Think you have to be a special kind of person to think the suits from a few years ago “look stupid” now. But I guess that’s also the kind of person buying the £500 tshirts linked in the article.
Cuts have changed a lot in the last 5 years due to a generational shift. Millennials are now coming into their prime as producers. The 2010s saw increasingly slim tailored cuts. The 2020s are all about drape and how you can construct a shape, not reveal it.
There is always going to be a generic cut of suite that changes slower for the person who wears suites a few times a year. But for more fashion oriented cuts, there has been a change for someone that wears them everyday.
I think you confused my statement of caring what other people think about my suit, to wearing a suit. I wear suits. I just don't care what the fashion around them is.
interesting that he's never photographed. I guess that's one way to prevent the narrative from being flipped (and his fashion choices being scrutinized)
Few years back, I thought it was wise to invest in some semi-pricey clothes which were intended to suite me for a while. The only formal stuff I had at the time was my Dad’s, or something I thrifted, which didn’t quite fit.
Some pants, shirts, which I could put a jacket over for something more formal. Some shorts and shirts for the gym.
Every single one of those pants ripped, to my surprise, because some of them were $150-$250. Some ripped in the belt loops, others between the legs. The dress shirt is barely holding up, there are little plumes of ripped material on the side.
Each time they ripped, I replaced them with something I found for $15-35 at Target. Not a single rip.
I still keep the dress shirt, because it’s the only one I have, and I’m not at all sure what to replace it with.
I dislike the shirts that Target sells because the frame they use is of a long, skinny man, with small arms, and an extremely wide neck. Not sure how the fuck that happened. But the material is perfectly fine.
If anyone knows where I can find a nice shirt (both collared and others for the gym), that’d be great. I’m set on target pants, though. They are indestructible.
> Some ripped in the belt loops, others between the legs. The dress shirt is barely holding up, there are little plumes of ripped material on the side.
Yeah quality of clothing and price are completely disconnected now. It seems the only solution is to get advice from a textile expert if you really want the clothes to last. Or just hopes and dreams.
It's also why I'm very particular about how I do my laundry. Low spin, cold water, laundry sanitizer and the lowest setting I can get away with for drying. Air drying for things that are particularly delicate.
Where did you buy these clothes? Were they the right size? If they're wool slacks, I could see them being a little more delicate but regardless that sucks.
Lululemon is fast fashion junk, from a textile quality perspective. Live and learn. :) It is fashionable and i own a few things from them, because they genuinely look and fit well. But i don’t expect them to last.
As a general rule, ANYTHING that is 100% cotton will last the longest. Cotton blends can be OK, but they have pros and cons (polyester helps with wrinkles and can add some elasticity, linen is good for hot weather).
And then there is general construction. Mass manufactured clothing will not be made to high standards, that should be clear. If you want something high quality, buy a brand where it’s hand made. Or buy a custom designed suit from a private business, preferably local (places like SuitSupply don’t count). There’s quite a few in NYC, not sure about other cities.
That’s high level guidance. If you want to learn how to judge clothing quality, there are extensive videos online that show you how to inspect stitches on fabric, etc.
Yeah lululemon is your problem there I’m guessing. I just did the reverse. For the last decade most of the clothes I wore came from target and they were ok. I felt like the fits worked for me so I mostly stuck with them.
That said I found some nice small brands and they blow target clothes and all those mall brands out of the water. The mall stuff is often exactly the same as target.
My wife has a sense of fashion and I do not. When we go out she's always dressed precisely and, left without guidance, I look like a hike might break out at any minute.
Relwen's excellent. Sturdy clothes with utility -- my concern -- good looking for a variety of semi-casual to formal occasions. I wear their hunting jacket as a general purpose blazer.
Lululemon is tech wear so that’s somewhat surprising. I’d say that if you’re biking, you probably don’t want formal slacks. But more expensive clothes are not inherently more durable. It’s a good way to sell clothes to people who need an objective justification to spend more, but it’s not always true. You spend more because you want a specific aesthetic, you want clothes that fit a certain way, you want stuff produced ethically and not in sweatshops. Sometimes they’re more durable but not always. Linen for instance is always fragile, no matter how expensive.
Oh god. Yeah, you were in JPress pricing territory so I was really surprised you had that experience, those clothes should have been tanks. I had no idea lululemon was that expensive, I’ve never shopped there because I thought it was fast fashion and associated it with athleisure.
Find your sizing in a few not-even-that-good but ok brands that sell enough for used stuff to be pretty common (not JPress, they’re too low-volume—brooks brothers, jcrew, that kind of thing) by shopping at thrift stores. Those brands (right now—both are slowly getting worse) have more consistent sizing than most, so the super power you just unlocked is buying their clothes used on eBay/Poshmark/et c., and shopping their sales online (these brands are down-market enough that they do have meaningful sales sometimes)
Note that these sorts of places don’t just size shirts S/M/L, but also have fit modifiers like “slim” (only slightly fat) and “trim” (not fat—these are jcrew) or, for brooks brothers, names like “regent” or “Milano” that you’ll need a chart to translate (but then you just remember the one or two that fit you well and forget about the rest). Also, in shirts sized by collar, get it right so you can button that without discomfort or a too-large gap, and know that you may need to get the sleeves tailored if you intend to wear it with jackets—this is a fairly easy adjustment, a cheap local tailor can do it, 99% chance it’ll be an Asian woman, if it’s a guy you’re almost certainly somewhere too pricey for that alteration.
Don’t shop “outlets”, they’re mostly not discounted clothes, but worse clothes made for the outlets.
You can do something similar with nice (leather) shoe brands by getting cheap beat-up ones on eBay to dial in your sizing (if you don’t have a store close by—if you do, you try on shoes representing multiple lasts, buy one new pair if you feel bad about wasting the clerks’ time, then buy zero more new pairs from them again), then buy seconds (slightly defective, barely noticeable from good brands) and nicer ebayed pairs.
[edit] oh and measure yourself. Neck, chest, natural waist, high hip, low hip (if something only has one hip measurement, they mean low). If buying jackets, measure the jackets on a crappy one you thrifted that fits well. There are guides for this.
It seems like a lot of work up front, but it unlocks lazy fashion forever. I have great luck blind-buying used and even new pieces from good brands I haven’t tried on, based on measurements (anywhere remotely worth buying from will provide measurements). I almost never shop in person these days unless it’s a thrift store.
Everything seems to be crap these days. Thinner and thinner materials. I bought some pants (nothing fancy) at Costco. Wore them 3 times and they tore between the legs. Some sort of stretchy cotton material.
the issue is consumers don’t actually understand textiles, what they are looking for, and mainly buy a product based on how it looks and fits. And of course consumers prefer cheap clothes.
The result is some good purchases, and some bad purchases, but it’s a crap shoot unless you do research. Frustrating for sure.
It's the material blend. They usually use cotton in the vertical direction of the weave or knit, and then elastane in the horizontal. Stretch the fabric and you'll see the whole thing is held up by essentially tiny rubber bands.
I think a style has to be timeless to even be a style. If something goes in and out of fashion, it's called fashion. It's a worthwhile distinction to make.
> But as many hopped onto the hedonistic treadmill in the years that followed
Hedonic treadmill, unless I'm missing a really obscure joke.
"Style" itself changes, even when the artifacts themselves don't. For example in architecture, we (20/21 century) have this view of Greek and Roman architecture and art as pale marble columns and busts. Couldn't be further from the truth. Many of those historic busts in museums used to be brightly painted. Romans loved frescoes both in commerce and homes. Pompeii has been an amazing source of what regular life was like, combined with more recent digs of Roman homes across Europe.
Also take into account the generational adoption of older styles for a season or two before it fades again. I just saw a young man the other day wearing ginkos. Haven't seen those since the 90s. I asked him, and he said his dad had passed semi-recently and he really like the jeans when he was going through his dad's stuff.
Yesterday a clothing maker on YouTube I occasionally watch shared a video about making "medieval 1970s mod culture" clothes. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=g0uOmf-wHag
She used some patterns last used in the 70s and even wondered if the original dress(es) might still be around.
"Style" is subjective. The artifacts influence future style, and should be recognized as separate but linked things.
I went to a talk at the Computer History Museum once. It was a rainy day, and I and many people were hanging our coats on a long rack. The guy next to me asked me "doesn't anyone wear hats anymore?" as he looked in vain for a place to put his hat. It was Vint Cerf. I was speechless. How do you tell Vint Cerf that no one dresses like him anymore? He must already know...right?
Sure, and in the sun I might wear a baseball cap or floppy hat when hiking, or in the cold a beanie or a skullcap under a bicycle helmet, all with athletic or casual clothes.
I believe he had a fedora, trenchcoat, and of course a three-piece suit. Whole other world.
I think it's missing the eclectic element of personal style that fits your body that makes it timeless. Where adding the flavour of the current trend to your existing style more than having the trend now
The necktie of today began in roughly the early 1600s. There were far earlier examples dating back to ancient Egypt, and examples in ancient China. I don’t really think ties are an imperative for being “dressed up”, but they’ve been around for quite a long time.
It's not completely arbitrary. Standard business wear of one century becomes the formal wear of the next century, and casual wear mostly comes from military or sports clothing. Formal wear is just very conservative.
Here's a top hat as a symbol of office by a British railway station manager in 1952.[1] From the days when railway employees all had hats and outfits that indicated their job.
Sir Topham Hatt in Thomas the Tank Engine is not a joke. That's what railway managers wore.
I don't see any contradiction. What becomes standard business wear is often arbitrary, as is the stuff that sticks around. It's not like we've discovered a platonic ideal of dress.
I just wanna know when we can go back to formal robes. Superior in nearly every way for office work.
I thought military suit/tie would be timeless, but then I compared the dress uniforms of different countries. I guess some uniforms have different timescales for "timeless".
Price and officers wanting to make their mark by changing things. Those wool outfits of WWII still look excellent and are still influencing civilian fashion, but they’re probably too pricey to make for the actual military, now.
