Not a bad article.  Rare for Esquire, where God-awful, unreadable sh!t is the norm.

It's interesting that restraint in attire is preached by someone I usually seen photographed in somewhat shocking and colorful old world clothes. Also interesting the reference to that essay by or about that guy's father with the "white against the face" and "turtleneck is best" rules as if they were ever universal. There are so many times when white against the face is a bad idea particularly if you are pale o dont bake yourself in the sun or tanning beds. Sounds like some of the thought generates from a very small gene pool.


Never bad to see someone's revelation that dressing well gets you treated better. Something not touched on is the idea that there are young and old looks, or 1930s or 1960s looks without the eye opener that there might be your own look using contemporary touches. For instance, going for a 1960s lapel because it looks younger now, just puts you in a class that identifies that as younger but it may not express it as well as concentrating on what choices make you look unique. After all, youre just choosing an item for the association you think it has on others without regard to the result it might create for yourself. Isnt that along the lines of "everyone is doing it", just like at Old Navy?


Considering people in the 30s and 60s had their own novel look and didnt look backwards, when did expressing everything in terms of a past decade start, the 80s? Along with new athletes always being compared to a past great, it seems like this is a cop out for coming up with new language or looks. Being in the current decade and longing to look like the 30s or 60s may be akin to being in the 30s and yearning to look like the 1880s which wouldve caused most people to think yuo were odd then.