Disagreeable Menswear Post Of The Day

oliver-blume-ist-seit-2015.jpg

Porsche CEO...
 
^ Looks like your run-of-the-mill Scandinavian executive. Bland looking ties, bland $700-$800 buck RTW Boss / Tiger of Sweden / whatever suit.

Now, this big boy here...wonder how much cloth was wasted when making this suit.

v0psU2z.jpg

474138DD00000578-5171891-Seal_of_approval_The_hotel_was_chosen_by_the_Middleton_family_as-m-25_1513097993489.jpg
 
^ Looks like your run-of-the-mill Scandinavian executive. Bland looking ties, bland $700-$800 buck RTW Boss / Tiger of Sweden / whatever suit.

Now, this big boy here...wonder how much cloth was wasted when making this suit.

v0psU2z.jpg

474138DD00000578-5171891-Seal_of_approval_The_hotel_was_chosen_by_the_Middleton_family_as-m-25_1513097993489.jpg

Nice freak koople with the purple Joker granny.
 
^ Looks like your run-of-the-mill Scandinavian executive. Bland looking ties, bland $700-$800 buck RTW Boss / Tiger of Sweden / whatever suit.

Now, this big boy here...wonder how much cloth was wasted when making this suit.

v0psU2z.jpg

474138DD00000578-5171891-Seal_of_approval_The_hotel_was_chosen_by_the_Middleton_family_as-m-25_1513097993489.jpg

Best hotel executive in the world! Top hotel!
How come he’s here?
 
D374ADBA-1A67-4EDA-8F27-CF982330B66C.webp

I thought the hat was over a year or two ago. It was a trendy abomination then. Just an abomination now. Unless you’re fishing or driving the family RV.
A
 
Didn’t those goofy floppy dads hats reach their peak with Chevy Chase in Vacation?
I can say floppy tweed hats fit in a pocket and also offer more protection to spectacles than many cheese cutter flat caps. Edinburgh wool mills standard issue Winter wear for rainy British Isles.
 
Often poorly dressed GQ editor, but I give him points for looking like he has a good time and enjoys his career. Others of you will give him points for being over 50 and having fun Hair. Seems like a dude to party with. 8/10 would chill again.

A49C0EEC-549E-49EE-B339-E4F2C638B1A8.webp


F6EFA50E-59EA-43C3-89B1-B0EFFFF988C0.webp


F84248AF-EA0A-4C59-B982-C69F178B0C85.webp


227572FA-5A21-4765-9551-4CD1FE0E2795.webp


EDE050AD-0CCD-4D26-AC28-1B3C2AF57D1A.webp
 
I got a good one here. From Australia. We have any Australians? The necktie bloke.

You don’t have to be a public figure to get that designation apparently. You just create a business Facebook page for your blog and link it to IG and the select a business account.

On that note, I don’t think this guy is a pubic figure
30B9A76E-69E9-43F6-852B-60C58D6FB4DE.webp



For one things, all of his friends look like cunts
EB7E1229-0351-467C-8692-31BD7885021E.webp


right proper cunts
6AAAA49E-2B70-42D0-BD7B-D92F35530273.webp



58BF6CB5-0F4A-4916-BC9B-5B85E0FDA0D7.webp

He sort of looks like StanleyVanBuren StanleyVanBuren in this picture. I also remember when many an influencer was doing that lean thing 2-3 years ago.



DF3819A9-CCFB-44F6-97CD-A7F9F7F7A61A.webp

It’s like the Love child between a Walmart wedding cake and one of my frequently reoccurring nightmares.


Please make sure the middle of my forehead is in focus. It’s my best feature.
59364F44-0AC6-41F6-AFDD-DB950865DDA2.webp



Probably not allowed within 200 feet of one of those places.
142139F8-E279-4082-9F10-FE99AD6717DA.webp



Carefree life of the freshly lobotomized
E8082F6D-9FFB-4784-83D3-42A9C5E79A10.webp
 

Attachments

  • A1FCF0F9-3F62-411F-A3DD-92521E8BEEC0.webp
    A1FCF0F9-3F62-411F-A3DD-92521E8BEEC0.webp
    34.5 KB · Views: 159
  • 5149AB97-2789-46A5-9756-A4D0E3440015.webp
    5149AB97-2789-46A5-9756-A4D0E3440015.webp
    35.1 KB · Views: 163
Another deconstruction question for you chaps:

Why is it that tight trousers, drainpipe type, à la Hardy Amies in the 1960s, looked rather good, or at least a million times better than the current incarnation? Have men's thighs grown bigger? Has something else changed in the cut? Is it the jacket? The posture?

Here's what I mean:
43e27786f35ebb303643fd94da0308be--smart-dress-hardy-amies.jpg
 
I don't like how that looks, but a good fit is a good fit regardless of style.
Today's pants are not slim, they're just too tight. No matter what the wearer's size is they will always get a size or two smaller. And shorter.
 
Another deconstruction question for you chaps:

Why is it that tight trousers, drainpipe type, à la Hardy Amies in the 1960s, looked rather good, or at least a million times better than the current incarnation? Have men's thighs grown bigger? Has something else changed in the cut? Is it the jacket? The posture?

Here's what I mean:
43e27786f35ebb303643fd94da0308be--smart-dress-hardy-amies.jpg
I was pondering this exact problem last night.

Ms fxh and my self - for various reasons - were watching old Beatles footage on Youtube and Netflix. Anyway after one footage of a 1964 Beatles concert, in which the boys were in suits and ties and cuban heeled chelseas, with screaming thousands and hardly a crease in their trousers, anyway - after that a clip from a "tribute" band called The Fab Four from usa sometimes in this current decade, came up. The tribute band had taken some time to get the details right, it wasn't a rush job, genuine hair, a left handed singing bass player!!!!, Gretsch etc + tailored suits - they looked the part - but - and it stood out - their trousers were a bloody mess - everywhere. I think I've worked it out but no time now.
 
I was pondering this exact problem last night.

Ms fxh and my self - for various reasons - were watching old Beatles footage on Youtube and Netflix. Anyway after one footage of a 1964 Beatles concert, in which the boys were in suits and ties and cuban heeled chelseas, with screaming thousands and hardly a crease in their trousers, anyway - after that a clip from a "tribute" band called The Fab Four from usa sometimes in this current decade, came up. The tribute band had taken some time to get the details right, it wasn't a rush job, genuine hair, a left handed singing bass player!!!!, Gretsch etc + tailored suits - they looked the part - but - and it stood out - their trousers were a bloody mess - everywhere. I think I've worked it out but no time now.

The cloth would have been a lot heavier, may have been Mohair too.
 
Often poorly dressed GQ editor, but I give him points for looking like he has a good time and enjoys his career. Others of you will give him points for being over 50 and having fun Hair. Seems like a dude to party with. 8/10 would chill again.

View attachment 28062

View attachment 28058

View attachment 28059

View attachment 28060

View attachment 28061

Get the fuc out of here. he always looks stylish and comfortable. sure if you start dissecting it like a nerd you might find a few issues. but he has natural style, doesn't really matter what Heroin Gene is wearing. Krell is King.
 
The cloth would have been a lot heavier, may have been Mohair too.

my thoughts exactly. not only heavier and possibly mohair, but just generally better quality and better finish, not that super fine liquid tissue bullshit that everyone makes now, but the whole fleece, 2ply warp and weft, and London Shrunk, cloth with better memory and resilience. also probably better cut and worn closer to the natural waist (something very few cover bands do). look at any old pictures, the old stuff hung better, even the rtw, and people knew how to wear and maintain their clothes, superior tailoring back then was not the main factor imho. i hate those posts where the igents post pics of their grandfathers exclaiming how stylish they were. most still dressed liked farmers, but the cloth was better and the clothes generally wasn't as tight.
 
Last edited:
The cloth would have been a lot heavier, may have been Mohair too.

my thoughts exactly. not only heavier and possibly mohair, but just generally better quality and better finish, not that super fine liquid tissue bullshit that everyone makes now, but the whole fleece, 2ply warp and weft, and London Shrunk, cloth with better memory and resilience. also probably better cut and worn closer to the natural waist (something very few cover bands do). look at any old pictures, the old stuff hung better, even the rtw, and people knew how to wear and maintain their clothes, superior tailoring back then was not the main factor imho. i hate those posts where the igents post pics of their grandfathers exclaiming how stylish they were. most still dressed liked farmers, but the cloth was better and the clothes generally wasn't as tight.

Pretty much the above. What is a standard 3- season fabric these days widely available? I'd say from 7- 10 0z which drapes like shit- no matter the quality of tailoring.

I'd say that people are generally fatter than they were ever were which coinciding with clothing being cut skinnier than it ever was, you have an almighty mess of sartorial proportions.
 
I was pondering this exact problem last night.

Ms fxh and my self - for various reasons - were watching old Beatles footage on Youtube and Netflix. Anyway after one footage of a 1964 Beatles concert, in which the boys were in suits and ties and cuban heeled chelseas, with screaming thousands and hardly a crease in their trousers, anyway - after that a clip from a "tribute" band called The Fab Four from usa sometimes in this current decade, came up. The tribute band had taken some time to get the details right, it wasn't a rush job, genuine hair, a left handed singing bass player!!!!, Gretsch etc + tailored suits - they looked the part - but - and it stood out - their trousers were a bloody mess - everywhere. I think I've worked it out but no time now.


I shall hold you to that promise. This should be interesting. My compliments to Ms fxh.
 
Another deconstruction question for you chaps:

Why is it that tight trousers, drainpipe type, à la Hardy Amies in the 1960s, looked rather good, or at least a million times better than the current incarnation? Have men's thighs grown bigger? Has something else changed in the cut? Is it the jacket? The posture?

Here's what I mean:
43e27786f35ebb303643fd94da0308be--smart-dress-hardy-amies.jpg

B&W photos help make it look good for starters. B&W does wonders for black and navy knitted ties.

I'd say that people are generally fatter than they were ever were which coinciding with clothing being cut skinnier than it ever was, you have an almighty mess of sartorial proportions.

I had some data on the sizes of offshore rig workers from over the last 40 years, considering many of the jobs involve manual labour, the increase in size of clothing was quite something. From an average of a 32'' waist to 36''.
 
I had some data on the sizes of offshore rig workers from over the last 40 years, considering many of the jobs involve manual labour, the increase in size of clothing was quite something. From an average of a 32'' waist to 36''.

We should put out a research paper. I haven't seen any serious study on this important subject. No doubt the fashion industry have the data (or "dada", as our American friends say). But you will have noticed, as I have, the sizing on many of the vintage items from, say, the 1950s and earlier. A 30-inch waist was still not uncommon. You will find the occasional 28" too. Try finding trousers that size today. Chest sizes have expanded too.

But just focussing on this trousers business, I think wot does it is the thighs. Look at any photo of Second World War squaddies in shorts (and we're talking men who marched from the gates of India to Singapore), and they all have these spindly legs. Today's men have massive quads. Especially igents.
 
Last edited:
That is indeed the problem.

You all know I'm an actual, honest skinny guy, and let me tell you, trousers look best on me when they are narrow in the upper thigh and then either minimally tapered below the knee or not at all. If they are slim enough in the upper leg, they can be equally slim in the lower leg down to a narrow leg opening and the silhouette will read as "slim" without needing to actually be skintight.

If one has huge quads, then the only way to achieve a narrow leg opening is a massive taper below the knee. The igents and insta-trash do this because they think the narrow leg opening is what's necessary to achieve that "slim" trouser look. It isn't.

Also smaller waist sizes on vintage items should be expected as men would wear the trousers at their actual waist rather than at or closer to the hips and the trousers were cut to be worn that way. But I think that's less a factor than average body size changes over the last however many years.
 
I find myself picking up a lot of vintage suit trousers in charity shops precisely for their narrow waist sizes. I haven't yet come across a pair that was outrageously tapered like modern trousers, as SvB noted.

Why do you think thighs are larger now? Better nutrition? Those soldiers marching in the heat across India probably weren't brilliantly fed.
 
Why do you think thighs are larger now? Better nutrition? Those soldiers marching in the heat across India probably weren't brilliantly fed.

Apparently the inflection point in sizes in the US occurred some time toward the end of the 1970s. It's been attributed to growth hormone fed to cattle, and the increased consumption of beef. I shit you not. Also, I've yet to come across a small American. So there might be some truth in this.

Yes, re. the natural waist and the trousers sitting higher. But the shoulders on vintage suits are narrower too. And neck sizes were smaller. Men were just thinner. Perhaps not shorter, but definitely thinner. No wonder they looked fabulous in their heavy-drape flannels. Today's so-called best-dressed men look like they're bursting out of their suits.

And yes, re. the taper. It's one of those grossly underestimated sartorial challenges. Having your tailor fumbling round your arse trying to get that vertical drape at the back of the leg is the price one has to pay.

Now for a specimen to illustrate my lecture:

Screen Shot 2018-02-09 at 00.14.08.webp
 
Last edited:
Look at any photo of Second World War squaddies in shorts (and we're talking men who marched from the gates of India to Singapore), and they all have these spindly legs.
Yes, well nothing like a Sandakan death march to do wonders for your waistline and thigh circumference.
 
A top top bottom level shill. He will shill anything given to him. I wonder if his “good friends,” which seems to be the way in which shills refer to their sponsors, are aware they are getting ripped off. Fairly sure most of his followers are purchased.

For your consideration
BECA3DDF-BC30-41D7-A60F-0BBA649AD1D7.webp


Some samples of his awfulness
0B07B2F6-646F-4A2A-8EF2-7B3D7D3B123D.webp

F179EEA7-1DD1-4365-873B-EB445D98AE00.webp

(^shilling)

6F899BFA-A680-4AF3-BD20-17502966A031.webp


65350781-A70F-445F-85F9-B74F6D74B5E7.webp


Let’s see wear he buys his elegant suits
F02F59A6-73EE-40FA-92BD-7A2DB9F6ED7E.webp

01BD0E15-C662-4214-9306-19F8BC60619E.webp

verri class

AND NOW what will he shill?!
BA9CD0E5-A01B-4E0F-A8F5-E783DE27EDC6.webp


20567617-6C37-4830-BE96-216D903B8272.webp

6A7EC76F-34EB-4258-8BC3-B76707425F67.webp
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom