I'm sorry I know you're the expert but these guys look like they're 8. The only people I ever see walking around with blazers and shorts are little boys. Shorts are fine but I just can't get myself to like a look that puts them with a jacket especially for an adult. I do like the cons with the jackets though, any sort of hipster update on the blue blazer is a breathe of fresh air.
so cute. maybe i won't get rid of all my converse just yet …
i wonder if this would look as good on a girl? maybe not because i think it's something about the blazer + shorts + male leg + chucks. but perhaps something similar, but different could revive my old cons . . .
I love it how he looks kind of old school with the high top chucks and the shorts with the dress shirt and a blazer. Reminds me of a kid going to school in the morning back in maybe the 20's or 30's. I love it so much! check out my trendy blog! http://thetrendydwarf.blogspot.com/
I think that both photographs are of the same guy (check the bag). The second ensemble–what else to call it, costume?–looks slightly less ridiculous but, c'mon … he's not Sarah Jessica Parker (though he may wish he were).
I like your main subject in this shot but for some reason the woman and man in the rearground look to be the most interesting to me, in this particular frame. He is indeed unique and worth the focus but the two passerby-ers are so meticulously "on point," head to toe.
They don't even remotely look like the same guy. I'm glad none of you are sitting on a jury. The second guy pulls it off. The first guy, not so much, and I think the lady's reaction in the background might be a response to how it is not working.
Do NOT be fooled ladies and gentlemen! They are different in just about everything! The blazer up top is navy…the blazer at the bottom is black! The blazer up top has a red and white striped pocket square the one at the bottom is just white. The man at the top has white pants..in the bottom they're grey. The Converse shoes at the top are not tied up to the top…at the bottom they are. The brown bag at the top is small and not the type to slouch and lay sloppy on the floor…the one at the bottom is softer leather and therefore it is sloppy and slouched. Even the aviators are different types because the ones a the top are gold rimmed..the bottom are silver! (LOOK CLOSELY!) check out my trendy blog! http://thetrendydwarf.blogspot.com/
Interesting how virtually identical outfits can be so different. The top one looks contrived, the bottom one looks authentic. I think the fact the lower guy's willing to sit on the curb to take/make a call and let his bag flop tells us his cons are part of his life and not some cred-claiming prop.
The man in the top photo is beautifully dressed, EXCEPT for those shorts & high tops. Slim white pants, cropped at the ankle, would serve his look, and his physique, much better. The man in the lower photograph may well be the same subject (everything from his nose and chin to his brown leather satchel look identical), but the grey, slightly looser shorts–and the pose–make his sartorial sins less obvious. We all live in fear of being caught by your merciless lens! The only revenge is to learn from our mistakes…
Sart, they got your attention ,anybody¬īs attention ! That is probably the reason a lot of people get up in the morning and get dressed.¬ī It is time to do the opposite- at least when it comes to dressing.
Agree w/ anonymous above re the little boy look of jacket and shorts. And the high-tops don't help matters. Little boyish, nerdy. Not a good look for a grown man. Maybe not even for a kid, for that matter.
Also, I think the reason why the Cons work better in the second photo is because of the uninterrupted black and white, thrown in with casual grey turn-up shorts. In the first photo, the navy-blue and white color palette (along with the pocket square, of course) conveys a clean sense of formality, so the Cons are jarring once you move your eye down to the foot.
Wow! I love people who really don't care if they look like oddballs, really don't care if there isn't an ounce of sex appeal in their style, really don't care what anyone thinks. How boring a place it would be without them.
These dudes are of the Pee Wee Herman school of dressing…. bringing a giggle to all who cross their paths.
what's so great here about this being a blog is that you're scrolling down, seeing the top half of a chic gentleman and then scroll further down and be completely surpirsed by the mismatched bottom half – the mismatched-ness being the strength of the look though!
the shoes are great. classic even. nothing new about wearing them with either shorts or blazers. we did that back in the 80's. the bottom gent has it right. the top gent has it wrong, and it's the too tightness and too whiteness of his shorts that make is so wrong.
I'm sorry, but it's just so contrived, which is never good on a woman, let alone a man. From the fussy little pocket square to the "zany" hightop chucks. It's a look that's trying to say "I'm a little schoolboy". But they're not.
The first man has confidence to boot. Look at his strut. This is why I like the first outfit much better. The white shorts are a perfect fit in my opinion, and they offset the formal wear in a playful, casual way.
In fairness to the second shot, we can't see how it looks with him standing upright. Buy my money is still on the first.