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 10

post #136 of 491
I think that we can all agree that 15 done well is better than 30 done poorly.

I think that we also can agree that if one does 30 well , but can do the same with 15, that shows aplomb.

But, lets say that you do 30 poorly. Why would moving to 15 mean you do better?

And what if having 30 allows you do to do things that 15 does not allow?

Let me cheat. Let's say that 15 is all suits and jackets, but 16 is a dinner suit.

Is #16 too much variety?

If it is not, why not #18 rope stripe flannel DB suit?

Again, I think the fact of the matter is the people have insufficient variety, not an abundance.



- B
post #137 of 491
Maybe I missed this or maybe I don't know what I am talking about..but here goes.

Vox, looks the way he does not because of a large wardrobe, but because of the clothing that he wears and how he wears it. ( which I think is his point)

Very early on I pointed out how the robotic poses made his items look dead to me. In real life they look a thousand times better, but still have this aura of newness. He had point out the frayed shirt cuff, and still he looked crisp.

Now let's take a member I'm surprised has not been mentioned PG. He shows us a brand new jacket, just arrived that morning and he looks like he has had it for years. He continues to change his wardrobe and almost always give off that effect. ( I wonder if this point is what Matt was referring to)

Foo, gives us a very limited wardrobe and we know he wants to look "loved in" like the Foobinacci, but to me he doesn't he looks very put together for lack of a better phrase.

Ok maybe it's the Condriue talking, but those are my thoughts.
post #138 of 491
Actually Vox, I forget. 16 is my dinner suit. SB peak lapel, mohair/wool.
post #139 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
F*cker.


- B

Fine. I think Radicaldog has it wrong, but is looking in the right direction. It isn't the fact that something is well worn that makes for good style, though it is a look that I like myself. What makes for good style is that the person who is wearing the piece owns it. It matters only a little that it is of the best quality, or that it is a well chose fabric, or that this stitch or that is put in by an elfin master using a hand forged gold thimble. I think he makes the observation that many things posted here don't looked owned by their wearer, but it has little to do with how often they are worn, and everything to do with how they are worn.

I haven't looked recently at the WAYWN thread, so I have no idea about the specifics being debated, and I certainly don't know the breadth of the wardrobes of many posters here, but when I do look, those two things that people are complaining about, the super wrinkled, worn in look, and the unworn too cared for look, morph into one painful view of people wearing clothing they don't own. To use radicaldog's metaphor, I had a Land Rover for years. The driver seat was molded to my ass, and the inside was splattered with various things like the paint from my wife's office, and cheap Chinese food. I wouldn't have given it up (my wife ran it into a scaffolding truck, so I didn't really have a choice,) but if it had just been a broken down old Land Rover, I really wouldn't have cared. I think that is what I am trying to say, but am not completely sure.

Anyway, I can't say this goes for everybody, because I don't look that often, but it seems like the two sides of this "debate" are, in many ways, equally wrong to me. I also do not think that having a lot of things actually adds or subtracts from stylishness. I have a few things, but I have a lot of interests and not a lot of closets, so it goes.
post #140 of 491
Define "too large."
post #141 of 491
The thread title is wrong as a general rule, but lately Radical dog has been trying to get at elegance through a certain simplicity. Less is more. What I hear Vox saying is- perhaps, but the general vision of too much here is incorrect. One needs to reach wardrobe of a critical size before one starts to entertain a less is more view.

I side with Kinglsey Amis and a long tradition that overt displays of wealth are garish- no, the Russian newly wealthy have never struck me as dressing well, or even Socal style interestingly.

And no one yet has given a counter-example to Vox's idea that the SF idea of lived in tailored clothing derives from men of a certain age living in clothes that are a decade old. PG- maybe, but he looks sharp when wearing his full-up tailored gear. It's his dressed down sportcoat outfits that look lived in.

The academics I know that express that academic/country unpressed rumpled tailored clothing really look rumpled and drapey- they wouldn't show up in WAYRN shots as paragons.
post #142 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Night Owl View Post
I didn't know you were gay
From what little we can see, I think she looks great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
...Unlike nearly everyone on this forum, I wear old stuff. That shirt above is probably twelve years old or older...as are nearly all my dress shirts. The suit is fifteen. The links? Maybe eighty years old. Also, unlike most on this forum who wear old stuff, the old stuff is (mostly) mine and not thrifted, stuff that I bought back in the day. Here's the suit again...
My brothers and I wear lots of old stuff. Some of it was our dad's, some our grandfathers', our uncles', even each others'. Then we get a fair amount of things from thrift stores -- in great part because we really believe in the human family... But I'm not sure that old or new is necessarily better. I do love old things, like shirts, shoes and belts that I've had for over 20 yrs. But I also like new things, like my MeToo version of the OneShoe. In terms of large vs. small wardrobes, my bias is toward small. Since I was a kid, my philo. has been to have fewer things but better things. Over time, however (and I'm only in my mid thirties), it's grown pretty large, probably too large. While I still prefer having fewer things, I don't think having many things makes one look worse. Keeping track of and coordinating things gets tougher as the selection grows, but with a great memory and a sharp mind, one can do it and do it well, as Vox usually does imo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
...my wife ran it into a scaffolding truck,...
Glad she's OK, unless of course you meant one of your previous ones.
post #143 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Possible, yes--but desirable? I'm less sure. I think it's worth considering the notion that, ultimately, we each have a very little to say stylistically, and we each might be better off learning how to communicate a single message with increasing clarity and persuasiveness than trying to spread other messages.

Basically if you can play only one note learn to do it very well. I can accept that but the one note players can't be classed with the best. Safe is rarely the way to the heights.

Are you better trying to climb K2 and failing or sitting at base camp?
post #144 of 491
Can someone enlighten me on the concept of "lived in" as far as clothing are concerned? The only people I've seen with lived in clothes are those who are homeless and live on the streets.

Hell, isn't the shiny wool in the elbows, forearms and seat of a suit, which many of us here detest, also an element of lived in? Why are "lived in clothes" so coveted? Unlike, leather which develops patina and character, I would want my clothes to look spanking new.
post #145 of 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSS View Post
Define "too large."

Yes, please do. We need to get a handle on what you mean.
post #146 of 491
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
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

Of course. I'm not advocating faking oldness and trusty-ness!
post #147 of 491
Thread Starter 
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. 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.

This is true, methinks. Voxsartoria is probably the best dressed of the people with large wardrobes here. And he is very well dressed sub specie aeternitatis. I don't think this thread is about him, strictly speaking. The question is simply whether a smaller wardrobe wouldn't improve an already very good record.
post #148 of 491
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSS View Post
Define "too large."
I think the wardrobe described by Diavolo is about right (not just because it's about the size of mine!). I wouldn't increase it by more than 30%. After that your style budget is better spent elsewhere. In art, say. There's an AA illustration somewhere which shows a man's shoe rack -- probably about 15 pairs of shoes and boots. I've got more than that, and I think I've got too many.
post #149 of 491
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by james_timothy View Post

The academics I know that express that academic/country unpressed rumpled tailored clothing really look rumpled and drapey- they wouldn't show up in WAYRN shots as paragons.

I guess that's one of the reasons why I don't do WAYWRN!
post #150 of 491
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
I think that we can all agree that 15 done well is better than 30 done poorly.

I think that we also can agree that if one does 30 well , but can do the same with 15, that shows aplomb.


The second point was one of my main points. Glad we agree.



Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
But, lets say that you do 30 poorly. Why would moving to 15 mean you do better?

If you have the same range, then you must be doing something better if you can cover it with fewer garments. That seems to follow from the agreed point above. Unless you want to argue that it only holds if you can do things 'well'. But why would that be the case? Again, keep the level of accomplishment and the range of appropriateness constant, reduce the number of garments, and you'll probably get a person with a better sense of dress. At least that's what I think.

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
And what if having 30 allows you do to do things that 15 does not allow?

Let me cheat. Let's say that 15 is all suits and jackets, but 16 is a dinner suit.

Is #16 too much variety?

If it is not, why not #18 rope stripe flannel DB suit?

Again, I think the fact of the matter is the people have insufficient variety, not an abundance.

Well, this is cheating a bit. I think the original argument assumed that the ideal wardrobe is the one that has just the right amount of clothes to cover all possible occasions. The wardrobe described by Diavolo should do that.

Also, sorites arguments aren't terribly helpful here, as we're dealing with obviously vague predicates.

It's true that many people have insufficient variety; but that doesn't mean that there isn't such a thing as a wardrobe that is too large.
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.