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 2319

post #34771 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
 

I saw the check and immediately thought sportcoat. The flap pockets do seem to contradict that. That fabric would be a pretty bold for a suit, not that I'm averse to that myself.

 

There are degrees of casualness with a sportcoat: a navy blazer would be more suited to stronger shoulders than a corduroy like I'm wearing above. Though you're right that the flap pockets make this sportcoat not very casual at all.

 

 

I grabbed this sportcoat because I thought the more formal construction (structured shoulders, flap pockets) made contextual sense with the heavy tweed--I wanted an English country aesthetic.  Others have commented that they wished the shoulders were less structured (there's actually not much padding at all due to the very thick fabric).  Most of my flannels and all of the rest of my tweeds have soft shoulders, but I like having a variety of constructions in my jacket wardrobe, and in this case I think the structure makes sense.

post #34772 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
 

 

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

Too much padding, too wide.

 

I'm pretty sure that's a Formosa sport coat. If so, I suspect that this might be the first time that someone has critiqued their shoulders as too padded/structured (depending on what terminology one prefers). :D

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Six View Post
 

 

What's your thinking on this? 

 

The green is far too middling a shade to give any semblance of contrast between jacket and trousers, and that is a jacket that sorely needs it. The jacket itself appears to be a medium brown which is a color that needs something contrasting in order to avoid looking muddled when paired with greens (brown and green is generally not a good low contrast combination IMO and often winds up looking like pea soup). The tie might have mitigated some of this but all you notice when you look at it is how odd it looks with those wide lapels. The overall affect is drab and uninteresting. TheoProf can do better. 

 

This seemed like sufficient contrast to me to avoid it being too muddled. A lighter or more saturated green would have been more optimal (sorry, @UrbanComposition!), but the color didn't strike me as discordant. 

 

post #34773 of 43974

Question for the gallery with reference to this latest discussion on (un)structured jackets. How do you relate structure with formality? I don't equate structure with formality generally speaking. Being completely unstructured certainly seems more casual to me because of the slouchy look it generally has. Other than that, whether something has a lot of padding or a little, it doesn't go into my reckoning of how formal it is. I have seen very slightly padded tuxedos and tailcoats that look quite formal and highly structured sport coats that look very casual indeed. 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Six View Post
 

the color didn't strike me as discordant

 

It did, me. :)

post #34774 of 43974

@Kent Wang your take on shoulders completely erases the influence of british military styling on formal wear. I guess that's fine if you like that aesthetic, but structured shoulders are far from 'wrong'. 

post #34775 of 43974

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on today's fit. I continue to benefit from the conversation on this board. @Caustic Man, keep calling 'em like you see 'em. Future submissions will pay closer attention to the tie/lapel issue. It's funny, I used to obsess over keeping the width difference to within a quarter inch but had gotten away from it over the last six months or so. Hope you all have a great weekend. 

post #34776 of 43974

I wouldn't obsess over it, just something to consider when choosing your combinations. I don't always match them up exactly, if you could even do such a thing, but if it looks reasonably proportional then it should be fine.

post #34777 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by heldentenor View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
 

I saw the check and immediately thought sportcoat. The flap pockets do seem to contradict that. That fabric would be a pretty bold for a suit, not that I'm averse to that myself.

 

There are degrees of casualness with a sportcoat: a navy blazer would be more suited to stronger shoulders than a corduroy like I'm wearing above. Though you're right that the flap pockets make this sportcoat not very casual at all.

 

 

I grabbed this sportcoat because I thought the more formal construction (structured shoulders, flap pockets) made contextual sense with the heavy tweed--I wanted an English country aesthetic.  Others have commented that they wished the shoulders were less structured (there's actually not much padding at all due to the very thick fabric).  Most of my flannels and all of the rest of my tweeds have soft shoulders, but I like having a variety of constructions in my jacket wardrobe, and in this case I think the structure makes sense.

 

There is plenty of precedent in classic British style for dressy tweed jackets; this one works well on you and is flatteringly cut for your physique.  I wouldn't change it. 

 

The more general bottom line is that so far as the choices open to us as consumers go, we are living in a golden age of classic style:  we have more choices than ever.  

 

A rational man makes these choices based on the uses to which a garment will be put, the social contexts and environments in which it will be worn, and, most importantly, the body of the person wearing it.   These may or may not fit in with the preferred house style of a particular tailor.  That’s always been the case, of course.

 

The practical downside to all the choices available to us is that the consequences of being an uneducated consumer are far greater than they used to be a hundred years ago.  That’s why we see so many train wrecks even when a great deal of money has been spent on the individual components of the outfit.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

post #34778 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 

Question for the gallery with reference to this latest discussion on (un)structured jackets. How do you relate structure with formality? I don't equate structure with formality generally speaking. Being completely unstructured certainly seems more casual to me because of the slouchy look it generally has. Other than that, whether something has a lot of padding or a little, it doesn't go into my reckoning of how formal it is. I have seen very slightly padded tuxedos and tailcoats that look quite formal and highly structured sport coats that look very casual indeed. 

 

 

 

Assuming the standard terminology where 'casual' and 'formal' are dichotomous then I think you've answered your own question, no?

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

post #34779 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Academic2 View Post
 

 

Assuming the standard terminology where 'casual' and 'formal' are dichotomous then I think you've answered your own question, no?

 

Cheers,

 

Ac


No. My point was that entirely unstructured jackets generally look more casual to me. However the implication of the conversation was that less structure = less formal and more structure = more formal. The idea being that things exist on a continuum rather than a simple dichotomy. My suggestion was that no such equation with structure and formality exists, except in the case of completely unstructured jackets.

post #34780 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 

Question for the gallery with reference to this latest discussion on (un)structured jackets. How do you relate structure with formality? I don't equate structure with formality generally speaking. Being completely unstructured certainly seems more casual to me because of the slouchy look it generally has. Other than that, whether something has a lot of padding or a little, it doesn't go into my reckoning of how formal it is. I have seen very slightly padded tuxedos and tailcoats that look quite formal and highly structured sport coats that look very casual indeed. 

 

I don't equate structure with formality--other than considering completely unstructured jackets to be casual. To the extent that less structure creates a visual sense of softness, I think about that when I pick things to go with a less structured jacket, but that's about it.

post #34781 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Academic2 View Post
 

 

Assuming the standard terminology where 'casual' and 'formal' are dichotomous then I think you've answered your own question, no?

 

Cheers,

 

Ac


No. My point was that entirely unstructured jackets generally look more casual to me. However the implication of the conversation was that less structure = less formal and more structure = more formal. The idea being that things exist on a continuum rather than a simple dichotomy. My suggestion was that no such equation with structure and formality exists, except in the case of completely unstructured jackets.

 

We know we're talking about continua; the mere use of the words "more" or "less" establishes that.

 

The point is that these are all "other factors being equal" principles (ceteris paribus principles. as we say)..  So all other factors being equal would a jacket with less structure look more casual?  Yes.  Other factors being equal would a jacket with more structure look more formal?  Yes.

 

Cheers,

 

Ac

post #34782 of 43974

I had a few minutes for a picture or three:

 

 

 

post #34783 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Six View Post
 

 

I don't equate structure with formality--other than considering completely unstructured jackets to be casual. To the extent that less structure creates a visual sense of softness, I think about that when I pick things to go with a less structured jacket, but that's about it.


I would think this makes perfect sense, and indeed it echoes my own thoughts on the matter. However, I have seen so many people say that this or that is too structured to be casual that I begin to wonder if there isn't some good reason for thinking that way. I'd still say no, but I wonder how others would justify it.

post #34784 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Six View Post
 

 

I'm pretty sure that's a Formosa sport coat. If so, I suspect that this might be the first time that someone has critiqued their shoulders as too padded/structured (depending on what terminology one prefers). :D

 

Sometimes it can be hard to differentiate the amount of padding from the wearer's build. Nevertheless, the shoulders look too wide to me.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 

Question for the gallery with reference to this latest discussion on (un)structured jackets. How do you relate structure with formality? I don't equate structure with formality generally speaking. Being completely unstructured certainly seems more casual to me because of the slouchy look it generally has. Other than that, whether something has a lot of padding or a little, it doesn't go into my reckoning of how formal it is. I have seen very slightly padded tuxedos and tailcoats that look quite formal and highly structured sport coats that look very casual indeed. :)

I think they have a strong relationship. While I get most of my casual jackets with no padding, I made to sure to get some padding for my stroller and tuxedo.

 

I saw a rather famous menswear guy wear an unpadded (or very lightly) tuxedo, and thought it looked pretty bad.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoProf View Post
 

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on today's fit. I continue to benefit from the conversation on this board. @Caustic Man, keep calling 'em like you see 'em. Future submissions will pay closer attention to the tie/lapel issue. It's funny, I used to obsess over keeping the width difference to within a quarter inch but had gotten away from it over the last six months or so. Hope you all have a great weekend. 

I wear 3" ties and 3.5" lapels. I wouldn't put any hard numbers on the relationship between the two, just as long as they're roughly proportional.

post #34785 of 43974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Six View Post

I'm pretty sure that's a Formosa sport coat. If so, I suspect that this might be the first time that someone has critiqued their shoulders as too padded/structured (depending on what terminology one prefers). biggrin.gif

It is - and there's very little, almost no padding, so I'm not entirely sure what Mr Wang is getting at..

For the record I think he could benefit with some shoulder structure
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)