>shirt tucked into trousers
>no belt
is this the best way to stay ahead of the curve without going full avant garde?
i don't know if it will keep you ahead of the curve but it looks good. remember to wear high rise pants.
>>11472325
yes, but good luck finding pants that will fit
they just dont make them like that anymore
>>11472400
>they just dont make them like that anymore
look harder
>>11472400
everything uniqlo sells right now looks like they just watched the movie and went all in on it
>>11472423
That's certainly not true for their pants.
Works as long as there are no belt loops.
Look at some trousers with side cinches.
>>11472423
https://www.businessoffashion.com/articles/bof-exclusive/bof-exclusive-christophe-lemaire-joins-uniqlo
not wearing a belt is probably more avant garde since the conventional fashion rule is to wear a belt
>>11472411
>>11472423
I'm not convinced there exists well fitted high pants that can be worn without a belt.
> everything uniqlo sells right now looks like
> looks like
>>11472466
look for companies that do reproductions of period clothing, that's what joaquin is wearing.
>>11472458
it's no so avant garde that most people will even really be able to put their finger on what's different though that's all I really care for
>>11472400
>they just dont make them like that anymore
True, why are 99% of pants low rise garbage? Lmao when guys will look at trousers with a slim leg and say BUT HOW DO UR BALLS HAVE ROOM while they are wearing low rise pants with no ball/ass/thigh room and yards of room in the calves.
Disgusting. Low/mid rise should be only for women only.
>>11472400
lol what? there are tons of companies making high rises
levis 501
>>11472481
> be in the hollywood movie industry and have access to people who do period piece custom clothing so they can REMAKE WHAT THEY NO LONGER MAKE
thanks, lad
will check it out
>>11472510
they're objectively shit though
>>11472518
>objectively
I don't think you know what that means
>>11472515
there's like a million stores that make their living off this shit it's not that hard to find
>>11472466
I have a pant that fit good enough to wear it without a belt. So, yeah, you can find high pants that don't need belts.
I've seen so many girls use it without belt and in my opinion it looks better.
But, I don't think that is a good look to a man. A normal jeans pants looks better for me.
>>11472515
kek
>>11472529
DUDE ITS EVERYWHERE
nice
>>11472621
>you can find high pants that don't need belts.
You can't find good high pants period.
>>11472523
They are. Unless you're talking about muh vintage denim than yes, expect every pair of Levis to be shit.
>>11472458
That's not a fashion rule. No belt just shows that you've got the correct size of pants thus illustrating how conscious you are about your measurements.
guys you know normal people don't wear low rise pants right? you might have to go to forbidden lands like Jos A Bank or Brooks Brothers or something, but it really isn't that hard to find normal-people pants. Think like a normie and you will look like a normie
>>11473094
ever heard of google? you should try it sometime
>>11473101
>You can't find good high pants period.
uh no
>>11473120
but I buy all my clothes at sears and zumiez. They don't have it therefore it can't possibly exist.
>>11473111
i was always told its wrong to tuck your shit in without a belt so i just assumed this was a fashion standard
>>11474023
what is thsi
>>11472481
>reproductions of period clothing
what period? civil war? 20s?
>>11472423
example?
>>11474331
http://www.vulture.com/2013/12/her-movie-high-waisted-pants-spike-jonze.html
>The tapered-leg, high-waisted pants that Phoenix’s Theodore wears are based on a mid-1800s pair that Storm found in a costume shop
>>11474396
>based on
>>11472325
i want his collarless shirt
