or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by TimelesStyle

Don't think I'd go with any colors on the pocket square. As to the links/studs, are they actual sterling, or a white base metal? If the former, stick with what you've got, if the latter then gold plated is just fine and six of one/half-dozen of the other. But I wouldn't worry too much about matching on any level.
I would consider brands that sell separates, too, as you can get jacket and trouser sizes individually. Personally, I can't stand the Thom Brown look in general, as it looks like a bunch of guys wearing their younger brothers' suits, but that's just me. If you want to be very "current" (without resorting to things that will look incredibly dated in a couple of years) then I would consider midnight/navy. Very "in" right now, but will always remain a classic. Shawl lapel...
Not to be a dick, but no such thing exists. Besides, when all is said and done it'll be $150-200 so if he wears it twice that's a $400 tux he could have had. Jos. A Bank should have another sale some time soon that'll put a basic tux within reach, or else there's this option, which I contemplated when considering the "go cheap since I won't wear it often"...
I'm not entirely shocked; somehow I don't think a British-built car, owned by an Indian manufacturer would necessarily be that popular in Der Vaterland. As to the wheels, I would guess that the winter tire comment is spot on, but would also point out that cars like the E Class and 5 Series are available in much lower trims in Europe than they are here. In France, for example, I'd regularly see those vehicles with textile seats and cheap plastic trimmed interiors.
My thoughts exactly. The last "classically beautiful" Jag model to debut was the original XK8 in 1996. Even the current XK is ugly by comparison to its predecessor. The XF could have been a beautiful car, had it been styled after the E models of the 70s. In general the lines are a little harsh, and no Jag should have a cheap V6, but the main aesthetic details that ruin it for me are protruding body-colored door handles, the lack of the swing-out trunk door of the older...
For me it comes down to an aversion to current AMG styling (loved the previous generations, with their simple, "block" wheels and lack of body work) but the bigger issue would likely be space: we just had our S60 fitted with a baby seat for an upcoming addition to the family, and space in the back was pretty tight, so would want one category of car larger next time (since the booster seats are even bigger).
I wasn't considering it a comp by any means. I was saying that if it were $65k, $70k w/options, I'd prefer to have the larger S6 for not much more money. Same reason I'd prefer the A6 3.0 to the C400. So the point was really that for the money you pay for the new C, you can step up to a much nicer vehicle with similar performance. Alas, we don't get the RS4/RS6 here, so hard to compare. However I prefer Audi's styling on its performance models (at least the S versions) as...
Any ideas what US MSRP on the new C63 will be? I too am a fan of the new C's styling, but at the end of the day, I think it's overpriced. For the price of a loaded C400 one could have a loaded (minus the B&O sound system) A6 3.0T, which I'd take over a C any day. I'm wondering if the 63 will be priced such that it's entering S6 territory and therefore won't have nearly as much appeal to those who want a performance sedan but are somewhat brand-agnostic.
IT also requires that your hips and/or glutes are pronounced enough for the trousers to rest on. This isn't true for all guys, and if you have a bit of a gut the pants will just fall down. In that case, for multiple reasons, braces are best.
I wouldn't go with the latter. Even if it didn't look strange (which I think it would) it would still create an unwanted bulge under the front of the vest.
New Posts  All Forums: