The Worst Type Of Clothing You Can Buy (Apparently)

Fashion fans are quick to dismiss heavily branded or basic luxury items, which give a mediocre product a premium finish. Is there any value to this type of clothing other than communicating your brand affiliation to other people? And is 'premium mediocre' clothing really much worse than any other type of fashion? We're investigating whether it's really the worst type of clothing you can buy.

--
--
--
Persona 5 OST

[lgmasco]

the best part of premium mediocre is how easy it is to convincingly counterfeit them.

[daniellord-vera]

as someone who's worked in the fashion industry most of the money goes to the marketing department in order to push a false lifestyle for those pieces of clothing and id say ppl should stay away from luxury brands and should go after new younger brands that actually put in the work and quality in textiles within the garments unlike the already established luxury brands.

[sillyrabbit]

The first thing that came to mind with premium lux are apartments. They add a granite counter top and charge crazy prices because it is now luxurious, when it is just a very mediocre apartment. Portland is filled with them.

[cartilagehead]

“Premium mediocre” fashion definitely comes with this association of conspicuous wealth, the implication that the wearer is so rich that they just bought all of their clothes from Gucci/etc without even thinking about it, even their underwear and gym socks and t shirts. That they might wear a $500 Gucci t shirt to the park and stain it with mustard while carelessly eating a hotdog the way I might carelessly get mustard on a shirt that I got for free from an old workplace fun run.

I think that there’s this perception, be it conscious or unconscious, in a lot of people’s minds that non-rich wearers of “premium mediocre” clothing aren’t simply cosplaying being rich, they’re cosplaying being the kind of rich that makes $500 Gucci shirts feel as disposable as Old Navy. It’s like meta-cosplay. I think this is one reason why many people have such an immediate and strong response.

[ZZ-qymv]

I appreciate the empathy you have for why people might buy something rather than just laugh at them. It's refreshing to see online.

[Afternoon-T]

One of my biggest problems with this type of fashion is that you see a lot of pieces where the only visibly “interesting” things about them are the brand name. I think it just looks sort of tacky (and that goes for all price ranges of fashion really, but i find this is where you see it a alot). Id rather pay the same price for just a nice quality but unbranded (well unbranded as in the brands name is just posted in size 800 font on the front) piece. Though, if there is at least some element to it other than the logo, im much more willing to give it a pass. For example, i really dont like a lot of these balenciaga or essentials pieces because it could be just a plain, single coloured jumper with “essentials” on front, or a porcelain coffee cup with “balenciaga” on it. For these pieces, you are basically being charged the premium for the logo. But then for this upcoming “yeezy x gap engineered by balenciaga” collection, among the trash, there was this pretty cool baseball cap with flames on the rim. Its still just a baseball cap, but the actually interesting design would make me ok with paying the premium, even if you really could get it for cheaper. In general, if im going to be buying an expensive brand, id rather pay a far larger sum and at least get a better quality or more visually interesting piece out of it, even if there is still that brand name premium. Really though, i think a lot of this can come down to how much people value other people seeing the brand name.

[HofiAgilAghov]

For a couple of years I was thinking there's no point in even spending few hundreds of $ on Nike Nikelab/ACG cargos/jackets, when you can get the same kind of stuff for much much cheaper. HOWEVER, after trying these, I was realizing how stupid it was to spend cheap money on clothes that can't hold their cut, cheaply materialized and had no longevity. What I learned is that you'd better invest in good clothing because it pays off in the long run, as long as it stand for something more eclectic and aesthetically outstanding like the Nikelab/ACG stuff.
Telling one brand from the other, that's a different story already, the next step would be to realize what is a high dollar good purchase than just a brand wimp. I don't see the point of spending high $ on "regular" clothes just because they're branded. Just like you said.

[jonmap]

your acw comparison at 13:00 was a really well-rounded perspective, thanks for another great vid!

[jawntanamo_bae]

Your discussion about most consumers not understanding that what goes into making an item of clothing is much more than just material cost is something I think even most of Internet Fashion nerds need to understand, and one of the biggest insights you’ve shared in a while. Fantastic video as always 🤘🏽

[YEETx]

ive always been seeing those garbage simple designs with expensive brands and now i finally know how to call it

[imnotaclownanymore]

found your channel through Frugal but just want to say (as someone who doesn't wear streetwear but just enjoys videos about it) I especially enjoy your more discussion-y video like this and the $150 rule one, they are funny and digestible but also quite informational, hopefully you make more of these in the future!

[ranchjenkem]

The problem to me is when people center themselves on a piece of “Premium Mediocre” in a way they would never do otherwise. Supreme gear is the biggest example of this that I remember occurring en masse—people buying *and flexing* Supreme goggles when they wouldn’t have ever worn goggles otherwise. Or taking a picture from bottom up so they could flash their Supreme slides. I really just see Premium Mediocre as a fashion faux pas in general because it forces people to do things they’d not otherwise do for the sole purpose of showing off a brand name on a *minor* piece of clothing

[caleblatreille]

I think a big missing piece of this conversation is the role and history of luxury branding in general. The modern use of logos can 100% be traced to hip hop culture in the 80s, specifically Dapper Dan making more adventurous Gucci, Fendi, & LV garments than the actual brands themselves, while prominently featuring those logos. This had very specific aspirational and sometimes countercultural meanings (ahem FUBU) that were almost totally inverted when luxury brands started incorporating those designs themselves, and these kinds of mediocre products are the result. Absolutely nothing wrong with heavy branding or prominent logos, but this version of "aspirational luxury" definitely feels lifeless compared to the inventive, obvious-piracy version of years past.

[arwestromen]

Fashion is a form of ugliness so intolerable that we have to alter it every six months
- Oscar Wilde

[Zeverinsen]

As someone who likes to make things myself, and knows how much things can _actually_ cost or how long it might take to make it, I know for damn sure that it doesn't take as long as people think for skilled workers to make these luxury items, nor does the material cost what you'd think because it is bought by a company.
It will always cost more to have someone else make the garment for you, because when you disregard the materials, you're paying for the convenience, expertise and professional touch as well.
When it comes to luxury goods, I personally think it will always be a better option to pay an independent professional when paying _a lot, _ instead of purchasing "brand name" goods, because you will get more for your money.
In my mind, people only spend extra on tacky "luxury" stuff, because of the brand name, and nothing else. If they only cared about quality, they would go to a local professional or something instead. It is often quite obvious who ups the price tag for quality, who does it for profit, and who does it for their image.
I think a lot of people also have a tendency to delude themselves into thinking they like the aesthetic of something, simply because of the branding on it, and that in reality they'd hate it if it wasn't "designer" (The Dior saddle bag comes to mind).

Having worked retail, I don't trust any well known luxury designer brands, especially not if they're selling items that aren't in their wheelhouse. If you're going to buy an expensive watch, buy it from a reputable *watch brand, * and not a brand well known for making bags or shoes.

[TalksWithTJ]

Good video, however at 11:27 where it's stated Essentials offers standard cut you can find anywhere, the drape and cut of their items (dropped shoulder, tapper on pants) is often the reason people will shop the brand over others. The brand is now half and half with some items showing almost NO branding similar to their collection pieces such as the long coat, relaxed trousers and nylon pants. The newer blocked branding isn't as liked and many have voiced that with the new FW22 drop. 7th Collection was on sale for 70% off recently, the perfect time to clean up on premium items for $50 versus $200 or $200 versus $800.

[Tirful]

Love the conceptual direction these videos are taking!
I very much agree with your conclusion that the value of things like fashion is too subjective to be fairly measured in such black and white terms.
When I was younger I used to feel judgemental of "premiocre" (even before this term even existed I'm fairly sure there was an awareness of this as a thing) because I saw things like expensive logo shirts as a cheap cash-in on the part of brands, conning their customers with the illusion of value.

But in time I realised that this was only one perspective on a more complex issue – after becoming personally invested in certain brands (coincidentally your own example of ACW being one of my favourites) – and after gradually collecting a few bigger pieces (with much saving and over several years as I've never had a high income) I found myself much more tempted to buy smaller "everyday" items such as socks with logos on. I'm sure there's a "quality cap" on a pair of socks from ACW compared to a specialist sock brand such as Rototo (who are also cheaper), but when you have an affinity for a brand you can still feel more inclined to buy from them.

My own perception of value had changed over time and this made me realise that the much-ridiculed logo shirt wearing demographic may not always (or only) be "chasing clout", but might see that logo as part of their own aesthetic identity – what we wear may be a curated narrative and a way to try and communicate our personality to the world, but it is simultaneously a day-to-day quality of life experience, so many fashion decisions may be based more in what evokes positive associations based on past experience than in the actual design of the clothing?

[cartilagehead]

I flew premium economy to Hong Kong from NYC a few years ago and it was a much, much better experience than what the poor souls in cattle class got. When your flight is 16 hours long all of those little (and in some cases, like with the separation and reclinability of the seats, quite big) differences really add up.

[SamuelPradhanisfit]

A man is not defined by any fashion brand or trends..but by his thoughts, good deed and success

[ZZZ-vbkl]

I think premium mediocre is bad when you pay premium prices for a product that isn't actually backed by quality materials or a good brand. These days though it's much harder to get away with since information on what's good is so prevalent. This has basically caused a huge rift between high-end brands and low-end brands where premium mediocre fills the gap.