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 2320

post #34786 of 43828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
 

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.

 

I think we all agree that completely unstructured looks casual, so let's ignore that for a moment. Where is the relationship between varying degrees of structure and formality beyond perhaps you having a preference for more structure with more formal things? I make this distinction in response to your comment about thinking lightly padded tuxedos look bad. I personally have seen some very lightly structured tuxedos that I thought looked great. Does it simply come down to personal preference or can you justify your idea with some kind of explanation? 

post #34787 of 43828

I don't have any intellectual basis for it other than more formality seems to call for a stiffer, cleaner, more immaculate appearance. Is that just personal preference or not?

 

The unstructured tuxedo I saw had a very wrinkled shoulder line when the gentleman was sitting down, which irked me. If he was wearing a corduroy jacket with an equally wrinkled shoulder, I would've ignored it, maybe even embraced the wrinkles for that look.

post #34788 of 43828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
 

I don't have any intellectual basis for it other than more formality seems to call for a stiffer, cleaner, more immaculate appearance. Is that just personal preference or not?

 

That's a perfect intellectualization of your point, very well put. I don't think that necessarily means lightly padded jackets can't look immaculate though. 

post #34789 of 43828
post #34790 of 43828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kent Wang View Post
 

I don't have any intellectual basis for it other than more formality seems to call for a stiffer, cleaner, more immaculate appearance. Is that just personal preference or not?

 

The unstructured tuxedo I saw had a very wrinkled shoulder line when the gentleman was sitting down, which irked me. If he was wearing a corduroy jacket with an equally wrinkled shoulder, I would've ignored it, maybe even embraced the wrinkles for that look.

 

That's probably also because suits and formal wear have their doctrinal roots in military gear, no? I'm just hazarding a guess.

 

The most formal attire in military gear was the stiffest, sharpest, and cleanest look in their uniforms.

post #34791 of 43828
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilmust View Post
 

 

The most formal attire in military gear was the stiffest, sharpest, and cleanest look in their uniforms.

 

I don't know that this is necessarily true. Obviously dress uniforms were stiffer than combat uniforms, but combat uniforms were meant to be utilitarian. So, ignoring that, if you look at the U.S. military the old green Class A (informal), the Dress Blues (kind of similar to semi-formal), and the Mess Dress (formal) were all similarly constructed. This is a young CM in Mess Dress and, if it's not easy to tell, this jacket has very little padding. In fact, it was less structured than my old Class As. Keep in mind that this may not apply to other military traditions, but the American traditions follow the British closely. This also may not apply to militaries in all places and times, but I think it simply shows that the most formal military wear does not necessarily mean the most constructed.

 

post #34792 of 43828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 

 

I don't know that this is necessarily true. Obviously dress uniforms were stiffer than combat uniforms, but combat uniforms were meant to be utilitarian. So, ignoring that, if you look at the U.S. military the old green Class A (informal), the Dress Blues (kind of similar to semi-formal), and the Mess Dress (formal) were all similarly constructed. This is a young CM in Mess Dress and, if it's not easy to tell, this jacket has very little padding. In fact, it was less structured than my old Class As. Keep in mind that this may not apply to other military traditions, but the American traditions follow the British closely. This also may not apply to militaries in all places and times, but I think it simply shows that the most formal military wear does not necessarily mean the most constructed.

 

 

What exactly are you ignoring? Because you've just re-contextualised the discussion if you choose to ignore the first premise.

 

Your examples, as you have pointed out, are more contemporary. They're many, many generations removed from the traditional roots of formalwear (both military and non-military) which I'm referring to.

post #34793 of 43828
Fairly Casual Spring Stuff (Click to show)




Have a great weekend, y'all
post #34794 of 43828

Today.  High rise, pleated and side tabbed. 

 

 

 

 

 

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

 

post #34795 of 43828
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilmust View Post
 

 

What exactly are you ignoring? Because you've just re-contextualised the discussion if you choose to ignore the first premise.

 

Your examples, as you have pointed out, are more contemporary. They're many, many generations removed from the traditional roots of formalwear (both military and non-military) which I'm referring to.


I think it has to be ignored because it is the equivalent of work-wear. To say that non-combat uniforms are more structured than combat uniforms is obvious, and not conducive to the the question we were talking about before you graciously joined us. As for the second comment your point is well taken. However, this does not immediately mean that in the past things were very different. They may have been, but then again they may not have. This requires evidence to determine. As for being generations removed this is true in a chronological sense, however the military is a very conservative organization. Things are not so different from generations ago as you might think.

 

In fact some of our British allies can attest to some uniforms being nearly unchanged from 100 or more years ago.

post #34796 of 43828
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post


I think it has to be ignored because it is the equivalent of work-wear. To say that non-combat uniforms are more structured than combat uniforms is obvious, and not conducive to the the question we were talking about before you graciously joined us. As for the second comment your point is well taken. However, this does not immediately mean that in the past things were very different. They may have been, but then again they may not have. This requires evidence to determine. As for being generations removed this is true in a chronological sense, however the military is a very conservative organization. Things are not so different from generations ago as you might think.

In fact some of our British allies can attest to some uniforms being nearly unchanged from 100 or more years ago.

Indeed, it's an interesting thing I would love to do a roaring business in dress uniforms here but sadly it seems to be no longer in the DNA of the American military. My alma mater on the Row has a military dept ran by a former British army Captain.
post #34797 of 43828
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Reeves View Post


Indeed, it's an interesting thing I would love to do a roaring business in dress uniforms here but sadly it seems to be no longer in the DNA of the American military. My alma mater on the Row has a military dept ran by a former British army Captain.


This is due in the U.S., in large part, to the last decade + of war. The Army in particular adopted the BDU (and later the ACU) as the standard dress for most occasions. Some have said that this is to remind the public that we are at war, but it is a sad excuse to do away with the custom of wearing dress uniforms when not on post. Fear not, however. The dress uniform is coming back slowly, although the Soldiers will kick and scream about it.

post #34798 of 43828
@Kent_Wang - My sense is that the more relaxed shoulder is a fashion trend that has taken hold over the past year or two. I generally don't turn over my wardrobe every year or two - though your retail stock necessarily have to do that.

While I agree it looks better - I say that with looking through the lens of 2016 fashion. I am sure i would not have had the same felling in 1990.

Anyway - Here is a more recent purchase with decidely less padding and a more natural shoulder.
I would be interested in your thoughts and those of others. (I realize that the pants are too long.)


post #34799 of 43828
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.


You tell me. I have a moderate amount of padding in this stroller. I think my dropped left shoulder is equally apparent with padding, and without. What do you think?

If you mean that I should get more padding in the left shoulder than the right, I'm not sure, I think that would be very tricky to make and have it look right.

No idea how it is rectified, but I have the same problem, and my tailor advised me that padding gives more "freedom" or options to rectify. Sounds logical to me. I am just a humble consumer.
post #34800 of 43828

Damn, people got defensive quick. I thought Kent was pretty spot on with some of his examples - Theo, DonCologne, and Rajesh off the top of my head were pretty obvious.

 
Originally Posted by ridethecliche View Post
 

@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'. 


Sorry - must have missed, but can you link where he said that? I think he was saying some people have suits that are too structured for the particular use/their body type - not that structured shoulders are wrong on principle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Academic2 View Post

 

In what sense is this a "casual sportcoat"?  No patch pockets, flaps on the hip pockets, suppressed waist, etc.

 

You don't think the fabric is relatively casual - its a pretty thick and bold windowpane, no? (not the options chosen for pockets, etc, but the fabric itself)

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)