Ask A Question, Get An Answer... - Post All Quick Questions Here (Classic menswear)

[Kid Nickels]



Just came back from the Burberry store. My friend who works there is offering me a 50% discount on whatever suit I purchase along with any additional tailoring being taken care of.

put it this way... you can get a hell of a lot nicer and more versatile suit for $650.

 

[TweedyProf]

Don't buy it. It's real fashion-victim stuff with those tiny lapels and skinny trousers. I'm sure the cloth is fine for all the uses you mentioned, it's the suit that's not. Discount or not, don't by the brand - buy the suit. This will look silly fairly soon as fashions inevitably change - and to my mind does already. Go for a medium sized lapel, slightly higher waist and straighter trousers, perhaps a double vent (though I know single is popular in the US). And if you can't slip your flat hand comfortably inside when the top button is done up, it's too tight (conversely, if your fist fits in there easily, it's too loose).

Agreed; this is good advice.

That model is wafer thin and the trousers look pretty bad on him, like skinny jeans! 600 dollars for that, let alone 1,200? If you want Burberry, some of the older stuff is better, with the US suits made by Hickey Freeman, I think, generally half-canvased. Often turns up on Ebay or in consignment shops.

That said, I'm older, so maybe that is skewing how I look at this.

If you really like the look, I think you could find much cheaper at Zara or even J. Crew. Fabrics might be worse, but the look would be the same. But for the price of the Burberry at discount, you might just buy a suit a Suit Supply which are a bit fashion forward, but at least often still classic enough. Or check out Yoox who have Burberry on occasion.

 

[TweedyProf]

REPOST - no one seemed to notice

Okay, so my Johnston and Murphy Aragon II tassel loafers just arrived, and I promised I'd post some pictures.

What I'm trying to figure out is if these shoes are actually full-grain leather, as they are advertised on the website (http://www.johnstonmurphy.com/product.aspx?pid=65489&search=aragon).

I don't think I've ever actually seen a full-grain shoe (and if I did then I didn't know) so bear with me..

They do look a bit shiny and plasticky (I don't know if they're supposed to look like this), but the leather certainly feels nicer and less "plasticky" than my other shoes - Clarks Chilton Lace - which I happen to know ARE corrected grain.

The evidence:














If anyone has any general comments on whether the leather does appear to be full-grain, whether it is good quality leather or just whether the shoe is good in general, please reply. Thank you.

P.S. I know you all want to bash J&M - but they were $99, come on!

I think even for $150 you could do better (e.g. Allen Edmonds: http://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonlin...____132809__1000_?facet=Styles:Tassel+Loafers)

Or if you look out for sales or even the B&S forum here. Not advocating the AEs but they are generally a step above or two of J&M.

Heck, if you can swing it: http://www.theshoemart.com/carmina-mens_duncan_black/pvc-cam-mxs-734-004_cam_m_duncan.html

But look, as the others have said, if you like them, that's all that matters. If you're on the fence, then I would definitely return them and look for something of better quality, save up for it. I've made enough mistakes about buying cheap and regretting it within 6 months. OK, back to grading...

 

[ridethecliche]

As a glutton for punishment, I actually like kiltie loafers

If you like them and they go with what you want to wear them with then enjoy them, especially if you like the price. You can play the 'but for just 50 dollars more...' game forever.

 

[Steve Smith]



REPOST - no one seemed to notice Okay, so my Johnston and Murphy Aragon II tassel loafers just arrived, and I promised I'd post some pictures. What I'm trying to figure out is if these shoes are actually full-grain leather, as they are advertised on the website (http://www.johnstonmurphy.com/product.aspx?pid=65489&search=aragon). I don't think I've ever actually seen a full-grain shoe (and if I did then I didn't know) so bear with me.. They do look a bit shiny and plasticky (I don't know if they're supposed to look like this), but the leather certainly feels nicer and less "plasticky" than my other shoes - Clarks Chilton Lace - which I happen to know ARE corrected grain. The evidence: If anyone has any general comments on whether the leather does appear to be full-grain, whether it is good quality leather or just whether the shoe is good in general, please reply. Thank you. P.S. I know you all want to bash J&M - but they were $99, come on!

OK, if you insist. The leather looks cheap. The two-layer apron looks odd. The stitching is bizarre and way too heavy for the shoe. The designer of the shoe attempted to make some sort of fashion statement and he missed. I would not wear them if you gave them to me.

 

[MMoon24]

Don't buy it. It's real fashion-victim stuff with those tiny lapels and skinny trousers. I'm sure the cloth is fine for all the uses you mentioned, it's the suit that's not. Discount or not, don't by the brand - buy the suit. This will look silly fairly soon as fashions inevitably change - and to my mind does already. Go for a medium sized lapel, slightly higher waist and straighter trousers, perhaps a double vent (though I know single is popular in the US). And if you can't slip your flat hand comfortably inside when the top button is done up, it's too tight (conversely, if your fist fits in there easily, it's too loose).

I really appreciate the advice. To be honest, I did like how it looked on me, but then again, I'm a total newb, so I wouldn't know what I'm looking for in a suit. I tried Brooks Brothers last week, but they didn't have the Milano line available at their store.

Quote:

Haha, I guess I should have taken some pics, while at the store. In my opinion, it didn't look THAT skinny on me. I'm 5'10, 165, and overall an athletic build. It wasn't skin tight, as I still felt like I could breathe with it on. I am 23, so I guess I wouldn't want something so...regular looking I guess.

I have checked out Suit Supply and really like their stuff! The problem is that the Dallas location hasn't opened yet, and I'm really hesitant to order online. I would probably take it to a tailor, but I would still feel nervous about the whole situation.

 

[random-adam]



REPOST - no one seemed to notice

The silence was because nobody had anything nice to say, and in a remarkable turn of events for Styleforum we were being nice about it.

 

[ImTheGroom]

Really? The story I've heard is that the word khaki translates as " "sand" and was adopted by the British army in India to describe sandy coloured trousers.

Just a tangent on the khaki discussion from a few days ago. I knew this but was too lazy to go and find the details, but the mood struck me today.

Quote: "The Blue Puttees" and "The Glamour Boys"[edit]

Two current Canadian infantry regiments were given nicknames based on non-standard legwear: Newfoundland Regiment and the 48th Highlanders of Canada.
At the outbreak of World War I the Dominion of Newfoundland raised a regiment to fight. Lacking a local militia or garrison of soldiers, there were no military stores; uniforms had to be fashioned from scratch. Lacking khaki broadcloth, puttees were fashioned from blue broadcloth. The Newfoundland Regiment was thus nicknamed "The Blue Puttees".
During World War II, 1 Brigade of the 1st Canadian Division was being inspected by King George VI; there were not enough regulation khaki puttees for issue, so the 48th Highlanders made do with unofficial blue ones. The King inquired as to why the 48th wore different puttees from the rest of the brigade; he was told of the shortage. The King replied that he liked the blue puttees better and that they should keep them. The 48th Highlanders continued to wear blue puttees until the regimental service dress was eventually phased out. Reportedly other regiments nicknamed them as "The Glamour Boys" for this distinctive form of legging.

 

[astrocyte]

Too light of a shoe for a dark charcoal suit or does it work? Thanks.

 

[ImTheGroom]

Too light of a shoe for a dark charcoal suit or does it work? Thanks.

Looks good to me. A less formal look, but great unless you're going to a wedding, or court.

 

[Oysters]

Considering the worrying subsequent increase of animosity in every next post regarding my proposed loafers, I just want to say thank you to everyone who commented and I'll consider everyone's opinion.



<sigh> I never do well on forums.

 

[Steve Smith]



Considering the worrying subsequent increase of animosity in every next post regarding my proposed loafers, I just want to say thank you to everyone who commented and I'll consider everyone's opinion. I never do well on forums.

animosity - 1. Bitter hostility or open enmity; active hatred. I saw no animosity in any response to your questions. You insisted that you wanted feedback. You received honest feedback on the shoes.

 

[jaywhyy]

Haha, I guess I should have taken some pics, while at the store. In my opinion, it didn't look THAT skinny on me. I'm 5'10, 165, and overall an athletic build. It wasn't skin tight, as I still felt like I could breathe with it on. I am 23, so I guess I wouldn't want something so...regular looking I guess.

I have checked out Suit Supply and really like their stuff! The problem is that the Dallas location hasn't opened yet, and I'm really hesitant to order online. I would probably take it to a tailor, but I would still feel nervous about the whole situation.

I own a Burberry Milbury blazer that I wear a few times a month. I'm 6'0 and 140 lbs, and the lapels still look a little skinny. Also, you mention that you're an overall athletic build, Burberry--and other British houses for that matter--have strong shoulders with padding that aren't the best for athletic builds, and better for people with sloping shoulders.

If you have the option of buying for $600, that's a reasonable deal as Burberry's fabrics are not that bad--better than what you'd see with Hugo Boss. But fit and a flattering silhouette outweighs fabrics and construction quality when buying a suit, so buyer beware.

Cheers

 

[12345Michael54321]



They do look a bit shiny and plasticky (I don't know if they're supposed to look like this), but the leather certainly feels nicer and less "plasticky" than my other shoes - Clarks Chilton Lace - which I happen to know ARE corrected grain.

I was out shopping, earlier today. And at one point, I found myself standing right in front of a Johnston & Murphy store. Your post fresh in mind, I went in to specifically get a look, in person, at the Aragon II.

I think I found it. It was marked "Aragon," but it looked exactly like your pictures. I'm going to assume it was the Aragon II.

Forgive me if this sounds nasty, since that's not my intention, but if those shoes feel nicer and less plasticky than your Clarks Chilton Lace, the mind boggles at the suckfulness of the Clarks.

(Dagnabbit! I just realized that there was a Clarks store in the same shopping center as the Johnston & Murphy store. I could kick myself for not stopping by the Clarks store and seeing what the Chilton Lace shoes are actually like.)

But, once again, if the shoes appeal to you stylistically, and fit you well, go ahead and wear them. I wear various items which would receive little love here on SF (Brooks Madison fit suits, an Old Navy pea coat, corrected leather Bass Leavitt penny loafers, etc.), and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

 

[12345Michael54321]



It wasn't skin tight, as I still felt like I could breathe with it on.

"I still felt like I could breathe with it on," might be the standard a cute 18 year old girl uses to determine if a pair of jeans fit her right, but despite Thom Browne's best efforts, the bar is set a mite higher when it comes to how a man's suit ought to fit.