or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › If your wardrobe is too large, you end up looking worse.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

If your wardrobe is too large, you end up looking worse. - Page 9

post #121 of 491
Has dopey weighed in on this yet?
post #122 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by radicaldog View Post
The idea I'm trying to express is this: it is inelegant to get a new 4x4 just because your trusty old Land Rover has broken down. Repair it. It is inelegant in the same sense in which restraint is the most impressive form of power, as Thucydides said.

That is an altogether different point. Looking clean and well-pressed doesn't imply disposable.
post #123 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by radicaldog View Post
The idea I'm trying to express is this: it is inelegant to get a new 4x4 just because your trusty old Land Rover has broken down. Repair it. It is inelegant in the same sense in which restraint is the most impressive form of power, as Thucydides said.

Oh dear.

This point only makes sense if you already have a trusty old Land Rover.

I hope that your point is not going where that anecdote went. I would have to deduct points.


- B
post #124 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by radicaldog View Post
The idea I'm trying to express is this: it is inelegant to get a new 4x4 just because your trusty old Land Rover has broken down. Repair it. It is inelegant in the same sense in which restraint is the most impressive form of power, as Thucydides said.
Royals usually look like shit, why would you trust their opinions on style? Russian mobsters would get a new 4X4 and they're stylin'.
post #125 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
It's interesting that many of the men widely acknowledged to be amongst the world's best dressed appear to possess very narrow aesthetic preferences, as expressed in very eccentric, focused personal styles. Sure, we can look through any man's past to find dalliances and divergences, but, at the end, we still tend to know them for a particular look. My guess is that diversity and quantity can be excellent methods of experimentation, which may lead to a better end result, but the end result may be neither diverse nor great in quantity.
post #126 of 491
Really insightful thread for a beginner.
Cheers.
post #127 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
You are the extreme version of this, and I think and have always said that I admire how dapper you are.

But you know, I wouldn't recommend doing things your way as I would not recommend doing things my way. What I recommend that I think is common to both of us is to pursue your personal inclinations in how you dress, and do not subsume them to what others think you should do.

Thanks Bill, and I generally agree. However, I have one qualification: I believe it's a lot easier to do what I do than what you do. WAWRN is riddled with examples of variety and quantity gone wrong. You are very unique in your ability to wear so many different things so well. For those of us less sartorially gifted, sticking to a simple, proven formula may be the best bet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will View Post
You will hopefully have plenty of time to develop your taste, though whether taste develops when one wears only one style of shoe is a question that only time will answer. :-)

I've already seen dozens of shoes I envy, and I'm getting seriously grumpy about it--I can feel the bitter style energy coursing through me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rob View Post
Actually, while I love Foo's clothing, his one and only one way is the only way to go attitude irks since it takes the joy out of the whole enterprise. I like to see what he wears but I want to look away once he talks about it. Mr. Sam's photo of Foo would be more complete, in Foo's perfect world, if his towering poster looked down upon a nation dressed exactly as he does. I don't sense that with Vox.

I don't want everyone else to dress exactly like I do. I just think OneShoe might be a good for some of our souls.
post #128 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tarmac View Post
I disagree with the OP but I do think that it's weird to want to be the guy who is known to have a ton of clothes. There are some fellow students at my school who are obviously overly clothes-conscious to the point of looking fussy. I don't want to be like them.

On the other hand, if a man is 40 or 50 years old and buys high-quality items of clothing somewhat regularly, he should have accumulated quite a bit over time.

What I don't understand is people with tons of $300 Japanese repro denim, all bought in the last 2 years. I am a total hoarder of stuff, but I have no need for more than 2 pairs of jeans in rotation, and 2 or 3 older pair which are well-worn. 10x pairs of brand new crispy selvage chaninstitched $350 straightleg jeans from Self Edge - I don't get it.

Hoarding and compulsive <fill in the blank> is of great interest to me, but outside the scope of this thread.

I'd love to participate in a good thread about compulsive <insert topic of message board> but such usually is met with quite a bit of hostility from the local compulsives.
post #129 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
You guys are missing some of the major points here, though I am enjoying the discussion.

F*cker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
You can't put lipstick on a pig?

F*cker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by edmorel View Post
Has dopey weighed in on this yet?

F*cker.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Thanks Bill, and I generally agree. However, I have one qualification: I believe it's a lot easier to do what I do than what you do.

F*cker.


- B
post #130 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
F*cker.

I was saying something nice! Sheesh.
post #131 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
F*cker.



F*cker.



F*cker.



F*cker.


- B

Hey, it's not about you, generic observation. Aren't you supposed to wear a ballcap at all times anyway, this is Boston.
post #132 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuuma View Post
Hey, it's not about you, generic observation. Aren't you supposed to wear a ballcap at all times anyway, this is Boston.

Jesus, you are cruel.

Well done.


- B
post #133 of 491
Having good style on an unlimited budget should be expected behavior. Having good style on a tight budget is commendable. Society should not reward expected behavior.
post #134 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBrown85 View Post
Having good style on an unlimited budget should be expected behavior. Having good style on a tight budget is commendable. Society should not reward expected behavior.

Life is often a choice between the unlimited and the tight.

Cue edmorel.


- B
post #135 of 491
This topic is too subjective for there to be a right and a wrong.
I have a modest wardrobe by SF standards I suppose, with (all cashmere) winter sportcoats in plain navy, brown check, navy check, grey check and tan and three flannel suits in navy, navy pinstripe and grey. Summer brings suits in bone, light grey PoW and navy and sportcoats in navy (2), tan and olive/brown linen. Total for all seasons is 15. With various (mainly) solid ties, flannel pants, cords, jeans (incl white) and shirts in mainly blue and blue and white I feel I have enough combinations to wear something different every day for the rest of my life.
It's not a big wardrobe (but it is by my friends' standards) but it can be made to look interesting and different all the time. All the suits and coats are about eight years old and I don't need any more. Same for shoes, mainly in brown in calf and suede, laceup and loafers along with chukkas.
There is this option or there is the option of actually having something different every day rather than just appearing to.
I don't know quite where I fit in this discussion but I'm content with what I have. I could also easily get by with less, but would probably be uneasy with more.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › If your wardrobe is too large, you end up looking worse.