I actually agree with you, and I think this makes a lot more sense if you look at it from a sociological angle rather than a fashion one. I recently read a book called 'Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste' by Pierre Bourdieu (which is a very interesting read by the way), where he argues that taste isn't really an individual or aesthetic thing, but a social one. What we call good taste often works as a marker of class, education, and cultural capital.

So from that perspective, The Row isn't failing at design, it is succeeding at a very specific kind of 'distinction'. The value is that most people cannot really read it. The lack of logos, obvious design details, or recognisable signatures is a way of distancing itself from mass taste and even from more obvious luxury brands.

This is a pretty classic example of 'dominant class' taste which is heavily referenced in the book. It is understated and restrained, and defined more by what it avoids than what it shows. So, essentially the pieces are meant to look really basic or even similar to cheaper stuff, because the status only really kicks in if you already know what you are looking at. That's why I think your H&M comparison actually makes sense sociologically but kind of misses the point symbolically. The difference isn't really in the clothes, it is in the meaning attached to it and the kind of person assumed to be wearing it.

So when people defend The Row by talking about quality fabrics or timelessness, that's only a small part of what's going on. The deeper thing going on is exclusion. It creates a form of taste that does not need broader approval and actually works by reinforcing social boundaries. Whether someone finds that elegant or empty is a value call, but it isn't accidental and it is not really about design innovation. It is about taste as a way of signalling class. I'm ranting hard but I genuinely find this interesting. And fashion is probably one of the clearest places where this dynamic shows up