# Tie width



## quiller (Dec 25, 2010)

Sorry if this issue has been previously addressed,but I would appreciate any input on what is the correct tie width.I see ties from 3" to 4"+,and wonder what is the current accepted width.Alternatively, is tie width a function of your own width?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Go by what looks good on _you_. 3.5" looks good on everyone, regardless of body shape.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

Jovan said:


> Go by what looks good on _you_. 3.5" looks good on everyone, regardless of body shape.


This is correct.

Additionally:

- Skinny ties are in vogue right now. 
- But, anything less than 3" will be noticeably thin, and not as acceptable to those who are conservative.
- 3'' - 3.5'' is considered trad here on the forum, and is a nice sleek look in my opinion.
- Ties that are 4" are noticeably fat but can be fine if the pattern isn't too dominant.
- Anything over 4" will look quite strange on anybody. I would say simply don't wear anything over 4", and while I do think this is sound advice, it _is_ simply my opinion and not a rule.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Don't forget that they should be fairly in proportion to your lapels. They don't need to be _exactly_ so -- I still get away with 3" ties with 3.5" lapels and vice-versa -- but don't pair a 2" tie with 4" peak lapels either.


----------



## Semper Jeep (Oct 11, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Go by what looks good on _you_.


Quoted for emphasis. I will buy the standard 3.5" if I see a tie I like and that is all that is available, but personally, as a guy with relatively narrow shoulders and chest, I really prefer 3". I think that looks pretty good on me, and my wife agrees and that's what's really important. :biggrin2:

However, put that same 3" wide tie on the 300lb guy in my office who was a college offensive lineman and it would look comically out of proportion.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I too prefer that width for ties and lapels, but am not opposed to going a tad wider or narrower, depending.


----------



## Rick Blaine (Aug 26, 2012)

Jovan said:


> Go by what looks good on _you_. 3.5" looks good on everyone, regardless of body shape.


Agreed but doesn't mean they are everyone's style/preference.

3.5" ties are a standard but it really depends on what you are wearing i.e. suit/suit jacket or a casual jacket. 3.5" ties aren't my everyday style but they give a nice knot and can go for FIH or half-windsor (depending on fabric weight). I reserve these for suit/ suit jacket days.

3"-3.25" are the best width IMO. As whitenight said, nice and sleek. I like these a lot.

Under 3". I have some of these as well. Can't really do much with the knot here. Very casual/social ties and I have worn these with a leather jacket (anti-flame suit on!). However, my knit ties are slightly 3" but due to the loose weave, the FIH knot comes fairly decent.

The really narrrow ones.... I read somewhere they are worn by models because the arrow like shape directs attention towards the face. If you have the jawline and looks for that, by all means but they still won't be proper ties. Disclaimer: I don't know if the aforementioned statement is complete baloney. It's just something I read in an article.


----------



## ryansto (Feb 23, 2013)

I think it depends on your collar and your lapels. Right now, the trend is spread collars and club collars, which I think look better with 2.5" to 3" ties, especially with the modern narrow lapel. If you are a broader man, a classic lapel and 3" to 4" tie looks great. Proportion is key, IMO. 

By the way, I'm new to the forums and thoroughly enjoy them!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Rick Blaine said:


> Agreed but doesn't mean they are everyone's style/preference.


Well, I know it's not everyone's preference, but it's the best starting point. He's given no information about his body type, which would help.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

In addition to considering the width of the lapels, and the size of the wearer, you sometimes have to take into account the type of tie.

For example, I wear silk knit ties about 1" narrower than most of my other ties. (2.75", vs. 3.5-3.75")


----------



## StylinLa (Feb 15, 2009)

Tie width goes back and forth a bit in the "fashion" side of men's clothing. 3.5 seems to be a fairly standard width to me.
i have some ties I bought 15-20 years ago that still look new and the "correct" width. 

If you go very narrow, there will be a point (and you may not see it) where you're "out."


----------



## fly4food84 (Feb 17, 2013)

I don't believe 3.5 looks good on thin body types. 3" looks great on just about everyone, particularly slim builds.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

No, I'm afraid it doesn't. I've actually lent one of my 3" ties to a friend who needed a black tie in a pinch. It looked comically under-proportioned on "big-boned" him.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

I agree totally that 3 1/2 inch ties are best for me - 5' 11" 183 pounds. Big men need bigger ties. I have a few 3 inch ties but tend to favor larger ties when the trend is thin and thinner ties when the trend is thick. (If I go through my 20 year old tie collection most of them are right at 3 1/2 inches) If you are have a 46 inch coat or bigger consider 4 inch, 40 inch and less 3 inch, everyone else 3 1/2 inch and you will be happy.....


----------



## johnpark11 (Oct 19, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Well, I know it's not everyone's preference, but it's the best starting point. He's given no information about his body type, which would help.


+1. Body type is very important too. A larger guy should go with a 3.5+. Lean and trim? A 3.5 is pushing it IMO... I stay within 2.75 and 3.25. Send some of my fav older ties to Tie Crafters with great results.


----------



## kravi (Feb 26, 2013)

What does "bigger" mean in regards to a man's physique? I ask, not be confrontational, but out of honest curiosity. Does bigger mean fat, or does it also include muscular but lean?

I like 3" ties, myself. I like how they look. I weigh, at any given moment, around 200 lbs (90kg to those who prefer it metric). My waist is 32" (~84cm). My owner, I mean wife, also likes the slimmer (but not skinny) ties on me. But I am a "bigger guy" by weight alone, and definitely have a pair of shoulders.

So is the thought about bigger men looking better with sider ties based upon waist, shoulders, general torso size, what?

Just curious!

Thanks,

--kravi


----------



## johnpark11 (Oct 19, 2009)

kravi said:


> What does "bigger" mean in regards to a man's physique? I ask, not be confrontational, but out of honest curiosity. Does bigger mean fat, or does it also include muscular but lean?
> 
> I like 3" ties, myself. I like how they look. I weigh, at any given moment, around 200 lbs (90kg to those who prefer it metric). My waist is 32" (~84cm). My owner, I mean wife, also likes the slimmer (but not skinny) ties on me. But I am a "bigger guy" by weight alone, and definitely have a pair of shoulders.
> 
> ...


Good question. I assume you are pretty tall to be 200 lbs and have a 32 waist... id say 32 waist is definatly slim

I'm 6'3 and about 195 lbs. I think on my frame, a narrow tie (2.75-3) enhances my frame and a wider tie looks out of place. If I weighed 250 a narrow tie would get consumed with my body size.


----------



## wrwhiteknight (Mar 20, 2012)

^^I'm about the same exact build as you, and I wear 3.25" - 3.75" all the time. Anything less than 3" is really just for fun fashion according to my tastes, and is noticeably skinny to most anybody, even folks who aren't into fashion.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

kravi said:


> What does "bigger" mean in regards to a man's physique? I ask, not be confrontational, but out of honest curiosity. Does bigger mean fat, or does it also include muscular but lean?
> 
> I like 3" ties, myself. I like how they look. I weigh, at any given moment, around 200 lbs (90kg to those who prefer it metric). My waist is 32" (~84cm). My owner, I mean wife, also likes the slimmer (but not skinny) ties on me. But I am a "bigger guy" by weight alone, and definitely have a pair of shoulders.
> 
> ...


Well as I said in my post right before yours, I think it has as much to do with jacket size as anything. If you are wearing a bigger piece of clothing you wear a bigger tie. In the same way that a tall man wears a long jacket and a long tie a wider man wears a wider jacket and a wider tie.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

quiller said:


> Sorry if this issue has been previously addressed,but I would appreciate any input on what is the correct tie width.I see ties from 3" to 4"+,and wonder what is the current accepted width.Alternatively, is tie width a function of your own width?


A narrower tie is more modern, and compliments a narrower lapel. The design of the tie and the thickness and the material, most of all the surface, is important IMO. As narrower ties and knitted/grenadine ties have come into fashion, they've also gotten a little thicker. This is a consideration for the knot. A narrow, thin tie will produce an anemic knot. A wide, thick tie will produce a monster knot. If the tie is a little narrow, it should have some lining to it making it thicker. Otherwise, your knot will look like the knot of a Christmas gift.

I wouldn't say wider men should go for really wide ties, nor thinner men for really narrow ties.

In tie width I think complimenting your lapels is good, and going a quarter up or own depending on what's currently fashionable. An unfashionable tie compliments no one.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> I wouldn't say wider men should go for really wide ties, nor thinner men for really narrow ties.


Not really wide, but 4 inches wide. If President Taft were alive today and wore a tie less than 3.5" wide it would look silly on him. His ties were a bit wider, and that suited him very well. Just like lapel width should be in proportion to one's body, tie width matchs lapel width.


----------



## OrsonWelles00 (Mar 3, 2013)

quiller said:


> Sorry if this issue has been previously addressed,but I would appreciate any input on what is the correct tie width.I see ties from 3" to 4"+,and wonder what is the current accepted width.Alternatively, is tie width a function of your own width?


Pretty much what everyone else has said. Some of it is being more modern in appearance but it still comes down to your body type. If you have broader shoulders then a skinny tie will most likely look ridiculous on you, on the same token, if you're a skinny guy then a really wide tie would look equally ridiculous. The biggest thing is what body type you have and how the different sizes look on you. If you can take a couple pictures with different sizes then everyone could give much better opinions relating directly to you.



Bjorn said:


> A narrower tie is more modern, and compliments a narrower lapel. The design of the tie and the thickness and the material, most of all the surface, is important IMO. As narrower ties and knitted/grenadine ties have come into fashion, they've also gotten a little thicker. This is a consideration for the knot. A narrow, thin tie will produce an anemic knot. A wide, thick tie will produce a monster knot. If the tie is a little narrow, it should have some lining to it making it thicker. Otherwise, your knot will look like the knot of a Christmas gift.
> 
> I wouldn't say wider men should go for really wide ties, nor thinner men for really narrow ties.
> 
> In tie width I think complimenting your lapels is good, and going a quarter up or own depending on what's currently fashionable. An unfashionable tie compliments no one.


Well naturally it's not a single size but there's definitely a range, whether you're going for more modern or not, based on your overall body shape. I have relatively broad chest and skinny ties don't look right on me at all. I can wear certain skinnier ties but I wouldn't say all body types can wear the whole range of widths for ties.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> A narrower tie is more modern...


I would disagree with this statement. If you said "A narrower tie is more _current_," I would agree. But saying "modern," particularly in aesthetics, implies something more than just currency.

Ties have been essentially every possible width over the last 120 years, with the exception of 7+ inches (unless one counts pinned, true ascots). Thus, any width one chooses is "retro" to at least one, and usually multiple past time periods. Very narrow ties were certainly _au currant_ in the early and mid-60's, and had a revival in the 80's in connection with various New Wave looks. And there were periods in the 1910's and 20's when skinny ties could be seen. And if you ever run across surpluss WWII uniform ties, some of those are quite narrow.

Broader ties had their moments in the 30's, 50's, 70's, and late 90's/early 2000's.

To call either broad or narrow ties "modern," as though the evolution has been in one direction or the other, is misleading. Ties are running narrow right now. They'll eventually run broader, and the cycle will continue unless and until the tie dies as a common item of wear.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> I would disagree with this statement. If you said "A narrower tie is more _current_," I would agree. But saying "modern," particularly in aesthetics, implies something more than just currency.
> 
> Ties have been essentially every possible width over the last 120 years, with the exception of 7+ inches (unless one counts pinned, true ascots). Thus, any width one chooses is "retro" to at least one, and usually multiple past time periods. Very narrow ties were certainly _au currant_ in the early and mid-60's, and had a revival in the 80's in connection with various New Wave looks. And there were periods in the 1910's and 20's when skinny ties could be seen. And if you ever run across surpluss WWII uniform ties, some of those are quite narrow.
> 
> ...


From wiktionary:
"Adjective

modern (not comparable)

Pertaining to the current time and style.
Our online interactive game is a modern approach to teaching about gum disease.
Although it was built in the 1600s, the building still has a very modern look."

Modern does not mean a certain direction, it's simply what is currently a la mode.

A wide tie, reversely, is dated or old.

Modern means just now, current.

I think you don't like it because you don't like the idea of fashionability 

But it is important not to look too dated, it's easy to fall over into costume then.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn, there's a big difference between the bare dictionary definition of a word and its full connotation. And between the general usage of a word and its usage in a particular area. When talking about aesthetics and design, modern has a meaning far beyond "not old." 

But if you meant it solely a "currently current," then we are only talking semantics. Would you agree that, however much importance one attaches to it (you attach more than I do), what is current will always change, and there's no reason to expect that ties will not get wider again at some point in the future?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Bjorn, there's a big difference between the bare dictionary definition of a word and its full connotation. And between the general usage of a word and its usage in a particular area. When talking about aesthetics and design, modern has a meaning far beyond "not old."
> 
> But if you meant it solely a "currently current," then we are only talking semantics. Would you agree that, however much importance one attaches to it (you attach more than I do), what is current will always change, and there's no reason to expect that ties will not get wider again at some point in the future?


But you cannot wear the ties of the future today. 

Today, you have to wear the ties of today, or yesteryear. And the dictionary definition pertains to design, its not a "bare" definition. Especially not since its original meaning in Latin seems to correspond rather nicely to the one I'm putting forward (also evident from the dictionary reference, I did not receive a classical education).

I'd say that narrower ties are modern in the full connotation of the word, as currently aesthetically pleasing, fitting in with current menswear design, and appearing updated and fresh compared to wide ties. Currently stylish.

I myself do not wear really really narrow ties, but I would also not wear a wide tie at all unless covered by a vest or sweater. And I'll rather go down in width than up. If wider ties became fashionable, I would adjust. And I would get to buy new ties, win-win... There's an upside to fashion, if you restrict it to being applicable to what fits you and don't go avantgarde. Or rather, if you buy ridiculously short tight tailored garments, then there's no upside 

The tie I wore today is a little wide to be worn without a vest, for example. But it ties a nice knot.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bjorn, as long as your definition of "modern" is wholly contingent, such that wide ties will be more "modern" when the pendulum swings back, then we can say we are in agreement.

Whether the swinging of the pendulum, or the chasing after it, is good are separate questions.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

3 1/4" for me. I buy nothing else.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Leighton said:


> 3 1/4" for me. I buy nothing else.


That's my favourite width. Can never go wrong with it, as long as you're not an extra-wide person. I saw someone who wore a tie that width (he sold me the same one) with a lapel over 4 inches wide, and it looked fine. The opposite wouldn't work at all.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Agree...all my Hobers are made to a 3.25" width.


----------



## gar1013 (Sep 24, 2007)

3" to 3.25" is the perfect ideal, although sometimes hard to locate.

Use with either a four-in-hand or a Victoria knot -- I find the Victoria great for beefing up the knot "oh so slightly" with certain ties. If you can do a four-in-hand, you can do a Victoria -- it's just one extra "pass" before you feed the tie up and through.


----------



## Stirling Newberry (Mar 4, 2013)

Pair the tie width with the lapels. For the current style 3" - 3.25" is usually best. For narrow lapels, more common with British or Italian cuts, or if you are going for a 1960's retro "Madmen" look, 2". Count me as generally opposed to ties 3.5" or wider with some sparing exceptions.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

gar1013 said:


> 3" to 3.25" is the perfect ideal, although sometimes hard to locate.
> 
> Use with either a four-in-hand or a Victoria knot -- I find the Victoria great for beefing up the knot "oh so slightly" with certain ties. If you can do a four-in-hand, you can do a Victoria -- it's just one extra "pass" before you feed the tie up and through.


I just looked up "Victoria" knot, since I've never heard of that name. I've more often heard that called the Prince Albert Knot, but the best name is the double four-in-hand. It's a great knot when I need something a bit larger than a four-in-hand. People love to come up with fancy names for things.


----------



## oxford (Feb 24, 2008)

Regimental Stripe ties from Ben Silver are 3.250 wide and have been for decades. This is also true of ties from Cable Car Clothiers and J. Press. The fashion oriented market however changes tie widths as often as one changes socks. If you want fashion rather then tradition then go with the mass market flow.


----------

