# Why navy pants should be burned



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

As the subject always starts a flame war why not start with a fire.



A Manton observation from another forum:


"I think there may be something else to the no navy trouser thing.

"For many decades before WW2 by far the most common suit was blue serge. Men who only owned one suit owned a blue serge. It was their "Sunday best." They would often wear them as separates, and more often the pants seperatly since working class men really had no call for odd jackets. So blue pants got a lower class connotation.

If you read Depression era literature such as Steinbeck and Dos Passos, many of the lower class/working class characters will be described as wearing blue serge pants."



So, Bjorn, Shaver, Matt S and those others chosen for salvation have been right all along. Navy pants lovers, its your turn to find a big gun.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I see you repeatedly scoff at and denigrate the choices of others, but never submit your own to forum scrutiny. How about firing your own damn gun for a change?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Navy with chocolate suede is an absolutely decadent combination and one of my favorites! A picture is worth a 1000 words, RogerP.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Ok, so I can buy the whole No Black Pants, but, really? Navy blue? I can wear the hell out of some Navy Blue! Silly.


----------



## H&W (Aug 25, 2013)

iGents and their cod-aristocratic pronouncements, particularly when espoused by office clerks in cities where Sears is the finest haberdashery, have gotten entirely out of hand.

Heaven forfend that a gentleman might be seen in blue trousers and confused for the _working class!_


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

:deadhorse-a:


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

By gadfry, well-turned out there Roger! I'm not going to let the over-wrought opinions of the iGentry tell me what colors I can or cannot wear. As Reuben pointed out, this issue is dead.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Another navy trouser thread? 

Is this really necessary? 

ARK you made your opening statement and RogerP ended the conversation with 1 picture. Can we close the thread now?


----------



## Bin'Zev (Sep 19, 2014)

Saying that navy trousers are "working class" merely makes me want to wear them more. More importantly I don't see anything wrong with them even if such an assertion were true. What'a wrong with people thinking you work for a living?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Much like the coach that continuously points out your weak points in an effort to force you to raise your game and go further than you thought that you ever could, I am beginning to love the Hell out of Mr. Kirshner.

Of course, he is still wrong beyond belief on the subject of navy pants *not *looking good with a SC, but still - I love the Hell out of him.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Bin'Zev said:


> Saying that navy trousers are "working class" merely makes me want to wear them more. More importantly I don't see anything wrong with them even if such an assertion were true. What'a wrong with people thinking you work for a living?


Work kills !


__
https://flic.kr/p/1217459933

https://idler.co.uk/article/work-seriously-damages-your-health-says-scientists/


----------



## filbert_turtle (Apr 5, 2014)

When did we agree to let our style choices be dictated by the biases of Depression Era petite-bourgeoisie?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Navy can be nifty!

When I still had the services of a tailor I had him make several pair of dark blue slacks. One pair I remember in particular was a pair of dark blue-gray tropical worsted, the cloth of which I had chosen to go with an oyster colored silk and wool herringbone sport jacket he had made previously. Nothing could have looked smarter on a summer day.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Too bad no one has assumed the mantle of John J. Molloy so we can either confirm or deny such affirmations. He conducted great research on the reactions of a variety of folks to menswear; no one since has attempted to do the same sort of objective analysis. 

Instead, we're left with out-of-the-blue comments like akirschner's that we can neither agree with nor argue with with any substance.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Too bad no one has assumed the mantle of John J. Molloy so we can either confirm or deny such affirmations. He conducted great research on the reactions of a variety of folks to menswear; no one since has attempted to do the same sort of objective analysis.
> 
> Instead, we're left with out-of-the-blue comments like akirschner's that we can neither agree with nor argue with with any substance.


Sorry, I don't share your esteem for Molloy. He was a champion of mediocrity, and lacked any aesthetic sensibility.

I'll take Allan any day! Even when I disagree. There are worse things than asking people to think!


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

H&W said:


> iGents and their cod-aristocratic pronouncements, particularly when espoused by office clerks in cities where Sears is the finest haberdashery, have gotten entirely out of hand.
> 
> Heaven forfend that a gentleman might be seen in blue trousers and confused for the _working class!_


What is the "codfish aristocracy"?_by MIKE on MARCH 19, 2010_

Codfish aristocracy is now often applied to persons who, lacking in real culture, make a vulgar display of recently acquired wealth. Sometimes the term is also applied to families who were once rich and who still "put on considerable dog," but who actually are so poor that they must live economically to support their pretensions. Originally codfish aristocracy was applied particularly to families who were supposed to have become rich from the fisheries of Massachusetts, a state noted for its codfish. On March 17, 1784, John Rowe, a Boston merchant, a motion in the legislature that "leave be given to hang up the representation of a Codfish in the room where the House sits, as a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of the Commonwealth." The motion carried and the effigy of a codfish, made of pine, was hung up opposite the speaker's chair in the chamber of fhe House of Representatives in the Massachusetts statehouse in Boston, where it hangs to this day. In the fall of that same year Francisco de Miranda, the South American soldier and revolutionist, visited Boston and wrote that in the old statehouse he found the "figure of a cod-fish of natural size made of wood and in bad taste." Many years later an aluminum codfish, emblem of the state's fishing industry, was placed in the senate chamber.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Let's talk about shoulder alterations instead.



Dmontez said:


> Another navy trouser thread?
> 
> Is this really necessary?
> 
> ARK you made your opening statement and RogerP ended the conversation with 1 picture. Can we close the thread now?


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

RogerP said:


> I see you repeatedly scoff at and denigrate the choices of others, but never submit your own to forum scrutiny. How about firing your own damn gun for a change?


So true. This guy seems to increasingly just try to stir up trouble and makes himself look like a buffoon in the process.


----------



## cosmic_cookie (Jan 30, 2014)

vpkozel said:


> Much like the coach that continuously points out your weak points in an effort to force you to raise your game and go further than you thought that you ever could, I am beginning to love the Hell out of Mr. Kirshner.
> 
> Of course, he is still wrong beyond belief on the subject of navy pants looking good with a SC, but still - I love the Hell out of him.


Forgive my ignorance on the subject of acronyms, but if SC means sports coat... I disagree.








A cream sports coat can do wonders.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

H&W said:


> iGents and their cod-aristocratic pronouncements, particularly when espoused by office clerks in cities where Sears is the finest haberdashery, have gotten entirely out of hand.
> 
> Heaven forfend that a gentleman might be seen in blue trousers and confused for the _working class!_


Or wear a light blue shirt and be confused for a _blue collar_ worker.

I don't want navy trousers for a number of reasons, but there are those who wear them well here. I used to also be part of the "no brown with black" crowd until I saw how silly such a broad pronouncement was.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Flanderian said:


> Sorry, I don't share your esteem for Molloy. He was a champion of mediocrity, and lacked any aesthetic sensibility.
> 
> I'll take Allan any day! Even when I disagree. There are worse things than asking people to think!


Molloy's intent was not to be an aesthetician, but rather a behavioral economist with a specialization in clothing. As such, he was excellent in advising business people what clothing choices might optimize their chances of success. So your criticism is like accusing Tiger Woods of having a hanging curve ball.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

smmrfld said:


> So true. This guy seems to increasingly just try to stir up trouble and makes himself look like a buffoon in the process.


Stirring the pot......also known as trolling. Best to ignore, in my opinion.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> Navy with chocolate suede is an absolutely decadent combination and one of my favorites! A picture is worth a 1000 words, RogerP.


How funny, I use this exact combo a lot! To me it works very well. To be fair though, Roger could wear a burlap sack with any number of his pairs of shoes and still make it look good. It really wasn't a fair fight from the beginning.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

FLCracka said:


> Stirring the pot......also known as trolling. Best to ignore, in my opinion.


True. But his trolling seems to be more frequent now. He crawled back into his cave for a few months but has resurfaced lately with a fresh crapload of his ancient "Anglo-American" reference sources that he believes should define current dress.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

cosmic_cookie said:


> Forgive my ignorance on the subject of acronyms, but if SC means sports coat... I disagree.
> View attachment 13201
> 
> 
> A cream sports coat can do wonders.


My apologies, I left out a "not" in my original post.

I totally agree with you, navy pants look awesome with a wide variety of sports coats (SC).


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

zzdocxx said:


> *What is the "codfish aristocracy"?*
> 
> _by MIKE on MARCH 19, 2010_
> 
> Codfish aristocracy is now often applied to persons who, lacking in real culture, make a vulgar display of recently acquired wealth. Sometimes the term is also applied to families who were once rich and who still "put on considerable dog," but who actually are so poor that they must live economically to support their pretensions. Originally codfish aristocracy was applied particularly to families who were supposed to have become rich from the fisheries of Massachusetts, a state noted for its codfish. On March 17, 1784, John Rowe, a Boston merchant, a motion in the legislature that "leave be given to hang up the representation of a Codfish in the room where the House sits, as a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of the Commonwealth." The motion carried and the effigy of a codfish, made of pine, was hung up opposite the speaker's chair in the chamber of fhe House of Representatives in the Massachusetts statehouse in Boston, where it hangs to this day. In the fall of that same year Francisco de Miranda, the South American soldier and revolutionist, visited Boston and wrote that in the old statehouse he found the "figure of a cod-fish of natural size made of wood and in bad taste." Many years later an aluminum codfish, emblem of the state's fishing industry, was placed in the senate chamber.


Interesting I thought it had something to do with 'codpiece' .


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

FLCracka said:


> Stirring the pot......also known as trolling. Best to ignore, in my opinion.


If it's on point, and relevant to the topic at hand, and if the topic is classic menswear, then hardly trolling.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

smmrfld said:


> True. But his trolling seems to be more frequent now. He crawled back into his cave for a few months but has resurfaced lately with a fresh crapload of his ancient "Anglo-American" reference sources that he believes should define current dress.


We can't all be complete relativists, thinking anything and everything will do.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> I see you repeatedly scoff at and denigrate the choices of others, but never submit your own to forum scrutiny. How about firing your own damn gun for a change?


Excellent example of when any other color of trouser would have been better. Those just eat the light and does not really do much for the jacket. Imo.

We are discussing the merits of navy trousers here, a choice scoff worthy if any. As a parallel, I often wear denim jeans with a tailored jacket, because I like it and I think it looks nice. I'm not gonna try to pass it off as a necessarily classical choice. I could argue it's a good one in some cases. But I'd be prepared to be scoffed at.

I wouldn't be really upset if someone called me on it. Why the angst over navy slacks? We are just arguing in a men's fashion forum that it looks bad. No reason for anyone dead set to do so to stop wearing them. Just don't hold it up as a sartorial standard.

It's not rule based, it just looks off. Navy and black is just too dark as trousers to go with anything but a matching jacket.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

MaxBuck said:


> Molloy's intent was not to be an aesthetician, but rather a behavioral economist with a specialization in clothing. As such, he was excellent in advising business people what clothing choices might optimize their chances of success. So your criticism is like accusing Tiger Woods of having a hanging curve ball.


Sorry, I confused your fellow with John T. Molloy, the former model who wrote _Dress for Success, _a steaming pile of biases and ignorance backed up by more biases and ignorance, rather than John *P.* Molloy, the eminent behavioral economist.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Bjorn said:


> If it's on point, and relevant to the topic at hand, and if the topic is classic menswear, then hardly trolling.


After the embarrassing slew of threads Ark started a few weeks back - where he showed himself to be an immature, petty blowhard and was soundly taken to task by the majority of posters, you dont see this new and sad attempt as him trolling, simply looking to stir the point to get a rise out of people?

Maybe you should go and look up what trolling means Bjorn. On second thought, maybe you should also look up the word objective - as it seems you are having a hard time with that one as well.


----------



## Piqué (Apr 10, 2014)

Since I have no fear of being associated with the working class, I will continue to proudly sport navy trousers as the mood strikes. I would much rather be mistaken for someone who works an honest days labor for a menial wage than for a classist prig who cannot do so much as wipe his ass without finding a historical reference to tell him how to do it.


----------



## TheBarbaron (Oct 8, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> After the embarrassing slew of threads Ark started a few weeks back - where he showed himself to be an immature, petty blowhard and was soundly taken to task by the majority of posters, you dont see this new and sad attempt as him trolling, simply looking to stir the point to get a rise out of people?
> 
> Maybe you should go and look up what trolling means Bjorn. On second thought, maybe you should also look up the word objective - as it seems you are having a hard time with that one as well.


I'm with Bjorn on this one. While the thread may have been done, even done more than once, it's a clothing observation inviting comment. That's what we do.

If you think a particular member is trolling (and being a member of things like video game forums, I assure you, trolling is usually a helluva lot more annoying than this), then there is a simple answer: DON'T BUMP THE THREAD BY POSTING.

Whatever scrap happened last time, every interaction I've had with Alan has been gentlemanly, and if you happen not to like his POV, just ignore it and move on to the next thread.








Incidentally, I love navy (or slightly lighter) blue slacks, wear them frequently.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> After the embarrassing slew of threads Ark started a few weeks back - where he showed himself to be an immature, petty blowhard and was soundly taken to task by the majority of posters, you dont see this new and sad attempt as him trolling, simply looking to stir the point to get a rise out of people?
> 
> Maybe you should go and look up what trolling means Bjorn. On second thought, maybe you should also look up the word objective - as it seems you are having a hard time with that one as well.


I'll simply chalk that down as your opinion then, and that we differ in it. Also, the subject of navy (not lighter blue) trousers can't really be subject to a majority vote, as you seem to think. Much like clothing in general.

Also, I have not seen much from those majority of posters in way of persuasive arguments. It is much argument in favor of it simply because people are doing it. Not something readily accepted when it comes to, for example, skinny lapels. Or denim with tailored jackets. Or slim trousers.

Ark reposted something that Manton wrote. Not wholly unrelated to the topic. Not entirely devoid of relevance.

I also feel that there's a point to not just validating what we do. I've learned a lot from others opinions on clothing, and still have a long way to go. All this booing, and in some cases from relatively fresh posters, I'm not sure it's going anywhere.

It's good we've identified a question where we have actual differences in opinion. Lots of potential for betterment.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> If it's on point, and relevant to the topic at hand, and if the topic is classic menswear, then hardly trolling.





TheBarbaron said:


> I'm with Bjorn on this one. While the thread may have been done, even done more than once, it's a clothing observation inviting comment. That's what we do.
> 
> If you think a particular member is trolling (and being a member of things like video game forums, I assure you, trolling is usually a helluva lot more annoying than this), then there is a simple answer: DON'T BUMP THE THREAD BY POSTING.
> 
> ...


Agree with these guys, I think Mr. Kirshner is just throwing out a subject for discussion. I am not at all certain that he even objects to blue trousers.

I am going to just take a deep breath here and remember the words of Mark Twain:

_*When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear.*_


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I too am uncomfortable observing accusations of trollery levelled against the offering of such a simple perspective.

As Ark correctly asserted in the OP: I denounce navy trousers, unless worn as part of a suit.

As Bjorn has sensibly commented: on any occasion navy trousers could be worn there is always a superior alternative.

However, I have no inclination to prohibit the choices of my esteemed fellow member Roger P (a well dressed, courteous and knowledgeable gent) for if anyone can make odd navy trousers work then it will undoubtedly be him.

Speaking (as we have been recently and elsewhere on the fora) of thread bumps, the time may be high for a renewed discussion of Trolls. The much missed Mr Haffman started such a thread long ago so let's pick it up from there - _"On the psychology, classification and motivation of trolls"

_https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...ology-classification-and-motivation-of-trolls

.
.

.
.
.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

PS. About blue trousers, got advice from this website about what to wear with this "SC":















Seems to work.

Also Roger you are looking great as usual.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Speaking (as we have been recently and elsewhere on the fora) of thread bumps, the time may be high for a renewed discussion of Trolls. The much missed Mr Haffman started such a thread long ago so let's pick it up from there - _"On the psychology, classification and motivation of trolls"
> _
> .


Thank you for remembering me, kind sir! The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

Blue trousers -- it is now very much part of my personal clothing 'rulebook' (takes cover) not to buy navy odd trousers. This is largely because I have failed to make successful outfits from them, despite my general love of all things blue, and have difficulty matching them pleasingly with any of my sportscoats. I have some navy linen trousers that are OK on holiday and also have some navy cords that I like. Navy wool odd trousers on the other hand I haven't had much luck with... still less navy cotton trousers/chinos.

However, any idea that one should not wear them because it makes one appear 'lower class' makes me want to wear them again...as an act of solidarity :aportnoy:


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

zzdocxx said:


> *What is the "codfish aristocracy"?*
> 
> _by MIKE on MARCH 19, 2010_
> 
> Codfish aristocracy is now often applied to persons who, lacking in real culture, make a vulgar display of recently acquired wealth. Sometimes the term is also applied to families who were once rich and who still "put on considerable dog," but who actually are so poor that they must live economically to support their pretensions. Originally codfish aristocracy was applied particularly to families who were supposed to have become rich from the fisheries of Massachusetts, a state noted for its codfish. On March 17, 1784, John Rowe, a Boston merchant, a motion in the legislature that "leave be given to hang up the representation of a Codfish in the room where the House sits, as a memorial of the importance of the Cod-Fishery to the welfare of the Commonwealth." The motion carried and the effigy of a codfish, made of pine, was hung up opposite the speaker's chair in the chamber of fhe House of Representatives in the Massachusetts statehouse in Boston, where it hangs to this day. In the fall of that same year Francisco de Miranda, the South American soldier and revolutionist, visited Boston and wrote that in the old statehouse he found the "figure of a cod-fish of natural size made of wood and in bad taste." Many years later an aluminum codfish, emblem of the state's fishing industry, was placed in the senate chamber.


And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod.
Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots,
And the Cabots talk only to God.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I'll simply chalk that down as your opinion then, and that we differ in it. Also, the subject of navy (not lighter blue) trousers can't really be subject to a majority vote, as you seem to think. Much like clothing in general.
> 
> Also, I have not seen much from those majority of posters in way of persuasive arguments. It is much argument in favor of it simply because people are doing it. Not something readily accepted when it comes to, for example, skinny lapels. Or denim with tailored jackets. Or slim trousers.
> 
> ...


No doubt we shall all eagerly anticipate next month's non-trolling 'Ark says navy trousers suck, and lookee here, someone agrees with him!' thread. That will be so awesome. So insightful. So relevant. And those qualities never diminish with repetition. No sir. They sure don't. Can't wait.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Bin'Zev said:


> Saying that navy trousers are "working class" merely makes me want to wear them more. More importantly I don't see anything wrong with them even if such an assertion were true. What'a wrong with people thinking you work for a living?


Well said.

And thanks to all for the fit feedback.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> No doubt we shall all eagerly anticipate next month's non-trolling 'Ark says navy trousers suck, and lookee here, someone agrees with him!' thread. That will be so awesome. So insightful. So relevant. And those qualities never diminish with repetition. No sir. They sure don't. Can't wait.


I have myself kept the issue alive since I wasn't happy with all the rampant non-argument, and I don't consider that trolling.

I'm sure there are any number of repetitive issues that will pop up next month, such as but not limited to:
The virtues of AE seconds
The impending rise of the rise
The horror of overpaying for denim and wearing it for other purposes than yard work
Why a slim cut is the devil
How [insert ye auld brand here] have fallen from grace through Asian manufacturing and slimmer cuts
Etc etc...

But this is an issue where there is, by and large, dissent. We can't promote a forum where we all have to agree on things for people to be happy. Sucky iGent herd we'd be then.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Some people just like "rules".

Codfying everything provides security for them.

Rules for breaking rules - when you run out of things to do.

Anybody else bought navy trahseez thinking they were charcoal?

Just me then. 

I still wear them.

The other idea that trousers in black or navy are 'too dark' is laughable to me.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Excellent. May the navy trousers rant live forever. Clearly it adds immeasurably to forum discourse and is ever worthy of a second look. Or 10th. Or 25th. Will there be cake for the 25th? Don't forget my invitation, please. I'll be the guy in the Navy trousers.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Excellent. May the navy trousers rant live forever. Clearly it adds immeasurably to forum discourse and is ever worthy of a second look. Or 10th. Or 25th. *Will there be cake for the 25th?* Don't forget my invitation, please. I'll be the guy in the Navy trousers.


Oh Roger! You have spoiled the surprise. Took me ages to bake it as well.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Kingstonian said:


> Some people just like "rules".
> 
> Codfying everything provides security for them.
> 
> ...


I don't think if it in terms of rules, but I still think there is a lot stacked against wearing them. You can freely develop your idea about black and navy not being too dark below. If you offer the opinion that they are indeed a great option, you are just as guilty of codification as the rest of us. We can argue the merits without arguing it's a rule.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I don't think navy slacks "eat light" at all. Not in person at least. Pictures on a computer screen aren't the most appropriate for capturing the true nature of a fabric. How many times have we seen this on eBay.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I don't think navy slacks "eat light" at all. Not in person at least. Pictures on a computer screen aren't the most appropriate for capturing the true nature of a fabric. How many times have we seen this on eBay.


Yep. That very much sounds like a special rule invented for navy trousers. Do people all but disappear when they don a navy suit, due to its unique light-eating properties?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Oh Roger! You have spoiled the surprise. Took me ages to bake it as well.


Well done my friend - perfect for the occasion - I shall partake to the fullest!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> Excellent example of when any other color of trouser would have been better. Those just eat the light and does not really do much for the jacket. Imo.


I have asked this question in each of the threads on this topic and have yet to receive an answer. If navy "eats the light" as you say, how does it do it less so as a jacket than as pants?

Is there some magical line at the waist where navy starts to eat light that perhaps I do not understand?

And we once again seem to be trying to answer 2 questions at a time.

Are navy pants considered classical? The answer to this seems to be no but I have not done a ton of research on the topic. Why anyone would care, I have no idea.

Do navy pants look good? This is subjective so there really is no answer.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

IMO RogerP won this thread on the second post. I'm out.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I'm not a big fan of the slap at "working class" people. 

If you can't make sartorial points without slapping a whole group of people or if it is that important that you be above these "ahem" proles, it says a lot about the person saying it.

Fine, you don't like navy pants. With some sport coats I do. Can't we discuss without affecting class superiority?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ Hear, hear. And kudos to all others who have taken the time to pointedly reject this "working class" nonsense. While there are no doubt some who applaud the sentiment, I am heartened to see that they do not represent the majority view here.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I frequently wear navy odd trousers, although I confess that I'm far from mastering the art of pairing the right pants with the right SC. I need to spend more time perusing the What I'm Wearing threads. That said, I find that my navy pants when worn with just a shirt or perhaps a sweater and shirt can be just the thing, especially if the blue sets off the color of the sweater or the color(s) of the shirt. And I like how my AE shoes in chili and matching belt look with navy.


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

I'm wearing navy pants today because of this thread.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

Grayson said:


> IMO RogerP won this thread on the second post. I'm out.


I read RogerP's post and stopped, then, as it seemed to be "game over." Then, latter, when I saw this thread was still going, I jumped to page three and saw yours and laughed.

Okay, I get, at a certain level, the entire black-colored clothes are controversial thing (but don't feel very passionate about it as long as you don't look like Johnny Cash - and even then, do your own thing), but navy pants, really?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^ As has so often occurred in the past, RodgerP has pictorially shown us how to do navy trousers the right way. The only navy pants that should give one pause are of a more casual ilk...navy cotton poplin trousers. Buy them if you must, but be assured, with but a few laundering's your navy poplin's will be no more and in their stead will be 'pale grey khakis! :teacha:


----------



## VaEagle (Oct 15, 2013)

No navy pants!?! Please, let's be done with this argument.

And kudos to Roger P. That is a great outfit, which I could never pull together for myself. I can dress very well in a suit, and I wear decent casual clothing, but I have very little skill with that middle territory - I guess you'd maybe call it dressy casual or upscale casual. There's a lot going on in Roger P's outfit, and it all works together. I have no such vision.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

If I may: I believe it to be axiomatic that the men most admired for their standard of dress as exhibited on this forum (Roger, Billax, Upr and a host of others) are possessed of a compelling demeanour, a gravitas, an imposing (handsome even) appearance. Such men would stand out in any time or place and wearing almost anything, that they are possessed of good taste is our good fortune. 

However, not every man could make each look these fellows bestow upon us work successfully. 

Just say 'NO' to navy trousers!


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Bin'Zev said:


> Saying that navy trousers are "working class" merely makes me want to wear them more. More importantly I don't see anything wrong with them even if such an assertion were true. What'a wrong with people thinking you work for a living?


Work is the curse of the drinking classes.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Odradek said:


> And this is good old Boston,
> The home of the bean and the cod.
> Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots,
> And the Cabots talk only to God.


In Boston, they live on beans.

In Seattle, they live on the sound.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^ As has so often occurred in the past, RodgerP has pictorially shown us how to do navy trousers the right way. The only navy pants that should give one pause are of a more casual ilk...navy cotton poplin trousers. Buy them if you must, but be assured, with but a few laundering's your navy poplin's will be no more and in their stead will be 'pale grey khakis! :teacha:


Very much my experience as well. :thumbs-up:

Conversely, I've found navy corduroy to be quite useful. And as is true of all colors, navy isn't just one color, but many. Some better or worse suited for specific uses. But I've personally found navy corduroy to be a rich alternative in its varying hues to pair with tweed. Tan tweed, grey tweed, and tweed that will often have navy or another harmonious blue as part of its pattern. And the right navy can be very handsome with camel hair as well.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

My interest in navy pants, or pants period, is marginal. I bounce in only because of the tact of the discussion.

Roger P. is posting some terrific fits. His posts often contain pictures, pics that don’t need lengthy explanations, his stuff is a level 10 contribution to what we like to see here. 

Kirsh, on the other hand, and he and I go back, never posts actual pictures; he creates them with exceedingly good writing pulled from a sack of knowledge he keeps under his bed (he’s told me as much). 

So I don’t see why there is a cross current of feeling about posting style, or why Kirsh has to be put before a firing squad and told to put up or shut up. Besides, he’s not going to shut up. Granted, Kirsh is sometimes a tight-ass and should probably gargle with after shave for a few historically correct, but are-you-kidding-me comments. But the over-all contributions, never with vitriol, far outweigh any paltry transgressions. Besides, one man’s transgressions are another man’s eggs Benedict. I know about this. I’ve been here a long time.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Concordia said:


> Work is the curse of the drinking classes.


This quote is attributable to Oscar Fingal O' Flahertie Wills Wilde , sir. :icon_study:


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

tigerpac said:


> I'm wearing navy pants today because of this thread.


i'm not wearing any pants right now. thread over


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Grayson said:


> IMO RogerP won this thread on the second post. I'm out.


Word to your mother ...


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I'm not a big fan of the slap at "working class" people.
> 
> If you can't make sartorial points without slapping a whole group of people or if it is that important that you be above these "ahem" proles, it says a lot about the person saying it.
> 
> Fine, you don't like navy pants. With some sport coats I do. Can't we discuss without affecting class superiority?


It's interesting that you say this. It made me recall another recent post of his, where he bizarely and somewhat confusingly (the OP had no idea what he was trying to say) made another class reference, as follows:

"To be blunt, and politically incorrect,

light trousers, brown shoes, and white ground small check sportshirt, (with a collar that doesn't fly open),=upper middle class

dark trousers, black shoes, and sportshirt are not.

A cliche, but cliches are cliches because they have some truth"

So, it seems he has some odd preoccupation with class distinctions and clothing. Here is the link to the full thread, for context: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?191507-Business-Casual-help


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

And some of us never wear a SC at work. Navy works fine with a white lab coat, and doesn't show blood and body fluids much. Also works well with many sweaters and button down collar shirts. I don't have many light weight navy summer slacks, but having hit 27' and 6" of snow Saturday, the navy wools and cords are coming out.


----------



## espressocycle (Apr 14, 2014)

filbert_turtle said:


> When did we agree to let our style choices be dictated by the biases of Depression Era petite-bourgeoisie?


Exactly. British gentry dictates only.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

arkirshner said:


> A Manton observation from another forum...


You could have stopped there.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Interesting that as there is some actual difference in opinion here, so many people feel it's best we put this discussion to the sword asap. And that it actually died at post #2. I don't think the pairing of navy trousers posted here or in the other threads were much good at all. If that ruffles feathers, can't be helped. In fact, at no other time has there been posted so many truly mediocre looks. 

I can't really like even the shoe/trouser pairing in post #2. The shoe comes off as too light and the texture doesn't play well with the trousers. The jacket looks superimposed. Is this a critique of the clothes or the man? To me, it's plain it's the first. 

It's also a little ridiculous to complain about other people being rule bound, and how hopelessly anachronistic that makes us, while at the same time actively pursuing developing a look based on tailored clothing.

Im sure no one will mistake me for a gas station attendant if I wore navy trousers today. However, no one would mistake me for being really well dressed either. I'll allow for cords being different, though I'd probably go for another color than navy anyway for those as well. 

You can ask yourself, would your think the following choices were more or less classical, more or less stylish, and more or less aestecthically pleasing:
Navy blazer and off white flannels, or, white flannel jacket and navy trousers
Navy odd jacket and lemon cords, or, lemon jacket and navy cords
Navy jacket and mid grey slacks, or, mid grey jacket and navy slacks
Navy jacket and rust chinos, or rust jacket and navy chinos

These combos are googleable, and many more, and can be put next to each other on the screen. If you do that, I trust you'll see a difference. Add a reasonable selection of shoes, and the problem grows, especially if you have a general feeling that shoes are better just a tad darker than the trousers. Or at least not that much lighter. Because then you are stuck with black shoes or espresso brown.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

SlideGuitarist said:


> You could have stopped there.


Ask David Eisele of Davelle Clothiers for his sartorial advice with regard to navy trousers :


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Interesting that as there is some actual difference in opinion here, so many people feel it's best we put this discussion to the sword asap. And that it actually died at post #2. *I don't think the pairing of navy trousers posted here* or in the other threads were much good at all.* If that ruffles feathers, can't be helped*. In fact, at no other time has there been posted so many truly mediocre looks. .


I'm curious - where do you see any indication that your disapproval of my fit ruffled my, or anyone else's feathers? Take your time. Really. I've got all day.

And you continually - and I must believe quite deliberately - miss the point. Nobody is suggesting that the discussion of the appropriateness of navy trousers is, in and of itself, inappropriate to a forum such as this. But when one party continually, repeatedly, and endlessly raises the same point of discussion for the sole purpose of (yet again, and again, and again) advancing his particular platform on the subject, it definitely does smack of trolling. Not in any single instance, perhaps, but cumulatively. The mere fact that there is a difference of opinion on a given point does not validate the tiresome agenda of endlessly raising the same point for discussion in thread after thread after thread.

Now, I don't actually expect you to accept any of the foregoing. The OP is your bud and you are deeply wedded to his point of view. You feel that there really can never be too much repetition of this subject - presumably until everyone agrees with you.

But when the title of the thread advocates that a particular item of clothing be "burned", and the OP states quite openly that it is his expectation that a "flame war" will erupt, hence his intention to "start with a fire" - maybe you can at least allow that a reasonable observer might legitimately perceive a deliberate attempt on the OP's part to be provocative.

And all of that is before we get to the truly odious and deeply objectionable aspect of the OP's point: that navy trousers should be avoided because they make the wearer appear "working class". A point which you seem to endorse - or at least not dispute.

By the way, I'm still awaiting your no doubt equally insightful response as to how navy trousers "eat light" but navy blazers and suit jackets do not? Got anything? Anything at all? Bueller...?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

As far as feathers ruffled, methinks though dost protest too much... As do other involved parties. 

As for my "no doubt equally insightful response" as to how navy trousers eat light and navy Blazers and suits do not, I'd like to make clear that in my opinion navy cloth is equally dark whether as a trouser or as a jacket, but that it works in a jacket or suit but works less well in odd trousers.

As for your last reference to "Bueller" I don't know what that means and, quite frankly, can't be bothered to google it. If it's some kind of insult I won't be impressed.

At this point, I'll prefer if people agree with my arguments. Given the amount of completely pointless "this discussion is already over and we won" posts I'm gonna rate that as somewhat unlikely. 

If you and others feel that ark is trolling when he calls people on views he thinks is wrong, then why the need to so forcefully shut the venue down? Would not reasonably researched and underpinned arguments in favor of navy trousers be a better approach? Would not conventional wisdom on trolling be not to feed the trolls? 

I'm not continually and deliberately missing the point. You want to make a point about ark, but the topic is navy trousers. If you go through arks previous posts one by one since AD, I think you will find the accusation of trolling as silly as I do. Also, you might possibly learn something.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Well Roger, personally I think your outfit would benefit from more contrast between the trousers and raincoat. But I have to agree that degrading things based on a social class is a little out of line, as well as bringing it up when the horse has been beat. There are times I agree with ARK. This is not one of them.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> As far as feathers ruffled, methinks though dost protest too much... As do other involved parties.


That's a copout - not an answer. I see a sum total of absolutely no-one taking issue with that. It's a purely diversionary construct on your part. Point to an example if you can. And if you can't, be big enough to admit that you were wrong.



Bjorn said:


> As for my "no doubt equally insightful response" as to how navy trousers eat light and navy Blazers and suits do not, I'd like to make clear that in my opinion navy cloth is equally dark whether as a trouser or as a jacket, but that it works in a jacket or suit but works less well in odd trousers.


I was wrong. That's not very insightful. So it "eats light" in both trousers and jackets, but that's only a bad thing with trousers? Seriously?



Bjorn said:


> As for your last reference to "Bueller" I don't know what that means and, quite frankly, can't be bothered to google it. If it's some kind of insult I won't be impressed.


Don't trouble yourself. But just to be clear, I'm not really striving to impress you.



Bjorn said:


> I'm not continually and deliberately missing the point. You want to make a point about ark, but the topic is navy trousers. If you go through arks previous posts one by one since AD, I think you will find the accusation of trolling as silly as I do. Also, you might possibly learn something.


Yes, you are missing the point. But as you indeed appear to be doing so deliberately, that is surely not a productive point of debate.

So - where do you stand, again, on the whole "working class" thing?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Jovan said:


> Well Roger, personally I think your outfit would benefit from more *contrast between the trousers and raincoat*. But I have to agree that degrading things based on a social class is a little out of line, as well as bringing it up when the horse has been beat. There are times I agree with ARK. This is not one of them.


No argument here. But I only have two overcoats - one blue, one brown - and they are selected on the basis of ambient temperature (the brown is cashmere and VERY warm). I would LOVE to add a camel-coloured overcoat to the mix. And a dove grey. See how ruffled my feathers are? :biggrin:


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

RogerP said:


> No argument here. But I only have two overcoats - one blue, one brown - and they are selected on the basis of ambient temperature (the brown is cashmere and VERY warm). I would LOVE to add a camel-coloured overcoat to the mix. And a dove grey. See how ruffled my feathers are? :biggrin:


Roger, I think we need to switch towns with each other. I have 3 overcoats a navy cashmere, a midgrey, and a chocolate brown. I will be lucky to wear each one, one time this year


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Roger, depending on your size I might have eyed something at a thrift store you could use. I wish you luck in getting more outer coats! I certainly want more.

I'm not a fan of navy trousers, but only because I find their usefulness limited. Not because of some perceived lower class limitations.

Back to my second point, there are so many other, tactful ways to argue against something besides bringing up social class. I used to do it in saying short sleeved "dress" shirts should not It's kind of like arguing that blue chambray "work" shirts should be burned because of their origins, when 1. they are hardly worn for that anymore (which is why I put "work" in quotes) and 2. so much of what we wear has lower class or utilitarian origins anyway. Brogued wingtips, anyone?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Dmontez said:


> Roger, I think we need to switch towns with each other. I have 3 overcoats a navy cashmere, a midgrey, and a chocolate brown. I will be lucky to wear each one, one time this year


Different problems for sure! Not sure I can handle Texas heat long term, but ask me again mid-February.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

RogerP said:


> No argument here. But I only have two overcoats - one blue, one brown - and they are selected on the basis of ambient temperature (the brown is cashmere and VERY warm). I would LOVE to add a camel-coloured overcoat to the mix. And a dove grey. See how ruffled my feathers are? :biggrin:


Not a bad selection of overcoats, if they have your size.

https://www.oconnellsclothing.com/home.php?cat=377


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

I am curious as to what would be suggested to replace my navy trousers in my small beginners rotation since it is so limited in versatility? I have one tan pair, one navy pair, and one dark grey pair. I have no issue pairing my navy trousers with most of my shoes and dress shirts. 

It is strange that the working class was even brought up in this thread. Seems unnecessary. 

I wasn't even aware there was an "rule" regarding the wearing of navy trousers to begin with. It seems like a personal preference at best.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ there's no rule. It's all personal preference. 

Tan, gray and navy constitute a good baseline rotation.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Blue as the most common color before WWII? I don't know if that is all true; black was a common in the Victorian period before the 1920s. Grays, Browns, Greens, and other colors were more common than blue, which was the dressiest of colors before entering formalwear if I'm not mistaken; this changed during and after the war with the lack of creativity in suits, and with most of the sartorial creativity going into casualwear.

The color blue was, as I stated in an old thread, a UNIFORM color during the Victorian period, worn by mailmen and the like, and continued to be worn as a uniform by workers such as gas station attendants, and still worn by the military for their Dress Uniform. They can work very well in situations where gray or brown would not, and would be a better substitute for combinations that supposedly look good with black. I didn't even know that it was "unacceptable" to wear blue pants, or even black clothing; I never wore the latter because black clothing always looked wrong to me, and I always believed that black was strictly for funerals.

This thread is as pointless as discussing the use of black in clothing, or wearing a sport coat with cufflinks, or even (I admit that I was once skeptical) wearing an overcoat with proper casualwear; though some may disagree with all of these, it is, at the end, a personal preference by the wearer.

-Quetzal


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Not a bad selection of overcoats, if they have your size.
> 
> https://www.oconnellsclothing.com/home.php?cat=377


Oh my - quite a few that I like there. And they are only about a 50 minute drive away.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Certainly I, like so many others, appreciate the versatility and classic good looks of wool odd trousers in various shades of grey. Still, I have always liked the way that navy blue flannel trousers look with a pink cashmere v-neck sweater. 

Here's an outfit: Navy flannel trousers--pink cashmere v-neck sweater or sweater vest--white OCBD--necktie with a navy blue background and red, light blue and grey diagonal stripes--and a medium blue or medium gray herringbone tweed sportcoat. Would dark grey trousers look better? Maybe. Let's face it: you can't go wrong with grey. But that doesn't mean that navy trousers have to be ruled out. In fact, sometimes they can add a touch of elan that the neutral nature of grey trousers cannot.

It takes more effort to coordinate an entire outfit if one of the variables is going to be navy blue odd trousers, but it can be done, and done well.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Charles Dana said:


> Certainly I, like so many others, appreciate the versatility and classic good looks of wool odd trousers in various shades of grey. * Still, I have always liked the way that navy blue flannel trousers look with a pink cashmere v-neck sweater*.


+1 to this.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Bjorn said:


> As for your last reference to "Bueller" I don't know what that means and, quite frankly, can't be bothered to google it. If it's some kind of insult I won't be impressed.


Sorry, but I have no room in my life for anyone who doesn't know and love "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

The interesting thing to me is how navy slacks can be paired with a blue shirt without looking odd. Think about it, try pairing a pair of dark gray slacks with a light gray shirt. Try pairing olive or khaki/tan slacks with a similar shirt. 

I'm not saying navy slacks and navy shirt, but a light blue shirt with navy slacks doesn't look out of place. I can't think of another top and bottom color pairing that can work like this.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Excellent example of when any other color of trouser would have been better. Those just eat the light and does not really do much for the jacket.


Absolute fact. I have no idea what others are seeing on their monitors.

I came to realize that navy trousers, counter-intuitively, do not "go with everything" but rather look off almost all the time when I was in fifth grade. Too dark, too much contrast with most things, and just a drab lifeless color to hide in the shadows of the lower half.

There is also this poverty message akin to black. It is chosen by the people worried that dirt will show. Filthy people.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Having started the debate, which has led to some minor ill feeling among certain established members, I am surprised that the OP has nothing further to say...


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Jovan - I'm safe in a 44 for an overcoat.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Jovan said:


> I'm not a fan of navy trousers, but only because I find their usefulness limited. Not because of some perceived lower class limitations.


This is also what I think. I was unaware of the lower class association. I don't think they go well with brown jackets, and none of the examples shown on this site have convinced me. I think they're okay with grey jackets, though they can easily overpower many grey jackets. I find that they are best with cream and tan jackets in the summer, to really play up the contrast. I'll try to balance it with some navy on top somewhere, otherwise the outfit can look very unbalanced. I have only one pair of navy trousers, and they're in gabardine. I only bought them because they had forward pleats, fit perfectly and were 80% off retail.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Haffman said:


> Having started the debate, which has led to some minor ill feeling among certain established members, I am surprised that the OP has nothing further to say...


Don't be surprised. That is right out of the Internet Trolling for Dummies handbook.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

FLCracka said:


> Don't be surprised. That is right out of the Internet Trolling for Dummies handbook.


Spot on. If you are waiting for a response, give it a few weeks when Ark will once again show up to beat a dead horse. And his merry band of hollier than thou water boys (Bjorn, Matt S, and Tempest) will show up to defend him. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Spot on. If you are waiting for a response, give it a few weeks when Ark will once again show up to beat a dead horse. And his merry band of hollier than thou water boys (Bjorn, Matt S, and Tempest) will show up to defend him. Rinse and repeat.


What if they are all the same guy, and this just an elaborate rouse?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Haffman said:


> Having started the debate, which has led to some minor ill feeling among certain established members, I am surprised that the OP has nothing further to say...


Out of respect for those here who, like you, are gentlemen, it took me a little time to tone down my response .

The origins of many traditions and customs are shrouded in the past. For example; there have been several stories as to why the bottom button of the 6 button vest is left unbuttoned. On the other hand some traditions and customs have no origin story. They just happened.

It is clear that before WWII the men who set the fashion of the era did not wear navy pants with sport coats. Recently we have had a few threads about navy pants in which I simply reported the historical fact that traditional men's dress did not include navy pants with sport coats 
In prior threads on the subject no one, me included, could give a reason why.

When I came across Manton's comment offering an explanation I thought it worth throwing it out in a new thread.

I could have done it with a dull preface like "Would anyone care to comment on this?" followed by a quote. Perhaps I should have, but I thought that a provocative title would draw interest. The title has drawn interest, in the space of one day-over 2000 views.

I anticipated interest and even anticipated that those who resorted to invective in the past would do so again and acknowledged that anticipation in the opening sentence of the opening post.

It is said that communication is 90% non verbal. I don't know how true this is but words on paper, or cyberpaper, cannot convey the inflection, volume, pace, tone, and how much tongue is in the speaker's cheek.

Reading the post some men understood the level of tongue in cheek, a few did not. Even without understanding the post a man of common courtesy could have simply responded. "That's an interesting origin story. I agree, (or disagree) with its plausibility, etc."

Now, one would think that there could be little controversy about historical facts; especially something as trivial as navy pants and sport coats. One would think that but a few men here have shown that those who deny global warming are not alone in ignoring facts.

I have been surprised how these few men are so anti-fact as to resort to personal invective. In a prior thread one of them got so worked up that he used an epithet that I would hope he doesn't use around his wife and children, one the moderators took down as a breech not only of AAAC rules but also a breach of common decency.

Instead, those few who feel the need to deny the history of navy pants and sport coats once again took off like a swarm of tweed jacketed mosquitoes in navy pants. I was disappointed but not surprised with their buzzing but I never anticipated they would play the class warfare card.

Let's start out by admitting we are all snobs, some more, some less. As has been pointed out, to not embrace skinny pants or narrow lapels or low rise pants or jackets that don't cover the rear or cheap plastic looking shoes or any other sartorial abomination is to be a snob.

Moreover, every man who so much as puts on a suit or tie is following fashion set by snobs, or if not snobs, by an unelected elite. In 1890 men, at least those who had the good fortune to be able to dress well wore frock coats. In 1920 they wore lounge/business suits. In the 20sand 30s fashions were born in London and ratified in New York. We still wear the same garments. One's attitude toward snobs doesn't matter. Hate them or love them we wake up every morning and put on their clothes.

Now, Manton's theory on the origin of no navy pants with sport coats is an explanation, and only an explanation. He does not express approval, or disapproval, of the attitudes of those who set the custom.

In quoting Manton I did not express any approval of the attitude of those who set the custom, those who in the 30s may have looked down on a navy pants/sportcoat outfit.

Let me repeat that in the hope that the mosquitoes might get it through their heads that in quoting Manton I did not express any approval of the attitude of those who in the 30s may have looked down on a navy pants/sport coat outfit.

Not only have the mosquitoes played the class warfare card they have totally misrepresented my position on the place of tradition today.

I have repeatedly said that every man is free to follow tradition, or ignore tradition, or follow some and ignore others as he pleases. I do believe that as an aid to making such decisions men should at least know the traditions they choose to follow or ignore. Why anyone would feel the need to misrepresent such a clear, uncontroversial position on such a trivial subject is beyond me.

Finally, let's get to aesthetics. My position, one shared on AAAC and elsewhere by men of taste, is that in almost every case, with a sport coat, navy pants are not the best choice.

For sake of argument I will allow that a man can wear navy pants with a sport coat and look good. But why would he choose to look good when with other pants he could look better, and maybe even look great?

While hope springs eternal, I don't think the mosquitoes will stop buzzing. I do hope that the rest of you will hear the buzzing for what it is.

To all the gentlemen here,

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> Spot on. If you are waiting for a response, give it a few weeks when Ark will once again show up to beat a dead horse. And his merry band of hollier than thou water boys (Bjorn, Matt S, and Tempest) will show up to defend him. Rinse and repeat.





Dmontez said:


> What if they are all the same guy, and this just an elaborate rouse?


I don't feel that I, or anyone else, deserves this disrespect for disliking navy trousers. Whilst I do sympathise with Alan's points on navy trousers, I do wear them occasionally myself. Dare I say it, I wore navy trousers today with a grey sports coat that has a tiny bit of navy in it. I think it looks good, but I don't think it looks great. I also must say that I miss the historical element that used to be much more present on this forum.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I wore navy trousers as a uniform through eight years of Catholic school: almost 1500 days of navy trousers, from 1st through 8th grade.

Needless to say, it was many years before I wore them again.

I only recently bought a pair of navy chinos (from Bonobos), really just on a lark (having spotted them at Nordstrom). I have to say, they look good (in part because they fit so well.)

I still can't say I'm interested in navy trousers, though. I do have a very nice navy suit (Hickey Freeman MTM), though it's so dark as to be more "midnight" than "navy".

On the whole, though, navy pants just scream to me "uniform!"

DH


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

RogerP said:


> Oh my - quite a few that I like there. And they are only about a 50 minute drive away.


I've bought mail order, but haven't visited. Well pleased. Those who've been say not to expect posh. It's just an old fashioned men's store, literally stuffed full of quality, traditional clothing and folks who know their stock.


----------



## H&W (Aug 25, 2013)

Matt S said:


> I also must say that I miss the historical element that used to be much more present on this forum.


The most prominent 'historical element' of this forum came to be the anachronistic prejudices and writing styles of the faux-aristocrats. We are now widely associated with the Wodehouse iGents, as in residents of Toledo, Ohio desperately sustaining a fiction that they are suburban heirs of St James's clubland circa 1931.

These arcane details from a distant sartorial past are rarely discussed as banal, academic trivia; they are actively seized upon as mental justification for sartorial choices in 2014. I will grant, at least, that the iGents scoffing about navy trousers and the _working class__es_ are perhaps more subtle than the Fedora Lounge members sporting full morning dress to their local Walmart and complaining about subsequent harassment. This is not particularly high praise.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I just like to dress nicely since it makes me look and feel good. I don't believe Matt, ARK, or anyone else mentioned before thinks anything beyond that either. Thank goodness.

Your characterisation of Fedora Lounge members isn't entirely fair though. Hardly any of them wear morning dress, let alone to places like that. (Does anyone there even shop at Walmart?) At the same time, it's a bit dicey wearing an obviously 1940s suit, spearpoint collar shirt, hand painted tie, spectators, and wide brimmed fedora to go to college classes.


----------



## H&W (Aug 25, 2013)

Jovan said:


> I just like to dress nicely since it makes me look and feel good. I don't believe Matt, ARK, or anyone else mentioned before thinks anything beyond that either. Thank goodness.


I feel that you have astutely encapsulated the motivations of most people who post on this forum, and certainly the vast majority of its passive readers. Without wishing to start a flame war, I will simply say that there is ample evidence within this thread and others of certain posters and their anachronistic class-through-clothing pretensions.



> Your characterisation of Fedora Lounge members isn't entirely fair though. Hardly any of them wear morning dress, let alone to places like that. (Does anyone there even shop at Walmart?) At the same time, it's a bit dicey wearing an obviously 1940s suit, spearpoint collar shirt, hand painted tie, spectators, and wide brimmed fedora to go to college classes.


As the apotheosis of the Wodehouse iGent, in place of _Morning Dress at Walmart_ I submit_ Formalwear at a Suburban Ice-Cream Parlou_r:


----------



## Piqué (Apr 10, 2014)

immanuelrx said:


> I am curious as to what would be suggested to replace my navy trousers in my small beginners rotation since it is so limited in versatility? I have one tan pair, one navy pair, and one dark grey pair. I have no issue pairing my navy trousers with most of my shoes and dress shirts.
> 
> It is strange that the working class was even brought up in this thread. Seems unnecessary.
> 
> I wasn't even aware there was an "rule" regarding the wearing of navy trousers to begin with. It seems like a personal preference at best.


There is no "rule". Do not replace them. Continue wearing and enjoying them.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

H&W said:


> I will grant, at least, that the iGents scoffing about navy trousers and the _working class__es_ are perhaps more subtle than the Fedora Lounge members sporting full morning dress to their local Walmart and complaining about subsequent harassment. This is not particularly high praise.


Having never visited the Fedora Lounge, I don't know if that is an unfair remark or not, but this made me laugh out loud :biggrin:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

H&W said:


> The most prominent 'historical element' of this forum came to be the anachronistic prejudices and writing styles of the faux-aristocrats. We are now widely associated with the Wodehouse iGents, as in residents of Toledo, Ohio desperately sustaining a fiction that they are suburban heirs of St James's clubland circa 1931.
> 
> These arcane details from a distant sartorial past are rarely discussed as banal, academic trivia; they are actively seized upon as mental justification for sartorial choices in 2014. I will grant, at least, that the iGents scoffing about navy trousers and the _working class__es_ are perhaps more subtle than the Fedora Lounge members sporting full morning dress to their local Walmart and complaining about subsequent harassment. This is not particularly high praise.


Well I am sorry we broke off the current current slew of people congratulating each other for various items they put on in the morning with some kind of relevant historical discussion 

One can't really write about these kinds of things on the Internet without acquiring the iGent stamp in various camps (most of which are populated by the most belligerent tribes of iGent).

As for me and Matt and Ark and others really being the same trolling person, and "where do I stand on the whole working class thing", you've clearly crossed the line into the patently ridiculous.

Clearly interests diverge here. I think what people used to wear and why is very interesting. I personally don't dress up in replicas. I am also interested in what is currently worn and how to combine a classic wardrobe with that.

Being as it is not possible to discuss this item without being a troll, perhaps in combination with at the same time being identical with several other long time members, a snobbish class hater and also Ferris Bueller, I think it's clear what type of arguments the pro camp is employing. It's not really the trousers, you see, it's those people who don't like them who are deficient


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> Spot on. If you are waiting for a response, give it a few weeks when Ark will once again show up to beat a dead horse. And his merry band of hollier than thou water boys (Bjorn, Matt S, and Tempest) will show up to defend him. Rinse and repeat.


I'm feeling rather dejected and overlooked.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> I'm feeling rather dejected and overlooked.


Never fear, you can be holly with the rest of us, buddy


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Never fear, you can be holly with the rest of us, buddy


Meow!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I began the countdown to the attempt at revisionist history at the bottom of page two, but abandoned it as it was taking so very long. I guess when you're working up a really big spin job you need to take your own good time about it.

So let's see:

The OP starts (yet another) thread to explain *why* navy pants are objectionable.

The *only* reason advanced by the OP as to *why* they are objectionable is a quote from Manton suggesting they are identified with the "working class".

The OP then pointedly challenges those of an opposing view to find their own "big gun".

His "big gun", presumably, has been fired in support of the burn-worthy status of navy pants: they are working class wear.

Having roundly been shouted down for advancing such an odious proposition, he now claims to have advanced nothing of the sort. He was merely raising a point of discussion.

Which would be laughably transparent even if there weren't an existing body of elitist class-commentary from the OP to provide even greater clarity.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

Flanderian said:


> I've bought mail order, but haven't visited. Well pleased. Those who've been say not to expect posh. It's just an old fashioned men's store, literally stuffed full of quality, traditional clothing and folks who know their stock.


I'll attest to the high quality of the grey DB wool over coat and that they are pleasure to deal with.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Off to work in my working class navy trousers, working class salmon polo, and working class burgundy loafers.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

EclecticSr. said:


> I'll attest to the high quality of the grey DB wool over coat and that they are pleasure to deal with.


Indeed they are. And Flanderian's description of the store being "literally stuffed" is apt. I stopped there once en route to my annual hunting trip - picked up a pair of Alden "kudu" chukkas that became the envy of the camp.

It's not a great time just now to be coat shopping, however. Ample supply, but full price everywhere. Up here, they get significantly slashed just after Christmas. The price, not the coats.  Pretty much every coat I own has been had for 50% off or better.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I haven't been around for the supposed previous incarnations of the navy trouser quibble. Were there heaps of vintage photos of stylish and prominent men of decades past shown as supporting counter-evidence?


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

RogerP said:


> Indeed they are. And Flanderian's description of the store being "literally stuffed" is apt. I stopped there once en route to my annual hunting trip - picked up a pair of Alden "kudu" chukkas that became the envy of the camp.
> 
> It's not a great time just now to be coat shopping, however. Ample supply, but full price everywhere. Up here, they get significantly slashed just after Christmas. The price, not the coats.  Pretty much every coat I own has been had for 50% off or better.


I pretty much hunted the lower Southern tier, too far a drive to the Northern and Western parts of the State. True about better deals being had after the holidays, though O'Connell's doesn't often have sales.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

So, for those who are opponents of the navy pants look - do you dress exclusively by the standards of the "classical period?" No exceptions. Ever. Period? 

And no one has yet explained to me why navy "eats more light" below the waist than it does above it.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tempest said:


> I haven't been around for the supposed previous incarnations of the navy trouser quibble. Were there heaps of vintage photos of stylish and prominent men of decades past shown as supporting counter-evidence?


LOL. You probably didn't think this one through to much did you?


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

H&W said:


> The most prominent 'historical element' of this forum came to be the anachronistic prejudices and writing styles of the faux-aristocrats. We are now widely associated with the Wodehouse iGents, as in residents of Toledo, Ohio desperately sustaining a fiction that they are suburban heirs of St James's clubland circa 1931.
> 
> These arcane details from a distant sartorial past are rarely discussed as banal, academic trivia; they are actively seized upon as mental justification for sartorial choices in 2014. I will grant, at least, that the iGents scoffing about navy trousers and the _working class__es_ are perhaps more subtle than the Fedora Lounge members sporting full morning dress to their local Walmart and complaining about subsequent harassment. This is not particularly high praise.


I mostly had Sator's posts in mind when I mentioned the historical element that used to be present. He was the most dogmatic member we ever had about following the old ways, but he always provided visual evidence about what he said, and it was very interesting to learn about the history of the clothes we wear.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

H&W said:


>


I love this guy. He makes me smile.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

It IS entertaining to see two passionate and highly articulate attorneys engage in verbal warfare, double barrels blazing. Both Ark and Rog have a wonderful command of the written word!


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Oh, that explains things.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

FLCracka said:


> It IS entertaining to see two passionate and highly articulate attorneys engage in verbal warfare, double barrels blazing. Both Ark and Rog have a wonderful command of the written word!


Indeed they do. I find each to be gentlemen of the first order. Just an old timers observation, but I believe that if they were to sit down to a beer or "other beverage" these two gentlemen would find they may have more in common than less, sartorially speaking. It is members such as them, along with many others, that brought me to join this forum. I think each on their own have proven their mettle.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

Shaver, what happened to your post with video clip? Here one minute gone the next. I doubt if they would engage in spaghetti western antics. However, if they need some fast draw pointers, I may be able to help. :teacha: I did chuckle at that .


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

EclecticSr. said:


> Shaver, what happened to your post with video clip? Here one minute gone the next. I doubt if they would engage in spaghetti western antics. However, if they need some fast draw pointers, I may be able to help. :teacha: I did chuckle at that .


I decided against it, it seemed funny but briefly. I am my own moderator these days. :icon_saint7kg:


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I decided against it, it seemed funny but briefly. I am my own moderator these days. :icon_saint7kg:


Understood.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

Jovan said:


> Roger, depending on your size I might have eyed something at a thrift store you could use. I wish you luck in getting more outer coats! I certainly want more.
> 
> I'm not a fan of navy trousers, but only because I find their usefulness limited. Not because of some perceived lower class limitations.
> 
> Back to my second point, there are so many other, tactful ways to argue against something besides bringing up social class. I used to do it in saying short sleeved "dress" shirts should not It's kind of like arguing that blue chambray "work" shirts should be burned because of their origins, when 1. they are hardly worn for that anymore (which is why I put "work" in quotes) and 2. so much of what we wear has lower class or utilitarian origins anyway. Brogued wingtips, anyone?


I _was_ motivated to burn all my blue serge articles of clothing.

If you like history, as conducted by, you know, actual historians, you might like this article about the history of the wingtip shoe: . With respect to the imagined utility of broguing, "...says shoe historian Sue Constable when I reach her by phone in Northampton, England, that story is apocryphal. 'The English sense of humor has always picked a certain amount of fun at the Irish,' [_That's putting it diplomatically--Ed._]Constable says. 'I suspect that story comes from that, that only the Irish would be daft enough to punch the holes to let the water out.' Constable thinks that even then the holes were a decorative element."


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Matt S said:


> I mostly had Sator's posts in mind when I mentioned the historical element that used to be present. He was the most dogmatic member we ever had about following the old ways, but he always provided visual evidence about what he said, and it was very interesting to learn about the history of the clothes we wear.


Aaaaah, the Golden Age

It was a long time ago

I do agree that the historical and theoretical perspective is what makes forums like these worthwhile - we all have opinions but AAAC should strive to be more than a Tower of Babel.

However there is no need for class snobbery - even if, as ARK seems to say, a degree of clothing snobbery is perhaps inevitable. It's the class snobbery that gets people exercised


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

It is also of no benefit to pretend that class differences do not exist and that most everyone aspires upward. History becomes part of culture. This is all inescapable.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

EclecticSr. said:


> Indeed they do. I find each to be gentlemen of the first order. Just an old timers observation, but I believe that if they were to sit down to a beer or "other beverage" these two gentlemen would find they may have more in common than less, sartorially speaking. It is members such as them, along with many others, that brought me to join this forum. I think each on their own have proven their mettle.


LOL. Might we assume then that a 'beer summit' is in order?  Seriously, the Cyber-snobbery referred to in an earlier post has, over the years, driven away far too many members. Rather than embracing such, as was suggested, perhaps we should instead focus on erasing such negative aspects of our apparent character(s).


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

All this over blue pants???


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Yeah, but overt class snobbery here plays to the stereotype that well-dressed people are snobs and consider themselves above others which puts off people who could learn from what we write here.

I don't think it's a smart thing to do. While the stereotype that we are snobs exists, I don't believe it's true for the most part.

Comparing people who wear clothing you don't like to "lower class people" makes it sound like you are from an era that has not existed for about 80 years. It makes many people wonder if we are even relevant. 

On that note, that a clothing choice was acceptable and a fine thing to do 80 years ago may or may not make it a smart thing to do today.

The classic things about how suits are made, etc. are valid. What a "gentleman" routinely did 80 years ago is not always valid.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

I'd like to take a moment and point out that historical precedence doesn't necessarily determine what should be worn and how. See the 3/1 roll, the double button, and the 1/4 roll:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

@forsberg - Long... slow... clap...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Yeah! And find a commuter train that's outfitted like the one in the first pic!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Comparing people who wear clothing you don't like to "lower class people" makes it sound like you are from an era that has not existed for about 80 years. It makes many people wonder if we are even relevant.


Ahem, should I wear a golf shirt or a NASCAR t-shirt, and why? Is a black, or even maroon, dress shirt a good idea, and why or why not? Same for a trenchcoat, black or beige? 
Class distinctions in dress exist, if only as vestiges. People still have reactions even if they don't know why.

Actually, the black shoe stuff is largely about this. If a poorer man has one pair of dress shoes, you can bet they are black. And probably clunky rubber soled things too. One can argue of black being a lifeless color, of the sleekness of thin leather soles, but the fact is that if you wear shoes that look like those of a mailman or a postman, you end up looking like a mailman or a postman and that is not generally for what one is striving.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> All this over blue pants???


LOL.

In theory, WWI started because of the assassination of an Archduke of a dying empire.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Obviously they exist. However, you attract few listeners among those who could learn from what we post by denigrating those deemed "lower" either directly or indirectly.

While I'm a CPA, I've made life choices, etc. that make me lower income. I've had a life that I've liked even if it does not allow me to buy $1000 suits, etc. 

I promise you that I do not think anyone here "outranks" me or that I would feel that I would feel intimidated by them if I met them.

Saying the things in a certain way makes it sound like the writer is glad that a "lower class" exists and that he/she, of course is not ahem "one of THEM".

Most people I've met who consider it important to be above people miss out on a lot of communication. It's not a path to long term success. Far better and wiser to accept everyone. This does not mean that you have to accept people dressing inappropriately for a situation. This does mean that those who consider people beneath them lose any opportunity to learn from those they deem unworthy. In the relatively unimportant world of clothing, it does not mean much. In life it can mean everything.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^+1.....

and I suspect that guy whose shoes make him "look like a mailman or postman" is generally a far more likable character that the stuffed shirt, 'wannabe rich' snob(s), laying claim to the sartorial high ground. It's all about what we make priorities in our respective lives!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Fading Fast said:


> LOL.
> 
> In theory, WWI started because of the assassination of an Archduke of a dying empire.


It was bound to happen. Gavrilo Princip was wearing blue pants.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1.....
> 
> and I suspect that guy whose shoes make him "look like a mailman or postman" is generally a far more likable character that the stuffed shirt, 'wannabe rich' snob(s), laying claim to the sartorial high ground. It's all about what we make priorities in our respective lives!


+1 to that.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1.....
> 
> and I suspect that guy whose shoes make him "look like a mailman or postman" is generally a far more likable character that the stuffed shirt, 'wannabe rich' snob(s), laying claim to the sartorial high ground. It's all about what we make priorities in our respective lives!


Um, nobody wants to look low class, Cruiser! People only do it because they don't know better or because that is the group in which they fit. 
Class is not money. The plumber likely makes more than many here. This faux egalitarianism here is quite insincere and y'all know it.

So if one claims to appreciate craftmanship and fine details and all, it's good. But if one notices that the upper class dresses better and emulates them, that's bad? What, pray tell, is the difference beyond that the former is more obsessive than the latter?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
The words were yours, Tempest, not mine! Read the second paragraph in your post #135.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Might we assume then that a 'beer summit' is in order?  Seriously, the Cyber-snobbery referred to in an earlier post has, over the years, driven away far too many members. Rather than embracing such, as was suggested, perhaps we should instead focus on erasing such negative aspects of our apparent character(s).


I'm thinking the reverse is rather more true, that it's the constant repeat of basics that drive away knowledgeable members.

However, that would entail some degree of separation between different members of differing interests and knowledge, which may be a horribly elitist way of looking at things.

I could find a number of threads, I am sure, where first time or almost first time posters are told that something they are doing in terms of dress should be reevaluated. And they get really upset. Some do not stick around. I've had my share of adjustments. As long as arguments are not ad hominem, since as we know, equating someone's character with the soundness of their arguments is a logical fallacy. I give you the thread above... 

As for working class vs middle class and upper class, I really don't ascribe really positive characteristics by default to any of those classes, except perhaps that the upper class probably historically have dressed better due to the vast difference in wealth 

Perhaps of little importance compared to class differences, inequality, those bastards getting better vacations and driving faster cars except, perhaps, if one is discussing clothes on a clothing forum. Perhaps then there will be a smidgen of a valid point in there somewhere. Not as valid as a good stomping ad hominem argument apparently. But still


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^+1.....
> 
> and I suspect that guy whose shoes make him "look like a mailman or postman" is generally a far more likable character that the stuffed shirt, 'wannabe rich' snob(s), laying claim to the sartorial high ground. It's all about what we make priorities in our respective lives!


Still not dressed as well, so valid only in a different forum. Imo.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> It was bound to happen. Gavrilo Princip was wearing blue pants.


You made that last point up.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Forsberg's a CPA? I didn't know that. A piano playing CPA tinkling the ivories as he cooks the books. Amazing. I also didn't know Kirsh and Roger were attorneys. Gads, they could sue me! I always wanted to be a lawyer. I could sue myself. With the exception of the scurrilous coments blasted at Kirsh, I'm agreeing with all sides in this, especially Bjorn, Forsberg, Matt, Tempest and myself altho I'm not sure what I've said. Do I like the navy pants, do I dislike the navy pants, was I in the Navy? O why couldn't this thread have been about rum. I know where I stand on that.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Forsberg's a CPA? I didn't know that. A piano playing CPA tinkling the ivories as he cooks the books. Amazing. I also didn't know Kirsh and Roger were attorneys. Gads, they could sue me! I always wanted to be a lawyer. I could sue myself. With the exception of the scurrilous coments blasted at Kirsh, I'm agreeing with all sides in this, especially Bjorn, Forsberg, Matt, Tempest and myself altho I'm not sure what I've said. Do I like the navy pants, do I dislike the navy pants, was I in the Navy? O why couldn't this thread have been about rum. I know where I stand on that.


In the barrel?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> I'm thinking the reverse is rather more true, that it's the constant repeat of basics that drive away knowledgeable members.
> 
> However, that would entail some degree of separation between different members of differing interests and knowledge, which may be a horribly elitist way of looking at things.
> 
> ...


Based on reflected activity levels in several of our sub-fora, creating additional sub-fora to showcase the perspectives of comparatively small portions of the AAAC membership, has not proven successful or wise in the past. What makes it any more likely to be so now? People come and go for a lot of reasons. Our interests and life situations change and our participation, or lack thereof, reflect such changes. Alas, it seems the nature of the beast. Creating additional sub-fora has not proven successful in increasing participation levels or kept members active in the past. On what do you base such a conclusion now? What has changed?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> Based on reflected activity levels in several of our sub-fora, creating additional sub-fora to showcase the perspectives of comparatively small portions of the AAAC membership, has not proven successful or wise in the past. What makes it any more likely to be so now? People come and go for a lot of reasons. Our interests and life situations change and our participation, or lack thereof, reflect such changes. Alas, it seems the nature of the beast. Creating additional sub-fora has not proven successful in increasing participation levels or kept members active in the past. On what do you base such a conclusion now? What has changed?


This is not the discussion at hand in this thread, perhaps better ctd in pm?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^I wholeheartedly agree. 

However, the content of my earlier post was in response to the first two comments in your post that I had quoted.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Might we assume then that a 'beer summit' is in order?  * Seriously, the Cyber-snobbery referred to in an earlier post has, over the years, driven away far too many member*s. Rather than embracing such, as was suggested, perhaps we should instead focus on erasing such negative aspects of our apparent character(s).


Quoted for truth.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Shaver said:


> I love this guy. He makes me smile.


Agreed.

Have the high class low class debate if you want, but please do not knock iconic photographs.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Can someone point me to the snobbery? Acknowledging distinction and preference is no more snobbery than saying that women exist and that I prefer to dress like a man would be sexist. 
Straw man.
However, note how we all post photos of royalty, movie stars, models, and not old cobbler, butchers, bakers. Why is that?


----------



## Carguy (Nov 29, 2012)

Jeez, I leave for a week or so, and you guys start up my favorite thread again?!? :deadhorse-a:

Im quite proud of myself that I will stay out of this one. Laughingly, I will point you to my WAYWT post today where my beautiful blue pinstriped suit not only absorbs light, but dims the brightness of my yellow tie!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Tempest said:


> Can someone point me to the snobbery? Acknowledging distinction and preference is no more snobbery than saying that women exist and that I prefer to dress like a man would be sexist.
> Straw man.
> However, note how we all post photos of royalty, movie stars, models, and not old cobbler, butchers, bakers. Why is that?


It's only snobbery because they like their evil lighteating pants. It's not snobbery when it's about slim fit, how chav it is to wear Barbour jackets in town or in a modern cut, anything that a designer has made, anything that hipsters do (besides, quite possibly, baking) or not wearing white shoes out of season. Silly...

Hell, Adolphe Menjou probably wore navy trousers constantly. Not that we care, since he's not Cary Grant. But he probably did. In movies where he topped up other people's gas tanks 

From NYtimes review of theater show "Pumpgirl", 2007:
'Pumpgirl (Hannah Cabell) may have cropped hair, use unprintable language and wear men's clothes - her blue shirt and navy trousers could pass for a gas station uniform anywhere - but she is so girlishly infatuated with Hammy that she repeats his name as often as possible while describing their relationship. "Hammy is pure class," she rhapsodizes, setting him apart from his oafish friends.'

Well this sure was fun.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

RogerP said:


> I began the countdown to the attempt at revisionist history at the bottom of page two, but abandoned it as it was taking so very long. I guess when you're working up a really big spin job you need to take your own good time about it.
> 
> So let's see:
> 
> ...


BZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Demeaning those who do manual labor should not be necessary to promote the discussion of clothing.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> It's only snobbery because they like their evil lighteating pants. .


 No, it's snobbery when the proposition is advanced that navy pants should be burned because they identify the wearer as working class. Nobody could so consistently miss the point unless doing so quite deliberately.


----------



## SlideGuitarist (Apr 23, 2013)

RogerP said:


> No, it's snobbery when the proposition is advanced that navy pants should be burned because they identify the wearer as working class. Nobody could so consistently miss the point unless doing so quite deliberately.


Insisting on a "rule" on the basis of the intitial flimsy anecdote reflects the anxious snobbery of the _arriviste_...if you want to be really "classist" about it.

Bjorn, I understand your taxonomy of classic ensembles, but that's an entirely different sort of argument.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

SlideGuitarist said:


> Insisting on a "rule" on the basis of the intitial flimsy anecdote reflects the anxious snobbery of the _arriviste_...if you want to be really "classist" about it.
> 
> Bjorn, I understand your taxonomy of classic ensembles, but that's an entirely different sort of argument.


There is a tie in between that and this, since that taxonomisation would be closely tied to class.

I don't think we are insisting on a rule necessarily, just saying its not a great pairing and there's a historical tie in. Loads of nasty tie ins to class in clothing. We don't necessarily need to be huffy about it.

I think the arriviste or nouveau riche element would have been to misconstrue or be unaware of the rules and their inherent flexibility. Social context if you will. Navy odd trousers may not exist in that social context anymore, but they did, and I don't see the point of pretending they did not. I do see the point of pointing out historical contexts to various dos and do nots. It's on point, enlightening and fun. Also, sometimes pattern of dressing evolve in competition and have a good basis in aesthetics.

I'm not going to be bashful about it just because people are anxious about designating things as rules of thumb. Don't wear summer clothes in the winter. Rule? Who cares?

The flexibility of any such 'rules' are perhaps trumpeted a little too loudly imo. If it's by someone with a bespoke wardrobe who knows 500 different nuances of shirt fabrics then fine, flexibility may be his best friend. Does relativity and flexibility help those of us starting out, anything goes, it's really all about trying? I think not.


----------



## AMProfessor (Sep 9, 2011)

RogerP said:


> No, it's snobbery when the proposition is advanced that navy pants should be burned because they identify the wearer as working class. Nobody could so consistently miss the point unless doing so quite deliberately.


I've been following this from the sidelines, but, you've really got to be doing some cognitive gymnastics to produce the faux outrage over the OP's alleged slight of the working class. Pointing out a sociological phenomenon, where styles and tastes come from, can in no way be construed as endorsing a condescending attitude toward the group in the present day, and certainly you must know that. First, from the OP's history, one must know that he is pointing out one, of many, reasons that navy pants are generally not as well regarded as other shades. There are aesthetic arguments, for example, and now he's pointing out there's a sociological argument as well.

To move it to another realm entirely, if I were discussing food I might point out to you that crawfish, in the 1960s and earlier, generally were not to be found on the menus of finer restaurants in Louisiana. The reason? Crawfish (or mudbugs) were considered trashy; substandard; a poor person's food. It wasn't until modern chefs began experimenting and promoting them that they came into prominence as a major food, and some of this legacy remains today. So if I am telling you one reason why crawfish might not be as popular as you thought, particularly historically, on restaurant menus, am I endorsing looking down on the poor? Of course not. I'm just giving you an explanation.

Snobbery here? Please. The big reason I, and I suspect many others, largely stopped reading this forum is (a) a painful "igent" culture (every third post opening with "As we are all gentlemen here...."), (b) a lack of interesting posts, unless you consider "Why do people dress so badly these days" posts ad nauseam to be enlightening (although I do suppose that could be construed as a type of snobbery) and (c) a lack of a critical mass of high quality posters who really know about clothes. I came here as a noob but I find there's painfully little to learn here. The WAYWN thread is a cycle of the same posters and compliments for, sometimes, quite dreadful outfits. I simply find much more knowledge over on SF: more interesting, more knowledgeable, and more grounded in the "real world".


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

SlideGuitarist said:


> Insisting on a "rule" on the basis of the intitial flimsy anecdote reflects the anxious snobbery of the _arriviste_...if you want to be really "classist" about it.
> 
> Bjorn, I understand your taxonomy of classic ensembles, but that's an entirely different sort of argument.


You misunderstand the meaning of "rule" because when talking about classical men's clothing "rule" does not have its usual meaning. Here "rule" is a term of art. Here a "rule" is not prescriptive, it is descriptive. A prescriptive rule, and this is the way the word is commonly used , is shoulds and should nots, thou must or thou shall not.

A "rule" of classical men's clothing is not prescriptive, you are free do do as you please, you are perfectly free to follow some rules and ignore others.

"Rules" of classical men's clothes are descriptive. They describe the traditions, manners, and customs that developed over time. They are, or can be useful as rules of thumb if you choose to use them. Again you can choose to use some and ignore others.

An example of a "rule" of classical dress is that tuxedos are peak lapel, double breasted, or shawl lapel. This rule is not prescriptive, wear what you want. However, the rule is descriptive of traditional clothing worn by the recognized sophisticated dressers of the past.

Whether something is or is not a men's clothing "rule" is not dependent on how or why it originated. Something is a "rule" if that is the way it was done. That's it. There are no value judgments involved.

The same is true of many customs. In the US we drive on the right side of the road. In the UK we drive on the left side of the road. How this came to be does not matter.

There is a difference between the "rules" of the road and the "rules" of men's dress. Rules of the road are prescriptive, violate them at your peril. Rules of dress are descriptive, use them if you please, with the caveat that the way you present yourself by dress may influence the way some people see you.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

AMProfessor said:


> I've been following this from the sidelines, but, you've really got to be doing some cognitive gymnastics to produce the faux outrage over the OP's alleged slight of the working class.


^^^ I've already pointed to the clear progression wherein the OP presented, as the sole reason why navy trousers should be "burned", Manton's suggestion that they identify the wearer as 'lower class /working class'. If you can't connect the dots yourself, don't look to me to provide the crayon.

And yes, the OP's history does indeed support exactly such an interpretation.


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

Roger - I commend your repeated attempts to rationalize the discussion even as they appear to be futile.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

tigerpac said:


> Roger - I commend your repeated attempts to rationalize the discussion even as they appear to be futile.


Thank you sir.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

RogerP said:


> ^^^ I've already pointed to the clear progression wherein the OP presented, as the sole reason why navy trousers should be "burned", Manton's suggestion that they identify the wearer as 'lower class /working class'. If you can't connect the dots yourself, don't look to me to provide the crayon.
> 
> And yes, the OP's history does indeed support exactly such an interpretation.


BZZZZZZZZ (only 8 Zs this time, the buzzing is getting fainter)


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You knew what you would stir up and did it anyway - - -

I'll avoid the classic term for someone who behaves like that on the internet, but you reap what you sow and obviously don't care. 

I'm glad you have your superiority to those repulsive lower class people, though.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

RogerP said:


> ^^^ OP presented, as the sole reason why navy trousers should be "burned", Manton's suggestion that they identify the wearer as 'lower class /working class'.


The OP opened his thread stating an additional reason for avoiding why navy trousers, not the sole reason...

"I think *there may be something else* to the no navy trouser thing."

The literality and myopia shown by so many of the posts in this thread are symptomatic of a mindless autistic or xenophobic viewpoint that do a real disservice to the forum, its members, and people who enjoy dressing better. The immaturity I see here is really breathtaking in its breadth. We need to remove some of the invective and return some decency to AAAC. This is all rather sad.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

arkirshner said:


> BZZZZZZZZ (only 8 Zs this time, the buzzing is getting fainter)


Well, in the spirit of being "historically correct", I doubt you'd hear the buzz of Roger and his supporters, if they were in fact mosquitos (as you've so maturely named them). Both male and female mosquitoes do buzz, since they both have wings, but you don't "historically" notice the buzz of the males because they don't want to drink your blood. So they stay away from your ears, eating nectar, while the females come near to annoy you. Since Roger and company are, by all indications, males, you wouldn't "historcially", or in the "classical sense", hear them BZZZZZZZ.

Now, to be clear, I'm not saying that male mosquitos couldn't buzz in your ears if they wanted to. Certainly they could...there's no "rule" saying they can't buzz in your ear. However, I'm saying that most "historically correct" male mosquitos feel there are always better choices -- usualy eating nectar -- than audibly buzzing in your ears.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

168 posts in 45 hours? You've killed enough horses to supply every member with a pair of cordovan shoes.:deadhorse-a:


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

blairrob said:


> The OP opened his thread stating an additional reason for avoiding why navy trousers, not the sole reason...
> 
> "I think *there may be something else* to the no navy trouser thing."
> 
> The literality and myopia shown by so many of the posts in this thread are symptomatic of a mindless autistic or xenophobic viewpoint that do a real disservice to the forum, its members, and people who enjoy dressing better. The immaturity I see here is really breathtaking in its breadth. We need to remove some of the invective and return some decency to AAAC. This is all rather sad.


Examining this topic in a vacuum, I sorta see where you're coming from. I think you're missing some context, though.


----------



## AMProfessor (Sep 9, 2011)

RogerP said:


> ^^^ I've already pointed to the clear progression wherein the OP presented, as the sole reason why navy trousers should be "burned", Manton's suggestion that they identify the wearer as 'lower class /working class'. If you can't connect the dots yourself, don't look to me to provide the crayon.
> 
> And yes, the OP's history does indeed support exactly such an interpretation.


Bunk.

OK, I'll play. My bracketed comments will aid you in your interpretation.

As the subject always starts a flame war why not start with a fire. [*OP says, hey, lets have a feisty debate on this. Seems fair game to me*.]

A Manton observation from another forum: *[OP references a person who gets a lot of respect on the internet clothing fora, and for good reason*]

"I think there may be something else to the no navy trouser thing. [*Manton's statement that there might be something else, meaning, not a SOLE reason, but perhaps one of many reasons*]

"For many decades before WW2 by far the most common suit was blue serge. Men who only owned one suit owned a blue serge. It was their "Sunday best." They would often wear them as separates, and more often the pants seperatly since working class men really had no call for odd jackets. So blue pants got a lower class connotation.

If you read Depression era literature such as Steinbeck and Dos Passos, many of the lower class/working class characters will be described as wearing blue serge pants." [*End of sociological explanation*]

So, Bjorn, Shaver, and those others chosen for salvation have been right all along. Navy pants lovers, its your turn to find a big gun. [*OP terms like "chosen for salvation" and "big gun" suggest a tongue-in-cheek approach to the argument]

[Quickly followed by a clearly hostile response. Conclusion has been made].

*"I see you repeatedly scoff at and denigrate the choices of others......"

[*No scoffing or denigration seen in above*]​


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

blairrob said:


> The OP opened his thread stating an additional reason for avoiding why navy trousers, not the sole reason...
> 
> "I think *there may be something else* to the no navy trouser thing."
> 
> The literality and myopia shown by so many of the posts in this thread are symptomatic of a mindless autistic or xenophobic viewpoint that do a real disservice to the forum, its members, and people who enjoy dressing better. The immaturity I see here is really breathtaking in its breadth. We need to remove some of the invective and return some decency to AAAC. This is all rather sad.


It was the sole reason advanced in the OP. It was the only "something else" referenced. That's a matter of fact. Not opinion, interpretation or historical navel-gazing. If by literality you mean reading what the OP actually wrote, then we need more of that, rather than less. IMO.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

momsdoc said:


> 168 posts in 45 hours? You've killed enough horses to supply every member with a pair of cordovan shoes.:deadhorse-a:


Wooo hoooo....shell cordovan shoes for everyone! How's that for dismantling the class system!!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You knew what you would stir up and did it anyway - - -
> 
> I'll avoid the classic term for someone who behaves like that on the internet, but you reap what you sow and obviously don't care.
> 
> I'm glad you have your superiority to those repulsive lower class people, though.


Well, you're clearly wrong, there.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Honestly, the behavior and history speaks for itself.

It's a shame that he chooses to let his behavior hide the fact that he does know quite a bit about the subject matter.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

FLCracka said:


> Wooo hoooo....shell cordovan shoes for everyone! How's that for dismantling the class system!!


In view of the current tragic worldwide shortage of shell cordovan, I do not think this is a joking matter at all. iGents all over the world are having to make do with calf. Callous and unfeeling, that was.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

The thing that makes me happy with these threads about navy trousers is that there will be a guy googling what to wear with navy trousers one day, and he will see these threads. He will notice that there are 4 or 5 people saying "navy trousers are the devil and are for lower class people" while the rest of us just kind of laugh it off and understand that navy trousers certainly do have their place with well dressed men that live in the real world of 2014.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> You knew what you would stir up and did it anyway - - -
> 
> I'll avoid the classic term for someone who behaves like that on the internet, but you reap what you sow and obviously don't care.
> 
> I'm glad you have your superiority to those repulsive lower class people, though.


Spot on, again.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Honestly, the behavior and history speaks for itself.


I agree with your wording but to its reverse meaning, I believe.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Dmontez said:


> The thing that makes me happy with these threads about navy trousers is that there will be a guy googling what to wear with navy trousers one day, and he will see these threads. He will notice that there are 4 or 5 people saying "navy trousers are the devil and are for lower class people" while the rest of us just kind of laugh it off and understand that navy trousers certainly do have their place with well dressed men that live in the real world of 2014.


And you have accurately described what is deeply problematic in all this.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> Roger and his supporters, if they were in fact mosquitos (as you've so maturely named them)


Ah, that's what that was about. I missed that post and assumed the buzz was akin to when a game show contestant fails because, when I read the din of those with reading comprehension deficiencies, I am left wondering if they really are this thick or merely acting obtuse to be annoyances.
Needless to say, this thread would be much better without all of the self-congratulating fluff and inane misreadings from the mosquitoes.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> In view of the current tragic worldwide shortage of shell cordovan, I do not think this is a joking matter at all. iGents all over the world are having to make do with calf. Callous and unfeeling, that was.


Tell it to Carmina. How come their stock is full? But we've been over this ad nauseum also.:aportnoy:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Dmontez said:


> The thing that makes me happy with these threads about navy trousers is that there will be a guy googling what to wear with navy trousers one day, and he will see these threads. He will notice that there are 4 or 5 people saying "navy trousers are the devil and are for lower class people" while the rest of us just kind of laugh it off and understand that navy trousers certainly do have their place with well dressed men that live in the real world of 2014.


Well said.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Fading Fast said:


> LOL.
> 
> In theory, WWI started because of the assassination of an Archduke of a dying empire.


Also, consider the War of Jenkin's Ear.

There are, in fact, some real historians around here.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Two quick questions. Since Jenkin was a naval officer, was he wearing blue pants when accosted? Which lasted longer--the war or this thread? Just curious.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

momsdoc said:


> Tell it to Carmina. How come their stock is full? But we've been over this ad nauseum also.:aportnoy:


In fact, Carmina are only taking MTO orders for shell right now to stores, no series orders. So zero new shell offerings from for example skoaktiebolaget right now.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Thank God I'm a calf man.... I like a well turned ankle also.:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

tigerpac said:


> Roger - I commend your repeated attempts to rationalize the discussion even as they appear to be futile.


1000%. Roger is one of the best dressed members of this fora and his continued education on both dressing and ACTING like a gentleman, show him to be the best sort of member. He is at once a sophisticated clothes horse and one who is fair and welcoming to those who find AAAC at the beginning of their sartorial journey.


----------



## Carguy (Nov 29, 2012)

I admit that I never knew what this topic could generate in so many diverse people....I can't say that I've ever really paid much attention to the "rules" about anything, most especially about clothes. I was one of the primary ones who stoked the flames of this subject in earlier threads. Perhaps it's the maverick in me.

Whatever the case may be, I now understand what Alan's point is. I can see that traditionally, navy slacks aren't the best or even the most appropriate choice in many situations, but traditional is something I've never been and probably never will be. Navy slacks "work" for me. I like them, and I'm too old to change now. I also can't see brown and gray working together FOR ME, so I don't do it. I also wore tasseled loafers today with a suit. As I said, certain things just "work" for me. I may not agree withe the arguments behind this navy pants thing, but I do understand them. Like someone else said, if it works for you and you feel good in it, wear it. That's what I'll be doing for the rest of my days. I'll just make sure not to be wearing navy slacks at my own funeral, so no one gets pissed at me for being a maverick and I won't be able to argue back....


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

cdavant said:


> Two quick questions. Since Jenkin was a naval officer, was he wearing blue pants when accosted? Which lasted longer--the war or this thread? Just curious.


I believe Robert Jenkins was captain of a merchant vessel, so he might have been wearing anything. The thread is not over yet, so we cannot know the answer to your second question. Moreover speculation might lead to a discussion of the relationship of the War of Jenkin's Ear to the War of the Austrian Succession. One interpretation could put the outside figure of the duration of the war at nine years. I could hardly speculate how many pairs of blue pants and black shoes were worn and worn out by all combatants in that time.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> BZZZZZZZZZ


Well said.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

mrkleen said:


> 1000%. Roger is one of the best dressed members of this fora and his continued education on both dressing and ACTING like a gentleman, show him to be the best sort of member. He is at once a sophisticated clothes horse and one who is fair and welcoming to those who find AAAC at the beginning of their sartorial journey.


Thank you kindly.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

How about we move on to something a little less controversial, like wearing loafers without socks? Or shorts, we could talk about shorts?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Bjorn said:


> In view of the current tragic worldwide shortage of shell cordovan, I do not think this is a joking matter at all. iGents all over the world are having to make do with calf. Callous and unfeeling, that was.


A move toward the handsome. rugged, robust and interesting shark hide would be a welcome development. Especially as it's far less expensive (or has been in the past) than shell.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Reuben said:


> How about we move on to something a little less controversial, like wearing loafers without socks? Or shorts, we could talk about shorts?


Especially in the winter. Shortsleeve shirts, shorts, loafers sans socks and snow.

I'll lay even money that even that would not get a consensus.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

All I have to say about this thread's progression: ARK likes clothes. Roger likes clothes. We all like clothes. Let's just all be friends?



H&W said:


> I feel that you have astutely encapsulated the motivations of most people who post on this forum, and certainly the vast majority of its passive readers. Without wishing to start a flame war, I will simply say that there is ample evidence within this thread and others of certain posters and their anachronistic class-through-clothing pretensions.
> 
> As the apotheosis of the Wodehouse iGent, in place of _Morning Dress at Walmart_ I submit_ Formalwear at a Suburban Ice-Cream Parlou_r:


If he was there before or after a white tie event, I see no reason to point fingers and laugh. That's most likely what happened. Also, he was a pretty nice guy when he was on this forum.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Did James Bond ever wear navy odd trousers? Any help, Matt S?


----------



## Piqué (Apr 10, 2014)

Tempest said:


> Ahem, should I wear a golf shirt or a NASCAR t-shirt, and why? Is a black, or even maroon, dress shirt a good idea, and why or why not? Same for a trenchcoat, black or beige?
> Class distinctions in dress exist, if only as vestiges. People still have reactions even if they don't know why.
> 
> Actually, the black shoe stuff is largely about this. If a poorer man has one pair of dress shoes, you can bet they are black. And probably clunky rubber soled things too. One can argue of black being a lifeless color, of the sleekness of thin leather soles, but the fact is that if you wear shoes that look like those of a mailman or a postman, you end up looking like a mailman or a postman and that is not generally for what one is striving.





Tempest said:


> Um, nobody wants to look low class, Cruiser! People only do it because they don't know better or because that is the group in which they fit.
> Class is not money. The plumber likely makes more than many here. This faux egalitarianism here is quite insincere and y'all know it.
> 
> So if one claims to appreciate craftmanship and fine details and all,  it's good. But if one notices that the upper class dresses better and emulates them, that's bad? What, pray tell, is the difference beyond that the former is more obsessive than the latter?


You really are quite a vile person. For your sake, I hope that others view you in a manner irreciprocal of how you view them.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Piqué said:


> You really are quite a vile person. For your sake, I hope that others view you in a manner irreciprocal of how you view them.


As I said earlier, such viewpoints will always find a belligerent champion, but I am gratified that they do not reflect the majority view of this forum community. For me, that is the main positive take away from this thread. And one of far greater moment than the question of whether navy clothing magically absorbs light.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

200 posts and it has gone nowhere. The OP was having a bit of fun but I bet he never expected this much nothingness.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Piqué said:


> You really are quite a vile person. For your sake, I hope that others view you in a manner irreciprocal of how you view them.


I assure you that I am not being disingenuous here, I truly do not see any sentiment contained within Tempest's post (as you have quoted them) which is deserving of such rancour...?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Piqué said:


> You really are quite a vile person. For your sake, I hope that others view you in a manner irreciprocal of how you view them.


If you're implying that I have a poor view of others*, I hope that you can back it up.


Shaver said:


> I assure you that I am not being disingenuous here, I truly do not see any sentiment contained within Tempest's post (as you have quoted them) which is deserving of such rancour...?


Your reading comprehension is clearly above the lowering average here. Either that or some feel that admitting that social class is still a thing is somehow taboo and elitist, and that their class anxiety is my problem.

*mosquitoes excluded


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> As I said earlier, such viewpoints will always find a belligerent champion, but I am gratified that they do not reflect the majority view of this forum community. For me, that is the main positive take away from this thread. And one of far greater moment than the question of whether navy clothing magically absorbs light.




I hope you are at least tentatively aware that the darker the color, the more light it absorbs? That white, for example, reflects more light than any other color, and that Navy, being a very dark blue, absorbs quite a lot of it? This is what makes darker clothes warmer in the sun.

One mans science is another mans magic I guess.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I hope you are at least tentatively aware that the darker the color, the more light it absorbs? That white, for example, reflects more light than any other color, and that Navy, being a very dark blue, absorbs quite a lot of it? This is what makes darker clothes warmer in the sun.
> 
> One mans science is another mans magic I guess.


If we are going to get all scientific about it: the effective difference between black or white garments in the sun is somewhat of a red herring as the colours, or lack of, precipitate negligible consideration in respect of how cool or hot they make the wearer feel. The properties of material and weave specific to a cloth are what is decisive in this context. These factors obliterate any measurable effect of a material's ability to regulate temperature which may be attributable to it's colour, by some considerable degree.

:teacha:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> One mans science is another mans magic I guess.


Science? Please tell me you're not the guy in charge of finding a cure for cancer. ic12337: :tongue2:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

arkirshner said:


> BZZZZZZZZZ





Tempest said:


> Well said.


No Tempest, it is not well said. It is simply childish. I've seen greater maturity reflected in conversations occurring between students at an elementary school! Please gentlemen, try to reach a bit higher with the dialogue!


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

culverwood said:


> 200 posts and it has gone nowhere. The OP was having a bit of fun but I bet he never expected this much nothingness.


Once again, I refer you to _Internet Trolling for Dummies. _This thread is what is considered a successful outcome.....the best he could hope for. In fact, it could be used as a success case study in the next edition of the manual.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

FLCracka said:


> Once again, I refer you to _Internet Trolling for Dummies. _This thread is what is considered a successful outcome.....the best he could hope for. In fact, it could be used as a success case study in the next edition of the manual.


BZZZZZZZZZZ*

*Eagle,

My thought is that when subjected to personal slurs, "BZZ" is preferable to replying in kind.


----------



## rjc (Mar 2, 2006)

I'm curious, for those that do not like navy trousers with a SC, does your opinion hold true for charcoal or dark grey trousers? What about dark browns, dark greens or olives?


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Let me put my foot in here - I suspect the person who does not like dark blue, grey, green or brown is the sort of fellow who wears similar trousers to Ian Poulter.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rjc said:


> I'm curious, for those that do not like navy trousers with a SC, does your opinion hold true for charcoal or dark grey trousers? What about dark browns, dark greens or olives?


Good question.

My own preferences in this matter are a purely personal aesthetic but I suppose if I were to try to express them intellectually then I would be minded toward declaring that I have a strong association with navy as being a formal colour, best reserved for the navy suit. Navy odd trousers and sports jacket provides me with the same sensation of visual disconnect as a pinstripe jacket with jeans. Whilst this perspective may not stand up to vigorous scrutiny it is nevertheless quite deeply ingrained.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

culverwood said:


> Let me put my foot in here - I suspect the person who does not like dark blue, grey, green or brown is the sort of fellow who wears similar trousers to Ian Poulter.


Now that cracked me up right there. Though in fairness, I can't see my friend Shaver donning Poulter-esque trousers any time soon.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Good question.
> 
> My own preferences in this matter are a purely personal aesthetic but I suppose if I were to try to express them intellectually then I would be minded toward declaring that I have a strong association with navy as being a formal colour, best reserved for the navy suit. Navy odd trousers and sports jacket provides me with the same sensation of visual disconnect as a pinstripe jacket with jeans. Whilst this perspective may not stand up to vigorous scrutiny it is nevertheless quite deeply ingrained.


In all of the threads about navy trousers. This has been the only response that makes any kind of sense for being anti-navy trousers. I don't see it as visually jarring as pinstripe jacket with jeans, but that's, but I can definitely understand where you are coming from with that.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Dmontez said:


> In all of the threads about navy trousers. This has been the only response that makes any kind of sense for being anti-navy trousers. I don't see it as visually jarring as pinstripe jacket with jeans, but that's, but I can definitely understand where you are coming from with that.


Indeed. And I can't imagine that anyone here would take issue with an individual's personal aesthetic excluding navy trousers. But trying to proclaim the existence of a rule to that effect, much less seeking to cloak subjective personal preference in a mantle of "science", is rather more troublesome.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

RogerP said:


> Indeed. And I can't imagine that anyone here would take issue with an individual's personal aesthetic excluding navy trousers. But trying to proclaim the existence of a rule to that effect, much less seeking to cloak subjective personal preference in a mantle of "science", is rather more troublesome.


You find it troublesome, I find it silly.

Evidently, though, there is a cohort of men who care (and are knowledgeable) about personal style and who also find the notion of navy odd trousers to be displeasing. I have no difficulty conceding their preference is entirely their right. And if they choose to burn their own navy trousers (rather than mine), that's OK by me.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Max, that's an excellent way to put this. 

(P.S. I imagine you will be wearing your red and white outfit this weekend! I'm more a UM fan, but I'll be hoping that MSU finds a way to win this weekend; I live and work only a mile from the MSU campus and I enjoy the atmosphere when MSU does well. If UM wins, I keep my smile to myself!)


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> You find it troublesome, I find it silly.
> 
> Evidently, though, there is a cohort of men who care (and are knowledgeable) about personal style and who also find the notion of navy odd trousers to be displeasing. I have no difficulty conceding their preference is entirely their right. And if they choose to burn their own navy trousers (rather than mine), that's OK by me.


I find it troublesome and silly. :biggrin:


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Max, that's an excellent way to put this.
> 
> (P.S. I imagine you will be wearing your red and white outfit this weekend! I'm more a UM fan, but I'll be hoping that MSU finds a way to win this weekend; I live and work only a mile from the MSU campus and I enjoy the atmosphere when MSU does well. If UM wins, I keep my smile to myself!)


forsberg, I have to admit that at my age the increasing reliance on night football (in November, in Ohio and Michigan!) makes the whole idea of attending games in person a lot less appealing. So I'll be at home in front of the big screen on Saturday evening, rather than making the drive to East Lansing. Attired in the latest scarlet and gray, naturally! (And maybe with a glass or two of Highland Park - or three or four if the game is not going well ...)


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> You find it troublesome, I find it silly.
> 
> Evidently, though, there is a cohort of men who care (and are knowledgeable) about personal style and who also find the notion of navy odd trousers to be displeasing. I have no difficulty conceding their preference is entirely their right. *And if they choose to burn their own navy trousers (rather than mine), that's OK by me*.


If by chance they are flannels with a cashmere blend, 32/30 with a tapered leg please PM me and I'll provide you a shipping address.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> Science? Please tell me you're not the guy in charge of finding a cure for cancer. ic12337: :tongue2:


So you're saying it reflects as much light as a lighter color then.... Interesting


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

What colour is a mirror?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

culverwood said:


> What colour is a mirror?


The light can't travel through it, but it also cannot absorb the light. So it bounces. A mirror is usually silver.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> The light can't travel through it, but it also cannot absorb the light. So it bounces. A mirror is usually silver.


A mirror is white. :teacha:


----------



## shadoman (Jun 8, 2014)

https://www.livescience.com/34427-what-color-is-a-mirror.html

Unless it is tinted, as in the case of a boudoir mirror, which uses copper foil instead of the standard silver color reflective surface.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> A mirror is white. :teacha:


?

Not navy though, right?

You're not looking at the frame are you


----------



## alkydrinker (Apr 24, 2012)

Another practical argument against navy pants...

A navy blazer is supposed to be very versatile and pair with about any pants, though they will not go with navy pants. Combine that with the idea that navy pants are at least questionable, if you care at all about having a limited wardrobe, I'd rather just reserve the color navy for staple "tops" (blazer, sweaters, outerwear) so I don't have to worry about what pants I'm wearing with them.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

alkydrinker said:


> Another practical argument against navy pants...
> 
> A navy blazer is supposed to be very versatile and pair with about any pants, though they will not go with navy pants. Combine that with the idea that navy pants are at least questionable, if you care at all about having a limited wardrobe, I'd rather just reserve the color navy for staple "tops" (blazer, sweaters, outerwear) so I don't have to worry about what pants I'm wearing with them.


You must also think as though you are not only wearing navy blazers, Navy trousers work with SC's in the light to mid grey range through tan and chocolate brown's as well, as I throughly demonstrated in the following thread:https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...rousers-Fan-pairings-with-various-sport-coats

It has been said by others that instead of navy you should wear rust colored trousers, or lemon or some such other color, that if worn more than once in a two to three week rotation will get you the label of that guy in those pants. whereas if you were to wear navy trousers with 2 different SC's in a 1 week period no one else would think twice about it.

Here is yet another thread where this :deadhorse-a: has already happened, and the OP has decided to bring it up yet again.
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...are-better-with-rust-pants-than-olive-or-navy

In every thread about navy trousers I have called for the threads to be closed due to the bickering and childish behavior of a few members. It surprises me that we have an active moderator in this thread who would not close this thread or at least give out infractions for the clear cut case of "trolling" by the OP.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

alkydrinker said:


> navy pants are at least questionable


I don't see either of the accepted definitions of "questionable" as being relevant to this (overlong) discussion.

ques·tion·a·ble ˈkwesCHənəb(ə)l/
_adjective_


1. doubtful as regards truth or quality.
2. not clearly honest, honorable, or wise.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Dmontez said:


> You must also think as though you are not only wearing navy blazers, Navy trousers work with SC's in the light to mid grey range through tan and chocolate brown's as well, as I throughly demonstrated in the following thread:https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...rousers-Fan-pairings-with-various-sport-coats
> 
> It has been said by others that instead of navy you should wear rust colored trousers, or lemon or some such other color, that if worn more than once in a two to three week rotation will get you the label of that guy in those pants. whereas if you were to wear navy trousers with 2 different SC's in a 1 week period no one else would think twice about it.
> 
> ...


BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Doubtful as regards to quality. Quality as being the properties of the item? Not that we are nitpicking.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


You must at least be able to see why I am calling your behavior childish? You have not brought one piece of actual discussion to this thread since you "shot your big gun". If you had actually brought in some discussion on this I would not call you out for "trolling" as you clearly are.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

arkirshner said:


> BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ


How mature.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Dmontez said:


> What if they are all the same guy, and this just an elaborate rouse?


You are taking the high moral ground now?


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> You are taking the high moral ground now?


Oh I am sorry, I thought sarcasm could be read through the internet, and I forgot to put one of these guys in there:rolleyes2:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Well if you were only being sarcastic all this time, is all good.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Well if you were only being sarcastic all this time, is all good.


I was being sarcastic in this one:


Dmontez said:


> What if they are all the same guy, and this just an elaborate rouse?


but very serious when I called you out for allowing this thread to stay open and to the OP for acting like a child.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

If you find any of the posts to be in violation of forum rules, you can use the "report" function to call for moderation.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Dmontez said:


> I was being sarcastic in this one:
> 
> but very serious when I called you out for allowing this thread to stay open and to the OP for acting like a child.


BZZZZZZZZZ

Neither you nor I have the right to dictate to the moderators. The difference is that I know it.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

This is enough. Please take any further criticisms of Moderation to PM.


----------

