Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by MatthewJoe, Jun 2, 2012.
You've got a negative attitude Alex. I've noticed that.
LOL, what are you talking about? Loops are designed for belts; if you wear trousers with loops without a belt, it looks dorky. That is all. Can I be any more negative?
'I've noticed that.'
What, from the one post in your thread or have you been stalking me?
Just ignore the woman, she has no qualifications to make her comments and they are merely here irrelevant opinion. As to "looking bulky", how stupid.
Oh that such a magazine were available. All you get in Aussie supermarkets is chick/wife mags.
well this reaction was definitely warranted...
This is a pretty laissez-faire attitude to getting dressed, no? Shouldn't the decision be made at the stage of purchasing a suit, rather than getting dressed in the morning? "I have to wear a belt because these pants have belt loops," seems like pretty lazy excuse. If one wants to wear a belt, buy pants that have belt loops. If one wants to wear braces, buy pants with brace buttons.
That being said, I switch to having all of my suits made for braces rather than belts in the last year or two, and cannot be happier with my choice. I don't take my jacket off when I'm wearing a suit anyway, so I'm not "suspenders" go by any means. The truth is, braces are much, much more comfortable. Full stop.
I'm truthfully sorry. The whole anonymous and 'purely democratic' nature of the internet where everybody is the same and there is no hierarchy scares me. That was the fear talking.
Agreed! Braces are the most comfortable way to keep your pants up and doesn't give all those creases.
I mean for those who feel the need to show their affluence by sporting a "H" or "LV" above their crotch, should continue to stick to their belts!
Quote:What if you are a rapper? Kidding, got it.
Raf Simons and Maison Martin Margiela both have recently had belts that do not have any buckets and the Raf belt was even closed using velcro, so I think this argument isn't quite valid (Agree on the "H" and "LV" buckle part tho). Such a belt might substantially upgrade your outfit and will not interfere in terms of being "bulky".
About the belt loops: There are pants that can easily be worn without a belt even tho they have belt loops (and it can still look great, as long as you have a slim silhouette). The central question should be what kind of belt we are talking about. I personally think that visible stitches should be banned from belts made to be worn with a suit, a clean look without any major buckles or visible names is essentia as welll, the belt is supposed to stress the silhouette, not make a statement for itself. It all gets down to choosing the right belt for the right suit. Or condemning belt loops in the first place.
Indirectly, this is what I meant. If you have belt loops on trousers, where a belt; if you don't want to wear a belt, don't buy trousers with belt loops. There is no 'right' way.
Basically, the question, I felt, wasn't needed. No offence to the OP.
If you go to a Cracker Barrel restaurant most any morning (EGADS! I stooped so low as to want southern "country" breakfast!) you'd rethink the value and purpose of braces...........
Damn! I wish I had a photo of the braces fashion show that is sponsored daily at a Cracker Barrel.
BTW, I do applaud you for using a Coke bottle for spittle collection. I bet it is a 6 1/2 oz bottle that fits well inside your suit coat inside breast pocket.
I've seen people wearing trousers without belt-loops like John Saxon and ex-GMA host David Hartman on The Bold Ones: The New Doctors, Demond Wilson on Sanford & Son, and the late Robert Reed on The Brady Bunch of course. Flat-front trousers without belt-loops first came out in circa late 1960s. Sometimes comes with d-shaped side adjusters I think. Classic style you dig!
Separate names with a comma.