> logos on clothing why

>>12064037
Because if you are wearing a truly quality product, you should be proud of your patrician taste and you serve as good advertising.

I have one such pair of boots and will be ordering such a jacket today. AMA

>>12064037
>logos on clothing
ok if they're discreet
that fucking thing on OP is far from discreet
I'd kind of get it if it was Versace, or some other really expensive brand with very over the top designs, bot not fucking polo
it screams: "I CAN TOTALLY AFFORD A 50$ SHIRT GUYS, THAT MEANS I'M WEALTHY, R-RIGHT?"

>>12064177
this is close to the truth

File: 14192173_10154534545954612_665118262367991941_n.jpg (116KB, 960x958px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 960x958px

RL polo , shirt is 100 euro in Europe and the fabric is supershit, so thin is the tissue.

>>12064177
>I'd kind of get it if it was Versace, or some other really expensive brand with very over the top designs, bot not fucking polo
Nope. Logos still look like complete shit regardless of how expensive the brand is.

>>12064369
>Logos still look like complete shit regardless of how expensive the brand is.
That's why that's the shit that winds up on sale or at some outlet