Jump to comment form
December 14, 2006 at 7:25 am
i love your blog man! i would surely visit as much as i can from now on! i love your pictures!
December 14, 2006 at 8:14 am
Here’s a nice, well-fitting rendition of the American sack suit, with slight shaping and extra shoulder width. (Jacket may be a bit too long, but, hey, let’s not fuss.)
Also, he’s accessorized well–even the rectangular eye-glasses echo the shoulder width effectively….
December 14, 2006 at 8:41 am
Let’s hear it for New York weather! No overcoat to spoil the look and it’s eleven days before Christmas! This guy looks great, the metallic sheen on the windows gives him, his suit and his salt and pepper hair a real master of the universe look
December 14, 2006 at 8:46 am
Brown and navy-yes, absolutely. But no cuff, which after a while on this blog, is like a crime. And the pocket-square is a bit timid, isn’t it?
December 14, 2006 at 8:50 am
If I were a man this is how I would dress. This gentlemen looks clean, polished and tailored.
December 14, 2006 at 9:14 am
THROW IN A COUPLE OF PINSTRIPES AND BOOM! AMERICAN BANKER
December 14, 2006 at 10:11 am
December 14, 2006 at 12:03 pm
He is definitely someone who knows how to dress!
December 14, 2006 at 1:12 pm
If I were him, I wouldn’t cuff the trousers, wear a slightly longer sleeved shirt (no cuff!), and shorten the trouser length just a smidge.
Otherwise, his hair, glasses, and expression are right on! Oh, and the peaked lapels are a nice touch :)
December 14, 2006 at 2:34 pm
aw man, no more anonymous comments? blogs are so much more fun with anon comments.
regardless, the pocket square, a bright white in tv fold, is a-ok.
are those two inch cuffs on his trousers?
December 14, 2006 at 2:53 pm
What do you mean, “no cuff?” It seems to me that the pants are cuffed.
I love the look minus the eyeglasses. I like the peaked lappels, and the perfect fit of the suit. Hmm.. truth is, I’m not too crazy about the tie, either. But it’s fine.
December 14, 2006 at 3:28 pm
should i wear a black sparkly mini-dress w/ round neck, or
a knee-length black shift dress with open shoulders?
December 14, 2006 at 3:46 pm
He is showing some cuff, but on his pants. Is that wrong? As for his suit., I have no idea how a sack suit suppose to fit.
December 14, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Lit,Watch your mouth!!! As Butch stated, this is a good looking classic “sack”. Ok, the jacket’s a tad lengthy, but he bought it off the rack from what I can tell. He reminds me of my father. Not everyone dresses like a GQ model. Cuffs aren’t “modern” per se, but I wouldn’t suggest throwing all of your cuffed trousers away.
And the pocket square…umm, ever heard of Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis, Paul Newman?? My goodness.
December 14, 2006 at 6:31 pm
December 14, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Sometimes I wish that the Sartorialist would comment of these kinds of pictures because I don’t what exactly it is that impressed him. To me, the man looks like every other person who spent more than a nickel and a dime on a suit. But then again — my eye is not “trained.”
December 14, 2006 at 6:55 pm
it’s nice enough, but there aren’t any personal touches to his choices that make it stand out to me. He looks like most other guys who have to work wearing a suit. It seems that standards of dress must have declined so much that *any* guy in a suit is suddenly applauded as being well-dressed. He’s ho-hum. …and the cuffs being referred to are his lack of shirt showing past his sleeve, not his trousers.
December 14, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Single-breasted peak lapel! A distinctive look though I am not crazy about the fit (it looks a tad roomy). He wears it well though and with some flair too.
I am thrown by the shoes however. Not so much the color as the style. Are those loafers? Seem a bit casual for a pin-striped Madison Ave. gent.
December 14, 2006 at 8:25 pm
meh…i’ve seen better suits on your blog…boring man, boring pic
December 14, 2006 at 9:56 pm
definitely needs to show cuff.
this type of classic men’s look is totally about getting all the details perfect. there’s no such thing as being “picky” or “trivial” in this particular context.
December 14, 2006 at 10:01 pm
OK, this is Matt from Bergdorf men, always completely fastidious and consistently so here. He IS showing some shirt cuff and we all sometimes have minute-by-minute issues of keeping those pesky cuffs in the right position, right boys? This ensemble is utterly reflective of Matt’s personality. I say, bravo!
December 14, 2006 at 11:06 pm
I think he looks very well put together. I also am a fan of brown shoes with blue and gray suits. My first glance something did seem “off.” Either he is tall torsoed or his jacket is a bit long, I’m not sure which it is. Overall he looks very good.
December 14, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Gentlemen, forgive me for saying so, but this is hardly a sack suit. A sack is undarted, with narrow, natural shoulders, is fuller through the chest, and has a longer lapel roll, such that it might as well be a two button. Additionally, the sack almost always has notch lapels, not peak. In short, about the only thing this suit has in common with a sack suit from, say, J. Press is that they both have three buttons and both are made of wool.
The style of this suit is much more English (notice the ticket pocket, which is not a feature of American Trad) and the overall silhouette and 3 button peak lapel remind one of classic images from the 1930′s, such as the Apparel Arts illustrations.
Congratulations to this gentleman on wearing such a stylish, and what looks to be handmade, suit.
December 15, 2006 at 12:44 am
I think the “no cuff” comments were referring to the shirt sleeves.
December 15, 2006 at 4:44 am
d.kay, what’s with the threats, first I thought you were joking, but go to hell man, I write what I like.
Ok enough bitchfest, what I meant is that he’s not showing any shirt cuff, which issue has been debated and battered on this blog for the longest time.
I simply think he looks ordinary and considering that the majority of the population is just badly dressed, that’s not a good thing in my books. As for GQ models, I don’t know where in the heck you got that from, I like 99% of the subjects posted on this blog, and none of them, to my knowledge, have anything to do with GQ.
So just pipe down. If this guy looks in your opinion, good for you, let the rest of us have a say as well, that’s if you don’t mind??
December 15, 2006 at 6:02 am
Hmm. The peaked lapels are a really flampoyant touch, but the rest of the ensemble doesn’t quite cut it.
He’s not showing enough cuff (I’m using the English definition of cuff here – the ends of his shirt sleeves. The bit at the bottom of his trousers (ok, pants), we’d call a turn-up).
The jacket is a touch too long (the hem of the jacket should hang level with the first knuckle of the thumb) and I don’t like the tie. I have an orange Hermes tie that would work a treat here. Or perhaps some kind of chunky knitted tie (dark red?)
7/10 (unless, as I suspect they might be, the jacket buttons are dark brown. Then he gets an 8).
December 15, 2006 at 9:21 am
Peak lapel is not as rare as you might think. I own three peak lapelled suits myself with varying gorge positions (the gorge is where the jacket is buttoned, or the apex of the pinch in the waist).
I like the colour choices of this gentleman very much. Very classic and there is a a bit of subtlety in the combination of tie and glasses. The antique dark brown shoes match the navy pinstripe very well too.
What puts me off about the whole thing is perhaps not so much the silhouette of the suit, but the roll of the lapel. In my opinion, this gentleman could do better if he simply rolled the lapel past the top button and all the way to the middle button. That would give a longer lapel and show off the shirt and tie a little more. There’s a slight slant to the tips of the peak lapel but as it sits on the body, it looks a little too square.
December 15, 2006 at 11:14 am
I can learn a little something from Ben Sauders. Thanks
December 15, 2006 at 12:22 pm
I like the look generally, but I really don’t like the true three button jacket with no lapel roll. If the lapel rolled to the 2nd button and the jacket fit a bit better, this would be perfect.
December 15, 2006 at 12:23 pm
What I like is the color of that tie with the suit. If he’d played it totally safe he’d have done a predominantly gray tie which would have been very boring. Ties in nicely with the shoes too.
December 15, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Naturally, I meant flamboyant.
December 15, 2006 at 5:36 pm
In my view, this gentleman is impeccably attired. The references to the golden age of menswear, the 1930s, are unmistakable but updated so as not to have any aspect of a costume. The use of a tie in primarily earth tones and brown shoes, along with the soft blue shirt, make the combination decidedly daytime; switch to black shoes, silver/grey tie and white french cuffed shirt and he’s set for the evening or a more staid daytime business or social occasion. As to fit: while this is no sack suit, the tailoring is pure American with an easier, looser silhouette and enough length in jacket to keep it from appearing boxy. Yeah, my navy chalk/pin striped suits have more waist suppression than this gentleman’s; my shirt cuffs hit the base of my palms so that too much, rather than too little, cuff is sometimes exposed; and I’d darken the shirt’s blue a couple of shades, wear a paisley pocket square in red/gold/green/blue in a puff and points arrangement, and clap a brown fur felt fedora on my noggin, but who cares.
December 16, 2006 at 10:41 am
Lit,I was joking. The same as you, I was expressing my opinion. I do enjoy a good debate from time to time, and this may not have been the forum for as much. If it came off as a threat, please accept my sincerest apologies.