# Which cuff monogram?



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

I am having some custom Gitman Bros shirts made at www.justiceclothing.com. I am considering a monogram on the cuff. Which cuff is appropriate, left or right? I am right handed if it matters. Does it matter?

BTW, If anyone is interested they are all $130 and you can use unionpl for another 5% discount.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I would pass on the monogram but if I got one I would put it on my left side. You greet people with the right and you don't want it to show as you are greeting them.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

I would also pass on the cuff monogram. The purpose of putting initials on a shirt is to distinguish it from others when at the cleaners (or from another family member's shirts when laundering at home). For this purpose, a monogram on the cuff is unnecessary and most folks will put it in a place that will remain hidden during normal wear. If you're married to the idea, it's up to you which cuff you put it on. I would take Bjorn's point into consideration about which side is more likely to be noticed and chose accordingly.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

In the last generation or so, I think the function of the monogram was to show that the shirt had one.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Left.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

StephenRG said:


> In the last generation or so, I think the function of the monogram was to show that the shirt had one.


+1 Very clever, and right on point.

When they were done by hand, visible monograms were the sign of the nouveau riche, today with machine embroidery they are $5. ($6 at Lands End).


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Left.


And do those that order them also have the sleeves 2 in. longer so as to better show off their cuff lincks?


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

dks202:

From The *Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes*, Dress Shirt Chapter:
*
Monograms*

Monograms (your initials embroidered) on your shirts were originally so that you got YOUR shirts back from the laundry. They were also standard on custom-made shirts and the real reason for their popularity and aura. 

"Monogram" means "to mark with a design composed of one or more letters, typically the initials of a name". The word comes from the Greek "_mono_", + "_gramma"_; meaning "one letter". 

In recent years monograms have been regarded as ostentatious, especially initials on a shirt cuff.

If you really want a monogram, the more acceptable are those not easily seen, like on the pocket of a shirt or best -- centered five or six inches up from the waist on the left side between the pocket (or if no pocket, since true dress shirts have no pocket, where it would have been) and waist.​


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Andy said:


> dks202:
> 
> From The *Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes*, Dress Shirt Chapter:*
> Monograms*
> ...


Thank you, Mr. Andy.
You have put it matter to rest in good form and wise counsel.
Certainly, I thought to respond to these very points, but your words are much appreciated in these matters. Very kind to have us here to benefit .
Many well wishes for you and yours,
rudy


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> And do those that order them also have the sleeves 2 in. longer so as to better show off their cuff lincks?


Of course not. Don't be ridiculous.

Those that order them also order surgeon's cuffs on their jackets... so they can leave them unbuttoned, as to better show off their cufflinks... _and_ their monograms.

(The label left on the sleeve serves to show off the brand of the jacket, which eliminates any need to wear the jacket unbuttoned.)


----------



## Jazzsol (Oct 30, 2011)

I would leave out the monogram. It can be perceived as pretentious.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I could see myself putting HB on a pink shirt so I can answer the inevitable question with:"Huggy Bear"....


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

arkirshner said:


> +1 Very clever, and right on point.
> 
> When they were done by hand, visible monograms were the sign of the nouveau riche, today with machine embroidery they are $5. ($6 at Lands End).





arkirshner said:


> And do those that order them also have the sleeves 2 in. longer so as to better show off their cuff lincks?


You are knowledgeable and experienced. Most of the time I agree with you ... but sometimes you give meaning to _pompous ass_.

1] Properly done, they are still embroidered by hand and they are $35, not $5. Examples below.

2] No, those who want to show links have the holes of their cuffs made closer to the edge than the standard, boring, 'put them in the center' maxim. What, BTW, is a *lincks*?

​
As for the predictable drone of derision from the rest of you ... style is the wearer's to chose and yours to like or not to like. Ascribing your own personal insecurities, tastes, and idiotic, idiomatic cliches to a person's preference is juvenile.

Now that I've pissed _*everyone*_ off, I'm taking my needle and embroidery floss home.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> You are knowledgeable and experienced. Most of the time I agree with you ... but sometimes you give meaning to _pompous ass_.
> 
> 1] Properly done, they are still embroidered by hand and they are $35, not $5. Examples below.
> 
> ...


Even though Andy says, "In recent years monograms have been regarded as ostentatious, especially initials on a shirt cuff " your post has caused me to change my opinion about the practice. Every time you sell a monogram, one of the top .01% transfers $35 to one of the top 1%. Trickle down may yet get us out of the Lesser Depression.

BTW, Lincks was a cafeteria in Toledo, shame it closed, loved to go there, my fingers must have been thinking about a piece of apple pie.

https://www.google.com/imgres?q=lin...tart=0&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0&tx=89&ty=67

I regret you find me to be insecure, idiotic, and juvenile, nevertheless I remain,

Your obedient servant,

Alan K

Pompous Magnus


----------



## Grenadier (Dec 24, 2008)

I would not be caught dead with a monogram on my shirt.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

arkirshner said:


> Even though Andy says, "In recent years monograms have been regarded as ostentatious, especially initials on a shirt cuff " your post has caused me to change my opinion about the practice. Every time you sell a monogram, one of the top .01% transfers $35 to one of the top 1%. Trickle down may yet get us out of the Lesser Depression.
> 
> I regret you find me to be insecure, idiotic, and juvenile, nevertheless I remain,
> 
> ...


Dear Pompous,

Congratulations! You have suffered the effects of a merchant's demeanor on Cyber Monday. 'Twas meant all in fun. 
As for the esteemed Mr. Gilchrist's opinion when it comes to matters chemise-ial, you'll pardon me if I consider 40 years of serving discerning shirt clients to carry a slight bit more weight. Just as the reason this forum exists, we should consider that a man paying attention to all aspects of dignified personal style a better thing than boxer-showing low-crotched jeans.

Yet you ignored the most important part of my post: _I consider you knowledgeable and experienced. Most of the time I agree with you._ Since you chose to cite percentages, that puts you in the top .01% of AAAC members. Oh, well. I guess I'm now in for it from the other 99.99%. What was that? Kabbaz ... when you're in a hole, put down the shovel?



Grenadier said:


> I would not be caught dead with a monogram on my shirt.


Have you made certain to insert this overarching caveat into your Last Will and Testament? Personally, I have more important things to worry about than whether this minutae of personal style follows me six feet under.


----------



## CAG (Jun 27, 2010)

After seeing the "special design" example above, I kind of want to have a shirt made with my family brand (real Texas families have brands, not crests).


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Just to clarify - I like monograms on dress shirts, but always on the left side under the pocket area. Never on the cuff. A monogram on the cuff screams "low class" in my pompous opinion!


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

CAG said:


> After seeing the "special design" example above, I kind of want to have a shirt made with my family brand (real Texas families have brands, not crests).


Will it go over the area in the rear of the shirt over which the brand itself would be applied?


----------



## CAG (Jun 27, 2010)

Absolutely. Although, it's too bad my family's brand isn't the shape of a black and decker iron plate. I could save some serious money.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I'd rather keep my crotch showing low slung (?) jeans than having a little embroidery on my cuff from mummy telling everyone what my initials are. 

The cheapest poorest quality mtm shirts feature initialed cuffs, so it doesn't really signify quality anymore. 

And if someone is really partial to it, they wouldn't post here asking. Also, I think my insecurities and personal opinions count, insofar as I can make a relevant argument for them.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

*The Duke and me.*

Being tasteless, I did enjoy monograms on my shirts placed in the same position as those that appear in the photo. They consisted of my first and last initials in a rhombus about a 1/4" long. No pockets, please!


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

There's something appealing about seeing my initials in an art-deco style, but I think it's best reserved for business card cases. That said, I think that, on a shirt with a locker loop, a monogram might look better on the inside of the back of the collar if hung that way along some other shirts.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

One of my cherished secret goals in life is to have Kabbaz label me knowledgeable, experienced, and pompous.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

CAG said:


> After seeing the "special design" example above, I kind of want to have a shirt made with my family brand (real Texas families have brands, not crests).


The man to whom belongs the DNA monogram has made it his life's work. Just as "Hurricane" Dan had the hurricane symbol as a monogram on his left sleeve.



Andy said:


> Just to clarify - I like monograms on dress shirts, but always on the left side under the pocket area. Never on the cuff. A monogram on the cuff screams "low class" in my pompous opinion!


Pompousness aside, have you an explanation for that?



PTB in San Diego said:


> One of my cherished secret goals in life is to have Kabbaz label me knowledgeable, experienced, and pompous.


OK. You're pompous. Congratulations! Only 270 posts and you are already 1/3 of the way toward your goal. :icon_smile:


----------



## dmac (Jun 30, 2006)

Are AK and AK about to resort to AKs?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

dmac said:


> Are AK and AK about to resort to AKs?


We are planning coordinated attacks against purveyors of skinny suits. Care to join us?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

dmac said:


> Are AK and AK about to resort to AKs?


Actually we're very much alike except: I'm up one child on him (4) but he's up one grandchild on me (0). We're equal in the wife and suits departments. As for AKs, no thanks. My Glocks may not fire quite as fast ... but they never jam.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Isn't it really AR and and AK? The eternal debate?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> As for AKs, no thanks. My Glocks may not fire quite as fast ... but they never jam.


An AK jamming? Surely such a travesty has never occurred. And Glocks may not jam, but they have a penchant for going Ka-Boom!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

hardline_42 said:


> An AK jamming? Surely such a travesty has never occurred. And Glocks may not jam, but they have a penchant for going Ka-Boom!


Granted. But the Ka-Boom usually heads in the right direction.


----------



## Paul Sherman (Dec 1, 2011)

Andy said:


> Just to clarify - I like monograms on dress shirts, but always on the left side under the pocket area. Never on the cuff. A monogram on the cuff screams "low class" in my pompous opinion!


Interesting to say the least...monograms are a sence of one's likes....I have bespoke shirts, with monograms on the shirt and left sleeve (as I am right handed). It's not about "class" rather ones likes or dislikes.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Paul Sherman said:


> Interesting to say the least...monograms are a sence of one's likes....I have bespoke shirts, with monograms on the shirt and left sleeve (as I am right handed). It's not about "class" rather ones likes or dislikes.


Agreed ... and still awaiting the requested clarification.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Monograms are a tad pretentious. IMO and many others. They don't make a good impression. 

At least, if you put them where Andy says, they'll rarely show.


----------



## TheBarbaron (Oct 8, 2010)

'Lo, the AK's do bestride this narrow forum like Colossi
and we petty men walk under their huge closet bars and peep about
to find ourselves dishonorable graves.

At the risk of being squashed, I'll take a stab at the "classlessness" allegations. As noted, monograms originally helped sort laundry out to the proper owner. It was a subtle flourish, a rich and tasteful man's way of marking his shirt; more expensive than merely writing inside a collar and less ostentatious than needle-pointing a huge mural of his face on the left breast. I don't have my copy of _Dressing the Man _in front of me, but I'll hazard paraphrasing Flusser (in this case on shoes) - "The more thought, energy, and taste expended on the project by a stylish dresser, the more subtle the result."

Monograms, while not my cup of tea, are a fine thing. Put one on the shirt tail, or the bottom of the placket. Put one, if you must, and if you generally keep either a waistcoat or jacket on, on your left breast. But to actively present the initials on the outer edge of a garment is an ostentatious act. 
Not all ostentation is necessarily bad; for instance, I love some of the brightly patterned hosiery Messr. Kabbaz sells so well. When I wear green argyle socks, I am being ostentatious; but the impression I am giving is (I hope) a sense of whimsy or good humor, in the same sense that a burgundy tie, white shirt, and navy suit conveys seriousness and presidential-ness.

What character trait are you advertising or implying by an exposed cuff monogram? I see only two options readily available: either you're attempting to tell strangers who you are, which is likely accomplished verbally while extending said embroidered cuff, or you're advertising that you're the type of gent who can afford to have custom monogrammed shirts. Hence, the nouveau riche association.

The monograms Mr. Kabbaz offers are certainly attractive enough, and having something done by hand rather than by machine is certainly a better proposition. There's a certain appeal even in having a unique crest or symbol associated with you. But consider this: we scorn those either too unlearned or so showy that they leave the sleeve tags on their jackets. If Brooks Brothers, or a venerable Savile Row house then offered a handmade 'sleeve tag' or shoulder ornament, or breast pocket design to inform everyone you meet who you are, or who made your suit, or how much you paid for it, would ANYONE here not be meeting their offering with contempt and derision? How much crap do we give men wearing RL buttondowns to interviews for the tiny horse on their chest?

Style is individual, and what is winning to one gentleman may be repulsive to the next; if you want to have a handstitched monogram in every article of raiment you wear, that is certainly your prerogative. But displaying it so prominently suggests a certain level of self-aggrandizement and overwrought ornamentation, akin to wearing a tie and pocket square cut from the same silk swatch.

Fred Astaire "accidentally" revealing the monogram on his lower left shirt tail while getting dressed in a photo-op is (to my mind) casually elegant; if he were to thrust it out to grab my eyes on first meeting, I would skip past rueful admiration, and straight to laughter.


----------

