As usual, BBSP cooked and delivered some much needed truths about this cursed world we live in. I know you guys do not like talking shit by principle. I think the good vibes and the silly and relaxed approach you guys have in your writing is key to making you a mach 7+ publication. It's truly a breath of fresh air reading you in the morning: getting a couple laughs/smiles while learning about some of the sickest clothes and their makers is awesome and very unique to you. I do appreciate you calling out bullshit for what it is, though, especially when there is a broader story or argument that needs to be made. It makes it actually meaningful when you do criticize things like this, especially when compared to some other cool-clothes writers/podcasters where their whole schtick is talking shit and being edgelords. Anyways, thanks for keeping it real and writing insightful stuff.
Your sports analogy is astute in multiple ways. I’ve always felt that male autism is wasted on stuff like career averages, at bats / other stats and factoids. As a devoted subjectivist it’s very difficult for me to understand the appeal of counting numbers. Then again I don’t care at all about the sports themselves in the first place apart from enjoying when I see some rare demonstration of amazing human prowess.
The whole fashion house personnel game has always just felt to me like baseball stats for art school kids. It fails to acknowledge whether there is anything actually interesting going on from an emotional/creative standpoint, subbing factoid observance where critique/reverence could be. I suspect because critique is pointless where there is no meaning and reverence is impossible when there is no heart. Then again I don’t care at all about the fashion houses in the first place either apart from enjoying when I see some rare demonstration of skill/creativity/insanity
A tangential question: do you think that the small brands that are often discussed here, which produce expensive clothes in small quantities, could or should be transparent about the costs involved in their production? For example, I don’t believe a $600 Evan Kinori shirt costs $12 to produce, but to some extent we have to take the brand’s word for it. With fast fashion, it seems obvious that someone is being exploited somewhere in the production line, given the final price of the product. At the other end of the market we might hope that the production is more ethical, but we risk being slightly gullible, as the examples from Dior and Armani illustrate.
This is a really interesting question: should companies and makers be transparent about their costs of production?
My instinct is "mostly no." I think this creates meaningless incentives to alter the cost of production around whatever message you'd be trying to convey (ex. is a core style less valuable because a maker found economies of scale to produce it after several seasons, and does that make it "cheap?"), and will probably lead to pressure to either a) reduce costs that a customer perceives to be too high or b) reduce the profit margins the company absorbs. Most consumers aren't informed enough to understand if a production cost is "worth" a final price (not knowing how much the costs of other things like marketing, staffing, warehousing and distribution, etc truly keep the wheels turning) and they often don't want to compensate makers for the value of the intangibles, like decades of knowledge, going into things.
But I see how this can easily be abused (ex. car mechanics). I think in the realm of fashion, the design, quality, and attention to detail of the end product speaks volumes around the product investment. IMO, I think it's very easy to tell a Kinori shirt apart from a Uniqlo one, or a Boris Bidjan Saberi wallet from a Gucci one.
Evan gets at least halfway there though, by being transparent about production quantities, and sharing the process and producers via social, photography, and printed publications. (but biased bc I’m a fan)
Agree that this is a great discussion for further reporting/transparency/promotion.
Good to note also there are some techniques used by brands like his, such as French seams, that can almost double the production cost of sewing. Heavy on details = subtle rewards during wear, unlike the cursed corner cutting of the big boys.
It would still seem very high and would be uncomfortable for smaller designers, even if at a high level they are not actually making much money. It’s completely normal for a retail markup of 80-100% and then as astutely noted by BBSP previously it sure seems like a lot of brands are boosting their prices to cover for the inevitable demand to put their clothes on deep sales.
When I decide on a piece I like to see information on the origins and types of fabrics and the people making the piece, which many smaller brands do. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford nice clothes on occasion, and when I do I want to know that the people making the clothes had good working conditions and were paid living wages.
I feel like I have to admit that I don't follow fashion news or get digitally force-fed fashion news like you do, but I do think (I don't want to say "agree" because you didn't say this, quite) the marketing impulse to share (in all sectors) any and all occurrences as if they were "stories" leads to some pretty empty time spent in front of a screen; and the more the culprits don't apparently "need" the attention, the more heinous the straining after that attention seems; but what prompts me to respond is actually affection for you guys, which has me wanting to strike a cautionary note: when you justify your right to be outraged on being in the same apartment (and I know that fact is the tip of an iceberg), it makes me want to say to you: Careful about the limits you place on others, conceptually or otherwise; not because you might get being hypocritical -- let's assume everybody worth knowing is guilty of that sometimes -- but because you might end up becoming incomprehensible to yourselves. Upward mobility and the impulse to crow about it is one of the ingredients in the capitalist cocktail, and no matter how interestingly written BS is, and no matter how cool the clothes and makers you spotlight are -- and I am now the proud owner of a Senui shirt thanks to you and it cost real money -- BS is and, I would say, has every right to be, a capitalist enterprise, albeit an interestingly funded one -- and its own way of calling attention to its own value, to the sparkle of its own story, could be anatomized by an unsympathetic observer as cogently as you've anatomized -- and properly so -- the b******t you deal with above. But -- back to the smoking gun -- what if you WERE in a better apartment after five years of hard work? I'd hate to think your argument requires you to sit in a static structure to prove a point. Which possibly proves this isn't quite the right point. Marianne Moore quoted Confucius once in an article about fashion for Women's Wear Daily, and it was something like, "If there be a knife of resentment in the heart, the arrow strikes with imprecision." Not that, exactly, but something like that. In the same way, I think there's an ever-so-slightly different point to be made here, and more lightly, that wouldn't require you to say you live in the same apartment, and would not have been open to even this affectionate critique.
I would like to note that an entity simply existing within a capitalist system and being involved in an aspect of commerce doesn’t make that entity a capitalist enterprise. Trade and commerce, criticism and promotion have existed for millennia. It may be a capitulation to capitalism’s oppressive omniconsumptive nature to suggest so. You don’t call royal subjects monarchists unless they’re affirmed monarchists after all
There’s a misunderstanding here, we love our house and feel no outrage about still living here. That image is one of bliss and contentment — despite all the odds stacked against it, we are still doing the newsletter fundamentally the same way, and literally in the same place, as on day one ☮️
First of all, I obviously love what you (both) do. I didn't mean to imply you were outraged or wishing for more; just that people CAN be great in THIS life or THAT one, in THIS giant structure or THAT smaller one; whether they ARE great or not has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion, and, therefore, generously. I am a really annoying quoter, but here's one from H. Richard Niebuhr -- "Most people are right about what they affirm and wrong about what they deny." Me included! So I'll end on this note: I'm not a woman and I bought one of those Mountainsmith day packs on Ebay JUST SO I COULD GIVE IT TO A WOMAN SOMEDAY! Respect!
what do we think about Substack? Is it some cursed vc shit too?
<3
As usual, BBSP cooked and delivered some much needed truths about this cursed world we live in. I know you guys do not like talking shit by principle. I think the good vibes and the silly and relaxed approach you guys have in your writing is key to making you a mach 7+ publication. It's truly a breath of fresh air reading you in the morning: getting a couple laughs/smiles while learning about some of the sickest clothes and their makers is awesome and very unique to you. I do appreciate you calling out bullshit for what it is, though, especially when there is a broader story or argument that needs to be made. It makes it actually meaningful when you do criticize things like this, especially when compared to some other cool-clothes writers/podcasters where their whole schtick is talking shit and being edgelords. Anyways, thanks for keeping it real and writing insightful stuff.
A banger of a post that should be tagged in the "Profound Essays" library immediately
💯
Your sports analogy is astute in multiple ways. I’ve always felt that male autism is wasted on stuff like career averages, at bats / other stats and factoids. As a devoted subjectivist it’s very difficult for me to understand the appeal of counting numbers. Then again I don’t care at all about the sports themselves in the first place apart from enjoying when I see some rare demonstration of amazing human prowess.
The whole fashion house personnel game has always just felt to me like baseball stats for art school kids. It fails to acknowledge whether there is anything actually interesting going on from an emotional/creative standpoint, subbing factoid observance where critique/reverence could be. I suspect because critique is pointless where there is no meaning and reverence is impossible when there is no heart. Then again I don’t care at all about the fashion houses in the first place either apart from enjoying when I see some rare demonstration of skill/creativity/insanity
I had to look up sclerotic. Great word! 🩻
A tangential question: do you think that the small brands that are often discussed here, which produce expensive clothes in small quantities, could or should be transparent about the costs involved in their production? For example, I don’t believe a $600 Evan Kinori shirt costs $12 to produce, but to some extent we have to take the brand’s word for it. With fast fashion, it seems obvious that someone is being exploited somewhere in the production line, given the final price of the product. At the other end of the market we might hope that the production is more ethical, but we risk being slightly gullible, as the examples from Dior and Armani illustrate.
This is a really interesting question: should companies and makers be transparent about their costs of production?
My instinct is "mostly no." I think this creates meaningless incentives to alter the cost of production around whatever message you'd be trying to convey (ex. is a core style less valuable because a maker found economies of scale to produce it after several seasons, and does that make it "cheap?"), and will probably lead to pressure to either a) reduce costs that a customer perceives to be too high or b) reduce the profit margins the company absorbs. Most consumers aren't informed enough to understand if a production cost is "worth" a final price (not knowing how much the costs of other things like marketing, staffing, warehousing and distribution, etc truly keep the wheels turning) and they often don't want to compensate makers for the value of the intangibles, like decades of knowledge, going into things.
But I see how this can easily be abused (ex. car mechanics). I think in the realm of fashion, the design, quality, and attention to detail of the end product speaks volumes around the product investment. IMO, I think it's very easy to tell a Kinori shirt apart from a Uniqlo one, or a Boris Bidjan Saberi wallet from a Gucci one.
good resource: https://directory.goodonyou.eco/
Evan gets at least halfway there though, by being transparent about production quantities, and sharing the process and producers via social, photography, and printed publications. (but biased bc I’m a fan)
Agree that this is a great discussion for further reporting/transparency/promotion.
Great sletter
Good to note also there are some techniques used by brands like his, such as French seams, that can almost double the production cost of sewing. Heavy on details = subtle rewards during wear, unlike the cursed corner cutting of the big boys.
It would still seem very high and would be uncomfortable for smaller designers, even if at a high level they are not actually making much money. It’s completely normal for a retail markup of 80-100% and then as astutely noted by BBSP previously it sure seems like a lot of brands are boosting their prices to cover for the inevitable demand to put their clothes on deep sales.
When I decide on a piece I like to see information on the origins and types of fabrics and the people making the piece, which many smaller brands do. I am fortunate enough to be able to afford nice clothes on occasion, and when I do I want to know that the people making the clothes had good working conditions and were paid living wages.
Great question I’ve been meaning to think through and actually report out in the sletter at some point
I feel like I have to admit that I don't follow fashion news or get digitally force-fed fashion news like you do, but I do think (I don't want to say "agree" because you didn't say this, quite) the marketing impulse to share (in all sectors) any and all occurrences as if they were "stories" leads to some pretty empty time spent in front of a screen; and the more the culprits don't apparently "need" the attention, the more heinous the straining after that attention seems; but what prompts me to respond is actually affection for you guys, which has me wanting to strike a cautionary note: when you justify your right to be outraged on being in the same apartment (and I know that fact is the tip of an iceberg), it makes me want to say to you: Careful about the limits you place on others, conceptually or otherwise; not because you might get being hypocritical -- let's assume everybody worth knowing is guilty of that sometimes -- but because you might end up becoming incomprehensible to yourselves. Upward mobility and the impulse to crow about it is one of the ingredients in the capitalist cocktail, and no matter how interestingly written BS is, and no matter how cool the clothes and makers you spotlight are -- and I am now the proud owner of a Senui shirt thanks to you and it cost real money -- BS is and, I would say, has every right to be, a capitalist enterprise, albeit an interestingly funded one -- and its own way of calling attention to its own value, to the sparkle of its own story, could be anatomized by an unsympathetic observer as cogently as you've anatomized -- and properly so -- the b******t you deal with above. But -- back to the smoking gun -- what if you WERE in a better apartment after five years of hard work? I'd hate to think your argument requires you to sit in a static structure to prove a point. Which possibly proves this isn't quite the right point. Marianne Moore quoted Confucius once in an article about fashion for Women's Wear Daily, and it was something like, "If there be a knife of resentment in the heart, the arrow strikes with imprecision." Not that, exactly, but something like that. In the same way, I think there's an ever-so-slightly different point to be made here, and more lightly, that wouldn't require you to say you live in the same apartment, and would not have been open to even this affectionate critique.
I would like to note that an entity simply existing within a capitalist system and being involved in an aspect of commerce doesn’t make that entity a capitalist enterprise. Trade and commerce, criticism and promotion have existed for millennia. It may be a capitulation to capitalism’s oppressive omniconsumptive nature to suggest so. You don’t call royal subjects monarchists unless they’re affirmed monarchists after all
That's a very good point!
There’s a misunderstanding here, we love our house and feel no outrage about still living here. That image is one of bliss and contentment — despite all the odds stacked against it, we are still doing the newsletter fundamentally the same way, and literally in the same place, as on day one ☮️
First of all, I obviously love what you (both) do. I didn't mean to imply you were outraged or wishing for more; just that people CAN be great in THIS life or THAT one, in THIS giant structure or THAT smaller one; whether they ARE great or not has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, in my opinion, and, therefore, generously. I am a really annoying quoter, but here's one from H. Richard Niebuhr -- "Most people are right about what they affirm and wrong about what they deny." Me included! So I'll end on this note: I'm not a woman and I bought one of those Mountainsmith day packs on Ebay JUST SO I COULD GIVE IT TO A WOMAN SOMEDAY! Respect!
(By "respect," I mean: "Much respect to YOU GUYS."
This is perfect.