A lot of people confuse fast fashion with cheap clothing. It's true that fast fashion is cheap, but not all cheap clothing is fast fashion. The two terms are not synonymous. Fast fashion is a very distinctive thing. 🧵
Let's start at the beginning. Before the mid-19th century, most clothing was made by women in the home or by a tailor. Ready-made clothing was largely limited to cheap workwear, such as what would have been worn by slaves, miners, and sailors.
In 1849, Brooks Brothers invented the first ready-made suit. Soon after, they also produced ready-made uniforms for both sides of the American Civil War. In the early days of ready-made manufacturing, clothing quality was quite poor, esp when compared to tailor-made clothes
In fact, Brooks Brothers ran into trouble when their military uniforms fell apart in the rain. Facing a shortage of wool, the uniforms were made from shredded bits of decaying rags, sawdust, and glue, which were pressed into a semblance of cloth. US gov took them to court later.
Over time, ready-made manufacturing improved. The first big jump came when the US military gave factories their data on the measurements of enlisted soldiers (chest size, neck size, arm length, etc). This is how they made clothes that mostly fit the average person.
I will spare you the details of how various technologies improved, such as how pad stitching, traditionally done by hand, was eventually done with a single thread rollpadding machine, saving hours from production time. Video below shows how it's done at some factories now.
Suffice it to say that clothing production went from being one item made for a specific person to multiple garments made for the masses.
This created a new business model. For much of the 20th century, clothing production went like this:
A designer would come up with an idea, create samples, take those samples to a trade show, and show the collection to store buyers, who would then place orders. These orders would go into production and, about six months later, show up in stores. That's when you see them.
Then something happened in the 1980s. Faced with stiff competition and cheap imports, US companies developed something called the "quick response system." In this new model, a store would only stock a limited number of items in each clothing style.
If those items did well during the season, they would quickly restock. This is different from the old system, where you went to a tradeshow, bought a bunch of stuff, and then sold them six months later. You kept tighter reins on inventory supply & manufacturing.
So instead of ordering 100 blue shirts and 100 red shirts, and then selling through, you might only order 50 blue shirts and 50 red shirts. If blue shirts do well that season, you quickly re-up. This limits your risk and allows you to quickly respond to demand.
This shift requires digital technology, new inventory systems, and tighter control over the manufacturing supply chain. The system was later perfected by companies like Zara and H&M.
This is the start of fast fashion. Fast fashion is about quickly responding to trends in the market and meeting demand with cheap clothing. It requires very specific inventory and supply chain management systems.
Remember, in the old system, a designer might debut a look on the runway, and it shows up in stores about 8 months later. In the new system, a fast fashion brand looks at the runway, copies the look, and it's in stores maybe a week later—before even the designer's collection.
The lack of thought in design and the rapidity of production allow these companies to drop many more collections. Designers typically do 2-5 collections per year. H&M does 16. Zara does 24. Shein has new drops hourly. The sheer number of options at these stores is staggering.
The real problem with fast fashion is that it speeds up the trend cycle. Oh, fleece and motorcycle jackets are trending? Mash them together and sell fleece moto jackets. The sudden ubiquity of these designs means they become "burnt," and no one wants to wear them anymore.
The rapidity of fashion is certainly not limited to fast fashion. When he left Dior, Raf Simons complained that fashion moved from doing 2 shows per year to 6 shows (spring/ summer, fall/winter, mid-seasons, pre-seasons, and resort). This leaves no time for the creative process.
But fast fashion has sped this up to a breakneck pace. Online content creators encourage huge shopping hauls. Many run out of things to say. Hungry for new content, they talk about quickly evaporating trends.
Fast fashion works in this entire ecosystem where consumers with limited budgets are trying to keep up with rapidly vanishing trends, so they buy new stuff that they wear once, sometimes not even at all, before throwing stuff away. The result is an ecological disaster.
This system puts a strain on workers who have to produce cheap, trendy clothing. Last month, I interviewed one of these workers. She makes $50 for a 12-hour shift. She shares a 2 bedroom room apartment with 6 other ppl. She sleeps in the kitchen.
There are certainly problems with cheap clothing. Workers involved are often not making enough to live. But fast fashion is a distinct sub-category of cheap clothing. It's about bringing the hottest, trendiest looks as quickly as possible. Hence the term "fast fashion."
There are a lot of cheap brands that are not fast fashion. Hanes, Dickies, Carhartt, Camber, Lands' End, Vans, Wrangler, Lee, and Clarks are not about bringing the hottest trends off the runway to the store ASAP. I would include The Gap, Old Navy, and Uniqlo in that.
One can quibble. Uniqlo has collaborated with Lemaire, Jil Sander, and Engineered Garments; The Gap famously collaborated with Kanye and Balenciaga. These are designer-ish looks for less money. But I think this is still different from what Shein is doing.
Mostly, I think a lot of people online conflate "cheap clothing" with "fast fashion," and don't make some important distinctions. IMO, fast fashion is a unique system that should be couched in the context of the evolution of fashion production.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Style lessons from Robert Redford, one of the most stylish men in the last century. 🧵
A tailored jacket continues to be one of the most flattering things you can wear. However, for it to look good, it has to fit right. That means a jacket that bisects you halfway from your collar to the floor when you're in heeled shoes. Also trouser + suit jacket silhouette flows
It also helps to know how to use this visual language, especially with regard to ideas about formality. For instance, a dark business suit cries out for a tie. If you don't want to wear a tie, try a more casual garment, like a sport coat.
Let's start with a test. Here are two tan polo coats. One is machine-made. The other is handmade. Can you guess which is which?
Please answer before moving on. Then you can scroll through the answers to see whether most people got it right.
The first coat is machine-made. It's from an American ready-to-wear company called J. Press. The second is handmade. It's from a London bespoke tailoring house called Anderson & Sheppard.
You can spot the difference by how the edges are finished.
I've seen people here suggest Obama was a stylish president. I couldn't disagree more. Outfits like these read better in 2025, but during the slim-fit, Euro style craze of his presidency, Obama was routinely panned for his "frumpy dad style." See Vanity Fair.
His style transformation really came post-presidency. I suspect, but don't have proof, that this is partly the influence of his wife, who is quite stylish. Even his suits look better now. See clean shoulder line + shirt collar points reaching lapels + nice four-in-hand dimple.
Although it's rarely expressed in outright terms, people often use a very simple heuristic when solving fashion problems: they wish to look rich, which is often disguised as "respectable."
I will show you why this rarely leads to good outfits. 🧵
In 1902, German sociologist Georg Simmel neatly summed up fashion in an essay titled "On Fashion." Fashion, he asserted was simply a game of imitation in which people copy their "social betters." This causes the upper classes to move on, so as to distinguish themselves.
He was right. And his theory explains why Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor, was the most influential menswear figure in the early 20th century. By virtue of his position and taste, he popularized soft collars, belted trousers, cuffs, Fair Isle sweaters, and all sorts of things.
It's funny to see people imbue traditional men's tailoring with their own prejudices. They assume every man who wore a suit in the far past must be a staunch conservative like them. The truth is much more complicated. 🧵
This bias, of course, stems out of the 1960s and 70s, from which many of our contemporary politics also spring. I don't need to belabor this point because you already know it. The framing is neatly summed up in this Mad Men scene — the rag tag hippie vs man in a suit.
Thus, people assume that men in suits must always be part of the conservative establishment. But this was not always so. The suit was once a working man's garment. When Keir Hardie, founder of the Labour Party, arrived for his first day in Parliament, he wore a suit.
There's no "right" or "wrong" answer here, so feel free to go with your gut. I will then give you my views below. 🧵
In men's tailoring, the area below the jacket's buttoning point is colloquially known as the "quarters" among menswear enthusiasts. Or the "front edge" by actual tailors. These terms refer to the edge of the coat, connecting to lapels.
Some suit jackets have very closed quarters, such as you see on the left. In this way, the jacket forms a Y-shaped silhouette.
Other suits have open quarters, such that the front edge sweeps back on the hips, as you see on the right. This forms an X-shaped silhouette.