People keep asking me to comment on Harrison Butker's clothes, as he seems to be a clotheshorse. Some note that his clothes look "off." In almost every instance, it's because his clothes are too small. I will demonstrate. 🧵
In some cases, the outfits look bad because of poor styling decisions. These are bad fabrics. If you are starting to build a better wardrobe, it can be a good idea to avoid hard-finished fabrics with patterns. Without a fuzzy nap, the patterns can have very hard lines.
For example, compare the glen check woolen flannel on the left to the stripe on the right. A fuzzy nap will soften the lines, especially if the pattern is already not in high contrast. Mutes the blow.
But in most cases, what people are picking up on is the effect of shrinking an outfit. Some of Harrison's outfits are good, and they're good mostly because the cuts are larger and longer. For example, which of these two looks better to you? Note the jacket length.
What about this?
How about these two?
When you shrink a tailored outfit, you narrow the shoulders, shorten the jacket, raise the buttoning point, reduce the waist suppression, and emphasize the hips by heavily tapering the trousers. You end up looking like a bell.
Compare this to a more traditional silhouette, where you widen the shoulders, lengthen the jacket, lower the buttoning point, create more waist suppression, and loosen the pants. The result is a V-shaped torso on columnar legs.
Some of Harrison's outfits are quite nice when they follow these principles and when he chooses more muted fabrics. His taste is not sophisticated enough yet for him to venture too far from these safe colors and muted patterns.
For instance, these fabrics are ugly. The effect is made worse by the heavily tapered trousers. Taste level is very low.
The influence of bad ready-to-wear trends and 2010 menswear editorials is also evident in the cut of these overcoats. They are too slim and too short, and again, they lack verve.
Consider them to a longer, more traditional cut.
Harrison's outfits would be improved if he stuck to more traditional cuts and conservative fabrics. If he wants to venture further, he should choose a skilled tailor with good taste and not open his mouth. The less he inserts himself in the process, the better.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I disagree that this is an aesthetically pleasing photo. Tristan's outfit ruins it and I'll tell you why. 🧵
I'll assume Tristan is telling the truth when he says he used Photoshop and not AI. If so, this is a very impressive Photoshop job. By removing the scaffold tarp, you reveal more of the building. By removing the other cars, you also achieve more aesthetic coherence.
What is aesthetic coherence? It's the idea that things based on shared history or spirit go together. For instance, I've long said that the Cybertruck could look very cool if you wore certain outfits (futuristic techwear) and lived in a Brutalist home.
Some people are incredulous that you can wear certain shoes without socks, such as leather loafers. Much depends on your body and climate. But I'll tell you one reason why you find this difficult to believe: you buy low quality footwear. 🧵
It's absolutely possible to wear certain shoes without socks. As mentioned in an earlier thread, men have been doing this for over a hundred years. Going sockless makes sense if the outfit is semi-casual (not business clothes).
In fact, if you wear socks with certain footwear styles, such as espadrilles, you will look like you don't know what you're doing.
Tim is right and wrong here. I'll tell you where he's right and where he's wrong. 🧵
It's perfectly fine to wear slip-on shoes without socks. Those who suggest otherwise are simply ignorant and unaware about the history of men's dress.
You don't have to take my word for it. We can go back to Apparel Arts.
Apparel Arts was an early 20th century trade publication that taught men how to dress well. It was sent to clothiers and tailors so they could smartly advise their clients, but it later became a public-facing publication under the title "Esquire."
I get this sort of comment all the time, often about bespoke suits or mechanical watches. "These things are boring," "This is only for rich people," or "Who cares?"
Let me tell you a story. 🧵
Before the age of ready-to-wear, men had clothes made for them, either in the home or, if they could afford one, by a tailor. Ready-made clothing was limited to simple workwear, such as what was worn by sailors or miners.
Tailoring shop, 1780:
In this older method, a tailor would measure you, sometimes using a string (before the invention of tailor's tape). Then they'd use those measurements to draft a pattern, cut the cloth, and produce a garment. This process is called bespoke.
As I've stated many times, suit jackets and sport coats are made from many layers of material, including haircloth, canvas, and padding. These layers give the garment its structure so it doesn't fall on you like a t-shirt or dress shirt.
For the chest and lapels, these layers can be attached to each other using a single-needle roll-padding machine, such as you see here. This is what you'll typically see on factory-made suits (this is a Strobel KA-ED machine). Happens both on the low- and high-end.
I found this reply interesting ("Can those foreign companies open shop in the US?")
I don't think Japanese or South Korean menswear can be made in the US. At least, not without losing something. Let's explore why. 🧵
I should state at the outset that no thread will do Japanese or South Korean fashion justice because these countries are fashion powerhouses. Japan alone covers everything from Yohji Yamamoto to And Wander to WTAPS.
It's Impossible to generalize, but we can discuss aspects.
Let's set the stage: Trump announced that he wants to tax Japanese and South Korean goods 25% starting August 1st. That means if you're a menswear shop in the US importing $1,000 worth of clothes made in Japan or South Korea, you owe the US government $250.