# Aaaarghhh! My eyes!



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

'I'm blind, Bog bust and bleed you' - _Alexander de Large_

So here's the thing - what look most offends your taste?

Now if, taking as premise, the fit and the cut and the styles are acceptable then what combination of attire (commonly accepted as reasonable on AAAC) just doesn't 'do it' for you? Here's mine:

I shudder and am compelled to avert my gaze when I observe jeans with black shoes.


----------



## Argon (May 28, 2012)

Tasselled loafers. Combined with anything.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Huge Louis Vuitton "LV" and Emporio Armani eagle logos, even when they're upside-down or reversed.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

sandals with socks on.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

This.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

A few weeks back I observed one of my fellow congregants at Sunday services sitting in the pew across the aisle, wearing a charcoal pinstripe suit in combination with a pair of navy Crocs on his feet (;o)! How in the name of all that is holy could someone do that? I was so entranced by this sartorial travesty that I'm shamed to admit that I missed much of the sermon. LOL. Well at least he was wearing black socks with the Crocs.


----------



## Virginia-Style (Oct 21, 2010)

Can't say I'm a fan of the non-ironed khakis and boat shoes - but saying that will upset our trad friends so I won't say it! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> A few weeks back I observed one of my fellow congregants at Sunday services sitting in the pew across the aisle, wearing a charcoal pinstripe suit in combination with a pair of navy Crocs on his feet (;o)! How in the name of all that is holy could someone do that? I was so entranced by this sartorial travesty that I'm shamed to admit that I missed much of the sermon. LOL. Well at least he was wearing black socks with the Crocs.


At least he was wearing a suit, :icon_saint7kg: rather than jeans, wife-beater and sneakers to church.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Guido and Ghetto.

It's a toss-up!!


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Any guy out for the evening, in a nice venue and usually with a well-dressed woman, wearing one or more of the following - Hats of any type worn indoors, sports jerseys or Affliction/Ed Hardy/TapOut/giant-sized t-shirts, giant-leg baggy jeans - often with exposed underwear or extra-long cargo shorts, athletic shoes/ sandals/flip-flops.

All too often here in Atlanta I can check all of these off in one evening... and on the same fellow. I call it "Douche Bingo".


----------



## surfanarchist (Aug 3, 2012)

A suit or even a sport coat and tie - and a baseball cap. I see it every day.


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

To many to choose just one but....

Square toed slip ons.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

So, is the pint of the thread to pick things that are not "wrong," per se, but are deeply unappealing to you and frequently seen? If that's the game, let me know, and I'll probably crash the server.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> So, is the pint of the thread to pick things that are not "wrong," per se, but are deeply unappealing to you and frequently seen? If that's the game, let me know, and I'll probably crash the server.


you've got it nailed CuffDaddy! Do your worst! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

^yes, I believe that is the original premise, so, crash away!

I'll go with bottom sleeve cuff button undone. (oops, Shaver posted while I was composing mine).


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

The Rambler said:


> I'll go with bottom sleeve cuff button undone. (oops, Shaver posted while I was composing mine).


Seconded - although as I recall CuffDaddy is okay with this.:devil:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Seconded - although as I recall CuffDaddy is okay with this.:devil:


oh CD say it isn't so! Mr Balfour is surely defaming you with this observation?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour's recollection is 100% correct. Suffice it to say that one exchange on AAAC on that topic moved me to unbutton _two_ on each sleeve and go for a brief walk in that state! As I've explained, the American patron saint of dandies, Tom Wolfe, endorsed the practice and wrote a short story about it that may have been my first exposure to serious writing about clothing; so I've liked the idea since before I finished high school.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL, well CuffDaddy, please tell us you also roll the sleeves when you do as described above.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

OK, here's my very incomplete list:

Gingham shirts with french/double cuffs (gingham plaid is inherently casual to me);
Grey suit, white shirt, red tie (I'm just sick of it and the lack of imagination);
Point-/straight-collared shirts (worn with stays) where the points stick out beneath the lapel (a soft collar, or one that is pinned, is OK); 
Button-down shirts with ties on jowly men (the roll of the collar just looks like yet another chin);
Navy ties with navy suits (either the shades don't match and therefore clash, or they do and it looks precious and contrived);
Shoes that are so pointy as to evoke Santa's workshop labor force (men's shoes ought to generally echo the shape of a foot - contrived shapes are for women);
Contrast-collar shirts or other very formal shirts with large-scale paisley ties; 
A bright red tie on a royal blue shirt;
A button-up short sleeved shirt that is neither guayabera nor Hawaiian print;
Visible logos;
Any shade of navy that tends towards greenish tone;
Designer pea-coats (supposed to be a mil-surp item);
Tennis/athletic shoes worn as casual wear (Are you actively exercising to the point of sweating? If not, put on something less garish.)
Trousers worn on the hip;
Trousers made to be worn on the hip; 
Trousers that show a visible crotch bulge (one of CD's life rules: nobody wants to see your junk);
Bike shorts worn when not physically on a bike (see rule above; note that those without junk - women - are not subject to rule and can wear bike shorts if they like);
Loud or aggressively patterned ties with white shirts and plain suits;
Loafers with suits;
Trench coats on sunny-but-cold days (yes, yes, "the liner," I know, I don't care, buy a real coat).

That ought to be enough to stir up the hornets pretty good. Please note that I don't necessarily contend any of these things constitutes a rule (except the part about people's disinterest in your junk - that's a *rule*, pal). These are just some preferences that I have. Disagreeing with me doesn't make either of us a bad person, or even a cretin.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^
> LOL, well CuffDaddy, please tell us you also roll the sleeves when you do as described above.


You think I haven't done that sh!t? Brother, I once waited 20 minutes at a subway station with both jacket and shirt sleeves rolled the elbow while I waited for my wife to pick me up. It was hot and there was nowhere convenient and clean to put the jacket. Besides, it looked _good_ !


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Balfour's recollection is 100% correct. *Suffice it to say that one exchange on AAAC on that topic moved me to unbutton two on each sleeve and go for a brief walk in that state! * As I've explained, the American patron saint of dandies, Tom Wolfe, endorsed the practice and wrote a short story about it that may have been my first exposure to serious writing about clothing; so I've liked the idea since before I finished high school.


I think I have the dubious honour of starting the thread that made you do that

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?111595-Enough-with-the-cuffs-already!

I don't think either of us have changed our opinions on that one ! :wink2:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> OK, here's my very incomplete list:
> 
> Gingham shirts with french/double cuffs (gingham plaid is inherently casual to me);
> Grey suit, white shirt, red tie (I'm just sick of it and the lack of imagination);
> ...


This is priceless ! :thumbs-up: :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> OK, here's my very incomplete list:
> 
> Gingham shirts with french/double cuffs (gingham plaid is inherently casual to me);
> Grey suit, white shirt, red tie (I'm just sick of it and the lack of imagination);
> ...


I don't think I disagree with any of this, actually. A few points where I would seek clarification:

- "Point-/straight-collared shirts (worn with stays) where the points stick out beneath the lapel" I'm probably being dense here, but do you mean a shirt with this collar where the points of the collar are covered by the lapels of the suit when the jacket is buttoned? If so, I do disagree with this.

- "Navy ties with navy suits (either the shades don't match and therefore clash, or they do and it looks precious and contrived)" Agree, but okay with a navy blazer (as the trousers supply the colour variation).

- "Grey suit, white shirt, red tie". But blue shirt and burgundy is okay.

I'm not sure I buy the trench coat one either (but "cold" is never normally that cold in London).


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

Square toed shoes.

And like CD, I'm down with unbuttoning a sleeve button or two.....


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I don't know if I would go as far as "most offending my taste" but I really don't like single vented jackets -- they way the backside is exposed by hands in the pockets or even a slight gust of, er, wind :crazy:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Balfour said:


> - "Point-/straight-collared shirts (worn with stays) where the points stick out beneath the lapel" I'm probably being dense here, but do you mean a shirt with this collar where the points of the collar are covered by the lapels of the suit when the jacket is buttoned? If so, I do disagree with this.


I probably did a bad job of explaining it. Barring a collar pin or bar, or a very soft collar to the shirt, or a very round club collar, I don't want to see the points of the collar when the jacket is on. I want the collar to frame the necktie with a simple inverted V, not a W shape.



> - "Navy ties with navy suits (either the shades don't match and therefore clash, or they do and it looks precious and contrived)" Agree, but okay with a navy blazer (as the trousers supply the colour variation).


I still think two navies next to each other is tough.



> - "Grey suit, white shirt, red tie". But blue shirt and burgundy is okay.


Sure, I'm not against grey suits, white shirts, or red ties. I just see that combination so often I'm sick unto death of it. Change one element, and it's not as worn out.



> I'm not sure I buy the trench coat one either (but "cold" is never normally that cold in London).


I know it's a minority position, but I just think bright sun shining on a trench coat looks goofy. Trench coats are for hunching over in as the rain buckets down. If you need a coat against the _cold_, not the rain, the buy a coat of appropriate weight. JMHO, of course.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Argon said:


> Tasselled loafers. Combined with anything.


Yes.
This place needs a "like" button.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Grayson said:


> Any guy out for the evening, in a nice venue and usually with a well-dressed woman, wearing one or more of the following - Hats of any type worn indoors, sports jerseys or Affliction/Ed Hardy/TapOut/giant-sized t-shirts, giant-leg baggy jeans - often with exposed underwear or extra-long cargo shorts, athletic shoes/ sandals/flip-flops.
> 
> All too often here in Atlanta I can check all of these off in one evening... and on the same fellow. I call it "Douche Bingo".


I believe emergency room doctors in the UK have something similar, which they called "the scumbag index", which is what you get when you multiply the number of tattoos by the number of missing teeth.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Anyone who can fire off such a list in no time, flat, may be forgiven the occaisonal sartorial solecism.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Grayson said:


> "Douche Bingo".


Didn't kids use to play that in the back seat of the car on long trips??


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Contrast-collar shirts or other very formal shirts with large-scale paisley ties;


Don't be hatin' on the 80s!!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> I probably did a bad job of explaining it. Barring a collar pin or bar, or a very soft collar to the shirt, or a very round club collar, I don't want to see the points of the collar when the jacket is on. I want the collar to frame the necktie with a simple inverted V, not a W shape.


Thanks for the clarification. We agree on this.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Cuffdaddy a truly amazing list.

Nothing I can really disagree with (although short sleeve shirts are acceptable on holiday?) and plenty I support.

As addendum; 

Gingham is ghastly in all circumstances, except perhaps as a table cloth or if worn by a member of the Walton family. 

Plain bright red ties; questionable in all circumstances, unless you are running for Senate.


I intend to read the 'Enough With the Cuffs Already!' post, but wonder... would you be prepared to engage in a new thread on this theme? I realise you have stated your case already but I for one, and I would wager many of the members who have joined this last two years, might be keen to interact around this topic.


----------



## Sober (Jul 31, 2012)

A suit worn with a parka or similar sport overcoat.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Sober said:


> A suit worn with a parka or similar sport overcoat.


Good call, Sober!

How did I forget this one?

Makes me feel rather murderous to witness this abomination......... the suit and parka plastic hiking overcoat torments me regularly.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Sober said:


> A suit worn with a parka or similar sport overcoat.


+1. For an aggravated offence, a casual outdoor coat that is shorter than the suit jacket it is worn over.

I also don't like waxed jackets worn over suits. I like waxed jackets, just not that combination. If you want to bring a 'hint of the country' to city dress, wear a tweed greatcoat and a brown homberg with your suit, not a Barbour.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

pointed or square-toed elf shoes. saw some jock yesterday at the mall sporting this look. fitted t-shirt, jeans with the elaborate stitching and his atrocious pointy elf shoes. the sad part is he thinks it looks good


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Sober said:


> A suit worn with a parka or similar sport overcoat.


On a similar note: man + suit + rucksack = ? Forget it not looking good, surely it's impractical. How can one file away books, paperwork, etc in a rucksack? Plus the damage it can do to the suit's shoulder.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Oh, man, how did I forget that one, Jake? I ride the elevator every day with a bunch of bank employees who work in the IT and systems department, which means not only lots of super-casual clothing, but also lots of backpacks/bookpacks. The fact that these make any grown man look like he lives in mom's basement is not as bothersome to me as the tendency to whack innocent bystanders with them as the wearer turns around. I friggin' hate them. Save the backpacks for things like, you know, _backpacking_. Or going to the gym or the pool. They are not for business, even in a biz-cas environment.


----------



## Argon (May 28, 2012)

Penny loafers in general, but cheap, toffee/baby poo-colored ones in particular.


----------



## Dieu et les Dames (Jul 18, 2012)

*Looks around the classroom*

cargo shorts
jean shorts
jean cargo shorts
shorts that fall past the knees
exposed undershirts
obnoxiously large logos 
watch that appears to be stolen from an NFL player
hoodies
black belt with navy pants
black sneakers with blue jeans
more cargo shorts
lady in white denim capri/jacket combo embellished with rhinestones
guy in seersucker shorts. although I didn't like him in the first place


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

* Klunky Kenneth Cole shoes
* Women who wear black bras with white shirts
* Women who wear heels that are almost in direct proportion to the size of the rims on their boyfriend's car
* Cut-off jean shorts on anyone... (Daisy Duke was not that attractive to begin with)
* Tommy Bahama Hawaiian-print camp shirts with seersucker pants (witnessed it twice in the past week) I actually thought about doing an Oedipus Rex with my eyes.
* Speedo bathing suits (not the board shorts... I am referring to the marble bags and the banana hammocks)
* Baseball caps worn with anything that has a collar (bonus if tags and holographic sticker are still intact... reminiscent of a ghetto Minnie Pearl)
* Anything that comes from the store Buckle.
* Shirts unbuttoned providing unobstructed views of copious chest hair (bonus if sporting an anglo-afro... double bonus if gold chain with medallions are present)
* The local fraternity style of wearing a tie hanging around the neck like a scarf. (I guess that it gives the impression that one has a job)
* Athletic shoes worn without tying the laces
* Logos on shirts that can be viewed with the naked eye from over one mile
* "Hoodies" worn during the summer (especially if they wear the hood)


----------



## Sober (Jul 31, 2012)

I may be running the risk of offending a few of our American friends but as a European I cannot stand the view of dinner jackets / tuxedos in a wedding, not even in the evening.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

drlivingston said:


> * Klunky Kenneth Cole shoes
> * Women who wear black bras with white shirts
> * Women who wear heels that are almost in direct proportion to the size of the rims on their boyfriend's car
> * Cut-off jean shorts on anyone... (Daisy Duke was not that attractive to begin with)
> ...


Interesting. At least two of the things mentioned re: women don't bother me a bit, depending on the individual woman. I'm with you on most of the stuff re: men's clothing.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Balfour's recollection is 100% correct. Suffice it to say that one exchange on AAAC on that topic moved me to unbutton _two_ on each sleeve and go for a brief walk in that state! As I've explained, the American patron saint of dandies, Tom Wolfe, endorsed the practice and wrote a short story about it that may have been my first exposure to serious writing about clothing; so I've liked the idea since before I finished high school.


Inspired by this, CD, I googled and read the wonderful Wolfe essay, "The Secret Vice," because my recollection of it was a little different from yours. I must report that, though working cuffs are indeed the nominal subject of the piece, there is no endorsement of unbuttoned cuff buttons to be found in it. In fact, the drift is rather contrary: working buttonholes are a _secret _vice. They are not noticeable to the uninitiated (this was written in the 60s, I hasten to add), but only to the brotherhood of those in the know about bespoke suits. Furthermore, it is never discussed, even in private. Thus leaving them unbuttoned is a betrayal
of the fraternity's secrets.

Of course, the cat is long out of the bag, as the enjoyable thread started by Haffman makes clear, which might seem to some to date the essay. Nevertheless, any forumites who want a good, short read on our favorite subject should google it.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Sober said:


> A suit worn with a parka or similar sport overcoat.


A faux pas in a temperate environment. But if it's -30C or -40C, one is going to be wearing a parka, e.g. Columbia, North Face, Tempco, Canada Goose, etc., suit or no suit.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

surfanarchist said:


> A suit or even a sport coat and tie - and a baseball cap. I see it every day.


That would gag a maggot.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Sober said:


> A suit worn with a parka or similar sport overcoat.


 Out here its parkas with shorts.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

* Square-toed shoes
* Sandals worn anywhere but the beach (Jesus of Nazareth gets a pass, you do not)
* Dress shirts worn without undershirts
* Light tan shoes with dark suits (as depicted in Haffman's post)
* Bow ties with button downs
* Any collar which juts well below a bow tie (a slight amount is fine)
* Longish point collars worn without tie
* Contrasting collars and cuffs unless in white
* Poly-cotton poplin suits (Trust me...a proper Southerner will make you a mile away in one of those numbers)
* Poly-cotton poplin anything else for that matter
* Undimpled ties
* Over-hopped beer
* 'Sanded' jeans
* Cufflinks worn on any but a perfectly fitted cuff
* Belts with those pointy metal tag ends (GWB wore them a lot)
* Monk straps
* Long pants without socks
* Black dress shirts
* Satin dress shirts (you know, the dark solid-colored numbers)
* Dark gray or charcoal suits with anything but black shoes/belt
* Calf shoes with black tie (non-pump)

Your milage may vary. No purchase necessary to win. Not valid in all states, void where prohibited.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Ruby slippers should only be worn in musicals


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

BluePincord said:


> * Notch lapel with black tie


FTFY.

Only joking :devil: - glad to see you're back.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Balfour said:


> FTFY.
> 
> Only joking :devil: - glad to see you're back.


:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

I almost forgot:

* Anything Balfour wears.

:devil:


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Yeah, probably deserved that.:biggrin:


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Gingham is ghastly in all circumstances, except perhaps as a table cloth or if worn by a member of the Walton family.


Shaver you dang Visigoth, :devil::icon_smile_big: you cannot tell me this is not casually perfect for a spring day:


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> *Looks around the classroom*
> 
> obnoxiously large logos


Any Louis Vuitton or Emporio Armani ones? Bonus points if the logo is decked out in sequins, rhinestones or glitter.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Sansabelt slacks :crazy:


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

eagle2250 said:


> A few weeks back I observed one of my fellow congregants at Sunday services sitting in the pew across the aisle, wearing a charcoal pinstripe suit in combination with a pair of navy Crocs on his feet (;o)! How in the name of all that is holy could someone do that? I was so entranced by this sartorial travesty that I'm shamed to admit that I missed much of the sermon. LOL. Well at least he was wearing black socks with the Crocs.


I would think that a man wearing Crocs would be alarm enough, doesn't matter what he's wearing them with; it's that he's wearing Crocs.


----------



## dba (Oct 22, 2010)

Odradek said:


> I believe emergency room doctors in the UK have something similar, which they called "the scumbag index", which is what you get when you multiply the number of tattoos by the number of missing teeth.


Permission sought for my wife, (still a working police officer) to use that.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

> I shudder and am compelled to avert my gaze when I observe jeans with black shoes.


 That hurt a little. I am wearing that right now.Atleast It's a step-up from Midwestern weekend attire of tees+cargo shorts+over ankle white socks+sneakers.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Shaver said:


> 'I'm blind, Bog bust and bleed you' - _Alexander de Large_
> 
> So here's the thing - what look most offends your taste?
> 
> ...


I wholeheartly agree (and I am seriously relieved that you did not say jeans in general).


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

BluePincord said:


> Shaver you dang Visigoth, :devil::icon_smile_big: you cannot tell me this is not casually perfect for a spring day:


Acceptable on a Spring day? But, _of course_ my dear fellow.

A pattern perfectly charming on a picnic blanket as lain in the grassy meadow, during repast, on the side of Walton's mountain. On a Spring day.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Rick Blaine said:


> That hurt a little. I am wearing that right now.Atleast It's a step-up from Midwestern weekend attire of tees+cargo shorts+over ankle white socks+sneakers.


Don't worry Rick, the vague object of the thread being to name acceptable attire which doesn't appeal to the poster. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the look - it's just absolutely not for me.



Thomas Martin said:


> I wholeheartly agree (and I am seriously relieved that you did not say jeans in general).


Jeans are ok in proper circumstance. I do rather like them, occasionally, with my tweed jacket.

Here's one example of jeans though that I will not apologise for criticising (simply because it is one of the most idiotic looks imaginable). It is such a severe and onerous crime against good taste I am driven to utilise, my first time of so-doing, the 'head banging' emoticon.

Gents I am deadly serious about this one.

If you do it; STOP!

Blue Jeans/ Blue Jacket :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

drlivingston said:


> * Women who wear heels that are almost in direct proportion to the size of the rims on their boyfriend's car


...and ear hoops even larger!!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

women who wear their bra straps outside their shirts.
women who color their hair (i.e) red,green blue,orange.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

drlivingston said:


> *.....
> * Women who wear heels that are almost in direct proportion to the size of the rims on their boyfriend's car
> * Cut-off jean shorts on anyone... (Daisy Duke was not that attractive to begin with)
> .....


You don't like a shapely, fine looking lady in hot pants and stiletto heels(!)?? :crazy: LOL. Go straight to your doctor and have your testosterone levels checked, my good man!


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Howard said:


> women who wear their bra straps outside their shirts.
> women who color their hair (i.e) red,green blue,orange.


When was the last time you kicked a hot mess out of bed??


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Shaver said:


> Don't worry Rick, the vague object of the thread being to name acceptable attire which doesn't appeal to the poster. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the look - it's just absolutely not for me.
> 
> Jeans are ok in proper circumstance. I do rather like them, occasionally, with my tweed jacket.
> 
> ...


Hmm. It depends. I like the look of jeans with tweed jackets, especially grey coloured tweed with dark jeans and cordovans in oxblood but wouldn't rule out jeans of slightly faded washing with a navy sports coat combined with a blue shirt either.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> You think I haven't done that sh!t? Brother, I once waited 20 minutes at a subway station with both jacket and shirt sleeves rolled the elbow while I waited for my wife to pick me up. It was hot and there was nowhere convenient and clean to put the jacket. Besides, it looked _good_ !


a la Richard Gere in _American Gigolo

_For me, it's caps worn indoors and a double Ugh!! when worn bassackwards. WTF is the purpose of that? It _*must *_be some sort of statement, but of what, the deponent knoweth not.


----------



## AlexS (May 20, 2012)

Shaver said:


> 'I'm blind, Bog bust and bleed you' - _Alexander de Large_
> 
> I shudder and am compelled to avert my gaze when I observe jeans with black shoes.


I observed a large percentage of coworkers today guilty of this behavior. Indeed I got myself in trouble here in the past suggesting that black jeans and certain black dress shoes can be more than appropriate in the right environment. Yet, I'm not so sure anymore. There's very real truth in tradition.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Thomas Martin said:


> Hmm. It depends. I like the look of jeans with tweed jackets, especially grey coloured tweed with dark jeans and cordovans in oxblood but wouldn't rule out *jeans of slightly faded washing with a navy sports coat combined with a blue shirt either.*


*splutter*


----------



## Hakeswill (Nov 23, 2011)

Not been around for a while, but this one's fun!

Roughly in order of appallingness:

- Black suit + black shirt + black tie (actually any tie really, but especially black or silver)
- No belt
- Mismatched belt and shoes
- Dark grey/charcoal or black suit with brown shoes
- Grey suit with white shirt and a stripy tie of any colour (classic schoolboy look)
- Suit with backpack
- Massive oversized scarves with a suit
- "Fashion" sunglasses with a suit. Wear sunglasses, just not the type that make you look like you're going skiing. Or diving.
- Matching belt and shoes. When they're both white. This is so far down the list because it's thankfully quite rare.
- Pinstripe suit + stripy shirt + stripy tie


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> *splutter*


OK...I'll bite

I have worn navy blazers with jeans many times. What
is the aesthetic objection, other than it being a dull and unadventurous choice?

Also, I frequently wear jeans with black chukka or chelsea boots. Do you view that as a sartorial transgression or is it just black shoes?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> OK...I'll bite
> 
> I have worn navy blazers with jeans many times. What
> is the aesthetic objection, other than it being a dull and unadventurous choice?
> ...


and I shall snarl back! :icon_smile_wink:

What is the aesthetic objection of wearing blue trousers and a blue blazer? Well, wearing similar colours top and bottom is more than merely dull it is lamentably devoid of identity, an assault on the eye in it's acuity of blandness. Exactly matching colours (as in a suit) allows for flow of the eye, ringing a harmonious chime of visual sensation. Almost, but not quite, matching engenders a discordant vacuum of form, speaks of an implicit failure of choice. You really must promise me that you will stop doing this.

As to black footwear with jeans, it is merely my preference to avoid this (not being so keen on black leather and all) as it scrawls abomination in my eyes.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

WouldaShoulda said:


> When was the last time you kicked a hot mess out of bed??


Never.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Does anyone wear Blue Suede Shoes anymore?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Howard said:


> Does anyone wear Blue Suede Shoes anymore?


They would certainly go very well with a blue blazer and blue jeans. :devil:


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

I know some of the villagers might come after me with pitchforks for saying this but I find the Alden Indy Boot with cuffed jeans look to be a little played out. it's as if every hipster with a pair of Indy boots wears their pants this way.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> and I shall snarl back! :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> What is the aesthetic objection of wearing blue trousers and a blue blazer? Well, wearing similar colours top and bottom is more than merely dull it is lamentably devoid of identity, an assault on the eye in it's acuity of blandness. Exactly matching colours (as in a suit) allows for flow of the eye, ringing a harmonious chime of visual sensation. Almost, but not quite, matching engenders a discordant vacuum of form, speaks of an implicit failure of choice. You really must promise me that you will stop doing this.
> 
> As to black footwear with jeans, it is merely my preference to avoid this (not being so keen on black leather and all) as it scrawls abomination in my eyes.


But Mr Shaver, we are not talking about wearing a pair of navy chinos with a navy wool blazer, which I would agree is too 'matchy'. With jeans and a navy blazer there is a contrast of tone (I have never seen a pair of blue jeans that look like a navy blazer), there is a contrast of fabric and there is a contrast of texture. There is also a contrast of style, in that a blazer is 'dress up' and a jean is 'dress down'...although whether this is a pro or a con is clearly open to debate.

Is this really such a sartorial sin ? :icon_scratch: (a boring and commonplace choice I do not dispute)

Your phobic-pathological aversion to black leather has been noted :devil:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> But Mr Shaver, we are not talking about wearing a pair of navy chinos with a navy wool blazer, which I would agree is too 'matchy'. With jeans and a navy blazer there is a contrast of tone (I have never seen a pair of blue jeans that look like a navy blazer), there is a contrast of fabric and there is a contrast of texture. There is also a contrast of style, in that a blazer is 'dress up' and a jean is 'dress down'...although whether this is a pro or a con is clearly open to debate.
> 
> Is this really such a sartorial sin ? :icon_scratch: (a boring and commonplace choice I do not dispute)
> 
> Your phobic-pathological aversion to black leather has been noted :devil:


you were saying something about contrast, I believe? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> you were saying something about contrast, I believe? :icon_smile_wink:


I think striking that particular pose is optional.....

...but he's wearing black shoes with those jeans as well, that image must be straight out of your 'Archive of Hate'!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Howard said:


> Does anyone wear Blue Suede Shoes anymore?


I could wear these.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Shaver said:


> you were saying something about contrast, I believe? :icon_smile_wink:


That's awfully weak -- you've grabbed a picture of someone doing that badly, which many members are already going to dislike due to the facial hair and jacket fit. All you're proving is that it is very possible to get wrong. I'm sure many men do, in fact, get it that wrong, but many men wear the wrong brown shoes with their suits, and that isn't a reason to forbid brown shoes with suits.

EDIT: I should say that, although navy blazer/jeans is okay with me, I usually don't wear it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> That's awfully weak -- you've grabbed a picture of someone doing that badly, which many members are already going to dislike due to the facial hair and jacket fit. All you're proving is that it is very possible to get wrong. I'm sure many men do, in fact, get it that wrong, but many men wear the wrong brown shoes with their suits, and that isn't a reason to forbid brown shoes with suits.
> 
> EDIT: I should say that, although navy blazer/jeans is okay with me, I usually don't wear it.


No, no, not at all. It was merely chosen as the first image google provided of a jean and jacket combo. Apologies if the image obfuscated my meaning. Forget that he's a skinny minnie, with a wretched bum-fluff goatee, in a poorly fitting jacket and notice the utter lack of contrast between the two garments.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Shaver said:


> No, no, not at all. It was merely chosen as the first image google provided of a jean and jacket combo. Apologies if the image obfuscated my meaning. Forget that he's a skinny minnie, with a wretched bum-fluff goatee, in a poorly fitting jacket and notice the *utter lack of contrast between the two garments*.


But there is clearly a contrast, even in this - not very good - example? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> But there is clearly a contrast, even in this - not very good - example? :icon_scratch:


Sir, I fear that you play as the Devil's advocate. We may drip gloss white paint into a saucer of milk and yet would remain able to distinguish the two, to perceive the minimal increment of differentation.

It is the particularly low level of contrast between shade, tone and colour of the dark blue jeans and navy jacket combination that "engenders a discordant vacuum of form, speaks of an implicit failure of choice" most especially in that the two items represent the vast proportion of the body's covering.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

This may be the only time Shaver and I are likely to agree on the subject of blazers. I greatly dislike the jeans and blazer look. 

On contrast, adequate contrast does not of course simply involve the colours being 'not identical'. There are at least three parameters to contrast between odd jackets and trousers: (1) colour; (2) shade (i.e. moderate or greater difference in light versus dark shades normally better(*)); (3) texture. 

Blue jeans and navy blazer only have texture going for them. It is simply not enough. Charcoal grey flannels and navy blazer have colour and texture going for them. Much better. Mid-grey flannels and navy blazer have all three going for them - better, IMO, even than the charcoal combination (aesthetically at least - it is of course a classic).

But, for me, this goes far beyond contrast. I freely admit to disliking jeans (and appreciate my views on the issue may be disregarded altogether as a result). 

There is a disharmony, for me, in wearing something as casual as jeans with any tailored jacket (studiously avoiding the term "formal" here, given the trouble it has gotten me into!). Blazers / blue odd jackets are enormously versatile - cotton drills through to flannels, but you need to draw the line somewhere. Another illustration is that I do not like cords and blazers. Unlike jeans, I love cords. But the disharmony returns because I associate cords with the country (and tweed or worsted wool in country colours), whereas blazers are my go-to casual dress for town.

EDIT: (*) I realise I made the argument elsewhere that this is not essential, but did indicate that this was very much harder to get right. This is usually the case where the odd jacket is not a plain blue, but has a pattern (supplying, perhaps, for odd jackets generally a fourth dimension of contrast to those listed above).


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

I am running a bit of a risk here in 'protesting too much' over a look which I rarely (although not_ never_) employ myself. Shaver is right that in a way I am playing Devil's advocate, but in order to explore the aesthetic rationale for his aversion to this look.

I also understand Balfour's arguments, although I do think he is right that a general aversion to jeans may affect his judgement on this topic. Indeed disliking cords with blazers would suggest that Balfour is not one for the 'dress up + dress down' (i.e. smart top, casual bottoms) so beloved of designers these days, whether its jeans, cords or anything else.

The classic flannels + blazer look is timeless, but is also rather more dressy (dare I say _more formal.._ no I'd better not!)

I must disagree however that the only contrast between blue jeans and blazers is texture (leaving aside contrast in dressiness). Even within 'blue', denim has such a range of shades, from raw through dark indigo through acid-wash 80s rockstar.

Of course, if you don't like the look of a 'dressy' jacket with a 'casual/utilitarian' trouser then you will never got on with the blazer-jeans look...


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Indeed disliking cords with blazers would suggest that Balfour is not one for the 'dress up + dress down' (i.e. smart top, casual bottoms) so beloved of designers these days, whether its jeans, cords or anything else.


Fair points, generally. On the quoted bit, I can clarify I'm not averse to wearing a blazer with casual trousers - I regard cotton drills as firmly in the casual camp, but they don't have the same country associations as cords. Moleskin is borderline for me. Not in your face country like cords, but obviously a country fabric.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

FWIW, I don't like jeans and don't wear them. Don't even own a pair. I don't find jeans with a blazer any more or less unappealing than other uses of jeans. Being in my mid-30's, I've seen men doing it my entire life. On the one hand, this means that it has no "newness" or "rebel" or "iconoclast" component to it; on the other hand, it breaks no "rule" in my mind. 

I can summarize my views thusly:

Jeans with a blazer? Crummy.
Jeans with a polo/golf/tennis shirt? Crummy.
Jeans with a graphic tee? Crummy.
Jeans with a OCBD? Crummy.
You get the idea.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> FWIW, I don't like jeans and don't wear them. Don't even own a pair. I don't find jeans with a blazer any more or less unappealing than other uses of jeans. Being in my mid-30's, I've seen men doing it my entire life. On the one hand, this means that it has no "newness" or "rebel" or "iconoclast" component to it; on the other hand, it breaks no "rule" in my mind.
> 
> I can summarize my views thusly:
> 
> ...


I agree that jeans no longer carry the James Dean youthful rebel cache and have not for decades... in fact one of the risks with jeans and a blazer is that it can be quite ageing - unless you are in your 20s you can look like you are trying too hard to be down with the kids...

...however, I like jeans and find them highly versatile. CD, what do you wear instead of jeans for a casual trouser when you need something a bit more hardwearing and a wool pant wouldn't be appropriate? Chinos? Cords ?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

A bridge too far? Several!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> View attachment 5226
> 
> 
> A bridge too far? Several!


aaaargh! My eyes!

No wonder Bryan's laughing.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Haffman said:


> ........ Even within 'blue', denim has such a range of shades, from raw through dark indigo through acid-wash 80s rockstar....


is acid wash the shade which you sport?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Haffman said:


> CD, what do you wear instead of jeans for a casual trouser when you need something a bit more hardwearing and a wool pant wouldn't be appropriate? Chinos? Cords ?


Khakis* of various weights, for the most part. Lighter ones are much cooler than jeans (a big deal 5 months out of the year where I live), and because they can ride on the waist and not grab the legs, they are all more comfortable. Heavy ones are as durable as jeans. If you iron a crease into them, you can dress them up better than jeans.

When it gets cold, cords come into the mix. When it's cold and wet and I'm going to be outside, I have a couple pairs of wool whipcords that have been to Alaska, seen a good bit of shooting, and have carried me through dozens of rounds of cold-and/or-wet-weather golf. Because they've been worn through briars and things, they've got various picks and pulls in them, and few rough repairs. They've not been fit for the office for years. And you'd have to pay me more than they cost new for me to give them up.

Essentially, I have one way I want my pants to fit. Whether they are casual or not, I want them to fit the same way. Jeans cannot fit the way I want my pants to fit, therefore they are a non-starter.

* I never heard the term "chinos" until I was in my 20's, and then it was in some marketing rag like GQ. Where I'm from, casual cotton trousers are called khakis, regardless of their color.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Shaver said:


> No, no, not at all. It was merely chosen as the first image google provided of a jean and jacket combo. Apologies if the image obfuscated my meaning. Forget that he's a skinny minnie, with a wretched bum-fluff goatee, in a poorly fitting jacket and notice the utter lack of contrast between the two garments.


No problem. I do agree with you, though not based on contrast (which can work, depending on the jeans and the jacket), but instead based on formality. Blue jeans are about the most casual trousers I'd wear with a jacket, but a navy blazer is the most formal odd jacket for me. This is a failure of mine as a trad forum poster, but I think the right place for a navy blazer is with gray pants, and possibly black shoes -- though they work with cotton trousers, khakis will always come in second with a blazer, at least for me.

I might be willing to do moleskins with a blazer, because I want a pair of moleskins. They don't have any associations for me, because they're rarely seen in America.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Khakis* of various weights, for the most part. Lighter ones are much cooler than jeans (a big deal 5 months out of the year where I live), and because they can ride on the waist and not grab the legs, they are all more comfortable. Heavy ones are as durable as jeans. If you iron a crease into them, you can dress them up better than jeans.
> 
> When it gets cold, cords come into the mix. When it's cold and wet and I'm going to be outside, I have a couple pairs of wool whipcords that have been to Alaska, seen a good bit of shooting, and have carried me through dozens of rounds of cold-and/or-wet-weather golf. Because they've been worn through briars and things, they've got various picks and pulls in them, and few rough repairs. They've not been fit for the office for years. And you'd have to pay me more than they cost new for me to give them up.
> 
> ...


My apologies for giving the wrong name, I never know what to call them. I dislike the word chino as well but to me khaki is a colour and it seems unnatural to use it for a trouser, so I am a bit stuck. For the sake of discussion I will stick to khakis.

It sounds like you have accumulated quite a range of khakis. I must say I have had a lot of difficulty locating suppliers that offer anything more than those ghastly bland cotton trousers from the Gap. I read with interest the recent thread on buying khakis for a reasonable price, but I dont think a lot of the brands mentioned are available in England. Bill's isnt either but also sounds quite expensive?

The search continues.....


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Khakis* * I never heard the term "chinos" until I was in my 20's, and then it was in some marketing rag like GQ. Where I'm from, casual cotton trousers are called khakis, regardless of their color.


 I'ved in Florida, the South, New England, now Michigan, and that's all I've ever called them, or really ever heard them called. You gotcher tan khakis, your olive khakis, your navy khakis, even your khaki khakis.

Same with soft drinks...they're all Cokes to me!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> My apologies for giving the wrong name, I never know what to call them. I dislike the word chino as well but to me khaki is a colour and it seems unnatural to use it for a trouser, so I am a bit stuck. For the sake of discussion I will stick to khakis.
> 
> It sounds like you have accumulated quite a range of khakis. I must say I have had a lot of difficulty locating suppliers that offer anything more than those ghastly bland cotton trousers from the Gap. I read with interest the recent thread on buying khakis for a reasonable price, but I dont think a lot of the brands mentioned are available in England. Bill's isnt either but also sounds quite expensive?
> 
> The search continues.....


Cordings are really nice, albeit expensive (but cf. that Kiton jeans thread).

Charles Tyrwhitt aren't too bad if you want cheap beaters (the cotton is quite thick, almost canvassy and holds a crease).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Haffman said:


> My apologies for giving the wrong name, I never know what to call them. I dislike the word chino as well but to me khaki is a colour and it seems unnatural to use it for a trouser, so I am a bit stuck. For the sake of discussion I will stick to khakis.
> 
> It sounds like you have accumulated quite a range of khakis. I must say I have had a lot of difficulty locating suppliers that offer anything more than those ghastly bland cotton trousers from the Gap. I read with interest the recent thread on buying khakis for a reasonable price, but I dont think a lot of the brands mentioned are available in England. Bill's isnt either but also sounds quite expensive?
> 
> The search continues.....


Oh, I wasn't criticizing your use of the word "chino," it's just one that *I* don't use. Regional and national differences in dialect and words choices are interesting to me, and the fact that someone in another part of the world uses a different word than I do is hardly objectionable.*

Yeah, I've picked up a number of khakis over the years. I admit that Bill's is now the source for most of them; the expense is regretable, but given the drop in rise, the deletion of pleats, and the skinny-ing of legs on the mainstream retail brands, that's where I've mostly been driven. I also have some that are copies of old WWII British or Austrailian patterns, but they tend to be _very_ casual/sloppy, sometimes with cargo pockets or the like.

* Unless someone is using "barbeque" to mean grilled hot dogs or hamburgers. Barbeque means slow cooking with lots of smoke. High-temp cooking with flaming charcoal or, heaven forbid, _gas_ is NOT barbeque. It's grilling.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

BluePincord said:


> I'ved in Florida, the South, New England, now Michigan, and that's all I've ever called them, or really ever heard them called. You gotcher tan khakis, your olive khakis, your navy khakis, even your khaki khakis.
> 
> Same with soft drinks...they're all Cokes to me!


Common ground, sir, common ground.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Howard said:


> Does anyone wear Blue Suede Shoes anymore?





Orsini said:


> I could wear these.


With a blue seersucker or pincord....hell to the yeah.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> I probably did a bad job of explaining it. Barring a collar pin or bar, or a very soft collar to the shirt, or a very round club collar, I don't want to see the points of the collar when the jacket is on. I want the collar to frame the necktie with a simple inverted V, not a W shape.


As I've opted for the classic spread spread on my MTM shirts (fits my face better). I ran into this issue (points barely made it to the lapel) in the process of tuning the pattern. I opted to order the next set 1/4" longer to correct things. Granted people would never see a problem, the symmetry was lacking in my eyes.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, I wasn't criticizing your use of the word "chino," it's just one that *I* don't use. Regional and national differences in dialect and words choices are interesting to me, and the fact that someone in another part of the world uses a different word than I do is hardly objectionable.*


Sure, I know it wasn't a criticism - it's just on this side of the pond there isn't really a word that seems right for them. "Chino" just reminds me of Gap adverts and "khaki" is a colour :confused2:. Odd that it should be so difficult when their heritage is English anyway.

I think next time I am in the USA I might check out Bill's.

I am slightly surprised that you like pleated khakis (if I have understood you correctly). I had thought they were a bit of an oxymoron, since the khaki pant is derived from a flat-fronted army trouser (?worn on the hip). Maybe I'm wrong about this (and sorry if this ground has been covered a billion times! :redface


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Balfour said:


> Cordings are really nice, albeit expensive (but cf. that Kiton jeans thread).
> 
> Charles Tyrwhitt aren't too bad if you want cheap beaters (the cotton is quite thick, almost canvassy and holds a crease).


Thanks Balfour...they are two brands I've considered. I had suspected that CT might not have enough 'heft' to them (sounds like I'm wrong) and Cordings seemed a bit expensive for what they are, but maybe I'll just have to bite the bullet.


----------



## mrp (Mar 1, 2011)

BluePincord said:


> * Square-toed shoes
> * Sandals worn anywhere but the beach (Jesus of Nazareth gets a pass, you do not)
> * Dress shirts worn without undershirts
> * Light tan shoes with dark suits (as depicted in Haffman's post)
> ...


I'm shocked, PC and I are in agreement on more items than less. I perfer my Bier german style (Pils/Lager), I don't own a pair of MS but wouldn't mind having a pair if they fit.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

mrp said:


> I'm shocked, PC and I are in agreement on more items than less. I perfer my Bier german style (Pils/Lager), I don't own a pair of MS but wouldn't mind having a pair if they fit.


:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:

Truth be told, I like well-hopped beer, but there has to be the proper malt balance. Think proper British IPAs. What we Yanks have done to the term IPA is a crime. Any idiot can stuff a dump truck full of cascades or simcoes into a vat of Coors Light...that doesn't make it an IPA.

Oh, and I hate diet beers as well. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> *Looks around the classroom*
> 
> cargo shorts
> jean shorts
> ...


There is a place for seersucker shorts, especially for younger men, assuming one accepts the idea of an adult male wearing shorts in public.
Regarding a black belt with navy pants, this puzzles me, at least if said pants are suit pants, in which case the belt should match the shoes; and black shoes with navy suits are always appropriate (even if not always optimal) and for some occasions most appropriate.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Thanks Balfour...they are two brands I've considered. I had suspected that CT might not have enough 'heft' to them (sounds like I'm wrong) and Cordings seemed a bit expensive for what they are, but maybe I'll just have to bite the bullet.


Cordings have occasional sales (not like Lewin or CT permanent sales) - sometimes you can get a bargain (at the moment, they're actually doing buy one get one half price). I'm still quality over quantity for anything that I don't use for hiking, etc.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Sober said:


> A suit worn with a parka or similar sport overcoat.


Agreed except if it is -25 C 

Or windchill...

I got a walking tour of a capital city in a neighboring state at the Baltic sea. Had a suit and a wool coat. It was -28 and 8m/s. Had to be polite. I then went to the hotel and showered for 30 minutes and drank a quarter of my "tax free" Laghavulin. Brrrr...


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Here's one I know won't be terribly popular here, but...patch pockets on sport coats.

Yes, I know there is nothing in the world wrong with them, and on some jackets they can be an indicator of quality. Too, they allow the maker to offer a lighter/cooler coat, as besom pockets are usually found only on lined coats. And of course they can be used to dress a jacket down the casual ladder, which depending on the style of the jacket can be a good thing. And lastly, they are found on some of the finest British tweed coats extant. I get all that.

Still, growing up in the seventies, I remember all the garrulously awful sport coats of the time, and they invariably had patch pockets -- often as a way to introduce more bad patterns, or at least to badly match the existing horribility. And you never found besom pockets on a leisure suit, either.

So when I see patch pockets, I am immediately reminded of some of the worst things sewn to man. I can't help it.

Besomly yours,
Blue Pincord

.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Copious amounts of white undershirt visible at the neck.
Black shoes with "stone" chinos...which looks even worse than with khakis.
Tattoos (I know, I'll get flamed for that). Makes me cry when I see them on beautiful women.
Those earrings that are actually plugs or disks that sit in the lobe. Yes, I judge you.
Dark colored dress shirts. There's a big IT company in my building, and for some reason they all wear black suits (already a problem) with dark shirts, often something that might be called scarlet. And of course with black, square toed loafers.
Suit coat sleeves that are too long and pool around the wrist like jeans. It really bothers me.
Those super cheap hats that became popular recently. I don't know how to describe them, but I suspect y'all know what I'm talking about.
Wearing big white "Beats" headphones while out and about on the street. I see that a lot, esp. among people who look like they can ill afford to pay what they cost. They scream three things: 1. Mug me. 2. I don't know jack about sound. 3. I waste my money.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Blue', 

I don't much care for patch pockets with flaps, but sometimes the simplicity of unflapped ones is appealing. A year or two ago, I had a jacket made of heavy and stiff tweed. I had it constructed with as little structure as possible, with the idea that the fabric would provide all the body needed. It's almost entirely unlined. In contrast to my usual penchant for building up details, I felt like a stripped-down aesthetic went with the stripped-down construction, and had open-topped patch pockets put on (I couldn't bring myself to a patch breast pocket - that's still besom). You might still hate it.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Can we talk frankly about 3/2 rolls?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Tattoos (I know, *I'll get flamed for that*).


Why?!


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Why?!


There was a similar thread like this not too long ago, a bit before you started posting. That thread and others made clear that the topic is a surefire way to get a thread off topic. I can assure you that such is not my intention. People feel strongly about it one way or the other.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> You might still hate it.


I'll be the first to admit mine is not a rational response. And I'm with you...the unflapped patches invoke far less of my reflex, particularly where they have a substantial U-shape. It's a construction that I'm sure most folks in the world would, and probably should, find charming.

But I was a kid in the seventies, so I was old enough to witness the vulgarity, but not yet old enough to have access to the kind of sedatives that would have made it passable.

So every time I see a flapped patch pocket, I want to hunt down Joe Namath and jam a bottle of Brut* straight through his earhole.

I wish I could help it.

* By Faberge.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

@ Toq.: Thanks for the warning!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

BluePincord said:


> But I was a kid in the seventies, so I was old enough to witness the vulgarity, but not yet old enough to have access to the kind of sedatives that would have made it passable.


LOL! I understand completely.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Can we talk frankly about 3/2 rolls?


:icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big: :icon_smile_big:

And stop calling me 'Frankly.'


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Can we talk frankly about 3/2 rolls?


Surely, you can't be serious :tongue2:


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> Can we talk frankly about 3/2 rolls?


Please do, it's high time! :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Haffman said:


> Please do, it's high time! :icon_smile_wink:


They're not exactly eye sores, and I get that it stands as a sort of shibboleth for guys who are into a certain style, but it is sort of silly, no? I mean, does anyone think that it looks good?

(Oh, boy, I'm going to get in trouble for this...)


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

tocqueville said:


> They're not exactly eye sores, and I get that it stands as a sort of shibboleth for guys who are into a certain style, but it is sort of silly, no? I mean, does anyone think that it looks good?
> 
> (Oh, boy, I'm going to get in trouble for this...)


It looked good on Cary Grant, but what didn't?

I must say that on this issue I agree with the dear departed Cruiser...3 roll 2 tends to look like a fault in the construction, a mistake in the pressing.... I can't understand why it is aesthetically preferable to a standard button 3 or button 2...:icon_scratch:

...I'll get my coat!


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

I'm with you guys. It's not the peek-a-boo button that bothers me so much, either...it's the gaping button hole just above the beginning of the fold that breaks up an otherwise beautiful transition.

I don't mind them as much in a busier tweed cloth, but on a solid or a simple pattern, they are certainly not to my taste.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Here's my theory (offered before, but not in the last year or two) on 3r2's. I think they started as a way to emmulate what happens to a non-fused 3b suit when it is buttoned year-after-year only at the middle button. If the canvas is not stiff/heavy, it can easily develop a bit of a roll. Since 3r2 jackets nearly always have soft shoulders, I think they are supposed to suggest a well-worn, soft jacket - just the sort of thing Old Money Ivy Leaguers go in for. The problem comes, IMO, when the roll is not kept soft, but becomes a hard crease above the middle button... that _is _indistinguishable from a pressing error.

I don't particularly like 3r2's. I do have a couple of 3b's that are now, after a decade or so, rolling down to about a 2.5. That, I don't mind. But I think there is a rationale behind the 3r2 beyond just "it's trad."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

3/2 rolls _and_ tattoos are dreadful.

Seriously.

And both dreadful for almost entirely the same reason.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> 3/2 rolls _and_ tattoos are dreadful.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> And both dreadful for almost entirely the same reason.


I quite like both, though not the western style tattoos very much. Nor really tattoos that are visible when wearing clothes.

I think various buttoning modes etc are all ok as long as they work in your context and don't interfere with fit. Perhaps not the four button jacket though. That's too close to some kind of weird uniform jacket.

I don't like patch pockets on suits much, they really break up the lines to me.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> I quite like both, though not the western style tattoos very much. Nor really tattoos that are visible when wearing clothes.
> 
> I think various buttoning modes etc are all ok as long as they work in your context and don't interfere with fit. Perhaps not the four button jacket though. That's too close to some kind of weird uniform jacket.
> 
> I don't like patch pockets on suits much, they really break up the lines to me.


What is a western style tattoo?

In England, and perhaps elsewhere, we suffer the 'celtic' tattoo. If you want a tattoo but don't even have the limited imagination to choose from the usual hodge-podge of dragons and skulls and mermaids and pointless words and the what-not then you get one of these things. Reminiscent of the doodle you might scribble absent-mindedly whilst talking on the telephone except, of course, as a permanent eyesore on your body.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> What is a western style tattoo?
> 
> In England, and perhaps elsewhere, we suffer the 'celtic' tattoo. If you want a tattoo but don't even have the limited imagination to choose from the usual hodge-podge of dragons and skulls and mermaids and pointless words and the what-not then you get one of these things. Reminiscent of the doodle you might scribble absent-mindedly whilst talking on the telephone except, of course, as a permanent eyesore on your body.


As opposed to a Japanese style tattoo...

Irezumi tattoos. They've been doing it since 10000 bc. Very trad


----------



## Argon (May 28, 2012)

Shaver said:


> aaaargh! My eyes!
> 
> No wonder Bryan's laughing.


That outfit is so horrible that it almost _works_.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

this hyperlinking of words like "trousers" is pretty annoying, but the hyperlink on shaver's phrase "the limited imagination" is ridiculous.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

CuffDaddy said:


> Trench coats on sunny-but-cold days (yes, yes, "the liner," I know, I don't care, buy a real coat).


This reminds me of that scene in Metropolitan.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

L-feld said:


> This reminds me of that scene in Metropolitan.


Which? It doesn't ring a bell. You mean the Fritz Lang film, right?


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

There's a guy I see every morning in the bus who wears, along with tatoos and piercings all over his face, big black discs in his completely stretched out earlobes. I mean, how can it get any worse.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

[


Bjorn said:


> As opposed to a Japanese style tattoo...
> 
> Irezumi tattoos. They've been doing it since 10000 bc. Very trad :smile:


Aha, gotcha! The phrase 'western tattoo' conjured vivid images of bucking bronco's, steer wrangling, jangling spurs and ten gallon hats.



The Rambler said:


> this hyperlinking of words like "trousers" is pretty annoying, but the hyperlink on shaver's phrase "the limited imagination" is ridiculous.


I concur. Perhaps we should type everything in blue and underlined in the first instance as protest? Does anyone actually click on these darn links?



Thomas Martin said:


> There's a guy I see every morning in the bus who wears, along with tatoos and piercings all over his face, big black discs in his completely stretched out earlobes. I mean, how can it get any worse?


Facial piercings (and here I nobly restain myself from a rant of monumental proportions).

..........or even a 3/2 roll?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

These threads always go from "I'm not sure about this button stance" or "patch pockets are a sin" to "I'm gonna tell everyone how much alternative lifestyles bug me".

But a man with tattoos can dress as well as any of us. We can all have peeves with other social groups. But I don't think it translates very well to a discussion on clothes. Especially since no one has any real interest in piercings here (although, as I have pointed out before, it was all the craze among Victorian gentlemen). 

But hey, it's a free fora


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> These threads always go from "I'm not sure about this button stance" or "patch pockets are a sin" to "I'm gonna tell everyone how much alternative lifestyles bug me".
> 
> But a man with tattoos can dress as well as any of us. We can all have peeves with other social groups. But I don't think it translates very well to a discussion on clothes. Especially since no one has any real interest in piercings here (although, as I have pointed out before, it was all the craze among Victorian gentlemen).
> 
> But hey, it's a free fora


Dopey piercings, misjudged tattoos, offensive t-shirts and the like do not qualify as alternative lifestyle. Anything that someone can buy from a shop (in a futile attempt to make themselves appear interesting, edgy, eccentric, wacky, or whatever delusion it is that they are endeavouring to fuel) is intrinsically unable to generate any 'alternative'.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Dopey piercings, misjudged tattoos, offensive t-shirts and the like do not qualify as alternative lifestyle. Anything that someone can buy from a shop (in a futile attempt to make themselves appear interesting, edgy, eccentric, wacky, or whatever delusion it is that they are endeavouring to fuel) is intrinsically unable to generate any 'alternative'.


Not in themselves, no. But om sure you get my point. It's a derailing to go there.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Not in themselves, no. But om sure you get my point. It's a derailing to go there.


Actually I am uncertain if I do get your point; might I encourage you to elaborate?

Also, is it even possible that one can derail a thread that they themselves introduced? Perhaps....but in truth the thread was derailed some 137 posts ago.

We are just 'riffing' now and having a little fun. Presumably that's ok by you? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Actually I am uncertain if I do get your point; might I encourage you to elaborate?
> 
> Also, is it even possible that one can derail a thread that they themselves introduced? Perhaps....but in truth the thread was derailed some 137 posts ago.
> 
> We are just 'riffing' now and having a little fun. Presumably that's ok by you? :icon_smile_wink:


Why not just read the old thread then


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Why not just read the old thread then


Two answers:

1. You have further perplexed me. Which old thread?

2. We don't 'just read the old threads' as we have books if that is our requirement but the raison d'etre of a sterling forum such as this is interaction - often, if we are exceedingly fortunate, with fine fellows such as yourself.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

I find the current trend of the undershirt used as outerwear quite tedious.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> They would certainly go very well with a blue blazer and blue jeans. :devil:


But aren't blue suede shoes out of style?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Flanderian said:


> View attachment 5226
> 
> 
> A bridge too far? Several!


OH WOW!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

cargo shorts and wifebeaters.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Haffman said:


> It looked good on Cary Grant, but what didn't?
> 
> I must say that on this issue I agree with the dear departed Cruiser...3 roll 2 tends to look like a fault in the construction, a mistake in the pressing.... I can't understand why it is aesthetically preferable to a standard button 3 or button 2...:icon_scratch:
> 
> ...I'll get my coat!


I prefer the look of a 2 button sack and I'll have one made if I ever get around to it.


----------



## conductor (Mar 1, 2010)

Knit hats when it is too darn hot for knit hats. I see this a lot in my locale...the hipsters can't abandon their look for a few months and will still wear them on a 90 degree high humidity day.


----------



## Argon (May 28, 2012)

conductor said:


> Knit hats when it is too darn hot for knit hats. I see this a lot in my locale...the hipsters can't abandon their look for a few months and will still wear them on a 90 degree high humidity day.


Good call. And how about the people who wear what appear to be medium-sized, furry, dead animals on their heads in the same weather? Replete with large ear flaps. I've see these people on occasion walking around the hipper neighbourhoods in blistering, humid heat. They'd have been laughed out of town 10 years ago, but for the past couple of years it's apparently been deemed an acceptable look. None of it makes any sense.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Speaking of hipsters, I find ironic mustaches so terribly irksome.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

conductor said:


> Knit hats when it is too darn hot for knit hats. I see this a lot in my locale...the hipsters can't abandon their look for a few months and will still wear them on a 90 degree high humidity day.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

You guys need to get better at telling clueless teenagers who attend Warped Tour from hipsters -- the neon beanies in hot weather and the animal hats are more for baby hipsters who don't read Pitchfork yet and have yet to associate themselves with political causes because of how "in" they are at the moment.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> You guys need to get better at telling clueless teenagers who attend Warped Tour from hipsters -- the neon beanies in hot weather and the animal hats are more for baby hipsters who don't read Pitchfork yet and have yet to associate themselves with political causes because of how "in" they are at the moment.


I was just telling myself the exact same thing only a moment ago. 'Shaver' I said 'you badly need to improve your depleted skills and reinvigorate your powers of identification vis-a-vis the teenage wildlife, old sport'

Shamefully my ability, nay urge, to follow teen fashion has dropped off considerably in the years since I was a teenager.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Shaver said:


> I was just telling myself the exact same thing only a moment ago. 'Shaver' I said 'you badly need to improve your depleted skills and reinvigorate your powers of identification vis-a-vis the teenage wildlife, old sport'
> 
> Shamefully my ability, nay urge, to follow teen fashion has dropped off considerably in the years since I was a teenager.


:smile:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Argon said:


> That outfit is so horrible that it almost _works_.


Too bright, *too* much color (And I love color!) but nice pieces, and closer to the mark.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Too bright, *too* much color (And I love color!) but nice pieces, and closer to the mark.
> 
> View attachment 5243


with a different colour tie, say pale earthy green or even heather blue, and a less camoflaged ps - I could live with that.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> Too bright, *too* much color (And I love color!) but nice pieces, and closer to the mark.
> 
> View attachment 5243


Love the gun club check, but agree it doesn't work as an outfit.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> Too bright, *too* much color (And I love color!) but nice pieces, and closer to the mark.
> 
> View attachment 5243


This was right on the line for me -- one element toned down and it might have worked, two toned down at it would have been pretty nice. Then I saw the pants.

:crazy:


----------



## AlexS (May 20, 2012)

gaseousclay said:


> I know some of the villagers might come after me with pitchforks for saying this but I find the Alden Indy Boot with cuffed jeans look to be a little played out. it's as if every hipster with a pair of Indy boots wears their pants this way.


Different is not always bad. It's obvious but important to remember this point as our brains are hard wired to think otherwise.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Flanderian said:


> Too bright, *too* much color (And I love color!) but nice pieces, and closer to the mark.
> 
> View attachment 5243


The problem, IMO, is mixing the muted earth-tones of the jacket with the primary colors of the vest, tie, and trousers. If the vest were a golden or ochre color, instead of canary yellow, and the tie were an olive green, and the trousers rust instead of cherry-popsicle-red, it would all work.

People think primary colors are basic and easy. Pure primary colors are, in fact, the hardest to use well, IMO.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> with a different colour tie, say pale earthy green or even heather blue, and a less camoflaged ps - I could live with that.


I agree, but what is less visible in this smaller reproduction are the bright rust cords. They'd be a bit much for me with the yellow waistcoat.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> I agree, but what is less visible in this smaller reproduction are the bright rust cords. They'd be a bit much for me with the yellow waistcoat.


yeaaahhhh ...... *sharp intake of breath* I'd not noticed them peeping out at the bottom of the picture.

Red trousers should be confined solely to the usage of gents who have sailed the atlantic in a yacht.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> The problem, IMO, is mixing the muted earth-tones of the jacket with the primary colors of the vest, tie, and trousers. If the vest were a golden or ochre color, instead of canary yellow, and the tie were an olive green, and the trousers rust instead of cherry-popsicle-red, it would all work.
> 
> People think primary colors are basic and easy. Pure primary colors are, in fact, the hardest to use well, IMO.


Yes, I think so too. It's impossible to tell from the photo I provided but in the original -

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ioKsMRESKRc/TYhnVLREQEI/AAAAAAAAIEc/3DIBq8Ki_80/s1600/P3190110.JPG

the tiny bit of corduroy that can be seen is bright rust on my monitor. Too much with the bright yellow vest. Tone down either, on you're on the path.

From a great blog I just found, Tweedland -

https://tweedlandthegentlemansclub.blogspot.com/search?q=Intermezzo

If slightly lacking in IT sophistication, marvelous content. Not all sartorial but exhibiting taste, depth and maturity across a range of interesting topics.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Shaver said:


> yeaaahhhh ...... *sharp intake of breath* I'd not noticed them peeping out at the bottom of the picture.
> 
> Red trousers should be confined solely to the usage of gents who have sailed the atlantic in a yacht.


More of his stuff -

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--R0hUABueyY/TWd2rVzCk4I/AAAAAAAAHjA/_T0l7N_h9lo/s1600/P2230773.JPG

Nice stuff, really. (We Americans tend to genuflect in the presence of horsey.)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Flanderian said:


> More of his stuff -
> 
> https://1.bp.blogspot.com/--R0hUABueyY/TWd2rVzCk4I/AAAAAAAAHjA/_T0l7N_h9lo/s1600/P2230773.JPG
> 
> Nice stuff, really. (We Americans tend to genuflect in the presence of horsey.)


mmmmmmm..... Tattersall check........ happiness as a grid.

:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Shaver said:


> mmmmmmm..... Tattersall check........ happiness as a grid.
> 
> :icon_smile_big:


Here's my question: what shirt do you wear with a tattersall vest? An OCBD would work, I guess, but it seems too American for such an English look.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Here's my question: what shirt do you wear with a tattersall vest? An OCBD would work, I guess, but it seems too American for such an English look.


That's why they make ecru poplin and brushed shirts, as well as light blue end-on-end.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Shaver said:


> mmmmmmm..... Tattersall check........ happiness as a grid.
> 
> :icon_smile_big:


But surely not as a waistcoat? Bit Sir Watkyn Bassett (even for me!:biggrin2.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> But surely not as a waistcoat? Bit Sir Watkyn Bassett (even for me!:biggrin2.


Oh crikey no! In fact - nothing at all as a waistcoat.

Not really my style, waistcoats. Don't mind them, in fact rather like them, just not on me.


----------



## sartoriallytactical (Dec 9, 2011)

Twice this week I have seen men in contrast collar shirts with French cuffs worn with no tie and no jacket. The collar spreads out and looks awful. I don't like contrast collar shirts or French cuffs as it is, so this unkempt look was very disappointing to me. Just slightly more effort and these guys would have looked like they deserved the jobs they have.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Howard said:


> But aren't blue suede shoes out of style?


Not for me. I can wear (almost) anything.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Pick stitching, since a variety of it is on many of the worst men's wear labels, apparently made with some kind of machine. It has kind of ruined pick stitching, IMO. Was maybe not a fan to begin with, since it seems elaborate.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

hardline_42 said:


> Speaking of hipsters, I find ironic mustaches so terribly irksome.


Why is that?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

and I'm suprised they don't sweat terribly.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

How about the cowboy look? I mean some guys look good in jeans, cowboy boots and shirts,It's the way they try to pull it off as looking cowboy-ish.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Howard said:


> How about the cowboy look? I mean some guys look good in jeans, cowboy boots and shirts,It's the way they try to pull it off as looking cowboy-ish.










I have no problem with the cowboy look. guess it depends on what you're wearing. I think Andrew Lincoln's dress is pretty sharp in Walking Dead. the gray button up shirt with ranch jacket is a nice touch imo.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

let's not forget about those college students who wear pajamas to school


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

gaseousclay said:


> let's not forget about those college students who wear pajamas to school


Well, there's all kinds of stuff that is "wrong," or outside the classic/trad cannon of appropriate wear. I thought the OP was not trying to get at sins and transgressions, but at things that technically comply with "the rules," but that are aesthetically unappealing to us.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, there's all kinds of stuff that is "wrong," or outside the classic/trad cannon of appropriate wear. I thought the OP was not trying to get at sins and transgressions, but at things that technically comply with "the rules," but that are aesthetically unappealing to us.


Indeed CuffDaddy is correct. Although, truly, I do not mind the digressions - Heaven knows I have been responsible for a few curlicues during my tenure on the forum.

But, in focus once more, here is perhaps a detail unconsidered by many but which always grinds my gears and saddens my heart. I weep inwardly at each observance.

Improperly tied shoelaces.

How so? What is it that can be considered impropriety? You may well ask, and here I supply the answer - unbalanced knots.

How difficult can it be to ensure that your laces are the same length? It is surely no puzzle with capacity to flummox Solomon the arranging of the knot which is central to that equality of length? To provide a loop of the bow and with which it's tails are quite even. How could a man announce his maleficence so brazenly as to leave the house with his shoelaces twisted? Twisted, nay coiled as like unto the dastardly serpent which tempted Eve, so that instead of the bow lying neatly across the vamp it points chaotically ankle toward toe.

Bah! I despair. Fie and dash it all, ligature illiterate scoundrels.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

gaseousclay said:


> I have no problem with the cowboy look. guess it depends on what you're wearing. I think Andrew Lincoln's dress is pretty sharp in Walking Dead. the gray button up shirt with ranch jacket is a nice touch imo.


I was thinking more like blue jeans cowboy boots and shirt.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

gaseousclay said:


> let's not forget about those college students who wear pajamas to school


they even wear them to supermarkets.


----------



## s1722 (Sep 7, 2011)

Jake Genezen said:


> On a similar note: man + suit + rucksack = ? Forget it not looking good, surely it's impractical. How can one file away books, paperwork, etc in a rucksack? Plus the damage it can do to the suit's shoulder.


#

Lets take this one a little further. Every winter, thousands of Londoners bear witness to a real treat - the Rux 'n' Tux. As the party season gets into full swing droves of City workers emerge from their offices, rushing to the nearest black tie event. For some reason, they insist on carrying rucksacks.

Better still, its is usually a Fitness First rucksack.

Sublime.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

You boys certainly are crabby. You ought to give thanks that you get to see a suit worn, let alone complain about it. 

I was paid to maintain gig lists for many years. I generally don't do it in private life.


----------



## Argon (May 28, 2012)

Paisley patterns (on anything). 

They have the aura of feverish nightmares in which one has been set the serious task of solving a vague and ultimately irresolvable puzzle. I really don't see the attraction. They're typically done in such murky colours too.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

This advert should horrify Shaver on many levels: 




I was especially thinking of the black tasseled loafers with blue jeans.


----------



## Argon (May 28, 2012)

Double-buckle monkstraps. Too fussy.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Paisley always makes me think of those acid trip movies from the 60's.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

A post of Balfour's in another thread reminded me of one:

Suits worn without ties!

A sport coat without a tie can be relaxed and charming.

But a suit? It looks like you forgot something, or were too careless at lunch and had to take it off.

I've seen cotton summer suits where you might could get away with it, but NOT a traditional business suit.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

BluePincord said:


> I've seen cotton summer suits where you might could get away with it, but NOT a traditional business suit.


+1.

Tie-less does not work with a business suit. If the suit jacket can work effectively as a sports coat, it's okay without a tie. The only business suit that might be okay without a tie is a navy serge. Not that I would do it mysef.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> This advert should horrify Shaver on many levels:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good Lord! A timely reminder to one of the myriad reasons I refrain from watching television.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Argon said:


> Paisley patterns (on anything).
> 
> They have the aura of feverish nightmares in which one has been set the serious task of solving a vague and ultimately irresolvable puzzle. I really don't see the attraction. They're typically done in such murky colours too.





Orsini said:


> Paisley always makes me think of those acid trip movies from the 60's.


Paisley absolutely has it's place. Never with business attire, of course, but a paisley pocket square seems the premium compliment to a tweed jacket. A rather dashing pattern for a cravat too.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

sport coats with open button down shirts exposing your hairy chest?


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

little late to the game, but i don't like:

bluchers
monk straps
navy blazer & grey flannels with black shoes (looks too "security guard" to me... any shade of burgundy/oxblood/merlot with same outfit is a different story)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

salgy said:


> ......navy blazer & grey flannels with black shoes (looks too "security guard" to me...


Hark! I hear a noise. Is that the approach of Mr Balfour..........?


----------



## CdnTrad (May 27, 2012)

Hakeswill said:


> - Suit with backpack


I've been seeing an appallingly large number of my coworkers doing that. What I saw today that irked me specifically was a french-cuffed shirt worn with no tie and no jacket. I could suffer no tie if a jacket was worn.


----------



## DocD (Jun 2, 2007)

Wearing "scrubs" in public such as restaurants, grocery stores, etc. I fully understand the need and purpose of wearing scrubs. In my daily endeavors, I often deal with wounds, infections, dressing changes, trauma, and (I apologize) body fluids. As a result. I often wear scrubs to avoid ruining my clothes,,even though I do wear a lab coat. However, when I leave the office or hospital, I change out of the scrubs. I find it both disturbing and digusting when I see someone in a casual restaurant sitting in a pair of scrubs. It can only look even more foolish if the person is also sporting a stethoscope around his/her neck in public.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

DocD said:


> Wearing "scrubs" in public such as restaurants, grocery stores, etc. I fully understand the need and purpose of wearing scrubs. In my daily endeavors, I often deal with wounds, infections, dressing changes, trauma, and (I apologize) body fluids. As a result. I often wear scrubs to avoid ruining my clothes,,even though I do wear a lab coat. However, when I leave the office or hospital, I change out of the scrubs. I find it both disturbing and digusting when I see someone in a casual restaurant sitting in a pair of scrubs. It can only look even more foolish if the person is also sporting a stethoscope around his/her neck in public.


That's why they should take it off after they're clocked out.


----------



## StylinLa (Feb 15, 2009)

The trend in my company is to wear nice slacks, dress shoes with an untucked dress shirt.

The horror...


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Men in a suit wearing black athletic shoes as if such shoes are dress shoes.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StylinLa said:


> The trend in my company is to wear nice slacks, dress shoes with an untucked dress shirt.
> 
> The horror...


that's quite sloppy.


----------



## StylinLa (Feb 15, 2009)

Howard said:


> that's quite sloppy.


Tell me about it. But that's become the standard in my division. I'm the odd ball with my shirt tucked in.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

BluePincord said:


> A post of Balfour's in another thread reminded me of one:
> 
> Suits worn without ties!
> 
> ...


The suit without tie combo is one of my favourite looks. Especially in semi formal occasions where a tie would be too much. What I don't like is ties without suits. For instance with blousons or leather jackets.


----------



## nemesis99 (Aug 3, 2012)

Balfour said:


> View attachment 5216
> This.


I am so embarrassed!

I really like the look of dark trousers on wallnut-coloured shoes!
Why do you find it offensive? You just don't like it or is it being disrespectful towards some protocol?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StylinLa said:


> Tell me about it. But that's become the standard in my division. I'm the odd ball with my shirt tucked in.


It's better to have shirt tucked in than tucked out, looks better that way.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

nemesis99 said:


> I am so embarrassed!
> 
> I really like the look of dark trousers on wallnut-coloured shoes!
> Why do you find it offensive? You just don't like it or is it being disrespectful towards some protocol?


This isn't just a British hang-up about brown shoes, no. I find the combination in the pic aesthetically unpleasing. I actually like what I regard as appropriate brown shoes (basically much darker) with dark suits, but there is a hang-up about business formality in the UK. For the full discussion see: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...s-formal-occasions&highlight=poll+brown+shoes

I find the contrast between those shoes and a dark suit disquieting (light and dark and formality and informality). I also don't like the shoes for any occasion (more tan than walnut which in my view pairs with a limited range of options, and the design is dreadful).

But, hey, just my view!


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

now these are atrocious


----------



## TSWalker (Nov 2, 2011)

gaseousclay said:


> now these are atrocious


Men, reject color blocking at all costs!


----------



## nemesis99 (Aug 3, 2012)

there is no way this exists in real life! Photoshoped!


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

nemesis99 said:


> there is no way this exists in real life! Photoshoped!


 https://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/p/P...cat000024cat213529cat240502&isEditorial=false


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

gaseousclay said:


> https://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/p/P...cat000024cat213529cat240502&isEditorial=false


$580 for that monstrosity?!!!!!! :icon_pale:


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

My pet peeve: Guys who wear a dress shirt, tie, and blazer and then blue jeans and loafers with no socks - and have the nerve to act as if they're well dressed.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Thomas Martin said:


> The suit without tie combo is one of my favourite looks.


A look that goes exceptionally well with a man purse.



Thomas Martin said:


> Especially in semi formal occasions where a tie would be too much.


A suit and tie IS semi-formal dress...not sure how a tie could be too much in a semi formal occasion.



Thomas Martin said:


> What I don't like is ties without suits. For instance with blousons or leather jackets.


Agreed, but no more egregious than a suit without tie, in my opinion. Actually, I consider a suit without tie worse, becuase a tie without a jacket could mean that the wearer has temporarily left his suit coat/sport coat/blazer in the car, hanging on the back of his office door, on the back of an office chair, etc. A suit without a tie can only mean the wearer is not fully dressed. Unless accompanied by a murse...then it's a great look, indeed.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

gaseousclay said:


> https://www.bergdorfgoodman.com/p/P...cat000024cat213529cat240502&isEditorial=false


My ankle is curious about this...


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

Regillus said:


> My pet peeve: Guys who wear a dress shirt, tie, and blazer and then blue jeans and loafers with no socks - and have the nerve to act as if they're well dressed.[/QUOTE
> 
> Is your problem with the jeans or the socklessness? In the South, not wearing socks in summer is a very classic look. Not wearing socks in the winter, when its cold, now THAT annoys me.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Regillus said:


> My pet peeve: Guys who wear a dress shirt, tie, and blazer and then blue jeans and loafers with no socks - and have the nerve to act as if they're well dressed.


I wear socks and mostly not loafers but otherwise, that's me.

That is well dressed. Casual. But well dressed. IMO.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

gaseousclay said:


> now these are atrocious


What's the blue color on the bottom?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Regillus said:


> My pet peeve: Guys who wear a dress shirt, tie, and blazer and then blue jeans and loafers with no socks - and have the nerve to act as if they're well dressed.


How could they not wear socks?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Howard said:


> What's the blue color on the bottom?


Sportiness.

Upper looks nice...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

FLCracka said:


> A look that goes exceptionally well with a man purse.
> 
> A suit and tie IS semi-formal dress...not sure how a tie could be too much in a semi formal occasion.
> 
> Agreed, but no more egregious than a suit without tie, in my opinion. Actually, I consider a suit without tie worse, becuase a tie without a jacket could mean that the wearer has temporarily left his suit coat/sport coat/blazer in the car, hanging on the back of his office door, on the back of an office chair, etc. A suit without a tie can only mean the wearer is not fully dressed. Unless accompanied by a murse...then it's a great look, indeed.


Actually, semi-formal dress is this... :teacha:

https://www.blacktieguide.com/Supplemental/Red_Carpet/2007_Oceans13_Cannes_peoplesdaily_crop.jpg


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

FLCracka said:


> A look that goes exceptionally well with a man purse.
> 
> A suit and tie IS semi-formal dress...not sure how a tie could be too much in a semi formal occasion.
> 
> Agreed, but no more egregious than a suit without tie, in my opinion. Actually, I consider a suit without tie worse, becuase a tie without a jacket could mean that the wearer has temporarily left his suit coat/sport coat/blazer in the car, hanging on the back of his office door, on the back of an office chair, etc. A suit without a tie can only mean the wearer is not fully dressed. Unless accompanied by a murse...then it's a great look, indeed.


Ties are beautiful, but, in my field of work seldom required. I wear them less and less. Putting on a tie requires a certain mood for me and I do it when I want to emphasize the importance of a special occasion. If not, then it is sports coats with slacks or jeans and suits without ties. I like that look but that's, like almost anything else, a matter of taste. I may not have used the term "semi formal" correctly. Though. As a non native English speaker I have much to learn yet about semantics in matters of style. Perhaps you could enlighten me on that.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

TM: To 99% of the Western world, semi formal attire means suits for men. Typically, dark, conservative suits. Also called "holiday" or "cocktail" attire. Semi-formal events could be holiday parties, weddings, dances/receptions, etc. However, to our nitpicking friend Jovan who likes to tout his technical knowledge of little-known and lesser-observed sartorial arcana, semi-formal connotes some derivation of black tie.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

FLCracka said:


> TM: To 99% of the Western world, semi formal attire means suits for men. Typically, dark, conservative suits. Also called "holiday" or "cocktail" attire. Semi-formal events could be holiday parties, weddings, dances/receptions, etc. However, to our nitpicking friend Jovan who likes to tout his technical knowledge of little-known and lesser-observed sartorial arcana, semi-formal connotes some derivation of black tie.


If you google it the first hit is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-formal

The 99% of the western world can't google?

Don't use the words if you don't know what they mean, or be thankful when someone corrects you.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

And the next 99 Google hits define it as I did. I was going with the modern, western, conventional wisdom. And, how does his "correction" affect my original point? If a tie wouldn't be too dressy for an occasion requiring a suit & tie, it certainly wouldn't be too dressy for a black tie event. By the way, where in the western world is Malmo? Somewhere that renders you an expert on American style vernacular, I presume.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

FWIW, I have never known semi-formal to be anything other than black tie. 

* Casual = Damn near anything
* Business Casual = Damn near anything, but no white socks
* Business or Cocktail = Suit, perhaps sport coat
* Semi-Formal = Black tie, no tails
* Formal = White tie, tails


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

When I was a kid, "casual" for a social event meant blazer and khaki pants or something around that level. Now, as BluePincord says, it seems to mean anything that won't get you arrested for public indecency.


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

Right CD, to make sure people arrive sans sweatsuit " casual" needs to be redefined as "smart casual". Ohh brother .....


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Yup...if you specify 'casual,' you will get someone in a tank top, and someone else in a tube top. 

And you gotta hope the tube top is on a woman.


.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

FLCracka said:


> And the next 99 Google hits define it as I did. I was going with the modern, western, conventional wisdom. And, how does his "correction" affect my original point? If a tie wouldn't be too dressy for an occasion requiring a suit & tie, it certainly wouldn't be too dressy for a black tie event. By the way, where in the western world is Malmo? Somewhere that renders you an expert on American style vernacular, I presume.


His criticism was directed towards me I think. When I see the definitions I realize that I was not so wrong with my original statement after all. Where I live 99% of the population would never wear a tie in almost any of these occasions (save for weddings perhaps). Ties have become something people wear almost exclusively for business matters. I don't say that this is good but it's a fact. But AAAC members do not represent 99% of the western world either I guess.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Buncha 1%'ers. It's time to occupy Ask Andy!


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

FLCracka said:


> Buncha 1%'ers. It's time to occupy Ask Andy!


Today I had a rather important meeting with about 50 people and I was the only one wearing a tie. What does that make me? A 2%er?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

BluePincord said:


> FWIW, I have never known semi-formal to be anything other than black tie.
> 
> * Casual = Damn near anything
> * Business Casual = Damn near anything, but no white socks
> ...


you forgot smart casual.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Here's a couple of my peeves:

No one wearing a tuxedo (except me) when the invitation says "Black tie required".
Women wearing Wellington Boots at the merest hint of a drizzle.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

FLCracka said:


> Buncha 1%'ers. It's time to occupy Ask Andy!


Okay so it was all a joke? One hopes.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Okay so it was all a joke? One hopes.


""Sigh"" You really have a hard time letting things rest, don't you?

When I attempted to define semi-formal, no I wasn't joking. Look, I know the technical, traditional definition of semi-formal involves black tie. But the fact of the matter is, most people wanting "business attire" these days will send out invitations saying "semi formal" or even "formal". Definitions change and a gentleman adapts, and in this country, in all but the rarest of cases if you show up to a semi-formal function in a tux you will look outdated and pretentious. All this stuff is culturally dependent, too. I'm a 4th generation Floridian. When I was growing up, attending a semi-formal dance or party meant wearing a coat & tie...MAYBE a suit.

After that first Wikipedia reference, I was hard pressed to find another Google hit that didn't define semi-formal as a suit (or less) for men. Seriously...try it. I guess my mistake was using the current, conventional wisdom on a forum of clothing enthusiasts. I come to this board because I enjoy dressing well. But I'm not dogmatic about it and I'm not real big on following any particular rules. Believe what you will, but in the "real world" where I live, semi formal means suits for men (at best).


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Don't sarcastically "sigh" at me. I attempted to settle the matter in private message like a gentleman, yet you declined to answer.

Far as I know, I have never attacked you or been mean in any way. You said something rather nasty about me for no reason, because apparently what I consider semi-formal isn't the same as you. That is fine. We could have agreed to disagree, you could have left it at that but instead chose to be an a** for little reason.

We are done here.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

fuzzy boots and short shorts


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^:devil:
...are we talking about boots and hot pants on guys or gals here? Be it guys, I give you a hearty +1000 "Aaaarghhh! My eyes" reaction! if your reference be to gals, hold on there and let's take a moment to rethink this! LOL.


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

^ agreed! Not a fan I the "look" of short skirts with boots. But I'm not asking anyone to go home and change!


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

firedancer said:


> ^ agreed! Not a fan I the "look" of short skirts with boots. But I'm not asking anyone to go home and change!


Yesterday I saw 3 young women with short pants and boots on Wall Street, one of whom then shared an elevator with me. I manfully resisted the assault on my aesthetic senses by reasoning that the longer I looked, the more resistant I would become to that assault


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Unfortunately in Sweden even "smart casual" doesn't work as a dresscode, becasue people will turn up in their best blue jeans with a pair of pointy black shoes and an untucked checked shirt, and sometimes topped off with a suit jacket.....(Swedes don't do blazers)...you may laugh...but I'm not joking..I. see it every day...both in the workplace and at social functions of an evening.


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

Howard said:


> fuzzy boots and short shorts


You mean UGS (?). These are actually appropriately named. UGly aS hell!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^:devil:
> ...are we talking about boots and hot pants on guys or gals here? Be it guys, I give you a hearty +1000 "Aaaarghhh! My eyes" reaction! if your reference be to gals, hold on there and let's take a moment to rethink this! LOL.


looking like Snooki.


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

Funny story (sort of), it finally got cold enough to wear a sport coat to work the other day and I had about 7 "you're dressed up" comments before I even got to my office. Absolutely nothing had changed about my wardrobe from one day to the next, with the exception of the sport coat.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

upthewazzu said:


> Funny story (sort of), it finally got cold enough to wear a sport coat to work the other day and I had about 7 "you're dressed up" comments before I even got to my office. Absolutely nothing had changed about my wardrobe from one day to the next, with the exception of the sport coat.


I found the solution to this a few years ago to stop people doing this, wear jeans and polo shirt and boots one day, then a really eccentric flamboyant rig the next day, then back to jeans and t-shirt, then back to blazer or suit, do it for about 2 weeks. It worked for me, now people haven't got a clue what to expect & no longer make comments because most importantly they know I wear what I want, when I want.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

FLCracka said:


> ""Sigh"" You really have a hard time letting things rest, don't you?
> 
> When I attempted to define semi-formal, no I wasn't joking. Look, I know the technical, traditional definition of semi-formal involves black tie. But the fact of the matter is, most people wanting "business attire" these days will send out invitations saying "semi formal" or even "formal". Definitions change and a gentleman adapts, and in this country, in all but the rarest of cases if you show up to a semi-formal function in a tux you will look outdated and pretentious. All this stuff is culturally dependent, too. I'm a 4th generation Floridian. When I was growing up, attending a semi-formal dance or party meant wearing a coat & tie...MAYBE a suit.
> 
> After that first Wikipedia reference, I was hard pressed to find another Google hit that didn't define semi-formal as a suit (or less) for men. Seriously...try it. I guess my mistake was using the current, conventional wisdom on a forum of clothing enthusiasts. I come to this board because I enjoy dressing well. But I'm not dogmatic about it and I'm not real big on following any particular rules. Believe what you will, but in the "real world" where I live, semi formal means suits for men (at best).


 You get no argument when you describe today's "real world". What is unfortunate is that you think that what is commonplace in the "real world" is somehow OK. Everyone here is smart enough to recognize the way things are, but some of us understand that acceptance of reality is not the same as approval.

When you say "a suit and tie IS semi-formal" you are a willing participant in the class sinking of the whole society. If you were quiet about your acceptance and participation it would be one thing, but not only are you are not quiet, you criticise those who choose not to participate.

Ortega y Gasset put it: "The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be common place, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."

You may proclaim what you will, but there are those of us who refuse to be imposed upon.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

The "fancy Sunday mornin' get-up" which around here generally consists of grey pinstriped pants, neon (or else faded black) shirt, and a tie which more often than not was with the shirt in one of those classy "HAND MADE IN ITALY" shirt/tie/pocket square/cufflinks sets. In the case of black shirts, the tie tends to be solid white. The icing on the cake are those awesome Dockers shoes.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^:devil:
> ...are we talking about boots and hot pants on guys or gals here? Be it guys, I give you a hearty +1000 "Aaaarghhh! My eyes" reaction! if your reference be to gals, hold on there and let's take a moment to rethink this! LOL.


Amen, Brother, and that goes for the tube tops mentioned _supra_


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Howard said:


> looking like Snooki.


Now is she wearing a cervical collar for fashion or because she actually needs it?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

MikeDT said:


> Now is she wearing a cervical collar for fashion or because she actually needs it?


I don't know, but if I had to guess, it's a cervical collar necessitated by what her mom did to her upon seeing her in that get-up.

Or, maybe not.

New Jersey housewife -


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> ...........Ortega y Gasset put it: "The characteristic of the hour is that the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be common place, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will."


+1.

I live therefore I think.


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

1.Tennis shoes(Trainers) with a suit. The better the suit the worse it is.

2. Tie with short sleaved shirt.

3. The worst-A well dressed woman out with a very badly dresses man.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

MikeDT said:


> Now is she wearing a cervical collar for fashion or because she actually needs it?


She don't need it anymore.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Who in the hell is she gonna call?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Howard said:


> Who in the hell is she gonna call?


Erm........Ghostbusters? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Howard said:


> Who in the hell is she gonna call?


Free clinic.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

anglophile23 said:


> 2. Tie with short sleaved shirt.


Unless you're the manager of an American fast food restaurant. in which case a branded baseball cap is acceptable as well.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Howard said:


> Who in the hell is she gonna call?


LOL...hopefully someone to remove that thing from her head!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> Erm........Ghostbusters? :icon_smile_wink:


How about the insane asylum?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Howard said:


> How about the insane asylum?


ahh, now there's the thing of it Howard.

When a person has a lot of money then they can be considered amusingly eccentric, the same behaviour when someone has no cash will see them committed.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Here's another Lady Gaga dreadful looking hat. WTF?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

I always feel conflicted about these discussions - I assume she wears ridiculous clothes to get attention, so I wonder if we're not playing into the plan in some way?

I think the thread is more interesting in identifying things that people think are normal and acceptable, but are in the views of contributors in execrable taste.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> I always feel conflicted about these discussions - I assume she wears ridiculous clothes to get attention, so I wonder if we're not playing into the plan in some way?
> 
> I think the thread is more interesting in identifying things that people think are normal and acceptable, but are in the views of contributors in execrable taste.


Okay dokay; here's one I have been saving up:

Suede shoes. :icon_pale:

There! I've said it.

Suede shoes are decidedly not to my taste.

Indeed not. 

Oh, Crikey no. 

Hamfisted looking approximations of shoes.

Rant rant rant....


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^ Funnily enough, I don't wear suede shoes myself (at all) but people who have impeccable taste absolutely swear by them. I tend to wear brown leather loafers or derbies for casual dress when others might wear suede.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> ^ Funnily enough, I don't wear suede shoes myself (at all) but people who have impeccable taste absolutely swear by them. I tend to wear brown leather loafers or derbies for casual dress when others might wear suede.


They do but people who have exquisite gastronomic taste swear by caviar (which is, as anyone with a tongue cannot but help to notice, filthy muck). I wonder if a little connoisseurial ennui provokes these stubborn enclaves of wrong-headedness?


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Balfour said:


> I always feel conflicted about these discussions - I assume she wears ridiculous clothes to get attention,


specfically, attention away from her face, which, if you have seen photos of her without makeup, is surprisingly plain.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Okay dokay; here's one I have been saving up:
> 
> Suede shoes. :icon_pale:
> 
> ...


I love suede shoes 

What's wrong with them?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> Suede shoes. :icon_pale:


Heresy! They are the flannel of shoes, infinitely more interesting in texture and color mottling than calf!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Heresy! They are the flannel of shoes, infinitely more interesting in texture and color mottling than calf!


you see it's exactly that the texture does not appeal to me. I almost _want_ to like them, adored as they are by those who's tastes I acknowledge as first rate, but am unable to get past that texture-as perhaps a furry moth's head.

Compare the two images below:

















............Suede loafer .......................................... Furry Moth Head

An irrational dislike perhaps.

Moreover they just have a whiff of the 'home-made' about them. Arts & Craftsy looking things, that they are.

Not for me, they make me smirk a little when I see them, I must allow.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hmmm...

The following make me think of both "art" and "craft," but not "arts & crafts."


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Do you know what cd? I could _almost_ learn to love the correspondents with the suede as an accent detail but the 'shoes' at the very top are (to me) home-made looking moth head in full effect.

And there we have it - the original notion of the thread: perfectly acceptable, well respected even, items but which decidedly do not appeal to me. I genuinely do wonder if it is connoisseurial ennui that moves a fellow to that kind of thing, and could a fellow admit it, nay even be aware of it, were it so?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> connoisseurial ennui


Great phrase to encapsualte a very real phenomenon!

But I've loved suede shoes since I was in high school. For me, that's not the source of the attraction.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

CuffDaddy said:


> Great phrase to encapsualte a very real phenomenon!
> 
> But I've loved suede shoes since I was in high school. For me, that's not the source of the attraction.


Cuffdaddy: 'Thank you' and 'Damn You!' in equal measure. :icon_smile_wink:

Thank you: it is (connoisseurial ennui) a rather slick phrase to describe an interesting and, to my knowledge, unaddressed phenomenon.

Damn you: because I keep looking at those correspondents and thinking.... mmmmm, maybe.....

so - serious question, for anybody really who can answer, how do you polish the leather and not ruin the suede?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Cuffdaddy: 'Thank you' and 'Damn You!' in equal measure. :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> Thank you: it is (connoisseurial ennui) a rather slick phrase to describe an interesting and, to my knowledge, unaddressed phenomenon.
> 
> ...


Very carefully. Or employ a valet...

The original spectator was (I believe) a leather/suede two tone. White or ivory suede.... Can't see that shoe holding up for very long.

I find leather/suede combinations increasingly attractive, especially if done really discreetly. Almost as lovely as those green shell cordovan brogues Carmina have on their website. 

And perhaps easier to use...

A brown shell/suede brogue balmoral sure would be something... And with shell there'd be less messy polish.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Shaver said:


> so - serious question, for anybody really who can answer, how do you polish the leather and not ruin the suede?


Three methods of which I am aware:

1. Polish the leather using a clear/untinted polish. If some gets on the suede, no big deal. Drawback - clear polish won't fix/conceal serious scuffs or scratches.
2. Use only a very controllable polish, apply sparingly and away from the edges, and buff carefully. Drawback - ticklish work, and hard to get any kind of shine on the edges of the smooth pieces if the shapes are complex. Works pretty well for "galosh" or "spat" format shoes, since the line of demarkation is usually straight, and well away from the toe, heel, and other places you really want a high shine. 
3. Use masking tape to shield the suede portion and polish the calf normally. Drawback - ever tried to mask complex shapes? Plan to spend the better part of an hour prepping the shoes.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Balfour said:


> I always feel conflicted about these discussions - I assume she wears ridiculous clothes to get attention, so I wonder if we're not playing into the plan in some way?
> 
> I think the thread is more interesting in identifying things that people think are normal and acceptable, but are in the views of contributors in execrable taste.


She's what you call an "attention getter".


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> you see it's exactly that the texture does not appeal to me. I almost _want_ to like them, adored as they are by those who's tastes I acknowledge as first rate, but am unable to get past that texture-as perhaps a furry moth's head.
> 
> Compare the two images below:
> 
> ...


the one in gray looks like a bug.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Howard said:


> the one in gray looks like a bug.


Post of the month! :biggrin: Frickin' awesome.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Shaver said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Some people like moth head.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Loafers with a suit (shudder).


----------



## enofile (Jun 19, 2012)

When 90% of the men over the age of 40 dress for the golf course 100% of the time. That is a reality here in Louisville, Kentucky. It has destroyed the polo shirt for me.


----------



## Monocle (Oct 24, 2012)

a. A cowboy boot with a non-western cut suit. 
b. Any western cut suit.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Not certain if this affects our American brethren but it certainly is a big problem in England - spiky hair. 

Spiky hair may perhaps look good in your teens (in fact I was something of an afficianado of the look myself as a youth) but it's really starting to look faintly silly on a man in his twenties. By the time a chap's reached his thirties spiky hair is beginning to look quite desperate. Once a fellow is forty and over spiky locks grant an utterly ridiculous appearance to their owner. And yet, regrettably, I see it all the time.


----------



## coase (Apr 29, 2010)

anglophile23 said:


> 3. The worst-A well dressed woman out with a very badly dresses man.


This seems so common in Eastern Europe and esp. Russia with the guys looking like slovenly hoodlums that I call them the Angels and Apes couples.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> Not certain if this affects our American brethren but it certainly is a big problem in England - spiky hair.
> 
> Spiky hair may perhaps look good in your teens (in fact I was something of an afficianado of the look myself as a youth) but it's really starting to look faintly silly on a man in his twenties. By the time a chap's reached his thirties spiky hair is beginning to look quite desperate. Once a fellow is forty and over spiky locks grant an utterly ridiculous appearance to their owner. And yet, regrettably, I see it all the time.


Are you talking about Rod Stewart?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Howard said:


> Are you talking about Rod Stewart?


oh, Howard there is soooo much more wrong with that fellow than just his hair. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Monocle said:


> a. A cowboy boot with a non-western cut suit.
> b. Any western cut suit.


Haha, you really would hate it over here then.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> oh, Howard there is soooo much more wrong with that fellow than just his hair. :icon_smile_wink:


I think it's more about the suits he wears.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

I really hate collar points that are curled. While I don't wear button down collars unless I am doing yard-work or lazy Saturday stuff, I do appreciate that they keep collars in line. I can't understand why anybody would wear a non-button down collar without proper stiff collar stays.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I see a lot of tourists with khaki pants and white tennis shoes. Looks terrible. And invariably those chinos are baggy.


----------



## Funkatronik (Feb 5, 2004)

A constant source of sartorial amusement, www.hel-looks.com (a site about pics of random people roaming the streets of Helsinki).

This one's a particular favorite. The fez especially.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I see a *lot of tourists* with khaki pants and white tennis shoes. *Looks terrible.* And invariably those chinos are baggy.


I know what you mean. I've often seen them been herded around the tourist sites of Beijing. Usually American tourists AFAICT, eager to get their photos taken with Mao Zedong at the Tiananmen Gate. Can't speak any Mandarin and are normally ripped-off for everything.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Funkatronik said:


> A constant source of sartorial amusement, www.hel-looks.com (a site about pics of random people roaming the streets of Helsinki).
> 
> This one's a particular favorite. The fez especially.


Sartorial abominations abound, that site is truly an embarassment of riches. :icon_smile:


----------



## Argon (May 28, 2012)

This entertaining thread popped up in a search for suede shoes, and I've enjoyed scanning through it again.



Shaver said:


> you see it's exactly that the texture does not appeal to me. I almost _want_ to like them, adored as they are by those who's tastes I acknowledge as first rate, but am unable to get past that texture-as perhaps a furry moth's head.
> 
> Compare the two images below:
> 
> ...


Shaver, do you feel that these delicious-looking chocolate truffles might go some way towards developing new neural pathways that are more suede-tolerant?


----------



## Argon (May 28, 2012)

...and while we're on the subject of arthropodic associations, grey shoes always remind me of these:


----------



## Traser (Jan 10, 2013)

Sports wear worn by folks who are not 'doing' sport at that point in time. 
Baseball caps worn by young men, indoors.


----------



## Traser (Jan 10, 2013)

or folks whom indulge in russet themed legwear:

https://lookatmyfuckingredtrousers.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Proof that rust or red trousers are superior to navy.:aportnoy:


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Saw Kelsey Grammer the other night on television searching his ancestry. As Frasier he always looked dapper but as the show opened in he walks wearing slacks and sport coat but couldnt bother to tuck in his shirt.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> Proof that rust or red trousers are superior to navy.:aportnoy:


+1
:aportnoy:


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Steam punk.

It it seems to appear in all sorts of places now, worn by people who are old enough to know better. It is so standardised that it is a recognisable uniform.

I have even seen a Morris man wearing it (Victorian goggles on the Top hat). I challenged him. It is not regulation Morris kit, as codified in assorted Bill Tidy cartoons, and neither is it clever.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloggies#/image/File:ProtoCloggies11.gif

It takes a lot to make a Morris dancer's outfit look worse.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Many people do it, but black socks with brown shoes. But even worse, are try-hards and those who "dress up" for novelty/costume value. Among many, many, many, many other things.

-Quetzal


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Uh-oh! Guilty as charged.


----------



## Tori (Mar 8, 2012)

A grown man wearing black shoes with white socks, wearing any type of caps inside an office, mall or airport, and high-waist baggy trousers.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)




----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

^ Please not before breakfast. UGGGH


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Kingstonian said:


> Steam punk.
> 
> It it seems to appear in all sorts of places now, worn by people who are old enough to know better. It is so standardised that it is a recognisable uniform.
> 
> ...


Was it Border Morris?
They can be very odd.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Odradek said:


> Was it Border Morris?
> They can be very odd.


No Ewell St Mary who are quite well known. I cannot find a photo with the goggles it was one of their accordionists.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

SG_67 said:


>


I prefer that guy over the same guy in a car. At least that guy is excercising


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Tori said:


> A grown man wearing black shoes with white socks, wearing any type of caps inside an office, mall or airport, and high-waist baggy trousers.


unless you're Michael Jackson then you could pull of wearing black shoes and white socks.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

SG_67 said:


>


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> I prefer that guy over the same guy in a car. At least that guy is excercising


Along the same lines of what I was going to say.


----------



## cbh23 (Jun 12, 2014)

People who dress in to much vintage clothing.
Suits people forget to tailor.
Slip ons in business meetings.
Express mx1 shirts in awful colors.
Axe commercials.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

tocqueville said:


> Which? It doesn't ring a bell. You mean the Fritz Lang film, right?


Since this thread was zombified and I never responded...

No, not the Fritz Lang film, the Whit Stillman film. There is scene where Tom Townsend walks out of the first debutante ball, and Sally Fowler (iirc) comments that he is going to catch a cold walking around New York in the winter wearing a trench coat. He says "it's actually very warm, it has a liner." They stare at him like he's nuts and then, to hide his embarrassment at not being able to afford a topcoat, he says "well, I really just didn't know where to get a good overcoat," to which Nick Smith replies "There's Brooks, J. Press, Chipp..."

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

cbh23 said:


> People who dress in too much vintage clothing.


Sorry about that.


----------



## cbh23 (Jun 12, 2014)

Jovan said:


> Sorry about that.


I just picked up a awesome 50s sport coat. As long as you don't look like you're wearing a costume I'm all for buying vintage!


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

cbh23 said:


> Slip ons in business meetings.


I think that ship left two generations ago - cordovan (colour) or black cordovan (horse) tassle loafers have been normal - indeed, almost part of the uniform - for Wall Street bankers since the 80s, and, I'm given to understand, in law firms as well.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

cbh23 said:


> I just picked up a awesome 50s sport coat. As long as you don't look like you're wearing a costume I'm all for buying vintage!


Decide for yourself. A costume isn't my intention, I just like certain pieces from the '60s.


----------



## cbh23 (Jun 12, 2014)

Jovan said:


> Decide for yourself.


That's a great look! I have a guy in the office who wears full 70s leisure suits almost everyday. I'll get a picture of him for this thread!


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Decide for yourself. A costume isn't my intention, I just like certain pieces from the '60s.


This suit isn't so far off from what's fashionable today. Though these trousers are close-fitting like current trousers, they actually fit well and have a decent rise.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Thanks. The jacket is a sack cut without darts, but I agree it overall doesn't look too far off from today's fashions (though the high roll three button is nearly extinct). The trousers definitely fit better than most of the modern ones I've tried, partially because of the rise but also partially because there's enough room in the knee and seat to be comfortable.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Back on topic, while I give credit to those who can wear a whole period getup with confidence, I think it's unwise to do it all the time. At a certain point you still have to exist in the present.


----------



## montobon (Sep 23, 2014)

While many here will disagree with me, I would say a handkerchief in the front suit pocket. It just looks like you are trying too hard.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Many? Try everybody!

Let me get this straight. Even though wearing a tie, a jacket that actually fits in the shoulders and sleeves, trousers that don't puddle at the bottom, and quality shoes are all putting forth an effort, a pocket square is... trying too hard?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Blame Argon.

He's the one who resurrected an old thread!!


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

This is a good example of why to not lock old threads. After 2 years it was resurrected, and has over 35 responses in 3 months. Additionally the original OP is still active and still hates blue jeans.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Jovan said:


> Many? Try everybody!
> 
> Let me get this straight. Even though wearing a tie, a jacket that actually fits in the shoulders and sleeves, trousers that don't puddle at the bottom, and quality shoes are all putting forth an effort, a pocket square is... trying too hard?


The clothes are fine. It is the stucco fake wall and zen rock garden where you take pics to post pics on the interwebz that signal you are trying too hard, lol....

In all seriousness, while I don't do the pocket square thing, I would never think that someone who does is trying too hard.


----------



## espressocycle (Apr 14, 2014)

I know it's an "in" look, but I just can't deal with having an untucked shirt with the hem extending below the length of a jacket.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Or a sweater for that matter.

I like him as an actor and person, but he's behind the curve actually. Every male celeb considered stylish is tucking in their shirts now.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

vpkozel said:


> The clothes are fine. It is the stucco fake wall and zen rock garden where you take pics to post pics on the interwebz that signal you are trying too hard, lol....
> 
> In all seriousness, while I don't do the pocket square thing, I would never think that someone who does is trying too hard.


Youuu son of a-- :mad2:

The only reason I take pics there is because it's close by (being the side of our townhouse and all) and provides a blank canvas for the clothing. There's a more... green and cheerful setting nearby, but I think everyone would be distracted by the "Please Clean Up After Your Dog" sign. Well, that and I probably wouldn't catch the outcome of people not obeying said sign until the pictures are posted up. :biggrin:


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Many? Try everybody!
> 
> Let me get this straight. Even though wearing a tie, a jacket that actually fits in the shoulders and sleeves, trousers that don't puddle at the bottom, and quality shoes are all putting forth an effort, a pocket square is... trying too hard?


Yeah. As is referring to it as a pocket square.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Well I'm sure handkerchiefs are all fine and dandy in the Maine woods, but in the city we call them pocket squares!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Peak and Pine said:


> Yeah. As is referring to it as a pocket square.


Disagreed. Nobody blows their noses in silk anyway, so why the pretense that we are outback cowboys?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Disagreed. Nobody blows their noses in silk anyway


Speak for yourself, old boy.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Speak for yourself, old boy.


My sincere apologies.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> My sincere apologies.


Think nothing of it my dear fellow.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Think nothing of it my dear fellow.


I shall think fondly of you sniffling into a piece of museum grade jacquard silk


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

momsdoc said:


> This is a good example of why to not lock old threads. After 2 years it was resurrected, and has over 35 responses in 3 months. Additionally the original OP is still active and still hates blue jeans.


Given the ongoing interest in and responses to the resurrected thread, it would seem the example you cite is in fact a rather persuasive argument for allowing the continuation of resurrecting threads; yes, no? :icon_scratch:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

espressocycle said:


> I know it's an "in" look, but I just can't deal with having an untucked shirt with the hem extending below the length of a jacket.


He should have it tucked in.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Well I'm sure handkerchiefs are all fine and dandy in the Maine woods, but in the city we call them pocket squares!


I do not think of Albuquerque as a city in the same sense that we here in New England use the word. Altho I believe Poncho Villa thought it was one. One non-functional florish per outfit. A neck tie usually fulfills that requirement.


----------



## conductor (Mar 1, 2010)

Funkatronik said:


> A constant source of sartorial amusement, www.hel-looks.com (a site about pics of random people roaming the streets of Helsinki).
> 
> This one's a particular favorite. The fez especially.


Some "interesting" looks, but I did find this gentleman on there as well:


----------



## montobon (Sep 23, 2014)

Jovan said:


> Many? Try everybody!
> 
> Let me get this straight. Even though wearing a tie, a jacket that actually fits in the shoulders and sleeves, trousers that don't puddle at the bottom, and quality shoes are all putting forth an effort, a pocket square is... trying too hard?


I think so. Some people pull it off nicely but if you are less than 45 and show up to a business meeting as the sales person with this look, I think you are digging yourself into a hole. There was another thread about leaving the last button undone on working jacket cuffs. I think this falls into a similar bucket. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Spex (Nov 25, 2012)

conductor said:


> Some "interesting" looks, but I did find this gentleman on there as well:


hel-looks.com! How have I lived this long without knowing about this site? After browsing the photos for a while, it confirmed my life-long belief that my people in general are not among the most stylish in the world (trips back to visit the relatives every few summers as a child instilled this belief in me), but a few individuals give me some hope.


----------



## Delmarco (Jun 1, 2008)

In Nov 2014:

-boat shoes worn on land and/or worn with basket ball shorts.

-bomber jackets worn formally

-linen pants worn not-on-vacation

-Filson bag worn with a Barbour jacket

-basket ball shorts worn all the time

-soccer pants worn with basket ball shoes

-sweat pants worn for fashion (not gym-function)

-baseball caps worn all the time

-I love NY t shirts

-dirty worn-out sneakers worn solely to blend-down status.

-pretentious beards 

-men that can but don't own or wear a watch.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Good God. I'm on a menswear forum where people think pocket squares are too much.


----------



## pistos (Sep 9, 2014)

I know this is going to be unpopular, but blazers, especially the traditional yacht-club variety. I don't like the way they look on anybody.

But I surely offend the tastes of plenty of folks on here. I wear black shoes. I wear black slacks. I wear navy slacks. I wear french cuff shirts without a jacket at all. One of my favorite outfits is a pairing of navy slacks, medium-dark blue french cuff shirt, no jacket, but alas not with black shoes and belt. It looks neither trendy nor classic, just looks good and fits my complexion and physique well.


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

Wait, did I see both boat shoes and Filson bags with Barbour jackets on that list? What's wrong with either of those? Boat shoes keep my feet dry in the heat, a Barbour keeps me warm and dry in drizzles while the Filson does the same for my books and papers.


----------



## WICaniac (Sep 25, 2013)

Delmarco said:


> In Nov 2014:
> -Filson bag worn with a Barbour jacket
> -men that can but don't own or wear a watch.


What is so especially offensive about either of these?



Jovan said:


> Good God. I'm on a menswear forum where people think pocket squares are too much.


_A person_ if I've counted correctly. I'm very much in your camp on this one, but I will admit that a pocket square signals effort to those who might not otherwise notice. A friend recently noticed a pocket square and asked sincerely whether I picked out my outfits the night before, implying that doing so was extraordinary.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Jovan said:


> Good God. I'm on a menswear forum where people think pocket squares are too much.


Don't worry Jovan. We can stand together on this one, you and I, we are stood atop the gate waving our dainty paisley silks at the barbarian horde.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Shaver said:


> Don't worry Jovan. We can stand together on this one, you and I, we are stood atop the gate waving our dainty paisley silks at the barbarian horde.


Verily blowing our noses in them and at the prolish rabble!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Bjorn said:


> Verily blowing our noses in them and at the prolish rabble!


It is a pastime from which I fancy you may also gain much merriment and gaiety, Björn old bean.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I blow my nose at you, so-called "sartorialist," you and all your silly pocket square deniers!

(FYI, I was being facetious. Everyone's welcome to an opinion. Even if it's as silly as thinking pocket squares are equivalent to unbuttoned cuffs or that a necktie is enough non-functional flourish. )


----------



## montobon (Sep 23, 2014)

Bjorn said:


> Verily blowing our noses in them and at the prolish rabble!


When I see someone with a pocket square...this is exactly how I imagine they would talk


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

montobon said:


> When I see someone with a pocket square...this is exactly how I imagine they would talk


Really? Or are you simply being silly?


----------



## montobon (Sep 23, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Really? Or are you simply being silly?


Mostly kidding around.

There is a good commercial on here in the US where Rob Lowe is wearing a pocket square that is very subtle and looks sharp to constrast himself with "super creepy Rob Lowe". Only about a quarter inch is showing of an off white pocket square. I think this can look sharp on the right person but pinching into a big puff is problematic in my view.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

^^^ Dude, this is like walking into a biker bar and teasing them about all that black leather.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Shaver said:


> It is a pastime from which I fancy you may also gain much merriment and gaiety, Björn old bean.


I always thought that this was more Shaveresque:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raffles,_Gentleman_Thug


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

WICaniac said:


> A friend recently noticed a pocket square and asked sincerely whether I picked out my outfits the night before, implying that doing so was extraordinary.


It is. Not that you shouldn't. We all have devilish routines we wish kept unspoken. But your pocket square gave you away.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

montobon said:


> When I see someone with a pocket square...this is exactly how I imagine they would talk


Ha! I need a second monocle just to scornfully look down on you with sufficient strength, while puffing my pocket square.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

WICaniac said:


> _A person_ if I've counted correctly. I'm very much in your camp on this one, but I will admit that a pocket square signals effort to those who might not otherwise notice. A friend recently noticed a pocket square and asked sincerely whether I picked out my outfits the night before, implying that doing so was extraordinary.


Your valet does not do that? Have him whipped.

I've had a little accident thinking while planning the lighting circuitry for the closet recently, so I basically have to figure out the day before what to wear, or use a flashlight in the morning.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> Your valet does not do that? Have him whipped.
> 
> I've had a little accident thinking while planning the lighting circuitry for the closet recently, so I basically have to figure out the day before what to wear, or use a flashlight in the morning.


Tsk tsk.

Lord Finchley tried to mend the Electric Light
Himself. It struck him dead: And serve him right!
It is the business of the wealthy man
To give employment to the artisan.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I was going to start a thread entitled "annoying sartorial affectations", but then realized this serves the purpose just as well. This is one that really peeves me:










Get some cuff links Charlie! Or wear a different shirt.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

SG_67 said:


> I was going to start a thread entitled "annoying sartorial affectations", but then realized this serves the purpose just as well. This is one that really peeves me:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


or get a better looking tie.


----------

