When is a Suit’s Silhouette “Too Much”?

[voxsartoria]

All you plebes and foreigners are starting to bore me.

<----- smiley


- B

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

All you plebes and foreigners are starting to bore me.

<----- smiley


- B

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I would ask my wife to seat you with whnay. because I like bloodshed...but only if it is shed in pique.

- B

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

I would ask my wife to seat you with whnay. because I like bloodshed...but only if it is shed in pique. - B
I might have a Blanche or two to regale Whnay with.

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

I might have a Blanche or two to regale Whnay with.

I see him in a collar, baying at Sirius.

Sirius is the highest magnitude star in the contemporary sky. It is often mistaken for a planet, but it is not.


- B

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

I see him in a collar, baying at Sirius.

Sirius is the highest magnitude star in the contemporary sky. It is often mistaken for a planet, but it is not.


- B

One does often make that error.

 

[lasbar]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

The 19th century was the century of the middle-class with all its posturing, insidious diplomacy and moral consciousness extended into taste.

Yes, but prior to World War II, there was still a legitimate aristocratic social force that expounded its mores and tastes. So you have that particular legion that this middle-class often looked up to and emulated, which doesn't suggest that the middle-class look was necessarily the normative movement it is today.

I do find postwar America somewhat interesting. It was intensely bourgeois, but it also had intensely manifested cultural pretensions. That era seems defined by naively earnest scientific longings and aspirations to a cultured, socially dynamic state of being. Witness how what would be considered serious literature today was oftentimes the number one sellers: Gore Vidal, Norman Mailer, Truman Capote, et al.

One certainly still sees the culturally-conscious middle-class, but it seems relegated to highly urban areas.

These days, there are several legitimate subcultural aesthetics one can work with. Whether or not they are socially condoned is another question.


America created the Kerouac , Tennessee Williams , Norman Mailer and so many other great writers...

I do think that the more religious-based American ethics and morals have also created great social undercurrents...
The same way, Fifties rigid Britain has created the Teddy boys and so many social tribes such as mods,punks, hard rock and new-Wave.

We need conformism and anger to rebel and to create.

 

[Tangfastic]

Originally Posted by George

You would think he was wealthy? I'd think he looked like any other working class kid. The point is that dress has for the larger part become so homogenised over the last 20 to 30 years that it is no longer an accurate guide to a persons social class.
I agree that the upper classes are more likely to wear jeans / trainers / hoodies than they were a few decades ago, though maintain I could spot a chav from a toff at some distance. I couldn't see all of the Prince's shoes in that picture but suspect they would have been some sort of trainer walking shoe hybrid which I'd perhaps incorrectly associate as a practical middle class type of shoe! The whole ensemble in the picture you quoted really did strike me as that of a well heeled young person dressed casually. Sorry for the de-rail...

 

[George]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

I see him in a collar, baying at Sirius. Sirius is the highest magnitude star in the contemporary sky. It is often mistaken for a planet, but it is not. - B
I see you more and more as a lubricant, oiling the wheels of the forvm as it were...

 

[George]

Originally Posted by lasbar

America created the Kerouac , Tennessee Williams , Norman Mailer and so many other great writers... I do think that the more religious-based American ethics and morals have also created great social undercurrents... The same way, Fifties rigid Britain has created the Teddy boys and so many social tribes such as mods,punks, hard rock and new-Wave. We need conformism and anger to rebel and to create.
Kerouac...?

 

[George]

Originally Posted by J. Cogburn

I’ve noticed that when people post their bespoken work here, the more striking the silhouette, the more props they get. Of course, the level of dissent moves up a bit with the drama of the suit’s cut, but I sense that there are more complaints about a suit’s cut being boring, uninteresting, or uninspired than there are complaints about a suit’s silhouette being too dramatic. I certainly understand why the dramatic look gets the love. If you’re going to spend $4k+ on a suit, you don’t want it to simply be a well-fitting version of the Brooks Brothers model currently hanging in your closet that cost all of $599 on sale. You want your new threads to be a show-stopper. You want to look great in that bespoken suit. And if your physique is of a certain kind, who wouldn’t look great in some swanky Tom Ford suit or, for that matter, a buff-looking upper-body courtesy of some of the drape suits I’ve seen here provided by Rubinacci or Steed or, while I’m at it, some of the more dramatic suits I’ve seen posted here from W.W. Chan. Now, before I go on, I will acknowledge what probably ought to be understood without being spelled out – you can buy what you want; if you like it, go for it; taste is subjective, blah blah blah. Yes, of course. But if that kind of sartorial relativism were to animate all our discussions here, there would be very little to talk about, would there? So, with the above in mind … allow me to make the case against the dramatic silhouette, whether we’re talking about Tom Ford swank or the extreme drape or strong shoulders with a big dose of waist suppression. Most of us here would agree that you don’t want any one thing that you’re wearing to stand out much more than anything else you’re wearing. The reasons, of course, are many and varied. You don’t want your clothes to get more attention than the guy wearing them. You don’t want to look like your major style accomplishment in life was doing something to earn the $200 necessary to buy the tie that “pops” …. something that anybody with a modest amount of money can do. You know that the sum total of a look is more important than a piece-by-piece aggregation of its component parts and that a striking x paired with a neutral a, b, and c to show it off doth not a good total look make. You know that clothes delivering a lot of shape are vaguely feminine. And you know that, for various cultural reasons, understatement is associated with class and good taste and “look at me!” clothes are associated with the parvenu and vulgarian. Hence, it seems to me that a striking suit that threatens to turn the head is akin to a striking tie that threatens the same. It may be beautiful, it may be physically flattering, and it may make you look like a million bucks, but it violates tenants for tasteful dress that we would never countenance were we to consider buying a really beautiful, colorful, and eye-popping (say, Robert Talbott) tie. The trick – it seems to me – is to acquire a suit that accentuates your physical positives and disguises to some extent your physical negatives while simultaneously appearing both natural and understated. If the suit is imposing a shape on you that appears to be at odds with your natural shape then you’ve overstepped the bounds of good taste. The classic British silhouette would seem to fit the bill. But notice that posts proudly displaying photos of Henry Poole (ish) suits are few and far between here. Can Continental silhouettes likewise foot the bill? For some – the thin and strong-shouldered that is – maybe. Can Modified American silhouettes? Almost certainly. Too little silhouette and you’ve got a sack suit that does nothing for most people. Too much and you’re a cartoon or a fellow wearing a costume. The line between what is understated and what is not is clearly a fuzzy one, but like pornography, I suspect that we know it when we see it. So I say “Three Cheers for Poole!” Do you?
I'd like to get back to this... Personally, I've never bought into the understated concept of men's dress. I think a man's dress should reflect his personality, if he has a flamboyant nature, his dress, when appropriate should in some ways reflect this. For example, I love bold coloured shirts (Duchamp in particular, a predilection I share with the Devil

) and I wear them a lot, but I'm never overwhelmed by them, what I've also noticed is; that after a while they become associated with you, people recognise them as part of your style, they become a signature if you like. Dressing conservatively is fine for some men, however, for others, it's utter torture. My view is; that you have to let at least a bit of 'YOU' through or else it's a complete waste of ******* time...!!!

 

[voxsartoria]

What profits now to understand
The merits of the spotless shirt
A dapper boot
A little hand
If half the little soul is dirt?

- Tennyson

 

[George]

Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn

- Gore Vidal

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by George

Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn

- Gore Vidal

Tomorrow do thy worst, for I have lived today.

- Horace

 

[George]

This above all: To thine own self be true, for it must follow as dost the night the day, that canst not then be false to any man. - William Shakespeare.