When brands become unwearable

Probably not a popular opinion on a cycling forum, but I won’t buy anything from Oakley any more.

They have an unpleasant willingness to court the alt right/proud boys market.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oakley-thin-blue-line-sunglasses-b2102114.html

@pca, you can’t make the same joke twice on the same thread! Even if it didn’t get the love it deserved first time.

A bunch of fat bald headed lager drinking banter football supporting ***** lads just come in, a good percentage of them wearing Arcteryx and Fjällraven. Do I need to burn my wardrobe??

Where you been this has been a thing for years google Gorpcore has been a thing for years. Merrell, ACG, Salomon and so on are all pretty popular these days.

@pca, you can’t make the same joke twice on the same thread! Even if it didn’t get the love it deserved first time.

How embarrassing for me. The first time I did it I got an error message…

The dead give-away here in the highlands and islands are those that you see wearing inappropriate fashion footwear, particularly when slithering around in street shoes on a muddy path. Dead easy to spot the tourists as they generally arrive wearing box-fresh shoes, whereas many islanders are cutting about in their yellow Dunlops, which reminded me of this:

I’ve been following this thread a little…. Also the PSA threads and ended up buying this pine/green Fjern Breen jacket

from Sport Pursuit.

What for, yes, for roaming the streets & beach on my lunch break at work this coming winter.

Hopefully won’t be confused for a fascist or otherwise ****.

Is it safe?

I like Rab gear for mountain use, but have always avoided it for around and about use. Always take two sets of jackets on holiday, and have paid more than discounted Rab prices for inferior garments by other brands for casual use.

You know it’s reached the North Face stage when both your manager at work and and the chavvy kids on the train in are wearing it.

Rab  clothing is now available on Intersports here, not a bad thing per se but catering to wider audience usually means compromises in design and quality.
Fjällräven is getting more visible in US, few  outdoor and gun channel hosts are now often being seen in their clothing.

Arcteryx clothes work well for what they are designed for, not met many of their new fans up the hills.

A bunch of fat bald headed lager drinking banter football supporting ***** lads just come in, a good percentage of them wearing Arcteryx and Fjällraven.

Last I checked, football is mostly played and viewed outdoors in all kinds of crappy weather. Also, footballers may also be hillwalkers. Does this need a “what coat for football stands?” thread or is one coat enough? Asking for a friend, @stevenmenmuir

Didn’t Fjällraven just have a Collab with Specialized? I think that tells you everything you need to know

What, exactly?

this need a “what coat for football stands?” thread or is one coat enough? Asking for a friend, @stevenmenmuir

Donkey jacket
Flat cap
And a team scarf

Probably not a popular opinion on a cycling forum, but I won’t buy anything from Oakley any more.

They have an unpleasant willingness to court the alt right/proud boys market.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/oakley-thin-blue-line-sunglasses-b2102114.html

My first awareness of Oakley being a ‘bad’ brand was back in 2003 when, having just bought a pair, I was told by a (very knowledgeable and culturally aware) friend that the brand was tainted by it’s association with the US military, and given the huge illegal war that had recently kicked off, probably not cool. But the TBL thing seems to be a US-only campaign; Oakley is now owned by a massive Italian conglomerate, so regional campaigns are often autonomous of the parent company. I think I’d still buy Oakleys, as they are good quality products, and tbh there are so many brands ‘tainted’ in some way or another, either directly or by links to other things, that it comes down to personal choices really. People choose to ignore lots of dodgy stuff about lots of things they buy, if it suits them.

I’ve found ‘tribal’ identifiers fascinating since I was a kid. I remember Reebok being a definite no-no amongst many of the black kids I grew up with, simply because of the Union flag and the association with the far-right, and colonialism. I understand that wearing Reeboks was not advisable in parts of Northern and Republican Ireland. I remember it being only white kids that ever wore the long parkas that become popular in the Mod revival. Fred Perry, more recently in the news for its unintentional links with the wonderfully named Proud Boys movement, was a brand I’ve long associated with far-right skinhead fascism from my childhood. As were DMs, but they seem to be ok now. They were even nicknamed ‘****-bashers’ when I was at school. Perhaps the 80s as the first time that actual corporate brands really became prominent as such social identifiers; the football hooligan ‘casuals’ popularised such brands as Fila, LaCoste, Pringle, Sergio Tacchini and Lyle and Scott. Adidas became very popular amongst black kids, due to its prominence in the Reggae scene, and with Hip-Hop bands such as Run DMC. Similarly, Nike became popular due to Michael Jordan and the popularity of basketball on the new UK cable TV networks. I had a friend who grew up within the Reggae scene, who to this day will still only wear Adidas, never Nike. Tribal identity is important. I’m kind of glad my family were too poor to afford brands. The closest I got was a bright red Adidas tracksuit my mum bought in a charity shop. Except it was from the 70s, and this was about 1983. I was never a cool kid. :(

Fred Perry, more recently in the news for its unintentional links with the wonderfully named Proud Boys movement, was a brand I’ve long associated with far-right skinhead fascism from my childhood. As were DMs, but they seem to be ok now.

This was on P1, but DM’s and FP are a weird one. Because they were worn right across the ‘divide’ and I’d associate FP certainly with ska and two-tone which is by definition non-racist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinhead

My first awareness of Oakley being a ‘bad’ brand was back in 2003 when, having just bought a pair, I was told by a (very knowledgeable and culturally aware) friend that the brand was tainted by it’s association with the US military, and given the huge illegal war that had recently kicked off, probably not cool.

Did nothing to harm their US market in the slightest, if anything sales went up as they were one of the few companies offering glasses with a degree of ballistic protection. Thus paving the way for other companies to produce suitable eyepro for that field of use.

For me their unwearable due to the middle-aged, podgy baldies who insist on wearing white frame/orange lens combinations. Honking bits of kit.

This was on P1, but DM’s and FP are a weird one. Because they were worn right across the ‘divide’ and I’d associate FP certainly with ska and two-tone which is by definition non-racist.

For sure. But as a kid, the only people I saw wearing those brands were fascist thugs. I appreciate that the far-right co-opted the skinhead look, and that it has more or less been successfully reclaimed, but it was almost exclusively a ‘white’ fashion trend/identity. I do now have two Christopher Raeburn jackets based on the classic M1 flight jacket as also popularised by the skinhead movement; those were for a long time a fashion faux pas if you weren’t of fascistic persuasions, but now completely reclaimed and reimagined. I notice also that some young people have rediscovered the shell suits from the late 80s. I think I’m more worried about the flammability than the dreadful fashion choices though.

But as a kid, the only people I saw wearing those brands were fascist thugs.

I don’t deny that, it’s your experience. I wonder what town you’re from / grew up in. Personally, as a kid growing up in the sticks 5 miles from an average town in the south east that was relatively affluent (not one of the Ghost Towns) we didn’t have a particularly large black or asian population, and two-tone wasn’t a massive movement (and I was a bit young, 10 or 11 at the time – aware of the music but not the underlying politics – so I can’t claim to be a first gen 2-tone fan really).

I suspect experience may have been different growing up in Coventry, or Birmingham.

the brand was tainted by it’s association with the US military,

For a bit the same was true of CamelBak, who still do a pretty successfully military line of rucks and bladders. For a while, they even crossed over and it was pretty common to see sand and woodland pattern MULES and so on. I think that al stopped when folks realised that the company that ended up owning Camelbak (Vista Sports) had pretty sizeable firearm and gun company links. Although I think now Vista has got rid of the guns part of their portfolio.

I’ve a few pairs of Oakley (both spectacles and ridewear) I’ve never been bothered about the proud boys connection or the podgy baldies in orange lens brigades, after all; golfists wear them…

It’s highly ironic that the 80’s NF skinhead look was adopted and thus partly dismantled by the gay scene.  In the 90’s walking through Manchester’s Gay Village you would see so many DM / Tight Jeans / MA1 jacket / cropped hair combos you could be excused for thinking you’d stumbled upon a skrewdriver gig.

For a bit the same was true of CamelBak, who still do a pretty successfully military line of rucks and bladders.

Ah, happy memories of my desert MARPAT Mutherload. They’re great until the zip shits itself, thank god for paracord.

I was never bothered by the firearms connections, mostly because Army, yaknow. A lot of the first gen issue stuff was good until the MOD set up a contract then the quality dropped dramatically.

Now I shudder when I see them being used in civdiv.

Now I shudder when I see them being used in civdiv.

I saw a chap wearing more or less full PCS the other day with Oakley wrap-arounds and a Thru-dark jacket of some sort. The effect slightly offset by the fact he was 5’5″ and 200lbs pushing 60, and waiting at the bus stop.

Bless.

I saw a chap wearing more or less full PCS the other day with Oakley wrap-arounds and a Thru-dark jacket of some sort. The effect slightly offset by the fact he was 5’5″ and 200lbs pushing 60, and waiting at the bus stop.

Bless.

 I don’t deny that, it’s your experience. I wonder what town you’re from / grew up in. Personally, as a kid growing up in the sticks 5 miles from an average town in the south east that was relatively affluent (not one of the Ghost Towns) we didn’t have a particularly large black or asian population, and two-tone wasn’t a massive movement (and I was a bit young, 10 or 11 at the time – aware of the music but not the underlying politics – so I can’t claim to be a first gen 2-tone fan really).

I suspect experience may have been different growing up in Coventry, or Birmingham.

Yes. East London in the 70s and 80s wasn’t quite as tolerant and integrated as it is now (still a long way to go though). So the skinhead look really was limited to the far-right. Those were the only people I ever saw dressed like that. I grew up listening to Reggae and Ska from about the age of 4/5, and in that scene it was mainly black people and a few ‘liberal’ white folk. So it really was great to see things opening up so much, culturally and socially, in the early 90s when Rave and Jungle really exploded. There were still cultural divides; not many brown people went out clubbing in those early days, but it was more open. The new problem that emerged was through accusations of ‘cultural appropriation’; white New Age types with dreadlocks, white kids dressed up in Hip Hop and Ragga styles, etc. There was a bit of a backlash within Hip Hop; many proponents didn’t want it becoming diluted and for others to appropriate it, they wanted to keep it ‘black’; understandable but not so progressive. Not helped by Vanilla Ice and Snow. Middle class appropriation of the dance scene meant it ended up getting watered down and becoming mainstream. I remember seeing adverts for Top Shop or some other high street chain, advertising ‘club wear’. But then there was also subversion; Kangol did fluffy hats for old women, and then along came LL CoolJ.

It’s highly ironic that the 80’s NF skinhead look was adopted and thus partly dismantled by the gay scene.  In the 90’s walking through Manchester’s Gay Village you would see so many DM / Tight Jeans / MA1 jacket / cropped hair combos you could be excused for thinking you’d stumbled upon a skrewdriver gig.

In some of the more ‘alternative’ clubs in the early 90s, it was not uncommon to see very healthy, toned young men and women in full on Nazi fetish gear. I’m sure Uncle Adolf and co would have been very proud…

Tend to just wear what fits the best and steer clear of clothing with big bold names on them. M&S jumpers fit well. Their autograph tshirts are a nice shape too. Mountain warehouse trousers fit well and last well.

Slim ✔️

Hair ✔️

Tea Total ✔️

Sensible Soccer fan ✔️

Wearing WorkZone Bottoms, some Crivit stuff and a Goodmans Smart Watch (G-Man), Musto Fleece (JP Morgan) and a 2007 St Paul’s Carnival Tee ✔️

What a mess ;-) and Aldi Clogs.

I would have thought that Boss, Polo, Armani, Hilfiger etc have always been unwearable and poor taste.

Won’t argue against those.

i love the fact you always mention jottnar and in the next sentence claim Arcteryx is too expensive.

When I bought my Jöttnar stuff, hardly anyone knew who the hell they were, and Arc’teryx were all over the place and three times what I paid for my Fenrir jacket. With VAT, it cost £175…

My first awareness of Oakley being a ‘bad’ brand was back in 2003 when, having just bought a pair, I was told by a (very knowledgeable and culturally aware) friend that the brand was tainted by it’s association with the US military, and given the huge illegal war that had recently kicked off, probably not cool.

I thought I was reasonably‘knowledgeable and culturally aware’, but I  was completely unaware of that sort of association, I associated Wiley-X shades with the US military, rather than Oakley; Oakley I inevitably think of sport an athletics, it wasn’t unusual to see troops on desert operations wearing ski goggles, but without visible logos. Wiley-X glasses were/are goggle-like, in that they had replaceable lenses and temples that could be swapped for an elastic headband.

Been wearing Oakleys since the Blades came out, then Frogskins, and I’ve got a couple of pairs of WHY4’s which were specifically for prescription lenses, but I’ve had tinted mirrored lenses fitted and wear them a lot. I’ve got a pair of black Half-Jacket 2.0 frames with custom Persimmon photo-reactive lenses which are ideal In changeable weather. Oh, and a pair of Mumbo’s I bought in LA in ‘93, that I wear for archery outdoors, because of the unobstructed lenses.

Slazenger used to be a well regarded sports brand – not so much now! 🤣

Should my nan have refused to drive her Toyota Yaris to the bingo hall after she saw those nasty young men from ISIS driving round in a Hilux with a 50cal bolted to the flatbed? She is pretty unaligned to their views.

My favourite clothes are the ones where the brand is only on the label on the inside. Big oversized brand labelling is a sign of insecurity of both the manufacturer and the wearer.

Should my nan have refused to drive her Toyota Yaris to the bingo hall after she saw those nasty young men from ISIS driving round in a Hilux with a 50cal bolted to the flatbed? She is pretty unaligned to their views.

Now, a Yaris technical would be something I’d enjoy seeing.

I used to be covered head to toe in skate and surf stuff in my teens, twenties and early thirties. Nowadays it is the plain stuff from Rapanui (t-shirts, jumpers, flannel) with a smattering of more expensive middle aged man attire such as HebTroCo.

And when you’ve stopped poncing around with the pauper brands you can move onto ThruDark.

What colour is the boat shed at Hereford?

My favourite clothes are the ones where the brand is only on the label on the inside. Big oversized brand labelling is a sign of insecurity of both the manufacturer and the wearer.

I agree, but it is becoming more difficult. Even formal shirts often have a little logo embroidered somewhere on the outside.

What colour is the boat shed at Hereford?

Trick question it’s impossible to tell its real colour through NVGs.

Returning to the OP:A bunch of fat bald headed lager drinking banter football supporting ***** lads just come in, a good percentage of them wearing Arcteryx and Fjällraven. Do I need to burn my wardrobe??

This is more about concerns over others’ perception of yourself, than the actual brands themselves. Which itself is a fascinating topic (well, I find it fascinating, but then it was part of my studies at university), because it’s all tied in with human need to identify with particular groups or ‘tribes’. The OP is obviously concerned that they will be identified as part of a group to which they do not want to ‘belong’. Which is fair. But there’s no cultural appropriation going on here. Others are free to wear such commercially produced brands as are available. So surely the right approach would be to continue wearing them, and through your own actions and behaviour, diminish the symbolism and identity that the other group are trying to create. See above; skinhead fashion was successfully re-appropriated by the gay club community. As for the two brands in question; Arcteryx I associate more with middle aged middle class types who want to project a higher class image than that they perceive of say North Face, and Fjälräven is a brand very popular amongst earnest young urban women, probably bit ‘lefty’, and often students. Those are my own personal perceptions of such brands. Hope that helps a bit. 

And btw; Arcteryx was ‘over’ about 5 years ago. It’s all about 66North or Finisterre now. ;)

My favourite clothes are the ones where the brand is only on the label on the inside. Big oversized brand labelling is a sign of insecurity of both the manufacturer and the wearer.

Uniqlo do this really well.

Ostentatiously branded clothing is a form of marketing of course. I wouldn’t buy anything from Superdry myself, but it seems very popular with people who like that kind of thing.

I would have thought that Boss, Polo, Armani, Hilfiger etc have always been unwearable and poor taste.  The outdoor ones (with the possible exception of North Face) are good kit when worn for their intended purpose.

I think this is all to do with rampant commercialism. The reality is that the ‘proper’ stuff that such brands produce, ie the ‘haute couture’ end of the scale, is way beyond the financial means of most people, so those brands created new ‘affordable’ ranges to promote their brand identity amongst the plebs. This has inevitably led to many knock offs, and what some would see as a ‘degrading’ of said brands. Mass produced stuff made with cheap labour, not the high quality that such brands were once more associated with. Hugo Boss and Armani etc actually do some very nice clothes if you have a fair bit of money to spend; the interesting thing is that the more you tend to spend with such brands, the less obvious the branding actually becomes. Those with such money don’t really need to try to convince others. The big logo ‘Armani Jeans’ type crap is just for wannabes. It’s all about creating the mystique of such brands. It can go wrong of course; Burberry’s iconic check pattern became synonymous with ’90s ‘chav’ culture, and all but disappeared. It’s become very popular with young Japanese women though, who are probably oblivious to its former associations.

As for outdoor kit; much of it is made in huge factories in countries where it’s easy to exploit cheap labour. No brand seems immune; certainly not the mainstream ones you find on the high street. Arcteryx isn’t really any better than other brands, it’s just more expensive. It’s still made in a sweatshop in the east somewhere.

It’s still made in a sweatshop in the east somewhere.

Some is, some isn’t. They still have a manufacturing site in BC

Anyone else remember when Daniella Westbrook did the Burberry overload.  And then there seemed to be period when the football thug adopted Burberry too.

Fun Fact: Mrs Rock was in Christopher Bailey’s class at school.