It's curious that rich people (at least some of them) still obsess over brands and relatively expensive stuff that can be purchased, my feeling was that for the past 5 years or so the cultural zeitgeist (for lack of a better expression) was to focus on "experiences" (for those that have the material means to do so) and generally speaking to treat the purchase of stuff for the sole sake of buying stuff as "tacky" (again, for lack of a better expression).
I admit that I may be wrong on this one, either way, I do feel that consumerism has dialed down a bit compared to the '90s and the early 2000s (the pre-2008 times).
Keep in mind that much of the article is discussing a Patagonia-brand fleece vest. It retails for $79, and it actually is a useful accessory when going on long hikes in the Andes or whatever. So yes, there is more of a focus on experience over luxury goods, and one of the ways you can see that is in the elite wearing relatively cheap clothes that (hopefully) imply that the wearer does cool expensive things.
So I think you're right; while there's still a focus on brands, the brands being discussed are relatively reasonably priced. For Wall Street, I guess that counts as progress. :)
I have really never been understood the utility of such a vest. If you want to stay warm, wouldn't you want to reduce loss of heat by air moving in and out through the armpit holes? There are literally zero times I would want this over a) the same thing with sleeves or b) no vest at all.
If you want to stay warm, wouldn't you want to reduce loss of heat by air moving in and out through the armpit holes?
Vests are designed to be worn with/under some sort of outer jacket to provide an extra layer of insulation, without adding an extra 'layer' of sleeves that will just be too bulky or hinder mobility.
Another useful aspect is that they pack up a lot smaller and are thus easier to shove into the bottom of bag when you're not wearing them.
A vest is (a) not as hot as a jacket made from similar materials, (b) easier to add layers over the top of, (c) less restrictive of arm movement, (d) cheaper, (e) packs smaller.
If a jacket leaves the wearer feeling too hot (e.g. because they are doing something active like hiking up a hill), but just a shirt leaves him/her feeling too cold, then a vest would be a natural middle option.
I don’t wear vests, but if I spent a lot of time outdoors in medium-cold climates, I can certainly imagine using one. Have you worn this type of vest before? You might be surprised how much warmer it is vs. just a shirt.
My office mate at Stanford used to say the same thing, fwiw. I’ve got a good retort: grilling in San Francisco.
As people said, usually you layer these under say a ski jacket to keep your core warmer without losing arm mobility. In the amusing case of grilling, I actually don’t want a garment picking up the smoke/smells either.
I have a number of them--mostly giveaways (including a Patagonia one which is better-made than most of my others). I wear them all the time in cooler months. Either as a layering option or standalone if I'm just a bit too cold--as is often the case either around my house or in an unevenly heated office or other indoor facility.
It's less bulky than putting on a sweater or big fleece and is much easier to pack.
I have a single vest which is solemnly used in spring/autumn while it’s too cold for only a suit jacket but not too cold to carry a winter jacket or similar. As the vest is significantly more lightweight and smaller it’s worth it if you are on travel (think airplanes or public transport).
Yeah. In the scheme of things, Patagonia is not a luxury clothing brand. It does tend to be pricier than a lot of other outdoor clothing/gear brands but their stuff is well-made and generally looks good. I own quite a bit of it, albeit mostly purchased from one of their outlets.
My guess is in those social circles it is like old money, all about self-justification anf filtering from "outsiders" not within their approved privledge gatekeepers. If they choose our nonmainstream X it is cultured - if they choose mainstream Y it is tacky.
Definitely les than the 90s but there are a lot more rich people so you can try to sell them shit like the worlds most expensive whiskey cube maker or notebook or whatever
Wall Streeters and SF tech types famously have tons of money, but spend all their time working, so they may favour status symbol purchases over time-consuming experiences.
While there is a lot of talk about "experiences" being the new "things", it's worth noting that there are more kinds of supercars - the ultimate rich person's toy[1] - being produced now than at any period.
[1] except of course superyachts - of which all of the 5 largest and 8 out of the 10 largest have been built since 2006.
