Very well done! Does anyone know who this is? He was featured in the Sartorialist a few weeks ago wering a caramel-coloured linen suit with peak lapels and suede tassel loafers without socks. This chap has tons of style.
This look is gorgeous from the waist up…all class. Let’s face it, men don’t use pocket squares enough! But my struggle is the pants…too short, and the purple socks are too much. Maybe it’s the cut of the pants that is hard to view on what appears to be an otherwise classy male…?
Excellent. I love the double-breasted blazer and pocket square with colored border. The pocket square and lapel flower may be a little too much. The blazer paired with white trousers is a classic summer look here, though the trousers are a tad too short for my taste. Are those 2-3″ cuffs? Amazing! This gentleman has a very masculine figure and he pulls the whole thing off. I can imagine him racing in the Tour de France in his spare time.
Hey Sart! I saw you at the corner of 5th and 60th walking across the street with your camera. Was gonna say hi but you were rushing across the street. Just wanted to tell you that I love your site and your photos.
Now that double-breasted blazers have reached an all-time low in North America, the Italians have taken them up. I am delighted to see this green blazer, since the whole profile is different than the generic British version. Note that the buttons are widely spaced in the horizontal; this was common in the 30s in Germany in particular. Doctor Damage.
Damn you Thom Browne! In warm weather, I would expect to see narrow cuffed white trousers worn a bit short, say just at the top of the shoe with no break. Such a length would naturally ride up when walking to show a flash of tanned ankle or whimsical socks.
But Mr. Browne has given license for otherwise stylishly dressed men like this handsome gentleman to wear their trousers with the entire ankle exposed while standing still. When the gentleman walks, these trousers will ride jacked halfway up the calf! I have said before I may get used to it one day, but for now it still looks damned silly.
Thank goodness I’ve yet to see anyone assaying the absurd shorts and over-the-knee socks Browne showed for Fall.
And just one more thing: the little silk peony boutonniere is a cute idea, but artificial flowers are technically a no-no for men’s dress. A fresh flower is not so hard to procure and would look so much less precious.
I’m with him on every detail: Shades–perfect. The green double breasted blazer with white buttons–excellent. Boutonniere –Outstanding. Pocket square–elegant. White button down shirt–What else? White duck trousers–good choice. Purple socks–very sartorial. Brown suede loafers–stylish.
Unfortunately this is an outstanding example of how one detail blows the whole look. Two more inches of trouser leg, just kissing the top of the shoes would have made this look perfect. Enough to flash the socks occasionally without making the ankles the center of attention. As it is it ruins the whole thing for me.
I know that this is the look right now, but it won’t last and we won’t look back on it longingly when it’s gone. It’s a bad look.
seems to me that besides the thoughtfulness of the unexpected choices, what makes a look like this “work” is the conviction of the wearer. He doesn’t wear the look as if he cares about anyone’s evaluation. He’s chosen great pieces that please him and put them together, again, in a manner he considers pleasing. Altho’ he’s been snapped by the Sartorialist for our viewing pleasure, we sometimes forget that the subjects of these shots aren’t deliberately exposing themselves to our judgment but rather are sharing an image they’ve created that particular day.
All the complaints about the pant length are missing the point. If this guy wanted to dress to be criticism-proof he would have bought all of his clothes from Brooks Brothers and worn them all at the lengths approved by the dictates of Proper Society. And he would look like everyone else, and Sart would never have given him a second glance.
He is dressing to have fun, to push the envelope a little bit, to please no one but himself, and maybe make a connection with others who like to be a little unconventional.
from the waist up, the dude is on point with the look. ok, it’s a bit dandy with the flower, but his style and fit is great. HOWEVER, the waist down is not working. i think the shoes are ruining it for me most of all… and perhaps the pants are too tappered. a fuller linen pant (more length) and nicer polished shoes would have made the look perfect. but, the man has style (oh yeah, the purple socks…not digging them sart).
ok, two minor things would have made the difference in the outfit: no socks and different shoes. maybe some sneakers or some leather flip flops (gucci made a beautiful pair that would have worked) but like i said, the man has definite style!
the jacket has a sharp 30s-esque sportiness, but the lilac socks look contrived. the whole ‘unexpected dash of colour’ thing is a bit obvious by now don’t you think ? to me this would be better almost all monochromatic.
Mr. RDHD You might look great wearing his style jacket with pants that are longer with full break – good for you, I bet you would – very 30′s! but don’t try to make him wrong or call it ridiculous for doing it his way
personal style is not about right or wrong it is just as the title says – PERSONAL
if all you got out of this post was inspiration for a new color of DB jacket isn’t that pretty good?
What a beautiful blazer! This green, DB, peak lapel blazer has inspired me to find a similar dark green blazer, though I prefer a SB notch lapel. The dark green and white trousers look amazing together!
I do not know who the guy is but for sure the DB odd jacket has been made by a neapolitan tailor in Naples. Please look at the seams present on the shoulders edges: these are typical of the neapolitan school and are very stylish.In my opinion however there is no sufficient restraint to make the whole outfit absolutely elegant: too many smart things together.
the flower, he is a very manly man so it emphasizes on whats beneath the surface. it brings out the romance of a man. Jesus was romantic, He is a romantic. He is a manly man, and yet He is so tender too. i don’t know this man though. but i really like that photo-capture of that little flower. it’s great and makes me laugh too, like the giggles.