So /his/, do you reckon we will ever see any pre-20th clothing

*tips fedora*

>>1856877
No, apart from LARPers you won't see this

>>1856885
Hipster brought back handle bar mustaches and suspenders. There's no telling what will be popular in a few decades if the vintage craze keeps going.

>>1856883
It's not fedora to want to see this style come back, it's only fedora to actually wear it. I mean, I kinda wanna see renassiance "puff and slash" style come back, but it's only cringe if I wear it in public.

My current slim fit jeans are so tight I always laugh how medieval my shadow looks.

>>1856912
That's bad for your balls, anon

Anglo-Saxon clothing is nifty as fuck. Especially those buckles that they used as fastenings for tunics.

Also Rus clothing is stylish as well.

File: byzantine.jpg (54KB, 564x423px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 564x423px

>>1856885
Well, Hamilton has been rather big this year and it could influence fashion in a sense. Also, during the NY Fashion Week AW 2015/6 many designers have introduced breeches into their runaways and Vivienne Westwood is actively trying to make them stylish. Also, there was a sort of Byzantine revival a couple of years ago, although exclusively focused on woman's fashion.

File: 1471665307999.jpg (152KB, 826x960px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 826x960px

Can someone identify this style of clothing?

>>1856918
It's not too restrictive. I can still squat deep in them. They're not skinny jeans to tight pats my knees. Like a German Officer. I've had varicocele since I was 12 anyway. I sleep naked to try and alleviate it.

>>1856930
Looks Italian renassiance, but I might be very wrong

>>1856927
Do average women ever actually wear the ridiculous crap that's shown off at fashion shows? Like is there really a ball somewhere in Lichtenstein right now where super wealthy Stacies are actually wearing that crap?

There are three directions toward which all clothing is headed:

Androgyny
Nudity
Universalism

T-shirts, Jeans, and trainers are examples of this. Worn by either gender anywhere on earth. Non-tailored, and minimally structured. They are easy to produce, and can be decorated in an infinite range of styles.

Nudity is a more complex clothing trend, but tattoos, cosmetic surgery, tanning, and bodybuilding are examples of this trend.

We will only see more of this , and everything else is nostalgia.

File: 8852800_orig.jpg (155KB, 597x800px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 597x800px

Kilts are from the 18th century and people still wear those. Though unless you're at least an 8/10 people will think you're a massive dork for wearing them to anything but a special occasion.

Case in point: compare Fatso on the left there to Kevin McKidd on the right

>>1856954
What is universaliism or is that covered in your first point with androgyny?

I honestly don't care about all that but bloomers are fucking hot.

>>1856972
Universalism is just the global standardization of fashion.

>>1856972
The three are quite intertwined, but universal in the sense that Oklahoma Soccerdad, Tokyo Waifu, Syrian Refugee, and African Aids Kid could all be wearing some variation of t-shirt, jeans, and running shoes.

>>1856978
Yes what he said.

File: Paloma-Faith-in-Dolce-Gabbana.jpg (136KB, 620x478px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 620x478px

>>1856945
They are. Clothes have always been a symbol of status and wealthy people need to stand over the rest.

File: 12-01-24-Nervous-Guy.jpg (41KB, 351x450px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 351x450px

>>1856971
>bought a kilt when I was a huge tub o' lard
>I must've looked fucking ridiculous
>I recently got really /fit/ and started taking care of my appearance
>my kilt is too big for me now
My entire existence is one cruel joke

>>1856971
It looks authentic on the fatso.
Personally I'd like capes and cloaks to make a comeback, I imagine they'd be comfy as fuck, and they'd look cute on some chicks.

>>1856930

Late 14th century England. Search for Knyght Errant for his website and youtube channel.

>>1856945

Average women don't go to balls. Fashion shows are not about showing off "average" clothes.

>>1856877
>Byzantine clothing
>/fa/ af

If I wanted to wear brightly colored dresses with gaudy jewelry, I'd have been a gay Iranian American.

Now, I'd love to see modern chicks in Colonial era tights and petticoats.

>>1856945
The average woman could never afford this ridiculous crap. Haute Couture is a real type of clothing worn by the super wealthy. Sort of like how some people drive a Venono, but most everyone else drives a Focus or some shit.

>>1856945
H+M, for example, could do a version of this for $39.99, and the average woman could do it. But not the runway shit.

>>1856954
>There are three directions toward which all clothing is headed:

Everything moves in a cycle, not a direction. Rich folk wear whatever it takes to set them apart from the Middle Class, who in turn start copying the rich to be more like them and further distinguish themselves from the Poor, who wear whatever is cheap, available, and conservative. The Rich then pick up cues from the Poor for a time as backlash against the Middle Class before they pick up on a new fashion trend and the cycle repeats.

>>1856945
Fashion shows for both the rich and the fashion designers are about making a statement and taking the risk of standing at the cutting edge of seasonal fashion for a lot of short-term social profit. Designers attempt to catch the eye of the best trendsetters they possibly can while not embarrassing themselves by attracting the fashion police.

This usually has no bearing on average women or even the daily wear of the rich other than to elevate one brand over another to affect market prices of last season's hot fashions that are just now entering the market for mass consumption this season.

>>1857017
But anon, rich people and poor people dress more similarly now than at any point in history. Mass production and mass marketing have made things strangely egalitarian.

Steve Jobs as fashion icon is a prime example of this.

Corsets, flapperdom, and toga parties are a thing, but they will not return to anything near previous levels. Post-modernism may be hideous, but it is visible in fashion more than anything else.

High-quality bootlegs are another unprecedented trend. Rolex and LV are symbols of wealth that even the poorest can purchase a slice of.

Strange times, indeed.

>>1857033
Protip: Runway shows are essentially advertising. Mass market manufacturers look to the runway to see how they can create something new for the plebs. And the plebs demand new clothing in the stores every 6 months.

The "average woman" will be buying cheapened versions of whatever is happening at the fashion vangaurd by the time the vietnamese kids are done churning out the mass-market version of whatever happened further upstream.

>>1857230
I literally just said this, but more eloquently.

>>1857212
>But anon, rich people and poor people dress more similarly now than at any point in history.

Much of that has to do with the point in the cycle where the rich begin adopting cues from the poor, since they'll never be mistaken for actually being poor. The benefit to this comes from the middle class being more unwilling to adopt the same style since there's a greater chance they'll be mistaken for being one of the poor.

File: 1472450212308.png (3MB, 992x1474px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 992x1474px

>>1856877
You are welcome to discover lolita fashion (especially the classic and gothic substyles), and EGA

>>1857926
>Convoluted run on sentence where the importance of mass-market fashion is rather obfuscated.
>Mentions Social Currency, which is a retarded concept in the harsh financial realities of fashion marketing
In your mind, you probably did.

>>1857934
I'm curious what changes would need to occur for the rich to really begin distinguishing themselves from the poor through dress, or for clothing prices to rise significantly to make those differences actually distinguishable.

>>1857962
Destruction of globalism

>>1857967
Seems pretty far fetched at this point. Truly automated clothing manufacturing seems much more likely to happen before then, which could allow for cheap, locally made clothing, making it even more egalitarian.

>>1857956
The mass market got as much focus as it deserved.

>Mentions Social Currency, which is a retarded concept
For everyone but the rich, and those few among them with the willingness to risk their reputations when adopting new fashion rather than be behind in any way. Financial realities of fashion marketing has no influence here, and in fact it's the other way around.

>>1857962
The rich don't have to distinguish themselves from the poor to begin with. What needs to happen is for the poor to change their style, which frees up the middle class to then adopt the style of the rich, which then pushes the rich to adopt something new.

File: Screen Shot 2016-10-22 at 1.57.53 AM.png (85KB, 773x741px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 773x741px

>>1857995
>>1857995
>Financial realities of fashion marketing has no influence here, and in fact it's the other way around.
>$225 billion dollar industry, the vast majority of which is cheap crap
I'm curious that you don't see the power this wields in shaping what happens on the highest levels of the fashion world.
Chanel, for example, puts on highfalutin fashion shows like everyone else, but makes most of their money through cheap crap like sunglasses and especially scented alcohol.

>>1857995
>What needs to happen is for the poor to change their style, which frees up the middle class to then adopt the style of the rich, which then pushes the rich to adopt something new.

Currently, the poor can dress poor, or aspirationally, which is more often the case.

How else would they dress, and what would prevent the rich from co-opting their chic poor look?

>>1856945
my brother used to have a job at an office building in SOHO in manhattan, which is a big fashion district. Sometimes when I was going to meet him I'd wait outside the building for a bit for him to finish up and watch people go by, amazingly you would occasionally see women wearing those ridiculous high fashion outfits.

File: 270EB60400000578-3015303-image-m-17_1427490888146.jpg (180KB, 634x840px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 634x840px

>implying i'm not wearing this already everyday

>>1858055
>I'm curious that you don't see the power this wields in shaping what happens on the highest levels of the fashion world.
Because as I explained, the fashion industry can only hope to pander to the elite, who are fickle and may or may not patronize a new design for the season. You're mistaking the profit a designer makes with their brand for being able to influence a smaller section of the market who are by nature notoriously difficult to market to. Instead, it's the other way around. Once a fashion line is given a thumbs up by the rich, it can then be mass produced and sold for inflated prices to the rest of society, and then for a long time to come as the craze steadily wears down and the brand is diluted.

It works the same way for luxury cars. Companies like BMW make most of their profits selling low end models to the average consumer at high prices because of the reputation their brand receives in selling more expensive cars to richer clients. What the average consumer likes in a car however has no bearing on what BMW will attempt to sell to the rich, whose only goals are to distinguish themselves and not also aspire to be someone they're not like the middle class.

File: fedora.webm (591KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 640x480px

fedoras came back into play for a while

>>1858189
I agree that many brands attempt to do this, starting as high end brands, and then trickling down. Giorgio Armani and his hand tailored suits at 10K a pop, all the way down to plebe tier A/X which anyone can buy.

Rich people still want to wear Chuck Taylors, and tons of high-end brands will do their own version of a rubber-cap toe sneaker, for example.

Fashion did used to be very top-down, as you described, but it has become much more fluid in recent decades. Luxury denim is the most obvious example, taking something decidedly blue-collar, and elevating it to the high-priced fashion.

I just want late 1700/early 1800 clothes to make a comeback. Looks /fa/ as fuck

File: Annex - Bogart, Humphrey_01.jpg (373KB, 1140x1500px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1140x1500px

>>1858224

Yet most of what people consider to be a fedora, including in that video, aren't. They're trilbys.

Pic related in a fedora.

File: 9bee9130-117f-4a79-af04-61145c9d71b3.jpg (230KB, 797x800px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 797x800px

I'm going to wear a chiton for Halloween and be an ancient greek. I've been wearing it around the house and it's pretty dang comfy. I'm considering maybe wearing out in public to see what people say. Of course with sandals and I'll add Raybans. Give it a modern edge. Right now mine is pinned on both shoulders but if I take one off it becomes the right one. So I'm going to try both out.

>>1856927
>wearing icons on your body

literal heresy

>>1857944
i can see the mental illness in their eyes

>>1856954
>genetically engineered massive tits bouncing in public

I'm okay with this

>>1859317
We are practically there now.

>>1858819
Are ancient greeks scary now? How is that a halloween costume?

>>1860208
You don't have to be something scary for Halloween? Like dude that's only for teenagers age like 16 the rest of us just wear whatever cause we aren't trying to be scary, we wanna look cool at the parties duh

File: John_Michael_Wright_-_Lord_Mungo_Murray_(Am_Morair_Mungo_Moireach),_1668_-_1700._Son_of_1st_Marquess_of_Atholl_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg (2MB, 2706x4001px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2706x4001px

>>1856971
>>1856985
17th century great kilts need to come back

File: tumblr_o7ar7gz3rn1vrvwsmo6_400.gif (2MB, 269x449px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 269x449px

>>1860193
>practically