Comment by wDcBKgt66V8WDs | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wDcBKgt66V8WDs | Hacker News Reader

I like the article and totally get it, agree with it to the extent that agreeing makes sense here.

I do want to defend patagucci real quick. These puffies are legitimately incredible over a wide range of temps. I can comfortably wear my down hoodie from 25F to 65F. At 25F I probably have another layer depending on conditions, and at 65F I'm probably looking to get rid of it if possible, but in either case it's manageable. These bros might be wearing it for culture, but the product is high quality.

Patagonia appears to be a great company. The founder and company seem legitimately interested in fair wages and treatment of all humans involved in the process whether they're in the fields, on the floor, or in the office. They appear to be serious about fair treatment of animals and the environment. Repairability and longevity of the products is a priority as well.

I think the comparison to clothing with BROOKLYN printed on it in some distant nation is unfair, the owner named the company with the intention of saying "this is what you would wear in that environment", which he spent a lot of time in. Conditions vary wildly, clothing will get beat up. Will most of it get there? No. Will most of it end up in some corporate office and never see adverse weather, probably.

I feel guilty wearing their stuff (and I buy all of it on their past-season 50% off sales, their mailing list is literally worth it) because it does scream a certain kind of preppy person. But at the same time, the products I have from them (not tshirts and caps, but legit technical garments) are the best I own, full stop.

Would have been nice to see the author at least nod towards that instead of smearing them with Wall Street.

At least of the people I know, Patagonia is more considered an upscale outdoors brand rather than patagucci or fratagonia. Depends on the use case and contact with those stereotypes. It is legitimately good gear (at least for my level of intensity of outdoor activities).

It's both. They make some serious outdoor gear, some more casual wear, it is high quality, but it's also Patagucci. I've seen people who take it on week long hikes (as you said, it's high end outdoor wear), and you see bros wearing it downtown.

Around here is all The North Face over Patagonia.

TNF doesn't have as good of a reputation for serious outdoor equipment. They're more focused on casual clothing in the style of serious outdoor gear.

TNF makes serious mountaineering gear. I mean gear for people trekking Lhotse or Annapurna or Aconcagua. I've had one of their sleeping bags too. Not exactly a Western Mountaineering bag but it was quite respectable to a relatively serious backpacker.

That said, I don't wear their clothing so I can't comment on their apparel lines.

They have a limited amount of very good apparel. (I have one of their jackets for winter hiking which replaced a prior TNF I probably had for 20 years or so.)

With the exception of some boutique manufacturers (Western Mountaineering, Feathered Friends, etc.) all of the outdoor companies tend to lean on serious outdoor adventuring for their brand but, especially as they grow, they're more and more about selling clothes for people to wear around the city.

Some of them do maintain their original roots. Others not so much.

The North Face absolutely makes serious outdoor gear (in addition to casual/street stuff). Their Summit Series line is very high quality.

EDIT: Grammar.

They make serious gear, but it's mainly their mountaineering line.

Yeah, I'd much sooner consider the likes of Best Made Co. as "preppy" outdoor gear than Patagonia.

The contrast is quite stark.

Have never heard of this brand, where are they popular?

Recommendation to read Let My People Go Surfing: The Education of a Reluctant Businessman:

https://www.amazon.com/Let-People-Surfing-Education-Business...

Review:

https://www-editor.npr.org/books/titles/138392461/let-my-peo...

> A familial company like ours runs on trust rather than authoritarian rule. Maybe a few people take advantage of our flextime and our "let my people go surfing" policy, but none of our best employees would want to work in a company that didn't have that trust.

I recently went to a talk by Warren Robinett, creator of Adventure for the Atari 2600. One of the audience questions was, "what was the work environment like at Atari under Nolan Bushnell?"

He discussed how little structure there was at Atari. His boss thought Adventure was a waste of time, but he was allowed to choose how he spent his time, and he chose to work on it anyways. At a stricter company, the game would never have been made.

Though, he did specifically mention he felt that the guy who skipped out to go surfing every Wednesday was kind of abusing the freedom.

There's a reason some brands take off and it's generally because before fashion they have a legitimate value proposition. Patagonia used to be a great item (still is). That great item turned into a messaging symbol that the owner knew how to spot a great item, and in turn it's been adopted by someone who wants to message that they know how to spot a great item.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com