Gilt Groupe’s full price retail web store: ParkandBond.com
“I’m pleased to announce the launch of Park & Bond, Gilt’s new shopping destination for men.”
– Gilt Founder and CEO Kevin Ryan in Park & Bond email announcement“PARK & BOND is a new online men’s store built from the ground up to reflect the way men shop, merging a curated selection of the world’s best brands with a continuously-updated mix of editorial content designed to give guys the inspiration and advice they need to look their best.”
– Via Park & Bond’s “About” section
They did it. Gilt actually launched a full retail online store. There’s been word that this was going to happen for awhile, and they seemed to go halfway with their Gilt Manual project which provides (or soon to be provided?) articles and advice, all while gently giving you the option to buy some of their Giltman merchandise while there. With Park & Bond they’re doing pretty much the same thing, only it’s full price goods that go front and center.
The site has the all too familiar clean and mean look to it. GQ meets Bonobos. They’re offering free shipping for a limited time, but maybe that’s to take the edge off the prices. It comes across as a luxury shop. The prices are spendy, and the designers are big time. The least expensive pair of jeans cost $126, and the cheapest lace-ups are full price Cole Haan’s at $198. (Sidenote: They’re at Endless for $156
But there’s an eye widener detail here. If you’ve amassed any credits with Gilt through returns or referrals, those credits appear to WORK on the full priced items at Park & Bond. That might be how they take off, or, resurrect some interest in Giltman which has long since become completely ignorable for many.
Guys with Gilt accounts realize they can buy expensive stuff on Park & Bond with Gilt credits. Same guys try and get more/other friends to sign up for Gilt to amass credits and get freebies. Gilt wins?
Your thoughts on Gilt’s new Park & Bond project are more than welcome in the comments section below.
Holy crap. Am I not the man for this.
I like the style well enough but I can’t even think to afford any of this. As much as I’m sure that a $210 Alexander McQueen “passport holder” would greatly improve my life, I think I’m gonna keep trolling for sales at the standard places.
Thanks, anyway.
Those brands are available on more established store sites for those who can afford it, which are in the minority.
This site is ripe for a few steal this look posts. Right?
This reminds me of Mr. Porter, yet another clueless group of marketers that think they’ve figured out a magical men’s clothing market they can reap oodles of profit off of.
Ah, yes. What stylish man would consider his wardrobe complete without a set of these?
Thanks for the tip. I just checked out with…
The last flannel blazer and matching pant:
http://www.parkandbond.com/product/85001539
Denim and khaki shirt:
http://www.parkandbond.com/product/85382528
Brushed leather moto boot:
http://www.parkandbond.com/product/84790615
and rounded out my look with the vintage ’67 Rolex Oyster:
http://www.parkandbond.com/product/87789027
Beat the look: $10840
I’ve pondered, often, who patronized/patronizes Mr. Porter…
..and if they have a need for a personal shopper/Dappered interpreter.
I respectfully recommend that they f**k themselves. This is it, folks. The amount of money and energy expended on endless marginal refinements in mostly unnecessary goods officially signifies a civilization dead end. I will still meet the end in style, but cheaply. Hence, I’m still on dappered.com
I checked it out too. They’re trying to make men feel like they are part of something exclusive by paying top dollar for their gear. Aren’t we on dappered.com to share great style at affordable prices?
My wardrobe looks better without an empty wallet. Just sayin.
Hells no. Good grief.
Really, with the animosity here, gentlemen? “hmm, not for me.” Elsewise reeks of envy. Wealth is relative. You’re filthy rich compared to a century ago (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/a_zerosum_wealt.html), and that increase is good for everyone. You’re also filthy rich compared to a good (but thankfully decreasing) portion of the world today, and they could be saying the same things about you/dappered as you are about these “full price retail sites” and their patrons.
Unrelated: Mr. Porter has incredible sales. When they happen, they’re phenomenal. People willing to pay full price subsidize my non-willingness, and I take their leftovers (sweet pink RL polo and patch madras tie for darn cheap). Win for me, and I look forward to similar happenings at Gilt’s site.
Really, with the animosity here, gentlemen? “hmm, not for me.” Elsewise reeks of envy. Wealth is relative. You’re filthy rich compared to a century ago (http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/04/a_zerosum_wealt.html), and that increase is good for everyone. You’re also filthy rich compared to a good (but thankfully decreasing) portion of the world today, and they could be saying the same things about you/dappered as you are about these “full price retail sites” and their patrons.
Unrelated: Mr. Porter has incredible sales. When they happen, they’re phenomenal. People willing to pay full price subsidize my non-willingness, and I take their leftovers (sweet pink RL polo and patch madras tie for darn cheap). Win for me, and I look forward to similar happenings at Gilt’s site.
I disagree. An approach like this basically embraces a runaway hedonic treadmill. While it is true that we are much richer than a century ago, most of us have the common sense to use this wealth for better uses (e.g. for paying an obscenely expensive health insurance or education), rather than squander it on rags. Adjusted for inflation, a $ 50 pair of jeans costs exactly the same it did a century ago, so there you go, a quasi-natural benchmark for when the cost of a pair of jeans would cross into the ridiculous territory. The same applies to all other articles of clothing. Warren Buffet wears decent, but relatively cheap, suits, and so did most of the CEOs back in the day. Sure, we get richer all the time, but there has to be a point where we draw the line. The humanity has far more serious problems.
that is a ridiculous argument. “most of us have the common sense to use this wealth for better uses (e.g. for paying an obscenely expensive health insurance or education), rather than squander it on rags” assumes that everyone derives the same utility from your “better” uses as you do. To each their own I say and if someone gets pleasure from spending full price on luxury items, good for them. Better than them hoarding cash as expenditures infuse money back into the economy where it can be leveraged by others according to their own preferences. You may disagree with someones choices, but who are you to say that they are wrong.
We are talking about massive misallocation of resources. About 70% of the economy relies on consumer spending, which is ridiculous considering how efficient and cheap the production of the essential goods and services (clothing, food, shelter) is thanks to technology.
At this point, the economy is locked into an endless cycle of creating an never changing cycle of ever increasing wants and refinements – it has to, otherwise there will be no growth. That’s why we have the $300 blazer to improve on the $ 100 one, the $1000 blazer to improve on the $300, and the $60,000 suit to out-improve them all (until somebody starts weaving in platinum into the fabric, that is).
So, while i’m not into the business of criticizing individual choices, a system where it is somehow acceptable and even essential to spend tens of thousands on clothing to assert superior taste and social status, far in excess of any reasonable definition of “need”, in the face of so many other problems crying for resources solution is simply evidence that humanity has a long way to go.
A $2000 blazer? Wow. You could have a blazer that looks just as good for less than a quarter of that price, and use the leftovers to do a hell of a lot of good for the rest of the world. It’s an absolute waste of money. I will never understand how super-luxury purchases are justified.
I fail to see what you intend to have as a replacement for the cycle you see above. This has been the case for thousands of years. As long as there has been wealth and something to buy with it, there has been a market for upscale goods for no other reason than the fact that they are upscale. Rich Greeks bought more expensive togas than poor Greeks, rich knights had fancier armor than poor knights. It is human nature to buy nicer things when you can afford them. Are you really arguing that a Rolex is only marginally better quality than a timex? Frankly, a site dedicated to fashion is frivolous in comparison with the other issues facing humanity, but that does not stop you or I from reading anyway. Extrapolating your argument, we’d be better off spending these 5 minutes addressing one of a number of other issues and have “a long way to go” ourselves; however, I enjoy nice things, I enjoy a distraction from the every day, and as such I will continue to read this very enjoyable site and every once in a while justify a purchase of something nice.
Ha! WELL played.
I respect your point of view. It’s certainly not anyone’s business to tell me how to spend my money. I have free will, and it’s my choice to buy high end-luxury, sustainable, vegan, or sweat-shop manufactured goods. We don’t owe anyone anything and can act on our own self-interest.
Wealthy people will always want something to spend their money on; something to set themselves apart. The value we place on things (material and otherwise) is all different. At the same time, I don’t believe in perpetuating a cycle just because it has always existed. As this world gets smaller, my belief is that we should have a view larger than individual self. The cycle never ends. I’ve sat in boardrooms where CEOs name drop properties, jets or other recent large acquisitions. At some point it is reduced to a game of one-up-manship. Maybe that stimulates the economy and it somehow rains/trickles down on me? I agree with you, I too enjoy the distraction and like having nice things. I also enjoy the challenge of dressing smart on a shoestring budget while having the freedom to spend/donate my limited money in ways I think have a broader positive impact. One of the reasons I continue to read this blog is so that I am exposed to different points of view, fashion and otherwise. Thanks everyone for contributing.
Lots of good comments in this thread but I think we can all agree that dressing well has little to do with price. Even salesmen at Saks or Barneys will admit this. Good design and a perfect fit trump quality and status labels.
I’ve worn suits I paid less than $200 for on overstock.com that get me just as many compliments, if not more, than my Canali suits. Everything is always altered to a T and clean and pressed. That counts for a lot IMO.
I agree that it shouldn’t be perpetuated just because its the way its always been- but realistically its the way it is always going to be. I am saying that the beauty of economic freedom is that someone spending 2000 on a jacket injects 2000 into the market which can then pass to others who may donate a portion of it, use it to buy food, invest in a clean energy project, etc. Money being spent is money being spent and is the fuel that keeps it all going.
I agree that it shouldn’t be perpetuated just because its the way its always been- but realistically its the way it is always going to be. I am saying that the beauty of economic freedom is that someone spending 2000 on a jacket injects 2000 into the market which can then pass to others who may donate a portion of it, use it to buy food, invest in a clean energy project, etc. Money being spent is money being spent and is the fuel that keeps it all going.
definitely agree, price is not always a measure of quality.
definitely agree, price is not always a measure of quality.
well, while i agree that people should be free to spend their cash however they want, money spent as helping the economy doesn’t really make sense, apart from a Keynesian worldview: that $ would have just been saved, and therefore used for loaning as investment or capital formation, so it’s not like it was stuffed into a mattress or something prior to going into that $2000 jacket.
With all due respect, this is simply ideologically-derived inacuracy. Just because money are spent “somewhere” does not mean that they same effect. There are dramatically different consequences, depending what the money are spent on. $ 2000 spent on a blazer may increase the divident of a stockholder LMVC by 0.00000001%, while the same amount of money spent on a scholarship for a driven but poor child can change their life (and subsecuently have far bigger impact on society through their future contributions.)
At this point in humanity’s history, we should be building space ships, educating everybody, eliminating all disease etc. Instead, we misalocate enormous amount of resources on senseless crap. So no, market freedom does not universally mean efficient resource allocation. It means efficient resource allocaiton in specific markets for specific goods, but developed to the extreme as viewing individual consumers as the end all be all of the economy, the system crashes. Reducing the economy to the wishes of the individual consumers eliminates our ability to tackle far more important problems than individual consumption (e.g. resolving the energy, environmental etc. crises – things with which individual consumers are neither concerned with, nor can make any difference in by “shoppong”).
Consumer economy caused remarkable increases in quality of life, but at this point this is a runaway train that will wreck the democratic societies that made it possible. Which is sad, because we do have the resources to solve our problems, but we are locked into an admitedly fairly comfortable system that more or less inhibits the desire or the will to seek for alternatives.
Now I’m depressed. I will just go and buy a new tie to pick me up – as usual.
With all due respect, this is simply ideologically-derived inacuracy. Just because money are spent “somewhere” does not mean that they same effect. There are dramatically different consequences, depending what the money are spent on. $ 2000 spent on a blazer may increase the divident of a stockholder LMVC by 0.00000001%, while the same amount of money spent on a scholarship for a driven but poor child can change their life (and subsecuently have far bigger impact on society through their future contributions.)
At this point in humanity’s history, we should be building space ships, educating everybody, eliminating all disease etc. Instead, we misalocate enormous amount of resources on senseless crap. So no, market freedom does not universally mean efficient resource allocation. It means efficient resource allocaiton in specific markets for specific goods, but developed to the extreme as viewing individual consumers as the end all be all of the economy, the system crashes. Reducing the economy to the wishes of the individual consumers eliminates our ability to tackle far more important problems than individual consumption (e.g. resolving the energy, environmental etc. crises – things with which individual consumers are neither concerned with, nor can make any difference in by “shoppong”).
Consumer economy caused remarkable increases in quality of life, but at this point this is a runaway train that will wreck the democratic societies that made it possible. Which is sad, because we do have the resources to solve our problems, but we are locked into an admitedly fairly comfortable system that more or less inhibits the desire or the will to seek for alternatives.
Now I’m depressed. I will just go and buy a new tie to pick me up – as usual.
That liquidity argument is incomplete at best. The last financial crisis was caused in large part by too much capital available, seeking more and more exotic financial vehicles to get parked in. Parking money in the stock market does nothing to provide capital for promising new ventures. Beyond the IPO, everything on the stock market is simple gambling and wealth allocation that does not have any direct contribution to the actual economic activity underyling the stock market.
” Reducing the economy to the wishes of the individual consumers eliminates our ability to tackle far more important problems than individual consumption (e.g. resolving the energy, environmental etc. crises – things with which individual consumers are neither concerned with, nor can make any difference in by “shoppong”). ” Actually, the best way to address these in my opinon is to start from a consumer level. The only way to shift production to environmentally friendly/energy efficient methods is through the consumption of those goods which are currently being produced and are admittedly more expensive. Lower demand for “non green” products will lead to lower supply over time. Granted the individual himself may have a limited impact, but collectively speaking enough like minded consumers will shift the market. Unfortunately I’m pessimistic on the prospect of enough folks choosing to do this, but that is a separate argument.
As to whether or not my argument is an “ideologically derived inaccuracy,” you may believe this, but you’d also be hard pressed to prove it conclusively as I would be to support it. Lack of spending at the private level leads to economic stagnation. The unfortunate part of economic models is they all assume rational behavior by the participants, something that is rarely seen.
But that’s precisely the problem: the entire economy is mostly gearing towards producing individual consumer goods, while the most serious problems are collective. Obviously reducing consumer spending will damage a consumer-centered economy (duh) but that does not mean that the structure of the economy should not change (e.g. towards emphasis on capital goods, collective infrastructure).
We have solved the basic survival problems of humanity for pretty much everybody on the planet (barring several severe exceptions such as Somalia and some regios in south-east asia). Instead of redirecting resources towards more pressing problems, we lock them in in endless and costly refinements of our lifestyles. Which are pleasant, but after a point (that most of us in the west have reached) – unnecessary.
Consumer spending will not do anything to address the big problems. Take energy: we can buy all the energy efficient appliances, bulbs we want, we can even install solar panels on our roofs, this will not make a likc of a difference: residential electricity usage accounts for the minority of electricity consumption (the majority goes to industrial use), and to tackle that you need massive energy innovation and research, beyond the capacity or risk-tolerance of the private sector.
Take disease: only diseases that are profitable (e.g. diabetes, cancer) see intensive R&D. Diseases affecting the poor (e.g. malaria) see much less R&D.
Take education: with public education crumbling, only a few pockets of outrageously expensive, and still mediocre education remain.
Take land use planning: chasing the cheapest housing available on an individual basis, consumer spending exaxerbated suburban sprawl, and its attendant energy inefficiency. Etc.
Guys. Exchange email addresses, continue the discussion amongst yourselves. Muchas Graicas.
hahaha what a joke that site is. Nice
I do not see this panning out for them
That’s my honest gut feeling as well. But I’ve been wrong before, and I’ll be wrong again. And again, and again, and again…
This post made me laugh more than any other I have read on Dappered. It was like watching the website shrug as it sank into the quicksand. Well done.
I’m sure we, as Dappered readers, all know this piece of common sense, but I will say it again anyways: The names cost more than the products.
While certain prices mean better quality in some cases, it is clear that the website is catering to those who like to say “Rolex” more than those who like to have quality in style. I think it will be damn easy to see a coat that really costs $7000 in materials to make when someone actually starts making those.