The phrase is tossed around so much but not as many very specific examples- more times someone will say, “ I resolve to buy the sweater I really want that I love , even if it’s more expensive, rather than 5 ( or 10) cheap ones from Target ( TJMAXX, Marshall’s, insert store) that are just ok”. Or also, buying several things because they’re on sale when the thing you REALLY want ( or need) is available but not on sale. So then the budget math isn’t there, it could be, psychologically I can’t wrap my head around paying $300 for one sweater but I feel like I (get more value, am a better person, if I buy 5 for $60 apiece. OR , it IS budget if you in fact have a budget in mind and NEED 5 pairs of jeans for your lifestyle, laundry, so you decide how much to allocate.

So, I’m wandering around to say, it is about money sometimes if we have too many clothes, meaning, not happy with the amount but feel like we can’t pay more, because obviously, more is being paid per month or year.

But a lot of times, “ better should mean, what’s better for your needs, or style goals, in the sense that if I’m trying to get dressed somehow if for some thing or to have clothing function a certain way- the feel, the care requirements, durability, or even to MATCH , ha, then I have to focus, have a plan, and ultimately NOT BUY the other things that are NOT that. ( sorry for too many caps.)
So it can come back around to cost eventually but might be tgat you spend less. And, as Jussie said, it’s not about saying, my jeans need to cost more to be better, my T’s ought to cost $200 or they won’t be “ better”.

For me the less but better means I need to have a better plan and more discipline to stick to it. That’s what’s hard. Too impulsive and then go, but I REALLY needed…

I will however give a recent example of what for me was an extravagant purchase. I have increasingly fussy feet and mostly wear, not “ sneakers” as everyone says nowadays ( I never used that term until about 10 years ago), but running shoes like Brooks. I can’t wear most fashion sneakers - some though. I like to have some boots to look different but usually have to have laceup for fit and can no longer wear refined styles, almond toes, etc. I hate “ flowerpot leg” for several reasons- pants hang up on them & I also want to wear with tights/ skirts. Loose fitting shaft is a deal- breaker. So it’s very hard to find a boot that fits tight on the lower leg without being a combat type. Also I almost always need suede. I did get Sam Edelman lug sole laceups in brown at the Rack for a great price- the heel is a tad high but okay. But recently had to give up my last pair of black boots despite not finding a replacement for the past year.
Then I saw online then Paul Green Nobu boots in black suede, very rounded, low heel. And it appeared that they had a very slim shaft fit. But they were $$$. For a long time I just went, well, I really don’t want to spend that, I don’t go to work, I just want to wear some outfits I like but don’t work w/o black boots, probably they won’t fit anyway.
But they did- ( I have to size up nowadays and so put in a 3/4 insole for heel fit) and fit extremely close to leg, with a back zip not laceup.
They’re not to everyone’s taste I imagine because they are so rounded, plus a slouch component, plus taper to the narrow shaft, but they work for me.
Immediately I was able to create/ recreate several “ looks” that I was missing, with clothes I already had.

The moral of the story is not so much to buy expensive ( for me anyway) boots , but it is to tell myself, ok, but you don’t need still MORE boots- wear these, there are already more outfit possibilities than I can actually wear , but they include outfits I really love. Plus, my feet are so fussy that I still need to rely on the running type shoes or a similar sport, hiking type footwear) for long periods of wear.

I haven't read all the responses, so apologies if I repeat anything that's already been said.

For me, fewer but better has meant:

• trying not to buy placeholders--I wait until I can get it right
• the "power of one"
• not looking at price tags--a few years ago, when I was shopping more in-person, I started trying on clothing without looking at the price. There's a limit to this, of course, but I ask myself, "Would I want to buy this no matter what the tag says?" If I find myself saying, "Well, not if it's over $50" or something similar, then I let it go.

Jenn, your “power of one” is one lesson I so desperately want to learn!
It is a recent, maybe 2-3 years old unfortunate habit that I have - to duplicate in another color something that I love. I really need to put an end to it.

I should have said that for me that’s an ideal. My style is fairly consistent and occasionally includes something more trendy. I try to have clothing that works through the seasons and through the various aspects and events of my life. And to have enough to not have laundry bottlenecks. I do however have a price point and it seems that the items that have the interesting details and perhaps the sustainability I also desire are 3-6x my price points.

Jenn, I also like the intent off power of one, and have had to do some thinking this past year on what keeps me from doing that. As Irina said, I tend to duplicate in different colors, or get several things that are similar enough that although they are different in some ways, I can’t really say that they have added value to outfit creation. Variety yes, and that’s good, but too much means things not worn.

Suz had a musing on how long do you hang on to an item if it’s more spendy- I think meaning, when it’s no longer working for you. Surely if I suffer from some sunk cost guilt, that will be worse.
But the flip side is, over the past few years I’ve been keeping a LOT of stuff I’m not wearing, so those items CPW isn’t getting lower.
And if thinking about landfills, I guess it’s not how much money is discarded, it’s how many items.

I love the way you posed the question and I agree it’s tricky. If I picked my “best” pieces they would span price points from $15 through to a big number in the $100s but less than $1000 and range from chain or mall stores (Zara) to NZ or Australian designer with some second hand.

I use the same strategies as Jenn - no placeholders, only one piece (there are exceptions but not that many ) and trying not to look at the price.

I do have local options at home or in cities I visit for work or family- I have added some well loved pieces whilst on day trips or weekends away. I do shop online as well. The finds below have all been bought in store out of town but I have sometimes researched in advance the places I wanted to go - eg the jeans, the coat and the black sneakers.

But I don’t always get it right- and have made mistakes at all price points.

For me at this point on my style journey, “fewer but better” doesn’t relate so much to shopping but rather to letting go of the “dead wood” in my closet. Donating the pants that pinch my waist, even if that means I will “only” have 5 pants…. Recognizing that I don’t actually need that much variety. Looking forward to a closet that contains only items that I actually want to wear. (With perhaps a few that I “need” to wear, like uniforms etc.)

With regard to shopping, you ask very good questions. I refuse to buy designer bags because I suspect that the ways I wear out and damage bags will still happen to designer bags no matter their quality (coffee or ink spills, scuffs from being put on the subway floor, etc). So going above a certain price point doesn’t bring any real improvement, to my mind.

With clothes it works a bit differently, in my experience. Yes, I might still spill and stain an expensive piece. But I find a higher quality item is much likelier to launder well, or to be repairable. I also find that a better designed item tends to be more versatile. If you bought a pricey Tibi sweatshirt, for example, you might be able to wear it with skirts in a way that you couldn’t do with a Walmart sweatshirt. I own a pair of Tibi pants bought on sale and I swear there’s nothing they can’t do. They have all sorts of genius features that mean you can wear them low or high on the waist, change the look of the hems, etc.

I’m very interested in this topic, so I can’t wait to hear how it unfolds in your closet!

I am sure I am one of the people who said their goal was to buy fewer but better. My reasons are:
1. I am happy with my current wardrobe, so my actual needs are very small;
2. I have in the past had a bad habit of keeping expensive items “for good” and wearing cheaper items more frequently, I am trying to be more of the mindset that if I paid more for the item, then it needs to be worn more;
3. Quality items (well made, so not necessarily designer items) last longer.

An example of how I see this goal working out for me is previously I was a fan of Zara basic sweaters. However, they are synthetic and pill slightly. Whilst I have had a few years wear out of each sweater, they were hard work to keep looking good.Having tried Boden cashmere, I now want to phase my Zara sweaters out of my wardrobe, to be replaced by fewer but better quality Boden. The Boden sweaters launder beautifully, feel great and wear like iron and the ethics of natural fibres appeals to me too.

Jaime I so agree about the design aspect in premium brands. As a thrifter, where I live we get tons of Italian made clothes (a close geographical neighbour). In South Africa I mostly had access to mall brands and the comparison of the design of those against Italian made clothes is so blatant. I had never experienced this before. Design is everything. Example, a linen mall brand dress looks like a potato sack on me, a linen Italian made dress just curves in all the right places. And this has been proved with every single piece from dresses, to blazers, skirts, jeans, jumpers. I now only want Italian made clothes! Fortunately they are super affordable too. And Yes Lisa re your thought provoking question if the blazer fits so well and makes me look so sharp I don't want another.

I don’t know if it will be helpful but I’ll share it with you and others.

Lots of excellent thoughts here. I’m still in my first cup of coffee so the thoughts are not flowing well yet, but some musings:

- I like the concept of fewer and better, but that reality is that I’m not a minimalist by any stretch. I like wearing different silhouettes depending on the day and my mood, and when one enjoys that, just for example, two pairs of jeans will not suffice. I have boyfriend, flare, wide leg, and straights, in cropped lengths and full, in blue — dark wash and lighter — some in black and even grey. And then there is the old pair of dark burgundy Dre’s which still feel right sometimes, and my moto jeans… See what I mean? The only ones I’m not feeling at the moment are basic straights which look almost skinny, but I hang onto a couple of pairs “just in case.” And that’s just jeans!

- Some designers that tempt me simply do not cut for a figure that’s not straight and modelesque. Sort of to Suz’s point about height. I’ve tried on some designer pieces that would be fabulous on a size 4 woman of my height with small boobs and hips, but that will never be my reality. That frequently kills my buzz. When a designer actually *gets* a woman’s figure, I’m thrilled and become a fan, if the styles appeal to me. And I’ll invest in the occasional piece if it feels right and I think will have some longevity. Case in point: the Zero+Maria Cornejo blue dress I got last summer.

- I think going “better” can result in “fewer” if done mindfully. For example,
I have not been nearly as tempted by handbags since I bought that Bao Bao backpack, a year and a half ago. I’ve culled a bunch of bags that I simply never reach for anymore, and it’s become such a go-to for me, it’s become a trend-proof part of my signature style, and it sets a new standard for any future bag purchases. What I paid for that Bao Bao bag would buy several inexpensive bags, which might appeal to someone who craves a lot of variety in that area, or someone who is more trend-driven and has a high bag turnover. However, I’ve been surprised to see how happy I am to carry that bag probably about 80% of the time.

- I absolutely agree that better does not always equal a higher price point. For me, it’s about not just fit and quality, but also the design. If I love a design that’s not easily found, if it feels true to my style regardless of trend, if it fits into my wardrobe, and goes beyond strictly basic, I consider it “better.” An example: the Bernardo plaid coat with the moto insert from NAS (two years ago?). This was not a pricey piece. But it suits me and I’ve let go of a couple of old coats that it has bumped out of usage. Ditto to the Nili Lotan+Target collab glen plaid coat. It was less than $100 but endlessly useful and a very good deal.

Again, I will still keep some of my other less-frequently used coats if I love them, because I don’t wear the same one every day and I do like switching up colors and silhouettes, so “better” has not made me give up variety and has only loosened up some of my storage space. However, it has helped me define what makes an item work for me and has set a bar for future purchases.

I love the variety of responses here ! One point that I should clarify is that of course there are well-designed lines that exist between Toteme ( to use my previous example ) and Club Monaco . That’s the tricky part : finding still-affordable , better clothes that are a step above . Anyways , that’s getting a bit off track. I now see that the way to look at this is : I have a good wardrobe full of the basics . I lack nothing and all of my clothes are of acceptable quality .

Better to me is going to be more thoughtfully chosen replacements /additions that will fill an actual hole and not just be a so-so temporary solution .

Yep, it’s often buying too many of the “it’s good enough” or place holders that can create a lot of wardrobe dysfunction.

Such an interesting conversation, and one i have been thinking about a lot lately

I’ll start by giving what was my definition, don’t spend $50 on a sweater from X if you are going to need to replace it after 4 wears, buy the $100 sweater that will last twice as long. Don’t buy something just because its “cheap”, cheap being an objective number because it’s well, different for all of us, and because it, at least for me, is often related to the original price and not the current price (ie the % off)…

anyway, if come to think of this “fewer but better” as very misguided. For me, after much thought, i have come to the conclusion that, Fewer but better is a luxury. You need to have a certain amount of time (and time is a limited commodity) to shop and to compare and/or to have thing sent and to sent them back. You have to have a credit card to shop on line, and being willing to extend some of your limited credit in the buy return cycle if you are shopping on line. And if you are shopping IRL you are limited by what is near you and actually reachable thru whatever mode of transport you have, and than again limited by what is actually on the shelf of your local store. Anyway, I’ll get off my lectern…

for me, I’m not thinking about fewer but better…I’m thinking about what i already have, and how to make it work. I’m thinking about what it makes sense for me to spend more money on and what it makes sense for me to spend less on. I’m thinking about where i should be buying, and where i should be avoiding. I’m thinking about what to keep and what to “toss” and where to “toss” it to.

Sorry i went on and on, but thank you for starting this conversation and will come back to this topic as i continue to flesh out my goals for 2023.

Kkards - YES , to the less but better being a luxury not afforded to everyone . I usually feel pressed for time when I shop , and for some reason the other people in my house ( lol) always need to know where I am and what I’m doing when I’m out of the house - zero privacy to do my own thing which makes me crazy . Anyways , you’re right: it’s about having time , money , and access . Thus the trade-offs we make .

Lots of interesting responses! I think I find myself closest in thought to Jussie--"better" means it just works better or is more current to how I really want to look and how I want clothing to fit, even if it is an inexpensive item. But sometimes it does also mean more expensive and better-made!

Fewer and better is a concept I live by. I actually do work with a pretty tiny budget.

What it means for me: If I decide I would like more of a type of item (say, blazers) in my wardrobe, it means I spring for a nicely-made one or loud-pattern one (did I mention I like loud?) rather than the one that I find on sale at LOFT that doesn't really excite me. Even though it means that people will remember when I wear it (because it's loud) and I'm wearing it twice as much because I don't have a second one.

It means having just enough clothes to actually wear them out before I get sick of them. This means that yes, sometimes a beloved item has to be retired before I wish, but I prefer it to the waste of buying something that doesn't get worn, and it means that my wardrobe can stay fresher longer.

I think I woke up to these lessons when I was pregnant and only had enough outfits to get through 4 to 7 days before repeating. Somehow it never felt more fun to get dressed than during that period. To open my closet and find 5 beloved things that fit my taste from that very year (rather than something I had bought 7 years ago) made me always feel like a million bucks. And many of these things were just inexpensive dresses, but they fit me just right and were fresh.

It just means, when I know I need several things, to wait and find them, rather than being seduced by a whole bunch of things I don't need on the sale rack, just because it's fun to buy new things. That's it in a nutshell.

Kneads, tgat is a gray example of “ better is what’s better for YOU”.
And, if one condenses to “ buy better “ it can mean, buy smarter , buy less, buy more of real lifestyle, fill wardrobe holes, buy sustainably, buy better fits regardless of price point, and so on.

One frustrating thing is the continually moving target of quality in almost every brand. Meaning mostly downward so that one year you find something great but in reality you can’t always tell how’s good it is until you’ve put it through its paces, then if you do figure that out pretty soon and think it’s worth duplicating in another color, it’s sold out and then either it’s not even repeated next year but if so, it’s changed for the worse. Which sometimes you can tell immediately- fit has changed or fabric feels different) but sometimes only after wearing/ washing.

This issue, my trying to cut back on duplicates but feeling some of that FOMO or “ if only “, is leading me more toward getting more comfortable with “ the power of one” and with being more focused on which wardrobe items might be nearly the same, but have small differences that I enjoy using generally different type outfits ( proportions is typical, but also layering weight/ comfort), but that if one item were to “ die”, another coukd be pressed into service even if not my first choice.
Thus approach could help me avoid duplicating early on when it’s not really necessary yet, if ever, and avoid pressure to find a specific item replacement which might make me jump the gun , not “ buy better”.
This is obviously easier with tight or versatile color palette and items within similar “ warmth factor “.

My "less but better" maybe a bit different. I need to stick to my colors, fabrics and preferred shape ( more sales with few more pricy items - such as shoes ). I get influenced sometimes by "common wisdom" - like "get more/replenish basics in neutral tones", or get "classics" more than trends. My basics in neutral tones sit unworn ( or worn rarely ) and classics make me feel old and depressed. I often wondered why I can't dressed in something very much grown up, womanly way until I decided that I don't need to be. My "classics" don't need to be that trench coat, dark trouser jeans, white blouse, etc.. that so many magazines/articles push people to buy.
Since I'm uniform dresser I'm ok with repeated outfits, formulas. I'm slow with new silhouettes, styles most of the time and it's ok too. Just don't need to beat myself over it - lol.
So everyone may have their own"less but better" definition and that's the way it is - just need to figure out what is it .

Joining the conversation late, and all I can add is that, for me, "better" means how much do I love it. I always try to buy good quality, and we know you can find that at different price points.

but finding something you LOVE is harder. You can ignore the things on the rack you don't like (we've talked about that before). Will the jacket you love jump out at you? I have found one or two brands that I almost always love - Desigual and Boden. I buy only a few things from them, but they make me happy for a long time.

EXCEPT, once in a while the thing you loved with a passion five years ago might not do it for you today. Your job changed, you moved to the country, you gained or lost weight . . . Then you have to figure out how to break up with those pants or that jacket.

I have gotten off track, maybe. Clothes have a lot of power to make me happy, sad, amused, blue . . .

Great topic. For me better mostly means good quality mostly natural fibers in classic designs that have staying power. That builds a really different wardrobe than if I wanted to be on trend. In each category I started with lower price brands and stepped up over time until I found brands that work for me, and that’s where I start when I need something new. With most categories that means I shop bridge brands on sale. But I buy on sale silk tops from Antonio Melani at Dillard’s and cashmere from Bloomingdales and Neiman Marcus house brands and shoes from Cole Haan because those are all really good quality without stepping up. I also buy relatively inexpensive mall brand purses because I like their cheery gold trimmed preppy vibe.

Nothing to add, but thanks so much for the concept of “better for me”. A different perspective and inspirational for the current closet and future purchases.

Interesting! Great question!

Haven’t read the comments. Officially still on holiday

LJP, personally, I used to think that designer items were better and more sophisticated than non-designer items. But have changed my mind significantly over the last decade! I’m finding fewer and fewer desirable designer items - especially the colours. And the quality isn’t a slam dunk. Fits are all over the place. In fact, the quality of some designer items is quite shocking.

I am as happy with a Boden, KUT, J.Crew or BB Dakota item as I am with a Veronica Beard, RL Polo, Reiss, Ganni, Elie Tahari and Hugo Boss item.

For me, jeans and bags are where I find I like and do better with designer.

ETA!

Don’t get me started on how uncomfortable most designer shoes are for my fussy feet. For shoes, it’s more about the country they are made in than the designer brand. For example, I do really well with shoes made in Italy, Austria, Portugal, Spain and Brazil.

Haven't read the whole thread yet, but it looks meaty!

In all honesty, I balk at "better". How often are people using it as a candid assessment of a specific garment (better fit for my body, better suited to my lifestyle), and how often is it simply a euphemism for "more expensive" or "morally superior"? I am not convinced that spending more is the key to personal style, and it won't make you a better person. "Fewer, better" in the hands of influencers often ends up meaning "cull what you're bored with and buy stuff to replace it," a mantra every sector of the fashion industry can get behind, because even slow fashion needs to make sales.

From a sustainability perspective, there's nothing really green about jettisoning five fast fashion garments that are still perfectly wearable and replacing them with one slow fashion garment from a label you've deemed aesthetically or ethically superior. And when it comes to designer labels, the track record for both quality and ethics is so spotty, I don't even go there. I've never had success with the fit of designer footwear or jeans, and I don't really carry handbags, so those categories--which seem to be where a lot of stylists recommend "splurging"--don't resonate with me. For my climate/lifestyle, the things I'm most willing to go big on are parkas, rain shells, and winter boots. Having quality and variety in those categories has proved so, so worth it for me.

My mantra for wardrobe management this year is: No Mental Gymnastics. That means no capsule-building, no creation of imaginary wardrobe holes to fill, no one-in/one-out, no complex systems of accounting. If there is some substantive reason to get rid of something (won't ever fit properly, can't be mended, unbearably uncomfortable), I'll get rid of it. If I try something on that I love unequivocally, I'll buy it (I have a pretty set pricepoint I'm willing to shop at, so I'm never trying things on that are out of my price range). I can usually tell that I love something if I put it on and feel an impulse to buy a backup immediately. I don't actually buy the backup in most cases, but that impulse is usually a good sign that I'll wear the thing. "No Mental Gymnastics" is probably more or less what Angie is getting at with the term "Organized Emotional" I now realize.

I'm getting a late start this morning too and skimmed the responses but I hear that phrase often and never really thought about it since I'm not a minimalist (although I sometimes wish I was.) Anyway, for me, it means more curated purchases moving forward. I don't want designer but I do want good quality wash and wear

It can be a snobby phrase, "buy fewer better things". Or a fashion mandate that isn't really one that works or feels true for us, and that we can get in our heads about. To me, it's not about the number of clothes I own (minimalist vs maximalist), or if they are the "best" (according to who?) what matters to me is that I am in love with what I have chosen, whether it's the pair of Dickies painter paints on sale for $16 because it had stains that I think are interesting, or the denim that costs 10 times more. I've allowed myself to be satisfied with what's in my closet, like we feel when we are in a good relationship with someone. I'm in a good relationship with my clothes! We wouldn't date or marry just anyone. We find someone that fits us. We are choosey! But not SO choosey that no one can ever be "right"...like when we look for the "ultimate". So for me, the phrase can also just be a reminder to choose wisely, whatever that wise is for each one of us...not only fabrics and style and fit, but also price points and sustainability.

Happy New Year! I'm enjoying this conversation. It's funny, but after reading the start of this thread last night, I woke up with a really cockeyed inside out version of the mantra in my head: MORE and better!

And I have kept reversing the mantra that way throughout my morning hike and coffee and soup-making. I don't know what that says about me or about the year ahead! Probably something terrifying.

I don't know. My closet is plenty big enough for me -- it is, in fact, too big, and I'm still in the process of figuring out how to let go of some "better" things that I truly loved and still love, but no longer wear. Some blazers, in particular. Sooooo hard for me to let go of those....and maybe I don't have to. I do have storage areas for such things in my current house. I could become a wardrobe maximalist like Blue collar red lipstick and rotate back to those items later on....

But at the same time, the feeling of having clothes that I am not wearing a lot in my closet makes me uncomfortable. What Lesley said resonated for me. A small closet of very current items makes me happy. How can I reconcile these competing feelings?

What Roberta said also resonated for me. "Better" = items I really, really love.

I was also nodding along to everything LaPed said about that phrase often being a euphemism for "more expensive" and/or "morally superior."

So who knows? The items I'm willing to spend more on for the details I crave are the items I know are key to my style -- signature or essential or both. This is where I think an honest assessment of lifestyle is key.

But even here, I'm not sure "less" is or ought to be a goal for me. As Janet says, I want some variety. That's part of where the fun comes from -- mixing and matching in new ways, and you cannot do that with an extremely tight closet of simple essentials.

We've talked about this before, of course -- some people get variety by keeping a very tight closet of current items and rotating those out frequently. Others get variety by keeping a big closet, wearing specific items less frequently in any given year, but hanging onto them all (or most of them) for a longer time.

The question is always, which route works best for a given individual? And the answer might change over time, I suppose -- as lifestyle changes, as storage facilities change....

I’m going to pull this back onto the track I had in mind- it took me a bit of reading through all the comments to gather my thoughts .

So I have 3 black cashmere sweaters. . ( let’s ignore the pilling issues around cashmere for the moment ) . All three are old , at least 5-6 years , maybe even older , mid price Hudson Bay cashmere , and serve exactly the same purpose . Different styles but one is not better than another . They are showing their age , and as a result don’t get worn much anymore . I probably paid about $100 per sweater back then ( the Bay used to do a fall promo with their house brand cashmere and it was great ! ) - the same sweaters are going for at least $ 169 -$199 Cdn now . I’d like to retire all three and buy a new one . Because in this case variety doesn’t matter . It’s a black sweater intended to act as a backdrop for the rest of the outfit . So according ti the buy better and buy fewer theory , I should invest more $$ and only buy one replacement .

Well, that makes sense, Lisa. For sure! If they all serve the same purpose and you would like one that is not showing so much wear, go for it!

That goes back to my comment that sometimes it is worth considering "fewer and better" in particular for core essentials of your style (or signature items). If a beautiful but fairly simple (possibly classic) black cashmere sweater is essential to your winter style -- and I can imagine it would be, given your city of residence, your love of black, and your current job -- then of course you should buy one and get rid of the older ones that are not fulfilling their function!

I have an example from my own closet...

I currently own 3 pairs of navy pants.

1. Old Kit & Ace -- slim, almost skinny, in a greyed navy. Not current, but very useful to me because a side zip (no bulky front) and they also work brilliantly on my bicycle. I can roll to ankle length, or wear full length. I can wear them casually, or as a dressier pant in certain circumstances.

2. New BR navy pants -- much looser but still a slim fit, very classic. Ankle length. Can be dressed up or down.

3. BR slim wide leg crops.

They don't all fill the same function...but the crops are worn out (pilling) and the fabric is by no means as nice as the fabric on the other two pair. I'm going to let the last pair go, because when I'm honest with myself, I don't truly need them in light of the other two.

Suz- right . I am doing the same thing with my black pant collection .