Dec. 2007 GQ

[TRINI]

Originally Posted by Dewey

There were a ton of more-than-half-naked ladies that were impossible to ogle properly on an airplane. The magazine appears to be drifting in the direction of the old Playboy with so much legs and cleavage.

Is this a complaint or merely an observation?

 

[Lafont]

It has been going in that direction.
I also meant to say, I'd like to see this "formalwear 101" concentrate more on what makes formalwear "different" - what makes it more distinctive and sharp-looking than other apparel and perhaps even make the wearer feel some sort of elegance or sophistication.
I see no advantage to any of the "do's" or "dont's" other than for one to save dough and, possibly, a speck of discomfort. However, I can say I wore for maybe nine hours or so - in connection with the daughter's recent wedding - a wing collar, bowtie, waistcoat, and moderately pointy patent-leather shoes and virtually never gave discomfort one moment of thought.

 

[gorgekko]

Originally Posted by BonkeyDollocks

Agreed.I feel GQ need to cut the crap and get back to what they have always done best.Quality journalism and Fashion Exclusives.

Eh? Which magazine are you talking about? The others are talking about GQ.

 

[Dewey]

Originally Posted by triniboy27

Is this a complaint or merely an observation?

Observation.

 

[raphael]

Originally Posted by Lafont

You know how GQ now makes fun of itself, showing photos and articles from its past they sort of seem ashamed of and about whey they are now asking
"What were we thinking?"
It still goes on, in every issue. In they current issue there is a section on formalwear - separating "Black Tie" and "White Tie," as usual.
In the Black Tie pages they're telling readers peak lapels are more classic but notch lapels have "become the industry standard over the past decade or so."
They're telling guys to steer clear of wing collars with Black Tie (though on another page they're saying if you're going to wear one make sure to get it right with the bowtie), and they promote doing without the cummerbund, which this author feels looks too much like "the prom." Whew! They go along with suspenders, however, and show them with the bottom straps showing - not attractive. The whole idea, after all, is to cover up the waistline area as well as this part of the braces.
After all that they're telling readers that a black suit (yes, only black) can generally be acceptible at Black Tie settings.
They're also dishing patent leather shoes.
They are showing one of my favorite timepieces - the Cartier Tank Francaise in gold with leather strap - as an appropriate watch to wear with formal. They almost redeem themselves on that one....
The thing is, I realize GQ has to appease many advertisers and designers, so they're saying this stuff but I think it's too bad.
I know every author of the large number of recently published books on menswear has his or her own take on some of these options, but I always like to see GQ do it a little different.

they're just catering to their advertisers.

 

[Lafont]

Regarding that photo of Prince Philip someone added to my recent "Royals" thread, I was looking at the group photo of the Royals at the Queen and Prince's 60th anniversary bash and I noted, for the example, the young Princes William and Harry were wearing peaked-lapel DJs and Prince Philip was wearing - yes, a notch lapel. Hmmmm....

 

[macuser3of5]

http://men.style.com/theupgrader/sty...ack-tie-attire Oh god, can't wait to see black turtlenecks and brown shoes at the next formal dinner!

 

[Lafont]

Yee, gads!
There's virtually NOTHING formal shown here.... Guess a philistine thinks formal = black/white, big price, big name.
Ain't so.... Never wuz, never will be!

 

[fatherseanfan]

Originally Posted by BonkeyDollocks

Agreed.I feel GQ need to cut the crap and get back to what they have always done best.Quality journalism and Fashion Exclusives.
I feel the same way. Unfortunately the decline in quality is symptomatic of all print publications in the era we live in. The days of Norman Mailer debating William F. Buckley in the pages of Playboy will never return.