Finally, it was high time that someone discussed this notion of easy judgment, but also how quickly someone becomes a “master” simply because they have a large following on social media with power. Please excuse my English, as I am a native Greek speaker. As a small brand owner in Athens, my heart hurts when I know that a garment produced in 1,000 pieces or even more can cost, for instance €500 while for us producing 1–3 shirts per fabric and per style in a family workspace I still have to hear people visiting Athens say, “Can you make me a discount?” just because we’re in Athens and they feel the need to ask for it.
I am very disappointed lately that people think the more expensive the better just because big brands can mark up the prices due to their name. Also, we see the same brands everywhere now, again and again. Even the “niche” brands no longer produce only 1–10 shirts/garments, but much more than that, since they wholesale and are present in thousands of online and physical stores.
Only a few people who are genuinely interested in fabrics and garments are truly looking for a special shirt and not only to check the seams and the heaviness of the fabric or the origin of the buttons but also where it is produced, from whom, how and in how many pieces it is available and where they distribute.
We are probably living in a time when the more followers and retailers someone has, the wiser and more successful they are perceived to be. But aren’t we all tired of judging a piece of work, an artist, or a brand based only on that? I wish sometimes social media wouldn’t exist and we could learn only about creators by exploring, traveling and discussing or exchanging experiences. Thank you Spyplane for this chance to talk about all these and gathering human beings from all around the world with different perspectives and not guided by TikTok! Reading this today made me think of 100 issues at the same time and this is good, food for thought and for dressing.
I watched a few videos by a channel I won't mention by name, because I'm not trying to start anything here. In each the person was thrown a box, took out a garment, and then proceeded to take it apart on a cutting mat, discussing what they liked and found questionable. At the end they did a little round up and offered an opinion on if the garment was "worth it".
It was all pretty chill and I think an ok way to engage with clothing. It also left me feeling totally empty, even sad. Like if a restaurant reviewer just went through all the ingredients on a plate and then the method used to cook them, delivering a final grade on whether the meal was worth it. I mean, maybe someone would like that—ugh—content. But would it contribute anything meaningful to our appreciation of food? (Please don't @ me with examples of this very thing.)
Sidenote: on my last trip to Japan I picked up an Auralee quarter-zip top. It is a lovely, muted yellow, undeniably well-made, but it was the fabric that sold me. I've never touched cotton like this, and maybe should never again because it will ruin all other cottons for me. I know there's multiple levels of privilege operating in this anecdote so I'm not going to say, AURALEE DEFO WORTH IT. Only that I hope to own it til I get cremated.
Not addressing fabric quality torpedoes the Fabricateuralist's entire purported endeavor. When I think of my favorite clothes, fabric is the #1 or #2 feature.
Also, quantifying and assessing whether a garment is "worth it" based on SPI and other KPIs is an example of the gross infiltration of stats, numbers, and probabilities into all aspects of contemporary life. Thanks MBAs.
"Thanks MBAs" feels exactly it, people who learned all these metrics and then didn't get a job as a CFO or CEO and now just dump lingo wherever they see fit.
Might be harsh but I see these type of content creators as only a slight step above looksmaxxers talking about PSL scores and SMV or whatever nonsense.
I think the most insidious part about Fab's methodology is that the audience could be convinced that more handiwork and flourishes mean more cost, which automatically translates into more value (even for a high price). And, that the opposite is true.
This logic, however, crumbles like a cookie.
A beautiful, hand-crafted bespoke suit that costs $10,000 might be very well justified on the "quality" scale, but is it worth it for me to buy it if I'm going to wear it once every 3 years?
An elegant shirt by The Row with perfect shoulders and a unique fabric that looks drapey and dope might be universally praised as a great piece, but is it worth it if I find it so precious I'm scared to wear it in public lest it catch a stray from some mustard or cocktail sauce?
A well-made, contemporary shirt from Vince doesn't break the bank, but if the fabric and fit are so uninteresting that the damn thing gathers dust in the bottom of my closet, should I have bought it in the first place?
Learning about the technical aspects of clothing is interesting and helps inform buying decisions. It's just important to remember that this is only one aspect of actually making GOOD decisions.
It's similar to the dudes who used to cut boots in half and judge the leather, but would also be like "the lowest quality leather is Genuine Leather" when that's 100% not a real thing, but it became so prevalent in the MFA reddit and places like that to the point where people still cite that as some real metric of quality.
Genuine leather tends to get equated with bad leather because brands often use it as a way to use bad leather while still marketing something as leather but full grain single cut leather can also be marked as genuine leather (and often is!) Where the problem lies is that so many of these leather content creators present it as though there's some official grading system for leather and that genuine leather is at the bottom of it when that's not a real thing. If I were to hunt a deer and tan the hide myself and make a pair of handmade boots from it, that's genuine leather. If guidi makes a whole cut dress shoe from veg tanned hide, that's genuine leather. If Nike takes all their leather scraps and shreds them and presses them into a sheet to make cuts for Jordans with, that's genuine leather. All that means is that it's real leather and not PU or some other alternative.
I've been waiting for someone to call this guy out, thank you 🙏 - while this is a more ridiculous example of how people can over-index on the wrong things about garments, I actually think this type of reasoning about / justification of clothes is a pervasive at a smaller level across the whole industry.
On a broader level fashion has only become a 'male' interest pretty recently, and I think that guys have tried to take the frameworks for other more common 'male' interests (watches, cars, sports to an extent) and apply them to clothes. At the end of the day, the most important thing about an item of clothing is how it makes you feel, something that I think most women understand to an almost intuitive degree, but I think guys tend to need to have a metric to allow for that feeling to happen - if you can say 'yeah this denim is a deadstock Kaihara mills 11.5 oz crosshatch indigo' or 'this jacket was dyed with persimmon and charcoal', it somehow justifies that you spent $600 on it, when really, the only justification that you need is that you like wearing it! To be clear, I'm not knocking either of those things as bad for a garment - both would probably look great. It's more that I think that now when I talk about clothes with a lot of people, the first thing they want to tell me about are the specs of a garment, and not what they really love about it. It feels like, now that everyone has access to this previously niche knowledge on fabric composition/origin/treatment (which is a great thing!) it feels like all of these 'stats' get thrown around to justify them owning things, but you could get the same feeling/look buying vintage.
No shade AT ALL, I love most of the clothes you write about, but sometimes the 'small maker with a double-mud-dyed artisinally woven hemp-linen-wool blend' can bleed into the same territory as the guy the article talks about, where the actual clothing gets overshadowed by the specs. I do think there's a fundamental difference because fabric has a material impact on how a garment wears/feels/looks, but I'm wondering if/hoping that now that the access to great materials and understanding of them starts to be more widespread, designers will start to take them beyond the more common and universal silhouettes we're starting to see repeated over and over again, and get creative as buyers assign value to purchases based off of how it makes them feel, and not whether they can justify the cost to others. This is a bit of a long winded rant but hopefully it makes sense, much love
I think part of the reason people watch this guy is because of the internet is now the way we experience clothing. the cool shirt you've seen? You've seen in on a screen, or heard about it on a podcast. You view the shirt on an online retailer, seeing that it costs 500.
This guy is making videos, promising to be some kind of garment-inspector so that YOU, the internet consumer can make an informed decision on your purchase because you have no idea how the item looks or feels in real life.
This sort of sounds like a rerun of menswear forum stuff from 15 years ago with distinction of being a one-way media expression rather than thirty nerds yelling at each other.
also: any conversation about clothes being "worth it" is going to run up against the rocky shores of the living wage at some point.
also: it's just the wrong way to think about clothes. It doesn't make sense as compares to the language of getting dressed. I'm heavy into Ivy style and traditional American tailoring, and that stuff is DEFINED by cutting corners. I found a vintage Brooks Brothers navy blazer recently - it has the proper sack cut (cheaper!), a rough lightweight hopsack wool (cheaper!), that heavy 1/4" machine stitch for the edges (cheaper!) - like basically everything distinctive about the style was something done to make it cheaper or to fit a broader range of people so they wouldn't have to tailor it as closely. As a garment it's *perfect*, the feel is spot on, I've worn it with fucked up chinos to the bar or dress trousers and a tie to court. A navy blazer with perfect pick stitching and careful shaping at the waist and fine fabric is utterly swagless.
I’ve watched a number of Fabricateuralist‘s videos. I get the premise. I don’t want to be a mark. His analysis of Drake’s shirts, for example, left me wondering if they’re worth it. Feels somewhat valuable in terms of judging whether clothing is $500 because of the work put in or the just because of the label. But yeah, definitely fraught methodology for missing the more philosophical aspect of wearing it. I also never thought of it as competency p*rn but that shoe does fit. Super interesting takes all around.
🙏🏻 He’s missing more than the philosophical aspect of it though - I’m not alone in pointing out that, even on his own terms of “focusing on purely objective measures,” he’s leaving out fabric cost and labor cost, arguably the two most important objective determinants of them all for judging a price tag
My favourite shirt, one I used to reach for over any Comoli or Auralee on my rack, until I had to retire it because of wear, had all the hall marks he loves, side gussets, bias cut split yoke, horizontal button hole, three piece sleeve, contrast cuff, collar and yoke lining. All the tricks. It’s even got a gusset in the armpit.
It was then sewn together with a serger. Which to me is just the perfect act of nihilism. I feel it would make this guy glitch. It cost me about £15 of eBay and is from the Paul Smith diffusion line PSJ.
That’s really funny. Also didn’t write about this in the essay, but your point makes me think about the premium he tends to put on “custom engraved buttons” as a supposed marker of worth — when it’s something that, like a lot of these “extra step” details he valorizes, can in fact be cheaply mass produced. Hugo Boss ordering a zillion cheap buttons and engraving “Hugo Boss” in them…
That's how they value the shirt. The more the lines crisscross and the patterns overlap. 'Cause if you're saying they're not complicated... They are. They are.
It's come to this? Quality checking the quality checker? Expertise has always been about performance, that's nothing new. Don't hold a measuring tape up to this guy -- the ineffables are still what people find interesting.
Finally, it was high time that someone discussed this notion of easy judgment, but also how quickly someone becomes a “master” simply because they have a large following on social media with power. Please excuse my English, as I am a native Greek speaker. As a small brand owner in Athens, my heart hurts when I know that a garment produced in 1,000 pieces or even more can cost, for instance €500 while for us producing 1–3 shirts per fabric and per style in a family workspace I still have to hear people visiting Athens say, “Can you make me a discount?” just because we’re in Athens and they feel the need to ask for it.
I am very disappointed lately that people think the more expensive the better just because big brands can mark up the prices due to their name. Also, we see the same brands everywhere now, again and again. Even the “niche” brands no longer produce only 1–10 shirts/garments, but much more than that, since they wholesale and are present in thousands of online and physical stores.
Only a few people who are genuinely interested in fabrics and garments are truly looking for a special shirt and not only to check the seams and the heaviness of the fabric or the origin of the buttons but also where it is produced, from whom, how and in how many pieces it is available and where they distribute.
We are probably living in a time when the more followers and retailers someone has, the wiser and more successful they are perceived to be. But aren’t we all tired of judging a piece of work, an artist, or a brand based only on that? I wish sometimes social media wouldn’t exist and we could learn only about creators by exploring, traveling and discussing or exchanging experiences. Thank you Spyplane for this chance to talk about all these and gathering human beings from all around the world with different perspectives and not guided by TikTok! Reading this today made me think of 100 issues at the same time and this is good, food for thought and for dressing.
🙏🏻
I watched a few videos by a channel I won't mention by name, because I'm not trying to start anything here. In each the person was thrown a box, took out a garment, and then proceeded to take it apart on a cutting mat, discussing what they liked and found questionable. At the end they did a little round up and offered an opinion on if the garment was "worth it".
It was all pretty chill and I think an ok way to engage with clothing. It also left me feeling totally empty, even sad. Like if a restaurant reviewer just went through all the ingredients on a plate and then the method used to cook them, delivering a final grade on whether the meal was worth it. I mean, maybe someone would like that—ugh—content. But would it contribute anything meaningful to our appreciation of food? (Please don't @ me with examples of this very thing.)
Sidenote: on my last trip to Japan I picked up an Auralee quarter-zip top. It is a lovely, muted yellow, undeniably well-made, but it was the fabric that sold me. I've never touched cotton like this, and maybe should never again because it will ruin all other cottons for me. I know there's multiple levels of privilege operating in this anecdote so I'm not going to say, AURALEE DEFO WORTH IT. Only that I hope to own it til I get cremated.
Fire analogy
I saw a pic on his IG where he’s wearing white sole dress shoes. I think that settles it.
jesus wept
Not addressing fabric quality torpedoes the Fabricateuralist's entire purported endeavor. When I think of my favorite clothes, fabric is the #1 or #2 feature.
Also, quantifying and assessing whether a garment is "worth it" based on SPI and other KPIs is an example of the gross infiltration of stats, numbers, and probabilities into all aspects of contemporary life. Thanks MBAs.
yah very sabermetrical thinking
"Thanks MBAs" feels exactly it, people who learned all these metrics and then didn't get a job as a CFO or CEO and now just dump lingo wherever they see fit.
Might be harsh but I see these type of content creators as only a slight step above looksmaxxers talking about PSL scores and SMV or whatever nonsense.
I think the most insidious part about Fab's methodology is that the audience could be convinced that more handiwork and flourishes mean more cost, which automatically translates into more value (even for a high price). And, that the opposite is true.
This logic, however, crumbles like a cookie.
A beautiful, hand-crafted bespoke suit that costs $10,000 might be very well justified on the "quality" scale, but is it worth it for me to buy it if I'm going to wear it once every 3 years?
An elegant shirt by The Row with perfect shoulders and a unique fabric that looks drapey and dope might be universally praised as a great piece, but is it worth it if I find it so precious I'm scared to wear it in public lest it catch a stray from some mustard or cocktail sauce?
A well-made, contemporary shirt from Vince doesn't break the bank, but if the fabric and fit are so uninteresting that the damn thing gathers dust in the bottom of my closet, should I have bought it in the first place?
Learning about the technical aspects of clothing is interesting and helps inform buying decisions. It's just important to remember that this is only one aspect of actually making GOOD decisions.
It's similar to the dudes who used to cut boots in half and judge the leather, but would also be like "the lowest quality leather is Genuine Leather" when that's 100% not a real thing, but it became so prevalent in the MFA reddit and places like that to the point where people still cite that as some real metric of quality.
I appear to have been mislead by the idea that Genuine Leather = Bad Leather, can you elaborate please?
Genuine leather tends to get equated with bad leather because brands often use it as a way to use bad leather while still marketing something as leather but full grain single cut leather can also be marked as genuine leather (and often is!) Where the problem lies is that so many of these leather content creators present it as though there's some official grading system for leather and that genuine leather is at the bottom of it when that's not a real thing. If I were to hunt a deer and tan the hide myself and make a pair of handmade boots from it, that's genuine leather. If guidi makes a whole cut dress shoe from veg tanned hide, that's genuine leather. If Nike takes all their leather scraps and shreds them and presses them into a sheet to make cuts for Jordans with, that's genuine leather. All that means is that it's real leather and not PU or some other alternative.
Thanks for taking the time to write this up, as always there’s more nuance to things than influencers want you to know…
I've been waiting for someone to call this guy out, thank you 🙏 - while this is a more ridiculous example of how people can over-index on the wrong things about garments, I actually think this type of reasoning about / justification of clothes is a pervasive at a smaller level across the whole industry.
On a broader level fashion has only become a 'male' interest pretty recently, and I think that guys have tried to take the frameworks for other more common 'male' interests (watches, cars, sports to an extent) and apply them to clothes. At the end of the day, the most important thing about an item of clothing is how it makes you feel, something that I think most women understand to an almost intuitive degree, but I think guys tend to need to have a metric to allow for that feeling to happen - if you can say 'yeah this denim is a deadstock Kaihara mills 11.5 oz crosshatch indigo' or 'this jacket was dyed with persimmon and charcoal', it somehow justifies that you spent $600 on it, when really, the only justification that you need is that you like wearing it! To be clear, I'm not knocking either of those things as bad for a garment - both would probably look great. It's more that I think that now when I talk about clothes with a lot of people, the first thing they want to tell me about are the specs of a garment, and not what they really love about it. It feels like, now that everyone has access to this previously niche knowledge on fabric composition/origin/treatment (which is a great thing!) it feels like all of these 'stats' get thrown around to justify them owning things, but you could get the same feeling/look buying vintage.
No shade AT ALL, I love most of the clothes you write about, but sometimes the 'small maker with a double-mud-dyed artisinally woven hemp-linen-wool blend' can bleed into the same territory as the guy the article talks about, where the actual clothing gets overshadowed by the specs. I do think there's a fundamental difference because fabric has a material impact on how a garment wears/feels/looks, but I'm wondering if/hoping that now that the access to great materials and understanding of them starts to be more widespread, designers will start to take them beyond the more common and universal silhouettes we're starting to see repeated over and over again, and get creative as buyers assign value to purchases based off of how it makes them feel, and not whether they can justify the cost to others. This is a bit of a long winded rant but hopefully it makes sense, much love
Oh that's a hella good point - this is clothing discourse for people who are more comfortable with the way people talk about cars or graphics cards
I think part of the reason people watch this guy is because of the internet is now the way we experience clothing. the cool shirt you've seen? You've seen in on a screen, or heard about it on a podcast. You view the shirt on an online retailer, seeing that it costs 500.
This guy is making videos, promising to be some kind of garment-inspector so that YOU, the internet consumer can make an informed decision on your purchase because you have no idea how the item looks or feels in real life.
Absolutely. The nonsensical yet highly “evidentiary”-looking microscope footage really drives that home
This sort of sounds like a rerun of menswear forum stuff from 15 years ago with distinction of being a one-way media expression rather than thirty nerds yelling at each other.
also: any conversation about clothes being "worth it" is going to run up against the rocky shores of the living wage at some point.
also: it's just the wrong way to think about clothes. It doesn't make sense as compares to the language of getting dressed. I'm heavy into Ivy style and traditional American tailoring, and that stuff is DEFINED by cutting corners. I found a vintage Brooks Brothers navy blazer recently - it has the proper sack cut (cheaper!), a rough lightweight hopsack wool (cheaper!), that heavy 1/4" machine stitch for the edges (cheaper!) - like basically everything distinctive about the style was something done to make it cheaper or to fit a broader range of people so they wouldn't have to tailor it as closely. As a garment it's *perfect*, the feel is spot on, I've worn it with fucked up chinos to the bar or dress trousers and a tie to court. A navy blazer with perfect pick stitching and careful shaping at the waist and fine fabric is utterly swagless.
Great point about the brooks brothers jacket
I’ve watched a number of Fabricateuralist‘s videos. I get the premise. I don’t want to be a mark. His analysis of Drake’s shirts, for example, left me wondering if they’re worth it. Feels somewhat valuable in terms of judging whether clothing is $500 because of the work put in or the just because of the label. But yeah, definitely fraught methodology for missing the more philosophical aspect of wearing it. I also never thought of it as competency p*rn but that shoe does fit. Super interesting takes all around.
🙏🏻 He’s missing more than the philosophical aspect of it though - I’m not alone in pointing out that, even on his own terms of “focusing on purely objective measures,” he’s leaving out fabric cost and labor cost, arguably the two most important objective determinants of them all for judging a price tag
Thank you for never letting go of labour costs.
Yeah, for sure
lol Antonio been straight wrecking busters on waistband construction since four pins
Yeah this shit rocked, thank you BBSP King Jonah (also shout BBSP Queen Erin, your work is equally appreciated)
My favourite shirt, one I used to reach for over any Comoli or Auralee on my rack, until I had to retire it because of wear, had all the hall marks he loves, side gussets, bias cut split yoke, horizontal button hole, three piece sleeve, contrast cuff, collar and yoke lining. All the tricks. It’s even got a gusset in the armpit.
It was then sewn together with a serger. Which to me is just the perfect act of nihilism. I feel it would make this guy glitch. It cost me about £15 of eBay and is from the Paul Smith diffusion line PSJ.
That’s really funny. Also didn’t write about this in the essay, but your point makes me think about the premium he tends to put on “custom engraved buttons” as a supposed marker of worth — when it’s something that, like a lot of these “extra step” details he valorizes, can in fact be cheaply mass produced. Hugo Boss ordering a zillion cheap buttons and engraving “Hugo Boss” in them…
That's how they value the shirt. The more the lines crisscross and the patterns overlap. 'Cause if you're saying they're not complicated... They are. They are.
I decided to cut a Dan Flashes reference from the “complex financial instruments” section so thank you for keeping that in the mix ❤️
The subtext was palpable. Ggs
I'LL EAT DOUG'S MOM'S WIG
Saw he scored my favourite Drake's shirt low, carried on wearing and living in it. Enough said.
It's come to this? Quality checking the quality checker? Expertise has always been about performance, that's nothing new. Don't hold a measuring tape up to this guy -- the ineffables are still what people find interesting.
get em spyplane