• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Pit Fashion Thread

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).

The 1950s are hardly the war years or depression. In fact part of the reason the suits got bigger is because war rationing had ended and people could afford more fabric. Most of the pictures I posted are of high wealth individuals as well.

I am not saying I like all of those styles, I am just saying that looking at one decade and proclaiming that it is THE classic look is disingenuous.
 
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).

The 1950s are hardly the war years or depression. In fact part of the reason the suits got bigger is because war rationing had ended and people could afford more fabric. Most of the pictures I posted are of high wealth individuals as well.

I am not saying I like all of those styles, I am just saying that looking at one decade and proclaiming that it is THE classic look is disingenuous.

I will throw some in from earlier times as well:
1919:
800px-Big_Four_29038u_original.jpg
(this is the big four at the signing of the treaty of Versailles)
1912:
389px-BenjaminSuitsNOLARiverfront1912.jpeg
I think this is more similar to the GQ ones, but this is a style I like more. Slim, well tailored etc. without looking like you are preparing for a flood.
1919:
Edward_Prince_of_Wales_in_Canada_1919.jpg
Edward Prince of Wales
1907:
474px-ChurchillGeorge0001.jpg


I think my overall point is that finding clothes that fit your body and having them well tailored=good looking. I think on a lot of people the short break, slim cut looks horrible because 1) they are wearing them in a traditional professional setting, not the time to be flashy and/or 2) it might be "high fashion" but it doesn't fit their body type at all and looks terrible. I have flat front, no cuff pants that are made to measure that I get compliments on all the time, but they also rest on my shoes with a break somewhere just short of a medium break.
 
Last edited:
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:

upgrade1-after.jpg


i also hedged and said they "over-styled" or something to prove the point. i said they should hit the top of the shoe. the fun socks will surely make their way to the south i have no doubt.
 
The 1950s are hardly the war years or depression. In fact part of the reason the suits got bigger is because war rationing had ended and people could afford more fabric. Most of the pictures I posted are of high wealth individuals as well.

I am not saying I like all of those styles, I am just saying that looking at one decade and proclaiming that it is THE classic look is disingenuous.

as is claiming that a shitty era of fashion from the last 20 years is "classic."
 
Ahh gotcha. So full or other descriptors of break just indicate how much it's wrinkling up. Thanks!


I know very little about women's fashion and nothing about men's. HTTD and I both work at fairly casual dressing jobs. I wear dress pants maybe once every 2 months.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, my original point was just that, in a stodgy business setting, i don't want some crusty old partner raising eyebrows about how I dress. So even though I'd like to pull off a tapered pant, provided I had less meat on my legs, I'm still going to dress to a professional standard set by my elders while I'm a junior associate. Maybe that's a bitch move, but i'm just risk averse.
 
Last edited:
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:

upgrade1-after.jpg

I'm all for the slim fit not skinny, especially with jeans, but it looks like if this guy sat down his nuts would explode. This picture is actually pretty fucking hilarious.
 
Honestly, my original point was just that, in a stodgy business setting, i don't want some crusty old partner raising eyebrows about how I dress. So even though I'd like to pull off a tapered pant, provided I had less meat on my legs, I'm still going to dress to a professional standard set by my elders while I'm a junior associate. Maybe that's a bitch move, but i'm just risk averse.

I really think it depends. I've worked in two very large firms in my career and it's never been an issue at either. There are plenty of junior associates (and I was one of them) who would dress much less conservative than the old guard partners. As long as you look nice (and, more importantly, do good work), you are going to get respected. I haven't seen anyone dictate personal style as long as it meets the definition of business/business casual.
 
Honestly, my original point was just that, in a stodgy business setting, i don't want some crusty old partner raising eyebrows about how I dress. So even though I'd like to pull off a tapered pant, provided I had less meat on my legs, I'm still going to dress to a professional standard set by my elders while I'm a junior associate. Maybe that's a bitch move, but i'm just risk averse.

what would Harvey Specter do?
 
Aight so I bought a navy suit for a wedding and I'm using it as an excuse to buy another tie and shoes. And maybe another shirt but I doubt I'd be able to get it ready in time. So, what should I get to go with it? I'm going to use this is as a game and I'll take one suggestion and follow through with it.

Suit is about this color:

daniel_radcliffe_blue_suit_and.jpg
 
got my red 511 cords last week, and i've been wearing the hell out of them. look MONTE with my jean jacket.
 
oh I forgot....I tried to get a slight-to-medium break on my suit pants and the tailor kept wanting to convince me to get a full break. I finally gave up and got them to settle on a medium. Whatever.
 
jdawg, i'm a big fan of yellow tie/pocket square, light blue shirt, and suede oxfords with a navy suit for a nice but not work dressy look. i'm also light brown hair/blue eyes, so it goes well with my complexion.
 
I have blonde hair/blue eyes and a beard that can't decide what color it wants to be, its a darker blonde I guess.
 
jdawg, i'm a big fan of yellow tie/pocket square, light blue shirt, and suede oxfords with a navy suit for a nice but not work dressy look. i'm also light brown hair/blue eyes, so it goes well with my complexion.

i love yellow and navy! i vote this too.
 
this is pretty much exactly what i plan to wear for my wedding but 3-piece suit instead.
 
Back
Top