10
Loading video...
By Jack Beresford
Senior Reporter
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A California thrifter thought he'd struck gold when he found a designer suit for $12.99. Then he checked the pockets and uncovered an even bigger surprise.
Thrifting has become a way of life for many Americans. A 2025 Talker Research survey of 2,000 U.S. adults commissioned by Mercari found that 66 percent of Americans now thrift regularly, with 17 percent doing so at least once a week.
The poll also found that 26 percent had increased their secondhand shopping over the previous year. A desire to live more frugally appears to be the chief reason for this uptick, with 72 percent of respondents saying they shop secondhand to save money.
Read More on Personal Finance
That was certainly the case for Mark Grayson. He was out looking for a designer suit when he came across the thrift find of a lifetime. "The Goodwill I went to has a suit rack that's barely touched. I walked past it all the time and saw the same suits over and over again," Grayson told Newsweek.
Grayson always makes a point of browsing the suits on offer, just in case there happens to be something in his size from a reputable brand at an affordable price. This time, his persistence paid off.
"I've looked at suits that caught my eye before but, on this day, I checked all the suits and looked at the brand tags," he said. "I saw a Ralph Lauren Green Label suit and immediately picked it up, checked the care tag, and added it to the pile of clothes I was holding."
Mark Grayson
Grayson paid just $12.99 for the suit. That was already a big score, but there was one more unexpected twist. "I thought I scored with this Ralph Lauren Green Label suit I got from Goodwill," Grayson said. "But when I got home and checked the pockets, I found $250 in the pocket underneath the label."
Grayson's first instinct was to assume the money had been planted there as part of some elaborate prank by the previous owner. He quickly realized that wasn't the case. "I thought it was fake and, as I took it out, felt it, and looked at it, I realized it was real," he said. "My immediate reaction was, 'H*** s***,' kind of in disbelief."
Grayson is at a loss to explain how such a large amount of money could have been left in the suit, or how it ultimately found its way into his hands. "I have no idea why it was left in there," he said.
Grayson didn't specify the Goodwill where he found the suit, but he did say it was in Southern California.
While Goodwill Southern California sorts and processes donated items before they reach the sales floor, the organization does not publicly state whether employees are required to check every pocket.
Lori Hartwell is the owner of Studio Hope Boutique, a non-profit Burbank-based curated thrift shop. She says it's common enough to find money when checking through donations. Though she would return the cash, she doesn't begrudge Grayson putting it to good use.
"We often find loose change and foreign currency, but we’ve never found an amount as large as $250,” she told Newsweek. “I say you should go back to the store where you bought it and purchase a few more items—it’s a win-win! But there’s no need to return the money; that’s part of the fun of treasure hunting."
He's wasted little time putting the money to good use though. "I bought my little brother some school supplies because he's starting high school," he said. The rest, Grayson says, has been set aside for safekeeping. He's keeping it in a bank rather than a suit.
...
In the meantime, Grayson is continuing to keep an eye out for bargains at thrift stores and checking pockets whenever he can. "I haven't really been checking pockets any more than I already was," he said. "I usually just look for the care and wash tags in jackets and suits. I do check the hidden pockets on jackets, just in case."
Contact Newsweek editors on this story: Rebecca Flood and Emma Lee-Sang
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines