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 4532  

post #67966 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post

Estitchy I just noticed you are wearing a PS?  My face when I noticed the PS. (Click to show)

Lol. I am slowly incorporating them in select fits. Dont expect one in every fit tho!
post #67967 of 78717
Tits, regarding jeans not being MC, I was being diplomatic about it.
post #67968 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Sugar, what kind of shoes do you generally wear? A lot of your shoes look vintage. It could just be that my mind is only referencing the few I have seen that have a particular, "look".

Today's are Church's, but most are either Crockett & Jones (for BB's Peal line and their own) or Gravati for Wilkes Bashford. Yesterday was Alfred Sargent, and I have a couple other things, too.
post #67969 of 78717
Probably the Gravati I am thinking of.
post #67970 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

well deserved.
damn you to hell!!!
lolz. maybe we are saying the same thing, but this is how i see it.

from a strictly MC point of view, i can see room to say that any SC + jeans fit would be better with different pants. not aesthetically better, or objectively better, but better within the confines of the monocled point of view of MC. as in, more dressy. not more better.

however, outside of that, there are many jeans + SCs combos that look terrific. better than many of the combos posted here from a visually pleasing outlook. jeans do not mean i give up or i am lazy or i am whatever. a person can accomplish that with any type of pants. i see people in suits and ties that look just as sloppy and pathetic all the time. occasionally on here too. whereas many jeans + SC combos look very sharp and very good, and not hopeless or lazy or default, at all. they are just simply not MC fits.

thats my take, and of course i am right.

I agree. As this has become my work attire. Gone away with suiting and more casual which is inclusive of denim/cotton 5 pocket pants
post #67971 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
 

CD sadly i just don't see many Gunclubs in my neck of the woods, - def not one as spectacular.

My preference with this kind of loud and countrified SC  -   based on considerable i-gentoscopy of course  -   is to pair it with a a navy pin or bengal stripe rather than a plain blue-   there's too much distance in tradition and in design between the citified blue and the jacket IMO... although I might be in a minority on this given Doc's comment on my own fit in Whnay's.  Prolly like the square to pull things together a bit more too-  bit of blue say.  Enjoying your fits a hella lot CD :slayer: 

 

 

Understand your point on the formality of solid blue, but I've been trying to pull back on mixing patterns as much as I had been so I can get a better grasp on things overall. I thought a striped shirt would be too busy with the check. I could be wrong.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mktitsworth View Post

http://www.voxsartoria.com/image/71866897179

 

I think that jacket is Engineered garments, and while I think it is awesome and looks great, I wonder if that takes it out of the category of sport coats discussed here?

 

Russel Plaid today. Tie is navy. Square is exploding.:

 

AppleMark

 

Details... (Click to show)
 

AppleMark

AppleMark

AppleMark

 

post #67972 of 78717
Lovely SC shape there. The only nit I would make about the fit is it would look nicer if the collar and gorge area hugged your neck slightly more.
post #67973 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

Tits, regarding jeans not being MC, I was being diplomatic about it.

I figured as much. I can see arguments for and against. In the strictest sense of Classic menswear as having evolved from British dress in the Edwardian era, that jeans are not CM, however this seems to me a very narrow view of things. From this view, no one except Tibor would be dressed for business, given that the lounge suit was (as I understand) a casual invention.

This seems to indicate that - at least here in the confines of SF - the strictest definition to be applied is not approriate. The question then becomes one of where one draws the line.There are certainly times and places which have influenced and had a major effect upon the lineage of western dress over the last century. So then, which are incorporated and which aren't? The observation that older modes of dress which remain in use amongst specific subsets of western culture trend towards being considered more formal as time goes along seems pertinent to this.

Thinking about it at the moment, I'd imagine that the mechanism by which this occurs is also important. It seems naively true that new methods of dress arise casually - since that is the context in which it is most acceptable to vary from the norm - and often with an influence from being functional. In this sense, the adoption of jeans into acceptable casual wear during the '40s/'50s(?) seems to be along this line. Additionally though, it seems that as time goes by old formalities are removed from the mainstream. This seems to increase the relative formality of everything below it because those things remain more formal than what else is being worn. In the sixty plus years since their adoption at the bottom of the casual wear spectrum, new modes of dress have arisen so that the formality of jeans has been elevated relative to what is least formal. Hence the rise of "nice" jeans. If we're going to take classic menswear in a very loose sense of things, then taking it as the methods of dress which incorporates clothing articles styled in such a way as to be able to be considered with some minimal level of formality above the minimum for some certain amount of time, then I can certainly construct that in such a way that Levi 501s belong in the repertoire. While they certainly are among the least formal pieces that should be considered classic menswear, I think this gives a good reason why they should be considered none the less.
post #67974 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotton Dockers View Post


I think that jacket is Engineered garments, and while I think it is awesome and looks great, I wonder if that takes it out of the category of sport coats discussed here?

I believe you're correct about the make. It's possible it falls outside, however there was also the insinuation that jeans always look sloppy and unconsidered.
post #67975 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

My mom still wears dickies.

Your mother and I are most likely of the same generation, and if they work for her, then good enough.
post #67976 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by upr_crust View Post

Your mother and I are most likely of the same generation, and if they work for her, then good enough.

She sometimes just wears a bra under her blazers and lady suits. It is pretty hot.
post #67977 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

What would be my choice for more casual outings? Well, a suit. I just made a commitment to it a long time ago and that's what I wear. "Casual outing" pretty much doesn't exist in my world. Not that I don't do anything causal, I just feel more comfortable wearing a suit in more situations than most people. Says nothing about the character of me or anybody else, but it is just what I do. ....Just be comfortable with that choice you make and don't let context play as a rationalization for such a choice.
icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif...owning your style and being comfortable with your own skin. I'm still searching for mine.....
post #67978 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by mktitsworth View Post

I figured as much. I can see arguments for and against. In the strictest sense of Classic menswear as having evolved from British dress in the Edwardian era, that jeans are not CM, however this seems to me a very narrow view of things. From this view, no one except Tibor would be dressed for business, given that the lounge suit was (as I understand) a casual invention.

This seems to indicate that - at least here in the confines of SF - the strictest definition to be applied is not approriate. The question then becomes one of where one draws the line.There are certainly times and places which have influenced and had a major effect upon the lineage of western dress over the last century. So then, which are incorporated and which aren't? The observation that older modes of dress which remain in use amongst specific subsets of western culture trend towards being considered more formal as time goes along seems pertinent to this.

Thinking about it at the moment, I'd imagine that the mechanism by which this occurs is also important. It seems naively true that new methods of dress arise casually - since that is the context in which it is most acceptable to vary from the norm - and often with an influence from being functional. In this sense, the adoption of jeans into acceptable casual wear during the '40s/'50s(?) seems to be along this line. Additionally though, it seems that as time goes by old formalities are removed from the mainstream. This seems to increase the relative formality of everything below it because those things remain more formal than what else is being worn. In the sixty plus years since their adoption at the bottom of the casual wear spectrum, new modes of dress have arisen so that the formality of jeans has been elevated relative to what is least formal. Hence the rise of "nice" jeans. If we're going to take classic menswear in a very loose sense of things, then taking it as the methods of dress which incorporates clothing articles styled in such a way as to be able to be considered with some minimal level of formality above the minimum for some certain amount of time, then I can certainly construct that in such a way that Levi 501s belong in the repertoire. While they certainly are among the least formal pieces that should be considered classic menswear, I think this gives a good reason why they should be considered none the less.

carolita-johnson-i-m-kind-of-enjoying-black-tie-fridays-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg
post #67979 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

She sometimes just wears a bra under her blazers and lady suits. It is pretty hot.

eek.gif
post #67980 of 78717
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

carolita-johnson-i-m-kind-of-enjoying-black-tie-fridays-new-yorker-cartoon.jpg

This shows me that I missed a critical "many" or "most", although as I understand it Black tie did arise as an alternative to white tie for less formal situations - but that could just be what I learned from Downton Abbey.
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