If your wardrobe is too large, you end up looking worse. - Page 7

This.

Well said, and very true.


You hit the nail on the head.

If it were anyone else, I would sum that up as contentless. Do you mean "lived in" as I described it earlier...as something left a bit unkempt, in the country and academic way. Or are you actually among those who assert that there is something functionally different in appearence in a jacket that is five years old than one that is one?

I am addressing this directly because it is a pillar of SF orthodoxy, but when you look at photogrpahic examples, the numbers are almost always old dapper guys in the close made to fit them when they were younger, or, men in a mild state of dishevelment.

For example, you are never in that state...you're always quite crisp. (Don't take that too hard.)


Patina is a new-fangled concept, and its usage for city clothes is a recent association with the brown shoe.

- B

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. 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.


I'd agree, but I'd point out that it is a very rare individual who can speak more than one language beautifully. I don't know about you, but I have a hard enough time communicating in the one I was born with.

Rhetoric. On the one hand, the the pathetic internet watchers. On the other, those of us who are living gods. Which shall I pick?

Thus, I shall ignore your real point.

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.

Great thread. Keep it coming.

The "lived in" thing bullshit. You wanna look less put-together? Don't wear an ascot or anything costumey. And don't match your pocket square to your tie. etc.

I think the real issue is the thing Mafoofan often alludes to. People choosing to wear clothes that they like, rather than what actually looks good on them. They also are more inclined to dress inappropriately.

For example, straight leg jeans and a white t-shirt looks frikken awesome in a casual setting, but you only have to look through the WAYWRN thread to see that very few of the S&D guys do this, and even if they do, they'll try to spice it up with some crazy boots or something.

Most people outside SF think the same about 10 pairs for $300+ shoes.

Yes, I would assert that, assuming the clothes are not babied too much. It's not that hard to spot a crisp, new suit. But it's not so much about the state of an individual item as the state of the overall wardrobe. Sure, you might not be able to tell if I've worn a sportcoat five times or ten, but it will look much "newer" if paired with perfectly creased trou and barely creased shoes. There's such a thing as being too put together, and it's unseemly. Clothes needn't look worn out to look well loved -- they just need to have lost the sheen of newness and be worn indifferently. I don't, really. I like things to look nice and fit reasonably well. But I also mix tatty sportcoats from the '60s (one has a ripped-out pocket that's been crudely stitched) with trou I bought off B&S two weeks ago. I don't think anyone who saw me in that getup would accuse me of looking too crisp or too put together. Perhaps it's like what you've said about bespoke -- pictures don't capture all the full effect. Next time I post my suede chelseas, check out the state of 'em. Patina, perhaps, but the notion that clothes shouldn't look too new goes way, way back.

Sure, but shoes are a bit different, I have tons of shoes.

Jeans can be worn everyday, and for years straight if necessary. And they only get better. Not the same for shoes.

It's like a baseball player who has 10 uniforms and 10 gloves. The need for 10 uniforms is obvious. but 10 gloves??

Does this mean you might venture beyond the OneShoe™?

For sure. You can practice an instrument every day and still play it terribly. You can play baseball every day and never be good at it. But there has to be a way to distinguish people who spend a lot of money on clothes, or people who have a lot of clothes, from people who are devoted to clothing. This last person is the dandy. Not all dandies have good style. Most dandies are men of pleasure--they also appreciate fine food, fine furniture, fine art, etc., fine material objects of all kinds. But not all men of pleasure are dandies. And not all dandies have style. This is old news. If you want all the poors to think seriously about their clothing, make their clothing much, much more expensive. Prosperity in the US brought cheap clothing, and cheap clothing freed people from thinking about such material trivia. Boston of all places should display this. I tried to understand this but I failed. I think it's fine to be the guy who has a ton of clothes provided that you own that and wear those clothes with confidence. The guys that look fussy or damaged for their huge collection all have a kind of shame about it, and they don't take care of their clothes, and they waste your time hating themselves in your presence. That's what I've seen at least. And the guy that's 40 or 50 years old doesn't have to keep everything he's ever bought. There is something to be said for moderating the size of your wardrobe to fit the size of your storage space. I enjoy my shirts a whole lot more when they can be spaced out on the closet rail. And I will give away perfectly good shirts that get worn once or twice a year so I can enjoy a not-overcrowded closet every day of the year. Seriously the hoarding behavior has nothing to do with hobbyism. You don't need to be a pack-rat to have good collections.

"Sheen of newness?" I think that is a fiction, made up on the Internet and gotten from books. One of the reasons why one pursues high quality cloth for the making of bespoke suits is to ensure the maximal preservation of its original form and appearence. There is less concern for this in RTW since very little of it is made with longevity as a premise.

Let me show you pic with which my grandfather would have been comfortable:



Notice the slight fraying at the shirt cuff.

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:



I've used the version with George's head this time. Now, is that suit lived in or not? If my suit were fraying, rather than just my shirt cuff, or if it was not pressed, guess what? My grandfather would have hated it (and he would have hated it anyway because it is a European suit.) And my father? The shoes are not nearly shiny enough.

I invite contrary opinions, but one of the reasons why you look great in nearly every photograph you post of yourself is precisely that everything is studied and chosen with thought. This is why on the rare occasions that someone doesn't like what you wear (e.g., Manton and your double patterning), you are able to explain why you decided to do something a certain way. That is thought devoted to clothing, not a dégagé approach at all (please forgive me!)

I am adament on this point for the following reason: this thread addresses something quite directly that I see (and I might be a minority of one) as the biggest problem common in WAYWRN. It is not garishness. It is not false economies and variety. It is the opposite.

Not enough spent. Not enough depth. Not enough variety. A vocabularly of pronouns and adjectives with seldom a full sentence written.

Modern male dress does not require further loosening. It requires tightening, winching, corsetting. A bit of pain.


- B