|
Post by PrettyGirl_Is_Suffering on Aug 26, 2002 18:58:04 GMT -5
Hmmm.... this is quite a decision. I see cloths as a way of expressing yourself. And there shouldn't be a price on that. i think the most expensive pants I have are 48$ , whitch are from Delias. I payed half for them my mom the other. To me the pants were worth it becuase I really liked them they do flatter me. However i don't buy all my cloths that expensive... actually I barely do. Then I have cheaper cloths but nice too. Im a bit random with my cloths and I don't limit my self to stores that are considered one thing or another. However 65$ for a pair of pants? I do draw the line. Also I simpily refuse to pay to avertise and item... we should get payed for avertising them! I don't need Abercrombie and Fitch written across chest! Oh dear, I seem to keep rambling on about not much again. Anyways to sum things up I dom't limit myself on stores , really. I buy whats me and what I can afford ( ) In anycase go for what you like not whats in. Whatever floats your boat. ( I hate when I ramble on... I don't think I even got my point acroos. *sigh*)
|
|
|
Post by ThaIceLady on Aug 26, 2002 20:30:42 GMT -5
^^beeautifully said.
|
|
|
Post by Shrubby on Sept 5, 2002 15:41:10 GMT -5
Agreed. Clothes have become a way of showing off how much you spend on them, which is no accomplishment. I say, if you like it, and you want it, they shouldn't overcharge you because of all the trend-followers who want it too!
|
|
|
Post by lilblondie1892 on Sept 14, 2002 19:49:44 GMT -5
Ms.Thang_Has-It-All said If Abercrombie was as expensive as ya'll think, than not as many people would wear it!!
and i totally agree with that ^^^.... and all of their tee shirts are 20-25$... and yeah maybe a sweater is 50 but ITS A SWEATER i would hope its not the same as some lil tee shirt. and yeah their jeans are like 50-70$ but they are REALLY good and worth it... like i still have jeans from 2 years ago and they are still fine with no holes.
and on the website and catalogue the clothes are always more expensive.. and u dont have to pay for the catalogue the one u have 2 pay for is the af quarterly and thats like a magazine not a catalogue and its for ppl 21 and older or 18 and older i forgot.
but i think all of their clothes are resonable like 30$ for a belt that u wear forever is pretty good. and like shorts for 30 thats really good
|
|
|
Post by Beautiful.Disaster on Sept 18, 2002 0:51:01 GMT -5
<<but i think all of their clothes are resonable like 30$ for a belt that u wear forever is pretty good. and like shorts for 30 thats really good>>
Actually, 30 bucks for a belt isn't that 'reasonable'. It's a BELT, I mean come on. Sure 30 bucks for a pair of shorts might be ok, but oy, it's still a little high. I personally wouldn't pay 30 bucks for a pair of shorts. I like to find bargains. I bet you could find a pair of shorts that are the same except without the A&F label for less.
|
|
|
Post by Shrubby on Sept 18, 2002 21:53:01 GMT -5
I would *hope* that your jeans last you at least two years, I've got jeans from Target that I've had for 2 years and they don't have any holes, and they were 25$. They're not bad either, they're low-slung, medium tint, boot-cut, and they're long too . Abercrombie isn't the only place that makes long-lasting jeans, they're just the only place that wayy overcharges them.
|
|
|
Post by Beautiful.Disaster on Sept 24, 2002 0:57:46 GMT -5
Abercrombie isn't the only place that makes long-lasting jeans, they're just the only place that wayy overcharges them. AMEN SISTAH!! That is exactally what i think. I have jeans that my sister gave me that she got years ago, and they are still in great shape with no holes. I'm not sure where she got them but they are Levi's. Really comfy too
|
|
|
Post by hockeygurl72 on Sept 25, 2002 21:20:52 GMT -5
hey, just wanted to say something, like with clothes on websites of stores, they show up at the price they started out at. But in stores like american eagle and abercrombie, they cost a lot less, because they put them on sale. But its different for each specific store, like at one abercrombie a shirt may cost $30, but it could be on sale for $25 at another abercrombie store. So even if it says $70 for that sweater, she could have easily found it in a store for a lot less. And ya, I think she does have the exact same sweater in green, but they probably only have a few left in some stores, and not any left to ship out if you order it on the website. So thats why it only says it has it those colors, 'cause they aren't gonna advertise clothes that they can't sell ya anymore. Sorry, just had to say that, 'cause many of those stores that ya'll keep on complaining about really aren't that expensive once ya go in, like at american eagle I have gotten like 15 really nice shirts for under $10 each, b/c they always put whatever they have left after a season on sale for really low prices. Oh, and I also just wanna say that the clothes at these stores are higher quality then what they would be at like walmart or somewhere, i mean the fabric is better, the clothes are made better, and they last longer. Of course, ya know, if ya see somethin ya really like from a store, and its made nice and everything, then buy it, even if its not a store ya really go to.
|
|
|
Post by NaruNarusegawa on Oct 1, 2002 8:43:53 GMT -5
"Oh, and I also just wanna say that the clothes at these stores are higher quality then what they would be at like walmart or somewhere, i mean the fabric is better, the clothes are made better, and they last longer. Of course, ya know, if ya see somethin ya really like from a store, and its made nice and everything, then buy it, even if its not a store ya really go to."
I think this whole "high quality" thing is bullshit (no offense to you). Around 4 or 5 years ago I went through a tommy hilfiger phase, and only wanted to wear over priced tommy clothes. So my Grandmother bought me some of their clothing (a pair of overalls, a pair of jeans, and 2 shirts). Higher quality my ass.. that stuff didn't last one year, and my other less expensive items.. like a pair of black pants I got from Target 3 years ago I still wear today. They are one of my favorite pair of pants, they make my legs and ass look slimmer, and look nice with everything.
Thankfully that phase didn't last too long, but even when I was into Tommy.. even I wasn't so gullable to believe the whole quality excuse.. I knew they costed more because of the tommy name at the time. I understand you like it for the style, but puh-leeze. Give me a break from the quality excuse bullshit.
|
|
Chimera
Junior Member
Zidane
Posts: 164
|
Post by Chimera on Oct 1, 2002 13:02:34 GMT -5
I hate Tommy Hillfigure and Abecrombie and fitch and american eagle and i hate belks they have over priced pieces of crap.
|
|
|
Post by Shrubby on Oct 7, 2002 15:54:12 GMT -5
I don't like those designers that make normal clothes expensive, i.e. Tommy Hilfiger, Aeropostale, Abercrombie, The Buckle, etc. AE is a little less expensive, but it's like you're paying for the name, not for the quality.
|
|
|
Post by Gabster on Oct 7, 2002 16:10:18 GMT -5
And I have a pair of jeans from Old Navy that are three years old and they are still perfectly intact, no holes. Oh, and I paid 20 bucks for them.
Sheesh and there was me proud of myself for breaking out of my spendthriftness and buying a Mudd belt for 10 bucks...oh and, 30 bucks for shorts really isn't that reasonable, @ least not for me, I'm not sure about anyone else. 30 bucks is what I'd pay for a *really* good pair of jeans, and shorts are normally less expensive. Most of my shorts cost around 15, 20 dollars...but you know, maybe Old Navy and Anchor Blue is just too "cheap".
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Oct 7, 2002 23:27:07 GMT -5
^^^ I agree with you. I don't see the point in paying extra money for a brand name when you can get cheaper clothes that are just as good quality. I think $50 is outrageous for a pair of jeans; do you realize how much you could buy for that much? In fact, I think that $20 is even a bit too much for jeans. I've found pants for as cheap as $5 on the clearance racks at some of the department stores in my area. I have a pair of l.e.i. jeans that cost me $5, and they were originally $40. And it's not like their quality decreased just because the price went down.
|
|
|
Post by cheyne fatale on Oct 11, 2002 0:38:06 GMT -5
^ I actually don't mind spending that much on jeans. But I'm not into the brand names....for instance, my-all time favorite pair of jeans isn't from Levi's or Hilfiger. It's some brand called...Angel Bluejeans, I think. I bought them at Stitches.
Did this post have a point to it? No it did not.
It's 1:38 am. I really need to go to sleep.
|
|
|
Post by ThaIceLady on Dec 5, 2002 18:57:47 GMT -5
To me, $20 bucks for a pair of jeans is a great deal. The average price for jeans is about $29.99 or sometimes $26.99 something like that. This is for them jean brands Paris Blues, Mudd, and Lei at Hechts. But to me, $40 bucks or more on jeans is ridiculous when you know you can get em for cheaper.
|
|