or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › A Daily "Mens Clothing" and "Streetwear and Denim" Fit Comparison Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A Daily "Mens Clothing" and "Streetwear and Denim" Fit Comparison Thread - Page 4

post #46 of 486

I personally think CTP120's sleeves are too long (and possibly too tight, not sure), which is distracting for me.

post #47 of 486
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

Some of the more sophisticated posters in SW&D could probably articulate some of the priniciples, but its considerably more difficult than in MC, where, honestly, the components of a good outfit can be encapsulated in a list of "rules". It takes a lot more experience, experimentation, and/or study.
In general, I think that MC fits (not the casual fits, which, honestly, are generally a trainwreck) are usually a solid B, with a very narrow standard deviation. I actually find that SW&D fits are harder to put together, and the mean is probably a generous B-, but with a great deal of deviation. There are guys who are consistent A's, and some other guys, and I'm not point at anyone in particular here, who are lucky to pull a passing grade.


That's a really, really dumb first paragraph. I say that with love.

The second is a matter of preference.
post #48 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

That's a really, really dumb first paragraph. I say that with love.
The second is a matter of preference.

Well, it's like critiquing a fashion show. You can be like my father, and say things like "Ah, that doesn't fit well, it's just ugly", or you can either have very good intuition, or a deeper understanding of fashion history, of references to different periods, different subcultures, specific moments, etc....

For example, to really appreciate Margiela's work, (and by that I mean the women's work, since he never gave two shits about menswear) you have to understand that he believed that all the elements were already there, that his job was essentially to splice together that which already existed.

I know that something analogous exists in traditional menswear. However, it's a much narrower field, and most guys can get a decent education, albeit incomplete, from a tailor or from a decent SA. However, I've met very few SAs in designer stores could teach someone how to put together a decent outfit. Those who know how to do so themselves, usually do it by intuition, and can't articulate why they do what they do. So, the people who can "lift the veil" are fewer and farther in between.

Someone like Simon Doonan, and I think, several of the better retailers on the forum, can, but they are not as common as they are in Mens tailored clothing. Recent trends, which essentially allowed amateurs with no background, and often, less self-awareness, get into the field, hasn't helped matters, though it's definitely made the field much more interesting. The wild west is always more fun than some staid settlement, imo.
post #49 of 486
tbh, I'm trying to figure out what is more stupid - the posts (my own included) in this thread, or the argument in the SW&D thread.

Here is something I think is incontrovertible: It's easier to fake MC than it is to fake SW&D. I think that the "contemporary" section at any Saks illustrates this well.
post #50 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

tbh, I'm trying to figure out what is more stupid - the posts (my own included) in this thread, or the argument in the SW&D thread.

Here is something I think is incontrovertible: It's easier to fake MC than it is to fake SW&D. I think that the "contemporary" section at any Saks illustrates this well.

So? "because it's harder" is an asinine and nonsensical argument.
post #51 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

That's a really, really dumb first paragraph. I say that with love.
The second is a matter of preference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

Well, it's like critiquing a fashion show. You can be like my father, and say things like "Ah, that doesn't fit well, it's just ugly", or you can either have very good intuition, or a deeper understanding of fashion history, of references to different periods, different subcultures, specific moments, etc....
For example, to really appreciate Margiela's work, (and by that I mean the women's work, since he never gave two shits about menswear) you have to understand that he believed that all the elements were already there, that his job was essentially to splice together that which already existed.
I know that something analogous exists in traditional menswear. However, it's a much narrower field, and most guys can get a decent education, albeit incomplete, from a tailor or from a decent SA. However, I've met very few SAs in designer stores could teach someone how to put together a decent outfit. Those who know how to do so themselves, usually do it by intuition, and can't articulate why they do what they do. So, the people who can "lift the veil" are fewer and farther in between.
Someone like Simon Doonan, and I think, several of the better retailers on the forum, can, but they are not as common as they are in Mens tailored clothing. Recent trends, which essentially allowed amateurs with no background, and often, less self-awareness, get into the field, hasn't helped matters, though it's definitely made the field much more interesting. The wild west is always more fun than some staid settlement, imo.

I think one way of looking at it is to compare the MC/ SW&D divide to the divide between traditional jazz and free jazz. By traditional jazz, I mean bebop, swing, Dixie, cool era, etc. By free jazz I mean all the avant-garde stuff that Ornette Coleman and Sun Ra were known for.

In traditional jazz, there are a general set of rules, at least comparatively more so than free jazz. However, it's not true that you could be a good jazz musician by just following those rules. If you could, music schools would be churning out great jazz musicians all the time. Unfortunately, while many people who graduate from music school are adequate, few are great.

For free jazz, it can be difficult to articulate why something is appealing while something else is not. Something may appeal because of how it fits into the discourse at the time (discourse about concepts, forms, ideas, etc). If you're not privy to that discourse (the MMM example Fok gave is a good example), you might not "get it." Other times, something may appeal just on a gut emotional level.

The differences between MC and SW&D seem to be similar. So does the divide. On one side, you have people dismissing modern free jazz as "bullshit," just because they're either not interested in the conversation or too close minded to appreciate a few pieces. On the other side, you have people who dismiss the traditional stuff as being too old and boring.

Perhaps I'm over stretching here (likely). But that's my stab at it.

I'm personally not a fan of free jazz, but I appreciate some pieces. Most of the time, I listen to traditional jazz. I hope that one of the things that will come out of this thread (and the one at SW&D) is a mutual appreciation for both forms, even if people are rooted in different "home bases." Imagine it like a radio show that plays both traditional and free jazz, and talks about them in a thoughtful way (why some piece works, and why others didn't). Perhaps in that way, people can get a better understanding of jazz (or men's clothing and style) as a whole.

What's been disappointing, however, is that people seem to be responding with "this one is better than that one," which to me seems to miss an important opportunity. I really like both fits here and think they appeal in different ways. There's no reason, in my opinion, to listen to Louis Armstrong and then Cecil Taylor and say "Bah! Cecil was obviously a fraud." That seems rather small minded.

As an aside, I think MC needs more "natural" photographs. Same could probably be said for SW&D too, but they seem to do fewer robot poses. I recently saw this photo of Mark in his first Liverano suit at an O'Mast screening. I really like it. It's probably the best photograph I've seen of him in that suit, and it's completely candid. It gives me a real sense of what a Liverano silhouette looks like, much more so than all the edited photos Mark has posted of himself in the same suit.

Candid shots might also help with the taming down the neurotic "there is a crease on the left side of your leg; bad fit" comments you often see in MC. Certainly, those kind of fit threads are helpful, but sometimes I feel like they can miss the forest for the trees.
Edited by dieworkwear - 3/23/12 at 11:06pm
post #52 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

I think one way of looking at it is to compare the MC/ SW&D divide to the divide between traditional jazz and free jazz. By traditional jazz, I mean bebop, swing, Dixie, cool era, etc. By free jazz I mean all the avant-garde stuff that Ornette Coleman and Sun Ra were known for.
In traditional jazz, there are a general set of rules, at least comparatively more so than free jazz. However, it's not true that you could be a good jazz musician by just following those rules. If you could, music schools would be churning out great jazz musicians all the time. Unfortunately, while many people who graduate from music school are adequate, few are great.
For free jazz, it can hard to articulate why something is appealing and something else is not. Something may appeal because of how it fits into the discourse at the time. If you're not privy to that discourse (the MMM example Fok gave is a good example), you might not "get it." Other times, something may appeal just on a gut emotional level.
The differences between MC and SW&D seem to be similar. So does the divide. On one side, you have people dismissing modern free jazz as "bullshit," just because they're either not interested in the conversation or too close minded to appreciate a few pieces. On the other side, you have people who dismiss the traditional stuff as being too old and boring.
Perhaps I'm over stretching here (likely). But that's my stab at it.
I'm personally not a fan of free jazz, but I appreciate some pieces. Most of the time, I listen to traditional jazz. I hope that one of the things that will come out of this thread (and the one at SW&D) is a mutual appreciation for both forms, even if people are rooted in different "home bases." Imagine it like a radio show that plays both traditional and free jazz, and talks about them in a thoughtful way (why some piece works, and why others didn't). Perhaps in that way, people can get a broader understanding of jazz (or men's clothing and style) as a whole.
What's been disappointing, however, is that people seem to be responding with "this one is better than that one," which to me seems to miss an important opportunity. I really like both fits here and think they appeal in different ways. There's no reason, in my opinion, to listen to Louis Armstrong and then Cecil Taylor and say "Bah! Cecil was obviously a fraud." That seems rather small minded.
As an aside, I think MC needs more "natural" photographs. Same could probably be said for SW&D too, but they seem to do fewer robot poses. I recently saw this photo of Mark in his first Liverano suit at an O'Mast screening. I really like it. It's probably the best photograph I've seen of him in that suit, and it's completely candid. It gives me a real sense of what a Liverano silhouette looks like, much more so than all the edited photos Mark has posted of himself in the same suit.
Candid shots might also help with the taming down the neurotic "there is a crease on the left side of your leg; bad fit" comments you often see in MC. Certainly, those kind of fit threads are helpful, but sometimes I feel like they can miss the forest for the trees.

This is why Derek gets to write for the blog, and my pieces are limited to personal anecdotes and interviews about internet forums.
post #53 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

This is why Derek gets to write for the blog, and my pieces are limited to personal anecdotes and interviews about internet forums.

Though I guess on second review, free jazz goes out further in the conceptual waters than most SW&D fits. Perhaps I just take more interest in SW&D when it plays with details or silhouettes.
Edited by dieworkwear - 3/23/12 at 11:43pm
post #54 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

I think one way of looking at it is to compare the MC/ SW&D divide to the divide between traditional jazz and free jazz. By traditional jazz, I mean bebop, swing, Dixie, cool era, etc. By free jazz I mean all the avant-garde stuff that Ornette Coleman and Sun Ra were known for.
In traditional jazz, there are a general set of rules, at least comparatively more so than free jazz. However, it's not true that you could be a good jazz musician by just following those rules. If you could, music schools would be churning out great jazz musicians all the time. Unfortunately, while many people who graduate from music school are adequate, few are great.
For free jazz, it can be difficult to articulate why something is appealing while something else is not. Something may appeal because of how it fits into the discourse at the time (discourse about concepts, forms, ideas, etc). If you're not privy to that discourse (the MMM example Fok gave is a good example), you might not "get it." Other times, something may appeal just on a gut emotional level.
The differences between MC and SW&D seem to be similar. So does the divide. On one side, you have people dismissing modern free jazz as "bullshit," just because they're either not interested in the conversation or too close minded to appreciate a few pieces. On the other side, you have people who dismiss the traditional stuff as being too old and boring.
Perhaps I'm over stretching here (likely). But that's my stab at it.
I'm personally not a fan of free jazz, but I appreciate some pieces. Most of the time, I listen to traditional jazz. I hope that one of the things that will come out of this thread (and the one at SW&D) is a mutual appreciation for both forms, even if people are rooted in different "home bases." Imagine it like a radio show that plays both traditional and free jazz, and talks about them in a thoughtful way (why some piece works, and why others didn't). Perhaps in that way, people can get a better understanding of jazz (or men's clothing and style) as a whole.
What's been disappointing, however, is that people seem to be responding with "this one is better than that one," which to me seems to miss an important opportunity. I really like both fits here and think they appeal in different ways. There's no reason, in my opinion, to listen to Louis Armstrong and then Cecil Taylor and say "Bah! Cecil was obviously a fraud." That seems rather small minded.
As an aside, I think MC needs more "natural" photographs. Same could probably be said for SW&D too, but they seem to do fewer robot poses. I recently saw this photo of Mark in his first Liverano suit at an O'Mast screening. I really like it. It's probably the best photograph I've seen of him in that suit, and it's completely candid. It gives me a real sense of what a Liverano silhouette looks like, much more so than all the edited photos Mark has posted of himself in the same suit.
Candid shots might also help with the taming down the neurotic "there is a crease on the left side of your leg; bad fit" comments you often see in MC. Certainly, those kind of fit threads are helpful, but sometimes I feel like they can miss the forest for the trees.

If there is one thing I wish everyone on this forum could work on is encorporating pictures where they are doing something. While the standard full length mirror "Judge my fit" picture is useful, I find that when an outfit is put into a distinct setting, a definitive location (for lack of a better word), the quality of the fit skyrockets. Obviously it isn't entirely practical to apply this idea to every picture you take but I still think it really adds a lot to MC and SW&D when an outfit is contextualized, that way you catch a glimpse of the personality that goes along with the clothes. Just looks better in the real world I guess.
post #55 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by KClubs View Post

If there is one thing I wish everyone on this forum could work on is encorporating pictures where they are doing something. ...



16976359.jpg
post #56 of 486
Nice idea,
I like both to be honest. The YY look when done well is wonderful and Ivwri seems to have it nailed down here. It looks comfortable and most importantly he looks totally at ease. Shoes aside I really like it. The MC side is what it is. A simple well executed casual summer fit that works. Both work well and both look good. I suspect, or hope, that the examples chosen by Vox will continue to be as good rather than descending into the endless squabbles of late. Fashion and style are quite different beasts but when fashion is" worn" with style and swagger it can really inspire.
post #57 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

Though I guess on second review, free jazz goes out further in the conceptual waters than most SW&D fits. Perhaps I just take more interest in SW&D when it plays with details or silhouettes.

I think a better musical comparison would be classical (MC) vs (jazz -- all kinds). Sometime in the 16th or 17th century music (wasn't called classical then, of course - just music) evolved a set of rules - state the theme, then variations on the theme - return to the theme etc. That allowed almost anyone with musical talent and training to write, for instance, a minuet or sonata.

But of course there are geniuses -- Bach, Handel, Mozart etc -- and near geniuses -- Haydn, Scarlatti -- who stood above the ROTM composers, but still played within the "rules." If you have an understanding of the rules that they labored under, then you can understand why Mozart and Beethoven are absolutely mind-blowing -- but still appreciated by laymen and conoisseurs alike.

Jazz -- well, it started as riffs on those "rules" then evolved in a lot of different directions. I think that pretty much sums up nontraditional menswear. There are a lot of echoes of traditional menswear in RTW and runway fashion, just as even the most avant garde jazz sometimes pays homage to traditional music.
post #58 of 486
Thread Starter 
.
Edited by F. Corbera - 7/26/12 at 9:25pm
post #59 of 486
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KClubs View Post

While the standard full length mirror "Judge my fit" picture is useful, I find that when an outfit is put into a distinct setting, a definitive location (for lack of a better word), the quality of the fit skyrockets.

2euoavc.jpg
post #60 of 486
179

Looking good, Billy Ray.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › A Daily "Mens Clothing" and "Streetwear and Denim" Fit Comparison Thread