or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › 'iGent Myths Busted!'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

'iGent Myths Busted!' - Page 10

post #136 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post

Naturally the blazer is going to have lighter trousers, as it's so dark. I wouldn't read too much into that.

Camel hair seems to be out of fashion, but I imagine there's a reason you still see 'em.

Always opting for lighter trousers seems very limiting. An outfit where the overall effect is dark -- say medium brown coat with dark brown cords -- can make for a very rich look.

Aside from that, some guys' complexions benefit from a very light coat.

Brown is something of a special case in that you wear it together in different shades.

There is more flexibility with a lighter grey trou because if gives a greater range of contrast.
post #137 of 301

My 'rules' would be:

 

1. It fits well

2. It looks good & matches the rest of the outfit

3. It isn't inappropriate

 

Beyond that I would say everything is subjective taste, fashion, and so on. Let's face it, suits didn't exist back in the middle ages, and many cultures have utterly different styles of dress to our own. A good outfit for a Masai warrior or a Mongolian sheep herder is going to have nothing in common with western ideas of 'permanent style'. However, a good outfit in those cultures should still fit well, look good, and be appropriate in the context of when and where it is worn.

post #138 of 301
There is or should be more to 3. Not messing up shouldn't be your sole aim. There is a modern style vocabulary though not ubiquitous and more in flux than in the past.
post #139 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

There is or should be more to 3. Not messing up shouldn't be your sole aim. There is a modern style vocabulary though not ubiquitous and more in flux than in the past.

Agreed. Besides, I don't think most members of this forum are aiming for "adequately dressed", which is what I think this is (though many fail to achieve even this).
post #140 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post


I agree. To play the game you have to know the rules and the language. Just like you should know whether or not it's polite to belch at the table in whichever country you're about to eat dinner.

 

But you don't have to play the game to look stylish. You can utterly ignore the game and all its rules and language, and still dress very stylishly. 

 

You only have to play the game if you want to be fashionable, or to fit in. Although those may be useful goals, depending on what you are trying to achieve, they have little to do with style.

post #141 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmic View Post

But you don't have to play the game to look stylish. You can utterly ignore the game and all its rules and language, and still dress very stylishly. 

Give an example.
post #142 of 301
Time for the lawyers to draft the constitution of igent's dress to solidify myth and heresy into rules.
post #143 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

There is or should be more to 3. Not messing up shouldn't be your sole aim. There is a modern style vocabulary though not ubiquitous and more in flux than in the past.

There are multiple style vocabularies - consider what would be appropriate at a biker meet or a rodeo. Unless we are to say that it is impossible to dress with style in those situations, then we must admit that style is not restricted to just one way of dressing. Even if you are a conservative elitist and say that those other social settings have inherently unstylish dress, then consider this - no modern style vocabulary was worn by a single person in the whole world as little as 300 years ago. Therefore it is either impossible that style is limited to any one modern style vocabulary (or even all of them), or it is impossible that anyone dressed with style 300 years ago. The latter conclusion is clearly absurd, so style must therefore be something that is wider and longer-lasting than the predominant way of dressing in any part of the modern world. 

 

In other words, style transcends all fashions and social conventions. It must be based on timeless universal factors, not on what is the taste in place X or time Y. 

post #144 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post

Give an example.

LabelKing.
post #145 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mktitsworth View Post

LabelKing.

????
post #146 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmic View Post

There are multiple style vocabularies - consider what would be appropriate at a biker meet or a rodeo. Unless we are to say that it is impossible to dress with style in those situations, then we must admit that style is not restricted to just one way of dressing. Given that no modern style vocabulary was worn by a single person in the whole world as little as 300 years ago, then it is impossible that style is limited to any one modern style vocabulary (or even all of them). Style must therefore be something that is wider and longer-lasting than the predominant way of dressing in any part of the modern world. 

The context for Cantabrigian's statement is implicit and this is an irrelevant set of statements.
post #147 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovelace View Post

????

You wanted an example of someone who totally ignores the rules and doesn't play the game.
post #148 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mktitsworth View Post

LabelKing.
he is a fu&**k Alpha..nothing compares smile.gif
post #149 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mktitsworth View Post

You wanted an example of someone who totally ignores the rules and doesn't play the game.

I was actually hoping for a picture of someone.
post #150 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by mktitsworth View Post

LabelKing.

He doesn't break all the rules though. At his best, his color and pattern-matching are way beyond the average on this forum.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › 'iGent Myths Busted!'