Is Polo Really That Magical?

Discussion in 'Sex, Love & Relationships' started by ChipThaRipper, Jan 8, 2013.

  1. Considering one is the official "polo" of the sport and the other is a fashion statement I would say RL is the knockoff
     
  2. That's great for your meaningless bullshit opinion, but one came out in 1967, the other came out in 1981, it's clear which is the knockoff.

    If your logic was correct the courts wouldn't be forcing U.S.P.A to put "U.S.P.A" under their logo. And they also wouldn't be forcing them to write "we aren't affiliated with ralph lauren in any way" on the tags because it is knock-off.
     
  3. #83 vinman46, Jan 9, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2013
    One was started back in the late 1800s as the official governing body of the sport polo in the US

    That lawsuit is a load of bull too if you can't tell the difference between the 2 you have to be a moron, reminds me of the apple lawsuits. It's only for fragrances also
     
  4. Yea Ralph did come up with the idea first, rich people and rappers are what popularized the name brand.
     

  5. As the governing body yeah, but they weren't associated with selling clothes in any way until 1981, over a decade after the Ralph Lauren Polo brand was created.

    MLB has been around since the 1800's, does that mean they can just start making cleats this year that look exactly like Nike's with a near identical swoosh and claim they aren't knock off nike's?

    You'll say no...but baseball players were using cleats before nike made them, so they couldn't be knock-offs...:rolleyes:
     

  6. How could you not know that there 2 different brands? are you 10 or something?
     
  7. Do the logos not look the same? I saw em for 20 bucks a pop and thought it was a deal. Come on son your attempt to humiliate me is weak..."what are you 10 or something?" Lol loser
     
  8. #88 xpixiex, Jan 9, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 9, 2013
    They're both good shirts, man.

    Don't worry about it. Only childish people worry about name brands. (I'm poking fun at other people, not you.) $20 for a decent shirt is good.
     
  9. Yea dude seriously 20 dollars for a polo made from great material you can't beat that, I don't have money like that to be worrying about name brands and I'm not like women when it comes to clothing.

    My preference are name brand clothes but I'm not killing my self over acquiring them, if I see something that appeals to me and I look good in it I'm wearing it name brand or not.
     
  10. Actually, to be honest I have a soft spot for name brands as well.:eek:

    :laughing:
     
  11. ^lol, im also a big and I mean BIG big LRG fan almost anything they make in their clothing line I would rock.

    Problem is they are expensive as fuck for no reason I have maybe 3 pieces of clothing from them wish I could afford more but that's the way the cookie crumbles.
     
  12. Lrg went to shambles the designs are horrible now
     
  13. this.
     
  14. Meh, Id pay $300 for a scarf and skip out of the store.


    Have and will. Yes, I wore it once and lost the damn thing at a party.
     
  15. For a second when i glanced at this thread I thought it said "Polio Really That Magical?"

    I was like what da fuck then I found out it said polo lol:smoking:

    I use drakkar noir :ey:
     
  16. Stay polo down.
     
  17. Keep the Polo. And if you cop something else, get Versace, Gucci or YSL. Their top brand but their cologne isn't much more expensive than the shitty stuff.
     

  18. Talking clothes not cologne, haha. But thanks
     
  19. Does OP wear Abercrombie
     

  20. [​IMG]
     

Share This Page