What's Your Take on Modern Men's Fashion (Not Talkin About Tieless Busi- Casual Crap)

[reetpleat]

You're nitpicking. I happen to have a detachable collar shirt, but it is really no different than a modern shirt. Most of the time I've worn it, people didn't even notice it was any different from a regular shirt.

If people want to be facetious and difficult and say they don't see my point, look at women's fashion 100 years ago, and now look at mens, and look at the differening degree the two have changed.

I don't want men to walk around in dresses, mind you. But if you go back to the time of the French Revolution, men had about tehe same anout of dressing options as women did. Men's outfits were often as elaborate as women's. Now I'd say we're down to about a tenth of the options that weomen currently have. Hell, I've worked jobs where they wouldn't let me wear the bowtie I usually wear once or twice a week.

The silly pissing war and constant criticism men engender to one another about wearing anything that is even remotely *different* from a very fine-lined norm frustrates me to no small end.

I don't want the black solid suit to end, but lately, all I've been able to find at the store are black, pine-striped suits (2 pc.) and it is really starting to piss me off.

Men's clothes are one aisle in the business suit store and women's clothes are the rest. Howabout a patern, a new cut, zippers instead of buttons, patterns, different numbers of buttons, different spot for pocket square, something anything original?

Well, you are quite free to wear what you like, and in various places, many things are acceptable. I live in Seattle where the utilikilt was invented. Dumb if you ask me, but guys walk around in them and pick up all the gear head girls.

However, if you want to work in the work world, especially conservative ones where the money is made, then both men and women must dress conservatively. If you want to dress up and dress creatively, go int othe design field where it is encouraged.

Thing is, for me, wearing vintage suits etc was actually a statement of non comformity. Not exactly in being better dressed than everyone else, but in both searing what I liked, and wearing something different. The same with the mods I used to know, the rockabilly guys, especially the european ones that wear suits and sportcoats, or even the victorian goths. It is not about dressing better, it is jsut about dressing in a way you identify with.

Iwon't say you are not entitled to complain. If I wore vintage al lthe time now I could probably only be successful in Los Angeles in real estate. So I just wear functional decent looking clothes and let my suits lie in the closet.

But if you want more expressive clothes, there are plenty of places around. But yes, you wil be limited to what you can wear to work.

Although, I would bet that only the most conservative of jobs would have a problem with a real natty dresser who wore subtle but exquisite suits etc.

 

[reetpleat]

No, doesn't bother as much as it used to, now I just laugh at it all. lol It's just the hypocrisy of it all that bothers me. The attitude that the terminally trendy get that they are rebellious and unique, when in fact all they are really doing is slavishly fitting in with their peers so as not to stand out from the crowd.
(Submarine captains and baseball catchers wore the hats backwards out of necessity, not in order to look "cool"lol )

Yes, and pilots took the stiffener out of their hats os they could fit headphones ove them I suppose. BUt looking like a catcher, submariner or pilot is pretty cool.

 

[reetpleat]

and 8000+ people all discussing what we are -all- wearing and what standards we all share..isn't -slavishly fitting in with peers so as to not stand out'?

Pardon me while I snarf soda through my nose......and go read 15 threads about 'acceptable' features in a suit....

No offense meant, but people seem to be having a perfectly reasonable discusion about something they wish to discuss. Frankly, I think this is a new enough perspective to be worthy of a thread. No one needs to be told their discussion is not worthy.

 

[LondonLuke]

Although, I would bet that only the most conservative of jobs would have a problem with a real natty dresser who wore subtle but exquisite suits etc.

I think that depends on your definition of natty. Through work, I've noticed that even Austrian CEOs are incredibly dapper, despite coming from one of the most conservative countries in Europe. These CEOs and board members are always seen with pocket squares, argyll socks, and even DB suits, or 3-piece with a pocket watch!

Being dapper with nice suits is not a hindrance even in the most stuffy investment banks, but I guess if you meant unorthodox outrageous patterns, there may be an issue

 

[Feraud]

No offense meant, but people seem to be having a perfectly reasonable discusion about something they wish to discuss. Frankly, I think this is a new enough perspective to be worthy of a thread. No one needs to be told their discussion is not worthy.

No offense meant back but this thread, like quite a few others at the Lounge recently, is perched to run off track into the usual bitch-fest about how crappy modern style is. Whether it be our narrow viewpoint on men in shorts, baseball caps, Thom Browne, jeans and sneakers, etc. etc. It's been done to death in a hundred other threads if you really need to read such posts. Btw, I do not exclude myself from having made such comments.

Another belabored point is one of being an individual versus running with the herd. Who cares! Very few of us are true broad minded, free thinking individuals in the classic sense. The ones who say they are usually aren't.

This is a good time to put a moratorium on the negative comments about modern men's style, those who wear modern clothes, and our opinion on how individual and/or rebellious we think they think they are.

Let's get back to the spirit and intent of the Lounge. The discussion of vintage menswear. If you find modern wear that fits in the discussion, please share it.

 

[3PcSuit]

THis thread was never about criticizing modern casual clothes, it's about the trend in modern formal clothes, so how is it a bitch fest???

My gripe is the lack of variety in men's clothing, as opposed to, say, women's. And how is formalwear inherently conservative? Again, looking at women's clothing, there is plenty of new stuff, plenty of variety without it being informal.

I don't understand the hostility and criticism I am getting. I mean everything I have said in the most nonconfrontational manner possible.

 

[resortes805]

I've loved those ever since I discovered the Ramones.... and, of course, Lee Marvin wore a black and white striped one in The Wild One. If memory serves, Sonny Barger (I think....) later bought that shirt and wore it to many early Hell's Angels gatherings.

Yeah, there's just something about those stripes that scream "Vintage Delinquency!" I was surprised when they resurfaced last year, and then they just suddenly appeared everywhere. I have all of the Avalos vintage cuts T's and most of the Old Navy releases. I have a couple of the extra wide stripe ones by H&M. I'm saving them up for when they go back out of fashion and are'nt available anymore.

 

[LondonLuke]

THis thread was never about criticizing modern casual clothes, it's about the trend in modern formal clothes, so how is it a bitch fest???

My gripe is the lack of variety in men's clothing, as opposed to, say, women's. And how is formalwear inherently conservative? Again, looking at women's clothing, there is plenty of new stuff, plenty of variety without it being informal.

I don't understand the hostility and criticism I am getting. I mean everything I have said in the most nonconfrontational manner possible.

In my opinion, sometimes less is best. Rather than painting yourself up like a peacock, the understated, elegant simplicity of the dinner jacket is it's success. In addition, it leaves the lady partner free to get all the attention, with the man's clothes merely complimenting hers.

 

[Feng_Li]

My gripe is the lack of variety in men's clothing, as opposed to, say, women's. And how is formalwear inherently conservative? Again, looking at women's clothing, there is plenty of new stuff, plenty of variety without it being informal.

Perhaps you could give some example of what you consider "variety" and "new stuff." Several posters have given examples of variety in men's clothing, but they do not seem to meet your criteria. This discussion would be easier if we knew what you meant.

Howabout a patern, a new cut, zippers instead of buttons, patterns, different numbers of buttons, different spot for pocket square...

Do some searching around the forum. You will find (with the possible exception of zippers) examples of every one of the features you named.

And how is formalwear inherently conservative?

I turn to the dictionary:
Formal:
1. Being in accordance with the usual requirements, customs, etc.;
5. observant of conventional requirements of behavior, procedure, etc., as persons; ceremonious.
10. being in accordance with prescribed or customary forms.

And as I explained earlier, if the customs, forms and conventions are changed willy-nilly they cease to be commonly held and understood, and are either reduced to mere suggestions or ignored entirely. The form of formality is lost. Formal clothing is not simply fancy clothing. Formal clothing is the clothing that follows the conventions that govern it.

 

[3PcSuit]

You know what guys? Never mind. Let's all just wear the same exact clothes they wore 100 years ago. Why change *anything*?

I don't think there is anything more frustrating, by the way, than people asking one questions that you've clearly stated.

If you just want to spout off without actually addressing the points I've made, then start a new frickin' thread.

Guess I'll just keep buying the same tired old black three piece suits at the store. Heaven forbid I want to wear anything flashy that detracts from a $500 dress that will be worn at best once and then flung in a closet and forgotten. . .

 

[KeyGrip]

I'd wear either one and look like a badass doing it. Hard to find a good striped shirt.

 

[DerMann]

You know what guys? Never mind. Let's all just wear the same exact clothes they wore 100 years ago. Why change *anything*?.

What you have just said is what formal wear was designed to do. Black tie and white tie are dress codes, almost uniforms. They are so specifically stringent so as to make sure everyone will be dressed correctly for the occasion.

If you're complaining about white tie's inflexibility then you probably should not be wearing it.

Black tie, on the other hand, can be changed quite a bit while still remaining traditional. You will be hard pressed to find waistcoats in original 3-4 button, low gorge configuration. Mainly because no one wears stiff fronted shirts anymore (especially not with black tie), and such waistcoats were designed for use with stiff fronted shirts. They were meant to exhibit the wearer's starched, white shirt front. What you will find now-a-days are the standard 6 button waistcoats with a high gorge. They do, however, have them in various colours - a step away from tradition. As a result you have an outfit that looks much less formal and more contrived. Luckily enough for most people, this practice has become very much accepted.

I, for one, was very lucky for my prom. The girl I was going with accidentally coordinated herself with my white tie. It turn out great. The most I was willing to concede to matching was my pocket square.

People in the height of fashion during the 1920s and 1930s did not care so much about "matching." Men dressed to fit in.

 

[Ugarte]

you forgot this:

AAAHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGHHHHHH!!


RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!!





.

 

[T.E.W.Clough]

lol lol haha "Plaid Stallions"

That is Golden!! Maybe a new band of super heroes...?

Plaid Stallions, AWAY! (thrusts fist into the air)

 

[KeyGrip]

Plaid Stallions, AWAY! (thrusts fist into the air)

Perfect! :eusa_clap

 

[Feng_Li]

You know what guys? Never mind. Let's all just wear the same exact clothes they wore 100 years ago. Why change *anything*?

I don't think there is anything more frustrating, by the way, than people asking one questions that you've clearly stated.

If you just want to spout off without actually addressing the points I've made, then start a new frickin' thread.

Guess I'll just keep buying the same tired old black three piece suits at the store. Heaven forbid I want to wear anything flashy that detracts from a $500 dress that will be worn at best once and then flung in a closet and forgotten. . .

Have you actually read any of my posts? I have very specifically addressed your questions. They are quoted above my responses. DerMann has done the same.

Dress as flashily as you like. That doesn't necessarily make it bad or wrong, but if it doesn't adhere to the conventions of formality, then by definition it is not formal. It is silly to call a three-wheeled pedal-powered vehicle a bicycle and complain when people correct you. Unless you simply want to complain.

 

[donCarlos]

I think that the peak of fashion has been reached about 60 years ago and nothing new can be invented - everything is created by modifying older concepts. (that doesn´t apply only for fashion, but for many aspects of our lives)

So why are we somehow stuck in those old concepts? Because it´s inevitable. What to do about it? Nothing. I really can´t imagine a whole new concept of clothing. You can´t change the formal style (because its conservativeness and maybe a slight obsoleteness, which makes it so formal) and changing the casual style by modifications of some details won´t make it a completely new style.

 

[Edward]

Yeah, there's just something about those stripes that scream "Vintage Delinquency!" I was surprised when they resurfaced last year, and then they just suddenly appeared everywhere. I have all of the Avalos vintage cuts T's and most of the Old Navy releases. I have a couple of the extra wide stripe ones by H&M. I'm saving them up for when they go back out of fashion and are'nt available anymore.

Good plan! I might start that too.... I'll be back nito my horizontal stripes as soon as I love a couple of stone and they become more flattering on me again! lol

 

[chalkstripe]

It seems like the reign of business-casual is a stereotype dominating men's fashion today. Doesn't mean that modernized styles cant be in good taste either.

classic:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_qjpwnPW4c1o...D1o/j4GjoUsM2PA/s1600-h/6188MrCoolSuitweb.jpg

modern, yet clean:
http://bp1.blogger.com/_qjpwnPW4c1o/SEUrwcG1cLI/AAAAAAAADeI/_l6jt1DCnGA/s1600-h/6028Ianweb.jpg

 

[reetpleat]

You know what guys? Never mind. Let's all just wear the same exact clothes they wore 100 years ago. Why change *anything*?

I don't think there is anything more frustrating, by the way, than people asking one questions that you've clearly stated.

If you just want to spout off without actually addressing the points I've made, then start a new frickin' thread.

Guess I'll just keep buying the same tired old black three piece suits at the store. Heaven forbid I want to wear anything flashy that detracts from a $500 dress that will be worn at best once and then flung in a closet and forgotten. . .

Well, the lounge has changed a bit, but plenty of people here would love nothing more than to wear what men wore eighty to a hundred years ago. The only problem is finding anything that fits.

While modenr fashion is sometimes discussed, you are kind of on the wrong website to discuss a lot about ceative modern men's fashion. There are many web sites that you would probably get a livlier discussion from.