Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Why expensive jeans, why now?
I'm not on the upgraded-denim bandwagon yet, but I'm maybe on Rollerblades or a scooter hanging onto the back of that bandwagon. Yesterday, since it was in the 90s and the sample sale space was somewhat cooler than the street below, I ended up on 36th and 8th, looking at high-end jeans being sold at GAP prices. The pair I ended up getting were "Salt Works Avenue A," for what it's worth. Apparently, in the non-sample-sale world, it's worth about $120. The jeans fit better than any I own. But that's neither here nor there. Why have expensive jeans become such a thing (the NYT can't get enough of one pair that costs $600, but $200 has become shockingly typical)? From what I can tell, the advantage of the fancy-pants is that there are far more possibilities for smaller women than there are at even the more upscale chain stores (Banana Republic, J.Crew...) where, with size deflation, there's one legitimately small size, which may or may not be well-cut and which is still only small enough for someone who would have worn a 4 or 6 a few years ago, and then this jump to sizes that would once have been called "large." The new designer jeans come in a gazillion different shapes, each designed to fit a different small person. Since wealthier people tend to be skinnier, the precision-for-petite jeans become not just convenient for the tiny of all income levels but also automatic, multilayered status symbols: if you're thin you must be rich, if your jeans cost $200 you must be rich, and if you can fit into the $200 jeans you must be thin. This arrangement wouldn't bother me (especially since I am now in the land of sample sales) except that some of the names of the designer brands are so self-consciously egalatarian: "Citizens of Humanity," or "Seven for all Mankind." Clearly all of "mankind" or "humanity" is not a size 12 or below, does not have access to sample sales or a spare $200 for jeans, nor would even be interested in giving that much thought to buying pants.
... yet you bought a pair.
ReplyDeleteAs I mentioned, they fit well and weren't expensive. So, why not?
ReplyDelete"So, why not?"
ReplyDeleteBecause you're going to have to endlessly repeat the story about getting them at a sample sale lest people with taste think you're money tacky.
At the end of the day, always go with Levis 501's.
They come in a 1000 different sizes, the button fly is sexy, they fit most people well, and the brand always has good connotations.
There's nothing wrong with talking repeatedly about a sample sale. And I'd never seen this brand before, so I have no reason to think anyone else would comment.
ReplyDelete"There's nothing wrong with talking repeatedly about a sample sale."
ReplyDeleteWell, yes and no. Context is crucial.
If you're attending a funeral, it's considered in poor taste to repeatedly talk about a sample sale.
If you're standing alone on a subway platform, repeatedly talking about a sample sale will lead passersby to think you're a bit touched.
If tourists from Belgium stop you on the street to ask directions, it's not particularly helpful to repeatedly talk about a sample sale.
"..lest people with taste think you're money tacky"--what does this mean?
ReplyDeleteIf they have taste, they don't want expensive jeans? Doesn't this get back to the NYT Nantucket debate--old vs. new money, discreet tackiness vs. conspicuous consumption? Conspicuous, though, to whom? Do you think the founder of Levi's had new or old money? Never mind that he wouldn't have been allowed anywhere near Nantucket.
"Money tacky"?? Whatevs! Primo jeans do actually fit better, look cooler, & last longer. Forget the sample sales: $200 is totally justified for a pair of pants you can wear four days in a row.
ReplyDelete... wait, everybody else wears their jeans four days in a row, right?
P.S. Great blog.
One of the lessons I learned in college was that you can, indeed, wear a great pair of jeans four days in a row.
ReplyDelete"..lest people with taste think you're money tacky"--what does this mean?"
ReplyDeleteMoney tacky is simply when you choose the style of your clothing or possessions based on showing off how expensive they are.
Las Vegas is money tacky. Donald Trump is money tacky.
This isn't the same thing as the old money / new money divide. Old money can have a money tacky style too. Our host's Ancestral Homeland has certain aspects of this.
Amen to jeans that fit properly. Properly-fitting jeans are something that needs no defense, no matter what the cost or brand.
ReplyDeleteI bought a decent pair, but after a couple of months of dancing alot again, they've gone from proper fit to way too loose. Dropping from a 42 waist to a a size 38 waist is handy, except now I'm really like 37, so now I need to go out dancing even more to get down to 36 and then buy new pants to replace the ones I bought TWO MONTHS AGO. Everything has an upside and a downside, I guess.
Four days in a row indeed. These jeans are to replace/supplement the ones I used to wear four or more days in a row....
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's much danger of my look being "money tacky;" even if savvy New Yorkers guess the brand of my jeans, these jeans, even at full price, probably wouldn't count as much of a status symbol....
I suppose that would be a semi-downside to weight loss. The problem with staying the same size over many years is how to defend buying new jeans in (or after) college when the ones from 10th grade still fit just fine.