My question to you
why the buggary fuck would anyone want to pay £100 for a shirt?

there comes a point when an item of clothing just isn't worth the money that is asked for.

Fair enough, spend £400 on a suit, that can be worth it. But within some quite limited boundaries a shirt is a shirt.

The material can only be so good, the process of creation of the shirt can only be so good, and the cut can only be so good.

The upper limit of this is about £45 I reckon.

What are your views? Bonus points for actually making me think "fair enough, that's a good reason to spend £100 on a shirt"
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 15:23, 22 replies, latest was 17 years ago)

I sat here
for ten minutes - trying to think of a reason why it would be that expensive....

and all I can come up with is "it better bloody be made from bamboo and all the proceeds going to starving pandas and children."

And that's not even a real reason. It's just a cop out for brand names.
(Poppet some assembly required., Tue 14 Apr 2009, 15:37, Reply)

My ex used to like £70 shirts
all designer names, fancy looking and so on.

Yet some weeks we I didn't have enough money for the food shopping.

That's just one of the reasons he's my ex.
£45 is a good upper limit.
( chickenlady b3ta's very own Elizabeth Taylor, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 15:48, Reply)

My tuppenceworth
(Hello, by the way - I've not been around here much recently).

If you draw a graph of cost on the y-axis versus quality on the x-axis for pretty much any product, you'll get a curve that is sort of exponential in shape. Yes, you can get some distortion towards the bottom, if you're careful and end up buying good quality goods for little money. But generally there's a sort of linear bit, then the curve accelerates upwards as the law of diminishing returns kicks in.

My personal take on things is, if you can afford it, look to buy stuff which is at the upper end of the linear part of the graph. That way you're getting very good quality without spending silly money. Above that point, you're spending more than you need to, and not seeing much improvement for it.

Vipros's example of the £100 shirt is by my reckoning well up the 'silly' part of the graph, whereas the £45 shirt is at the top of the linear region. You can buy a pretty good shirt for that kind of money. Anything more is just wasting money.

Of course, one can always argue about the exact points on the graph as quality is often a matter of personal perception rather than something which can be quantified, but you get the drift.
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 15:53, Reply)

Can we say £50?
I like John Rocha shirts and they're that much.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 15:54, Reply)

some designer things are worth having
my calvin klein and ted baker underwear for example are incredibly comfortable and look good. however, they all came from tk maxx so weren't horribly expensive.

but to more than double the price of a shirt purely because it has a tiny bit of stitching or a not visible logo is absurd to me.

my nicest shirts are pretty fancy, one of them was £45, but I bought the other at the same time for a fiver, so I figure that makes them very reasonable when considered together.

edit: k2k6 - nice to see you for a start, and secondly, well put. I suppose it depends on how much something is worth to you.

I know very clearly how much things are worth to me, and if they are more than I won't buy it, or I will find it at the right place elsewhere.

For instance, had to buy a new wetsuit yesterday. no fucking way I was spending £220 on it, so scoured the internet and found it for £160. much more reasonable.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 15:56, Reply)

I had a blouse for £100 once.
But in my defence my grandmother bought it for me and she has more money than sense and it was a very well made blouse.

I might still have it somewhere.


*rummeges through black bin liners*
( girlinthehole, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 15:56, Reply)

@BGB
No, I'm not going to make the obvious joke.

@LiC - buy your John Rocha shirts in the Debenham's sale...
( K2k6 has a proper job these days, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 16:09, Reply)

You're asking two very different questions here
1) Why would anyone spend £100 on a shirt?
and
2) Is there ever justification for spending £100 on a shirt?

1) Two main reasons:
a) They think people will be impressed if they see that they have a £100 shirt, or
b) They genuinely believe that if you spend that much you will get an item proportionally better in cut and quality than a cheaper one.

I suspect that, whether they admit it or not, the majority of £100 shirt buyers fit into the a) category - however there are wealthy City types who buy shirts costing that amount that have no vulgar logo and there is no obvious 'look at me' aspect to their shirts - these are b) people.

2) My opinion is that in some cases there may be justification for a price tag of that magnitude: handmade shirts tailor-made to your precise specifications are pretty labour intensive and bespoke tailoring is really lovely to wear: something that fits you exactly is both rare and quite marvellous.

However paying £100 for an off the peg shirt because of the label makes you a fucking cretin, in my humble opinion.

In my smarter youth I paid high prices for designer clothing and the quality was certainly little better than some non-name brand product. There is a limit to this, however, which my dear brother with his 7-pairs-of-Primark-socks-for-about-a-pound does not see.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 16:53, Reply)

You get what you pay for
An oldie, but a goodie. A £100 shirt is going to be that expensive for a number of reasons. It could be a silly designer name; it could be absolutely fantastic cotton (think Ermenegildo Zegna) that's never going to wear out and will be more comfortable to wear; it could be because it was expensive to produce (higher quality fabric); because it's amazing (Thomas Pink shirts have some amazing fabric that can be stretched and still retain a pattern that must be costly to design and make); it could be because it's produced in really small numbers (fewer lots being made = more overheads needing to be paid off per item); it could be design and cut (like you said. I'm thinking of Emma Willis shirts - the collars are amazing and the fabric is like silk. Like no cotton shirt I've ever seen before. Then little unusual details like reverse stitching or something cost more than normal). One thing they probably all have in common is more expensive production techniques - Paul Smith shirts are made in Italy, and that's going to be more expensive than having them made in Bangladesh. Clothes are usually cheap because they're exploitative of cheap labour - when they're expensive, it's because they're made properly in first-world countries.

That's not to say it's a good reason for spending £100 on a shirt - but that's why they're expensive.

And as the wise man says, buy the best you can afford and you only cry once.
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 16:57, Reply)

interesting and valid points all round
What I am really referring to are off-the-shelf shirts. A tailored item is going to cost more and probably be worth it.

I think what I am struggling with is that I would never find a shirt worth £100 regardless of the quality of cloth or stitching or pattern. I just don't think it would make that much difference.

With regard to Primark socks though, almost all my socks are Primark black sports socks. They are very cheap, very comfortable, don't have raised seams over the toes and if all your socks are the same there is no problem matching them up.

My approach to shopping is this: find what you want, decide what you think it is worth, then find it on sale somewhere for that price.
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 17:03, Reply)

£'s or E's are much of a muchness these days
I'm wearing a E50 shirt and it's totally worth it cos it's air-y and it's smart and it's comfortable and I wear it one day every week in an air-conditioned office which is always too hot cos it's full of women.

I have one for every day of the week - all worth it.

E100 though?
Hm, I just bought a E500 suit and it would be wrong to wear a cheap shirt. I mean, you can spend E100 on a tie from the same guy who made my suit.

Expensive stuff in this instance feels amazing on though - some stuff is all label but this stuff is good.

Is it worth it?
Probably not.

Do I deserve it though?
Totally.

Is it taking food out of my or anyone elses' mouth?
No.

Nice one.

rafter
baz
(bazmorningstar efil4nat3b, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 17:09, Reply)

It really is individual
There are plenty of people who would never dream of paying £400 for a suit because they wouldn't think it was worth it. Shirts for £100 are like suits form £400 (or maybe a bit more). You either think they're worth it or you don't - and I wouldn't have thought you'd ever be persuaded unless you actually try one to see if the difference means something to you, and makes you care about it.

Like eveything I suppose - who needs a Ferrari when any car would go from A to B?
(Land of Green Ginger It's dreamy weather, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 17:18, Reply)

I don't think £400 is a huge amount to spend on a suit at all...

I had mine bespoke made for me and it was more than this and is lovely, but I'm sure I could happily spend 2k (lottery win pending) on a beautiful suit from an incredibly tailor

£100 for a shirt is excessive though unless it's bespoke.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 17:57, Reply)

Speaking of bespoke shirts
www.kjbeckettbespokeshirts.com/

you don't even have to be there, these days.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 18:15, Reply)

If you really like that $100 shirt but don't want to pay those kinds of prices
then you can try an old trick all women know: get a part time job at a clothing store. Suddenly, that $100 shirt miraculously becomes a $100 shirt you paid $15 for.

Or go to places like TJ Maxx. 'Tis all the rage with the young hipsters I hear.

sorry, several people have called me 'old' lately.
( flirting with badgers What? It sounded good at the time., Tue 14 Apr 2009, 18:28, Reply)

Funnily enough I was having this conversation with someone the other day (I can't remember who with or why the conversation started although I do vaguely remember me suggesting the use of unicorn jiz to exlain the price but that's neither here nor there.) I personally think it's redonculous but then again I don't wear shirts so you know.

All in all a pretty pointless reply.
(lei, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 20:35, Reply)

If it's woven
from Michelle Pfeiffer's pubes. Harvested circa Batman Returns.
(The Empress it seems you CAN polish a turd!, Tue 14 Apr 2009, 21:38, Reply)

Empress
I'd say that a shirt like that would be worth more than £100!
( Vipros. clever got me this far, then tricky got me in, Wed 15 Apr 2009, 8:28, Reply)

I laugh in the face of expensive designer gear.
I went to Dover last Saturday - seemed like a good idea, a bit of coastline, a nice walk along the cliffs and some damn nice pubs to boot.

The footpath we found was about a mile or so down the road from Dover castle. So we followed it - it lead out to the headland and back in the vague direction of the castle. The footpath, sadly, ran out as we got to the hills which had been dug as defences for the castle.

Not wanting to turn back, we scrambled up said hill and wandered along this huge artificial (but quite unmaintained) ridge in search of a way back to the main road, which eventuallky culminated in us spotting a gap in a fence at the bottom and climbing/scrambling down this hill and eventually falling over and sliding down on our arses, much to the amusement of a National Trust woman who was just in the car park at the time.

One of our number was less than impressed by this. All the way down the hill, he complained about the state of his Armani jeans. £300, apparently.

I don't think my trousers even cost a tenth of that. Clearly the upper limit of what one pays for clothing may relate to the kind of activities in which one indulges.
(LongJohnBaldry, Wed 15 Apr 2009, 10:22, Reply)

Simple.
My clothes are expensive because they aren't made by children or any other exploited members of the world population.

They're well-designed, have no outward labels and last a bloody age.

For 9 of your £5-a-go, dead-in-a-wash shirts you can get at Primark, I've got a shirt that will last a lifetime. And the BBC will never run a news story showing children sewing sequins into it.

Edit: This makes me sound like a twat. I like pretty things and being nice to the world, that's all.
(TheSnark oh, c'mon, like you didn't see me coming, Wed 15 Apr 2009, 16:16, Reply)

@ Snark
I have no problem with kiddie sweatshops. In fact, I'd happily put my kids to work in one if we had a local sweatshop. Kids have far too much free time on their hands....they might as well gain the dexterity practice from sewing sequins on designer-wear, especially as their eyesight is still perfect.
( flirting with badgers What? It sounded good at the time., Wed 15 Apr 2009, 19:04, Reply)

@ badgers
But there is no excuse for making such ugly clothing. Noooo excuuuuses...
(TheSnark oh, c'mon, like you didn't see me coming, Wed 15 Apr 2009, 22:35, Reply)