I'm a fan of Rick Owens/Julius type stuff, but I find it's kind of hard to wear those sorts of stuff, especially the pieces that are essentially statement pieces (crazy jackets, stuff like that) without looking extremely edgy, like, not in a good way. I know it's not just me, either, we've all seen Rick cosplays and stuff that don't quite work.
>pic related, I guess, though the top half of the fit is pretty conventional to begin with
If I had to guess less than 1% of /fa/ knows what julius is. A reasonable portion will know who Rick Owens is but not outside the 'clownshoes' and 'dressing like a final fantasy character' jokes
besides knoch and trunks there weren't many posters into julius in the first place
Are you retarded? Get a proxy that will mark the product down
Thats your first issue
Second is a apart from leather and gasmask meme pieces julius is like 60k yen max
Thirdly the second hand market for julius is nuts the ammount of pieces i have been to able to get in bnwt condition is insane
Im not into julius anymore but its always been dirt cheap adnd doubt thats changed in the last couple of years
I like particular Julius pieces and looks but so much of it feels like cosplay stuff to me. Huge boots and leather oiled to the point that it looks like wrinkled plastic or something. I'm fascinated by the techniques and the looks he achieves but so much Julius seems unwearable without, as op said, looking edgy in a bad way.
MA Julius, Tatsuro's secondary line (not really a diffusion; more like drkshdw is to rick), was closed this past year in order to launch the new line Julius Nilos
mainline is still active
I've always found BBS to be more inspired by Damir Doma than Rick
Boris Bidjan Saberi
Leon Emanuel Blanck
some Ria Dunn pieces
Knoch with Tatsuro Horikawa
doesn't work that way
both Rick and Julius pieces are extremely variable from style to style and season to season
old rick fits much smaller than new rick for instance
Adding to >>12060326
Not really 1:1, but similar dark style and some of pieces look great together.
>Alexander Wang for more casual dark pieces
>CE for dressing down
>Dgnak by Kangd
This is the first time I've seen D.Gnak encouraged on /fa/, the only other time was when I brought it up and people were calling them gook H&M Rick Owens ripoffs
Julius cargos are my trouser grails
wear with a white shirt tucked in and 7-10" black leather boots for that clean, /fa/cist look
you ever look at his most iconic pieces?
bbs leathers are incredibly influenced by early DD
maybe you're only familiar with doma's recent stuff, which has taken a different direction
>what did you mean by this?
are you implying rick was somehow ripping off julius by releasing a slim cargo pant?
expensive because he uses a lot of rare vintage fabrics and there's lots of hand finishing to the pieces
Oh I shouldn't have said "only other time", I didn't mean to say I was supporting D.Gnak as well.
Cav Empt is okay though as far as streetwear goes, though it's still kind of obnoxious
>I think it's shortsighted to call CE streetwear
But that's literally what it is, why is it 'shortsighted'?
To be honest I don't udnerstand the meme that CE goes with Rick, there are like few fits people wearing rick shoes with ce shit and suddenly they are compatible as brands? CE goes as well with Rick as any hype streetwear thing, fucking techninja brands go better with Rick than CE does.
>meme that CE goes with Rick
I haven't really seen a lot of people post that
It can work but it (re)interprets Rick as streetwear to work, and that doesn't really bring Rick to its full potential. It's kind of like how rappers like ASAP Rocky wear Rick, it kind of takes the avant-garde power away from it.
> that doesn't really bring Rick to its full potential
Literally just string of words that mean absolutely fucking nothing. What's "full potential of Rick"? Something you decide on?
I'm not saying you can't wear CE with Rick but there is no synergy, you can wear H&M and Uniqlo with Rick and look great, the point is the brands are from 2 different worlds and the aesthetics and the brands are totally different.
Lot of people seem to be parroting how CE works with Rick for some reason.
I bought this Julius coat recently.
Usually I try to dress low key, but the materials were fantastic and I got a 50% discount. Do you think it's too loud/autistic? Thoughts?
>Do you think it's too loud/autistic?
That's literally everything in this thread. If you can pull it off it's dope, if you can't it's the absolute worst kind of cringe, the kind of cringe you spent thousands of dollars on.
The only advice I can give is to commit to it, throwing on a single piece like that with otherwise normal clothes looks terrible. You've already thrown all normal concepts of silhouette out the window, you need to roll with it.
>You've already thrown all normal concepts of silhouette out the window
But it's a pretty standard silhouette for a thick winter wool coat IMHO. The hem is a bit wide, but so are a lot of normie parkas.
Oh and the scarf is detachable. The models shown actually wear it in a retarded angle. I wear it with the upper in a horizontal line.
These leggings are pretty slick senpai
I wear CE with my Rick a lot of the time. Some of the more low key CE jackets and pullovers work extremely well due to muted colors and an exaggerated oversized fit that is remiscent of some DRKSHDW items. It's a really cool combiniation of brands imo.
>You can't say that "full potential" means nothing when you're saying shit like "no synergy"
Yes I fucking can, read the post you retard, I was criticising how the faggot posted how something doesn't 'use rick to it's full potential' which means fucking nothing when you don't define what the 'full potential' is and even then it's completely retarded thing to say because there is no defined 'full potential' that exists in the first place.
No synergy just means the brands are entirely different in aesthetic, you CAN wear fucking Gucci with Rick if you want but the brands are entirely different and there is very little common ground with them.
The only reason why "no synergy" can even be considered an unwanted thing is that certain pieces work better in certain ways/contexts. So they have potential to do certain things, but not others. Saying "full potential" has to be defined is fucking retarded when anyone with half a brain realizes that pieces can be worn well or not well depending on the fit.
Are you retarded, or what?
Man, I see your point, but it's kind of autistic to focus so much on the idea that full potential has to be this singular thing. Like, Rick's pieces are made with a purpose, for example, with ideas about avant-garde and silhouettes and so on. You can either work with that or work against that. You can disagree with it, but saying it doesn't mean anything seems kind of stupid and shortsighted. It's like both of you are saying the same point, but he just worded a little differently so you're just sperging out about it for no good reason.
>So they have potential to do certain things
Again, you have to fucking define what 'potential' means in the context for this kinda shit to make sense, and he was talking about "full potential" which is straight up retarded fucking thing to say.
>pieces can be worn well or not well depending on the fit.
That's what I'm fucking saying, you CAN wear fucking any brand with Rick and make it look okay if you are good stylist, that doesn't mean the brands you are combining Rick with have much common aesthetically with Rick, so there is no 'synergy' with the brands.
'Potential' is dumb fucking term for morons who can't properly express what they are trying to say.
And read the discussion, the original use of the word was fucking retarded in every way
> it (re)interprets Rick as streetwear to work, and that doesn't really bring Rick to its full potential
Who the fuck defies what's the "full potential of Rick" the faggot in question is talking about 'full potential of Rick' like it's some common well known plateau that people just unconsciously sense or something. I don't know what he meant with that exactly cause he never explained what he meant with 'full potential' means in the context. It would make more sense if he talked with terms anyone can understand instead of using vague as fuck definitions that don't really mean nothing.
Hey man, the "full potential" of a piece depends on the piece. It can work in some ways, and not others. You can look at a piece and see how it can be worn well, or style it in ways that don't. And that's because a piece has potential to work in certain ways and doesn't have potential to work in other ways. So when I said full potential, I meant recognizing what that piece was best suited to do, and wear it that way. For example, if you take a crazy avant-garde piece but wear it in a streetwear context (like a Kanye ripoff might do), you're wasting its potential. That's all I meant. You're being way more butthurt than you need to be right now.
>'full potential of Rick' like it's some common well known plateau that people just unconsciously sense or something
makes you sound like you don't know how style pieces. If you have a piece and any kind of aesthetic "sense", as you say, then yes, you should be able to "sense" what the best way to wear that particular piece is. Or at least, a good way to wear that piece.
I think you're disagreeing with me on the idea that there's one "best" way, but that's not really what I meant, though I do maintain that certain pieces have certain potentials. Like, a Supreme hoodie just isn't a good avant-garde piece. A crazy Rick jacket is. You can, of course, style that crazy Rick jacket into a more standard looking fit (like with Lanvin pieces, for example). Even if you're making that look decent, it's a piece that had the potential to express some avant-garde tendency, but you've suppressed that. If you're going to suppress that, you're probably better off with using a piece that was meant more for that kind of non-avant-garde aesthetic in the first place. That's what I mean. You play to your strengths.
I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same thing, but you're being super autistic about the fact that I said "full" potential.
The original context was Rick as a brand as you can clearly read it.
>if you take a crazy avant-garde piece but wear it in a streetwear context (like a Kanye ripoff might do), you're wasting its potentia
And that is merely one very subjective take on it, the potential doesn't fucking mean anything because it's just something you describe to express wheter something looks good to you personally.
Basically when you say "wow that guy is wasting those ramones potential" what you are actually saying is "I don't like how those Ramones look in that fit" and that is fine but just don't use meaningless buzzwords when you do it, you are doing service to everyone with that.
>If you're going to suppress that, you're probably better off with using a piece that was meant more for that kind of non-avant-garde aesthetic in the first place.
This is so silly. You are talking about this like there is some objective qualities to certain clothing and that some of those qualities are better than others for some reason? Why does wearing something with Rick 'suppress it's avant-garde tendencies'?
> it's a piece that had the potential to express some avant-garde tendency
Who gets to say that? It has 'potential to express' any kind of tendency you do realize right? There is no wrong or right way to wear something. Of course there is more pleasing ways aesthetically, but that's now 'right way', it's just more coherent and pleasing to the eye.
>There is no wrong or right way to wear something. Of course there is more pleasing ways aesthetically, but that's now 'right way', it's just more coherent and pleasing to the eye.
At that point you're just arguing semantics. "Wrong" or "right" don't have to imply some moral connotation (if that's what you're referring to), and so long as there are shitty fits and fits that work, this kind of argument is stupid.
>it's just something you describe to express wheter something looks good to you personally.
Yeah, there's no fundamental difference in styling because all art is subjective! Hooray!
The fact is that we all share some aesthetic sense, or there would be no semblance of consensus at all. But there is (eg. everyone in this thread likes Rick), and aesthetics, especially in the case of something like clothing or fashion where there's interaction with other people, can't be judged by your opinion alone.
>Basically when you say "wow that guy is wasting those ramones potential" what you are actually saying is "I don't like how those Ramones look in that fit"
No, a piece can work in a fit, yet not be used well. A piece that a designer made with avant-garde ideas in mind being used in a fit that opposes those ideas might work, but in those cases it makes more sense to use pieces that fit with the non-avant-garde idea in the first place.
>You are talking about this like there is some objective qualities to certain clothing
So what, all clothing is the same and there are no objective qualities like silhouette, styling, etc.? So long as they are actual objects, there are physical objective qualities. And moreover, there are objective qualities as in, "the designer thought this and that when designing the clothes", which then imbues and puts the clothes in a certain context. For example, you can add hints of BDSM into a jacket. Those are objective qualities. Just because you say they are not there does not mean those do not exist.
>this kind of argument is stupid
I don't agree.
>Yeah, there's no fundamental difference in styling because all art is subjective! Hooray!
The issue is that you are using confusing as fuck words to say something as simple. "Doesn't look good to me" vs "This doesn't reach it's full potential", surely you understand the implications of those are different and how much more clearer it is just to say the former?
>No, a piece can work in a fit, yet not be used well.
What is the difference then exactly? Why is the designer the author and the milepost what to judge some fit with his design on it in your opinion?
>in those cases it makes more sense to use pieces that fit with the non-avant-garde idea in the first place.
Why though? I don't think it's that simple at all, why is the 'idea' of the clothes such important concept to you exactly? I don't think it makes any less sense than using something non-avant-garde as you put it.
>here are physical objective qualities
I wasn't talking about physical qualities obviously but more about what you were talking about "avant-garde" clothing, and the way you seem to rise it to a certain level above other qualities, or at least that's what I'm getting at your posts and your use of the "potential" of clothing.
>I don't agree.
I don't agree.
>"Doesn't look good to me" vs "This doesn't reach it's full potential", surely you understand the implications of those are different
Because they mean different things, stop saying I'm saying something I'm not.
>I wasn't talking about physical qualities obviously but more about what you were talking about "avant-garde" clothing, and the way you seem to rise it to a certain level above other qualities, or at least that's what I'm getting at your posts and your use of the "potential" of clothing.
"Avant-garde" is just one example. If you got my example about adding hints of BDSM into a jacket, that's my point. the notion of a piece being avant-garde ultimately comes from its physical qualities (at the very least) and the intentions of the designer. As those things are objective, you can point to that as the source of the avant-garde-ness of a piece that's avant-garde. A piece that wasn't made with the intention to be avant-garde with physical properties that aren't compatible with the idea of avant-garde (or BDSM, or formality, or whatever), lacks the potential to be those things, at least as compared to pieces that were made for those things with the physical aspects to go for it. A pair of basketball shorts just doesn't work with a formal outfit, to use an extreme example. It doesn't have the physical characteristics and was not made with the intention to be part of a formal outfit. So it has little to no potential to be part of a formal outfit. If you can accept that, then you have to accept that, on the opposite end, a piece can have lots, or more, potential for something (formality, BDSM, the avant-garde, etc.).
>why is the 'idea' of the clothes such important concept to you exactly?
It's not just the idea, though I do think it is important, and anyway, since you say
>I wasn't talking about physical qualities
I don't see how you can talk about potential or even synergy if you discount physical qualities.
>the idea of avant-garde
what is this idea of avant-garde you keep talking about?
And how can you be so sure the designer intended for something to be 'avant-garde'? If anything it's a term coined by the fashion community and journalists.
> A pair of basketball shorts just doesn't work with a formal outfit, to use an extreme example.
So the 'potential' you keep talking about is actually just pre-existing notion of certain 'look' that you yourself define as 'right' or as you put it 'it's potential'?
And this is sorta funny when we talk about Rick, the madman wore basketball short inspired shorts to a fucking White House with formal blazer.
>I don't see how you can talk about potential or even synergy if you discount physical qualities.
With that specific sentence, you are understand the context entirely wrong. I was critiziing your use of the 'suppressing' some quality of clothing, you can't even do that if we talk about physical qualities are they are present at all time aren't they?
buy my rick owens drkshdw bomber
I saw someone with this bomber and some Geos on once and it was sick as hell.
I have these pants and moonstar vans, but not slip ons. What would be some good slip ons that dont have the vans silhouette but still have a similar effect to this picture
Or just some other shoes that would go with them in general I guess.
Are Runners actually nice irl? I kinda like the sole, can get this black colorway or all white for quite cheap brand new.
please buy my drkshdw bomber :(