h a l f b a k e r yTempus fudge-it.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
As you may have noticed, pants have been around for years, the difference is the slight variations in colour, fabric, wash, detailing, and how slim or loose fitting they are.
Even the most conservative of items are fall victim to fashions influence, I own a suit that is quite dashing from the top
up, and it isn’t until I stand up to shake your hand that you will realise that the conservative blue suit was created in the seventies and has enormous bellbottoms.
The problem for many of us, is that fashion is a cruel bully that does not let us sit in the cool group unless we pay weekly or monthly dues it demands.
What I can suggest confidently is that fashion trends are cyclical, and are generally based on subtle variations. With that in mind I think that if we examine all of the most popular pants of the last 100 years- the most popular fabrics, fits, colors, washes, weights, and averaged them out by compromising between the extremes we would have a timeless pair of pants that would never look out of place, or out of date.
This could also be done with shirts, jackets etc, and perhaps to create a small allowance for variation the manufacture could create shirts and pants that weren’t in the most popular colour of the decade, but rather in the top 5 most popular colours.
[link]
|
| |
"My! Aren't you looking average today?" |
|
| |
I'd rather look outdated than average. |
|
| |
There are features which can't be averaged, such as epaulettes, lapels or their lack and the like, so this wouldn't work for tops. Would it work for trousers? Maybe. |
|
| |
It used to be that the more you pay for your clothes, the more like this they'll be. Nowadays, of course, that correlation has little indubitableness, as it's possible to pay an astounding fortune just to look like a yob. |
|
| |
//by compromising between the extremes we would have a timeless pair of pants that would never look out of place, or out of date// |
|
| |
Or possibly, a pair of pants that manages to constantly look out of place, and out of date. |
|
| |
We just don't know enough about the mind of the average fashionista to be able to make this assertion, on account of scientists finding it really hard to locate. |
|
| |
In most scientific studies, I believe Eddie Izzard's "Circle of Cool" method has been shown to be the most reliable method of determining appropriate attire in any given situation. |
|
| |
Envy the Swiss Guard at the Vatican. Their uniforms are ageless. |
|
| |
J. Crew and Eddie Bauer have been making the same stuff since I was in high school in the 80's. Chinos, polo shirts, button-down broadcloth shirts, in primary colors and forest green. Brown oxfords, brown socks, leather belts. If you have your shirts laundered, you'll always look sharp. |
|
| |
bringing up blue jeans only reinforces my point. |
|
| |
skinny jeans, baggy jeans, painters jeans, rhinestone jeans, the 90's shakira lace up jeans, abstinence promoting jeans of the early 90's with a lock instead of a button, stonewash jeans, jeans with holes in them, white jeans, antiqued jeans, lowrise jeans, and highrise jeans, and slip on jeans with elastic waistbands. |
|
| |
You cant tell me that jeans are classic, because most of these stules looked stupid before they even hit the racks. |
|
| |
//kinny jeans, baggy jeans, painters jeans, rhinestone jeans, the 90's shakira lace up jeans, abstinence promoting jeans of the early 90's with a lock instead of a button, stonewash jeans, jeans with holes in them, white jeans, antiqued jeans, lowrise jeans, and highrise jeans, and slip on jeans with elastic waistbands.// |
|
| |
I think he means blue jeans. You know? Blue jeans? None of that crap. Blue jeans. |
|
| |
Or just stop reading fashion magazines. |
|
| |