GQ advice we all ignore

[Sefton]

It's just a : ( leather jacket, a hat, shoes, a silly magazine) o.k. The foul language in the earlier post is just as mindless and a lot more offensive than anything in GQ.

 

[Maj.Nick Danger]

I saw that article a few days ago. But I decided to not pay much attention to GQ because, if I did, I'd wind up trying to look like this:

And I'd feel like a clown, especially since I haven't been 19 in a long time. Or worse yet, a clown who didn't realize he was a clown.

Best to just laugh it off. lol
I just was looking at the expressions on the people's faces that can be seen in this pic and I can just imagine what they are thinking. lol

 

[1stsargent]

It's just a : ( leather jacket, a hat, shoes, a silly magazine) o.k. The foul language in post #22 is just as mindless and a lot more offensive than anything in GQ.

Amen, Lets prove the GQ types that we can do better.

 

[Mark P]

GQ Losing the Plot

I'm not sure the GQ writer knows much about leather jackets, or possibly mens fashion either which frequently refers to historical styles - describing that Belstaff motorcycle jacket pictured as a 'Fatigue' style - I don't think so.

Has anyone else heard jackets referred to as 'Bombardier' jackets? Not me.

 

[Charlie Noodles]

Those crappy thin leather wannabe biker jackets will be obsolete when fashion chooses another look...

Yes, it is interesting that they'd suggest that a good jacket will last a lifetime. A weak attempt at justifying the cost possibly. I can't say that I know a lot about the fashion industry but I don't think it has anything to do with trying to sell people clothes that will last longer than a season. I don't know why they'd even pretend...

 

[Roadrunner]

Sorry if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. Apparently my style can be too crude for this forum, I'll just stick to hats and leave social commentary alone.

 

[SGT Rocket]

It's just a : ( leather jacket, a hat, shoes, a silly magazine) o.k. The foul language in post #22 is just as mindless and a lot more offensive than anything in GQ.

+01

 

[Fletch]

I could exegesis this prissy little slideshow into next week, but it'd be as much a waste of my time as reading it would be a waste of yours.

And on that note, those World War II tobacco-brown replica bombardier jackets? Absolutely not.

Absolutely absolutely not, if you're planning on emulating the guy in the accompanying picture.

Is this you? Would you LIKE it to be?

On a more positive note, the M-422A I thought was a size too small now fits Just Right, according to Mr. Blackleatherwell.

Note: Not tobacco colored. Mostly not worn by bombardiers (the Navy had but few).

 

[DavidVillaJr]

On a more positive note, the M-422A I thought was a size too small now fits Just Right, according to Mr. Blackleatherwell.

Naaah, your sleeves are NO WHERE NEAR SHORT ENOUGH!!!lol

dv

 

[Edward]

Of course, now Belstaff's an Italian-owned fashion house, I expect its GQification is ongoing...

If you look at the Belstaff website now, you will see very many of the androgynous GQ model types wearing the jackets, and the whole thing is geared very much to the fashion market. I read they've also recently stopped making the traditional waxed cotton trailmaster. A shame.

Personally, i have nothing against what has been termed "looking cissy" - enough folks think the same about me when I'm in full 40s look, and I'm not exactly butch in any way by personality. The GQ look really isn't my thing, though- for the most part it's too uber-moderne for my tastes. That said, occasionally they have some nice thnigs that would work for me. Killer is the price: their focus is all on the designer labels, and unlike most women's magazines I have encountered they have no concession to budget along the lines of "here's how you can do this outfit from high street copies." That sort of thing I would really appreciate, as even if I had the sort of budget that I could spend six hundred and fifty pounds on a pair of casual trousers, I highly doubt I would be able to bring myself to do so. I'm not cheap, I don't think at least, but I'd be wanting a couple of suits, or A2s for that sort of money.

 

[Spitfire]

Or:

Nothing wrong with the left side of this pic though :whistling

 

[Sefton]

Or:

Nothing wrong with the left side of this pic though :whistling

You mean there's a right side to that pic? Our man Spitfire finds the curvy silver lining among the dark clouds of fashion...:eusa_clap

 

[Flitcraft]

Or:



Nothing wrong with the left side of this pic though

Amen, Brother!

 

[Black Prince]

Personally, i have nothing against what has been termed "looking cissy" - enough folks think the same about me when I'm in full 40s look, and I'm not exactly butch in any way by personality.

I feel the same way - and sometimes I'm a little uncomfortable with the vocabulary of criticism if it seems to lean too much towards "Cissy" = Bad, because that's the culture in which I grew up and, as a gay man, had difficulty breaking out of.

So... although it's not my own preference, I don't have a problem with the fact that the male models appear girly or androgynous. No, the reason I feel sad at what I term the "GQification" of Belstaff is more that I see the level of workmanship deteriorating as the price inflates, the materials become flimsier, less substantial, and the idea of functionality is steadily diluted.

I own a black leather Trialmaster from the 1970s and a dark brown Panther from a couple of years ago, and the differences are striking. I tend to use the Panther as a summer jacket - it's relatively lightweight - but I'm very aware that it wouldn't stand up to a heavy rainstorm, much less look good in 30+ years.