Have you ever noticed that people dressed better in the past? Even in the summer, when it was scorching hot?
Why is this? 🧵
I want to first dispel some myths.
Contrary to popular belief, people didn't look better because they were slimmer. We see many corpulent men in the past who dressed better than the average man today. It's not true you can look good in anything if you have an athletic body.
Dressing well was also not limited to the rich and famous. A reader sent me pics of his grandpa, born in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) to a working-class Chinese family. He immigrated to London and then Canada, where he worked in an auto parts store and by installing light fixtures.
Some people attribute better aesthetics to notions of respectability, which they loosely associate with suits. Certainly, suits contributed something to aesthetics. But it wasn't about respectability. The bulk of this thread will be about how casualwear looked better in the past.
However, we'll start with suits because they tell us something.
It's true suits were more popular in the past, partly because people were more willing to accept discomfort (whether through volition or social pressure). Now people demand 100% comfort, 100% of the time.
The reason why suits are special has nothing to do with respectability, but everything to do with how they're made. Unlike casualwear, a tailored jacket is built from layers of haircloth, canvas, and padding, which are sewn together and shaped through special techniques.
This process — which involves pad stitching, darts, and ironwork — means the tailor can create a distinctive silhouette that's not just the person's body. Pay attention to the shape of the shoulders, chest, and lapels. Even the sleeves have their own shape (they have volume)
People were able to get away with more layers partly because stores offered clothes in specialized fabrics. For instance, this is a pure wool fabric, but the lighter weight and open weave make it extremely breathable on a hot day, especially if the garment is unlined.
From this, we get three reasons why people looked better in the past:
— Their clothes had "shape and drape"
— The had access to specialized fabrics
— They were more willing to put up with a little discomfort (e.g., compare the shoes on the left to the ones on the right)
The first point — "shape and drape" — can be seen everywhere around us, not just in clothing. Even in architecture, interior design, and furniture, things look more pleasing when they have distinctive and interesting shapes.
Even without the presence of a tailored jacket, many outfits in the past looked great because they conferred distinctive shapes — a boxier shirt, fuller pants, short shorts, etc.
Certain techniques, such as pleats, gave volume.
Even the details had shape: a camp collar, boat neck, or button-down.
Over the years, these details have shrank, if not disappeared altogether. Compare the 3rd and 4th slides. One button-down collar has a full roll; the other looks like its apologizing for its own existence.
Over the years, men have slowly molted their layers — first by shedding the tailored jacket, then the necktie, and in some cases, even the collared shirt. They have long ditched hats, which conferred another type of shape to an outfit.
The rise of slim fit, low rise pants and technical polos that cling to the body means you end up getting an outfit that's barely even there. There's very little texture, detailing, or even a distinctive silhouette. May as well be wearing two smooth pieces of Saran Wrap.
The idea of "shape and drape" also includes proportion. IMO, the man in the white t-shirt and fuller legged pants looks better than the man in the blue polo because the higher rise pants lends better proportions.
Similarly, I think McQueen looks better here because the t-shirt on the right is just too long. The ratio between the upper and lower halves of an outfit will depend on the intended aesthetic (and there are many aesthetics), but the "rule of thirds" is a good starting point.
We now move to our second point: specialized fabrics.
We have specialized fabrics today, but they are built for performance, not aesthetics. The nylon pants on the left are wrinkly (thus, they don't drape cleanly). On the right, we see a cleaner line (good drape).
When you look at photos of well-dressed men in the past or even today, their trousers often drape well because they are cut from heavier wool fabrics. Some can still be comfy bc of the open weave.
Last photo shows Lululemon's popular ABC pants, made from polyester. Hangs poorly
It can be remarkable to see how such small details can affect an outfit: just a bit more room, a more interesting shape, and natural materials. Combined with a better pair of shoes — even if they may not be cloud cushion soft — and you have a better summer outfit.
Here is yet another example: a slightly textured polo with a deep placket and skipper collar paired with a woven belt and full, high-rise pleated trousers (shape, drape, natural materials). IMO, this looks better than the low rise chino with tech polo on the right.
Some may fear the fear the left outfit looks "gay" in a modern context. I personally think this is fine, as modern straight male aesthetics are often ugly. But you can use the principles of the past (shape, drape, texture, detailing) to create a modern masculine outfit.
These small tweaks can make a big impact. The shorts on the left look better because they have a distinctive shape, while the shorts on the right just follow the person's body. Combined with the layer (admittedly not always possible) and improved color combo, outfit looks better.
The other thing is knowing how to combine things. These outfits look bad because the combinations don't make any cultural sense, like Noam Chomsky's "colorless green ideas sleep furiously" as an example of a sentence that's grammatically correct but semantically nonsensical.
Unfortunately, this is not something I can cover in this thread, as it's basically covering all of culture. If you want to learn how to combine clothes, just pay attention to culture, both contemporary and historical. Read about punks, rock climbers, fishermen, aristocrats, etc.
The point of this thread is only to emphasize the role of shape, drape, and detailing in why people looked better in the past, which are ideas that can be carried forward to modern outfits.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Let me tell you a beautiful story about this couch. 🧵
IG msviciousdesign
Some will recognize these motifs as Mughal paintings, which flourished on the Indian subcontinent sometime between the 16th and 18th century. But menswear nerds will recognize them as something else: Drake's of London.
Left: thrifted couch
Right: Drake's of London scarf
Drake's of London is a menswear label that started in the 1970s, initially with men's accessories, but having since grown to a full line of apparel. They are known for many things, but this print is perhaps their most famous. It appears on scarves, pocket squares, and even ties.
Style lessons from Robert Redford, one of the most stylish men in the last century. 🧵
A tailored jacket continues to be one of the most flattering things you can wear. However, for it to look good, it has to fit right. That means a jacket that bisects you halfway from your collar to the floor when you're in heeled shoes. Also trouser + suit jacket silhouette flows
It also helps to know how to use this visual language, especially with regard to ideas about formality. For instance, a dark business suit cries out for a tie. If you don't want to wear a tie, try a more casual garment, like a sport coat.
Let's start with a test. Here are two tan polo coats. One is machine-made. The other is handmade. Can you guess which is which?
Please answer before moving on. Then you can scroll through the answers to see whether most people got it right.
The first coat is machine-made. It's from an American ready-to-wear company called J. Press. The second is handmade. It's from a London bespoke tailoring house called Anderson & Sheppard.
You can spot the difference by how the edges are finished.
I've seen people here suggest Obama was a stylish president. I couldn't disagree more. Outfits like these read better in 2025, but during the slim-fit, Euro style craze of his presidency, Obama was routinely panned for his "frumpy dad style." See Vanity Fair.
His style transformation really came post-presidency. I suspect, but don't have proof, that this is partly the influence of his wife, who is quite stylish. Even his suits look better now. See clean shoulder line + shirt collar points reaching lapels + nice four-in-hand dimple.
Although it's rarely expressed in outright terms, people often use a very simple heuristic when solving fashion problems: they wish to look rich, which is often disguised as "respectable."
I will show you why this rarely leads to good outfits. 🧵
In 1902, German sociologist Georg Simmel neatly summed up fashion in an essay titled "On Fashion." Fashion, he asserted was simply a game of imitation in which people copy their "social betters." This causes the upper classes to move on, so as to distinguish themselves.
He was right. And his theory explains why Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor, was the most influential menswear figure in the early 20th century. By virtue of his position and taste, he popularized soft collars, belted trousers, cuffs, Fair Isle sweaters, and all sorts of things.
It's funny to see people imbue traditional men's tailoring with their own prejudices. They assume every man who wore a suit in the far past must be a staunch conservative like them. The truth is much more complicated. 🧵
This bias, of course, stems out of the 1960s and 70s, from which many of our contemporary politics also spring. I don't need to belabor this point because you already know it. The framing is neatly summed up in this Mad Men scene — the rag tag hippie vs man in a suit.
Thus, people assume that men in suits must always be part of the conservative establishment. But this was not always so. The suit was once a working man's garment. When Keir Hardie, founder of the Labour Party, arrived for his first day in Parliament, he wore a suit.