or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Good Natured Advice Thread (improving a business wardrobe)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Good Natured Advice Thread (improving a business wardrobe) - Page 770

post #11536 of 37396

Someone teach me about carmina lasts. Is it usually one size up for US sizing? Which lasts fit narrow and which fit wide?

post #11537 of 37396
Quote:
Originally Posted by ridethecliche View Post
 

Someone teach me about carmina lasts. Is it usually one size up for US sizing? Which lasts fit narrow and which fit wide?

There's a Carmina sizing thread on SF which has all your info.

 

Rain, Oscar are wider.

 

Forest, Soller, Simpson are (I think) medium width.

 

Alcudia is very narrow.

 

Rule of thumb: Carmina size = US size minus 1.

post #11538 of 37396

What's with SWD's WAYWRN thread?

 

Clownish, laughable outfits like this...

 

 

...with 106 thumbs and counting?

 

If I saw someone walking down the street wearing this, I'd laugh out loud. I don't care how expensive and in-the-know it is. It's inherently ridiculous.

post #11539 of 37396
I'm struggling to give you good natured advice... so I'll settle for a GTFO.
post #11540 of 37396
^^ I don't pretend to understand SW&D. I've generally been comfortable with the whole SW&D is a different aesthetic idea, especially since I don't spend a ton of time there, but if that gets 106 thumbs, I don't have a clue how to explain it.
post #11541 of 37396
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibaldleach View Post

^^ I don't pretend to understand SW&D. I've generally been comfortable with the whole SW&D is a different aesthetic idea, especially since I don't spend a ton of time there, but if that gets 106 thumbs, I don't have a clue how to explain it.

This is the problem. You view everything through a CM lens. Not everyone wants to wear CBD outside of work or some vaguely aspirational Ivy stuff or follows every one of Flusser's rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieworkwear View Post

Prob tl;dr, but if anyone is sitting on a toilet, here's something to read while you're taking a dump.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I don't disagree with anything you wrote, especially the bolded part, but it seems like we're talking about totally different things. IMO, we can think of the appreciation of clothes, as well as the making of a fashion brand, as having three dimensions:

  • Practicality: On some level, clothes are meant to be practical. Just things we wear to feel comfortable and look good (or at least look the way we want to look).
  • "Craftsmanship": An overwrought term, but basically deals with how something is constructed.
  • Conceptual design: How something contributes to the greater discussion of design.

Successful brands are always a mixture of these three things, but they'll often focus on one dimension more than the others. To give some examples:

  • Ralph Lauren, Tom Ford, etc are mostly practical designers. They're essentially making things that people want to wear to the office or whatever. Very, very practical straightforward stuff.
  • Bespoke tailors are often about craftsmanship. The point is to make something to the highest quality standard possible. Traditional methods with no compromises, even if the modern methods are "just as good."
  • Comme des Garcons is much more about conceptual design. Pieces might not be as high in quality as some of the high-end haute couture houses, but that's not really the point. The point is about making something conceptually interesting.

When it comes to appreciating fashion, or at least talking about it, it seems people on this forum often value one of those aspects over the other. And it's sort of loosely split between the two subforums.

  • Practical: Perhaps the only thing that spreads across the whole forum. Notable that even on an enthusiast forum, however, many people only care about how they can look good (or, again, look the way they wish to look).
  • "Craftsmanship": Often highly valued on the CM/ MC side of the forum. Tons of threads that are little more than how some object was made. So artisanal. Much craftsmanship. Very handwork.
  • Conceptual design: Seems like something that's valued more on the SWD side of the forum. Lots of people here ogling lookbooks, pictures of showrooms, or just the product image. So curation. Much design. Very visionary.

It often feels like when debates happen on this forum, people are taking their preferred dimension and just running with it, without recognizing that other people are talking about different things. On the CM side of the board, you often have people who value practicality and craftsmanship, and don't understand the appreciation for design on SWD (to give an example). Or someone will talk about how they just want to look good, and don't care about handwork, and are subsequently alienated by other CM-ers for being a philistine.

If we're talking about the value of copying, we're essentially talking about the practical vs. design aspects. If you value practicality above all else, then you'll think it's great that Zara is democratizing a good look. If you only cared about design, on the other hand, then yes -- Zara's designers are hacks (even though, I don't think Zara's designers are ever instructed to come up with something conceptually interesting).

Long winded way of saying many of the debates on this forum talk over each other, and miss the fact that they're taking just one aspect of fashion and running with it. There are other ways to appreciate clothes, and different purposes for brands and designers. Zara and Rick Owens do not exist for the same reasons, and IMO should be primarily judged by their respective rubrics.
post #11542 of 37396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coxsackie View Post

What's with SWD's WAYWRN thread?

Clownish, laughable outfits like this...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)


...with 106 thumbs and counting?

If I saw someone walking down the street wearing this, I'd laugh out loud. I don't care how expensive and in-the-know it is. It's inherently ridiculous.

I quite liked that one. If you work with something creative it's pretty fitting. Nothing I would wear myself, but I still appreciate it for what it is.
post #11543 of 37396
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyc wid it View Post

This is the problem. You view everything through a CM lens. Not everyone wants to wear CBD outside of work or some vaguely aspirational Ivy stuff or follows every one of Flusser's rules.

Straw man. There is a very big gap between either CBD or exclusive adherence to Flusser and the look in question. There are plenty of casual looks and looks that don't follow all of the rules that I like; I just don't see the draw or reason for the overwhelming enthusiasm for the look in question. I also do not think it is fair to say that I view everything through a CM lens; I certainly have and admit to having a CM bias, but having a bias and exclusively viewing something a certain way are different things.

I appreciate the quoted post, but I am not sure it really answers too much. I guess this look gets into the design element of SW&D. As I see it, CM has some pretty clear rules and principles, though often they can be broken to positive effect. I don't see any objective aesthetic standard by which I should evaluate a SW&D look. Are there aesthetic standards that are used here or is the design / creativity factor the holy grail so to speak?
post #11544 of 37396

I do agree that SWD is a lot more subjective to context than CM (which is still subject to those things but less so), and also a lot more dependent on the person. I do respect streetwear guys as I think in many ways it's more complex and volatile/risky to dress like that consistently but with enough variation as to not keep wearing the same thing. Similarly as much as I see some fashion stuff that's trainwrecky, I do appreciate some of it.

 

As for that piece I can see that it is stylish but can't say it's my kind of thing either. I wouldn't have thought it'd get that many thumbs, but, eh.

post #11545 of 37396
Quote:
Originally Posted by cyc wid it View Post

I'm struggling to give you good natured advice... so I'll settle for a GTFO.

 

It's a pity that you're struggling, because - believe it or not - I would be receptive to an explanation.

 

So, I'll try to give my own explanation for why this might be a good outfit. Actually I don't mind the jacket and the shoes. The jacket has an interesting outline, the collar or throat or whatever you call it is unusual. The contrasting piping going half-way up is...OK I suppose. A design statement of sorts.

 

I can't see the shoes clearly but I've always liked Docs. And that's where I run out of nice things to say.

 

The pants - well... they are just try-too-hard. Asymmetric, patches everywhere, rolled up very self-consciously to expose the wearer's chicken ankles. They just look cheap, overwrought and generally nasty to me. (And yet I suspect they are a one-off from the atelier of some Japanese demi-god designer who makes all Keanu Reeves' outfits. Whatever.)

 

The hat is partially obscured by the superimposed Magritte this-is-not-an-apple but from what I can see, it's a bit Smurf-like.

 

Now, clearly I am totally wrong about all of this, given the enthusiastic thumbing from people who understand. So please do enlighten me. This is the "good-natured advice thread" and I am open to advice.

post #11546 of 37396
It's difficult to believe that you're actually looking for information about it when you frame your post with words like "ridiculous" and "clownish"? If I pasted one of the roboposed staid Brooks Brother's-esque fits that was well received in CM and used that kind of language, would you consider it as "good natured"?

If nobody answers this more eloquently, I'll think of something tomorrow. For now here's a tired half-way attempt that will include a lot of generalizations for the sake of simplification. CM is much more formulaic by and large. You follow a set of measurements that works for you and you combine certain colors in certain ways and call it a day. Most of the time this involves a suit. There are regional and various tailoring details of suiting, but it's essentially the same set of rules. There is nothing wrong with this. I can appreciate a good CM fit and I can understand having to dress a certain way for work (I had to for a while consistently and have to on occasion now) or whatever "social constraints" people might have.

While some SW&D designers are very anatomical, everything is much more fluid and "emotional" as someone described it. It was touched upon in the NMWA thread. A CM person might measure a sleeve pitch or pleat placement in millimeters, but a SW&D person might describe something as slouchy. Not every proportion needs to follow a "flattering" formula. The differences in SW&D looks are also much more dramatic than the variances in CM (ie workwear vs artisanal etc.). Yes, there are differences between say CM British and Italian tailoring and shoe lasts, but they read more like different subsets of the same look.

About that specific fit, maybe @diniro will share his thought process here, but understanding the history and creative inspirations of Junya Watanabe might give you a better idea about why those pants are the way they are both in terms of look and construction.

There are much more knowledgeable SW&D posters such as @sipang or @Fuuma and those who regularly inhabit both sides of the forum such as @Parker or @gdl203 who could probably talk at length about this much better if they felt so inclined.
Edited by cyc wid it - 9/9/14 at 12:57am
post #11547 of 37396
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coxsackie View Post

What's with SWD's WAYWRN thread?

Clownish, laughable outfits like this...




...with 106 thumbs and counting?

If I saw someone walking down the street wearing this, I'd laugh out loud. I don't care how expensive and in-the-know it is. It's inherently ridiculous.

Totally. Just a Magritte ripoff. And how can he even see where he's going?
post #11548 of 37396

Thanks, cyc wid it, that helps me a bit.

 

However, I'm still struggling to see why this fit is so well liked. I can't actually tell whether the wearer is short or tall, but this clothing makes him look stumpy. I wonder whether that was intentional.

 

Sorry to invoke pejorative language (again), but the phrase that keeps coming to mind every time I look at the photo is "garden gnome". Should I be seeking therapy, I wonder.


Edited by Coxsackie - 9/9/14 at 2:01am
post #11549 of 37396
I quite like that fit.
post #11550 of 37396
I think this will be an edifying conversation if it can remain good natured!

Cyc thanks for your thoughts. I should say that I posted a fit in SWD a few weeks ago. Felt like a new kid on the block but cyc was both cool and helpful. Cheers mate.

If I can find that pic we can use it as foil for discussion. It came across as more casual CM though I thought it was within the variance of some of the high thumbed SWD Fiits.

I think the basic principles of CM are easily learnable and expressive which is what makes it appealing to me. But I wonder if the analogy is something like the appreciation of realist painting and something more "modern" in the pictorial arts. There are basic principles of proportion, perspective that can get you a long way to appreciating a Titian Or why El Greco pushes the boundaries. But perhaps those no longer help with Modrian or Pollock, at least for those who only understand Art 101. Not sure this helps.

It would be cool to get a dissection of the above fit, any principles, the historical background etc. I can't see it so clearly on the iPhone but I can imagine liking it IRL, (though maybe without the hat?). I hope some other SWD posters will weigh in and that we can have a friendly exchange.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Good Natured Advice Thread (improving a business wardrobe)