Grossgrain Silk wrote:

Tailoring Police wrote:

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php?p=3251111&postcount=12193

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q143 … G_1217.jpg

That is truly disgusting, from the flash shoes to the blazer for which he is about 20 years too old. Not to mention the colours which almost match and not in a good way. He clearly thinks he has a huge dick and most of his acquaintances presumably think he is one.

Seersucker suit so I plead ignorance. Cap and bow tie do not help though.

Correction I imagined the bow tie. It is actually his collar in the other photos. He is not that old. He has a young child.

Last edited by Kingstonian (2010-05-25 11:40:23)

I think that guy in the piped blazer is the infamous "jumper"...

Kingstonian wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

He could be off to watch the cricket in that hat. Panama/straw hat on a sunny day looks OK. Blazer and club tie instead of the American stuff maybe.

I do think he can get away with his hats most of the time.

I like the avatar picture where he is holding the Falcon.

Most of his tastes are pretty standard American fare, or used to be. Unfortunately, many of his choices are down market enough to look cheap even in photos. The Hat does sort of catapult him into cos play. Cos play is huge now in the USA, and thus he can get away with it more than ever before.

I do not know enough about seersucker. I would not wear it myself. His shoes are fine. I doubt the jeans and T shirt crowd would say he looked 'cheap'. We need some perspective. In the Falcon photo looks old and serious to me. He has a youthful face which the hat helps. Sunshine and church attendance offer a reason/excuse to wear one. Not really costume like the Top Hat Kid from San Diego IMO. There are degrees of costume.

The t-shirt and jeans crowd wouldnt think he looked cheap because they'd be members of the "Standard American fare society". I dont know that a seersucker suit can look cheap because they are intrinsically so.  Actually the seersucker outfit is alright, most of his outfits I've seen are alright, they're just banal and cheap looking (or second rate quality) to me. On this outfit, the shoes look cheap nd the cufflinks not only look like rubbish but theyre white! points for french cuffs with a seersucker suit but they should be more colorful or interesting. That pocket square is too light and too hidden. It''s a seersucker jacket for gawd's sake, not a boardroom pin stripe. His fedoras usually knock the outfit into cos play.

The "top hat kid" wears clothes that were designed for formal purposes to diners which means he has no interest in clothes and a lot of interest in a bygone era. This guy wears mostly normal clothes in a plasticine kind of way. Maybe its simply an unfamiliarity with wearing them. But I wouldn't ever think what he was wearing was bizarre; it's just not excellent. As you mention, he might very well live in an area where even wearing a tie, let alone a jacket is a remarkable event.

Grossgrain Silk wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

Grossgrain Silk wrote:

That is truly disgusting, from the flash shoes to the blazer for which he is about 20 years too old. Not to mention the colours which almost match and not in a good way. He clearly thinks he has a huge dick and most of his acquaintances presumably think he is one.

Seersucker suit so I plead ignorance. Cap and bow tie do not help though.

Correction I imagined the bow tie. It is actually his collar in the other photos. He is not that old. He has a young child.

I have no problem with seersucker. It's the piping to which I take exception. And the shoes. And the colours.

It's true he has a young child, but one should leave piped blazers behind when one leaves school and not don them again until one has officially reached old fart status and goes in a launch at the boat race.

Larry King has young children too...

The obstacles most of these forum denizens have with getting dressed has remained constant. Knowing nothing, they believe it's all a subjective feeling-fest in which they can indulge their every whim and throw together, often for the first time in their lives, not basics but what they all consider the most stylish form an item can take( ie. cashmere ties, suede monk straps etc..). The result are the never ending parade of mish moshed tragedies we see on those WAYWRN threads. It is a pity that they dont do more research and figure out a goal. Some of these guys spend huge amounts of money flying to brand named tailoring shops or coming up with their own fantasy creations with mystery tailors but the result is often worse than if they just got something locally, ready made.

Clothing i simple on some levels and it's complex on others. I see many of these people counter-intuitively reversing the amounts of time they need to spend on each respective level.  Part of it I am certain is a form of ego, where they need to reinvent themselves as "to the manor born" which gets in the way of objective results. It is interesting too that most of them eschew "designers" as effeminate and wasteful of money but many of them follow dressing principals very similar to women and waste as much as if they bought cap a pie at versace.

Film Noir Buff wrote:

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php?p=3256498&postcount=12359

This is sort of a cool look. H looks like a member of a naval landing party from the film "The Sand Pebbles". All he needs is a BAR.

Teachers never used to have tattoos in my school. Ranger seems to have increased the number of tattoos he has. You could be turned down to serve in the police force in the UK if you had tattoos. That has probably gone along with the minimum height requirement.

Somebody should invent a trad tattoo - only known to members of skull and bones. See if anyone bites. Maybe not. Scar someone for life with an internet prank.

Big Tony wrote:

I think that guy in the piped blazer is the infamous "jumper"...

Skippy!

http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.ph … ost3258542

heikki k wrote:

what is this THING on his lapel? scary!

i think its the cocoon for the thing on Tailoring Police's profile picture. at any moment it will hatch out and eat his head, ruining the light colored jacket in the process.

Grossgrain Silk wrote:

I believe it to be his testicle holder. And there they are - dangling from it.

Yeah, a dried up mushroom with two testicles hanging from his lapel.

The man in the yellow pants is back.

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … ount=12463

Tailoring Police wrote:

The man in the yellow pants is back.

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … ount=12463


http://i706.photobucket.com/albums/ww61 … C03047.jpg

It's a good thing he is standing in front of a yellow wall or we might never notice the subtle beauty of those pants.

Tailoring Police wrote:

The man in the yellow pants is back.

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … ount=12463

If the shirt was "bigger" it the overall outfit would look much better. He's fallen into the usual iGent trap of de-emphasizing his upper body to the point of promoting feminine proportions. Men should be have larger upper bodies, and if they don't they should wear clothes that make them look like they have larger upper bodies.

Kingstonian wrote:

Colourful trahseez but a shame he could not afford socks to go with them.

How do you know he's not wearing socks?

Kingstonian wrote:

Big Tony wrote:

Kingstonian wrote:

Colourful trahseez but a shame he could not afford socks to go with them.

How do you know he's not wearing socks?

His leg is exposed in the photo where he is seated. If he is wearing socks they do not cover the gap between boot and trouser.

He looks like an outsider trying to replicate 80s prep. Even the way he is standing is wrong. He would probably be turned away at the Marina for trousers unbecoming a gentleman.