or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Worst Current Menswear Looks? And define AmJack?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Worst Current Menswear Looks? And define AmJack? - Page 4

post #46 of 64
[quote=Huntsman]Oh, I wasn't -- far too pedestrian. Merely making a point that a single offense shouldn't be the arbiter of a person's sartorial fate, nor of their efforts.


Your own previous post about your outfit "...KSF, Talbott shirt, and Lanvin tie" sounds as if you are saying that the labels make you a fahsionable dresser.

Anyway, what is KSF?

If your suit, shirt and tie are beatiful, coordinated, properly tailored and you have combined these with a pair of Rockports or Eccos, then you have commited a fashionable offense. Inclement weather not withstanding, this is my view.

Sorry if this sounds like I am picking a fight here, but you take issue with style trends that I find objectionable. I am not disputing your choices. Maybe some of my digs hit too close to home. That happens to all of us, so get over it.

Talbott shirts blow in my opinion. Although their OTR offerings have some beautiful fabrics, these shirts are voluminous (and I am not as slim as Jude Law). My two Talbott shirts purchased several seasons apart, both gave me less than six-months wear before the collars shrunk so much they couldn't be worn. One was purchased at half-price for $75.00, the other my wife gave me for Christmas last year and she paid full retail - ouch!

Maybe your Lanvin tie is ugly, too.

Labels do not make a good dresser.

Sorry if I have offended you. I am on a rant.
post #47 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel_Cairo
Best post in the thread, imho, as I think there is a tendency to conflate social class with AmJackism, which is simply not so. AmJacks are not those uncouth types in the fly-over states, who get looked down upon by well-educated, highly-paid elites from the coasts, AmJacks are those whose money, regardless of how much there is, is ill-spent.


The college professor (who was a very natty old Trad) from whom I took his class on Hemingway and Fitzgerald, spoke of an exchange between the two authors.

F. Scott said, "The rich are very different from you and me."

To which Ernest replied, "Yes, they have more money."

I see the AmJack everywhere I go.

The worst was recently on a flight my wife and I took, there were two colleagues sitting one row ahead of us and across the aisle from each other. The worst of the two chewed everything with his mouth open, and then chewed on his coffee straw the rest of the time. He was wearing the quintessential Men's Wearhouse tan suit - Three button with the top two fastened, no jacket vent, black shirt and tie, rubber soled black slip-ons, and hair with way too much gel. He was the boss-man of the two. He sat with one foot always poking out in the aisle, whether or not his short legs were crossed. When the plane landed, immediately he got on his cell phone and talked inanely from the plane, up the jet way, down the past all the gates, and kept on talking on the cell as he walked into the men's room.

Classic AmJack.
post #48 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
The college professor (who was a very natty old Trad) from whom I took his class on Hemingway and Fitzgerald, spoke of an exchange between the two authors.

F. Scott said, "The rich are very different from you and me."

To which Ernest replied, "Yes, they have more money."

I see the AmJack everywhere I go.

The worst was recently on a flight my wife and I took, there were two colleagues sitting one row ahead of us and across the aisle from each other. The worst of the two chewed everything with his mouth open, and then chewed on his coffee straw the rest of the time. He was wearing the quintessential Men's Wearhouse tan suit - Three button with the top two fastened, no jacket vent, black shirt and tie, rubber soled black slip-ons, and hair with way too much gel. He was the boss-man of the two. He sat with one foot always poking out in the aisle, whether or not his short legs were crossed. When the plane landed, immediately he got on his cell phone and talked inanely from the plane, up the jet way, down the past all the gates, and kept on talking on the cell as he walked into the men's room.

Classic AmJack.

So another defining characteristic is a lack of consideration for others. And if we view it in the light of Ben Franklin's maxim "Eat to please yourself; dress to please others," this lack of consideration extends to sartorial matters.
post #49 of 64
Quote:
Your own previous post about your outfit "...KSF, Talbott shirt, and Lanvin tie" sounds as if you are saying that the labels make you a fahsionable dresser.

Anyway, what is KSF?

Heavens, no -- I'd be wearing Armani if that was the case. After you've spent some time here you''ll find that it is quite common for posters to give descriptions of ensembles complete with the make. It is not about the labels, it is about the style espoused by the house, which tells you then about the individual.

KFS stands for the London firm Kilgour, French, Stanbury.

Quote:
If your suit, shirt and tie are beatiful, coordinated, properly tailored and you have combined these with a pair of Rockports or Eccos, then you have commited a fashionable offense. Inclement weather not withstanding, this is my view.

Sorry if this sounds like I am picking a fight here, but you take issue with style trends that I find objectionable. I am not disputing your choices. Maybe some of my digs hit too close to home.

You're probably right. I merely felt it was a little coarse to say that no effort was made.

Quote:
That happens to all of us, so get over it.

I don't really think there is a need for that.

Quote:
Talbott shirts blow in my opinion. Although their OTR offerings have some beautiful fabrics, these shirts are voluminous (and I am not as slim as Jude Law). My two Talbott shirts purchased several seasons apart, both gave me less than six-months wear before the collars shrunk so much they couldn't be worn. One was purchased at half-price for $75.00, the other my wife gave me for Christmas last year and she paid full retail - ouch!

Maybe your Lanvin tie is ugly, too.
Perhaps!

Quote:
Labels do not make a good dresser.

Couldn't agree more.

Quote:
Sorry if I have offended you. I am on a rant.

There was no offense, furthermore nothing this trivial merits apology; however I would hope that ranting is never considered an excuse for offense.

Regards,
Huntsman
post #50 of 64
Hopefully this is isolated the bubble I live in here in FL. Their hair looks like they either gelled it while they were hanging upside down or in the Ceaser cut. And the perfectly manicured chick eyebrows. Half the time they look like they are wearing eye makeup too. That is the worst.

I don't know where this came from, but I hope it goes away quickly.

Cheers,
D
post #51 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
I don't like these looks/trends, and that is what this thread is about. Rubber soled shoes, when worn with a suit or with business casual clothes in dry weather, lacks the finished quality that makes a man a polished dresser. Wearing rubber soled shoes, when (weather permitting) leather is acceptable, is giving up on dressing better. The look you have accepted is a half-hearted attempt above jeans and trainers. I understand why people make these choices, but I will not condone it or just give up and join them either.

Do not confuse for a moment, sir, that I dress in such a fashion as to wear rubber-soled shoes (except when wearing trainers) in such occassions. I am a choir you are preaching to in that regard. I was merely suggesting that it is better that a man makes an effort to dress better, and at some point let us hope they find the virtues of a well-made, leather soled shoe. I never asked you to join them; your eliteness would be lost on most of "them" anyway.
post #52 of 64
Wow, aren't we all on our high horse today. "I, and everybody that dresses like me, are winners and wonderful people; everyone else is an American Jackass." This whole thread is pretty lame.
post #53 of 64
When did "AmJack" become just another term for "redneck?" My understanding of the AmJack definition/stereotype (which was originally put forth by GQ, if memory serves) was the young white collar professional male outfitted in "trendy" jeans, loud "stripy" shirts (untucked), chunky black shoes, and lots of hair gel or other "product." Said person spends their evenings in the "hottest nightclubs" downing the drink du jour while hitting on everything that moves and doesn't have a penis by loudly proclaiming how much money they make.

Again, this is just the stereotype which I've always thought reflected the term "American Jackass."
post #54 of 64
I routinely wear striped shirts and jeans...sometimes with trainers. You would be surpised at the number of positive comments I get on my pink polo. Sometimes I act entitled.

I enjoy being an American Jackass.
post #55 of 64
I have good shoes though...
post #56 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
Wow, aren't we all on our high horse today. "I, and everybody that dresses like me, are winners and wonderful people; everyone else is an American Jackass." This whole thread is pretty lame.

I thought the purpose was to discuss fashion. This thread is amusing, as there have been numerous posts describing the worst in trends that carry the day.

Some have taken exception at points of view expressed here, which in essence hi-jacks the thread.

If you can't suffer fools gladly, why don't you take them to task. I paid for an argument and you are merely giving me contradiction.
post #57 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by odoreater
Wow, aren't we all on our high horse today. "I, and everybody that dresses like me, are winners and wonderful people; everyone else is an American Jackass." This whole thread is pretty lame.
I agree, apart from...
Quote:
But i saw the worst the other day -really skinny leg jeans but with the baggy but crack back end. I think the intention was a kind of wasted punk rock look, but the droopy ass fit was just horrid.
A guy in my high school did that. I'm so glad what's-his-name isn't so popular anymore past high school, because he was pretty much a trend whore and just slept around with girls. Basically he's one of those guys who girls seem to think is hot... but he really isn't at all.
post #58 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
I thought the purpose was to discuss fashion. This thread is amusing, as there have been numerous posts describing the worst in trends that carry the day.

Some have taken exception at points of view expressed here, which in essence hi-jacks the thread.

If you can't suffer fools gladly, why don't you take them to task. I paid for an argument and you are merely giving me contradiction.

Well, first of all, different people come here for different purposes. I don't think there's an overarching purpose per se, and if there is, it certainly isn't to discuss fashion. I've been on this forum for a while now, and I don't see many threads that discuss "fashion." For "fashion" people go to GQ forums or men's style or whatever they are called.

Second, this same thread is rehashed every couple of weeks and I don't find it amusing at all and that's the opinion I was expressing with my post. To me, as I stated in my earlier post, it's pretty lame to sit here and talk shit about people that you don't know a thing about apart from the fact that they button the top two buttons of their three button coat or they wear square toed shoes. If people are so shallow that they'll call someone a jackass based on that, well, that's a pretty sorry state of affairs.

Third, you didn't pay for anything.

It's one thing to be interested in clothing and to make a hobby of it to the point where you come on this forum and discuss these things with other similarly interested people. You get a lot of great information here about what brands offer high quality, where to find good deals, what looks good paired with what, and even some philosophical musings on our hobby. But, I don't really see what the point is of putting other people down for what they wear.
post #59 of 64
A Jackass is defined by his boorish behavior, not by his clothing. There are clothing and styling trends that offend, especially when widely adopted. Because someone wears clothing I don't particularly like, does not make them any less likeable to me. My brother is a horrible dresser, so is my mom, so is my brother-in-law and his wife, but I love them regardless. I just wish they would let me dress them.
post #60 of 64
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey
A Jackass is defined by his boorish behavior, not by his clothing.

There are clothing and styling trends that offend, especially when widely adopted. Because someone wears clothing I don't particularly like, does not make them any less likeable to me. My brother is a horrible dresser, so is my mom, so is my brother-in-law and his wife, but I love them regardless. I just wish they would let me dress them.

--- Well said, an AmJack, which there are many, is defined by poor manners even moreso than poor taste. Nothing offends me more than loud, rude, ignorant and simply annoying members of society.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Worst Current Menswear Looks? And define AmJack?