[A] man’s wardrobe was like a house – he bought pieces of clothing and he maintained them so they would last, shirts were mended and ultimately their character was enhanced.

There’s very little ambiguity about the value of living and dressing this way. Less consumption, shorter supply chains, more local jobs.

Check out Bobby Orr’s old hockey bag. It was repaired again and again from getting punctured by his skates. These days, the bag wouldn’t be considered worth the time to stitch up, and likely, the material wouldn’t take it.

Therein lies the defense of higher pricepoints for “investment” pieces. If one could buy a new duffel for $15, why would they spend half an hour fixing it? Make the price of the piece truly reflect the labor and other costs, and the equation changes drastically. Same for everything from shirts to shoes.

There’s a higher up front cost, but a much smaller lifetime cost to everyone, not just yourself. Less time spent acquiring replacement goods, more time to enjoy what you have.

“Small and impeccably curated is the new huge and miscellaneous.”