or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by SamSpade

I don't know . But anybody making random references to entropy has got the right worldview, yessir
I would add one more: dressing "too perfect" for me signifies death - literally. Being dreessed too perfect simply means that you never do anything, you never come in contact with the elements, you don't sweat - you just sit there, looking crisp like a mummy. This is why the implicit meaning of the suit aesthetic terrifies me: it is the uniform of a man who is single mindedly focused on business activity, and nothing else. No matter how much we would protest, the suit and...
A combination of the last few replies touching on the subjects of "cool" and "individuality" led me that there is a much easier explanation of the many sartorial messes: individual style becoming mostly divorced from any meaningful historical context, which makes the whole concept virtually an oxymoron, and that's why (obviously, a pure, though marginally informed, speculation) First, the whole concept of "style" is virtually meaningless except in relation with specific...
Certainly, a few strong words added... but largely that I believe they are justified . There is no doubt that the global capitalism, personified by the British businessman/officer in a suit involves a great deal of discipline and self-control, reflected in the austere suit look. But so does being a buddhist monk. The ones that try this in our culture are denigrated as stupid hippies, although if they are doing it right, they are far closer to the ideal of self-mastery...
Interesting topic, OP, but i disagree with your theory. For me, the explanation is in the overall decline of the western culture, and the mutually related slides into barbarism and decadence. Since the US leads the decline, the trend towards ridiculousness is the most pronunced. Decadence, because it is now an end in itself to possess the most extravagantly elaborate, rare, artisanal, or expensive articles of clothing. Barbarism, because dressing is no longer dressing,...
Mikael, the part of your list I am familiar with is not going to help: panta, kiton, borelli and issaia all have sub 11" rises in recent years. DK about the others.
HI, I tried both the Walts and the Rudys in my true size. While the Rudys are indeed marginally roomier, the cut is basically the same and i still had to have my tailor let out the crotch and the thighs; this makes them workable, though not for extended period of time, since 1) there isn't that much slack to let out and 2) it's kinda moot, because they no longer offer them I'll probably give it a try sizing up the Walts since these are overall okay pants, it's jst kind...
The only existing thread with the same problem produces unsatisfactory results. Basically, I am about to transition from frustration to full on rage - the current trend of low raise pants makes no sense from any angle: it looks bad/sloppy/childish, its uncomfortable, and the shirts get easily untucked. I hate it but I've been unable to find pants with a sensible raise (even at supposedly stodgy places like brooks bros and jos bank) One exception are the Epaulet pants,...
I would say they are a smidge closer to 8, but truly somewhere in between 8 and 8.5. I usually wear US 8.5, and this pair fits me fine (no discomfort), but I'd rather have a little more space in a boot. I would have gone with the standard conversion (size down half size for US sizes), but there are a couple of threads here suggesting to size down a full size in Loakes, and I personally think this is wrong, based on this and other purchases from the UK. This may be...
New Loake Kempton sz 7.5 UK in brown suede http://www.ebay.com/itm/160825838968?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649
New Posts  All Forums: