TheUntermensch
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 386
Oh Christ this thread has turned into a counselling session. Snap out of it, chaps.
Here, analyse this.
Here, analyse this.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh Christ this thread has turned into a counselling session. Snap out of it, chaps.
Here, analyse this. View attachment 27953
Urban conurbations are all very well if you're single, looking to score or a barren spinster. I don't understand the allure after that. There are of course exceptions, I wouldn't want to live in the suburbs of Rio for instance. But in general so many things are so much better and yes, nicer here: safe to let the kids play out with other kids, tree lined avenues, houses with driveways and garages, bigger bang for your buck as regards living space, proper gardens, don't have to worry about schools, parking, can access the motorway in a matter of minutes instead of the 20 sets of lights stuck on red to get out of the city, decent supermarkets with car park space, etc, etc.
I have noticed that those chums of mine who remain in the city, most of them childless, with a couple of exceptions, have a condescending attitude towards the allure of the suburbs and remain convinced that a Hague postal code and address will somehow give them an edge in work and leisure.
If we anlice that I fear irreparable harm to the psyche of our illustrious community of menswear commentators. Everyone will be in the looney bin, or living under the local pier drinking Mad Dog out of a brown paper bag.
A bit of context: that's the 'Menfluential Conference' (the name alone deserves damnation in the deepst pit of hell). And those four beauties are level 1 or 2 shills.
If I had to choose between the destruction of the preferences associated with suburban lifestyle and the destruction of something calling itself the Menfluential Conference, I’d struggle mightily in my choice.
Nothing wrong with suburbia. Although I think there may be some semantic confusion here. One's definition of suburbia is Diary Of A Nobody. I don't know about the US. I suspect it may be the Hamptons and Martha's Vineyard (those ridiculous names!) and such. Full of senators and congressmen and their pushy wives and such. I think the Clintons are a perfect incarnation of suburbia.
But we digress, heavily.
It might be different in the UK, but most major US cities have excellent urban options for families.
Houston for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodlands,_Texas
Vs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_University_Place,_Texas
You realize there are other classifications of land besides Urban and Suburban I hope.
And you don't actually have proper gardens in European suburbs my friend. I could fit your garden in my garage.
#deathtothesuburbsandthemiddleclass
That is basically the opposite of suburbia, just as an fyi. Think of this.
![]()
Never been to Houston but I saw on TV there are no pedestrians. Everybody has to drive everywhere. Not for me - either in the centre of town or the suburbs.
You're mixing our definition of suburbia with ugly Jerry built housing estates.
No, I'm informing you what suburbia is.
And these aren't remotely estates either, these are where all the people who are corporate middle managers live in surreal self made alternate realities where they can participate in homogenized nothingness and decry the attack on western values.
The photo shows a rather uniform plot of homes. Suburbia does not have to be like that. Some of the features of 1920s, 1930s house were considered rather twee at the time but build quality and materials were often better then. Alec Clifton-Taylor waxes lyrical about small English towns. Betjeman does the same for the suburbs.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5i3sp7
OK, point taken. But this really requires a separate thread.
Man, I'm having too much fun trolling our white nationalists.
But yes, back to the utterly reprehensible tacky's of the igent world.
Christ, Betjeman. You a public-school boy Kingstonian? Or did you just go to a comprehensive before they all went to the dogs?
In fact it is the same in Den Haag. About 96.4% of all people/families would prefer e.g. Archipelbuurt/Willemspark to e.g. Zoetermeer or (a bit more upscale) Delft, provided they had the choice = money. It might be a close call beween Willemspark and Wassenaar, but then a place where a nice but not lavish house easily costs a couple of €m does hardly qualify as a "suburb" irrespective of its location.It might be different in the UK, but most major US cities have excellent urban options for families.
Houston for example.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Woodlands,_Texas
Vs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_University_Place,_Texas
In fact it is the same in Den Haag. About 96.4% of all people/families would prefer e.g. Archipelbuurt/Willemspark to e.g. Zoetermeer or (a bit more upscale) Delft, provided they had the choice = money. It might be a close call beween Willemspark and Wassenaar, but then a place where a nice but not lavish house easily costs a couple of €m does hardly qualify as a "suburb" irrespective of its location.
I know it is the same for multiple cities on multiple continents, so it is probably fair to generalize.
Grown man posting. Handle yourself accordingly.
The whole lot is good. Proper eccentric. Cardcaptor Charlie was his only rival and now he has gone. Only Charlie’s Ask Andy ‘guide to polishing a silk top hat’ remain. Sounds like a euphemism for some unusual sexual practice.If he'd just trash that ridiculous hat... I actually like the rest
Other opportunities are doorman at a grand hotel.
The whole lot is good. Proper eccentric. Cardcaptor Charlie was his only rival and now he has gone. Only Charlie’s Ask Andy ‘guide to polishing a silk top hat’ remain. Sounds like a euphemism for some unusual sexual practice.
He would be dressed well for Ascot or The Derby. Or maybe as a government broker in The City up until the mid eighties. Other opportunities are doorman at a grand hotel. Or amateur dramatics. Or funeral director (change the tie, lose the buttonhole and handkerchief)
Jeez - my lightweight tissue OTR Cantarelli cotton suit hangs better.I'd say it's the tailoringFriendCustomer
there's no way cloth can hang nicely if it fits like crap, which it does
Not the worst thing i’ve ever seen by far. The tailoring and style though leaves a lot to be desired. But wait, this is 13oz cloth... Shouldn’t that hide many defects and at least hang nicely. Well this is modern H&S 13oz cloth, so maybe it’s not like the proper old world vintage stuff or at least not as good as modern reliable unsexy British merchants (hfw, dugdale, harrisons, b&o). Perhaps the problem is really the tailoring. For a light weight cloth I could a understand some of the defects but it is impossible for me to grasp this type of performance for a heavy weight cloth. Perhaps it all of the above, lousy client, lousy tailor, lousy cloth. Would be curious to hear your opinions, especiallyScherensammler
View attachment 27982 View attachment 27983
Two glaringly hideous tailoring defects there, along with what may well be very poor shaping at the back causing the vents to flap open.The folds on the front of the trousers are very ugly and the waist is too much nipped, but apart from that, I see no other problems. The sleeves are not spanish unsleeves and hang well and the collar is well attached to the neck.
I've been told that a lot of the vintage (high-end) cloths have two ply yarns both in warp and weft, which makes a balanced cloth.
It also means that there is more wool material to begin with. Wool has the ability/ capacity to store/ retain a lot of moisture in it's fibres. IIRC, it's up to 60% of it's own weight. That is way ahead of any other fibre. And is part of what "experts" call performance.
A heavy 2-ply high twist cloth will outperform a light weight high twist at any time and in any way, simply because it stays in shape longer.
The super 1xx wool thing is just a marketing trick. It only tells you either how fine the wool fibres used are or how much the yarn used weighs per a defined length. Neither says anything about the actual quality of the cloth.
A little trick I was taught is to grab a cloth (sample if you only have a bunch at hand) and squeeze it hard in your hand for a bit (the only time where sweaty hands are a good thing). When you open your hand you will experience 2 basic events:
1) The cloth is crumpled. Mostly softer, milled cloths or any cheap crap.
2) The cloth jumps back into it's previous shape. Better cloths with twisted yarns and a good finish.
However, you want a cloth that can keep a nice crease in the trousers and that keeps flat along the seams.
Coming to why the suit in the images above looks rubbish, I can only guess.
Lets start:
The cut: The waist is over-suppressed. Evident through the pull at the front button. Hard to tell who is responsible for this, the customer demanding it to show off his athletic build and/ or the tailor. I'm guessing both, since there is also the extended front dart present.
Which is a stupid move when combined with extreme waist suppression and a phat ass. The dart is there to take material out at the hip level. So if you have no bum or are slim all the way through, that's fine. In combination with wider shoulders it will give you a masculine Y shape silhouette. When you have a big bum (or birth giving hips) this dart is not for you. Don't demand it because it's part of what you think is "authentic Neapolitan style"! If it was suggested by ye olde teacher, kick him in the nuts. If he asks why, kick him again. He deserves it.
Natural shoulders for a guy with sloping shoulders is a bad idea. Look how low his left shoulder is.
Creases in the sleeves probably from being cut too narrow at elbow/ cuff.
Trousers are a mess.
The tailoring: The puckering along the edges/ seams probably comes from tight stitches (machined seams and/ or hand). Another culprit might be the cloth itself.
Some high-twist cloths don't tailor well. What that means is, that certain things like pressing seams or edges flat is hard to do because the cloth wants to come back into it's original shape. Think of a rubber band. It's hard to perform standard tailoring procedures like pressing and shaping the cloth with a hot iron/ steam. Usually a problem when the tailors still try to work modern, light weights cloths like the way they worked the old, heavy ones. If you cannot do it with the iron you need to put in the shape through the pattern. One main example is the top collar. Much easier to do a 2-piece collar that lies flat and sits nice than trying the stretch the cloth up to breaking point, hoping it will stay that way.
Other factor for the shitty look of the suit can be humidity. Either coming from the body or the environment. Or from both. If it exceeds what the cloth can handle (see explanation at the top), the cloth will crease. For the same reason don't put your light weight suit into the bathroom after a shower. The moisture will undo whatever the tailors have done to the cloth to stay in shape.