/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.15105628]

Can I wear traditionally tailored three piece suits with braces and a high rise to a business setting while still being socially acceptable? If not, would a suit without the waistcoat but with the high rise look out of place? Is there any way I could make that work?

[Anonymous No.15105635]

If you're handsome, probably.
If you're not, it's tryhard.

[Anonymous No.15105654]

>>15105628
nothing wrong with a three peice suit, but it depends on how formal your company is. Make sure there's no pleats though. and I'd watch the rise to an extent.
>>15105635
also this

[Anonymous No.15105668]

>>15105654
That suit has a very modern cut. The waistcoat is too long for the jacket.

[Anonymous No.15105677]

>>15105668
of course it's a modern cut, an older cut would be really baggy and look akward by today's standards

[Anonymous No.15105696]

>>15105677
>>15105677
I'm not talking about 40s or 50s suits. Here's a suit from the 1920s. It isn't baggy at all. Look at the proportions of the waistcoat to pants and see how it respects the golden ratio.

[Anonymous No.15105702]

>>15105696
Silent Tom looks gay, probably a snitch

[Anonymous No.15105703]

>>15105677
Here's another image. These would look quite modern without the hats.

[Anonymous No.15105705]

>>15105703
are these models for Dutch people?

[Anonymous No.15105724]

>>15105628
is lenin's beret effay?
i recently got one that looks similar but still i'm not quite sure whether to wear it or not

[Anonymous No.15105728]

>>15105628
If you’re using a pic of Lenin as inspiration then you probably can’t pull it off

[Anonymous No.15105731]

>>15105724
It looks like a flat cap to me.

[Anonymous No.15105735]

>>15105728
I'm apolitical with some conservative leanings. It was just the first example I found.

[Anonymous No.15105755]

>>15105728
Here's Oswald Mosley with a double breasted waistcoat for comparison; men's clothes were somewhat wider in the 30s.

[Anonymous No.15105793]

>>15105696
Would look like you have some bodily anomaly too hide and you always will be that guy with the tit-high shorts. Not worth it my man and that comes from someone who likes high rise as well. If you're fat, just cut.

[Anonymous No.15105795]

Here is inspiration from popular Netflix gang show.

[Anonymous No.15105797]

>>15105795
too british 3 me, dropped

[Anonymous No.15105799]

>>15105795
I tried watching it but it was too british accents and british cultural things, fucked it off

[Anonymous No.15105800]

>>15105793
Why does everyone associate high rise with fat? I'm on the complete other end of the spectrum. I just like natural human proportions.

[Anonymous No.15105801]

>>15105795
also Netflix shouldn't be mentionned if you wanna recommend something. netflix is for vagina

[Anonymous No.15105802]

>>15105696
>>15105800
the guy in the middle is repulsive

[Anonymous No.15105806]

>>15105802
Yeah, well they were ordinary people and criminals. They couldn't afford to dress that well. They are still very well dressed by today's standards.

[Anonymous No.15105807]

>>15105800
You might not be fat, but it's still not a good look in modern society. But you would kno that if you would actually work in an envoirement which makes suites a necessity.

[Anonymous No.15105811]

>>15105806
no I mean that unsightly tire

[Anonymous No.15105815]

>>15105628
Sorry nah, three piece suits are generally stuffy by today's standards. You might be able to make something work but I think it would be pretty hard for a younger guy.
In a business setting you are best off just going for the standard two piece suit in charcoal or navy.

[Anonymous No.15105816]

>>15105696

[Anonymous No.15105818]

>>15105816
It would look worse without the high rise. His belly gets divided into two visual parts, and half of the fat gets concealed by the pants.

[Anonymous No.15105819]

>>15105818
Yes, and that's why everybody thinks you're fat if you want to wear them.

[Anonymous No.15105830]

>>15105819
A fat person looks fat no matter what he wears (although with that example he could conceal it better). I don't see how that would be different with a skinny person. I'm talking about tailored clothing here; it would naturally match the silhouette of the wearer.

[Anonymous No.15105861]

>>15105830
Jesus, are you dense? You asked why verbody thinks only fat people like that stay and explain yourself that those are the people profiting the most from high rise.

Again, you can not wear high rise in any business envoirement and when you don't need a suit for work it will always look silly if you still wear one, especially vintage cuts. You will look like that unironical fat faggot from "gentlemens gazette" selling overprized ringled socks to young guys without style.

[Anonymous No.15105870]

>>15105861
Why do you say that only fat people benefit from high rise? I never said that. You came to that conclusion on your own. High rises look better on the vast majority of body types. It elongates the legs, and makes the waist look smaller in comparison with the shoulders. How does making an argument about the benefits of a higher rise on fat people disprove the benefits of a higher rise on leaner people. You are the one that can't follow an argument, not me. Work on your spelling. I can identify you as a poster by your consistent spelling and grammatical mistakes.

[Anonymous No.15105871]

>>15105861
that guy lifts so his fat is redistributed differently

[Anonymous No.15105872]

>>15105861
he looks pudgy but like he lifts

[Anonymous No.15105878]

>>15105861
He looks like he squats a lot of weight. Are those massive legs just genes?

[Anonymous No.15105888]

>>15105870
>Why does everyone associate high rise with fat?
>It would look worse without the high rise. His belly gets divided into two visual parts, and half of the fat gets concealed by the pants.

Yes, all people look better in it, but that's also why malformed will go out of their way to wear vintage to hide their bestiality. Are you a manlet trying to look taller? Not gonna work, you will be lil' caponne at best. Why do you want that suit? Surely not because you work in a suit envoirement, because that would disolve the whole reason for suits: to look alike.

Do you wanna larp because your life is shit? Go on, be my guest.

Do you just like the vintage style? Inplement it softer. Get high rise jeans instead of a suit and pair with a nice belt. Wala.

Don't post again, if you're gonna act like a stupid negro.

[Anonymous No.15105889]

>>15105871
>>15105872
>>15105878
He's all pudding, no tendie.

[Anonymous No.15105899]

>>15105888
Now you're just name-calling. You're working off the axiom that I have an ugly body. Well you're wrong. I'm tall, lean and muscular, and I would argue that higher rises benefit taller people the most, as taller people generally have larger torsos. I'm not the one who wants to make everything a shit-flinging contest. The real nigger here is you.

[Anonymous No.15105900]

>>15105861
I am curious, what would be his jeans size in Levis? like 36?

[Anonymous No.15105901]

>>15105899
Instead of bitching about muh namecalling you couldn have just answered the questions what your goal with such a suit would be, but instead you acted like a negro in full defensive mode.

Be gay somewhere else.

[None !IGORsW/P/E No.15105902]

>>15105861
I am curious, what would be his jeans size in Levis 512? like 36?

[Anonymous No.15106147]

>>15105888
>the whole reason for suits: to look alike.
You don't know what you're talking about and might be retarded.

[Anonymous No.15106152]

>>15105807
yes because modern suits are cheaply made and most people get one for below 50 usd.

A classic suit from the 20s-40s will objectively look good as it is design to be the perfect male garment. It WILL look out of place but that doesn't mean it will look bad

[Anonymous No.15106336]

>>15106152
>asks opinions
>kvetches through the whole thread about how he disagrees with said opinions
Go buy yourself some of those pnts and stop annoying people as you are clearly unwilling to face the truth. Maybe some RL cinge will make you understand.

[Anonymous No.15106343]

>>15106336
He isn't OP. May I ask how old you are?

[Anonymous No.15106363]

>>15106343
35, working in business formal attire and dressing myself in vintage as well offwork. Just less autistically. In echange, tell me what you're working as or what necessitats a suit for you.

[Anonymous No.15106640]

>>15106363
Anon was correct I'm not OP but I also have interest in vintage clothing. Why? Because it's simply much better made and with much better materials.
I'm a classical musician and mostly mix Yohji and vintage. Also a lot into old military clothing.

IMO the suit in the coming years will be worn much more because people WANT to wear it instead of because they have to. That's a due to as you have noted, the suit is barely required for professional fields these days.

[Anonymous No.15106656]

>>15106640
Wearing suits for style is brainlet tier for men. You dress to the occasion. Wearing a tree piece with tie and cloth for fun is like playing pretend. You like the look becaue of what it's signalied, similarly how men wear lumberjack shirts. People without true life perspectives seek to fullfill their dreams in copying perceived positive realities from others ("How do I copy Drivers look?").

I sew many of my own cloths and actual vintage/ antique material isn't better, it's worse. It's only better if you compare it to fast fashion bullshit. Get a suit made out of natural fibers by a tailors hand and you will get even better quality, fit and style.

Also saying that it's barely requiered today is only once again showing that you never worked in any professional field to begin with. Just because you tendie dealer doesn't wear an armani suit, doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Just like being able to differenciate a desert knife of a menu one or being able to eat with a fish fork, wearing matching suits is a class divider and show off os social standing. Those only adapting it, will be clearly standing out while those knowing the subtle features will naturally line in. Such things will never become suitable for the masses, because the nature of the masses never changes. They only adapt pleb tier copies.

[Anonymous No.15106739]

>>15105755
What a loser

[Anonymous No.15106947]

>>15106656
Man I don't know what you're on about.
Firstly the suit is getting more and more irrelevant and that's common knowledge. Why would you deny a fact? JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs already left it out.

Nowhere did I say wearing it for fun. I said many people recently start to wear a suit not because they need to but because they want to. If you think a suit is only for business than you are retarded.

>I sew many of my own cloths and actual vintage/ antique material isn't better, it's worse. It's only better if you compare it to fast fashion bullshit. Get a suit made out of natural fibers by a tailors hand and you will get even better quality, fit and style.
I don't care what you shit you sew but you obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Yes really high end coths are really good and super fine but in the low to medium- medium high the cloths and materials are simply too lightweight. Again there is no point in denying this. Almost every tailor acknowledges this.
There's a reason the 30s are universally refered to as the golden age of tailoring.
>Also saying that it's barely requiered today is only once again showing that you never worked in any professional field to begin with. Just because you tendie dealer doesn't wear an armani suit, doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Just like being able to differenciate a desert knife of a menu one or being able to eat with a fish fork, wearing matching suits is a class divider and show off os social standing.
you're projecting something and I don't even know what. Honestly one of the more autistic posts I've seen on this website.

[Anonymous No.15106993]

>>15106947
Nigger, vintage and antique cloths which survived that long and didn't have been orn out have been high end in their time. Common folk made their cloths out of fucking potato sacks, which later got made into apron, handkerchiefs and what not, leaving to no surviving medium range cloths. Confirmation bias.

And I am not talking about fucking plus high end either. A suit for 500€ isn't even that expansive, yet you can get it bespoken to your needs.
That's how much any good suit will cost or has been paid for in real value.

You're a silly kid which doesn't know shit about what he's talking about. Also fuck kike cooperations.

[Anonymous No.15107325]

>>15106993
Autism

[Anonymous No.15107466]

>>15106993
retard we are talking about suits not peasant clothing.
Also It will be long to explain but I also mean that fabrics in the 20s 30s had much more going to them. Much more experimentation, diffrend patterns and weaves. Pic related

A suit 500 euro is going to get you a fused 2 dimensional construction and will be shit. It's obvious it's you who doesn't get shit.
That is what my point is.
In the 30s everybody was wearing suits and there were no cheap ways to make something look "ok". You mostly paid for what you get. Also no artificial fabrics and cheap work arounds.
And because men's clothing was 99 % suits you could get good stuff not that expensive.

[Anonymous No.15107469]

>>15107466

[Anonymous No.15107475]

>>15107469
Most of suits these days are plain navy or charcoal

[Anonymous No.15107486]

>>15107475

[Anonymous No.15107692]

>>15106739
>loser
AHAHAHHAHHAHA
>is literally a baron
>marries a 10/10 qt
>chad pro fencer
>war hero
Dilate.

[Anonymous No.15108125]

>>15107466
>A suit 500 euro is going to get you a fused 2 dimensional construction and will be shit.
You absolute kek. That's the starting price for a linen summer suit, which doesn't take much. It wholly handsen not glued together like from the rack suits. Nice cope. A normal heavy cotton and silk suit will be at 700€ without any extras and antique ones weren't even lined in most cases, in soft fabrics, if at all.

Your 30s suit of the middle class was extraordinarily easy patterned and second hand from a richer guy as it was expansive. Most guys had one single suit, mended beyond recollection. YOu would know if you would have wathed some old crime photos. Buttons mssing, waists to tight, pants to short etc. The working class (the majority never had enought money for a new suit) Even the middle class had little and at best a sunday suit. What you are talking about are upper clas suits which so rarely got worn thatthey didn't get torn or which family didn't sew them into a womens two piece during the war due to fabric rationing. You are looking at aristocraic heirlooms, tard, no their time H&M suits.

A professional tailor will give you an even better suit, as he doesn't use workarounds and still gets better fabric and techniques.

>>15107475
They are only plain, because that's what is mostly worn. YOu still can get whatever fabric you like. Daily reminder, that those fancy vintage suits only can be looked upon as they have been soo rarely worn back in the day, that they still survived. Most of regular fashion didn't for a reason. Again confirmation bias.

Pic related are all patterns you can get in C&A on a regular basis for cheap.

[Anonymous No.15108131]

>>15107466
Oh, and daily reminder how much 25 dollar was back in the day.