or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014) - Page 679

post #10171 of 43896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mihow View Post
 

 

that was yesterday for those who don't like 'skinny lapels' - as it turns out there is a lot of you out there :)

 

So yesterday you were wearing the same shirt, tie and sweater as today? :eh: 

 

Edit. oh, and I just read this from the link you provided: http://www.asuitthatfits.com/offthecuff/nicholas-hoult-fabulous-tux/

:crackup:

post #10172 of 43896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Betelgeuse View Post
 

Hola!

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

 

 

Impresionante !!!  those trews r the bomb

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roycru View Post Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

You might be talking about something that might be considered "local usage" and not something that all Gieves customers or all army officers did.  If you look at pictures of groups of army officers, university students, politicians, lawyers, businessmen, clergy, clerks, (or almost anyone else), from before the invention of the internet you see all sorts of ways of wearing clothing.

Then the internet came and people began propagating their own "local usages" as "rules".

The recent series of photographs of British dukes shows that they still enjoy the freedoms that all men once had.  I am hoping that someday, the "rule makers" of the internet restore to all mankind the freedoms that they once had.

I believe that all men, not only Prince Michael Of Kent, should have the freedom to tie their neckties anyway that they want.

For those out there in cyberspace (many of whom never post pictures) who want a "rule", I propose only one "rule", don't put your trousers on over your head with the empty legs hanging down like doggie ears, as your vision will be impaired and you will look silly.

 

 

Frankly I think you're waaaay off the mark Roycru.  rules?  I see posters setting up a straw man and claiming that there's too many rules much more often than I see people insisting on rules themselves.  

 

Nitpicking is the real problem  IMO :embar:

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeaJen View Post
 

So many people looking great these last few pages: Clags, kulata, Suge, Chocsosa, Cotton D, Flying M, and Cleav to name just a few. Great work gents. My favorite, however, is Urban Composition. So glad you're posting a little more over here again.

 

So as not to annoy Stitchy, I will not classify my fit today. What is not seen is the damage done to my pants by the dry cleaner that I noticed on the drive in to work this morning!!  I have noticed that I am reaching for this Henry Carter tie very frequently. I need to temper that a little, but it also means I need to buy more from Jason. 

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

love the SC and the fit SJ

Quote:
Originally Posted by grade View Post

Good stuff on the last few pages.

Not to resurrect a dead discussion, but I remember some talk a while back about large paisley prints. I happen to have one, and while it's not terribly versatile, I think it can work when properly deployed. Here's my best effort.
  Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

u got it rite IMO keep everything else simple, monotone


Edited by Pliny - 11/11/14 at 4:42pm
post #10173 of 43896
AAS, I'm happy to see that someone has dressed for National Corduroy Day. I fully intended to do so, but forgot about it until later in the day.
post #10174 of 43896
I prefer no lapels at all. That is really the most stylish option.
post #10175 of 43896
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

I prefer no lapels at all. That is really the most stylish option.

Oddly enough, Cary Grant might've agreed.

post #10176 of 43896

Thanks @Pliny !

post #10177 of 43896
W
Quote:
Originally Posted by PCK1 View Post

facepalm.gif  

sorry the truth offends.

What truth? That something as highly subjective as lapel width preference has become a universal truth because Manton and foo say so?

I tell u cm folks have ways of convincing themselves that they r not into fashion. No difference than does calling their totes man bags or nurses to keep their per is Ed masculinity intact.
post #10178 of 43896
Thread Starter 

Alright, so stepping away from "fashion" and "style" and all their associations, Tira, how would you describe the concepts that PCK1--and others--are referring to when they split "style" from "fashion"?

 

Because while I think the connotations those two words conjure, with "style" somehow elevated above "fashion", is silly, I do think the distinction itself has merit. Doesn't matter what we decide to call it, as long as there is something to refer to it by. You and I have discussed this idea enough to know where we stand.

 

As SF:CM chooses to define "style" and "fashion", the distinction between the two is useful, I think, for a lot of people to categorize, adopt, evolve within and away from certain principles. Doesn't matter what we call them (slow cycle, fast cycle).

 

 

So removing the loaded language:

 

I prefer slow cycle, which is admittedly less fun (excepting for the hobbyist, for which everything can be fun) and possesses less potential for intellectual stimulation. In slow cycle done well, you're unlikely to ever look back at pictures of yourself and think "what the hell was I doing?' This is a bit less true for the moderately fast cycle type stuff. And because fast cycle evolves so much more rapidly, it reaches extremes (before bouncing back or to somewhere else) that slow cycle largely doesn't approach.

 

Now I recall you mentioning never being worried about looking at a picture of yourself and thinking "my God, that's so silly." And my initial response would be, "well, yeah, but you're nuts well dressed and actually not all that out there." But I also think it's a mindset. One with both merits and faults.

post #10179 of 43896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

Alright, so stepping away from "fashion" and "style" and all their associations, Tira, how would you describe the concepts that PCK1--and others--are referring to when they split "style" from "fashion"?

Because while I think the connotations those two words conjure, with "style" somehow elevated above "fashion", is silly, I do think the distinction itself has merit. Doesn't matter what we decide to call it, as long as there is something to refer to it by. You and I have discussed this idea enough to know where we stand.

As SF:CM chooses to define "style" and "fashion", the distinction between the two is useful, I think, for a lot of people to categorize, adopt, evolve within and away from certain principles. Doesn't matter what we call them (slow cycle, fast cycle).


So removing the loaded language:

I prefer slow cycle, which is admittedly less fun (excepting for the hobbyist, for which everything can be fun) and possesses less potential for intellectual stimulation. In slow cycle done well, you're unlikely to ever look back at pictures of yourself and think "what the hell was I doing?' This is a bit less true for the moderately fast cycle type stuff. And because fast cycle evolves so much more rapidly, it reaches extremes (before bouncing back or to somewhere else) that slow cycle largely doesn't approach.

Now I recall you mentioning never being worried about looking at a picture of yourself and thinking "my God, that's so silly." And my initial response would be, "well, yeah, but you're nuts well dressed and actually not all that out there." But I also think it's a mindset. One with both merits and faults.
If he had stated that wide lapels are the current standard (like it or not standards shift all the Time) and not give us some snobbish declaration on why it is the only right I would have gone about my business.


Again apologies for the grammatical errors. This time I am typing from an iPad trying to rock my other son
post #10180 of 43896
Thread Starter 
I know, I know, it's your (well earned) pet peeve. But I'm curious how you'd describe the "divide" (or let's say clusters along a spectrum).

Still in Tejas?
post #10181 of 43896
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

I know, I know, it's your (well earned) pet peeve. But I'm curious how you'd describe the "divide" (or let's say clusters along a spectrum).

Still in Tejas?

Not sure I understand what u mean.


And yes I am still in Tejas.
post #10182 of 43896

First post, play nice iGents. 

 

 

 

Suit is Suitsupply, tie is Kent Wang, shirt is Kamakura and shoes are Baker (for Herring). 

EDIT: Man, Cleav killing it, mo and all. I chose the wrong time to enter this thread, hahaha!


Edited by PapaRubbery - 11/12/14 at 2:44am
post #10183 of 43896



post #10184 of 43896
Rainy day, Barbour day, knit day. Whatever. (Haiku)

post #10185 of 43896
Quote:
Originally Posted by PapaRubbery View Post

First post, play nice iGents. 
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)






Suit is Suitsupply, tie is Kent Wang, shirt is Kamakura and shoes are Baker (for Herring). 


EDIT: Man, Cleav killing it, mo and all. I chose the wrong time to enter this thread, hahaha!

Good fit, you definitely did your homework before you posted. Suit sleeves could be a touch shorter, to show more cuff, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleav View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)



[/quote

Nice fit, as always; I especially like the shine on the cap.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)