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 1596

post #23926 of 45931
Yep! Tailor always uses the fabric selvage on the back for protection and weight. I think it's a nice touch.

And disagreement is great; it's just clothing after all - plus (most of) those that are seasoned have developed a pretty thick skin and in the end we're all making judgements on three-dimensional items using 2D pics. I say disagree as a matter of course and if you're wrong and someone sells you on that fact, all the better.
post #23927 of 45931

@sugarbutch nice DB and nice tie!  

post #23928 of 45931

Thanks to all for your kind comments, tips and thumbs. Not sure whether I'll be more or less nervous when I do my second post now!

post #23929 of 45931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucan View Post

Thanks to all for your kind comments, tips and thumbs. Not sure whether I'll be more or less nervous when I do my second post now!

Intimidate the camera and nervosity will be history wink.gif
post #23930 of 45931

Ok, this is now really from today, since the photo I posted earlier today was actually from yesterday.

 

post #23931 of 45931
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanleyVanBuren View Post
 

tumblr_ns7fu6hYRz1r8bgano1_1280.jpg 

 

 

 

i really like this fit (suit line)!! I think its compliment your figure more than some other suit cuts in the past!! :nodding: 

post #23932 of 45931

Temperatures are by no means in summer standards this week in Paris, so this was a nice opportunity to wear some autumn clothes again.

Old jacket with narrow lapels, but I still like it. It's comfy as can be.

Unintentional pocket sprezz.

 

 

 

 

post #23933 of 45931

While the effect of cuffs on the perception of height can be real, in my experience it is so slight and subtle as to render it irrelevant in most cases given other, much more powerful, tailoring illusions.

 

Therefore, for me …

 

The necessary and sufficient condition for wearing cuffs:   you like the way it looks.

The necessary and sufficient condition for going cuffless:   you like the way it looks.

 

Making either preference an ideological point I find, well, … puzzling.

 

To increase the impression of height, trouser length is much more important.  One of the simplest things one can do doesn’t cost a penny, since you need to hem your trousers in any case:  just hem them so they’re longer in back than in the front.  Like this:

 

 

 

(I’m using jcmeyer’s pic simply because it was his fit which prompted this discussion).

 

Most generically this is called a “Slant Bottom.”   (It used to be so common in suit trousers it was sometimes just called a “hem” …)

 

Here’s Amies’ definition and description from his amusingly opinionated ABC’s of Men’s Fashion:

 

Slant Bottoms:  trousers without turnups, which in this gospel means all trousers, should have the bottoms of the legs slanted so that the front falls to the top of the instep and the back to the top of the heel of the shoe.”

 

In the U.S. this is often called a “military hem”; in the U.K. it’s still sometimes called a “Guardsman hem.”

 

Amies disapproved of cuffs, as the quote above indicates, but the slant bottom can be done with them, although as I understand it it requires a bit more effort on the part of the tailor.

 

Going for a slightly wider leg at the bottom (covering two-third of the shoe used to be a common recommendation), can increase the effect, of course. 

 

Unless I’m misremembering, some of sugarbutch’s trousers have slant bottoms and a more traditional width.

 

I’m sure he’ll  kill  correct me if I’m wrong.

 

Cheers.

 

Ac

 

Addendum:  If one wants the extra weight of cuffs (and it can indeed be helpful given the lighter weight fabrics we often use today) one can achieve the effect cuffless simply by telling your tailor not to trim the excess fabric. 

 

Gravity is gravity, and it doesn’t matter whether the cloth is inside or outside.

post #23934 of 45931
Ahh, see now I was told by the tailor who made these pants that you COULDN'T slant-bottom/hem cuffs. I'm glad you brought this up, A2.

Can anyone confirm or deny?
post #23935 of 45931

A query on the tailoring thread might help.

 

I think I recall Despos saying it can be done.  Could be misremembering.

 

But it's not something your average seamstress can pull off.

 

I expect, though do not know, that the degree of difficulty is proportional to the amount of slant you want.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac


Edited by Academic2 - 7/28/15 at 2:27pm
post #23936 of 45931
@Academic2

Certainly a 'Guards' hem for me, I'll try to wear one of mine this week. biggrin.gif
post #23937 of 45931

Charcoal plus new Hober.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

 

post #23938 of 45931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Academic2 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
While the effect of cuffs on the perception of height can be real, in my experience it is so slight and subtle as to render it irrelevant in most cases given other, much more powerful, tailoring illusions.

Therefore, for me …

The necessary and sufficient condition for wearing cuffs:   you like the way it looks.
The necessary and sufficient condition for going cuffless:   you like the way it looks.

Making either preference an ideological point I find, well, … puzzling.

To increase the impression of height, trouser length is much more important.  One of the simplest things one can do doesn’t cost a penny, since you need to hem your trousers in any case:  just hem them so they’re longer in back than in the front.  Like this:





(I’m using jcmeyer’s pic simply because it was his fit which prompted this discussion).

Most generically this is called a “Slant Bottom.”   (It used to be so common in suit trousers it was sometimes just called a “hem” …)

Here’s Amies’ definition and description from his amusingly opinionated ABC’s of Men’s Fashion:

Slant Bottoms:  trousers without turnups, which in this gospel means all trousers, should have the bottoms of the legs slanted so that the front falls to the top of the instep and the back to the top of the heel of the shoe.”




In the U.S. this is often called a “military hem”; in the U.K. it’s still sometimes called a “Guardsman hem.”

Amies disapproved of cuffs, as the quote above indicates, but the slant bottom can be done with them, although as I understand it it requires a bit more effort on the part of the tailor.

Going for a slightly wider leg at the bottom (covering two-third of the shoe used to be a common recommendation), can increase the effect, of course. 
Unless I’m misremembering, some of sugarbutch’s trousers have slant bottoms and a more traditional width.

I’m sure he’ll  kill  correct me if I’m wrong.

Cheers.

Ac

Addendum:  If one wants the extra weight of cuffs (and it can indeed be helpful given the lighter weight fabrics we often use today) one can achieve the effect cuffless simply by telling your tailor not to trim the excess fabric. 

Gravity is gravity, and it doesn’t matter whether the cloth is inside or outside.


Not a hanging crime, Ac...

I have only a few uncuffed trousers, and if they have a slanted hem it was not at my request. Which is to say, I think they're all more or less straight across with a mild break.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcmeyer View Post

Ahh, see now I was told by the tailor who made these pants that you COULDN'T slant-bottom/hem cuffs. I'm glad you brought this up, A2.

Can anyone confirm or deny?


Is doable. In fact, our own Clapeyron worked out the geometry and created a diagram so that Luxire could do this for his orders. May or may not be the same method used by Sr. Despos...
post #23939 of 45931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Academic2 View Post
 

Charcoal plus new Hober.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

 

Link to the tie? Been looking for a brown neat.

post #23940 of 45931
Quote:
Originally Posted by semperexcelsius View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Academic2 View Post
 

Charcoal plus new Hober.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

Link to the tie? Been looking for a brown neat.

 

Thanks.  I wish I could provide a link, since my photo doesn't do it justice (it's a much richer brown than shown in my photo), but sadly it's no longer available.

 

FYI, it's  Blue, Lavender & Light Yellow on Brown Macclesfield Printed Silk Tie #135 ITEM: MCT-135.

 

You could always e-mail David and ask if he plans to restock it.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

 

Like you, I'm always looking for brown neats. 

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)