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 1303

post #19531 of 37482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isolation View Post

I like London, fwiw, but it is expensive. I don't go out drinking much so it's okay.



More off-topic: This makes me very sad, today I finally found out that I'm actually a very ugly person.




Really though, I think it's kinda ridiculous, my friend got in with exact mirror results, and he's like, you know. Utterly bitter at the moment. It's okay my partner loves me despite my ugly. I'm beautiful on the inside.

Why would you do that to yourself?
post #19532 of 37482

Friend seduced me with promise of laughter. He was right.

post #19533 of 37482

OK, regarding the frames: we have Pingson, ellsbebc and TM79 in favour of the first one. Sugarbutch and (I think) Cleav in favour of the second.

 

Here are the pics again:

 

 

The first ones ("Shuron Ronsir" style) are a little cleaner and more conservative, and draw less attention to themselves. But the second ones ("Oliver Peoples" style) are a really good shape for my face, which is very triangular. In the past I have made the mistake of choosing squared-off glasses which aren't tall or wide enough.

 

More votes and comments please. If you think they both suck, please say so.

post #19534 of 37482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coxsackie View Post
 

 

The first ones ("Shuron Ronsir" style) are a little cleaner and more conservative, and draw less attention to themselves. But the second ones ("Oliver Peoples" style) are a really good shape for my face, which is very triangular. In the past I have made the mistake of choosing squared-off glasses which aren't tall or wide enough.

 

More votes and comments please. If you think they both suck, please say so.

 

OK, I think they both suck. Personal opinion, though: I feel glasses shouldn't draw too much attention to themselves and with your light hair and light eyes, these dark, high contrast frames do. If I had to choose between the two options above, I'd go for #1. Precisely because the bottom half of the frame at least is thinner and allow your eyes to be more the focus of attention.

post #19535 of 37482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coxsackie View Post
 

 

The first ones ("Shuron Ronsir" style) are a little cleaner and more conservative, and draw less attention to themselves. But the second ones ("Oliver Peoples" style) are a really good shape for my face, which is very triangular. In the past I have made the mistake of choosing squared-off glasses which aren't tall or wide enough.

 

More votes and comments please. If you think they both suck, please say so.

 

I often see someone at work wearing these Persols with your hair color and complexion and find them to look stylish as well as conservative.

post #19536 of 37482
The Shuron Ronsir are too retro. The second pair work nicely with your face, IMO.

If, like Elio, you think the frames shouldn't draw so much attention, you might consider clear plastic frames. @pocketsquareguy wears some that look great on him. Maybe he can share who made his.
post #19537 of 37482

Appreciate all the advice given, although now I'm totally confused.

 

bla bla bla (Click to show)

On the one hand, I do hate glasses that draw too much attention. I don't want to look like Elton John or Clark Kent. On the other, I really dislike that "invisible" look - frameless lenses are a classic example - as if to say, "I'm really embarrassed about my visual acuity issues". Nope. If I'm going to wear glasses, then I'll goddam well wear glasses, and everyone can fuck off.

 

Having said that, it's just pure folly to wear glasses that don't suit one's face shape. I think both of these work quite well for me - not too narrow or wide or tall or short; bottom of the frame comes down to a few mm above the level of the top of the nostril flare (superior pole of the nasofacial sulcus, to be precise), thereby dividing the midface roughly according to the "golden ratio". Furthermore, the frames gradually narrow towards their bottom edge, mirroring my face shape.

 

Elio may be right that both styles are a little too dark and strong. The "ronsirs" create a strong dividing line straight across my face. However, that's not such a bad thing for me, as my eyebrows are very fair and almost invisible in certain lights. I think this line above my eyes helps to avoid the impression that I've shaved my eyebrows.

 

I'm leaning overall towards the "ronsirs" and, importantly, so is wifey. She's the one who will have to look at them more than anyone else, so really I do need to respect her opinion to some extent. Their retro-ness doesn't bother me, in fact it's appealing.

 

BTW neither of these options is expensive. Both around the US$100 mark, and if I buy a pair today and get the prescription made up at the Eyeglasses Market here in Shanghai, I will save a crapload of dough.

post #19538 of 37482
Can anyone explain the business side of design and buying of menswear. For instance if I were designing suits and wanted to have them in barneys, or say maybe a smaller establishment like the armoury, Carson street clothiers, etc. How does one get their foot in the door? And how are price points/ profit margins established?
post #19539 of 37482
Thread Starter 

@Henry Carter is our most active supply side GNAT regular

post #19540 of 37482

With all of the talk about beginners in the WAYWRN thread, I think it's time I suck it up and finally get your guys' Good-Natured Advice. Here is what I wore for one of my final interviews. Apologies in advance for the subpar photos. Hope to acquire a non-iPhone camera soon.

 

 

 

Close-Up (Click to show)
post #19541 of 37482
^Overall looks pretty good IMHO. Jacket could stand to be longer and a little roomier. And try pulling the tie knot up a tad.
post #19542 of 37482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coxsackie View Post

Appreciate all the advice given, although now I'm totally confused.
bla bla bla (Click to show)
On the one hand, I do hate glasses that draw too much attention. I don't want to look like Elton John or Clark Kent. On the other, I really dislike that "invisible" look - frameless lenses are a classic example - as if to say, "I'm really embarrassed about my visual acuity issues". Nope. If I'm going to wear glasses, then I'll goddam well wear glasses, and everyone can fuck off.

Having said that, it's just pure folly to wear glasses that don't suit one's face shape. I think both of these work quite well for me - not too narrow or wide or tall or short; bottom of the frame comes down to a few mm above the level of the top of the nostril flare (superior pole of the nasofacial sulcus, to be precise), thereby dividing the midface roughly according to the "golden ratio". Furthermore, the frames gradually narrow towards their bottom edge, mirroring my face shape.

Elio may be right that both styles are a little too dark and strong. The "ronsirs" create a strong dividing line straight across my face. However, that's not such a bad thing for me, as my eyebrows are very fair and almost invisible in certain lights. I think this line above my eyes helps to avoid the impression that I've shaved my eyebrows.

I'm leaning overall towards the "ronsirs" and, importantly, so is wifey. She's the one who will have to look at them more than anyone else, so really I do need to respect her opinion to some extent. Their retro-ness doesn't bother me, in fact it's appealing.

BTW neither of these options is expensive. Both around the US$100 mark, and if I buy a pair today and get the prescription made up at the Eyeglasses Market here in Shanghai, I will save a crapload of dough.

What I've learned from the Alden thread in these situations is that the correct answer is both!

Seriously, though, I agree that they both can work for you. The first time I chose thick, bold frames was a big step for me--I was terribly conscious of the fact that I was wearing bold frames. It was a look that I ended up really enjoying, and if I hadn't broken them I would still have them in my rotation 20 years after I got them.

And that brings me to the point I wanted to make: it's OK to have a rotation of specs. If your prescription doesn't change much, you don't even need to get new lenses in your old frames. Too often, I find, people get new specs and completely discard the old ones. When you have a few pairs, you can choose them based on what you are wearing, either pairing to the frame color or, more likely, to the look that the frames project.
post #19543 of 37482

@Darkside, that's a great first effort. Suit fits well, everything is the right length (including IMHO the jacket - ok, it could be 1-2cm longer but it's fine as is). Lapel gorge is very high indeed - that's fashionable now but may not stand the test of time. Tie choice was appropriate for an interview, but you could lash out a little more here next time. Add a crisp folded white linen square and you have CBD nailed.

 

@masaccio, I wish I could afford both. Well, actually I can afford both. But I can't afford the suffering my darling wife would inflict upon me.

post #19544 of 37482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coxsackie View Post

How come Michael Douglas looks so much more badass than me in these glasses?

Life just isn't fair.

As Pingson said, its really all about the facial expression. In any case, the second frame looks much better to me, but that pair is too big. You need that style and shape but a smaller size.
post #19545 of 37482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Coxsackie View Post

Appreciate all the advice given, although now I'm totally confused.
bla bla bla (Click to show)
On the one hand, I do hate glasses that draw too much attention. I don't want to look like Elton John or Clark Kent. On the other, I really dislike that "invisible" look - frameless lenses are a classic example - as if to say, "I'm really embarrassed about my visual acuity issues". Nope. If I'm going to wear glasses, then I'll goddam well wear glasses, and everyone can fuck off.

Having said that, it's just pure folly to wear glasses that don't suit one's face shape. I think both of these work quite well for me - not too narrow or wide or tall or short; bottom of the frame comes down to a few mm above the level of the top of the nostril flare (superior pole of the nasofacial sulcus, to be precise), thereby dividing the midface roughly according to the "golden ratio". Furthermore, the frames gradually narrow towards their bottom edge, mirroring my face shape.

Elio may be right that both styles are a little too dark and strong. The "ronsirs" create a strong dividing line straight across my face. However, that's not such a bad thing for me, as my eyebrows are very fair and almost invisible in certain lights. I think this line above my eyes helps to avoid the impression that I've shaved my eyebrows.

I'm leaning overall towards the "ronsirs" and, importantly, so is wifey. She's the one who will have to look at them more than anyone else, so really I do need to respect her opinion to some extent. Their retro-ness doesn't bother me, in fact it's appealing.

BTW neither of these options is expensive. Both around the US$100 mark, and if I buy a pair today and get the prescription made up at the Eyeglasses Market here in Shanghai, I will save a crapload of dough.

You're kidding. The most prominent feature, sitting on your nose, and you consider to skint.

How about these?
http://lindberg.com/showroom/men/now
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)