Jump to comment form
June 12, 2006 at 6:09 pm
The Thom Browne aesthetic begins its assimilation into the mainstream…..
June 12, 2006 at 6:35 pm
Oh that’s sharp. I love the short slim pant, and no socks…edgy prep, early 1960s.
June 12, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Very 60′s Ray Charles.Cool!
June 12, 2006 at 6:49 pm
I love everything about this guys look. The hair, shades, shoes, nice shirt, great fit of the jacket and slim straight pants.
However, I just can’t seem to find an affinity for the pant length.
Is everyone going to do this now? and will it be over in two seasons?
June 12, 2006 at 7:01 pm
the retro happened 7 years ago. zegna and isaia re-introduced this style with their spring and summer collections.
June 12, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Yeah agree argos…love the look, but just don’t get the trouser length…just an inch or two longer would be perfect imo
June 12, 2006 at 7:18 pm
As a collector of vintage suits/ties I knew the style would eventually evolve back into the narrow/short look. I mean…there’s no other direction it can go. Thom Browne was just at the right place at the right time.
June 12, 2006 at 9:05 pm
waist up he looks FAB – love the hair and glasses toobut I just dont like the pants – it just looks weird and like he is trying too hard.
June 12, 2006 at 10:11 pm
sharp looking and mysterious! he is hot!
June 12, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Yeah, I agree with Argos. While the look is sharp, I just don’t see this pant length lasting too long.
June 12, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Perfect. (love the pocket square)
- Eminence Grise
June 12, 2006 at 11:07 pm
I just can’t go for the pants. They look like they were shrunk in the dryer.
June 13, 2006 at 1:00 am
The lenght is fine, but it just needs to be slimmer at the bottom end. Now it just seems like he’s wearing short pants.
June 13, 2006 at 2:29 am
Keep an eye out for the return of the Edwardian era suit-stylings of 50′s Britain – it’ll happen…
June 13, 2006 at 3:18 am
Is there any particular reason why the pants are really short but the sleeve length is “normal”?
June 13, 2006 at 4:02 am
Is this really a Dolce&Gabbana suit? The length of the trousers is very unusual for the DG-style, more Thom Browne’s look.
June 13, 2006 at 6:15 am
That suit is way too tight and you can easily that this is just a new trend that will not last very long. Besides that, I think that Dolce & Gabbana isn’t as innovative as they used to be some years ago…
June 13, 2006 at 8:12 am
For me this look is only successful with a sockless shoe, and therefore becomes totally impractical in the winter.
June 13, 2006 at 8:40 am
not a big fan of this look … the pippi-longstocking pants length doesn’t do it for me
June 13, 2006 at 10:12 am
Maybe the pants are a tad too short but it’s more interesting that way. What’s wrong is, they don’t appear to be cuffed. They should be cuffed, and a bit less flared. Overall this is a rockin’ look. More Rude Boy than Ray Charles, I would say; all he needs is a stingy-brim hat.
June 13, 2006 at 2:16 pm
He reminds me more of Desmond Dekkar (rip) than Ray Charles, as Dekkar wore his trousers high and short bumfreezer jackets. This guy looks good, but I’d rather see an interesting sock with the ensemble.
June 13, 2006 at 4:03 pm
this a style that is too “cute” and will not get enough attention
June 13, 2006 at 5:43 pm
I don’t like the look in general, but I’m sure it works for some people. What I really don’t like about these pants are the 3″ cuff and they are just a bit too short. The “slim” look doesn’t work for me because, I’m not the most slim of guys =)
September 12, 2009 at 6:19 am
this is what I call SHARP.
November 8, 2012 at 4:48 am
I agree with Argos – really like everything except the trouser length.
Am pretty sure this is just a fad that many will soon tire of
Like skinny jeans, low crotch jeans and jeans worn so low that your boxers are on display…….its a fashion that i definitely wont ever be following
December 5, 2013 at 9:34 am
Funny. It is late 2013 and to me, this still looks perfect. Certainly we’ve seen shorter trouser lengths since 2006. On that note, one could even view this as a tad conservative.