needed a suit for job interviews and said might as well go all in. is this good enough? i'm about 180 and 78kg
didn't buy the gloves, watch or hat though. i think that might be too much and just full on cosplay tier at that point
pls be bait
not bait, i'm 24 but never boughted a suit
peakypilled to the gills
>>18717933>large suit>medium overcoat¿Por que?
>>18718416>baughted I can see why, Ackmed.
>>18717936>suit trousers>athletic tapered fitFucking kill yourselves, subhumans.
>>18717933You do not need to look like this for a job interview lmao
>>18718927well yeah obviously i'm hanging up the coat before i proceed to the job interviewing room
>>18718917i'm esl can some anon point out why this guy is seething over here?
>>18718953Actual trousers from the 1920s era were extremely loose at the ankle and very tight at the seat of the pants.
>>18718959so you wanted it to look like this or what?
>>18718989Jesus bro I live in Canada and I wouldnt wear all that shit in even -20 deg
>>18719022thats because you aint peakypilled /f/ro...
>>18718946do you live in the southern hemisphere? because if you're walking into the office looking like this when it's 90 degrees outside you will be laughed out of the room.
>>18719044you can always wear a suit in a professional setting, in fact, the last time i had a job interview they told me to come with a suit and tie the next time.
>>18718989Those are more like bell bottoms. Have you faggots never seen any normal pants before? There was no weird taper at the leg opening back then like in modern athletic taper jeans and chinos. This is what pants in the 1920s looked like.
>>18718927Maybe if you're applying for a fry cook job at McDonald's. But if you're going for any corporate, academic, or even an engineering job, then the guy dressed in a proper suit will get the job because he will look more presentable, put together and reliable, unlike all the retarded slobs who think they're too bussin' and "real" to dress properly.
>>18719227Thats a proper suit tho
>>18719235NOT a proper suit.
>>18719235When did I say it wasn't?
>>18719224>This is what pants in the 1920s looked like.The car is from the '40s. Also that guy is modeling clothes and not nearly representative of what men were actually wearing in the '40s.
why do i feel like none of you tards know wtf u are talking about, this has gotta be the biggest larping board.
>>18718959>very tight at the seat of the pants.No they weren't, bell bottoms are wide at the bottom and narrow on the top, prewar pants were wide all around with a straight draped shillouette
>>18719240And men's trousers didn't change much between the 1920s to 50s. Slimmer cuts started becoming popular only from the 60s.
I don't even dare imagine how bad a three piece suit will be at that low price.
>>18718917they were cut rather slim in the early 1920s and baggy trousers came into style towards the later half of the 1920s, as far as I know
>>18719316It was a continuation of 1910s style. But they were still not the kind of slim fit we get today.They were more like slim straight. And they sure as hell didn't have the puckered leg opening that you find in modern tapered jeans and chinos. Modern slim fit cuts are much more form fitting and feminine.
