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 5

post #61 of 486
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post


But within all these important numbers, there is one abiding Truth: someone is watching you.



Until next month, adieu.
post #62 of 486
F.Corbera: "Hoping for high quality, candid GPOYs is hoping for too much."

^This is what I was meaning to echo in my thumbs up reply on post 51.
post #63 of 486
Not sure what you could take away from comparing Timotune/Aether, except that Aether's fit isn't worth posting mostly because you can't see squat -- and the little I can see just looks like something a Circuit City SA would wear. Possibly it's better than that? Timotune looks fine -- but I think a layman would wonder why he's wearing cargo pants with "dress" shoes and a "fancy" sportscoat/pocket square.

(I assume those are Epaulet rivet cargo chinos).
post #64 of 486
Does this help? Unless, of course, the small pics were on purpose. I never really know what's going on around here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Comparison #2: 03.23.12
648
post #65 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Comparison #2: 03.23.12
324

While i dislike both outfits, I have to hand it to SWD here.

The MC example is a hot mess. The pants are just terrible. 1. Cargos? really? 2. too tight and short around the lower leg, which looks odd with the double monks. The wrinkling above the shoes doesn't look good. Also, while its hard to tell, the MC jacket and shirt look too big.

SWD is not flawless either, but the actual "fit" is better. A short sleeve dress shirt and puffy vest is not a good look in my eyes, but in terms of fit, its better.

SWD on this occasion
post #66 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1 View Post

Timotune looks fine -- but I think a layman would wonder why he's wearing cargo pants with "dress" shoes and a "fancy" sportscoat/pocket square.
(I assume those are Epaulet rivet cargo chinos).

no, I think everyone would wonder that. Its an awful combo
post #67 of 486
aether wins this batte. MC will win the war.
post #68 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by F. Corbera View Post

Comparison #2: 03.23.12
324

My $0.02.
SWD waist up: Terrible. I see no reason for short sleeve dress shirts even to exist unless they are linen or madras. Pairing one with the quilted vest makes no sense. Why wear a vest? Are you cold? Then why are you wearing a short sleeve shirt? -1
MC waist up: I would have maybe liked to have seen another color introduced through the pocket square, but overall pretty good! +1

SWD waist down: Dark pants that fit. +1
MC waist down: Awful! Skin-tight cargo pants have no reason to exist either. These are particularly bad since they have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the ensemble. -1

SWD shoes & accessories: Not liking the square toed Kenneth Cole looking shoes. I know they are "in" right now, but the bracelet still looks silly to me. 0
MC shoes & accessories: I have a soft spot for suede double monks, so I really like the shoes. Classic sunglasses are good too. +1

SWD overall: Can't say I understand the short sleeve shirt with the vest, but his confidence kind of pulls it off. If I scroll so his face isn't in the shot it looks really bad, but I suppose he's making it work to some degree and his clothes actually fit. +1
MC overall: I'm sorry but I just can't get past the tight cargo pants. They ruin everything else and make it look ridiculous. 0

Final tally: tied, both lose.
post #69 of 486
I think that both outfits are fatally flawed, but I'll at least give the MC fit a nod for trying to be inventive. imo, aether's fit is just a hot mess. Not even going to go try to analyze it.

Timotune could really give some coherence to his high/low concept if he tossed the pocket square, and fully embraced the casual nature of his lower half. That, or he could could straight up #menswear, and do the super cropped pants thing, but that would make it predictable and, honestly, no matter how much bloggers at Pitti gush about stuff like this, still look pretty bad. I would leave the double monks at home, and get a pair of really chunky boots for that fit - gunboat boots - something out of he country catalogues of Trickers or Alfred Sargents, or, if you are lucky, vintage Lattanzi boots, which were tremendous for this type of look. It would also make the silhouette interesting and consistent, transitioning from fitted and fairly elegant, to rough and tumble, as you scan down. I would also size up at least one on the pants. Slim cargoes are funny.

I actually have a friend, a DJ and all around cool guy, who does this outfit pretty often. The sportsjacket is sort of the thing that pulls it together. He does this when he is DJing. The attitude is projects is: I'm a casual guy, and I'm going to dress how the fuck I want, but this sportsjacket is dope, and I'm going to rock it hard as well. It's an afterthought that makes clear his attitude.
post #70 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rompson View Post

I'd be willing to give it to the MC side if he took away some unnecessary details. Between the cargo pockets, the double monks, the matchy pocketsquare, and the gold buttons on the blazer, there's just too much going on. These little things draw too much attention to themselves, and he's just one bowtie away from being featured on Unabashedly Prep. uhoh.gif

laugh.gif
post #71 of 486
I'm going to simplify and restate my position on MC vs. SW&D. To really be great at either is difficult. However, you can get to a level of competency in MC much easier that you can in SW&D, and competent instruction is much easier to find. "SW&D" is much broader, more difficult to "get" conceptually, and competent instruction is much harder to find.

I'm more of a sports guy than and a music guy, so I'm going to use a different analogy than did Derek.

There are tons of good boxing gyms, in every mid-sized city, and if you train hard for six months at those gyms, you are going to start to learn the fundamentals reasonably well. You will be able to jab, throw a cross, and uppercut, and know defensive fundamentals. You will also know where you have the most need of improvement.

MMA gyms also abound, but many, many, of them just suck all around. Some are good at a specific aspects, but bad at others. Really great training facilities are few and far in between. Also, because of the popularity, they are oversubscribed, and a lot of people are essentially tricked into thinking that they've learned something. Becoming competent in wrestling, kickboxing, boxing, and jiujitsu, not to mention the all important transitions, at the same time, is incredibly difficult. I've watched a lot of amateur competitions in both, and I'll tell you that the worst fights were definitely in MMA. You often wonder "did this dude actually train at all, or did he just see it on tv?" I've trained, trained people, and fought some decent competition, and I'll admit, with no caveats, that my wrestling is definitely subpar - I'd say, barely passable. Even a the top level pro ranks, you see gaping holes to fighter's overall games.

SW&D is like MMA. MC is like boxing. You have to be naturally talented to be great at either, but it's easier to reach a decent level of competency at one than at the other.
post #72 of 486
MC is serif. SW&D is sans.
post #73 of 486
I think both would have done a bit better if they swapped trousers with each other.
post #74 of 486
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

I think both would have done a bit better if they swapped trousers with each other.

I thought that the StyFo 10th was in May?

confused.gif
post #75 of 486
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA Guy View Post

I'm going to simplify and restate my position on MC vs. SW&D. To really be great at either is difficult. However, you can get to a level of competency in MC much easier that you can in SW&D, and competent instruction is much easier to find. "SW&D" is much broader, more difficult to "get" conceptually, and competent instruction is much harder to find.
I'm more of a sports guy than and a music guy, so I'm going to use a different analogy than did Derek.
There are tons of good boxing gyms, in every mid-sized city, and if you train hard for six months at those gyms, you are going to start to learn the fundamentals reasonably well. You will be able to jab, throw a cross, and uppercut, and know defensive fundamentals. You will also know where you have the most need of improvement.
MMA gyms also abound, but many, many, of them just suck all around. Some are good at a specific aspects, but bad at others. Really great training facilities are few and far in between. Also, because of the popularity, they are oversubscribed, and a lot of people are essentially tricked into thinking that they've learned something. Becoming competent in wrestling, kickboxing, boxing, and jiujitsu, not to mention the all important transitions, at the same time, is incredibly difficult. I've watched a lot of amateur competitions in both, and I'll tell you that the worst fights were definitely in MMA. You often wonder "did this dude actually train at all, or did he just see it on tv?" I've trained, trained people, and fought some decent competition, and I'll admit, with no caveats, that my wrestling is definitely subpar - I'd say, barely passable. Even a the top level pro ranks, you see gaping holes to fighter's overall games.
SW&D is like MMA. MC is like boxing. You have to be naturally talented to be great at either, but it's easier to reach a decent level of competency at one than at the other.

OK, but if we set the bar at dressing well rather than competently, I think Men's Clothing done well is really rare. It's the subtleties, both in style and fit, that distinguish one suit from another. And then the interaction with the clothes-as-objects with the their wearer can be just as challenging as in streetwear. I think that's a huge problem with the "casual" MC thread -- even if the fit and materials are good, virtually none of the posters carry it off well. My hypothesis is that casual tailored clothing gradually crossed a point of no return over the past 20 years into period costume, for everyone born after roughly 1975. So even if you're right and you can reach a level of technical competency, you're still going to look out-of-place in nearly every context. So if you are one of the vanishingly few who was raised wearing tailored clothes in a range of contexts (do they exist -- maybe at prep schools?), then you may be able to thread the needle into nondouchiness. That's more true for the pre-1975 generation.

Maybe I'm too tough a judge -- I think almost all MC ready-to-wear champions are bad, while "good-bespoke (Naples/Savile Row/New York)" wearers run about 50-percent-good/50-percent-bad. The good bespoke wearers probably dress identically to how they dressed 15 years ago, pre-Internet fora.

Now, your analogy works, because SW&D does require knowledge of an aesthetic that has few masters. If you gave every SFer $25,000 to spend on the Atelier brands, all (excepting the few who had the requisite background) would look bad. With a knowledgeable Atelier SA as a guide, many would look good, by the Atelier mindset/criteria. I'd only say add that this knowledge is ephemeral. When Atelier closes, its aesthetic vision may not long outlive it. So while it may be more difficult to master, is it ultimately more rewarding? Fashion's built-in obsolescence may make it more difficult, but I think it can be a pointless difficulty.
Edited by The Thin Man - 3/24/12 at 11:47am
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