Nominate the best posts on the forum and (maybe) win a prize - ongoing Front Page contest - Page 14

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman 

This post deserves recognition. If I had read it when I first joined I would have had 50%+ of my noob questions answered.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
This post deserves recognition. If I had read it when I first joined I would have had 50%+ of my noob questions answered.

Originally Posted by Man Of Lint 

Really?
I find this graph misleading, though well intentioned. The proportioning of the column spacing used is the complete opposite of reality.
Specifically, 98% of mens incomes fall well under the $100,000/yr mark yet this graph, by its poor spacing, indicates that the under $100,000/yr incomes represent the minority.
As this post originated in the Esquire thread, I would like to see the graph corrected for spacing or better yet, incorporated into a fresh new thread that provides a comprehensive list of manufacturers suggested for every income. That would require some homework and ambition and energy but would be a fabulous 'quick reference guide' for the newbies.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc 

edit; FlyingMonkey posted while I was writing, but I rather strongly disagree. BUT, like so many discussions on the forum, whether it be politics, fashion, the fifty "greatest" menswear brands, etc. we all may use the same words/terms, but have completely different ideas in mind for what they actually mean. I see at last two different, incompatible meanings:
(1) Good fashion is specifically about the garment: a certain proportion between the clothes and the body of the man, a certain combination of colors, textures, and quality of production that are more or less universal/categorical. In this way, a 3'5 man from California and a 7'2 man from China wearing the same garment, though "bespoke" from Gieves & Hawkes, are both said to look "superb," given that the connection between their proportions and the fit, etc. of the garment are "perfect" for them.
(2) Good fashion is about the wearer, who he is, where he's from, what his circumstances demand, and the kind of life he leads. In this way, Yohji Yamamoto wearing his own looks, and Vox wearing one of his bespoke items, both look "excellent" even though the styles are nothing at all alike. Switch the looks and Yohji looks comical and Vox looks like he's wearing a completely ill-fitting jacket. As well, the attitude/personality of the man plays a part in (2) Thus, Bernie Madof wearing perfect clothes looks less "good" as an overall effect than, say, SoCal happily wearing one of his Pirate Skirts.
For me, fashion is all about (2). Even though Spiffy's choices are not mine, I actually don't think he looks bad in them, and think they've gotten better over time. This latest batch, as an overall effect, shows a man with a nice life, comfortable in his skin, confident, and who has found a style that works for him and his circumstances.
On the other hand, I couldn't care less about (1): I've seen dozens of threads and hundreds of photos over the years of men look absolutely miserable in $$$, exquisitely constructed clothes. There isn't any enjoyment there, but instead an almost fetishistic sense of obsession with the mechanics of a garment. The items "fit" them perfectly, of course, are made of the finest materials, and cost more than my first car... and yet they look like boys playing "Dress up." No confidence, no comfort, just... well... fetish.
Those only interested in the clothing themselves (1), divorced from the person wearing it, obviously post how great the latter person looks; actually, they're not saying how "good" the man looks... because he looks awful... it's how nice his suit looks.
They'll also be the ones who will say how "awful" Spiffy looks. But, to be honest, to everybody but a very, very, very small minority (even on this forum), people perceive a lot more in the first glance than what kind of horn your buttonholes are made from. And, when doing that, Spiffy's looks overall give a greater sense of a confident, satisfied man than a lot of the posturing and preening that goes on here.
So, Spiffy, keep doing what you're doing, though be open to new things (and, as you said, your style is evolving).
*That being said... girlfriend... we have GOT to work on your shoes.

Originally Posted by NORE 

That was a tl.dr post in an area where it was unnecessary. Talk about trying to be edmorel. Sheesh

Originally Posted by in stitches 

lolnore, always the dissident.
it was a great post. i woud think you af all people would like it. very contrarian to the general "follow the fit rules" mantra, and gave great credence, in a very well said manner, to taking personal attitude into consideration when using the term "good fashion." that is right up your RL asses alley.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc 

Thanks, stitchy. I often get the tl;dr label, but I try to be clear and argue through a point, organized around a general thesis. For every post, that's obviously not necessary, but when you're trying to argue something, a post ought to be like a mini-essay. Yes, it makes for ONE long post... but then I don't have to argue back-and-forth twenty five more times to get my point across.

Originally Posted by in stitches 

personally, i like posts like that when necessary. i wrote a few today. obviously they sucked, but i did enjoy going through an entire thought process in one shot, and trying to organize it well. its not always easy, and they often are not read, but its nice to see more than a blurb sometimes, or a curt reply, and be left guessing what the poster meant, and than when you argue, he says that is not what i meant. i did that twice today also.