Pit Fashion Thread

[TexasDeac10]

He's president elect in that photo - so he's 44.

There's no reason to look like a slob, unless you are a slob. In which case, clothes are the least of your issues. Hit the damn gym, go for a run, etc

Eh, slim guys are just slim guys. There are bigger guys who are athletic, like your average meat head or football player. In general, a guy with big legs is going to look on in tapered pants.

This conversation is really turning into a conversation about dressing to fit your body style.

 

[TWDeac]

Yeah, my legs don't permit the slim, tapered pant look. Highly unfortunate.

 

[bojanglefunk]

1929:

1938:

1940s:

1940s:

1949:

1950s:

1950s:

1954:

When we get to the 1960s we start seeing what vad is pointing out. "Classic" is really hard to define, but I think this demonstrates that "classic" isn't just the 1960s.

 

[JDawg]

I blame Mad Men

 

[vadimivich]

you can put a little more money into classic looks for work, because you'll be able to wear them for years. turn your pants into high-waters with bright colored socks, and it becomes a one-season trend. in my opinion, trendy stuff doesn't belong in the office. (also, i don't doubt that it's different in europe, which is obviously known for being more fashion-forward than america.)

No one is disagreeing with you on this, or arguing for high-waters.

Well fitting suits with pants that work with your body (slim if you are fit and athletic) and hemmed appropriately (i.e - right at the top of the shoe with slim pants) are a classic, timeless look - not a one-season trend. Who cares if you wear bright socks with them this year, and then dark ones next year? I'm hoping nobody is keeping socks that long, quite frankly.

 

[deacphan]

i get like 3 wears out of my socks before my lovely bride-to-be loses one from the hamper to my drawer.

 

[RollTheQuad06]

you throw away all your socks every year?

 

[vadimivich]

1929:

1938:

1940s:

1940s:

1949:

1950s:

1950s:

1954:

When we get to the 1960s we start seeing what vad is pointing out. "Classic" is really hard to define, but I think this demonstrates that "classic" isn't just the 1960s.

There's no question that from the 30s through the 60s you saw boxier, baggier fits. That was the first era of "off the rack" clothing instead of all men's wear being tailored and you got what was pretty ill fitting for most people. Most of the people you listed are wearing clothes that are grossly missized. Nobody looks back at the depression and war time eras as a height of fashion. In fact, it's generally considered one of the worst dressed times in history (for obvious reasons - depression and wars).

 

[vadimivich]

you throw away all your socks every year?

I mean, I don't buy socks in January and throw all of the ones I bought last January ... but I bet an average pair doesn't last more than 12 months. They get holes, they smell, one gets lost, etc. I try to keep a pretty solid rotation on socks and underwear. No sense in having ratty, nasty ones.

 

[DeacHoops]

No one is disagreeing with you on this, or arguing for high-waters.

Well fitting suits with pants that work with your body (slim if you are fit and athletic) and hemmed appropriately (i.e - right at the top of the shoe with slim pants) are a classic, timeless look - not a one-season trend. Who cares if you wear bright socks with them this year, and then dark ones next year? I'm hoping nobody is keeping socks that long, quite frankly.

deacphan was, i think. that's really who i was addressing with comments about high waters. he had linked the gq article that had the pictures below, and that was mostly what was in my mind while i was responding. in a professional environment, the classic rule is that your socks match your pants, and i'm arguing that the classic rule is that your pants break in the front. deacphan was advocating for this guy:

 

[HeavyPetter]

Baggy clothing and Zoot Suits generally went out of fashion in 1940 when fabric was needed for the war effort as well.

 

[RollTheQuad06]

I mean, I don't buy socks in January and throw all of the ones I bought last January ... but I bet an average pair doesn't last more than 12 months. They get holes, they smell, one gets lost, etc. I try to keep a pretty solid rotation on socks and underwear. No sense in having ratty, nasty ones.

I suppose it has been a long time since I've worn socks daily, so perhaps they wear out for men more than I'm imagining. Aside from exercise/running socks I can go months in the summer without ever wearing socks. In the winter it's more often with boots entering the shoe rotation. I suppose I'm lucky if a pair of tights or hose lasts 5 wears without getting a snag. But I probably have decade-old socks that aren't smelly or ratty or missing a partner. I never lose socks.

 

[davejuice]

feel sorry for that dudes junk

 

[wfudkn]

Nothing wrong at all with adding a little flavor with colored socks. Today I have on blue and yellow stripes. Monday was multi-toned purple stripes.

 

[leftcoastdeac]

Nothing wrong at all with adding a little flavor with colored socks. Today I have on blue and yellow stripes. Monday was multi-toned purple stripes.

Mixing it up with the socks is a great way to way to incorporate a little GTH in your wardrobe.

 

[awakeandready]

What is a "break" in pants?


My dad loves crazy socks. He's a college professor though so he can pretty much wear whatever.

 

[avalon]

My coworkers when I worked in a company in NYC used to spend a decent amount of time discussing men's fashion in terms of what they would wear to work. It is so detailed. I picked up none of it and can't speak to men's fashion at all. But I can say, based on a specific director at that company, that, just because a tie is expensive, doesn't make it fashionable. (Or something that any adult should be wearing to a business meeting, for that matter.) Money doesn't make up for taste.

 

[DeaconPeach]

deacphan was, i think. that's really who i was addressing with comments about high waters. he had linked the gq article that had the pictures below, and that was mostly what was in my mind while i was responding. in a professional environment, the classic rule is that your socks match your pants, and i'm arguing that the classic rule is that your pants break in the front. deacphan was advocating for this guy:

Now THAT is an ill-fitting suit IMO.

 

[DeacHoops]

What is a "break" in pants?


My dad loves crazy socks. He's a college professor though so he can pretty much wear whatever.

in front, if your pants hit the top of your shoes, the crease down the front of your pants will kind of bend to the side, if that makes any sense. if your pants are too short, they don't do this, because there's no contact with your shoes. this doesn't usually matter for girls because we're often in heels (and if we're in flats, they usually don't have a terribly thick sole to them, so you can't have pants that long or you're stepping on them).

 

[lbE08]

What is a "break" in pants?


My dad loves crazy socks. He's a college professor though so he can pretty much wear whatever.

unobstructed pants would hang down like a curtain on a rod, just straight. A break is once they've hit the top of your shoe, the crease there at the shoe- like puddling on a curtain that's hit the floor- that's the break. Depending on length of the pant, it will be more or less harsh.