Dressing better

[kidposite]

realistically how many wears can you get out of a suit before the pants are shot?

 

[MileHighRoots]

I remember a bunch of people asking about the Nike Janoski White perforated boat shoes awhile back and wanted to give you a heads up that Converse is releasing a similar shoe at only $55. I haven't seen it at Converse.com yet but you can probably find them at local skate shops.

http://www.nicekicks.com/...-star-ii-ox-black-white/

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by solesavage

Who is mad? lol It was a simple question, I even threw a compliment at him. I'm just confused as hell how hard you're defending him like im attacking him in anyway shape or form.

You brought up the slim fit observation(Beckhams suit), which to me is categorized as the style of the suit. Right? Therefor, im simply saying that the style has nothing to do with my question towards Nii.

It aint even a big deal, you came in here like I was attacking him. Captain Save A Nii.

Next time I ask Nii a question i'll be sure to include your name as well.

Dude, did you read my first response?

RFX45 wrote:

---

solesavage wrote:

---

---

niidawg- Can you breathe in your suits/attire? I swear from the pics you look crazy uncomfortable. Serious question. 

Really? Nii looks very comfortable in his suits, never constricting at all.
I mean seriously, you take that as defending him hard? I posted one sentence and then you go on with a jab on "are you his stylist/tailor?" 
Then when I say to defend my statement with facts from the pics I've seen, all you can come up with is you asked him, not anyone else.

And when I mentioned Beckhams slim fit suit, as in it fits slim. There are some pulling on that fit, simple as that, a sign that it might be too tight, too slim. 

It has nothing to do with style, it is not a style to have some excessive pulling on your suit, it is just a sign of an ill-fitting suit.

And you keep mentioning you only asked Nii, again PM the dude if you don't want anyone else voicing their opinion. 

But whatever dude, you'll probably come back with another version of "I asked Nii, not you" or "stop protecting Nii" defense so enjoy.

This is why a simple and civil discussion on NT rarely happens, people automatically thinks someone is attacking or defending someone.

I simply stated my opinions on what I see, it's a discussion. I never said you attacked him, I never said Nii could do no wrong.

I pointed out why he looked comfortable and all that you get in return is "I didn't ask you! Why you defending him?" instead of an actual defense on the original statement. 

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by kidposite

realistically how many wears can you get out of a suit before the pants are shot?

It depends on how you use  the suit and the quality of the suit. With proper care of a well made suit, it can last a while. 

 

[niidawg3]

okay okay okay guys ... lol. 
solesavage: my suits are neither uncomfortable or tight fitting. i am not a skinny dude, so i dont expect to look like a 36 or 38R. i guess RFX's point is valid ... there is no way i would wear uncomfortable suits just for the sake of looking good even one day ... what more 4 days a week. 

appreciate the feedback though

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by hella handsome

Nice jacket, but the outfit is garbage.

Some of you speak out against Jordans/SB's because they are clunky or not low profile enough, yet give

, to these Vans x Military boot collaboration type shoes.

What's the point of wearing skinny jeans, if you are going to have them at that length only for them to bunch up below the knee and above the ankle:

It's funny if dude would post a pic rocking a tall tee he would get blasted to Bolivia, yet this dude wears a long tank top (

).  He looks like the girls walking around campus with leggings and a long tank top to cover their butts.

If you like the Jacket, fine, it's the only piece that works.

 

[solesavage]

Originally Posted by niidawg3

okay okay okay guys ... lol. 
solesavage: my suits are neither uncomfortable or tight fitting. i am not a skinny dude, so i dont expect to look like a 36 or 38R. i guess RFX's point is valid ... there is no way i would wear uncomfortable suits just for the sake of looking good even one day ... what more 4 days a week. 

appreciate the feedback though

I work with guys who buy suits that fit snug and admit to feeling uncomfortable just because they prefer that look.

 

[niidawg3]

Originally Posted by solesavage

Originally Posted by niidawg3

okay okay okay guys ... lol. 
solesavage: my suits are neither uncomfortable or tight fitting. i am not a skinny dude, so i dont expect to look like a 36 or 38R. i guess RFX's point is valid ... there is no way i would wear uncomfortable suits just for the sake of looking good even one day ... what more 4 days a week. 

appreciate the feedback though

I work with guys who buy suits that fit snug and admit to feeling uncomfortable just because they prefer that look.

they are trying to achieve a look the wrong way. slim fitting does not mean tight fitting. 
slim is a perception created primarily by the circumference of the sleeves, waist suppression of the jacket and the slimness of the pants. these are hardly the areas that create the appropriate range of motion to make a suit comfortable or otherwise: armholes of the jacket, roominess of the chest, rise of the pants etc.  

 

[rfx45]

The stacking is part of the look, it is a classic Dior look, that is hwy Dior jeans are so famous for.
Jeans are meant to be stacked, they are not trousers that needs little to no break, generally some stacking looks great on jeans.

Just keep in mind, that is fashion, very forward and not traditional. When it comes to that, you have to look at it with an open eye.

The long tees, it's an aesthetic that goes with the look. It isn't a tall tee at all, it's a tee that drapes and aren't overly baggy, it is actually fitted and made long to provide some break between the top and the bottom.

The pants, again, it is meant to be stacked. They are not extra long to accommodate taller people, it is the look and aesthetic the designer is trying to accomplish.

The clunky sneakers, again it is completely different from ugly Vans that simply looks like crap on our feet. The KVAs looks much better and is meant to look bulky, again keep in mind this is a different aesthetic/style that are being conveyed in this thread, it is a fashion forward look.

If you look at it with an open mind and throw the classic, traditional style out of the window for a second, then everything does go well together. The tee and layering goes with the pants and shoe. Colors are coordinated and the jacket ties it all together. It is a badass look indeed.

 

[in yo nostril]

jeans are meant to be stacked like that? never knew that.

 

[tj detweiler]

He's not saying to that extreme, but in general.

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by In Yo Nostril

jeans are meant to be stacked like that? never knew that.

In general, yes, but like I said those pants are made to be stacked like that, as the designer intended. It's a fashion aesthetic where not every rules apply. It will definitely be a hated look in the NT community, like the goth ninja look. It isn't the norm and trust me, but there are a lot worst looks out there.

 

[hankmoody]

Originally Posted by RFX45

The stacking is part of the look, it is a classic Dior look, that is hwy Dior jeans are so famous for.
Jeans are meant to be stacked, they are not trousers that needs little to no break, generally some stacking looks great on jeans.

Just keep in mind, that is fashion, very forward and not traditional. When it comes to that, you have to look at it with an open eye.

The long tees, it's an aesthetic that goes with the look. It isn't a tall tee at all, it's a tee that drapes and aren't overly baggy, it is actually fitted and made long to provide some break between the top and the bottom.

The pants, again, it is meant to be stacked. They are not extra long to accommodate taller people, it is the look and aesthetic the designer is trying to accomplish.

The clunky sneakers, again it is completely different from ugly Vans that simply looks like crap on our feet. The KVAs looks much better and is meant to look bulky, again keep in mind this is a different aesthetic/style that are being conveyed in this thread, it is a fashion forward look.

If you look at it with an open mind and throw the classic, traditional style out of the window for a second, then everything does go well together. The tee and layering goes with the pants and shoe. Colors are coordinated and the jacket ties it all together. It is a badass look indeed.

Fox News-esque spin.

Don't care if Versace rose from the dead and cosigned that look... looks terrible to me. Makes a person look very short. Guess that is the aestethic beauty of it...

 

[ooiron manoo]

Just keep in mind, that is fashion, very forward and not traditional. When it comes to that, you have to look at it with an open eye.
This statement is filled with hypocrisy, not just from you but from the fashion community as a whole.

What is looked at with an "open eye" is subjective and not really "open" at all.

Jeans are meant to be stacked, they are not trousers that needs little to no break, generally some stacking looks great on jeans.
I agree, but that is not "some" stacking on those jeans.  It's excessive.

The long tees, it's an aesthetic that goes with the look. It isn't a tall tee at all, it's a tee that drapes and aren't overly baggy, it is actually fitted and made long to provide some break between the top and the bottom.
How could you tell it's fitted, when it's under a jacket and all we really see it's the excessive length of the garment.

The clunky sneakers, again it is completely different from ugly Vans that simply looks like crap on our feet. The KVAs looks much better and is meant to look bulky, again keep in mind this is a different aesthetic/style that are being conveyed in this thread, it is a fashion forward look.
I understand Van's are ugly to the fashion community because they are under $100.  Vans that are $45 are

, yet LV's that look eerily similar to Vans or Converse (How's that for originality) are

.

"Meant" to look bulky-

Well, if it is fashion forward it doesn't belong here.  It's a "Dressing Better" thread, not a "Fashion Forward"/ "Hipster Mannequin" thread.

The fashion community has lambasted and always looked at urban attire with a stink eye at the same time taking "inspiration" from it, flipping it and using it in their "fashion forward" designs.

Just like urban attire has a place in WDYWT, that outfit has a place and it's not here.

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by HankMoody

Originally Posted by RFX45

 Fox News-esque spin.

Don't care if Versace rose from the dead and cosigned that look... looks terrible to me. Makes a person look very short. Guess that is the aestethic beauty of it...

Understandable. 

But dude is like 6'2"-6'3", it would do well to make himself look a bit shorter. He doesn't look ****** short in the pic though.

Again, it's a look that NT isn't familiar with. If you can go back to the beginning of this thread, you can actually see the evolution of the looks being particularly accepted on NT, the whole fitted look was frowned upon, deemed uncomfortable. A lot were still wearing baggy chinos with long polos as their dressy option. Now everyone is looking for some fitted pants/chinos/slacks and shirts. So NT did change, their frame of mind when it comes to clothes has moved away from Sean John and Phat Farm to J. Crew and Brooks Brothers.

NT just isn't ready to make that huge leap yet, probably never will. Well until Kanye or Jay-Z starts dressing that way at least. 

 

[oidreez]

Originally Posted by RFX45

The stacking is part of the look, it is a classic Dior look, that is hwy Dior jeans are so famous for.
Jeans are meant to be stacked, they are not trousers that needs little to no break, generally some stacking looks great on jeans.

Just keep in mind, that is fashion, very forward and not traditional. When it comes to that, you have to look at it with an open eye.

The long tees, it's an aesthetic that goes with the look. It isn't a tall tee at all, it's a tee that drapes and aren't overly baggy, it is actually fitted and made long to provide some break between the top and the bottom.

The pants, again, it is meant to be stacked. They are not extra long to accommodate taller people, it is the look and aesthetic the designer is trying to accomplish.

The clunky sneakers, again it is completely different from ugly Vans that simply looks like crap on our feet. The KVAs looks much better and is meant to look bulky, again keep in mind this is a different aesthetic/style that are being conveyed in this thread, it is a fashion forward look.

If you look at it with an open mind and throw the classic, traditional style out of the window for a second, then everything does go well together. The tee and layering goes with the pants and shoe. Colors are coordinated and the jacket ties it all together. It is a badass look indeed.

 im sorry but that look is not whats good. 

 

[rfx45]

ooIRON MANoo wrote:

Jeans are meant to be stacked, they are not trousers that needs little to no break, generally some stacking looks great on jeans.
I agree, but that is not "some" stacking on those jeans.  It's excessive.

It is excessive, but excessive on purpose. It's how the designer made it, check out the runway looks of the designer.

ooIRON MANoo wrote:

---

How could you tell it's fitted, when it's under a jacket and all we really see it's the excessive length of the garment.

I know the brand, seen it and felt it. it isn't some stiff cardboard like tall tee from footaction, it drapes and very soft and yes, it is fitted. A lot of brands are doing this, Rick Owens, Silent, Ann D., etc...

ooIRON MANoo wrote:

---

The clunky sneakers, again it is completely different from ugly Vans that simply looks like crap on our feet. The KVAs looks much better and is meant to look bulky, again keep in mind this is a different aesthetic/style that are being conveyed in this thread, it is a fashion forward look.
I understand Van's are ugly to the fashion community because they are under $100.  Vans that are $45 are 

, yet LV's that look eerily similar to Vans or Converse (How's that for originality) are 

.


Nah, that is an over exxageration. Vans does look horrible for the most part, if those KVA looked anything like Vans, I'd bash on it like I do with Vans. It's not the price. 
Not every LV sneakers look good, actually about 1 out of 10 only looks good. In the end, it is subjective when it comes to looks but I do not judge by the price.

I may buy Lanvin and Margiela but I also buy Jack Purcells and Adidas, it is about what looks good in the context of the look you are trying to achieve.

Although I feel Vans looks ugly, it can work fro that Cali skater look, just the same way those KVAs works int hat cotnext, I personally wouldn't work it because it won't work with my aesthetic.

Show me the LV that I specifically looks like Chucks or Vans. I could only think of the Punchy looking like chucks but even that is a bit of a reach. Huge distinct differences in each.

ooIRON MANoo wrote:

---

"Meant" to look bulky- 

It is, why is it so hard to understand. People really need to step out of the NT comfort zone, there are these people and just because they do not stick to the traditional look doesn't make it look bad or wrong. You don't like it, it's all good, but it really isn't a big deal to call it hypocritical. Fashion evolves and recycles. Some of these udnerground looks surface and when people aren't used to it, then they deem it unattractive and nothign wrong with that but these are how some designer make their stuff, the same way Ecko and Sean John are meant to be worn baggy, that is their aesthetic, you aren't going to see skin tight Fubu jeans. 

ooIRON MANoo wrote:

---

Well, if it is fashion forward it doesn't belong here.  It's a "Dressing Better" thread, not a "Fashion Forward"/ "Hipster Mannequin" thread.

The fashion community has lambasted and always looked at urban attire with a stink eye at the same time taking "inspiration" from it, flipping it and using it in their "fashion forward" designs.

Just like urban attire has a place in WDYWT, that outfit has a place and it's not here.

This really make sno sense, no offense. I mean you are saying urban fashion has a palce here while those more fashion forward look isn't? The two are the extremes of each other with this thread being the medium, the middle point. You're saying wearing Phat Farm jeans with Ecko polo that are 3-4 times too big has a place in this thread but the look that was posted isn't? 
Fashion is a broad universe, people just aren't exposed to everything either by their location of the sites they visit. And I think there are room for both but it is completely understandable if that never happens.

ooIRON MANoo wrote:

---

Just keep in mind, that is fashion, very forward and not traditional. When it comes to that, you have to look at it with an open eye.

This statement is filled with hypocrisy, not just from you but from the fashion community as a whole.

What is looked at with an "open eye" is subjective and not really "open" at all.

To be honest, you're the one who just doesn't have an open mind. Like I said, it is completely understandable to hate the look but to call hypocrisy to the people who like it because it doesn't conform to the traditional look? That is as being close minded as it can be, you dismissed it before knowing anything about the look and hated it right away.
And you call me a hypocrite? Why? Because I like the look? I never said to anyone to wear this, it'll give you +100 swag. 

I simply liked the look, I would not wear anything like that but I like it. 

So why am I the hypocrite? I didn't even post the pics, I simply tried to explain why the look is a certain way, how it breaks the rules and even admitted that it isn't a traditional look. Educate those who cares to learn and not simply dismiss it. I never said "post more of this pic so people dress these way", I was labeled a hypocrite because I see nothing wrong with the look. 

 

[rfx45]

 

[omgitswes]

Don't think I've been in here in a while, don't really have a reason to now that it's getting hot.
Still wanting that TOJ bomber.

 

[deepinthajeep]

Yea, that suit Becks had on was cold.

 

[its that dude]

iron man don't even wear nothing but sneakers

why you arguin with him

 

[rfx45]

To be honest, I am not arguing, just discussing. No grudge or anger on my end.
This is actually interesting to me so as long as it can stay civil and within the rules, then it's all good.
It may not seem like it, but I am open to peoples opinion, just be prepare to get some rebuttal.

 

[rfx45]

Originally Posted by oidreez

Originally Posted by RFX45

 im sorry but that look is not whats good. 

I'm just sayign why I liked it and what worked. 
Completely understandable why NT would hate it.

But really....

 

[ooiron manoo]

Originally Posted by Its That Dude

iron man don't even wear nothing but sneakers

why you arguin with him

Sadly, I only wear sneakers about 2-3 times a week.  Most of my kicks are collecting dust, been contemplating selling them

I know the brand, seen it and felt it. it isn't some stiff cardboard like tall tee from footaction, it drapes and very soft and yes, it is fitted. A lot of brands are doing this, Rick Owens, Silent, Ann D., etc...
Designer brands.

Nah, that is an over exxageration. Vans does look horrible for the most part, if those KVA looked anything like Vans, I'd bash on it like I do with Vans. It's not the price. 
Not every LV sneakers look good, actually about 1 out of 10 only looks good. In the end, it is subjective when it comes to looks but I do not judge by the price.

I may buy Lanvin and Margiela but I also buy Jack Purcells and Adidas, it is about what looks good in the context of the look you are trying to achieve.

Although I feel Vans looks ugly, it can work fro that Cali skater look, just the same way those KVAs works int hat cotnext, I personally wouldn't work it because it won't work with my aesthetic.

It's fine if Van's are ugly to you.  They are an inexpensive, simple, low profile piece of footwear.  A staple in a lot of rotations.  They don't look ugly on "our" feet, they look ugly on "your" feet.  Don't get mad because I pointed out the elitist tone in your statement.

Show me the LV that I specifically looks like Chucks or Vans. I could only think of the Punchy looking like chucks but even that is a bit of a reach. Huge distinct differences in each.

I could, but don't want to go through the entire High End Designer footwear thread.  While they are not exactly similar (some are), you can definitely see where designers stole their "inspiration" that you pay dearly for.

It is, why is it so hard to understand. People really need to step out of the NT comfort zone, there are these people and just because they do not stick to the traditional look doesn't make it look bad or wrong. You don't like it, it's all good, but it really isn't a big deal to call it hypocritical. Fashion evolves and recycles. Some of these udnerground looks surface and when people aren't used to it, then they deem it unattractive and nothign wrong with that but these are how some designer make their stuff, the same way Ecko and Sean John are meant to be worn baggy, that is their aesthetic, you aren't going to see skin tight Fubu jeans.
You don't even know my comfort zone.  I don't even know what you mean by "traditional look", is it urban? office? 50's? 60's?

So because I think it's a bad look, I'm not open or I need to step out of my comfort zone.

This really make sno sense, no offense. I mean you are saying urban fashion has a palce here while those more fashion forward look isn't? The two are the extremes of each other with this thread being the medium, the middle point. You're saying wearing Phat Farm jeans with Ecko polo that are 3-4 times too big has a place in this thread but the look that was posted isn't? 
Negative, I pointed it out because anytime dudes post an outfit with sneakers on they get blasted and sent back to WDYWT. 

I don't know what page it is because it happened long ago, and it happened to a former member that became a staple in this thread.  One of the first fits ksteezy posted was one where he was wearing a pair of foamposites.  He was blasted in this thread, even though he had a clean outfit.  Regulars in this thread (not saying you) stated, there is a place for that and it is in the WDYWT.  Luckily, he came back and became a contributing member.

To be honest, you're the one who just doesn't have an open mind. Like I said, it is completely understandable to hate the look but to call hypocrisy to the people who like it because it doesn't conform to the traditional look? That is as being close minded as it can be, you dismissed it before knowing anything about the look and hated it right away.
And you call me a hypocrite? Why? Because I like the look? I never said to anyone to wear this, it'll give you +100 swag. 

I simply liked the look, I would not wear anything like that but I like it. 
So why am I the hypocrite? I didn't even post the pics, I simply tried to explain why the look is a certain way, how it breaks the rules and even admitted that it isn't a traditional look. Educate those who cares to learn and not simply dismiss it. I never said "post more of this pic so people dress these way", I was labeled a hypocrite because I see nothing wrong with the look.


First of all, I didn't call you a hypocrite, I said the statement you used is filled with hypocrisy.  It is a cop out.

You're entire defense is "be open", it's "underground", the only reason you don't like it is because it is out of "NT's comfort zone".

It's just a bad outfit.  Just like tall tees and baggy jeans are bad outfits.

I'm not going off on a tangent defending awful outfits and deflecting criticism of said outfit by telling people they are not open minded (

).

I gave you the

for the "meant" to be bulky because those shoes are bulky, simple as that.  I've followed this thread enough to get familiar with regulars, and one thing you admire is low profile, good looking sneakers.  You've made comments against wearing Jordans because they are bulky, even a pair like the III's or V's, yet these designer shoes get a pass because they are "meant" to be bulky...

Fashion is a broad universe, people just aren't exposed to everything either by their location of the sites they visit. And I think there are room for both but it is completely understandable if that never happens
We live in the same location bro, what you see, I see.  Some just don't have to look at a label to make a decision on a bad outfit.

-Those jeans get a pass because they are Diors
-Those shoes get a pass because they are KVA's
- Those excessively long and stacked tank tops under a leather jacket get a pass because they are designer.

Some people see fashion, some people see labels.  It is what it is.

Completely understandable why NT would hate it.
You are generalizing, not everyone on NT has the same style or fashion sense.

To be honest, I am not arguing, just discussing. No grudge or anger on my end.
This is actually interesting to me so as long as it can stay civil and within the rules, then it's all good.
It may not seem like it, but I am open to peoples opinion, just be prepare to get some rebuttal.
Same.

 

[eebs7eez]

damn, used to enjoy this thread...