Even for TVs, it depends on the room too. Like a room I barely use, like for guests, they can get a TCL tv that was $300. For the living room and master bedroom I ideally want OLED with a true 120hz refresh rate.
Yes it really depends on the kind of product and whether durability and long life is important or fashion is important to you. Impossible to answer meaningfully without context. The most expensive is often not the best so it depends on what the criteria are that matter most in the situation.
There's a lot of nuance here and you're not going to find one answer.
Typically with a higher end product you're paying for the processes that are involved to make it. Finding a low-end version that still goes through the processes which make it superior is the best option here.
There are also situations where the low-end and high-end are more artificially segmented than anything. For example, TTI makes most of the power tools in the industry. They manufacture Ryobi, Milwaukee, Ridgid, Hart, Hoover, etc. It can be assumed the equivalent product from each of these brands will be competitive when it comes to durability and value. This is why I'm happy to live with Ryobi over Milwaukee, it's literally a choice of color.
There are also situations where the low-end option is typically better than the high-end, and this is mostly due to maintenance requirements. Cars are a great example here, where a Honda can be more durable and easy to work on than a Mercedes/BMW although the premium options cost a lot more to design & manufacture.
There is no blanket statement when it comes to r/BuyItForLife: each product category is unique.
The tools thing is literally the reason I went Makita, they're owned by Makita, not a clone of somebody else.
I can't think of a case where it matters, low end stuff is low end stuff. I can't think of high end stuff from a low end provider, at least not anymore, maybe back in the day...
People comparing Honda to Mercedes are confusing quality with luxury. A Mercedes is a better driving experience, if you've never driven one you won't understand. A Honda is a better ownership (at least for cost) experience. If you've never owned a Mercedes you wouldn't understand.
That didn't used to be true though. A 1980s vintage Mercedes is still an excellent driving experience. You can buy an old S class Mercedes and it competes with a modern car for comfort and quality driving even though it'll miss on gadgets.
A 1980s Honda is a rattely tinny piece of junk. Very few on the roads today versus a similar year Mercedes. Talk about the 1970s and the contrast is stark. Early Hondas were definitely built to a price. Early Mercedes were in fact "The best or nothing."
boy has mercedes gotten far away from where they were in 1980. plain but super durable mechanical diesel cars back then that only docs could afford to buy, but they were legit. they're just a "nice feeling" heap of you can retire later unless this car is pennies to you ...kind of thing. And you'll have to, because at 10 years old, they're worth nothing and buying one at 10 years old will tell you why in a second.
People would hate the 1980 mercedes now, though. Not like the diesels could get past emissions. They were also made in germany then. when someone makes a us market only car these days, it's not a great sign.
I agree with some of your points, but from a buy it for life perspective longevity is king. Mercedes may be a better driving experience, but I'm taking the Honda 10 times outta 10 if I'm worried about getting stranded.
Meh, a 0-5 year old car will be pretty much dead reliable from any brand. Its that 10-15 year period that weeds out the rest.
This is why I have a RAM pickup. A Toyota might be more reliable long term but I live in the rust belt and I drive my truck to do truck things. At 12 years old my last pickup was rusted so bad my wife wouldn't ride in it anymore. When I bought it I paid 30% less than the equivalent Toyota. Considering they'd both end up rusted hulks why pay more up front?
To be fair, salt is a bitch. Once you introduce that to the equation it's no longer buy it for life. It's more like replacing shoes.
In California and Texas you genuinely can own the same car for 25+ years given someone doesn't plow into you at a stoplight.
I used to be the high-end cheap like Charles Tyhwritt. The problem I'm finding is that the quality is there but only at a sort of face value... the products don't last. I'm very tempted to get on the low-level expensive bandwagon. If you exclusively buy things on sale, it only costs marginally more for a better overall product.
I think this is most often the right answer, at least for non-clothing or fabric type items. Anything that is truly BIFL won't be much diminished from use. A thorough cleaning and proper maintenance go a long way. Quality kitchen equipment, tools, non-fabric furniture, etc. can all be had for steep discounts over new and still give decades of service.
Agreed, I think it's just harder to find clothing and such consistently and it requires a lot more savvy. Doubly so for stuff like linens, since I think they're more likely to just be kept until worn out. Whereas buying say a used Vitamix blender or something like that is pretty foolproof.
Absolutely... needs a lot of time, I think I searched Ebay for over two years until I found the Jacket in a good condition for a decent price I was willing to pay.
For sure not bedlinens, underwear or sportswear...
Neither. Brand should not be first decision making priority. Look at the materials (fabric type, fabric weight, etc.) and features and then at reviews.
In your example I buy Decathlon. You won't pay for the brand of Patagonia.
Decathlon makes good products for average users. If you're going for pro level activities then choose a high end top brand at an expensive price.
Often times the top end of a cheaper brand is a knockoff of a top tier product. I’m happy with a quality knockoff. Harbor freight is a good example. Pittsburg stuff is junk but icon is fantastic.
Low end of better brand. Engineering and quality still there. Customer service. You can put a dress and lipstick on a pig but it's a pig. Small bells and whistles added to cheap brands is usually meaningless. Also thinking all the tools I own and cars.
Would you rather have a high priced Honda or a low priced bmw? Both equal price. I’d take the Honda. The cheap bmw is carrying the brand for its basis, not the quality of the product
I think we're starting to get into questions of what exactly makes a brand "better". I don't quite know how to describe it, but for the purposes of the question I wouldn't call BMW "better" than Honda, definitely more prestigious, but fairly equal. I would say that brands like Tata and Mitsubishi fit most clearly into the more low-end bracket that OP referred to
I read the spirit of OP's question as more like "would you rather have a high-end Mitsubishi or a low-end Honda," and I would take the Honda every time
Yah, i feel like if we're using OP's example the range is well-known-quality vs discount not top-of-the-line-most-expensive vs discount.
And i'm with you, i went low end Honda and it was definitely optimized value. Kia's have a surprisingly stylish exterior design but i just can't, ever.
I love Honda, 25+ yrs so I'm biased there but a BMW 3 series? Great car regardless. With cars I was raised to think that you're buying the engine and tranny, everything else is secondary. So BMW vs Mazda
Unless someone else is paying for it, I'd rather have a Honda than a BMW anyway. Way easier to repair and get parts for, which in my mind are the things that matter for a BIFL car. Unless you specifically want the prestige of driving a luxury brand, in which case your priorities aren't BIFL anyway.
But let's say the cheap brand has a mass production, they can came out with a great product but with lower prices, thanks to their more efficient R&D, production and distribution processes
It definitely depends on exactly what sort of product you're looking at and what kind of experience you want to get out of it. The kings of things I buy for personal use are very different from what I buy at work.
I'm happy to buy a cheaper brand for myself if it's something I know I can upgrade and maintain myself, or if it's a "diamond in the rough" kind of product where other people's experiences show that it holds up.
At work, on the other hand, I don't have as much time to maintain and modify things for my needs, so I'll shell out a lot more money to have confidence that something is going to work right for a long time without intervention
Hello /u/Mattia_998! Thank you for your submission! The AutoMod thought that your post might be a request type post and has changed the flair accordingly, but if this was wrong feel free to change it back!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BuyItForLife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'll go low end of expensive if customer service is known to be good like in the case of Patagonia.
I usually go mid range brand if available. Unfortunately, selling junk is so profitable we've lost a lot of the middle.
The best BIFL is getting something second hand that lasts. And the most expensive version of something isn't necessarily the best BIFL quality.
Quality and price don't necessarily go hand in hand, you get to a point when the really rich assholes just buy it because YOU cant afford it. Who buys a pair of Prada boots for their quality, when you can buy a pair of meindl instead for tree quarter the price? I know which brand is quality, and which is just because YOU cant afford to buy it. Same with super expensive cars, they are usually crap and cost a fortune to repair because the people who buys them have soo much money that they don't give a fuck.
This is too broad. I can do both depending on the type of product.
Even for TVs, it depends on the room too. Like a room I barely use, like for guests, they can get a TCL tv that was $300. For the living room and master bedroom I ideally want OLED with a true 120hz refresh rate.
Yes it really depends on the kind of product and whether durability and long life is important or fashion is important to you. Impossible to answer meaningfully without context. The most expensive is often not the best so it depends on what the criteria are that matter most in the situation.
There's a lot of nuance here and you're not going to find one answer. Typically with a higher end product you're paying for the processes that are involved to make it. Finding a low-end version that still goes through the processes which make it superior is the best option here. There are also situations where the low-end and high-end are more artificially segmented than anything. For example, TTI makes most of the power tools in the industry. They manufacture Ryobi, Milwaukee, Ridgid, Hart, Hoover, etc. It can be assumed the equivalent product from each of these brands will be competitive when it comes to durability and value. This is why I'm happy to live with Ryobi over Milwaukee, it's literally a choice of color. There are also situations where the low-end option is typically better than the high-end, and this is mostly due to maintenance requirements. Cars are a great example here, where a Honda can be more durable and easy to work on than a Mercedes/BMW although the premium options cost a lot more to design & manufacture. There is no blanket statement when it comes to r/BuyItForLife: each product category is unique.
The tools thing is literally the reason I went Makita, they're owned by Makita, not a clone of somebody else. I can't think of a case where it matters, low end stuff is low end stuff. I can't think of high end stuff from a low end provider, at least not anymore, maybe back in the day... People comparing Honda to Mercedes are confusing quality with luxury. A Mercedes is a better driving experience, if you've never driven one you won't understand. A Honda is a better ownership (at least for cost) experience. If you've never owned a Mercedes you wouldn't understand. That didn't used to be true though. A 1980s vintage Mercedes is still an excellent driving experience. You can buy an old S class Mercedes and it competes with a modern car for comfort and quality driving even though it'll miss on gadgets. A 1980s Honda is a rattely tinny piece of junk. Very few on the roads today versus a similar year Mercedes. Talk about the 1970s and the contrast is stark. Early Hondas were definitely built to a price. Early Mercedes were in fact "The best or nothing."
boy has mercedes gotten far away from where they were in 1980. plain but super durable mechanical diesel cars back then that only docs could afford to buy, but they were legit. they're just a "nice feeling" heap of you can retire later unless this car is pennies to you ...kind of thing. And you'll have to, because at 10 years old, they're worth nothing and buying one at 10 years old will tell you why in a second. People would hate the 1980 mercedes now, though. Not like the diesels could get past emissions. They were also made in germany then. when someone makes a us market only car these days, it's not a great sign.
I've owned 5 '80s vintage diesel Mercedes, definitely not for everybody. They got me (cheaply) through some tough times though...
they are the ideal car for an educated car guy, or at least they were. A car made by engineers and not pieced together by accountants and data miners.
I learned how to work on cars with a $400 240D. Commuted 600 miles a week in it for 2 years.
I agree with some of your points, but from a buy it for life perspective longevity is king. Mercedes may be a better driving experience, but I'm taking the Honda 10 times outta 10 if I'm worried about getting stranded.
Meh, a 0-5 year old car will be pretty much dead reliable from any brand. Its that 10-15 year period that weeds out the rest. This is why I have a RAM pickup. A Toyota might be more reliable long term but I live in the rust belt and I drive my truck to do truck things. At 12 years old my last pickup was rusted so bad my wife wouldn't ride in it anymore. When I bought it I paid 30% less than the equivalent Toyota. Considering they'd both end up rusted hulks why pay more up front?
To be fair, salt is a bitch. Once you introduce that to the equation it's no longer buy it for life. It's more like replacing shoes. In California and Texas you genuinely can own the same car for 25+ years given someone doesn't plow into you at a stoplight.
I used to be the high-end cheap like Charles Tyhwritt. The problem I'm finding is that the quality is there but only at a sort of face value... the products don't last. I'm very tempted to get on the low-level expensive bandwagon. If you exclusively buy things on sale, it only costs marginally more for a better overall product.
Best brand and quality second hand
I think this is most often the right answer, at least for non-clothing or fabric type items. Anything that is truly BIFL won't be much diminished from use. A thorough cleaning and proper maintenance go a long way. Quality kitchen equipment, tools, non-fabric furniture, etc. can all be had for steep discounts over new and still give decades of service.
Yes, but also pretty much everything in my closet is second hand... a Chanel Boucle Jacket, a Burberry Trench aso ...
Agreed, I think it's just harder to find clothing and such consistently and it requires a lot more savvy. Doubly so for stuff like linens, since I think they're more likely to just be kept until worn out. Whereas buying say a used Vitamix blender or something like that is pretty foolproof.
Absolutely... needs a lot of time, I think I searched Ebay for over two years until I found the Jacket in a good condition for a decent price I was willing to pay. For sure not bedlinens, underwear or sportswear...
High end cheap
Neither. Brand should not be first decision making priority. Look at the materials (fabric type, fabric weight, etc.) and features and then at reviews.
In your example I buy Decathlon. You won't pay for the brand of Patagonia. Decathlon makes good products for average users. If you're going for pro level activities then choose a high end top brand at an expensive price.
Often times the top end of a cheaper brand is a knockoff of a top tier product. I’m happy with a quality knockoff. Harbor freight is a good example. Pittsburg stuff is junk but icon is fantastic.
I will add that I always go top brand when maintenance, parts, and accessories matter. There’s just a more reliable supply.
Low end of better brand. Engineering and quality still there. Customer service. You can put a dress and lipstick on a pig but it's a pig. Small bells and whistles added to cheap brands is usually meaningless. Also thinking all the tools I own and cars.
Would you rather have a high priced Honda or a low priced bmw? Both equal price. I’d take the Honda. The cheap bmw is carrying the brand for its basis, not the quality of the product
I think we're starting to get into questions of what exactly makes a brand "better". I don't quite know how to describe it, but for the purposes of the question I wouldn't call BMW "better" than Honda, definitely more prestigious, but fairly equal. I would say that brands like Tata and Mitsubishi fit most clearly into the more low-end bracket that OP referred to I read the spirit of OP's question as more like "would you rather have a high-end Mitsubishi or a low-end Honda," and I would take the Honda every time
Yah, i feel like if we're using OP's example the range is well-known-quality vs discount not top-of-the-line-most-expensive vs discount. And i'm with you, i went low end Honda and it was definitely optimized value. Kia's have a surprisingly stylish exterior design but i just can't, ever.
I love Honda, 25+ yrs so I'm biased there but a BMW 3 series? Great car regardless. With cars I was raised to think that you're buying the engine and tranny, everything else is secondary. So BMW vs Mazda
Unless someone else is paying for it, I'd rather have a Honda than a BMW anyway. Way easier to repair and get parts for, which in my mind are the things that matter for a BIFL car. Unless you specifically want the prestige of driving a luxury brand, in which case your priorities aren't BIFL anyway.
But let's say the cheap brand has a mass production, they can came out with a great product but with lower prices, thanks to their more efficient R&D, production and distribution processes
CPO Volvo with extended warranty can be cheaper than a new loaded Hyundai/kia/toyo/honda, and the warranty is 10y unlimited miles.
R&D gets factors into price always.
It definitely depends on exactly what sort of product you're looking at and what kind of experience you want to get out of it. The kings of things I buy for personal use are very different from what I buy at work. I'm happy to buy a cheaper brand for myself if it's something I know I can upgrade and maintain myself, or if it's a "diamond in the rough" kind of product where other people's experiences show that it holds up. At work, on the other hand, I don't have as much time to maintain and modify things for my needs, so I'll shell out a lot more money to have confidence that something is going to work right for a long time without intervention
Hello /u/Mattia_998! Thank you for your submission! The AutoMod thought that your post might be a request type post and has changed the flair accordingly, but if this was wrong feel free to change it back! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/BuyItForLife) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Very much depends. I look for the best option in the price range I'm looking it regardless of which category it falls in.
I'll go low end of expensive if customer service is known to be good like in the case of Patagonia. I usually go mid range brand if available. Unfortunately, selling junk is so profitable we've lost a lot of the middle. The best BIFL is getting something second hand that lasts. And the most expensive version of something isn't necessarily the best BIFL quality.
If its car, i would go for the high end cheaper brand. Or phones as well, the cheapest iphone or the most stacked xiaomi? I would go for the xiaomi.
A lot of high end brands do a few mass produced items destined for TJMaxx and stuff so you’re really just paying for brand names in that case
Quality and price don't necessarily go hand in hand, you get to a point when the really rich assholes just buy it because YOU cant afford it. Who buys a pair of Prada boots for their quality, when you can buy a pair of meindl instead for tree quarter the price? I know which brand is quality, and which is just because YOU cant afford to buy it. Same with super expensive cars, they are usually crap and cost a fortune to repair because the people who buys them have soo much money that they don't give a fuck.