Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What are some of your nitpicking/ dislikes about today's menswear?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by 77Pat View Post
    Yeah, I remember reading this article and being surprised by the picture https://www.themodestman.com/clothing-industry-sizes/
    I've railed about the inseam bullshit forever. A 30in inseam being the typical shortest is nuts, because a 30in inseam is about right for someone just under six feet.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by evanparker View Post
      i really think i'll be quite nearly alone in this one, but I constantly wish that more shoe companies would make wide sizes more available. I have so many great Allen Edmonds shoes I just LOVE but to be perfectly honest they're the only shoes that even fit me well, besides a pair of Justin/Chippewa boots i have.
      Opposite but similar problem. I really need a very narrow fit on my shoes (particularly my heel) and standard width shoes are voluminous on my feet.
      Last edited by Alex.C; January 6th, 2020, 02:59 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Hebrew Barrister View Post
        I've railed about the inseam bullshit forever. A 30in inseam being the typical shortest is nuts, because a 30in inseam is about right for someone just under six feet.
        I'm 5'10" and there is no way I could wear a 30 in inseam without showing a good inch and a half of sock

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by garryowen47 View Post
          2) "Tech fabrics." Menswear marketers got smart and realized they can exploit the current trend for "sustainable" and "environmentally-friendly" products by drenching products in artificial fabrics like polyester, and call it a "tech fabric." This trend of "tech fabric" is a reversion to the 1970s when everyone thought polyester was the modern, technologically-advanced fabric of the future. This time around, they're just greenwashing it. The irony is that that the man-made fibers are worse for the environment! They're all just made of plastic. Natural fibers, particularly wool, have a far lower environmental impact. I can't believe that more manufacturers of natural fabrics haven't yet pushed back against these false claims that their fabrics are unsustainable. The only company I've seen do so so far is Naadam, a small cashmere company. But now I'm just ranting...
          I mean, I'm as disgusted by re-branded polyester clothes as you are, but from a sustainability perspective, do natural fibers necessarily have a lower environmental impact? Sure, they biodegrade eventually, but not that quickly, otherwise your clothes would rot before your eyes like food, and the process of, say, washing cotton fibers, spinning it into yarn, and weaving it into a sheet might end up being pretty dirty, especially if its done in an unregulated 3rd World shop where the owner is free to dump detergents and solvents into an adjacent river.

          Speaking of Naadam, btw, I'm going to have to call BS on roughly 100% of their marketing. In fact, reading their blurbs I'd say that they're kind of a microcosm of everything wrong with the "democratizing" luxury, 3rd world exploitation, conspicuous consumption, and woke capitalism elements of fashion; it seems like most of these new enterprises are just bloated MBA projects run by people who don't understand or appreciate their own product, which I guess is my #menswear pet peeve. With Naadam specifically, the short story is that there is nothing sustainable about cheap cashmere produced in great volumes. To make it happen, you have to graze the heck out of the land until your goats are just short of starving, producing shorter, coarser fibers in the process. The result is a miserable herd, destroyed grasslands, and an inferior sweater. Governments of Mongolia, Tibet, etc. go along with it because they see this as a chance to catch up a bit with the global economy, but it's a short term solution with clear long term penalties.

          Comment


          • #35
            Tech fabrics don't really bother me as much as fast fashion companies selling stuff as "tech" when it is just polyester pants.

            $300 technical gear for hiking through the wilderness I totally understand. There is R&D that goes into that kind of stuff.

            $30 tech pants are just polyester. Come on now.

            Comment


            • #36
              It's funny--there are a lot of trends that people are decrying here that I'm actually a fan of. Obviously, that doesn't mean that someone in this thread is wrong or I'm wrong--ideally, there would be enough choice that we'd all be happy.

              For example:

              1) Shirts without chest pockets. I vastly prefer pocket-less shirts. Why? I just think that the look is much cleaner and easier to dress up or dress down. And I never use the chest pocket on shirts that do have them (I just opt for my pants pockets).
              2) Stretch in garments. As someone who is extremely picky about fit (and still believe that fit is overwhelmingly the most important thing about any piece of clothing), I think that stretch can help fudge things at the margins (in a good way). Also, it's just freaking comfortable.

              What I really hate, though?:

              1) Any online retailer who brags about "cutting out the middleman" to "pass on the savings to you." Don't get me started.
              2) Most, if not all microbrand and homage watch sellers. I've gotten into a pretty nasty fight about this over these forums, so I won't dive too deep into this again.

              Comment


              • #37
                Man, there are a ton of crotchey, angry "old" people on this forum. No stretch? No slim fit? No tech fabrics? No athleisure? No Chelsea boots?

                That's fine, you do you, but man you guys are missing out on a ton comfortable clothing. And this is coming from the dude who prefers 21oz heavyweight selvedge denim.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by stuffedsuperdud View Post
                  I mean, I'm as disgusted by re-branded polyester clothes as you are, but from a sustainability perspective, do natural fibers necessarily have a lower environmental impact? Sure, they biodegrade eventually, but not that quickly, otherwise your clothes would rot before your eyes like food, and the process of, say, washing cotton fibers, spinning it into yarn...
                  Natural fibres degrade very quickly, under the right conditions. A way of testing soil health -- that is the level of insect and bacterial activity that makes nutrients available -- is to bury a pair of cotton underwear. They should be fully degraded within six to nine weeks.

                  Of course there are more scientific methods, but the basic idea has been around for quite some time and persists as a cheap soil test. It picked up in Canada, the US and the UK in the late 2010s with the Soil Your Undies campaign, which aimed to raise awareness among both farmers and the general populace of the importance of soil biodiversity to agriculture at both industrial and residential scales.

                  The argument in favour of natural fibres is not that they have no environmental impact, it's one of renewability and relative impact. Petrochemical textiles often take as much or more water to produce the raw materials and process them into fibres, but create orders of magnitude more pollutants, require a non-renewable resource, and themselves become a toxic pollutant once discarded. On the other hand, half the ecosystem has evolved to recycle plant and animal matter back into their constituent elements. There's a reason why there are no cotton or wool versions of microplastics, or why the Great Pacific Garbage Patch isn't composed of linen and leather.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Hebrew Barrister View Post
                    I've railed about the inseam bullshit forever. A 30in inseam being the typical shortest is nuts, because a 30in inseam is about right for someone just under six feet.
                    I generally wear a 30 inch inseam and I'm 5'8" but according to that article 5'8" is roughly average height, which leaves the half of the male gender that is shorter than that with no option other than shortening their pants. Which is fine if you have to shorten a straight leg pant, or a tapered pant by some amount but with tapering you can only go so much shorter before it throws proportions off.

                    One of the reasons I like Hugh and Crye is they actually have short, average and tall sizes, plus skinny, slim, athletic and broad on the width range. That said I generally don't have an issue with the length of my shirts from most retailers (although it was an issue with that LL Bean shirt) - it's more that they're cut fuller than I need that's the issue.
                    “Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.” – Mark Twain

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      I know this is sort of obvious, but inseam is going to be a combination of what break you desire and how long your legs actually are.

                      The average male is supposedly 5'9" and wears a 31" inseam for a full break with the pant leg firmly over the shoe heel. Anything less than this is either a different break or different length legs.

                      (I have personally given up on all this nonsense and buy unhemmed trousers and too-long jeans to hem)

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Although I'm taller than average, I will side with the guys who think that 30" is too long to be the shortest inseam offered. I'm the same height as my father (6'), but I wear a 32 inseam and he wore a 29.

                        (I have heard that Peter Manning is a good source for clothes for shorter guys, but obviously I don't have any firsthand experience with their products.)

                        Also, ridiculously long sleeves on alpha-sized shirts drive me crazy. I'm specifically looking at you, J. Crew. Their "untucked" shirts supposedly have 1" shorter sleeves, but they only offer those based on the slim fit. How about "untucked slim" and "untucked classic"?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by the passenger View Post
                          Also, ridiculously long sleeves on alpha-sized shirts drive me crazy.
                          Maybe I'm just a freak with very long arms and legs, but I have trouble finding shirt sleeves that are long enough unless I buy specific neck/sleeve length shirts.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Alex.C View Post
                            Maybe I'm just a freak with very long arms and legs, but I have trouble finding shirt sleeves that are long enough unless I buy specific neck/sleeve length shirts.
                            That's the great thing about dress shirts: most people can get the sleeve length they need. But styles are far more limited, and it wouldn't make sense for me to wear neck-and-sleeve-sized dress shirts in my daily life. If a company already offers tall sizing in its casual, alpha-sized shirts (as J. Crew does), then maybe the non-tall offerings don't need to have such overly long sleeves.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I wear things relatively slim, but slimmer the better mindset isn't really my thing.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by C.Dubs View Post
                                Agreed. I just want a pair of denim jeans. I have some stretchy jeans, and they're great. But I still want a pair of just "real," sturdy jeans. And I'm not willing to pay $100+ for a pair of selvedge whatever. I'm sure options are out there, but this past month I searched Gap, J Crew, Target, Levis, and Amazon for a basic pair of straight cut jeans without stretch. Got frustrated to the point of calling off the search and settling for a pair of Levis with stretch. (They're not terrible jeans, and I'm getting my money's worth out of them, but they're not exactly what I wanted.)

                                Try the Levis 501 in clean rigid.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X