Clothes Unmade the Man

If one cannot see immediately what is wrong with this lamentable suit, then the clothing industry has accomplished its apparent mission of brainwashing an unwitting, mysteriously willing public into believing that the swill they’re pumping out is anything but poison. I really miss Roger Moore and Sean Connery as James Bond. No misanthropic designer was making their legs look short while their torsos look too long, and giving their feet the appearance of wearing over-sized clown shoes. O tempora, o mores….

spectre_suit_disaster_daniel_craigJames_Bond_in_Terrible_Jacket_Spectre

jacket_dimensions

Today’s tailors have totally lost the plot. When the actor playing James Bond is not “suited” properly, what hope is there for the rest of us?~~M-J

Spectre_Suit_Disaster_Daniel_Craig7

Ugliest Suit in the Movies, Designed by Tom Ford and Worn by Daniel Craig as “James Bond”

And now a breath of fresh air, because after years of the same old hip-huggers or “low-pants”, billowing shirt-waists that cannot be tucked-into them, neckties that end at the nether-region, skin-tight, truncated trousers that end above the shoes, lateral wrinkles from cloth being pulled to the sides, a man’s suit of clothing that doesn’t make a monkey out of him seems downright innovative:

roger_moore_silhouette_view_to_a_kill_grace_jones-1

 

Elegant Winter Dressing with M-J

m-j_de_mesterton_elegant_dressing_white_fox_hat2010-001

Above: M-J de Mesterton in a Tibbett Duffel Coat of Elysian Wool, Insulated Aigle Boots from France; a Mongolian Cashmere Scarf by Johnstons of Elgin, Scotland; a White Fox Hat Made in Helsinki; a Plaid Tweed Skirt, Black Leather Cashmere-Lined Gloves from Italy, and a Walking Stick Made of Scotch Broom

Wear warm clothes when it’s cold outside and inside. The days of women showing their bare arms year-round just because an occupant of the White House does it to show off her biceps are coming to a close in about three weeks.  The current president has, since 2009, kept the oval office at a balmy 85° year-round, as though he were in Hawai’i, while instructing the citizenry to “tighten your belts”. The rest of us, if we have heat at all, keep our places at 68° or even cooler, thanks to the punitive cost of fuel.

painter-m-j_de_mesterton_dec_2016_elegant_winter_dressing

Above: on Christmas Day, I’m wearing a turtleneck under a round-necked dress, nylon stockings, a silk & cashmere pashmina, and faux-fur-lined tall leather boots. Most winter days, I’d be wearing tweed and sweaters.

Elegant Dressing for Autumn: Classic Tweed Travelling Suit

M-J de Mesterton in Aquascutum Tweed Suit, Her Perennial Favourite

Rugged, traditional, and elegant tweed made from Scottish wool is the best material for fall and winter dressing. Easily covered with a trench-coat or embellished with a pashmina or long wool scarves, tweed will keep you warm and dry. Tweed suits, skirts, trousers and jackets are always fashionable.

My husband and I found it odd, if not historically-incorrect, to see the inhabitants of Downton Abbey wearing sleeveless flapper dresses all over the huge, inevitably cold and difficult-to-heat house, at all hours, without wraps or sweaters. Those dresses were made to be worn at nightclubs while dancing the Charleston, where  hyper-activity and body-heat of the crowd made it possible to stay warm while baring arms.

dining-at-downton_barely_clothed

Dining at Downton: thanks to cocktails, aperitifs and wines, scantily-clad ladies there could abide the evening without shivering. Or maybe not; Ralph Lauren designed wardrobes for the series, and may have just assumed that women dressed like flappers in most situations because it was the Roaring Twenties. I doubt that 1920s women were so silly, but there have always been nonsensical followers of fashion, like the ones who are now wearing peep-toed shoes without stockings all winter long in cold climates. My grandmother, who was born in the Victorian Age, told me that to be beautiful, one must suffer–I know that freezing’s not what she meant. Even body-heat from large groups at table does not take the chill off England’s grand country houses for most months of the year; shoulders are usually covered with something at dinner, such as a little fur garment or shawl that could be removed later in the evening for dancing. And no self-respecting woman would be standing about the house during winter in just a sleeveless gown.

Speaking of winter dressing and silly followers of fashion, here is a post that I made here at Elegant Survival News in December, 2011:

Talking Heads Clad Badly and Barely-Shod

Summer Dress and Peep-Toe Shoes in December?!

Why is the anchorwoman wearing a sleeveless summer dress in cold NYC on December 6th? Are biceps something that female talking heads suddenly find a crying need to bare, even in freezing temperatures? Are they using too much energy, in an effort to keep tropically warm indoors? Is it seasonally appropriate to wear bare-toed shoes on wintry days, as the woman in red is doing, or sandals (the first lady wore sandals at a Kennedy Center gala last weekend) in December? I don’t think so. These women are on a national television show, displaying their irresponsible, energy-inefficient lifestyles before the public, as if to say that a size XXX carbon-footprint is desirable. The rest of us are wearing wool and tweed, living in homes with little-or-no  heat most of the time.

In an Alpine Climate, January: Dressing in Furry Boots, a Scottish Hand-Made Fair Isle Sweater, and an Austrian Wool Skirt

fair_isle_austrian_skirt_m-j_de_mesterton

 

The Winter of Deshabille–New York Fashion WEAK

Fashion-Week Attendees: Cries for Help

Photos from the New York Post: “Best Dressed at Fashion Week”

How can you even consider them DRESSED? Women who wear sandals in snow, sleeveless dresses and hot-pants in winter, bare legs and bulging veins, shoes without stockings; men whose trousers puddle at their shoes–how sick are they, really? I would hate to see the “worst-dressed”!!!!

Click Here to Read M-J’s Main Website, Elegant Survival

Montage of Misshapen Muffin-Topped Maidens

Why go around short-legged, double-gutted, and half-assed when you could simply wear your trousers or pants at the waist, solving  all three self-imposed problems at once?  Ridiculously high heels don’t help.
Since 2006, I have been writing about the sort of misguided clothing-choices pictured in this photo-montage. Garments that only rise to that area just above the groin cause both the grotesque “Muffin-Top” and the risible anomaly known as “Plumber’s Crack”, yet every year, THEY’RE BA-ACK!  Resist sinking into fashion-victimhood, and stop risking your pants falling down. Wear your pants, trousers and skirts up at the waist,
and you will not look this idiotic. SIMPLE, isn’t  it?
©M-J de Mesterton 2013

A Bad Style Mysteriously Endures–Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Since 2006, I have been writing about the sort of misguided clothing-choice pictured in this photograph. Garments that only rise to that area just above the groin cause both the grotesque “Muffin-Top” and the risible anomaly known as “Plumber’s Crack”, yet every year, THEY’RE BA-ACK!  Resist falling into fashion-victimhood, and stop risking your pants falling down. Wear your pants, trousers and skirts up at the waist,
and you will not look this idiotic. SIMPLE, isn’t  it?
©M-J de Mesterton 2012

Where Is the Waist? Editorial by M-J

Posted on September 14, 2010 at 1:29 PM

Where is the waist? That’s what I wonder every time I look at photos of the newest “fashions.” What is new about the same old tragic clothing-concepts bobbing up again, masquerading as innovative? For the past ten years, pants and skirts have consistently been manufactured without even coming close to the waist, yet they are touted as the “latest.” To paraphrase General Honoré of Louisiana, someone’s “stuck on stupid.” I thought last spring that the tide of bad clothes was turning, but having perused some catalogues this month, it is apparent that clothing designers  are still denying their customers ample fabric to cover their “plumber’s cracks.” Snide cracks about “mom jeans” and thoroughly ignorant comments calling anything that indeed does come just up to the natural waist “high-waisted” are still being heard  and read by those of us who actually remember where the waist is located on the human corpus: the place for belts, sashes, snaps and buttons is an inch or two above the navel, depending upon one’s height. The designer of the human body gave us the waist as an elegant way of keeping our pants, skirts  and trousers from falling down; also to enhance our corporeal proportions. The true waist never comes below the navel, and it certainly cannot be found two inches above one’s crotch. Garments are falling down from where they rest on the hips, and the fashion world has insisted on staying down in the gutter after what seems to be a devastating, permanent fall from elegant, figure-enhancing style. Fashion-victims are afraid now to go against the hideous dictum that you must wear your clothes no higher than the hip. This is a big mistake, because if one follows the lines of his or her body, they will see that clothes descending from the waist lengthen the legs, while clothes that only come up to the hips turn even the slimmest among us into pot-bellied, short and sloppy -looking people who would have been laughed-at throughout the previous decades and centuries. Wearing six-inch heels to compensate for the bad deeds done to your figure by stingy clothing manufacturers and designers does nothing but make one look even sillier. Extra-high heels will damage both your feet and back, and will not give back the height robbed from you by idiotic torso-stretching trousers and skirts. For men, extra-long trousers do not visually lengthen your legs; rather, they make you look dumpy. The fail-safe, time-tested method of developing real glamour and style is to dress in natural, luxurious cloths and fabrics from the waist-down; wear two-to-three inch heels if you are a woman, and keep your trousers from heaping into a puddle on top of your shoes if you are a man. And don’t forget the stockings and socks. No one will notice that you are not blindly and self-destructively following bad fashion. But, they will wonder why on earth you look so good, while their trousers are slipping into the mire together with all sense of style. Now, there is the waist, our anchoring feature of elegant style. Pants, trousers and skirts constructed without it are a waste! © Copyright M-J de Mesterton; September 14th, 2010 Waist-to-Height Ratio and Your Health: an easy-to-use page that tells you how to find your waist, recommends its ideal measurement for your height, gender and age, calculates your body-mass index and displays one’s optimum daily caloric-intake.     Click Here to Read M-J’s Main Website, Elegant Survival

 

Anchorwomen Badly Clad

An ABC Talking Head Wearing Too Much Jewellery and a Low-Cut, Sleeveless Evening Dress in the Morning–in Mid-October

This is the same woman who wore a white, sleeveless dress on Good Morning, America after Labor Day. (So did Elizabeth Vargas, who bobbed-up for a special report on the Amanda Knox release in late September.) The GMA anchorwoman, who appears five days a week with George Stephanopoulos (his sartorial style is as good as can be expected, incidentally), has no regard for the seasons, and is stuck like glue to arm-fattening cap-sleeves and hopelessly devoted to sleeveless dresses. It's as though she is constantly trying to show off how "toned" her arms are. Why not just wear a muscle-shirt? And dangling earrings in the morning just don't fly. Some men and women seem to be exempt from receiving style advice on the television production set. Perhaps broadcast standards have just disappeared, which occurs to me when I hear these talking heads mispronouncing simple English words on a regular basis.

And now, from the great American South-West:

It Is Not Advisable to Wear Arm-Fattening Cap-Sleeves, Clunky Necklaces and Too Much Lip-Gloss on Television

>How Many Colours are Enough?

>

It’s time to stop the false compliments, and applying the term, “fashion maven” to the wrong people. Flattery is one thing, but those who draw analogies between this first lady and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy are outright loons. They put the “sick” in sycophancy!

How Many Colours are Enough?

It’s time to stop the false compliments, and applying the term, “fashion maven” to the wrong people. Flattery is one thing, but those who draw analogies between this first lady and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy are outright loons. They put the “sick” in sycophancy!

How Many Colours are Enough?

It’s time to stop the false compliments, and applying the term, “fashion maven” to the wrong people. Flattery is one thing, but those who draw analogies between this first lady and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy are outright loons. They put the “sick” in sycophancy!

How Many Colours are Enough?

It’s time to stop the false compliments, and applying the term, “fashion maven” to the wrong people. Flattery is one thing, but those who draw analogies between this first lady and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy are outright loons. They put the “sick” in sycophancy!

How Many Colours are Enough?

It’s time to stop the false compliments, and applying the term, “fashion maven” to the wrong people. Flattery is one thing, but those who draw analogies between this first lady and Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy are outright loons. They put the “sick” in sycophancy!