Why do you think an acceptable look drawing inspiration from the past (20s-50s) is so hard to pull of in the modern era?

Because the formality has changed.
Walk around town, all over the western world people wear jeans, maybe leggings if female, with t-shirts, maybe a sweatshirt, and some nylon outdoorsy jacket.
There's some variation, more in bigger cities with offices and such, and more where there's more wealth (also: let's ignore summer in hot places, when the formality hits shorts+tshirt levels), but that's the uniform for the cold part of the year.
Chances are, chinos+button up shirt already puts you as the one dressed the most formally. Add an odd jacket, not even suiting up, and an old-time cut will be so far from the 'norm' others are wearing it will look like cosplay.
With a modernish cut everybody can pull off separates tho.

it's not at all
most people are just retarded and forget that clothing from 80 years ago was made differently and has different details

LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoo

I agree with everything you wrote but your pic is really undermining the shit out of your own point, cheap Sears gabardines treated with silicone and God knows what are hardly representative of good 20s-50s fabrics nor are the garments made of them likely to represent decent tailoring.

I don't even know where I'm going with this, just a weird contrast I guess.

...

It's not the clothes. It's the faces.
All those men in black and white movies were born and raised without estrogen in their food and water, the low fat scam, soft processed shit for every meal.
Less to do inside in their leisure time also meant their skin aged faster from the sun.
Lower body fat is a part of it as well.

When you see a flabby, pink-skinned chinlet in a fedora your mind notes all the ways he is different from the standard man of black and white movies and photos.

Think about it. When you see most of these Fedora Lounge photos you don't just think "costume" you think "wrong."
Why shouldn't that guy just look like a colorized photo?
It is because his bone structure and skin are different.

...

is this pasta?

>full lips and high cheekbones
>masculine

because you dont know enough about fashion history to individually isolate & trace the roots of the period's most emblematic details and then plot the evolution in silhouette to contemporary menswear & find IRL garments that satisfy both criteria at once.

yes high cheekbones are masculine you retard

compare this

to this girl's

...

Modern men don't have the right build...too short and chubby, tall and lanky, or just fat...and ugh, narrow shoulders.

Tanner Guzy explains it very well.

youtube.com/watch?v=EyisGeKxN0w
youtube.com/watch?v=Z5RBwKWUs7s

I looked up pictures of a good jawline actors for a pic but you know high cheekbones are also part of the facial development guys wearing fedoras today generally lack.
Brow ridge as well.
You can fuck up a face with mouth breathing but it is not just the mouth breathing that can do it. Bad tongue posture, forward head posture. These change how your face develops.
A lot of actors can wear fedoras and it doesn't look TOO outlandish because they are guys that were fortunate not only in genes but in environment.
Most of these chinlet men you see... It's not their genes that are shit. They could have grown up to have significantly better jawlines and chins.
Look at most Africans and Middle-Easterners in photos. You see straight, perfect teeth all over the place. It wasn't expensive orthodontics that gave them that!
You guys can be all
>hurr hurr that is too many words for an Veeky Forums post u sperg
But you NEED to know this stuff if you want to have Veeky Forums children one day. Ignore it and your kids will grow up to be NEETs beating off to whatever is the equivalent of My Little Pony in that year.

Actors are specifically chosen for their distinctive features, it is not a true representation of the general population. If you are to look at actual photos and paintings of common people from the past, they look just the same as common people today. If anything, most were more malnourished than people today. As for Arabs and Africans, different populations of people have different facial features. That's just genetics. That picture you posted is also just ridiculous, facial width is determined by hormones in the womb. It's, again, simply generic. Anyway, it's perfectly fine if someone's looks don't conform to traditional beauty standard, that's not the end all be all. There is a sort of beauty even in people who you may consider ugly, I think. ya gotta stop shaming people. Please don't have kids.

>losers with zero confidence or taste.
>I like to play dress up when no one's around.
not much to add

>Actors are specifically chosen for their distinctive features, it is not a true representation of the general population.

I said that.

>If you are to look at actual photos and paintings of common people from the past, they look just the same as common people today.

Disagree for the reasons I have stated.

>different populations of people have different facial features. That's just genetics.

Some of it is genetics, those populations also eat different food. ie. Have different environments.
Different environments can vastly change how your genetics play out.

eg. Someone that starved as a kid will likely grow up to be MUCH shorter than he would have.

>That picture you posted is also just ridiculous, facial width is determined by hormones in the womb.

Hormones in the womb are not fixed either. The diet, stress levels etc. of your mother at the time will impact you.

>simply generic
Genetics aren't 100% of the puzzle.

>Anyway, it's perfectly fine if someone's looks don't conform to traditional beauty standard, that's not the end all be all. There is a sort of beauty even in people who you may consider ugly, I think. ya gotta stop shaming people. Please don't have kids.

What kind of nonsense is this? I think you should drop out of college and get a trade, that social science you're studying is going to get you no where.

My hypothesis (which you're of course free to poke holes in here knowing I can't give you any real science to back up) boils down to people without good bone structure look bad in fedoras and certain environmental factors can lead to you having worse bone structure than you could have had.

I am actually one of those people with bad bone structure. I am not sure why you are trying to call me a "bad envrionment shamer" or something.
I am saying the genes of ugly people are better than we give them credit for and they have the ability to make sure their kids are less ugly than they are! That is empowering.

Lifestyle is mentioned, and also you won't find Left leaning marxists with nice clothes thats for sure. Basically you can't wrap a degenerate in nice fabric and look presentable, that is not the case most of the time.

lmao u dummy

not buying it, there were plenty of average men back then as well

Because formalwear now follows completely different trends in its mainstream. To get a fit like that you'd probably have to go bespoke or sift around mounds of crap buying vintage. Add the fact that most people don't know jack shit about how suits fit you're going to get a lot of people looking dumb when they try and pull it off because they don't know what they're doing.

Also if we're talking suits one of these days I'm gonna save up money for a trip to Italy and get myself a caraceni suit

Oh, for sure. I was never saying they all look like Jensen!
What I mean was they did not have as much DEFORMITY.
The muscles stress the bones, the bones grow. You're supposed to get a jaw big enough for your teeth so no need for braces and yanking out "extras."
You could be average or ugly with a healthy jaw. But what you would not look is "soy" if you'll excuse an unpopular meme.
It's my belief that this is why the 40s clothes look critically different and bad on modern people and not just like a costume.

>Arabs have perfect teeth
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAA
AHAHAHAAAAHAHAAAHAAHAHAHAA

...

Remember kids, this is what happens when you take more than your daily recommended dose of redpills!

god i'd hate to live in america

Tanner is the ultimate style redpill.

depends on the suit

Edwardian suits don't look completely out of place nowadays but golly gee willikers 1950s businessman suits do

>called jensen
>looks like DC and has a superchin

what are the odds

m8 you're retarded. "soy" facial features is fake as fuck, you just pulled that out of your ass.

the only difference would be less fat people and less racemixed people.

"modern people" lmao, there wasn't some magical 50-year evolution because of fluoride in the water or whatever your dumbass thinks.

humans have looked the same for virtually hundreds of thousands of years

>the beer can looks like just a regular tin, for beans or anything
Now THAT'S podretro

>podretro
what

>he doesn't know the Phantom Memace

unless there has been some significant softening of foods recently I don't think we have much more overbites than before, although I think braces can fuck with your jaw development as well since they often focus on the wrong things (fixing the bite instead of the jaw, etc) so maybe that also effected things

now in the hunter-gatherer era, yeah those people had jaws and teeth like crazy

Offtopic:
Is acceptable to wear an Applewatch (with black leather band) with a formal suit?

Assuming that by formal suit you mean casual lounge suit and not formal (white tie) or semi-formal (black tie): Yeah, it's fine. That polkadot shirt is more of a problem if you want to be strict.

What's hard to pull off about this besides the hats?

The cut would be considered wierd now, those pictures don't show exactly how wide the pants are.