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 2119

post #31771 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

Well, of course they'll disagree. They also disagree about the right answers to many problems in experimental physics. Just because there's intelligent and well-informed disagreement on the right answer to a question doesn't mean there's no right answer.

LOL, so now we've gone from medical science to experimental physics? We're discussing taste in male dress here. A rather more subjective and trivial matter than you are comparing it to.

And just because there's intelligent and well-informed disagreement on the right answer to a question doesn't mean there is a right answer.
post #31772 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

A medical doctor also gives her or his opinion on what your condition is and how it should be treated. Is that just a personal opinion? No, it is an opinion based on training, practice, and reflection. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koala-T View Post
 

Yeah, but they carry malpractice insurance. What do you carry?

 

A chip.

post #31773 of 44011
I don't see why debating means I have a chip on my shoulder. If you guys disagree with my judgments--which I supported with arguments--then why don't you give reasons why they're wrong? And "these things are subjective, therefore you can't be right" is a bad argument. If all this is subjective, then we wouldn't be disagreeing: but we clearly are. So bring on the counter-arguments. I've not heard many, except from Claghorn, to whom props.
post #31774 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

I don't see why debating means I have a chip on my shoulder. If you guys disagree with my judgments--which I supported with arguments--then why don't you give reasons why they're wrong? And "these things are subjective, therefore you can't be right" is a bad argument. If all this is subjective, then we wouldn't be disagreeing: but we clearly are. So bring on the counter-arguments. I've not heard many, except from Claghorn, to whom props.

For many, this is a place to relax, to confer in a convivial environment, perhaps an oasis away from the daily grind and shitfights which you seemed keen to inflict upon others.

It is only menswear, ain't rocket science.
post #31775 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Principle View Post Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Zegna Shirt

Samuelsohn trousers

Belvest Jacket

Accutron watch

Hickey Freeman overcoat

Heschung derbies

The shoes and the watch are both great. But the sleeves on both jackets are way too short, and that is the top half of a suit, not an actual odd jacket. Did you have the trousers taken in? I like a cleaner, wider leg-line in tailored clothes, especially with such a well-fitting (apart from the sleeves), classically-proportioned top block.

post #31776 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petepan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

I don't see why debating means I have a chip on my shoulder. If you guys disagree with my judgments--which I supported with arguments--then why don't you give reasons why they're wrong? And "these things are subjective, therefore you can't be right" is a bad argument. If all this is subjective, then we wouldn't be disagreeing: but we clearly are. So bring on the counter-arguments. I've not heard many, except from Claghorn, to whom props.

For many, this is a place to relax, to confer in a convivial environment, perhaps an oasis away from the daily grind and shitfights which you seemed keen to inflict upon others.

It is only menswear, ain't rocket science.

Shitfights. What a great way to describe the daily grind. You, sir, are a poet.

post #31777 of 44011

I've had all of the clothing in that photo tailored. The jacket is certainly an orphan, so the Samuelhson trousers are temporary in their match. I'm well aware that a lot of the gentlemen prefer a wider leg here, but I haven't found that to work with my aesthetic over the years (6.5" leg opening, gasp!). 

 

The feel of the jacket sleeves is spot on, if that isn't odd to say. I have other sportcoats/odd jackets that have that extra 3/4" of sleeve, but I find all that fabric to be obstructive in some respect. I have a similar feeling about break, it makes me feel like my pants are sagging and I'm dragging sacks.

 

Appreciate the input!

post #31778 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Principle View Post
 

I've had all of the clothing in that photo tailored. The jacket is certainly an orphan, so the Samuelhson trousers are temporary in their match. I'm well aware that a lot of the gentlemen prefer a wider leg here, but I haven't found that to work with my aesthetic over the years (6.5" leg opening, gasp!). 

 

The feel of the jacket sleeves is spot on, if that isn't odd to say. I have other sportcoats/odd jackets that have that extra 3/4" of sleeve, but I find all that fabric to be obstructive in some respect. I have a similar feeling about break, it makes me feel like my pants are sagging and I'm dragging sacks.

 

Appreciate the input!

It may mean that the shirt sleeves are too long then. Are the trousers black? Maybe next time shoot for something lighter in the pants department with that jacket. Hard to tell about the pants color but if they are black, it looks like you are wearing disparate orphans on top and bottom. If they are charcoal, I'd still try  something lighter like a mid gray next time. Anyway, take it all with a grain of salt. If you feel baller, you probably look baller to those around you.

post #31779 of 44011
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koala-T View Post

If you feel baller, you probably look baller to those around you.

Comportment, esteem, and comfort are crucial elements of looking good in what you wear. But attitude will only take you so far (and often not very).
post #31780 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

@Andy57: When you look at a sleek shoe from the toe, your eye is naturally drawn back along the vamp across the quarters and toward the heel counter. Whether or not the eye also notes the shoe's perpendicular axis depends on whether there is something to attract it outwards in both directions---thus "centrifugal." The seam of a toe cap naturally does this, since it's a perpendicular line. But if you have a very sleek-seamed wingtip, like an austerity, there's very little to suggest perpendicular volume. Suede gives a shoe more perpendicular volume than smooth calf, because it has nap.


Okay, this is drivel. I'm sorry, but it is.

 

Reading through the last couple of pages, I sincerely believe that you mean well and that your intention is to be helpful. But that is not how it comes across. You state your opinion as fact, as others have already stated. You posit your taste as though it were definitive; it is not. Your aesthetic seems to boil down to a fondness for ice pink shirts and chocolate brown ties. Fine.

 

Of course, the quoted paragraph could easily be parody, too.

post #31781 of 44011
Probably the latter, or a part of a Monty Python sketch about an anarchosyndicalist commune.
post #31782 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

I don't see why debating means I have a chip on my shoulder. If you guys disagree with my judgments--which I supported with arguments--then why don't you give reasons why they're wrong? And "these things are subjective, therefore you can't be right" is a bad argument. If all this is subjective, then we wouldn't be disagreeing: but we clearly are. So bring on the counter-arguments. I've not heard many, except from Claghorn, to whom props.


The problem with all your arguments is that they are tedious, and I couldn't be bothered reading them.

 

Could you maybe work a steamy sex scene into the next one? 

post #31783 of 44011

OK, that's actually a bit unfair. It's a reasonable subject for debate. How much should a pocket square, or a tie for that matter, reference the larger blocks around it?

 

To be honest I don't think there's any right answer, because there's no consistent way of quantising the elements - colour, texture, pattern, vibrancy etc - in order to construct an algorithm. And ultimately, even if you succeeded, there would still be combinations which fall drastically outside the solutions to that equation, yet work - at least for some observers.

 

Again I'm going to reference my own fit from a few months back. Let's ignore for the moment the valid criticism proffered by @sugarbutch regarding the oversaturated shirt and too-light tie, and simply focus on the pocket square.

 

 

Far from referencing any other element of the outfit, this square acts as a totally in-your-face splash of primary colour. Deliberately so. That's also why I folded it a bit differently from normal. It's a rule-breaker if ever there was one, but personally, I think it works, and I think it "makes" the fit.

 

However, others will differ. That's because, ultimately, these are matters of personal taste.

 

(I might add that if you get up really close to that tie, the dots are roughly the same colour as the square. But that would confuse the issue, so please ignore that I just wrote that.)

post #31784 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koala-T View Post






He sticks the landing! And there's a 10 from the Romanian judge!
post #31785 of 44011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

When I say, "shouldn't," I mean "shouldn't if you want to be excellently dressed."

IMNSHO, Koala is excellently dressed here.
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)