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

Australian Members - Page 2037

post #30541 of 57223
A quick swing by an opshop today - saw a pair of Benchgrade Brown Cheaneys in 10.5UK F, barely worn = $50. Modernish slim last & style. On leaving some woman was trying to ask cashier something about them. Neither seemed to have much clue.

These: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
post #30542 of 57223
I have just left Bailey Nelson in Melbourne Central. What do you want to know?

They feel cheap, they look cheap (to me), at $95 they are cheap. The rivets on all the frames I handled were purely ornamental and did not function to make the frame more solid. Does this matter? It depends on what you value. When eyeglasses are concerned, I'm happy to pay (a lot) more for certain brands that I like a lot and who I trust to deliver a world class product with the best possible construction. Would I buy anything? Only the frame that resembles the Tart Arnel/Moscot Lemtosh as a sunglass in the champagne pink colour. Why? Cause it's a fad. I'll wear them 30 times, if they don't break by then, and then give them to my cousin or something.

One final point - they feel cheap, but so do frames that retail for $249 at OPSM. It's just that in select product categories - I'm willing to spend a lot more, less often. Bailey Nelson doesn't fit that mark.
post #30543 of 57223
I love mj bale but they have their flaws:
1) they have lots of shirts, none of them CBD
2) terrible, terrible ties
3) poor online service
post #30544 of 57223
Their ties, on average, are getting better IMO.
post #30545 of 57223
Quote:
Originally Posted by fxh View Post

A quick swing by an opshop today - saw a pair of Benchgrade Brown Cheaneys in 10.5UK F, barely worn = $50. Modernish slim last & style. On leaving some woman was trying to ask cashier something about them. Neither seemed to have much clue.

These: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

My size! Go back and get them right away!
post #30546 of 57223
MJ Bale gave me two free rugby tickets today, so I guess I can't complain too much about that!
post #30547 of 57223
post #30548 of 57223
Firman: Finally a bit of a reply I just knocked off while watching the roast tonight.

Any disagreement is to advance the understanding and exploration, not to prove you wrong.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Quote:
I was talking to Gerry the other night about what one is attempting achieve in dressing - once one gets beyond the basics. Notions of attracting people and dressing for a purpose. Perhaps it was also lennier who was talking about dressing up and down for meetings/negotiations depending on purpose. All moderated and mediated depending on (perceived) status/ imputed status / named status/ official status/ status inferred due to age/ experience/reputation etc etc. As we all know it can get complicated the more aware you are.

Following on; the most important book anyone should own on clothing, or anything, after one has mastered the basics is Stephen Potters: The Theory and Practice of Gamesmanship (or the Art of Winning Games without Actually Cheating) (1947)

It would be useful to get away from what I purchased/ what it costs/ etc etc and it might be useful to ponder the odd framework for examining The Presentation Of Self In Everyday Life ( to mention another basic book on clothing.)

I've alway found Karen Horney's basic triage looking glass of Toward, Against and Away useful for many purposes. Looking at clothing its a useful framework to see what you are trying to do with the way you dress. Are you looking to go toward or bring people toward you, are you looking to push people away or are you looking to clash with or push against people.

Have a think and we can discuss.

Below the fold is a more detailed explanation of Horney's theory from WIKI, couched in terms of neuroses though.


Reply from firmin
Interesting choice of reading material. Personally I look at the questions you raised, at a surface/social level from Bourdieu in terms of cultural, social and symbolic power or using APS speech " tailoring the message to suit the needs of the audience."

First for me what is one attempting to achieve in dressing well is not being a kabuki actor, or flanuer, or face ( reading Mod a Very British Style at present). Dress codes and here I mean the personal, not professionla or age appropriate. Are reflective of who and what I am as a person,how i percieve myself as a middle aged male and how i present myself to the world. And how I wish others to percieve me.


I would say I can distinguish between costume (kabuki etc.) and perhaps dressing uniquely. Although it’s a difficult area. A bit like pornography and erotica – I can tell the difference when I see it.
Clearly clothing in most cases anyway, has a sender and receiver, and perhaps a lot of noise, before meaning can be deciphered. Or as many can easily accept, clothing is loaded with meaning, history, prejudice, subtlety, depending on sender and receiver. Sometimes its easy to see someone who is being ironic, sometimes its hard to tell. Sometimes the sender intended an ironic message but often he just looks like a dick. In these days of post post modernism in (mens) clothes its hard, even impossible, to be ironic if you are over 50. Perhaps even over 40.

An interesting object is the recent rise of the cardigan. Now I’ve always liked a cardigan and one of my favourite objects is a heavy grey woollen cardigan Ms fxh hand knitted for me years ago. Many years ago. Shawl collar, just the right shade of grey, big soccer ball buttons, nice waist band. Sadly – it was slim and fitting (in an erotic way – I like to think) tight then and now is just too small and tight.

Cardigans used to have an old man Fletcher Jones vibe. Then they became ironic. Then (now) they are a desirable fashion item amongst the “young blokes” who are well dressed. No irony. Just nicely fitting cardigans in a variety of thicknesses. Hell you can even wear one under a jacket, even a suit, and be considered well dressed.

But can you do it over 45 yo and still be hip or does it mark you out as old man? Old man I think.

Clothing and how it is combined is a form of signifier which is both reflective of personality ( the look ), power and status within society. Ergo I would probablly not dress the same as going to the see Bell Shakespear or the Brumbies, two socially different situatyions but in todays world socially blured.

My problem these days is that the semiotics of male clothing (signs/signifiers/ etc) are confused. To my mind the semiotics relies to a large extent on a shared meaning of objects. Possibly true to an extent when Saussure, Lacan, Foucault et al were holding sway, but not applicable in this post nihilist world where ignorance of history and the past is a badge of honour rather than an obstacle to be overcome. To many (most?) the meaning of ties, jackets, dinner suits, morning suits, even wearing shirts inside trousers is lost. Not even in the vacuous unconscious spaces that must be empty within modern brains do we see much attempt at filling the spaces with knowledge as opposed to opinions.

There was a time when jeans at a wedding might well have been transgressive – even fashionable – see Andy Wharhol – but now its just further confirmation of primarily laziness but mostly ignorance, avoidance and lack of curiosity.

I’m not sure where I am going here, but basically I see that the shared meaning of signs and signifiers is lost and no easy straightforward assumptions can be made about conforming or transgressing. “Lord forgive them for they know not What they do” is the cry we must utter. Not because they are innocent but because they are wilfully ignorant. A different order of culpability.


Aside from the professional disposition, eg where I am on the corporate hierarchy. The way we dress can inspire trust,envy or hositlity and intimidate those that we are addressing. Suits are a wonderful way of expressing power in the work place and therefore achieving symbolic power in the corporate hierarchy. That is my observation here in Canberra, but when working as a rural academic years ago in the arts it was very black, a cultural creative post punk Iook and it was also political as it differentated you form the squattocracy at opening nights at cultural events.

Getting back down to earth. It suddenly struck me years ago when I was in my rural and regional empire that covered a great deal of the state. Dressing in a suit was something to foster resentment and irrational push back on many occasions. Unknowing resentment. Those that did wear suits wore them in the most shabby, insolent teenager level of maturity way. (mind you in was the same off duty – I wore leather jackets, black jeans, levis, and fitted clothes a decent casual chukkas and boots – others wore just the same clothes they wore at work only dirtier and sloppier – if that was possible) It struck me that sport coats were the answer. A bit of a dress down approach to dress up. Sport coats don’t have the UK “country/sport” connotation here that they do have in UK (and perhaps USA).

To me the whole RM Williams outfit of white moleskins, RM brown ‘lastic sided boots, checked shirt and gun check sport coat has too strong a connection with the squattocracy and private school jackaroos and hooray henrys. Having grown up in the country and not being part of the ascendency has given me a suspicion of a lot of that way of dressing – even though objectively to an extent I can admit it has a modern appropriate Australianness and maybe has lost its older meaning.

Black in Victoria, at least, has always symbolised Melbourne, or more precisely inner city, cashed up (if pretending otherwise) . artistic, middle class, café society Melbourne. Black also is strongly associated with the arts and artistic. Black also has connotations of the puritan and religious. Black also has meanings related to power and state control, Nazi uniforms, police states etc, Spanish Inquisition. Black is complicated. And despite popular belief hard to wear well. I used to wear it a lot – haven’t worn it in any form for years. I’m thinking of trying again – it’s a good Melbourne thing and has a nice complicated mish mash of meaning. I’d like to try a mix of texture – thick wale cord trousers, black leather jackets, black suede boots, - hard to pick a shirt that works.

I wonder a lot about age appropriate dressing, particularlly in terms of casual attire. I know I can wear a pea coat in winter because its warm but I would not ( persoanl taste and no politics here) wear a M65 field jacket in a casual situation. To me such a garment is not the look of who I am at my age. Maybe a Barbour but never been keen on them and they carry too much bagage in terms of signification for my taste.

I suspect Barbour doesn’t carry much baggage here except for readers of English Country magazines. M65s for me are too directly linked to Vietnam – but again wilful ignorance, and age I guess, will triumph here with most not acknowledging the harmful rifts in society amplified by that war. I’m not sure I could wear a real M65. Beside that fact they are too heavy.

Second being well dressed is socially about class, status and power. Good clothing and the abiltiy to dress well is a sign of power and money in todays society. Power equalls money therefore the line between self image and disposable income is clealry stated in how we dress.

I’m not sure anymore – the worlds wealthiest, and powerful, men dress in pretty ordinary jeans, polo necked black sweaters and crappy jackets and mainstreet sneakers. (and thats the well dressed ones) Good clothing and the ability to dress well is not a sign of power and money any more . It’s just a sign you care and have made an effort to understand history a bit. Two good suits and a few leather shoes that fit cost less than a pair of desirable jeans and sneakers and stupid baseball hat and celebrity sunglasses and hoody. It adds up to nothing in terms of weekly income.

We like to look the part for the soical role we play wheather it is work or casual, we project ourselves firstly by our appearence before we open our mouths. Being well attired is back in fashion, not that fashion has anythign to do with taste.Just look at the Goodweekend with its full page ads for DJ's and suits and racing. Deconstructing those implies a subtext that blowing your cash at the races is a symbolic of your ability to drop money on said suit and then trot off to the races and blow your cash in style, but being in said suit and with babe on arm you will be a winner.

I do think good dressing – whatever that is – is back in fashion. Visiting Tokyo recently confirmed it even more.

Thirdly, taste and the abilty to project via one's clothing a personal style that demonstrates one understands what good taste and is all about. Not too flash, but a subtle well thought out ensemble which clearly states this is who I am. I have learnt how to walk the talk mind you its taken me time to achieve this but I know how to carry and project myself to the world. Taste takes time, money and exposure to the culture, noir film was one of my main inspirations in life. As I stated earlier I do come from a cultural creative background and the detached observer in me likes to look and watch the games that people play while also being on the stage with the other actors.


Don’t we all?

I agree with the above para except that statement that it takes money.

Not compared too almost anything else men do – dressing well doesn’t take money. But it does take time and effort. Too much effort – I just managed to snag 6 pairs of high rise good quality chinos – they aren’t available anymore – it takes time and connections. Its harder than it needs to be. In Australia.

The suit was the great democratisation of men’s clothing and fashion. Despite the attempts of marketers to somehow imply that its exclusive and at the same time available to everyman (surely the aim of all successful marketing) I’d maintain the suit is still the ultimate in the democratisation of male style and not likely to alter in that ability for many years.

Edited by fxh - 4/30/13 at 2:56am
post #30549 of 57223
Quote:
Originally Posted by California Dreamer View Post

My size! Go back and get them right away!

I didn't really like them but the colour was nicer than online pics. I'll go back and have a check on the size - I might be wrong - you want them?
post #30550 of 57223
Quote:
Originally Posted by thebrownman View Post

I have just left Bailey Nelson in Melbourne Central. What do you want to know?

They feel cheap, they look cheap (to me), at $95 they are cheap. The rivets on all the frames I handled were purely ornamental and did not function to make the frame more solid. Does this matter? It depends on what you value. When eyeglasses are concerned, I'm happy to pay (a lot) more for certain brands that I like a lot and who I trust to deliver a world class product with the best possible construction. Would I buy anything? Only the frame that resembles the Tart Arnel/Moscot Lemtosh as a sunglass in the champagne pink colour. Why? Cause it's a fad. I'll wear them 30 times, if they don't break by then, and then give them to my cousin or something.

One final point - they feel cheap, but so do frames that retail for $249 at OPSM. It's just that in select product categories - I'm willing to spend a lot more, less often. Bailey Nelson doesn't fit that mark.

TBM - Thanks for providing your thoughts on the Bailey Nelson frames. I has seen a few on the website which looked OK, but I wont be making a special trip to Melbourne to check the out. I agree with your statement about reasonably expensive OPSM style frames not necessarily being quality. My last pair was bought from the optometrist less than two years back and the paint is now peeling off them - I feel slightly cheated as they weren't cheap!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSurg View Post

Smeggett: you can try to decrease the edge thickness by getting frames for smaller lenses. Avoid oval frames. I tend to stick with rectangular frames. Ensure the frames are suited to the distance between your pupils. Otherwise, the optometrist decentres the lens and hence you may end up with a thicker lens edge. For that amount of myopia, high index is considered with the trade off being more dispersion ie. chromatic aberration as I previously said. One might consider glass instead of high index, but weight becomes an issue. For us who are high myopes, the main contributor to poor cosmesis is actually the prismatic effect of the lens, which increases as you get further from the optical centre of the lens. I guess contacts are a way to get around this, but you lose part of the benefits of prismatic effect, which is easier convergence for near work and reading.

iSurg - thanks for the detail in your post. As mentioned above my current specs have seen better days and I'm keen to source a new pair of decent glasses at a (hopefully) respectable cost. I spent the best part of 20 years wearing contacts, but I must be getting slack in my old age and prefer the glasses. My current frames are rectangular and have high index glass lens (the weight never bothered me, so no concerns there) which are up around 1.9 or so RI. It's been a good 10 years since I had polycarbonate lens, but the thing I hated most about them was that the protective coatings started to rub off after a while leaving the lens with a permanent smudge-like mark on them. Damned annoying.

Anyhow, I wandering OT now - thanks for the advice and I'll keep on looking for something that suits my face and level of mypoia.

Cheers.
post #30551 of 57223
Quote:
Originally Posted by tobiasj View Post

I agree. Bale is great for what it is, but it lacks a certain je ne sais quoi...non?

Exactly. The product just feels a bit flat. Even when the early seasons did an exact take of Japan-made Osaka cut HB suits, the fabrics were almost aggressively dull. One exception, which I regret not buying, was an RAF blue herringbone-weave.

Regrets, regrets...
post #30552 of 57223

Hi guys

 

I recently went to Brice's in Sydney to get some shoes resoled. The work was pretty decent (replaced the leather soles, restitched and added some steel toe caps) and the turnaround was great, but I'm a bit disappointed by the attention to detail. The edge dressing has been really sloppily applied, the upper has paint up to a cm from the sole, and there are also a few nicks in the upper from what I assumed was the stitching machine. Is this par for the course, or did I get unlucky? They were not an expensive pair, but I don't feel super confident about going back with a favourite.

post #30553 of 57223
I have one pin stripe HB suit and one mj suit. I must admit I love them both.

The mj fits me a little bet even with tailoring on both but I get more comments on the HB. Only prob is that I'm starting to wear through the pants after only a few year on the HB.
post #30554 of 57223

never had any troubles with mj bale. Not a big fan of their shirts though, they seem a bit flimsy.


Edited by Nolvadex - 4/30/13 at 3:16pm
post #30555 of 57223
I've got two MJ Bale shirts and they are rock solid.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members