3 ms·

Nothing exotic but extremely good quality and attention to details that you can recognise from distance. No button looks off the shelf, no detail is cheap out.

by mrtksn 5y ago

Nothing exotic but extremely good quality and attention to details that you can recognise from distance. No button looks off the shelf, no detail is cheap out. The cut matches the body perfectly and elegantly and the designer and manufacturer definitely went the extra mile even if it wasn't the easiest or cheapest thing to do. Maybe cutting in straight lines would be the easiest way to do it but if the design requires a slight curve, they wouldn't shy away from it. The more you look at it the more details you notice that someone must have agonised over it even if it wouldn't make any functional difference. Just because it's not visible all the time, doesn't mean that can't have a nice design, for example inside the collar has also a seperate design. I think @sgt101 is onto something.

ethbr0 5y ago
To expand on this, because I think some of the confusion is probably from more basic concepts... Clothing patterns, stitching, and details differ in manufacturing time and suitability for mass production. The vast majority of clothing is optimized for production, because time is expense, and therefore less time is more profit. In men's sizing, we generally come in fewer shapes. Square-to-athletic-to-slim fit + arm length + overall size. But for most people, there's still going to be a delta between {hypothetical optimal fit} and {nearest mass-market fit}. So a nice shirt really starts at doing whatever it takes to get closer to optimal fit (even if it requires some difficult, hand-sewn-only magic) and adds better materials and finishes (buttons, button-holes, stitching, etc). At the end of the day, it's kind of like watches though -- 95% of people won't recognize the differences. I got more complements from C-level folks on my $50 quartz Casio diver [0], because it copies a lot of Rolex details, than anything mechanical without plastic. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/bmld2y/casio_duro_finally_got_my_marlin/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/bmld2y/casio_duro_...

by mrtksn 5y ago

ethbr0 5y ago

To expand on this, because I think some of the confusion is probably from more basic concepts... Clothing patterns, stitching, and details differ in manufacturing time and suitability for mass production. The vast majority of clothing is optimized for production, because time is expense, and therefore less time is more profit. In men's sizing, we generally come in fewer shapes. Square-to-athletic-to-slim fit + arm length + overall size. But for most people, there's still going to be a delta between {hypothetical optimal fit} and {nearest mass-market fit}. So a nice shirt really starts at doing whatever it takes to get closer to optimal fit (even if it requires some difficult, hand-sewn-only magic) and adds better materials and finishes (buttons, button-holes, stitching, etc). At the end of the day, it's kind of like watches though -- 95% of people won't recognize the differences. I got more complements from C-level folks on my $50 quartz Casio diver [0], because it copies a lot of Rolex details, than anything mechanical without plastic. [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/bmld2y/casio_duro_finally_got_my_marlin/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Watches/comments/bmld2y/casio_duro_...