.=)"(..)women on a budget can't afford to buy cheap clothes" – True. In such a fast-paced world, we have the tendency to get things fast, to look for the newest trend, to get a lot of meaningless "stuff". Maybe we should be looking for the true value of things instead. That would probably be the smartest thing to do, in a economical point of view but also in terms of our personal style.And, personally, I think nothing can beat the anticipation and satisfaction of saving and ultimately buying a real quality piece you love.
Thank you for your thoughtful and insightful post. I have been shopping less lately and just buying what I absolutely love but sometimes I get sucked back into buying "fast" basics. I love your blog by the way – just discovered it…
- Susanna: Apropos "miljøvennlig og barnevennlig produksjonsregime" – man bør såklart ikke være ignorant og sjekke vaskelappen, eller være lojal mot merkene og designerne man VET produserer klær på et etisk grunnlag (for eksempel Jacquemus som fokuserer på kvalitet og alle klærne er laget i Frankrike). American Apparel er ganske flinke på det, og selv om de har fabrikker i u-land, så har arbeiderne de samme rettighetene og lønn som arbeiderne i USA. Dessverre bruker de en del stofftyper som ikke er miljøvennlige.
- matutare: I absolutely agree with you, and I forgot to highlight that saying you quoted – because it really is true. Bad quality and cheap clothes require constant replacements, it's not economical at all but rather a vicious spiral. – featherfactor: You're welcome! I invest in my basics because I want durable basics that I don't need to replace often.
How do you know its good quality? By price? by clothing? is it real cashmere? organic cotton? etc. I absolutely agree with the article. But I sometimes have a hard time figuring what is good quality and how do you determine it?
Great article. The fashion industry reminds me very much of food consumption in my country (US). It's easier for many to go for fast and cheap. Quantity is valued over quality. And for many, quality is sadly out of reach. I very much follow the 'cost by wear' principle. For this coming spring/summer, I have allotted myself two purchases. I bought a pair of shoes and I dress that stayed in my head long after I saw them. I will enjoy wearing them for years. I am aware that I am very fortunate to be in the position to save and opt for high quality garments, just as I am fortunate to be able to choose to eat healthful, non-fast foods. I do wish quality came at lower price points and was more in the reach of many where I live.
- Anonymous: I have derived knowledge through trial and fail as I know nothing about sewing. THIS ARTICLE talks about how do identify good quality. The price tag isn't always synonymous with good quality. The material might say something, natural fabrics are much better quality than synthetic fabrics, for instance. Have you ever had a pair of leather shoes and synthetic leather shoes? Did you notice any differences in quality? My synthetic leather shoes are garbage material after a year or less. Anyhow, you should also try to compare your clothes' stitchings, the feel of the fabrics, etc. One thing I have noticed regarding bad quality clothes is that they start to smell funky/sour after a couple washes, whereas my quality clothes don't smell. – Lisa: I agree with you. Alas we live in a greedy world in which the money is more important than quality and health. In Vietnam, there manufacturers that put nails in the head of the shrimps so the shrimps weigh more so as to make more money. In China they produce everything from eggs made from chemicals (sold as real chicken eggs) and milk that isn't milk, only to make a fortune albeit 'the food' is dangerous and poisoned. "I do wish quality came at lower price points and was more in the reach of many where I live." – Amen.
That article is absolutely brilliant. I'm so glad you shared it.
Couldn't agree with you or the article more. I am on a mission to redefine my wardrobe, and invest in some classic timeless pieces. I am fortunate to have some already and this has spurred me on to continue my project! thank you :)
I think the main problems with this article are 1) cost-per-wear isn't always a reliable argument to buy that more expensive item; 2) child labor in third world countries cannot be solved merely by boycotting child labor products; and 3) not all synthetics are scratchy or uncomfortable [or undesirable]…and not all natural fibers are comfortable.1) I think the article fails to consider a much-loved 30 dollar sweater can be worn 100 times, which would result in a 30 cent price per wear. This would clearly make the sweater cheaper than the 500 dollar jacket scenario, which is 10 dollars price per wear. I think a person who only wears a shirt once merely has a wasteful mentality or wasn't happy with the garment when she purchased it. I've seen plenty of women mend their 20 dollar polyester-blend blouses so they can wear the blouses again and again. And I've seen women let their 500 dollar jackets just hang around. In my opinion, it all comes down to whether or not you love the garment when you buy it–and love can happen between a woman and a 30 dollar sweater or a 500 dollar jacket. If you love a garment enough, you'll find a way to fix it when the stitching falls apart or when you spill coffee all over it. It's only natural! So I feel like it's more useful to replace pay-per-wear fortune telling [and let's face it...who can know the future?] with more down to earth considerations like whether or not the item will go with your current wardrobe and how much you really love the garment…even if it's a cheap 20 dollar blouse from F21.2) I don't really get the argument child labor can be prevented by boycotting child labor products. The obvious question is: if a family is so poor that it must send its children to work to…then what will they do when the factory is put out of business? Child labor is clearly wrong; but it's not singularly caused by child labor factories. Child labor factories take advantage of a country's social situations: no education, uncontrolled population growth, and poverty. Unfortunately, just saying 'no' to 'Made in China' won't solve the situations that give rise to child labor. Without any other support, those children will only face greater poverty than they currently see today. I wish the article had suggested donating money to charitable programs that will increase educational opportunities and poverty relief in third world regions that produce fast fashion. I think it's a much more realistic message than 'just say no.'3) I think it's more important to buy clothes that perform the function you want them to perform; and a lot of that depends on the fabric your clothes are made out of. Wool, cotton, etc. are great…but they're not great for every activity and circumstance. I don't think there's any shame in buying synthetic if the synthetic material is more suitable than natural materials. This applies to any garment that may get wet or may get worn while camping or outdoors. Some natural fabrics lose almost all ability to retain heat when wet while some synthetic fabrics can continue to retain heat even when wet. I also think the type of fabric you choose should depend on your lifestyle. Some natural fabrics must be dry cleaned while their synthetic alternatives do not, for example.
I think its also funny to note that the 20 dollar blouse only needs to be worn twice to equal the same price per wear as the 500 dollar jacket–and three times to be cheaper! I agree with the general concept, but I think the example here was especially bad! I think price per wear is most useful when it comes to jewelry, shoes, and bags. A 5 dollar ring from F21 will change colors on you after 1 wear, but a 200 dollar ring can be worn 100+ times without problem. The 200 dollar ring will inevitably be cheaper than the F21 ring…particularly since there's no real way to mend a ring.
- Anonymous: Thank you very much for your deliberate comment, you make such good points that I have not thought of. However, I do believe that whatsoever small steps we take to lessen consumption help. And re: charitable programs that will increase educational opportunities: My dad is the founder of a charitable program with the purpose of increasing educational opportunities in Vietnam, especially for orphaned children. We've graduated many students and built several 'schools' there though they're not called schools because the communist regime forbids such (but the main activity there is education). If you are interested in helping (you sound very enthusiastic about this), please don't hesitate to contact me. :) Re: your second comment: I think they are referring to fast fashion, that there are people who merely buy cheap stuff in order to follow the trends and always be in fashion.
It comes down to personal choices in the end, and clothing is only one among many lifestyle choices. A lot of fast fashion is driven by people's need for instant gratification, and the growing obsession (driven by several blogs, not yours thank god Fleurette!) that fashion and trends are The Most Important Things in The World. There simply isn't enough perspective anymore, I used to love US Vogue because it would give you a real view of culture, not just clothes, but stories on women who mattered, by great writers, photographs by Penn and Avedon. It still does that from time to time, but the larger conversation is just about consumption now – buy, brag, and throw out. It's fine to shop at a cheaper store, most people can't afford Chanel, but one just needs to do it consciously and in smaller amounts. It's the same principle with not wasting food, or time, or anything else. People – unless they are poor – tend to live with a kind of forgetfulness now, and fast fashion is part of that. I have been there and am glad to have moved on!
- Ammu: You are so right! (I really like that you always comment here! Thank you!) Re: fashion magazines, I completely agree with you and that's partially why I don't read any fashion magazines any longer except for the biannual issues of the gentlewoman. They only offer that throwaway mentality, but I guess it's also part of the industry nowadays.
I have been buying fast fashion for many years, longing for good quality clothing, with time I learned that cheap things in general get worn out before the 30th time you wear them. I have also simplified my style finding myself attracted by the same type of clothes. Besides, these companies often copy designers.Thank for sharing this article Fleurette, specially now that Spring time arrives and, with it, the related shopping for some.Maria
Ja, det er sant, men ein del av mine venniner som studerer har ikkje råd til anna enn H&M enn så lenge ihvertfall, så blir det nok meir kvalitet etterhvert. For min del fokuserer eg på materialet, skinn er skinn- uansett om det kommer frå H&M eller Acne, menproduksjonsregimet er viktig å ha i bakhodet, sjølv om det er svært vanskeligt å ha heile oversikten dessverre. Men JA eg er enig i det du seier og kjenner jo på det sjølv, det er trist å innsjå kor mykje folk lever av bruk og kast tradisjonen. Hadde me alle hatt ein betre innstilling til å ta vare på det vi kjøper og kjøpe det me vil ta vare på så hadde me ikkje trengt alle den overproduksjonen som er i samfunnet i dag.
You are welcome :) I need to get a copy of the gentlewoman.
I've been there and quickly moved away as Ammu put it nicely. What angers my is how the big corporations have taken over every aspect of our lives including the way we dress,eat or get information.We end up being cheaply dressed misinformed and sick from what we eat ,so that some people can earn tons of money. I love the growing backlash it has started to show and I hope to see more acts against the corporations in any aspect of living.Internet certainly helps at that!
Fantastic article, thanks for linking.
While I agree with the point that the instant gratification across most consumer goods is not sustainable, I largely agree with anon – the article itself is not particularly well written nor argued. It particularly strikes me as odd that the author ends the article arguing that the reader should start their wardrobe investment programme by looking at the fall season to buy more stuff…
Sorry but I feel the need to also comment on anon's 2nd comment which I thoroughly agree on. Articles which cite terrible working conditions etc generally fail to mention the lack of other opportunities available to workers – who in their right mind chooses to work in terrible conditions or to send their children away if there are better alternatives? In general these provide opportunities for the next generation who go on to improve their lives. Calling for a stop to these factories without proposing viable alternatives is a bad argument. Nothing against you Fleurette though, I appreciate your angle on reducing unnecessary consumption & always enjoy your posts.
This was such a a great article! I do agree in part with the anonymous commenter who pointed out some of the things that the article fails to consider (you can still get a lot of wear out of a cheap garment if you love it and that just by boycotting made in China doesn't actually solve the problem of child labour) But for me its all about just doing what I can and what suits my lifestyle. What I mean is that there is not much a 20 year old student can do to change global issues like child labour which is one part of the global supply chain and obviously supported by huge corporations. I think this is an issue that national governments have trouble with.The only thing I can do is be aware of where my clothes come from and not buy into the idea of fast disposable fashion..but I think that its really important as has been mentioned in previous comments to apply this to the food we buy and buy as much fair trade and local produce as possible. Generally to not be wasteful in all aspects of life. It really annoys me when people I know think I am silly for spending more on one item than they would because they think cheap is so much better. Anyway, its a lot more fun for me to save my money for something I really love and then buy it in a calm shopping environment. I hate the atmosphere in fast fashion stores with all the loud music, crowds etc I find that a really stressful and unenjoyable way to spend time..I'm not sorry for the long comment (I know you hate it when your readers apologize)
Thanks for sharing this article, it was really interesting to read. I agree with a couple of other people that not all points were properly argued but they were still good points. I looked at the original article and there was a list of items that you should invest in and that was very similar to all style related books. I disagree with those, not everyone suits a pencil skirt or wants to wear one, it should be more important to choose classic pieces that you like and that suit your body and lifestyle. I live in the UK with primark and Topshop and it always shocks me how much people buy new clothes and they seem to need a new dress for every night out or every birthday party they go. At the moment I have a couple of dresses I am quite happy with, so I am planning on using them for now and just adding a few accessories if I feel like I need a bit of change.It is sad how it has become quite difficult to find more smaller boutiques that sell less clothes but better quality and higher price. It seems to be these mass chains everywhere and it is a lot of effort to actually find the smaller shops. A very interesting an inspiring post, hopefully more people will reconsider their shopping habits:)
all true and in complete agreement with this. my entire style philosophy is expressed within the article and i'm glad mainstream media is making this more of an issue. slow fashion is the way to go! :)
I know for a fact that for example H&M doesn't support child labor. They have people that they send down to these suppliers to check on circumstances of work.. As they are such of a high-street-brand and are very much focussed and spotlighted for such issues, they really do serious effort to this not to happen.This said, I agree with the fundaments of this article, just not with the section of the child labour. It's just not always true and I know of very high fashion labels that produce in those environments, they don't get checked and get away with. It's just to easy to say this and generalize it down to fast fashion providers.
i'm in.
That is a topic i am very passionate about at the moment. In fact, just this evening we were discussing it. I dont like most people`s the-more-the-better attitude towards clothes. It ends with so much waste, of money and clothes! I do like thrift-shopping and there are always so many horrible faux-leather bags! And this is something you would never have with real-leather bags as they "grow old gracefully" and due to the price you actually think about the purchase beforehand. I always think we d be so much better off if we all had less clothes but only well-considered purchases. Less waste and probably more tastefully dressed girls (faux-leather bags and shoes…. gosh i cant stand them)!
I agree with some parts of the article. I bought boots for 6€ and I wore them over 3 years almost every day in winter and fall and I walk a lot every days. They fit perfectly to my foots (most of the time the cheaps ones fits better than the expensives one) Yet after 3 years of wearing them aprox. 500 times I have to throw them away, but I think it is okay. On the other hand I have expensive shoes (100-150€) and I wore them only a few times and they look damage etc. I apreciate my clothes but one the other hand I dont want to care only about them. When I want to go to swim in the sea and I dont wear my bikini I go with my clothes because I love the sea and this makes me happy more then any perfect clothes. When I go out I want to dance and have fun but maybe someone throws adrink over my dress. With a cheap one so what? but if I would wear an expensive one I would be all the night so wooried about my dress.And when you buy a designer piece you pay for the brand and not the quality and they dont pay their workers than the cheap chains.I have tops, shirts, dresses etc from cheap brands and I wear them for more than over 5 years aprox 50 times a year and they are still looking good!
I agree with the gist of this very interesting article. While not all points were well substantiated, and the author makes some blanket generalizations, the fact remains that buying quality- not quantity- is the wiser way to build a wardrobe. The article fails to mention that there exists a large category between fast fashion and cheap/slow fashion: Contemporary quality labels- "fun" clothes, if you will. I wore such attire for many years when I lived in the tropics, as my environment and lifestyle were not conducive to wearing "real" clothes (blazers, trousers, enclosed shoes, anything lined/hot/) often enough to justify their purchase. I loved dressing as nicely as possible; however, I absolutely shunned cheap, poorly-made clothing. Contemporary (albeit trendy) labels were my answer. The trouble now is that, having moved back to the Real World as it's called, I find I have no use for an entire wardrobe of fun, island-friendly clothes, so I'm in the process of selling them at upscale consignment boutiques. I've kept the few essentials I had (most by Theory, JCrew, etc) and added more- I finally have the building blocks for the wardrobe I want, which consists of timeless well-made essentials in neutral hues and a few statement pieces to personalize my essentials. Anyway…I'm relieved to give up my quality but trendy clothing for quality, more timeless, pieces that work better long-term and are easier to mix/match. This wardrobe purge has been quite satisfying.I'm curious to know Fleurette and others' thoughts about this category between fast and slow fashion. Does it mainly exist in the US? It seems to be this vast grey area that isn't acknowledged. Or perhaps the contemporary fashion category is just an expensive version of fast fashion. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? :)Thanks for another intelligent post, Fleurette.
just glad to see people do think deeper into the subject rather than lap up wholesale what the article says. i'm just amused that the finger of blame's usually pointed to the cheap but not necessarily bad-quality side of this argument, as if it's totally justifiable for some designers to be charging ridiculous prices for their 'quality' wares. won't it be great that everyone has enough money to do the trial-and-error thing.
Investing in one’s wardrobe is not about buying expensive things but shopping more sensibly. It’s not practical for my lifestyle to have a wardrobe full of “precious” or dry clean only clothes. I like sweaters that can be thrown in the machine and trousers in synthetics because they won’t fade with washing like cotton. I prefer merino wool because it can withstand abuse. I avoid acrylic because it barely survives one wear let alone one wash, and cashmere is too “precious.” If I sat behind a desk all day, I’d be more willing to spend the occasional $200+ on shoes. I live in a tropical climate, I prefer tees from Target, Gap, or F21—it’s silly to spend 3 figures on a plain white tee. I’ll shell out for jackets though. I can throw a nice jacket over a ratty old t-shirt and it immediately elevates the look. And I don’t buy things I can’t afford.Even when shopping at Forever 21 (rare now, more because of the atmosphere), I look for things with longevity. Not only in construction, but in style too. I have friends that donate garbage bags full of clothing or have tons of never worn with tags still attached clothes and bags, yet they tease me for me “for only wearing expensive clothes.” (Not true by the way).
-ps. I thought you might be interested in this feature from gq (sorry if I've sent it to you already): http://www.gq.com/style/wear-it-now/201004/gq-guide-style-secrets-cheap-budget#slide=1
Interesting article, thanks for sharing it. I never think too much about things like cost per wear but simply, will I wear it and wear it a lot. So an expensive coat I wear everyday? Great! And jeans I got on super sale that I wear a few times a week, great purchase too! But I think the point that really struck me, and one that I think you make quite often, is to think more about where your clothes come from. That your clothes cost more than just what you paid for it. It is similar to food … shouldn't you know where you food comes from, how the animals were treated, what they were fed? It's something I haven't thought about too much when it comes to clothes but really should.
style odyssey: I think the majority of this blog and its readers/supporters prefer 'moderate' fashion over either fast or slow fashion. Slow fashion, in its original incarnation, is very slow: it's a rejection of mass production in favor of hand-produced fashion items. Over time, the idea has expanded to include DIY, thrift/vintage/charity, buying fashion that is produced locally, and buying 'green' clothing. It can also include slowing consumption and investing in 'classic' pieces. I think there's a 'spectrum of speed' between the different interpretations of 'slow fashion;' and I think most people here tend toward the moderate side of the spectrum.I think moderate fashion is natural because it's difficult to look modern without absorbing some 'trend.' For example, a woman can say a black pump is a sure classic: however, a pump from the 50s is different than one from the 60s, and one from the 60s is different than one in the 90s or 00s. We still call the shoe a black pump, but previous incarnations of the shoe are dated even when we call the item 'classic.' I recently read a book written by two Parisians on 'classic dress.' The book was published in the late 90s and I was shocked by how outdated the clothes were, though the authors were giving the same advice on classic clothing as any blog today: t-shirt, blazer, etc. Yet the fabrics, fits, and cuts were completely alien. Even the plain t-shirts they recommended sounded ghastly to my 2011 sensibilities.I think we are all aware of 'fast fashion,' because we all want to look modern. Not incorporating some inspiration from fast fashion would leave us looking dated…and not only that, it would rob us of our generational identity. What would the 20s be without the drop-waist dress? the 50s without it's cinched shirt dress? the 60s without mod? the 80s without punk? the 90s without grunge? I support moderate fashion because I think life in 2011 should be different from life in 2021 and what's important is to buy things that look classic today and edit the look of that item as the definition of that item changes. Perhaps I will trade my 2011 perfect blazer for a 2016 perfect blazer, because 'fast fashion' has reshaped the meaning of a classic blazer. But I'm okay with that. The important thing, to me, is knowing that a blazer of some variety will be necessary and fashionable no matter what it looks like in the future.I guess it's not really the same as 'the blazer' in the sense of 'the soulmate' or 'the One,' because I'm not putting all my money on a single blazer or shoe. I'm not looking for eternal pieces. I am open to fast fashion edits to classic items. I am more moderate fashion. Part of fashion is looking modern and I just don't think you can look modern without a fast fashion influence.
I love the discussion going on here. It is refreshing to have an actual dialogue on clothing and wardrobe building amongst the many blogs that showcase a trendy new shoe/skirt/bag/etc (Not that I don't like browsing those blogs for inspiration)I think anonymous makes a good point : if you love a piece of clothing, no matter the price point, you'll end up wanting to wear it again and again. That signifies to me a successful purchase.
Wow ! What a really interesting debate, especially in the comments, it's really important to know how people consider fashion throughout Europe, and throughout the world. However when the journalist says that french girls not buy a lot of fast fashion it sounds weird for me. I believe it's a stereotype, maybe in Paris or in big french cities girls are concerned about clothes, because "it's part of our culture" well… But in little cities there are sometimes only fast fashion shops… France doesn't only mean Paris… :) Finally it's true that the problem of child labor is really complicated, but I quite agree with Anonymous who says that not buying clothes made in China can resolve the problem… Nevertheless it's not a reason to buy without reflecting to the consequences… it's the theory of "conscious buying"Thank you Fleurette for this debate and sorry for my rubbish english !
Her var det mye interessant lesning og en super debatt! Veldig bra! Jeg har nevnt før at bloggen din åpnet øynene mine på flere måter, og du bare fortsetter å inspirere! Keep up the good work:)
I really like what S said, about the question how often you will wear something, no matter if its really cheap or really expensive. I really try to invest in more basic clothes, becuase it shows that these are the ones that i tend to go for. Those kind if things are the ones that i invest a lot of in, because there is nothing worse than a basic shirt from zara that just looks cheap. jeans have to be expensive too, i've never had a cheap jeans that fitted really well.but i also have to admit that stores like zara and h&m do produce stuff that is often better produced than really expensive clothes i bought. but its true that there is this huge problem with poor countries, and everyone should be aware of that, while entering cheap stores…
Dear Fleurette (and other readers),Thank you for posting this article. But I just wondered, I have an expensive pair of shoes that I love but rarely wear because I am worried about ruining them. They have a patent heel and toe and the rest of the shoe is a cream leather, so scuffs and marks show up easily. When I wear them, I try to ensure I will not be walking in them for very long but this is not always practical. Can anyone suggest a wear of ensuring that these shoes are taken care of?
Fleurette, thanks. This is one reason I am such a faithful reader — posts like these — I've reposted, giving you credit of course!labellafigura.net
great post!
I like what Pret a Porter P and ++++(?) addressed in regard to cheap clothing and cost. Cheaper does not necessarily mean bad quality. With clothing, you don't always get what you pay for. (Interesting topic for a future post, perhaps.) I don't think fast/slow fashion can be defined merely by price points. I'm sure all of us can think of high-end designers who are known for their pricey and exclusive- but extremely trendy- creations, which by appearance would fall within the fast fashion category. And at the other end, we have mass-produced labels such as J Crew: moderately low priced clothing with longevity due to quality and classic design. And Anonymous, your descriptions of fast, moderate and slow fashion are noteworthy and thoughtful. Categorization may prove somewhat challenging: one person's definition of "slow" fashion is another's "moderate". Your statement: "Not incorporating some inspiration from fast fashion would leave us looking dated." Again, it depends on how one categorizes fast/slow fashion and from where trends are thought to originate. There's the trickle-down theory that trends start on the runway (is that slow fashion? moderate? indefinable?) and trickle down to the masses, i.e. mass-produced clothing (in the form of fast fashion?) However, it's certainly true that incorporating trends into one's wardrobe is how we keep our styles current. I can't imagine wearing 50s "classic" pumps. No to that! :)
With all the interesting comments posted here, I think most points have been made. As a typical mixed shopper (combining high street buys with more expensive pieces) I think this article has a very interesting and valuable basic message (be a sensible shopper, think before purchase) but fails to avoid the cliches that are rarely true: French and Italian womenn buying more expensive clothing. From my own travels to both countries I noticed that high street chains are just as popular in these 2 countries as elsewhere. I agree with the comment on not all cheaper clothing is by default badly made. My best fitting jeans comes from H&M and I've been wearing them for 4 years now. Not a bad cost-per-wear ratio if you know that they cost EUR 39.90. Also agree with the fact that by not buying cheap fashion one will not help rule out child labor. In most cases, those children will live in even worse circumstances if they don't have the job at the textile factory. And FYI, child labor is more of a problem in south-east Asia than in China. Not everyone wants to spend hundreds of euros or even more on a piece of clothing. There are simply other things in life worth spending money on. I think the argument of "more expensive pieces will be get worn more" is just not an universal rule that can applied to everyone. Lastly, does the writer of that article really think Topshop is cheap? They often have jackets that cost 75 pounds or more, and I think they deliver a pretty poor price-quality ratio compared to Zara or H&M.
Vegalyn, I scoffed too at that trite cliché about French/Italian women. Here in Italy, as you said, H&M Zara and such abound. Not to mention the clothing you can find on the market stalls. Who’s buying a few good quality staples nowadays?! My 60 yr old mother is. But she’s always been that way. On the other hand, my SIL buys the aforementioned cheap stuff, which to me looks and feels even worse than Zara.
(Most) Americans idealise Europe, they even forget it’s a continent, made of very different countries. I wish they relied less on those old clichés (and come to visit the real places).
My last comment got deleted?
@Anonymous, find a good cobbler and make friends. @Pret a Porter P – I completely agree that is silly to spend a lot of money on plain white t-shirts and that sort of item. I also refuse to spend a lot of money on gym clothing. I can work out just as well and get years of wear out of the options I can find at Target.
Great post! Thank you for sharing the article from the Vancouver Sun. It reminds me of the book Cheap Chic by Caterine Milinaire and Carol Troy. It's was written in the 1970s and talks a lot about the idea of cost per wear. Interestingly enough the book has such a cult following that it isn't exactly Cheap Chic itself, but I find this line of thinking helpful when it comes to narrowing down purchases.I love the idea of thinking about what you want to buy and saving up for something special. Why must everything be so immediate?
So many thoughtful comments have been posted that I think it's unnecessary to add on but I think it's great to have kickstarted this whole debate with the article. I've always been appalled by the wasteful-ness in the way some of my friends shop, and I think the solution for me is to not only buy better, but simply to buy less. Whether I'm buying cheap or expensive, I consider it with the same criteria: do i need it? is it well made? what place does it have in my wardrobe? what function does it serve? is it low maintenance?cost per wear to me is kind of a loopy logic when you think hard about it, but I suppose the basic premise that something is worth it if you get a lot of wear out of it is a sensible one, so long as you don't look closely at the math and the absolute figures.
Wow. Finally I'm reading a blog on fashion that appeals to more than one side of me… the desire to look good, be a considerate consumer, live minimally and clutter free. And intelligent discussion. Fleurette this blog is incredible and so are your readers who add so much to discussions like these. What a pleasure to discover. You have gained a new committed follower from Australia.
Love this dialogue, so many thoughtful opinions offering insight!
Thanks for sharing this article and your insights. Even though I don't agree on anything it says, I like the dialogue it creates or even better: the awareness it creates. I've been giving truckloads of cheap/bad-fitting clothes to charity lately and I really want to stick to the idea of buying better (mainly more expensive) pieces instead of the pieces of trash I used to buy. I already felt this way of buying (first having to save money and finally being able to buy the object you've been craving for for quite some time) really provides more satisfaction.. I appreciate things more.. And I love the emptyness of my closet (even though I still want to get rid of some more items).
Thank you for posting this. It was just the wake-up call I needed. I've been meaning to invest in quality pieces and stop with throw-away fashion but it seems so hard. But really, we have an ethical responsibility to be more aware of where our clothing comes from and how we spend our money.
Great discussion. I just wanted to add a note: People who regularly alleviate guilt from their consumption patterns through donation (as in "it's okay to buy these 5 fast-fashion items–I'll just donate them to Africa") are short-sighted.In theory, clothing donation sounds good (and it is good in many situations–like emergencies and tragedies going on right now). What could be better than giving? Well…donating clothes to poor African countries has displaced local weavers and clothing makers thanks to fast fashion. Instead of buying new clothes from local artisans, people wait for truckloads of t-shirts and other disposable clothes from the West. This damages an already-weak economy, and creates more dependence on the West. So if you're dropping off sacks of clothing every couple of months because you're constantly buying, you are not being a good, global citizen.
Great post!http://initialed.blogspot.com
Excellent post, even more excellent responses. I agree with Lin, there isn't much to add. The cost-per-wear concept has entirely changed the way I buy clothing. It makes me shudder to think of the thousands of dollars I have wasted in the past on fast purchases… I now have nothing to show for it and could by now have an incredible wardrobe had I thought more about it years ago.
I learn a lesson from this article. I admit that i bought cheap clothing in the past and i grew tired of them. But here's the problem. as much i would love to save money to buy good quality item, i think it would take me forever to save money for a good quality clothes. I don't have a job and i save my weekly allowance (20$ or less, lunch money). I don't know if i should start now. Plus sometimes, i lost interest on some of the expensive clothing i invest like Only vest, American Apparel cardigan… Though i hated all the clothes i bought from Forever 21, it's so cheap especially the jeans but i'm so tempted to buy more (i saw a cute top).Any advice for my situation? Should i save or not?P.S: Sorry about my english, i usually speak french :D
I've found that it's better to seek out smaller companies like Frye, rather than purchase shoes from big designer names. I am on a strict budget, therefore I buy shoes on sale and plan out my purchases. I will never be able to drop 700 dollars on a pair of shoes, but I can save up for a pair for 150-200 dollars. I pick up items from cheap stores likes Target and H&M on clearance and often invest in vintage pieces. It suprises me to learn that some women only buy clothing from certain stores. Reading this blog as encouraged me to buy clothing for its comfort and endurance. If I can wear it for at least five years; it's worth it- whatever it is (cost prohibitive; such as I am a student). Black pumps? I find heels-even black pumps to be silly and childish. I do not damage my feet by wearing heels, but I enjoy wedges. Why should women harm their feet in order to be fashionable? I'll never understand it. I also don't wear perfectly flat shoes, because they have no arch support! I am a young woman, and I do not wear silly shoes!
For young people who are just starting to experiment with their style it is an often phenomenon to idolize fashion and think that what they buy now at their 17, 18, 19, 20 years of age will last for ever. How romantic and unrealistic. Your whole life awaits ahead of you, things will change drastically, things you could never imagine. You will not be a care free student for ever, some will become professionals in giant corporations, some artists, others housewives, travelers who will roam the world, iconic fashionistas that will inspire the world. Your bodies will change, your taste will change, and most importantly your needs and lifestyles most definitely will.Your ONE and ONLY amazing perfect jacket will be old news before you know it. Look the ppl around you in their 30s 40s 50 and 60s. Look at your mom and dress her up with your clothes. If you are still happy with what you see than perfect! Chances are you will understand that even the good investment will not always be wearable, or appropriate.Try to spend half your budget on "affordable" fashion and the other half on "iconic" items, even if that means you have to wait 2x longer to afford the iconic piece. This way you will balance out the money spend on items, and will be happier in long term. Surprisingly I find many classics in stores like Zara, that with good maintenance have stayed wearable for at least a decade.
I just can underline what the others say: great article and it is so true!