Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Mr.K, Mar 25, 2011.
^ Lighten up, fella.
When I first got here I was accused of trying (and failing) to be too funny... look what two months on SF does to a guy!
I like your fit today BTW.
Foo might be the only person on the planet that would look good in Thom Browne.
I'm sorry Mister, but i'm getting a bit peeved at this taking the piss. Choose something else bud. Mine and many other's here's grandfathers died to cover your grandfathers ass in this war so choose something else to make fun of.
I see you have Nixon as your avatar... now he was one for getting wars right wasn't he. Rather make fun of him and the Vietnam war if you like.
sarcasm, you are not getting it.
I really don't agree that there are racial parameters to this; it's not like there aren't other varieties of short people in the world. I'll admit that I am amused by this comically tiny man and his little suits, but the reason I tossed verbal turds at this photo is that it seems he dropped big bucks on something that couldn't possibly do a better (worse?) job of making him look even shorter. In fact, if you were deliberately trying to visually shrink an already small person, you'd probably:
Put his torso in a big box.
Give him big wide swooping lapels that visually increase his width-to-height aspect ratio.
Add oversized cuffs that further break up the already short lines of his legs.
And guess what?
considering yesterdays warning this seems tame. either way, i like it.
I think there are many ways of explain what are you saying and most of them are in a gentle way but I think you cannot do it in such way, I Agree with Flying Monkey. Enough for this season, wait for another one.
Nah, that's pretty spiffy, brother.
Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
Details on jacket Spoo?
I know this is old, but I love this!
Man, i didn't look at this thread for a while and now there are over 900 posts to go through
Gieves & Hawkes, I think, from Malford's store (tried to buy one but 40R sold out pretty quickly).
I'm all in favour of revisionism, but this is probably a step too far.
Interesting... the jacket itself seems splendid, and yet the ultimate look does not particularly flatter Foo. Does that not meant the jacket is actually the 1%, and the Foo is the 99%? I appreciate that this would cause problems with the symbolism of your "chart". Hmm, perhaps we can amend it to saying that since Foo decided to commission the quite lovely jacket, his blanked-out mind in the chart is indeed 1%, and the aesthetic impression on his figure is the 99%...
What was it Levenstein said about statistics, again...
Very much in tune with my usual appearance; but I leave the exact percentile up to the eye of the beholder...
Separate names with a comma.