Best inexpensive jeans?

[clark kent]

the div 7 are pretty much TTS. i'm a 28 waist and i grabbed the 29x32s. they're pretty loose on the top block, but the taper is strong. theyre especially tight around the calves for me, otherwise the fit is surprisingly really good. theyre really lightweight and stack easily.

the selvedge is noticeably cheap though.

 

[entrero]

What's your definition of selvedge?

 

[clark kent]

what the hell kind of question is that? selvedge is selvedge. i stated that the selvedge on these is cheap, because it is. if i really wanted to, i could easily pull the seams apart with close to no effort.

 

[LeeReynolds]



http://www.styleforum.net/forum/thr...and-hudson-jeans-so-expensive/90#post_4664472

Based on the post you linked to above, there are jeans in this world whose higher price is at least partially a product of their materials and workmanship. I'm glad to know this. But it is also true that the prices on these jeans are further inflated by the fact that some people will pay more for these jeans if everyone around them knows that they paid more, a social phenomenon known as conspicuous consumption.

However, this brings me back to my initial post in this thread:

"I buy the Faded Glory jeans from Wal-Mart for $10, less if they are on sale.

They are made from heavy durable denim, come in a variety of colors, and don't have any kind of logo on them anywhere.

Are there better jeans in the world? Of course, but the topic of this thread is the best inexpensive ones."


If someone wants to start a thread and ask which luxury and cachet jeans can be had for the lowest price, I won't be offering the Faded Glory jeans for consideration because they don't qualify. But that was not the question that was asked here.

I'll have to take a look at some of these. If I can find a pair where the price is justified in the quality then I might even buy them, provided they are without a prominent label of any kind. I avoid conspicuously branded clothing. There have been many items I've liked but passed on because of a prominent logo. The quality of one's clothing should speak for itself. Quality has a voice all its own and needs no special symbols or logos to speak for it. The only thing an obvious logo says is "I probably paid too much for this."

 

[clark kent]

this thread is a shitshow. we're on StyleForum, when the topic is "best inexpensive jeans" it's generally implied that fit/quality should be taken into consideration.

 

[Dbear]

"inexpensive" and "best" are both relative and subjective.

The guy was asking for $50-80 jeans. Some people gave a suggestion to bump that up a little to get N+F or APC and some suggestion like unbranded or gap in that price range.

Nobody here gives 2 ***** about $10 faded glory jeans and about how glorious that cotton twill is for that price point. This thread isn't called "what's the cheapest thing I can possible cloth my legs with, while still giving off the appearance of non-homelessness".

 

[clark kent]

well put. ^^

 

[GraphicNovelty]



Based on the post you linked to above, there are jeans in this world whose higher price is at least partially a product of their materials and workmanship. I'm glad to know this. But it is also true that the prices on these jeans are further inflated by the fact that some people will pay more for these jeans if everyone around them knows that they paid more, a social phenomenon known as conspicuous consumption.

However, this brings me back to my initial post in this thread:

"I buy the Faded Glory jeans from Wal-Mart for $10, less if they are on sale.

They are made from heavy durable denim, come in a variety of colors, and don't have any kind of logo on them anywhere.

Are there better jeans in the world? Of course, but the topic of this thread is the best inexpensive ones."


If someone wants to start a thread and ask which luxury and cachet jeans can be had for the lowest price, I won't be offering the Faded Glory jeans for consideration because they don't qualify. But that was not the question that was asked here.

I'll have to take a look at some of these. If I can find a pair where the price is justified in the quality then I might even buy them, provided they are without a prominent label of any kind. I avoid conspicuously branded clothing. There have been many items I've liked but passed on because of a prominent logo. The quality of one's clothing should speak for itself. Quality has a voice all its own and needs no special symbols or logos to speak for it. The only thing an obvious logo says is "I probably paid too much for this."

Most of the brands mentioned in this thread--Uniqlo Gap, Naked and Famous and Unbranded--all have logoless jeans without any distinctive markings.

Indeed, even more expensive brands, such as APC or 3sixteen have no logos, and are indistinguishable from the other jeans in terms of logos/branding.

I've read Veblen too. I know what conspicuous consumption is and I can tell you that conspicuous consumption doesn't really play into the decision factor to buy into these (or really any type of SF-endorsed) jeans. It's a quality decision, and, like you said, quality speaks for itself.

Of course, these examples are a tier above your wal-mart jeans. However, the increase in cost is rather small compared to the quality increase and thus, are more than worth it.

 

[pimpmystyle]



the div 7 are pretty much TTS. i'm a 28 waist and i grabbed the 29x32s. they're pretty loose on the top block, but the taper is strong. theyre especially tight around the calves for me, otherwise the fit is surprisingly really good. theyre really lightweight and stack easily.

the selvedge is noticeably cheap though.

Thanks, I'll probably place an order pretty soon.

 

[LeeReynolds]



"inexpensive" and "best" are both relative and subjective.

The guy was asking for $50-80 jeans. Some people gave a suggestion to bump that up a little to get N+F or APC and some suggestion like unbranded or gap in that price range.

Nobody here gives 2 ***** about $10 faded glory jeans and about how glorious that cotton twill is for that price point. This thread isn't called "what's the cheapest thing I can possible cloth my legs with, while still giving off the appearance of non-homelessness".

Have you actually looked at these jeans? It is easy to say that the suck because they cost so little. But in this case you would be wrong. As I've said before, they're comparable to conventional Levis at a much lower price. If you think that ordinary Levis suck then you won't like these either, but then that is a matter of taste, and not an objective judgment of their quality.

 

[Walt Thizzney]

Levi 501 stf or Uniqo

 

[LeeReynolds]



Most of the brands mentioned in this thread--Uniqlo Gap, Naked and Famous and Unbranded--all have logoless jeans without any distinctive markings.

Indeed, even more expensive brands, such as APC or 3sixteen have no logos, and are indistinguishable from the other jeans in terms of logos/branding.

I've read Veblen too. I know what conspicuous consumption is and I can tell you that conspicuous consumption doesn't really play into the decision factor to buy into these (or really any type of SF-endorsed) jeans. It's a quality decision, and, like you said, quality speaks for itself.

Of course, these examples are a tier above your wal-mart jeans. However, the increase in cost is rather small compared to the quality increase and thus, are more than worth it.

Show me jeans with a price vs quality ratio that is comparable to the jeans from Wal Mart, then I'll be glad to buy them, even if they are nominally more expensive. I'm more than willing to pay for quality.

I'm not a fan of Veblen because his ideas, like much "progressive" ideology, is founded on petty resentments.

Some people are inspired by the achievements of others. They look at the success of others as proof that they can achieve their own goals. Then there are those who react negatively to other people's success because they subconsciously believe that to win themselves, other people have to lose. They then spin elaborate rationalizations to justify this character flaw. The politically motivated among them seek to manipulate the state into a great regulator and arbiter of fortune and success where no achievement goes unpunished - with themselves at the top and in charge of course. One of my favorite short stories by Kurt Vonnegut does a great job of describing the logical conclusion of such desires: Harrison Bergeron

That being said, the term conspicuous consumption is apt in that it accurately describes the use of consumer goods as social signals and shibboleths. This then ties in to the way that companies attempt to manipulate their image and branding so as to control the social signals that are associated with their products. The people buying and displaying these products are in turn trying to use them to manipulate their own personal brand and image so as to control how other people think and feel about them. It goes round and round and never ends. Anyone not playing the game loses by default.

I don't have a problem with any of that. It would be hard to since I do it myself. So does everyone else from every background and walk of life. A biker who wants to be accepted by other bikers doesn't go into the clubhouse dressed for a job interview at a bank, not even on Halloween.

What I do find fault with are people who think that the way to increase their own brand equity is by using products just because they are known to be expensive. They just look childish to me. Nicer things tend to cost more money, but not all things that cost more money are nicer, or worth the money they cost. Likewise not everything that is inexpensive is of low quality.

If, as you say, the jeans endorsed here are promoted based on quality, and not as denim based bling, then I'm glad to hear it.

 

[bosatlbwi]

no one is saying that a $300 pair of jeans are 20 x higher quality than your $15 wal mart jeans. but the combination of higher quality materials, hardware, nicer details, and cut all combine to make the added price worth it to some people. if that's not you, whatever, but then I don't really see what you are doing on a forum about clothes. BoO ocbds that cost $200 probably aren't 10x higher "quality" than a $20 button down from targer either.

 

[bubba04]

Sadly I must confess that I too in a different life time shopped for Faded Glory jeans at Wal Mart many moons ago before I was gifted with sartorial enlightenment (i.e., I understand the value inherent in high-end garments). That said, I can provide 2 nuggets of wisdom:

1. The quality on a pair of denim from, say, APC, Naked & Famous or Dior Homme does not increase linearly with its price when compared to a Wal Mart pair of Faded Glory. While denim quality is still measurably better in a more expensive pair and may alone justify the price tag, you will find that fit and cut can legitimize the remaining difference in price. While a poorly fitting pair of jean (or of any other garment, for that matter) will attract attention to itself (likely in a bad way), a proper fit on a quality pair draws attention instead to its wearer for good taste.

and on a more general note,

2. People are generally perfectly happy with what they have when they do not know any better.

 

[pimpmystyle]

I got my pair and clark kent is exactly right in his description:they are very tight in the calves due to the sharp taper, and stack nicely. They look very nice.

Only problem is I'm not much of a skinny jeans guy. I guess they could pair nicely with some chucks and a faded, fitted t shirt, I suppose.

the div 7 are pretty much TTS. i'm a 28 waist and i grabbed the 29x32s. they're pretty loose on the top block, but the taper is strong. theyre especially tight around the calves for me, otherwise the fit is surprisingly really good. theyre really lightweight and stack easily.

the selvedge is noticeably cheap though.