Mar 9, 2008

I like girls that wear Abercrombie and Fitch...

This post started many moons ago. I was riding home from a Collective Soul concert in Salt Lake with Trevor and Trevor's friend Palmer and Palmer's wife Kevan, when we had a conversation that went something like

Trevor: I know far more about fashion that I ever thought I would being with Andrea.

Kevan: Oh, well let me quiz you! Do you know who Oscar de la Renta is?

T: Yes, he's a designer. It's a name I've heard numerous times.

K: Do you know who Stacy London is?

T: Ummm....

Andrea: Oh, come on, Trev, we watched this show yesterday.

T: Oh, she's on some show on Style Network or something.

K: Close enough. She's a host of TLC's What Not To Wear. And now the most important question, have you heard of Juicy Couture?

A (mumbling to myself): sucks.

T: Socks? Mumble louder, Andrea.

A: Oh, I didn't say anything.

T: Yes you did.

A: I just said Juicy Couture sucks.

A palpable tension fills the vehicle. Kevan starts rattling to Palmer something about a Juicy Couture dress that she almost bought but didn't or something like that, and the guys quickly turn to a new topic. Kevan and I will never be friendly from this point on.

Ever since then, I occasionally think back on this conversation and compose the speech that I wish I hadn't been restrained by society from giving. So, as it has been boiling up in me for some time, it has become a blog post. An essay if you will.

Why Juicy Couture and Similar Clothing Companies Should Be Destroyed and Anyone Who Wears Their Products Past the Age of Accountability Should Go Down, Too, Preferably Taking Their Ugly Little Dogs That They Bought $3000 Doggie Hair Extensions For With Them

One day I was speaking to a married male friend of mine and he mentioned that his wife really wanted a Juicy Couture terry tracksuit for Christmas. He told her if she was good she could get one. This was before he did his research and found that what she wanted was $180. "For lounge around clothes? I couldn't believe it!" I agreed with him that it was ridiculous, but let him know that his wife would not be happy with the less expensive brand of tracksuit he was considering because to the person who wears Juicy, it's the brand that matters and not the actual clothing.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem whatsoever with expensive clothing. Nor am I one of those people who jealously criticizes people for spending on over-priced things just because I don't have the means to do so myself. What I do have a problem with is clothing that is expensive because it has an "in" brand name pasted across it. Expensive clothes should show by things like cut and fabric quality. Any clothing that requires a prominent brand name pasted on it to let you know it is expensive is not only wasteful, but also sends the message: "I have money but not enough style sense to look sophisticated, so instead I let you know by writing it on myself."

Also, there is nothing trashier than having "Juicy" pasted across your butt. This is trailer park clothing. Some people may say, "But look at how much of young Hollywood is wearing this tracksuit! How could it be trashy?" My response is simple: anyone who takes their fashion cues from Paris Hilton and thinks it's okay because she's rich, after all, should not be allowed to shop for themselves. Within pricey clothing realms and within cheap clothing realms, there is a lot of good and a lot of bad. Because something is expensive, it is not automatically tasteful.

Abercrombie and Fitch is the Juicy Couture of middle-class high school. Now that I'm out of that stage and into a completely different clothing world, Abercrombie clothing is not as outrageously-priced as it once seemed. However, look at their quality: obviously cheaply-manufactured. It's never worth it to shop there. Especially since it's near impossible to find something that doesn't proclaim loudly where you bought it and that's just embarrassing.

Within higher fashion realms, there is far more disgustingly prominent branding going on. Aside from being generally rather ugly things, the Luis Vuitton handbag is a tragedy not because the average one costs over $1000, but because people will happily pay over $1000 simply so people can see them toting a bag with the distinctive LV print on it. The worst part is, unless they live in a very wealthy area where the bag isn't going to be a big deal anyway, people will assume it's a fake, as the majority of the purses in this world with the LV print on them are.

And now a picture I came across whilst writing this and thought was funny (I'm pretty sure it's fake, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if there are obsessed-with-appearing-wealth women out there who would love so much to have these):


Rachael said...

AMEN! I hate Juicy. It's trashy 99% of the time. I'd say 100%, but I'm sure there's something by them that isn't I just haven't found it yet.

Anonymous said...

I completely agree with you, and dislike Juicy for that very reason (plus the fact that I still probably wouldn't like most of their clothes even without the label - they are mostly clothes that 14 year olds would like). I have said your same sentence about designer clothes being obvious by cut and quality and not brand name many times, and my favorite example is in fact Louis Vuitton. The perfect counter example I think is Coach, who manages to incorporate the C logo into their designs distinctively but without being overly showy. That being said I do shop at Abercrombie, especially for jeans. (But I don't buy the stuff that says ABERCROMBIE on it.)


Allison said...

Let's be honest...I know nothing about style. I've never heard of Juicy before reading this. And that doesn't surprise you. But after reading your entry I simply must say...I love you, Andrea.

Oh, and I finally have your shoes. I had my brother bring them back from Arizona yesterday. We should rendezvous.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

thanks for this nice post 111213