Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Elegance and measurements
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Elegance and measurements - Page 2

post #16 of 28
This is true for what the British and European looks favored.

I have a 27 and 32.
post #17 of 28
32, 32..I'm square
post #18 of 28
Isn't elegance determined by how a person carries themselves, as opposed to arbitrary decisions on ratio of limbs to waist.

Or is there some golden ratio version for the human body? I know painters/sketch artists etc have some rules of thumb on how to proportion when drawing a human body, but I have a feeling the most famous tend to ignore these rules!
post #19 of 28
30x32 woot woot
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by gefinzi
An interesting proposition.

The illustrated figures in the early Esquire magazines might fit your criteria and they certainly look elegant. However, when I consider how skinny I would have to be given my 32" inseam, it seems impossible, people would think I was anorexic. I have a 35" waist but would probably look best with a 33".

Those illustrations do seem to be created to show some idealized figures. Legs are very long relative to body height. Then the shoulders seem very broad - along with the narrow waist. It would be very hard for the average man to have his clothing tailored to give that appearance.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charley
Those illustrations do seem to be created to show some idealized figures. Legs are very long relative to body height. Then the shoulders seem very broad - along with the narrow waist. It would be very hard for the average man to have his clothing tailored to give that appearance.
Hence they had that caption: "The Agony of the Average".
post #22 of 28
The most elegant proportions for clothing is 40L. This is the standard runway sample size.
post #23 of 28
It seems the prototype is a sort of a swimmer's mould.
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing
It seems the prototype is a sort of a swimmer's mould.

The swimmers physique is marked by oversized shoulders, neck and arms(length) while having relatively undersized waist and hips. This physique requires MTM/Bespoke suits and shirts. Can you feel my pain?
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike C.
The most elegant proportions for clothing is 40L. This is the standard runway sample size.

Sweet, I'm about a 41L (usually wear 42L though because 41L is not that common) so not to much to go.
post #26 of 28
36 x 32 but 8 of those inches are my d....
post #27 of 28
30w 31.5 inseam, but I doubt that will last much past college if the rest of my family is anything to go on. My dad was skinny like a stick until about 25 and now he is big. Metabolism is solely responsible for my low weight at the moment.

And I'm sure I would look great iif it were easy to find 30w pants that didn't have a lower rise than a comparable 32 or 34.
post #28 of 28
34 x 34

i think if i were much skinnier i would look ridiculous, as i am 6'5"...i already tend to get comments along the lines of 'beanpole'....and my friends tell me i look like peter crouch, for those of you acquainted with soccer....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Elegance and measurements