whnay.'s good taste thread - Page 437

Leviticus 3:9

Oh, I get it now. The waistcoat prevents people from offering their fat to the Lord.

Crocs are also well within the mainstream (no offense).

Yes, I believe most of us agree with you. I think a large man in a (good) three piece suit actually looks much better than a skinny man in a three piece suit, hence my post of Taft. It projects a degree of gravitas and self-assurance that is just not easily faked. But that may be a minority opinion.

Presumably . . . that is why Abel was able to offer a pleasing sacrifice with the fat of lambs, whereas waistcoat-wearing Cain was stuck with day-old produce. It is hard to see here, but - trust me - Cain is wearing a waistcoat:

 

Winter is definately chilly here.

If you have a big belly and you're serious about looking good, neither a vest nor an expert bespoke tailor can make you look as good as a thin guy in a fused Hugo Boss suit.

I think that big men have fantasies about getting their trousers tailored such that the waist band sits at exactly the right spot and masks their belly and therefore they look smashing and dashing, etc.

No.

A big belly is a big belly. Before spending 5 racks a pop on bespoke, hire a trainer and get your eating under control.

Desu is the maximum level of "bigness" you can be without looking like a big cartoon in pinstripes.

And he has that sort of 'brick shithouse' build where he's not even fat so much as thickly built.

But the bottom line is that looking good is hard and a big belly makes it essentially impossible.

Too busy talking about beer guts to get any love from manton I guess. =o(

Most people discussing this are entirely missing the point. For some people the choice is not between being rotund in great clothes and being skinny in shitty clothes. The question at hand is, given your body type, what should you wear to make you look your best.

Some posters seem to prefer to flaunt their own youth or leanness at older and/or heavier men, which is pointless. FWIW, I have no dog in this fight as I'm 6'2 195, so not really skinny but not really heavy either. But I don't see the point of telling heavier guys to just go lose 50 pounds before they even think about clothes if they have no desire or ability to change their weight.

Speak for yourself. I think Taft looked great. As did Churchill and many other famous gentlemen of less "athletic" build.

In a clothing forum, saying that fat guys should focus on losing weight is only marginally more relevant than saying short guys should focus on growing taller.

 

A fat man might not look healthier, but he sure as hell may look better...

 

It's not about "hiding" that big belly or making a fat man look like a perfectly built mannequin, which is impossible. The goal is to make everything look proportioned and presentable.

 

Oh, and the silhouette of Hugo Boss suits is rather ugly. No one looks good in them, even young and fit folks.

Edited by RDiaz - 2/19/13 at 9:03am

 

have you ever been to the north west of Spain? Visit Salamanca during January. Don't forget your snow shoes.

 

But when has climate ever prohibited someone from wearing a three piece suit. One of the few things I learned in Hong Kong.

 

 

Regarding vests.I believe vests are great to hide a belly but I stand with my point that they look out of place on the younger crowd or the very young looking crowd such as myself.

 

Every piece of clothing looks best on physically fit people but that's no secret.

 

You pulled off high-rise "old fogey pants" rather well - I don't think a vest would look bad on you. Just don't wear it with a pocket watch, a monocle, a bowler hat and a cane 

Weight loss does little to make Boy George's bad choices look any better:



He looks better, but the clothes... ?