All Things Sartorial

Unsafespace wrote: »

Pro tip: a great way to enhance your style actually has nothing to do with style or clothing at all. Just improve your physique and wear clothing that fits you properly.

And work on posture. The most expensive and best tailored clothes in the world still look sloppy on poor posture, and even just a decent t-shirt and joggers can look slick on perfect posture.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

Oh I don't know. There's got to be a right place for Wile E. Coyote.

Lol, yep. My style hasn't changed appreciably since highschool.

I was inspired by a trip to Paris when I was 16. I expected everyone there to be in of-the-moment fashionable clothes because it's one of the fashion capitals of the world, but nope, all the chic as hell women I saw in the area I was in wore simple, well tailored basics in neutrals, mostly black. They could have been straight out of a photo of Paris in the 60s, 70s, 80s, it didn't matter. There was virtually no distinguishing feature to their clothes other than great fabrics and perfect tailoring. You could, however, see the trends in their accessories. Burgundy velvet was a huge trend at that time, so I saw a lot of velvet jackets, scarves, hats, gloves, and even shoes.

So that's how I've dressed since. Well tailored neutrals in nice fabrics with trends or mood expressed through accessories.

I've moved towards more athleisure since becoming disabled, but I still follow the same principles. My clothes are all high quality merino wool and fit perfectly, so even leggings and a t-shirt can look sharp.

That said, cuts go in and out of style, so while on the surface my style seems to have not changed in decades, it does by default because of the trends of cuts available, especially in pants.

Even the photos posted in this thread all show such tapered men's pants that would NEVER EVER have been seen as timeless or even remotely fashionable back when I was working in high end menswear in the late 90s. I'm not sure you would have even been able to find them back then. We were also hemming pants long back then, the back of the hem had to almost touch the floor, and it had to slouch at the front of the shoe. Some tailors refused to do this because it destroys the pant hem eventually, but if a hem came back the "proper" length. The client would have a fit.

So what seems "timeless" is actually heavily influenced by trends of the time, especially for men. For women, being a bit retro is always a legitimate style option even if it's off trend.

But for men going retro is a much bolder style statement than it is for women. The taper of pants, inclusion or exclusion of pleats/cuffs, the width of ties and lapels, the position and number of pockets, buttons, etc. These all fluctuate on an ongoing series of trends. So what appears as "timeless" in any given time can be easily tagged to its place in time within 5-10 years.

A woman can dress literally exactly like Audrey Hepburn in a lot of her outfits and not look at all out of place in any decade, but if a man dresses like Humphrey Bogart, Dean Martin, or Roger Moore, he won't look "timeless" at all. And these are men who at the time had what would be considered classic, "timeless" style.

The only similar thing in women's wear is wedding dresses. There's always a sense of what's "timeless" but it's so easy to tag a bridal trend to an era.

What people usually think is "timeless" is just what's neutral for that specific era.

VeryMuchFine wrote: »

Well touché

Thanks for driving a bulldozer through my logic 🤣

As far as what you've said fabrics, I agree on that point. I pay attention to the fabrics I'm purchasing and want to feel like the prices I pay for clothing are worth it for me. From a distance, a garment I'm wearing might appear to be nothing out-of-the-ordinary or special, but can be made of fine fabrics that feel incredible. It's not always about wearing something that stands out above and beyond, it can just be something normal with above-and-beyond fabrics, or maybe play with textures as well.

As far as fit - I firmly believe that the person wearing slightly lower quality fabrics that fit their body perfectly, will look better than the person in the same room who is wearing finer fabrics but the garments are ill-fitting 🤷🏻‍♂️. So to me, fit>fabrics, then everything else like colors, textures, patterns, etc

Agreed. It's never fit or fabric, it's the combo that makes something look great. And it doesn't have to be expensive fabric, it has to be the *right* fabric. For some garments you want more draping, for others you want more structure. For some light reflection is critical, and for others you want it as dull and light absorbing as possible. For some you want a perfectly smooth texture and for others a lot of organic variation and texture.

The thing with fit though is that you can just *make* a garment fit a lot of the time. A great tailor can take an ill fitting gorgeous wool and make it a dream suit. They can't do anything about a bad fabric.

I actually took professional level sewing classes at night so that I could customize my own clothes. I don't touch my husband's though, he takes everything to a master tailor who I used to work with in the 90s and still charges me the same rates When he retires, we're screwed.

ETA: I actually met my husband selling him French cuff shirts. French cuffs were HUGE at the time. Lol. We literally didn't have any shirts in the store without them.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.