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

No effs given... correctly - Page 25

post #361 of 477
I assume that anyone wearing a tracksuit has given zero fucks. But that might just be me.
post #362 of 477

I met this guy about a year ago. His name is Jerry Grant and is a local NY artist who has had Jay Kos commission a mini pant collection at his store. Not sure if this is one of them he is wearing but I think he is a very fine example of N.E.G.

 

 

No...

 

 

...Fucks...

 

...To give

 

More awesome N.E.G Action (Click to show)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although I like his style alot, I was wondering if he veers into the n.e.g territory or would you guys categorize this more on the SWD side? imo I believe he still hasn't fully crossed SWD due to the fact that his main look is built around suiting.


Edited by Tirailleur1 - 6/2/13 at 2:41pm
post #363 of 477
First, I can't really abide this bowdlerizing of No Fucks Given. It's fine for the thread title, but let's at least keep the initialism proper: NFG.

Second, Mr. Grant seems to be walking the line between P'cockin' and NFG
post #364 of 477
at first i thought you meant the person with the red hair, and i was like whAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaat.
post #365 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post








For me, they illustrate the 3rd unspoken elephant in the room .... 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 suspect that sexuality or perceived sexuality is a big factor. We have a narrow range of color and clothing combinations that are accepted as heterosexual. Outside that range, clothes are perceived as signaling sexual ambiguity that elicits a lot disquiet in the viewer

A young man wearing pink shoes and staring into a camera would be perceived as overtly homosexual or at best signifying ambiguous sexuality.

However, when you reach the age of the man in the photos, you are no longer seen as a sexual being. Old men are viewed as asexual. So, their clothes no longer carry any sexual overtone. They are no longer threatening.

As to the pictures, I like the first. He wears the hat well. Most people on this forum seem to perch their hat on the top of their head. They look like they are balancing a dish on their head. To look natural, a hat needs to look utilitarian. That means there should be some evidence that the hat is actually worn and shaped by hand -- the brim is shaped to shade the eyes and the hat pulled down over the head so it’s secured and won’t blow off in the wind. Most of the fedoras I see on SF are perched so high on the head they look like they will topple over as soon as the wearer turns his head. In the days when men wore hats, they pulled them down tight -- not perched on top of the head.

The chukka boots (aside from the color) are a good choice for informality of the hat and levis. As to the jeans, I don’t think they ever look good with a jacket and tie. I can remember only one picture where someone looked good in that combination. I saw a photograph of the designer Valentino wearing jeans with a corduroy jacket, woolen shirt and wool tie. He looked good. The jeans draped absolutely straight with only the slightest break. No doubt the jeans were heavily tailored to get that perfect.
post #366 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.

Each is perfectly coordinated color wise and looks good in its way but they're both hard to eff up.


Thats the key though isnt it? I don't care about crazy combinations or the need to coordinate complex patterns, I just put my clothes on.

Its not a standard uniform at all, just in your mind. walking around the city of new york all day in that DB suit I would be lucky to see anyone wearing an outfit like that in 2013 and you know it. I think it is less of a uniform (although historically it is) than the uniforms I see on here, short jackets, short trousers, big cuff, bracelets etc, etc I see that all the time and its very fashionable and predictable.

I am more into minimalism in clothing though, I know its not so "fashionable" now, but I myself favor a more clean, but sharp simple look. If I am ever wearing something that is risky of being a "fuck up" I am not the dresser I want to be. I am not averse to taking risks, but theres more exciting things to take risks on than matching pocket squares and shirts......I mean who gives a fuck about that?
Edited by David Reeves - 6/2/13 at 4:46pm
post #367 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coburn View Post

I suspect that sexuality or perceived sexuality is a big factor. We have a narrow range of color and clothing combinations that are accepted as heterosexual. Outside that range, clothes are perceived as signaling sexual ambiguity that elicits a lot disquiet in the viewer

A young man wearing pink shoes and staring into a camera would be perceived as overtly homosexual or at best signifying ambiguous sexuality.

However, when you reach the age of the man in the photos, you are no longer seen as a sexual being. Old men are viewed as asexual. So, their clothes no longer carry any sexual overtone. They are no longer threatening.

As to the pictures, I like the first. He wears the hat well. Most people on this forum seem to perch their hat on the top of their head. They look like they are balancing a dish on their head. To look natural, a hat needs to look utilitarian. That means there should be some evidence that the hat is actually worn and shaped by hand -- the brim is shaped to shade the eyes and the hat pulled down over the head so it’s secured and won’t blow off in the wind. Most of the fedoras I see on SF are perched so high on the head they look like they will topple over as soon as the wearer turns his head. In the days when men wore hats, they pulled them down tight -- not perched on top of the head.

The chukka boots (aside from the color) are a good choice for informality of the hat and levis. As to the jeans, I don’t think they ever look good with a jacket and tie. I can remember only one picture where someone looked good in that combination. I saw a photograph of the designer Valentino wearing jeans with a corduroy jacket, woolen shirt and wool tie. He looked good. The jeans draped absolutely straight with only the slightest break. No doubt the jeans were heavily tailored to get that perfect.

Interesting post, but you're way off about colors there. Pink is not associated with homosexuality anymore. As a matter of fact, pink shirts are quite common, and I think stereotyping people who are well-dressed as being homosexual is something from the past. That really doesn't happen anymore, at least not in Europe. Even if it were the case, you'd have to be pretty insecure to let it stop you from wearing the clothes or colors you like.
post #368 of 477
^in the US, it's region-dependent. In any city, being well dressed in general will not mark you as gay.

But my friend's mom visited from small town Missouri and thought I was gay just for wearing a nice (conservative, navy and white) scarf.
post #369 of 477
I can vouch for the backwardness of many of my fellow Missourians...
post #370 of 477

I go to school in Boston, and a majority of the people dress nicely. Not suits or sports coats every day, but definitely presentable items that deviate from normality (relevant to other cities). So as far as sexuality goes, not many people will judge you for wearing nice clothes. 

 

However, when I come home with a few new, more "out there" pieces that are considered standard in Boston, my mom will make a comment about looking gay. 

 

Oh how the world works. 

post #371 of 477
Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to pick on Missouri in particular - I'm from North Carolina, and you'll find the same sort of judgements there, at least in the rural eastern parts of the state.
post #372 of 477
I know, but outstate Missouri needs all the whuppins I can give it.
post #373 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

Just to clarify, I wasn't trying to pick on Missouri in particular - I'm from North Carolina, and you'll find the same sort of judgements there, at least in the rural eastern parts of the state.

Hey, North Carolina! fistbump.gif Whereabouts?

Too bad it's gone so batshit crazy in the last few years...
post #374 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

^in the US, it's region-dependent. In any city, being well dressed in general will not mark you as gay.

But my friend's mom visited from small town Missouri and thought I was gay just for wearing a nice (conservative, navy and white) scarf.

Is she attractive? Never underestimate the element of surprise.
post #375 of 477
Oh, Mr. Reeves...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly