There are some interesting games being played with proportion here. Let’s hope that we don’t get caught up in the comments with yet more narrow-minded does it fit or doesn’t it. I like the look and he carries it off confidently and well.
Jonathan: one of the great things about this blog is the open, friendly tone. Please don’t use snarky epithets like ‘narrow-minded’; we’re all just giving our opinions on the clothes and the style of the wearers, not each other.
Anonymous: the problem I have with the comments section in this journal is the frequent lack of a friendly tone, in fact it can be downright judgemental much of the time. So many lovely looks are completely, and sometimes rudely, rejected over minor matters of cuff length, shoulder width. Sartorialist’s approach is one that I would prefer, to try and see the overall good in a ‘look’ and to be interested in variety, not to blindly reject through adherence to some imaginary ideal. I’ve got no problem at all in discussion of the detail though. I’m tempted to stick with ‘narrow minded’ but, as it has caused you offence, would, instead, describe the attitude I was describing as a case of not being able to see the wood from the trees.
I take your point about not criticising each other – though I’ve seen examples of that too – but, unlike you, wasn’t criticising anyone in particular, just a generally dismissive approach.
he looks great. i saw the picture, i read the comments, and i looked at the picture again. everything looks great to me. the wide lapels look sharp. so do the slim pants. i did not notice either the first time — instead i admired the suit color, shirt color, tie choice, and linen tv-fold square — so understated — so classy. less is more here.
i really want to like it, but it just isn’t quite right.he seems a little top heavy – could it be the soft-shouldered cut of the jacket? the shoes don’t look right either. having said that,i really dig where his head’s at and that he’s prepared to experiment.