or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by williamson

To the author of post 73003 Why do you use such foul language? There's no need of it, and I think it offensive and repugnant.
I'm afraid I have an almost instinctive dislike of the “wide-boy” style - perhaps the term "flash" (as an adjective) is the clue here. Undoubtedly something of this style was present in the late 1980s - I well remember the double-breasted jackets, with only one fastening button low down, which to me were so ugly (and often worn unbuttoned into the bargain). Of the 1930s I can say nothing, but I remember this style as being around in the UK during the late 1940s austerity...
As a (now required) teacher, I couldn't disagree more with your point on "approachability". "Approachability" is in the manner of the person wearing the clothes, not in the clothes themselves. One could be "approachable" dressed formally. I wore a jacket and tie (I won't wear a jacket without a tie) to the end of my teaching days in an upper secondary school, and was never considered "unapproachable".I am sure this is true - and as true on this side of the Atlantic as...
Hear, hear!
More's the pity!
Appropriate over a suit? The jacket is far too short. Your trousers will get twice as wet from rain run-off. Choose a raincoat at least knee-length for wear over a suit.
The word "tan" has different meanings in British and American English. In Britain we refer to beige trench-coats and other raincoats; that colour is called "tan" in the USA. "Tan" in British English is a much darker colour - a lightish yellowish brown, often the colour of shoes.
The Northern Lights are often green, and (I suspect) rarely if ever brown!
It's great to see a 3-button jacket!
New Posts  All Forums: