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 1732

post #25966 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by kulata View Post

I think workwear (denim, khakis) killed menswear. A lot of casual clothing back then involved odd jackets with a variety of cuts and patterns. Nowadays, I'm just in denim, t-shirts and flip flops frown.gif

1930s casual is today's dressed up.
post #25967 of 37425
Speaking for only myself, I think peak lapels on SB jackets don't look that good. Not sure what the rules or history are behind them because those are things I don't particularly care about.

My statement was opinion only, and had only to do with how it looks and nothing to do with right vs. wrong.
post #25968 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post


Perhaps instead we can work out a deal to make the Central Valley, Riverside County, and Orange County a state.


I'm willing to consider it.

post #25969 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

I guess so. While I can appreciate denim, when it comes down to it they're all blue cotton pants. It's a uniform as much as anything else, even though the people who wear it often deny it. So many colourful patterns and interesting fabrics are simply not worn anymore. Whenever I see someone wearing something colourful or that's a bit unusual it always makes me smile. It livens up the streets.

I read the other day on the unfunded liabilities thread that Johnston of Elgin is the only one that can make donegal cashmere, and when that weaving loom dies that fabric will be lost (forever?). Now of course I won't shed a tear over this, but when you think of it, how many fabrics and patterns have been lost already? What will happen when all the old master tailors die in a decade or so? Will certain cuts just become extinct? Will tailoring itself die in favour of mass production, as has happened with so many other things?

We may be verging to all the uniforms often depicted in futuristic movies unconsciously frown.gif

Found this pic and I see them arguing over northern lights, grey odd jackets and navy pants
men-fashion-in-the-1930s.jpg
post #25970 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post
 
 
Some less relevant text. (Click to show)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kulata View Post

I think workwear (denim, khakis) killed menswear. A lot of casual clothing back then involved odd jackets with a variety of cuts and patterns. Nowadays, I'm just in denim, t-shirts and flip flops frown.gif

 

I guess so. While I can appreciate denim, when it comes down to it they're all blue cotton pants. It's a uniform as much as anything else, even though the people who wear it often deny it. So many colourful patterns and interesting fabrics are simply not worn anymore. Whenever I see someone wearing something colourful or that's a bit unusual it always makes me smile. It livens up the streets.

 

 

I read the other day on the unfunded liabilities thread that Johnston of Elgin is the only one that can make donegal cashmere, and when that weaving loom dies that fabric will be lost (forever?). Now of course I won't shed a tear over this, but when you think of it, how many fabrics and patterns have been lost already? What will happen when all the old master tailors die in a decade or so? Will certain cuts just become extinct? Will tailoring itself die in favour of mass production, as has happened with so many other things?

 

We (mankind) can transplant hearts and land things on comets, but we wouldn't be able to replicate an old loom once it starts to break down?

post #25971 of 37425

Much like the pyramids, it's not that we couldn't, it's that we wouldn't.

post #25972 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celadon View Post
 

 

We (mankind) can transplant hearts and land things on comets, but we wouldn't be able to replicate an old loom once it starts to break down?

some of those donegal cashmeres are just beautiful. I saw simons crompton's from rubinacci, the color was amazing.

 

post #25973 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monkeyface View Post

I guess so. While I can appreciate denim, when it comes down to it they're all blue cotton pants. It's a uniform as much as anything else, even though the people who wear it often deny it. So many colourful patterns and interesting fabrics are simply not worn anymore. Whenever I see someone wearing something colourful or that's a bit unusual it always makes me smile. It livens up the streets.

I read the other day on the unfunded liabilities thread that Johnston of Elgin is the only one that can make donegal cashmere, and when that weaving loom dies that fabric will be lost (forever?). Now of course I won't shed a tear over this, but when you think of it, how many fabrics and patterns have been lost already? What will happen when all the old master tailors die in a decade or so? Will certain cuts just become extinct? Will tailoring itself die in favour of mass production, as has happened with so many other things?

Channeling your inner Gianni with some of those descriptions in the second paragraph.

Nice.
post #25974 of 37425

Well, I pulled a Noodle on the suit and just got it. Here's to an impulse purchase! :cheers:

Going to a tailor during lunch time. Thanks all for the input.

Thanks to @Mr. Six and @venividivicibj for their input. :slayer:

 

@Claghorn All things aside, this suit is very similar in color to the KW trousers. This is a great color. 

 

 

All distractions aside, I have been doing this exercise on top of squats to get me some @ss.


Edited by The Noodles - 6/23/15 at 7:49am
post #25975 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by TM79 View Post

Channeling your inner Gianni with some of those descriptions in the second paragraph.

Nice.

Hope he doesn't read that, he might come back to SF!
post #25976 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Noodles View Post

Well, I pulled a Noodle on the suit and just got it. Here's to an impulse purchase! cheers.gif
Going to a tailor during lunch time. 

Looks great! I think you have more suits than I do now, so seems like you're well on your way to having a nice business wardrobe.
post #25977 of 37425
Excellent decision, Noodles.
post #25978 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by archibaldleach View Post


Well, one could make that defense for anything outside a norm. Rules for clothes are based on a mix of norms and aesthetics and always have been as far as I can tell. So unless we accept the intellectual nonsense that is relativism, we do in fact have to say certain things violate rules. One can debate the extent to which older rules remain relevant, but that's different from saying there are no rules, which you seem dangerously close to implying (unless you are merely saying rules regarding peak lapels and relative formality need not apply).


Yes, I could make that defense. As for being dangerously close to implying that there are no rules, yes, I was dangerously close to that. There are far too many rules, arbitrary rules on matters of taste and, in some instances, behavior that are invented out of whole cloth by those in whom the urge to impose their views on others runs deep and strong. To the extent that I can, I ignore such rules.

 

My main point, in all seriousness, is to respectfully make a point that you are extrapolating your own opinion in a matter of aesthetics into a general "rule". That is not the case, as some of the Apparel Arts illustrations have shown. Your opinion is perfectly valid, of course, but it is no more binding on me or others as any other opinion. And I'll also point out that I'm equally at fault. I get quite exercised over the "rules" of evening dress (peak lapels, no vents, etc., etc.) amongst others things. I know I disparage tuxedos that deviate from my preferred ideal. But, in those odd moments of introspection I permit myself, I have to admit that my own cherished rules are just the opinion of one old man. Nothing more and binding upon no one but me.

post #25979 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy57 View Post


Yes, I could make that defense. As for being dangerously close to implying that there are no rules, yes, I was dangerously close to that. There are far too many rules, arbitrary rules on matters of taste and, in some instances, behavior that are invented out of whole cloth by those in whom the urge to impose their views on others runs deep and strong. To the extent that I can, I ignore such rules.

My main point, in all seriousness, is to respectfully make a point that you are extrapolating your own opinion in a matter of aesthetics into a general "rule". That is not the case, as some of the Apparel Arts illustrations have shown. Your opinion is perfectly valid, of course, but it is no more binding on me or others as any other opinion. And I'll also point out that I'm equally at fault. I get quite exercised over the "rules" of evening dress (peak lapels, no vents, etc., etc.) amongst others things. I know I disparage tuxedos that deviate from my preferred ideal. But, in those odd moments of introspection I permit myself, I have to admit that my own cherished rules are just the opinion of one old man. Nothing more and binding upon no one but me.

Rules for evening wear have been formalised into a dress code, so one could say they've become more than just an opinion.
Edited by Monkeyface - 6/23/15 at 8:30am
post #25980 of 37425
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy57 View Post


Yes, I could make that defense. As for being dangerously close to implying that there are no rules, yes, I was dangerously close to that. There are far too many rules, arbitrary rules on matters of taste and, in some instances, behavior that are invented out of whole cloth by those in whom the urge to impose their views on others runs deep and strong. To the extent that I can, I ignore such rules.

My main point, in all seriousness, is to respectfully make a point that you are extrapolating your own opinion in a matter of aesthetics into a general "rule". That is not the case, as some of the Apparel Arts illustrations have shown. Your opinion is perfectly valid, of course, but it is no more binding on me or others as any other opinion. And I'll also point out that I'm equally at fault. I get quite exercised over the "rules" of evening dress (peak lapels, no vents, etc., etc.) amongst others things. I know I disparage tuxedos that deviate from my preferred ideal. But, in those odd moments of introspection I permit myself, I have to admit that my own cherished rules are just the opinion of one old man. Nothing more and binding upon no one but me.

See, that's where we philosophically differ (at least I think we do). How we define rules also matters here too. At this point with classic menswear, pretty much everything has been tried at least once and we can probably dig up a photo of it somewhere (Apparel Arts illustrations are great examples of this; many reflected what people actually wore but others were the equivalent of today's runway fashion shows (let us not forget AA was a trade publication of sorts)). So the existence of a photo or two doesn't tell us much. It could tell us a fair amount, but not always. I guess informative and interesting but not conclusive is my take on AA stuff. People have always broken rules, especially with clothing, some out of ignorance and some deliberately. So I don't think we ever saw 100% compliance with anything, but there were and are definitely still norms. Some were more rigid than others too. I don't think I am merely extrapolating a personal aesthetic preference here, but I agree that my opinion is not more binding than anyone else's. The opinion of society broadly may be seen as binding by some and not by others, but I don't think enough people know about or care about these traditions and rules to make them binding on anyone (unless one likes tradition and generally wishes to follow up absent a good reason not to).

I do think that historically (and to a lesser extend still today), there have been certain ways that things were done and certain connotations of particular details of a piece of clothing. Some were and are based on aesthetics and some are more arbitrary. To me an example of an arbitrary one is the rule that (excepting daytime formalwear) states that a garment is more formal when the jacket and trousers are made of matching fabrics. There were many periods prior to the evolution of the suit where the opposite was true. But I think we can fairly regard it as a rule today and if someone wishes to dress with maximum formality but short of black tie or its daytime equivalent and purports to do so with an odd jacket and trouser look when one owns a navy or grey suit, we would fairly tell that person that he was wrong. Again, it wouldn't really be binding in any way other than being factually and culturally accurate (and there are very few places that would throw someone out for wearing an odd jacket, tie and trousers instead of a suit), but I'd argue that we'd be correctly citing a rule.

it's definitely fair to say "I don't care about XYZ arbitrary tradition from 50 years ago that has no basis in aesthetics" or to broadly not care too much about traditions that are not based in aesthetics. Doing so, however, doesn't deny that those traditions exist to begin with. I also think it is fair to be aware of certain traditions but believe one looks better by ignoring them. Again, it's a case of learning a rule and then deciding to break it. I suspect some people also just dislike the term "rule." The world doesn't end if you break a rule of men's clothing. It's not like breaking the law or doing something immoral. If someone asks my opinion on something in real life, I'll share it, but I'm never going to criticize someone for not dressing in accordance with what I regard as rules of classic menswear. But I'd still argue that certain premises in classic menswear are more correct than others.
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)