If your wardrobe is too large, you end up looking worse. - Page 14

"That would be self-hatred. Which is unhealthy."


- B

No reason for a fight. I love the thrill of the hunt & buying new things all to much which is why I have set a personal limit. Even though I do not exceed (for an extended period of time) those limits, I'm constantly buying stuff. Trust, I wish I had the space to keep it all.

Sometimes I get OCD and wear the same suit over and over again, only changing the shirt, tie, square and shoes.


I'll have the almond biscotti and black coffee, please.

Good. When this came out, I was instantly doomed by friends to Nick Smith.

And please: Tommy.


- B

I like your system, which is geared (get it?) to improvement.

I've been doing something similar, but not as disciplined. I probably have about half the clothes that I had five years ago. Each new bespoke thing involved donating two or three old RTW/MTM things.



- B

Once I lose some of my, uhm, momentum, I would like to embark on bespoke and do the same. Either that or buy all of the Paul Stuart Charles cuts as those are the closest thing to bespoken I have bought to date.

I agree with Vox--about the fake "lived-in" look, about having more suits rather than trying to make up for it by overdoing it with accessories, etc.

Except about the shoes (and I realize I'm not the first to say this). Shoes ought to look like they're lived in, and that's tough to do when you've got a hundred pairs of $500 shoes.

I think PG's post may have said it best. Aren't we all over thinking this? Doesn't the existence of someone like Vox kind of debunk the OP's argument? Dude has what looks to he an insanely large wardrobe and he has a success rate in the high 90%ile with what he wears. I think it boils down to a couple things... 1) You either have "it" or you don't. It doesn't matter how you got it, just that you have it. Guys like vox, PG, iammatt, cravate noir, maomao, yfyf have it. It doesn't matter how large their wardrobe is and how worn/lived-in/"owned" their items are. Sure, having the money to purchase said items is important, but key. Their style allows them to pick items, coordinate them, and wear them with what is perceived to be relative ease. Their consistency and success via good fits (and good photography, which is an underrated factor) leads to the next big point..... 2) WAYWRN thread. What started off as an innocent way of sharing what you happen to be wearing today has snow balled (mutated?) into the beast it is today. Everyone sees how good the aforementioned posters look and the first thought for new people is "Wow, I want to look just like those guys!". And in a rush to immitate these looks people forget that these guys have been honing their wardrobe/'craft' for YEARS. (Regardless of the size, the clothes they wear have years of thought behind them) People start posting their looks and the rest is downhill. As a relative noob to this board and men's clothing, I can speak from first hand experience. I've gotten caught up in the hype and circle jerk and posted fits that probably aren't the best, but I just wanted to be a part of it, I guess. The direction of the thread has taken a turn toward posting for the sake of posting. The fits, regardless of their general success, are usually met with a circle-jerky or which has kind of turned me off to the thread. I tend to agree with the previous poster who said that it seems that people are wearing these clothes just to post them on this message board. IMO, the poster child for the new nature of this thread is Mr. Moo. (I'm sure this will get me a 'go fuck yourself' response, but it really is the truth) He came onto this board with good intentions and he figured out that the key to a succesful post is some solid photography, and okay clothes. The rest is history. I mean, would Moo have ever REALLY even considered wearing the now infamous shorts suit if his previous fits weren't met with such thunderous applause? Think about it, he looked at those clothes, decided that the guys on SF would give him a and the hits would keep on coming. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that if it were not for WAYWRN, he would never think of wearing AND photographing that outfit. I'm probably rambling now, but my conclusion to the OP is that it doesn't matter how large your wardrobe is, if you have style, you have style. This message board, for all of its benefits (and they outweigh the negatives by a landslide), has created a culture where the focus isn't on the process of discovering your style but just sharing ANYTHING you can come up with as fast as possible.

I guess that isn't really what I am talking about, or at least, you, and many others seem to think about and intellectualize clothing to a degree which would never cross my mind. I suppose I am blind to, or at least consciously blind to, ideas dealing with various social and regional backgrounds. Now, you will say that I prefer clothing that is distinctly regional, but really I prefer that clothing despite the fact that it is regional, and simply because it fits my eye. To me, while the analysis can be interesting (when somebody else is doing it,) it leads to the very phenomenon I am talking about, which is the inability to own what you wear because it is something that is though about and rationalized rather than bought because it is enjoyable and fits into the life you lead every day. At least, that is what I think.

I agree, Matt. There are 3 things that drive me to make a purchase; 1. I must like it, like I have to have it (pleasing to my eye), 2. It's something most others wouldn't buy, can't find anymore or just think is wrong & 3. Price.

Take the paisley Polo jacket I once wanted. I liked the look, I knew not too many others would have bought it nor could go out and buy one if they did like it. What held me back was the price.

My travels preclude me from giving real time (or thought) to this matter ... and so does the spotty internet service. As you know, of course, I'm severely iChallenged ... but I'll take advantage of it when I find it.

In the mean time I leave you with fighting words ...

Iammatt has hit the nail squarely on the head.

And now ... I must go find breakfast. Sorry vox ... no camera with me.

It seems to me that the degree to which you think about clothes has no direct relationship to this notion of "owning" what you wear.

Here's an excerpt from my re-post of Filangieri's old piece on AAAC on Neapolitan tailoring:


Now, despite what a person with a philosophy of non-chalance about clothes might call an obsession with details, could one actually claim that these men of leisure did not "own" their Neapolitan clothes? They most certainly did.

Now, their obsession was aesthetic. Beyond that, it was probably devoid of intellectual content, and therefore, they were not "intellectualizing" clothes in the way that I think you mean.

I think, however, that 99% what you might call intellectualizing on Internet clothing forums is really just shooting the breeze...like I am doing right now.


- B