Exactly. People who buy basic grey hoodies JUST because theres a massive ralph lauren logo on it is like walking around like a massive advertisement, and paying for it too.
I'm still looking for a marker to conceal my dark flannel Kangol 504 logo on the backside. For some reason, a classic cap that goes great with drape suits of the 30s-60s must have an accent coloured logo on it.
I feel like it makes you look cheap. Small logos are okay, but massive logos like some GAP hoodies, or the cringey t shirts that say GUCCI in massive print are awful.
I’m often torn by the fact that while it’s in poor taste to advertise you have money, if I spend thousands on shoes, or whatever, I don’t necessarily want them to blend in with Walmart shoes/clothes either. That being said, I do not wear any obnoxious logos. I just feel that if I spend money on the best, I’d like it to be more immediately noticeable. Logos do that, but not in a very gentlemanly way… The most I’m guilty of is wearing 1953’s, and sometimes I feel like even that’s too much brand recognition to be tasteful…
I think it's all about your target audience. Those who know, know. If you're trying to appeal to everyone then yea, you'll need to clearer signs that will differentiate yourself from the "walmart" crowd. Moreover, this group likely wouldn't appreciate the thousands you've put into your attire. But those who are in the know will notice those small nuances in quality.
I dare say, if you spend thousands of dollars on one pair of shoes and they are worth it, they will stand out from walmart shoes, period. Same goes for most clothing.
@@KomradeKrusher I strongly disagree. To us, perhaps, but it’s actually a very small percentage of the total world population that would know the differences. For example; If I asked which shoe is more expensive, my bespoke G&G shoes, or a pair of generic Cole Haans, the general population would have no clue. At all.
The gentleman takes great care that he is understated in both mannerism and dress. Every wearable article a gentleman owns must be functional by design and valuable by chance. The difference between the ill-bred person and the gentleman is that the latter is equally socially adept and comfortable amongst tradesmen as he is in the company of the most refined elements of society.
I’m glad you used the exact phrase I do. I often say I don’t like the big garish logos because I don’t want to just be a walking billboard. A small, discreet logo, like Lacoste uses, is acceptable but I don’t want a brand name in giant letters all across my chest. I just don’t find it necessary. Not to mention it always feels like if I’m just another guy wearing an “insert brand name here” logo item, it makes me look like another sheep in the herd. I prefer to stand out by my modesty.
Agree I have some nice Lacoste polos and Ralph Lauren polos small pony I think they look really nice but that's as big as a logo I will go anything bigger I won't wear
Great timing on topic choice, as today I found myself being quite shocked at a young guy walking past, on my way to work, a walking billboard of brands, everything had a large logo on it loud and bold advertising his brands, most of them luxury fashion/sports brands, Nike, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, AppleWatch even his neck tattoo was that of a famous London Football club logo. But it got me thinking, Am I any different? I may not have visible branding, or if I had, it's very subtle, small or low Key but each item of clothing I had on, was a luxury brand in their own right, like Levi, Loake, Omega, Sunspell, Ray Ban. You can probably tell where each item goes on the body just on those specific brands. I came to the conclusion that I wasn't any different, not really.
But you are, your items are with little doubt of a better quality in fabric and manufacture, whereas he has just bought his items to advertise that he has bought them, not to enjoy wearing something nice 😀
@@bingboompow8861 The only reason you buy Gucci is to show off that you have more money than you actually do. Not because it's comfortable and high quality.
I find it ironic that people who like wearing giant luxury brand logo Tshirts are just glorified consumers that have no clue about the actual history of the fashion house, the designers behind it or what brought it to fame in the first place (horsebit loafers, bamboo handle bags etc if we take Gucci for example).
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand luxury brands in fashion. The style is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the brands will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Louis Vuitton’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these logos, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike luxury brands truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Hermes existencial catchphrase "You dream it up hermes makes it happen," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Gianni Versace’s genius unfolds itself on their visual color palettes. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Versace tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
@@venicec3310 true, I suppose that is what attracts many of us to fashion, the ability to grasp the subtle nuances and the ideas that can be conveyed through (de)construction, materials used, patterns involved. As opposed to a normal piece of cloth, every designer leaves his signature and we get an insight into his way of thinking and what shaped and matured his views through his sartorial journey.
For as long as I've been interested in clothes or other fashion items, the fact that we just wear logos without thinking about it has never really occurred to me. Interesting observation and informative video.
I think that this video was helpful and I feel like more people should take advice. I always liked classic menswear since growing up and I am still pretty young and I wear my own spin of classic menswear. I follow style rules just with 70s cut suits, pants, and shirts. I love it. Thanks Raphael and the crew.
great video. Kyle always brings a coolness to videos that the other hosts just don't have. I love everybody, but Kyle is definitely the right choice when talking about modern or casual styles.
Great video. One of my fav designers (Dries Van Noten) doesn’t emblazon logos on his clothes . There was one menswear collection he did (2017) where he put the logos of his cloth suppliers throughout the collection: Marling & Evans, Lovat, Toki Sen- I. I thought it was neat that he put the focus and limelight back on his producers. I have a few jumpers from the collection and definitely like wearing these heritage-rich logos.
Thank you for the informative and entertaining video. Your soft-spoken understated way of speaking that brings attention more to what you say rather than how it's said really is an appreciated rarity today, and especially on youtube. I sincerely appreciate that I haven't seen any thumbnails from you gents with the obviously faked, "I'm super excited so click my video," expression that is as rampant here as the plague in the middle ages. Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes(an expression, not literal, ESL crowd) but my biggest issue with branding has always been the people who look at you strangely and demean others for wearing "generic" clothing with no branding on it, when often the only difference between a blank white or solid colored tee and branded white or colored tee IS the branding. One of the biggest goals of marketing and advertising has been to get the consumer to act as "herders" for the brand(see the etymological connection?) for the company itself, and in that regard, they have been quite successful much to the detriment of humanity as a whole.
I don't usually wear anything with a prominent logo. A few years ago, I purchased a royal blue t-shirt with the word Triumph. That is a reference to the motorcycle company. I thought it interesting and I wear it a couple of times every summer. It is a nostalgic keeper for me, as my brother once owned a Triumph motorcycle. Besides, I like a royal blue t-shirt.
If you take haute couture from luxury fashion houses in consideration, then you realize that haute couture rarely shows any logos. Because it's the peak of garment creation, custom made. Whereas in the ready-to-wear collections they go crazy with logomania. You basically have to pay more to have less logos on you, when you want to wear garments from that luxury brand. Which is just a wild concept of these luxury fashion houses. "You wanna buy and wear our clothes and not pay 10-50K for an outfit? Then you gonna have to wear our logo all over your body".
I have avoided logos like the plague for at least 10+ years. I think logos and branding have helping lead to the subpar quality of menswear over the last 50 years. Instead of putting out a great product, these companies rely on the logo and marketing to sell a subpar product at a premium.
Correction, It's not Milton "Glasser" (as in glass), it's Milton Glaser, pronounced like "glaze"+R, (as in glazed doughnuts). One of the cofounders of the Push Pin Studios, he is famous for "I❤NY" logo, and for Bob Dylan poster among other works. Cheers. Also, I don't think "A logo is the point of entry to the brand." is his quote - although some memes claim so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I still remember that line from Back to the Future where Marty's mum thinks his name is sown into his underwear because she saw the Calvin Klein label.
When Raphael works out on his Peloton bike I wonder if he wears that hoodie and track pants or if he still puts on something more elegant. Fascinating content as always gentleman.
I wear a sweatband, padded bike short, and a t-shirt. I like the hard rides and I typically do 45 mins -75 mins powerzone, and my shirt is soaked by the end of it..
@@gentlemansgazette Not sure if this is Raphael though I assume it is but regardless I truly appreciate the response thank you! I have a bike as well so it's definitely beneficial to get those workouts in. It's tough to dress classy at the gym but a nice sweatshirt and pants that aren't baggy would go a long way when you aren't into tshirts alone. Personally for myself a tshirt and shorts is just fine for those occasions. It gets extremely hot out here so I would skip working out in any collared shirts and just save them for the rest of my usual situations. Anyways sorry for the ramble just wanted to share my thoughts and was curious about your perspective on athleisure. Also I would assume Synthetic blends would be better for excersize rather than 100% cotton? I think you touched on this in another video. Looking forward to the next video thank you. Glad to know though keep doing well in those rides:)
Problem with the current era is that a logo often doesn’t mean quality or anything anymore. Which is ironic given that many of these companies were founded on the concept of quality and craftsmanship. Also in a mass consumer market it doesn’t make much sense to have clothing or items that are expensive last too long. I enjoy smaller more discreet logos here and there but I won’t buy something just because of it
Don't forget that some of the first branding by companies was made specifically for food products. Food adulteration was very common, where bakers and the like would "make up the weight" by adding sawdust and other unpleasant things into their food. Soon new regulations saught to stamp out this practice, and so companies began to follow the new regulations whilst branding their products, some with official stamps of approval or licensing to show that they were regulated, so that the buyer could feel assured that they were buying a quality, unadulterated and safe product. This philosophy now filters down into everything from clothing to technology.
Logos are where I draw the line. Put your makers mark in a discreet location--like inside the garment-or I don't want it. The items that I want that do come with a logo prominently displayed--which is only older clothes that haven't worn out yet--get their logos covered with a patch. Now I make my own clothes, or have them made. I hate visible logos on my clothes.
Not to pick nits but S.P.Q.R. is an abbreviation not a logo. It's more akin to USA, meaning Senātus Populusque Rōmānus, or the Senate and People of Rome. It was the name of the government of Rome as a country.
Logos can work, if they’re sewn & contain no words (Lacoste croc) or a design feature (Ferragamo buckles, LV pattern). T-shirts are the exception if they’re associated with an event/person in my life.
When I was younger logos were everything. 🤣 However, as I've gotten older it's rarity if at all that there are logos on my clothing. My sneakers are another story though. 🤣🤣🤣 They're usually the statement piece for my outfit.
I try to avoid logos as a general rule, but sometimes, displaying one is unavoidable. My personal rule is -- no more than one visible logo ought to be displayed. Some logos have an interesting history (Lacoste, Brooks Brothers), some have become an iconic part of modern fashion (Polo pony rider), and some simply look very elegant.
I am not too fond of wearing clothing with the company's logo prominently displayed for all to see. A tiny symbol on a shirt is passable, but there is no way I am going to wear something with the designer's name splashed across my chest.
That just reminds me back to the future and the Calvin Klein pants. Been like wow, Marty McFly got a small Wiener called Calvin, that's a bold statement. :D
If they want me to advertise for them, they had better pay me for that advertising space. Per monthly rates as follows: Chest: $100 Stomach: 50 Upper Back: 100 Lower Back: 50 Thigh: 35 Shin: 20 Foot: 50 Hat: 25 Forearm: 20 Upper arm: 30 I think that it is pretty reasonable. I am a big fellow and have lots of advertising space. Otherwise, I do not wear logos. My logo is me.
So people with an higher net worth then would think they're in the same tax bracket. Rich people don't wear stuff with logos: none of my suits, jackets, T-shirts, snickers or shirts have a logo on them.
I like the idea of wearing graphic tees that convey something you like or are interested it, such as a band or a favorite tv show. It helps with that idea of building community, as people who are also interested in the thing I'm wearing will sometimes talk about it. But to wear something that's just a logo of any old company and nothing more? That's just strange to me. I see a lot of people wearing Levi's white t-shirts. I love my Levi's jeans, but I would never rep their brand on a cheap t-shirt.
Their reverse weave fleece needs 2-3 washes to begin to get the lint out of them. They're so thick, I could wear them on a 1km high mountain not far from me on a foggy afternoon.
I remember reading in the early 1970’s that printed T-shirts were to be the new big thing… then the marketing people ran with the ball. Fast forward, you’d have to pay me to advertise your brand, not the other way ‘round!
Although I do like wearing logos but it's only because I'm into fashion, I work hard, and also because logo clothing do genuinely tend to last more longer then clothes that are non-logo. It's all about perspective tbh. I'd rather own a £75 Ralph Lauren Polo shirt that could last me for 7 years, then a £15 polo shirt that's cheaply made and can be easily torn and worn out in a year. Nowadays when I buy something, I want it something that could last a very long time, and in this case fashion or luxury brands fit into that criteria. It's not necessarily that I want something and then show it off. It's because I want something that could last a lifetime (which'd save me money anyway) and enjoy what I'm into, fashion.
logos tend to last longer than non logos what kind of horseshit is that? and no a lot of popular luxury brands today just have a hight price tag because of how popular the brand is not how good its crafted!
That’s not solid advice.. sometimes brand name, high fashion items are of higher quality, but not always, and not every item they make. Usually the best items from a luxury house are their heritage items, the ones they know they have to get right.. a Burberry trench (the England made ones), Gucci loafer, etc. Everything else, and especially the items with giant logos on them, are not their best items. I wouldn’t consider Ralph Lauren luxury, at least here in the US, but their basic polos are of decent quality. You can buy them frequently in the US for $30-40 on sale.. it would be better than a Zara or something at $15 sure, but for a little more you could get something even better without a logo if you wanted to.
I don't mind some small logos like the Lacoste croc or the RL pony ect but wouldn't buy something with anything bigger than that. Your blue sweater is the type of thing I would wear it looks good but not over the top loud
Kudos to you for saying "Come on you Irons!" when mentioning West Ham, and I don't even support them: my team is Brentford, so I have to say, "Come on you Bees!"
I avoid logos like the plague. The only "logo" is on / in my watch, but never on clothing. At least, not those huge ones. The basic name of something like jeans. Not GAP across the front. Blegh
I don’t mind logos on clothing as long as It’s a nice logo like Thrasher, Ralph Lauren, Champion, or Vans but I also love simple pieces without logos too which I perfer more.
I believe that the first logo-bearing thing I had was a pair of Converse "Chuck Taylor" high-tops in the late 1950s. These days, aside from a logoed polo shirt or the tartan on kilts I wear and a clan badge, I tend to avoid logos and embrace a more classic style.
I literally started buying generic polo's because of the logos on the RL ones. It's getting absurd. It's the difference between emporio Armani and Armani exchange.
in the eastern seaboard it goes back to the 50's and very early 60's best movie scene with a prominent logo was in the movie = goldfinger where 007' is playing golf with goldfinger and you see 007' wearing the jaguar logo on his V neck and in the more modern era the mid to late 70's with the polo style tennis shirts , la'costa , le'tiger , the little penguin and in the 80's the city was flooded with logo's
Firstly its not maroon and blue, its claret and blue .... and if you say 'C'mon you Irons' they're going to look at you funny. But if two people were wearing claret and blue and you shouted 'C'mon you 'ammers' they'd understand each other, then the other one would smack the first one in the jaw and shout 'C'mon the Villa', unless they were a Burnley fans, in which case the Londoner would also get told to politely go back to the south where all the soft people of dubious parentage live. Football (where you kick a ball and don't pick it up - that's rugby) is something that unites us .... honest 😊
Remember "Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche" from 1982? One important item from that book. Real men are so sure of themselves that they wear the lables on the INSIDE of their clothes. Or words to that effect.
As a general rule I avoid logo items unless I support the team or business. Even then I wear them to ether events that are specific to the logo. I'm not going to advertise unless I get compensated.
I have never worn logo clothes outside when I'm at home and know that no one is coming over then I have a couple of shirts that I wear but never outside that is just sloppy in my opinion
I don't generally like flashy logos on my clothing, but I have a few Emporio Armani and Versace t-shirts that are a bit loud. However they cost me on average £5 each from the charity shop so it's fun to have people assume I paid loads of money and start mocking me only to be met with "this thing probably cost less than a new t-shirt from Primark!" I always state with pride that I thrift stuff rather than give hundreds of pounds to billion dollar corporations for the privilege of advertising their gaudy overpriced tat!
I feel the same way about car dealers’ decals and license plate frames on my vehicles. One of the first things I do is remove them when I bring the car home. For decals, spray some WD-40 on it, warm it up with a hairdryer, and gently peel it off. Dental floss can be slipped underneath the decal and sawed back and forth to aid in removal. I replace the license plate frame with one of my choosing.
I made the dealer remove it as part of the sale, before I left the lot, the times I bought new. No reason to do it yourself, you’re not paying for their advertising. 😉
@@007cheburashka Where I'm from, my father left the rear window mini sticker and plate frame long enough that it didn't make sense to remove it. The dealership was a legendary/historic dealer/location that is now gone and things like this helps the car culture with regards to nostalgia and lineage for when it comes time to audit, show-off, or sell the car. As kids, we didn't touch anything. Kids are very susceptible to logos and advertising, they enjoy it. Quite literally made for them. The ones who fall for it are the grown up enabler-consumers.
I was influenced by the No Logos idea and appreciated that Charles Tyrwhitt polos initially didn't have logos. Unfortunately, their polos and some other casual shirts have some kind of shadow stitching logo. Too bad, if you ask me.
I wore (indie only) band t-shirts when I was younger but have never worn clothing with a visible logo. Except for my Converse as similar non branded versions aren’t good enough quality wise. If I’m going to advertise a brand they can pay ME to do it. Wearing a logo because it’s an expensive brand is just crass.
For the best cinematic illustration of this point, please see the old Mike Judge movie called "Idiocracy". Because Idiocracy is EXACTLY what we're living in now... Whooda thunk it? I'm sure that even Mike Judge wouldn't have known what he thought he made a Comedy at the time, would unfortunately somehow transmogrify into a Documentary in the current time.
Two ideas: Logos are self overpaid advertising you wear mostly for other people who also value it more than themselves. This channel has some good ideas - but is also a nostalgic trap. Instead of forever copying the style of the past - ask yourself what are the values and cultural motivation that both historically created the styles you love and why does it fundamentally connects with you at this time? Consider breaking away from stricktly mimicking the past for your answers and instead appling those core ideas to all that is new and old in your daily life. Your own mix of style (likely unmarketable) will emerge. Eventually your style might better be described as just being - your way.
I bought my high school shoes after I left school again. Why? Because they're dependable and comfortable. I rediscovered them last year, been over a decade since I last wore them daily and I've been figuring out how to wear them recently. Since they're half-square/round toed they give off a brash early 70s vibe, and I'm a 70s head so they're staying in my rotation.
My view: Anyone who wears clothing that is visibly labeled with the name of the manufacturer lives in a different world than I do. If I meet a stranger dressed like this, I know: we will always be at a distance. I allow myself this arrogance towards the boasters.
They do? I would not buy anything with a logo on it. If the Nike symbol is the same shade of black as the shoe it is ok with long pants. Invisible. Otherwise unless they are actually paying me to advertise...
I was always baffled, why people pay money to walks around as a billboard. Especially if the only quality improvement on the product is the addition of the logo
@Clifford V Because it' not all about price. It's about value. If you buy a Porsche you get additional value in quality, features, and handling. If you slap a huge brand logo on a $5 shirt and sell it for $500 you still have the value of a $5 shirt
I’m indifferent to logo’s. Brand quality is always first. If the logo is visible, that right is earned by the virtue of the product. I wear it proudly.
My uncle had a rule I still follow today. If you can't cover most or all of the logo on your shirt with quarter. Don't wear the shirt.
Your uncle is a wise man and a gentlemen. I never thought of that.
That's a good rule of thumb.
Come to think of it, perhaps you could replace the quarter with your thumb.
This channel has changed the way I look at myself, and I'm sure it's helped and informed many other people as well. Thank you
I'm one of them.
Finally someone who doesn't SCREAM to make his content "stand out".
The big dog doesn't have to bark to get his point across.
True but I wish he sounded a little bit more enthusiastic though
You don't have to scream, but I wish Kyle didn't seem so bored with this topic. It made the video a little less fun to watch
@@misterrea861 exactly my point too!
I'm dead against wearing or buying anything that carries a logo. Simply this: you've paid for the brand, why advertise for them too?
Exactly. People who buy basic grey hoodies JUST because theres a massive ralph lauren logo on it is like walking around like a massive advertisement, and paying for it too.
The history of wearable logos is fascinating and makes total sense
It certainly is! Which part did you find most interesting?
I hate logos, if you have to show a logo (expensive brands) probably you are paying too much or have a insecurity problem.
alot of logos brands actually have better fabric which last longer over time.
I'm still looking for a marker to conceal my dark flannel Kangol 504 logo on the backside. For some reason, a classic cap that goes great with drape suits of the 30s-60s must have an accent coloured logo on it.
I feel like it makes you look cheap. Small logos are okay, but massive logos like some GAP hoodies, or the cringey t shirts that say GUCCI in massive print are awful.
@@getoffmygrass4857
Nope
@@getoffmygrass4857 nah
I’m often torn by the fact that while it’s in poor taste to advertise you have money, if I spend thousands on shoes, or whatever, I don’t necessarily want them to blend in with Walmart shoes/clothes either. That being said, I do not wear any obnoxious logos. I just feel that if I spend money on the best, I’d like it to be more immediately noticeable. Logos do that, but not in a very gentlemanly way… The most I’m guilty of is wearing 1953’s, and sometimes I feel like even that’s too much brand recognition to be tasteful…
I think it's all about your target audience. Those who know, know. If you're trying to appeal to everyone then yea, you'll need to clearer signs that will differentiate yourself from the "walmart" crowd. Moreover, this group likely wouldn't appreciate the thousands you've put into your attire. But those who are in the know will notice those small nuances in quality.
I dare say, if you spend thousands of dollars on one pair of shoes and they are worth it, they will stand out from walmart shoes, period. Same goes for most clothing.
@@KomradeKrusher I strongly disagree. To us, perhaps, but it’s actually a very small percentage of the total world population that would know the differences. For example; If I asked which shoe is more expensive, my bespoke G&G shoes, or a pair of generic Cole Haans, the general population would have no clue. At all.
The gentleman takes great care that he is understated in both mannerism and dress. Every wearable article a gentleman owns must be functional by design and valuable by chance. The difference between the ill-bred person and the gentleman is that the latter is equally socially adept and comfortable amongst tradesmen as he is in the company of the most refined elements of society.
@@mattlambert5079 So what? For whom do you dress?
Fascinating! I love these forays into the history of men's fashion. This is just one of the features that make this channel so special.
I’m glad you used the exact phrase I do. I often say I don’t like the big garish logos because I don’t want to just be a walking billboard. A small, discreet logo, like Lacoste uses, is acceptable but I don’t want a brand name in giant letters all across my chest. I just don’t find it necessary. Not to mention it always feels like if I’m just another guy wearing an “insert brand name here” logo item, it makes me look like another sheep in the herd. I prefer to stand out by my modesty.
Very well described. I couldn’t agree more.
there are few things that bring more elegance than that discrete, white star from Montblanc. Well put, friend
Well said. It’s definitely noticed, in todays world.
I don't not anything that carries a logo
Agree I have some nice Lacoste polos and Ralph Lauren polos small pony I think they look really nice but that's as big as a logo I will go anything bigger I won't wear
Great timing on topic choice, as today I found myself being quite shocked at a young guy walking past, on my way to work, a walking billboard of brands, everything had a large logo on it loud and bold advertising his brands, most of them luxury fashion/sports brands, Nike, Louis Vuitton, Gucci, AppleWatch even his neck tattoo was that of a famous London Football club logo. But it got me thinking, Am I any different? I may not have visible branding, or if I had, it's very subtle, small or low Key but each item of clothing I had on, was a luxury brand in their own right, like Levi, Loake, Omega, Sunspell, Ray Ban. You can probably tell where each item goes on the body just on those specific brands. I came to the conclusion that I wasn't any different, not really.
But you are, your items are with little doubt of a better quality in fabric and manufacture, whereas he has just bought his items to advertise that he has bought them, not to enjoy wearing something nice 😀
@@viciouswaffle not true at all. Maybe he just enjoys loud and flashy fashion. It may have nothing to do with proving a point
@@bingboompow8861
The only reason you buy Gucci is to show off that you have more money than you actually do. Not because it's comfortable and high quality.
Don’t know but mostly stay far away from them. Maybe a polo log on a polo shirt. Not any more than that.
Another great story by Kyle. I really like that Cadillac watch. I'm not a big Cadillac fan but that watch is very stylish.
Nicely done. Well explained !! Thank you. S.
Why would anyone choose a Name/Logo over good materials, quality and craftsmanship?
Still confuses me a lot...
They do for Nike all the time
I find it ironic that people who like wearing giant luxury brand logo Tshirts are just glorified consumers that have no clue about the actual history of the fashion house, the designers behind it or what brought it to fame in the first place (horsebit loafers, bamboo handle bags etc if we take Gucci for example).
Wear what you like. Like what you wear.
@@villenium well if you like being a walking billboard full of logos then by all means go ahead
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand luxury brands in fashion. The style is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of theoretical physics most of the brands will go over a typical viewer's head. There's also Louis Vuitton’s nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation - his personal philosophy draws heavily from Narodnaya Volya literature, for instance. The fans understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these logos, to realize that they're not just funny- they say something deep about LIFE. As a consequence people who dislike luxury brands truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the humour in Hermes existencial catchphrase "You dream it up hermes makes it happen," which itself is a cryptic reference to Turgenev's Russian epic Fathers and Sons I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated simpletons scratching their heads in confusion as Gianni Versace’s genius unfolds itself on their visual color palettes. What fools... how I pity them. And yes by the way, I DO have a Versace tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for the ladies' eyes only- And even they have to demonstrate that they're within 5 IQ points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand.
@@venicec3310 true, I suppose that is what attracts many of us to fashion, the ability to grasp the subtle nuances and the ideas that can be conveyed through (de)construction, materials used, patterns involved. As opposed to a normal piece of cloth, every designer leaves his signature and we get an insight into his way of thinking and what shaped and matured his views through his sartorial journey.
For as long as I've been interested in clothes or other fashion items, the fact that we just wear logos without thinking about it has never really occurred to me. Interesting observation and informative video.
I think that this video was helpful and I feel like more people should take advice. I always liked classic menswear since growing up and I am still pretty young and I wear my own spin of classic menswear. I follow style rules just with 70s cut suits, pants, and shirts. I love it. Thanks Raphael and the crew.
great video. Kyle always brings a coolness to videos that the other hosts just don't have. I love everybody, but Kyle is definitely the right choice when talking about modern or casual styles.
Thanks, Gage - we hope that each of our hosts brings something a little different to each video :)
I was always taught a lady doesn’t wear logos. It’s just gotten worse but it has helped push me to do more of my own sewing,
Great video. One of my fav designers (Dries Van Noten) doesn’t emblazon logos on his clothes . There was one menswear collection he did (2017) where he put the logos of his cloth suppliers throughout the collection: Marling & Evans, Lovat, Toki Sen- I. I thought it was neat that he put the focus and limelight back on his producers. I have a few jumpers from the collection and definitely like wearing these heritage-rich logos.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing
For myself I avoid logos as much as possible, I like a clean minimalistic look. The less mess the better.
I own very few items with logos, but I don't mind the occasional small logo if it's a brand I support.
Thank you for the informative and entertaining video. Your soft-spoken understated way of speaking that brings attention more to what you say rather than how it's said really is an appreciated rarity today, and especially on youtube. I sincerely appreciate that I haven't seen any thumbnails from you gents with the obviously faked, "I'm super excited so click my video," expression that is as rampant here as the plague in the middle ages. Different strokes for different folks, as the saying goes(an expression, not literal, ESL crowd) but my biggest issue with branding has always been the people who look at you strangely and demean others for wearing "generic" clothing with no branding on it, when often the only difference between a blank white or solid colored tee and branded white or colored tee IS the branding. One of the biggest goals of marketing and advertising has been to get the consumer to act as "herders" for the brand(see the etymological connection?) for the company itself, and in that regard, they have been quite successful much to the detriment of humanity as a whole.
I don't usually wear anything with a prominent logo. A few years ago, I purchased a royal blue t-shirt with the word Triumph. That is a reference to the motorcycle company. I thought it interesting and I wear it a couple of times every summer. It is a nostalgic keeper for me, as my brother once owned a Triumph motorcycle. Besides, I like a royal blue t-shirt.
If you take haute couture from luxury fashion houses in consideration, then you realize that haute couture rarely shows any logos. Because it's the peak of garment creation, custom made. Whereas in the ready-to-wear collections they go crazy with logomania. You basically have to pay more to have less logos on you, when you want to wear garments from that luxury brand. Which is just a wild concept of these luxury fashion houses. "You wanna buy and wear our clothes and not pay 10-50K for an outfit? Then you gonna have to wear our logo all over your body".
I have avoided logos like the plague for at least 10+ years. I think logos and branding have helping lead to the subpar quality of menswear over the last 50 years. Instead of putting out a great product, these companies rely on the logo and marketing to sell a subpar product at a premium.
Somehow Kyles voice is always so quiet despite he is full tune. He is not easy understandable
Correction, It's not Milton "Glasser" (as in glass), it's Milton Glaser, pronounced like "glaze"+R, (as in glazed doughnuts). One of the cofounders of the Push Pin Studios, he is famous for "I❤NY" logo, and for Bob Dylan poster among other works. Cheers.
Also, I don't think "A logo is the point of entry to the brand." is his quote - although some memes claim so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Noted! Thanks for keeping us sharp. :)
- Preston
I still remember that line from Back to the Future where Marty's mum thinks his name is sown into his underwear because she saw the Calvin Klein label.
I instantly remembered that, too!
Very informative and well executed. Love this channel!!!!!
When Raphael works out on his Peloton bike I wonder if he wears that hoodie and track pants or if he still puts on something more elegant. Fascinating content as always gentleman.
I wear a sweatband, padded bike short, and a t-shirt. I like the hard rides and I typically do 45 mins -75 mins powerzone, and my shirt is soaked by the end of it..
@@gentlemansgazette Not sure if this is Raphael though I assume it is but regardless I truly appreciate the response thank you! I have a bike as well so it's definitely beneficial to get those workouts in. It's tough to dress classy at the gym but a nice sweatshirt and pants that aren't baggy would go a long way when you aren't into tshirts alone. Personally for myself a tshirt and shorts is just fine for those occasions. It gets extremely hot out here so I would skip working out in any collared shirts and just save them for the rest of my usual situations. Anyways sorry for the ramble just wanted to share my thoughts and was curious about your perspective on athleisure. Also I would assume Synthetic blends would be better for excersize rather than 100% cotton? I think you touched on this in another video. Looking forward to the next video thank you. Glad to know though keep doing well in those rides:)
Cool idea for a video! Thanks for enlightening us!
Problem with the current era is that a logo often doesn’t mean quality or anything anymore. Which is ironic given that many of these companies were founded on the concept of quality and craftsmanship. Also in a mass consumer market it doesn’t make much sense to have clothing or items that are expensive last too long. I enjoy smaller more discreet logos here and there but I won’t buy something just because of it
True, but it really depends on the brand. Newer brands with less heritage and history to them are usually worse in quality in my experience
Don't forget that some of the first branding by companies was made specifically for food products.
Food adulteration was very common, where bakers and the like would "make up the weight" by adding sawdust and other unpleasant things into their food.
Soon new regulations saught to stamp out this practice, and so companies began to follow the new regulations whilst branding their products, some with official stamps of approval or licensing to show that they were regulated, so that the buyer could feel assured that they were buying a quality, unadulterated and safe product.
This philosophy now filters down into everything from clothing to technology.
Thanks for the addition, Aaron!
That's why I don't eat white bread.
Logos are where I draw the line. Put your makers mark in a discreet location--like inside the garment-or I don't want it. The items that I want that do come with a logo prominently displayed--which is only older clothes that haven't worn out yet--get their logos covered with a patch. Now I make my own clothes, or have them made.
I hate visible logos on my clothes.
Not to pick nits but S.P.Q.R. is an abbreviation not a logo. It's more akin to USA, meaning Senātus Populusque Rōmānus, or the Senate and People of Rome. It was the name of the government of Rome as a country.
I mean at a certain point it can transcend original meaning and become a logo
Thank you for this great Video, it was well structured and interesting.
Logos can work, if they’re sewn & contain no words (Lacoste croc) or a design feature (Ferragamo buckles, LV pattern). T-shirts are the exception if they’re associated with an event/person in my life.
Me watching about logos while I’m wearing a Brooks brothers Golden Fleece logo pullover
When I was younger logos were everything. 🤣
However, as I've gotten older it's rarity if at all that there are logos on my clothing.
My sneakers are another story though. 🤣🤣🤣
They're usually the statement piece for my outfit.
I try to avoid logos as a general rule, but sometimes, displaying one is unavoidable. My personal rule is -- no more than one visible logo ought to be displayed. Some logos have an interesting history (Lacoste, Brooks Brothers), some have become an iconic part of modern fashion (Polo pony rider), and some simply look very elegant.
I am not too fond of wearing clothing with the company's logo prominently displayed for all to see. A tiny symbol on a shirt is passable, but there is no way I am going to wear something with the designer's name splashed across my chest.
That just reminds me back to the future and the Calvin Klein pants. Been like wow, Marty McFly got a small Wiener called Calvin, that's a bold statement. :D
Kyle is the perfect host for the long-awaited next GG segment on historical men's fashion: "What Men Really Wore in the 1970s". Please make it happen!
If they want me to advertise for them, they had better pay me for that advertising space.
Per monthly rates as follows:
Chest: $100
Stomach: 50
Upper Back: 100
Lower Back: 50
Thigh: 35
Shin: 20
Foot: 50
Hat: 25
Forearm: 20
Upper arm: 30
I think that it is pretty reasonable. I am a big fellow and have lots of advertising space.
Otherwise, I do not wear logos. My logo is me.
Conversion to euros?
So people with an higher net worth then would think they're in the same tax bracket. Rich people don't wear stuff with logos: none of my suits, jackets, T-shirts, snickers or shirts have a logo on them.
So you telling us that you are rich?
@@gerrymarko5893 …and he is wearing snickers ;-)
So you don't wear logos, but you feel the need to tell us you're rich in a youtube comments section. Interesting.
@Random Indian Guy🗿 only, if it was wrapped in plain no-logo wrapper!
Very informative!
I like the idea of wearing graphic tees that convey something you like or are interested it, such as a band or a favorite tv show. It helps with that idea of building community, as people who are also interested in the thing I'm wearing will sometimes talk about it. But to wear something that's just a logo of any old company and nothing more? That's just strange to me. I see a lot of people wearing Levi's white t-shirts. I love my Levi's jeans, but I would never rep their brand on a cheap t-shirt.
Champion have some great sweatshirts… which are ruined with the huge logo across the chest or the “C” printed everywhere.
Their reverse weave fleece needs 2-3 washes to begin to get the lint out of them. They're so thick, I could wear them on a 1km high mountain not far from me on a foggy afternoon.
I remember reading in the early 1970’s that printed T-shirts were to be the new big thing… then the marketing people ran with the ball. Fast forward, you’d have to pay me to advertise your brand, not the other way ‘round!
Although I do like wearing logos but it's only because I'm into fashion, I work hard, and also because logo clothing do genuinely tend to last more longer then clothes that are non-logo.
It's all about perspective tbh.
I'd rather own a £75 Ralph Lauren Polo shirt that could last me for 7 years, then a £15 polo shirt that's cheaply made and can be easily torn and worn out in a year.
Nowadays when I buy something, I want it something that could last a very long time, and in this case fashion or luxury brands fit into that criteria.
It's not necessarily that I want something and then show it off. It's because I want something that could last a lifetime (which'd save me money anyway) and enjoy what I'm into, fashion.
logos tend to last longer than non logos what kind of horseshit is that? and no a lot of popular luxury brands today just have a hight price tag because of how popular the brand is not how good its crafted!
That’s not solid advice.. sometimes brand name, high fashion items are of higher quality, but not always, and not every item they make. Usually the best items from a luxury house are their heritage items, the ones they know they have to get right.. a Burberry trench (the England made ones), Gucci loafer, etc. Everything else, and especially the items with giant logos on them, are not their best items. I wouldn’t consider Ralph Lauren luxury, at least here in the US, but their basic polos are of decent quality. You can buy them frequently in the US for $30-40 on sale.. it would be better than a Zara or something at $15 sure, but for a little more you could get something even better without a logo if you wanted to.
@@Methodsaimon My ebay generic shirts last 2 years in good condition when worn every day.
I don't mind some small logos like the Lacoste croc or the RL pony ect but wouldn't buy something with anything bigger than that. Your blue sweater is the type of thing I would wear it looks good but not over the top loud
Kudos to you for saying "Come on you Irons!" when mentioning West Ham, and I don't even support them: my team is Brentford, so I have to say, "Come on you Bees!"
I avoid logos like the plague. The only "logo" is on / in my watch, but never on clothing. At least, not those huge ones. The basic name of something like jeans. Not GAP across the front. Blegh
I don’t mind logos on clothing as long as It’s a nice logo like Thrasher, Ralph Lauren, Champion, or Vans but I also love simple pieces without logos too which I perfer more.
Interesting video.
I believe that the first logo-bearing thing I had was a pair of Converse "Chuck Taylor" high-tops in the late 1950s. These days, aside from a logoed polo shirt or the tartan on kilts I wear and a clan badge, I tend to avoid logos and embrace a more classic style.
I literally started buying generic polo's because of the logos on the RL ones. It's getting absurd. It's the difference between emporio Armani and Armani exchange.
Good kyle
in the eastern seaboard it goes back to the 50's and very early 60's best movie scene with a prominent logo was in the movie = goldfinger where 007' is playing golf with goldfinger and you see 007' wearing the jaguar logo on
his V neck and in the more modern era the mid to late 70's with the polo style tennis shirts , la'costa , le'tiger , the little penguin and in the 80's the city was flooded with logo's
Yes to me logos are tacky. But even more than this - I don't wear clothes people have to READ. 🙂
I don't like the continuous background "music" during the video. It makes me anxious and distracted.
I like the continuous ''beats'' and ''taps''. It reduces my stress levels and helps me focus.
Firstly its not maroon and blue, its claret and blue .... and if you say 'C'mon you Irons' they're going to look at you funny. But if two people were wearing claret and blue and you shouted 'C'mon you 'ammers' they'd understand each other, then the other one would smack the first one in the jaw and shout 'C'mon the Villa', unless they were a Burnley fans, in which case the Londoner would also get told to politely go back to the south where all the soft people of dubious parentage live.
Football (where you kick a ball and don't pick it up - that's rugby) is something that unites us .... honest 😊
Remember "Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche" from 1982? One important item from that book. Real men are so sure of themselves that they wear the lables on the INSIDE of their clothes. Or words to that effect.
As a general rule I avoid logo items unless I support the team or business. Even then I wear them to ether events that are specific to the logo. I'm not going to advertise unless I get compensated.
I tend to prefer no logo on clothing, and will remove or obscure logos whenever possible.
I have never worn logo clothes outside when I'm at home and know that no one is coming over then I have a couple of shirts that I wear but never outside that is just sloppy in my opinion
We had no choice. Logos are on EVERYTHING!
How often do you see architects with branding or logos on their clothing?
I don't generally like flashy logos on my clothing, but I have a few Emporio Armani and Versace t-shirts that are a bit loud. However they cost me on average £5 each from the charity shop so it's fun to have people assume I paid loads of money and start mocking me only to be met with "this thing probably cost less than a new t-shirt from Primark!" I always state with pride that I thrift stuff rather than give hundreds of pounds to billion dollar corporations for the privilege of advertising their gaudy overpriced tat!
I feel the same way about car dealers’ decals and license plate frames on my vehicles. One of the first things I do is remove them when I bring the car home. For decals, spray some WD-40 on it, warm it up with a hairdryer, and gently peel it off. Dental floss can be slipped underneath the decal and sawed back and forth to aid in removal. I replace the license plate frame with one of my choosing.
Goo be gone is better. WD40 could damage the paint.
I made the dealer remove it as part of the sale, before I left the lot, the times I bought new. No reason to do it yourself, you’re not paying for their advertising. 😉
@@007cheburashka Where I'm from, my father left the rear window mini sticker and plate frame long enough that it didn't make sense to remove it. The dealership was a legendary/historic dealer/location that is now gone and things like this helps the car culture with regards to nostalgia and lineage for when it comes time to audit, show-off, or sell the car. As kids, we didn't touch anything. Kids are very susceptible to logos and advertising, they enjoy it. Quite literally made for them. The ones who fall for it are the grown up enabler-consumers.
might be in the minority but i like logos on cloths think it looks cool, and believe a brand having a logos makes the brand name have more prestige
Still can't find when logos makers"marks" first started being worn on hats? They who receive the mark in their foreheads.
I was influenced by the No Logos idea and appreciated that Charles Tyrwhitt polos initially didn't have logos. Unfortunately, their polos and some other casual shirts have some kind of shadow stitching logo. Too bad, if you ask me.
When do the GG branded baseball caps drop?
I wore (indie only) band t-shirts when I was younger but have never worn clothing with a visible logo. Except for my Converse as similar non branded versions aren’t good enough quality wise. If I’m going to advertise a brand they can pay ME to do it. Wearing a logo because it’s an expensive brand is just crass.
i like the outfit @12:56
This is very interesting….
I only like logos inside coats, jackets and on watch faces.
No logos look way classier but sometimes it’s fun to “flex on the Haters” lol
I avoid them. Only things I have with logos are some sweatshirts with the logo of the trade school that I own - and a baseball cap with 1776 on it...
Everything has logos, even the car you drive 😂😂😂😂.
I got away from logos 15 years ago. I purchase clothing of quality
For the best cinematic illustration of this point, please see the old Mike Judge movie called "Idiocracy".
Because Idiocracy is EXACTLY what we're living in now... Whooda thunk it?
I'm sure that even Mike Judge wouldn't have known what he thought he made a Comedy at the time, would unfortunately somehow transmogrify into a Documentary in the current time.
I haven't since I was a Lacoste wearing early 80s tween trying to fit in with my squash-playing jib-rigging Yacht/Country club prep school classmates.
Band/musical group t-shirts are and should be fair game for casual and leisurewear
Adidas logos were all over the t.v. show Baywatch.
Two ideas:
Logos are self overpaid advertising you wear mostly for other people who also value it more than themselves.
This channel has some good ideas - but is also a nostalgic trap.
Instead of forever copying the style of the past - ask yourself what are the values and cultural motivation that both historically created the styles you love and why does it fundamentally connects with you at this time?
Consider breaking away from stricktly mimicking the past for your answers and instead appling those core ideas to all that is new and old in your daily life.
Your own mix of style (likely unmarketable) will emerge.
Eventually your style might better be described as just being - your way.
I bought my high school shoes after I left school again. Why? Because they're dependable and comfortable. I rediscovered them last year, been over a decade since I last wore them daily and I've been figuring out how to wear them recently. Since they're half-square/round toed they give off a brash early 70s vibe, and I'm a 70s head so they're staying in my rotation.
My view: Anyone who wears clothing that is visibly labeled with the name of the manufacturer lives in a different world than I do. If I meet a stranger dressed like this, I know: we will always be at a distance. I allow myself this arrogance towards the boasters.
They do? I would not buy anything with a logo on it. If the Nike symbol is the same shade of black as the shoe it is ok with long pants. Invisible. Otherwise unless they are actually paying me to advertise...
I was always baffled, why people pay money to walks around as a billboard. Especially if the only quality improvement on the product is the addition of the logo
@Clifford V Because it' not all about price. It's about value. If you buy a Porsche you get additional value in quality, features, and handling. If you slap a huge brand logo on a $5 shirt and sell it for $500 you still have the value of a $5 shirt
@Clifford V LOL what would be an alternative to a Mercedes or Porsche?
@@TheSultan1470MimicFanNum1 so specifically: what car has equal value as a Mercedes but lower price?
@@TheSultan1470MimicFanNum1 For example.
@@TheSultan1470MimicFanNum1 well, it seems hard since you can’t name any…
I don’t like logos
they're coarse and rough, and they get everywhere
I don't care
@@MZiyadF logos are for immature and silly men
@@MZiyadF apparently you cared enough to reply to him
@@thestalker7514 Yes
PRIDE!!!! ✊🏻 REPRESENTING!!! ✊🏻
Simple, you can’t purchase anything off the rack anymore with out logos that are non-removable.
Very long too hear.. try n make them short.. nice one
Gentlemen don't wear logos
Civilization dies, barbarism reigns. Designers trying to con people into paying high prices for rubbish.
I’m indifferent to logo’s. Brand quality is always first. If the logo is visible, that right is earned by the virtue of the product. I wear it proudly.
Because women like money, and a logo from an expensive brand makes them like you. Simple. 90% of everything men do = to attract women. 🙃😂
I purposely buy items which do not advertise their logos in brash ways.