Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Deliberately non-fashionable
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Deliberately non-fashionable - Page 3

post #31 of 42
I applaud this attitude. I wear a suit and tie as a print journalist, often with a pocket square every work day, even though it's rare in Australia (and elsewhere).
I find two reactions: generally after an initial comment, workmates and contacts simply accept you and and your attire and secondly, I've found people are keener to talk to me than the next guy dressed in jeans and a sweater. Even had a prime minister stride up to me once and introduce himself as I was lurking after a press conference...there were others around and all I can suggest is that he was impressed as I probably stood out.
Isn't it ironic now that if you are well dressed (and I mean classic style not fashion which I detest) you are regarded either as an eccentric or a rebel.
But things go in waves, reactions against trends and so on...maybe there will be a backlash against the general sartorial slackness around at the moment if we are patient.
post #32 of 42
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Some trousers have "watch pockets" built in, usually just below the waistband, between the fly and the right side pocket. They can be so discreet that you hardly notice them: just a slit below the waist band that opens up into a 3" by 3" (or so) cotton pocket. Some add a small flap with a cut-through button over the opening. The chain is then attached to a belt loop, or to a small loop inside the trouser's right side pocket. I have bepoke and ready made trousers that have this feature. Not that I wear a pocket watch much. But if one doesn't have a vest, this pocket offers an alternative to the breast pocket of the coat.

I have that on a couple pairs of pants. I always thought they were for change. They'd be great for visiting 3rd world countries. You could fold your big bills into that pocket and if you ever got mugged nobody would ever find the money b/c the couple that I have are virtually invisible.
post #33 of 42
Wow, this is an old fucking thread.
post #34 of 42
Originally Posted by johnapril View Post
I work at a midwestern drug company where most employees dress like they just stepped back into to the khakis they stepped out of the night before, put on a logo shirt, poured coffee on their hair, and combed it back slick.

I split my time between suits (sans tie) and dress slacks with some sort of sportcoat or leather.  Sheeeat, people always think I've got an interview or something.

I know just what you mean
post #35 of 42
While some regret that they are the only ones at the office, restaurants, etc who is has on a coat, tie, leather sole shoes, etc, this thread makes a good case that being the only ones has its own personal virtues and rewards, as opposed to wearing the "expected" uniform of the day.
post #36 of 42
Originally Posted by aarghh View Post
That is partially correct - the wristwatch was invented earlier by Patek Philippe, but was used principally by women. Louis Cartier adapted the design with a leather strap and buckle for Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Brazilian balloonist and heavier-than-air flight pioneer. Santos-Dumont, so the story goes, wanted to keep both his hands on the controls while checking time. This association was responsible for the popularization of the wristwatch among men. That is also why there is a recurring theme of Santos in Cartier products.
From what I've read, some also attribute the popularity of the wristwatch to the soldiers returning from WWI where they became accustomed to the convenience of their "trench wristwatches". Before this, wristwatches were regarded as women's wear. As for the pocket-watch in the breast pocket, I have worn this little detail before.
post #37 of 42
Originally Posted by Giona Granata View Post
In the '70 it was social rebellion to dress like Punks. Today in many places it is social rebellion to dress jacket and tie.
Sometimes, when I really feel rebellious, I add a pocket square. I get some strange looks from people, but I guess that also happened to the first punks back in the 70s.
post #38 of 42
Originally Posted by epa View Post
Sometimes, when I really feel rebellious, I add a pocket square. I get some strange looks from people, but I guess that also happened to the first punks back in the 70s.

For all-out rebellion, wear a three-piece.
post #39 of 42
+1 for individualism.
post #40 of 42
Originally Posted by Britalian View Post
+1 for individualism.

Is this what they call, "stealth wealth"?
post #41 of 42
I've worn a pocket watch since around 3 years ago, merely because wristwatches were uncomfortable(spent a lot of time at the computer). I actually paid ZERO attention to my clothing and I don't even want to picture myself in the past. That said, I think pocket watches were my gateway drug to anachronism.

EDIT:I'm sad, because today my mechanical pocket watch broke Luckily, I still have a quartz one.
post #42 of 42
Anti-fashion Fashion is the best. Esoteric designer wares that are as expensive as any Brioni or Kiton, produced in wonderful but decidely unsexy cuts. I'm thinking early Raf Simons, the really out there Comme des Garçons that inevitably goes on sale, '80s Yohji Yamamoto, Carol Christian Poell. It's even better when it's worn with classical clothes--a Caraceni bespoke suit with the limited edition Corthay for Yohji Yamamoto shoes and a Comme des Garcons patchwork coat.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Deliberately non-fashionable