The worst holdover I’ve ever seen in life is the Giorgio Armani-inspired, dropped gorge jacket lapel, popularized in the early 80’s. It STILL refuses to die, as so many secondary and tertiary suit manufacturers have had it in a death-grip for so long, they simply don’t know how to let go. When I see men wearing these languid lapels--and I do still see them--I am almost overcome by pity, and have to fight the urge to reach into my pocket and hand them a dollar. But, do not forget that often the most insidious thing about a trend that goes too far is not always the trend itself, but the adverse reaction people have when they finally wake up: they run too far in the opposite direction (e.g.; the ‘morning after’ reaction to Armani’s super-low button stance was all of those marvelous four and five-button single-breasted suits of the nineties—some of which are also still with us). The current high-gorge lapel, which is the reaction to Armani’s low gorge, is sneakier. I personally like them. The high-gorge lapels Leonard Logsdail makes for Larry Kudlow, to me, look fantastic. But that isn’t to say that men won’t collectively wake up one day and say, “Ok, why is my lapel gorge up near my earlobes?” So you have to be careful.
Another murky trend isn’t just hanging on; it’s taking a turn for the worse. Flat-front suit pants (I am mentally incapable of using the exalted word ‘trouser’ for anything without pleats) reminded me of the seventies, and I hoped the trend would pass quickly. Now suit makers at the highest end, both in Naples and New York, are making suit pants that resemble tight, low-rise, five-pocket jeans, sometimes complete with rivets. Seldom have I seen a sight so wretched. It is an outfit desperately in want of cowboy boots & spurs, and, unless you are invited to a hoe-down requiring jacket and tie, I’m not sure where else one could safely wear such a contraption.
With much time and contemplation I have found that, if one wishes to be a well-dressed man, sometimes the best first step is to memorize this simple phrase, “‘Balance’ isn’t a bad word.”
Words by Barry Pullen
Posts
13 comments:
Damn, Will! You just brought in these new guys so we'd miss your prose!
You don't miss your water til teh well runs dry.
While I agree with everything the writer states, the way this is presented is condescending and arrogant. The comment about handing a man a dollar who is wearing a suit with low gorge lapels is extremely condescending and pretentious. Also some men look better in flat front. On Savile Row they have been making flat front for years.
i have to agree with the author. I went shopping today--I literally did not see a single suit that was not flat fronted, and in some form of a "Slim cut." Now, I have friends who can, in fact, wear flat fronts well. I.e.--they are thin and fit enough that there trousers reach their natural waist, thus preventing the unsightly bulge of shirt from appearing under their waistcoats. None the less, 99% of people can not wear them correctly. If they wear them, it is at their hips, and nothing is more unsightly than a pair of such trousers worn on the hips when the individual does not have a totally flat stomach. Of course, the current ubiquity of belts and ill-fitting clothing in general does not help.
That really is an appalling suit the poor gentleman in the photo wears, just appalling.
And skinny neckties! Begone skinny neckties! Better to not wear a tie at all. Better to not wear a tie and button one's top button like Iranian politicians or Tim Robbins in "The Shawshank Redemption."
Things happen for a reason: Suits that flatter the figure make the shoulders appear broad, the waist narrow, the legs long.
Trousers rise to the natural waist because it is the narrowest part of the torso and the natural fulcrum of the body. They have pleats to accommodate the body in motion.
The gorge of the coat is placed high, so that the lapel can descend to a buttoning point at the waist. The coat is buttoned there because--again--this is the narrowest point of the torso and the fulcrum of the body.
Nowadays, coats are often buttoned high and the trousers worn on the hips, exposing an unsightly triangle of shirt between the buttoning point of the coat and the trousers' waist band--destroying the line of the suit.
The old Armani suits were truly an abomination. With the coats buttoned low at the hip and worn with wide, low rise trousers, they made the torso appear unnaturally long and the legs short. The wearer had to be very tall and thin to pull this off; anybody else would simply appear as if he were suffering from dwarfism.
Both of these disasters are the product of ladies' dressmakers like Armani and others, trying to "improve" upon a form of menswear that's already been perfected. But then the clothes only had to look well on their models in the fashion photos, weather or not they were flattering on others would have been irrelevant.
I have to agree with you about one point: while I do think there is a place for flat, plain front trousers this only as long as they are well cut. Your must be commended for pointing out the elephant in the room: you mentioned the 1970s. Because, though the designers would have us believe they are offering an early sixties continental cut a la MadMen or George Peppard, the real result, when not well cut is really much more 70s than 60s, an inconvenient truth in which designers would not wish to be caught, because the 70s, for some good reasons lack the coolness factor of the 60s. You were right to remind the reader of a sneaky return to the 70s.
Lapo Elkann poor?
Iranian politicians??!
The myth of Armani was created especially from Americans.
In Italy,in 80s, i not remember many Armani suits around.
I never understood why at time Armani liked so much in United States!
Was (and is) horrible.
Carmelo, I'm certain you are right. Armani became famous in America after the hit movie "American Gigolo" was released. It was supposed to be the the height of Italian style when Americans knew nothing of Italian style.
I also remember that sales people loved the ready to wear Armanis because they were easy to alter to fit the customer. I suspect that Italian men would be more interested in clothes that are beautiful than ones that are easy. I also guess that Italians would be dismayed at suits that are glued together, made entirely by machine, wear out quickly, and are expensive.
Why would an Italian man wear Armani when he lives in a country where there are so many things that are better?
You're entirely right about the Brits (those that have some sense of style of course). When people comment on my clothes or shoes some of which are 35 years old I invariably reply my clothes never went out of style because they were never in style. That's not to say I haven't had the odd disaster sometimes quite expensive (that 80's big shouldered Polo coat!). The current bum freezer jackets that don't fit around the collar and reveal the pant waistband....how long is that going to last? That said I think the flood pant interregum did focus on trouser bottoms and might be doing some damage to elephant ankles so that's a good thing. I think the author here is being a bit all embracing on the flat fronted pant, they have their place in casual wear although he's right about the superiority of pleats for suits or number 1 pants
I'm glad to hear that someone else shares my distaste of flat front pants. I don't care what anyone says. When pleated trousers are worn properly (up high on the natural waist) they always look better than flat front pants on just about everyone. The fashion industry would have you think otherwise because they can shave a few pennies making flat front pants instead.
The man in the photo looks like a caricature of the type of person seen on The Sartorialist or at Pitti Uomo.
Can we safely assume he's wearing highwater pants and double monk strap shoes with one buckle undone?
Thank you, Will, for being the voice of sartorial sanity.
Post a Comment