unrefinery
You know we're fighting a losing battle in the war of timeless style vs. temporary fashion when even a writer for The New York Times is so easily sold on the idea that skinny and short everything is a good investment and that the alternative is "freakish". And while you can only expect so much from an article that cites "Mad Men" twice and quotes a J.Crew director saying things like "men are the new women," it does show how widespread is the misconception that a fashionable suit is inherently a wise acquisition. In fact, a non-fashionable suit will usually serve you better—and being photographed in it will cause you less grief in the years ahead. Skinny lapels, short jacket length and tightly tapered trousers had a moment in the 1960s and are having another moment now. The prospect of looking dated during the intervening 40+ years is the problem.

On the left we see George Lazenby as James Bond in 1969 wearing a Prince of Wales checked suit with classic proportions. On the right is Daniel Craig as 007 in 2012 with a lapel barely wide enough to hold the buttonhole. They both look great. 43 years after the fact we'd probably take in the waist and skirt of Lazenby's suit a little, but it's wearable right now, and top-tier designers like Canali and Cesare Attolini continue to produce an essentially similar style. Will Craig's cropped and skin-tight custom Ford suit seem like a relic from another era when viewed through the lens of history?

Also See

keyboard_arrow_up