Cavalry twill vs. moleskin vs. flannel?

[FlyingHorker]

Also, my bias: don't get pants with wide waistbands, big double pleats, Ghurka closures, 9" leg openings, or anything #sartorial. If you get something basic, flat front, middle of the road, and genuinely classic, but also reasonably modern, you can wear them for years and years. Maybe, in 5 years, you'll find that you like that old school Apparel Arts look. At that point, you can still wear your grey flannel trousers. If, in five years, you find that you want to wear Engineered Garments because that super #sarotrial look doesn't suit your lifestyle or neighborhood, you can still wear your flannel trousers.

The upside to that very basic wardrobe is that it allows you to naturally develop your taste in any number of directions. If you jump into the deep end with all this #sartorial stuff, you may find you have a very expensive wardrobe in five years that doesn't even suit your taste.

I'll have to mull on that. The appeal to me for wide waistbands, deep double pleats etc is it's just less boring than plain flat fronts, and has a very sharp, clean look despite those details.

That really helps in the summer time for me as it just gets too hot to comfortably wear a jacket a lot of the time, regardless of material or weave/etc. So having interesting trousers and a nice shirt can carry enough visual interest IMO.

Strong argument at the end though, and makes sense. Winter it's much easier to have a visually interesting outfit and stay comfortable, thus negating the need/want for funky details.

Though just because I enjoy being a devil's advocate at times, simply untucking a shirt or wearing a long cardigan can hide those details if I want to be more nondescript.

That bright blue safari jacket I had made for me has barely been worn compared to my olive sports coat, which gives credence to your argument.

 

[dieworkwear]

I'll have to mull on that. The appeal to me for wide waistbands, deep double pleats etc is it's just less boring than plain flat fronts, and has a very sharp, clean look despite those details.

That really helps in the summer time for me as it just gets too hot to comfortably wear a jacket a lot of the time, regardless of material or weave/etc. So having interesting trousers and a nice shirt can carry enough visual interest IMO.

Strong argument at the end though, and makes sense. Winter it's much easier to have a visually interesting outfit and stay comfortable, thus negating the need/want for funky details.

Though just because I enjoy being a devil's advocate at times, simply untucking a shirt or wearing a long cardigan can hide those details if I want to be more nondescript.

That bright blue safari jacket I had made for me has barely been worn compared to my olive sports coat, which gives credence to your argument.

My other hot take: classic menswear often struggles without a tailored jacket. You can wear stuff like Barbour jackets and Valstarino-type bombers. But without a tailored jacket, it's worth exploring other aesthetic areas.

 

[Alan Bee]

My other hot take: classic menswear is mostly bad without a tailored jacket. Not all of it. You can wear things like Barbour jackets and the Valstarino. But generally speaking, classic menswear revolves around a tailored jacket. If you can't wear a tailored jacket, you're better off going for an SWD look. Otherwise, you're either in bizcaz or #sartorial land.

Derek, what is it you have against proper well draped classic trousers with 9" leg opening? They've existed forever and far longer than the recent trend for 6.5 inch "ankle stranglers"

Heres a Muslin fittings for trousers with 9.75" leg opening. Both pleated and flat front. How in the world do these look anachronistic?

Alan Bee

 

[FlyingHorker]

My other hot take: classic menswear often struggles without a tailored jacket. You can wear stuff like Barbour jackets and Valstarino-type bombers. But without a tailored jacket, it's worth exploring other aesthetic areas.

Barbour jackets look awful to me, and Valstarino type bombers add visual mass in the worst place possible, making even a thin guy look skinny-fat.

I love shawl collar cardigans for the winter. They're most of the visual interest I need.

I agree with the final sentence, hence why I went those bold british racing green trousers for summer time. I may go with those details for all future summer trousers and just buy interesting shirts/polos/t-shirts to tuck in.

The double breasted jacket idea is cancelled though, it'd fall into the same territory as my blue safari jacket.

 

[dieworkwear]

Derek, what is it you have against proper well draped classic trousers with 9" leg opening? They've existed forever and far longer than the recent trend for 6.5 inch "ankle stranglers"

Heres a Muslin fittings for trousers with 9.75" leg opening. Both pleated and flat front. How in the world do these look anachronistic?

Alan Bee
View attachment 1251396 View attachment 1251397 View attachment 1251398 View attachment 1251399 View attachment 1251400 View attachment 1251401

Between 6.5" and 9.75" is literally 3.25"

Horses for courses and I'm all for people finding whatever makes them happy. But if someone were to try to copy your wardrobe, there's a chance they will be very unhappy with their decision in five years. Just because something works for someone else doesn't mean it will work for you. If you've been building a wardrobe for 10+ years, then by all means, go with your taste and experience. But if you're just starting to build a wardrobe, there are good reasons to stay in the middle of the road so you have some flexibility.

 

[Alan Bee]

Between 6.5" and 9.75" is literally 3.25"

Horses for courses and I'm all for people finding whatever makes them happy. But if someone were to try to copy your wardrobe, there's a chance they will be very unhappy with their decision in five years. Just because something works for someone else doesn't mean it will work for you. If you've been building a wardrobe for 10+ years, then by all means, go with your taste and experience. But if you're just starting to build a wardrobe, there are good reasons to stay in the middle of the road so you have some flexibility.

You haven't answered my question Derek. What exactly is it you find objectionable (or treasonable) with those classic cut trousers? Those are as "timeless" as you can get IMHO. What you will cringe at in 5 years are the 7.5" ankle stranglers not these ...

Alan Bee

 

[dieworkwear]

You haven't answered my question Derek. What exactly is it you find objectionable (or treasonable) with those classic cut trousers? Those are as "timeless" as you can get IMHO. What you will cringe at in 5 years are the 7.5" ankle stranglers not these ...

Alan Bee

Between 7.5" and 9.75" is also 2.25".

There's no such thing as timeless style.

 

[FlyingHorker]

Between 6.5" and 9.75" is literally 3.25"

Horses for courses and I'm all for people finding whatever makes them happy. But if someone were to try to copy your wardrobe, there's a chance they will be very unhappy with their decision in five years. Just because something works for someone else doesn't mean it will work for you. If you've been building a wardrobe for 10+ years, then by all means, go with your taste and experience. But if you're just starting to build a wardrobe, there are good reasons to stay in the middle of the road so you have some flexibility.

I wouldn't say I started to build my wardrobe, it's been a very slow process for the past 6 years I'd say.

My tastes do still change though.

Not sure I see the issue with #sartorial land though, if that was part of your original, unedited post that Alan responded to.

I think these look pretty cool for the summer without a jacket

 

[Alan Bee]

Between 7.5" and 9.75" is also 2.25".

There's no such thing as timeless style.

It appears to me you're in a "Houdini" mood this morning (my time). You seem intent on evading my question.

What exactly is wrong with those trousers and how will they look dated in 5 years? You're as fine a technician as they come and should be able to articulate your points clearly without resorting to vague arithmetic.

Alan bee

 

[dieworkwear]

It appears to me you're in a "Houdini" mood this morning (my time). You seem intent on evading my question.

What exactly is wrong with those trousers and how will they look dated in 5 years? You're as fine a technician as they come and should be able to articulate your points clearly without resorting to vague arithmetic.

Alan bee

What's hard to understand? I think your style looks like a sentient London Lounge thread. If someone wants to look that, that can be a great look if that's how they want to look. But a lot of guys pick up the look because they think it's timeless, and it's not. It's a very specific look. It's a bold look. It may not suit their lifestyle. They can look like they're walking around in a costume in modern society.

Most good looks are, in some way, a bit costumey -- the whole London Lounge thing, Rick Owens, Engineered Garments, Visvim, etc. Good stuff often stands out. But a lot of guys aren't jumping into this look because they have a strong point of view. They're leaning on this idea of timelessness -- which is distinct from classic -- because they don't have any real direction. So they see all these #sartorial things online thinking that this is how they can build a reliable wardrobe.

In five years or even today, that look will look like what it is: it's a very #sartorial look. Again, nothing wrong with it. There are many men I admire who wear that look well. But it's also distinct from a very middle of the road tailored look that will blend in a bit more easily with people's environments. And will give them flexibility if they decide, later, that they don't want to look like that. If you buy middle of the road clothes, somewhere between Apparel Arts and modern life, you can look reasonably good and rely on that wardrobe for many years to come. If, instead, you buy these 21oz tweeds and 10" trouser openings and do all this #sartorial stuff, you may find that you have a great wardrobe in 5 years -- or you may find you don't want, in fact, to look like that at all because it's so apart from other things.

There's a whole world between 9.75" leg openings and 6.5".

In the end, it's not even the trouser opening that matters that much. If you get a good tailor, they should be able to find what's best for you. But if you're fiddling with MTM stuff online, and pile on all these #sartorial things, I suspect you may be disappointed in five years. Versus, if you just go with the usual 7.75" to 8.5", which is what most people get in today's world, you may be happier in the end, especially if you're a younger guy who's just starting to build a better wardrobe.

 

[dieworkwear]

IMO, @mossrockss is a good example for younger guys who are trying to build a classic wardrobe. His clothes are pretty middle of the road. They're also not that expensive (by StyleForum standards). I believe almost all of it is ready to wear. He also shops a lot on sale, so he paid even less than retail. But he looks great. The clothes are classic enough to be wearable in five to ten years. But they also look at home in his setting.

We can bicker about small things like the angle of his quarters or whatever but almost none of that stuff is noticeable in real life. If you're sitting down at a bar and drinking beer with friends, chatting about whatever, you'll never notice these small things people nitpick online.







Moss' style doesn't have to be some endpoint and I'm not saying every guy should dress this way. I'm just saying that, if you don't even have grey flannel trousers and a navy sport coat yet, it's good to start with something like this before you go off on the deep end with wide waistbands, 10" trouser openings, and green double-breasted suits. This kind of wardrobe will be wearable for a very long time, even if you decide later that you don't even want to wear tailored clothing.

 

[Alan Bee]

What's hard to understand? I think your style looks like a sentient London Lounge thread. If someone wants to look that, that can be a great look if that's how they want to look. But a lot of guys pick up the look because they think it's timeless, and it's not. It's a very specific look. It's a bold look. It may not suit their lifestyle. They can look like they're walking around in a costume in modern society.

Most good looks are, in some way, a bit costumey -- the whole London Lounge thing, Rick Owens, Engineered Garments, Visvim, etc. Good stuff often stands out. But a lot of guys aren't jumping into this look because they have a strong point of view. They're leaning on this idea of timelessness -- which is distinct from classic -- because they don't have any real direction. So they see all these #sartorial things online thinking that this is how they can build a reliable wardrobe.

In five years or even today, that look will look like what it is: it's a very #sartorial look. Again, nothing wrong with it. There are many men I admire who wear that look well. But it's also distinct from a very middle of the road tailored look that will blend in a bit more easily with people's environments. And will give them flexibility if they decide, later, that they don't want to look like that. If you buy middle of the road clothes, somewhere between Apparel Arts and modern life, you can look reasonably good and rely on that wardrobe for many years to come. If, instead, you buy these 21oz tweeds and 10" trouser openings and do all this #sartorial stuff, you may find that you have a great wardrobe in 5 years -- or you may find you don't want, in fact, to look like that at all because it's so apart from other things.

There's a whole world between 9.75" leg openings and 6.5".

In the end, it's not even the trouser opening that matters that much. If you get a good tailor, they should be able to find what's best for you. But if you're fiddling with MTM stuff online, and pile on all these #sartorial things, I suspect you may be disappointed in five years. Versus, if you just go with the usual 7.75" to 8.5", which is what most people get in today's world, you may be happier in the end, especially if you're a younger guy who's just starting to build a better wardrobe.

Derek,

As smart (and experienced) as you are, I find it odd you say nothing about individual proportions and choice in dress.

Look Derek, you are 5' 9" with a 30" waist. I am 6' 1" with a 32" waist and 45/46" chest. You have to imagine that plays a part in our stylistic choices.

Apparel arts or not, I have a 12-14" drop and that silhouette demands clothes that "stand away" from your body (a very full cut both in coat and pants). This has nothing to do with Michael Alden and his London Lounge or Apparel arts images. It just turns out thats what works.

Making the argument that 9" leg openings are a fad is laughable. As I suspect you have, go back and re-read any book on classic tailoring and proportions.

Alan Bee

 

[dieworkwear]

Derek,

As smart (and experienced) as you are, I find it odd you say nothing about individual proportions and choice in dress.

Look Derek, you are 5' 9" with a 30" waist. I am 6' 1" with a 32" waist and 45/46" chest. You have to imagine that plays a part in our stylistic choices.

Apparel arts or not, I have a 12-14" drop and that silhouette demands clothes that "stand away" from your body (a very full cut both in coat and pants). This has nothing to do with Michael Alden and his London Lounge or Apparel arts images. It just turns out thats what works.

Making the argument that 9" leg openings are a fad is laughable. As I suspect you have, go back and re-read any book on classic tailoring and proportions.

Alan Bee

I agree, there's a large component to this that's about finding what's best for your body type. But, again, if you're just starting to build a wardrobe, it's good to start in the middle and wear that thing for a few years. I assume OP isn't 6'1" with a 46" chest and a 14" drop.

9" can be classic for suits. I think it can look quite wide with sport coats. I also think if you have to start somewhere, it's a good idea to stay somewhere within a 0.25" distance of 8" or so and then just figure out what you'd like to do in a few years. If you get a 9.75" leg opening, you may then end up having to think about your jacket and the rest of your trouser proportions, which can be difficult for a newbie (also, you may not want to wear the kind of jackets that balance out a 9.75" trouser opening). Most guys are working within a budget and are probably buying the soft-shouldered, modern-ish sport coats that are relatively more affordable around the $500 to $1,500 price point. A lot of those are going to look better with a moderate, modern-classic kind of trouser.

Certainly, if you're going bespoke, all this can go out the window and you can figure this out with your tailor. Most guys shopping on a budget are not doing that. OP is also doing MTM and seemingly just piling on a bunch of #sartorial things, which I think he will be unsatisfied with in five years.

 

[Alan Bee]

I agree, there's a large component to this that's about finding what's best for your body type. But, again, if you're just starting to build a wardrobe, it's good to start in the middle and wear that thing for a few years. I assume OP isn't 6'1" with a 46" chest and a 14" drop.

9" can be classic for suits. I think it can look quite wide with sport coats. I also think if you have to start somewhere, it's a good idea to stay somewhere within a 0.25" distance of 8" or so and then just figure out what you'd like to do in a few years. If you get a 9.75" leg opening, you may then end up having to think about your jacket and the rest of your trouser proportions, which can be difficult for a newbie (also, you may not want to wear the kind of jackets that balance out a 9.75" trouser opening). Most guys are working within a budget and are probably buying the soft-shouldered, modern-ish sport coats that are relatively more affordable around the $500 to $1,500 price point. A lot of those are going to look better with a moderate, modern-classic kind of trouser.

Certainly, if you're going bespoke, all this can go out the window and you can figure this out with your tailor. Most guys shopping on a budget are not doing that. OP is also doing MTM and seemingly just piling on a bunch of #sartorial things, which I think he will be unsatisfied with in five years.

Most guys are working within a budget and are probably buying the soft-shouldered, modern-ish sport coats that are relatively more affordable around the $500 to $1,500 price point. A lot of those are going to look better with a moderate, modern-classic kind of trouser.

You make a lot of good sense and fair points Derek. But then you contradict yourself by saying OP should "monkey" those trendy, modern-ish sport coats which demand a modern-classic (oxymoronic??) type of trousers.

So where should OP look? True classic clothing or modern-ish classic clothing? To say nothing of his idiosyncratic proportions ..

Alan Bee

 

[dieworkwear]

Most guys are working within a budget and are probably buying the soft-shouldered, modern-ish sport coats that are relatively more affordable around the $500 to $1,500 price point. A lot of those are going to look better with a moderate, modern-classic kind of trouser.

You make a lot of good sense and fair points Derek. But then you contradict yourself by saying OP should "monkey" those trendy, modern-ish sport coats which demand a modern-classic (a contradiction??) type of trousers.

So where should OP look? True classic clothing or modern-ish classic clothing? To say nothing of his idiosyncratic proportions ..

Alan Bee

I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Moss dresses. There are things you can nitpick, but nearly all those things are not noticeable in real life. Most guys would do well if they just copied Moss. Especially people who are just starting off. Then, later, they can hone their taste and fiddle with proportions as they see fit for their lifestyle, build, and personality.

Another guy who does this kind of thing well is Ian (I can't remember his StyleForum handle at the moment. The second photo below was taken six years ago. I imagine it'll still look good six years from now. By 12 years total, the pants will have worn out.

Also, I realize both these guys are slimmer dudes. From what I've seen of the OP, his build is fairly similar to both of these men. I also think he's around the same age. I suspect he lives a similar lifestyle too.