Just how far apart is the average SF'er vs. the "average Joe"?

[lwmarti]

thats a load of BS. Most woman wouldn't know a well dressed man if he fell into their lap. Most women fawn over dudes in too tight black suits, black "dress" shirts, square toed shoes, etc.

As to the price of suitsupply chinos...its ridiculous I agree. A pair of howard yount flannels for $180, absolutely great value. Brooks brothers Milano chinos for $60 on sale. Totally worth it. Suitsupply for $150...no chance.

This does sort of raise the question of exactly who clothing is targeting. As an upper-middle-class man, the women that I'd prefer to see drooling over me are upper-middle-class women. If you're a more working-class guy, you may want more working-class women drooling over you, and it's not clear at all that the same clothing is appropriate for both cases. There seems to be a strong bias here towards the UMC stuff, and it seems to have the right affect on UMC women. If you're trying to impress other women, however, the style advice that you'll get here is probably totally off base. Most women probably aren't in the demographic that SF advice seems to be aimed at impressing, so for most men, the too tight black suits, etc., may actually be more appropriate for most situations.

To complicate things even more, where I work, we have lots of Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc. In that environment, there's no clear metric for "well dressed" at all because it's so culture-specific. So in the bigger picture, the typical SF advice probably isn't very useful to most people.

 

[Bounder]



FIFY.  The old SF was a whole lot more conservative business dress than the new SF.

FTFY

With the exception of a couple of people, the "old" SF was not OCD at all. Rather, they were extremely knowledgeable and intellectually curious. Consequently, some of the discussions were like graduate seminars. Nowadays, I am even missing the learned discussions on Allen Edmonds seconds.

If any newer posters want to see what SF was like, I urge you to dip into some of the threads from about 2007-2010. You won't get a lot of the bantering/bickering but the content in some of those threads more than makes up for it. If you are really interested in tailored clothing, there is information in those threads that you literally cannot find anywhere else on earth.

 

[RDiaz]

I've recently seen my expendable income reduced by half, which puts me on the "average joe" category - this country is really screwed. I can perfectly understand people with an average income and no real interest in quality menswear not wanting to spend much at all, really.

 

[chogall]

FTFY

With the exception of a couple of people, the "old" SF was not OCD at all. Rather, they were extremely knowledgeable and intellectually curious. Consequently, some of the discussions were like graduate seminars. Nowadays, I am even missing the learned discussions on Allen Edmonds seconds.

If any newer posters want to see what SF was like, I urge you to dip into some of the threads from about 2007-2010. You won't get a lot of the bantering/bickering but the content in some of those threads more than makes up for it. If you are really interested in tailored clothing, there is information in those threads that you literally cannot find anywhere else on earth.

Old SF was not completely conservative business dress; we had members like Getsmart, SoCal, Fuuma, LabelKing, etc being active on the MC side.

I've recently seen my expendable income reduced by half, which puts me on the "average joe" category - this country is really screwed. I can perfectly understand people with an average income and no real interest in quality menswear not wanting to spend much at all, really.

 

[Quadcammer]



This does sort of raise the question of exactly who clothing is targeting. As an upper-middle-class man, the women that I'd prefer to see drooling over me are upper-middle-class women. If you're a more working-class guy, you may want more working-class women drooling over you, and it's not clear at all that the same clothing is appropriate for both cases. There seems to be a strong bias here towards the UMC stuff, and it seems to have the right affect on UMC women. If you're trying to impress other women, however, the style advice that you'll get here is probably totally off base. Most women probably aren't in the demographic that SF advice seems to be aimed at impressing, so for most men, the too tight black suits, etc., may actually be more appropriate for most situations.

To complicate things even more, where I work, we have lots of Chinese, Indians, Russians, etc. In that environment, there's no clear metric for "well dressed" at all because it's so culture-specific. So in the bigger picture, the typical SF advice probably isn't very useful to most people.  

I think the biggest differentiation is age. I'm in my late 20s and yes would consider myself upper middle class. Women at that age don't much appreciate conservative business dress. In fact, most couldn't tell a brioni from a jos a bank, provided its not miles too big. Sure, you get more complements if you dress nicely, but just as many dudes wearing a skin tight zara disaster with bright tie, matching pocket square, pointy/square toe shoes get complements also. Women just don't know, especially at this age.

 

[MisterFu]

thats a load of BS. Most woman wouldn't know a well dressed man if he fell into their lap. Most women fawn over dudes in too tight black suits, black "dress" shirts, square toed shoes, etc.

As bad as SF might consider it, what you just described is vastly better than how 90% of men dress. Hell, in many parts of the country, just getting guys into a suit requires a minor miracle (or a tragedy). Women have to choose from a sea of ratty Eddie Bauer button-downs and Dockers khakis paired with faux-oxfords (you know, those black sneaker like things).

That said, I think things are very slowly getting better. There seems to be a small but sustained resurgence in CM driven largely by the recent discovery (thanks to period shows, etc.) by younger folks that men, en masse, used to dress better. That SF's membership ranks are growing and people clearly want to learn is a good thing. The SF hardcore should want to teach the noobs how to do it right, whether it be for a wedding, job interview, etc. If they get it right once, perhaps their comfort level will go up and they'll dress better all the time. Then, someday, in the far far future, no one need see the horror that is the faux-oxford.

 

[MisterFu]

I've recently seen my expendable income reduced by half, which puts me on the "average joe" category - this country is really screwed. I can perfectly understand people with an average income and no real interest in quality menswear not wanting to spend much at all, really.

If there is one problem with a few on SF (and espoused in fashion rags everywhere), it's the idea that you need exceedingly expensive clothes to look "really" good. Truth is, you can look well dressed without having to spend lots of money on the best quality clothes.

I am pretty sure, that while most of what you'll find is pretty bad (and the advice you'll get will be horrible) if I were to walk the average guy through Men's Wearhouse (or Macy's, JAB, etc), I could have that guy (post alterations) walk out looking pretty darn good. I am talking reasonably fitting suit, pants, decent shirts, ties, etc., that avoids all the MW stereotypes. Yes, the suit will be a fused wonder, the pants construction quality will lack, but that person would still be well dressed without breaking the bank.

If you can afford (or save up for) the more expensive stuff, you buy it because it will fit better (if done right), last longer, the details will be better and it will feel more luxurious. If someone can't afford the best, that doesn't mean they should just give up on dressing well. That mindset has led us to the point where far too many people are dressed like complete slobs. Once upon a time, even the destitute made an effort to dress well:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-W-Cushman-reveal-1940s-life-Big-Apple.html

 

[lwmarti]

Yet another incident that shows how far people here are from real people.

At work, every couple of years we agonize over a big decision and always making a very bad choice that we end up regretting later. This time I thought that this meeting was the perfect opportunity to wear my "Jackass Drill" tie from Jack Spade to indicate what I thought of this meeting. This led to a look that people here (including me) would cringe at:

• An unnecessarily-narrow tie
• A tie worn without a jacket
• A shirt worn with the top button unbuttoned
• etc.

Imagine you're a 14-year-old kid who's not quite comfortable with his prep school's dress code yet. That's exactly what I looked like. Minus the navy blazer.

Yet this intentionally-hideous look got lots of compliments! And every time I heard "You look nice today" it took ever-increasing amounts of self-control to not say "No! I don't! I'm not supposed to! That's the point!"

 

[RDiaz]

If there is one problem with a few on SF (and espoused in fashion rags everywhere), it's the idea that you need exceedingly expensive clothes to look "really" good. Truth is, you can look well dressed without having to spend lots of money on the best quality clothes.

I am pretty sure, that while most of what you'll find is pretty bad (and the advice you'll get will be horrible) if I were to walk the average guy through Men's Wearhouse (or Macy's, JAB, etc), I could have that guy (post alterations) walk out looking pretty darn good. I am talking reasonably fitting suit, pants, decent shirts, ties, etc., that avoids all the MW stereotypes. Yes, the suit will be a fused wonder, the pants construction quality will lack, but that person would still be well dressed without breaking the bank.

If you can afford (or save up for) the more expensive stuff, you buy it because it will fit better (if done right), last longer, the details will be better and it will feel more luxurious. If someone can't afford the best, that doesn't mean they should just give up on dressing well. That mindset has led us to the point where far too many people are dressed like complete slobs. Once upon a time, even the destitute made an effort to dress well:


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-W-Cushman-reveal-1940s-life-Big-Apple.html

Yeah, I agree with this, and of course making much less money won't keep me from dressing in coat and tie, which is the way I like to dress at the workplace. I just had to postpone more expensive plans like bespoke, and keep working with my tailor on getting MTM closer to perfection. It's more coherent with my current reality. Exceedingly expensive bespoke clothes perhaps do better at satisfying our interests as clothing enthusiasts, and well, a great tailor will always make you look your best; but there are many other important factors that come before that. One should try to look his best within his means...

 

[wojt]

If the writer really wanted outrage, they should have tried to explain the value in a pair of Allen Edmonds, or VASS for that matter.

Get average joes real mad...

though many of them even the "poor" ones have newest iphone or galaxy worth twice the cost of a good pair of AE

 

[TM79]

priorities, yo

 

[wojt]

some of them worth revisiting

I've recently seen my expendable income reduced by half, which puts me on the "average joe" category - this country is really screwed. I can perfectly understand people with an average income and no real interest in quality menswear not wanting to spend much at all, really.

in the same boat sort of, don't worry the fortune will change
No way I can afford bespoke atm, and I have other hobbies too so my budget is likely to remain tight in years to come