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

WAYWRN: MC Casual Style - Page 937

post #14041 of 15346
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyTop View Post

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. 

Most of the things that CM posters fetishize to some extent could be seen as trendy and/or fads. Let's not act like we are above that. Last time I checked Spalla Camicia is only a "standard" in certain parts of Italy.


Edited by Tirailleur1 - 8/26/13 at 6:36pm
post #14042 of 15346
the decision about what is timeless and what is a fad, is a heartless, fickle and cruel one. but someone has to make it, tira. someone has to make it.
post #14043 of 15346
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

the decision about what is timeless and what is a fad, is a heartless, fickle and cruel one. but someone has to make it, tira. someone has to make it.

That is fine... As long as CM folks realize that they themselves are within that cycle we can all live together in harmony

post #14044 of 15346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

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.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post

Most of the things that CM posters fetishize to some extent could be seen as trendy and/or fads. Let's not act like we are above that. Last time I checked Spalla Camicia is only a "standard" in certain parts of Italy.

 

If people like what they wear I guess that's really all that matters. But for the sake of discussion it's just curious to me how anyone can critique fit if it varies so greatly. If trouser length is appropriate anywhere from the a certain point near the heel to a couple inches above the ankle, then couldn't the same hold true for the sleeve length of a suit for example? Does anywhere from an inch or two below the wrist to an inch or so above be just as appropriate assuming the wearer enjoys it that way?

post #14045 of 15346
it all has to fit together. if he was presenting a more standard/classic fit, and his pants were that short, it would be laughable. in SWD, longer jacket sleeves are encouraged as a matter of fact, but it all has to be consistent with the general vibe and fit.

there are many appropriate lengths for pants or jackets, and many other clothing details that have allowable variances. and how one employs those variances correctly, based on their body type, and on their style as a whole, is what matters. enjoying the variance is not a good enough reason, it has to be properly employed to be exempt from incorrect critiquing.

in the case of the fit at hand, all the items, and the way they fit, were coherent and on point. now, its not a look that most people here favor, but to critique that fit by saying the hem is too short, is to ignore/miss the entire concept of the fit. which is wrong. to say however, that is not a style that i personally enjoy, that is well within everyones right.
post #14046 of 15346
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockyTop View Post

Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post



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.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post

Most of the things that CM posters fetishize to some extent could be seen as trendy and/or fads. Let's not act like we are above that. Last time I checked Spalla Camicia is only a "standard" in certain parts of Italy.

If people like what they wear I guess that's really all that matters. But for the sake of discussion it's just curious to me how anyone can critique fit if it varies so greatly. If trouser length is appropriate anywhere from the a certain point near the heel to a couple inches above the ankle, then couldn't the same hold true for the sleeve length of a suit for example? Does anywhere from an inch or two below the wrist to an inch or so above be just as appropriate assuming the wearer enjoys it that way?

I think there's less consensus on trouser and sleeve length than time on StyleForum would lead us to believe, and what consensus there is contingent on other aspects of fit. On narrow trousers, hemming for much longer than just kissing the shoes would result in stacking. Hemming a wider leg to that same kissing length will look like high-waters.
post #14047 of 15346
Uncle Bruce explains it all:
Quote:
I know there are people out there who spend countless hours discussing the correct depth of trouser cuffs and length of coats. But the reality is that dressing well is like writing well: you learn the rules that are fashionable at the time, then you develop your own style by breaking them in order to better accommodate your unique life.

Those who slavishly follow the rules of dress are really just followers of fashion: the fashion of a particular time, past or present.

via Ivy Style via Put This On
post #14048 of 15346
What's the fancy on Capri pants and how are they MC casual?
post #14049 of 15346
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.

 

Yes, of course, I meant a formal outfit. And, yes, it is formal. If he was wearing chinos and a polo shirt or jeans and a casual shirt, even, he could rock something along those lines (even if I wouldn't do it myself). With wool trousers (or so they look like), it looks so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so, so wrong.

 

I think it's made worse by the horrid, forced Elvis Costello toe-to-toe pose.

 

post #14050 of 15346
^ the fit in question that started this whole debate was NOT a formal outfit. The dude sells clothes at a small shop in NYC, he was not going to a board meeting in that outfit. Understand the difference?
post #14051 of 15346
Quote:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

it all has to fit together. if he was presenting a more standard/classic fit, and his pants were that short, it would be laughable. in SWD, longer jacket sleeves are encouraged as a matter of fact, but it all has to be consistent with the general vibe and fit.

there are many appropriate lengths for pants or jackets, and many other clothing details that have allowable variances. and how one employs those variances correctly, based on their body type, and on their style as a whole, is what matters. enjoying the variance is not a good enough reason, it has to be properly employed to be exempt from incorrect critiquing.

in the case of the fit at hand, all the items, and the way they fit, were coherent and on point. now, its not a look that most people here favor, but to critique that fit by saying the hem is too short, is to ignore/miss the entire concept of the fit. which is wrong. to say however, that is not a style that i personally enjoy, that is well within everyones right.

 

 

I understand his outfit is a particular "style" and probably adheres to the "rules" of that style. I was just somewhat surprised that type of style, often championed by the likes of GQ/#menswear was embraced here at CM. 

post #14052 of 15346
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

Uncle Bruce explains it all:
I know there are people out there who spend countless hours discussing the correct depth of trouser cuffs and length of coats. But the reality is that dressing well is like writing well: you learn the rules that are fashionable at the time, then you develop your own style by breaking them in order to better accommodate your unique life.

Those who slavishly follow the rules of dress are really just followers of fashion: the fashion of a particular time, past or present.

 

I agree with this. As for me, I'm not one that gets hung up on strict rules though. Not to say that I don't try to fall within a reasonable parameter but I don't obsess over exact trouser length or amount of break, etc. But I do take notice when something falls out of a, imo, reasonable parameter, like trousers dragging the ground or above the ankle. 

 

That said, I understand the look in question is a particular style like I mentioned in my previous post. I just never consider that style to be CM, whether formal or casual. Although I do realize it is a rather popular trend in #menswear.

post #14053 of 15346
I'm much more of a lurker than an actual poster (and a big fan of MC Casual) but I have to chime in here and say that the objections to Matt's fit are exactly why SW&D thinks MC is full of young fogeys, 'classic style' BS, daft rules and is generally conservative to the point of parody. For the most part it's not but I can see why one would think that.
post #14054 of 15346

Get off my lawn!

post #14055 of 15346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaywhyy View Post

First time I've been wow'd by a casual look in quite a bit. Really like the textures and colors.

+1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › WAYWRN: MC Casual Style