some thoughts on the recent red carpet/ award ceremony looks, with some thoughts at the end on how you can improve your own outfits
apologies to the celebs criticized in this thread. this is not personal 🧵
IMO, many looks suffer because whoever is behind the styling is trying too hard to smash you over the head with something different, and there's not enough attention paid to basic things like fit and silhouette.
for instance, this weird variation on the double breasted. the waist is straining, the coat is short and boxy, and the narrow lapels make the outbreast pocket look too far out to the armhole. very odd
same design here. the wider shawl collar minimizes the problem with the outbeast, but it still looks very weird and unflattering
this looks like something jordan peterson would order from his freebie tailor. odd lapel design, short boxy silhouette, and disconnect between jacket and pants create two separate blocks. this needs fuller, less tapered trousers, so you have a coherent whole in silhouette
shapeless coat made from what looks to be the same fabric as the pants makes this feel like a cab callow throwback. the coat needs to have more shaping or be made from a heavier fabric (such as an overcoating, not a suiting/ jacketing). looks oversized in a bad way
even some of the traditional looks are ... not well done. jacket here looks too big; pants need to be hemmed.
blue suit needs a wider, teardrop shaped shawl collar. i also don't know who decided to put flapped hacking pockets (a country horseriding detail) on a dinner suit. are you eating dinner while horseriding?
the best look in the last few days was this fit by colman domingo. ironically, it's the one that most closely hews to classic tailoring principles but also best executes a non-traditional look. how so?
higher-waisted pants, longer jacket, no pulling or rippling, smooth lines
these same principles can be seen in more traditional outfits made from more conservative fabrics. domingo's suit is made with a wider flared leg—a stylistic choice—and bolder color. he's also wearing a bolder overcoat, but the principles are the same
this is another great look, and again, you can see how the fit and silhouette are very good. collar hugs the neck. lapels are well proportioned. coat ends halfway from the collar to the floor (not super short or long like others above)
the coat is also shaped. look at the roundness around the chest. this is created with haircloth, canvassing, and domette, as well as pad stitching. reminiscent of old style tailoring by Anderson & Sheppard, although he's not technically wearing the same cut
domingo again here looks great because the garment is well done in terms of fit and silhouette. there's shaping through the chest and waist. very different from the second pic, which is just big.
sometimes I'll post a look, and someone will say, "That looks boring," but they are missing the principles of fit and silhouette. they are looking for loud, over the top things that scream THIS IS DIFFERENT. that can be fine, but the tailoring has to be done well
a suit is technically just a garment where the jacket and pants are made from the same fabric. these things can be made in any fabric and styled any number of ways.
but if the tailoring isn't good, no amount of weird, wacky reinterpretation will save it. this is the problem with peterson's suits. the tailoring is very bad, and their appeal is all about gimmicks
once you get the fit and silhouette right, you can do whatever you want
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sometimes I think about the closure of G. Lorenzi, a Milanese gentleman's shop that had been around for almost 100 years until their closure in 2014. The shop was special because it carried so many one-of-a-kind items from artisans — total handmade craft production, not factory.
At the time of their closure, they still carried over 20,000 items of 3,000 models, including speciality knives, picnic sets, and nutcrackers. They had over 100 styles of nail clippers and 300 different hairbrushes alone. Proprietor Aldo Lorenzi scoured the world for artisans.
There's nothing wrong with factory production. But as more of our lives get taken over by machines — including art and writing — this sort of production feels special.
Trailer for "A Knife Life," a documentary about the store by my friend Gianluca Migliarotti, available on Vimeo
I spent 15 yrs on a menswear forum. The longest argument I had was over a tiny detail that can be seen in this photo. For 6 months, I argued with the same five guys non-stop every day. The argument got so heated the forum owner banned one guy for life.
As I've mentioned before, there's a lot of coded language in menswear. Navy suits can be worn with black oxfords because this was the uniform of London businessmen. Brown tweeds go with brogues because these clothes were worn in the country. In this way, we get formal vs. casual.
The same is true for shoes. Tiny details come together to communicate something, much like how words form a sentence. Black is more formal than brown; calfskin more formal than suede or pebble grain; plain design is more formal than broguing. All of this stems from history.
The year is 2024 and you're browsing for a new shirt online. You come across a store selling shirts from Portuguese Flannel. You do your research and find they make quality garments: clean single-needle stitching, flat felled seams, quality fabrics, MOP buttons, classic designs
So you go ahead and purchase one. The shop charges 139 Euros and throws in free shipping. Given the exchange rate in 2024, that means you paid $163.19.
First, let's do an experiment. Here are two relatively similar outfits: a blue shirt with a pair of dark blue jeans.
Which do you like better? Reply to this tweet with your answer. This way, people can see how the majority of people "voted."
If you said the right, then we have the same taste. This is despite the outfit on the left following this exact guide — and the outfit on the right not appearing in the guide at all.
I both agree and disagree that it's subjective. Like with anything, my views on tailoring stems from a "first principle." That principle is that men wore tailored clothing better in the past (specifically the period from about the 1930s through 80s). 🧵
If we agree on this, then there are certain ideas that naturally flow from this principle, partly because men's dress during this period was governed by time, place, and occasion. As stated before, one such idea was city vs country clothing.
Another such idea was resort or evening wear. Or summer vs winter wear. And so forth.
One can carry these ideas forward into today's age without it look like historical cosplay. Just like how we are currently using words to communicate, some from the early 1900s.
Twitter has a character limit, so I assume (intelligent) people will read context and know I'm talking about interior design and fashion, which today are coded as "gay interests" for men. Not painting or architecture, which carry no such stigma.
IMO, it's absolutely true that American Protestants were uniquely against certain forms of ornamentation, including fashion. For instance, the Quakers deliberately shunned adornment and extravagance in dress, stressing the importance of simplicity.
In his book "The Suit," Christopher Breward writes about how Quakers would talk about "troubling lapses into self-fashionableness by wayward members" during meetings. However, the Quakers were small in number and often seen as unusual by their fellow non-Quaker community members