or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Obama's Visit to the UK - fit critique!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Obama's Visit to the UK - fit critique! - Page 4

post #46 of 108
The trousers look a bit to large when pictured in the front, and way to much in the back!... what's wrong!?
Doesn't the president have a taylor? lol...
post #47 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post
True, but "sloppily", I did in fact mean more "not as elegantly turned out." ........... if he looks like he puts too much effort into his dress, it looks bad.
Ah, sorry. We agree about presidents and elegance, then. I think where we disagree is over what the American public thinks constitutes too much effort in dress. I don't see how the public would care if B. Obama wore clothes that fit him well. If anything, I think it would improve their opinion of him. Lots of studies show that Americans like their presidents to look presidential: tall, not fat, and commanding. Properly fitting suits would only make him look more presidential, in that sense. A properly-fitting suit doesn't make you any less approachable than one that's not a great fit, but is in the same fabric and cut. Nor does it make you look like you put in too much effort. IMHO, effort in dress is a matter of how many clothes you wear, how formal the clothes are thought to be, whether the cut seems more formal or more casual, ditto for the silhouette, how suited people think them for the occasion, how many patterns and colors there are, and how well you combine colors and patterns. Effort in dress is basically effort in dressING. Proper fit doesn't add to that effort.
post #48 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post
I'd say Kate looks dangerously thin in that photo. Look at the biceps and the calves. Not good.

I wouldn't say dangerously thin but she's too thin to be attractive to me. She's definitely waifish after losing weight for the wedding. She looked better in the past when she was curvier. She is a naturally larger woman and now that the wedding is over she will gain back 15-20 lbs and look like she has in the past.

I think her body looks better in all the pics on this page: http://www.onlygowns.com/blog/kate-m...ed-up-diva.asp

Overall though she really isn't super attractive. She's better than average but definitely not top shelf...
post #49 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelly View Post
Listen, all I'm saying is that it is extremely unlikely that the President of the United States of America (someone who's every word, gesture and facial expression is scrutinized) doesn't have a tailor who knows what they're doing. It's far more likely that his image control team has decided this is the appropriate look for his administration/campaign.
I agree with all that. What I'm saying is that that might very well be because B. Obama and his image control team don't understand proper fit, and what it can do for your looks. See my last post on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelly View Post
Also, Obama probably has less time to go in for fittings vs. a useless do-nothing figurehead.
Figureheads aren't useless, and they do do something. Somebody must represent the state. Obama is a figurehead, too. He's the U.S. head of state. It's just that he also has another role: head of government. It's far from clear that it's better to have one person be both head of state and head of government, than to have a figurehead head of state. Check out the literature on presidential systems versus parliamentary systems. Presidential systems, which unite the head of state and head of govt functions, have a dismal political record when compared with parliamentary systems, which separate those functions.
post #50 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post
I agree with all that. All I'm saying is that that might very well be because B. Obama and his image control team don't understand proper fit, and what it can do for your looks. See my last post on this.

This reminds me of Adjustment Bureau when Matt Damon talks about how they paid an analyst $7,000 to determine how scuffed up his black captoe oxfords should be.
post #51 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMediaMan View Post
Really? I would take Kate over Pippa anyday. And whoever said this was such an AAAC poast is spot on.
Maybe they're both not so hot (I hate it when women don't know how to shape their eyebrows! Plus, eye-liner is weird)? On the wedding day, though, Pippa looked fucking hot!
post #52 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by WUKILLABEEZ78 View Post
I wouldn't say dangerously thin but she's too thin to be attractive to me. She's definitely waifish after losing weight for the wedding. She looked better in the past when she was curvier. She is a naturally larger woman and now that the wedding is over she will gain back 15-20 lbs and look like she has in the past.

I think her body looks better in all the pics on this page: http://www.onlygowns.com/blog/kate-m...ed-up-diva.asp

Overall though she really isn't super attractive. She's better than average but definitely not top shelf...

Chubby chaser.
post #53 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Achilles_ View Post
This reminds me of Adjustment Bureau when Matt Damon talks about how they paid an analyst $7,000 to determine how scuffed up his black captoe oxfords should be.

I was reminded of that, too! One of my favorite scenes, along with the scenes of the gray 3-piece suits. It's just that I doubt the analyst knows anything about proper fit. John T. Molloy did such image-consulting work for politicians (check out the linked TIME article in the "Fall of the Black Wingtip" thread); so far as I know, neither Alan Flusser nor G. Bruce Boyer ever have. (I could be wrong, though.)
post #54 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelly View Post
Chubby chaser.

Prepubescent boy chaser...
post #55 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by WUKILLABEEZ78 View Post
Prepubescent boy chaser...
You guys..! *hands on hips, shakes head
post #56 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerekS View Post
+1,000. hot damn.

She is a STONE FOX.

Obama's trouser break is a bit full, but its hardly indictable IMO. Its just his preference, nothing technically incorrect like a true puddling trouser.
post #57 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelly View Post
Also, Obama probably has less time to go in for fittings vs. a useless do-nothing figurehead.

Like many, you display complete ignorance of the importance of the British monarchy.

1. In terms of tourism they bring twice as much economic benefit to the country as the taxpayer spends maintaining them.

2. The awards and scholarships sponsored by the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles etc, encourage schoolchildren and others to strive to achieve more.

3. They raise millions in charity.

4. Whenever William or Harry are seen working or interacting in a poor country in Africa etc, they are followed by cameras, bringing the spotlight to that country's plight.

5. They employ thousands of people, including many on Prince Charles' estates in Cornwall and so on.

6. They act as valuable trade ambassadors for Britain.

7. Like sport, they provide colourful distractions for people struggling with low incomes, debt and other worries.

8. They really do help the British in times of crises, such as during the world wars, when they were seen as a vital rallying point and an inspiration to fight for "King and Country" as old hat as you think that might be.

9. While they are figureheads, most countries are left with Governments run by cynical, crooked self-interested politicians, who change regularly as the highest institution they can look to for leadership.
post #58 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diavolo View Post
Like many, you display complete ignorance of the importance of the British monarchy. 1. In terms of tourism they bring twice as much economic benefit to the country as the taxpayer spends maintaining them. 2. The awards and scholarships sponsored by the Duke of Edinburgh, Prince Charles etc, encourage schoolchildren and others to strive to achieve more. 3. They raise millions in charity. 4. Whenever William or Harry are seen working or interacting in a poor country in Africa etc, they are followed by cameras, bringing the spotlight to that country's plight. 5. They employ thousands of people, including many on Prince Charles' estates in Cornwall and so on. 6. They act as valuable trade ambassadors for Britain. 7. Like sport, they provide colourful distractions for people struggling with low incomes, debt and other worries. 8. They really do help the British in times of crises, such as during the world wars, when they were seen as a vital rallying point and an inspiration to fight for "King and Country" as old hat as you think that might be. 9. While they are figureheads, most countries are left with Governments run by cynical, crooked self-interested politicians, who change regularly as the highest institution they can look to for leadership.
While that might be true, unfortunately they are also: The relic of a classist societal structure who have derived the majority of their wealth through centuries of imperialism, exploitation and theft. There is a stark contrast between Obama who is self-made (not a time for a discussion on Affirmative Action) and a group of people who haven't worked.
post #59 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelly View Post
While that might be true, unfortunately they are also:

The relic of a classist societal structure who have derived the majority of their wealth through centuries of imperialism, exploitation and theft. There is a stark contrast between Obama who is self-made (not a time for a discussion on Affirmative Action) and a group of people who haven't worked.

You need to look at the present, not the past.

The Queen at 85 does a fair job of working at maintaining some of the points I mentioned.

Obama, meanwhile, has distinguished himself by appointing as key advisers several of those directly responsible for the GFC, and has done nothing to address America's $14 trillion national debt.
post #60 of 108
Quote:
Originally Posted by nelly View Post
While that might be true, unfortunately they are also: The relic of a classist societal structure who have derived the majority of their wealth through centuries of imperialism, exploitation and theft. There is a stark contrast between Obama who is self-made (not a time for a discussion on Affirmative Action) and a group of people who haven't worked.
I agree wholeheartedly, and wish this were mentioned more often. What I don't see is why that outweighs Diavolo's 1-9. It seems to me that the blame for what you describe lies squarely with British society, not with the monarchy in particular. How will abolishing the monarchy reduce the injustice you describe? Monarchies aren't inherently classist: look at Sweden. I'm not saying that you did say that such abolition would reduce such injustice, but I am saying that something like that is what one would have to claim in order for your counterpoint to outweigh Diavolo's 1-9. Edit: To be clear, I disagree with Diavolo that history is irrelevant here. History and our perceptions of it shape the present. If a historical injustice continues to have unjust consequences in the present, then it is relevant to present politics. The history of class injustice in Britain has unjust consequences in today's Britain. So it is politically relevant.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Obama's Visit to the UK - fit critique!