DeSantis' outfit here illustrates one of the most common problems with pants—and the one that requires a bit of know-how to fix. So let's talk about it. 🧵
Compare these two people's trousers. Badenoch's trousers fall cleanly, such that there are relatively straight lines going from her trouser band to her hem. DeSantis' trousers, on the other hand, have messy folds all over. What gives?
When most people buy pants, they look at themselves first in the mirror (well, hopefully, at least). When doing so, they are often standing in front of a single-frame mirror, like so:
What they should do is find a three-way mirror, hopefully also with the assistance of a good and honest tailor, fitter, or sales associate (although these are rare nowadays). Three-way mirrors give you a better look at how your outfit looks from various angles.
When you look at yourself in a single-frame mirror, you are only getting a view of yourself from the front (pic 1). But many problems have to do with the back, causing the drag lines and folds you see in pics 2 and 3 here:
Why do these folds occur? It's because clothing manufacturers commonly build their trousers with an overly long back rise. That's the measurement from the center back down to the crotch. They do this so the pants feel comfy to a wider range of body types (no wedgies)
The problem is that most people don't need all this material. Additionally, they stand with what a friend once described as an "auditioning porn star" posture. That means they naturally stand with their hips forward and knees locked. Go ahead—stand up and see if you do this.
I once heard a bespoke tailor suggest this is increasingly common in modern society because people have desk jobs, so their legs are weak. He said his clients who do manual labor have the opposite posture: knees slightly bent and hips back.
When you have a long back rise and stand with your hips back, knees locked, all of that excess material ends up collapsing under your seat and rippling down the back of your legs. That's what you see with DeSantis here.
How to fix this? The best course is to have trousers made for you by a skilled bespoke tailor. See how these trousers fall cleanly.
Unfortunately, bespoke trousers are dearly expensive, commonly around $1k to $1.5k in the US. (Don't scream at me; I didn't set the price)
The more affordable option is to know how to buy better pants. Tips:
1. If you're between sizes, err on the side of bigger. It's easier to take things in than let things out.
2. Know what can be adjusted. Assuming there's enough material, you can let out the waist by 2 inches
It's also relatively easy to taper the legs from the knee down.
3. The most critical part is to look at how the trousers fit around the seat, thighs, and rise. These can be expensive to adjust.
For an overly long back rise, look if there's a lot of inlay along the crotch seam
To fix an overly long back rise, a tailor has to pin the back of the pants up, shortening the rise (see below). However, to make sure you don't get a wedgie, they have to let out the crotch seam. This requires enough inlay along the crotch seam inside the pants.
Cheap pants, such as those from The Gap, won't have a lot of inlay because the manufacturer needed to scrimp on material costs. However, high-end trousers, such as those from Rota, will because there's enough margin.
See the before and after of this alteration. Magic!
If you're in the Bay Area, the best spot for custom trousers is Tailor's Keep in San Francisco. They make fully handmade pants on-premise for $1.5k. I know, the price is crazy, but they're a diamond in the rough. My pants from them are better than what I've gotten on Savile Row.
They also have a made-to-measure program for $650. These have as much handwork as bespoke (buttonholes, pick stitch, internal waistband), but are not made in-house. Lots of room for adjustment: rise, thigh, waist, and seat, along with posture and body type (full seat, flat seat)
Ultimately, you have to find your own fit challenges and figure out solutions. But when buying tailored trousers (and these concepts only apply to tailored trousers, not jeans), check to see if everything falls cleanly. Aim for the fit on the left, not the right.
This tweet should say, "when you stand with your hips forward and knees locked," not "hips back." The problem of an overly long back rise is made worse when you stand like an "auditioning porn star," as my friend put it.
People think I'm biased against Jeff Bezos, but here's F. Caraceni Sartoria, widely considered one of the best bespoke tailoring houses in the world, commenting on Bezos's wedding suit.
"The most terrible, frightening, horrible tuxedo ever seen in my life. I'm really suffering"
Nothing to do with politics, only quality tailoring. F. Caraceni made suits for Silvio Berlusconi, who was hardly beloved by progressives. Many people don't know much about tailoring, which is fine, but this doesn't mean that rich or expensive = good.
Caraceni's work:
Here is a dinner suit F. Caraceni made for Yves Saint Laurent.
Let me make the case for why the NHL should abolish its dress code, which currently requires players to wear a suit and tie while heading to and from games. 🧵
The arguments I've seen for the dress code fall into one of two categories: players look better in a coat-and-tie (some use descriptions such as "classy"). Others say that requiring players to dress in this way shows respect for the game. I will address each argument in turn.
It's true that tailoring once played a larger role in sports. Basketball coaches, for instance, used to wear tailored jackets pretty regularly, even at games. Some even looked quite good in these outfits.
It's true that progressives valorize "ugliness." But I think this person doesn't interrogate this position enough and thus lands at the wrong conclusion.
Let me give you a new perspective on ugliness. 🧵
In popular discourse, the world was once good, people were virtuous, and all things were beautiful. Then modernity came along and destroyed everything. In this view, beauty is an objective standard that has been corrupted by liberalism.
I contend that beauty in personal appearance is subjective, not objective. In fact, its standards rest on the shifting tectonic plates of politics, economics, and technology. Let me give you examples.
Today, we think of these photos as the standard for male beauty and dress:
Earlier this week, I asked which tie knot you think looks better. Of course, you can wear whichever you like. But here's the social history behind both knots and why some people consider one better than the other. 🧵
In the mid-19th century, as ready-to-wear tailoring started to take form, people got around in horse-drawn carriages. After all, the car had not yet been invented. During this time, some formed driving clubs, where they rode drags.
Check out the text in this lithograph:
The term "drag" refers to the carriage you see above, which was a sporting vehicle that was lighter than the more robust stagecoach. Men in driving clubs raced drags. Hence the term "drag race" first appearing in an 1863 issue of Racing Times.
People keep asking me to do a thread breaking down why these suits don't look great. I gather that these are famous, very well accomplished F1 drivers (I don't know these people). Since I only talk about famous people, I will do a thread. 🧵
Please note nothing in this thread is meant to diminish the men in these clothes. If anything, it's the people who dressed them that failed them. I am only talking about the clothes. Hopefully, by pointing out these issues, you will learn something for when you're shopping.
A pinstripe suit with a white business shirt cries out for tie. If you don't want to wear a tie, then you need a more casual shirt or a more casual suit. Additionally, the shoes are too chunky for this outfit.