or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

No effs given... correctly - Page 24

post #346 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

Is it really necessary to have such a philosophical debate in a thread that is meant to be of a more practical nature? Besides, this discussion has been going in circles for at least the last 10 pages. If you really want to continue this, I suggest you make new thread for it.

It would have been fun if there had been more examples, more discussion of actual outfits. Hell, I enjoyed being the subject of "vivisection" as Cantabrigian put it. Unfortunately there are several problems that doomed this thread from the start:

 

1. This is an inherently subjective topic where I am not sure anyone can even holistically define what "no effs given" means. It means different things to different people based on different criteria. Is it looking like you legitimately don't care how you look yet unintentionally "getting it right" through sheer "talent" or is it actually not caring what people think and just blowing up their eyeballs with something far outside the norm? This, inevitably leads to the "what is good" and how good is defined debates that are running in circles on this thread. 

 

2. The second problem is comparing apples to oranges. Rumpled vest dude versus Terrence Howard, me versus NOBD, these are different styles of dress for different purposes, for people with different builds and vastly divergent aesthetic tastes. I think NOBD hit it out of the park, but the club I was going to dinner at required more formality (for one thing, a proper tie was very much required). That outstanding scarf would have had to go and, let's be honest, without the scarf it becomes merely good. I was, by the very nature of what and where I was dressing for, giving somewhat of an F, whereas NOBD may very well not have been. Apples and oranges.

 

3. Once you start comparing apples and oranges, again, subjective opinions based on individual taste work there way into the conversation. I had a visceral dislike of rumpled vest dudes outfit and that was based on my subjective hatred of the trilby hat which, based on what I see walking around the city, is an immediate indication of hipster try-hard's. Throw in that too-short purposely rumpled vest and it all looks, to my eyes, like he was trying very hard to look like he wasn't trying hard. The end result, in my opinion, is clichéd. On the other hand, while I wouldn't wear it, Terrence Howard's outfit looks more like a standard dude trying to look snazzy (with various levels of success) which is a lot less eff's given than rumpled vest guy (and frankly more in line with what I consider good). That said, these are my opinions based on my personal tastes and if I tried to assert anything other, it'd be pretty ridiculous. Yes, as a society, we have certain things we generally agree (on a majority basis) as being good, like NOBD's outfit. Trying to define that in objective, truly quantifiable terms is, IMHO, like trying to accurately define the beginning and end of a circle. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

post #347 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterFu View Post

It would have been fun if there had been more examples, more discussion of actual outfits. Hell, I enjoyed being the subject of "vivisection" as Cantabrigian put it. Unfortunately there are several problems that doomed this thread from the start:

 

1. This is an inherently subjective topic where I am not sure anyone can even holistically define what "no effs given" means. It means different things to different people based on different criteria. Is it looking like you legitimately don't care how you look yet unintentionally "getting it right" through sheer "talent" or is it actually not caring what people think and just blowing up their eyeballs with something far outside the norm? This, inevitably leads to the "what is good" and how good is defined debates that are running in circles on this thread. 

 

2. The second problem is comparing apples to oranges. Rumpled vest dude versus Terrence Howard, me versus NOBD, these are different styles of dress for different purposes, for people with different builds and vastly divergent aesthetic tastes. I think NOBD hit it out of the park, but the club I was going to dinner at required more formality (for one thing, a proper tie was very much required). That outstanding scarf would have had to go and, let's be honest, without the scarf it becomes merely good. I was, by the very nature of what and where I was dressing for, giving somewhat of an F, whereas NOBD may very well not have been. Apples and oranges.

 

3. Once you start comparing apples and oranges, again, subjective opinions based on individual taste work there way into the conversation. I had a visceral dislike of rumpled vest dudes outfit and that was based on my subjective hatred of the trilby hat which, based on what I see walking around the city, is an immediate indication of hipster try-hard's. Throw in that too-short purposely rumpled vest and it all looks, to my eyes, like he was trying very hard to look like he wasn't trying hard. The end result, in my opinion, is clichéd. On the other hand, while I wouldn't wear it, Terrence Howard's outfit looks more like a standard dude trying to look snazzy (with various levels of success) which is a lot less eff's given than rumpled vest guy (and frankly more in line with what I consider good). That said, these are my opinions based on my personal tastes and if I tried to assert anything other, it'd be pretty ridiculous. Yes, as a society, we have certain things we generally agree (on a majority basis) as being good, like NOBD's outfit. Trying to define that in objective, truly quantifiable terms is, IMHO, like trying to accurately define the beginning and end of a circle. 

 

Just my 2 cents.

This is inherently a subjective topic, but that doesn't mean we are not able to discuss it on it a practical level. Point 2 and 3 are great, that sort of discussion belongs in this thread!

If I understood it correctly, discussion about mathematics, ancient Greek aesthetics, or quantum physics does not belong in this thread. It might very well be a fun and useful discussion, but this is not the right place for it, just like SW&D does not post in the CM WAYWRN thread, and vice versa. You're more than welcome to open the theoretical counterpart of this practical no effs given thread, and I might even join the discussion there once in while.

Anyway, read HF's post, as he's able to define the intended nature of this thread much more eloquently. 

post #348 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post
In that spirit, here are two recent, great Albert Hal outfits from the waywrn that I think fall pretty squarely within this thread's concepts (esp. given that the poster has previously commented that he changed his style significantly to this kind of retro-ish look a while ago and that the change was a surprise to those around him), and so I think merit a second look:

 

 

For me, they illustrate the 3rd unspoken elephant in the room when it comes to accepting an unconventional style (I previously mentioned the other 2; being either attractive or intriguingly not), which is having a few grey hairs. I think it's socially more acceptable to those around you to dress somewhat outside the norm, if you're a little older than some who try it.

I think Albert Hal is one of the most consistent posters of interesting outfits, especially when taking into account that most of it is thrifted. That said, I do feel that the jeans (or are those chinos?) in pic 1 are out of place. Outfit 2 looks great though, and it certainly does not look out of place on him. I wonder how hats play a part in this? TTO and T1 wear hats often as well. Maybe wearing a hat makes it easier to pull off a no effs given outfit?

 

It's definitely true that older men dressing outside of the norm are usually called eccentric, while younger people are mostly called weird. I've been wanting to wear suits, ties and nice oxfords ever since I was a kid. However, I only started doing that very recently, because I recognized it would've been too much outside of the socially accepted norm.

 

And to be honest, this way of dressing is still not accepted amongst my peers. They have accepted me dressing more formally, but that's because I'm more comfortable in what I'm wearing now than I ever was while wearing jeans and t-shirts, and it recon it shows. Because of that I think true no effs given outfits can only work when one is completely economically independent. Not having to worry about how colleagues or clients will react to the way you dress, because it can cost you your job, will give you the liberty to express yourself sartorially. I guess people employed in more creative sectors are allowed to deviate from the norm a little more. 

I suppose the general the 'rule' is that the more senior you are, the more you can get away with, sartorially or otherwise, and both privately and professionally.

post #349 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

This is inherently a subjective topic, but that doesn't mean we are not able to discuss it on it a practical level. Point 2 and 3 are great, that sort of discussion belongs in this thread!

If I understood it correctly, discussion about mathematics, ancient Greek aesthetics, or quantum physics does not belong in this thread. It might very well be a fun and useful discussion, but this is not the right place for it, just like SW&D does not post in the CM WAYWRN thread, and vice versa. You're more than welcome to open the theoretical counterpart of this practical no effs given thread, and I might even join the discussion there once in while.

Anyway, read HF's post, as he's able to define the intended nature of this thread much more eloquently. 

Agreed, I was actually just articulating why I thought things had come off the rails in what I thought would be a neat thread. By off the rails I mean discussions of mathematics, ancient Greek aesthetics and quantum physics.

 

The solution to making this thread awesome is for everyone posting in it to do their best no-effs effort tomorrow and post the results for analysis and "vivisection" in good humor. It would be interesting and, frankly, would prove that one doesn't give too many effs to start with.

post #350 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterFu View Post

Agreed, I was actually just articulating why I thought things had come off the rails in what I thought would be a neat thread. By off the rails I mean discussions of mathematics, ancient Greek aesthetics and quantum physics.

 

The solution to making this thread awesome is for everyone posting in it to do their best no-effs effort tomorrow and post the results for analysis and "vivisection" in good humor. It would be interesting and, frankly, would prove that one doesn't give too many effs to start with.

Sure thing, I'll post my recent peacock challenge outfit after we're done analyzing albert's fit. It'll be interesting to see whether peacock can be a part of no effs given.

post #351 of 477
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post


What all of these debates suggest is that you lack empathy. If it doesn't appeal, or makes no sense, to you, you dismiss it. When you treat the subjective as objective, as binary, there is no discussion to be had.

I'm hoping,and think we can, move beyond the simple binary - good / bad, like / don't like, Pitti / CBD.

I'm never going to dress like TTO. Maybe at gunpoint or Miranda Kerr-point or something. But I think we've had some interesting discussion of why his stuff works and how that relates to pattern mixing + color coordination.
post #352 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

 

I suppose the general the 'rule' is that the more senior you are, the more you can get away with, sartorially or otherwise, and both privately and professionally.

Outfit 1 was, IMHO, one of his few misses and really looked like weird old senior guy (something my father, while trying to look casual, would wear). Most of the time, his outfits (especially his suits) are, to my aesthetic tastes, just classically good and, despite being vintage, would look very much at home on the upper east side or the west-end today.

 

To your point, in my 20's I wore a jacket and tie (be it suit, blazer, etc.) about 30% of the time. In those days, a lot of people would comment "aren't you dressed up", etc. It wasn't negative, but I was always aware that I was somewhat outside the norm. Today, nearly 40, if I am outside the house I am in a jacket and tie close 90% of the time and the comments have largely disappeared (or perhaps I just don't notice them anymore). Some of it is the resurgence in CM, a lot of it is being older and, frankly, being the boss (which, in most cases, comes with age).

 

I think there is a paradox that as you get older, you care somewhat more about your appearance and quite a bit less about what others think of your appearance.

post #353 of 477
I think an older person (or someone who looks older) can give less effs at least partly because, as noted above, they are more believable in that role. They are either in the twilight of their career and therefore less likely to worry about impressing with their dress or worrying about what other people think or they are retired and can get away with whatever they want. We also accept more eccentricity from older people as well. When looking for pics for this thread, I noted many older men relative to middle aged who I thought met the criteria.

It may just be me but I also think an older person has had many years to develop a personal style which can include deviations from MC that don't seem forced. It's probably why I associate peacocking with younger men. As an aside I think peacocking is different fron n.e.g as it involves putting together an entire outfit that is meant to garner attention rather than selectively deviating.
post #354 of 477
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Reeves View Post




Quote:
Originally Posted by David Reeves View Post

What you need is an artistic mind with a good intuitive grasp of balance, composition and color, this is what most people lack.

Are these two posts related?

I don't much care for either look, personally, but I recognize that each has some history / tradition behind it. The vast majority of Saville Row has made DBs like that since Moses wore short pants. And being from Jersey (guidos, not cows), how can I not appreciate a track suit.

But each seems to be a very standard uniform, calling for very little coordination.

Each is perfectly coordinated color wise and looks good in its way but they're both hard to eff up.
post #355 of 477
Thread Starter 
MisterFu, you raise some good points and I think it's related to what SugarButch was driving at.

It would only matter who looked better between you two if you were interviewing for the job or scheming on the same girl.

And there will certainly be some difference of opinion at the margins.

But talking about what works or what works better and why can still be worthwhile. The ultimate judgment of I prefer this one or that one is an afterthought at best.
post #356 of 477
Thread Starter 
I have no idea how to evaluate Albert.

Dude is old skool thrifty and I feel like Scandis have their rules.
post #357 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

But talking about what works or what works better and why can still be worthwhile. The ultimate judgment of I prefer this one or that one is an afterthought at best.

Absolutely. This is where the learning happens.
post #358 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post



Are these two posts related?

I don't much care for either look, personally but I recognize that each has some history / tradition behind it. The vast majority of Saville Row has made DBs like that since Moses wore short pants. And being from Jersey (guidos, not cows), how can I not appreciate a track suit.

But each seems to be a very standard uniform, calling for very little coordination.

It was a strange post. I didn't get it either. I think the DB suit is terrific, but the pose + suit ==  ∞ number of effs given. Something about that track suit photo is very unnerving (almost belongs in the creepy sartorial images thread). It takes a very special kind of person to pull off the track suit:

 

post #359 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cantabrigian View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post


What all of these debates suggest is that you lack empathy. If it doesn't appeal, or makes no sense, to you, you dismiss it. When you treat the subjective as objective, as binary, there is no discussion to be had.

I'm hoping,and think we can, move beyond the simple binary - good / bad, like / don't like, Pitti / CBD.

I'm never going to dress like TTO. Maybe at gunpoint or Miranda Kerr-point or something. But I think we've had some interesting discussion of why his stuff works and how that relates to pattern mixing + color coordination.

I agree, and I do think there is a discussion to be had and it's worth having, but the post(s) to which I responded essentially staked out the position that there are rules/principles, and that everyone heeds them or rejects them to one degree or another.
post #360 of 477
Thread Starter 
I'm hoping we can just breeze past that on our way to a deep discussion of tracksuits.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly