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
Any time I talk about a wealthy person's outfit, someone in the comments is quick to reply: "They're rich, you think they care?" No one has to care about my opinions or clothes, regardless of net worth.
But let's talk about the connection between wealth and aesthetics 🧵
About a year ago, Tucker Carlson told Chris Cuomo that "postmodern architecture" is intentionally designed to deaden the spirit. The clip was widely circulated online by people such as Benny Johnson, who seemingly agreed.
Postmodern architecture was actually a very brief movement that emerged in the 1960s as a counter-reaction to modernism's austerity and uniformity. Examples of postmodernism include Michael Graves's Portland Building and Guild House. Also Phillip Johnson's PPG Place.
Trump released a $250 fragrance (one for women, one for men).
Sometimes a fragrance can be expensive because it contains certain ingredients or involve artisanal, small-batch production. But with no note breakdown or even a description of the scent, what justifies this price?
I'm reminded of this 2016 blog post by Luca Turin, one of the best writers on fragrances. Even for niche perfumery he warns: "Niche perfumery stands a good chance of disappearing up its own rear end if it merely becomes yet another golden opportunity to rip off the customer."
If you're into fragrances, as I am, I encourage you to not support celebrity bullshit like this. Go to real perfumers. Some of my favorites include:
— AbdesSalaam Attar: He's a self-taught Sicilian Sufi perfumer who only uses natural ingredients. Many of his perfumes feel like you're walking through a Middle Eastern bazaar or spice market. Milano Caffe, Cuoio dei Dolci, and Tabac are worth a sniff. He can also do bespoke perfumes using your favorite notes.
— DS & Durga: David Moltz describes himself as doing "scent travel." He has an uncanny ability to transport you to far off places. I like Cowboy Grass, Debaser, Amber Kiso, and Burning Barbershop. If you can get a sample of his Pale Grey Mountain, Small Black Lake Sample (made part of his Hylands collection), it's really good with tailored tweeds.
— Anything by Jean Claude Ellena: One of the most famous perfumers in the world. His scents have been likened to watercolor paintings and chamber music because they're light, airy, and have a transparent quality. This makes them particularly good for spring/ summer. Check his scents from Hermes, such as Terre d'Hermes and Un Jardin sur le Nil, which are easy to find on discount. L'Eau d'Hiver for Frederic Malle is also great, but a bit more expensive.
— Tauer Perfumes: Andy Tauer is a chemist and self-taught perfumer who specializes in dry, spicy, woody scents. L'Air du Desert Marocain makes you feel like you're in the middle of the desert at night. Lonestar Memories is like being next to a crackling campfire while picking up on the scent of tobacco and leather. IMO, a must try if you're exploring niche perfumery.
Always try to get samples before buying a bottle. Check shops such as Luckyscent, Surrender to Chance, and The Perfumed Court. Also pick up a copy of Perfumes by Luca Turin and Tania Sanchez.
People think I'm biased against Jeff Bezos, but here's F. Caraceni Sartoria, widely considered one of the best bespoke tailoring houses in the world, commenting on Bezos's wedding suit.
"The most terrible, frightening, horrible tuxedo ever seen in my life. I'm really suffering"
Nothing to do with politics, only quality tailoring. F. Caraceni made suits for Silvio Berlusconi, who was hardly beloved by progressives. Many people don't know much about tailoring, which is fine, but this doesn't mean that rich or expensive = good.
Caraceni's work:
Here is a dinner suit F. Caraceni made for Yves Saint Laurent.
Let me make the case for why the NHL should abolish its dress code, which currently requires players to wear a suit and tie while heading to and from games. 🧵
The arguments I've seen for the dress code fall into one of two categories: players look better in a coat-and-tie (some use descriptions such as "classy"). Others say that requiring players to dress in this way shows respect for the game. I will address each argument in turn.
It's true that tailoring once played a larger role in sports. Basketball coaches, for instance, used to wear tailored jackets pretty regularly, even at games. Some even looked quite good in these outfits.
It's true that progressives valorize "ugliness." But I think this person doesn't interrogate this position enough and thus lands at the wrong conclusion.
Let me give you a new perspective on ugliness. 🧵
In popular discourse, the world was once good, people were virtuous, and all things were beautiful. Then modernity came along and destroyed everything. In this view, beauty is an objective standard that has been corrupted by liberalism.
I contend that beauty in personal appearance is subjective, not objective. In fact, its standards rest on the shifting tectonic plates of politics, economics, and technology. Let me give you examples.
Today, we think of these photos as the standard for male beauty and dress: