# Common suit wearing mistakes you see daily



## Shade22182 (Nov 5, 2005)

Curious to know what common mistakes you all see where you work or in public. Here are a few ...

- Coat sleeves at least 3/4 inch too long
- Short dress socks, can see about 3' skin when legs in figure four position
- Trousers riding about 2' too low and baggy


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

The high button stance/low rise trousers combination that shows the tie blade, belt, and gut.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

jacket sleeves too long.
bottom button buttoned.

related.... shirt gauntlet button not buttoned. I am surprised how many men forget to button it.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

dks202 said:


> related.... shirt gauntlet button not buttoned. I am surprised how many men forget to button it.


My biggest pet peeve, especially with the amount of fellows at work not wearing jackets, I see this all the time and it bugs the hell outta me.

Here's a few:

Loafers with a suit
Tie WAYYY too short or WAYYY too long (more than 1" +/- buckle)
Pants that break in the back


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

The worst, of course, is wearing a classically cut lounge suit sans tie, with a white dress shirt. I know you all agree with me on this tragic faux pas:devil:.

Blair


----------



## TheShaun (Jun 3, 2010)

I *HATE* when I see guys wear suit jackets, overcoats, etc. with the designers label still stitched on to the sleeve cuff. IT'S NOT MEANT TO STAY ON YOU JACKWAGON!!!!


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

blairrob said:


> The worst, of course, is wearing a classically cut lounge suit sans tie, with a white dress shirt. I know you all agree with me on this tragic faux pas.Blair


I emphatically agree, and am glad that I don't see it daily.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

blairrob said:


> The worst, of course, is wearing a classically cut lounge suit sans tie, with a white dress shirt. I know you all agree with me on this tragic faux pas.


You mean like I was doing when I took this picture. For evening social functions it's one of my favorite looks so obviously I don't agree. :icon_smile_big:










Cruiser


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

TheShaun said:


> I *HATE* when I see guys wear suit jackets, overcoats, etc. with the designers label still stitched on to the sleeve cuff. IT'S NOT MEANT TO STAY ON YOU JACKWAGON!!!!


I corrected a co-worker on this the other day with a new car coat. He goes 'oh, i just got it, I forgot'. It was 7pm, his day started at 9am. Can't believe I was the first one to say something.


----------



## KvnO (May 25, 2010)

I saw someone with the vents of the jacket still stitched together...


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

Jackets with excessively wide shoulders for the man's frame, you see it all the time, smacks of OTR.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

dks202 said:


> related.... shirt gauntlet button not buttoned. I am surprised how many men forget to button it.


 I hate shirt gauntlet buttons and try to only buy shirts without them. If the shirt is designed correctly, they are unnecessary. I do have a few previously purchased shirts that have gauntlet buttons. I remove them.


----------



## Srynerson (Aug 26, 2005)

KvnO said:


> I saw someone with the vents of the jacket still stitched together...


I've been seeing that a lot lately for some reason.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> I hate shirt gauntlet buttons and try to only buy shirts without them. If the shirt is designed correctly, they are unnecessary. I do have a few previously purchased shirts that have gauntlet buttons. I remove them.


Absolutely not true. It is impossible to design a shirt without gauntlet buttons such that a large skin area does not shamefully show through the gap on numerous occasions. This is the reason why I am reluctant to buy expensive Hilditch & Key shirts (good in every other respect) and end up buying inexpensive TM Lewins at less than a third of the price as they have gauntlet buttons. People won't notice the maybe slightly inferior material and construction qulality on a TML shirt but at least they won't be subjected to the spectacle of the skin display.


----------



## fvkesq (Jan 12, 2010)

Novelty ties - particularly worn around the holidays.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shade22182 said:


> - Coat sleeves at least 3/4 inch too long
> - Short dress socks, can see about 3' skin when legs in figure four position
> - Trousers riding about 2' too low and baggy


I've seen jacket sleeves over an inch too long, both in England and Sweden. Half way down the hand in fact.
Short dress socks - Not an error in Europe
Trousers too long - almost the standard in Sweden I hate to report

BTW, a gentleman doesn't sit with his leg resting on the other leg like that., figure 4 as you call it. Very uncouth.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Short dress socks not considered a "mistake" by everyone in the US either. Some even think that knee socks are for girls :biggrin2:


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> You mean like I was doing when I took this picture. For evening social functions it's one of my favorite looks so obviously I don't agree. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm, my beard has a fair bit of silver too.....

I may have to revisit that look :icon_smile_wink:

Blair


----------



## mlongano (Feb 3, 2010)

Trousers too tight
Trousers too low at waist
Lapels too narrow
Coats too short


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

blairrob said:


> Hmm, my beard has a fair bit of silver too


Silver huh? I like that. Everyone else calls it gray. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## tradfan207 (Nov 4, 2010)

Trousers and jacket sleeves too long
extra slim fit suits


----------



## DorianGrey (Jul 6, 2007)

In no particular order:

- Prole Gape
- Black suits to interviews
- Expensive suits but cheap shoes
- Long sleeves
- Pre-folded pocket squares
- The "uni-color" look (blue suit, deep blue shirt, matching blue tie), also known as the Regis
- The "contrast color" look (Black suit/sportcoat, black shirt, white or pink tie) - common in my area for young men under 25.
- Stay stamps - i.e. seeing the collar stays pressed into the collar


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> You mean like I was doing when I took this picture. For evening social functions it's one of my favorite looks so obviously I don't agree. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Have you ever considered one of those shirts that Middle Eastern leaders wear buttoned to the top but with no tie?

You could probably rock that look, what with the beard and all.....


----------



## Billyjo88 (Mar 6, 2010)

Rubber-soled shoes. 

'nuff said.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

phr33dom said:


> Absolutely not true. It is impossible to design a shirt without gauntlet buttons such that a large skin area does not shamefully show through the gap on numerous occasions. This is the reason why I am reluctant to buy expensive Hilditch & Key shirts (good in every other respect) and end up buying inexpensive TM Lewins at less than a third of the price as they have gauntlet buttons. People won't notice the maybe slightly inferior material and construction qulality on a TML shirt but at least they won't be subjected to the spectacle of the skin display.


 Impossible, really? Then I guess Brooks Brothers has been making their OCBDs wrong since day one. Gauntlet buttons are necessary on sport shirts that are sized S,M,L and don't have sized sleeves. Those with shorter arms might need the gauntlet button to hide their "shame" in those cases. However, a dress shirt with a properly sized sleeve should rest comfortably at your wrist and has no reason to flare open. As you yourself mentioned, higher quality shirt makers tend to omit the gauntlet button while lesser makers (even Brooks Bro's 346 outlet line) like to keep it for the sake of tradition, I suppose.

I have a good number of Land's End Hyde Park Supima OCBDs that have sized sleeves and gauntlet buttons. I've removed them from every shirt and, to this day, no one has complained about any "shameful spectacles of skin display."


----------



## coltboy75 (Nov 11, 2009)

I don't see this everyday, but once fellow came to the office and did not remove the small rubber bands secured to the tassels of his new loafers.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

TheShaun said:


> I *HATE* when I see guys wear suit jackets, overcoats, etc. with the designers label still stitched on to the sleeve cuff. IT'S NOT MEANT TO STAY ON YOU JACKWAGON!!!!


We can blame the manufacturers for this. Sleeve labels are often very permanently sewn into place....hello Marks & Spencer!

Sometimes they can be quite tricky to remove while avoiding damaging the garment.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Too long coat sleeves
Collar gapping off the neck
"Puddle" pants
Tie knot off center/not pulled up

The square toed shoes, monochrome look, "cute" ties, etc. are matters of taste, and if you think it looks good, so be it (it doesn't but still...) The above are just plain mistakes, and should be obvious to anyone with a mirror


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

It doesn't happen that often, but I remember about fifty years ago my parents had a meeting at our house and one of the guys at the meeting was standing around with his hands in the pockets of his suit coat, whistling. For the family he became the paradigm of a clod.

The moral here: keep your hands out of your jacket pockets.


----------



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

hardline_42 said:


> However, a dress shirt with a properly sized sleeve should rest comfortably at your wrist and has no reason to flare open. As you yourself mentioned, higher quality shirt makers tend to omit the gauntlet button while lesser makers (even Brooks Bro's 346 outlet line) like to keep it for the sake of tradition, I suppose.


Yes, of course a shirt gauntlet that has no button has no reason to flare open provided you do not move your arms. The reason high quality shirt makers omit gauntlet buttons is that their shirts are made in first world countries where the high labour cost of sewing the gauntlet buttons and button holes is thus avoided by not having them. Cheaper shirts eg TM Lewins are made in the far east where labour is so cheap that gauntlet buttons can be retained.


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

phr33dom said:


> Jackets with excessively wide shoulders for the man's frame, you see it all the time, smacks of OTR.


I see that quite a bit with shorter people self-conscious of their size. Not so much a problem with people buying their correct size in a Long, since the overly-wide jacket kills two birds with one stone.


----------



## LeggeJP1 (Dec 3, 2010)

Jacket so short that it doesn't cover your ass.

I'm a very tall guy who has to be really careful of length/arm length measurements in buying regular vs long jackets (I have short arms, an an extremely long torso), so I'm particularly sensitive to this.

Sleeves too long and covering the shirt underneath be damned--if you're too cheap to go to the tailor, at least get a jacket that's long enough for you!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> It doesn't happen that often, but I remember about fifty years ago my parents had a meeting at our house and one of the guys at the meeting was standing around with his hands in the pockets of his suit coat, whistling. For the family he became the paradigm of a clod.


I will agree that whistling in the company of others can be rude and inconsiderate; however, defining someone as a clod because he puts his hands in his jacket pockets comes across to me as somewhat harsh. Even folks like Prince Charles and Alan Flusser do this, people who's sartorial knowledge seems to be held in high regard by many here.




























This appears to be yet one more of these sartorial "mistakes" that I personally make on a daily basis. At least I seem to be in good company when I do.

Are you sure the man wasn't considered to be a clod more because of his whistling and perhaps some other behaviors that you didn't mention? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

mlongano said:


> Lapels too narrow


Since when is a fashion detail of the cloth a "common suit wearing mistake"?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Billyjo88 said:


> Rubber-soled shoes.


Nothing to do with the suit though is it? And it's hardly an error, it's just a look you don't like.
The vast majority of men nowadays wear rubber or some other compound sole rather than bare leather.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> *It doesn't happen that often*, but I remember about *fifty years ago* my parents had a meeting at our house and one of the guys at the meeting was standing around with his hands in the pockets of his suit coat, whistling. For the family he became the paradigm of a clod.


You're right that isn't often. 
However, the look is quite accepted in the UK, probably because Prince Charles favours it quite often and has done so for many years. I've seen Saville Row tailors with their hands in their suit jacket pockets. 
https://www.realbollywood.com/news/up_images/prince-charles7088.jpg ... And this first one is an official portrait!

https://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:T70PC2aeFYMyqM:https://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f73/lena242/Prince%20Charles/ac-prince-charles-william.jpg&t=1

https://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTi48K6ogIucOqUrpoHRa6Z_mh-tuczTl_tPM_V1LmomW9_RKb8aw

https://www2.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Prince+Charles+Prince+Wales+Attends+Google+4Rc92vc2qWql.jpg

https://jolienadine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/cartier_polo_prince_charles_dashing_suit.jpg

and so on...... he's rarely without a hand in a jacket pocket.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I will agree that whistling in the company of others can be rude and inconsiderate; however, defining someone as a clod because he puts his hands in his jacket pockets comes across to me as somewhat harsh. Even folks like Prince Charles and Alan Flusser do this, people who's sartorial knowledge seems to be held in high regard by many here.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Oops...just noticed you'd posted some pics of Chaz with mitt in sky rocket as well


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

And let's not omit the DoW when it comes to the hands in the jacket pocket mistake:










or Cary Grant;










Cruiser


----------



## donk93953 (Feb 8, 2007)

1) All buttons buttoned on a jacket
2) Pants too, too long
3) Wide, wide shoulders


----------



## Billyjo88 (Mar 6, 2010)

A quarter inch of tie sticking out from under the shirt collar from behind the neck.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Inappropriate accessorization, by which I mean:

-wearing ugly, cheap, rubber-soled 'clown shoes' w/ suit
-wearing ballcap w/ suit
-carrying hiking knapsack instead of briefcase w/ suit
-wearing some kind of casual/outdoorsy parka over suit instead of one of the proper styles of topcoat

Short of abject poverty, there is no excuse for such sartorial solecisms.

PS: Medical needs might excuse shoes, but given the frequency w/ which I see bad shoes being worn w/ decent suits, I doubt orthopedic distress is the main driver.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

phr33dom said:


> The reason high quality shirt makers omit gauntlet buttons is that their shirts are made in first world countries where the high labour cost of sewing the gauntlet buttons and button holes is thus avoided by not having them.


You're making stuff up.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> It doesn't happen that often, but I remember about fifty years ago my parents had a meeting at our house and one of the guys at the meeting was standing around with his hands in the pockets of his suit coat, whistling.


This post has been much commented on, but not from the angle of amazement that one would actually carry that memory around for fifty years.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Complete Bollocks


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Peak and Pine said:


> This post has been much commented on, but not from the angle of amazement that one would actually carry that memory around for fifty years.


Well, he made an impression.


----------



## Mongo (May 9, 2008)

Just a quick note with respect to not buttoning gauntlet buttons: I happened to finally watch _North By Northwest_ last night, and noticed that Cary Grant (or at least the character he played) did not button up his gauntlet buttons in the latter part of the movie. Indeed, he exposed a great deal of hirsute flesh beneath his shirt sleeves. :crazy:

BTW, in large part thanks to this forum, my sartorial commentary drove my girlfriend to ask "Do you ever actually _watch_ a movie, or do you just look at the clothes?".

And for the record, I never button my gauntlet buttons, either. So there.


----------



## MRMstl (Nov 23, 2010)

Collar tips that are inverted due to lack of collar stays and/or a decent pressing.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

jackmccullough said:


> Well, he made an impression.


Obviously. But you neglected to name the tune he was whistling. _Happy Wanderer_ would be my guess. But of course I wasn't there.


----------



## Fontana (Jan 9, 2011)

-Suit jackets that hang away from the back of the neck

-Lapels that break because the gut has become so big

-Leaving sleeve button(s) unbuttoned on "custom" suit jackets

-Shoulders that are cut inside the natural line of the arm head


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> And let's not omit the DoW when it comes to the hands in the jacket pocket mistake:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Indeed, sir.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Only the English and Yankee style mavens or eccentrics may do that pocket thing.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Sets the style.



>


Style to burn...



>


...just like *Orsini*.

Heh, heh. Just kidding, you guys...


----------



## KvnO (May 25, 2010)

Has anyone mentioned pants worn at the hips rather than waist? 

Reminds me of Charlie Chaplin...


----------



## wheredidyougetthathat (Mar 26, 2006)

And of course the number one worst faux pas of all - wearing a suit with a non-button-down-collar shirt ..... 

Ugh.

Eeuch.

feh.

Ptooey...


----------



## mlongano (Feb 3, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Since when is a fashion detail of the cloth a "common suit wearing mistake"?


Since the suit reached its classic permutation about sixty years ago.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

It's definitely bad fit. Whether the shoulders are too wide, the sleeves and pant cuffs too long, or the suit is too short.
Even a cheap suit looks decent as long as it fits correctly. Problem is guys aren't willing to pay the extra $100, or less, to make all parts of the suit fit properly.


----------



## Poindexter (Jul 22, 2010)

You know, the bad fit thing, I don't think it's a mistake, or that these guys don't GAS. It's ignorance. They don't know how a jacket is supposed to fit, and all they ever see is ill-fitting jackets, and all that's available to them (as far as they know) is OTR stuff in Pennys or Macys. To them, that's how it's supposed to look. Show them an awesome fit, and you'll probably have a convert.

The _mistake_ that drives me crazy is guys walking around with their jackets unbuttoned and flapping, because they want to demonstrate that they're actually too kewl and macho to wear a suit. Douchebags.

Aloha,

Poinz


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

mlongano said:


> Since the suit reached its *classic* permutation about *sixty years ago*.


hhm...you might not want to go there....you do realise the Trad boys read this forum as well dont you? 

But it's still not a mistake in how the suit is worn. You might think it a mistake that the suit is still worn by anyone. Do you see the difference.

Example, it is a mistake (IMO) to wear a grey shirt with a black suit. It isn't a mistake to wear a black suit. Do you see the difference. The lapels and colour are integral parts of the suit, the wearer isn't making any "suit wearing" mistake simply by wearing a suit that you think is out of date. How he wears it & what he combines it with is another matter.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The number one suit wearing mistake? *Looking uncomfortable in a suit*.

Barring extreme examples, the various fit issues and color-coordination matters that occupy so much space on this board are things that would go un-noticed* by many casual observers. In the grand scheme of things, we're talking about moving from a B- to an A+ kind of stuff. What gets people an *F* is looking as though the suit is wearing them, or that they're about to jump out of their skin, or that they're in some kind of fancy-dress costume. This is the all-too-common result of men not wearing suits except when a virtual gun is put to their head. If you only wear suits once a year, and only for nerve-wracking situations, of course you're going to develop uncomfortable associations with them! And _that_ feeling comes through, loud and clear.

If men just made a point to wear a suit once a week (to church, to an evening out, to work on Mondays, etc.), they'd look much, much better on those occassions that arise less frequently and truly _require_ a suit.

* I mean un-noticed at a conscious level. Poor fit, bad style choices, etc., do register with most observers - not as discrete elements/faults, but as an overall sense that a person is not especially well-dressed.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> The number one suit wearing mistake? *Looking uncomfortable in a suit*.
> 
> Barring extreme examples, the various fit issues and color-coordination matters that occupy so much space on this board are things that would go un-noticed* by many casual observers. In the grand scheme of things, we're talking about moving from a B- to an A+ kind of stuff. What gets people an *F* is looking as though the suit is wearing them, or that they're about to jump out of their skin, or that they're in some kind of fancy-dress costume. This is the all-too-common result of men not wearing suits except when a virtual gun is put to their head. If you only wear suits once a year, and only for nerve-wracking situations, of course you're going to develop uncomfortable associations with them! And _that_ feeling comes through, loud and clear.
> 
> ...


Indeed.

As I like to say: You wear the clothes; don't let the clothes wear you.


----------



## Poindexter (Jul 22, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> The number one suit wearing mistake? *Looking uncomfortable in a suit*.


Whut he sed. I saw this in _high school_. Whenever (three times a year) I got dressed up in my best, and felt stiff and awkward and aware of my clothes, there were more experienced professional guys there who obviously wore good clothes all the time, and were absolutely at ease. It occured to me tiny mind that the way to get there was the same way they did.

I never acted on this until a year or two, slow learner that I am. I now am sli-ightly overdressed at all school and professional functions. If I can get away with the jacket, it's there. If the tie won't be remarked upon (except by gorgeous wimmenz, of course) it's there.

I'm not there yet, but sooon!

P


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

wheredidyougetthathat said:


> And of course the number one worst faux pas of all - wearing a suit with a non-button-down-collar shirt .....
> 
> Ugh.
> 
> ...


HUH ?


----------



## donk93953 (Feb 8, 2007)

mrkleen said:


> HUH ?


 x2

I think its more of a faux pas to wear a button down with a suit.
Button down spells..."informal" or "casual" to me...


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Ever feel like humor is sometimes unrecognised (and unappreciated) on this forum?


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

this forum is for serious discussion only and no humor is allowed. except when it suits us.


----------



## Benjamin E. (Mar 2, 2007)

hardline_42 said:


> Impossible, really? Then I guess Brooks Brothers has been making their OCBDs wrong since day one. Gauntlet buttons are necessary on sport shirts that are sized S,M,L and don't have sized sleeves. Those with shorter arms might need the gauntlet button to hide their "shame" in those cases. However, a dress shirt with a properly sized sleeve should rest comfortably at your wrist and has no reason to flare open. As you yourself mentioned, higher quality shirt makers tend to omit the gauntlet button while lesser makers (even Brooks Bro's 346 outlet line) like to keep it for the sake of tradition, I suppose.
> 
> I have a good number of Land's End Hyde Park Supima OCBDs that have sized sleeves and gauntlet buttons. I've removed them from every shirt and, to this day, no one has complained about any "shameful spectacles of skin display."


Gauntlet buttons have _nothing_ to do with sizing. Their necessity is contingent on the length of the gauntlet. If it's short, it has no need for a button. If it's long, it needs one. Even the best made shirt with a gauntlet that extends to the elbow will gape.

Has anyone ever commented on the buttonhole that's left there and it's lack of button? That looks MUCH more naff than a gauntlet button ever would.

And S M L sized things are not "not sized". They are, there's just fewer to choose from. They're cut to fit more people and are less expensive to produce than traditionally sized shirts. That's all.



phr33dom said:


> Yes, of course a shirt gauntlet that has no button has no reason to flare open provided you do not move your arms. The reason high quality shirt makers omit gauntlet buttons is that their shirts are made in first world countries where the high labour cost of sewing the gauntlet buttons and button holes is thus avoided by not having them. Cheaper shirts eg TM Lewins are made in the far east where labour is so cheap that gauntlet buttons can be retained.


I suppose I'll go throw out my Borrelli now (it has a gauntlet buttons). Maybe I'll chuck my Robert Talbotts, too. Gauntlet buttons have nothing to do with the pedigree of the shirt; like I said above, their necessity is contingent on the length of the gauntlet. The cost of sewing them on cannot be so prohibitively expensive so as to warrant their omission.


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

a tailor said:


> this forum is for serious discussion only and no humor is allowed. except when it suits us.


Hahahah. "Suits" us! Now that is rich!


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

If the suit fits, wear it.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

dks202 said:


> jacket sleeves too long.
> bottom button buttoned.
> 
> related.... shirt gauntlet button not buttoned. I am surprised how many men forget to button it.


I "forget" to button it all the time and have a few shirts that have foregone that detail altogether. It's a matter of preference, nothing more.



phr33dom said:


> Absolutely not true. It is impossible to design a shirt without gauntlet buttons such that a large skin area does not shamefully show through the gap on numerous occasions. This is the reason why I am reluctant to buy expensive Hilditch & Key shirts (good in every other respect) and end up buying inexpensive TM Lewins at less than a third of the price as they have gauntlet buttons. People won't notice the maybe slightly inferior material and construction qulality on a TML shirt but at least they won't be subjected to the spectacle of the skin display.


Last I checked we're in the year A.D. 2011. 



mrkleen said:


> Complete Bollocks


What is?



Mongo said:


> Just a quick note with respect to not buttoning gauntlet buttons: I happened to finally watch _North By Northwest_ last night, and noticed that Cary Grant (or at least the character he played) did not button up his gauntlet buttons in the latter part of the movie. Indeed, he exposed a great deal of hirsute flesh beneath his shirt sleeves. :crazy:
> 
> BTW, in large part thanks to this forum, my sartorial commentary drove my girlfriend to ask "Do you ever actually _watch_ a movie, or do you just look at the clothes?".
> 
> And for the record, I never button my gauntlet buttons, either. So there.


Cary Grant, you, me, probably several others who are clothing enthusiasts... we are in good company. 



mlongano said:


> Since the suit reached its classic permutation about sixty years ago.


The "classic permutation" that everyone ascribes to has changed over the decades and will continue to change. There's a big difference between the conservative suits sold at Brooks Brothers now and in 1951, just as there's a big difference between the "fashionable" suits sold then and now. Just a fact of life.



CuffDaddy said:


> The number one suit wearing mistake? *Looking uncomfortable in a suit*.


Hear, hear.



a tailor said:


> this forum is for serious discussion only and no humor is allowed. except when it suits us.


:biggrin:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Benjamin E. said:


> Has anyone ever commented on the buttonhole that's left there and it's lack of button? That looks MUCH more naff than a gauntlet button ever would.


You mean like that empty bottom button hole on a suit or sport coat when it is left unbuttoned? And then let's not forget that empty button hole smack dab in the middle of the lapel roll on those 3 roll to 2 jackets. Not only that but some folks actually leave the bottom button hole on a vest empty.

Don't you just hate all those empty button holes? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Seems rather arbitrary to me. 

If a member of this forum were to post a picture of themselves with one of their shirt placet buttons missing, I think it might cause physical ailments to some. That would be a strick no-no without question, yet leaving another shirt button undone is personal preference?


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

cdavant said:


> Ever feel like humor is sometimes unrecognised (and unappreciated) on this forum?


The "unrecognized" issue can be dealt with by use of an emoticon :icon_smile_wink:; the unappreciated issue, that's life. We have many droll posters, I rarely visit without a literal lol :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

phr33dom said:


> Absolutely not true. It is impossible to design a shirt without gauntlet buttons such that a large skin area does not shamefully show through the gap on numerous occasions. This is the reason why I am reluctant to buy expensive Hilditch & Key shirts (good in every other respect) and end up buying inexpensive TM Lewins at less than a third of the price as they have gauntlet buttons. People won't notice the maybe slightly inferior material and construction qulality on a TML shirt but at least they won't be subjected to the spectacle of the skin display.


CT shirts don't include them either. I understand that over a large number of shirts this little "oversight" saves money, but I don't like it.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Benjamin E. said:


> Gauntlet buttons have _nothing_ to do with sizing. Their necessity is contingent on the length of the gauntlet. If it's short, it has no need for a button. If it's long, it needs one. Even the best made shirt with a gauntlet that extends to the elbow will gape.


If the sleeve is too long, it will gather at the forearm and open up the gauntlet. This is not an issue with sleeves that are the proper length and sit relatively flat against the forearm. I have both types (as I'm sure many on here do) and this has been my experience in every case.

I think the question that needs to be asked is, do shirts NEED a gauntlet that extends to the elbow? My opinion is, unless your fists are the size of a cantaloupe, they are not necessary.



Benjamin E. said:


> Has anyone ever commented on the buttonhole that's left there and it's lack of button? That looks MUCH more naff than a gauntlet button ever would.


Mine are hardly noticeable since the gauntlet plackets stay closed. I suppose, if they flared open, they might be noticed.



Benjamin E. said:


> And S M L sized things are not "not sized". They are, there's just fewer to choose from. They're cut to fit more people and are less expensive to produce than traditionally sized shirts. That's all.


Generally. when referring to clothing, "sized" means sized specifically. For example, a "sized" bow tie means a self-tie bowtie that is not adjustable, but instead has a solid band of unbroken fabric that is made to fit one specific length. So, from a sartorial viewpoint, yes, the sleeves of "SML" shirts are not "sized." Sized sleeves have a number corresponding to the length in inches while SML shirts do not.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> You mean like that empty bottom button hole on a suit or sport coat when it is left unbuttoned? And then let's not forget that empty button hole smack dab in the middle of the lapel roll on those 3 roll to 2 jackets. Not only that but some folks actually leave the bottom button hole on a vest empty.
> 
> Don't you just hate all those empty button holes? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


 But all your examples have corresponding buttons to the buttonholes. Stripping something of its button and leaving a buttonhole that will then not even _look_ like it could have a function just doesn't make sense. Is this clear yet to you?


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

Here are a few (mostly repeats of what others have already said):

- biggest and most common mistake is wearing cheap clunky rubber soled shoes. Sleek rubber soles are fine but I personally only wear leather soles with suits. 

- collars that are way too big

- when the tips of the collar point wildly or do not come in contact with the shirt chest. 

- a tie that is tied poorly (no dimple, too short, too long, etc)

- belt doesn't match the shoes

- brown shoes with a black suit

- jacket shoulders too big/wide or overly padded

- jacket or shirt sleeves too long. I hardly ever see anyone wearing them too short

- and one that I never thought I would be putting in this list is the omission of a pocket square or linen.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Jovan said:


> But all your examples have corresponding buttons to the buttonholes. Stripping something of its button and leaving a buttonhole that will then not even _look_ like it could have a function just doesn't make sense. Is this clear yet to you?


But how do you know that 3 roll to 2 jacket has a button for that buttonhole. After all, the only way you would know if it did or didn't would be to lift up the other lapel and look under it; therefore, when all is said and done the visual presentation is the same whether it has a button or not.

Actually think of it this way, if there is no button on the shirt sleeve then someone who notices it will simply think that it fell off and that is why it isn't buttoned to begin with. Of course those same folks who see the guy in the 3 roll to 2 will just think that the dry cleaners pressed it wrong so I guess it's a push as to what spectators think since both appear to be innocent victims of an unfortunate mishap. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Another one I saw several instances of today: Wearing a wooly watch cap with a suit. An incongruous combo, and uglier than home-made sin. Watch caps or other knitted sports or utility caps are fine for casual wear (I own a pile myself), but look terrible with a suit!


----------



## Shade22182 (Nov 5, 2005)

Lol. I saw that yesterday and was aghast. And I also live in NoVa...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Another one I saw several instances of today: Wearing a wooly watch cap with a suit. An incongruous combo, and uglier than home-made sin. Watch caps or other knitted sports or utility caps are fine for casual wear (I own a pile myself), but look terrible with a suit!


Agreed. Last week, New York Jets owner Woody Johnson wore a wool cap with a suit, and looked like a fool, congruent with some of his public pronouncements over the past two years.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

a tailor said:


> this forum is for serious discussion only and no humor is allowed. except when it suits us.


ba da chhhhh (rimshot)


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

YoungClayB said:


> - and one that I never thought I would be putting in this list is the omission of a pocket square or linen.


I do not agree with this at all. Many many well dressed people consider a pocket square to be positively foppish.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

joenobody0 said:


> I do not agree with this at all. Many many well dressed people consider a pocket square to be positively foppish.


Very true and I always thought that I would be one of them but I started wearing a plain white cotton square folded and pressed (tv fold) about 8 months ago and I don't think I'll ever go back. I doubt I will EVER wear a poofey silk pocket square.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

I like pocket squares too, but choosing to omit one is IMO not in any way a _faux pas. _Pocket square or no pocket square? It's a true elective.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

PJC in NoVa said:


> I like pocket squares too, but choosing to omit one is IMO not in any way a _faux pas. _Pocket square or no pocket square? It's a true elective.


I feel the same way about outerwear. If the weather is bad I really don't care that much about what I'm wearing over a suit. My goal, first and foremost, is to stay warm, dry, or whatever. If that means wearing something like a wool watch cap, then I'll wear a wool watch cap; even if I'm wearing a tuxedo.

The way I figure it is that if someone is going to stand out in the cold and rain to evaluate my outerwear, they're nuts anyway and I don't care what they think. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

joenobody0 said:


> Many many well dressed people consider a pocket square to be positively foppish.


As do I, and I'm not even well dressed.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Wearing a wooly watch cap with a suit. An incongruous combo, and uglier than home-made sin.





Tiger said:


> Agreed.





Shade22182 said:


> I saw that yesterday and was *aghast*.


O c'mon, we're all starting to sound like fools here. Bearing in mind that heat rises and thus the majority of body heat escapes through an uncovered head, just what is it you all suggest we wear in bitter cold sub-zero (-2° currently here) weather?

And while I've yet to use the word _aghast _,in my entire life, were I to, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't apply it to the sight of a guy in a suit witrh a wool cap.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

YoungClayB said:


> a tie that is tied poorly (no dimple, too short, too long, etc)


You've obviously missed the fact that some people tie a tie in an eccentirc way deliberately to add a bit of dash! And as for this dimple vs no dimple paranoia that you Americans have, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about such an unnecessary subject.



YoungClayB said:


> - belt doesn't match the shoes


It doesn't have to.



YoungClayB said:


> - and one that I never thought I would be putting in this list is the omission of a pocket square or linen.


Strongly disagree. In many business settings and in many formal settings and even in some social settings a PS is not always suitable.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> You've obviously missed the fact that some people tie a tie in an eccentirc way deliberately to add a bit of dash! And as for this dimple vs no dimple paranoia that you Americans have, I'm not even going to get into a discussion about such an unnecessary subject.
> 
> It doesn't have to.
> 
> Strongly disagree. In many business settings and in many formal settings and even in some social settings a PS is not always suitable.


Believe me, the sloppy tied ties that I see on the daily are not tied that way on purpose. IMO, a messy tie CAN add a bit of spice to an ensemble iF (and this is a big if) the rest of the attire is sharp as a tack. It's hard to claim "spez" when your collar is too big and your shoes are either big and clunky or haven't seen a shine since the day they came from the store.

As far as the belt goes, I should have clarified. Tonal differences are fine. I am talking about black/ brown, burgundy/black, etc

Ok ok ok. I concede on the issue of pocket squares.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

YoungClayB said:


> It's hard to claim "spez" when your collar is too big and your shoes are either big and clunky or haven't seen a shine since the day they came from the store.


LOL! Fair point! 
I had hoped though that the big & clunky square toed shoe had disappeared with the 90s.  But unfortunately I still see the occasional monster being worn round town.


----------



## Chasseur (Apr 1, 2010)

I tend to be forgiving on most of these things since many items (exact choice of shoes, pocket square or not, etc. ) these days fall into the category of personal preference and also the milieu that you live and work in. 

However, the two I see often that I think that fall under mistakes are (1) the wrong size (generally way too big), and (2) not removing sleeve tags and opening vents and pockets.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

YoungClayB said:


> It's hard to claim "spez" when your collar is too big and your shoes ...


Is the collar reference to Goodfellas-style collars, or just disproportionally sized collars in relation to the wearer?


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

Jake Genezen said:


> Is the collar reference to Goodfellas-style collars, or just disproportionally sized collars in relation to the wearer?


just saying that one shouldnt be able to fit more than a couple of fingers between his neck and collar when buttoned. As an example, here is one of my WAYWT pics from about a year ago when I first joined the forum. I have since given this shirt away to Goodwill.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

I see what you mean.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Chasseur said:


> However, the two I see often that I think that fall under mistakes are (1) the wrong size (generally way too big), and (2) not removing sleeve tags and opening vents and pockets.




I think in my whole life I've only seen one person wearing a suit with the sleeve tags on. Fortunately he was a lawyer I was supervising and I had the chance to tell him to get rid of them before we went into the Vermont Supreme Court together.

As for leaving the pockets basted shut, I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who considers that the preferred approach. It prevents you from putting your hands in and looking like a clod (my earlier post in this thread) or from putting stuff in your pockets that would distort the lie of the jacket.


----------



## Chasseur (Apr 1, 2010)

Unfortunately I have seen many people with sleave tags still on in a variety of professional settings in several different countries (US, Canada, UK, France, India, etc.). 

Leaving pockets basted shut just sounds odd to me. But to each their own.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

fvkesq said:


> Novelty ties - particularly worn around the holidays.


I disagree, as long as novelty ties aren't frowned upon by one's superiors. Hopefully, I will never work somewhere or for someone as stuffy as this. That being said, I think there is a limit. A tie shaped like a Christmas tree complete with battery-powered light-up ornaments, yes, that would be way, way past the limit. But a tie with little Christmas trees printed on it in a geometric pattern, instead of dots or whatever, would be fine, in my opinion. Maybe even a tie with a cartoonish image of Santa Claus on the blade, if worn on the last day of work before Christmas, for example.

Of course, at the office holiday party, all limitations on ties are off, in my opinion.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> As for leaving the pockets basted shut, I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who considers that the preferred approach. It prevents you from putting your hands in and looking like a clod (my earlier post in this thread) or from putting stuff in your pockets that would distort the lie of the jacket.


+1 I prefer to leave jetted pockets basted shut so they keep their shape. I don't think I have any jetted pockets other than on my dinner jackets. Any other pockets I open. I like to have the option to use them even though I'm not going to put anything in the pockets anyway.


----------



## Mongo (May 9, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> As for leaving the pockets basted shut, I'm sure I'm not the only one around here who considers that the preferred approach. It prevents you from putting your hands in and looking like a clod (my earlier post in this thread) or from putting stuff in your pockets that would distort the lie of the jacket.


I've heard this before, including from my now ex-tailor, and I've never understood it.

If you don't think you should put your hands or objects in your pockets for fear of damaging the pockets, don't put your hands or objects in your pockets. Personally, I like to have the option, even if I never exercise it.

Glad I could help.


----------



## simonfoy (Mar 18, 2010)

I sometimes wear novelty ties when working in school with the under 11s. The children love them. Nothing with lights etc just the occasional disney ones.

However, I think I am the only person on this forum that dislikes dimples in ties. I think they just look so untidy. Mind, I prefer full windsors all the time so my opinion may hold no water. But I just cannot see anything nice with a tie that boasts a dimple. Like I say...just me.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> O c'mon, we're all starting to sound like fools here. Bearing in mind that heat rises and thus the majority of body heat escapes through an uncovered head, just what is it you all suggest we wear in bitter cold sub-zero (-2° currently here) weather?
> 
> And while I've yet to use the word _aghast _,in my entire life, were I to, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't apply it to the sight of a guy in a suit witrh a wool cap.


I'm sympathetic to the warmth/practicality consideration; there was a thread a while back about extremely warm yet fairly elegant hats, but I can't find it. Maybe someone else can search and have better luck.

My own experience to share is from time living in Chicago back in the 80s. I had a heavy h'bone BB chesterfield (albeit, to my regret, w/out the velvet collar) and wore a deep-brown LL Bean mouton lamb trooper hat with it (earflaps up nearly all the time) during the winters. That hat was quite warm, certainly warmer than a fur-felt fedora would be, and yet a good deal more elegant than a watch cap, IMO.


----------



## undocumented (Jan 11, 2011)

A couple of ones I see regularly:

Improperly tied ties, collars that are grossly too large (I think its from wearing collars too tight as a growing boy and some have a developed phobia of collars that fit properly) and here is one that I think is a mistake at any time: square toed shoes.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> ...a tie with little Christmas trees printed on it in a geometric pattern, instead of dots or whatever, would be fine, in my opinion. Maybe even a tie with a cartoonish image of Santa Claus on the blade, if worn on the last day of work before Christmas, for example.


...Nah.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

PJC in NoVa said:


> I had a heavy h'bone BB chesterfield and wore *a deep-brown LL Bean mouton lamb trooper hat with it *(earflaps up nearly all the time) during the winters.


Sorta like this?










I stole that from ArtVandalay, but I think he stole it from someone else first.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

PJC in NoVa said:


> I'm sympathetic to the warmth/practicality consideration; there was a thread a while back about extremely warm yet fairly elegant hats, but I can't find it. Maybe someone else can search and have better luck.


You're probably thinking of Astrakhans (sp?) Still think they look a little costumey myself


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Peak and Pine said:


> Sorta like this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It wasn't that big and exaggerated, nor did it have fur (or pile or whatever you call it) all over. The crown was made of brown lambsuede, and the pile on the ear/neck flap was trimmed fairly close. But the basic shape is the same.

The astrakhan is one of those styles I've not tried. I think it's something I'll probably save for when I'm a bit older.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

simonfoy said:


> However, I think I am the only person on this forum that dislikes dimples in ties.


You're certainly not the only one - see what the Earl of Ormonde has written above. I've always tried to avoid dimples, and think that dimple/no dimple is yet another USA/UK cultural difference.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

Matt S said:


> +1 I prefer to leave jetted pockets basted shut so they keep their shape. I don't think I have any jetted pockets other than on my dinner jackets. Any other pockets I open. I like to have the option to use them even though I'm not going to put anything in the pockets anyway.


My oldest sports jacket has jetted pockets, still in shape after 17 years, occasionaly I put my phone in there.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

williamson said:


> You're certainly not the only one - see what the Earl of Ormonde has written above. I've always tried to avoid dimples, and think that dimple/no dimple is yet another USA/UK cultural difference.


I make an effort to avoid them. They are quite popular on the Trad forum, and among some of the tradliest dressers, though I don't recall seeing them in the trad period, 50s-60s. I think they came in during the wide tie era of the 70s.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> O c'mon, we're all starting to sound like fools here. Bearing in mind that heat rises and thus the majority of body heat escapes through an uncovered head, just what is it you all suggest we wear in bitter cold sub-zero (-2° currently here) weather?


Heat rising isn't the main reason why heat escapes through an uncovered head. The main reason is that the head is very vascular. There are a lot of blood vessels running very close to the surface in the head, including the scalp where the skin is thin (less insulating).


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

williamson said:


> You're certainly not the only one - see what the Earl of Ormonde has written above. I've always tried to avoid dimples, and think that dimple/no dimple is yet another USA/UK cultural difference.


Yes indeed, I think a dimple makes the tie look badly tied, if it occurs I remove it. And like Simon I nearly always use a Windsor knot as well.

Again as you said I think it's a UK/US thing.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The Rambler said:


> I make an effort to avoid them. They are quite popular on the Trad forum, and among some of the tradliest dressers, though I don't recall seeing them in the trad period, 50s-60s. I think they came in during the wide tie era of the 70s.


Quite possibly. I never recall my father or any other well dressed gents having a dimple in their tie when I was a lad in the 60s
and 70s. My father also, like myself, always wore a Windsor knot.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Does anyone use the Pratt knot anymore? It's kind of halfway between fih and windsor, symmetrical, and tied sort of backwards.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

The Rambler said:


> They are quite popular on the Trad forum, and among some of the tradliest dressers, though I don't recall seeing them in the trad period, 50s-60s. I think they came in during the wide tie era of the 70s.


Looking through my early to mid 1960's high school yearbooks I see that about half the guys had dimples in their ties. I don't know if this was intentional or not as I really didn't pay any attention to this one way or the other back then. I went to an upper lower/lower middle class high school in the South so I don't think "trad" was on anyone's mind. FWIW, my 1965 picture shows a dimple in my tie.










Cruiser


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

^^ Love those frames! Your pictures are always great. Probably because they're so genuine.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The Rambler said:


> Does anyone use the Pratt knot anymore? It's kind of halfway between fih and windsor, symmetrical, and tied sort of backwards.


I sometimes use a knot that I think is called a half Windsor rather than the FIH. I use it to create a bit of asymmetry and to lengthen the knot on very thick ties & sometimes with BD shirts.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I sometimes use a knot that I think is called a half Windsor rather than the FIH. I use it to create a bit of asymmetry and to lengthen the knot on very thick ties & sometimes with BD shirts.


I thought the half-windsor was supposed to be symmetrical. Indeed, I started getting extra-long ties so I could tie a larger symmetrical knot (the half-windsor) and still have enough length to get the tie over my big belly, rather than the lopsided but smaller 4ih I used to use.

On another note (not related to the quote)...Regarding the tie dimple: I prefer it now, but I used to detest it. If I don't have a single large dimple, I prefer to have nothing but a smooth hump, so to speak. (Like the red tie here: https://nicetiestore.blogspot.com/2010/03/mystery-of-windsor-necktie-knot.html)

Take a look at the four tie knots on this page: https://www.tie-a-tie.net/

The one in red has an acceptable dimple, but personally, I would want the knot to be a bit tighter, less wide at the bottom. The other three knots are simply too sloppy for me. Below the four ties, the blue tie being worn by the man has a very nice dimple, in my opinion.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

The Rambler said:


> Does anyone use the Pratt knot anymore? It's kind of halfway between fih and windsor, symmetrical, and tied sort of backwards.


A friend of mine uses the Pratt knot. He came to me asking for help with his tie and showed me the way he ties his. I told him it was a Pratt knot, and now everytime I see him with a tie on he says to me "Hey, check out my Pratt knot!"


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

The picture is *not* of me; it is from the link JJR512 provided a couple of posts ago. I wondering if the members here think the tie's width is too wide (and disproportionate) to the man's facial features? I don't think the tie is that wide in itself, but on him it appears so. Am I wrong?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

That tie does appear a little wide but I would hesitate to gauge it's width in relation to the wearer's face as I think it should be in proportion to his jacket lapels which are not present.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> I make an effort to avoid them. They are quite popular on the Trad forum, and among some of the tradliest dressers, though I don't recall seeing them in the trad period, 50s-60s. I think they came in during the wide tie era of the 70s.


Oh, goodness. I'm no dimple absolutist. I think everyone who likes them ought to wear them, and those that don't should not, but to claim that they are some fad left over from the 70's in demonstrably *false*.

Here's FDR, who died in the 1940's, with a dimple in his tie.

Here's a young Fred Astair pairing a dimpled tie with a straw boater - probably not a 70's picture.










And the DoW also sported dimpled ties on occasion:

Notably, the DoW sometimes eschewed the dimple, particularly later in life - *in the 1970's. *

At any rate, it is clear that many well-dressed men were dimpling their ties long before the 70's. I was not alive then, but I suppose it is possible that the skinny-tie fad of the late 50's and early 60s' made getting a dimple impossible, so the dimple may have temporarly faded from the scene.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> *Here's FDR, who died in the 1940's,* with a dimple in his tie.


Roosevelt dead? And in the 40s??? I've gotta pay more attention.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Jake Genezen said:


> The picture is *not* of me; it is from the link JJR512 provided a couple of posts ago. I wondering if the members here think the tie's width is too wide (and disproportionate) to the man's facial features? I don't think the tie is that wide in itself, but on him it appears so. Am I wrong?


For just this particular man, with his particular face, wearing this particular tie on that particular shirt with no jacket, yeah, I'd say it looks a bit wide. The tie stands out from the shirt. If he was wearing a suit jacket with lapels of a width that matched the tie, it might look better; on the other hand, you might then think that his lapels look too wide for his face.

If the tie were just as wide as that but didn't stand out as much from the shirt, it might also look better, too.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> but to claim that they are some fad left over from the 70's in demonstrably *false*.


True, but I made no such claim, counselor.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

The Rambler said:


> True, but I made no such claim, counselor.


Then I misunderstood.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Well, I'm not _that _old, just talking about what I'd seen in the 50s-60s, and when the dimple crept in to the Trad, or TNSIL vernacular. By the way, I have nothing against em at all, in fact on some ties they're hard to avoid. Responding to the idea that without a tie dimple is a "mistake." Loved the pics, btw.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Peak and Pine said:


> Roosevelt dead? And in the 40s??? I've gotta pay more attention.


ha ha ha ROFLMAO!!!

Thanks for that! My first Ask Andy laugh today!


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

^ he's the source of many, and never (I think) resorts to an emoticon.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Many of the narrow ties (2.75" or less) from the '50s and '60s are hard or impossible to dimple due to the lack of fabric available to do so. I should know, I own many! I dimple my wider ties but just about give up on them with narrow or knit ties.


----------



## simonfoy (Mar 18, 2010)

First dimple I ever saw was on here. I have never noticed one yet in the UK. It possibly is a US/UK thing. I just want to straighten them when I see them. OCD


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Danger! Hands off the dimple!

I'll just close by saying that the last man who tried to reach for mine is still wearing orthopedic shirts.:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## icky thump (Feb 2, 2008)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> My biggest pet peeve, especially with the amount of fellows at work not wearing jackets, I see this all the time and it bugs the hell outta me.
> 
> Here's a few:
> 
> Loafers with a suit


 I break this all the time when I fly. I am not going to lace up my shoes everytime I go through the whozitz.


----------



## sucitta (Nov 13, 2008)

Shoes worn-out, unpolished or too casual

Shoe color does not match belt collar

Socks do not match trousers

Shirts with excessive wear (worn-out at the cuffs/collar points; permanent under arm stains)

Poorly pressed suits, shirts

Suit coats buttoned improperly

Suits too tight due to obvious weight gain

Excessive accessories


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

icky thump said:


> I break this all the time when I fly. I am not going to lace up my shoes everytime I go through the whozitz.


It's a good thing to do when flying. Tight and stiff shoes is the last thing one should be wearing in a pressurised aluminium tube at 38,000ft. I always wear very loose footwear, sometimes flip-flops, when flying.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. Mike, you might consider a nice pair of low vamp slip-ons (penny or venetian loafer) as a more suitable option. As a former frequent flyer, the only bare toes I ever cared to look at were attached to the feet of my fellow flyers, of the opposite gender! Frankly, i really don't care to look at even my own feet.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL. Mike, you might consider a nice pair of low vamp slip-ons (penny or venetian loafer) as a more suitable option. As a former frequent flyer, the only bare toes I ever cared to look at were attached to the feet of my fellow flyers, of the opposite gender! Frankly, i really don't care to look at even my own feet.


Word. A grown man in flip-flops is normally a fairly grotesque sight in any setting, and being trapped in close quarters for hours with one just makes it all worse. If shorts exposing hairy legs are thrown into the mix, the gross-out factor is heightened even more.

I say all this as a large, hairy-legged male myself. On planes I normally wear comfy long trousers such as Dockers, and sneaks w/ clean white socks.


----------



## temple_gym (Oct 10, 2010)

1) Sleeves that are too long/too baggy
2) Trousers that are too long


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Word. A grown man in flip-flops is normally a fairly grotesque sight in any setting, and being trapped in close quarters for hours with one just makes it all worse. If shorts exposing hairy legs are thrown into the mix, the gross-out factor is heightened even more.
> 
> I say all this as a large, hairy-legged male myself. On planes I normally wear comfy long trousers such as Dockers, and sneaks w/ clean white socks.


I do wear socks and jeans with the flip-flops, so no one has to look at my ugly toes and hairy legs... :icon_smile_big:. This is on domestic flights in China. I've also found that flip-flops is the most convenient footwear for removing and replacing, when going through the rather frantic and crowded security checkpoints at Chinese airports.

On the last long haul I was on, 11 hours London to Hong Kong, I observed that many people had removed their shoes during the flight. I was wearing old trainers for this flight, but had them off most of the time.

BTW here is some good advice from Heathrow Airport for everyone, about health and confort when flying:-
https://www.heathrowairport.com/portal/page/Heathrow%5EGeneral%5EPlan+and+book+your+trip%5ETravel+advice%5EHealthy+flying/a26e67324dfd4110VgnVCM10000036821c0a____/448c6a4c7f1b0010VgnVCM200000357e120a____/
'Wear loose, comfortable clothing and worn-in shoes.'


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

MikeDT said:


> I do wear socks and jeans with the flip-flops, so no one has to look at my ugly toes and hairy legs... :icon_smile_big:. This is on domestic flights in China. I've also found that flip-flops is the most convenient footwear for removing and replacing, when going through the rather frantic and crowded security checkpoints at Chinese airports.
> 
> On the last long haul I was on, 11 hours London to Hong Kong, I observed that many people had removed their shoes during the flight. I was wearing old trainers for this flight, but had them off most of the time.
> 
> ...


God bless you and your consideration for others, sir. If only more people displayed your level of thoughtfulness . . .


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

PJC in NoVa said:


> If only more people displayed your level of thoughtfulness . . .


...we wouldn't be having to take off our shoes in airports in the first place.


----------



## Benjamin E. (Mar 2, 2007)

JJR512 said:


> ...we wouldn't be having to take off our shoes in airports in the first place.


 Double true, man.

Not to derail, but does anyone else wear a coat and tie while flying? I am seeing it increasingly less.


----------



## BrianPaul (Jun 12, 2009)

I have not flown much in the last year, but frequently commuted from Dallas to Chicago the prior two years. Given that most of my fellow passengers were also traveling on business, I estimate that less than a quarter of the men wore a coat and tie. In first class, it was closer to, but less than, half. 

I bought a pair of black Johnston and Murphy Dobson cap toe Venetians for traveling.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

I am surprised that nobody mentioned the low-waisted trousers showing a massive buckle beneath a too short waistcoat. It is a ghastly mistake, which seems to be more and more commonplace, sometimes even in ads by somewhat famous brands.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

I suppose this is very subjective so I'm going to say: People who flounce about in suits that they paid a fortume for by virtue of them being lightweight and super hower-many-hundred that to my eye come across as flimsy, impractical, inelegant and shiny to the extent that they look like they've been wrapped in a marathon-runner's foil blanket.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Benjamin E. said:


> Not to derail, but does anyone else wear a coat and tie while flying?


I do. Or do you mean on an airplane?


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Benjamin E. said:


> Double true, man.
> 
> Not to derail, but does anyone else wear a coat and tie while flying? I am seeing it increasingly less.


Perhaps more people are taking the Aerospace Medical Association's advice about loose and comfortable clothing?
https://www.asma.org/


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

MikeDT said:


> Perhaps more people are taking the Aerospace Medical Association's advice about loose and comfortable clothing?
> https://www.asma.org/


I have plenty of loose and comfortable shirts ties, jackets and suits; I even scored an upgrade on more than one occasion in the past because being "suited and booted" meant I would not look out of place in business class on a flight where standard was oversubscribed Loose and comfortable doesn't have to mean jogging bottoms, flip flops and a football shirt.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I have plenty of loose and comfortable shirts ties, jackets and suits; I even scored an upgrade on more than one occasion in the past because being "suited and booted" meant I would not look out of place in business class on a flight where standard was oversubscribed Loose and comfortable doesn't have to mean jogging bottoms, flip flops and a football shirt.


I've been upgraded as well a couple of times in China, to the front of the plane where the seats are bigger and have more legroom. Probably because I'm seen as the privileged foreigner(not tourist) rather than what I was wearing.


----------



## nosajwols (Jan 27, 2010)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I have plenty of loose and comfortable shirts ties, jackets and suits; I even scored an upgrade on more than one occasion in the past because being "suited and booted" meant I would not look out of place in business class on a flight where standard was oversubscribed Loose and comfortable doesn't have to mean jogging bottoms, flip flops and a football shirt.


It is a well known trick for (well informed) people who fly standby. SOP is to move standby flyers that look the part to first class if they need to bump someone to open up seats is steerage.

I have many friends that fly this way, the second they get on the plane they lose the jacket and tie...


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I have plenty of loose and comfortable shirts ties, jackets and suits; I even scored an upgrade on more than one occasion in the past because being "suited and booted" meant I would not look out of place in business class on a flight where standard was oversubscribed Loose and comfortable doesn't have to mean jogging bottoms, flip flops and a football shirt.


Reminds me of seminar at work once, dork talking about "stress in the workplace" etc. and said "look around, the ladies have their shoes off, but you guys are still wearing your black lace ups", got a few chuckles, I held my hand up, he acknowledges, I say "Men buy shoes that fit", applause


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Mongo said:


> I've heard this before, including from my now ex-tailor, and I've never understood it.
> 
> If you don't think you should put your hands or objects in your pockets for fear of damaging the pockets, don't put your hands or objects in your pockets. Personally, I like to have the option, even if I never exercise it.
> 
> Glad I could help.


Putting your hands in your pockets is a particularly bad habit for lawyers. I've seen bailiffs interrupt an argument to tell an attorney to take his hands out of his pockets.

Part of this is a safety reason, they don't want anyone pulling out weapons in court. Even where it is tolerated, the hands-in-pockets-look can look too casual for the courtroom and undermine an otherwise great argument.

I've heard of attorneys having their front pant pockets sewn shut as well.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Jovan said:


> But all your examples have corresponding buttons to the buttonholes. Stripping something of its button and leaving a buttonhole that will then not even _look_ like it could have a function just doesn't make sense. Is this clear yet to you?


You mean like the lapel buttonhole?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Word. A grown man in flip-flops is normally a fairly grotesque sight in any setting, and being trapped in close quarters for hours with one just makes it all worse. If shorts exposing hairy legs are thrown into the mix, the gross-out factor is heightened even more.


 ... what century are we in again?



Phileas Fogg said:


> I am surprised that nobody mentioned the low-waisted trousers showing a massive buckle beneath a too short waistcoat. It is a ghastly mistake, which seems to be more and more commonplace, sometimes even in ads by somewhat famous brands.
> Yours,
> 
> Phileas Fogg


This seems to be on purpose and actually desirable to them for some reason. The thing they don't show is how, even with slim fits, you get a blousing shirt midsection if you actually move around and not stand still like a mannequin.



charlie500 said:


> You mean like the lapel buttonhole?


Those do actually have a function -- they are sometimes called "flower holes" after all -- and the proper ones are cut straight without a keyhole.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

donk93953 said:


> 1) All buttons buttoned on a jacket


 JFK's Paddock Model Jackets are an interesting exception to the rule:

https://asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/2007/06/jfks-paddock-model-jackets.html

"I'd never seen any man other than the late Duke of Windsor wearing a paddock model coat, a bespoke cut where the jacket carries two buttons that are placed higher than normal because they are both buttoned during wear. One button is about 2" above the waist and the other 2" below it, making the wearer look a bit taller. Kennedy was a six footer, but he apparently liked the illusion of height..."


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Jovan said:


> ... what century are we in again?


I would try to answer that question except I'm afraid Earl of Ormonde or Apathicviews would just pop in to tell me I don't understand how centuries are numbered or that I don't know how to tell the current century from the date, and then try to explain why the first day of one century is also the last day of the preceding century. So I'm not going to answer this question. :biggrin2:


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

1.) Wearing a suit that is too big, "... because it's comfortable..." (usually accompanied by customer sticking his hands high in the air then reaching around and hugging himself. *You're wearing it to a funeral, sir, not a cage fight.*

2.) Wearing a suit that is too small because you are too lazy, cheap, slothful, or defiant to buy one that fits your expanded size. *Although I do like your Chris Farley impersonation, perhaps you'd look better if we couldn't see your man boobs? 
*
3.) Wearing sleeves that are too long (usually accompanied by customer sticking his hands straight in front of him like a mummy from an old B-Movie and proclaiming, "... I just don't like how the sleeves slide up my arms when I go like this..."). *Luckily, sir, you won't spend much of your day wandering around with your arms rigor-mortised out in front of you.
*
4.) A customer that insists on wearing pant legs hemmed too long (usually accompanied by customer remarking that, "... because when I wear them your way, I like how they look when I stand, but when I walk or sit down I don't like how they show off my ankles...").* Sir, that's why we sell socks.*

5.) Men pulling on the buttoned-front of a good fitting jacket, turning to me and saying, "... You see how much extra fabric there is? It's too loose!". *Sir, if you'll look in the mirror while you do that, you'll be able to see both your a** and your love handles. This isn't something that should be visible while wearing the jacket. Do you really want me to tighten the waist?*


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Jovan said:


> ...
> 
> Those do actually have a function -- they are sometimes called "flower holes" after all -- and the proper ones are cut straight without a keyhole.


Aren't they meant to accommodate a "storm button" hidden under the other lapel so, along with a throat latch, the jacket could be buttoned all the way up. Perhaps the gauntlet button is going the way of the usually omitted storm button?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Mr. Mac said:


> 1.) Wearing a suit that is too big, "... because it's comfortable..." (usually accompanied by customer sticking his hands high in the air then reaching around and hugging himself. *You're wearing it to a funeral, sir, not a cage fight.*
> 
> 2.) Wearing a suit that is too small because you are too lazy, cheap, slothful, or defiant to buy one that fits your expanded size. *Although I do like your Chris Farley impersonation, perhaps you'd look better if we couldn't see your man boobs?
> *
> ...


Interesting perspective from one who is in the business. To all of what you said, "Hear, hear!"



charlie500 said:


> Aren't they meant to accommodate a "storm button" hidden under the other lapel so, along with a throat latch, the jacket could be buttoned all the way up. Perhaps the gauntlet button is going the way of the usually omitted storm button?


This is only seen on sport coats and very rarely these days, at that. I once owned an Express Men cotton sport coat that had the feature. I didn't use it very much and the button eventually fell off for some reason.

The lapel hole has been used for flowers for at least a century, I'm sure.


----------



## johnvw (Jul 19, 2010)

a tailor said:


> this forum is for serious discussion only and no humor is allowed. except when it *suits *us.


Is this an intentional pun?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Suit you sir, suit you. The Brits here will be familiar with this:


----------



## Starting Late (Apr 26, 2010)

I've been trying cases for over thirty years. This is a bunch of crap.



charlie500 said:


> Putting your hands in your pockets is a particularly bad habit for lawyers. I've seen bailiffs interrupt an argument to tell an attorney to take his hands out of his pockets.
> 
> Part of this is a safety reason, they don't want anyone pulling out weapons in court. Even where it is tolerated, the hands-in-pockets-look can look too casual for the courtroom and undermine an otherwise great argument.
> 
> I've heard of attorneys having their front pant pockets sewn shut as well.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I don't like it when guys open the bottom one or two cuff buttons on their jacket 'to show they function'. It just looks unfinished and pretentious to me and
(1) they are not Tom Ford
(2) if they are showing off a bespoke suit this is a vulgar way of doing so, you would hope the quality would speak for itself
(3) loads of cheap suits have 'working buttonholes' now so the whole thing is pointless!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

charlie500 said:


> Putting your hands in your pockets is a particularly bad habit for lawyers. I've seen bailiffs interrupt an argument to tell an attorney to take his hands out of his pockets.


I'm not an attorney but my jobs have taken me to court quite often and I've seen attorneys with their hands in their pockets on a regular basis. I get the impression that it is deliberate in an attempt to convey a certain impression to the jury.



















Would a bailiff really interupt a lawyer during his closing argument to the jury to tell him to take his hands out of his pockets? Has there been a rash of lawyers pulling guns in court? Just wondering.

As a side note, I couldn't help but notice the button down collar and pocket square worn by the lawyer in the first picture, two things that have been described in this forum as no-no's for attorneys in court. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Jovan said:


> ... what century are we in again?
> 
> This seems to be on purpose and actually desirable to them for some reason. The thing they don't show is how, even with slim fits, you get a blousing shirt midsection if you actually move around and not stand still like a mannequin.
> 
> Those do actually have a function -- they are sometimes called "flower holes" after all -- and the proper ones are cut straight without a keyhole.


What's the calendar got to do with it? Gnarly manfeet are as unsightly now as they were a century ago.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Starting Late said:


> I've been trying cases for over thirty years. This is a bunch of crap.


Are you accusing me of lying?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

charlie500 said:


> ...Kennedy was a six footer, but he apparently liked the illusion of height..."


 Actually, IIRC, the reason he wore this type of coat was to conceal his back brace. At least that's what some historians say.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not an attorney but my jobs have taken me to court quite often and I've seen attorneys with their hands in their pockets on a regular basis. I get the impression that it is deliberate in an attempt to convey a certain impression to the jury.
> Would a bailiff really interupt a lawyer during his closing argument to the jury to tell him to take his hands out of his pockets? Has there been a rash of lawyers pulling guns in court? Just wondering.
> 
> Cruiser


It happened during a bail argument. The court had a rule, no hand in pockets. What was good for the goose (criminal defendants) was good for the gander, including attorneys. The court officer noticed the judge getting upset and tried to subtlety hint to take his hands out of his pockets, the lawyer didn't pick up on it. Finally he just went over and told him to take his hands out of his pockets. Very distracting.

Different courts have different rules and their are no shortage of lawyers with bad habits (or bad lawyers for that matter.) I've argued in other courts where hands in pockets were frowned upon.

Personally I think the hand-in-pocket lawyers send an unintended message that they have something to hide, whereas both hands out says "I'm putting all my cards on the table." Maybe that's just me. I also went to a high school with a strict dress code where, when called upon to answer a question, you had to stand up, say 'sir' and shoving your hands in your pocket would get you "Justice Under God."


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

charlie500 said:


> Different courts have different rules and their are no shortage of lawyers with bad habits (or bad lawyers for that matter.) I've argued in other courts where hands in pockets were frowned upon.
> 
> Personally I think the hand-in-pocket lawyers send an unintended message that they have something to hide, whereas both hands out says "I'm putting all my cards on the table." Maybe that's just me.


I do think it's just you. There are all kinds of body language experts who will give you all kinds of interpretations of what certain gestures mean, and most of them are just plain wrong. I doubt that putting your hands in your pocket conveys to anyone that you have something to hide, and I wouldn't even call putting your hands a bad habit.

Putting your hand in your pocket and playing with your change, however, can be very distracting. Some lawyers take all the change out of their pockes in court for that very reason.

I've never heard of a court with a "no hands in pockets" rule, although I would never underestimate the range of arbitrary exercises of power that people can indulge in, and in my experience judges may be more inclined to officiousness than the normal run of the population, so I don't doubt that such courts exist.

(I've been trying cases for over thirty years, too, and I don't recall being in any court that had any kind of written dress code for attorneys, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go in wearing my blue jeans. The one time I had to do that the judge called me and asked me if I could come over and try a case that wasn't on the schedule, and when I said I wasn't dressed for court she assured me that she didn't care what I was wearing.)


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I thought being told to take your hands out of your pockets was the kind of thing that old time parents would say to their misbehaving children, called on the carpet: "Take your hands out of your pockets! Stand up straight! Tuck your shirt in! I'm talkin to you!"


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Haffman said:


> I don't like it when guys open the bottom one or two cuff buttons on their jacket 'to show they function'. It just looks unfinished and pretentious to me and
> (1) they are not Tom Ford
> (2) if they are showing off a bespoke suit this is a vulgar way of doing so, you would hope the quality would speak for itself
> (3) loads of cheap suits have 'working buttonholes' now so the whole thing is pointless!


I couldn't agree more. It kind of reminds me of a story I was heard when I was in the Marines. A woman tells a Marine at a bar that she doesn't like Marines because they're arrogant. The Marine responds "No ma'am, we're confident." When she asks what the difference is, he responds "The arrogant man will tell you about how great he is. The confident man doesn't have to."


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

It's interesting to learn how so many of the posters here, of whom I'd had no knowledge of their profession, are actually attorneys. In certain instances, I would not have guessed that. As well as thinking others might be lawyers who actually aren't. I base these guesses on writing style, not content. Oh well.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Hanzo said:


> "The arrogant man will tell you about how great he is. The confident man doesn't have to."


Which of course is an arrogant reply.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

jackmccullough said:


> I do think it's just you. There are all kinds of body language experts who will give you all kinds of interpretations of what certain gestures mean, and most of them are just plain wrong. I doubt that putting your hands in your pocket conveys to anyone that you have something to hide, and I wouldn't even call putting your hands a bad habit.


It depends on where you are and who you are with. In Germany, putting your hands in your pockets while speaking with someone is considered to be very boorish behavior.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

PJC in NoVa said:


> What's the calendar got to do with it? Gnarly manfeet are as unsightly now as they were a century ago.


 "If shorts exposing hairy legs are thrown into the mix, the gross-out factor is heightened even more."

Besides, you see "gnarly manfeet" and hairy legs at the beach all the time. What are you afraid of?


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

hardline_42 said:


> Actually, IIRC, the reason he wore this type of coat was to conceal his back brace. At least that's what some historians say.


I've speculated that myself, though if you look at Will's original blog post over at "A Suitable Wardrobe," there are pics of a rather young (and presumably pre-back brace) JFK wearing this same style, which I speculate he may have picked up on while his father was FDR's ambassador to the Court of St. James's.

Of course, none of that rules out the possibility that he may have also favored the style as an adult b/c it did help to make the brace less noticeable.

For anyone interested, there are some relevant passages in Michael Dobbs's book on the Cuban Missile Crisis, _One Minute to Midnight,_ about JFK's back troubles and the competing factions of doctors and physical therapists who vied to control his treatment regimen. To put it simply, one faction focused on drugs, the other on exercise.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> Which of course is an arrogant reply.


So you feel that refuting one's arrogance is, in fact, arrogant? I suppose by that logic, everyone is arrogant since the very denial of which proves it.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Witch!!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hanzo said:


> So you feel that refuting one's arrogance is, in fact, arrogant? I suppose by that logic, everyone is arrogant since the very denial of which proves it.


Not so. A denial of arrogance, though, which is premised on being too good to need talk about it is, tautologically, arrogant.


----------



## dwebber18 (Jun 5, 2008)

Not that many people where I live wear suits what I see most often is ill fitting suits. Most that I see are men wearing suits that are too large in chest, shoulders and length. I think this is the Mens Wearhouse syndrome of putting people in suits 2 sizes too big. I also see slim suits, it appears many guys think that the trimmer the suit the better it looks and more fashionable it is. The number one mistake I see on almost everyone is pants that are too long puddling over their shoes.


----------



## triklops55 (May 14, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> So you feel that refuting one's arrogance is, in fact, arrogant? I suppose by that logic, everyone is arrogant since the very denial of which proves it.


This is funny. Reminds me of high school.
I'm cool, but too cool to say I'm cool. You can say I'm cool and that's cool. That is, unless you're not cool. If you're not cool, and say I'm cool, then I'm not all that cool. But if you're cool and say I'm cool, then I'm cool too. But if you're cool, you probably wouldn't say I'm cool, because that would make you look uncool. Therefore, I would also be uncool. Are we cool? Cool.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Not so. A denial of arrogance, though, which is premised on being too good to need talk about it is, tautologically, arrogant.


If that were the case, I would agree, but no one said they're too good for anything. In the story I was retelling, the individual denied being arrogant. They instead stated that they were confident.

Let's stop there. Does the denial of being arrogant make one arrogant? I think we've agreed that the answer is no. Does the claiming of being confident make someone arrogant? Possibly, I suppose it depends on your opinion. But then does that mean that attributing oneself with any positive attribute, even in one's own defense, is arrogant? I certainly hope not.

The example is then given than an "arrogant man will tell you about how great he is," (which we would, of course, agree to be arrogant as that is essentially the definition of the word) but that "the confident man doesn't have to", meaning that someone who is confident in themselves will keep to themselves rather than trying to convince others that they are great.

So, I ask, which part is arrogant? Denying arrogance? Claiming confidence? Or, when asked, explaining the difference between the two?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hanzo, look at the apocryphal Marine's definition of confidence. It's a man who is so good that he doesn't have to tell you how good he is. When he applies that description to himself, he is being arrogant. 

Wouldn't you agree that saying "I'm so good, I don't have to tell you how good I am" is not only tautological, but also arrogant?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

As Cuff is saying, it's the _saying_ of it which makes for arrogance. In the story the Marine _said _that to a woman and now you're _saying_ it to us, and it's not even all that clever a remark to begin with, it sounds smug and scripted, as so many of those motto-like utterances often are.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

Christ alive! Does it matter? Frankly, a trite parable about a soldier picking up a girl in a bar doesn't speak to my soul when it comes to behavioural tips, whether I think he's arrogant or not. Sorry, is that hubristic?

It reminds me of a story. The designer of the Titanic and a girl are sitting in a bar...


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Could it be that we've beat this one into the ground? I think the key to us maybe having done so is the _Christ Alive!_ thing.


----------



## Benjamin E. (Mar 2, 2007)

Peak and Pine said:


> I do. Or do you mean on an airplane?


I do mean in the airplane. When flying, I generally wear a suit, tie, and hat. It's partially because I don't want to risk losing it if my luggage gets lost but it's also because I just like to. The hat is more out of necessity than propriety, as I don't have a hat box. Unfortunately, I have to carry my other stuff in a backpack as I don't have a briefcase nor can I really afford one now. (If you see someone in a nice DB suit, tie, hat and a Trailmaker knapsack, say hello! :icon_smile_wink

The only comfort issue I have is due to armhole height, which can get pretty irritating at times, like when reaching overhead, but other than that, I don't have too many comfort issues.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Salieri said:


> Frankly, a trite parable about a soldier picking up a girl in a bar doesn't speak to my soul when it comes to behavioural tips


Actually I think it was about a Marine and a girl. You start calling a Marine a "soldier" and you've really stepped across the line. That's almost as bad as calling a Navy Corpsman a "medic."

No offense intended to my Army friends. OK, maybe a little. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

It's easy to remember the difference with this little mnemonic.

Marine = Muscles are required, intelligence not essential.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

triklops55 said:


> This is funny. Reminds me of high school.
> I'm cool, but too cool to say I'm cool. You can say I'm cool and that's cool. That is, unless you're not cool. If you're not cool, and say I'm cool, then I'm not all that cool. But if you're cool and say I'm cool, then I'm cool too. But if you're cool, you probably wouldn't say I'm cool, because that would make you look uncool. Therefore, I would also be uncool. Are we cool? Cool.


This is my favorite post of the week so far.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> It's easy to remember the difference with this little mnemonic.
> 
> Marine = Muscles are required, intelligence not essential.


OK, dropping all of the previous stuff, but this was funny! I hadn't heard that one before.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Hanzo said:


> So you feel that *refuting one's arrogance* is, in fact, arrogant?


Well your question contains an admission of arrogance. So the answer is yes.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

_Christ alive_! (I got that from Salieri, above and thank you, and will be using it a lot in future posts, especially when sneaking into the Trad WAYWN thread and asking _did you leave the dowdy filter on the Nikon or is that really the clothes?_)

Anyway, Hanzo has accepted, I think, that the declaiming of certain states of being may actually plant you smack in the middle of them, much as the reverse, the claiming of (_class_ comes to mind), may bar you from them.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> _Christ alive_! (I got that from Salieri, above and thank you, and will be using it a lot in future posts, especially when sneaking into the Trad WAYWN thread and asking _did you leave the dowdy filter on the Nikon or is that really the clothes?_)
> 
> Anyway, Hanzo has accepted, I think, that the declaiming of certain states of being may actually plant you smack in the middle of them, much as the reverse, the claiming of (_class_ comes to mind), may bar you from them.


I have not, in fact, accepted that. I have, however, decided it's best to agree to disagree and move on.


----------



## Salieri (Jun 18, 2009)

c.f. _"I'm not a racist, but..."_


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Hanzo said:


> I have not, in fact, accepted that. I have, however, decided it's best to agree to disagree and move on.


That is one of the most arrogant things I've ever read.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Peak and Pine said:


> That is one of the most arrogant things I've ever read.


Hahaha, and I can appreciate good comic relief.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Cheers for your comments on my post Hanzo - sorry it caused you so much grief!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Well, here I was thinking this thread was about _common suit wearing mistakes_.

Good thing I kept my receipt.


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

I saw this suit-wearing mistake yesterday. A CEO came to our office to sell his company's services wearing a very nice suit, but it was three-button with a a high button stance and he left it unbuttoned. He had a bit of a belly, and the two sides of his jacket tended to come together at two points - at the bottom of the lapel just above the topmost button, and at the very bottom. Between those two points, we got to see his belly pushing through.

He may well get our business - his presentation was very impressive for content - but this was very distracting.


----------

