1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

MC General Chat

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by dieworkwear, Aug 4, 2012.

Tags:
  1. Despos

    Despos Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    6,102
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    

    In both shots the front at the beginning of the curve is higher than the length at the side where the arms hang. It's slight but it's there. Both pics are solid,(no pattern in the cloth) so you don't see the horizontal line of the cloth if a pattern were present. Look at the hem of a plaid jacket and you will see the horizontal line is seldom if ever even along the hem. There is distance from the horizontal line at the front, to the hem and this distance diminishes as it proceeds towards the side. I can't explain why but as you "work" the jacket fronts the bottom of the front as it approaches the curve of the from edge, the cloth gets "short". If you follow the marks of the pattern you get this slight rise as the hem gets to the front edge. I end up lengthening this point to keep the hemline form doing this. This creates a slight deviation to the pocket height. The distance from the pocket to the hem at the front edge of the pocket is sometimes 1/4" longer than the back part of the pocket to the hem. When I cut for a big belly or erect posture I anticipate this and will cut the pocket at a slight downward angle (back to front) knowing the front is going to work up short and after will need to lengthen the jacket at the lower front edge of the curve. This just happens, don't know why.
     
    1 person likes this.
  2. Despos

    Despos Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    6,102
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Finishing a topcoat this week and want to put straps on the sleeve just above the cuff. Looking for inspiration. Can button or buckle, will go with whatever looks more appealing.

    Any pics or examples here? Other aspects of the coat are irrelevant because the other details are set. Just focusing on the shape/style of the straps to add to the sleeve.
     
  3. thinman

    thinman Senior member

    Messages:
    4,926
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2005
    Location:
    USA
    





    I've had an alligator belt shortened by a shoe repairman without any issues. He actually cut off the buckle to shorten the belt, installed a screw to secure the buckle on and attached the buckle. I've used the belt for 2-3 years without any problems.
     
  4. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Senior member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    

    Like others have said, it should be fine. I've had a couple of alligator belts shortened. They weren't slide buckles, but I imagine it should be the same.


    Like these?

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2014
    1 person likes this.
  5. Despos

    Despos Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    6,102
    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Yep, thank you sir! The lower two pictures are on a split sleeve or raglan sleeve and have a seam that isn't on these sleeves. SO that style won't work. The first picture is a bit like a typical raincoat.
     
  6. Makoto Chan

    Makoto Chan Senior member

    Messages:
    624
    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2010
    Location:
    Tokyo
    

    @bourbonbasted I did this recently with a belt off of eBay, and was warned that the scales made it somewhat tricky to do. Yet, a leather guy did it for me, and it worked. I didn't wear the belt for long... months later a scale flaked just a little around my waist, and then it got caught on something... and the fucker sticks out now, gets caught on belt loops. My negligence in not moisturizing the leather?
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2014
  7. bourbonbasted

    bourbonbasted Senior member

    Messages:
    4,024
    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2011
    That was my concern, but they will shorten the belt from the slide side and not from the end of the belt. This should alleviate any chances of flaking, etc. I called my local cobbler and they said no problem. We shall see...

    Thanks everyone for the input!
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2014
  8. Claghorn

    Claghorn Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    10,007
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Location:
    Texas.
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2014
  9. mktitsworth

    mktitsworth Senior member

    Messages:
    2,834
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    
    Here are some more: [spoiler text="Note: These images have not been resized."] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [/spoiler]
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. GusW

    GusW Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    19,129
    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2007
    

    We all had them back in the 70's. They had a certain comfortable, casual, elegant style (or at least thats what we thought). They pair perfectly with denim. I'm surprised in the business casual world that they haven't been more popular. Maybe they will?

    There are some wonderful thin leather and suede jackets coming out of Italy, Gemos does some sport coat styles with interesting details to give them an updated style.
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. mktitsworth

    mktitsworth Senior member

    Messages:
    2,834
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    I don't understand women's shoes.
     
  12. Claghorn

    Claghorn Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    10,007
    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2012
    Location:
    Texas.
    

    Producers assume their target demographic is composed of masochists with the sensibilities of hermesman.
     
    1 person likes this.
  13. mktitsworth

    mktitsworth Senior member

    Messages:
    2,834
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    Didn't Hermes Man had some sense for quality and construction though?
     
  14. Gibonius

    Gibonius Senior member

    Messages:
    11,117
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2009
    Location:
    Suburban Sprawl Sector 3, Maryland
    

    Women's clothing in general is a strange market. There's almost no consideration for material or construction so far as I can tell. $400 for an all-polyester dress or whatever, because "design."
     
  15. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Senior member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    If you go to PurseForum, you'll see that the level of education and sophistication some women have when it comes shoes, purses, and other leather goods well surpasses some of the discussion here. Esp since half this board is about kopping and brand adulation anyway. Don't fool yourself.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
    3 people like this.
  16. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Senior member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Not necessarily about women's fashion per se, but this blog focuses a lot on women's runway fashion, and talks about it in a way that I think many members on this side of SF can appreciate.

    http://thecuttingclass.com/

    Easily one of my favorite style blogs.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
  17. mktitsworth

    mktitsworth Senior member

    Messages:
    2,834
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    

    This sort of lines up with what I've found in my limited search so far, but that's also true for much of mens clothing. While This forum may place a higher value on material and construction, I don't think that's a universal maxim for mens clothing. As such, I would imagine that there exists a contingent of women's clothing enthusiasts who place a higher value on such things. This is what I'd be curious to find. It seems pretty generally accepted that the expected lifespan of women's clothing is much shorter than what we expect out of things, but I wonder if such pieces exist. Is it just assumed that women will either not wear their clothes for more than a year (or so)? Obviously this involves making sure things fit over a longer period of time, and from what I understand women have very different fit issues from men.


    I don't doubt it, and I want to go take a look. I agree that a lot of this board is about buying and interacting with sellers. Even so, the social norms of the forum place a relatively high value on quality and materials. Because of this the affiliate vendors and others are generally makers of sufficiently high quality. This is not universal, but most of them seem to be.

    I'd be interested to know what can be done for women's shoes to make them last and what makers have a dedication to quality that we'd be used to. My brand knowledge is very limited and so that information was not immediate. I know some brands - Jimmy Choo, Christian Louboutin, Prada, Gucci, Ferragamo. At least with men, the last three are known to be fashion brands whose construction can be very iffy. As such I'm Immediately skeptical about them for women. The other two I'm less familiar with. I went looking at both and neither seems to have any sort of dedication to classicism or elegance. This is fine, that's not their thing, but I was taken a back as well. When I imagine good women's shoes I imagine sleek and good lines. Jimmy Choo currently has a sort of Chelsea/Jodhpur hybrid boot on their website. I saw it, and immediately compared it to the G&G Burnham, which I found much sleeker with better lines and better shaped. My wife mentioned that with women's toes - especially when there are three inch heels involved - toes are crushed in and so comfort can often take precedence.
     
  18. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Senior member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    I feel like you may be looking at women's fashion with a cultural/ gendered bias. Why must the quality of clothes be measured by how long they last? Perhaps it's true that high quality women's clothes (and shoes) don't last as long as men's (I have no idea, though I suspect this is true for reasons that are partly due to the cycle of women's fashion, and partly because of in-built structure and design), but that needn't be the only way we judge their quality or value.

    Take haute couture, for example. I have no idea how long those pieces last, but if they didn't last as long as a Savile Row suit, I can't see why that would make their value any less obvious. We love clothes because we love design, beauty, style, craft, etc. We don't love clothes simply because we want to clothe ourselves with whatever will last us forever.

    This is again more runway fashion, but if you didn't get a chance to check out the Alexander McQueen exhibit, parts of it are shown online here. The pieces are beautiful, and if you click around, you'll find some nice audio commentary.

    http://blog.metmuseum.org/alexandermcqueen/

    Here's a video of one of his more famous runway shows: spring/ summer 2001

    [VIDEO][/VIDEO]

    I know nothing about the making of women's shoes, but here are some video features on Massaro, a Paris-based company headed by Philippe Atienza, who used to be the chief of John Lobb's bespoke operation. Previous to him was M. Massaro, who made bespoke shoes for women such as Coco Chanel.

    [VIDEO][/VIDEO]

    [VIDEO][/VIDEO]

    The values heavily touted on the MC side of SF (classic design, permanent style, longevity in make, etc) are not the only measures for fashion. They're not even the only qualities we look for in men's fashion (as evidenced by SWD). It's just this microcosm of the world - MC side of SF - where these are obsessed over. They're values I share, but they're not the only values I carry.
     
    Last edited: Feb 8, 2014
    2 people like this.
  19. mktitsworth

    mktitsworth Senior member

    Messages:
    2,834
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2011
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    @dieworkwear I'm certain there's a bias because it's part of what I want to address. I don't understand women's shoes (or really women's clothes) because I am ignorant, not because I think there's an unseen incongruity. At the same time, I have to start from somewhere. It seems like a natural question to ask why the standards for women's clothes are different from those of men's. It also seems natural to ask whether or not there exists an overlap between the two somewhere. Is there an equivalent to MC within womens wear? Some of this boils down to determining what knowledge about men's clothes I can transfer to understanding women's.

    I agree that there is no a priori reason why the measure of quality in women's clothes should be the same as that used for classical menswear. As we've both pointed out, an emphasis on longevity is not a universal phenomenon. While it seems logical that we could come up with a set of criteria - longevity, design, construction, etc - by which to judge all clothes, I see no reason why the emphasis among different genres should be the same. To use your Haute Couture example, I don't disagree that the longevity of the piece may play little or not at all into judging its value. The purpose and usage of a couture dress is very different from that of a Saville row suit. Context is important.

    Going back to women's shoes, I know there are women's bespoke makers out there. Foster and Sons has one. It is also apparent that the emphasis for women's shoes is different than that for men's, specifically the shoes valued on the MC side of things. There are also issues and tradeoffs that don't come up here. My wife has told me that there's a tradeoff between comfort and design for heels because of the way that the toe is forced into the toe box. While something more lithe and pointed may be more fashionable, it's likely to hurt and be unwearable for long periods of time. Addressing this requires - or at least appears to require - sacrificing some of the sharpness to the shoe. My wife buys shoes on both ends for different purposes. I, on the other hand, have options that do a good job of addressing both.

    Some of it certainly seems like either the cycle for women's clothing runs faster than men's or that the changes between seasons are greater. I don't know, but that's the impression I've gotten so far. As I said, I don't really know where to look to get a better impression. One thing I have noticed is a mindset that given two options from a given season (say for boots), buying the more expensive thing is less likely to be worth it because there's probably not much of a quality difference and the time of both will have passed rather soon anyway. Something like that. The general mindset seems to be different, and I don't know what that is. There are also issues of shape and fit that brands aren't necessarily going to meet, and so women have to be willing to shop with what they can do.

    As I said, I don't know. Some of the things I'm saying sound like they are problems that could be encountered by either gender. The thing I see to do is understand their difference in prevalence and use that to understand how this affects the way that either gender views clothing. Obviously there will be no universal maxims to come out of it, but if there is something general to be known that seems worth finding out.

    I will try to watch the videos tonight. The kids are not giving me time to do so at the moment.
     
  20. dieworkwear

    dieworkwear Senior member

    Messages:
    7,592
    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    I think the reasons why "classic men's clothing" and "women's fashion in general" have such different value structures and measures of quality goes back to the very gendered norms we have in society. At the core, it's OK for women to be into fashion. It's considered a "low" thing, as we live under Anglo social norms where "the body" and "vanity" are considered to be bad. It's OK to look at art outside of yourself (architecture, paintings, music, etc). Those are considered arts of "the mind." But clothes are considered of the body, and touches too close to vanity, which are considered bad in Anglo society (not a view that all cultures share, incidentally).

    Anyway, as you know, fashion has always been OK for women, and not OK for men, because they're considered vain anyway, and we're considered "smarter." So it's OK for women to have faster fashion cycles, own more clothes, engage more in "vain things." Men are presumed to only want/ need clothes for greater purposes (seemingly here on this forum only for the purposes of going to weddings, job interviews, and menswear meet ups). I presume there would be a greater emphasis on "permanent fashion" for men, since it's considered something you should buy, wear, and be done with.

    Even on this board, you can see people's often knee jerk reaction when it comes to anything progressive. We're conservative partly because we're bought into a very "masculine" value system when it comes to dressing. CBD is largely about looking nice without ever drawing attention to yourself as a clotheshorse or looking like you care about something as debased as clothes. Talking purely about construction makes us feel safer about talking about clothes. It makes it feel more like you're flipping up the hood of a car and talking about the construction of some item.

    I think it's a shame. Once you get rid of these social hang ups, you can see how much more interesting fashion can be. There's a reason why many talented designers consider their menswear line as an afterthought. It's because womenswear is a billion times more interesting and beautiful. Just look at those McQueen clips and links I posted above. Women's fashion can have all the craft and skill of men's clothing, but with a lot more open mindedness and experimentation.

    I think of fashion as something you can appreciate in three ways:

    1. There's the pragmatic kind of fashion, like what Ralph Lauren produces. That's the kind of stuff that'll just make you look good at job interviews, bars, weddings, or any other social situation. It's pretty practical.

    2. Then there's a kind of artisanal appreciation - we like things because they took a certain amount of skill. Think of all the obsessive language some people use to talk about handsewn shirts or whatever.

    3. Then there's conceptual appreciation - that is, liking something because of how the concept of the thing plugs into a great conversation about forms, art, values, etc. Comme De Garcons can be an example.

    Men overly prioritize points 1 and 2, and under emphasize 3 because of gendered norms. It's why the poster above has to put quotation marks around the word "design," as if it's some trivial thing.

    And just to note, points one, two, and three are not exclusive. Most brands and their garments are a mix of all three, and many of us appreciate things in a mix of all three. But there's often a focus on one over the other. The only reason why womenswear might seem foreign on MC is because we undervalue point 3 - the value of design - and overly focus on points 1 and 2. The idea of women's fashion would not at all be foreign on the SWD side of the board, where point three is much more accepted.

    And again, the reason for all this draws back to gendered norms.
     
    3 people like this.

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by