For the most overt ones - prime example is Louis Vuitton - it's about protecting their design. That is, you cannot copyright or patent a design (e.g. the cut of clothing), but what they did instead is plaster their things with iconography that CAN be trademarked.

Basically they made their brand / labels part of the "identity" of the outfit. I mean you can get a $5 or a $50 or a $500 polo shirt, for the most part they'll be the same but the more expensive ones will have the alligator or guy on a horse on them. The practical differences between them are minimal, and in terms of production it's a few dollars (at most) difference.

LV stuff being leather the costs of an equivalent quality knockoff(if such a thing exists) aren't dirt cheap like cotton. The heavily branded stuff(monogram canvas) tends to be on the lower end, entry level luxury aimed at a more aspirational purchaser.

Upper end LV and more expensive luxury leather good concerns are more understated, sort of a 'if you know you know' thing -- Hermes, Celine, Bottega maybe, etc. A Birkin in a non exotic leather with normal hardware is not a very flashy loud bag(unless you know it). There's still a lot of status signaling and striver insecurity in this(it is fashion after all) but it's slightly more covert and these people are nominally concerned about ostentatious branded stuff being 'tacky.' The social ideal is less about flashy spending and more imitating serious old money who "just want to pay for the highest quality"(though this is, imo, fiction). Can't look like you're trying.

My grandpa's always removed branding from stuff he bought, he says "I'm not paying to advertise this brand", he's like that ;p

I've grown less & less tolerant of logos around me over the years. To the point where I will turn containers around throughout my house so I don't have to look at them. I prefer to think of products in terms of their utility, not whichever abstract group of execs currently owns their marketing. I'm sick and tired of giving advertising free rent in my head.

I've stuck some painter's tape over the logos that are in my face all day long, like on my workstation display. Might be a little bit excessive but it feels good to exercise some control over my environment.

Black tape. I have it on multiple items in front of me right now. It fixes annoying blue lights as well as logos, and black tape on black plastic is almost invisible.

For my laptop I use metallic tape as that was one of the few where the light would not shine through it. It also look quite natural on it.

How? They are usually stitched into the clothing.

Stitched on labels are easy to remove with a seam ripper. These are included in most sewing kits.

I remove labels too when possible, and avoid clothing where the brand is an integral part of the item. Why would I keep them?

Sure you can remove something that's just simply stitched onto a garment, I remove most of the tags from a lot of my clothing that way. The stitches usually need to be removed from many of my pants pockets too, so I'm very familiar with removing stitches.

However, the vast majority of logos I see on clothes are actually part of the clothing, that's what I meant by "stitched in." I realize now, via Google, I meant "embroidered on."

EDIT: Just went through my closet and I found there's another large category of logos that are screen printed on. There were zero I personally saw that could be removed with a knife without heavily damaging the fabric. Maybe men's clothing is different.

I'm one of these anti-logo folks (a severe case, I dislike text as an aesthetic and won't get anything with writing or symbols). I know, you're thinking "how can I find clothes without all that stuff?" And I'm here to tell you, it's simple: there are fewer choices to consider. See a rack full of a brand that thinks its logo is more appealing than your personal brand? Keep moving. Less choices, less option paralysis, less time shopping.

With men's clothes, you can buy plain shirts, socks, etc in 3-packs (there's few choices, but few are needed). Women's clothes tend offer more unbranded options, unless you're buying athletic wear or a purse. Casual shoes generally suck in this regard, for men and women.

This has been getting more difficult, of late. It used to be that logos were embroidered on tags or patches, which were then stitched onto the clothes. But with embroidery robots and the rise of counterfeiting, companies are making it more difficult to remove their brands.

edit: but practically? Thrift shops have a wealth of logo-free stuff

What I've found since I started avoiding visibly branded clothing is that a lot of small vendors of organic/ethical/sustainable clothing seem to share my aversion to visible branding. At worst, they'll have the logos on tags sewn onto the clothing, instead of embroidered or printed on.

Parent is talking about embroidery.

You can remove stitches using a simple knife.

I've done this on a Lacoste crocodile logo and it took over two hours.

As an alternative, sew your own patch over it. There are plenty to choose from in craft stores, on Etsy, even department stores probably have a few inoffensive ones, if they have sewing supplies.

A blank patch looks sort of conspicuous, but a cute little non-corporate owl or fox will look like it's meant to be there.

I think it's different for company-branded things. If you're proud of where you work because you think they impact the world positively[1], that's very different than being proud to broadcast that you paid $$$ for something.

[1] - It's easiest to imagine for this exercise that you work somewhere unquestionably positive, like a research group that just cured cancer and then released the cure into the public domain or something else that doesn't have Facebook's baggage.

I generally think it depends on how they do the branding. I generally wear simple black clothing, though I'll very occasionally choose something grey. I tend not to have much selection in stores, especially in women's clothing. If someone wants to put a small brand on their buttons, a pocket, or something similarly small and non-intrusive, I might just go with it if the clothing fits my requirements.

I'm still not going to wear obvious logos in general, and not wearing prints saves me from the most obvious stuff - and some things can't be avoided as easily. I'm not going to replace the backpacks I have: They were free and functional. I also sometimes have branded shoes because comfort is more important than a logo.

There's a bunch of online stores now which sell very cheap plain-color clothing. Once you have your sizes figured out it becomes very simple to keep replacing things - my biggest problem these days is determining what cotton-weight I want my next 10 T-shirts to be in.

Alternatively, you could buy higher quality items instead of bulk-buying cheap throwaway clothing. If you have to buy your t-shirts in bulk, that sounds to be like they wear out way too fast.

Instead of buying cheap cotton shirts in bulk, try buying a few good merino wool t-shirts from a responsible manufacturer, locally produced under much better labor conditions. It will also impact the environment less, partly because cotton production uses ridiculous amounts of water and partly because you're not having products shipped to you from halfway around the globe.

A merino wool t-shirt will be more comfortable, last longer and be more resistant to dirt and odors, as well as regulate temperature much better. For normal day-to-day use, you can alternate between two shirts. Hang the shirt in the bathroom while you shower, then air it out in your bedroom for 24h. You'll find that it doesn't hold on to odors, because the wool isn't absorbent like cotton. Give it a quick shake and wear it for another day, letting the other shirt air out.

Carry on-only travelers swear by merino wool because it's generally lighter than cotton and because you can wear it for several days or even a week like this. If you're not squeamish, you can even do this same routine with underwear, too.

People are so obsessed with quantity now, perhaps because it's an easily measured property. Try going for quality instead :-)

"my next 10 T-shirts"

reminds me of this fascinating podcast about the history of textiles.

https://www.econtalk.org/virginia-postrel-on-textiles-and-th...

The fastest spinners in the world used to take 13 days 8hrs a day of labor to spin enough thread to make one pair of jeans. A 200 thread count bed sheet would take 59 days. And neither of those include the time turning that thread into fabric.

Here's a sample shop that focuses on that: https://logofree.clothing .

Branding seems mostly about vanity. People often say that they don't care about popular brands and yet the popular brands remain popular. Perhaps we're more vain that we think.

Clothes without branding are sold in less fancy stores or look less cool; often customers are not actually willing to buy them.

I care about brands. For one, it’s easier to distinguish quality items because certain brands make it easy. For example if I see LL Bean branded boots on sale I know they’ll likely be of higher quality than no name Walmart ones.

I don’t care about it having specific labels on it. In fact I would like to not have those for the most part. But knowing that you are buying genuine Converse shoes might be nice vs knock offs.

I used to think this but my experiences have not backed that up. Bought my first $1k jacket (Paul Smith). It took me a while to work up to that but I had mental list of features I wanted (belt, pockets for hands, flip up collar, certain style) and this one had them so a friend pointed out it would last years so $1k not really that much divided by years of use. It developed a whole in the pocket within 4 weeks of purchase as well as the hanger loop in the collar broke in the same amount of time. I've never owned a jacket that broke that fast.

Similarly I talked myself into Rimowa Air Salsa suitcase $699 vs the < $150 stuff I'd always bought previously. It was lighter than other so can fit more loot. Two flights later a wheel came off. Took it in for repair at Rimowa, next flight it came off again. Took it in again. Worked for a few flights but next time it came off Rimowa couldn't fix it in time for my return flight so they forwarded me to a local fix it shop at my expense. They fixed that particular wheel better than Rimowa (screw instead of glue) but a few more flights and a different wheel came off.

Similar issues with Schott jackets.

So at least for me, expensive brand != quality. It just equals expensive and possibly in a style I like.

It certainly depends on the brand but I’ll give you two counter examples. First, I have two charcoal Weber grills. One of them had rusted and lost one of the moving pieces. Bad news. Good news: I was able to cheaply source replacement parts. A no name grill in that situation would get tossed and a whole new grill would need to be bought to replace it.

Second, motorcycle gear. I know that TCX is going to have better boots than TourMaster. I know that a Shoei helmet is going to be better than a Walmart helmet. Is everything they put out perfect? No. But I can trust the brand overall.

And as a bonus, rock climbing equipment. I would much rather buy a Black Diamond or a Perzl carabiner than a Chinese knock off.

Clothing is somewhat harder this way but still, I am very happy with my Smart Wool socks and LL Bean insulated jeans vs something from Old Navy or similar.

See also the protagonist Cayce Pollard, introduced in William Gibson's 2003 novel 'Pattern Recognition'.

I'm sure there are lots of... brands... that don't have any visible branding on their clothes.

2 that come to my mind right now are Uniqlo and Muji. But I'm sure there's plenty more to buy from in every country.

Growing up in the 90s in the US, I don't believe there was an equivalent to Uniqlo/Muji/H&M/Zara that offered a decent, but low cost no logo product.

I think the above companies definitely took the wind out of Gap/American Eagle/Hollister/Nike type companies though who were cashing in on splashing their brand name on everything, but not offering consistent quality in relation to the price.

Some things can't really be bought unbranded, at least not in the quality and sizes I want, but that normally just a small labels like on jeans. I'm okay with that, but otherwise I don't wear branded clothing.

My employer got everyone jackets one year, nice ones actually, you just had to submit your size. I didn't, and it's not that I don't like my employer, I absolutely do, but I don't feel that it's necessary for me to advertise where I work. I also quietly ignored the dress shirts, polos and t-shirts that was handed out recently.

People can wear whatever they want, I don't really care. I just don't see the point in paying for branding, or using myself as an billboard.

I refuse to buy or wear any clothes with prominent branding and I would never privately wear branded merchandise for a company I work for. Work stops the second I walk out the door to go home, I am not an advertising billboard. If they want me to wear branded clothes at work, I'm not going to buy it myself.

In general, a big flashy logo signals that the brand itself and people's reaction to it matters more than the quality of the garment. I'll grudgingly accept a small stitched design on a polo or dress shirt, at least those tend to be very minimal. Stitched designs can sometimes be carefully removed, but often the tight embroidery stitches will have distorted or ruined the fabric underneath.

Luckily it is still possible to find good quality clothes with no (or very minimal) branding, but you have to completely avoid fast fashion and main street stores. I've been able to completely excise all clothes with prominent branding from my wardrobe and I'm never going back.

The only exception I make graphic designs is for band shirts, but I feel that's different from corporate branding.

Where it applies, the 'quick unpick' is my friend there. Obviously doesn't apply to printed things. I've received a lot of snobbery in both directions when hiking though.

Edit: they're also one of my favourite tools for reworking automotive wiring harnesses.

Most people pay more for that label.

In my experience, the more logos there are, the cheaper the clothing. Higher end clothing has pretty much no logos.

Maybe you're talking of more expensive stuff than what I'm linking, but just compare these 3:

* https://www.uniqlo.com/us/en/men-hybrid-down-parka-429290.ht...

* https://www.canadagoose.com/ca/en/mens-bromley-black-label-b...

* https://www.gucci.com/us/en/pr/men/ready-to-wear-for-men/out...

I am probably wrong about outerwear, as much of it does seem logo'd, even the higher end ones.

Uniqlo is one of the few stores I'll shop from because they don't have the the logos and are decent quality for the price.

I guess I should clarify my statement to be that the more gratuitous a logo, the less I think of the quality of the product. For example, I imagine Gucci is trying to cash in on its name, or people wanting to show off their willingness to spend money rather than it being a good jacket.

In (technical) outerwear things with no labels it seems are either low end(uniqlo, rei white label etc) or you end up paying a super premium for unbranded stuff. Think Veilance(Arcteryx), or Acronym.

I don't think I've ever seen a logo on the outside of a suit jacket. Or on most button-down shirts. Or most slacks.

Maybe focusing on price is not the best metric here, after all when talking luxury items the price has no direct relation with the physical product almost by definition. In this domain of purchasing, "higher end" means high class, not just expansive.

In a sense, Gucci and Vitton are what low class people think rich people wear. Kind of like Trump thinks being rich is shitting in gold toilets.

Of course, this contempt of "tacky luxury" is in itself a form of signaling among a certain class.

Lol... Have you ever seen a Louis Vuitton bag or Supreme clothes? I mean, maybe is low tier to millionaires but people usually wants just the logo because others will know is expensive and they ""can"" afford it... Or maybe I didn't get the point xD

I'm not into shopping for clothes much, but I'm comparing the level of logo-ing I saw in high end stores like Hugo/CK/Zegna in NYC or London to logos at places like Macys/mall stores/etc. I've seen the cheaper Armani branded stuff that has Armani Exchange written all over or the Louis Vuitton stuff, but typically, they also have higher priced products that aren't branded.

That’s just not true at all. <s>Okay maybe not specifically logos</s> (Edit: actually no, the statement still stands even if we talk specifically about logos) but many luxury brands have very distinct patterns covering their apparel, so much so that an entire item would be a sea of “logos”. See Louis Vuitton, Gucci, Chanel, etc. for example.

The non logo version of those products will be more expensive than the logo ones. For example, a non logo Hermes or Chanel product.

In reality both of you are correct. Branding can make clothing both cheaper and much more expensive.

it's the opposite from my experience. gant, boss, ralph lauren, lacoste aren't cheap (by any standard). but there is usually no logo on zara, h&m etc

or maybe those "expensive ones" aren't higher end clothing in your pov?

Yes, they sell to different clientele. The Ralph Lauren/Lacoste/Calvin Klein/etc clothing that has gratuitous logos is basically a different product than their higher end products. You won't even see it sold in the same stores as the higher end clothing.

Luxury brands also frequently sacrifice a brand every few years and drop it down the "status" level, such as Michael Kors/YSL/etc, and you will start seeing low quality product with the huge labels slapped over it sold in stores like Macys where they wouldn't have been seen before.

Zara/H&M/Uniqlo are nice in that they sell non logo'd utilitarian clothing at the lowest cost (I'm a big fan).

People pay more for no logos, look at examples like www.outlier.nyc

Some* people. The HN crown is probably not the primary demographic for Louis Vuitton.

You are not your target market.

Really ... are people being paid to be a walking billboard? Sports teams, sure ... ballet companies, colleges, bands ... but multi-national corporations with $hundred-million advertising budgets? Cars sporting car-company insignia ... you paid for?

They used to pay 'bums' to wear sandwich-boards. Just sayin.

Some time ago I learned a reason for that: It is hard to protect material, color or cut for cloths. What however can be protected is the company logo. By putting the logo on they therefore prevent copies.

And then it's of course signalling - by showing specific brands, you send a message.

I removed the logo from polo shirts multiple times. It's just so tacky, it's like a receipt that you paid however much for it.

Which is why I pretty much only wear band t-shirts.

EDIT: the irony of this comment hit me just now.

It's not just you.