How to assess the quality of garments (2014) • Hacker News Board

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#101

Post by _hardwaregeek » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 5:50 AM UTC

One of the common mistakes I and many others have committed when attempting to dress better is confusing dressing fancier for dressing better. The dress shirt made from cheap polyester that fits badly is not better than a well made t-shirt that fits perfectly.

Instead, I've found that one should strive for clothing that fits well, has quality fabric, good form and flows.

- Fit is self explanatory. The clothing needs to fit well. Bear in mind fitting well does not mean ultra tight. One's buttons should not be straining to keep the shirt closed. Also, fit depends on the style of the outfit and the wearer. Some people want looser pants, other people want skin tight pants.

- Fabric's effects can be subtle, but extremely powerful. Not only does fabric affect comfort, but it can also affect one's mood or attitude. If I'm wearing a soft sweater, I feel free and warm, the fabric hugs me and moves with me. If I'm wearing a more robust cotton oxford, I'm more locked down, the fabric is a little rougher, a little less giving, but perhaps that combo makes me feel like I'm wearing a uniform, like I'm ready to do my work. Fabric also provides a visible sense of quality. A dress shirt that is thin and weak is visibly different from a shirt made from a thick, stunningly white cloth. Even if a person watching you doesn't consciously notice, they will subconsciously.

- Form is how the item is constructed and laid out. For instance, how are the pockets arranged in a coat? A quality coat will have subtle, well designed pockets that integrate nicely with the aesthetic. A less thoughtful coat will have pockets haphazardly placed, often with needless accoutrements like epaulettes and flaps and buttons. Not that these accoutrements are bad. They simply need to be arranged with care.

- Flow is an element wholly invented by me, but it's basically whether the item works. Does it go with your aesthetic? Does it work on your body? Does it go with the rest of your outfit? Sometimes it just doesn't work [1] (sorry Michael Cera). If you're not comfortable—both mentally and physically—in your clothes, then they aren't the right clothes.

^[1] https://www.gettyimages.ae/detail/news-photo/michael-cera-se...

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#102

Post by hmottestad » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 5:53 AM UTC

I’ve found one simple marker for quality t-shirts. The top-stitch.

This is a stitch on the front of the neck that keeps the little bit of fabric in the back laying flat.

Tried to find some pictures of it online, but was harder to google than I thought.

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#103

Post by mrspuratic » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 5:57 AM UTC

ValentineC wrote: post #80

buttikin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have a sewing machine, and you're interested in repairing/tailoring your own clothes (and most importantly you have the time) it's well worth looking into historic sewing methods. Hand sewing can be just as strong if not stronger than machine sewing, it just takes the right techniques and the time and patience to sit there and do it. I've found the two most useful stitches I've picked up are the felling…

> Proper denim jeans are quite hard to mend though even if you know what you're doing, especially if you've worn through/blown out the inner thigh region. Wherever you've sewn will become a new point of stress on the denim and it is likely to just pull away the weave of the fabric from that point. This happens to every pair of mine, and is always the reason I am forced to retire them. Do you think it'll help if I rei…

Should do, if it's stitched down properly. Have a look at Levi 511 "commuter" to see how it's done, basically two extra triangles of fabric.

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#104

Post by panda88888 » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 5:59 AM UTC

on_and_off wrote: post #22

settsu wrote: post #14

It's interesting how synthetics were mostly lumped together and largely undifferentiated. To be fair, that post is over 5 years old and some seemingly significant advances in fabrics for consumer garments have become widely available in the meantime. I've personally come to feel cotton is vastly over-rated as a clothing material for anything but cost-saving goals (which certainly is an important factor.) Of course th…

merino + lyocel make for some awesome underwear. I have progressively replaced all my socks and boxers with ones made from these fabrics.

Could you give recommendation on brand and/or store?

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#105

Post by pmontra » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 6:03 AM UTC

ValentineC wrote: post #80

buttikin wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't have a sewing machine, and you're interested in repairing/tailoring your own clothes (and most importantly you have the time) it's well worth looking into historic sewing methods. Hand sewing can be just as strong if not stronger than machine sewing, it just takes the right techniques and the time and patience to sit there and do it. I've found the two most useful stitches I've picked up are the felling…

> Proper denim jeans are quite hard to mend though even if you know what you're doing, especially if you've worn through/blown out the inner thigh region. Wherever you've sewn will become a new point of stress on the denim and it is likely to just pull away the weave of the fabric from that point. This happens to every pair of mine, and is always the reason I am forced to retire them. Do you think it'll help if I rei…

Are they maybe a little too large and the denim on the thighs get in contact with the other thigh? Or do you ride bicycle and wear them against the saddle?

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#106

Post by mikekchar » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 6:05 AM UTC

jancsika wrote: post #89

fouc wrote: post #16

I hate the complete lack of transparency in garments. We need to know all the details, including the weave? For someone that sweats a lot in hot & humid climates, why does one white cotton shirt show the sweat, and another doesn't? Why do I feel cooler with a thicker cotton shirt than a thinner one?

> We need to know all the details, including the weave? You don't. In fact I'd argue that having access to the details makes you more likely to both choose the wrong garment and rationalize that wrong choice. > For someone that sweats a lot in hot & humid climates, why does one white cotton shirt show the sweat, and another doesn't? Branch one of this answer includes all kinds of details about thread count, thread le…

> don't wear cotton in hot & humid climates

I seriously had to LOL at this. When I first moved to Japan, I was clueless. I live in a particularly hot and sunny part of Japan. During the rainy season, we sometimes have rain every day for a month (like this year :-P). It took having my clothes literally rot on the line before I understood this point. My predecessor (government program rotates foreigners to teach English) was famous for going to events with a shirt stained green from mould.

It's the very first thing I tell people when they come here: don't wear cotton. There are much better natural fibres for this weather. You can also have cotton synthetic blends and they won't rot. The clothes that work well in the UK and most parts of North America can't stand up to 2 months of 30 C plus at 90 percent relative humidity.

Having said that, there are a lot of traditional cotton clothes in Japan and I have found that they are surprisingly comfortable. However, they are expensive. Probably those details you are talking about ;-) Practically all of the cheap clothes I know of are synthetic blends.

I'd give one other small piece of advice: buy clothes in areas that are famous for the weather you want to feel good in. Anybody wants a nice, not-bulky, warm winter coat: buy it in Canada. You want a nice summer suit for 100 degree F weather? Taiwan. You want a sweater for those cold rainy days? Scotland.

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#107

Post by mikekchar » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 6:08 AM UTC

dhd415 wrote: post #38

fouc wrote: post #16

I hate the complete lack of transparency in garments. We need to know all the details, including the weave? For someone that sweats a lot in hot & humid climates, why does one white cotton shirt show the sweat, and another doesn't? Why do I feel cooler with a thicker cotton shirt than a thinner one?

The weave is very important, but is one of the easier things to determine. For example, a voile (though uncommon in men's shirts) is much lighter than a moleskin though you would never find a summer shirt made of the latter. As someone who also sweats freely, I sympathize with you. If wearing a single shirt, I tend to go with a darker color for that reason. If wearing a dress shirt, I'll always wear an undershirt wit…

I can attest to the sweaty undershirt argument. It was a revelation for me. The other really strange thing is that if you have a sweaty undershirt, you will sweat less because you will be cooler. It's really amazing.

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#108

Post by benj111 » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 6:10 AM UTC

arrrg wrote: post #99

benj111 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a lederhose" Would it not still be lederhosen? Like trousers and not trouser. Although there is a place called Lederhose, so my etymology might be wrong, but Google isnt giving any trouser based results for Lederhose. Disclaimer, my German is nearly non existent.

„Lederhose“ is correct in German. „Lederhosen“ is just the plural. If using the word in English texts “lederhosen” is in a sense correct, though, also when only referring to a single one. This is a case where the loan word was slightly adopted, no doubt to bring it more into line with the convention in the English language of using plural for trousers. That convention doesn’t exist in German, except when using Englis…

Ok thanks.

BTW the plural comes from each 'trouser' originally being separate and held at the waist with a belt, like chaps.

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#109

Post by willmacdonald » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 6:13 AM UTC

icxa wrote: post #58

cli wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Take a look at Primark seams and then take a look at Brooks Brothers seams I'm not familiar with either. Which store is supposed to have the better seams?

Search results revealed that Primark is a fast fashion retailer, so probably selling the low end junk.

Primark is infamous in the UK for selling very cheap products; T-shirts that cannot survive multiple washes.

Brooks Brothers sell quality shirts.

Re: How to assess the quality of garments (2014)

#110

Post by masklinn » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 6:19 AM UTC

dhd415 wrote: post #15

In a previous life when I wore suits to work on a frequent basis, I got interested in this topic and spent way too much time learning about it. I now have a closet full of quality clothes that I wear much less frequently, but, for whatever it's worth, they'll last me the rest of my life. There's a lot of good info in this article, but there's also a lot more beyond it. For example, it mentions (accurately) that the f…

> Or rather, they're expensive upfront but often turn out to be more economical over the life of the garment. In either case, they will be more pleasant to wear than a lower quality alternative.

Good ol' Vimes "Boots" Theory of Economic Injustice strikes again:

> At the time of Men at Arms, Samuel Vimes earned thirty-eight dollars a month as a Captain of the Watch, plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots, the sort that would last years and years, cost fifty dollars. This was beyond his pocket and the most he could hope for was an affordable pair of boots costing ten dollars, which might with luck last a year or so before he would need to resort to makeshift cardboard insoles so as to prolong the moment of shelling out another ten dollars.

> Therefore over a period of ten years, he might have paid out a hundred dollars on boots, twice as much as the man who could afford fifty dollars up front ten years before. And he would still have wet feet.

> Without any special rancour, Vimes stretched this theory to explain why Sybil Ramkin lived twice as comfortably as he did by spending about half as much every month.

(though in a way modern society have made things worse as, as you note, "better" is usually more expensive but more expensive doesn't necessarily mean better, and it's often hard for the uninitiated to know if they're paying for quality, for brand, or for getting fleeced).