I tried on a pair of Mephisto walking shoes once. They were very comfortable and I took a closer look. That was as far as it got. There on the side of the shoe was a label with the maker's name. On the outside of the shoe, mind you. Just look on the heel on the right side of the photo.
So let's get one thing straight right off the bat. As far as I'm concerned, external labels of the sort found on certain brands of shoes and hats are not venial sins. They're mortal. Unforgiveable, you'll-never-lunch-at-the-Four-Seasons-again class sins. The venial sort is the alligator or polo player logo on polo shirt type, like the one on Ralph Lauren's shirt in the photo below.
Now, in tolerating these I'm probably being generous, as those little icons were the first step down the road to the man-as-walking-billboard wear we see around us today. And I need to be clear that I don't possess a single one of those logo'd shirts so I hold the moral high high ground in any debate. But I consider them a minor sin. After all, if I took them more seriously I'd never find anyone to play golf with.
Don't even get me started on those neckties with the maker's logo woven in.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Labels and Logos
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiments, Will, but it is very difficult to find a serious pair of hardwearing walking shoes/boots these days without some kind of commercial blazon; I still use my father's ancient Brashers, which bear no logo, but the newer models do, as far as I can tell.
Will, great post today - one that is important indeed. As a young man going to school in the 1980s, I was a label victim. One was not cool unless he was wearing Sebago Docksiders and a Ralph Lauren dress shirt or polo shirt with the Pony. "Fake" docksiders, ie, those without the Sebago tag or Izod shirts which were considered too "last decade" would render one uncool.
Now that I have grown a bit, I find these logos and tags to be tiresome, common and a serious abrogation of sartorial decorum. I steadfastly oppose them.
One of the thrills of watching old movies and reading Apparel Arts magazines is that men dressed well and were free of all of this logo silliness. Last summer I watched Edward and Mrs. Simpson on dvd. There were a couple of scenes of the Duke in beautiful polo shirts with no logos of any kind. Paul Stuart sells those very shirts. I bought three last summer and received a host of compliments. I will be back this summer for more.
I completely agree, and as far as I'm concerned people who do this may as well leave the price tag on, or have it also made into a logo.
Someone is Eaquire said it more pithily when he said, "the only living things that should have visible brands on them are cattle."
Will,
I agree with you completely on this one. I know I was a little objective yesterday, but not on today's subject. I hate logos as much as you, and I was grief stricken to find that Brooks Brothers printed their logo(s) on some of their belts and bags last year. Hopefully, they will not completely join the dark side.
I agree with you, Will. I eschew labels and logos of all kinds, save one: Lacoste. I love Lacoste polo shirts. I love the way they look and fit on me. I've been wearing them since I was a little kid. During holidays from prep school I wore them and endured taunts from local ruffians for being 'preppy' (ah, sweet memories...). I simply can't get rid of them. What can I say? The flesh is weak.
Agreed. Why would a company put a logo on shoes in the first place? A persons heel is rarely close enough to read the fine print, and just makes the shoe look tacky. Sad.
If the item justifies the small effort, a sewn-in or sewn-on label can often be quickly removed with a seam ripper or razor.
If you go to to paulstuart.com they have polos prominently displayed with logos and on the right hand side there is a welcoming phrase..."Introducing the Paul Stuart Logo shop." Such a shame.
I fully agree, Will.
In fact, I went so far as to remove the labels from the back of my ties and have instructed my shirtmaker not to sew in his label either.
I don't see why a shirt logo is forgivable. It is a bit more work to get rid of logos entirely, but then you don't look like someone's horse. After a college career full of logos, I finally purged the last (non-exercise) clothing with logos from my wardrobe about a year ago. So much nicer.
The two polo shirt logos which I do tolerate are the golden pleece on Brooks Brothers and the palmetto tree on Ben Silver shirts. I think these have sufficient distinction to be tolerable.
Will, I could have sworn that I saw you the other day with the word "Juicy" strewn acrossed your backside on a pair of sweat pants. (If I didn't find them irritating, I would insert a "wink" sign at this point.) My mistake. I must go with the herd on this point and agree, completely. I had a consultant come in trying to get me to use his services several months back. He had left the label on the sleeve of his coat. I couldn't tell if this was intentional or not; however, I immediately decided not to use his services.
That's why I LOATHE Tommy Hilfiger clothing. Most (all?) of the clothing I have seen of this brand has that fugly blue, red and white insignia embroidered on it. Please, cut that out! I also despise Lacoste for the same reason.
Will, methinks you jettisoned those shoes too quickly. With deft use of an X-acto knife, you could have removed that dangling label and leave not a trace.
Will,
Paul Fussell takes note of this in his book "Class" where he makes the point that the secure upper orders eschew labels all together. I do wish that he would update his book, as it would be fascinating to see what he thinks of clothing 25 years later.
I do believe that J. Peterman, with NO logos to be found anywhere. The summer catalog is where these can be found.
I Meant to type, J Peterman has polo shirts tht have NO log to be seen anywhere. I am not certain where he has his made.
Post a Comment