No announcement yet.

Thin Cardigans = No Balls

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Thin Cardigans = No Balls

    Anyone else? I see someone like this:

    And immediately think they're a wuss. They could lead fantastically successful lives as an MMA fighter, put on one of these thin cardigans, and turn into not just Peter Parker but Tinkerbell.

    Add a shawl collar (Cannon found this earlier), and you're in business. Ready to blow up the world.

    Or something that's more substantial with three dimensional buttons that look like pretzels when you're hungry and can actually keep you warm:

    I know a few hip-dressing friends who love their thin cardigans...I just...I don't have the heart to tell them.


    I hadn't thought about it much. I guess, for me, the problem is one of consistency. A thin sweater is a dressy sweater - think of a very fine-gauge silk/cashmere blend, for example. But cardigans are not dressy at all... they are basically as casual as a sweater can get before it turns into an actual sweatshirt.

    So I guess it's just a weird combo in my mind.




      I only own Shawl, but mainly because I think the standard cardigan looks too dressy for my school and my age at 19. Plus, I am a massive Bond fan, so his Shawl sparked my interest in the first place.

      I don't think wimpy. I just think it doesn't look like it is well-suited to the wearer if they are in a casual or standard public location. Standard cardigan looks good for a wine tasting in a mansion.

      Shawl cardigan looks good for trying out the Triumph Bonneville the moment you receive it on your Birthday.



        You say you don't think wimpy, then you should examples of extreme ballsy-ness.



          So you're carrying a piano up a flight of stairs by yourself. Who do you ask for help? The guy in the thin cardigan or the guy riding his Triumph Bonneville one-handed with a shawl neck cardigan?



            The problem with thin cardigans (and I own a few) is that they drape funny. They bunch in the wrong places and can look awful in any other position than standing perfectly erect. I've taken a liking to cable-knit or anything heavier. It's just much harder to layer than thin cardigans.



              For layering, they're not that bad. I have two thin cardigans, but I don't wear them so much.



                @nicholascrawford well, I have a preference for the more hefty swagger that comes with the shawl . Doesn't mean I think of the elegant grandpa-chic wealthy old American look of the non-Shawl as wimpy.



                  Gotta agree with Nicholas...



                    I think some guys can work the thin cardigan look really well. The way you seem to phrase things comes off as a tad bit condescending and makes me think you're not one of those guys, with all due respect NC. Just my humble opinion.



                      I have massive ego issues.



                        My good man, I'm afraid I must beg to differ ...

                        Then again, I don't own or wear any myself, so who am I to talk?



                          @ColoradoGuy Wade looks tacky there. The huge gold watch tells me that his stylist wanted to make him look 'fresh' like a wealthy man trying to flash and flaunt it through new or expensive looking clothes (like these awful college students that wear a big collection of Nike sneakers, a big watch, Dr. Dre beats headphones, and leave the sticker on their baseball hat to show that it is new when it looks stupid). He isn't trying to dress like a gentleman, or traditionally, or classically, or conservatively. He is trying to be 'fresh' and 'hot' to show his rich modern non-business assets.

                          Or so I think. The watch just throws it into a show-it-off spiral for me. I will say that he doesn't look wimpy at all. I suppose it is better than always being extra casual in jackets and hoodies like some celebrities.

                          I don't get the vibe he was really trying to pull off a nice cardigan classic look like this English couple we all know:



                            Two differences that set Wade's picture apart from the one in the OP (is that Peter Parker in the new Spider-Man movie?) and the football player example:

                            1) The cardigan has texture and appears to be more heavily knit. Instant "ball size" upgrade.

                            2) Wade's pose takes on a more masculine, almost confrontational stance compared to Parker's (or whoever that is) wimpy arms hanging down/droopy shoulder pose. The brightness and color of the football player's sweater lends to the "no balls" appearance.

                            But I will concur with acousticfoodie on this one. I was wearing one just like Parker the other day and couldn't tell what it was but something looked off—this only confirms it was the thin cardigan with no outer layer above it



                              I think there's a place for both of them, I have a couple shawl collar cardigans and a few thin ones, and while I personally wear the shawl collars more often (esp when its cold out), I feel like the thinner cardigan leans more casual and a lot more useful in the cooler days of spring/fall too, plus I think a key w/ thinner cardigans is getting one that fits really well and doesn't droop at the sides....I think Beckham and Wade's sweaters look good, while Tuck's is a really loud color and doesn't seem to fit correctly to me... and in the OP the first guy would look a lot less sloppy if he tucked in the shirt and ditched the white t shirt...