If your wardrobe is too large, you end up looking worse.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

Chinese men wear Italian slip-ons and photograph themselves with Germen lenses drinking French wines. Americans dress like lethargic and picky Neapolitan aristocrats. Californian men are in skirts. High JASPS of the UWS trod about in Japanese denim. Descendants of the Mayflower and the cannibal feasts of the South Seas get English tailors to make FabergÃ

eggs out of simple buttonholes. Topsy turvy.

Even with all my "shopping around" ... I rarely strayed more than 200' from the Savile Row and Jermyn Street shops frequented by my father and grandfathers.

Yes, there is the occasional purchase from Charvet, Weston, and the like ... but my father certainly made similar purchases. For me personally ... it's not so topsy turvy.

Does everyone have to do it this way? Hell no.

Now ... time to turn in ... and I may be out of touch for several days.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Click to expand...

The bottom line for me is that so long as other things are equal--i.e., one does not sacrifice quality in favor of quantity--it that it is impossible to discern how having more clothes and more diversified choices will make you "end up looking worse." Your level of taste ought to remain the same no matter how many clothes you have.
If the wardrobe is too large, quality pieces or otherwise, then the tendency to "want to wear" or "fit in" every piece could lead to combination's that would otherwise not be made. With the smaller wardrobe, even though the pieces would be reused more often, it might lead to a series of hopefully solid choices being made time after time.

Originally Posted by bigbris1

Click to expand...

I agree, Matt. There are 3 things that drive me to make a purchase; 1. I must like it, like I have to have it (pleasing to my eye), 2. It's something most others wouldn't buy, can't find anymore or just think is wrong & 3. Price.

Take the paisley Polo jacket I once wanted. I liked the look, I knew not too many others would have bought it nor could go out and buy one if they did like it. What held me back was the price.

What is your reference group?

Originally Posted by Rambo

Click to expand...

If the wardrobe is too large, quality pieces or otherwise, then the tendency to "want to wear" or "fit in" every piece could lead to combination's that would otherwise not be made. With the smaller wardrobe, even though the pieces would be reused more often, it might lead to a series of hopefully solid choices being made time after time.

But that implies that somehow having a larger wardrobe leads to a corruption or degeneration of taste. Taste is generally a product of upbringing and environment but may be enhanced by study and immersion in a topic, as most of us here do with clothing.

I suppose you have a point that having more options may lead us to the occasional infelicitous experiment. It's happened to me. I suspect it's happened to men on this forum who are better dressers than I, but I think that willingness to experiment, to take reasonable risks is what differentiates a man of style from someone who is merely well dressed. President Bush, for example, always turned himself out well in suit and tie, but few if any would regard him as a man of great personal style, just to give one example.

Originally Posted by Will

Click to expand...

Even with closets full of the most classic elements, it takes a critical mass of clothing to achieve good looks day after day without undue repetition. No matter how good a man's ensemble, if he wears it every other day it loses its impact.

Whatever number of suits, shoes and other things a man requires to achieve that objective is the correct wardrobe size. Vox, from his photos, is well past that. Foo, not to pick on him for he is on his way, is not there yet.

This is perhaps the principal reason that the very well dressed tend to be either middle aged, or the inheritors of an Agnelli-class wardrobe.

I dunno, Cary Grant wears the same suit throughout North by Northwest. Maybe the solution is to be black&white.

Originally Posted by RSS

Click to expand...

Indeed you did give a indication. I would call it relatively precise as opposed to rough ... but the key word here is relative(ly).

Are you suggesting that such a wardrobe is appropriate for everybody ... or you in particular given who you are?

We could say that it's an average, for someone who is comfortable enough to afford all the clothes he needs. If you live in the country you'll want more odd coats than suits, if you're lawyer you'll need more suits. But speaking about the average man does given an idea, doesn't it?

Originally Posted by Rambo

Click to expand...

If the wardrobe is too large, quality pieces or otherwise, then the tendency to "want to wear" or "fit in" every piece could lead to combination's that would otherwise not be made. With the smaller wardrobe, even though the pieces would be reused more often, it might lead to a series of hopefully solid choices being made time after time.

I tend to agree, but sometimes these combination's that would otherwise not be made" can be success in ways that may have not been considered otherwise. It allows for some spontaneity that may be utilized well by certain personas. I'm not trying to over-think the topic, just trying to show the other side of the coin.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Click to expand...

For what it's worth, Cary Grant--generally esteemed one of the best dressed men of the 20th century--had a positively enormous wardrobe--so much so that he couldn't house all of it in his home. He had to place some of it in rental storage. Having that many clothes certainly didn't seem to hurt him stylistically!

I believe that, however I would imagine his regular rotation to be quite a bit smaller and at this house.

Maybe he rotated out the seasonal clothes and put them into storage.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Click to expand...

But that implies that somehow having a larger wardrobe leads to a corruption or degeneration of taste. Taste is generally a product of upbringing and environment but may be enhanced by study and immersion in a topic, as most of us here do with clothing.

I suppose you have a point that having more options may lead us to the occasional infelicitous experiment.

It's well known that excessive choice can be a cost. Economists will explain this point with some neat graphs. But that does stray a bit from our main topic, which is whether people who can do the same things (i.e. always be appropriately dressed--not just meet the threshold of acceptability) with a smaller wardrobe dress better than those with bigger wardrobes.

certainly could, foof is a good example.

I think you can put together a smaller, simple wardrobe that looks well turned out all the time.

Take PG for example who removes clothes from his wardrobe as he changes his style slightly. Overall he keeps a small wardrobe.

Originally Posted by radicaldog

Click to expand...

It's well known that excessive choice can be a cost. Economists will explain this point with some neat graphs. But that does stray a bit from our main topic, which is whether people who can do the same things (i.e. always be appropriately dressed--not just meet the threshold of acceptability) with a smaller wardrobe dress better than those with bigger wardrobes.

Let me pin you down more specifically. Earlier in this thread, I linked to a piece on Will's blog where he discusses a basic tailored wardrobe for a week. It is a very pragmatic approach and yields a starting...or basic, if your prefer...set of about ten suits and/or odd jacket/trouser ensembles for a season. Basically, a Biddle set, sans formal day and evening wear.

Biddle perplexingly did not seem to dress for the seasons. Nonetheless, in a climate with four true seasons annually, it seems rather unpragmatic to me that you would wear the same things in the dead of winter as you would in the heat of summer. Comfort, the differerent colors of nature, and the changes in seasonal mood suggests at least to me that a matching seasonal change of tailored wardrobe is just common sense.

As I noted earlier, this leads me view that about ten pieces each for hot weather, cold weather, and the shoulder seasons is what is practical to yield minimal variety appropriate for the season. That would be a wardrobe of about thirty suits and odd jackets, with relevant accessories.

And that is merely the basic wardrobe. A few extra pieces...oh, like Mattypoo's Dupioni suit...adds a bit of delight and pleasure.

So, when you think of a basic wardrobe, do you think one of thirty suits and jackets is too much for your philosphy? My guess is that you do.

If you don't, then I would note that few men who present their ensembles in print or photographically on SF seem to have that critical basic mass of a tailored wardrobe. Again, most are not plump with options, they are instead starving.


- B

Originally Posted by SkinnyGoomba

Click to expand...

I believe that, however I would imagine his regular rotation to be quite a bit smaller and at this house.

Maybe he rotated out the seasonal clothes and put them into storage.

Dood, how did you kop Cary's wardrobe?

I'm a government lawyer who is in court nearly every day. I am amazed by how many of my colleagues get by on 2-3 suits and perhaps a couple of odd jackets. It does not work well. My wardrobe is small compared to many here, but the more I have, the more combinations I have available to me, and the more fun I have putting my clothes together for the day.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

Let me pin you down more specifically. Earlier in this thread, I linked to a piece on Will's blog where he discusses a basic tailored wardrobe for a week. It is a very pragmatic approach and yields a starting...or basic, if your prefer...set of about ten suits and/or odd jacket/trouser ensembles for a season. Basically, a Biddle set, sans formal day and evening wear.

Biddle perplexingly did not seem to dress for the seasons. Nonetheless, in a climate with four true seasons annually, it seems rather unpragmatic to me that you would wear the same things in the dead of winter as you would in the heat of summer. Comfort, the differerent colors of nature, and the changes in seasonal mood suggests at least to me that a matching seasonal change of tailored wardrobe is just common sense.

As I noted earlier, this leads me view that about ten pieces each for hot weather, cold weather, and the shoulder seasons is what is practical to yield minimal variety appropriate for the season. That would be a wardrobe of about thirty suits and odd jackets, with relevant accessories.

And that is merely the basic wardrobe. A few extra pieces...oh, like Mattypoo's Dupioni suit...adds a bit of delight and pleasure.

So, when you think of a basic wardrobe, do you think one of thirty suits and jackets is too much for your philosphy? My guess is that you do.

If you don't, then I would note that few men who present their ensembles in print or photographically on SF seem to have that critical basic mass of a tailored wardrobe. Again, most are not plump with options, they are instead starving.


- B

Starving is right, but it takes time and money to work out these things. I'm not of the means to just go out and buy it retail, so i take my time and stow away one item or a few items at a time.

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Click to expand...

So, when you think of a basic wardrobe, do you think one of thirty suits and jackets is too much for your philosphy? My guess is that you do.

If you don't, then I would note that few men who present their ensembles in print or photographically on SF seem to have that critical basic mass of a tailored wardrobe. Again, most are not plump with options, they are instead starving.



30 seems a little much, but not crazy. Really, add 20% plus a couple of luxuries to the Diavolo set and you've probably got the ideally sized wardrobe, as I see it.

That's what I'm aiming for (and I struggle: I still haven't eliminated all the remnants of my RTW days, and I like tweed to the point of almost collecting it -- sometimes I think I should satiate myself by just collecting bolts of tweed, but then the temptation to take them to the tailor is really, really strong.)

Whether most SFers' aesthetic failures (for that is what you seem to be indirectly referring to) are due to scarcity or overabundance (or something else, as is more likely) is beside the point.