on 18/2/02 2:56 pm, Robert Shiels at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > And non-branded stuff from markets is generally low quality, and cannot > be returned, I see no straw man there. The T-shirt looks great, but > wash it and it loses it's shape and colour. Branded stuff in shops has > a decent lifetime, that's why it costs more, and why I'm willing to pay > the difference.
You know, I have a totally different experience to you as regards unbranded goods. Being a cheap bastard, most of my clothing is unbranded, and it's as tough as old boots. In fact,to the budget shopper, durability is quite the selling point, and a useful quality for goods to have if they can't rely on a big name and bottomless marketing expenditure[0]. Last time I bought some Levi's jeans there werte a load of signs and a specific question from the salesperson to check whether or not I'd mind that the Jeans had been "second-handed" (or something, I forget the precise term). Basically, they were saying that the jeans had been processed in such a manner that they were *less* durable than a brand new pair of jeans would normally be. Bear in mind that I was buying brand new jeans without a previous owner or owners. Four months later they had no knees, but I still have a pair of Dutch army surplus combat trousers from 15 years ago. Or more relevantly, a pair of no-brand jeans I got from Stolen From Ivor have now lasted me a good year plus, longer than any pair of 501s I've ever owned. Ah, I see you specifically pick out "non-branded stuff from markets". I tend to get my unbranded clothes in shops, instead, 'cos then you can take them back if they're shoddy. So anyway, my personal experience of cheap duds is that they are of comparable if not better quality than their heavy-marketing counterparts, and they *can* be returned if you buy them from a place that does returns, as opposed to a market stall. Another thing I'd not buy from my local market - there is a second-hand soft-pr0n stall in Norwich open market. I wouldn't like to have to do the stock-taking *there*. -- matt [0] I'm a silly boy in that I feel that "spend" is no more a noun than "leverage" is a verb.
