Tuesday, November 21, 2006

On The Street……57th St., Manhattan

This gentleman is living that look.

Comments

Close comment

Detach comments

39 comments

  1. Just an Observation

    November 21, 2006 at 5:33 pm

    The look …high water pants is what i see …..I really do …perhaps someone can shed some light on that for me.
    His clothes look very well cared for and the colors are beautiful …as they are my one of my favorite palettes.
    Thanks.
    PS THANK YOU ANONYMOUS for the feed back regarding the ticket pocket jackets….I know I really want one ….will see how it goes

  2. Kathleen

    November 21, 2006 at 6:01 pm

    He sure is!

    The bomber jacket can be hard to pull off with turning into Harry-High-Pants…

  3. Butch

    November 21, 2006 at 6:15 pm

    Indeed–living that look in DEPTH. And width, of the pants, that is.

    He’s very 30s-film-musical-boy-choreographer; can’t say that the billowing high-waisted trousers and short, snug jacket do much for his sex appeal, though…

  4. Anonymous

    November 21, 2006 at 6:29 pm

    Funny thing is, what he’s wearing is coming back in fashion but I don’t think he’s ever left this look. Pleats are looking fresh to me again. Very Gene Kelly. Hmmmm….

  5. Anonymous

    November 21, 2006 at 6:45 pm

    this is just my personal opinion, but i think trousers with that cut and that waist should break AT LEAST once on the shoes…i think the current hem just looks a bit awkward

  6. Anonymous

    November 21, 2006 at 6:57 pm

    Monochrome. Oh my…

  7. Anonymous

    November 21, 2006 at 8:33 pm

    Sart,
    What is the look he’s living in?? He reminds me of one of…oh dear, never mind.

    It’s simply not a style that would turn my head.

    mltt

  8. RoseAG

    November 21, 2006 at 8:55 pm

    I like that color of brown. It’s so warm.

    I could go for a hat with this.

  9. Anonymous

    November 21, 2006 at 9:22 pm

    John Waters, right?

  10. Anonymous

    November 21, 2006 at 9:23 pm

    The jacket is fine, but OMG, where to start with those pants. The dude is obviously loving life, and I’m sorry to rain on his parade, but there you have it.

  11. Marissa

    November 21, 2006 at 9:46 pm

    That is sexual.

  12. D. Kay

    November 21, 2006 at 9:52 pm

    I can’t say pleats were ever gone. Maybe two pleats are a bit my-daddyish, but one pleat is ok if that’s your thing. But I agree with Anon 645pm, the pants should break at least once.

  13. Anonymous

    November 21, 2006 at 9:59 pm

    No, Gene Kelly never looked like this guy. I’m not sure if anyone ever looked like this guy, but it was not a good look in 1940 and it is not a good look today. Scott, I’m trying to put this gently but have you been getting enough sleep…?

  14. positively the same dame

    November 21, 2006 at 11:15 pm

    i have a problem with this look because wearing everything vintage looks like a costume. there’s nothing wrong with any of these pieces, but worn together like this makes him look a bit, shall we say, eccentric, but not necessarily in the best sense of the word. someone else here said it — you see him and wonder where he is in his head, but aren’t entirely sure you’d want to go there yourself.

  15. positive_negative

    November 22, 2006 at 12:10 am

    Wow, for the first time I’m speechless here.

  16. truck51

    November 22, 2006 at 1:07 am

    Well, the pants are part of that new Thom Browne look, are they not? That’s how they’re described in December GQ in a piece about Browne’s impact on men’s clothes. Me, I’ll stay with a break no matter how “in” flood pants become.

  17. Anonymous

    November 22, 2006 at 2:47 am

    I want his pants to be longer, and turned up just once, please. That would complete the thirties/fourties look.

  18. milton toshiba

    November 22, 2006 at 9:41 am

    Very elegant.

  19. Anonymous

    November 22, 2006 at 9:45 am

    ya know – if you drive over to Jersey, to the older fringe areas of Newark, Trenton, even AC, you’ll see a myriad guys wearing that look … except for them it’s not a look, it’s their clothes ….

  20. Ana

    November 22, 2006 at 11:15 am

    OMG!
    Those pants so perfectly neat, remind me of my father dressing like Gardel, the tango artist.
    When fashion dreams in dejavĂş, it’s kind of scary.
    Salute!

  21. Anonymous

    November 22, 2006 at 11:33 am

    I don´t know what to say. I don´t like it all, but if he is. go for it.

  22. Anonymous

    November 22, 2006 at 1:04 pm

    This look is definitely not my cup of tea, however I do congratulate this guy on exuding so much personal style. He looks so much more distinct and interesting than the mindless masses who throw on “whatever” in the morning.

  23. marie

    November 22, 2006 at 1:07 pm

    He is wearing long socks underneath…I hope.

  24. Anonymous

    November 22, 2006 at 2:12 pm

    He reminds me of a young Joel Gray.

  25. Anonymous

    November 22, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    Wow, neat look. Is that Howard Hughes?

  26. Anonymous

    November 22, 2006 at 3:44 pm

    maybe his suspenders are on a little too tight? :)

  27. Anonymous

    November 22, 2006 at 7:41 pm

    the whole look makes him look very … Hannibal Lecter. For most of us, I imagine that is not a good thing.

  28. Lambchop

    November 23, 2006 at 2:20 am

    Strange glance..I don’t know why, but he makes me think of Truman Capote…

  29. Georgiana

    November 23, 2006 at 2:27 am

    Oh, if only he had a scarf! Fred Astaire would have had a scarf.

  30. Poised over London

    November 23, 2006 at 3:31 am

    Interesting how the huge belt bridges the bomber and the high-waisted trousers. But yes please, 2″ more inseam.

  31. Zaydoun

    November 23, 2006 at 7:54 am

    If there’s one thing that gets on my nerves is a shirt buttoned all the way up for no reason since he’s not wearing a tie.

    And the pants are too short and billowy

  32. Anonymous

    November 23, 2006 at 11:45 am

    Its Members Only meets Gene Kelly. ugh.

  33. Anonymous

    November 23, 2006 at 1:10 pm

    too precise….literally not a hair out of place.

  34. Joe Frances

    November 29, 2006 at 9:47 pm

    The year is 1951, New York is mostly set in black and white in the early post-war years. Men out of school were finding their first jobs at Saks Fifth Avenue or maybe taking classes at the Art Students League. I wonder if this young man is reading a Dawn Powell novel and going to see this new guy, Jackson Pollack? Great look well executed.

  35. positively the same dame

    December 1, 2006 at 12:55 am

    oooh, dawn powell…great reference.

  36. inbalance

    December 4, 2006 at 4:03 pm

    So, are pleats back? Wait..they are never out of style!

  37. Anonymous

    December 10, 2006 at 11:24 pm

    Wow! I’m pretty sure that’s the lead singer of a band called Susquehanna Industrial Tool & Die Co. (http://www.sitanddieco.com/). He is *totally* living that look and his band defines it as well. They transport you to another era … amazing…

  38. Michelle

    February 28, 2007 at 11:12 am

    I would invite you to look at the image in this link: http://www.303rdbg.com/pp-bogart.html

    Pants breaking over the shoe is a relatively recent stylistic trend. In the 1940′s, pants were hemmed above the top of the shoe, they did not break.

    This man is pure in his vintage style.

  39. abby jenkins

    February 21, 2011 at 6:37 pm

    That is the lead singer of Sit and Die Co! They plaid at our wedding! That cat has serious style…and chops.

Leave a comment




Related posts