Top 50 Blogs
for Fashion Sewers

Subscribe to our FREE email newsletter and get the Top 50 Best Bloggers for Sewing Enthusiasts.

The sister duo behind Rodarte have elevated to the ranks of fashion darlings based on their home-spun take on couture techniques. Loopy knits, patchwork materials and an overall sense of nomadic naivete have been the calling cards of the Rodarte aesthetic, along with the ridiculously hefty price tags their one of a kind designs carry. Case in point: these $500 socks hand-crocheted from a mohair/alpaca blend that cannot be washed (only spot cleaned) nor could they probably withstand more than a handful of wearings.

I’m all for interesting and hand-made quality items, but these seem more like an art piece than a wearable garment, which has been the label much of the Rodarte garments have been stamped with. What do you think about high-luxury, high-priced basics? Would you pay the price to have a unique but virtually unwearable piece of clothing or accessory?


  • Missing

    Oct 27, 2010, 02.11 AMby momob

    They go with the emperor’s new clothes, right? Why would anyone pay that kind of money for something so ugly and useless? Why do you show us this kind of nonsense? Seriously – WHY? There’s nothing to be gained by this stuff and I am looking for something REAL to enjoy and maybe emulate.

  • 6e3656aa7036783b3e4bbc29f34d1029385afafe_large

    Oct 22, 2010, 05.31 PMby wzrdreams

    well, I have been known to pay a pretty penny for lucious sock YARN, but then I get the pleasure of knitting the socks myself to my own specifications. Hank knit socks are by far the most comfy socks ever! I would never buy socks with that much open lace work, and I’ve never purchased yarn that could justify a $500 price tag.

  • Missing

    Oct 22, 2010, 04.13 PMby Chaely Chartier

    Hell to the N-O. I have a hard time paying $500 for art that isn’t functional but looks nice on my wall. Sure these are art in their own right, but how would you display such a thing? Wearing them turns them into a disposable item so that’s not a reasonable mode of display. Plus, I think that socks are more of an undergarment than a basic (in most cases you only see 1/2 of a sock if any part of it at all when it’s worn) so it’s an even more obscure item to don as wearable art.

  • Aabfd023f086c732fa12732aac63a3aa797f4f56_large

    Oct 22, 2010, 04.45 AMby gaidig

    Yes and no. I would not pay that kind of money for an unwearable article of clothing, but I do see people paying a lot for art. And as for a wearable article of clothing… I may own socks that could be valued at something similar. If it takes me 30-40 hours to knit a pair of socks with a complicated stitch pattern and that I spent $25-30 on nice wool to knit with, or if I bought fiber and spent the time to spin the yarn, then the value really adds up. Imagine that I sold these socks for the price of materials plus labor. Suppose for simplicity’s sake that I make $10/hour, well, those would be some expensive socks!

    To a certain extent, knitted items can be made by machine the way that most socks are, but crocheted items can’t. The technology does not exist that would allow a machine to crochet. Any time you buy a cheap crocheted item at a chain store, you can be 100% certain that someone in some part of the world spent their time on it, and you can use the price of the item to guess how much they were paid. Something like this has a lot to say about the true value of clothing manufacture.

  • Missing

    Oct 21, 2010, 07.23 PMby Diana Burrell

    Those are some ugly socks.

  • Life_large

    Oct 21, 2010, 06.02 PMby ravenztarot

    No, nope , never. but then again i had Dooney Bourke purse i used till it died and loved it to pieces. ohh i paid for it… I have another expensive bag as a gift.. hate is a mild word for what i feel for that bag. un-usable and it sits in my closet in its designer cover bag to protect it. My friend has a coach which i covet to no end…. i sew i just need to make my own………

    But to pay for something and not be able to use it?… no i just dont see it. A woman can spend 50 to 300 for a bag and shoes if she uses them and its an investment in looking good. but to spend 300 for shoes and not wear them but 1 or 2 times???

    • This is a question
  1. Sign in to add a post


  • Editors' Pick
  • Fashion & Trends
  • Backstage Report
  • Power Sessions
  • DIY to Try
  • Ty's Style File
  • Denise's Desk
  • Meg's Magazine Mash Up!
  • Featured Member
  • Competitions
  • Guest Columns
  • Comment to Win
  • Monthly Memo
  • BurdaStyle Sewing Vintage Modern
  • Sewing & Techniques
  • Courses
  • Videos
  • BurdaStyle Magazine US