It’s Time for Some of Those Good Old Fashion Tips from the Wall Street Journal

It’s always guaranteed to make me laugh and to shake my head in disbelief – men’s fashion tips from the Wall Street Journal.

It’s a combination of two things – the outrageous outfits themselves, and the outrageous prices that go with them.

I’ve written about these WSJ fashion articles before, in fact, this is my sixth such post. But it’s been a while; my most recent one was over a year ago. That article featured the following picture from the WSJ:

So when I saw that there was a men’s fashion article by Jacob Gallagher in today’s paper, I was all set to get into my judgmental mode and start making fun of the outfits. But imagine my shock when one of the fashion pieces they highlight is one that I own.

Yep, it looks like I’ve become part of the Wall Street crowd.

But in all fairness, I’m not sure I would consider this item a piece of fashion; I’d call it a piece of technology.

I’m talking about the wonderful Apple Watch. When I wear it, I don’t think I am making a fashion statement. I’m just excited that I have a computer on my wrist!

Anyway, leaving aside the Apple Watch, the other items lived up to my expectations, at least half my expectations – the outrageous prices.

If you look at the clothing at the top of this post, it’s not nearly as outrageous as the photo shown above that I used last year. I would actually wear these pieces if they were priced more reasonably.

  • the blazer is $775. perhaps what makes it so expensive is that Daniel Craig wears a similar looking one in an upcoming James Bond movie
  • the sneakers are $275. they are from adidas, but they don’t look like they are designed for any particular sport, they are just sneakers. But they were designed by Kanye West, which probably tripled the price.
  • the shorts are $55; to me, a pair of shorts should cost $15. but these are from Patagonia. I love Patagonia, but I can’t justify buying anything they make…
  • and as for the sweatsuit, the pants and the top are $88 each. To me, a sweatsuit should cost less than $30 total. The sweatsuit shown is allegedly so nice, that it might be considered business casual by some men.

So while I don’t mind the look of anything in today’s WSJ fashion article, everything is still way above my acceptable price range for clothing.

But at least it looks better than this:



36 thoughts on “It’s Time for Some of Those Good Old Fashion Tips from the Wall Street Journal

  1. There’s nothing there that I need, especially for those prices. The photo from last year’s Wall Street Journal looks like a gag my buddies and I used to pull in college. It usually involved pooling our money together to pay one of us to do something outrageous in public, such as wear any of those clothes.🀣

    Liked by 4 people

  2. Last years article features a gaggle of outfits I would not be caught dead wearing. This year’s assortment seems a little more reasonable in the fashion sense and purpose. At least, there are none of those things that I don’t own a version of (except the Apple watch, I don’t wear a smart watch, my watch is just plain stupid). But, like you, the pricing is not within reason. There is something internally that will not allow me to spend more on clothes than I do on food. This may be the fine separation between need and want. And though I support all of Kanye’s radical perceptions of the world, as we are all allowed to be free thinkers, he can keep those sneakers. They are so ugly I wouldn’t wear them if they were free! Another great post, Jim! You are becoming quite the fashionista!

    Liked by 3 people

    1. To me, clothes should be cheap and practical; if they look good, that’s just a bonus. And I can’t imagine anyone wearing those clothes from last year’s story. Completely ridiculous. Maybe I should start a fashion blog…

      Liked by 1 person

  3. If I paid big bucks for clothes, I would want the clothes to look expensive. The items in the first photo don’t look expensive. The items in the second photo are outrageous but at least they look like they must be expensive. You’d have to be in a rock band to wear that stuff.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Yes. Not Springsteen’s style for sure. Your post reminds of when I was in the San Fran area about 15 yers ago and wanted to pick up a light jacket at a mall. I went into a Neiman Marcus. That tells you how dumb I am about clothes and prices. I saw a nice jacket I thought might run $100 or so at most. Wrong – $1,100. Ha ha!

        Liked by 2 people

  4. The picture of the clothing is a lot better than your other picture but still way more money than I want to spend! Reminds me of when went to King of Prussia Mall. $400 price tag for a pair of ugly bright orange shorts!

    Spending crazy money on clothing is not me. I am like you with your not more than $30 for sweat pant outfit. If I have tons of money to spend frivously one day, it will be for my beach house and to travel, not clothing. πŸ™‚

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I think the current subscription rate is about $480 a year, for the WSJ. That seems outrageous to me, so I’m not surprised anyone willing to pay that would be willing to buy those clothes.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. I can’t stop laughing at these. At the same time, I am crying when I look at the prices and the fact that some people will actually find it useful to pay so much for this crap. Here comes the socialist: can you imagine how many people you can feed with this money? Support education? cloth an entire village? Okay, I’ll stop now.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. I’ve never worn anything that could remotely be classed as men’s fashion: I’d be laughing too much to get the clothes on. I do have an Apple Watch, though, so it looks as though we’re both getting down with the kids now…

    Liked by 2 people

Comments are closed.