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

  • garryowen47
    replied
    Originally posted by ExFed View Post
    Ditto on the "stretch" fabric. Seems in many instances to just be an excuse to add polyester.

    My example - and hear me out, please, as I will also preface by noting that a few years ago the Dappered main site also listed JC Penney Stafford sport coats as a decent budget friendly choice. It just so happens that the JC Penney sport coats usually fit me well right off the rack without requiring any alterations. Since I enjoyed having a variety of sport coats, every fall I would look forward to Penney's coming out with several new 100% wool sport coats. Depending on the patterns offered, I might sometimes buy 3 or 4 and by playing the typical sale/coupon game - pick them up for as little as $50, each.

    In the fall of 2018 the new Penney's sport coats came out with the claim they now had "stretch". The catch was what was really going on is that now those previous 100% wool sport coats were now about a 75/25 or 60/40 wool polyester blend and priced the same or higher than the previous wool jackets. Deal killer. In 2019 they quit even pretending. The sport coats they began offering were now all 100% polyester and again priced the same or higher.

    I thought when Penney's gave up on selling appliances they were going to refocus on their clothing lines. Very disappointed.
    This is EXACTLY what I am talking about on the first page of this thread. Excellent anecdote to prove my point.

    Leave a comment:


  • ExFed
    replied
    Originally posted by evanparker View Post
    MANDATORY INCLUSION OF STRETCH on every garment
    Ditto on the "stretch" fabric. Seems in many instances to just be an excuse to add polyester.

    My example - and hear me out, please, as I will also preface by noting that a few years ago the Dappered main site also listed JC Penney Stafford sport coats as a decent budget friendly choice. It just so happens that the JC Penney sport coats usually fit me well right off the rack without requiring any alterations. Since I enjoyed having a variety of sport coats, every fall I would look forward to Penney's coming out with several new 100% wool sport coats. Depending on the patterns offered, I might sometimes buy 3 or 4 and by playing the typical sale/coupon game - pick them up for as little as $50, each.

    In the fall of 2018 the new Penney's sport coats came out with the claim they now had "stretch". The catch was what was really going on is that now those previous 100% wool sport coats were now about a 75/25 or 60/40 wool polyester blend and priced the same or higher than the previous wool jackets. Deal killer. In 2019 they quit even pretending. The sport coats they began offering were now all 100% polyester and again priced the same or higher.

    I thought when Penney's gave up on selling appliances they were going to refocus on their clothing lines. Very disappointed.

    Leave a comment:


  • paintflinger
    replied
    Originally posted by facelessghost View Post
    Try the Levis 501 in clean rigid.
    The Goodfellow Selvedge that was on sale at target a little while ago is fantastic denim for the price. Better than the 501 imo.

    Leave a comment:


  • ianr
    replied
    I've found that to get a correct sleeve length without alterations, I need to get a shirt that is a very good fit as far as chest size and sleeve length.
    Last edited by ianr; January 8, 2020, 10:09 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • abh159
    replied
    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.
    Ditto. I wear a medium in casual shirts and the sleeves are too short 90% of the time. I usually don't mind because I roll them up most of the time anyway.

    However, this becomes an issue with dress shirts. I've started buying most of mine from Charles Trywhitt just because I can customize the sleeve length without it making the rest of the shirt bigger.

    Leave a comment:


  • facelessghost
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mochi123
    replied
    I wear things relatively slim, but slimmer the better mindset isn't really my thing.

    Leave a comment:


  • the passenger
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Alex.C
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • the passenger
    replied
    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"?

    Leave a comment:


  • ianr
    replied
    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)

    Leave a comment:


  • mark4
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Galcobar
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mcadamsandwich
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • lax101
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X