back
11 comments
Interesting data, but it seems overly complex and could easily be simplified by having less clothes. Example I have so few shirts that I wear each one on a weekly basis. Because of the frequency I quickly figure out when a brand is not of quality and switch when necessary.

It also makes determining cost per wear much easier. If a shirt makes it through the year then the cost per wear is price/52.

Less clothes or less variety: I wear Amazon Basics plain black tees, 6-pack is like $20 (bought 2) and I just wear a new one every day.
Wait like you never wash them and just buy new shirts every 2 weeks?
I was them regularly, just have 12-18 duplicates and zero energy spent on choosing a shirt
I also tracked my clothing for three years, but not to evaluate expenditures. I recorded what I wore while cycling along with the weather conditions that day and notes about how my clothes performed. When I want to go for a ride, I check the weather and then check my spreadsheet for a day with similar conditions.
If you don’t use the dryer your clothes will last longer and not fade either, dress shirts keep their sheen as well
Man this hit me right after discovering https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com. I feel like I need to start tracking thing I buy and how much I use them to really get a handle on my con00merism problem.
I wonder if there were any brands or items that were outliers in the cost to value metric? I prefer to buy nicer things that last a long time, but clothing is an area where cost is only loosely coupled with quality. Spending more doesn’t always get you more.
Not backed by data but I'd recommend Uniqlo and Patagonia. Engelbert Strauss (workwear) is also worth looking into if you're in the EU, some of their clothing can be worn casually and offer amazing value for money.
I have also settled most of my wardrobe on Uniqlo and Patagonia. I have some other stuff, but over 80% is from those two companies.
I assume the data was manually logged?

It’d be cool to have visual detection via a camera