Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Cantabrigian, May 24, 2013.
Is there a strong correlation between teh hawt and poor eyesight?
When it comes to sexual attraction women are less visual than men . A trait I shall be ever grateful for.
not a bad thing at all. great way to live it up. and as far as the wars go, their asses were saved, so even better. sorry you had a rough time in combat. thank you for your service. truly.
i have always wanted some schadenfreude, it sounds cool.
i believe so. its the only way i can explain why my wife married me.
For me, this is a rare swing and a miss. Because everything else is played so straight, you get to the scorpion and go from - 'what's that on his tie' to 'oh, I guess that's his scorpion tie...' Generally (i.e. not at all about Tirailleur) I think something a lot of people fall prey to is adding one odd item. It looks like an afterthought, as if you grabbed your sprezz as you were rushing out the door. And that's despite the fact that most of these fits are based around that item. Either stick to your knitting completely, or really go for it. (Holdfast, where's the Pucci suit?)
I'm going to take this in a different direction and suggest the following. I don't think this ground has been covered but I could be wrong due to skimming.
"No effs given" can be legit and praiseworthy when the "no effs given" component is one of audacity or daring, such as daring to wear those coral-colored linen pants, yet still making it look good through appropriate harmony, matching, balance, etc (don't think suit context here; the suit equivalent might be rich blue cashmere material, etc). The total outfit still looks good, but you "give no effs" because you've put yourself out there in ways most people don't have the balls...
Other examples: Wide or thin lapels, shoes of various designs or colors, etc.
This is in contrast to the OP's "no effs" which was "no effs" because it egregiously broke rules and consequently looked horrible. That version is equivalent to "I don't give an eff that I look horrible," which is in no way praise-worthy.
Other examples: Stripes x 3 (OP), looking like a christmas tree due to too many colors, black belt brown shoes, stuff that is too tight, etc.
Welll said and point taken
I'm not sure how anyone could argue that talent is solely sufficient for aesthetic success. It is no doubt a necessary element, though most won't admit it, but you also need to learn about rules and customs and practices, etc. Just as Joyce didn't sprout out of his mother's womb ready to write Ulysses, no stylish, well-dressed man was born with the knowledge, tools, and training needed to be stylish and dress well.
I find that those who think talent alone is enough are those with neither enough talent, nor enough of any of the other stuff. They just want to believe they already look good, without any real effort.
Nobody said talent alone was enough to take an individual to the next level.
"To the next level?"
Euphemisms like that just obfuscate. The point is, you either have talent or you don't. You can't change that. However, there are other things you can learn that will make you a more capable, competent dresser. That's why we ought to spend our time focusing on those things. If you have talent, it will show in the results.
I've never seen a well-dressed man that I didn't think had talent. It is not easy to get things right.
Again... nobody in here stated talent alone breeding any kind of success... whether in dressing, cooking, painting or singing.
Are you not reading the same thread?
I have 20/50 vision, so yes.
Foo, I totally agree with you. Talent + effort (not just practice, but accumulated knowledge) = skill. Some people refer to anybody with a great skill at something creative as "talented," which I find vaguely insulting -- it's the "you must own a great camera" of dressing.
Where in there does he state talent alone? He said it comes easily for some people... being geounded on certain rules doesn't mean the person isn't aware of them...
You are trying to mince words. He explicitly stated that certain people require zero grounding in rules, knowledge, etc., to dress well. That, I'm arguing, is patently false.
They aren't grounded on rules is not the same as being zero grounding on rules...
And in terms of the rules I don't think he is implying most of the ones the internet made up.
Separate names with a comma.