or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › WAYWRN: MC Casual Style
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WAYWRN: MC Casual Style - Page 936

post #14026 of 16606

It does not do anyone any good to come in here and instruct someone on the rules they are clearly knowingly breaking.
 

post #14027 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

JapanAlex said the bare ankle look was incongruent with a suit (by which he meant a formalish outfit since this isn't a suit).

But that's not a formal outfit.

I've got no interest in wearing floodpants myself since I think it looks dumb but for a guy who could likely wear anything to work and (in part) sells shoes for a living, it's not as if it's crazy to wear what he did.

As Tirailleur pointed out, if you'd going to #, that's not a bad way to do it. And context doesn't dictate otherwise - which was the objection which I found so misplaced.

 

 

Thanks for the explanation. You were talking more in terms of whether it was a formal outfit / suit and not in regards to whether it looked good.  Imo the short pants just looks like the wearer bought the wrong size or wearing some hand-me-downs that don't fit. All that's missing from this look and the traditional high-waters look is the white socks.

post #14028 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyTop View Post

Imo the short pants just looks like the wearer bought the wrong size or wearing some hand-me-downs that don't fit. All that's missing from this look and the traditional high-waters look is the white socks.

I think that view is also willfully ignorant in its own right. The highwater thing has been done enough in the past half a decade and done in a high profile enough way that that really isn't a meaningful criticism.

Sure - if you've never been outside of Peoria or wherever then, yes, I can understand the hand-me-down jab.

But for anyone who knows anything about this stuff, you ought to come up with a better criticism.

A few of my favorites include - it's a fad and soon you'll be left with nothing but cold ankles or an expensive set of dish rags, a laid-back casual, summery is inherently incongruous with wool trousers, your eye is naturally drawn to eiter the wearer's bare ankle (weird) of socks which will invariably be colored (cheesy / puerile).
post #14029 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanleyVanBuren View Post

It does not do anyone any good to come in here and instruct someone on the rules they are clearly knowingly breaking.

this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

I think that view is also willfully ignorant in its own right. The highwater thing has been done enough in the past half a decade and done in a high profile enough way that that really isn't a meaningful criticism.
Sure - if you've never been outside of Peoria or wherever then, yes, I can understand the hand-me-down jab.
But for anyone who knows anything about this stuff, you ought to come up with a better criticism.

this.


not everyone has to like the look, but it is an informed decision by the wearer in this case. and for the look he was going for, he nailed it.
post #14030 of 16606
Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post


I think that view is also willfully ignorant in its own right. The highwater thing has been done enough in the past half a decade and done in a high profile enough way that that really isn't a meaningful criticism.

Sure - if you've never been outside of Peoria or wherever then, yes, I can understand the hand-me-down jab.

But for anyone who knows anything about this stuff, you ought to come up with a better criticism.

A few of my favorites include - it's a fad and soon you'll be left with nothing but cold ankles or an expensive set of dish rags, a laid-back casual, summery is inherently incongruous with wool trousers, your eye is naturally drawn to eiter the wearer's bare ankle (weird) of socks which will invariably be colored (cheesy / puerile).

 

 

I was just under the impression that the Classic Menswear section of SF was more about timeless style and not fads/trends you find in GQ and other #menswear sites. 

 

IMO the ultra-short and ultra-tight trend just looks bad. And I have seen both many time irl and the majority just look like they are wearing the wrong sized clothes. If that is what they are going for then they are doing it well. 

post #14031 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyTop View Post

I was just under the impression that the Classic Menswear section of SF was more about timeless style and not fads/trends you find in GQ and other #menswear sites.

Hence, why he posted it in the MC Casual thread and not the HOF WAYWRN thread.
post #14032 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beatlegeuse View Post


Hence, why he posted it in the MC Casual thread and not the HOF WAYWRN thread.

..or the Good Taste thread.  

post #14033 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanleyVanBuren View Post

It does not do anyone any good to come in here and instruct someone on the rules they are clearly knowingly breaking.
 

Just for argument's sake (like this place needs someone to play devil's advocate) but isn't this exactly what Vox and his lengthy treatise on combinations and 'the continuum' was all about? That whether someone knows they are breaking rules or not doesnt excuse wearing combinations out of context. As such, it seems as though questioning the outfit the way JA did seems reasonable. However, since it was JA saying it, there must be a flaw in my logic since I now have a contradiction.

 

By the way, I dont suppose anyone has a copy of Vox's treatise to share, do they?

post #14034 of 16606

lurker[1].gif

 

SVB brings up a good point. Sorry if I caused any riff - I was just asking an honest question. I guess for a guy that sells clothing for a living, dress the way you want your products to be displayed. Nobody will ever get 100% of the (imaginary) vote.

post #14035 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyTop View Post

 

I was just under the impression that the Classic Menswear section of SF was more about timeless style and not fads/trends you find in GQ and other #menswear sites

 

IMO the ultra-short and ultra-tight trend just looks bad. And I have seen both many time irl and the majority just look like they are wearing the wrong sized clothes. If that is what they are going for then they are doing it well. 

Here we go again. 

post #14036 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post

Here we go again. 

biggrin.gif when I read that post I winced and thought 'oooooooh shit, T is NOT gonna like that!'
post #14037 of 16606
Thanks for the kind words, stitchy, clarinetplayer & jaywhyy :-)
post #14038 of 16606
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post

Here we go again. 

TIMELESS AND CLASSIC STYLEZ, BIATCH!!
post #14039 of 16606

The sub-forum is called "Classic Menswear".   But if trendy/fads is the going thing then more power to 'em. As a semi-noob I guess I was just confused by the "classic" part. 

post #14040 of 16606
The fit in question is clearly playing on classic menswear, and obviously uses them as a jumping-off point. As for coherence, it has that. It does not contradict itself. It's at the extreme edge in terms of fit, but it remains within the sphere.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › WAYWRN: MC Casual Style