>>10916873
I have both.

I prefer inexpensive clothes that look good.

The quality isn't nearly as nice on the cheaper stuff, obviously, but there's something reassuring about knowing that you can handle your clothing roughly with reckless abandon.

Just a personal preference, though.

if youre just talking about big name brand versions of 'basic' stuff (tshirts, shirts, jackets that you can easily get cheaper versions of) then its basically just higher quality and brand name.

>>10916873
You're paying for the brand name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

>>10916873
Depends on what pieces your buying.

Typically, brands that derive their success specifically from producing quality products and don't capitalize on their brand name are the best to buy from.

Gloverall for their duffles, Fjallraven for outdoor minimalist gear, Stutterheim for raincoats, Hunter for quality/reliable rain boots.

>>10917046
>>10916885
>>10916873
designer clothing is generally the best to buy from because it's generally better quality
it also doesn't have to be expensive
and why would you baby your clothes ever bateman? like mcqueen said they're just clothes.

also
>fjallraven
>not relying on their brand name
lmao

>>10917046
Hunter boots bear no structural similarities to the originals that made the brand famous. Hunters are now made by the same process used to make Walmart boots in China. Some Romanian company called Tiger or something like that has the original Hunter machinery.

Related, how can you tell the quality of designer shoes? One guy I know got Y-3 sneakers and was terribly disappointed, desu they looked on par with sketchers

>>10916873
Yes and no but it comes down to you knowing how to check how good the material is.

Some cheap stuff is absolute garbage
Some expensive stuff is not much better
Some expensive stuff is amazing and near indestructible