PSA: Lewis Leathers will now allow orders without a logo on the front.

[Lit Up]

Popped into LL today and spoke to the manager (not Derek) who said that now they are allowing custom orders to omit the oval logo patch on the front. Thought I'd share that because I know it has been a bone of contention for some of you since they mandated the patch in recent years. I never minded the patch but now given the choice I might reconsider having it on any new orders. Although I think it's become something of a status symbol and conversation starter.

 

[handymike]

How much does it cost to get the label left off?

 

[Lit Up]

I didn't ask if there was a difference in price but I can't imagine there is given it's just being left off. Direct an email to James at LL and ask.

 

[willyto]

How much does it cost to get the label left off?

That would be ridiculous to be honest.

The styles I loved never had one though, the Universal MK-1 and MK-2 and also the Lumber and Countryman.

I still regret not buying the Universal MK-2 from Secondsunrise website...used one from around 2012, it was amazing...

 

[Lit Up]

That would be ridiculous to be honest.

He's trolling

 

[handymike]

Not trolling at all. Some makers put things like this in the "custom" column and charge for it. Others don't. It would be helpful to know if Lewis will leave it off at no extra cost. Seems like a fair question.

 

[handymike]

Just got a response from James:
There is NO CHARGE!

 

[Colin G]

I think the logo patch is kind of cheesy and cheapens the look. Good to know it can be left off now.

 

[red devil]

I am not as annoyed as I could have been about this... I just got my jacket recently.

But that whole patch thing and the way they implemented it was stupid

Edit: To be clear, I am not as annoyed because I really like how my jacket came out

 

[Lit Up]

I maintain that I think the patch could potentially be a status symbol and conversation starter. It also serves to distinguish plain black leather jackets which to the untrained eye could look generic. Even if someone thinks it's weird or calls it out, as soon as they google it they know it's not any old leather jacket... But I can see why they were not popular.

 

[Superfluous]

Personally, I do not like ANY visible manufacturer labeling on my clothing . . . no polo player on a horse . . . no alligator . . . no interlocking LVs or Cs . . . nothing. In fact, I will not purchase a clothing article with visible labeling unless I can remove it without causing any damage. I have passed on many otherwise desirable clothing articles for precisely this reason. I do not want a "status symbol" and I personally question the motives of many who wear certain types of boldly branded clothing.

The fact that Louis Vuitton and Chanel purses covered with inter-locking LVs and Cs are incredibly popular speaks volumes about our society. Many people need to project an image of wealth. The fake versions of these purses are also spectacularly popular because people want to project a false image of wealth. Too many people are consumed with "status symbols."

Unbranded clothing is ALWAYS better looking than branded clothing -- adding a visible manufacturer's label NEVER made an article of clothing better looking. It is pure ego.

 

[Gamma68]

Well, if the option to order a LL jacket sans logo means a sudden devaluation of all those horrid second-hand LL jackets with logos, then I'm all for it.

 

[TREEMAN]

This was mentioned already....

 

[Harris HTM]

Unbranded clothing is ALWAYS better looking than branded clothing -- adding a visible manufacturer's label NEVER made an article of clothing better looking. It is pure ego.

The only exception I personally find (and accept wearing) is the laurel wreath on the left breast of the shirt... for some reason I think it makes the whole shirt look better.

 

[ton312]

I would not choose to omit the patch. That said I don't necessarily care for it TBH. It's certainly rather small and unobtrusive. It's almost an intrinsic part of the design! It would be akin to removing the Vanson ovals from a Manx. Just seems wrong.

 

[Superfluous]

Supreme is the quintessential example of branding gone mad. People stand in long lines for the privilege of paying stupid amounts of money for inferior clothing simply because the word “Supreme” is boldly displayed. Needless to say, I will never own any Supreme clothing.

There is one exception: I will wear branded clothing if the manufacturer pays me to serve as its mobile billboard (admittedly, this exception has yet to be invoked).

 

[navetsea]

they should stamp the cap of snap button with their logo or initial, or order special zipper pull with their brand on the main zip.

 

[Seb Lucas]

Personally, I do not like ANY visible manufacturer labeling on my clothing . . . no polo player on a horse . . . no alligator . . . no interlocking LVs or Cs . . . nothing. In fact, I will not purchase a clothing article with visible labeling unless I can remove it without causing any damage. I have passed on many otherwise desirable clothing articles for precisely this reason. I do not want a "status symbol" and I personally question the motives of many who wear certain types of boldly branded clothing.

The fact that Louis Vuitton and Chanel purses covered with inter-locking LVs and Cs are incredibly popular speaks volumes about our society. Many people need to project an image of wealth. The fake versions of these purses are also spectacularly popular because people want to project a false image of wealth. Too many people are consumed with "status symbols."

Unbranded clothing is ALWAYS better looking than branded clothing -- adding a visible manufacturer's label NEVER made an article of clothing better looking. It is pure ego.

I agree - I don't want any visible lables regardless of theoretical quality - Kmart or LV.

I go further - I really dislike novelty t-shirts with movie stills, photos of pop stars, slogans, company logos, drawings, whatever. I don't want to walk around as a human billboard for someone else's brand or creative imagination. Now get off my lawn, kids....

 

[navetsea]

amen to that, but I like the shield and the cross on Victorinox, and Nike logo as long as they leave out the slogan.

I also appreciate brand logo or name embossed or carved on the buttons and rivets, as it somewhat shows more effort but in nicer format.

 

[Bigbenbs]

Personally, I do not like ANY visible manufacturer labeling on my clothing . . . no polo player on a horse . . . no alligator . . . no interlocking LVs or Cs . . . nothing. In fact, I will not purchase a clothing article with visible labeling unless I can remove it without causing any damage. I have passed on many otherwise desirable clothing articles for precisely this reason. I do not want a "status symbol" and I personally question the motives of many who wear certain types of boldly branded clothing.

The fact that Louis Vuitton and Chanel purses covered with inter-locking LVs and Cs are incredibly popular speaks volumes about our society. Many people need to project an image of wealth. The fake versions of these purses are also spectacularly popular because people want to project a false image of wealth. Too many people are consumed with "status symbols."

Unbranded clothing is ALWAYS better looking than branded clothing -- adding a visible manufacturer's label NEVER made an article of clothing better looking. It is pure ego.