WAYWRN: Classic Menswear, Casual Style

[Threadbearer]



can we seriously just stop debating the thread and just post+critique?

+1 I find it amusing that the very people who oppose the existence of this thread are keeping it alive by posting their opposition to it.

I got my best fit advice from SW&D a few years ago.

Ah, but how long did it take the wounds to heal?

Deets on the bag, please, Moo? Also, does it have enough structure to stand up on its own, or does it flop over when you set it down?

Do TB's shoes flirt with the dreaded square toe? I ask because I am looking at something similar yet slightly shorter in overall length.]

My J&M loafers are definitely not SF-approved, Dig, but not because of the toes. The brand doesn't help, of course, but I think most of the objections stem from the fact that my loafers don't really know what they're trying to be. SFers in general, and WAYWRNers in particular, seem to have a marked preference for uber-traditional, non-stylized, loafers. My J&Ms are sort of a hybrid of loafers and driving mocs, and they don't really fit the bill in either category. They're fine in real life, though, and I'm going to keep wearing them until I can afford a pair of C&J Mertons.

Mertons are probably still a bit too stylized for most of the WAYWRN regulars, but I think they're gorgeous.

 

[Holdfast]

Quote:
I understand where you're coming from (and on a personal level, I agree with it!), but what you're missing is this:

- there are two main reasons people get dressed in the morning: a) to look good to the masses; and b) to look good to oneself +/- a very highly selected cohort with a similar aesthetic viewpoint

- most people, even on SF, actually come here looking not to learn aesthetics, but to look good to the masses. That doesn't mean the proverbial "great unwashed", but some very large cohort/subset of the population. The vast number of prosaic, essentially "cookie-cutter" topics on things like interview attire, banking attire, lawyer attire, etc, etc, etc, are testimony to this. The same basic approach to the meaning of clothes also emerges in a much more elitist way in the "the forum is full of bad taste", "this particular bespoke style is the most aesthetically pleasing", "soft tailoring is better than hard tailoring" type of threads too. It's all about an underlying premise that there's an objectively superior aesthetic, which is what one should aim for, which is determined by cohort acceptance.

- It is possible for a) to converge on b), as the cohort narrows. For instance, within the SW&D subculture, the rules you're talking about become known, so the look becomes appreciated within that subculture, but not to others. However, it is still basically just a more tightly defined case of a). The ultimate unique expression of b) is dressing purely for artistic/self-expressive aesthetic purposes, which is of course almost impossible to do, as our own appreciation for aesthetics is partly driven by the response of others to appearances.

I guess what I'm saying is that one can refine the focus of the target audience as much as you like, but all that's being done is moving the goalposts rather than doing something qualitatively different. On a personal level, I at least enjoy seeing the incremental extra effort people tend to make as the cohort narrows, so agree with the thrust of your post.

 

[Lel]



A bit mean? I'm her for constructive criticism, don't claim to be particularly stylish at the moment (I'm an undergrad, everything comes from ebay/second hand shops), but not sure I appreciate this kind of thing at all.

I'm cleverer than you, and not that impressed or intimidated (honest) by pseudo-pithy internet putdowns. That being said, they doesn't exactly encourage beginners like me to stick at it with SF, and it's probably best for all involved if this site is welcoming to newbies.

You're right, I apologize.

I just get so sick and tired of the MC forum putting words in my mouth, saying "This is what SW&D likes? LOL" when often the picture they quote is usually the laughing stock of the SW&D forums. Just FYI, I'm also in undergrad and considering how long I've been active on Sf I have spent far, far, far less than than the average member of most of my stuff comes from below retail prices.

That being said, my criticisms largely still stand (though perhaps let me re-word them better).

Sweater fits too big, and yeah it does look kind of like extra skin. It's simply not flattering, and it's not an "anti-fit" either. It's just a bad, ill fitting piece of clothing. I sympathize with the difficulty of finding well fitting knits. The jeans aren't terrible, but aren't great. Like I said, mediocre fit, just ruined by a sloppy cuff. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish there. That being said, the shoes appear nice. If the sweater was switched out for a slimmer fit (and perhaps a different color), along with less sloppy stacking (or hem then to no break even if you want, despite it going against the grain members like GetSmart wears no break jeans and it works for him) then the fit would be improved.

If you want cheap, decent fitting sweaters here's my recommendation from cheapest to nicest.

European H&M --> Uniqlo --> All Saints --> SNS Herning --> Jil Sander & Dior Homme.

In fact, I will be more than willing to help you with any other bits of advice regarding fit or finding styles you prefer. Once again, I stress at the vitriol in my post wasn't directed at you as a poster but how MCers constantly attempt to portray SW&Ders.

If you don't like it, why do people over there spend large sums of money on what appear to be oversized t-shirts with stretched out collars?

As for the jeans, I know that SW&D likes jeans that look more or less like leggings with sagged asses. However, in the interests of brevity...

Ok man, this is exactly what I mean. Apparently we don't even know what we like but you do, right? If you could post an example of what you mean by the first sentence then please do.

Regarding your jeans comments... OK, sure, just like MCers only like massive baggy dad jeans with Walmart washes right? See how pointless this becomes when you attack the subforum in such a manner?

We might as well start a thread in SW&D posting pictures from Men's Warehouse saying "LOL THIS IS WHUT MCERS LIKE HAHA LETS LUAGH"

 

[Pembers]



You're right, I apologize.

I just get so sick and tired of the MC forum putting words in my mouth, saying "This is what SW&D likes? LOL" when often the picture they quote is usually the laughing stock of the SW&D forums. Just FYI, I'm also in undergrad and considering how long I've been active on Sf I have spent far, far, far less than than the average member of most of my stuff comes from below retail prices.

That being said, my criticisms largely still stand (though perhaps let me re-word them better).

Sweater fits too big, and yeah it does look kind of like extra skin. It's simply not flattering, and it's not an "anti-fit" either. It's just a bad, ill fitting piece of clothing. I sympathize with the difficulty of finding well fitting knits. The jeans aren't terrible, but aren't great. Like I said, mediocre fit, just ruined by a sloppy cuff. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish there. That being said, the shoes appear nice. If the sweater was switched out for a slimmer fit (and perhaps a different color), along with less sloppy stacking (or hem then to no break even if you want, despite it going against the grain members like GetSmart wears no break jeans and it works for him) then the fit would be improved.

If you want cheap, decent fitting sweaters here's my recommendation from cheapest to nicest.

European H&M --> Uniqlo --> All Saints --> SNS Herning --> Jil Sander & Dior Homme.

In fact, I will be more than willing to help you with any other bits of advice regarding fit or finding styles you prefer. Once again, I stress at the vitriol in my post wasn't directed at you as a poster but how MCers constantly attempt to portray SW&Ders.

Apology accepted. The "anti-fit" phrase wasn't used by me, by the way; in fact it's something i'd never heard of till reading this thread.

The jeans are just standard Levi 501s, and yep I'll probably end up hemming them so they don't break. The shoes are Trickers for Burberry, £19 BNIB from ebay

And thanks for the advice re sweaters. I already own loads of uniqlo/H&M, and like what I have. No way am I buying anything by All Saints and no way can I afford Jil Sander or Dior...but I'll look up SNS Herning!

 

[EFBenson]

out of focus in Brussels...

going into [or was it leaving?] Au Bon Vieux Temps...

George Bespoke patch pocket double-breasted blazer
russell & hodge shirt
Levi's 506 jeans
adidas trainers
[ATTACHMENT=89]brussels.jpg (57k. jpg file)[/ATTACHMENT]

 

[Lel]



Apology accepted. The "anti-fit" phrase wasn't used by me, by the way; in fact it's something i'd never heard of till reading this thread.

The jeans are just standard Levi 501s, and yep I'll probably end up hemming them so they don't break. The shoes are Trickers for Burberry, £19 BNIB from ebay

And thanks for the advice re sweaters. I already own loads of uniqlo/H&M, and like what I have. No way am I buying anything by All Saints and no way can I afford Jil Sander or Dior...but I'll look up SNS Herning!

Yeah SW&D actually is pretty knowledgeable on affordable slim fitting knits because they're very difficult to find. A few I missed...

-Epaulet. Forum affiliate, owner is a nice guy and happy to answer questions. Haven't tried their sweaters personally but most of their products always seem well made and very affordable.

-4Horseman is also a forum affiliate located in Canada and once every year they come out with an awesome thick knitted cardigan that ranges around $300 retail. They usually sell out instantly.

-A lot of SW&D brands make decent knits that can be pricey but found on sale for a good price. Rag & Bone is an example of these, while sadly a lot of production has begun to shift to China it does not seem to have affected their quality much. The Official Sales Thread is a great resource to find out about great deals and the occasional Jil Sander/Dior/Margiela piece can be found for ~200-300. There's also a thread like "Awesome deals on B&S" or something like there where gems are posted for the benefit of the community (lots of posts come from other sites too, you're more likely to find nice designer pieces for good prices from SuFu).

-Inverallan used to be like the best kept secret for scoring custom made, high quality knits for affordable prices but unfortunately they no longer offer that practice. A few pieces however can still be found with enough searching and asking the right questions.

 

[kgmessier]

great job. I love the socks

I really dig the outfit. Love the pants! Deets on them?

I like this all except for the shoes - it's a take on a saddle that doesn't appeal to me. I think standard saddles would look much nicer.

Thanks, guys. The pants are Epaulet seersucker.

I agree with you on the saddles, Lufty. I'd love to own more traditional saddles, but they're just not on my list right now. Perhaps next summer.

 

[jwmbro]



I like this fit. My initial reaction was that it was baggy, but it does looks relaxed and comfortable and that quality is usually quickly overlooked in favor of a more fitted ensemble. Like acecow said, you could slim down the sweater but I like it nonetheless.

Thanks for the praise! I have some other tighter sweaters as well, but I felt like the camel color that day.

I understand where you're coming from....

Wow, you're quite the talker, I can tell you're a psychiatrist!

Anyway, you make some good points, and I agree with much of what you said.

In any case, there's been much debate of what is MC Casual, what is MC, what is SW&D. This is obviously a subjective topic, but in my opinion these truly are 3 separate categories, although obviously each one overlaps with the other to some extent.

While the definitions of MC and SW&D have already established themselves quite clearly, I would recap that in my opinion MC focuses on outfits that should at the very least contain a sports coat, a tie, a suit, or preferably two of those elements.
I personally would consider sportscoat with no tie, but with pocket square, to be approximately the lowest level of dressed-up-ness for the regular MC thread.

Whereas SW&D - I don't want to sound like one of the supposed clueless MC'ers who tries to tell SW&D what it is that SW&D likes - however I think it's safe to say that any outfit that involves a hooded sweatshirt has no place in MC, and should go to SW&D.

My interpretation of the MC Casual thread is that it's slightly more traditional than SW&D, so that is to say no hooded sweatshirts in MC Casual, but no suits or ties either - those can go to regular MC.

Now, this is only my interpretation of the thread, since it's not really explicitly stated, but what I personally would say to define the MC Casual thread is that the minimum to post here should be some kind of collared shirt (certain exceptions permitted). That is to say a tennis shirt or button front shirt, but no v-neck tshirts. Your own interpretation may differ.

Here's testing this theory on the collective crowd, stretching my own definition to the absolute maximum of casualness, consisting of a blue gingham shirt (not sure why it wrinkled so oddly, maybe because I was kind of looking down), shorts, flipflops (not the cheap 2$ rubber kind though, durable quality ones), and a navy belt. I will admit myself that this is very borderline to get in this thread, but I'd consider it the bare minimum. I'm probably already stretching it one item too much (sandals or shorts).

 

[Cuttingboard]



Do TB's shoes flirt with the dreaded square toe? I ask because I am looking at something similar yet slightly shorter in overall length.

Great looking shoes, may I ask where you purchased these fine shoes?

 

[JapanAlex01]

I am glad this thread exists, but some of the assholes need to stop debating it; either post images, critiques or GTFO! The reason this thread needs to be is because SW&D is full of people who dress badly 80% or more of the time! Yes, certain looks from there are nice (I'm not trying to be an asshole), but most of the time, there are too many ****** sneakers, black, baggy 'ninja' looks and just general poor fits, etc! No, I'm not trying top be all 'grown up' and **** by saying the 'ninja' look is bad (I have seen plenty of good 'ninja' looks), but most of the ones from SW&D are just bad, IMO!

 

[Holdfast]

Quote:



Well, yes, I do tend to ramble on, it's true. I just like thinking/talking clothes, I guess...

 

[cptjeff]



Sweater fits too big, and yeah it does look kind of like extra skin. It's simply not flattering, and it's not an "anti-fit" either. It's just a bad, ill fitting piece of clothing.

That's what I think of a lot of fits SW&Ders swoon over.

Ok man, this is exactly what I mean. Apparently we don't even know what we like but you do, right? If you could post an example of what you mean by the first sentence then please do.

Regarding your jeans comments... OK, sure, just like MCers only like massive baggy dad jeans with Walmart washes right? See how pointless this becomes when you attack the subforum in such a manner?

We might as well start a thread in SW&D posting pictures from Men's Warehouse saying "LOL THIS IS WHUT MCERS LIKE HAHA LETS LUAGH"

A few random examples pulled from your WAYWRN, generally supposed to be great fits worth sharing:

First page, the crappy stretched out collar t shirt. Which probably cost $50. And everything else may look good to your subculture, but to the rest of the world...
http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x306/LeonardLeroy/chucks.jpg[/quote]

WTF? Seems to just be the one poster though.
[img]http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6137/5921567782_7758efcf33.jpg[img]

Hey look, another t shirt with a stretched out collar!
[img]http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd57/willycheesesteak/tojnyc.jpg

Hot day with a sweater around the neck. How clever.

Bacon neck AND an ill fitting cardigan!

I will admit that there are a lot of good fits in there. But the extreme ninja goth clown ones are the ones that stick in my mind, and the attitude of jean fit that regards what I would consider an awful fit as something close to godliness is really hard for me to get past.

Also, stop tucking pants into boots. It looks ridiculous.

It's great that you have your own internal codes of what looks good and all, but realize that to a large part of the world, even the 'caring how I look' part, the extreme stuff actively counts against you, even if it's oh so awesome to the internal culture. Ever hear people talking about how stupid fashion is, with people spending thousands to look homeless? They're not talking about the MC crowd.

I'm not trying to tell SW&D what they like. I'm trying to tell them what other people perceive of what they like, if anything.

I understand where you're coming from (and on a personal level, I agree with it!), but what you're missing is this:



- there are two main reasons people get dressed in the morning: a) to look good to the masses; and b) to look good to oneself +/- a very highly selected cohort with a similar aesthetic viewpoint



- most people, even on SF, actually come here looking not to learn aesthetics, but to look good to the masses. That doesn't mean the proverbial "great unwashed", but some very large cohort/subset of the population. The vast number of prosaic, essentially "cookie-cutter" topics on things like interview attire, banking attire, lawyer attire, etc, etc, etc, are testimony to this. The same basic approach to the meaning of clothes also emerges in a much more elitist way in the "the forum is full of bad taste", "this particular bespoke style is the most aesthetically pleasing", "soft tailoring is better than hard tailoring" type of threads too. It's all about an underlying premise that there's an objectively superior aesthetic, which is what one should aim for, which is determined by cohort acceptance.



- It is possible for a) to converge on b), as the cohort narrows. For instance, within the SW&D subculture, the rules you're talking about become known, so the look becomes appreciated within that subculture, but not to others. However, it is still basically just a more tightly defined case of a). The ultimate unique expression of b) is dressing purely for artistic/self-expressive aesthetic purposes, which is of course almost impossible to do, as our own appreciation for aesthetics is partly driven by the response of others to appearances.



I guess what I'm saying is that one can refine the focus of the target audience as much as you like, but all that's being done is moving the goalposts rather than doing something qualitatively different. On a personal level, I at least enjoy seeing the incremental extra effort people tend to make as the cohort narrows, so agree with the thrust of your post.

My issue is that it often seems like that with streetwear stuff, increasing b excludes a. Whereas MC stuff very rarely has the same effect. In that case, analyzing looks from a position of ignorance of the codes IS superior. When you're too far down the rabbit hole and too invested in something, you lose any objectivity you might have had. Ever try to review something that you wrote yourself? It's impossible to do well, either for typos, style or content. You can't view it objectively. Unless there's a major hole in it, your mind just fills it in, knowing that you meant to say that, or thinking that whatever point it was is just going to be assumed.

It's the problem I have with modern art- it's often so absorbed in itself and its own important that it forgets to be interesting to look at. Instead, you get a pile of of **** on the floor that's accidentally thrown out by the janitor (yes, that happened). Art is made to be looked at. If it forgets that point and loses all recognizable form, no matter how complex the meaning and the rules underlying it, it's just a piece of crap on the wall. Same with dressing. It's great if you dress to please yourself, but you can't go so far as to lose all touch with reality.

 

[Holdfast]

It's the problem I have with modern art- it's often so absorbed in itself and its own important that it forgets to be interesting to look at. Instead, you get a pile of of **** on the floor that's accidentally thrown out by the janitor (yes, that happened). Art is made to be looked at. If it forgets that point and loses all recognizable form, no matter how complex the meaning and the rules underlying it, it's just a piece of crap on the wall. Same with dressing. It's great if you dress to please yourself, but you can't go so far as to lose all touch with reality.

I'm glad you mentioned art; I was actually thinking about it while I was typing my earlier post, but then got distracted by something else so forgot to mention it.

Art - in whatever form - has always used symbolism to transmit messages, but historically it was quite easy to interpret art of several levels, depending on your background/culture. If you looked at, say, a portrait of a famous monarch, the general public could receive one message, the educated man another, the political insider a third. Other forms of communication are similarly layered (think of a satirical novel or play). Clothes can be used to communicate layered messages in the same way.

Now, I think you're right when you say that the narrower the target audience, the more overt and detailed the message can become, because there's a narrow but highly focused band of communication. It's like a scientific journal full of jargon, compared to a popular science documentary. Some modern art still succeeds in capturing the attention of the widest possible general audience, because it's good enough to send a meaningful message to them as well as a (possibly different/more complex message) to the art connoisseur. But that's not to detract from narrower forms of expression within modern art, aimed strictly at a more educated/familiar audience.

Similarly, I rather tend to think that a style of dressing can legitimately appeal to a wide cross section of the public or to a narrow one, or to both. What you're essentially suggesting is that perhaps both regular MC clothes and regular SW&D clothes target fairly narrow niches, as meaningful and useful communications as they are within those subsets, whereas MC-casual perhaps speaks to a wider, mass, cohort than hasn't had an opportunity to define itself on SF before. If there is such a silent majority here, it will certainly be interesting to see how this thread develops.

All this is rather OT to the thread itself, and I'm sure will get "tl;dr" or "moar pics", but as I think I wrote upthread, I like thinking about this stuff and where else will I do it other than SF!

 

[Gdot]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

I am glad this thread exists, but some of the assholes need to stop debating it; either post images, critiques or GTFO! The reason this thread needs to be is because SW&D is full of people who dress badly 80% or more of the time! Yes, certain looks from there are nice (I'm not trying to be an asshole), but most of the time, there are too many ****** sneakers, black, baggy 'ninja' looks and just general poor fits, etc! No, I'm not trying top be all 'grown up' and **** by saying the 'ninja' look is bad (I have seen plenty of good 'ninja' looks), but most of the ones from SW&D are just bad, IMO!

Hi Japan Alex,

Your fit is a perfect example of a fit that I think belongs on this thread. It is indeed casual - yet uses mostly classic elements which are well fit to your body. Even though it entails denim the jeans are not outrageously trendy or worn in an outrageous way.

I remind everyone who would like to debate what belongs here and what does not that the overall statement for this 'side' of style forum is to discuss "men's classic tailored clothing". And I think this fit is at least one good example of how a fit can 'bridge the gap' between classic tailoring and the 21st century reality of casual dressing.

Just my two cents worth!

 

[Gdot]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Click to enlarge...



(edit: fixed the desaturation issue)​

KGMessier, Your fit is the very definition of MC Casual Style in my mind. All composed of classic elements, or modern interpretations thereof in the case of your shoes. All is well fitted and well combined. Keep the fits coming!