Unpopular opinions
-
Using the name, labeling, copyrights, trademarks and other intellectual property without permission is wrong and illegal. No one said that it was better than buying those rights. What I'm saying is that slapping a Buco, or Lee, or Belstaff, or Indian label on something that has zero connection to the original product is annoying, regardless of how good the product is.
-
No one said that it was better than buying those rights.
Ben - I already stated it was nothing to do with quality. Using someone else's label (even if you bought it, which in fact is worse in my eyes) makes far less sense than building your own rep.
I guess I just disagree… it's true the connection is only in the fact that it's intending to be a replica, but I still just think that a perfectly reproduced label adds to that effect.
I know you guys think that it's annoying in any way, but I'd only be annoyed if a company was trying capitalize on heritage and swindle consumers into thinking they're getting something of a certain quality that they were not. Since I doubt anyone buying RMC thinks they're getting a vintage buco, the quality is far higher than what it once was, and I think that the label isn't what's selling the jackets, the outstanding quality is, it doesn't bother me.
In short: rmc don't need rep from a little label, so its no problem to me.
But I know that that's not the answer gav was looking for...
-
In short: rmc don't need rep from a little label, so its no problem to me.
Exactly this in my mind also. It's part of their accuracy for repro, that they bought the damn label as well! How is that for all in?!
A lot of the really cool stuff is dead and long forgotten, and now brought back up. If it has to be OG or nothing, in this day and age I see that as an elitist point of view and one that must be extremely difficult to function with considering almost nothing is authentic anymore.
How about Levis 501's? They are no longer the original 501's. Hunting down the old valencia street models, or perhaps even older back to the miners to find the authentic jeans?
It's all a wank fest anyhow. In the end it's just a label, and good business/company is just that. It doesn't need the 300 years of heritage and multi-generational aspect to be 'real'.
So yup, now I understand the unpopular opinion in it's full, glad it's in here, and will let it be an unpopular opinion :).
-
Curious to know what both @Chris and @Megatron1505 think of Stevenson Overall Co.
-
Ben - It's worse because buying someone else's history in place of creating your own doesn't sit well with me, I cannot make it any simpler than that.
Guys, I stated an unpopular opinion, it remains my opinion and clearly from the response it is entirely in the correct thread.
What began as a response asking for clarification now seems to be people wanting to argue against it or attempt to change my opinion (by some), which has clearly been stated as prohibited in the thread as it has lead to arguments before.
The opinions in this thread stand, regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
If anyone wishes to debate this with me privately I am all ears.
-
I'm not trying to argue or debate, I'm genuinely curious.
-
Just giving my opinion.
-
I'm not trying to argue or debate, I'm genuinely curious.
Then PM me and satisfy your curiosity
-
@Megatron1505 you're one of the best at this thread by far, time and time again.
-
Tattoos with a meaning or story sucks.
-
^completely true. just get something that looks good and is well done!
-
^completely true. just get something that looks good and is well done!
How about something that looks good is well done and has some meaning? Or perhaps just looking good and well done is meaning enough? [emoji57]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
A tattoo completely without meaning is like the equivalent of totally objective research; does not exist..
Yes any mark made consciously/purposely must bear some meaning…
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
