Why I Buy Expensive Clothes (and Don't Try to Convince You to Too)

While researching my article on navy trousers, I fell down a real rabbit hole. Initially, I just wanted to check if others had written about a concept I had developed myself. Of course, they had. But in doing so, I stumbled upon questions that are no longer seriously discussed in our bubble. They aren't debated; they're entry-level dogma, like the recommendation for a navy blazer. My brain now completely filters out these questions because it has become an automatic process. I don't even look at clothes from certain brands anymore. If I see a new brand, I check once to see if it meets a few quality standards that I consider a minimum, and if not, I don't delve any deeper. I don't sort out. I filter out; it simply doesn't happen.

One of these never-asked questions is: Why does the bubble even buy quality? This inclination towards high quality could just as easily not exist. Why doesn't anyone say: Buy as cheaply as possible, and when it breaks, buy new, then you always have the cooler, newer item? Newness is, in fact, one of the strongest buying drivers, even in the bubble people constantly buy new items they don't need, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. It's just that no one preaches maximizing it. So, is quality a factor that truly matters for quality's sake? Or is it a huge circle jerk of people convincing each other that quality is important because they themselves were taught that quality is important, and deep down it actually doesn't matter?

In search of answers, I encountered a trilemma. Broadly speaking, there are three positions on this question.

Position one: Substance first

Quality is real and you can feel it. In wearing comfort, in value, in the feel on the skin, in the aging process of the fabric. And it comes from good fabric and good workmanship.

Let's be honest, this point cannot simply be dismissed. The minimum requirement that runs unopposed within the menswear bubble is: Buy natural fibers instead of synthetic fibers. The background is simple. Natural fibers have a minimum quality and properties that the generally much cheaper synthetic fibers, polyester, acrylic, and so on, simply do not have. Even a low natural fiber quality still makes a difference in wearing comfort. Little more needs to be said, because anyone who has ever worn a plastic suit knows it's junk.

Position two: Style trumps quality

I'm only a mediocre fan of this position, or rather, it depends. The take: Quality is overrated, styling always beats the expensive suit. This comes from Simon Crompton, among others, and many have been saying it in a similar form for years: "Can you look good in cheap clothes? Absolutely... style is always more important." A good fit matters more than good quality.

That's true, as long as you're comparing extreme opposites. If the suit doesn't fit, you can see that it doesn't fit, and then it doesn't matter if it was expensive. But is that a fair comparison? No. On each of these axes, there's a minimum standard that must be met for an item to even be considered. If you're below the minimum on one axis, you're disqualified, no matter how well you score on the other. An expensive suit that's three sizes too big is out. A cheap suit that fits beats it, obviously. But it still loses to a good suit that fits.

This position is a spending optimization guide, and as such, it makes sense: If your budget doesn't stretch to the good suit that fits, then rather take the poor one that fits than the good one that doesn't. Crompton isn't wrong. But you can't simply say fit beats quality. The version with the two axes and their minimum thresholds is more accurate. That's exactly what he means, he just doesn't say it that way.

But honestly, one and two aren't even really arguing. They're two weightings of the same thing, preference. No one calls you stupid because fit is a bit more important to you than the fabric. The position that jeopardizes the whole game is the third one.

Position three: It's all about status anyway

And then there's the third position, which pulled the rug out from under me for a few seconds. The status cynic: Quality is just a pretext. It's about looking expensive, and about expensive fabrics bringing social and cultural capital within the bubble. The take comes from The Prep Club: "The actual material quality of our garments probably has very little bearing on why we've spent so much money." According to this, the enthusiasm for quality would be a post-purchase rationalization. I tell myself I spent so much money because the product is so good, and not because I want the status my bubble attributes to this product.

For a moment, I thought: Ugh. Is the whole thing that superficial?

Three seconds of panic. Then came the reflex, and honestly, the first thought was a concession: Yes, of course. Of course, I buy certain brands and products because I've learned somewhere that a certain status is associated with them. Absolutely, one primarily buys status. Everyone does.

And immediately after came the retort, which at first sounded clever: If you're always buying status anyway, then at least buy good quality. Then you'll get more longevity out of the status you bought.

The rebuttal smells of proof

However, this very counter-argument is what I would immediately call bullshit in others. These scientifically sounding arguments, "a study found that people in suits earn X more over their lifetime," I consider bullshit. And the status flip works on the same pattern. Of course, it makes sense at first, but only because I am in the position I am in. That's why it's so easy for me to believe it.

Because at its core, all of this is interchangeable and arbitrary if you change the scope. If I had been born in the Amazon rainforest, I probably wouldn't be doing this. If I had been born in North Korea, not either. If I hadn't moved to Bonn ten years ago, not either. These are not deep insights. But they are enough to see: there is no objective proof that you should be interested in clothing. And I won't sell you one.

What it is instead

I do this because I've had good experiences with it. If I had had negative ones, I wouldn't have enjoyed it and wouldn't be sharing my enthusiasm. It's that clear, that simple. These are just my experiences, they're not trying to convince you. I just believe they are reproducible, otherwise I wouldn't share them.

Even the status attachment to a brand is, if you look closely, an experience attachment. Something once positively connected you with that brand, with a certain type of garment. And just as there are people who reject ties or hate suit wearers because they once had a bad experience with a suit wearer. Does that mean suit wearers are bad? No, not at all, not even a little bit. It only says something about that one experience. But just as it works negatively, it also works positively.

And you can observe it outside. Daniel from @ivy_archive_munich has documented it multiple times: people vehemently defend the highest quality standard they themselves have experienced so far. There are men who defend the shirts of a well-known entry-level brand tooth and nail as soon as someone says it can be better. And they are not defending anything false. They are defending the best experience they have had so far, because they are probably the best shirts they have had up to that point. Their imagination cannot even create the feeling that a better shirt would give. And even with a better shirt in the closet, the new experiences would first have to overwrite the old ones. I am not exempt from this. My filter from the very top is the same mechanism, just a few steps further.

And you know this mechanism, even if you have nothing to do with clothes. Take a pair of scissors. A kitchen knife. A pair of shoes, a bicycle. Anyone who has ever owned the high-quality example of something quickly learns to appreciate it. I now believe that this pattern works the same across practically all product categories: you get the largest part of the quality up to a certain price point, and the initial quality leap is extremely easy to feel. Everything beyond that is either a special requirement due to your personal situation, or it eventually becomes a passion, eventually a gimmick. For most people, a 60 to 100 square meter apartment is enough. If you have ten children, you need more, and if you want 300 square meters, you can take them. But the leap we're talking about here is the first one: from the part that annoys you to the part that works. This experience is real; no bubble talks you into it.

Why it still has to be quality

When it comes to good experiences, the question remains: what always gives me one?

The cheap souvenir holds a frozen memory. The souvenir, the trip. After that, it just hangs there. The well-made item adds a new memory with every wear, because it feels good every time, fits correctly, does something you feel, even if no one cares. The bond itself has nothing to do with quality; it's just as attached to the band T-shirt. Only the good item continues to charge it for decades, while the band T-shirt is long gone. This way, the collected associations are better preserved.

Incidentally, I almost omitted this point, and the admission belongs here: for me, material and workmanship have long ceased to be an issue; fit is the bigger one, and that's precisely why I underestimate how important this difference is for someone who stands where I stood ten years ago.

And yes, incidentally, the good piece also ages better. A cool coat was cool fifty years ago and will still be cool in fifty years. Leather jacket, same story. Cordovan loafers were probably really cool in the sixties and still are, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. You can rule out in advance what has no chance of aging well, namely poor quality and super trendy stuff, and only in the corridor in between do you even have a chance of hits. But what those pieces are and how to recognize them, I've told elsewhere.

You don't have to earn your taste

It's okay to say: Look, it's our hobby, I share my enthusiasm. For me, it's a very important part of my life, as it is for many others. And broadly speaking, it's, of course, incredibly unimportant, measured against, I don't know, medical research. That's a matter of scope, nothing more. You don't have to belittle this thing. You just have to see it within the framework where it has its justification.

So: you are allowed to simply like things because you've had good experiences with them. You don't need a study to justify it. I'm sharing enthusiasm here, not proof. I can't give you the experiences themselves; you have to make them. But perhaps I can show you where to look so you have more fun with it sooner. If you share the enthusiasm, great. If not, that's fine too.

More from me on nielsklasing.com or on Instagram.