/fa/ - Fashion

>>6933142
>minimalism.. over

minimalism is practically a class thing, it's unlikely that it'll go away unless class itself is dismantled, so post apocalyptic maybe?

hair is all about your face shape, it just happens that HY frames nice faces nicely so it's been popularized by attractive people, as it makes attractive people attractive. it's only a good haircut for a pretty small minority.
if you look at hairstyles for the last couple decades, you'll notice one recurring thing, flat sides and high tops. HY is simply a reiteration of that shape. I'm not a hair stylist but I'm sure whatever takes its place will follow this pattern
manbun is a smaller trend and it won't last very long.

>>6933097
pants don't fit very well
shirt also
chino and purple is an odd mix, just clashes.
inoffensive shoes
decent facial structure and great hair though. get things that fit and avoid saturated colours (for now)
>>6933061
why bother posting this
>>6933071
this is good, proportions between jacket and sweater are good, if you wore a long parka you'd be detracting from your height.

>>6932996
>be at your every command. Let's do it bro.
that's the gayest I've felt all morning

>>6932971
this is actually great, sortof wish it wasn't a turtleneck.
sweater reminds me of some sort of nintendo game intro screen, but pants fit perfectly and shoes do no harm

but why do you keep a plunger outdoors?

>>6932829
can't see shit, literally hurt my eyes
>>6932831
jeans fit nice, but dark purple and light blue is way too much contrast, shoes also sort of match your sweater, jeans end up being a severe focal point.

>>6932904
man redecorate
or just decorate for starters
as for fit, pants fit perfectly, shoes are nice, but the shirt and pants are relatively warm, making the denim jacket look especially blue and saturated, which wouldn't be so bad if it weren't such a generic indigo.
imagining a different colour of indigo, maybe faded, maybe with some green in it, maybe just a lot darker, I think would make this out fit look exceptional where right now the jacket sorta 'cheapens' the pallete

>>6932914
this is cool but the only thing I don't like here is the button up, just looks out of place amidts the blues and white

>>693277
>are they fa
no
>if so
no
>around th
no

I'll shave a few months before summer, I'm pretty damn hairy so to wear shorts and not look like I shaved, while also not looking like an unkempt beast, I need to let it grow out a bit.

I should probably just get an electric razor.
but anyways, fully shaved legs on a man doesn't look right, but if you're like me you've got to do something.

>>6932631
you'd be referring to the pieces that actually incorporate patterns strictly?
can't really disagree, patterns can be overstimulating and in that sense lead to premature dispossession from your wardrobe.
Patterns are for people with a lot of character and disposable income/less concern for longevity in a wardrobe.

There are a lot of factors that could lead to knee bagging, which is unsightly on business casual, or anything other than denim really.
I'd suggest something from outlier but I don't own any yet myself.

the biggest question is do you have a shower?
if not, invest in some merino wool base layers, I am speaking from experience here, they are a godsend.

>>6932517
thanks for your take, that's basically how I understood it, where W+H offers something like a (much) simpler and less expensive 'version' of similarly inspired pieces
I'd spare the use of the word 'version', but I couldn't discern some pieces from belonging to one brand over the other without handling it myself.
I still like W+H but I'm slowly leaning having towards more character in my style, this would be a good direction.
Though I wouldn't call this plain at all in fact it looks at least as forward as some of rick, it's just not dark.
I'm loving this shawl too. odds of me finding it?

I've always wondered how they compare to wings+horns
looks like a bit more attention to detail with about the same amount of function, but EG's clearly more forward with a lot of their design.
I only own a handful of W+H, do you own any of both?

>>6917159
you're clueless man
firstly, beanie and touque are practically interchangeable words, maybe you're referring to just beanies, and by beanies you mean the picture posted in the OP?
second, either one can vary in a thousand ways, fabric, build, thickness, etc
third, things don't need to be thick to keep your head warm, pick up some merino wool sometime and see for yourself.
why else would athletes wear a 'shit tier clothing item'
keeps wind off, insulates, keeps dry = warm

>>6917184
they probably won't do this if they're not a shit company, if the email is within the window itself and you didn't wait too long before receiving the item.

>>6917111
>phrygian
thanks didn't even know that term
these can be part of my new avant elf silhouette
not this one in particular

>>6917061
this
you won't win this and paypal/ebay will refund them if you allow them to escalate the case.
£5...

>>6916994
anyone who'se saying they're unacceptable doesn't live in the cold like we do
they're fine, just don't sag all that fabric back like that unless you're some tumblr pothead fuck with spacers and stupid tats

>ty googles

>>6916474
>soles are exactly the same
I know CP is italy, but is raf too?
do they both get their soles from the same place?
>>6916804
they last for fucking ever. less you try to beat them up like some tool

bought some patent lows a while ago, but the stupid bitch who sold them to me sold me a size 41 instead of a 42. full refund, but I miss them.

$80 a week completely disposable on clothes is OK
$80 a week to spend on going out to restaraunts, movies, beer, fun in general, is pretty broke

anyways OP, don't buy shit yet. if you're only just getting interested in the style odds are you need to save up for a while to buy anything worth buying, or you'll look like garbage.
you also very likely might grow out of the style, gothninja can ensnare people just based on the fact that it costs a lot of money.

and how did raf ever look autistic to you?

anyways don't buy that shirt, you're being impulsive. create a wishlist by browsing, make damn sure you have the right body for the shirt first (slim as fuck chest proportions similar to waist little bulk zero visible fat), then buy it in a month or two.

>>6916869
then what are you wearing it for lol, that's like the reason the touque was invented, to keep the head warm especially the ears
if you wear a beanie without covering the ears you'll look like an elf..
all of sudden I'm thinking an elf silhouette (bar cosplay-esque styling) would look pretty sick, I think that's how I'll dress this year
>santas little faggot

mongrels wear them with the excess fabric hanging back like that.
at least every person who wears them like that here.
Unless you're young, like still in highschool, it's an okay move.
tug it down and fold it up.

might be cool if you have roger waters voice

>>6909526

i really like the concept of this thread, but reading through it there's nothing to back up how any of it is good, it's just a bunch of shallow observations.
some are obviously positive observations like 'lengthens the leg'
others are opinionated like 'balance masculine top'
how? by feminizing the bottom? I see contrast not balance, harmony is the difference. skinny and bulky is not harmonized. It Could be but it's not being done in that image.
and 'shirt fits perfectly'
no.. it doesn't. are you speaking to the length of the shirt? maybe then in some aspect you desire, but I see blousing that creates no desirable affects.


I don't hate the fit but there's not a lot really being said here.

>>6892876
I swear that's navy.. my eyes

alien..