Jacamo!

You're much better off going into shops so you can see what's on you and how they fit. Of course you can always write down the stuff that fits you and go and buy it online later, but internet bought clothes can be pretty badly fitting in my experience.

>>4622
Shops always have rubbish selections designed for stick thin wankers.

>>4623
Solution: go to better shops.

>>4624
Evidently you know of some better chains than I do, care to elaborate?

>>4625
Depends what you're looking for. For just general jeans and t shirts I've had success with Next, Sportsdirect (yes, really), Gap, John Lewis (they at least used to do very reasonably priced 100% cotton t shirts), TK Maxx (sometimes) and others. For business stuff I like Charles Tyrwhitt (they often have good sales at Christmas). I'm not a real poof to be honest, I've just learned the hard way about buying clothes.

>>4622

Personally I hate clothes shopping. Doing it online would suit me down to the ground. I just go by the sizes of my current clothing and not being fussy, I don't mind if the sizes are slightly off, as long a it isn't too small, I don't mind if it is a little bit too big.

I quite like Jacamo.co.uk

>>4624

Not him but I do find that a lot of shops seem to stock clothes for skinny-jeans wearing kids these days. Generally if I can find a pair of trousers that fits my waist, they're too tight for my legs. Can you recommend any shops that sell clothes for men as opposed to members of 1Direction? Right now I'm down to buying my jeans in M&S and that's just grim.

Polite sage for pseudo-thread-hijack.

>>4628

Levis clearly mark how their jeans fit and are cheap if you can import them. The commercial website will rip you off, eBay will have plenty of stockists selling new for £20 - £30.

I go with the 501 straight leg.

>>4628

You know, if you are having difficulty getting clothes that fit your build, it might be worth your while to open a copy of the Yellow Pages and have a look at local tailors. They don't just do suits, and are likely to jump on an offer of a job that they can leave to their trainee to learn on, without fucking up - a pair of jeans is a hell of a lot easier than a three piece suit...

They won't be that privey, and you'll get a guaranteed fit made from decent denim.

I get my work clothes (combats generally) made by a lass who makes clothes which are sold in Camden. I managed to track her down and she now knocks mine up bespoke for fifty quid a pop.

>>4630

You wear combat trousers to work?

>>4631

Yup. Or the three piece depending on what I am doing and who I am meeting. Good for storing lenses, pads, pencils and other shite that my daily trade requires.

>>4632

Oh, and to add, I am a photographer. Should have made that clearer.

>>4630
Adding to this, tailors will also adjust clothes to fit you better for not too much.

>>4634

Sorry, I should have mentioned this as well. I'd always gor for tailored, even if it is for jeans, but yes, they will. However, I was assuming that OP is...slightly broader than average, shall we say, and if so he would be better of getting them knocked up by a tailor rather than buying horrendously baggy shite and having them do their best to slim them and make them look presentable. Especially as this is likely to cost more.

On a note on alterations, keep an eye out for your nearest dry cleaners. A lot have a tailor drop in once a week to do a batch of alterations and or repairs. Not chains obviously, but all the indie ones I know do.

>>4635
Tailors are expensive. I have a 44 inch waist.

>>4629
>>4630

Thanks lads.

>>4636
>Tailors are expensive.
A lot of them aren't. We aren't talking Savile Row here lad, shop around.

>>4638
What do you get? Jeans? Shirts? What else? There is a Polish one near my house that I have never been to. Maybe I will try it.

>>4639
For my part I get nice, cheap second hand/'vintage' (I hate that term) clothes and then put them on, go and see the tailors and ask them to make them fit better. For example, I got a great 100% wool peacoat a few years ago for £30. I got that adjusted to fit my (sloping) shoulders and narrowed a bit so it wasn't quite so loose, and now I've got a well-fitting, 100% wool coat for a net total of £50.

>>4640
>I've got a well-fitting, 100% wool coat for a net total of £50.
That is pretty impressive.

>>4639

Bespokelad here. We really aren't talking Saville Row prices. You should be able to pick up a decent suit for low three figures. And that is hard, skilled work. A pair of casual jeans/trousers? I would assume less than 100. But speak to people. Remember - casual wear is a hell of a lot easier than formal (I mean, for fuck's sake I could make my own trousers if I had a sewing machine) and is something to be passed on safely to the apprentice in the safe knowledge that they get experience and they can't really fuck things up.

And I might add, even the best of Saville Row are still low three figures for a two-piece. Despite the horrific rent they have to pay.

Sage checked for liekly typos, I need a cuppa.

>>4642

*likely

Sorry Mods.

Shopping for clothes in person makes me feel very awkward and self concious. Checking my choices fit in the changing room always ends up with me sweating like a rapist. If I saw someone exit a changing room in the state that I do I'd presume they'd been wanking in there. The whole ordeal of clothes shopping has brought me close to a panic attack every time I've attempted it.

Recently my last pair of jeans has ripped in the crotch. I don't have the necessities to repair them (neither the skill) so I'll have to perform a cart-by grabbing of denim next time I go to Tesco. Its inevitable they wont fit properly and I won't dare take them back for a refund.

>>4644
I absolutely detest clothes shopping. The potential for the pair of jeans I'm trying on to be a fucking nuisance one way or another for the next couple of years that I'm going to be wearing them fills me with dread. Are they alright? Will the fit of them, or the pockets, or some other aspect of the design end up annoying me in some way? Do I look like more of a twat than usual wearing them? Hateful.

>>4644
Are you fat? You sound very fat. Go lose some weight fatty.

>>4645
I, er, didn't notice I was in /poof/ when I posted that. I'll get my (cheap, TKMaxx) coat.

>>4644
I hate shopping for boxers. I always get to the cash register and as I'm getting my wallet out they say the price and I think "how much?"

All I want is to buy 5 boxers for less than a tenner. I have to spend 6 quid for three. Can't say I'm fond of going clothing stores at all, the ones near me are usually a maze and they only have a tiny area for men's wear. There isn't a shop dedicated just for men's wear near me.

Always, always have things altered to fit. It doesn't matter how much you spend on a jacket, it'll look shit if the sleeves are too long. Most of us can't afford made-to-measure or bespoke, but a decent alterations tailor can work wonders with an off-the-peg garment and completely reshape it to suit you. You can dress very well on a tight budget if you follow the lead of >>4640 and use charity shops and eBay.

As regards online shopping, the knack is to order more than you intend to buy and take advantage of the returns policy. I return at least 80% of what I order online.

>>4649

>I return at least 80% of what I order online

n1 m7 da planet wont no wot it it

Seriously though, are you just a lazy, self-entitled cunt?

>>4650
how does it affect the planet, don't they resell whatevers returned?

>>4651
It costs petrol to move things. More petrol used, bad thing for the planet.

Think about it.

https://www.youtube.com/v/TLEK0UZH4cs

>>4647
You can get nice coats in TKMaxx if you're prepared to rummage. I got a wool one there by some German brand I'd never heard of about 5 years ago and it's still in great condition.

>>4652

It takes less in petrol to move a couple of kilos of clothes to my house than to move me to a clothes shop and back. According to Interlink, their average parcel has a total carbon footprint of just under 1kg. A fairly efficient car emits about 150g/km of CO2 and my nearest decent shopping centre is just over 18km away, so a round trip would emit 5.4kg of carbon. Taking the train for the same journey would emit about 1.9kg of CO2. To perform a fair analysis, we would also need to factor in the CO2 emissions of the shop itself in terms of heating, lighting and staff transport, but frankly I can't be arsed. At the absolute worst, my penchant for buying big bundles of clothes and returning most of them is no worse than taking the train to the shops and in most cases is more energy-efficient.

>>4654
>It takes less in petrol to move a couple of kilos of clothes to my house than to move me to a clothes shop and back.
It takes even less for you to just order what you need.

>>4623

Solution: Become a stick-thin wanker, fatty.

>>4655

This.

>>4655

It would take even less if I just wore an old sack.

Most of the CO2 impact of clothing is on the manufacturing side. I try and buy quality stuff that'll last me and won't go out of fashion and go out of my way to buy sustainably-sourced basics, opting for organic cotton wherever possible. Unlike 99.99% of the population, I do actually know the environmental impact of my daily activities and work to minimise them. My total CO2 emissions last year were well under two tonnes, which is well within accepted sustainable thresholds and less than a quarter of the UK average of 8.5 tonnes. Go and hector someone else.

>>4658

Bollocks. If I have time tomorrow I wll go through in detail what utter cock you are spouting. I hope you have a really bad night of sleep.

>>4652
People use things until they're broken. Earth will be bled dry of resource. When our planet is destroyed we will find another.
Your cause is valiant and honorable but, at least without replacement fuels and/or technologies, nothing will change.
I'm open for further discussion. I'll even watch your video tomorrow when I'm not so tired.

>>4659
Great post mate, I can't wait to see what quality content you're sure to gift to .gs tomorrow.

Who honestly gives a rat's arse about the environment, earth, and other bollocks like that? Either people with too much time on their hands, or busybodies who want to feel good about themselves.

If earth were to implode at some time in the future, I won't be there, so why should I give a fuck? On top of that, I am quite misanthropic, so why would I want to save humanity? It is pretty stupid.

>>4662

Climate change isn't some far-off threat, it's something that will have major impacts during our lifetime. There has already been a huge increase in the number of extreme weather events, from flooding in the UK to wildfires in Australia. If we don't get our carbon emissions under control, we'll be dealing with the consequences in a matter of decades, not centuries. It's in everyone's self-interest to act now, while we still have time.

Average per-capita emissions in the UK have fallen by nearly 20% over the last 20 years and we can go much further without any great amount of pain - most of the biggest changes you can make will also save you a considerable amount of money. If fuel prices continue to rise as expected, we'll have no choice but to substantially reduce our energy consumption. It's not very difficult to make major improvements to the sustainability of your lifestyle if you're informed and understand how energy and climate change work. Dr David MacKay has written the definitive guide to sustainable energy and you can read it for free at the link below.

http://www.withouthotair.com/

>>4663
Lets be honest here.

We're not going to save the world while America is around. They probably contribute a lot to all those carbon emmisions by themselves. May as well enjoy it while it lasts.

>>4663
New technologies like fracking, gasification and tar-sands will ensure we use carbon for many more decades to come. I don't care about the floods, fires and hurricanes because they don't happen anywhere near me. It is in my best interest to live as best and comfortable as I can, so the rest can sod off. I don't see why I should change myself, place burdens on my shoulders for nowt.

>>4664

The big worry isn't really America, it's India and China. The new middle-class there aspire to western lifestyles, which will inevitably lead to a vast increase in energy consumption and CO2 emissions. It's up to us to demonstrate moral leadership by reducing our energy use, rather than hypocritically demanding that India and China keep down their emissions to much lower per-capita levels than ours.

>>4666
The whole thing smells of neo-imperialism to me any way. Capping developing nations' consumption, to make sure they never reach our standards. I'm not complaining, but let's just call a spade a spade.

>>4666
That is a point but both of them have space programs now and they aspire to go to other celestial worlds. Both with successful missions.

We can stay here and roll around in the filth.

Resources exist to be consumed. And consumed they will be, if not by this generation then by some future. By what right does this forgotten future seek to deny us our birthright? None I say! Let us take what is ours, chew and eat our fill.