Film Noir Buff wrote:

Junior Astaire wrote:

A man should be able to choose his own shirts:


http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.ph … ost3195723

A man should be able to do a lot of things, including back up his threats.

Did he ever post the rest of of his Rubinacci collection? I've been awaiting that spectacle eagerly.

This guy is still learning his reading and writing fundamentals. Like dogs walking on their hind legs, it's amazing that he manages to post at all.

I was wondering why he always discusses people drinking their own pee. It looks like he peed in his own khakis.


http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … ount=10839

Cruz Diez wrote:

tteplitzmd wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

A man should be able to do a lot of things, including back up his threats.

Did he ever post the rest of of his Rubinacci collection? I've been awaiting that spectacle eagerly.

This guy is still learning his reading and writing fundamentals. Like dogs walking on their hind legs, it's amazing that he manages to post at all.

Why is the model and maker of his sofa pertinent, anyway?

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … stcount=17

Another Veblen good?

You are correct, Cruz Diez. His Baker furniture is consistent with his provincial antebellum worldview.  Clearly he didn't get guidance on his furniture from Super Mariano. Ask me about my Poltrona Frau leather furniture, and I don't even patronize London House.

tteplitzmd wrote:

Cruz Diez wrote:

tteplitzmd wrote:

This guy is still learning his reading and writing fundamentals. Like dogs walking on their hind legs, it's amazing that he manages to post at all.

Why is the model and maker of his sofa pertinent, anyway?

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … stcount=17

Another Veblen good?

You are correct, Cruz Diez. His Baker furniture is consistent with his provincial antebellum worldview.  Clearly he didn't get guidance on his furniture from Super Mariano. Ask me about my Poltrona Frau leather furniture, and I don't even patronize London House.

George may not have nailed down some basics on clothes and tailoring exactly right yet but he summed up the thread rather well:

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … stcount=54

Although on second thought... the fabrics posted aren't nothing to write home about.

Cruz Diez wrote:

George may not have nailed down some basics on clothes and tailoring exactly right yet but he summed up the thread rather well:

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … stcount=54

Although on second thought... the fabrics posted aren't nothing to write home about.

George is right, it was all masturbation. Whnay had already decided on the linen fabric so nobody was going to change anything. It was just an attempt to get some discussion on Styleforum as he admits - http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … stcount=59. I have to say that getting people to post three numbers really isn't going to help.

Jeeves wrote:

Cruz Diez wrote:

George may not have nailed down some basics on clothes and tailoring exactly right yet but he summed up the thread rather well:

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … stcount=54

Although on second thought... the fabrics posted aren't nothing to write home about.

George is right, it was all masturbation.

Jeeves wrote:

Whnay had already decided on the linen fabric so nobody was going to change anything. It was just an attempt to get some discussion on Styleforum as he admits - http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … stcount=59. I have to say that getting people to post three numbers really isn't going to help.

I dunno, sometimes a short message can start a revolution

Tailoring Police wrote:

Such a gentleman.

Really? I think you are being all ironical like.

Nice shirt, wrong with the suit. Dull tie. Pocket handkerchief misses by miles. Suit looks cheap and the seam on the arm appears to be puckered in the photo. Shoes are a horrible colour, don't appear to be well cared for (although they are Shell Cordovan and therefore automatically wonderful) and the socks are tragic. Watch undistinguished, cufflinks unpolished and hat seems to be pure affectation given that it is neither sunny, rainy nor cold.

Also: no buttonholes on the cuff. I can't decide if I care, but the closeup sure made it obvious. Does his pocket square have a little truss going down the middle? Like to keep it from escaping?

He looks younger in a hat, for a very good reason.

Yanks though; why can't they lace their shoes proper, like what I do ?

Tailoring Police wrote:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9772/img0642w.jpg

The awkward pose is doing him no favours at all (some of the trads do similar poses, insecure and feminine). And yes, a pith helmet would make the outfit look more complete.

Colours in outfit are a real mismatch and some things are dowdy/frumpy.

Grossgrain Silk wrote:

Shoes are a horrible colour, don't appear to be well cared for (although they are Shell Cordovan and therefore automatically wonderful) .

The shoos aren't shell cordovan.

Last edited by The_Shooman (2010-05-10 22:35:58)

g- wrote:

The_Shooman wrote:

Tailoring Police wrote:

http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/9772/img0642w.jpg

The awkward pose is doing him no favours at all (some of the trads do similar poses, insecure and feminine). And yes, a pith helmet would make the outfit look more complete.

Colours in outfit are a real mismatch and some things are dowdy/frumpy.

Grossgrain Silk wrote:

Shoes are a horrible colour, don't appear to be well cared for (although they are Shell Cordovan and therefore automatically wonderful) .

The shoos aren't shell cordovan.

Shooey is correct, they are certainly not shell.

I believe the shoe's material is called "band-aid." One has to wonder why he's using brown athletic laces as well.

Now we know why Magritte used the apple.

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … stcount=50

Last edited by Tailoring Police (2010-05-13 08:52:55)

http://www.styleforum.net/showpost.php? … ount=11647

Real men wear pink?