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

Orginal Penguin by Munsingwear

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Shirtmaven, Mar 14, 2005.

  1. Lydia

    Lydia Senior member

    Messages:
    141
    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Since my favorite clothes used to be a pair of $2 tight-ass poly bellbottoms and a orange 70s leather jacket, I've got to weigh in.

    For me, buying vintage is mainly an issue of fit and price. I wouldn't look down on people who buy the new immitations.

    I found similar pants but in wool from Gucci for 490 dollars, but they were still kind of loose.

    I don't know about penguin but the old lacosse polos had a slimmer fit than the new ones, therefore I choose the old.

    Still, often I find that new reinterpretations of the old stuff often use better fabrics. This is natural if they're going to be charging a lot more.

    The new designer velvet jacket use higher quality velvet than most of the vintage ones.

    I guess the main stream, none-designer, stuff in the 1970s was just cooler.

    By the why, I've noticed that it is a well-established truth that menswear sucked in the 1970s. An embarassing time of gaudiness and vulgarity that we'd best erase from our (though I wasn't alive) photo albums.

    I disagree. I think it was a time when men were allowed to enjoy style, rather than being strapped in the constrictive straightjacket of either a suit or a pair jeans. Let's face it: the emphasis on subtlety and "taste" doesn't exactly make the streets exciting. And for most men, the fear of "gay" and the conformist nature of modern style, makes things downright boring. Thank god women are allowed some sartorial freedom.
     
  2. esquire.

    esquire. Senior member

    Messages:
    1,303
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Is there a Penguin store in NYC upper west side, around 80s or 90s street? I remember buying a Penguin Polo about 5 years ago there, before they become tres chic. I thought it was a Penguin store, but don't know if my memory is poor or if it moved.
     
  3. misterbowles

    misterbowles Senior member

    Messages:
    268
    Joined:
    May 7, 2004
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    Just because you're wearing clothes that somebody dictated to be 'cool' 30 years ago doesn't mean you're not as much of a tool as the kid wearing clothes that are dictated to be 'cool' now.
    Sure it does, because you have a different set of sensibilities than people did in the 60's or 70s, and have to sift through things yourself and decide what is still relevant to your personal style after all these years.
    I'm with LA Guy 110% on this one.
     
  4. Shirtmaven

    Shirtmaven Senior member Dubiously Honored

    Messages:
    3,336
    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2003
    Location:
    NYC
    I doubt that there was a Penguin store on it's own back then. These Single brand type of stores are a more recent trend.

    I saw a TV show last night that was filmed in Britan. One of the actors was wearing a navy polo with white trim. The penguin logo looked huge. And stupid

    Carl
     
  5. faustian bargain

    faustian bargain Senior member

    Messages:
    2,523
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    there's some brand that is making shirts now that are parodic of the logo fetish, i saw a picture of one with an absolutely huge crocodile on it, like 3" or so. kindof funny, for about 2 minutes.
     
  6. shoreman1782

    shoreman1782 Senior member

    Messages:
    8,741
    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2004
    Location:
    DMV
    fb-

    Was that in the NYT supplemental? I thought it seemed a good idea, but then realized no one would get it. Plus, I have a few gen-u-ine Lacoste shirts and I don't think they'd get along...
     
  7. faustian bargain

    faustian bargain Senior member

    Messages:
    2,523
    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2004
    Location:
    Bay Area
    yes, i think it was in the NYT men's fashion supplemental. either that or the latest 'vitals', since those are the only two clothes-related periodicals i've read recently. re. whether anyone would get it - i guess it depends on your milieu...probably more of an urban indie hipster thing, you know, people who crave irony.
     
  8. ken

    ken Senior member

    Messages:
    2,192
    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    Location:
    Chicago
    (LA Guy @ Mar. 17 2005,18:13) Quote Just because you're wearing clothes that somebody dictated to be 'cool' 30 years ago doesn't mean you're not as much of a tool as the kid wearing clothes that are dictated to be 'cool' now.
    Sure it does, because you have a different set of sensibilities than people did in the 60's or 70s, and have to sift through things yourself and decide what is still relevant to your personal style after all these years.
    I'm with LA Guy 110% on this one.[/quote] So you're saying people from that period were intrinsicly cooler than people now, clothing designers included? Is that the difference in sensibilities you're talking about? OK, maybe. I will contend they were probably more laid back back then. But I don't know how that realizes itself through a shirt. As to the second part, I don't think it makes a lick of difference what era the clothes are from. You've still got to sift through things yourself and decide what is relevant to your personal style when you're buying new, right? Why do people who do it at thrift shops have more style than those who do it at malls?
     
  9. Brian SD

    Brian SD Senior member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    I would say, because if you find an item that works for you at a thrift store, you're likely never going to see it on another person in your life. A a mall may have, say, 1500 mens items in a store. Of those 1500 mens items, 300 are actually different items, the other 1200 are different sizes or variations of those 300 items. In a thrift store, all 1500 items would be different except in the most basic category (t-shirts, jeans, trousers, etc)

    I would not say that I think the people in the 70s were cooler than people are now. It's pieces of 70s clothing that made it through to '05 and are now endearing bits of the past instead of something in every man's wardrobe.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by