or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › GQ Business Casual Article
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

GQ Business Casual Article - Page 2

post #16 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by althanis View Post
I know sometimes GQ is looked upon with disdain here...but I think critiquing bad tips is better than having no tips at all.
I like your attitude.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjornb17 View Post
What is up with the too-short pants??? GQ seems to love this look.
It's a pretty popular look on WAYWRN these days, too, which is ironic considering how often GQ gets dissed 'round here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by alexei View Post
True, far too many people wear clothes that are too large for them and billow excess fabric, but few people would wear that and not know those articles are far too large on them.
I think you're overestimating your fellow man here. Nearly every guy I've ever worked with believes that the only item worth tailoring is a rented tux. They wear everything else right off the rack and assume that it automatically makes them look good because it's "dressy" clothing.
post #17 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by aphextwin07 View Post
lol @ this

do people really spend $278 on dress shoes with rubber soles? and a 'hefty' rubber sole at that. lol...

Say it with me now, there are plenty of circumstances in which rubber soles are okay. Get off your high horse.
post #18 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by aphextwin07 View Post
lol @ this do people really spend $278 on dress shoes with rubber soles? and a 'hefty' rubber sole at that. lol...
Yes we will spent that much on rubber soled shoes....and a lot more too. Ever hear of Dainite?
post #19 of 70
What a out $1,995 on an Armani v neck jumper? Madness.
post #20 of 70
For the sake of posterity... the GQ article linked here is an ok guidline but nothing more than entry level information. Where GQ repeatedly fails, is by not paying attention to different body frames and types; a massive over-sight on their part. I suspect the young staff at GQ haven't a clue of what real style is. Rake thin with good bone structure and symmetry, make up only a small minority of men. Therefore, the challenge for GQ (or any other magazine) would be to show how any man can up his look. regardless of his frame, looks or wallet. The manufacturers that advertise in GQ should be pissed to see their product mis-represented over and over and over again. Fashion, style, clothes are for everyone and not just impossibly skinny young men in their 20's with nowhere to go in their new clothes anyway. A typical young man in his 20's, trying to reach these impossible prices will look great, sitting at home watching TV because now he's broke. Whoever is behind these crappy issues of GQ should be fired. The only thing in the October 2010 issue worth reading is the Goodfellas article. I rate this article
post #21 of 70
not a bad article. Thanks for sharing.

-LR
post #22 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Threadbearer View Post
Nearly every guy I've ever worked with believes that the only item worth tailoring is a rented tux. They wear everything else right off the rack and assume that it automatically makes them look good because it's "dressy" clothing.

+100.

Not only that, but they look at you strange if you do tailor something.
post #23 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Man Of Lint View Post
For the sake of posterity...
the GQ article linked here is an ok guidline but nothing more than entry level information.
Where GQ repeatedly fails, is by not paying attention to different body frames and types; a massive over-sight on their part. I suspect the young staff at GQ haven't a clue of what real style is.
Rake thin with good bone structure and symmetry, make up only a small minority of men.
Therefore, the challenge for GQ (or any other magazine) would be to show how any man can up his look. regardless of his frame, looks or wallet.
The manufacturers that advertise in GQ should be pissed to see their product mis-represented over and over and over again. Fashion, style, clothes are for everyone and not just impossibly skinny young men in their 20's with nowhere to go in their new clothes anyway.
A typical young man in his 20's, trying to reach these impossible prices will look great,
sitting at home watching TV because now he's broke.
Whoever is behind these crappy issues of GQ should be fired.
The only thing in the October 2010 issue worth reading is the Goodfellas article.
I rate this article


I hear this over and over again on here. You guys have got to realize that the fashion industry doesn't care about the average man or woman.

Most young men and women may not have the means to buy the clothing represented in these magazines, but i would wager that a significant portion of these fashion brand's sales come from the small group of young, thin, modelesque people who can afford them.

While the average middle aged man or woman is more likely to be able to afford these clothes, they aren't interested in buying them. These magazines and advertisers aren't just bullshitting. There is a reason that ads are aimed at a certain group of people. It is making them money.
post #24 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisb0109 View Post
I hear this over and over again on here. You guys have got to realize that the fashion industry doesn't care about the average man or woman.

Most young men and women may not have the means to buy the clothing represented in these magazines, but i would wager that a significant portion of these fashion brand's sales come from the small group of young, thin, modelesque people who can afford them.

While the average middle aged man or woman is more likely to be able to afford these clothes, they aren't interested in buying them. These magazines and advertisers aren't just bullshitting. There is a reason that ads are aimed at a certain group of people. It is making them money.

agreed.
whens the last time fashion people cared about people with a gut?
i think the proper answer from a fashion person is "gtfo, go lose some fucking weight!" (which i think is very correct - yes go lose some fucking weight!)

look at womens fashion for example.. how many girls have the body of a megan fox? not many! but why they still make, design and advertise clothes specifically for girls with that kind of body?
post #25 of 70
I do like that GQ focuses on fit. Granted, most of their looks I find a bit too shrunken - short jackets, high water pants - but I think it is better then the opposite - tentish jackets and shirts, pants puddling at the ankles. As for the designer brands that they show, they do what they have to do. The magazine is a business and they showcase particular brands to please advertisers. However, fashion being what it is, a non-copyrightable marketplace, all those expensive looks are generally to be had at much lesser prices if you look around enough.
post #26 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by aphextwin07 View Post
do people really spend $278 on dress shoes with rubber soles? and a 'hefty' rubber sole at that. lol...

All the time. I personally own two pairs of $500+ shoes with Dainite (rubber) soles.
post #27 of 70
I am a slim guy, but even I think those pantsand tight cardigans border the too slim for seriousness look. I am always on the look out for slim fitting pants across the thighs and with a hem of 7 7/8 or 8, not anything less. For sweaters, I just size up if possible and doable.
post #28 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexei View Post
That first picture is a bit ridiculous. True, far too many people wear clothes that are too large for them and billow excess fabric, but few people would wear that and not know those articles are far too large on them.
I dunno man. That guy could be in any office I've ever worked in- Brooks Brothers shirts, pleated poly blend trousers the wife bought from Kohl's, shitty square toed rubber soled shoes he got from DSW.. I see it every day. Despite what the article says, wearing a blazer to work in an office like mine (in Austin, Texas) is just impractical. One, 70% of the year it's just too hot, and two, everyone is wearing t-shirts and jeans. The odd day that you actually wear wool trousers, people comment on it and jokingly ask if you have an interview or something. Admittedly, the last time I wore wool trousers at my office.. it was only because a director was visiting. There used to be a guy who regularly wore blazers to the office, and everyone just thought he was a douche. True, he also wore "guy-liner," a spray-on tan, and was a shameless brand-whore, but still.
post #29 of 70
Quote:
Originally Posted by aphextwin07 View Post
lol @ this do people really spend $278 on dress shoes with rubber soles? and a 'hefty' rubber sole at that. lol...
Yes. And more, in fact. I've even had custom made shoes with rubber soles in styles that I've liked (and someone mentioned Dainite here). I've Plantar fasciitis and anything other than rubber soles are a nightmare. I'm also on my feet a lot and traveling most of the time. I wish more shoes came with a rubber sole option -- aesthetic over comfort seems to be the mantra today, unfortunately.
post #30 of 70
"A tailored jacket gives your torso some much needed shape" Right, assuming it's not on a guy that weighs 135lbs. That model's torso has about as much shape as an olson twin. Considering what the article was trying to accomplish, it was awful.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › GQ Business Casual Article