Yay or nay?

File: [email protected] (44KB, 762x1100px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 762x1100px

>>12375813
maybe this

logos are inherently cringe

>>12375836

Poorboi kys.

If you wear it right and it fits your style yeah it could look dope. But when worn badly nothing looks more try hard than out of place than polo and other 'cheap rich' brands

>>12375843
cheap rich brands? care to elaborate

>>12375836
this, I was gonna say I liked it but it loses the niceness with those shitty logos, if the logo went with the actual piece more it'd be okay but those just stick out for brand jacking off

>>12375840
>implying liking logos means you're rich
it just means you're a boring shill with no taste

>>12375813
nay

>>12375840
>logos
>rich
>plr, gant
weeeeew lad

>>12375840

Understatement makes the good brand

There are timeless classics like Lacoste but Gant certainly doesn't belong to that camp

cheap shit

>>12375840
Gant is fucking cheap faggot stop pretending

File: doggo-264.jpg (68KB, 494x491px)

68KB, 494x491px

>>12377900
>timeless classics like Lacoste

>>12377900
>Lacoste

Guaranteed you are Middle Eastern/Indian and you wear Gucci loafers or flip flops too with your Lacoste t-shirt and dad jeans.

>>12375858
Cheap shit marketed to the upper-middle class