cherforqueen
bethelionqueen:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

betterthandarkchocolate:

thelipstickontherim:

Bring socks!!!! #homeless #donate #homelessness

As are toiletries!

I would also advice NOT to buy wool socks because yes, they are warm, but wool shrinks very easily, some people are allergic to wool, and wet wool is one of the most uncomfortable things in the world.
Thick cotton socks would be best, they’d last the longest and be the easiest to take care of and clean.
- Jane

Cotton is best. Always cotton


Just to clarifyWool A. Keeps you warm in the winterB. Is moisture wicking and cool in the summer, granted not the 40 below socks.C. Wet wool can still keep you warm whereas wet cotton cannot. That’s why things like toques for cold weather are made of wool and not cotton. I’m also speaking from experience. Wet cotton just gets cold, whereas wet wool uses your body heat and insulates, effectively heating up the dampness.D. Wool has the ability to ‘spring’ back whereas only the more expensive mercensized cotton can, making them last longer theoretically. I say “theoretically” because if you have talon toe nails, there’s only so much it can do.E. Cotton will never be as warm as wool.
F. The kind of wool used in most socks has minimal shrinkage. Many are pre-shrunk. I throw mine in the dryer all the time.
Though it is true that people can be allergic, and just don’t pick the itchiest wool socks. I’m sure there is a place for both cotton and wool socks, but some of these ‘facts’ are myths.-source: me the guy with the coldest feet in the world who actively seeks out the best warm socks

bethelionqueen:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

betterthandarkchocolate:

thelipstickontherim:

Bring socks!!!! #homeless #donate #homelessness

As are toiletries!

I would also advice NOT to buy wool socks because yes, they are warm, but wool shrinks very easily, some people are allergic to wool, and wet wool is one of the most uncomfortable things in the world.

Thick cotton socks would be best, they’d last the longest and be the easiest to take care of and clean.

- Jane

Cotton is best. Always cotton

Just to clarify

Wool A. Keeps you warm in the winter
B. Is moisture wicking and cool in the summer, granted not the 40 below socks.
C. Wet wool can still keep you warm whereas wet cotton cannot. That’s why things like toques for cold weather are made of wool and not cotton. I’m also speaking from experience. Wet cotton just gets cold, whereas wet wool uses your body heat and insulates, effectively heating up the dampness.
D. Wool has the ability to ‘spring’ back whereas only the more expensive mercensized cotton can, making them last longer theoretically. I say “theoretically” because if you have talon toe nails, there’s only so much it can do.
E. Cotton will never be as warm as wool.

F. The kind of wool used in most socks has minimal shrinkage. Many are pre-shrunk. I throw mine in the dryer all the time. Though it is true that people can be allergic, and just don’t pick the itchiest wool socks. I’m sure there is a place for both cotton and wool socks, but some of these ‘facts’ are myths.
-source: me the guy with the coldest feet in the world who actively seeks out the best warm socks

liverpoolandmain

Anonymous asked:

What are some of your favorite brands?

liverpoolandmain answered:

That’s a tough one but here are some of my favorites in categories because this is how much I think about clothes. Also i might be a little biased towards some Self Edge brands since I work and shop there:

Jeans: Strike Gold makes some of the most interesting fabrics and their cuts work well for me. Just picked up a pair of 5105 jeans. I’m also a huge fan of Norman Porter based in Philly. They make everything in house and the details are top notch. 3sixteen is also a long time favorite. 

Shirting: Flat Head is hands down my favorite for shirts. I nerd out about the fabric they use and the fits on their button downs and tshirts usually fit me well. Rogue Territory makes my favorite shirts domestically. Taylor Stitch tshirts are a good basic too. 

Outerwear: I don’t have one of their jackets yet but one of these days, I’m going to own a Real Mccoys leather jacket. Also, same with Mother Freedom from Massachusetts. 

Shoes: Bootwise, i can’t get enough of Viberg especially their service boots on a 110 last. Sneaker wise, i’m fairly simple and keep to PF Flyers.

Leather Goods: Tanner Goods has always worked well for me. I’ve recently been liking what Black Acre has been doing as well. Ewing Dry Goods is also one of my favorites. 

Headwear: Ebbets Field and Norse Projects hats fill up my closet. I also wear a fair amount of beanies and my favorites are made by Buzz Rickson and John Lofgren

Good list!

lifeonwaine asked:

Are The oxbloods made in a different year? There fore potentially based off a different model shape.. Just a thought. Both are nice dude. I don't wear black shoes at all. So I would recommend getting a cheap insole to fill space. Oxblood is super cool man..

They’re almost certainly from different years, but generally they both fall in the late 70s-80s. I suspect the cordovan pair are a little newer, but worn harder, because the scotch grain pair has the original leather soles and a v-cleat, while the cordovan pair has been resoled at some point and given a rubber heel. Theoretically, they should be more similar, or at least the sizes should be more consistent because the Imperial line was based off of the same silhouette for about thirty years. Florsheim still makes this model but uses corrected grain and sends it offshore to be produced.

I am also more drawn to the cordovan, but they don’t fit as well. I’m thinking I could wear the scotch grain more Thom Browne style to make them more interesting.

A Shoe Problem.

My eBay search for a pair of vintage Florsheim Imperials in my small size (usually a 6) led me to buy two pairs from different sellers.

Above on the left is a black scotch grain pair in 6.5 D and on the right, oxblood cordovan in a 6 D.

So if I wear a 6, you’d think those would fit best right? Wrong. In fact, the 6.5s are smaller and narrower! You can see the gap between the shoe and my foot on the cordovans. I suspect the previous owner had really fucking wide feet and just stretched these out over time. The scotch grains would benefit a lot from a good polishing, because they look comparatively dull but I only just got them today so I haven’t done that yet.

I could try taking a cheap insole and fitting it for the cordovans to try and take up space so they fit better. Is it worth it though? I wanted the cordovan pair more for their versatility in my wardrobe and black shoes are harder to match sometimes without looking too interview-y.

The shoe silhouettes seem different too. The wings on the toes go back further on the black pair, while the oxblood pair have a slightly more rounded toe. The black pair comes up higher on my foot, around the heel and the top of the foot.

Thoughts?

A Shoe Problem.

My eBay search for a pair of vintage Florsheim Imperials in my small size (usually a 6) led me to buy two pairs from different sellers.

Above on the left is a black scotch grain pair in 6.5 D and on the right, oxblood cordovan in a 6 D.

So if I wear a 6, you’d think those would fit best right? Wrong. In fact, the 6.5s are smaller and narrower! You can see the gap between the shoe and my foot on the cordovans. I suspect the previous owner had really fucking wide feet and just stretched these out over time. The scotch grains would benefit a lot from a good polishing, because they look comparatively dull but I only just got them today so I haven’t done that yet.

I could try taking a cheap insole and fitting it for the cordovans to try and take up space so they fit better. Is it worth it though? I wanted the cordovan pair more for their versatility in my wardrobe and black shoes are harder to match sometimes without looking too interview-y.

The shoe silhouettes seem different too. The wings on the toes go back further on the black pair, while the oxblood pair have a slightly more rounded toe. The black pair comes up higher on my foot, around the heel and the top of the foot.

Thoughts?

putthison

putthison:

The Man Who Believed in Simplicity

Although I own more clothes than I need, and think there are a number of advantages to having a big wardrobe, there’s something admittedly appealing about personal uniforms. The idea that one can put a lot of thought into what they buy, but almost no thought into what they choose to wear … because it’s always the same thing. Such simplicity feels freeing.

Jean-Michel Frank seems to have known this idea well. He unfortunately lived a short life – having committed suicide at age 46 – but in his brief time, he became one of the most influential interior designers of the 20th century. A pioneer in minimalism, he was known for his plain-lined but sumptuous furniture made from luxurious materials such as mother-of-pearl, shagreen, mica, and leather. For example, here’s a striking oakwood armchair upholstered in doe-hide that he designed for a hotel in Patagonia (his work was famous among wealthy elites in Argentina, who would often visit Paris, where Frank was based). He also designed a special collection for Hermes in 1924, which was recently re-released by the French luxury house. Included was a club chair made from sheepskin, a rye-straw marquetry screen, and a parchment covered dressing table. You can see other designs by Frank at artnet.

This idea of simplicity was extended to his wardrobe. Frank was said to have owned forty of the same exact grey flannel suit. Each was double-breasted with a four-on-two buttoning configuration (four buttons, two for closing), and made with a long peak lapel line and no ticket pocket (for the sake of simplicity, we can assume). The lapels were cut relatively straight, rather than curved with a belly. The chest was clean, the shoulders soft, and the upper arms a touch full. The result was a silhouette that allowed Frank to look relaxed and comfortable, but also gave him a great elegance.   

In a 1938 issue of Harper’s Bazaar, Frank was quoted as saying, “Throw out and keep throwing out. Elegance means elimination.” He seems to have done this in both his work and wardrobe, paring things down to their most essential forms, and making sure that what was done, was done exceptionally well. I’ll admit, the idea of wearing the same thing every day isn’t for me, but I also don’t look as good as Frank in a grey flannel double-breasted suit.

chanelaftercoco

chanelaftercoco:

STYLE CRUSH: NICK WOOSTER

Meet “The Dapper Wooster”; Men’s fashion director for Neiman Marcus and Bergdorf Goodman and Menswear dandy king.

I’m not always a big fan of his camo, but Nick Wooster is only about 5’5” or 5’6”. While not the shortest man out there, he is definitely smaller than average. I feel like he’s a good example of a short man who doesn’t look short, showing it’s all about dressing the body. That said, he’s pretty muscular and stocky, which gives him more presence and more to drape clothes over, than short guys who are also thin.