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 3824  

post #57346 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post


I've got something rather sinister in mind should I maintain my lead

 

I am intrigued... If it's sinister AND sober then I might just participate!

post #57347 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjester View Post

Trouser length is a personal thing. But it should be between no break and slight break. That's all you get, unless you want to 'break the rules'.

You are just as wrong on this point as you are emphatic. A full break is entirely acceptable (albeit not fashionable at the moment).
post #57348 of 78722

Nothing wrong with a full break. Nothing at all.

post #57349 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post


You are just as wrong on this point as you are emphatic. A full break is entirely acceptable (albeit not fashionable at the moment).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

Nothing wrong with a full break. Nothing at all.

It's acceptable, but is it flattering? We always say how clothing should follow the lines of your body, hence no square toed shoes etc. I don't know about you, but I don't have a break near my ankles. Legs are pretty much a straight line, with the ankles being the slimmest part. Having fabric bunch up around that area just doesn't make any sense, it looks messy. Cuffs with no break look infinitely cleaner and make the trousers drape much better.


Edited by Monkeyface - 8/11/13 at 7:45am
post #57350 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

Cuffs with no break look infinitely cleaner and makes the trousers drape much better.

 

This is very much a current sentiment. Some no break trousers look ridiculous to me. Others do not. It's just a matter of the proportions of everything else. Not every no break pant looks good, not every full break pant looks bad.

post #57351 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

 

This is very much a current sentiment. Some no break trousers look ridiculous to me. Others do not. It's just a matter of the proportions of everything else. Not every no break pant looks good, not every full break pant looks bad.

Of course there are no absolutes, but in general no break is much more pleasing, as there's a clean straight line, without distortions or wrinkles. What's the history behind the break? No other garment has it, as far as I know, everything else in menswear exists out of clean lines. There are no breaks in the jacket's sleeves for example, so having a break in the trousers just looks incongruent.

post #57352 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjester View Post

 

Pants should have very little to no break. If there was a complaint about this, it's that the pants need to be hemmed.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDiaz View Post

The problem with DC's trousers isn't length IMO (which is a personal thing as long as break isn't excessive), but rather insufficient rise; the belt buckle is showing, which shouldn't happen on a 3-pc suit...

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjester View Post

Trouser length is a personal thing. But it should be between no break and slight break. That's all you get, unless you want to 'break the rules'. There's a difference between break and baggy pants. The width of the bottom can be based on shoe size and leg size. I believe you can flex on your colors and what you wear. But as for how you wear it, when it's to fit and size, if you're going classic mens-wear, which is what DC is doing, it's either slight break or no break. Yes, he's allowed to break the rules, so long as he knows he's breaking the rules. I'm 6'1" and I like nearly no break. Just enough to make sure the pants don't sway as I walk.

 

Source for my quote: http://www.styleforum.net/t/177616/on-pants That's by far my favorite thread on SF.

True. But I'm giving it to DC. Not many have advanced as fast as he has. I wouldn't throw the thing away just because of that. The hem can be fixed, which I would (hell, I do mine myself since I'm so picky) but other than that, the fit is top notch.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjester View Post

 

They really haven't, as far as I can see. Below are much closer tries though. The top being the best one. I will say this - if he took a little off the recent pair of pants, they would be his best fitting pair, hands down.

 

I believe all of these fits flatter DC more than the recent pair of pants. There is break, which yes I believe looks good on DC, but not as much as in the photo. It looks like the pants are quite literally stacking on the shoes.

 

I believe DC could take off maybe 1.5cm from any of these pictures in this post and it would be great. The good thing is, pants are extremely alterable and DC could go to a tailor and work with him on what's most flattering. 

 

Don - I hope you take all of this in good stride. If you read all this and say, "Fuck it, I think these look best on me!" then so be it - as long as the material is there for you to decide, I'm happy.

 

Thanks for all your advice!

Trousers is my problem area. I read all from your advice and give thought about that. I thik it´s a problem because I have strongly marked bowlegs, which are one reason that there are very often more than one break.

post #57353 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

no break is much more pleasing

 

post #57354 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

 

So where do breaks come from? From people buying ill fitting RTW, or were trousers made that way on purpose? Is it more of an American thing, or is it universally accepted? I'm seriously interested in this, my google-fu has abandoned me when it comes to finding material about this topic. Maybe google knows I don't like breaks, and is filtering out all those pages.

post #57355 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

This is very much a current sentiment. Some no break trousers look ridiculous to me. Others do not. It's just a matter of the proportions of everything else. Not every no break pant looks good, not every full break pant looks bad.
Of course there are no absolutes, but in general no break is much more pleasing, as there's a clean straight line, without distortions or wrinkles. What's the history behind the break? No other garment has it, as far as I know, everything else in menswear exists out of clean lines. There are no breaks in the jacket's sleeves for example, so having a break in the trousers just looks incongruent.

This approach to setting the length of trousers seems overly grounded in how they look when posing for a picture and also almost entirely predicated on a preference for narrower leg openings. With a fuller cut and a cuff, a break is almost geometrically required. The break also allows for a bit more length which helps to avoid flashing your socks when in motion. I'm not as obsessed by this as some are, but I don't want to look like I'm wearing high-waters every time I take a step either.
post #57356 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

So where do breaks come from? From people buying ill fitting RTW, or were trousers made that way on purpose? Is it more of an American thing, or is it universally accepted? I'm seriously interested in this, my google-fu has abandoned me when it comes to finding material about this topic. Maybe google knows I don't like breaks, and is filtering out all those pages.

 

Two buttons or three? Roped shoulders or natural? It's purely what you want or don't want out of your garment. Don't over think it and just realize some people like em, others don't. Personally I think a slight break is optimal, but that's just my preference. It's not even a strong preference because I also have no break and full break trousers.

post #57357 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post


This approach to setting the length of trousers seems overly grounded in how they look when posing for a picture and also almost entirely predicated on a preference for narrower leg openings. With a fuller cut and a cuff, a break is almost geometrically required. 

 

No break just looks disproportionate with fuller cut trousers. This is the point I was trying to make when I said it depends on the proportions involved. Stated much better by Shugz.

post #57358 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post

 

No break just looks disproportionate with fuller cut trousers. This is the point I was trying to make when I said it depends on the proportions involved. Stated much better by Shugz.

Agreed.

post #57359 of 78722
A few days ago in Manchester. Can't make out much except the silhouette, I'm afraid.

post #57360 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

So where do breaks come from? From people buying ill fitting RTW, or were trousers made that way on purpose? Is it more of an American thing, or is it universally accepted? I'm seriously interested in this, my google-fu has abandoned me when it comes to finding material about this topic. Maybe google knows I don't like breaks, and is filtering out all those pages.

The best way to educate oneself is to look at old pictures. Not old fashion shoots, but old pictures. You can find them anywhere from the Life Archives to August Sanders People of the 20th Century.

Many people (esp. here) say that no break is a current trend. If you look no further back than 30 or 40 years, that's true. But if you take a look at pictures from the 60s, you will find a lot of people with real high water trousers. The same goes for the 20s.
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