or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Is GQ crazy?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is GQ crazy? - Page 5

post #61 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigchris1313 View Post
For his bone structure, anyway. If his self-reported statistics are to be believed, he walked onto the football team at University of Washington as a 6'4" 250 lbs. tight end, running a 4.6 40 no less.

That would have made him, what, roughly double the bodyweight of the average SF member?

woa thats crazy! Maybe he just looks skinny...He often wears J Lindeberg on the Soup. He doesn't look like a TE thats for sure.
post #62 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by embowafa View Post
Yeah, but Rihanna's on the cover....so, all's forgiven.

I thought this issue was the worst issue ever. This topped their comic issue. Really don't care how stylish they think BO is, yet bash GB who was know to wear Oxxford suits & AE...which seems fine to me. Personally I think BO at times wears his ties too long LOL.
post #63 of 82
I also find one of the best magazines I have seen for clothing is the Robb Reports fashion issue. Problem with them is if you have to ask you can't afford it.
post #64 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by literasyme View Post
Really? I mean, to each his own, and if he (or you) like to wear a suit like that, fine with me. But from what's visible in the photo, it looks like the lapels are buckling, i.e., it's too tight in the chest; and the trousers look stupidly tight. I don't like baggy fits either, but neither do I find the marked creases caused by tightness flattering. This has nothing to do with being conservative or old-fashioned, I just don't get why one would want to wear a tailored garment that's too small -- it's perfectly possible to tailor it so it fits closely but doesn't pull, after all.
This is the kind of typical MC over-analysis that often misses obvious context. Dude is jumping, he is in motion and you're stilling pulling hairs over minor points of tension. Real life isn't WAYWRN, people don't stand around all day posed perfectly still in order to not have one small slight ripple of "imperfection"
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigchris1313 View Post
For his bone structure, anyway. If his self-reported statistics are to be believed, he walked onto the football team at University of Washington as a 6'4" 250 lbs. tight end, running a 4.6 40 no less. That would have made him, what, roughly double the bodyweight of the average SF member?
What a scrawny androgo-woman!
post #65 of 82
Being in motion is one thing but the body movement in the picture is so unnatural it is becoming tragical.

GQ is allright if you do not have a clue about fashion ,designers and sartorial etiquette.

If you're a little bit more advanced ,you will see the cracks appearing very quickly:Lazy journalism, badly constructed articles, product placement and so many other things.
post #66 of 82
It's surprising how some people can still think that tight fitting automatically equals more restrictive. I thought the whole high/low arm-holes thing cleared that up long ago.
post #67 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcriswel View Post
Here we have one jumping and wearing a tight suit. For the right frame, the newer slimmed down suits look good to me.


Well, that's definitely too tight - even on this doctored photo it's obvious he'd barely be able to move if he attempted to function... - the jacket and the pants pull in multiple places.

I used to like the slim suits trend, but finally my eyes opened to the truth - the surgically precisely fitted clothing is just way too fussy. You don't need this kind of headache on a daily basis to look good. That's how I discovered the J press sack suits, and I don't think I'm ever going back, even though I have slim/atlethic physique that seems to be particularly suited to the slim suits peddled by GQ - I don't like them anyway...
Cary Grant's suit in North-by northwest is the ultimate well fitting but unfussy suit in my mind...
post #68 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by lasbar View Post
Being in motion is one thing but the body movement in the picture is so unnatural it is becoming tragical.

GQ is allright if you do not have a clue about fashion ,designers and sartorial etiquette.

If you're a little bit more advanced ,you will see the cracks appearing very quickly:Lazy journalism, badly constructed articles, product placement and so many other things.

Quoted for telling it like it is. My respect for GQ has direct negative correlation with the improvement of my knowledge and sense of style.
By now the condescending rules and recommendations don't even annoy me, i think they're mostly sad.
I like Glen O'Brien's column though.
post #69 of 82
As a commercial advertising photographer, I'll add in my own perspective... The whole point of the jumping in GQ, is not the jumping per se, but to demonstrate the fact that clothes are meant to be lived in, not fussed with. Look at the majority of shots in GQ and you'll find very few static posed images. It's the imperfections (read, wrinkles) that give the outfit character and interest. Though I agree the jumping motif repeats itself way too often in GQ, the point that it makes is a valid one in my opinion. Whether or not you like the aesthetic, is of course, completely subjective... (And yes, EVERYTHING is pinned...)
post #70 of 82
GQ has never appealed to me ... not once since my first look at it back in the 70s.
post #71 of 82
I'm so happy the scrawny look is in. It helps my Game out.
post #72 of 82
Noticed the same thing. Hardly even look at it anymore, as it's always the same shit. Mostly just read Glenn O'Brien's column since he's a pisser and always right-on. GQ = Guy in a too small khaki suit, plaid shirt, striped tie and a tie bar. Even when they redress the pathetic guys in the too-large pleated chinos and corny wide leather jacket, they strap them in too-small clothes. Funny thing is that if you compare any of their model shoots to their advertising, none of the designers, be they Polo, TH, Gucci, Prada, Zegna, you name it, show the same look. It is the "GQ Look" I guess.
post #73 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lee View Post
It is the "GQ Look" I guess.
I had a female client who would say -- thinking it a compliment -- "You look so GQ today."

When our work together was finally done this client and I developed a good friendship. Late during the course of a five hour lunch at Jeanty at Jack's, after a nice supply of Martinis, she again made use of her "GQ complient." Finally at long last I felt it appropriate to explain (very tactfully and with wit) the reality of the situation. After a long bout of laughter, she shared with me that she always thought GQ (without ever having opened a copy) was to men what Vogue is to women.

Lately she's taken to saying "That looks very Wilkes." I think I've got more splainin' to do.
post #74 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Lee View Post
Noticed the same thing. Hardly even look at it anymore, as it's always the same shit. Mostly just read Glenn O'Brien's column since he's a pisser and always right-on. GQ = Guy in a too small khaki suit, plaid shirt, striped tie and a tie bar. Even when they redress the pathetic guys in the too-large pleated chinos and corny wide leather jacket, they strap them in too-small clothes. Funny thing is that if you compare any of their model shoots to their advertising, none of the designers, be they Polo, TH, Gucci, Prada, Zegna, you name it, show the same look. It is the "GQ Look" I guess.

Seeing Glen try to dress in the stuff the magazine wants to advertise is awkward as hell.
post #75 of 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tibor View Post
I'm so happy the scrawny look is in. It helps my Game out.

Dude, you are so far removed from GQ (in a good way) it is laughable.

You have your own thing going.

Mike
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Is GQ crazy?