In reply to Robert Durran:
> Simple; If the Arcteryx lasts twice as long, then it's good value, and if it doesn't then it's not.
But that's reducing an emotional payback to a mathematical equation. You do realise that some people get pleasure from their clothing choices, don't you? A good proportion of the population buy a shirt, dress or pair of shoes because it makes them feel good, not just for utility. After all, they probably have serviceable clothes already.
Why should different rules apply to outdoor clothing? Indeed the runaway success of outdoor brands should be enough to persuade you of this fact.
I wear high end, branded gear not because it makes me feel like the sponsored athlete I patently am not, but in order to experience the best in protection, breathability, light weight, durability, design or performance. And it adds to my pleasure on the hill in a way that a lower spec garment would not. I might only climb Scottish IV, but damn I'm comfortable, and I can stay calmer and more rational when my gear is working for me rather than irritating with its minor cost-saving deficiencies.
PS My wife also comments positively on my Arcteryx jackets in a way never mirrored by similar appreciation of ME or Montane efforts so you can probably add extra sex to the list of benefits