Thisspiritualneedofdressisnotwholly，norevenchiefly，anaivepropensityfordisplayofexpenditure。Thelawofconspicuouswasteguidesconsumptioninapparel，asinotherthings，chieflyatthesecondremove，byshapingthecanonsoftasteanddecency。Inthecommonrunofcasestheconsciousmotiveofthewearerorpurchaserofconspicuouslywastefulapparelistheneedofconformingtoestablishedusage，andoflivinguptotheaccreditedstandardoftasteandreputability。
Itisnotonlythatonemustbeguidedbythecodeofproprietiesindressinordertoavoidthemortificationthatcomesofunfavorablenoticeandcomment，thoughthatmotiveinitselfcountsforagreatdeal；butbesidesthat，therequirementofexpensivenessissoingrainedintoourhabitsofthoughtinmattersofdressthatanyotherthanexpensiveapparelisinstinctivelyodioustous。Withoutreflectionoranalysis，wefeelthatwhatisinexpensiveisunworthy。“Acheapcoatmakesacheapman。““Cheapandnasty“isrecognizedtoholdtrueindresswithevenlessmitigationthaninotherlinesofconsumption。Onthegroundbothoftasteandofserviceability，aninexpensivearticleofapparelisheldtobeinferior，underthemaxim“cheapandnasty。“Wefindthingsbeautiful，aswellasserviceable，somewhatinproportionastheyarecostly。Withfewandinconsequentialexceptions，weallfindacostlyhand-wroughtarticleofapparelmuchpreferable，inpointofbeautyandofserviceability，toalessexpensiveimitationofit，howevercleverlythespuriousarticlemayimitatethecostlyoriginal；
andwhatoffendsoursensibilitiesinthespuriousarticleisnotthatitfallsshortinformorcolor，or，indeed，invisualeffectinanyway。TheoffensiveobjectmaybesocloseanimitationaStodefyanybuttheclosestscrutiny；andyetsosoonasthecounterfeitisdetected，itsaestheticvalue，anditscommercialvalueaswell，declinesprecipitately。Notonlythat，butitmaybeassertedwithbutsmallriskofcontradictionthattheaestheticvalueofadetectedcounterfeitindressdeclinessomewhatinthesameproportionasthecounterfeitischeaperthanitsoriginal。Itlosescasteaestheticallybecauseitfallstoalowerpecuniarygrade。
Butthefunctionofdressasanevidenceofabilitytopaydoesnotendwithsimplyshowingthatthewearerconsumesvaluablegoodsinexcessofwhatisrequiredforphysicalcomfort。Simpleconspicuouswasteofgoodsiseffectiveandgratifyingasfarasitgoes；itisgoodprimafacieevidenceofpecuniarysuccess，andconsequentlyprimafacieevidenceofsocialworth。Butdresshassubtlerandmorefar-reachingpossibilitiesthanthiscrude，first-handevidenceofwastefulconsumptiononly。If，inadditiontoshowingthatthewearercanaffordtoconsumefreelyanduneconomically，itcanalsobeshowninthesamestrokethatheorsheisnotunderthenecessityofearningalivelihood，theevidenceofsocialworthisenhancedinaveryconsiderabledegree。Ourdress，therefore，inordertoserveitspurposeeffectually，shouldnotonlyheexpensive，butitshouldalsomakeplaintoallobserversthatthewearerisnotengagedinanykindofproductivelabor。Intheevolutionaryprocessbywhichoursystemofdresshasbeenelaboratedintoitspresentadmirablyperfectadaptationtoitspurpose，thissubsidiarylineofevidencehasreceiveddueattention。A
detailedexaminationofwhatpassesinpopularapprehensionforelegantapparelwillshowthatitiscontrivedateverypointtoconveytheimpressionthatthewearerdoesnothabituallyputforthanyusefuleffort。Itgoeswithoutsayingthatnoapparelcanbeconsideredelegant，orevendecent，ifitshowstheeffectofmanuallaboronthepartofthewearer，inthewayofsoilorwear。Thepleasingeffectofneatandspotlessgarmentsischiefly，ifnotaltogether，duetotheircarryingthesuggestionofleisure-exemptionfrompersonalcontactwithindustrialprocessesofanykind。Muchofthecharmthatinveststhepatent-leathershoe，thestainlesslinen，thelustrouscylindricalhat，andthewalking-stick，whichsogreatlyenhancethenativedignityofagentleman，comesoftheirpointedlysuggestingthatthewearercannotwhensoattiredbearahandinanyemploymentthatisdirectlyandimmediatelyofanyhumanuse。