No announcement yet.

Are Esquire writers daft or cruel or corrupt?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts


    ^The world where $700 isn't that much for a suit is a much narrower world than the one most of us inhabit, not a wider world.



      I mostly agree with everything said thus far but wanted to clarify one thing. If you read the fine print, you'll notice that the BR monogram line is usually excluded in most sales. Perhaps their margins aren't as healthy there.



        This thread quickly turned into a junior high lunch room conversation. Here's a tip: ignore the opinions of fashion writers.

        When I first started reading Dappered, I read a comment from someone that mentioned some fashion industry procured advice: Use the photoshoots from fashion magazines as inspiration rather then getting caught up in purchasing the overpriced crap listed in the caption.

        Joe does this on Dappered with his "Steal the Look" articles.



          frost - I think that's the consensus. Use them for inspiration. Mostly the photos, not the text. Even then, the models wear things I would NEVER wear in the real world, even if I had the money. Thom Browne, for instance.

          The distinction, to me, is that Dappered has a disclosure in the right side bar on every post. You can't miss it. From a standpoint of journalistic integrity, I trust a blogger over a storied print magazine.



            I thought everybody assumed Esquire was at the behest of it's sponsorship. I didn't think that would even be up for question.

            I agree with JC. As long as you know what you're buying $700 isn't that much for a suit. That BR suit highlighted is WAY too much. $700 for an OTR suit that is fused and most likely made in China or Egypt? No thank you.

            Suit Supply has OTR, half canvassed suits for $700. $700 for an SS suit is way better than paying the same amount for that BR. Both are OTR though. If you want to get a suit made for you, you could Google Tony the Tailor. I plan on getting a Southwick suit by him later this month. Just shy of a G, but that's canvassed top quality stuff. He can do S. Cohen suits (fused) for $500, and it's custom fit to your body!

            PS. once you get a custom made suit, it is hard to get one OTR. No matter how low cost, the fit will keep you coming back.

            PPS. I'm talking about MTM when measured by the tailor who's making the suit. That online MTM stuff scares me, too risky for my blood.



              Corrupt. It is all about the endorsement ad revenue.



                Considering that Allen Edmonds seems to be the preferred shoe brand here, I'm surprised to hear anyone say that $700 is too much for a suit, assuming that you're getting good value for your money. (I'm sure most here realize that BR and JCrew suits are not good values unless you're getting them at 40% off.)

                To put it another way, if you're paying $250 for your shoes, you really should at least be looking at half-canvassed $500+ suits. Otherwise you're just doing the equivalent of putting high performance tires on a budget sub-compact car.



                  For a LOT of people in here, chances are that the shoes will get more use than the suit. It doesn't seem like flawed logic that they would cost as much or more.

                  Also, a canvased or half-canvased suit is a matter of luxury (but not necessarily durability), whereas an expensive pair of shoes is as much about the durability as the luxury. So there is also a practical aspect to spending more on the shoes.



                    I would love to wear a suit more often. I can't wear it to work, to church...anywhere it seems. I wind up dressing up just for a Saturday around the house! My wife used to complain, but now she's bragging about me. =P

                    I could wear AE shoes most days, but I just don't swim in the the circles that would permit a suit. You know I would wear it if I could!



                      Alan, you definitely have a good point with regards to wearing the shoes more often than suits, that I hadn't considered.

                      However, I'm not sure I entirely agree about durability comparison. Without considering the general fact that more expensive shoes will look better, I don't think cheaper shoes are necessarily less durable/more expensive in the long run.

                      What we really need to compare is the durability of a cheaper shoe's upper against the leather sole of the more expensive shoe (which would most likely be the first part to give before having to put money into a recraft).

                      There is, obviously, the upfront cost of a nicer shoe and a cost associated with recrafting. The leather upper on properly maintained rubber soled shoes can last just as long as the leather sole on nicer shoes, and many times at a cost less than even the cost of recrafting the nicer shoe. On top of that, you also have to consider that the upfront cost of the nicer shoe will recur if you wear them often enough. Allen Edmonds estimates that you can only recraft a pair of their shoes about 3 or 4 times.

                      Now, don't mistake what I'm saying with preferring cheaper shoes. All I'm saying is that cheaper shoes will still be less expensive in the long run, assuming you don't care about looks.



                        Chareth - you make a great point about how resoling is great if you want to continue wearing broken-in, top quality leather shoes. Not great if your bottom line is...the bottom line.

                        My dad's worn shoes for 30 years. Not every day, of course. But his 10.5 shoes have stretched out to his 12EEE feet now. You can't do that with a suit, even with alterations.

                        I feel like there are so many good options for suits at or under $500 that it makes it tough to envision spending more than that, much less 10x that on a suit, no matter how the quality or construction. By the time you have a $500 budget, it seems like there's a rapidly diminishing return on spending over that. Like anything luxury...a little bit better quality, a LOT more expensive.



                          While points on sartorial snobbishness are well taken, I'll defend Esquire as I enjoy the magazine. I didn't subscribe for the style, but it led me on the path to dappered, so all is well.

                          To be fair, there is a huge disconnect between the magazine's readership and it's style direction, and I agree that it has to be a result of pandering to it advertisers.

                          Most of the reader questions fielded by its style editor are all from people trying to look good on a budget, and he is more than happy to accommodate these requests, generally reflecting what's said here on this board. And yes, it has plenty of good style advice that doesn't demand a $63,787 adamantium tie clip fashioned from Wolverine's claws as a staple piece. One of the more recent articles had one of the writers reinventing his look for under $2,000 with the assistance of the fashion executive. Most the staple pieces they picked up have been featured here at one point or another right here.

                          My annual Esquire subscription cost $20, I believe, so it's a bargain. They should know they don't have the same readership as the Robb Report. Again, believe their editorial direction is skewed by the advertisers that keep the publication ticking. The collapse of Cladmen after a half-year should serve as a sniffing salt.

                          But again, I believe it's a good magazine for food, politics, movies, sports and generally celebrating being a better man (there is, alas, more to life than clothes.)

                          Incidentally, if anyone is taking tentative first steps to morph from schlub to better dressed, Esquire's Handbook of Style is a very informative guide.