Evolution of style, 2002-2007

[drizzt3117]

After discussing this with some people, I was thinking about how style has evolved over the last five years. Classic amjack style i.e. Utopia circa 2002

7 diamonds black/blue/silver striped shirt Seven Medium New York Bootcut jeans Gucci Square Toe Gold Bit Loafers While this was cutting edge in 2002, it looks dated now, but that doesn't prevent hordes of amjacks from sporting it now. The bold contrast between base and secondary colors on the shirt, more relaxed, distressed, and bootcut jeans, and square toed shoes with adornment, were all attractive at that time but perhaps their preponderance in today's dress make them repungant. So a more modern look:

PS Paul Smith French Cuff Light Blue Dress shirt Straight Svens (tapered) Mantellassi chisel toe ankle boots So the elements that make up the more modern look: Less contrast between primary colors in the shirt. More fitted shirt. Raw denim that is more slim fit and tapered rather than bootcut. Antiqued and chisel toed boots. Will this look be as dated in 5 years as the first look is now? Thoughts?

 

[Eason]

Great post, appreciate the effort. "Fashion trends" are cyclical, style is significantly longer-lived. While the first look may have been a trend, it never looked good (and obviously still doesn't) IMO. While raw slim denim and more subtle shirts might not be "trendy" in the coming years, it won't stop you from looking good in them. So to answer your question, yes, that look will be dated. But that isn't going to stop most of the people on this forum.

P.S. Ah, 7 Diamonds- I was looking at some shirts a while back and noticed that all of their shirts screamed "AMJACK PLEASE SMASH MY FACE", must not just be me.

 

[Stylin-1]

**** trends; the second look is so much better. Those Guccis look like something Christopher Moltisanti would rock.

 

[DGP]

I think that the pics above could also go under the thread title "The evolution of the size of drizzt3117."

 

[drizzt3117]

Originally Posted by DGP

I think that the pics above could also go under the thread title "The evolution of the size of drizzt3117."

Not entirely sure what you mean by this since both pics were taken tonight, but I think I was approximately the same size in 2002 but the style emphasized looser fits.

 

[DGP]

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

Not entirely sure what you mean by this since both pics were taken tonight, but I think I was approximately the same size in 2002 but the style emphasized looser fits.

Ah, that must be it. The fit in the second pic makes you look about four in. wider across the chest, and a bit bigger in the arms. I assumed that they were roughly the same size shirt, and the pics were taken during the time when those respective fashions were in.

 

[Eason]

Originally Posted by DGP

Ah, that must be it. The fit in the second pic makes you look about four in. wider across the chest, and a bit bigger in the arms. I assumed that they were roughly the same size shirt, and the pics were taken during the time when those respective fashions were in.

If he was taking those same pictures in front of that same door for 5 years, I think he would need to re-evaluate his life goals.

 

[DGP]

Originally Posted by Eason

If he was taking those same pictures in front of that same door for 5 years, I think he would need to re-evaluate his life goals.

Try making the same statement about George W. Bush

. Context, it's all in the context.

 

[keykoo]

Besides the shoes being tacky as hell and the shirt being a bit too long, I honestly don't think the first outfit is that bad.

Also, I'm pretty sure the second outfit would be considered somewhat Amjackish. Not that there's anything bad about it, it looks and suts your body style well.

 

[whacked]

Originally Posted by keykoo

Also, I'm pretty sure the second outfit would be considered somewhat Amjackish. Not that there's anything bad about it, it looks and suts your body style well.
Last time I check, Amjacks never wear dry denim. And probably not $900 Sutor ankle boot.

I'd agree with you that it looks good though.

 

[drizzt3117]

Originally Posted by keykoo

Also, I'm pretty sure the second outfit would be considered somewhat Amjackish.

Jeans are too dark and tapered. Amjacks favor distressed bootcut jeans, also as I mentioned before, the shirt has too little contrast between the colors for an amjack. Finally, shoes have a chiseled, not squared toe.

 

[leftover_salmon]

I'm too short to pull off chiseled-toe shoes. It makes my feet look disproportionately large, like clown feet.

 

[m_wave]

I'd like to think my style has "evolved" much more than wearing a different cut of jeans and striped shirt in 5 years...

 

[drizzt3117]

Originally Posted by m_wave

I'd like to think my style has "evolved" much more than wearing a different cut of jeans and striped shirt in 5 years...
Hehe I was talking about casual club attire specifically, although my professional attire is essentially the same (suit/tie) but the brands have improved a bit in the last 5 years

 

[DGP]

Originally Posted by drizzt3117

Hehe I was talking about casual club attire specifically, although my professional attire is essentially the same (suit/tie) but the brands have improved a bit in the last 5 years

But does that have to do with evolution in fashion, or just your increased knowledge of what high quality suits/ties/shirts are? I agree that my style is relatively unchanged with regards to dress clothes, except I now only wear flat front trousers, and I wear my suits a bit shorter.