How you dress teaches people how to treat you

[Firerybadger]

Wondering how much truth there is in this sm gem I’ve just seen as I’m of the comfort above everything type. If it’s true maybe I’ll get treated differently by the world

I don't really understand your point re the donations. I hate visible logos. They're tasteless and naff no matter how cheap or expensive the item.

I don't understand what a visible Tommy Hilfiger logo is supposed to be signalling except being tasteless . I would avoid the collector wearing one.

Read the book- then come back to me and we can discuss further.
These aren't my ideas- this is what research indicates.

The logo thing. Was this in US or U.K.?

Logos in the U.K. are very much a class thing. The more discerning the wearer the less likely to show blatant logos. I’d never wear anything with a logo apart from my trusty Nikes. I tend not to pal up with logo wearers as they don’t match my tribe. None of my friends wear logos, even the rich ones.

Its also an age thing.

Being able to look after your skin and teeth for example

As long as you don’t have blinding white teeth. That says way too much.

Some come close to doing so though 😉

I don't need to "read the book"

You are the one saying Tommy Hilfiger logos apparently impressed people. A Tommy Hilfiger logoed garment would NOT impress me. I hate logoed clothing. I don't care if it's expensive or cheap- it's tasteless.

Logos in the U.K. are very much a class thing. The more discerning the wearer the less likely to show blatant logos. I’d never wear anything with a logo apart from my trusty Nikes. I tend not to pal up with logo wearers as they don’t match my tribe. None of my friends wear logos, even the rich ones.

Same here. The only clothing I have which might have a logo are Hermes scarves and (a) not all do and (b) even if they have, the Hermes is always deeply buried in to the intricate design. I can spot a Hermès scarf at 20 paces but it's from the colours and designs, not a logo.

I definitely wouldn't be impressed by a Tommy Hilfiger or Lulelemon logo- quite the opposite.

Hmmm I’m skeptical, even if it is by a scientist. I would believe it more if it was done by a social scientist or anthropologist.

Labels can indicate wealth. But are generally discreet at more expensive levels. Tommy Hilfiger is generally a teen brand. Maybe it’s because their clothes were more interesting to look at having logos or badges on that attracted people rather than plain joggers and t shirts.

l don’t think on the whole labels are indicitaive of wealth. They are indicative of aspiration. Or in the case of being wealthy and wearing logos indicative of crassness.

Oh goodness, are we being deliberately obtuse?

I quoted a book, which quotes research, which indicates that yes, people do react differently dependant on appearance.
One aspect of appearance mentioned was; logos.
There was one piece of research which specifically mentioned TH logos.
Not my personal view on TH, nor even yours. Just what the piece of research found.

People who can spot an Hermes scarf, or a Hugo Boss suit or whatever are just the same....tuning into signals.
And, as you have said yourself, one's reaction changes based on that signal.
I was merely bringing some objective research to the discussion to support that assertion.

I vvvvv much doubt that any member of your Royal family/ Cabinet would wear labels...but you would be in no doubt as to their status.
Why?
Because they will be leaking lots of signals that communicate status.
And other people will react accordingly.

It is a vvvvvvvv rare person who can genuinely react in the same way to a prince and a pauper.

I wonder if the increased donation to the logo clad was because the donors subconsciously identified them as less needy themselves, and more likely to be collecting for other people.
( yes, yes I know that lots of crooks are middle and upper class, I was just interested in the discussion).

re the academics, I think that quite a bit of that is reverse snobbery, as in ‘I’m so clever/ important that I don’t have to be smart, unlike all you less educated people who are so proud of your child for achieving a second class degree’ ( have several degrees myself so not envious).

I don't dress well because I don't really care about fashion- I just wear Boden/Joules/Seasalt/Crew Company/white stuff/gudrun sjoden dresses that I buy on sale and black loafers from the Clarks outlet shop They are mostly floral/print dresses. I pair it with scruffy (but cosy!) jumpers, M & S tights and a black puffa coat in winter. Sometimes the colours don't really match. I wear crocs in summer and uggs when going to the shops.

However I love makeup so I wear a full face of makeup daily- primer, foundation, highlighter, contour, blush, eyeshadow and liner and mascara. I cleanse and moisturize with hado labo lotion facial oil, serum and weleda skin food at night so that my skin is well prepped for makeup in the morning. I don't have any gray hairs as I am in my 20s but I dye my hair at home and drag a brush through it in the morning.

I could dress better but I find most 'nice' clothes really uncomfortable -including jeans. For work/interviews, I would just wear a plain dress and a blazer. But I can't dress like that everyday and definitely not on weekends! I find all jewellery and watches uncomfortable. on the other hand, makeup feels like nothing on my face so I feel like I can go all the way with that! Shopping for clothes is so unsatisfying, so many things look awkward on me and i feel like I look awful. And the clothes in the shops often look really cheap (and flammable). I am a size 8 so it should theoretically be easier esp in a UK context, but it isn't. Its why I stick to a uniform- I like floral/print dresses from the above brands and so I stick to the same theme. I do have some cheaper dresses from cheaper shops but they look very similar.

The fact there are comments on this page alone sneering at logos for being "crass" (while bragging that they can recognise a Hermes scarf), and saying stuff like "I don't care about fashion I just wear [name drops laundry list of upper middle class brand names" (complete with random brag about being skinny) shows how much snobbery there still is about clothing, and how many people do the performative "oh I'm far too posh to care about fashion darling" thing.

It's just blatant showing off.

Everyone knows that large designer logos are associated (at least in the UK) with working class culture. The point is, why do you find working class culture and working class people to be bad?

I spent longer than I should have here trying to work out what 'clitjing' was ...

I grew up very poor - as in went to school in plimsolls & a jumble sale jumper as no money for shoes / coat - sort of poor. As a 19 year old, I worked for an Old Wykehamist who was impeccably dressed. Beautiful, crisp Savile Row tailoring. But was 'an intellectual who didn't have time / see the need for deodorant etc'. He stank. I met him again much later in life. By then the beautiful clothes had been replaced by jeans & airtex tops / supermarket jumpers. He was (& his clothes were) still not what you would call clean. He got very annoyed that those in high office did not take him very seriously. I must say I agreed with him but he sadly couldnt' see that a wash & a haircut would have helped his cause no end.

how is joules and boden upper middle class? I got a joules dress for £20 once. Boden always for below £40. I grant you that you can find cheaper clothes in the supermarket but the UK must be a very poor country if a £40 dress is considered 'up-market'?

Reiss would be more upper middle class cos I think it is hard to get anything decent for below £80 to £100 even when discounted. Even then I suppose you can get such clothes in a charity shop. At the same time, it would be more of a status symbol if someone was always wearing Reiss/COS/ SANDRO that don't go on huge discounts (as it would be quite hard to get a whole wardrobe made of such clothes in a charity shop!

But some logos are crass! The sort of bling in your face ones.

There’s a difference between a discreet Chanel button, and a massive Chanel logo stamped all over something. It’s not sneering, it’s just an observation.

"how is joules and boden upper middle class? I got a joules dress for £20 once. Boden always for below £40."

It's not just about price, is it? I had never heard of Boden before this site.

I'm not interested in your "research" . You cited Tommy Hilfiger as some sort of evidence it would make donors well disposed. My point is I personally am not impressed with obvious logos- quite the reverse.

You're now saying, as far as I can tell, that's not what you meant but just that people pick up on signals.

I think clothes with obvious branded logos are ugly.

Its not always about price, but if a brand is supposed to have an upper middle class client base, then they generally have a higher price point. e.g. I would say Planet Organic and Whole Foods are definitely aimed at the upper middle class consumer. Esp Whole Foods. I have bought ingredients there that almost equate to the cost of eating a meal outside. You wouldn't be able to afford to do the weekly shop there and buy all your groceries there without an income traditionally associated with the middle classes unless you were economizing in other aspects of your life. Boden/Joules is just a smidgen more expensive than its other high street competitors and its sale items can be cheaper than buying zara full price.

It's literally just fabric.

No fabric is inherently "crass" or "tacky" or "posh" or any of those other things. All those things are just value judgements that we assign to different pieces of fabric according to socio-cultural factors and associations.

There are many things that used to be the preserve only of wealthy upper class people, and as a result those things were perceived as "smart" (or posh, or whatever word you want to use).

Britain's economic landscape has hugely changed over the past 50-100 years, with many aristos who used to be wealthy landowners falling into poverty or relative poverty, and being outshone by the influx of super wealthy Russians and Arabs who have different purchasing patterns. Meanwhile, some of the most profitable UK industries are now those dominated by middle class and working class people, and certain industries (like football, or plumbing) which can be profitable are dominated by people from working class backgrounds and thus perceived as working class.

As a result, the UK now has a class of people who are broadly "wealthy but working class". This, combined with mass production and other economic changes such as the availability of credit, means that for the first time (I don't mean right now, but over the past few decades) working class people are buying expensive or "luxury" items that were once the preserve of upper class or upper middle class people.

Posh people can't stand to see working class people wearing "their" clothing and using "their" products, so those products lost their prestige and their whole cultural association changed.

Burberry is a prime example. Once a posh, fairly dull brand, all it took were a few wealthy working class celebs to adopt it, and their whole reputation was changed. And now upper class people don't want to wear it anymore. The change in brand perception happened very quickly.

Nobody would think logos are "crass" if logos were not so popular amongst working class people. It's that association that makes them crass.

If working class people en-masse started wearing Hermes scarves, or battered old Barbours and whatever brand of welly the Labrador- and Range Rover-set wear, then things would change very quickly.

Funnily enough I was just reading a fascinating anthropology journal article about the same thing happening but with jobs and gender coding, basically the more a job is perceived as female the lower prestige and value it's assigned, and if loads of women start doing a male-coded job it lowers the prestige and value associated with the job.

Logo items are typically the cheaper items in any luxury brand. They are known as the 'entry level' aspirational items for people who want to buy in the brand at a relatively affordable price point. It is generally assumed that these people don't care as much about quality because if they did, why would they buy a £1200 canvas bag with LV logos on it instead of a bespoke Italian leather bag which might even cost slightly less? And if they cared about quality and money was no object, they would go for the £3000 leather bag (that LV also stocks). same goes for clothing. The shirt with logos on it would be cheaper than the plain neutral suit and made of cheaper material.

That sounds interesting- what was the article?

It’s not literally just fabric unless it has the logo woven into it. It’s been printed or decorated in some way.

Some fibres like cashmere and raw silk are expensive because of the cost of producing or obtaining them. These would be ‘posh’ fabrics due to the price.

Polyester is cheap as chips, even top range stuff.

Im not sure what you’re arguing about. Logos are not worn everywhere by everyone. Therefore a certain sort of person favours them over another. It’s just tribal again.

They do say that you should dress like the job you want to be in...

Dressing for job above you is old fashioned advice.
Where I work there are better dressers and people who don't manage to dress so well. It's not grade related.
In my last job also civil service we had a CO who kept coming in in a suit even after he looked around him. One day the principal officer was in and he kept looking at CO with an "introduce yourself!!!" look on his face. We were all aware PO was puzzled. Somebody had to find the words to let him know, don't worry, it's not that you don't know who this person is, he just doesn't want to dress like the rest of us minions!!

"Dressing for job above you is old fashioned advice."

It never made any sense imo.