I think we can all quite happily dismiss half the worlds choices if we chose.
Just because it is not what we chose does not make it meaningless or a waste of time. I personally regard golf or watching soaps as a waste of time but I don't have the arrogance to suggest that just because I don't do it.
In spite of thinking that the thread is all about people who understand the op and people who don't, some of us understand and shockingly still don't agree.
It is mostly about snobbery. I could go to school in a £400 or dressed head to foot in boden and tat is acceptable. What I wear would be approved because it meets the ops (and others) standard of what constitutes discreet wealth. It is not vulgar.
And most of us view aspirationally those things we regarded as wealth or 'class' however we see that.
For many wealth and being middle/upper class is about status and security. We have visions of what we could possess that would register to us that we are safe. For some it is a house,a career or a car or a steady job.
But the safety relies upon those thing being permanent. So we do/buy/own things thatvreassure us that we belong here amongst the comfortable and classy people.
That may mean gucci wellies or boden or a BMW. It is about recognising yourself within a social group and comforting yourself with thectrappings of that lifestyle.
Now if you have a career, or a loving family, or a hobby about which you are passionate, or a vocation you may not desire these things. But that simply means that your disinterest in an image is worn like a badge of honour. Why else all the scorn about those dressing up but to emphasize that you are anti-image?
These threads always contain such nonsense about 'oh I just sniff my armpits, squeeze a spot and get into crappy jeans with dog pooh on them'. If you don't care about image then other peoples choices would not bother you. The need to be savage is just defending your own image because that group , the too busy, too worthy, too superior to be bothered by tat have to emphasise that. I should add that that may well be true. You may actually be too busy or worthy to care. But recognising that those who do care are not vacuous simpletons but just have different worries and needs and concerns to you would be generous wouldn't it? Rather than just choosing to dismiss someone with loud taste as therefore shallow?
These women in Gucci jeans are either just really into fashion or are signalling their belonging. It is exactly the same as converse and leggings. Or lk bennett and some brora cashmere. And the really wealthy people who turn up in old wellies may not care. But they are so secure, so established that they have no need to signal their belonging. Like the Queen wearing scruffy hats and wellies when meeting Nancy regean who was dripping in jewels and channel. Poor old Nancy was trying to be Jackie Kennedy so as to join the unofficial American royalty. Her desperation arose from worrying that she was not classy enough and would be rejected. Queenie is the queen so of course she doesn't give a shit.
So whilst I couldn't do hooker heels and bling it is exactly the same as discreet Ralph Lauren and Hobbs and Boden. It is about feeling comfortable and safe. I suspect the harder you try in terms of ostentation may relate to how temporary you worry that this wealth and class acceptance may last.
The Euro trash mums are just people for whom bling is what you wear to belong. It isn't any more sinister or stupid than that. And check your own image and think about how much of what you wear is to do with identifying yourself within a social group. Even the 'too busy to care' group. They rarely just throw on a 2002 per una dress and some trainers from peacocks.