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
In the 1950s, Irving Penn traveled across London, Paris, and NYC to take portraits of workers in their work clothes. These clothes at the time were not considered glamorous — they would not have shown up on fashion runways — but they demonstrate a simple aesthetic principle 🧵
Consider these outfits. How do you feel about them? Are they charming? Repulsive? Stylish?
If you consider them charming and stylish, as I do, then ask yourself: what makes them charming and stylish? Why are you drawn to the outfits?
As I've mentioned before, I think outfits look better when they have "shape and drape." By shape, I mean the outfit confers a distinctive silhouette. If these men took off their clothes, we can reliably guess their bodies would not be shaped like this:
If you're just dipping your toes into tailored clothing, start with a navy sport coat. This is something you can wear with a button-up shirt and pair of trousers, or something as casual as a t-shirt and some jeans. It's easily the most versatile jacket.
Key is to get something with texture so it doesn't look like an orphaned suit jacket. Spier & Mackay has great semi-affordable tailoring. Their navy hopsack Moro is made from pure wool and a half-canvas to give it shape. Classic proportions and soft natural shoulder
There's a pervasive belief that we no longer produce clothes in the United States. This is not true. In this thread, I will tell you about some great made-in-USA brands — some that run their own factories, while others are US brands contracting with US factories. 🧵
I should first note this thread focuses on well-made, stylish clothes produced in ethical conditions. For me, producing in the US is not enough. It means nothing if the clothes are ugly, crappy, or produced in sweatshop conditions. My article for The Nation below.
JEANS
Gustin produces MiUSA jeans using raw Japanese denim. "Raw" means the fabric hasn't been pre-distressed, allowing it to naturally fade with use, reflecting your actual body and lifestyle. I like their fuller 1968 Vintage Straight fit. They also do lots of other stuff.
Let's first establish good vs bad ways to think about style. The first pic is correct — style is a kind of social language and you have to figure out what type of person you are. The second pic is stupid bc it takes style as disconnected objects ("this is in" vs "this is out").
I should also note here that I'm only talking about style. I'm not here to argue with you about ergonomics, water bottle holders, or whether something accommodates your Dell laptop. I'm am talking about aesthetics.
Watch these two videos. Then answer these two questions:
— Which of the two men is better dressed?
— How does each come off?
I think Carney is better dressed, partly because his clothes fit better. Notice that his jacket collar always hugs his neck, while Pierre Poilievre's jacket collar never touches him.
The level of craftsmanship that goes into a lot of Japanese menswear simply doesn't exist in the United States. You can do this for many categories — suits, jeans, hats, etc.
In this thread, I will show you just one category: men's shoes 🧵
For this comparison, I will focus on Japanese bespoke shoemaking vs. US ready-to-wear. The level of bespoke craftsmanship shown here simply doesn't exist in the US, so a Japanese bespoke vs. US bespoke comparison would be unfair. US bespoke is mostly about orthopedic work.
So instead, I will focus on the best that the US has to offer: ready-to-wear Alden.
On a basic level, top-end Japanese shoes are better because they are handwelted, whereas Alden shoes are Goodyear welted. The first involves more handwork and can be resoled more often.