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

Australian Members - Page 2440

post #36586 of 48617
Halifax, on the side note, why do you prefer Halifax over Lancaster?
post #36587 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post


If you'd like to catch up for a coffee when you happen to be in town sometime to chat about shoes, I'm happy to do so.

 

Do not let this opportunity slip. JM is a champ and a gentleman - I had a fantastic catchup with him while I was in Brisbane.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifax View Post

 

As a side, how do you guys go about matching your belts with the shoes you buy online? I mean, you can't buy both on-line because the chance of getting a match is slim.

 

Keep the 80-20 balance in mind -- as long as you're 80% right (or, in this case, matching), the other 20% doesn't matter.

 

Alternatively, wear trousers that don't have belt loops; one of the best decisions I've made haha

post #36588 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifax View Post


Another tangent: can anyone give me a compelling reason to not consider the following R&B suit?
http://www.rhodesbeckett.com.au/products.php?s=1-11-100-230719

I'm 95% sure the fabric is VBC with a weight of 9.0 oz/yd^2 (300 g/m^2).


Apologies for asking so many questions, but I feel that my knowledge of most things fashion is limited (for now at least).

Re: belts - I'm not fussed about matching shoe shades to belts. At the risk of sounding a bit heretical in SF terms, I only have three leather belts - a black one, a mid-brown (milk-chocolate-like) one, and a slightly darker-brown suede one. I then have a fair few cloth and ribbon belts that I like to wear with chinos.

I wear my mid-brown leather belt with all sorts of shoes, ranging from tan to chestnut and burgundy to dark chocolate. Given that I wear a jacket whenever I head out of the office, I've never had anyone comment on my belt. I must admit that I've been thinking of getting another belt or two in a slightly lighter brown for a while but just haven't got around to it.

Anyway, in short, I wouldn't be too worried about matching your belt colour to your shoe colour - there are certainly more important things to think about!

Re: Rhodes & Beckett suit - If you don't have many suits, that wouldn't be my first choice, as I'd go for something a bit more flexible such as a plain (or herringbone-weave) navy, a mid-gray or a charcoal, before I got something with an overcheck, especially a burgundy overcheck.

Also, you're better off trying on a suit from R&B before you buy one (apologies if you already know how they fit). I haven't tried one for a few years, but when I did, I found that the jacket is quite structured with a firm chest and built-up shoulders and that the trousers were a bit odd, as they were quite tight and slim-cut around the waist, backside and upper legs, but that they didn't really taper down the leg so that the leg opening was quite wide at the bottom of the trousers. A sales assistant at R&B told me that one of their most common alterations was having the lower leg tapered on their trousers!

Of course, that was a few years ago and so the cut and style of their suits may well have changed in the intervening period, but it would be best to try it on first.

[rant] Finally, I note that the sleeves have working buttonholes. There's nothing wrong with working buttonholes per se, but I've got to say that working buttonholes on ready-to-wear suits irritate me. If the sleeves are the right length for you, or if they only need a cm or so of alteration, then that's great. If you need more than that, however, then it means that the sleeves have to be adjusted from the sleevehead (ie up at the shoulder) instead of from the cuff. If you're paying retail prices, it costs about $30 to have sleeves taken up at the cuff but it costs $180 or more to have sleeves taken up from the sleevehead and it's a much more difficult process that not all tailors can do well. Also, if the suit fabric is patterned (as the R&B suit is, with an overcheck), then it can be very difficult to get the pattern-matching right once the sleeves have been shortened at the sleevehead. In short, it's much better for a ready-to-wear jacket to not have working buttonholes as it's much, much simpler in terms of alterations. [/rant]
post #36589 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli2012 View Post

That purple check would make you look like a pre-Madonna, a powder-puff, and a tartish fop.

 

Hilariously critical.

 

This would be my fifth suit. I have a black, two grey and one navy, all of which are plain weaves. I thought the PoW was subtle didn't look that bad.

post #36590 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilmust View Post

Do not let this opportunity slip. JM is a champ and a gentleman - I had a fantastic catchup with him while I was in Brisbane.


Thanks, NM, that's very kind of you - it was lovely to catch up with you, too.

Of course, as well as meeting new people with whom you share common interests, it's also nice to be able to put a face to their online identity!
post #36591 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Journeyman View Post


Re: belts - I'm not fussed about matching shoe shades to belts. At the risk of sounding a bit heretical in SF terms, I only have three leather belts - a black one, a mid-brown (milk-chocolate-like) one, and a slightly darker-brown suede one. I then have a fair few cloth and ribbon belts that I like to wear with chinos.

I wear my mid-brown leather belt with all sorts of shoes, ranging from tan to chestnut and burgundy to dark chocolate. Given that I wear a jacket whenever I head out of the office, I've never had anyone comment on my belt. I must admit that I've been thinking of getting another belt or two in a slightly lighter brown for a while but just haven't got around to it.

Anyway, in short, I wouldn't be too worried about matching your belt colour to your shoe colour - there are certainly more important things to think about!

Re: Rhodes & Beckett suit - If you don't have many suits, that wouldn't be my first choice, as I'd go for something a bit more flexible such as a plain (or herringbone-weave) navy, a mid-gray or a charcoal, before I got something with an overcheck, especially a burgundy overcheck.

Also, you're better off trying on a suit from R&B before you buy one (apologies if you already know how they fit). I haven't tried one for a few years, but when I did, I found that the jacket is quite structured with a firm chest and built-up shoulders and that the trousers were a bit odd, as they were quite tight and slim-cut around the waist, backside and upper legs, but that they didn't really taper down the leg so that the leg opening was quite wide at the bottom of the trousers. A sales assistant at R&B told me that one of their most common alterations was having the lower leg tapered on their trousers!

Of course, that was a few years ago and so the cut and style of their suits may well have changed in the intervening period, but it would be best to try it on first.

[rant] Finally, I note that the sleeves have working buttonholes. There's nothing wrong with working buttonholes per se, but I've got to say that working buttonholes on ready-to-wear suits irritate me. If the sleeves are the right length for you, or if they only need a cm or so of alteration, then that's great. If you need more than that, however, then it means that the sleeves have to be adjusted from the sleevehead (ie up at the shoulder) instead of from the cuff. If you're paying retail prices, it costs about $30 to have sleeves taken up at the cuff but it costs $180 or more to have sleeves taken up from the sleevehead and it's a much more difficult process that not all tailors can do well. Also, if the suit fabric is patterned (as the R&B suit is, with an overcheck), then it can be very difficult to get the pattern-matching right once the sleeves have been shortened at the sleevehead. In short, it's much better for a ready-to-wear jacket to not have working buttonholes as it's much, much simpler in terms of alterations. [/rant]

 

Hi JM,

 

I have one R&B suit right now and I'm confident of the fit. I agree with the shoulders, the roping can be a tad excessive; my upper arm has a bit of meat to it so that offsets this slightly. However, I tried one of their dinner suits and the roping just ruined it. The trousers I have seem fine, could do with a slight taper but I'm not fussed.

 

Regarding the surgeon cuffs, my current R&B also has them and I only need a 1cm taken from the sleeve (although that was a plain weave). I can see the problems caused at the sleeve head with a pattern... hmm. I completely understand your position on the sleeve cuff - I was surprised they offer it. Must give off the illusion that the suit is 'exclusive'.

 

The one thing I wasn't so sure on is the waist suppression - if I want to take it in a little more I recall that R&B suits are quite short in the front which prohibits extra suppression.

 

Long story short - I thought it was time to look a check patterned (or twill) suit.

 

Thanks for your thoughts. Let me know if you would like to education me about shoes, whenever is best for you.

 

PS I forgot the suit TBM is sending my way, which is a chalkstripe I believe.
 

post #36592 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oli2012 View Post

That purple check would make you look like a pre-Madonna, a powder-puff, and a tartish fop.

If you're looking at your first suit I would go a plain navy or dark to mid grey.

I know you live out Bjelke-Petersen's way but it might be worth ordering from MJ Bale. You can always send it back should it not fit.

 

"pre-Madonna"? Prima donna?

 

What's a post-Madonna? Who is a post-Madonna?

 

Who is what?

 

What is the meaning of life?

post #36593 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by wurger View Post

Halifax, on the side note, why do you prefer Halifax over Lancaster?


Do you want the long answer or the short answer?

 

The short answer is the HP Halifax was a transitional step towards heavy bombers, a step the Germans thankfully never took. Without planes like the Halifax, the Lancaster would not have been as successful - no one really knew the aerodynamics of big aircraft back then. Regarding its performance short-comings, once they replaced the merlins with the hercules it was a much better aircraft.

 

Note the the time difference between the two aircraft was approx. 2 years (ie an eon back then) - almost like saying the mustang is better than the spitfire (ie same engine but ~5 year development gap).

 

Let me know and I'll happily give you the long answer.

post #36594 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilmust View Post

"pre-Madonna"? Prima donna?


What's a post-Madonna? Who is a post-Madonna?

Who is what?

What is the meaning of life?

Pre-raphaelite, post Madonna, pre-Madonna.

post #36595 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifax View Post


The short answer is the HP Halifax was a transitional step towards heavy bombers, a step the Germans thankfully never took.

What about the Heinkel He 177 Greif?
post #36596 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by California Dreamer View Post

Yes, it's from a classic Radiohead song:

"When I am king you will be first against the wall
With your opinion which is of no consequence at all."

Marx would be so proud!
post #36597 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ernesto View Post


Pre-raphaelite, post Madonna, pre-Madonna.

 

 

post-raphaelite prima donna

 

post #36598 of 48617

First of all, I'd say the He 177 was medium heavy and designed as a multi-purpose. Again, it stayed away from the four powerplant configuration which can potentially  generate interacting vortices. The Dornier Do 19 is a better example of the German's attempts and if I had to choose a Jerry bomber, it would be this one.

 

When I say the Germans never went there, I me when the critical decisions were made. There was one German, Walther Wever, who was pushing for these types of aircraft in the mid 30's (before the allies). However, he died in an air crash and the German doctrine returned to medium/multi-role aircraft because it looked good on the books (less cost and greater production).

 

Lesson number one: multi-role aircraft are always more expensive to build than you think, give the engineers all manner of headaches (due to the compromises made) and are inevitably inferior.

 

The combination of technical challenges that Halifax answered, not necessarily in the most appropriate manner, is what draws me to this aircraft. I have others that I equally admire.
 

post #36599 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by nabilmust View Post


post-raphaelite prima donna

lol.That is some costume!

Add to the mix that the pre-raphaelites were actually post Raphael. A bit like that girl.
post #36600 of 48617
Quote:
Originally Posted by Halifax View Post


Do you want the long answer or the short answer?

The short answer is the HP Halifax was a transitional step towards heavy bombers, a step the Germans thankfully never took. Without planes like the Halifax, the Lancaster would not have been as successful - no one really knew the aerodynamics of big aircraft back then. Regarding its performance short-comings, once they replaced the merlins with the hercules it was a much better aircraft.

Note the the time difference between the two aircraft was approx. 2 years (ie an eon back then) - almost like saying the mustang is better than the spitfire (ie same engine but ~5 year development gap).

Let me know and I'll happily give you the long answer.

Don't leave out the Stirlings - my grandfather flew them during WW2.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Australian Members