Quality clothes without logos

yes. if you think that ralph lauren is the height of quality, then you're a lost soul.

protip: most (almost all) higher-quality clothes have either no logo on them, or a very subtle logo. understatement is the key to menswear.

>>11122951
uniqlo
am appy
muji

i'm sure there are many others who sell them. i'm not really into polos though so i can't really compare them 4 u

>>11122951
If you like Ralph Lauren the higher end variants purple and black labels do not have logos

File: zimmerman laugh.gif (2MB, 389x279px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 389x279px

>>11122987
>uniqlo
>same quality as ralph

>>11122989

I doubt he can afford purple label lol

File: IMG_20151205_131912.jpg (2MB, 3120x4160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3120x4160px

>>11123005
It's at tjmaxx a lot

>>11122951
a logo is, in and of itself, a sign of lower quality. or at least lower price/quality point.
it's just tasteless marketing, nowadays you can't fall for it!

Can someone suggest some to me?

>>11122951
Camber usa

>>11124241
>>11122951

Zara
^I'm just getting into this brand but from what I heard it supposedly has designer quality stuff

>>11125184
uh, no

>>11122951
yeh, I'm sure there is nothing in the world even close to the quality of motha fuckn polo ralph lauren. do they even exist?

>>11125184
zara quality is pretty bad actually.

and op I decided to only buy non logo stuff and so far these few brands seem good:

club monaco, jcrew, theory, filippa k, patrick assaraf

Why do you care about the logo, not having a logo doesn't make it better or worse quality or company.

>>11125287

Maybe he doesn't want to be a walking advertisement or look like a new money tryhard

Anybody know where to cop a hat like this but with no logo?

File: Snapback_1.jpg (129KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1000x1000px

>>11125355
Fucking oops

>>11125184
It is, SLP quality with a fraction of the price.