Not, Paul B, because they're sturdier, manlier and more classic?
I wouldn't sacrifice authenticity and longevity for slightly easier drunken pissing. But maybe that's just me!
Do remember that among fashion enthusiasts are a great deal of snarky hipsters! I think it's charming but it does the attitude on this forum no favours, I agree. A lot of it in this thread in fact.
I do by the way agree that little insignias like the ramskull are sometimes not so cool. Every time I see that deer or whatever it is that indicates Abercrombie and Fitch the snarky hipster in me retches a little bit!
I actually like zips a lot, and i find them way more comfortable, at least in trousers, since they are less bulky.
Have to agree with the branding though. I hate when something that would otherwise be classic and versatile gets ruined by a colourful logo that has nothing to do there.
Not really sure what a snarky hipster is but I'd guess that I'm not one. I was just being sarcastic; bad day. Apologies.
I wouldn't apologise, the world but be very dull without sarcasm. I've been on forums where everyone agrees, pats each other on the back and they're very dull forums, nothing wrong with a bit of banter if people aren't too uptight about it!
Drew - I have to disagree with the Oakley comment, very good optics and they make a lot more than 'dad' glasses, but they're not really aimed at your average trendy type, more sports circles etc. Outdoorsy types buy them because they're good, and probably aren't as concerned with trying to fit into a certain group. Considering you started that sentence shooting down designer brands in favour of sunglasses manufacturers it seems mad to disregard such a huge player.
As for zippers/buttons, I prefer zippers because they're easier to do up after a piss when you're wearing a belt, and they don't dig in when you're leaning against things, although they do avoid the risk of catching certain things in the mechanism. It's a minor detail though that wouldn't affect me purchasing trousers.
Strangely I never have an issue with trousers having a zip fly, but I do tend to think twice about buying jeans or chinos with a zip fly. I'm not even sure why. I do prefer having buttons on my top half rather than zips too, with the exception of hooded fleeces and casual jackets.
I'm all for a bit of banter and on point debate and agree it would be dull otherwise. Call me sensitive but having been looking forward to the forum feature for a while it was just a slightly disheartening first response is all. No biggy.
I've seen a few of your previous posts Olly. I'm forever regurgitating the David Gandy quote you referenced about a lot of Englishmen not knowing how to dress despite our sartorial heritage and reverting to A&F polo t-shirts and cargo shorts and how much of a shame that is. It really stuck with me! Annoying linguistic turns aside obviously, I think we might see fairly eye to eye.
I suppose the Oakley comment was contradictory. This thread has made me reflect on how irrational and inconsistent a lot of my pet fashion hates are. I can't deny that they're good quality and practical. I even own some Oakley ski goggles that I adore as they never fog up. Come to think of it I live in Spain and a few years back chavs here had a thing for Oakley and another brand called Arnette wrap-around sunglasses in electric blue and white, often carried/worn on the back of their necks, which is probably what triggered my distaste! It's a case of unfortunate personal association as opposed to the merits of the brand and its products, which I suppose is what ends up transpiring in a lot of these cases.
Last edited by drew; 03-11-2011 at 03:48 PM. Reason: formatting problems
This is the point I tried to touch on with my rant. There are so many decent eyewear makers like Ray Bans, Revo, Mykita and Oakley it's a shame everybody seems to want Armani, Chanel, Gucci and Hugo Boss. The added bonus with sunglasses is that you know you’ll be getting some decent lenses with the frames, and surely that’s the most important thing when it comes to sunglasses.