BallsOutKrunked t1_janab0m wrote on March 2, 2023 at 5:32 PM

I mean are you looking for double blind peer reviewed studies on t shirts?

bingworm OP t1_janfw1w wrote on March 2, 2023 at 6:07 PM

Yes

did a quick google search and found this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/01/cheap-clothes-last-long-designer-items-new-study-finds/

nothximjustbrowsin t1_janljre wrote on March 2, 2023 at 6:49 PM

I just can’t imagine much quality research would have been done on this because what kind of scholarly breakthrough is that going to lead to? Who do you imagine is paying to do this research? Best case scenario would be a clothing company pays to do the research, but 1. That increases the chance that they are aiming to get a specific answer from the study (bad research) and 2. Quality of clothing as it relates to price has endless relevant factors and permutations, how do you truly study that even if there was someone who cared to?

We all know anecdotally that generally speaking things made better will last longer, and that there is often a relationship associated with cost and how well things are made. But it’s so case by case, there are exceptions, this just seems impossible to get a definitive answer on. You may be able to find actual data about the durability of specific materials, and then buy based on materials used vs brands.

OK_Imputer t1_janmpqi wrote on March 2, 2023 at 6:57 PM

need to define "quality". you can buy a $5000 "designer" outfit that will shred in the laundry if you dont wash it correctly. so many different kinds of clothing go for different kinds of "quality"

robreto t1_jaod8lh wrote on March 2, 2023 at 9:51 PM

Interesting study, but that’s talking about designer items, not necessarily high-quality. I honestly think designer/luxury brands are milking their customers… they know people will buy their clothes just for the name

DropsOfLiquid t1_jaosd8n wrote on March 2, 2023 at 11:36 PM

I think a lot of designer brands are actually well made. You can usually feel the stitching, material & overall quality when you handle those pieces. I have a $1k retail cashmere sweater I got at a thrift & it’s held up noticeably better than my $100-200 cashmere sweaters (also thrifted) even with the same care. It has longer threads or something so it hasn’t gotten as fuzzy as they have. It’s not a $900 difference though.

They just are over priced even for the quality because they ALSO add a massive brand tax on top of the quality price.

robreto t1_japuid7 wrote on March 3, 2023 at 4:34 AM

That’s true, especially their legacy items. But a lot of other items just look like their fast fashion counterparts but with a different logo. I would trust the quality of those

lucyfell t1_jaous06 wrote on March 2, 2023 at 11:53 PM

Ohh. If this is what you mean then what you need to do is talk to a fabric historian. (Yes thise exist). They can show you woven fabric from 100 years ago and 200 years ago vs today and you can see with your naked eye how a farmer in 1850 had higher quality clothing than anything you can get today and that’s why his clothing lasted 10 years despite being washed in kerosene and boiled vs your clothing that falls apart.

…. Yeah now that I think about it I’m sad because your question is essentially “why aren’t there scientific studies about this thing that is glaringly obvious to anyone who knows any textile history or has purchased old clothing” and I’m realizing a lot of things in the world are like that.

Edit: also your post is misleading. You asked about quality. What you actually care about is price. No, more expensive clothing is not objectively better than cheap clothing. That’s called marketing.