[Quote] Fine, the 1's are okay, but they kinda look like Dunks anyway (the overall shoe shape I mean).

Replied in Hype Vs. Real Aesthetics, 2 Weeks ago in Fashion

[Quote] Sorry, not feeling the Cement 3's. I hate that elephant print stuff and again, too many leather/rubber panels sticking out everywhere. Too cluttered honestly. Not clean enough. I understand this is mostly subjective, but seriously, the way 'hype' trumps actual aesthetics on this site is terrible.

Replied in Hype Vs. Real Aesthetics, 2 Weeks ago in Fashion

Why do people like Air Maxes and Jordans? They don't look good. The only passable Jordans I've seen are the Infrared 6's, and honestly, you could just get a pair of Dunks with the same colorway and they would probably do a better job. Air Maxes and Jordans, despite how much they sell, are fucking ugly. The actual shoes have fucking lines and ridiculous panels jutting out everywhere and they don't look good. If you compare them to something simple and clean like Vans, regular ass Dunks, Common Projects, etc... there is no reason why the latter products would not trump these two children's-looking shoes. I've heard people say' Oh yeah, Jordans are ugly, but that doesn't mean they aren't fresh.' What the fuck does that even mean? Why would anyone sacrifice any sort of actual aesthetic appeal for fucking hype? The only dude I've seen that rocks hyped gear in an actual aesthetically appealing way is this Alexlude guy in the WDYWT thread. There are a few other people, but the majority of the posts there are absolute shit. Especially this one kid called EricLeavitt or some shit. This is fucking baffling. This place is good for a few laughs, but its ridiculous when things that actually look good are not given as much kudos as something that's horrendous looking, but 'popular.' I know this is HypeBeast, but there's no reason people shouldn't be able to put hyped things together WELL. Discuss.

Started by Hype Vs. Real Aesthetics, 2 Weeks ago in Fashion

Sure. Assuming I had raw denim, how would I go about keeping their lifespan as long as possible? Washing vs Non washing?

Replied in Washing Jeans vs. Not Washing Jeans: Damage Done. , 2 Weeks ago in Denim

I own a pair of Levi's 510. I just have a general question about washing jeans. Is more damage done to jeans (all denim in general) through washing, or not washing? Because doing both over prolonged periods of time will do some sort of damage, obviously. But which one more? Because I've heard different opinions on the matter. On one hand, washing every couple wears is definitely going to weaken the material; the water will keep running its course (not to mention the washing machine itself) over the denim and will literally thin the denim over time. On the other hand, wearing jeans for a long time without washing means that sweat, germs, maybe drinks and food, can get into the spacing between the cotton fibers and distress the material, also causing weakening. I've noticed that if I wear a pair of jeans for a long, long time, they feel sort of flimsy. I don't sweat a lot, and I take care of my clothes, so I'm going to say that not washing significantly improves the life of a pair of jeans. But can anyone give me some hard evidence that it really does? Science, perhaps? So basically, which one prolongs the life of a pair of jeans more: washing, or not washing? Thanks.

Started by Washing Jeans vs. Not Washing Jeans: Damage Done. , 2 Weeks ago in Denim