Ground Rules

quality. helpfully brought up in a reader's posted thoughts, quality means different things to different people, but it's definitely going to be an important thing for a small wardrobe, or my small wardrobe at least. i agree with "hebden" that quality is not necessarily measured by the price tag. but is quality purely an objective characteristic? does it equal durability, or is the concept as important as the construction? i have to admit that i bestow the title of quality on things that appeal to my sense of aesthetics and wear like iron. obviously a delicate top is not expected to be a high-performance item, so i satisfy myself with certain pieces that i can rely on to balance the more fragile items.

How do you define "quality" and how important is it for you?

3 comments:

Carlene said...

"...things that appeal to my sense of aesthetics and wear like iron" sounds about right to me. I think I could identify the quality pieces in my wardrobe right now as the pieces that I'd invest money on to have repaired if they became worn, but ones that will take some serious usage to actually become worn. And that won't be "out of style" before they become worn.

Price doesn't really seem to affect quality as often as you'd think. Maybe in shoes, but not always.

editor said...

shoes... no, i can even think of an exception with shoes. but you definitely have to be careful with shoes. some are $$ because of hype, or material, but that doens't always translate as 'good' shoes; shoes i can walk a mile in.
looking forward to putting some iron-clad pieces and some more ethereal items in my ideal wardrobe.

fashionista-ta said...

I have two different scales in my mind ... one is the fashion/statement scale, and one is quality ... so it's more objective for me, though it does include design/functionality--for example, heels that are easy to walk in.