Many men resist wearing high-rise trousers bc they fear they'll look like an old man. In this rubric, low-rise = modern; high-rise = Fred Merz. But low-rise pants change the ratio between your torso and legs, sometimes in weird ways. See Tucker Carlson, for example. 🧵
Even when he was young, Tucker favored low-rise trousers. You can judge this by his waistband's position in relation to his coat's buttoning point. For Dancing with the Stars, the costume dept put him in higher-rise pants. Ignoring the hem, I think the rise looks better on him
This doesn't mean that low-rise pants are *categorically* bad. If they were, they would have never taken off in the first place. They work for certain aesthetics, such as contemporary and rock-inspired looks. See @modsiwW (IG wisdm)
But Carlson's style is clearly not about that aesthetic. He wears soft-shouldered tweeds, hopsack blazers, oxford button-downs, and, for a time, bow ties (now long ties). This language borrows from a classic American look defined by Brooks Brothers and clothiers like J. Press.
This is what I mean when I say, "Dress is language and not universal rules." In this specific aesthetic, there are certain ideas about proportions and fit (which may not apply to other aesthetics). These pants are entirely wrong for the top. There are too many panels and darts.
People who like this aesthetic are often inspired by mid-20th-century Ivy League style (see how many "trad" accounts here post pics like this, but with little insightful commentary). But do these outfits look the same to you? To me, the proportions are off.
Carlson wants to wear low-rise, slim, tapered pants because he—and others—think this is more "modern" and "youthful." But for this specific aesthetic, it does not create a flowing line between the top and bottom halves of his outfit. Coat's shape limits how slim trousers can be
For that Ivy Style look, you need higher-rise pants that are slightly less tapered. Casual pants such as jeans and chinos will naturally be a little lower rise than dressy pants like wool trousers. But you can see the silhouette here is different—and flows better with the coat
Is this "old man" style? Yea, maybe. Personally, I'm not bothered since many of the men I find to be most inspiring in terms of style are from an older generation.
I am only saying that if you are inspired by something, pay attention to the details, as they matter.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.