Recent non-Sartorialist Looks - Page 573

I wonder how many TF ties I have sold him on eBay without knowing.

Jacket, tie, and shirt collar are pure '70s.
Pants, which we can't see, should be bell-bottomed
or at least boot-cut to complete the retro look.
Hair also too short.

Gotta admit, would kop that jacket in a heartbeat.

Damn, even gotta to hate on the do

I find those trousers really cool and fashionable. I like those shoes along with the trouser.

Quote:

I agree with you. The problem with retro is that if you don't pay attention to details, it looks like playing dress-up. Because of his hair, he looks like he's not really committed to this look and unfortunately, that undermines what are actually some pretty damn cool threads.

 

this guy looked like he took his girlfriend's jacket by accident when he ran out the door.

Bad laundry service?

It is a woman's jacket...

The jacket is just stunning.

Perhaps. Conversely, if you simply recreate a retro look down to the last detail, would that not be more 'costume' than anything else?

However, I do agree that this look is not quite gelling, and even that he doesn't look quite convinced himself that the look is 'all that'. For me, I think it's mostly the tie.

I do wish we could see the rest of the look. I'm wondering what it look like if it was completed with straight cut pants but with some fairly high heeled 70's ish shoooooz. Sort of a 70's inspired take on today's slim pants/big shoes look.

The good thing about mr. james is that you can be certain there will be another interesting look to follow - and each seems to offer an intriquing mix of brilliance and absurdity!
Edited by Gdot - 9/30/11 at 8:54am

Agreed - the jacket simply isn't working here. It's just the wrong cut.

Unfortunately for this look if you take away the jacket there is nothing about it that hasn't been done better a million times already.

I do like me some tweed. And even though turned up collars are often derided, I sometimes like them. But it's a risky touch that usually only works in the hands of a master.

I'm sure there is a LOGICAL explanation for this three-way-some: