Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by bryce330, May 2, 2005.
Yep. Â If you can palm it, it's not attractive.
One of the NMs will be in Los Angeles--in an upscale Woodland Hills (southwest San Fernando Valley) shopping mall, if the signs on the site are to be believed.
I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think it's possible for a woman to be too thin and I find thin waists and bony backs a major turn-on. I met one this past weekend at a wedding and was instantly smitten.
i'll take curves any day.
For one thing, seeing as NM already has stores in Chicago, SF, DC, Atlanta, and Dallas, the thing an expanded BG will hurt is Neiman Marcus stores. Â It's called canibalization. Â NM and BG are not different enough to face off with each other in most cities. Â The market isn't big enough to justify it. BTW, I vote for curves. There's more to hold onto
I've never been to the BG store, although I've visited a few NMs. How different are they really? The websites are essentially identical.
NM is more department store, while BG is a specialty store. BG has sales only 2x a year.
They have become more identical in the past few years, because NM bought BG.
Considering that one of the players here is Fort Worth-based Texas Pacific, I think the objective is simply adding NM to their collection of highly-profitable operations, or undervalued companies which can be turned more profitable. Burger King is a good example of a revival engendered by a TP take-over. I suspect they will leave things as they are other than expanding in to such markets as Seattle, which has already been mentioned. As another Texas poster wrote, Nordstrom here is very mid-range and unexciting. But much friendlier customer service than NM which, at least in a couple of the Dallas stores, I find to be pushy and then stand-offish if you don't buy. I was looking at a Charvet tie and clerk practically had it wrapped up while I was still pondering. Didn't buy it and boy did she drop me in a hurry.
The most common answer when judging attractiveness concerning bodies is "in shape," by a huge margin. The most desirable waist/hip ratio for women is 0.7 and for men it is 0.9. Most men don't like Clarissa Flockhart, and most women do not like Ahnolds. And I'm all about context really. Sometimes a really skinny woman is attractive, but for the most part nothing beats a nice hourglass shape with toned muscles. I also tend to find very interesting things attractive .. subtle imperfections you might say, like one eye that seems a little tiny bit more closed than the other, slightly crooked teeth, a little tiny belly on an otherwise skinny woman... I dig it.
Fer real. Not fat, mind you - but a woman who actually looks ike a woman (proportionate breasts, hips, etc...), not like some fourteen year old boy with breasts. That is just a little wierd. I don't know, I knew a fair number of women like this. They are generally not much fun (the real athletes being the exceptions, and they generally have real muscles, i.e. aren't just skinny).
(LA Guy @ May 02 2005,09:02) And is it just me, but do really, really thin women turn anybody a little off?
I know I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't think it's possible for a woman to be too thin and I find thin waists and bony backs a major turn-on. Â I met one this past weekend at a wedding and was instantly smitten.
I'm right there with you. Give me one with the ass of a 12 yr old boy. Plenty of those women every day on Madison.
Separate names with a comma.