Baddest Ass in Men's Fashion..Nick Wooster

Wooster's problem is that he wears that stuff like it's his job. His excuse, of course, is that it is his job.

'Baddest ass'? Does this mean he has difficulty with sitting or something? ... and who is 'Nick Wooster' anyway? .. someone who likes tweeds at a guess. BTW his trousers appear to be too short.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

It's a tu quoque argument, though. And one that doesn't apply to me in the first place, as I don't dress in nearly the same mode as most people on WAYWRN do. Even if I did, I could still be right in pointing out how costumish and affected Wooster's look in the photo is (even if mine were equally affected).

There's an element of affect in all fashion, and you could certainly argue that fashion, removed of all extrinsic connotation or value, is nothing but the pursuit of artful affect. I don't deny that. I just think there's a line that Wooster's look crosses. You could say the same about the looks of many people on SF, and you'd get no argument from me.

Finally, it's worth pointing out (as did the poster above) that Wooster is more than capable of putting together a non-costumish look that still seems personalized. In other words, the right kind of eccentric.

I think the poasted look is his best (out of those I've seen, its not like a seek out his pics-hell I don't even read the sartorialist)...

All I was saying is that there isn't something more inherently costumy in dressing like an urban lumberjack than a suit wearing guy in 2011, both are irrelevant modes of dressing unless done in the tamest way possible.

Originally Posted by edmorel

Click to expand...

Poor Nick, he's probably a really nice guy, easy going, loving life if attention whorish but he's become an internet celebrity and hence gets the treatment. I don't mind the way he dresses, the guy is in "fashiony" side of mens classic clothing, not sure how people expect him to dress. he has to be a walking advertisement for what he does. Wearing a Savile Row suit everyday would probably look sillier on him. He is who is, I guess since he is not shy about having his pic plastered all over the place he is open to the criticism but not really sure how people expect him to dress.

This.

I don't really get why the natural inclination of SF-ers is to attack and insult anyone outside of SF when it comes to clothing(Dan T, anyone on the Sartorialist). I don't particularly like his outfit that was posted in the OP but I've also seen him pull off some nice minimalist looks which is my preference when it comes to suiting.

But yeah, he works in a high end department store and wears... the brands they carry.

Originally Posted by Lel

Click to expand...

This. I don't really get why the natural inclination of SF-ers is to attack and insult anyone outside of SF when it comes to clothing(Dan T, anyone on the Sartorialist). I don't particularly like his outfit that was posted in the OP but I've also seen him pull off some nice minimalist looks which is my preference when it comes to suiting. But yeah, he works in a high end department store and wears... the brands they carry.
Dan T dresses ridiculously bad, I don't take time to sling **** at him and its not like I care but he does and the result is still abysmal. Once again, that's going with what I saw on this site and another (french) fashion website.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

I think the poasted look is his best (out of those I've seen, its not like a seek out his pics-hell I don't even read the sartorialist)...

All I was saying is that there isn't something more inherently costumy in dressing like an urban lumberjack than a suit wearing guy in 2011, both are irrelevant modes of dressing unless done in the tamest way possible.

I'd argue that the urban lumberjack look is slightly more affected than the suit-and-pocketsquare "precious" look affected by the typical iGent on SF. By degrees, though. They're not the same degree of try-hard. They're both try-hard to a significant extent, and I'll grant you that. Nevertheless, I still don't see how this diminishes my original assessment of Wooster's look. It's too affected, regardless of the affect we see here on a daily basis.

If Wooster's urban lumberjack outfit had maybe one or two fewer sprezz elements to it, I'd buy it. Hell, I'd buy the boots if not for the pants. Or the pants if not for the boots. Or both if not for the moustache. I feel like you get two eccentricities in an outfit before it turns into pure costume, and he breaks that limit here. That limit is totally arbitrary, and I'm making it up on the spot, but it's a back-of-the-envelope estimate.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

I'd argue that the urban lumberjack look is slightly more affected than the suit-and-pocketsquare "precious" look affected by the typical iGent on SF. By degrees, though. They're not the same degree of try-hard. They're both try-hard to a significant extent, and I'll grant you that. Nevertheless, I still don't see how this diminishes my original assessment of Wooster's look. It's too affected, regardless of the affect we see here on a daily basis. If Wooster's urban lumberjack outfit had maybe one or two fewer sprezz elements to it, I'd buy it. Hell, I'd buy the boots if not for the pants. Or the pants if not for the boots. Or both if not for the moustache. I feel like you get two eccentricities in an outfit before it turns into pure costume, and he breaks that limit here. That limit is totally arbitrary, and I'm making it up on the spot, but it's a back-of-the-envelope estimate.
But pretty much everything else can be defined away from (a yet) undefined normalcy and into costume. I don't see how that is a useful judgment. Hell the guy is wearing clothing adapted to his lifestyle which could be said to be exactly congruent with an operational definition of the always shifting center of normalcy.

what he wears is as much a costume as most things posted on this site. he looks good, and, even more importantly (especially considering his job), interesting

He definitely looks better than Dan T. I never knew that guy started the Style Blogger!
So god awful. Just spent 5 mins sifting through it... dude is the worst part of trendy NYC urban fashion (I mean, tassle loafers with camo pants?)

Then that Urban Aesthetics clown just copies every one of his outfits and the shitquake continues.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

But pretty much everything else can be defined away from (a yet) undefined normalcy and into costume. I don't see how that is a useful judgment. Hell the guy is wearing clothing adapted to his lifestyle which could be said to be exactly congruent with an operational definition of the always shifting center of normalcy.
I'll grant you that normalcy is relativistic, but I think it's less fluid in the short term than you're making it out to be. He's in a different line of work from the societal norm, so you could argue he operates in a very different dimension/definition of normal. Fine. But my point isn't to define what's normal and compare him with respect to that baseline. Such an exercise is silly and impractical. Rather, my point is that certain items in his look are costumish with respect to one another. The whole is less than the sum of its parts.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

As you already know I'm not into those retro/americana looks because they, consciously or not, come from awfully restrictive heteronormative discourses regarding the nature of masculinity and give wearers a false sense of regaining something they were pressured into thinking was lost by enjoying more adventurous modes of dressing and living, I am, as a straight dude, of course concerned with not going in that direction as it is as much a prison as a security blanket.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Click to expand...

I mean, if we're talking fashion, that's one thing, but I think the irritation (at least mine, I can say) is "holistic" in nature.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

It's a tu quoque argument, though. And one that doesn't apply to me in the first place, as I don't dress in nearly the same mode as most people on WAYWRN do...There's an element of affect in all fashion, and you could certainly argue that fashion, removed of all extrinsic connotation or value, is nothing but the pursuit of artful affect.

Originally Posted by Fuuma

Click to expand...

But pretty much everything else can be defined away from (a yet) undefined normalcy and into costume. I don't see how that is a useful judgment. Hell the guy is wearing clothing adapted to his lifestyle which could be said to be exactly congruent with an operational definition of the always shifting center of normalcy.

Originally Posted by Don Carlos

Click to expand...

I'll grant you that normalcy is relativistic, but I think it's less fluid in the short term than you're making it out to be. He's in a different line of work from the societal norm, so you could argue he operates in a very different dimension/definition of normal. Fine. But my point isn't to define what's normal and compare him with respect to that baseline. Such an exercise is silly and impractical. Rather, my point is that certain items in his look are costumish with respect to one another. The whole is less than the sum of its parts.

Shitcanned.

Originally Posted by harvey_birdman

Click to expand...

Shirt too long, pants too short, jacket too tight.

And that's just the tip of the iceberg...

So, this little person with no iron and a tweed fetish (not that THAT is a bad thing) is the reason NM Last Call stores are so full. Got it.