gqfashion:

Menswear Trends from Vegas: Tennis Whites

So basically the new trend in menswear is the stuff that I wore in my first year of university — lame.

gqfashion:

Menswear Trends from Vegas: Tennis Whites

So basically the new trend in menswear is the stuff that I wore in my first year of university — lame.

via gqfashion
No, no one “needs” these pants. These pants combine two of the most horrific developments in men’s fashion — cargo shorts and “zipper legs” — and attempt to sell them as neo-prep when they’re pure Juggalo.

No, no one “needs” these pants. These pants combine two of the most horrific developments in men’s fashion — cargo shorts and “zipper legs” — and attempt to sell them as neo-prep when they’re pure Juggalo.

fuckyeahshortguys:

Johnny Galecki- 5’5”

This image is absolutely tragic. A short celebrity, obviously dressed by a stylist (albeit an absolutely clueless one), wearing a sample suit that is much too large for him, thus making him look much shorter. Either that, or the Big Bang Theory isn’t paying this guy and he was reducing to buying a terrible off-the-rack suit from Men’s Warehouse. However, Galecki is not alone, as most short men don’t know how a suit is supposed to fit and often end up wearing “regular” sized suits that are much too large for them.
With his arms at this position, the sleeve hems should end at the wrist bone. There’s about two, maybe even two and a half, inches of excess fabric there. He would appear much taller if the length was correct. If you’re a short guy, above all else, you want to make certain that your sleeve length is correct. Otherwise you’ll look like a kid wearing a suit that he’s supposed to “grow into.”
While the length of the jacket itself is about right, the width of the shoulders is much too large. Notice the sharp angle at the shoulders. This is caused by the shoulder pads extending beyond the end of his shoulder. This can usually be solved by removing the pads, but ideally you want to pads to end where your shoulders end.
The shoulders are the first tell-tale sign that he’s wearing a designer’s sample intended for a much taller and rakish model. The second is the fact that he had the jacket completely unbuttoned, because he appears to have a bit of a gut going on. 
The next tell-tale sign that working on the Big Bang Theory doesn’t pay is that it appears Galecki ran to the premiere after getting off of his day job as a painter, because he still has a hideous pair of boots on and neglected to tuck in his shirt. 
While it might be a consequence of his ugly-ass boots, the “break” in his pants is actually a mound of gathered fabric. The break refers to the point where the pant legs and your shoes meet, which should leave nothing more than a “wrinkle” at this angle. While it’s entirely possible that his pants are hammed correctly for actual shoes, it’s also possible that he’s wearing pants that are just too long. Either way, the gathering points to the latter, which makes him look even shorter his 5’ 5”. 
Short cut suits are very difficult to find at any price point. And often when you do find them, they’re cut for overweight men. While made-to-measure suits are coming down in price every few months thanks to increased competition, advances in manufacturing technology and cheap labour in China, odds are that unless you have the money for a Ralph Lauren Black Label suit (the best off-the-rack short cuts, hands down) you’re going to need to find a close regular fit off-the-rack and then take it to a tailor to make the necessary alterations.
Regular cuts are made for men 5’ 9” to 6’ 3”, however if you’re just shy of average height some regular cuts might fit your body very well. I’m 5’ 7” and 36R jackets from H&M, Mexx, Banana Republic & Ralph Lauren Black Label fit me better than short cuts from Hugo Boss, Brooks Brothers, Calvin Klein and just about every short cut at chain suit stores.  

fuckyeahshortguys:

Johnny Galecki- 5’5”

This image is absolutely tragic. A short celebrity, obviously dressed by a stylist (albeit an absolutely clueless one), wearing a sample suit that is much too large for him, thus making him look much shorter. Either that, or the Big Bang Theory isn’t paying this guy and he was reducing to buying a terrible off-the-rack suit from Men’s Warehouse. However, Galecki is not alone, as most short men don’t know how a suit is supposed to fit and often end up wearing “regular” sized suits that are much too large for them.

With his arms at this position, the sleeve hems should end at the wrist bone. There’s about two, maybe even two and a half, inches of excess fabric there. He would appear much taller if the length was correct. If you’re a short guy, above all else, you want to make certain that your sleeve length is correct. Otherwise you’ll look like a kid wearing a suit that he’s supposed to “grow into.”

While the length of the jacket itself is about right, the width of the shoulders is much too large. Notice the sharp angle at the shoulders. This is caused by the shoulder pads extending beyond the end of his shoulder. This can usually be solved by removing the pads, but ideally you want to pads to end where your shoulders end.

The shoulders are the first tell-tale sign that he’s wearing a designer’s sample intended for a much taller and rakish model. The second is the fact that he had the jacket completely unbuttoned, because he appears to have a bit of a gut going on. 

The next tell-tale sign that working on the Big Bang Theory doesn’t pay is that it appears Galecki ran to the premiere after getting off of his day job as a painter, because he still has a hideous pair of boots on and neglected to tuck in his shirt. 

While it might be a consequence of his ugly-ass boots, the “break” in his pants is actually a mound of gathered fabric. The break refers to the point where the pant legs and your shoes meet, which should leave nothing more than a “wrinkle” at this angle. While it’s entirely possible that his pants are hammed correctly for actual shoes, it’s also possible that he’s wearing pants that are just too long. Either way, the gathering points to the latter, which makes him look even shorter his 5’ 5”. 

Short cut suits are very difficult to find at any price point. And often when you do find them, they’re cut for overweight men. While made-to-measure suits are coming down in price every few months thanks to increased competition, advances in manufacturing technology and cheap labour in China, odds are that unless you have the money for a Ralph Lauren Black Label suit (the best off-the-rack short cuts, hands down) you’re going to need to find a close regular fit off-the-rack and then take it to a tailor to make the necessary alterations.

Regular cuts are made for men 5’ 9” to 6’ 3”, however if you’re just shy of average height some regular cuts might fit your body very well. I’m 5’ 7” and 36R jackets from H&M, Mexx, Banana Republic & Ralph Lauren Black Label fit me better than short cuts from Hugo Boss, Brooks Brothers, Calvin Klein and just about every short cut at chain suit stores.  

gqfashion:

Fresh Picks From Joe Fresh
Canadian import Joe Fresh recently landed in NYC and offers an impressive lineup of pieces we want at even more impressive prices, like this crew neck sweater that comes in at a cool $29. Here’s what else to get.

Actually, the Joe Fresh section at the Newmarket the Canadian Superstore has a couple of these on clearance for $10 a shot. I thought about, I even tried it on, but it’s just not my style. 

gqfashion:

Fresh Picks From Joe Fresh

Canadian import Joe Fresh recently landed in NYC and offers an impressive lineup of pieces we want at even more impressive prices, like this crew neck sweater that comes in at a cool $29. Here’s what else to get.

Actually, the Joe Fresh section at the Newmarket the Canadian Superstore has a couple of these on clearance for $10 a shot. I thought about, I even tried it on, but it’s just not my style. 

via gqfashion

According the GQ Eye, today Urban Outfitters will launch a made-to-measure suit shop on their website. While the site isn’t live as of this writing, the promo video above has piqued my interest.

For a gender that is conditioned to take no pleasure in shopping for clothing, suit shopping can be a challenge for men who are unfamiliar with how a suit should fit and how the salespeople in suit shops operate. For those who know suits, finding what fits both their body and tastes can be a nightmare.

Going to Tip Top or International Clothiers with a few hundred bucks in your pocket will undoubtedly see you walking out with a suit that wears you, David Byrne-style, and is cut to the tastes of unfashionable dinosaurs. That’s because stores pay bonuses to their staff on sales and mostly stock suits between forty-two and fifty regular, so they’d sell you a garage bag with arm holds cut into it and tell you that you look great in it just to make a sale.

Thankfully for myself, I’m so jaded and informed that a salesperson’s well timed “that looks really good on you” the very second I’ve slipped on a high margin jacket doesn’t sway me.

I think that it’s this experience and lack of choice that has driven the burgeoning market for mass made-to-measure menswear. However, I don’t think that any of the existing players are offering much that gets their potential customers excited. What I’m seeing the video looks a lot more daring and becoming of the hipster aesthetic than anything that the biggest name in the game, Indochino, has put out. If UO can even come closing to matching their level of customer service — I’m not so hot on the product, but found the customer service to be outstanding —, we might actually have a competition to watch.

Club Monaco: Made in America promo video

An oft repeated myth coming from the mouths of professional chatterboxes is that the US “no longer makes things.” Little to do they know, the US is actually the world’s leading manufacturer of finished goods. Here’s the rub, the US is so good at making “things” that they specialize in making highly advanced “things” as efficiently as possible, so while they don’t employ armies of low skilled workers making enough to own the entitlements/trappings of a middle-class life, they do employ a small force of highly skilled people who earn very good wages.

This line appears to cater to this anxiety over American manufacturing, which has me wondering if we’re all economic nationalists now.

Here’s an outfit from Club Monaco’s fall men’s collection.
I love everything shown here, with the exceptions of those pants. Somewhere a stylist needs to be fired for thinking that sweatpants 1) could ever be worn with a trench and knit sweater and 2) that it’s acceptable to wear sweatpants in public without feeling even the slightest bit of shame.
Even chinos would be a better choice, just anything other than cuffed, “I’ve given up on life” pants. 

Here’s an outfit from Club Monaco’s fall men’s collection.

I love everything shown here, with the exceptions of those pants. Somewhere a stylist needs to be fired for thinking that sweatpants 1) could ever be worn with a trench and knit sweater and 2) that it’s acceptable to wear sweatpants in public without feeling even the slightest bit of shame.

Even chinos would be a better choice, just anything other than cuffed, “I’ve given up on life” pants. 

Oh, I’m sorry. I can’t hear you over how awesome my new shoes are.

Oh, I’m sorry. I can’t hear you over how awesome my new shoes are.

Those who blog about menswear have been beating their chests about this Bloomberg Business Week article which highlights the differences between an inexpensive pair of khakis and a luxury pair. The general consensus is that this article upholds the assertion that the price paid for luxury-branded clothing is justified. That’s a huge leap in logic, one that fails to understand how luxury branding works, how clothing is marketed and how we should be thinking about the clothes that we wear.
“You’re paying for the name”:
In comparison to an inexpensive like article of clothing, the more costly piece is usually made of better materials and more carefully constructed and therefore should cost more than the less expensive article, because there is more value added in its creation. However, the higher price that is generally paid for the better article isn’t itself an immediate reflection of this value alone. Instead, it’s a direct reflection what people are willing to pay for it, and it just so happens that people are willing to pay more for luxury branded goods simply because of the brand, or rather what it confers upon them. This is because the value is in the brand and not in the article itself.
The same conception of value drives some to purchase $400 khakis from Holt Renfrew and others to carry around marked counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbags that cost just as much as good quality department store handbags but last only a few weeks before falling apart. I’ll expand on this below.
“Contradictions! I see what you did there”: It’s important to stay en vogue, so it’s important that one update their entire wardrobe every season or so. However, spare no expense in purchasing top-quality pieces, because whatever ones purchases should last for several years.
How these leading fashion marketing maxims contradict needs no detailed explanation. If one is concerned about keeping up with trends, worrying about the longevity of an item is pointless, and the inverse.
Amortize the cost of a piece of clothing:
When purchasing a piece of clothing, consider the number of times you will need to wear it before its cost is justified. This demands that you think about the longevity of a piece’s material construction and styling. This is where the supposed false of economy of inexpensive clothing (v. luxury clothing) faces the most scrutiny.
A really simple way of thinking about amortizing the cost of an everyday piece of clothing is to think of it costing you about $2.00 every time you wear it. Take the price of an article and divide it by two, the resulting figure is the number of times that you’ll have to wear something in order to recover its initial cost. Any more wears after this is value added, while any fewer is value lost. Whether or not you can absorb this loss is a matter of how much disposal income you have to budget towards these losses or whether or not you’re able to sell the article to recover some or all of the difference. The latter explains the existence of consignment shops.
In the case of the $30 khakis, you’ll need to wear them fifteen times before their initial cost is recovered. After that, you can retire them for a fresh pair or if they’re still good you can keep wearing them. As for the $400 khakis, you’ll need to get two-hundred good wears out of them before their cost is recovered. With proper care and handling, it’s entirely possible that the expensive khakis might actually last this long. Whether or not they’ll still fit you and/or remain fashionable is another issue altogether. However, someone who earns $400 in an hour will have a much easier time covering the difference than someone who earns $400 in a week. I highly doubt that the majority of Business Week’s readership could be counted amongst this latter group, and this is something that the bloggers need to consider when holding up this article.  

Those who blog about menswear have been beating their chests about this Bloomberg Business Week article which highlights the differences between an inexpensive pair of khakis and a luxury pair. The general consensus is that this article upholds the assertion that the price paid for luxury-branded clothing is justified. That’s a huge leap in logic, one that fails to understand how luxury branding works, how clothing is marketed and how we should be thinking about the clothes that we wear.

You’re paying for the name”:

In comparison to an inexpensive like article of clothing, the more costly piece is usually made of better materials and more carefully constructed and therefore should cost more than the less expensive article, because there is more value added in its creation. However, the higher price that is generally paid for the better article isn’t itself an immediate reflection of this value alone. Instead, it’s a direct reflection what people are willing to pay for it, and it just so happens that people are willing to pay more for luxury branded goods simply because of the brand, or rather what it confers upon them. This is because the value is in the brand and not in the article itself.

The same conception of value drives some to purchase $400 khakis from Holt Renfrew and others to carry around marked counterfeit Louis Vuitton handbags that cost just as much as good quality department store handbags but last only a few weeks before falling apart. I’ll expand on this below.

Contradictions! I see what you did there”: It’s important to stay en vogue, so it’s important that one update their entire wardrobe every season or so. However, spare no expense in purchasing top-quality pieces, because whatever ones purchases should last for several years.

How these leading fashion marketing maxims contradict needs no detailed explanation. If one is concerned about keeping up with trends, worrying about the longevity of an item is pointless, and the inverse.

Amortize the cost of a piece of clothing:

When purchasing a piece of clothing, consider the number of times you will need to wear it before its cost is justified. This demands that you think about the longevity of a piece’s material construction and styling. This is where the supposed false of economy of inexpensive clothing (v. luxury clothing) faces the most scrutiny.

A really simple way of thinking about amortizing the cost of an everyday piece of clothing is to think of it costing you about $2.00 every time you wear it. Take the price of an article and divide it by two, the resulting figure is the number of times that you’ll have to wear something in order to recover its initial cost. Any more wears after this is value added, while any fewer is value lost. Whether or not you can absorb this loss is a matter of how much disposal income you have to budget towards these losses or whether or not you’re able to sell the article to recover some or all of the difference. The latter explains the existence of consignment shops.

In the case of the $30 khakis, you’ll need to wear them fifteen times before their initial cost is recovered. After that, you can retire them for a fresh pair or if they’re still good you can keep wearing them. As for the $400 khakis, you’ll need to get two-hundred good wears out of them before their cost is recovered. With proper care and handling, it’s entirely possible that the expensive khakis might actually last this long. Whether or not they’ll still fit you and/or remain fashionable is another issue altogether. However, someone who earns $400 in an hour will have a much easier time covering the difference than someone who earns $400 in a week. I highly doubt that the majority of Business Week’s readership could be counted amongst this latter group, and this is something that the bloggers need to consider when holding up this article.