"Lasting" Luxury
We all known how flooded the market is with supposed “luxury goods” and “quality bespoke such-and-such,” but I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what sorts of things set apart the proverbial wheat from the chaff. To be honest, a lot of what I’ve been able to identify falls pretty simply into two categories: intensive craftsmanship and true creativity/individuality. The brands and products that combine a love of craft and quality with a unique aesthetic that sets them apart from the pack (even if these differences are subtle or just markers of the aforementioned craft) are the brands I find myself continuously gravitating towards time and time again.
A perfect example of this combination for me is the Shoe of the Month program over at Lodger Footwear on Clifford Street, London. Their standard offerings are mouthwatering, don’t get me wrong, but I find the creativity present in each new month’s offering exciting and engaging in a totally different way. To step back for a moment, the shoe of the month program is just what it sounds like – Lodger releases a limited edition shoe each month that is only available for order during that month, and is then never offered again.
While this month’s shoe is a loafer in two special colors, both beautiful in their own right, some months have been really unique and amazing. The combination suede and leather Jodphur boot offered this past February was definitely one of the highlights for me, taking a traditional Jodphur off the polo pitch and into the city – while it would also look great in the country, I’m sure, this boot just screams “Brown in Town” to me. Maybe it’s the sleek lines and crossed strap…or maybe just the fact that I wish I had a pair and don’t spend much time in the country.
Another vintage-inspired favorite was the tennis shoe offered last summer, which might be the best summer shoe I have ever laid eyes on. And the best (or quite possibly the worst) part of it all is that I can’t have either of these offerings; after their month is up, no wad of cash can get them reproduced. This idea of luxury that is somewhat impulsive, if a month can be considered impulsive, intrigues me and makes me smile as I think about it.
The list of unique offerings goes on, striped canvas, two-tone desert boots, blue suede brogues, and paprika slip-ons all represented. The foundation for all of this though is ultimately quality and craft. This isn’t about plunking down 100 pounds for the month’s hottest fast fashion, but rather investing in something that will age with you and become more rare and unique over time – almost like a fine wine or something similar. Hand clicking, hand painting, beveled waists, and beautifully polished soles are just the basics. So next time a brand says they are producing “luxury bespoke super duper extra rare quality life-time assured” goods, give it a good think.
2 Comments
Anonymous
August 18, 2010Mr. Pulvirent, I'm curious as to why you felt the need to delete my previous comment without responding to it. It seems I may have offended you when I referred to your clothing style as "anachronistic," and for that I apologize. Although your personal style isn't for me, I don't have a problem with the clothing you choose to wear. You, on the other hand, DO seem to have a problem with the clothing other people choose to wear, and as you appear to be a very smart gentleman with an impressive ability to express yourself through writing, I merely intended to prompt you to give us some of your impressions on this issue. I look forward to hearing your response.
-George L.
Stephen Pulvirent
August 19, 2010Mr. L.,
First off, as for deleting your previous comment, I initially interpreted it as confrontational instead of constructive, and I apologize if I misunderstood your intentions. This may have been amplified by the following comment (also deleted) which essentially accused me of being a fascist in response to what I considered a fairly tame remark…go figure. I am in no way for a white-washed view of any subject, and I appreciate your desire to create dialogue if that was your intention.
Now to the crux of the seeming disagreement: while I encourage individuality and freedom of dress, evidenced I think quite well in my dressing differently than the social norm, the particular instance (brunch) was one in which I felt the individuals' choices demonstrated a lack of respect for the venue and the other guests. Many of the guests dressed in the manner I found objectionable also behaved in a manner I found to be objectionable – whether this is a case of "correlation does not imply causation" is certainly up in the air, but I'm sure this had something to do with my reaction.
At the end of the day, I would obviously prefer a gentleman in a T-Shirt over a barbarian in a tie, but in this particular instance those dressed in what I consider appropriate garb for a Sunday Brunch at a nice hotel restaurant (admittedly, according to some possibly anachronistic idea of propriety), seemed to give me no reason to bat an eye, whilst those dressed in what I would consider disrespectful attire for the setting continued this perceived disrespect in their actions as well, amplifying the effect for me. T-Shirt or Suit, there is no excuse for cutting in front of a lady in line, swearing loudly in public, or treating hotel staff disrespectfully.
Condescension was certainly not, and never is, my intention, and I do honestly appreciate your desire to set the record straight here and figure this thing out. I hope this has shed some light on why I said what I said, and why although I do not mean it in the way in which it may have been interpreted, I do mean the underlying point quite strongly: respect is important and is never anachronistic, no matter how it is dressed.
-Stephen