The Rise of Style Forum-born Entrepreneurs and their Impact on Style

[MBreinin]

Originally Posted by aportnoy

In no mood for my comment, yet willing to ditch your wardrobe and individual sense of style based on the ramblings and judgments of interwebz yahoos.

Perhaps you need to rethink who is your enemy and who is really trying to help you.

Well, I took your comment for snark. I didn't really know what it meant. So, if it was supposed to be of assistance, I am open to hear what you were trying to convey with it.

As for the remainder of this post, I would characterize it as utilizing the opinions of internet "yahoos" to tune my style, based on what fits. I still retain my personal style in terms of colors, patterns and types of suits/SCs. I am one of the few guys wearing DBs, despite the fact that many here don't like them. Still wearing loud plaids and vintage stuff. I am just focusing on what examples from these fit, and not just looking at the suit or SC and saying to myself "this is so cool, I don't care if it fits like ****," which I was somewhat guilty of in the past.

There is a difference.

Mike

 

[radicaldog]

Originally Posted by aj_del

What would be the difference in accessories between a soft look and a structured look ?

Well, mottled, fuzzy and untipped cashmere ties aren't usually favoured by lovers of very sharp and structured suits, say. But there are always people who like to play with contrasts, come to think of it. I guess since the sellers focus mostly on accessories perhaps a structured counter-current within SF wouldn't make a huge difference to their businesses.

 

[F. Corbera]

Originally Posted by Sam Hober

In the future I see more of the same for us - classic clothing.

Thank you for your post, David.

I missed my chance to wish you a Merry Christmas, and so, a quick note to wish you a Happy New Year.

 

[F. Corbera]

If we are talking about Savile Row, there is a bit of a falsely severe dichotomy being suggested or assumed with this business of a "soft" versus "structured."

I think that this comes from two sources: the connotations of the two words themselves and also that many of the forum photographs of so-called "structured" tailors often feature jackets on mannequins rather than on men.

Let's look at this group shot that shows a decent cross-section of SR tailored looks:

There are differences, but not dramatic in my opinion. If you get a Poole jacket, for example, you are likely to get a bit of drape in the chest as you might with Davies.

I am also going to suggest that if anyone is expecting A&S, or Poole, or Caraceni, or Rubinacci to change the elements of their looks, you had better be prepared to wait decades and not years.

In fact, not much has changed for them for seventy or eighty years.

There are differences, of course, but I do not think that those differences offer much fuel to power the types of swings that we see in RTW fashion.

 

[Slewfoot]

^ Interesting shot. Tough to make everyone out clearly so far away even after I saved it and zoomed in, but Hitchcock's suit stands out at first glance.

 

[academe]

Originally Posted by MBreinin

No, I am not. I am dressing based upon what looks were well recieved on WAYWRN. I still do wear what I like, but I have changed my approach to what people who I consider more knowledgeable that I am (or perhaps just have a different take on things), have told me I look good in. People here are clothes enthusiasts, so I take their opinions to heart. That is the entire point of WAYWRN for me. If I did not want feedback that I could use to make adjustments, I would not post fits so often.

I don't know if Aportnoy's comment was directed to me, but I really am not in the mood for it either way.

Mike

I understand that your remarks are honest and heartfelt but cringed a little when I read them... Online photographs are very poor representations of "in-real-life", and have never felt that the internet critiques are very meaningful. The best examples of this in my mind are some of the (inaccurate) snark directed at RSS, Manton and AY in the past for their bespoke garments... In any case, perhaps I'm a little bit less humble and more recalcitrant than yourself, but I would never trust the opinions of interwebz friendz commenting on a flat, 2 dimensional photo -- certainly not enough to take their comments to heart and to change my own personal style. Certainly, there are some posters who are more knowledgeable about tailoring than others here, but I don't know if I real would give a fig as to their opinions about what I wore...

 

[The Thin Man]

Originally Posted by academe

Online photographs are very poor representations of "in-real-life", and have never felt that the internet critiques are very meaningful. The best examples of this in my mind are some of the (inaccurate) snark directed at RSS, Manton and AY in the past for their bespoke garments... In any case, perhaps I'm a little bit less humble and more recalcitrant than yourself, but I would never trust the opinions of interwebz friendz commenting on a flat, 2 dimensional photo -- certainly not enough to take their comments to heart and to change my own personal style. Certainly, there are some posters who are more knowledgeable about tailoring than others here, but I don't know if I real would give a fig as to their opinions about what I wore...

At the very least, the critiques' focus on fit can be helpful for those of us who weren't knowledgeable about how things should fit.

 

[Threadbearer]

Originally Posted by academe

I would never trust the opinions of interwebz friendz commenting on a flat, 2 dimensional photo -- certainly not enough to take their comments to heart and to change my own personal style.
Perhaps you are fortunate enough to have style-conscious friends and acquaintances to help you with your fits in 3-dimensional real life. I don't, so SF is a great resource for me.

 

[academe]

Originally Posted by Threadbearer

Perhaps you are fortunate enough to have style-conscious friends and acquaintances to help you with your fits in 3-dimensional real life. I don't, so SF is a great resource for me.
I'm not disputing that the discussions can be helpful, interesting and educational ... I do enjoy the range of of discussion and the diversity of looks on the forumz... I just wouldn't go so far as to post my outfits online for comment, nor would I discard clothing that I like on the advice of internet "friendz".

 

[academe]

Originally Posted by The Thin Man

At the very least, the critiques' focus on fit can be helpful for those of us who weren't knowledgeable about how things should fit.

No doubt...

 

[radicaldog]

Originally Posted by F. Corbera

If we are talking about Savile Row, there is a bit of a falsely severe dichotomy being suggested or assumed with this business of a "soft" versus "structured."

...

There are differences, of course, but I do not think that those differences offer much fuel to power the types of swings that we see in RTW fashion.

You're largely right, but it's hard to deny that there is a tone difference. Maybe the contrast could be between a 'relaxed' and a 'sharp' look. Compare and contrast (say) Foo and RSS when they're both wearing a tweed coat and pair of grey trousers. Another angle is this: one of the things that sometimes leaves me cold about your own (generally superlative) way of dress is precisely the fact that you wear relaxed garments in a sharp way (never rumpled, millimetre-accurate trouser length, perfect tie knots, etc.). And of course the fact that you have too much stuff, which leads you to the occasional sub-optimal ensemble: it's just too difficult to master so many different garments and all their permutations. But that's a digression.

It's true, though, that good bespoke tailoring always sticks to classical proportions, so you'll never see RTW-like swings.

 

[George]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

You're largely right, but it's hard to deny that there is a tone difference. Maybe the contrast could be between a 'relaxed' and a 'sharp' look. Compare and contrast (say) Foo and RSS when they're both wearing a tweed coat and pair of grey trousers. Another angle is this: one of the things that sometimes leaves me cold about your own (generally superlative) way of dress is precisely the fact that you wear relaxed garments in a sharp way (never rumpled, millimetre-accurate trouser length, perfect tie knots, etc.). And of course the fact that you have too much stuff, which leads you to the occasional sub-optimal ensemble: it's just too difficult to master so many different garments and all their permutations. But that's a digression. It's true, though, that good bespoke tailoring always sticks to classical proportions, so you'll never see RTW-like swings.
Eh...?Check out Tommy Nutter

 

[MBreinin]

Originally Posted by academe

I understand that your remarks are honest and heartfelt but cringed a little when I read them... Online photographs are very poor representations of "in-real-life", and have never felt that the internet critiques are very meaningful. The best examples of this in my mind are some of the (inaccurate) snark directed at RSS, Manton and AY in the past for their bespoke garments... In any case, perhaps I'm a little bit less humble and more recalcitrant than yourself, but I would never trust the opinions of interwebz friendz commenting on a flat, 2 dimensional photo -- certainly not enough to take their comments to heart and to change my own personal style. Certainly, there are some posters who are more knowledgeable about tailoring than others here, but I don't know if I real would give a fig as to their opinions about what I wore...

Well, that is your take on it. I am taking the best pictures I can take, and they are a pretty decent representation of real life. There are many here with opinions that I trust implicitly, because they have demonstrated a knowledge of fit, color and style which I have seen with my own eyes. Also, when a chorus of people says something blows, or is great....it is not illogical to lend some credence to those words.

Originally Posted by The Thin Man

At the very least, the critiques' focus on fit can be helpful for those of us who weren't knowledgeable about how things should fit.

And for those of us who are developing a concept of what fits us well.

Originally Posted by Threadbearer

Perhaps you are fortunate enough to have style-conscious friends and acquaintances to help you with your fits in 3-dimensional real life. I don't, so SF is a great resource for me.

+1. I have no friends in real life that have a clue about fit, and most have no clue about style.

Originally Posted by academe

I'm not disputing that the discussions can be helpful, interesting and educational ... I do enjoy the range of of discussion and the diversity of looks on the forumz... I just wouldn't go so far as to post my outfits online for comment, nor would I discard clothing that I like on the advice of internet "friendz".

That is your perogative. Maybe you have a well developed sense of fit and don't need assistance. Maybe you just don't want to hear critiques. Either one is a valid reason not to post fits.

I came here to learn, part of that process is getting feedback from others directly. I can read posts all day long, read books, read magazines, etc. However, until I apply that information and see if it works, it is largely an exercise in futility.

Mike

 

[F. Corbera]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

You're largely right, but it's hard to deny that there is a tone difference. Maybe the contrast could be between a 'relaxed' and a 'sharp' look. Compare and contrast (say) Foo and RSS when they're both wearing a tweed coat and pair of grey trousers. Another angle is this: one of the things that sometimes leaves me cold about your own (generally superlative) way of dress is precisely the fact that you wear relaxed garments in a sharp way (never rumpled, millimetre-accurate trouser length, perfect tie knots, etc.). And of course the fact that you have too much stuff, which leads you to the occasional sub-optimal ensemble: it's just too difficult to master so many different garments and all their permutations. But that's a digression.

Interesting.

"Relaxed" and "sharp" are useful antonyms for chatting about style (and a commanding subset of style online: photographic presentation), but I think that both qualities can be natural to either a softly tailored or more structured bit of tailoring.

I think that you mean, when you compare mafoofan and RSS, Foo looks relaxed in his soft Rubies but RSS looks sharp in his more structured Richard Anderson.

The photographs that both guys have posted, however, give off the entirely opposite vibe to me: mafoofan looks precise in his looks, with an occasional overlay of forced sprezzatura (e.g. unbuttoned OCBDs, rear blade of tie pulled out, etc.), while RSS looks a tad louche no matter what he wears, soft or structured (although there are a couple photographs of him that are professionally taken that show a higher degree of precision or "sharpness.")

As far as I can tell, and if I extrapolate from their professions and training, both are meticulous guys. They might deny it but I feel that I see it in the way that they dress. It is difficult to say how much of that quality their photographs convey. The casual snapshot taken in haste can look more "relaxed" than a more fastidiously taken photograph not because of the man or the style, but because of the photograph itself.

Let's take one of A&S's most well known early customers, Clifton Webb:

Soft clothes, expecially for the time. Yet, a precise look, wouldn't you agree? It's a posed, professional photograph...is the precision from the man or the photograph?

Let's take one of the school-of-A&S's most unknown current customers, me:

Soft clothes. Relaxed or precise in this candid photograph?

For the small minority of SF members who have posted photographs of themselves and provided fodder for infotainment, it might be true that the way in which each man has chosen to take photographs reveals their style bias.

But maybe not.

Originally Posted by radicaldog

It's true, though, that good bespoke tailoring always sticks to classical proportions, so you'll never see RTW-like swings.

I think that has become true.

Originally Posted by George

Eh...?Check out Tommy Nutter

An exception that proves the rule.

 

[George]

Originally Posted by F. Corbera

Interesting. "Relaxed" and "sharp" are useful antonyms for chatting about style (and a commanding subset of style online: photographic presentation), but I think that both qualities can be natural to either a softly tailored or more structured bit of tailoring. I think that you mean, when you compare mafoofan and RSS, Foo looks relaxed in his soft Rubies but RSS looks sharp in his more structured Richard Anderson. The photographs that both guys have posted, however, give off the entirely opposite vibe to me: mafoofan looks precise in his looks, with an occasional overlay of forced sprezzatura (e.g. unbuttoned OCBDs, rear blade of tie pulled out, etc.), while RSS looks a tad louche no matter what he wears, soft or structured (although there are a couple photographs of him that are professionally taken that show a higher degree of precision or "sharpness.") As far as I can tell, and if I extrapolate from their professions and training, both are meticulous guys. They might deny it but I feel that I see it in the way that they dress. It is difficult to say how much of that quality their photographs convey. The casual snapshot taken in haste can look more "relaxed" than a more fastidiously taken photograph not because of the man or the style, but because of the photograph itself. Let's take one of A&S's most well known early customers, Clifton Webb:

Soft clothes, expecially for the time. Yet, a precise look, wouldn't you agree? It's a posed, professional photograph...is the precision from the man or the photograph? Let's take one of the school-of-A&S's most unknown current customers, me:

Soft clothes. Relaxed or precise in this candid photograph? For the small minority of SF members who have posted photographs of themselves and provided fodder for infotainment, it might be true that the way in which each man has chosen to take photographs reveals their style bias. But maybe not. I think that has become true. An exception that proves the rule.
Mmmm....