Would you spend $395 on a sweater?

[Anonymous]

Sweater, no. Dress or jacket, yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't, but we have not finished saving for our kids' college educations.

Wow...so, you'll look like a hag until your kids' college funds are fully funded?

The only way to avoid looking like a hag is to spend $395 on a sweater?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd consider it for something really great. But then again, fashion is my hobby.

I'd rather save that kind of money for great wine.

[Anonymous]

Unless the wearer is very thin, those sweater/coats can end up looking like a nasty old bathrobe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't, but we have not finished saving for our kids' college educations.

Wow...so, you'll look like a hag until your kids' college funds are fully funded?

Um, the opposite of not buying a $400 sweater isn't looking like a hag. Get a grip, PP. Plenty of people look fantastic in clothes that cost less than three digits.

Not in this area. Sacrificial lambs rarely look good.

Meaning your kids are on their own for college but you have fabulous clothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No but it helps that I look good in everthing I wear. I could put a $10 sweater on and make it look like a $400 sweater.

Modest too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't, but we have not finished saving for our kids' college educations.

Wow...so, you'll look like a hag until your kids' college funds are fully funded?

Um, the opposite of not buying a $400 sweater isn't looking like a hag. Get a grip, PP. Plenty of people look fantastic in clothes that cost less than three digits.

Not in this area. Sacrificial lambs rarely look good.

Meaning your kids are on their own for college but you have fabulous clothing?

Nah. More like I'll expect them to pitch in for their *own* education and Mom still has money to splurge on herself when she wants to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd consider it for something really great. But then again, fashion is my hobby.

I'd rather save that kind of money for great wine.

Luckily, I don't drink wine. More money for awesome Vince sweaters!

[Anonymous]

It'll go great with that $1,500 Louis bag!

[Anonymous]

even if you could afford it it just seems unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't, but we have not finished saving for our kids' college educations.

Wow...so, you'll look like a hag until your kids' college funds are fully funded?

Um, the opposite of not buying a $400 sweater isn't looking like a hag. Get a grip, PP. Plenty of people look fantastic in clothes that cost less than three digits.

Not in this area. Sacrificial lambs rarely look good.

Meaning your kids are on their own for college but you have fabulous clothing?

Nah. More like I'll expect them to pitch in for their *own* education and Mom still has money to splurge on herself when she wants to.

Selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd consider it for something really great. But then again, fashion is my hobby.

I'd rather save that kind of money for great wine.

Luckily, I don't drink wine. More money for awesome Vince sweaters!

No amount of great clothing could equal a great vintage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't, but we have not finished saving for our kids' college educations.

Wow...so, you'll look like a hag until your kids' college funds are fully funded?

Um, the opposite of not buying a $400 sweater isn't looking like a hag. Get a grip, PP. Plenty of people look fantastic in clothes that cost less than three digits.

Not in this area. Sacrificial lambs rarely look good.

WTF are you talking about?

I rarely spend more than $50 on one clothing item and I'm pretty sure I look like neither a hag nor a "sacrificial lamb." When I go to the store I see no discernible difference between Levi's jeans and $200 ones. We do not live in an age where luxury items reflect quality or sophistication (see gaudy Coach bags etc.), although this "yak" sweater appears to be the exception (?!). Almost everything is made in the same few factories in China. People compliment a blouse I bought for $6 at Macy's every time I wear it. I would rather make my own clothes if I had to than buy this over-priced status item crap.

Agree with PP here. Would also add that people with truely great taste and fashion sense can make something that they got for $5 at a thrift store look like a $500 purchase. With the exception of haute couture, it's rare that price equals really unique style, cut, or quality.

Moreover, I was a designer for a high-end, off-the-rack, brand for several years and the manufacturers we used also produced lower-end brands. In the same factories often using the exact techniques and processes. It's very rare that price equates to quality in the fashion world, especially off the rack (though there are certainly exceptions). Honestly, most of the people who pay big bucks for clothes are suckers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't, but we have not finished saving for our kids' college educations.

Wow...so, you'll look like a hag until your kids' college funds are fully funded?

Um, the opposite of not buying a $400 sweater isn't looking like a hag. Get a grip, PP. Plenty of people look fantastic in clothes that cost less than three digits.

Not in this area. Sacrificial lambs rarely look good.

Meaning your kids are on their own for college but you have fabulous clothing?

Nah. More like I'll expect them to pitch in for their *own* education and Mom still has money to splurge on herself when she wants to.

Selfish.

But, of course. Not to worry...I'm sure your children will appreciate the education. Just don't visit them at school...you'll get mistaken for the help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, I wouldn't, but we have not finished saving for our kids' college educations.

Wow...so, you'll look like a hag until your kids' college funds are fully funded?

Um, the opposite of not buying a $400 sweater isn't looking like a hag. Get a grip, PP. Plenty of people look fantastic in clothes that cost less than three digits.

Not in this area. Sacrificial lambs rarely look good.

WTF are you talking about?

I rarely spend more than $50 on one clothing item and I'm pretty sure I look like neither a hag nor a "sacrificial lamb." When I go to the store I see no discernible difference between Levi's jeans and $200 ones. We do not live in an age where luxury items reflect quality or sophistication (see gaudy Coach bags etc.), although this "yak" sweater appears to be the exception (?!). Almost everything is made in the same few factories in China. People compliment a blouse I bought for $6 at Macy's every time I wear it. I would rather make my own clothes if I had to than buy this over-priced status item crap.

Agree with PP here. Would also add that people with truely great taste and fashion sense can make something that they got for $5 at a thrift store look like a $500 purchase. With the exception of haute couture, it's rare that price equals really unique style, cut, or quality.

Moreover, I was a designer for a high-end, off-the-rack, brand for several years and the manufacturers we used also produced lower-end brands. In the same factories often using the exact techniques and processes. It's very rare that price equates to quality in the fashion world, especially off the rack (though there are certainly exceptions). Honestly, most of the people who pay big bucks for clothes are suckers.

A thrift store find is not the same as buying a shirt with a retail value of $5. In fact, many thrift stores have name brand items for less. Your comparison fails.