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

No effs given... correctly - Page 30

post #436 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

Guys, we defined NFG as knowing the rules, but deviating from them in some way that still looks good. Zuckerberg does not know the rules, nor does he look good.

Actually, we didn't agree on this definition.
post #437 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post


Actually, we didn't agree on this definition.

No one argued against the definition as far as I know. I guess people mostly ignored it.

post #438 of 477
I argued quite specifically against it in saying that there are those who have an innate sense/style. They are ignorant of the rules, and still they come up with surprising, pleasing combinations.
post #439 of 477
i argue that i give no effs about what the eff no effs mean.
post #440 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

Guys, we defined NFG as knowing the rules, but deviating from them in some way that still looks good. Zuckerberg does not know the rules, nor does he look good.

Then how do you know if they know the rules or not?

ps at least Zuck put on a suit and tie for his wedding and dinner with Obama. So does he knows the rules or does he not?
post #441 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by chogall View Post


Then how do you know if they know the rules or not?

ps at least Zuck put on a suit and tie for his wedding and dinner with Obama. So does he knows the rules or does he not?

He does not.

post #442 of 477

Does it actually matter if the wearer knows the rules or not?


Isn't it actually more important in this context for the observer to know the rules?

 

(one can be both wearer and observer, for instance if they were posting pictures of themselves in this thread)

post #443 of 477

again read the title of the thread...

 

no effs given... CORRECTLY

 

Cant has stated time and again that this thread about dissecting and analyzing why certain fits that shouldn't necessarily work within a certain frame somehow do

 

It's isn't that complicated guys.

 

I hope y'all aren't this rigid irl

post #444 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post

I hope y'all aren't this rigid irl

dont be coy, yes you do hope for that.
post #445 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tirailleur1 View Post

again read the title of the thread...

 

no effs given... CORRECTLY

 

Cant has stated time and again that this thread about dissecting and analyzing why certain fits that shouldn't necessarily work within a certain frame somehow do

 

It's isn't that complicated guys.

 

I hope y'all aren't this rigid irl

I had such hopes for this thread. After 30 pages, I think we should just take it out back and shoot it.

post #446 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterFu View Post

I had such hopes for this thread. After 30 pages, I think we should just take it out back and shoot it.


+1 - but then again, it was always going to be a difficult topic.

There's a lot more "peacocking" going on in menswear nowadays, quite a lot of it inspired by #menswear on Tumblr and so on.

I think that the trick of "no effs given" is essentially sprezzatura, as used in dressing and appearance.

However, the problem is that there's an awful lot of "false sprezzatura" out there - where people try to look nonchalant and effortless but where they have, in fact, put a great deal of thought and effort into their clothing, and an awful lot of "faux sprezz" photos pop up in the #menswear feed on Tumblr, such as people wearing ties where the back blade is much longer than the front blade, or where the back blade is tied alongside, instead of behind, the front blade of the tie, or where buttondown collars are deliberately left unbuttoned (as a few, small examples).

In terms of appearance, it can be a very fine line between real sprezz and false sprezz, so it can be difficult to tell whether one is "no effs given correctly" and the other is not!
post #447 of 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterFu View Post

I had such hopes for this thread. After 30 pages, I think we should just take it out back and shoot it.

27 pages of debating what the subject title means and 1.5 pages of pictures that don't accurately match the subject of the thread.

Send it to the glue factory.
post #448 of 477
LOL at the glue factory line.


I realize this is TV, but here is how to give no effs while dressed flamboyantly.

post #449 of 477
I think that pretty much any picture of Lapo Elkann is a picture of no effs being given.

However, most of the pictures of extravagantly-dressed people in the #menswear stream on Tumblr are pictures of many effs being given.
Edited by Journeyman - 6/7/13 at 3:47pm
post #450 of 477
Thread Starter 
Does anyone have a photo where Lapo doesn't look dumb / clownish / like he's only qualified to be an heir?

Serious question.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › No effs given... correctly