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
Most sweaters you see on the market are very smooth, such as plain cashmere, Merino, and cotton knits. I think these can be fine under a tailored jacket, such as a sport coat, but they feel like a missed opportunity when worn on their own.
Instead, I think most sweaters look better with some texture. This can be a rougher yarn, such as Shetland (pic 1 and 2). Or it can be a ribbed Shaker knit or cabled Aran (pics 3 and 4).
Grab a Shetland knit and compare it to a smooth Merino. The difference is very obvious.
A lot of people have a hard time separating body type from style. This outfit would not look good on anyone. He needs a jacket; the sweater would look better if it was textured; blue chinos are hard to wear. This same outfit would look bad on a skinny or athletic person. 🧵
My friend @DavidLaneDesign is a bigger guy and looks tremendous. Here we see:
1. A finishing layer (jacket or coat) 2. Smart use of accessories 3. Better use of color 4. An understanding of the cultural meaning of clothes
What do I mean when I say "a cultural meaning of clothes?" When you think of fashion as cultural language, and you know the cultural history of clothes, you can put together outfits that make cultural sense.
Something I dislike about all these "how to improve your wardrobe" articles is that they give you a generic cookie-cutter shopping list. This is a terrible way to build a wardrobe because it just swaps out one generic thing for another. It's much better to: 🧵
A lot of people confuse "fit" with "silhouette." Just because something is baggy doesn't mean it doesn't fit. "Fit" is much more useful when it's narrowly defined, such as collar gaps, pulling at the waist, hip pockets that flare, etc.
2. Think About Silhouettes
Think of clothing as shapes, and figure out what kind of shapes you want to wear on your body. There are lots of possible shapes: carrot-cut trousers, straight trousers, rounded tops, elongating coats, wide shoulders, etc.
You can certainly make a good outfit with things like jeans, shorts, and hoodies. But I think there's a lot to be said about what has happened to fashion as our clothes have become simpler. 🧵
Before I go on, I should say that I'm only talking about aesthetics. Some people here assume that I'm talking about respectability, politics, or how the past was better overall. I am not—I'm only talking about aesthetics.
Earlier this year, I interviewed Linda Przybyszewski, a fashion historian at Notre Dame and the author of The Lost Art of Dress. She noted that a woman's dress in the mid-20th century was quite complicated. It had darts, pleats, and sometimes a self-fabric belt or scarf.
Have you ever wondered why people seemingly dressed better in the past? There are many reasons, such as the wide availability of skilled tailors. But an overlooked one has to do with how fabrics have changed over time. 🧵
Fabrics come in a variety of weights. In Europe, this is measured in grams per square meter (GSM). In the US, it's measured in ounces per square yard. At a traditional tailor's workshop, midweight fabrics are 14oz. Lightweight is 12oz and below; heavy is 16oz and above.
When you look at photos of men in the past, they are typically wearing at least 14oz for their suits and sport coats, and 24oz for overcoats. It was not uncommon for winter suits to be made from fabrics as heavy as 18oz and overcoats to be 32oz Melton wool.
Most dry cleaners are terrible, so use them infrequently. To clean suits, sport coats, dress pants, and overcoats, brush them out with a garment brush. I use Kent's CC20. No experience with other models, but duck-shaped garment brushes pop up on eBay for like $20
Sweater Shaver
Sweaters pill bc yarns are made from fibers, which eventually break, fly up, and get entangled. To get rid of pills, don't use a sweater comb—you'll cause more breakage. Instead, get a sweater shaver. Try Conair's Fabric Defuzzer ($15) or Steamery's Pilo ($50)