Originally Posted by Get Smart
I'd say your analogy is more akin to a guy wearing Mens Wearhouse vs (for example) Etro. Yea, they're both suits, but yet COMPLETELY different in aesthetic. If we're using cars, I would use the analogy of a stock Ford Crown Victoria and Lincoln Towncar. The Lincoln has many more refinements, but they're both staid looking vehicles (imo).
* and I would have at least compared to a Cayman...the Boxster is kinda "eh", again imo
I'd replace the Towncar with a Rolls-Royce. Phantom for the Brioni/Fioravanti crowd, Phantom IV for the Savile Row-style, heavyweight loving crowd. The analogy doesn't work, though, because the branding of all cars is so prominent, as opposed to the subtlety of bespoke suits/shoes. Maybe one of those flashy, but ill-made Mercedes vs a Koenigsegg.
I still think cars are the wrong exmaple.
I do agree, actually, that many posters here aren't terribly stylish. But I'd question whether the GQ members are. Just because they wear ties with polos, in accoradnace to the latest ad campaign of whatever designer (and often not prime labels), doesn't make them stylish. Similar to if one followed conventional Savile Row dressing to a T.
It's an old trope, but slavish adherence to the winds of fashion is a sort of conformity of its own. And stylishness always derives from some non-conformity.