or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III - Page 1620  

post #24286 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

Just wore it as I would any other outfit I 've made mention of or have posted on this forum (not in MC, mind you) : out and about, a midday stroll and coffee, doing things I do on a regular basis, taking photos of my environment, meeting friends, I did sit in on a talk but it was by no means a formal affair, etc.

I guess to me the colors, or lack thereof, make it feel very stark and severe for an informal/daytime situation, but the cut and untucked shirt make it too casual for a more formal situation.

That aside, purely on an aesthetic basis, I think what's getting me is the untucked shirt. What kind of fabric is it? Usually shirtings don't really drape in curtain-y kind of way that are conducive to the "voluminous' kind of fit you're talking about. The fabric of the pants and jacket work better in this regard. I'm probably not articulating this well at all, but every time I come to some appreciation of the fabric and fit of the jacket and pants, the shirt makes the whole thing look sloppy instead of relaxed and reminds me of why I didn't like the photo when I first saw it.
post #24287 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post

To the first question, perhaps it's down to personal preference (i.e. not liking non-suit fits? disliking voluminous fits? disliking the mix of fabrics, dislike for my disregard of rules ascribed to here), pre-conceived notions about certain paradigms, disdain for anyone associated with SW&D (though I transcend such tribal boundaries, myself), my trolling by posting yohji/damir in MC WAYWRN thread focused on much more formal aesthetics, people unfamiliar with fashion beyond what they like, the flawed logic of "subjectivity" spouted off as some truth, perceived arrogance on my part (no intended), etc.

Apologies if it came across as such, as I said before I'm quite comfortable with what I wear regularly, but I'm not interested in defending my look so much as--forgive the repetition--specifically addressing the question, "what does it take to appreciate this look," which, in my opinion, is not much else than an open mind, good taste in general, knowledge of different aesthetics (this is, after all, a forum dedicated mostly to style, which is quite a vague term that encompasses a great deal), and perhaps, with the links provided, those who were unfamiliar with the brands could realize in what context this picture would make sense.

Ah. Well, that is very thoughtful and I appreciate what you are saying.

I really have no idea what the MC "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it really is not like the type of thing that more and more dominates the fascination or attention of the guys in the SW&D forum.

I really have no idea what the SW&D "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it seems to reflect the notion that clothes for men consist of multiple and equally valid costumes. One of these costumes is the MC "look." There are other costumes as well. Ninja. Bear. Yoji. Yoshi. Harajuku. Within each, some expressions are optimal and many are awful, and there is maneuvering for popularity. Many costumes are literally invented by particular individuals (designers? bloggers?), some of whom make their living merchandizing (tweeting?) their concept to mass buyers (followers?), and then replacement concepts if they are lucky enough to make a continuous living at it.

The big difference is that many who are active in the MC forum do not have this perpective. Their particular viewpoint is to seek an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothes. For some (a diminishing subset), it is a simple daily requirement of professional and social life...to dress as their father, grandfather, and so on among other men who also dress the same way. For some, it is an aesthetic decision to recover and preserve old things that are more beautiful than new things. For yet others, it is a form of nostalgia bound up in concepts of society and culture. It can be one, two or all three. But common among all three reasons is a rejection of equal contextual validity of every conceivable form of design. So, some MC dudes get mad when someone claims equality with the patrimony of the West.

Frankly, when it comes to mens clothes, we long ago passed the moment of shock when truly new things have been done. This is why pretty much everything in SW&D looks derivative or recycled. And I feel free to apply those terms because outside of the festishistic Japanese "American workwear" revival moment of a few years ago (which I personally love and wear), the looks are both dated and yet presume the pretense of something fresh.

That sin, at least, is not committed in the MC forum, for all its faults. There is never the pretense of recycling something old as new, since everything is old anyway.

How's that?
post #24288 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post

Is this a good time to start being austere?

No, don't let them suppress your youthful desires.
post #24289 of 78722
You are equal parts bright and insightful. And that's after two too many beers.

Cheers, Bill. Always a pleasure.

Rob
post #24290 of 78722

FUCK EM

 

just kidding, those guys do god's work.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post


I failed again?
+1
Do we need another MC vs. SWD challenge to settle this? What would we do with teh MC Casual crowd now?


 

post #24291 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digmenow View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I'm asking this question in advance since there may not be much time for suggestions later. I am awaiting delivery of this navy Brooks Brothers DB. I would like to wear it during the main day of our company's annual management conference to be held next week at a resort in northern Jersey next week.
467
The dress code (remember, I work for a company that requires me to wear a black shirt and khaki pants now on a daily basis) is Business Casual. In the past, that has meant anything from a suit without a necktie to khakis and a polo shirt.
Assuming I can get alterations on it in time, what can I wear with the DB to keep everything on a BC level but still dress well? I plan to go tieless but bring a couple along just in case.
Or should I just forget the DB and pick out a sport coat?
P.S.? Just yes or no will suffice.
My available wardrobe includes ( but is not limited to) the following choices:
Shirts:
  1. White / Semi spread collar / Single button barrel cuff
  2. White / Button collar / Single button barrel cuff
  3. White / Semi spread collar / French cuff
  4. White and Navy bengal stripe / Semi spread collar / single button barrel cuff
  5. White and Navy bengal stripe / Semi spread collar / French cuff
  6. Pink / Button collar / Single button barrel cuff
  7. 'Business' blue / Semi spread collar / Single button barrel cuff
  8. Other? Please suggest.
Pants:
  1. Assorted light tan to British tan khaki or wool
  2. Light to medium gray worsted wool solid or small nailhead
  3. Other? Please suggest.
Footwear: All leather soles unless noted. (Click to show)
  1. th_P2240434.jpg (Vibram soles)
  2. th_IMG_20120307_080943.jpg
  3. th_PA280154.jpg
  4. th_PC160278.jpg
  5. th_IMG_20110416_082424.jpg
  6. th_PB040180.jpg
  7. th_P9200021.jpg
Thanks in advance for any help.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post

Personally, I think it's really hard to pull off a tie-less DB. I'd go with SB.
So, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post



Throw on a casual shirt (e.g. one of your button-down collared ones), undo the top couple of buttons, put on a pair of well-fitting chinos/khakis and a pair of your dark-brown derbies. If you like, add in a silk or linen square in any non-squared-off fold. Safe & easy while still smart, if potentially unexciting (probably not a bad thing in the context you'll be in)...
Wait. Yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Check it out...white Brooks BD and white hanky...happy now, smart guy*? Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
i-vswLKPC-XL.jpg
* Shirt also has a monogram at the lower left rib...in white!
Maybe?
Quote:
Originally Posted by acridsheep View Post

Dude on blackberry: You should see this douchenozzle in a grey poupon jacket sitting in front of me, LOL!
Wife: OMG, send pic! Are you wearing the tire tread cuff links I bought you for Christmas?

Back to no...except...
Quote:
Originally Posted by acridsheep 
"Tan slacks and a white OCBD with DB. Make sure you arrive on a boat, however."

sigh.
post #24292 of 78722
Shah, when I first saw your fit, I thought of Robert Smith circa 1987. Happy memories enveloped me, and I again imagined I was a cooler Ducky.

Take that as you wish.
post #24293 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by the shah View Post


you don't need any particular number, you just gotta have the slightest modicum of good taste with a bit of knowledge about what you're looking at. i guess it helps if you've heard of the labels which are, without doubt, more likely to be appreciated elsewhere (yohji yamamoto jacket, damir doma shirt + trousers from several seasons ago). those aren't sneakershoes either, they're boots. admittedly look awkward in that pic, but it is what it is. i just posted this here because it's probably the closest I've come to wearing a formal outfit in some while. the one suit I do own is a spring/summer '09 raf simons in some crazy shark-skin-looking black fabric so I don't imagine that will ring much of a bell either ? anyway, i prefer yohji's take on the anti-fit men's wear, smashing Wagnerian traditions during his one venture in operatic costume-making. The volume is quite fun to play with, as are the fabrics (though I've no doubt here people can appreciate the best of textiles).


I think its dangerous to accuse anyone who doesn't share your aesthetic preferences, or deem all fits acceptable just because of the brands they come from, tasteless. taste is subjective, and while taste/tasteless is determined by connoisseur status or consensus (think how most of us, MC or SWD look to a "normal" person) it really is just as valid to say an orange jumpsuit looks as good as a tom ford suit if the person wearing it thinks so, just not everyone will agree.

 

FWIW though, I like the fit, and I see what you're going for, although my pasty caucasian ass would look like a total clown in it. much like most other clothing.

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by black_umbrella View Post


WE sorta had this argument in MC casual last week. Everyone's free to read all 200+ posts of that saga if they want.


MY BAD



Quote:
Originally Posted by EMartNJ View Post

Pretentious use of language fail.


The fuck does "pretentious" mean? Drop the SAT words, college boy ;)

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by SpooPoker View Post

Im late for the party.
I was busy as shit today. This is a suit.


Its okay spoo, you look good in C(ish)BD. 

 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post


Yep. There's much more to being stylish than perfect fit. In fact, some people might find "perfect fit" boring. The whole notion of fit is relative anyway imo. Most of us know what good fit means in the "MC" sense. But there's a whole spectrum of design approaches out there that veer from the classical ideal... on purpose. One doesn't have to like them, but he should at least acknowledge that these different approaches exist and that they are often more appealing to a lot of guys than being "classic".


^smart.

post #24294 of 78722
Liam O - I attempted to clarify the very same confusion just a few posts above, for what it's worth. I'll refrain from repeating myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Ah. Well, that is very thoughtful and I appreciate what you are saying.

I really have no idea what the MC "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it really is not like the type of thing that more and more dominates the fascination or attention of the guys in the SW&D forum.

I really have no idea what the SW&D "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it seems to reflect the notion that clothes for men consist of multiple and equally valid costumes. One of these costumes is the MC "look." There are other costumes as well. Ninja. Bear. Yoji. Yoshi. Harajuku. Within each, some expressions are optimal and many are awful, and there is maneveuring for popularity. Many costumes are literally invented by particular individuals (designers? bloggers?), some of whom make their living merchandizing (tweeting?) their concept to mass buyers (followers?), and then replacement concepts if they are lucky enough to make a continuous living at it.

The big difference is that many who are active in the MC forum do not have this perpective. Their particular viewpoint is to seek an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothes. For some (a diminishing subset), it is a simple daily requirement of professional and social life...to dress as their father, grandfather, and so on among other men who also dress the same way. For some, it is an aesthetic decision to recover and preserve old things that are more beautiful than new things. For yet others, it is a form of nostalgia bound up in concepts of society and culture. It can be one, two or all three. But common among all three reasons is a rejection of equal contextual validity of every conceivable form of design. So, some MC dudes get mad when someone claims equality with the patrimony of the West.

Frankly, when it comes to mens clothes, we long ago passed the moment of shock when truly new things have been done. This is why pretty much everything in SW&D looks derivative or recycled. And I feel free to apply those terms because outside of the festishistic Japanese "American workwear" revival moment of a few years ago (which I personally love and wear), the looks are both dated and yet presume the pretense of something fresh.

That sin, at least, is not committed in the MC forum, for all its faults. There is never the pretense of recycling something old as new, since everything is old anyway.

How's that?

This might, though pointing to some obvious realities often overlooked, be one of the best remarks I've read on SF re: clothing/aesthetic.

In fact, the idea of "an aesthetic decision to recover and preserve old things that are more beautiful than new things" is much closer to my heart as an antiquarian of sorts. Perhaps I go back farther than your description implies, as I mentioned before the 19th century peasant aesthetic for whatever reason seems quite agreeable for me and as such I am fond of [admitted] recreations such as Paul Harnden tweeds and Geoffrey B Small sack suits, etc. Nothing pretending to be new

I do think some of this nostalgia is perhaps based on ~1950s perception of the successful white male which seems a bit restrictive and possibly forced, that might just be my misperception, but again, this was fantastic. If you don't mind, I'd like to share bits and pieces of your opinion here.

* * *
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I guess to me the colors, or lack thereof, make it feel very stark and severe for an informal/daytime situation, but the cut and untucked shirt make it too casual for a more formal situation.

That aside, purely on an aesthetic basis, I think what's getting me is the untucked shirt. What kind of fabric is it? Usually shirtings don't really drape in curtain-y kind of way that are conducive to the "voluminous' kind of fit you're talking about. The fabric of the pants and jacket work better in this regard. I'm probably not articulating this well at all, but every time I come to some appreciation of the fabric and fit of the jacket and pants, the shirt makes the whole thing look sloppy instead of relaxed and reminds me of why I didn't like the photo when I first saw it.

Actually this is quite true, and I had considered tucking it. In fact I think I had originally tucked but decided against it. The shirt is cotton, slight sheen to it. It's also longer in the front.
same shirt (Click to show)
JLKsw.jpg
worn with Ann D wool trousers and Damir boots that I no longer own, not as comfortable as I'd have liked.

* * *

In conclusion, and hopefully now we can move to the next chapter, as I echoed earlier in a SW&D thread, there are plenty in MC I enjoy having discussions with (to which I can now add several more names!), plenty that are well-versed in style, fabrics (very important!), fit (whatever this might entail), etc. some have authored books on the mater, and otherwise quite successful/intelligent people. As someone pointed out, the rule-bound folks are unfortunately louder (not unlike the plethora to be found in SWD recommending geller/slimming/gats/denim and what have you to anyone with no regard to personal preference, desired outcomes, direction, body type, ...) and this seems especially true now that many folks have gone on to other SFrealms, though this bit is cyclical and there will be new generations of well-refined on both ends of this place.
Edited by the shah - 3/15/12 at 9:02pm
post #24295 of 78722
Diggsy check out Pierce Brosnan as Bond in Goldeneye the scenes on the Mantocore yacht early in the film in Monte Carlo. Navy DB, French blue shirt, light tan strides and brown shoes. Can't remember the PS but he was looking good. You could pull his off and it's a bit more colourful than a white or business blue shirt.
post #24296 of 78722

Shah-Sorry, didn't make it to the end, thought I had. Wasn't meant as an attack in either case.

post #24297 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Ah. Well, that is very thoughtful and I appreciate what you are saying.
I really have no idea what the MC "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it really is not like the type of thing that more and more dominates the fascination or attention of the guys in the SW&D forum.
I really have no idea what the SW&D "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it seems to reflect the notion that clothes for men consist of multiple and equally valid costumes. One of these costumes is the MC "look." There are other costumes as well. Ninja. Bear. Yoji. Yoshi. Harajuku. Within each, some expressions are optimal and many are awful, and there is maneuvering for popularity. Many costumes are literally invented by particular individuals (designers? bloggers?), some of whom make their living merchandizing (tweeting?) their concept to mass buyers (followers?), and then replacement concepts if they are lucky enough to make a continuous living at it.
The big difference is that many who are active in the MC forum do not have this perpective. Their particular viewpoint is to seek an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothes. For some (a diminishing subset), it is a simple daily requirement of professional and social life...to dress as their father, grandfather, and so on among other men who also dress the same way. For some, it is an aesthetic decision to recover and preserve old things that are more beautiful than new things. For yet others, it is a form of nostalgia bound up in concepts of society and culture. It can be one, two or all three. But common among all three reasons is a rejection of equal contextual validity of every conceivable form of design. So, some MC dudes get mad when someone claims equality with the patrimony of the West.
Frankly, when it comes to mens clothes, we long ago passed the moment of shock when truly new things have been done. This is why pretty much everything in SW&D looks derivative or recycled. And I feel free to apply those terms because outside of the festishistic Japanese "American workwear" revival moment of a few years ago (which I personally love and wear), the looks are both dated and yet presume the pretense of something fresh.
That sin, at least, is not committed in the MC forum, for all its faults. There is never the pretense of recycling something old as new, since everything is old anyway.
How's that?
post #24298 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by black_umbrella View Post


post #24299 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

post #24300 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Ah. Well, that is very thoughtful and I appreciate what you are saying.
I really have no idea what the MC "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it really is not like the type of thing that more and more dominates the fascination or attention of the guys in the SW&D forum.
I really have no idea what the SW&D "look" is. But, to the extent that it exists (and if it does not exist, to the extent that it refers to reality), it seems to reflect the notion that clothes for men consist of multiple and equally valid costumes. One of these costumes is the MC "look." There are other costumes as well. Ninja. Bear. Yoji. Yoshi. Harajuku. Within each, some expressions are optimal and many are awful, and there is maneuvering for popularity. Many costumes are literally invented by particular individuals (designers? bloggers?), some of whom make their living merchandizing (tweeting?) their concept to mass buyers (followers?), and then replacement concepts if they are lucky enough to make a continuous living at it.
The big difference is that many who are active in the MC forum do not have this perpective. Their particular viewpoint is to seek an unbroken connection to the past through the specific avenue of tailored clothes. For some (a diminishing subset), it is a simple daily requirement of professional and social life...to dress as their father, grandfather, and so on among other men who also dress the same way. For some, it is an aesthetic decision to recover and preserve old things that are more beautiful than new things. For yet others, it is a form of nostalgia bound up in concepts of society and culture. It can be one, two or all three. But common among all three reasons is a rejection of equal contextual validity of every conceivable form of design. So, some MC dudes get mad when someone claims equality with the patrimony of the West.
Frankly, when it comes to mens clothes, we long ago passed the moment of shock when truly new things have been done. This is why pretty much everything in SW&D looks derivative or recycled. And I feel free to apply those terms because outside of the festishistic Japanese "American workwear" revival moment of a few years ago (which I personally love and wear), the looks are both dated and yet presume the pretense of something fresh.
That sin, at least, is not committed in the MC forum, for all its faults. There is never the pretense of recycling something old as new, since everything is old anyway.
How's that?

Good post.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III