Repros v. Originals

[kiltie]

First of all, let me get this out of the way:
Yes, I have been ensnared by the drama and intrigue of COW . Having said that, I was just glancing over the "what Are You Wearing..." thread and saw Alan C's Aldens ( nice shoes, by the way ). I too am fortunate enough to have gotten a pair of these, at a considerably reduced price, about three or four months ago.
Recently, however, Todd's Costumes ( look 'em up, if you don't know what I'm talking about - fun stuff...) introduced an Alden reproduction at under eighty bones. It got me to thinking more about this: how much stock do you actually place in an original product versus a reproduction. I tend toward what I like to think of as a classic mode of dress, but my wallet and the general availability of many items means mostly proxies when it comes to my wardrobe. Whenever possible, it's nice to stick with a brand that at least has it's roots in the "good ol' days" ( i.e., Redwings, Aldens, Brooks Brothers, etc...) or, in the case of hats, you have something that is fairly readily available at what a new one would cost anyway.
Original items have merit in their durability, nuances, and general status of having "the thing". However, often times "the thing" is irreplacable, lending itself to be treated with kid gloves and less frequent use. Reproductions, if well made, can be worn and used regularly without a terrible fear of having to replace them, should the need arise. Some items are just as out of reach as the vintage, with regards to price, so how would you make the decision between two like items; one vintage, the other a reproduction?
So here's the question - what do you steadfastly buy vintage, and why?

 

[Edward]

I don't think there's anything that I would refuse to buy repro rather than vintage.... I love vintage stuff, but if I can get the same style, same quality cheaper or at a sensible price new, then I'll go for it. I have a few vintage bits, though given that I am just larger than the average vintage guy, I tend to have more reproduction stuff. I would wear the vintage quite happily, for the most part, as long as it's not super-rare or really valuable, but I would tend to be much more careful about where, more selective about travelling with it (in case of lost bags), etc.

Very much interested in the idea of a cheaper Alden clone.... eventually want the real thing, but until the wallet allows....

 

[kools]

I generally prefer to wear vintage, but I am not opposed to wearing repros.

The decision comes down to a number of factors, none of which are usually price. I've found that quality repros of what I look for can often cost as much or more than an original.

1. Style & Availability. I know exactly what I like. Some items are more difficult to find vintage, especially for us men as our anscestors were not known for being gentle with their wardrobe. They didn't always have us in mind when caring for their clothing. Availablity is a factor that goes with all other factors. I like that with a repro, availablity is seldom an issue. The item is there when my money is there. On more than one occassion I've seen a vintage item to drool over, but my pockets had already been depleted.

2. Size & Availablity All of us have seen vintage items too small/too big. I spent many young years trying to pretend something fit much better than it did just because I loved the item. I won't do that anymore.

3. Quality/Condition & Availability Quality is rarely an issue with my vintage findings, but is a large factor with repros. A primary concern with vintage is condition. I won't wear something that shows heavy wear. See #1 above.

So I'll take a vintage item over repro...if I can find it, if it fits & if it is in good condition. If not, I'll try to find a quality repro. Or, keep looking & buy something else instead.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

I don't understand what you mean by 'Alden reproduction'. A pair of shoes that looks like a style Alden produces or used to produce? Surely that's just a pair of shoes, no?

Whoever is producing them for under $80 i can assure you without any equivocation that they are not as good as Aldens. Now way in hell. Simply not possible.

bk

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Housekeeping, or rather, Bartending!

Anyway, this is a general discussion and it belongs here and will have more success here. Next round's on me.

 

[Guttersnipe]

I tend to favor vintage

I don't usually find vintage more expensive then modern items.

Example: A mediocre suit at the Men's Warehouse costs about $200 + cost of alterations. For $200 + alterations you can usually get a vintage suit in great condition. Dollar for dollar that's a deal.

 

[kiltie]

Evicted!

Okay, okay... Relocated. Sorry 'bout that. It was a post in "General Attire" that prompted the thread, and I was too lazy to move [huh] .

Kurtz -
Another company producing an Alden 405 "replica". I can't attest to the quality, as I don't own a pair, though I strongly suspect you're right. However, that's exactly what I intended this thread be about. Investment to payoff ratio, the whys and wherefores, etc...
In the specific matter of Aldens; at nearly four-hundred bones, the investment ( in my opinion ) is questionable. I have a pair, and while superior to MOST other boots in durability and style, they don't hold a candle to a U.S. made pair of Redwings at a third the cost for pure durability and a good runner up in style ( plus an equally solid pedigree ). I would argue that Alden has traded form over function ( like so many manufacturers in the last coupla decades ).
Okay - lest I derail my own thread: back to the matter at hand -

Vintage vs Reproduction
Why? When? At what cost? Where do you draw the line? Sheer practicality?

 

[scotrace]

I stopped buying modern neckties a few years back, and never buy new cufflinks. The vintage examples of both are much more to my liking, and relatively inexpensive.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

I believe that each item you buy has a certain romance to it, or why else would we want it? Sometimes, it's earned, sometimes it's manufacured, and sometimes it's absolutely ridiculous.

For example, I love the romance I perceive in a Barbour jacket. I first encountered them back in the 90s when I had an office in Concord and one of my clients, who was obscenely affluent, drove around in an old Wagoneer, and kept his money to himself as many people in MA do. Already, I respected this person, and I loved his jacket, which he had because he had horses. Shortly thereafter, I saw Prince Charles wearing one somewhere, did a little research and thought, here is an interesting article of clothing that unassuming people wear who could wear anything. For me, everytime I put one of mine on, I think of the outdoors and scotch and English craftsmanship and all of the wonderful things I have done when I wore it. Romance!

Would I wear a repro, like an LL Bean copy? No. I would feel like a fraud.

My general state of mind about purchases is, buy nothing, unless you need it, and then buy the best (By best, I mean, by merit).

Now, take Peterman. If Peterman were to design a jacket along the lines of a Barbour wax cotton and describe something along the lines of what I have in the paragraph above, there would be something sort of ridiculous about it, something sort of manufactured and inauthentic. This is because the pedigree of the item wasn't earned; it was stolen. -And not to pick on poor Peterman.

So, I am not the sort of man who compromises. In all of my purchases, I buy things that add to the quality of my life.

I like this thread, interesting concept.

 

[shortbow]

Well said, Hemingway.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Well said, Hemingway.

Thanks, I have my moments.

 

[Subvet642]

I can absolutely see everyone's point, as for myself, I buy what I like, whether vintage or repro. I think that modern and vintage can be blended into a cohesive look that is classic. If done well, the result is seamless and timeless. This being said, there are some things that simply cannot be reproduced at a realistic price. In these cases, I go authentic. In any case, I don't like to feel like I'm "in costume", but the bottom line for me is asthetics.

 

[scotrace]

Hem, that was absolutely brilliant and on the money.

 

[kiltie]

Hemingway,

The sentiment of your post is very compelling and, when you consider it, very ironic. The juxtaposition between necessity and romance and then to consider the two are inseparable. It's a thread unto itself.
It also furthers the original question: so at what point are YOU the one who creates the aura? And with a great deal of sentimentality attached to an original piece, would you entirely rule out reproductions of your favorite things? Say for rough-housing and the like?
I've posted this elsewhere, but I'm a ridiculous huge fan of the old Banana Republic stuff ( becoming "vintage" in it's own right...). I've been scouring the net for the stuff and come up with some good stuff. Really good stuff. I know you, Hemingway, have refuted the authenticity of the Banana Republic stuff in the past ( can't conjure up the thread, just now ), but no other single manufacturer has ever captured the romantic sensibility of that style since. The Polo and Rugby lines crib that Northeastern American vintage VERY well at VERY high prices, but the old BR just really GOT IT. Everyone says it was inexorably tied to Indiana Jones, but it's really Out of Africa.
Anyway - back on task - the things like the old BR: Early Abercrombie and Fitch, Filson, etc... is nigh on impossible to get in good shape, even in small quantities, let alone if that's the kind of thing you want to build your look around ( Beau Brummel/ Country Mouse City Mouse ). So there's a little case for reproductions, and my particular niche.

 

[Undertow]

My first concern is quality and I don't necessarily assign a measure of quality based on a brand name.

That being said, I'm not opposed to repro's if they're made well in and of themselves. I will keep in mind that they are not deserving of the original's name or distinction, but I won't let that stop me from purchasing them if they are the style I like.

There are many reasons these "originals" are so well known, and have lasted as long as they have. One big reason is usually quality, and I believe the second is likely timeless style.

As a general rule of thumb, when a company decides to reproduce a certain style or brand, I believe they must necessarily sacrifice quality in order to make the item accessible to the general public (or it may be the case that they don't have the "secrets" necessary to provide said quality).

I'm sure there are exceptions to that rule, as there are repros that strive for detail down to the most minute aspect.

As an example of something I tend to purchase which I consider "repro":

I have purchased two suits, a brown and purple pinstripe and beige and golden checkered, which were both 100% Poly with a "150's Wool Feel". I really liked both styles, and so far, through many many uses, I've found the quality has stood up (thus far, mind you). I know very well these suits are nothing like their quality wool counterparts, but I still enjoy them for what they're worth. [huh]

 

[Hemingway Jones]

Hem, that was absolutely brilliant and on the money.

Thank you, My Good Man.

Hemingway,
...It also furthers the original question: so at what point are YOU the one who creates the aura?

Well, I think immediately. I think we internalize and project, and to resist the temptation to be too esoteric, allow me to reduce it to this; you desire an item for the reasons of your attachments to it, and then you set out to acquire the correct piece.

For instance, you see a hat on Bogart's head and you want it. You can't have the exact model, because no one knows who made it or anything else, so you ask Art to make it for you. You now have it and with all of the additional cache' of a master craftsman making you your specific and individual hat.

You put it on your head and make it your own. From conception to execution, it was your initiative that brought the piece to your wardrobe and perched it on your head.

I'd like to think that it acquires an additional cache' by becoming part of my style, though this is a bit presumptuous and narcissistic on my part, but, oh well; there are things I do that are iconic!

And with a great deal of sentimentality attached to an original piece, would you entirely rule out reproductions of your favorite things? Say for rough-housing and the like?

For me, yes. I'll go back to an Indiana Jones reference. If I am going to wear an Indy Jacket, it has to be a Wested and it has to be one that Peter has measured me for. I have a Kangaroo for the tough stuff, and my lambskin is for wearing casually.

I've posted this elsewhere, but I'm a ridiculous huge fan of the old Banana Republic stuff ... I know you, Hemingway, have refuted the authenticity of the Banana Republic stuff in the past... but no other single manufacturer has ever captured the romantic sensibility of that style since.

What bugs me about Banana Republic are the claims made that they were a genuine safari outfitter, which they never were. From the start, they were all about clever marketing. Willis & Geiger and Abercrombie both were outfitters. Talk about squandering cache' in A&F's case!

If you like them; I respect that. There were things it did well. I have fond memories of the store that used to be on The Avenue of the Americas in NYC and of their clever pre-Peterman catalogues with the watercolor drawings. I also thought that their old Photojournalist vest was a classic and a wonderful item. I sincerely wish I had bought one then and saved it. I could use it about now.

Consequently, my safari jacket is Barbour.

Brands are a type of shorthand, a means by which we assume there is a minimal level of quality contained therein. It's a good starting point, though you may not always end up there. I think that is why many people have felt a certain feeling of betrayal and anger as LL Bean has outsourced more and more of its items. There was a romance to having your clothes made in the US, and at times in the very store, that is gone when they are factory made by the thousands.

If Barbour produced rubbish, I would back away. Right now, I know I am going to get something decent.

 

[IndigoFanatic]

Being that I'm mostly interested in denim, a repro is basically the only option. I'm not sure if you're going to find a pair of jeans from the 1920's (or earlier) through the 1960's deadstock, and if you do you need to be prepared to pay thousands for them. However, you can get a reproduction from Levi's for under $200. This makes the repro the only real option. Would I like to have an original pair? Sure! Will I ever? No. [huh]

 

[LizzieMaine]

For the most part, I don't buy repros -- I make them. I wear vintage styles every day, and while it might be easy enough for a guy to get away with rotating three vintage suits on a daily basis without causing comment, it's not so easy for women -- the wardrobe has to be much more extensive, and given my financial situation, sewing my own from vintage patterns is the only way to go. The main advantages are that my repros always fit me, something which isn't always the case with off-the-rack vintage, and replaceability -- if I need to, I can easily whip up a duplicate of a favorite garment if it's damaged beyond repair. I do wear genuine vintage for dressy occasions, but for everyday workaday wear, it's stuff I've made myself.

Shoes, I haven't much choice but to wear either repros or currently-manufactured continuations of vintage styles -- the supply of vintage shoes in my size is pretty muich dominated by others with large feet and larger bank accounts.

Coats and jackets and hats, though, are all vintage -- because I've yet to see a repro that wasn't either too flimsy or too "updated" for my tastes.

 

[Daoud]

As someone else already said, vintage neckties for me. Modern ties just aren't very good, usually, and they're awfully expensive.

I think one of the big considerations when buying vintage is durability. I found out early on, for example, that vintage cotton is often not very durable. Had a pair of French Army shorts from- yes- the old Banana Republic outfit. These had been in storage since the 40s or 50s, and they didn't take well to the 80s. Almost every old cotton garment I've ever bought has met an unhappy fate.

Hemingway, I had to laugh at your shot at L.L. Bean Barbour knockoffs. I have one hanging in my closet right now. My folks gave it to me for Christmas about 14 years ago, and I well remember when we were looking it over- it really is a nice coat- how shocked we were at the fact that it was made in Malaysia, albeit of British cloth and fittings. Little did we know what the future would bring!

I share with you that feeling of anger and betrayal. It's hard to be very enthused about a pair of handsewn shoes knowing they were sewn by hand in some Asian country by some poor schmuck making twenty-five cents an hour- which doesn't prevent them costing an arm and a leg!

 

[Not-Bogart13]

I can't really claim to be as devoted to vintage style as a majority of the members here (at least, who post outside the Hat section lol ). But it's more a matter of circumstances, really. Obviously money concerns most of us, and I draw the line on any big-ticket item that will get very limited use.

Additionally, I don't wear sizes common to vintage clothing, and my access to vintage clothing is even worse than the sizing problem. The reality is, I have no choice but go repro with just about anything I would want.

In a fantasy world, where vintage wear was a realistic and ready option for me...
It's about what I like and need. The stuff I have the greatest love for in general would be the things I'd seek the most authenticity for.

Aldens, for example, don't really butter my toast (and I'm a COW member!), so I'm happy with my Sketchers! And since I have bad feet, I hesitate to spend alot on shoes in case they cause me great pain. If the right Spectators came my way, though...