Pet hates

[SkinnyGoomba]

Originally Posted by rmanoj

There was a similar thread recently, but that was mostly about trends on SF. This one has a broader scope (probably too broad...): what objects or features that are generally considered to fall in the spectrum of "classic style" do you, personally, despise (not just "I wouldn't wear it myself" - you have to hate the look on other people too)? I'll list a few of my own:

1. Ostentatious watches. I can't stand wristwatches unless they're on a plain leather strap and have very few special features.
2. Black derby shoes with more than two eyelets and no broguing. Just wear an Oxford ffs.
3. Ankles on show when wearing long trousers. I loathe the no socks/ loafer socks look.
4. True 3-roll-2 coats. I can appreciate the appeal of the 3-roll-2.5, but not this. It strikes me as a fairly pointless affectation.
5. Pleated trousers worn with a body coat. You can't apply the '30s aesthetic to everything. Slim, flat-front trousers complement a coat with a waist seam much better,

How boring. One of my favorite watches is worn by one of my clients, Rolex daytona in 18k yellow with a green crocodile strap with sport holes (done by ABP on my referral which I got from Foo). It's awesome.

No socks rock. I wear pleats on all of my suits, flat fronts with odd pants.

Originally Posted by pocketsquareguy

Most of the replies to this thread.

+1

 

[rmanoj]

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

I wear pleats on all of my suits, flat fronts with odd pants.
I don't understand why you'd do this. And besides, I didn't object to pleated trousers in general, just when they're worn with body coats, so your point isn't really relevant. The watch thing is too subjective to argue about - I think it's too in-your-face, you don't.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

I know what a body bag is, but not this 'body coat' you speak of.

 

[rmanoj]

Coats with a waist seam - dress coats, morning coats and frock coats.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

LOL, If you're wearing a morning coat than yes you should accompany that with the rest of the 1930's asthetic.

 

[rmanoj]

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

LOL, If you're wearing a morning coat than yes you should accompany that with the rest of the 1930's asthetic.
No, my point was that morning dress (and white tie) was at its best around the Edwardian era when it was worn with very slim-cut flat-front trousers.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

Yet you're telling me pleats dont work. Right.

 

[TimH]

Cheap leather - well said!
Training shoes

 

[Chargersfan]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy

I'm going to sport my baseball cap when I get out of the office and onto the town tonight. But then again, I look like I may very well play baseball

Thinking about the original intent of the thread, I detest:

- Pocket Squares - how gay can you get?
- Chunky soled shoes - are they called long wings?
- Tweed on anyone under 40. Come on, you know who guys are?
- People that cheaply acquire things and pretend they're all that and knowledgeable about style all the while having 40 inch waistlines


Sorry... just being facetious. Almost end of my day and week here

***.

 

[lasbar]

Thinking about the original intent of the thread, I detest:

- Pocket Squares - how gay can you get?

Partially agree.

- Tweed on anyone under 40. Come on, you know who guys are?

Agree.

Anyone under 50 and living in a big city wearing tweed must be shot.


-Sorry... just being facetious. Almost end of my day and week here

[/quote]

You're definitively not facetious.

 

[Mr. Lee]

Originally Posted by cptjeff

So you don't actually object to the items you listed, you object to how common slobs wear said items. How on earth is that a problem with the items and not with the slobs?

Corporate branding is an issue I agree with you on. But you conflate the branding with the garment. A ballcap does not need to have a titlist logo or whatever. It can be fitted, plain blue, and have a Yankees logo. Or a mets one. Or whatever.

A lot of people hate suits and ties becuase dopes with no style wear them, and wind up looking stupid in ill made and badly fitted ones. Does that mean traditional tailoring is bad? No, it means stupid slobs wear it badly.

Oh, and yes, I have heard of linen. So what? Shorts are not inherently evil. Just becuase your legs are ugly does not mean everybody's are.

Basically, from what I can tell, you don't like to see cheap and crappy ****, and you don't like corporate douchebaggery. You're not going to hear any objection from me on those points. But when you conflate those issues with perfectly useful classes of clothing, then you're going to have issues.

My legs are lovely. Read "chino", not "shorts". I'm down with most of what else you say and will quit the field, having noted that you stole one of my favorite words (I'm a lawyer): "conflate." (Suspect you may be one as well?). Also, an apology is tendered for the "kick..." remark. Bad day. Have a good one..

 

[SpooPoker]

Hmmmmmmmm a lot of this sounds familiar....

 

[bringusingoodale]

Price point.

What price point should i expect for new AE shoes?

Is $442 a good price point for a 88 MTM shirts?

I think the price point for a bespoke suit made by an Asian tailor should be below that of an English tailor.

At that price point, you had better look for some sandals you n00b!

I'm selling this on BS at great price point.

The price point for my cup of coffee is what you paid for your socks.

 

[lovelux2010]

- logos on clothing
- massive watches
- jeans made by manufacturer to look distressed
- designer trainers
- fake distressed leather shoes or bags
- non skinny people in skinny jeans
- uggs, crocs, ed hardy, and anything of the sort
- shorts, sandals etc when not on the beach

many others

 

[ALFAMALE]

-jackets with no vents

-nice piece of clothing with logo that ruins it(dolce and gabbana knitwear, leathers)

-BIJAN