Lessons I Learned From Thrifting

  1. Clothes Are Not An Investment

Let’s start with a definition: an investment is something that is expected to grow in value over time, or generate profit over and above the initial outlay. 99% of clothing fails that test right out of the gate. Even clothing bought with the expectation of long-term wear is not an investment; it’s a consumable. I might be a collector at heart, but I am also a realist about clothes. They are much more similar to, say, food than they are to stocks; you need them to go about your day, but almost all of their value is their immediate function.

My experiences with the secondhand market have demonstrated, over and over, that the vast majority of clothes, no matter how expensive to begin with, have terrible resale value. Thrift stores would not be replete with like-new designer items if there was money to be made there. Some people argue that there are exceptions – brands that retain or even increase their value over time. While this may be true in some sense, realizing a profit requires a lot of specialized knowledge. You need to know not only the brands in question, but also the specific items, styles, models, etc. that will have the best resale value because not every product is made equal, even when you’re talking about labels like Hermes, Chanel, Louis Vuitton and the like. And even then, unless you’re a professional reseller with a global reach, making a profit can be hard. Most luxury consignment storefronts, which is an average person’s best bet for selling these kinds of items, will charge anywhere from 40-60% of the sale price as commission. You can do the math on how much an item has to increase in value over the purchase price before it’s realistic to expect a profitable sale.

2. Brand Names May Be A Signal, Never A Guarantee Of Quality

Sorry to break it to you: if you’re relying on brand names alone to find quality clothing, you’ll be led astray as often as not. Quality varies wildly across brands sold at similar price points, and even within a single brand. As consumers, we have precious little insight into the manufacturing process, so relying on labels as a signifier of quality is a gamble because you can rarely be sure that a higher retail price means higher manufacturing costs (i.e. better quality) – it could just mean that the brand is charging a higher margin purely for its name. In my experience, many mid-tier designer brands fall into this category; their actual quality is not appreciably better than stuff you would find at the mall, nor are the designs themselves more special.

3. You Can Become Your Own Quality Expert

The good news is that if you keep thrifting, you will quickly learn how to spot quality on your own. Good fabrics feel different; well-cut clothes sit differently on the body. You can literally see the difference in good versus mediocre finishing, if you pay close attention to everything you see. People who join me on my thrifting trips always comment on my speed; I rarely spend more than an hour in any thrift store, and I consider that a leisurely pace. Most of the time, I don’t look at every single item on a rack. I’ll scan the rack and reach out to touch certain fabrics that look promising; often, I will also scan labels, to the extent they’re visible. I will always stop and have a closer look when I see a designer label I like; just as materials that feel nice to the touch, it’s a signal that there may be a worthwhile item at hand. Sometimes, the material lies; I’ve come across some deceptively silk-like polyester in my time. Sometimes, the label doesn’t live up to its promise. Trust your instincts. If a piece of clothing doesn’t feel “quite right” the first time you try it on, leave it behind. Chances are that it won’t get better with time, and eventually (sooner rather than later) you’ll get tired of trying to “make it work”. I learned that the hard way.

4. Actually, Forget Brands; Wear What You Like

There is some irony to this; I spent years learning about and hunting for brands, only to eventually realize that what truly matters is how you feel in the clothes you wear. If you think that’s an intuitive lesson, then you probably didn’t grow up poor. I did. Growing up, shopping at the mall was a luxury far beyond my reach, but I could scrape together enough money for a monthly issue of Marie Claire or Vogue. I got the message loud and clear; I would be a more confident, attractive, happier person if I could wear designer labels. “Some day”, I thought. To be honest, that day might never have truly arrived if I had not discovered secondhand shopping. That opened up a new world of possibilities, and I certainly pursued them with a vengeance. But after finally getting regular exposure to designer pieces, I slowly came to see that a fancy label wasn’t like a magic lamp; it wouldn’t transform me into something else, for better or worse. Eventually, I started to follow my own instincts and find pieces that made me feel like the best version of myself. Some of them carry fancy labels; some of them don’t. Don’t be afraid to experiment. Thrifting is a good way to go about it, because it’s at arm’s length from the fashion industry so you’re not limited by current trends or (arbitrary) price points.

5. Fast Fashion Is Not Sustainable 

Thrift stores are overflowing with clothes. All day, every day. Most of those clothes are the products of “fast fashion” – mass market retailers, high and low. The clothes that end up on the racks of thrift stores are a fraction of what gets donated, which itself is only a fraction of what is produced. I’m sure you’ve heard that the clothing industry is the second most polluting industry in the world; visiting thrift stores regularly, you get a real sense of the scale of consumption going on. I don’t know what the answers are; cheap clothing is a problem, but wealth inequality is no less real. (Threads like this one provide insight into both sides of that debate.) I do think it’s an important conversation to keep having, because I think that’s one way that we may, incrementally, move towards finding a solution.

As always, I would love to hear your thoughts, so hit me up in the comments!

What I Wore: June 1-10, 2018

Butterfly Action

DD05BDAE-FB04-4676-916E-F2ED0BD914CA

These are some good trousers, you guys. I recently thrifted two identical pairs in different colours, and I am chuffed. It’s a tapered, slim fit which is a nice tweak on the “skinny pants” silhouette of recent years. This style is called the “Lou Taper” by Cartonnier. I may or may not be actively looking for other colours on eBay, ahem. Paired with my new Louise et Cie loafers, this is a very “garçonne chic” outfit and a slightly whimsical vibe for the Prince.

 Retro Chic

B4808B31-EF8D-4324-AF72-CA8683E511FC

This outfit is certainly more “ladylike” than any of my style avatars, which might make it seem like an odd choice for a highlight post. I could have added a bunch of extra accessories to try to take it into Bohemian territory, but I loved the simplicity of the colour scheme and the clean lines. So, in a way, it does suit my current aspirations.

I get a ton of comments on IG every time I wear this skirt, so I’ll mention the details again here in case anyone is interested: the brand is Floreat, and it fits true to size, waist-wise; I am 5’7 and the hem comes down past my knees – not quite midi length but close. Because the solid lining is a bit shorter, however, the skirt doesn’t fall into “dowdy” territory, without leaning too far in the opposite (revealing) direction.

Neo-Floral

DEB6C831-FB77-4885-8F44-7BB42F27B48D

I spotted this faux-layered sweatshirt at my local consignment store a while back, and was immediately drawn to it. After much deliberation, I decided to pass on it because I wasn’t convinced the style fit my current aesthetic. Fast forward a few weeks, and I saw it again. On sale. It was a sign, I decided. And here we are, outfit and all. The sweatshirt is a nice, easy way to elevate a basic casual Friday look. I was worried that the floral applique was full-on twee, but I’ve since concluded that it doesn’t cross the line; it’s bold, for sure, but it’s not especially cute – and “cute” is what I’m generally trying to avoid. I know, that probably sounds arbitrary as hell but it’s a system I’ve worked out in my head at least, I assure you. Let’s just go with it.

What I Watched: Back to Netflix Edition

It’s been a while since I binge-watched Netflix to the extent of recent weeks, but I’ve been working on some larger knitting projects and I find that I enjoy having shows running in the background while I knit. I prefer documentaries and comedy specials for that, because I listen to them without necessarily having to watch them. I’ve lost track of the number of specials I’ve seen, but they included:

– Ali Wong, Hard Knock Wide: as raunchy, or possibly more so, than her first special. I really enjoyed the show, but I think I liked Baby Cobra more – probably because I had no frame of reference for it, while Hard Knock Wife consequently had a high standard to live up to.

– John Mulaney, Kid Gorgeous: he’s not a “must watch” comic for me but this was pretty good.

– Amy Schumer, The Leather Special: kinda meh, to be honest. I felt like I was watching “Amy Schumer, Celebrity” rather than “Amy Schumer, Comic” which was kinda intriguing, but also kinda not as funny.

– Trevor Noah, Afraid of the Dark: I’m a sucker for anyone who can do a bunch of accents, so I liked this a lot. The bit at the end about Russian accents had me in tears. Full disclosure: I am one quarter Russian (hey, it counts), but I can’t do accents to save my life, and especially not a good Russian accent; I am now very sad about that.

Moving on, I watched a bunch of what I call “non-fiction TV”. Better known as “documentaries”. Can you tell that I had been on a reading kick until recently? Anyway, Dirty Money is excellent, you guys. It’s a docu-series that focuses on various financial and business scandals. I especially enjoyed the episodes on Valeant, payday lending, and Donald Trump.

I don’t often feel very strong negative emotions towards people, but I loathed Scott Tucker and his wife as soon as they started speaking. Their complete disregard for the suffering they caused to millions of people, combined with self-pity over Scott’s federal indictment and the loss of their ill-begotten gains, made me sick to my stomach. These people are poster children for what is wrong with capitalism, and I say that as a leaning-to-the-fiscal-conservative-side person.

Equally enraging was the Valeant story, which tested the limits of my conservative tendencies in a similar way. I understand how the pharma business operates, and the fact that a profit needs to be made to provide an incentive to spend money on potentially life-saving R&D. But to gouge exorbitant profits from a “captive market” (people dependent on your drugs to stay alive) without using any portion of that money towards advancing the public good? I simply cannot accept that as a justifiable business model – ethically, morally, whatever. It’s just despicable, and the people involved in that business who only see/care about the bottom line are equally despicable.

So it was interesting to follow up that episode of Dirty Money with Betting on Zero, a documentary about Herbalife. For those of you who don’t know, Herbalife is a multi-level marketing (MLM) company … also known as a pyramid scheme. Now, I consider MLMs to be as scummy as payday lending, so imagine my surprise when I saw a familiar face in an unexpected position.

(Don’t @ me if you’re involved with an MLM; I have no interest in debating this with you. #sorrynotsorry)

Let me back up. One of the biggest investors behind Valeant was the Pershing Square investment fund run by Bill Ackman. Ackman is some kind of Wall Street wunderkid, according to the Vanity Fair articles I binge-read after watching Dirty Money. He went out of his way to support Valeant and its CEO, even after information about its shady practices came to light. Valeant, by the way, has not dropped the prices on its drugs in the aftermath of the resulting public outcry; it is continuing to charge as much as $300,000 for a year’s supply of a life-saving drug that used to cost as little as a $1 a pill or something. Its stock price is in the toilet, however; were it not for the exorbitant prices it continues to charge, it would be bankrupt. Pershing Square lost a ton of money on its Valeant investment before finally selling its stake – which is a little bit of justice, I suppose.

Anyway, the same Bill Ackman shows up in Betting on Zero … because of his crusade against Herbalife. That’s right, Ackman became convinced (not without good reason, I might add) that Herbalife was an unethical pyramid scheme and decided to short their stock – in other words, to bet on the fact that their stock price would go to zero once the truth about their business practices was known and (Ackman believed) the government would take action against Herbalife. The documentary is based around the story of this “short” – which Ackman ended up losing. Even after an FDA investigation which concluded that Herbalife “was not not a pyramid scheme”, the company is chugging along, and expanding into new markets. It had to pay out some kind of settlement per the FDA ruling, but the amount was peanuts. (The documentary doesn’t cover this, but it’s worth digging into if you’re interested. I also recommend John Oliver’s segment on MLMs, which touches on it.)

What was amusing to me was Ackman’s self-positioning as an activist investor – i.e. someone who was pursuing this investment position (the short) almost as an ethical choice. A bit rich, I thought – excuse the pun – considering his stance on Valeant. I guess we all have our blind spots … or something.

So that was it for me, for now; if you have other documentary recc’s, send them my way because I have a lot more knitting on my hands. And tell me what you’ve been reading and watching lately.