Would you spend £200 on a jacket that may or may not last 30 years?

Pollycat

andthethreebears wrote: »

My husband has a couple of the Tom Cridland 30 year sweatshirts/t shirts.
Such a great idea. If it gets damaged or worn then they'll repair or replace it for free.

He's got some pretty famous customers - including Daniel Craig and Leonardo DiCaprio. Good luck to him - fantastic ethos for a company!

Yeah right.:cool:

If he's still in business in 28 years time.:rotfl:

sweetilemon

30 years? Well I don't feel so bad having my jacket for the 3rd year in a row. Definitely wouldn't plan on having something 30years! Would I pay £200 for a jacket? Yes. That jacket? No.

moneyistooshorttomention

I guess the answer to that is "yes - obviously" - as I've got a list of clothing to buy once I'm back down to my Normal Size and that includes "raincoat - £250". I will expect that raincoat to last me (well) for at least 5 years and will be hoping for at least 10 years out of it.

But I dont believe in cheap/disposable clothing anyway. I want the quality we all used to take for granted 30/40 years back and I'm prepared to pay an equivalent price to what I would have paid for it then plus inflation rises.

Checking out my clothing to buy list and I've put things like yoga bottoms - £40- each. Jumpers - £30-£40 each.

If I cant afford an item of clothing - I prefer to wait till I can, rather than buy a cheap substitute personally.

Oldest item of clothing - I dont really know - but I do have a noticeable number of clothes that have size labels on them that indicate a size smaller than the size they would be labelled with nowadays (ie size 12 would now be labelled size 14 and so on). I've just given a cardigan to charity shop that was that old that the size label was 2 sizes smaller than the one that would be put on it nowadays.

MandM90

OHs waterproof Peregrine coat with Harris tweed cost £300 about 3 years ago, and still looks like new. Even if it only lasts another year, we love it, so it was worthwhile. It looks a lot more sturdy than that ghastly jacket though.

Both my coats (winter/summer) cost at least £300. Again I think I've had both three years and they make me - I hope - look very smart and wash as if new.

I'm not sure why anyone would buy something with 30 years in mind though. Maybe from a landfill point of view, yes, but will it fit/will you like it in 30 years...who knows? It might be so unfashionable in 10 years that a chazza shop finds it unsellable. I think they'd struggle now :rotfl:

Pollycat

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Oldest item of clothing - I dont really know - but I do have a noticeable number of clothes that have size labels on them that indicate a size smaller than the size they would be labelled with nowadays (ie size 12 would now be labelled size 14 and so on). I've just given a cardigan to charity shop that was that old that the size label was 2 sizes smaller than the one that would be put on it nowadays.

I still have a skirt that I bought 45 years ago and the waist measures 12" across.
That's a 24" waist and I was a size 12.

A 'normal' size 12 was 34" bust, 24" waist, 36" hips.
My friend was a size 10 with a 22" waist.

Put my size 12 skirt against a M&S skirt of today and there's a lot more difference than 1 size.

I smiled at all the fuss about Kylie with her 22" waist and Keira Knightly's 23.5" waist. Nobody would have batted an eyelid in my day. Figures like this were the norm then.

FTR - I've not been able to get into the skirt for many years. I've just kept it for sentimental reasons.

hollydays

andthethreebears wrote: »

My husband has a couple of the Tom Cridland 30 year sweatshirts/t shirts.
Such a great idea. If it gets damaged or worn then they'll repair or replace it for free.

He's got some pretty famous customers - including Daniel Craig and Leonardo DiCaprio. Good luck to him - fantastic ethos for a company!

He's also got his own PR
agency
http://www.tomcridland.com/pages/tomcridlandpublicrelations

" The agency's areas of expertise include securing coverage in the print, online, TV and radio sectors of the major international press, as well as celebrity seeding and endorsements.

If you would like Tom Cridland to work with you on the PR for your business, please get in touch with him directly by email at tc@tomcridland.co.uk

We have secured press coverage with some of the world’s leading publications and broadcasters for our brands.

RECENT PRESS:"


I'm intrigued by the fact that if you look at the photos of the gentleman modelling the rust sweatshirts( the man with the beard) the trousers are creased with dirty marks on!

MandM90

Just been on the website, and the jackets all look such poor fits. The T-shirts are tested for 'over 100 wash and dry cycles'. So they're sure that if you wore the tee an average 3.33 a year it'd be fine for 30 years...you'd think they'd test them a bit more than that. And what happens if the company goes bust?

hollydays

MandM90 wrote: »

Just been on the website, and the jackets all look such poor fits. The T-shirts are tested for 'over 100 wash and dry cycles'. So they're sure that if you wore the tee an average 3.33 a year it'd be fine for 30 years...you'd think they'd test them a bit more than that. And what happens if the company goes bust?

have you noticed how in every photo of the other 'model' who looks taller than him, the sleeves are pushed like as though they are too short.
In all his promotions there's talk about ' luxury and organic 'but the sweatshirt description is 80% cotton 20% POLYESTER
and no mention of organic..in the item description itself-it says " luxury cotton" .
He also variously describes them as " handmade".
Is this possible?


Apparently the guarentee is just for repairs to the item, no mention of fading for example,

Jagraf

BarryBlue wrote: »

I wouldn't be spending £200 on any item of clothing as far as I can tell. But if I did, it would be for something decent. Some people will buy literally anything if it has some sort of designer label in it. Fashion victims, eh, what are they like!:doh:

I quite agree BB. People buy stuff to massage their ego etc and marketing folk know it.

Some things are really good quality and have gained a good reputation - I'm happy to spend then. But spending a lot of money doesn't make me feel good, quite the opposite, so it has to be something very much worth it.

missbiggles1

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I guess the answer to that is "yes - obviously" - as I've got a list of clothing to buy once I'm back down to my Normal Size and that includes "raincoat - £250". I will expect that raincoat to last me (well) for at least 5 years and will be hoping for at least 10 years out of it.

But I dont believe in cheap/disposable clothing anyway. I want the quality we all used to take for granted 30/40 years back and I'm prepared to pay an equivalent price to what I would have paid for it then plus inflation rises.

Checking out my clothing to buy list and I've put things like yoga bottoms - £40- each. Jumpers - £30-£40 each.

If I cant afford an item of clothing - I prefer to wait till I can, rather than buy a cheap substitute personally.

Oldest item of clothing - I dont really know - but I do have a noticeable number of clothes that have size labels on them that indicate a size smaller than the size they would be labelled with nowadays (ie size 12 would now be labelled size 14 and so on). I've just given a cardigan to charity shop that was that old that the size label was 2 sizes smaller than the one that would be put on it nowadays.

I bought a second hand Barbour on Ebay recently, over 10 years old but virtually unworn, cost £70. That'll be the last raincoat I'll ever need to buy as I don't plan to live for another 20 years, much less 30!