Most people would not describe Trump as someone who wears slim-fit clothes. But here, we can see his trousers are quite slim in relationship to his body. You can tell because the hem barely covers the opening of his shoes.
If you're a heavier man who wears a suit with slim-fit trousers, you end up breaking the top and bottom halves into distinct blocks. Notice how much the jacket hangs over the trousers. There's a lot of empty space between the jacket's front edge and his pants.
It's a mistake to think that wearing slim-fit clothes makes you look slimmer. Or that everyone has to conform to some trend. A better approach is to dress for your body type. Look at the relationship between Jackie Gleason's jacket and pants.
The wider trousers here are not the most fashionable, but they are the most flattering (for him). By minimizing the jacket's overhang and reducing the empty space between its front edge and the trousers, you get a streamlined silhouette from top to bottom.
We see the same effect here on France’s President Hollande and Japan’s Emperor Akihito. Hollande's trousers are too slim for his jacket. As a result, he looks like an egg on sticks. Compare his silhouette to Akihito, where the jacket and pants flow and form a harmonious whole.
Such advice is not limited to men with heavier figures. Daniel Craig often wears suits that also don't flow. The top and bottom halves often form distinct blocks. This is partly because his trousers are too slim and his jackets are too short.
When you see beautifully dressed men, consider how the top and bottom halves form a silhouette. They don't always need to flow (in some casual styles, breaking up these parts can be intentional and part of an aesthetic). But in tailoring, it's often best when there is flow.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Not true. I'll give you some examples of when styles crossed over from womenswear to menswear, and how men have worn straight-up womenswear or just feminine styles in cool ways. 🧵
We should first recognize that gender codes are socially constructed. Clothing is not inherently masculine or feminine—codes are contextual and can change over time. Aristocratic men once wore bright red heels. Then they became womenswear until that notion was challenged again.
Plenty of things started on the womenswear side of the aisle before crossing over into men's. Prior to the 20th century, men carried pocket watches and only women wore wristwatches. The humble t-shirt began as the top of union suits, which was once considered women's underwear.
During the early 20th century, when labor was more divided by gender, the US Dept. of Agriculture organized youth clubs orientated around developing certain skills. Chief among them were clothing clubs, which taught young girls how to cut, mend, and sew clothing.
In her book The Lost Art of Dress, historian Linda Przybyszewski estimates that more than 324,000 girls participated in clothing clubs (cooking clubs were a distant second with half as many members). The US gov also funded home economics education, which taught similar skills.
I don't know anything about womenswear, but I've noticed that women's tailoring is typically free of the problems I commonly see on men. I had dinner with a bespoke tailor last night who explained why this may be so. A thread for those interested. 🧵
Disclosure: I don't know how the patterns were drafted for the clothes featured in this thread. That would make a big difference in how they should be judged. But for the purpose of this thread, I'll assume they're ready-to-wear or designer (i.e., adjusted off a block pattern).
One thing I notice is that women's tailoring typically features a high armhole. For instance, at last year's DNC, every politician who made a speech raised their hand at some point. On men, this typically resulted in their jacket lifting. But not so on women.
First, some basics. It's easier to dress like this if you involve some kind of activity. I suggest going out to a nice restaurant or bar. Or going to a party or an evening show. You can also dress like this just to have fun in the city (e.g., going to the museum).
Another thing: there are elements in this outfit that may be harder to pull off, such as the hair-on-hide coat. Can you try? Yes, of course, but it's more of a statement piece. Needs the right haircut/ personal vibe.
It's interesting to see how gender in aesthetics is constantly a moving target. Will explain how four outfits from today's Todd Snyder FW25 show were once considered very masculine, but now may not because men perform disinterest in clothes. 🧵
The first is straightforward: single-breasted, notch lapel suit made from grey herringbone tweed. My guess is that this model is wearing a size up for styling purposes (gives him some swagger). The cut you'll try in-store will probably be a little slimmer.
Of course, tweed is that prickly woolen that British men once wore while playing sport in the countryside. It used to be that men's wardrobes were strictly divided between town (London) and country, but such rules broke down over time. Hence the phrase "tweed in the city."
Before Europeans landed in North America, the Pacific Northwest was populated by the Coast Salish people, who had been here for thousands of years. During the 19th century, many made a living by selling woven blankets to traders. The blankets typically featured geometric designs.
Business dried up in the late 19th century as the market was flooded with Hudson Bay Point blankets, so Coast Salish people picked up knitting needles. This was the birth of the Cowichan sweater, which combined old Coast Salish weaving practices with European knitting techniques.