Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Claghorn, May 21, 2014.
I agree. Well said Rob!
Dressing for an anticipated monsoon, here in NYC this morning.
Suit - BB
Shirt - BB
Tie - JAB
PS - Robert Talbott
Shoes - To Boot Adam Derrick
Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
so yr a Proctologist as well as a teacher AAS? Do i dare ask what's a PSAT ?
Today (x-post from the Friday Challenge...)
Deets: Salvatore Ferragamo Glen Plaid flannel DB; blue CT shirt; purple wool / silk Holland & Sherry tie; white PS; + (unseen) purple Mazarin socks and Paolo Scafora oxblood whole cuts. Colours most accurate in first pic. Fit best shown in the last. I need a haircut.
Gloomy, brown and grey Thursday.
Spoiler: The DEETS!
Spoiler: This one was too dark!
Nice overall; in particular I like the shirt and jacket fabric combination.
To my eye the jacket is a bit too small for you, however. It could, in part, be the camera angle, but I don't think that's the whole story.
Yep, a little too short. The hemline should reach your crotch, thereby ensuring that your rear is covered. Disregard if you're going after the Thom Browne look.
Yeah it's a bit shorter than most of my jackets. I'm not the tallest lad with shorter legs so i wear shorter jackets to help lengthen my silhouette.
EDIT: Oh, and I usually don't wear this jacket with dress trou...this is my jacket to dress up jeans, but today I wanted to see how it would work with my grey flannel trou.
Overall, I like the look but agree a slightly longer jacket, like the one from my grey tweed suit (refer to my post from yesterday) would work much better.
Cheers guys for the comments and feedback.
A couple of things.
Firstly, please stop drawing lines over my crotch.
Second, as to your "rule", I'm not sure how universal it is anyway. I have a long torso and relatively short legs. Wearing a longer jacket - assuming I could find one OTR that fitted everywhere else - actually tends to accentuate those proportions, and my interest is more in looking in proportion than following rules about 'covering your rear' - we are talking about jackets here, not the taking of Iwo Jima.
Finally, I don't know about you, but my rear is not at the front and certainly doesn't sag down around the crotch of my pants. This jacket actually covers it just fine, but if it didn't, I don't think too many people would complain anyway.
You're entitled to your opinion but my view is 'if it looks good, it is good', even if it breaks a few "rules" we might have picked up from our misspent years on AAAC or SF.
(1) I fully agree that that a gentleman doesn't go around drawing lines on other guys' crotches without the other party's consent ...
(2) You wrote: "my view is 'if it looks good, it is good'."
That's everyone's view, not just yours. The disagreement was over whether PandArts jacket does, in fact, "look good" as it stands, or could be improved. Those of the latter persuasion were simply offering some reasons for their opinion.
Well, yes and no. Some people see something that breaks a rule and automatically it doesn't look good, even if it does (if you know what I mean). People are entitled to their hangups though I suppose. It's when they impose them without prejudice, regardless of the overall look and feel, then I think it's missing the wood for the trees.
There are reasons and there are reasons. I agree there is something not ideal about the jacket's fit (sorry Panda). But I think that because it makes his top half look disproportionately small (in the pic at least); the narrow lapels probably contribute as well.
I don't think it is just a simple matter of getting the set square out and seeing if the front of the jacket intersects with the crotch of his pants (which I understand is not what you were saying Ac).
Separate names with a comma.