Jackets

[Anonymous No.6784287]

I've been accused in the other thread that I must be trolling because I said I own a pea coat and a trench coat, and actually wear them on the streets. I wasn't.
So, since fall is coming, I've been looking for coats/jackets, but since /fa/ matters to me so much ... I think I'll ask you guys, what do you recommend.

[Anonymous No.6784305]

oh god why

[hardlystylin No.6784340]

peacoats, like the cdb were something /fa/ picked up when it shouldn't have. they were trendy, but pretty terrible.
mind you, a single breasted peacoat is extremely versatile and refined looking, it's basically the black suit version of an m65.
or you could get the non-black non-suit version of a single breasted peacoat, the renowned m65.

post your pea/trenchcoat for further analysis.

you'll probably get recommended a bomber. bomber's are the new peacoat for the last couple years and, unlike the peacoat, they're nice.
for a workwear style, there are carhartts, pricier items from filson will last you and look great but size down.
my personaly cheap favourite a brown corduroy levis jacket. great levi's fit without the denim look.

what you've posted is hideous btw.

[Anonymous No.6784346]

>>6784340
m65's are shit

[Anonymous No.6784351]

>>6784340
and so are brown corduroy jackets. shit nigger

[twerk it No.6784371]

>>6784340
it's not a pea coat if it's single breasted. m-65s have no relation to pea coats, except that they're both garments. maybe you shouldn't be doling out advice.

>>6784346
you can stop too.

[hardlystylin No.6784386]

>>6784346
out of all the damn jackets I own, I still come back to it because it's a simple masculine casual jacket
if you could come up with an alternative in the same boundaries (style, cost), it would actually mean something, but I know you won't.

>>6784346
>m65's are shit

m65's are like bombers, you're calling a massive style of jacket shit, even rick makes m65s. fuck anything with four symmetrical pockets, two on the breast and two on the waist, and a longer cut, is an m65, and even that isn't a strict definition.

[twerk it No.6784404]

>>6784386
except when they're called safari jackets.
>they're the same!
no, they're riffing on two different traditions.
btw rick makes pea coats

[Anonymous No.6784409]

>>6784340
this nigga is retarded

[hardlystylin No.6784417]

>>6784371
>it's not a pea coat if it's single breasted
what's this?
>m-65s have no relation to pea coats, except that they're both garments

except they're both military garments, which is why I made the comparison of the peacoat being like a suit version of the m65, because it's refined, how did you miss that?

best part is that you tried to invalidate my advice without giving any of your own. I mean what if you actually tried to help? are you afraid of these shits judging you?
>>6784346
>>6784351

[Anonymous No.6784434]

>>6784417

>what's this?

its not a peacoat. its a 3/4 length coat.

[twerk it No.6784435]

>>6784417
>what's this?

the result of a marketing department misapplying codified terminology. pea coats are, by definition, double breasted.

>except they're both military garments

okay. khaki pants are also derived from military tradition. suit jackets derive from a combination of military and civilian tradition trading tropes back and forth over centuries. i wouldn't consider a suit jacket a suitable replacement for an m65 or a pea coat, and i definitely wouldn't consider a pair of khakis worn bolero style around your arms to be a very suitable replacement for any of these.

>best part is that you tried to invalidate my advice without giving any of your own.

i don't have any recommendations for the op because his question is too vague to properly answer. what does he need the jacket for? a leather jacket is durable and pretty easy to care for, but unless it's quilted or layered, won't be warm enough if he lives in siberia. a tailored wool coat might not be feasible for his budget and maybe he lives in a place where the weather doesn't justify it. maybe he's into old school hip hop and would like a puffer jacket, but how would i know? he hasn't told me enough to make a call like that.

[Anonymous No.6784451]

Thinking about copping for fall/early winter. Or should I wait for ma-1 to get back in stock?

[Anonymous No.6784460]

>>6784451
still think the regular parka's better

[Anonymous No.6784473]

>>6784386
no, it's a very specific style of jacket, idiots just like to use the term generically. There are some nice m65s, but most of them look like shit.

>>6784371
>thinking your opinion carries any weight after the outfits you've posted

[Anonymous No.6784489]

>>6784417
that's a topcoat. you can have a single breasted peacoat, though. it's not typical of the design, but they exist

[Anonymous No.6784496]

you're such a little bitch, twerk it. you really are.

[hardlystylin No.6784498]

>>6784435
you have a better understanding of the history of some of this, but you're weighing in too heavy with the formalisms. a single breasted peacoat may not be traditionally correct, but I'm sure you know this is the way things go.
I'm not sure why you brought suit jackets into the equation, I fail to see what you're trying to say.
I mentioned 'suit version' as a colloquial term to be interpreted by the OP as 'upscale' or 'refined'

and yes, you can't determine what OP wants exactly. you could ask, but if you've ever tried helping somebody on this board you might have noticed that suggesting and prodding can help produce a forum to better the OP come to a conclusion on a particular item.
he might respond with 'I need something warmer, cheaper, that's ugly,' etc,
My suggestion was less gimmicky but very similar in warmth and construction to his image, not very fashion forward.

somebody who isn't informed and needs help with something sometimes doesn't know what questions need to be asked, suggestion helps.

[Anonymous No.6784501]

>>6784287
get a parka

[Anonymous No.6784517]

What's a good parka to get? I'm looking at the Norse Projects Elka but I don't really know how to into outerwear.

[twerk it No.6784530]

>>6784498
>pea jacket/pea coat 1. copy of a U.S. sailor's hip-length, straight, double-breasted navy-blue wool coat with notched lapels, vertical slash pockets, and vent in back. Inspiration for coats designed by Yves Saint Laurent in Paris in 1960s, and a classic coat style for men, women, and children. Also called pea coat and formerly called pilot coat. 2. From 1830s on, man's double-breasted, unfitted thigh-length jacket with wide lapels and notched collar. Worn either as an overcoat or as a suit jacket. In 1850s had large buttons, usually six. Also called a pilot coat. Der. So called because it was made of "pilot cloth." From 1860 known as a reefer.
- The Fairchild Dictionary of Fashion, Charlotte Mankey Calasibetta and Phyllis Tortora, Third Edition.

a single breasted coat ceases to be a pea coat, by definition. this isn't a "formalism", it's a question of accuracy and consistency.

>I'm not sure why you brought suit jackets into the equation, I fail to see what you're trying to say.

that a military tradition is irrelevant because m65s and pea coats are not the same thing and are not subtitutes for one another, and their military traditions are entirely separate to boot. one is a simple protective, possibly rain proof coat and the other is an insulating winter coat. both have different connotations and will bring different moods to an outfit.

[Anonymous No.6784547]

>>6784517
isn't the elka a rain coat?

[Anonymous No.6784556]

>>6784530
And if it doesn't have vertical slash pockets? Does it cease to be a peacoat? By your logic, it would.

Ergo, twerk it is a little pedantic bitch.

[twerk it No.6784564]

>>6784556
you'll tear your pea coat if you reach that far.

[Anonymous No.6784582]

>>6784547
like I said, I don't know the first thing about outerwear. Now I live somewhere foggy and rainy and I need to get warm.

[Anonymous No.6784586]

where do i buy a cheap dark blue parka?

[twerk it No.6784595]

>>6784582
if your budget is a concern then the most effective method would be a water proof shell and something warm and insulting beneath it, like a wool sweater. it's up to you how to budget it, since you could stay pretty dry with a $5 rubber coat from the hardware store, or you could stay pretty warm with a pack of thermals from wherever. or you could go all in and pick up a taped seam goretex jacket and a dense fisherman sweater from sns herning.

>>6784586
milsurp, the air force issues its rain gear in a dark blue.

[Anonymous No.6784599]

>>6784582
they're kinda flimsy, they'll keep you dry but not warm. You could just wear insulating layers underneath though.

[Anonymous No.6784620]

>>6784530
If you wanted a coat with relatively the same style as a peacoat but with a single breast, what would you google?
whether it's incorrect or not, designers will label their items for this age, not 1850-1950. consistency doesn't exist in the evolution of anything especially language, and this discussion is almost completely semantic now. you could google single breasted coat, and I have done it many times last year when I was interested in purchasing one, though ultimately I didn't, I did find that that was the term most commonly used by designers for what appeared to be the most similar item, a single breasted pea coat styled coat.

trenchcoats are aesthetically very different.
You could go on to say that peacoats should never be clashed with a single breast style, because it's 'inaccurate' or 'not consistent', but again styles have evolved, and it is in demand now, that is why large names like Burberry label them as such.

>there military traditions are entirely separate
yet they are both military in nature, thus the comparison. in this fashion world scroutinizing details beyond their Modern interpretations is ostentatious. We're not even wearing them because we're in the military, there is no relevance to these styles today except for the fact that they have influenced the fashion world to produce pieces in similar styles. comparing one military jacket and implying that it is more refined than another military jacket isn't a crime.
and they are not in any way substitutes for each other, I never said that. I specified one is a refined version of the other. I know why you don't want that to be said or to be true, and you can tell me I'm interpreting all these words incorrectly, but I'm concerned with application a lot more than definitions, and these definitions fail to apply to our current fashion world consistently. If the context were clothing history, it'd be great to point that out to me, but OP just wants a jacket.

[hardlystylin No.6784629]

>>6784530

If you wanted a coat with relatively the same style as a peacoat but with a single breast, what would you google?
whether it's incorrect or not, designers will label their items for this age, not 1850-1950. consistency doesn't exist in the evolution of anything especially language, and this discussion is almost completely semantic now. you could google single breasted coat, and I have done it many times last year when I was interested in purchasing one, though ultimately I didn't, I did find that that was the term most commonly used by designers for what appeared to be the most similar item, a single breasted pea coat styled coat.

trenchcoats are aesthetically very different.
You could go on to say that peacoats should never be clashed with a single breast style, because it's 'inaccurate' or 'not consistent', but again styles have evolved, and it is in demand now, that is why large names like Burberry label them as such.

>there military traditions are entirely separate
yet they are both military in nature, thus the comparison. in this fashion world scroutinizing details beyond their Modern interpretations is ostentatious. We're not even wearing them because we're in the military, there is no relevance to these styles today except for the fact that they have influenced the fashion world to produce pieces in similar styles. comparing one military jacket and implying that it is more refined than another military jacket isn't a crime.
and they are not in any way substitutes for each other, I never said that. I specified one is a refined version of the other. I know why you don't want that to be said or to be true, and you can tell me I'm interpreting all these words incorrectly, but I'm concerned with application a lot more than definitions, and these definitions fail to apply to our current fashion world consistently. If the context were clothing history, it'd be great to point that out to me, but OP just wants a jacket.

[Anonymous No.6784630]

Is it that time?

[Anonymous No.6784636]

>>6784564

good luck getting into any airport looking like that fuccboi

[Anonymous No.6784639]

>>6784564
twerk it got recht. back pedal harder pussy bitch

[twerk it No.6784700]

>>6784629
if you want a coat with a single breasted closure, you might look for a single breasted coat, car coat, albert coat, walking jacket. compare this to terms such as campaign coat, edwardian coat, coachman's coat, and other terms that specify a double breasted closure, or to frock, trench, and even reefer which have no or vague specifications about closure. accuracy is important because, if requested to produce a pea coat for a client, they would be entirely justified in expressing disappointment if you present them with a single breasted coat (ignoring that they'd hopefully be more precise in the first place).

>I specified one is a refined version of the other.

no. they're completely different garments.

[Anonymous No.6784887]

op here.
thank you for the responses.

I have a very fragile frame, I'm 5'11" only weighing ~100 lbs - yes I'm a male. I've never wore bomber jackets but I have two problems with them:
- I recognize them too military(es) - even though reading through this thread I learned that peas and ofc trenches are as well are. I don't like that idea and I can't shake it off my head. Back then when I was at high school I was bullied by these skinheads who wore it - I'm a Jew btw, and they had a very tidy space fucking with a guy weighing half they do.
- I'd look in them like a lolly pop. Stick legs on a barrel or something. No way, thank you.


Responses to the images:

>>6784340
I find that jacket you posted ugly.

>>6784371
Damn, I like that.

>>6784386
Looks good on kanye, not so well on the other pic. Not sure about the material though.

>>6784451
I don't really like sporty stuff either.

>>6784564
What's on him?! A freakin' tent?!

>>6784595
Haha. No.

>>6784630
That's more like it! 8/10

Keep more coming. Just for inspiration.


also, I've been thinking about these - pic related. Yes I'm a bit contradicting, I said I don't like sporty stuff, but idk somehow I like this kind.

[Anonymous No.6784936]

How does one wear a bomber without being associated with the skinhead movement/a faggot trying to look hardcore

[Anonymous No.6784944]

>>6784936
Exactly.

op.

[Anonymous No.6784988]

>>6784944
I meant it as a question

[Anonymous No.6785039]

>>6784988
Isn't it ironic then?

[Anonymous No.6785052]

>>6785039
No, I'm seriously asking how I can wear a bomber without being associated with the skinhead movement/a faggot trying to look hardcore.
They're plain and versatile, but I don't want people to hate on me for being "a poser"

[Anonymous No.6785053]

I'm curious OP. It's obvious that you are not really into /fa/, so what makes you come here to ask for advice. There just so many better places that are MADE to help you, or you could ask some girls you know, hell you might even get a date or just some nice advice, but no, you decide to come to this board, where people can anonymously call you an idiot and give you false advice. Why?

[Anonymous No.6785059]

>>6785052
Depends on where you live, we can't really answer that. In the USA it's cool and rebellious to wear a t-shirt related to the soviet union, in a post-communist country people spit on you for it.

[Anonymous No.6785071]

>>6785059
I live in Sweden.

[Anonymous No.6785130]

Can anyone id this jacket?

[Anonymous No.6785168]

>>6785052
Living in the US, I would never see someone in a bomber and assume they were trying to look like a skin or 'hardcore' or anything like that. There aren't many skinheads around in the US though.. sure you can find plenty of examples, but the majority of people won't run into one in their daily lives.

Older people might have memories to when it was more prevalent but as far as i know, the whole skinhead thing was never as big in the us as it was in england

also op sorry you had to deal with racist skins those guys are fags

[Anonymous No.6785185]

>>6785168
I guess it's a no-no for me then, never seen anyone wear a bomber IRL who weren't a self-proclaimed "though guy" or skinhead.

[Anonymous No.6785351]

>>6785130
http://totokaeloman.com/store/products/d-rk-sh-d-w-by-rick-owens/ss13/worker-jacket/black-wax
here you go fuccboi

[Anonymous No.6785394]

As if there is actually anything wrong with peacoats.

[Anonymous No.6785402]

>>6785351
>Rick
>fugg :DDD

Thanks

[Anonymous No.6785525]

>>6785053
Occasionally visits on /fa/ made an impression on me that even though I may not be a 100% /fa/ - thank god for that -, there are opinions I share with the majority here.
It's not like you guys could change my taste, and the fact that I don't even live in the USA makes the advised brands and clothes nearly impossible to get.
Although I'm a bit disappointed, I was expecting a hole lot of more pictures, to get my inspiration from.

[Anonymous No.6785533]

>>6785525
>occasional

sorry, I'm tired.

[Anonymous No.6785601]

W2C bomber / M65? My price range is in the $50 to $90

[fin No.6785636]

>>6785601
>uniqlo
>asos

[Anonymous No.6785690]

>>6785601
thrift shop