/fa/ - Fashion

[Anonymous No.14940818]

Were the 50s peak fashion?

[Anonymous No.14940839]

>>14940818
If you ignore the hairstyles and makeup absolutely. I could wear all of the styles today and get a pass from peak hipster to “top style” with minimum adjustments.

[Anonymous No.14940855]

For women, sure. The only option men had were baggy suits or workwear.

[Anonymous No.14940881]

>>14940855
You could still dress like a greaser or a beatnik.

[Anonymous No.14941336]

>>14940855
James Dean's fits still hold up well

[Anonymous No.14941479]

The '60s were way better
Honestly old school prep is fashion perfection

[Anonymous No.14941489]

>>14940818
the 70s were peak /fa/

[Anonymous No.14941491]

>>14941479
Those trousers are slimmer than I expected them to be for that era.

[Anonymous No.14941492]

>>14940855
Late 1950s suits were already like the 1960s styles, in proportions, just with slightly wider lapels and ties still pretty common. Wide-legged trousers were unfashionable by circa 1957, or even a little before that. Straight fits were the most common throughout that decade, but wide legs were very early 1950s, and somewhat slim legs were late 1950s.

[Anonymous No.14941558]

>>14941479
What cut are those pants

[Anonymous No.14941577]

'40s were better imo

[Anonymous No.14941608]

>>14941491
The '60s were all about tailoring. Everyone went to tailors to tailor their trousers for them, so they fit each person not too baggy but also not too tight.
LikeI said, perfect decade for fashion. Also quite timeless

[Anonymous No.14941610]

>>14941558
I think the closest off the rack fit that would replicate mid '60s pants would be regular tapered

[Anonymous No.14942734]

>>14941610
Straight fit. None of the pants in that pic have a leg opening smaller than 8"

[Anonymous No.14944076]

>>14940818
Yes