Thoughts on tommy Hilfiger

>>12257468
same as Polo Ralph Lauren, Vineyard Vines, and Lacoste. Mediocre with some good pieces every once in a while. very meh

>>12257468
The retro stuff they bring out is cool. It's good quality and is a nice look to wear or incorporate into your style.

>>12257468
It's a prime status symbol for fuckboys. That being said, they occasionally put out good stuff.

>>12257487
Don't lump lacoste in with those. Lacoste is good

>>12257503
I've yet to see a fuccboi wearing it. Whenever I go in the store it's p normal people in there. I went to a fratty high school and it was somewhat popular along with polo, nautica, vv, Lacoste etc

>>12257531
Well, I mean more just for the popular type that needs a status item.

>>12257487
The quality of Hilfiger is distinctly below that of those you mentioned, but so is the pricepoint.

I will rate the quality of garments and style of mentioned brands. the scores are purely relative to each other

Hilfiger
style: 6 quality: 6
VV
style: 5 quality: 7
PRL
style: 8 quality: 8
Lacoste
style: 7 quality: 8

Hilfiger quality is fairly inconsistent. In general the clothing is not as good as PRL, which I consider to be very good for what you'd find in an average American mall. However, Hilfiger produces some nice products, most notable some of their outerwear and sweaters.

>>12257468
mexican brand

>>12257670
It's American

>>12257468
H&M has better quality pieces

>>12257525
Lacoste is literally slavcore

>>12257468
poo in loo tier

>>12257531
i think he meant the vintage or vintage-inspired items with big, visible branding (mostly jackets) and not the v neck sweaters with the small logo kek

>>12257487
Polo, Lacoste and Tommy are fucking great. They can look good on people just trying to flex and old people with money. Vineyard Vines isn't even in the same category

>>12257468
polo for poor people