I’ve had several requests for details on the Goodwood Revival dress code, with requests for things such as tweed / waxed cotton jackets or trousers (“pants” in Britspeak are undies).
If you want to go Amazon, just search for “Walker and Hawkes” under Men’s Clothing and pick out what you want. (Warning: their sizes are Brit dimensions, i.e. smaller than our generous Murkin ones, so if for example you wear a U.S. X-Large, get their XXL.)
W&H are a cheaper choice than Barbour, who are filthy expensive, so there MAY be a quality / longwearing compromise involved, but so far I haven’t had any issues.
If like me you have an issue with woolen pants (itchy), then go with corduroy, such as the Orvis offering.
I have to get it all together before my trip Over There next year…
I’ve never understood the appeal of the sulky-looking Oz actress Rebel Wilson, unless it was some kind of social compensation for her (over-)weight. Still, I have to give it to the girl, who got sick of only being offered “fat-girl” second-fiddle movie roles and decided to lose some tonnage. So she did, going from gargantuan to merely plump in the space of about a year (and good for her):
Of course, her reduced tonnage meant that Rebel could now choose from a wider pool of boyfriends (and arguably a better class thereof), which she did when she started banging Anheuser-Busch heir Jake Busch. They’ve since apparently broken up, but before they did, they appeared in public together at some dress-up function, and this is why I put the “arguably” in front of “better class” earlier. See if you can spot the sartorial faux pas in the pic below:
Seems to me that if a girl goes through the grueling year-long grind of exercise and diet in order to make herself look more attractive, the least her boyfriend could do was not show up sockless and wearing bedroom slippers at a formal function.
Which is why the title of this post refers not to the pouty Oz chick, but to her ex-boyfriend.
In today’s post I’m going to sing the praises of an article of women’s clothing which alas seems quite unfashionable these days, whereas it should be as perennially popular as blue jeans: the loose, baggy, off-the-shoulder sweater. Here’s an example:
The wonderful thing about this garment is that it looks sexy: that slightly impression of wantonness coupled with (in some cases) a tantalizing glimpse of the breast whenever the lady leans forward makes, for me at least, a hugely-erotic sight.
It’s completely ruined by the appearance of a bra strap, by the way; the whole essence of the thing is near-nudity, even under so large and thick a garment.
Now I know that Not All Women Can Go Braless… but actually, a loose floppy sweater does an excellent job of concealing loose, floppy breasts, for example, so what would be unthinkable with any other garment top is not at all out of the question with a wide, loose-topped sweater. Here’s one with a very loose neck:
In each of the above cases, the model has a fairly modest bust — but a larger one would make the garment quite sensationally sexy.
While I quite like the Victorian “below-the-shoulder” (i.e. both shoulders uncovered), it’s a little more overt (albeit also very sexy too):
…but this one is definitely reserved for the Young ‘N Perky Set because of its tightness.
But a big ol’ floppy sweater falling off one shoulder?