Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
628 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I hear Barbour now makes its great old coats (Beaufort and Bedale) as legible clothing, that the company name or logo is now embroidered on the coat, so that I won't be able simply to clip it off. Can it be true? If so, I won't be able to wear a new one... w/o feeling that I am violating everything I stand for. Or can the name be easily de-embroidered?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
I don't think it's very trad to have logos of any type on your clothing. You're not a billboard, after all.

I agree, however, that it would be difficult to remove the logo the way they have it embroidered. Fortunately, the name is usually in the same color as the material so it doesn't stand out like a polo pony.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,689 Posts
You're not a billboard, after all.
I agree, most of my clothing and accessories do not show the company name or design (e.g. Burberry check). However, it can become difficult when shopping and I would not restriction myself that far.

For example, my Burberry jacket only has the name on the zip (everything else Burberry is in the interior with a Burberry London label in one of the pockets) - would that stop me purchasing the jacket, no.
How about a very small Mulberry logo on my leather briefcase with their logo on the studs or a small steel label with James Smith & Sons on my one-stick piece umbrella.

Most trainers/sneakers have their logo on them.

Each to they own, I guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
433 Posts
I have an older Barbour Border, which was almost stolen recently (check my thread in the Interchange). That one doesn't have any kind of exterior Barbour markings. But in a few days I am going to receive a new Beaufort Spectator, which I believe will have the embroidering on the pocket flap. It's a little bit annoying. But I don't think it's a deal-breaker. I think the name is less noticeable than other branding, and the Barbours have such a distinctive look anyway that the brand is obvious. If the Barbour look wasn't so iconic, we wouldn't see all these Barbour knock-offs at Brooks.

But I do generally avoid clothes that have obvious branding. One notable exception is the Brooks polos with the gold embroidered logo. I think the embroidering, and the color in particular, can enhance the look of the shirt. But this depends on the color of the shirt. I like the way it looks on the white and navy blue polos.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
I am firmly in the camp that will not wear logos. I am not being paid to wear a certain maker's clothes, so I see no reason why this should be imposed upon me. Let the clothes speak for themselves. The who thing rather smacks of an inferiority complex. When Cadillac began going downhill the Caddy escutcheon on the cars began to grow grotesquely large. I am sorry to see Barbour doing this. The iconic golden fleece on BB knit shirts is low-key and unique almost to the point of being pardonable, but it still makes me wince. It's hard to escape. I even see logos embossed on leather shoes!
Gracious me!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
I have an older Barbour Border, which was almost stolen recently (check my thread in the Interchange). That one doesn't have any kind of exterior Barbour markings. But in a few days I am going to receive a new Beaufort Spectator, which I believe will have the embroidering on the pocket flap. It's a little bit annoying. But I don't think it's a deal-breaker. I think the name is less noticeable than other branding, and the Barbours have such a distinctive look anyway that the brand is obvious. If the Barbour look wasn't so iconic, we wouldn't see all these Barbour knock-offs at Brooks.

But I do generally avoid clothes that have obvious branding. One notable exception is the Brooks polos with the gold embroidered logo. I think the embroidering, and the color in particular, can enhance the look of the shirt. But this depends on the color of the shirt. I like the way it looks on the white and navy blue polos.
I have a question for you: who was tradlier, Voegelin or Strauss?:pic12337:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,724 Posts
I am firmly in the camp that will not wear logos. I am not being paid to wear a certain maker's clothes, so I see no reason why this should be imposed upon me. Let the clothes speak for themselves. The who thing rather smacks of an inferiority complex. When Cadillac began going downhill the Caddy escutcheon on the cars began to grow grotesquely large. I am sorry to see Barbour doing this. The iconic golden fleece on BB knit shirts is low-key and unique almost to the point of being pardonable, but it still makes me wince. It's hard to escape. I even see logos embossed on leather shoes!
Gracious me!
I think as time goes on brand identification becomes more and more of an ego thing [not that it wasn't before] so every manufacturer eventually comes around to putting a logo on their stuff.

I have Brooks polos and rugbys from the 1980's with no golden fleece logo on the chest. No they put them on. Oh well.

Danny
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top