or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Australian Members - Page 1772

post #26566 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxh View Post

Lachy

I'm always reluctant to critique but you did ask.

I'm not sure if the colours and tones are correct in those photos but thats all we have before us in this court, so lets assume they are.

It looks like a brown toned shirt, earthy not red toned, and broad bold checks.

Basically thats a casual shirt of some sort and in my mind as such doesn't work with a tie (unless a very casual /country wool knit) or a cut away collar.

In addition that kind of check doesn't do you, or anyone much, many favours. You'd be better to stick with a plain solid or stripes. If wearing large checks, unless at Pitti , its wise to break up the broadness with a jacket or cardigan or similar. So that theres not so much expanse of blocky squares and, graph paper like, bolded checks.

I know its against current trends, and perhaps, counter intuitive but in my eye you'd look better with a bit less fitting shirt around chest and particular stomach and waist.

Yes the sleeves could be a bit narrower at the upper ends.

The cuffs ( the actual cuff length not sleeve length) are too long and you would benefit from "normal" cuffs.

A bit of bloom or extra material in waist etc would allow the shirt to drape or hang and improve your overall look or silhouette.

The pants do look too low slung to me too.

I think your shape in particular would benefit from at least an inch or two higher waist line. It will slim you and make you legs look longer and improve the look of the shirt..

Think: fitting on top- loose below or fitting below - loose on top. You'll get a better over all look.

Belt or no belt is a personal preference but my "rule " if its a rule at all, is belt with any non -suit and no belt no loops only with suit.

No worries FXH I welcome all comments.

WRT the fabric, I think it's the palette of the photo. This is the fabric:

http://luxire.com/products/white-with-subtle-navy-blue-grid-by-monti-of-italy

Here's the shirt in some better light:

http://www.styleforum.net/g/i/566938/a/331152/australian-members/sort/display_order/

http://www.styleforum.net/g/i/566937/a/331152/australian-members/sort/display_order/

Think you'll agree that it's appropriate beyond Pitti! The pants are essentially a grey flannel.

Agree with the fit comments, I don't think the juxtaposition of such a slim shirt with broad trousers works. It makes my legs and butt looks bigger than they actually are. The tweaks you mentioned are just what I was thinking of doing. 21" chest and 20" waist, combined with losing 1 or 2 kgs, would work wonders I think.

The cuff is long because it's a three button cuff. Just wanted to try something different with that shirt.

When you say "inch or higher waistline" are you referring to the shirt or pants?
post #26567 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSurg View Post

Thanks, Gerry. Russian reindeer leather goods? Is it something vintage?

Wow.....and same size as me....any one know where iSurg lives :P
post #26568 of 48550

I'm gravitating a lot towards side-tab-pants that sit at the natural waist. Difficult to find OTR, but I (hopefully) found some from Epaulet.

 

Also, USPS is SO bad. I bought something from Howard Yount 3 weeks ago, last update January 28th after it was sorted into 'International Mail' in NY. Ridiculous! I recall a month long wait for my Epaulet pants before (so another 3 weeks before my new pants arrive). This would be fine, except for the advertised 5-10 business day nonsense that's advertised.

post #26569 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnnamedPlayer View Post

size 6 1/2?

Don't get any nail polish on them
Have you ever posted something that doesn't involve you being an iWanker? People don't choose their shoe size you know. But I guess your probably 6"4, 100kg with 4% body fat and a 12 inch dick right? Oh and the shoe size to match of course..... Jesus....
post #26570 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonerMatt View Post

Also, USPS is SO bad. I bought something from Howard Yount 3 weeks ago, last update January 28th after it was sorted into 'International Mail' in NY. Ridiculous! I recall a month long wait for my Epaulet pants before (so another 3 weeks before my new pants arrive). This would be fine, except for the advertised 5-10 business day nonsense that's advertised.

Sorry to hear of your mail dramas. While it's of no help to you, I've never had any problems with US Post and my parcels have always arrived in 10-11 working days.

The only time it took longer than that, I contacted the seller and he discovered that his wife had put the shoes that he was going to ship to me back into his wardrobe, and so he'd entirely forgotten to send them. Thankfully, he made up for it by sending them via courier at his own expense.
post #26571 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie's Wardrobe View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by UnnamedPlayer View Post

size 6 1/2?

Don't get any nail polish on them
Have you ever posted something that doesn't involve you being an iWanker? People don't choose their shoe size you know. But I guess your probably 6"4, 100kg with 4% body fat and a 12 inch dick right? Oh and the shoe size to match of course..... Jesus....

+1. Not worth the effort to scroll past so on the ignore list he goes.
post #26572 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by lachyzee View Post

When you say "inch or higher waistline" are you referring to the shirt or pants?

Trousers

edit:: Ok I had a look at the shirt - its blue - but still those sorts of checks are on the casual /country side and don't work with a cutaway, which is intrinsically more towards the formal rather than less formal.

In my view that pattern calls for for a more longer peak collar or button down and open neck.

If you must wear a tie with it I'd suggest a square end knit.

Those checks, even in blue are far too solid and blocky to wear without a jacket unless with jeans or chinos.. Theres a clash of context and message and not one that works in my view.
post #26573 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxh View Post

Trousers

Just reminded me of this - http://styleanderror.co.uk/2011/07/video-stance-no-23/

Trousers not pants. Otherwise this joke does not really work.

What's the difference between a man and a dog?

A man wears trousers, a dog just pants.
post #26574 of 48550
In the UK pants = underpants/reg's/ grundies/jocks/underchunders.

As recently as just last year Cameron referred to buying his pants in M&S, meaning his undies. In USA pants always means trousers.

Here it used to be pants and trouser were interchangeable although usually in the past women's were called pants and men's trousers. I think the distinction has been lost.

We now use both pants and trousers to mean trousers. But refer to underwear as underwear or a myriad of other names - none of which exhibit the coyness about such things (toilets) our USA brothers display.
post #26575 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxh View Post

In the UK pants = underpants/reg's/ grundies/jocks/underchunders.
...
We now use both pants and trousers to mean trousers. But refer to underwear as underwear or a myriad of other names - none of which exhibit the coyness about such things (toilets) our USA brothers display.

Of course we Scotsman have no use for underwear anyway, or trousers for that matter...


Edited by Pink Socks - 2/14/13 at 5:22am
post #26576 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2010 View Post

Do they have any EG on sale in Sydney store ?
No. They didn't have much by way of shoes. A driving shoe, the brand of which I can't remember, and a Church's suede loafer.
post #26577 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie's Wardrobe View Post

Have you ever posted something that doesn't involve you being an iWanker? People don't choose their shoe size you know. But I guess your probably 6"4, 100kg with 4% body fat and a 12 inch dick right? Oh and the shoe size to match of course..... Jesus....

I do have small feet and am short, but still... Unnamed, i have yet to see anything of actual substance in your contributions. Show us your best fit, then perhaps you can have an opinion. At the moment, CW's word is better than yours - thanks for the rally, Jason.

Shots fired lol
Edited by iSurg - 2/14/13 at 2:05pm
post #26578 of 48550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selvaggio View Post

No. They didn't have much by way of shoes. A driving shoe, the brand of which I can't remember, and a Church's suede loafer.

I was in HB three days before I saw the first sale add, and even then it looked pretty thin in terms of choice stock.

Also has anyone bought anything in terms of clothing for SWMBO OL? looking at picking up something from LLB not sure if US sizing eg 14 equals Oz/Brit size 14.
post #26579 of 48550
So many posts to catch up on,.

Romp, did you post photos if the jeans? Give us an update shot
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnnamedPlayer View Post

size 6 1/2?

Don't get any nail polish on them

Woah! and I thought I was a f***wit..
post #26580 of 48550

Settle down lads, just poking fun at his shoe size.

I though we were all buddies her in the Good Ol' Aussie Forum!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members