It suggests that companies follow a journey, from the entrepreneurial crucible stage (on the left) to the all-but-dead company shell (on the right). It further plots where many companies are on this journey today.
Typically, purists shop from the vendors in the Crucible and Precious categories, for example. In contrast, as companies move into New Markets, they typically shed their demanding traditional customers for greater numbers of more capricious consumers.
I have received emails asking:
- If I was going to update this chart for 2012, and also
- If I would allow a time for comment before a final chart was posted.
- A new company should be added to the chart, and where would you put it.
- A company on the chart has moved to the left or right in the last 12 months. Let me know which company, to where, and even any thoughts of specific signs.
Feel free to use these numbers for placement, or just use the more colloquial"a little more to the right".
62 comments:
I worry that J. Press has moved to the right, especially with their sourcing to Canada from the US. Also, their new buyers seem to favor a shorter, more European style cut, which I don't like at all.
I would say that Patagonia is completely in the iconic category (10 or 11 on your chart). I believe they have hit their stride.
I also would say that Leatherman/Eliza B. have jumped to early iconic, say 9.
I would add Lotuff, probably around 5 or 6 (Precious, expensive, exclusive!).
I would move Barbour a bit more to the right, in new markets (new items are low quality and relatively expensive).
I would finally say Alden shoes has moves slightly to the right, also around 9, as being early iconic.
Thanks!
I would like to see Cape Madras in the iconic spot. To me, Ralph Lauren should occupy the furthest right hand spot. You've seen what's available on the web site, right? Gigantic logos, poor quality fabric for the women's polos (llbean and lands end do a much better job, RL's pique mesh is really just colorful burlap), and just poor offerings all around.
What are people's thoughts on Brooks Brothers? Where should they be?
I think Alden should be a little to the right, into "iconic." When it comes to shoes, I can't imagine any company that's more iconic. They're widely available and get a fair amount of press, but still made with exceptional quality.
Quoddy should move the right as well. Along with Alden, they've done plenty of collaborations with various companies, including J. Crew (seafoam green bluchers, anyone?). I think that contributes both to the PR factor and (I would imagine) to growth. I don't know if they satisfy the "widely recognized popular and unique items" criteria, though (perhaps the ring boots do?).
I think Kiel James Patrick should move considerably right. I know you're a fan, but I've seen a great deal of growth (in terms of products offered, at least) and PR (multiple press mentions per month) over a very short period. As compared to Jack Donnelly and Vermont Originals, neither of which I've ever seen in the press and which have maintained a strictly circumscribed product offering. I can't speak to quality, since I'm not a fan of the products.
I think the chart is, overall, remarkable. Two comments, though. One is that it's very hard to compare companies like Orvis, RL, or BB that offer a great variety of products with companies like Vermont Originals, which offer just one. The challenge of quality control is just incomparable. (Granted, a good response is that companies should focus on what they know and offer a limited selection of products--but BB's business model requires that it at least offer suits, shirts, ties, accessories, etc.)
Second, a lot of the companies on your list serve two or more constituencies. RL is a good example--it produces some unattractive, low-or-mid-quality clothing aimed at tweens; good-to-very good quality, classic clothing aimed at grown ups; very expensive clothing of very good quality aimed at fashionable young adults; and very, very expensive clothing of the highest quality aimed at sheiks or oil magnates or whoever (and Charlie Rose--product placement I can support!). It's hard to synthesize all of those disparate elements in order to get a ranking (though I think yours is substantially accurate).
I think that the power of the fashion blogosphere needs to be taken into account somehow. I admire KJP and crew for their dedication to domestically produced goods and what they've managed to accomplish having started making bracelets in Kiel's parents' garage. But, I attribute much of his success to the fact that they seem to be selling an image more than a product, and that image has been propagated to the point of saturation by the internet.
Compare that to Leatherman/Eliza B. who also garner lots of praise from forums and blogs but rely solely on their product. While I can't without seeing Kiel/Sarah/Hannah/Sadie/Brendan's face on at least one website I visit during the course of a day, I didn't even know what Eliza looked like until I saw your photos. But her products are legendary nonetheless.
WRJ's comments are brilliant. I would add that KJP's company may have shifted all of the way to 15-New Markets or even 17-Cash Grab. His relationship with the toxic Unabashedly Prep seems to influencing his once great style, and his image and PR seems to have gone from authentic and playful to just fibbing.
How far to the right should off-shoring push a company? Is it even possible to sell authentic and iconic things if your company has been reduced to a middleman putting a name on something made elsewhere?
I must agree with the earlier poster regarding Ralph Lauren. Muffy, I simply cannot understand your affection for this awful, awful company. Yes, he still makes some beautiful staples, but 90% of his line is ghastly. And face it -- the tasteful offerings one may find at a RL boutique are nothing like the stuff that floods Macy's and TJ Maxx. Move him to the RIGHT!
@Unknown - I don't disagree with your 90% assessment/ratio of bad items to good. Aside from liking many of his Men's shirts (he makes some great stripes, the classic cut is generous, the construction is solid and they wear well) RL, in my opinion, is the only place where I can find good Women's oxford shirts. The cable sweaters have pitch perfect colors/dyes, the right cable width, neck opening, and sweep. His polo shirts have perfect hues, placket size, collar height (as well as weight), and the right tennis tail ratio. Having said that, with the exception of some Women's outerwear, I seldom buy anything else and some of what I see is shockingly bad. Finally, I do sense they are currently getting worse, and the pool of acceptable items is getting smaller.
Muffy, a question about a company that I believe is making the journey through your chart for the second time -- Lacoste. The company seems a textbook example of one that sunk to Company Shell in the early 80s, bust since being relaunched in the 90s, I think they are now in between Iconic and New Markets. I've always found it odd that I have never seen you comment on Lacoste; I've always wondered why.
If I read the chart correctly, there are companies that you like and admire which continue to do well based on their products, and companies that remain competitive owing largely to advertising and promotion.
An astute analysis. I believe that all high-quality, boutique-type operations go through the same cycle. An example that comes to mind is musical instrument companies, that start out with a single, dedicated maker, become highly regarded, then the company gets taken over and starts to make cheap, student-quality instruments to capitalize on the name.
I'd add J.W. Hulme (mentioned in an earlier post) as Growth/Iconic company. They've been makers and suppliers since 1905 for Orvis and Gokey,and their commitment to classic style, traditional American craftsmanship, and customer service is absolute. The Wall Street Journal wrote two stories about their comeback. Plus they're a pleasure to deal with, if you give them a call.
I see Quoddy moving more to the right. They've got a much bigger PR hand now, doing collaborations and appearing on discount sites left, right and centre. I can't speak for the quality though.
This chart is spot on... looking forward to seeing where the companies land this year.
The real question is, does it make sense to directly compare tiny niche brands with large corporations that necessarily must have a wide variety of offerings at different price points.
While I see great smaller companies such as Alden, and Lotuff, whose vision seems purer than any other company out there right now, being rightfully placed on the left of the chart, I also have a lot of respect for the consistently great offerings of larger companies like Orvis and BB (despite the fact that they do sell some undesirable pieces). But given the current selection criteria, neither brand could move much farther left than they already are.
I believe that both Lands' End and L.L. Bean (perhaps excluding Signature) should be moved rightward. Both companies have made attempts (not always successful) to source materials closer to home and provide more classic items which brought them to a position of fame in the first place. Specific examples include Lands' End's move towards more American-made belts and higher quality ties as well as Bean's efforts to bring back items like the Anorak and maintain the availability of classics like Scotch Plain Flannel shirts and Norwegian and Irish sweaters. Again, there are misses for every success, and I write this solely from a male's point of view, but I believe that both companies have made increased efforts to remember their pasts.
I would move Orvis more toward "new markets." Lately I just toss their catalogs upon arrival, after being much disappointed by purchasing what turned out to be poorly (overseas) made, overpriced junk. Their offerings lately have swung in the "slouchy" direction, more BoBo than prep (ref. David Brooks) as though they're trying to compete with Eileen Fisher or Chico's or even mall brands. Talbots, most regrettably, has swung in the same direction. Interesting to note they've just downsized the Westport Talbots store.
I heartily agree with Greenfield's assessment of those brands. I'd add J Crew to the mix, too. The quality is lacking in so many of the "established" brands--it just isn't there. It's not surprising, just very disappointing.
For years, I avoided Abercrombie & Fitch at ALL costs; loud music, dark, and overly-scented. However, I can't help but have noticed over the past two years, how their clothing really is quality. I bought a few sweaters that were on sale, and they've held up better than some of my RL ones! (far less pilling in the underarm area) I have received many compliments on these sweaters, and people are always really surprised to hear where I got them, as A&F gives images of glitter and double-0 models. However, the fact that I have quality, classic sweaters from them that have not only held up far better than some of the "tried and trues," but were significantly cheaper, too.
Ralph Lauren has really disappointed me. My cable-knit sweaters haven't held up well whatsoever, and not to mention their women's polos seem to do an odd shrinking sort of thing; they've shrunk UP, but not not really anywhere else..?! I found that buying the boy's polos are better quality. Go figure! And, again, cheaper.
I have zero qualms about spending money on something if it is quality, well-made, and most importantly, stand the test of time. However, there is something to be said about giving quality goods to the consumer, without ravaging their wallet, as well.
One brand I do think deserves a place would be Cole Haan, as I think they do a great job quality-wise and with PR! Looking forward to seeing the new chart.
I am going to join Ryan P at least as his comment pertains to LLB. Despite your oft-stated reservations, I have purchased a series of items including Scotch Plaid Flannels, Kingfield sweater, 8" Bean Boots, boat and tote and a braided outdoor rug. So far the quality has been acceptable (am reserving judgment on the rug - it has not arrived yet) and service-wise bean is very good to deal with over the long distance I am ordering (Minnesota). You may note, however, that these items stray very little from your (Muffy's) "safe" LLB items, so this and Ryan P's note may simply mean Bean stays where it is - maybe a sort of mercantile limbus patrum.
As for RLP - the OCBD are exceptional shirts as are the tattersalls. Like most everyone else who has mentioned these, I don't really care for gigantic polo players on my shirts - in fact not really thrilled with the normal-sized, multicolored ones either. RL does probably deserve a nudge to the right.
Finally, I favor keeping Sperry/Top-Siders where it is for now as well - pleased so far with new pair (AO) from late this summer.
For farm, woods, boat scraping/painting/sailing toughwear, how about Duluth Trading Co.?
Muffy, what are your thoughts on Dooney and Bourke bags? Are they on the same level as coach :( ?
I add my second (or third or fourth) to WRJ's cogent analysis of Ralph Lauren's empire. Many of the items in the Ralph Lauren stores are sumptuous and of impeccable quality. The racks of stores like Macy's and T.J. Maxx are another story -- although compared to most of the merchandise in those stores, the Polo departments stand near the top.
I think you have been too charitable with Lands End. I returned some turtlenecks that I bought at Lands End a number of years ago because the collars were fraying. The returns were accepted without question in line with their remarkable satisfaction policy. The manager commented on what nice shirts they were, and I agreed. The current shirts which were offered as replacements were nowhere near the quality of the ones I was returning.
In my opinion, Lands End has, for the most part, become just like the rest of Sears. Sad.
Also, rather unrelated, my thanks and compliments to Muffy for allowing Anonymous comments. It is not at all that I wish to be Anonymous. Rather, I am only semi-literate when it comes to technology, and I admit to a bit of laziness. I don't have, know how, or care to learn at this time how to set up a Google Account, Open ID, etc.
I'm wondering where J.McLaughlin would fall on your chart especially considering they were recently bought by a private equity group. I guess it remains to be seen what direction the company will take with the new owners at the helm although the McLaughlin brothers are supposedly still steering the ship.
Move RL to the right, while some of the past quality is still there, few of the truly classic stuff still remains. My 20 year old stuff is way better even now than current offerings. Love this blog Muffy!
I disagree that KJP have moved far to the right. It only seems that way because they're young and know how to use inexpensive social media.
Disclaimer: I don't know what I'm talking about! Also, companies that were not on the original chart are italicized. I can't decide where to put all of the fashion brands, and they may not even qualify.
*** Crucible ***
Jack Donnelly Khakis
Vermont Originals
Just Madras
Cape Madras
J.W. Hulme
Lotuff
Smart Turnout
Tucker Blair
*** Precious ****
Mercer & Sons
Kiel James Patrick
Bills Khakis
Leather Man/Eliza B.
The Andover Shop
*** Iconic ***
Russell Moccasin
O'Connell's
Patagonia
Alden Shoes
Orvis
J. Press
Southwick
Van Jacket
Band of Outsiders
Gitman/Vintage
Mark McNairy New Amsterdam
Mark McNairy for Bass
Thom Browne
Brooks Brothers/Black Fleece
Gant/Rugger
Gant by Michael Bastian
Gloverall
*** New Markets ***
Quoddy
Barbour
Ralph Lauren
Lacoste
Lands' End/Canvas
Sperry Top-Sider
Bass
Anglo American Optical
*** Cash Grab ***
Vineyard Vines
Brooks Brothers
Vera Bradley
L.L. Bean/Signature
J. Crew
Tommy Hilfiger
Lilly Pulitzer
*** Company Shell ***
Wigwam
Coach
Gant
Abercrombie & Fitch
Talbots
Eddie Bauer
Hey Muff-a-roni,
A significantly better than average conversation on your entry is happening online here: http://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice/comments/pp44s/clothing_company_life_cycle_trajectories_from/. They bring up some worthwhile points about vendors that you may want to incorporate. Also, R.A. Sasayama is my new hero! What a great comment. Stay warm all!
I enjoy reading the DP each day. I live in the south and like some of the same companies you do. What economic criteria do you use to decide who makes the list.
Love your blog, insight and attention to detail. Always an enjoyable read.
I agree about RL moving to the right. What's up with those oversized logos? They are deplorable.
I have several items from Vineyard Vines--mostly polo and whale shirts, and my young boys have a number of items (sweaters, shirts, t-shirts). Based on my experience alone, I think they can be moved to the left. I find their quality and detail to be excellent--not to mention their customer service. Yes, the manufacturing is outsourced to China/Vietnam, but that doesn't necessarily equate to poor quality.
As for an addition to the chart, what about Filson? Exceptional quality, heritage and legacy. I'd suggest a 10-11 for them. Also, what about Murray's Toggery at about 12?
Kevin
I'm going to join Sasha Elizabeth in showing a bit of A&F love. I can't fit into their woman sizing, nor do I care for the short-skirt/tank-top tween-type styling. And tacky branding? Sure, but RL already owns that category. All that said, I absolutely love their men's (small moose logo) polos. Their pinks (all hues and stripes) are much superior to RL.
In addition to my comment about J. Mclaughlin and the brothers McLaughlin--I'd like to toss in here Smathers and Branson. Where would they fall on your chart?
Vineyard Vines and Coast should be posted on here. both have been created within the past 10 years and have an incredibly loyal following they should be between 1-10
RL at this point really has to be broken apart. It can't be thought of as a monolithic entity for our purposes here. Polo Ralph Lauren seems to be the most relevant brand. (I can't believe Muffy, or most DP fans here, are buying much Purple or Black Label, nor RLX or RRL or any of the diffusion lines for that matter.) RL has had much success recently in the international marketplace. Witness the opening of flagship stores in Moscow and Paris, and I'll bet he does well in cities like Dubai. I think they buy a lot of Big Pony stuff there.
Polo RL as a "preppy" brand is about to "jump the shark" if it hasn't already (that's a McKinsey term, isn't it?) I'd move it toward the "cash grab" stage.
Alden has had explosive growth as well as some significant and subsequent QC issues (see the discussions on StyleForum for example). I think much of their growth has come from the popularity of their Indy Boots and the like, which fit into the whole Americana/Workwear craze, as well as the collaborations (e.g. Alden x J.Crew). The classic Leisure Handsewn loafers, tassel mocs, and oxfords are still great, so I'd move Alden over to 12-13, between Iconic and New Markets.
What a terrific conversation. Just a few comments:
1) As has been said, Patagonia is certainly well to the high end of "iconic." I would move it to the right and put Filson where it used to be.
My great hope is that since explorers and adventurers literally put their lives in the hands of Patagonia products (unlike North Face products), Patagonia will never cross the line from "iconic" to "new markets."
2) RL is "cash-grab" at best, and it will become a "company shell" soon after Mr. Lauren dies.
3) If the Andover Shop is added to the list, as has been suggested (and I agree), it should occupy the high side of "precious."
4) Following another suggestion, I agree that Murray's Toggery could be added to the list; and I would put it at low-to-mid-"precious." Sometimes, though, it's hard to distinguish a "brand" from a "store" when a store, such as Murray's, sells both its own brand and others'. The same ambiguity is found in the truly wonderful store/brand O'Connell's of Buffalo.
5) Ben Silver certainly should be added to the list, slightly to the right of the Andover Shop.
6) Orvis probably belongs further to the right. I like their stuff, but they have spread themselves very thin, and almost everything in their catalog comes from Asia.
Thank you, Muffy, for sparking such a fun and spirited discussion.
Allen Edmonds should be up there close to Alden--American made iconic shoes, now with a lower priced out-sourced line.
Yes! Put Rancourt in'Precious' for Shoes:
www.rancourtandcompany.com
I had disagreements about Bean's status until this came to my attention today in the New Arrivals section. http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/73128?feat=508832-CL1&fb_source=message
^ That LLB shirt is really nothing new, they used to sell them in the '80s.
I agree with the comment about Rancourt.
Can you or any of your readers suggest a shoe company (comparable to Rancourt, Alden, etc) that makes classic loafers for women? I know all about the Italian shoe makers - but there must be an American company that makes classic, comfortable shoes for women.
The chart, generally, is wonderful. I agree with others that as admirable as the KJP brand is, to have it occupy the far left spot is a bit forced (ahead of Alden and Leatherman? - c'mon)...and, I'd also agree that his close association with the clownish Unabashedly Prep dude does his brand little good.
What about Murray's? New England Shirt Company? Ghurka? Allen Edmonds? T. Anthony? Mulholland Bros?
I have heard of some quality issues with Quoddy and Alden lately.
J Crew should be towards the cash grab end, they have a good fit and decent quality but its hard to get decent staples from them when they focus on chasing trends.
Should O'Connel's, Southern Proper, Filson, Southern Tide, Castaway be on there ahead of KJP/Eliza B./Vermont Originals that focus on accessories rather than entire clothing lines.
How about Bonobos?
Appreciate the effort you put into your blog and endeavours such as this that attempt to put a measure (subjective as it may be) out there for companies that are competing for our business.
What does everyone have against F.E. Castleberry? I don't understand all the negativity? I say live and let live. He's been quite successful for a reason, hard work and dedication. I do wish him well and enjoy his work.
Re: Fred Castleberry
1. I don't believe he wants to be liked. He does not seem nice at all.
2. While he takes technically very good photographs, he puts together scenes badly, outfits badly, and manages to makes everyone he photographs look arrogant and off-putting.
3. His grooming habits of shaving his legs and putting the amount of product he puts in his hair is unnerving. That may just be my problem, though.
4. His success amplifies his voice, which purports to be preppy but is so often the complete opposite. It would be like a site calling itself "Safety First" advocating not wearing seat belts and driving drunk, or "Better Eating" singing the praises of Pop Tarts and Frosted Flakes. Of course he is going to get people really angry.
5. There is a fakeness to him. Just one example: it bothered me seeing he and KJP in Town and Country posing in a house that clearly wasn't theirs. Again, that may be my problem not his.
I apologize for the negative tone of this, and Muffy, I completely understand if you don’t print this. But I will take the author of the question at his or her word that he really wants to know the answer, and I think these are all elements.
If he changed the blog name to Unabashedly Fred, I would have no problem with him, and maybe even respect his work and individuality. Instead, he seems to be some hyped reality television like character of the moment.
I know we're going completely off topic here but that's sort of my point. Isn't the unnecessary and down right rude comments regarding KJP and Castleberry off topic?
Regarding FEC's work: The majority of what's on the blog are street shots. He's putting out models/outfits that catches HIS eye. With the street shots, he works the scene as it's found - the street. Now I know you're going to bemoan his posting of his friends. So what, it's HIS blog and I say good for such a multi-demension friendship, why not help each other. BTW, I believe the first time he put KJP on his blog, KJP couldn't look more happy. He's got a big smile on his face and his body language is open, hardly 'arrogant',ect.
For what I'm sure he'd consider his 'real' work: Did you not see the spread he previewed for his readers for an upcoming catalog? You'll probably say it's too commercial. I think not. What's more is the catalog is for a brand that is praised in this very comment thread.
We all have our own opinions. All of this, Muffy's blog and FEC's blog is just opinions. Obviously I'm here for the different opinions, here Muffy's and on UP for FEC's opinions - if you don't like what they put out there, why not just move on? I just don't get it. It's nerve-racking putting yourself out there. I think I'm being so defensive for two reasons, 1.)I really, really like what KJP and FEC are doing and 2.)what KJP and FEC are doing is their livelihood. Why so publicly belittle someone?
I have one last point/question. What is the deal with the constant question of what is considered 'preppy' enough? I love the discussion on Muffy's blog and am constantly learning and laughing. But again, why the hate? Isn't there as many different definitions of 'preppy' as there are fish in the sea? I personally read Muffy's blog b/c I'd like to be more old-guard traditional like Muffy but I won't ever be. I read FEC's blog because I do lust after items I find there too. If I had to would I describe myself as a traditionalist? A 'preppie'? You damn right. But isn't it all about perspective? I'm more 'preppy' and authentic than the UIUC student that thinks Abercrombie and Juicy Couture are the preppy lifestyle but FEC and KJP are way more authentically 'old-guard' than me. Muffy is more traditional than all of us combined :)
That's all I have to say I think. Muffy, if you don't post this - it's okay. For the record, I don't know any of you: Muffy, KJP nor FEC. I'm from Champaign, IL and the only contact I've ever had is posting on this blog and FEC's. I sent Muffy an email once but it didn't pass the cut.
As a point of clarification, there are two questions. One is, what is your opinion of Fred, and the second is, why does he invoke so many negative emotions?
I believe FEC brings about negative emotions because only several years ago he was Fred Egan, photographer in cargo shorts, tshirts, and hooded sweatshirts.
But his stuff is fun and if he's having a good time bringing a style to new people and cashing in on it, I say more power to him.
I would add Anderson-Little to crucible. While the fabric used in their blazers is a blend, it seems that they are following a pragmatic business model to re-establish the company's name by offering a cost effective, quality product that they stand behind. The family members are also active in customer service and accessible based on the reviews I've seen.
I would add the following:
Bass to Shell Companies trying to backpedal to a Cash Grab
Eastland see above.
Norman Hilton at the Iconic/New Markets cusp
Rancourt to the Precious Group, to the left of Quoddy
I think BB is a sad Cash Grab at this point in it's storied history, RL leads or at least competes well in all the markets BB is trying to go after. Moreover, I wish they had an Iconic mini-shop (I think they can fit an Andover Shop at the 346 Madison store without much effort) offering Argyle and Sutherland sweaters, authentic shetlands, more OCBD colors (peach, stone), tattersalls in poplin and OC (black-red and black-blue), a full range of non-patchwork madras and seersucker (shirts, shorts, pants, sportcoats), and undarted 3 roll 2 sportcoats.
I would move Brooks Brothers to the right, to about #15 if not further. The issues for me are the inconsistency of sizing, their miserable delivery options and their endless stream of catalogs.
After buying a couple of their non-iron shirts two years ago, I felt confident enough in my "Brooks size" to order six of the OCBD's. Unfortunately, the same size (16x36) that in the non-iron version was both perfect for my neck and with tails long enough to stay tucked in, was impossibly tight and too short in the OCBD. So I've got five hundred dollars' worth of dress shirts (after shipping costs) that I can't wear with a tie--the collar won't close, even after I moved the button half an inch--and won't stay tucked in. For those of us who do not live in a city with a Brooks store, we need to know that when we order a size, it will be the same size it was last time!
Anyway, it is a colossal pain in the keister to order Brooks in Canada, as they only ship by FedEx (who in turn will not deliver outside of office hours, forcing you to either take a day off work on quick notice, or else drive out to their facility in some industrial park to pick up your order.)
Not that they're above using the postal service for some things. I have been receiving a full-colour, glossy catalog in the mail about nine times a year--including some grossly mis-targeted ones, like the Brooks childrens' collection (I don't have kids!)
I put these pieces together and I see a company that is less focused on reliable quality and more on barrages of expensive advertising to keep market share.
Look forward to your updated chart. Haven't purchased from Talbots and Bauer in years. Dislike the direction Lilly Pulitzer, Sperry, Orvis for women, Pendleton for women, and Crew are going. Wish Gant USA would sell some of the clothing they offer in Europe. My ultimate favorite is Eliza B. Am also waiting on Tartan Terrier's website to list their products.
Has anyone tried the Land's End Durable Goods line? They seem to be marketing this as a return to quality with American manufacturing. However the colors in the catalog seem off (pre-washed colors that look faded) and they seem to be trying to hard. I'm not sure I'm willing to try them giving my disappointment in their quality over the past few years. Any comments would be appreciated.
Oh dear me. I write this from the UK as a concerned Brit. The most un Preppy of all brands is now Burberry. They have become silly and far too fashionable. If you must purchase one thing it has to be their classic trench coat for women or raglan sleeved, fly fronted rain coat for men. Those two only! Be warned. Secondly; Barbour has started to go down hill after introducing ill thought out collaborations with 'designers' and ditching what they were outstanding at; old fashioned outdoor clothing. Please please do not purchase any of these fashion items, only what remains of their classic items.
Sorry Muffy I have only just got around to properly reading your site. How super it is too. I have made a post re Burberry and Barbour and how frightful they are as brands today. You have all been warned. Equally bad too is Ralph Lauren (RL); silly money for clothing (the mens) that really is of dubious quality. First class tweed coats and suits (in the UK at least) can actually be purchased bespoke from a proper tailor much cheaper than the ready made stuff in the Bond Street (London) store. Brooks Bros in London is good; the button down shirts especially so and far superior to the RL product. Sadly too, the bulk of the RL range of shoes in London are actually made in England by Edward Green of Northampton whereas Brooks Bros actually sell American Made shoes. Most queer indeed. Keep up the good work.
@Mike Wingert - Your comments are incredibly knowing and very much appreciated!
If I may be bold; if anyone would like any info about particular UK brands please ask. I shall always try to be very honest and as objective as possible. Sometimes the things one reads in magazines and the like do not match the reality in the trenches so to speak. Mike.wingert8709@gmail.com
Assuming this is okay with you Muffy.
For those that asked about "Fred Egan" and Uprep... Read this (its in his handwriting) and see if this is the "F.E" that he affects on his site.
http://attachedphotography.com/blog/Fred%20Egan.jpg
Hunter Wellington boots. No longer hand made in Scotland. They have managed to survive trendy inroads by various celebrity types and 'models'. Quality is now dubious. Instead purchase boots by French company Le Chameau, still hand made in France, the leather lined are great.
Cashmere items. Only an item with 'made in Scotland' written on the sewn in label is made there. Ignore the words 'Scottish Cashmere' or other such nonsense; these are all woven cheaply in China from second rate fibres with images of goats jumping around Scottish hills and men in kilts! I mean, would you drink Scotch made in Japan? Even Hermes cashmere scarves are actually woven in Scotland.
Post a Comment