I think this makes a lot of sense for items with “give” as it might allow the item of clothing to regain its natural shape between wearings, or to dry/air out.

You wrote, “Life left = number of times worn – ((washings + drying) * quality_factor)”

Hmmmm. According to your formula, all else being equal, clothes worn 100 times will have more “life left” than clothes worn 50 times.

Now I am just the same, if I find something I like I buy it in multiples. I’ve even worn the same casual shoe style for over 10 years now……when I see it on sale, I buy a “coupla pair” and stash them in my closet for when the current pair wears out.

Amazing.

I buy duplicates of socks because I’m lazy and don’t like to spend time matching them up properly.

This really only saves time washing if you do your wash according to your clothes limit and not according to the size of your washer. One load of clothes takes the same amount of time to accumulate whether they are copies or not. The same is true for postponing shopping– six identical shirts will wear out over the same period of time as six different shirts; the difference is in how you look over those six days. Why not just have fun with it?

Provided you store them somewhere where they can actually breathe and dry out properly, wearing shoes every second day rather than every day will easily *double* their lifespan, more if you take care of them well and don’t use wax-based polishes (which stop the leather breathing and compound the moisture problem), etc.

http://www.johnlobbltd.co.uk/main/maintenance.htm

First, your clothing will last *much* longer if you use a horizontal-axis clothes washer (most commonly a front loader). They rinse better, and tiny particles of sand and soap crystals–both of which have very sharp, cutting facets–are reduced substantially.

Next–there is a difference, I think, between reasonable numbers of duplicates of classic, wear-everywhere clothing and duplicates of things that aren’t worn often. Working in corporate life, I often wore “business casual” outfits of khaki pants and blue pinpoint oxford. So, I had duplicates. These days, it’s more often jeans–so, again, I have several pair so I needn’t worry about having a clean pair handy.

However, I have rather ruthlessly gone through my closets in the past year and reduced the clothing substantially…and don’t miss the things that are gone. It’s time to do it again–and I will give away anything I haven’t worn in the last year as surplus to my needs. The result is the closet is much less crowded, which is also better for the remaining clothes.

I have duplicate pairs of pants because it’s a pain to spend time and gasoline shopping. If I find something that fits and works, why not buy a second pair? Even with your calculation alternating them does mean I can wear them for a LONGER period of time. Yes with washing and all they eventually wear out, but then you have to remember that even if I was alternated two different pairs of pants they still would most likely last the same as two pairs of pants that are the same. Unless they were bad material.

And since when I find an article of clothing that works well that I get more of one of, I don’t clutter up my closet with a bunch of clothing I hardly ever wear. So in reality, having duplicates that I do wear is much better than a larger number of items that I don’t wear. I mean your blog is about uncluttering, sometimes being simplistic is one way to not be cluttered.

So I’m not throwing out my duplicates just because you think that’s the way to be uncluttered. The logic of that is flawed.

David Attenborough has a plethora of blue shirts & khaki pants, so that film taken of him can be cut with film taken even years later and still look ok. Duplicates may serve a useful purpose.

In this article, I talk about how a family of two can get by on doing laundry Monday and Thursday evenings:
http://unclutterer.com/2007/05.....dry-chaos/

Same with this article:
http://unclutterer.com/2008/12.....n-wrap-up/

It’s only in this article that I mention a nightly schedule if you have a family of FOUR OR LARGER:
http://unclutterer.com/2009/01.....each-week/

I think it’s fine to wear a uniform, and I also think it’s fine to wear something different every day. It’s a matter of personal preference. Just don’t be kidding yourself that you’re making your clothes “last longer” by alternating them. Every piece of clothing has a Life Cycle and how many days in succession you wear a piece of clothing doesn’t change how many occasions you’re going to be able to wear it. People hoard clothes for this reason, and it’s never good to hoard anything. If you’re not hoarding clothes and your closet is organized and free of clutter, don’t worry about it.

If my jeans only have 200 wearings in them and I only buy one, I am going to wear them out in about 6 months of wearing them Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. But if I buy 2 pairs of jeans, then my jeans will last a year. I’m still only getting 200 wearings each, but I don’t have to buy new jeans every 6 months. Having an extra pair of jeans is certainly less clutter in my life than having to go out and buy jeans every 6 months (also, less traumatic)

Also, as some one above pointed out, it’s useful to have duplicates of basic you wear a lot – white t shirts, black pants, etc. Certainly, you shouldn’t have more of these than days in a week you’ll wear them. If you only wear jeans on the weekend, you don’t need really need more than 3 pairs.

I’ll buy duplicates of something if it’s something I love and wear often, and if I’m not sure whether or not the manufacturer will continue to make it.

My grandma, however, will find a pair of shoes she likes and buy three pairs in different colors, and I think that’s just a little much considering the amount of shoes she has. If it’s something you’re going to wear often then stockpiling is great…but if it’s just a once-in-a-while thing (like a fancy dress) stockpiling is pointless.

If you like something and you find it on sale, purchase duplicates, because you’ll probably never find it again. If it’s comfortable, stylish, and cheap, manufacturers will take it off the market as soon as they discover its virtues.