# Sacred cows you'd like to slaughter?



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

First of all, let's try not to take too much offense at what people post in this thread. I'm not trying to start trouble, but I know I've sometimes had opinions that run contrary to what most people on the forum think and left them out of threads where they'd start an off-topic debate. I'm almost certain somebody will post something that I strongly disagree with, and I'm sure quite a few of you will disagree with what I have to post. Let's try not to take anything too personally, and let's avoid writing anything that could be read as a personal attack.

Here goes mine: the AE Park Avenue. It's an ugly, clunky version of what ought to be a sleek, stylish shoe. The last isn't too bad, but the huge welt and tiny toecap are pretty major negatives. Strands, McAllisters, or Kenilworths on the same last? Very desirable. Park Aves or (though I've not really examined these) Fifth Aves? No thanks.

Of course, there's not really any competition for it in the US, in terms of quality and distribution, and they're not totally atrocious, but they do make me want to ensure that my thrifted old Florsheims (which have the same stylistic issues) hold out until I can deal with ordering Loakes or Meermins.


----------



## peterc (Oct 25, 2007)

As much as I love AE, I agree with you. The PA and the 5A are both fairly unattractive shoes in my book, though I suspect that many like them for the very fact that they are not sleek, like a C&J or even a Loake is/are.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Personally, while I see the difference between AE's 360 degree welt and English shoes... I just don't care _that_ much. I like my Park Avenue just fine and in recent years AE have reduced the sole profile anyway (which I actually think is good). The way you and some other clothing forumites describe it though, the average person would think Park Avenue = footwear of Frankenstein's monster! :icon_smile_big: While I hate to defer to the common, prole public that so many despise here, most people won't really see the difference and I've actually gotten compliments on them. That said, I'm strongly considering a pair of Loake shoes or one of Kent Wang's offerings (which are more limited in sizes, colours, and styles because he's a small operation).

For me, though? I really dislike the long, pointed chisel toes that a lot of clothing forumites love. I'm not talking about English shoes with a tasteful, ever so slight bevel at the toe. I'm talking about those things that some people pay up to $2000 or more for. They may be well made, but I just don't understand the appeal. It doesn't seem sleek to me, it seems like a traditional shoe and a motorcycle boot had kids. :icon_study: I understand though that these are more popular at other forums besides this one.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Double monks. The height of peacockery.


----------



## niomosy (Feb 12, 2013)

Cargo shorts. As a dad of two little ones, those extra pockets are far too useful to me to give them up.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Double monks. The height of peacockery.


I'm perplexed by the dislike for double monks that I often see expressed on the forum. I don't happen to own any monks, single or double, so have no personal interest in the issue, but presumably a double strap might have some practical advantages in terms of being a more secure fastening? So I don't think it can be dismissed as mere peacockery.

Going back to sacred cows, however, I have a dislike for that very unobtrusive style of overcoat - single breasted charcoal grey, with a placket that conceals the buttons. For some reason, I find it reeks of career/sartorial under-achievement.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> I'm perplexed by the dislike for double monks that I often see expressed on the forum. I don't happen to own any monks, single or double, so have no personal interest in the issue, but presumably a double strap might have some practical advantages in terms of being a more secure fastening? So I don't think it can be dismissed as mere peacockery.
> 
> Going back to sacred cows, however, I have a dislike for that very unobtrusive style of overcoat - single breasted charcoal grey, with a placket that conceals the buttons. For some reason, I find it reeks of career/sartorial under-achievement.


Really? I thought double monks were adored by the fora, and the height of iGentryism?

I don't like any metal on shoes, so double monks are fussy and overelaborate to my tastes. I've always thought this - it predates my very recent appreciation of the iGent uniform.

Contributed in the spirit of the thread of 'vent your subjective dislikes' and not of course suggested as a rule.


----------



## rsgordon (Dec 6, 2012)

Hats anytime it is not raining


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

rsgordon said:


> Hats anytime it is not raining


Interesting. FWIW I think hats are pretty handy when it is cold. I was in Chicago a couple weeks ago and sure wished I had a fedora.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I cannot abide the notion that braces/suspenders are underwear and not to be seen.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

niomosy said:


> Cargo shorts. As a dad of two little ones, those extra pockets are far too useful to me to give them up.


Then don't. Just get them in a nicer style rather than something Abercrombie & Fitch or your local military surplus will offer. There are chino shorts with a simple button flap pocket at the sides.


----------



## Spin Evans (Feb 2, 2013)

Sneakers and tailored wear. Not a sacred cow on this board, but it's one that I can't stand.

Also, the supposedly superior virtues of Italian suiting, shirting, shodding, cravating, pocket squaring, etc.


----------



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

Jovan said:


> Personally, while I see the difference between AE's 360 degree welt and English shoes... I just don't care _that_ much. I like my Park Avenue just fine and in recent years AE have reduced the sole profile anyway (which I actually think is good). The way you and some other clothing forumites describe it though, the average person would think Park Avenue = footwear of Frankenstein's monster! :icon_smile_big: While I hate to defer to the common, prole public that so many despise here, most people won't really see the difference and I've actually gotten compliments on them. That said, I'm strongly considering a pair of Loake shoes or one of Kent Wang's offerings (which are more limited in sizes, colours, and styles because he's a small operation).
> 
> For me, though? I really dislike the long, pointed chisel toes that a lot of clothing forumites love. I'm not talking about English shoes with a tasteful, ever so slight bevel at the toe. I'm talking about those things that some people pay up to $2000 or more for. They may be well made, but I just don't understand the appeal. It doesn't seem sleek to me, it seems like a traditional shoe and a motorcycle boot had kids. :icon_study: I understand though that these are more popular at other forums besides this one.


PAs bug me, but they're right on the cusp of being distractingly bad. They're wrong in a quiet, subtle way.

Bontonis or what have you (heck, the more extreme G&Gs) are ridiculously ugly.

Actually, I think it's important for a shoe to strike a balance between shelf appeal and looking good on the hoof. The PAs look alright (inelegant without being bad taste) on a foot, but ugly on the shelf. Those ridiculously spiky ornate things look good on a shelf, but I've yet to see somebody wearing them really well without looking a little to dandyish. My real objection to the PAs is sort of the perfect being the enemy of the good enough.

The right balance, if you ask me, is some of the more conservative Northhampton shoemakers. EGs on the 202 last, for example, do both beautifully.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Mike Petrik said:


> I cannot abide the notion that braces/suspenders are underwear and not to be seen.


I do the same. I wear braces on almost all of my pants almost any time I wear. A jacket, eve if I'm not wearing a tie. And that jacket usually has to come off for some reason at some point in the day.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

L-feld said:


> I do the same. I wear braces on almost all of my pants almost any time I wear. A jacket, eve if I'm not wearing a tie. And that jacket usually has to come off for some reason at some point in the day.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


Thanks for the welcome "support." 
I suspect that the aversion to braces being seen is grounded in the traditional idea that jackets were not to be removed. Today, few folks would insist on jackets being worn all day while in your office (or even walking around the floor), but because braces have not been common since the relaxation of jacket practices, some folks simply find their appearance jarring.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> I cannot abide the notion that braces/suspenders are underwear and not to be seen.





L-feld said:


> I do the same. I wear braces on almost all of my pants almost any time I wear. A jacket, eve if I'm not wearing a tie. And that jacket usually has to come off for some reason at some point in the day.





Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks for the welcome "support."
> I suspect that the aversion to braces being seen is grounded in the traditional idea that jackets were not to be removed. Today, few folks would insist on jackets being worn all day while in your office (or even walking around the floor), but because braces have not been common since the relaxation of jacket practices, some folks simply find their appearance jarring.


There are (were; now just one) two men in my company who wore braces regularly, and one never wore a jacket, the other would only take his jacket off when wearing braces. I was absolutely offended and would make it a point to tell them.

Unlike a belt, which is meant as a decorative, functional piece, braces are underwear, period. Now, that may go hand in hand with 'never remove one's jacket in the presence of women', but still. I'm young, but still abide by both schools of thought. You will NEVER see me in public/around women with my jacket off, and if you see my braces, you've caught a glimpse of them under my jacket, and I have some beautiful ones that frankly would deserve to be shown off, but they're freakin' underwear!!!!

I'd be willing to bet that this (showing of one's braces) only became acceptable behavior after _Wall Street_.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Interesting. FWIW I think hats are pretty handy when it is cold. I was in Chicago a couple weeks ago and sure wished I had a fedora.


Don't forget sun protection. Even JFK, the alleged _serial hat killer_, occasionally wore a fedora outside. There's a picture of him and LBJ wearing stingy brims at a baseball game.



Mike Petrik said:


> I cannot abide the notion that braces/suspenders are underwear and not to be seen.


Hear, hear.



Spin Evans said:


> Sneakers and tailored wear. Not a sacred cow on this board, but it's one that I can't stand.
> 
> Also, the supposedly superior virtues of Italian suiting, shirting, shodding, cravating, pocket squaring, etc.


Doctor Who takes great offence to your proclamation.

In all seriousness, I agree with the last part. It really bugs me when people bang on about how British or Italian tailoring is supposedly "better" than the other for such and such a reason, not taking into account personal preference. There are good and bad examples of both, I should add. An A&S suit I saw on the London Lounge once? Horrifying to me as it was the buyer. I wonder how it even passed QC with those huge armholes and lumpy fit.



Youthful Repp-robate said:


> PAs bug me, but they're right on the cusp of being distractingly bad. They're wrong in a quiet, subtle way.
> 
> Bontonis or what have you (heck, the more extreme G&Gs) are ridiculously ugly.
> 
> ...


See, I love threads are like this. We can discuss our opinions frankly but civilly. You provided a good explanation for your view. As I said, I will experiment outside AE's offerings in the future (gasp! shock!). It could very well change my mind. But I don't think I'll completely throw out my PAs either way. 



L-feld said:


> I do the same. I wear braces on almost all of my pants almost any time I wear. A jacket, eve if I'm not wearing a tie. And that jacket usually has to come off for some reason at some point in the day.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


Good on you. Braces are the best method of trouser suspension by far. They're even more useful if a man is heavyset, since a belt or side tabs don't have as much of a waist to hold on to.

Though some people disagree, I think the low rise trend is another example of why braces should be more widespread. I recall Joseph Gordon Levitt wearing a rather modern cut suit at the end of "Inception", yet it was revealed to have braces suspending the low rise trousers mid-fight. I applaud this decision by the costume designer (though I did not like the "tuxedos" worn by him and DiCaprio at the beginning of the movie). The problem is that men simply don't have the same hips women do, so they are more prone to sliding down during the day if the waistband actually sits mid-hip. I ask anyone who insists on slim fit, low rise trouser suits (which will die as a trend soon enough I'm sure) to reconsider braces as not being "dorky", but actually practical.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

I've strayed away from low rise pants in part because they have a much harder time staying up than high rise pants. 

That said, I had a pair of low rise grey flannels made by Austin Reed and i tried wearing braces with them. Let's just say that keeping up the practice might impair my ability to father children. 

Braces make pants cut like a cheap hotel feel even cheaper. But then again, that might just be an example of darwinian evolution at work.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> There are (were; now just one) two men in my company who wore braces regularly, and one never wore a jacket, the other would only take his jacket off when wearing braces. I was absolutely offended and would make it a point to tell them.
> 
> Unlike a belt, which is meant as a decorative, functional piece, braces are underwear, period. Now, that may go hand in hand with 'never remove one's jacket in the presence of women', but still. I'm young, but still abide by both schools of thought. You will NEVER see me in public/around women with my jacket off, and if you see my braces, you've caught a glimpse of them under my jacket, and I have some beautiful ones that frankly would deserve to be shown off, but they're freakin' underwear!!!!
> 
> I'd be willing to bet that this (showing of one's braces) only became acceptable behavior after _Wall Street_.


I respect and admire your dedication. I don't go out of my way to show off my braces and certainly don't take my jacket off unless necessary, but one has to be practical. Sometimes the situation calls for one to take off his jacket, roll up his sleeves and get his hands dirty.

Or sometimes Baltimore just gets hot in a season where a seersucker jacket would be inappropriate.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

TGT: Please understand that you're getting offended over _pieces of leather and silk_. Not removing your jacket at all is your personal decision. I agree it's a bit tacky to go out of one's way to remove their jacket to show off tasteless braces but... aren't there worse things to worry about? Like guys coming into interviews in a dinner jacket and chinos. :icon_smile_big:

Come on, dude. Braces aren't underwear any more than a t-shirt is these days.

Curious though, why specify especially around women? Not that I make a point of removing my jacket either (I even keep it on when dancing), but I'm pretty sure even the ones you want to date wouldn't have their oh-so-delicate feminine sensibilities offended. Note sarcasm here. These are modern women we're talking about, not your average 19th century waif.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

TGT,
A gentleman wears underwear items under his shirt and trousers, not over them. That is why such items are called underwear.
And regardless of the dubious merits of your position, a man who makes it a point to tell another man that he is offended by the fact that such other man is not wearing a jacket is not behaving as a gentleman, and that is about the kindest way I can put it. As a "young man," please take this advice from a not so young man -- don't do this. You will embarrass yourself.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I'll try two:

1. _Non-iron cotton is awful!_ - No it isn't! *Higher quality *non-iron cotton can be very comfortable, look great and save one heck of a lot of time ironing!

2. _Polyester is junk and doesn't breath! _- *Higher quality *cotton/poly can be terrific! I've got two cotton/poly trench coats. One from Brooks and one from Burberrys. They're each over 20 years old and going strong. The cloth is extremely tough and long-wearing, but sheds wrinkles beautifully. I only wear cotton/poly PJ's. (For well over 50 years.) Getting very hard to find decent quality though. *Nothing* is more comfortable! Very soft and supremely breathable. Cotton will hold more water than polyester, but poly takes and evaporates water much more quickly.


----------



## upthewazzu (Nov 3, 2011)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Unlike a belt, which is meant as a decorative, functional piece, braces are underwear, period. Now, that may go hand in hand with 'never remove one's jacket in the presence of women', but still. I'm young, but still abide by both schools of thought. You will NEVER see me in public/around women with my jacket off, and if you see my braces, you've caught a glimpse of them under my jacket, and I have some beautiful ones that frankly would deserve to be shown off, but they're freakin' underwear!!!!


Anything that is worn ON TOP OF a dress shirt is not underwear. Period.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

Sythetophobia.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> I'll try two:
> 
> 1. _Non-iron cotton is awful!_ - No it isn't! *Higher quality *non-iron cotton can be very comfortable, look great and save one heck of a lot of time ironing!
> 
> 2. _Polyester is junk and doesn't breath! _- *Higher quality *cotton/poly can be terrific! I've got two cotton/poly trench coats. One from Brooks and one from Burberrys. They're each over 20 years old and going strong. The cloth is extremely tough and long-wearing, but sheds wrinkles beautifully. I only wear cotton/poly PJ's. (For well over 50 years.) Getting very hard to find decent quality though. *Nothing* is more comfortable! Very soft and supremely breathable. Cotton will hold more water than polyester, but poly takes and evaporates water much more quickly.


High quality or not, the toxicity of the non-iron treatment is what gives many pause.

Regarding polyester... it has its uses. It's certainly better than it used to be on average.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

It would have to be pocket squares for me.
Whilst I know many on here see them as an essential satorial accessory, I just feel they are not needed, especially with less formal attire which I am dressed in the majority of the time.


----------



## LawSuits (Nov 1, 2011)

Slaughtering sacred cows - while I do get a sense that people here try to set standards, one of the things I like about this forum is what I perceive as a a willingness to venture into some untried territory. I have seen pictures of members wearing immaculate suits - and with them garish socks, that I would never have considered a good choice in the abstract, and yet the member can pull it off and it looks great, thereby opening my mind to other possibilities. Certainly the forum tends to traditional and conservative looks in clothing, but I enjoy that there is little that is "sacred" - if it looks good, if it wears well, if it is of quality that is good value - then I think it gets approval.
I probably don't have enough fashion knowledge to recognize any sacred cows anyway, but bravo for this discussion - civil and instructive.
I will take a stab at one standard though. UpprCrust posts his outfit everyday, and his clothes are fabulous - way out of the reach of my wallet. I can only assume that he likes to put on a beautiful suit everyday, and that it is the only appropriate attire for his business. But just once I would like to see him a casual outfit!! Does he only own suits? What does he wear to watch TV - does he lose the pocket square in a fit of informality? Really, his clothes are great, but I would love to see his take on something other than a suit......
(Tongue is firmly in cheek.... I think.)


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

Slim-fitting trousers & skinny ties. Don't care how trad they are, I do not care for the look.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Extreme hate of double-monks: the height of bombastic snobbery. That some don't care for them I perfectly understand. That they are routinely described here in the most over-the-top terms of condemnation utterly puzzles me.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Jovan said:


> It's certainly better than it used to be on average.


My experience is the opposite, but I guess we first need to define the frame of reference. 35 years ago, cotton/poly was ubiquitous, with a broad range of quality. And the top quality was quite good indeed. I don't know which mill Brooks used to use for the cloth from which their trench coats were made, but it's pretty much second to none.


----------



## Joseph Peter (Mar 26, 2012)

Suit separates, the wearing of a suit jacket as a sport coat, fellas who wear black sneaker shoes with a suit (hey! you're not fooling anyone!), skinny suits which no one except an emaciated model should wear, and the oxymoron known as business casual.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

My impression is that the purpose of this thread is to confess murderous thoughts directed at sacred cows, rather than bêtes noires.

Some bovicidal urges:

Pocket squares (which IvanD got to before I did).
Self-consciousness about being a "gentleman"
Getting all wound up over what goes with what, and what colors go with your skin tone, or hairstyle, or whatever.
The Duke of Windsor.
Belgian loafers.

Okay, I suppose Belgian loafers aren't quite a sacred cow.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> I'd be willing to bet that this (showing of one's braces) only became acceptable behavior after _Wall Street_.


You'd lose that bet.

Sartorially, the movie's wardrobe department pretty carefully emulated what people on Wall Street (or Water Street, or 6th Avenue) were already wearing. Gekko might've amped the look up a bit, but guys walking around with suspenders showing was very common years before the movie was released.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

About braces, I treat them as underwear, not because of the "rules" but because I don't want to draw unneeded attention to myself.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Starch said:


> You'd lose that bet.
> 
> Sartorially, the movie's wardrobe department pretty carefully emulated what people on Wall Street (or Water Street, or 6th Avenue) were already wearing. Gekko might've amped the look up a bit, but guys walking around with suspenders showing was very common years before the movie was released.


I seem to recall seeing people showing off their braces in the office in old movies, though I can't think of any examples.


----------



## mrfixit (Dec 30, 2012)

matching. i see way too much concern over being "matchy".


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I think they are called silk grenadine ties. Members here seem to go gaga over them and I don't get it. I'm not sure how some coarsely textured tie that looks too much like a knit is somehow the height of elegance. They look lacey in a feminine way, but they are essentially bland solid ties. I believe they are delicate and expensive to boot. I fail to see the overall advantage over a normal woven silk tie.

Chelsea, chukka, and desert boots are all pretty heinous as well.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

I fear that this thread has taken a very discouraging turn.


----------



## johnpark11 (Oct 19, 2009)

peterc said:


> As much as I love AE, I agree with you. The PA and the 5A are both fairly unattractive shoes in my book, though I suspect that many like them for the very fact that they are not sleek, like a C&J or even a Loake is/are.


Im with you guys. I own a few pair of AE's but am not a fan of them either.

will get killed on this one, but seersuckers. I just don't get it and I live in one if the hottest places on earth. Every time I see someone in one, I think of KFC. Could deal with a navy one, but the white ones just don't do it for me.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Matt S said:


> About braces, I treat them as underwear, not because of the "rules" but because I don't want to draw unneeded attention to myself.


So you avoid that by keeping your coat on all day?


----------



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

Tempest said:


> Chelsea, chukka, and desert boots are all pretty heinous as well.


I dunno... not that I mind femininity, but grenadine ties remind me a little of chain mail. :icon_viking:

Understand the bland solid tie, you one day will, young Jedi. The nice thing about grenadine is that it isn't as bland as a solid repp.

(Note that I don't own any grenadine ties.)

Care to explain your thoughts on the boots?

Edit: Starch, I might disagree with you about the pocket squares (I'm not a zealot, but I like them a lot), but I've gotta agree in terms of the "gentleman complex." I decided a while ago that, since I wear my watch on a metal bracelet,* I can never be a gentleman. It means I get a theme song (



), and can remove my jacket in front of women.

* Yes, this got pointed out as an disqualifying factor.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Agreed (with Tempest's post).


----------



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

I do not find ranger mocs visually appealing.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Keeping this thread on track, e.g. a personal opinion and _not_ a derisive sniff: khaki chinos, particularly with a sky blue button down collar, penny loafers, and the ubiquitous blue blazer.

I am absolutely certain some of my choices would not be the choice of many others here and I would hope that we could have a good laugh about it should we meet and share a conversation over our interest in clothes,and perhaps this forum as a whole. There are many here I would truly love to do that with. Should you _not_ be a sailor but _are_ shod in boat shoes I would also happily relieve you of _that_ sacred cow and purchase you a more appropriate pair of land lubber's shoes :devil::icon_smile_big:.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I have commented before on threads like this that if they run long enough, just about everything you like and wear will turn up on somebody's sh*t list!


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Care to explain your thoughts on the boots?


They all look kind of embryonic and primitive, as if they are a few stages past tying rags to your feet or the Ugg boot. They are utterly devoid of sophistication and refinement.


----------



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

Tempest said:


> They all look kind of embryonic and primitive, as if they are a few stages past tying rags to your feet or the Ugg boot. They are utterly devoid of sophistication and refinement.


Chelsea boots? I guess I just don't get it -- I think they can be a very refined, rather sleek shoe choice.


----------



## statboy (Sep 1, 2010)

RogerP said:


> Extreme hate of double-monks: the height of bombastic snobbery. That some don't care for them I perfectly understand. That they are routinely described here in the most over-the-top terms of condemnation utterly puzzles me.


I'm willing to admit that my hatred for double monks has little to do with the actual shoe. It relates instead to all of the street style guys out there wearing them without socks and unbuckled, blah blah. Not to mention all the bracelets to go with.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

JLibourel said:


> I have commented before on threads like this that if they run long enough, just about everything you like and wear will turn up on somebody's sh*t list!


Yup. The other thing I see is people waxing wroth over things that seem utterly trivial to me. Hey, I like clothes, especially classic styles but you want to drop an angry pot roast? Obsessive anger over minutiae.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> So you avoid that by keeping your coat on all day?


I only wear them when I know I'll be keeping my coat on all day. I don't wear braces to work. My boss would love it, and her boss would laugh at me. He loves to find any reason to make fun of someone. If I'm wearing a suit or a sports coat and it's not to work, rarely would I find it appropriate to take it off. At a wedding, funeral, bar mitzvah, show, concert, fancy dinner, business lunch, house of worship, etc, I wouldn't think to remove my jacket. That just doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Tempest said:


> I think they are called silk grenadine ties. Members here seem to go gaga over them and I don't get it. I'm not sure how some coarsely textured tie that looks too much like a knit is somehow the height of elegance. They look lacey in a feminine way, but they are essentially bland solid ties. I believe they are delicate and expensive to boot. I fail to see the overall advantage over a normal woven silk tie.
> 
> Chelsea, chukka, and desert boots are all pretty heinous as well.


I like grenadine ties because they aren't bland like a solid satin or repp tie. Up close they look nothing like a knit and are not nearly as course. I have many of both and they are nothing alike.

I can't agree with you on boots either. Little seems more refined to me than the chelsea boot.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Starch said:


> Some bovicidal urges:
> 
> ...
> The Duke of Windsor.
> ...


I'm pleased someone mentioned him. Historians and one or two novelists have not been particularly kind to him, but even so it seems he was a nasty piece.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

statboy said:


> I'm willing to admit that my hatred for double monks has little to do with the actual shoe. It relates instead to all of the street style guys out there wearing them without socks and unbuckled, blah blah. Not to mention all the bracelets to go with.


Well I'm certainly no proponent of the unbuckled / sockless approach (and thankfully, I have never seen this myself). I should add that it wouldn't put me off Oxfords if some people chose to wear them without laces or socks.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Dieu et les Dames said:


> I do not find ranger mocs visually appealing.


I think there is no better shoe worn sockless on a summer day with shorts. A topsider or a pair of nylites may be their equal, but none is better.

This is going to sound strange, but I find that with ranger mocs the shoes look unappealing when you wear them and look down on them. However, when you see them on someone else,they look pretty good. Try this: Put on a pair. Stand up and look down. It probably looks very plain jane, but then go to a full length mirror. I'll bet the shoes look great in the mirror. That's the way others will view the shoes when you wear them.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

A couple of quickies:

1. Windsor knots...and if I'm cranky, any knot other than a 4-in-hand.
2. Anything made of patchwork madras.
3. Nantucket Reds.
4. These shoes:









5. Exotic leather belts, shoes, watch bands, or boots.
6. Horsebit loafers.
7. French cuffs and cuff links.
8. All of the nicknacks associated with tuxedos: Cummerbund, Shirts that need studs, wingtip collars, those pants with a satin strip down the sides.
10. Collar stays.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Chelsea boots? I guess I just don't get it -- I think they can be a very refined, rather sleek shoe choice.


Agreed. How Chelsea boots could be described as little better than tying rags to you your feet is beyond me. Which brings me to another of my dislikes: extreme over-the-top comments used to disparge anything which falls outside one's personal taste or preference.


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Here goes mine: the AE Park Avenue. It's an ugly, clunky version of what ought to be a sleek, stylish shoe. The last isn't too bad, but the huge welt and tiny toecap are pretty major negatives. Strands, McAllisters, or Kenilworths on the same last? Very desirable. Park Aves or (though I've not really examined these) Fifth Aves? No thanks.
> 
> Of course, there's not really any competition for it in the US, in terms of quality and distribution, and they're not totally atrocious, but they do make me want to ensure that my thrifted old Florsheims (which have the same stylistic issues) hold out until I can deal with ordering Loakes or Meermins.


I completely agree with you on this. I personally loved the AE Evanston cap-toes, with their slightly chiselled toes and larger cap. The PA's cap looks like it might fall off. My favorite cap-toes are my Church's Philip (black), C&J Hallam (brown), and AE Evanston (walnut).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

"Sacred cows I would like to ...?" Admittedly. I am a shoe whore, always in search of the ultimately comfortable wardrobe for my feet! Consequently and not surprisingly, my ire falls within the footwear category. Men should not wear shoes incorporating dainty design features, more appropriately seen on a woman's feet. LOL. I'm talking about velvet Albert slippers and Belgian Loafers here! With a pair of each hanging out on my shoe racks, I'm here to tell you that walking around out here in Hoosierville with dainty footwear designs on your feet, can get a guy in hot water and in surprisingly short order. If the good lawd had intended we manly men to sport such effete footwear, he would have designed us with more petite and more visually appealing paws at the ends of our legs...as he did with the women! I say down with the effeminate shoe designs for men. Keep it safe and stick with our Gunboats and proper work boots.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

RogerP said:


> ...Which brings me to another of my dislikes: extreme over-the-top comments used to disparge anything which falls outside one's personal taste or preference.


Every day on this forum must be agony for you! :icon_smile_big:

My own personal list:

- Goodyear welted penny loafers (I'm talking to you, Alden LHS)
- Spread collars
- Wholecuts
- Surgeon cuffs
- Norwegian split toes


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

RogerP said:


> Agreed. How Chelsea boots could be described as little better than tying rags to you your feet is beyond me. Which brings me to another of my dislikes: extreme over-the-top comments used to disparge anything which falls outside one's personal taste or preference.


I think using the term "extreme" to describe over-the-top comments goes a bit too far.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

LawSuits said:


> Slaughtering sacred cows - while I do get a sense that people here try to set standards, one of the things I like about this forum is what I perceive as a a willingness to venture into some untried territory. I have seen pictures of members wearing immaculate suits - and with them garish socks, that I would never have considered a good choice in the abstract, and yet the member can pull it off and it looks great, thereby opening my mind to other possibilities. Certainly the forum tends to traditional and conservative looks in clothing, but I enjoy that there is little that is "sacred" - if it looks good, if it wears well, if it is of quality that is good value - then I think it gets approval.
> I probably don't have enough fashion knowledge to recognize any sacred cows anyway, but bravo for this discussion - civil and instructive.
> I will take a stab at one standard though. UpprCrust posts his outfit everyday, and his clothes are fabulous - way out of the reach of my wallet. I can only assume that he likes to put on a beautiful suit everyday, and that it is the only appropriate attire for his business. But just once I would like to see him a casual outfit!! Does he only own suits? What does he wear to watch TV - does he lose the pocket square in a fit of informality? Really, his clothes are great, but I would love to see his take on something other than a suit......
> (Tongue is firmly in cheek.... I think.)


In answer to your enquiries, with my tongue not entirely in my cheek . . .

My work situation is such that I have a great deal of freedom of expression - my office is actually "business casual", though of late, there is a bit less of that among the locals. My sartorial excesses are merely seen as harmlessly eccentric (the men in my office), or eye candy in a sartorial desert (the women in my office). As for the expense of my wardrobe, there is little that I own that I did not buy on sale, so it may look a bit more expensive than it was to acquire.

I could post photos of my more casual attire, but, for the most part, my casual attire isn't really very interesting - certainly with a full suited outfit, there's more to look at. I can assure that I do own casual clothes, and I have posted photos of myself in sports jacket and odd trousers (in fact, sports jackets and corduroys, this winter). As to what I wear while watching TV - I don't think that it would be an edifying sight, me in a terry cloth bathrobe.

Just to assuage your curiosity, I will attempt a more casual look for tomorrow, as it will be a very quiet day in the financial district (the markets will be closed for Good Friday, though the banking industry will be open as usual). How's that for accommodation?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

hardline_42 said:


> Every day on this forum must be agony for you! :icon_smile_big:


Not agony - it just has me shaking my head. It seems to be very much expected here that one can't simply explain why they don't care for a particular style, but must instead label it as ghastly! horrendous! perverse! etc.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

RogerP said:


> Not agony - it just has me shaking my head. It seems to be very much expected here that one can't simply explain why they don't care for a particular style, but must instead label it as ghastly! horrendous! perverse! etc.


So you were serious? I thought it was a clever ironic joke, considering your initial sentence compared a pair of boots to rags.


----------



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

hardline_42 said:


> Every day on this forum must be agony for you! :icon_smile_big:
> 
> My own personal list:
> 
> ...


I'm not crazy about the kind of GY-welt penny loafers that want to be Weejuns, but English-style loafers on a sleek last have started growing on me a little bit (sleek, not chiseled). They're more like tassel loafers sans tassels than a sturdier penny.

NSTs can be very good, or very bad.

I actually don't mind over-the-top condemnations -- I rarely write them, because I don't want to insult anybody, but I find they're amusing enough if written with tongue firmly in cheek. If they're meant 100% seriously... well, I just hope those folks aren't like that in real life.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> I'll try two:
> 
> 1. _Non-iron cotton is awful!_ - No it isn't! *Higher quality *non-iron cotton can be very comfortable, look great and save one heck of a lot of time ironing!
> 
> 2. _Polyester is junk and doesn't breath! _- *Higher quality *cotton/poly can be terrific! I've got two cotton/poly trench coats. One from Brooks and one from Burberrys. They're each over 20 years old and going strong. The cloth is extremely tough and long-wearing, but sheds wrinkles beautifully. I only wear cotton/poly PJ's. (For well over 50 years.) Getting very hard to find decent quality though. *Nothing* is more comfortable! Very soft and supremely breathable. Cotton will hold more water than polyester, but poly takes and evaporates water much more quickly.


I strongly prefer non-irons made of high quality synth blends over non-irons made of treated cotton.

Best example is the standard 60/40 poplin. It's cool as a cucumber and feels a lot nicer than eg Brooks advantage.

In my experience, cotton/poly blends work better than wool/poly blends, but I've seen some very nice blazers made from wool/poly hopsacks. And I heard the Anderson-Little blazers have a very nice hand.


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

hardline_42 said:


> Goodyear welted penny loafers (I'm talking to you, Alden LHS)


I don't a have dog in this fight but am curious as to what the objection is.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Not agony - it just has me shaking my head. It seems to be very much expected here that one can't simply explain why they don't care for a particular style, but must instead label it as ghastly! horrendous! perverse! etc.


I suspect some people's style is to write in passionate or polemical terms. I agree it seems a bit over the top on occasions, but sometimes it can be quite amusing. I'm surprised you take it seriously enough for this to be sacred cow you wish to slaughter!

BTW, I was a bit puzzled by your comment about double monks if pointed in my direction. I didn't think my two earlier posts either showed 'extreme hate' or 'bombastic snobbery'. As I explained I think double monks are overelaborate, fussy and peacocky (acknowledging this was a personal preference: I don't like horsebit loafers or single monks either). I've been out of the loop for a while, though, so I guess you could have been referencing something else.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Balfour, your description of double monks as peacock falls at the mild end of the scale of recent criticism generally leveled at them.

As to over the too comments in general, I hardly take them too seriously - I just don't understand the desire to come off the top rope with every criticism. I don't find it informative or particularly amusing. But I am neither offended nor deeply troubled.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

^ On double monks, thanks (I thought I might have overegged it a bit, but only in the sort of 'vent your spleen' theme of the thread).

I don't disagree with your second paragraph.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> I don't a have dog in this fight but am curious as to what the objection is.


It's not an ugly shoe, by any means, but it is trying to be something that it's not. It's a Goodyear welted shoe in moccasin's clothing, sporting a row of toe stitching and a flat strap with penny slot to resemble a Weejun. Where a true shell penny moccasin would have two layers of cordovan (the vamp, which wraps around your entire foot, and the top plug) joined at the toe perimeter by a handsewn saddle stitch, the GYW penny is just one piece of shell (the upper) down-lasted to the sole with a line of faux toe stitching on it. It's obscenely expensive and has less cordovan, less comfort out of the box and a less classic shape than the original. That being said, I wouldn't object if I were gifted a pair! :cool2:



Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I'm not crazy about the kind of GY-welt penny loafers that want to be Weejuns, but English-style loafers on a sleek last have started growing on me a little bit (sleek, not chiseled). They're more like tassel loafers sans tassels than a sturdier penny.


I agree with you. I am not the tiniest bit conflicted when donning a pair of tassel loafers. It's the Weejun-wannabe's (LHS, Randolph, Patriot et al) that I take issue with.


----------



## LawSuits (Nov 1, 2011)

to UpprCrust - Bravo! I will be on the lookout!


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Button down collars with ties. 

Button down collars with suits. 

Point collars on dress shirts. 

Derbys/Bluchers with suits. 

Dark lounge suits paired with mid or light brown shoes. 

Suit jackets that have no room at the buttoning point, making them X and making the lapels bow outwards. 

Men below 55 years of age with scraggly beards.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Point collars on dress shirts.


Care to expand a little on that one?


----------



## Snow Hill Pond (Aug 10, 2011)

Bjorn said:


> Men below 55 years of age with scraggly beards.


They start 'em young in San Francisco...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> Care to expand a little on that one?


Point collars as in collars with very little spread. Sorry if that was obtuse.

So:

I don't like....

Rather than having spread:

Which I do like.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> They start 'em young in San Francisco...
> 
> View attachment 7337


There's so much wrong with that statement... 

Or right. I harbor no phobias, no sirrah


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Point collars as in collars with very little spread. Sorry if that was obtuse.
> 
> So:
> 
> ...


That's what I thought. Sounds like we need to trade cows and fire up the grill.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> That's what I thought. Sounds like we need to trade cows and fire up the grill.


Exactly 

Ill do mine salt/sugar marinaded 48h with a chili/cinnamon/brown sugar rub. Slow barbecue lid on. Maybe some apple wood. You?


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Button down collars with ties.
> 
> Button down collars with suits.
> 
> ...


I thought the aim of the thread was to _kill_ sacred cows, rather than to exalt them?

I'd actually reverse all of these (except the last one), and put them on the list of sacred cows ripe for the abattoir.



> Point collars on dress shirts.


Now we're just getting into the area of specific taste, I think. Or maybe not.

To put it another way: a person who (say) only wears button-down collars, doesn't think that straight collars are _tref_: he just prefers the buttondown.

And ... back on the first point: are point collars a "sacred cow" to start with?



> Suit jackets that have no room at the buttoning point, making them X and making the lapels bow outwards.
> 
> Men below 55 years of age with scraggly beards.


Now we're _way_ far away from any "sacred cow," unless you've perceived an invisibile-to-me groundsweell that says suit jackets are supposed to pull at the button, or scraggly beards are cool. The latter you might find somewhere (Portland?), though this isn't that place.

And, of course, one must wonder: you think "scraggly beards" on 55-year-olds are good?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Exactly
> 
> Ill do mine salt/sugar marinaded 48h with a chili/cinnamon/brown sugar rub. Slow barbecue lid on. Maybe some apple wood. You?


Salt. Pepper. Charcoal.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

Tie tacks, and to a slightly lesser extent, tie bars. I say let em' fly free.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Okay, I'm adopting (or perverting) some other suggestions.

To my original ones:

Pocket squares.
Self-consciousness about being a "gentleman."
Getting all wound up over what goes with what, and what colors go with your skin tone, or hairstyle, or whatever.
The Duke of Windsor.

Add:
Too much concern over being matchy (a special case of the third one above, I guess).
Grenadine ties.
Chelsea, chukka and desert boots (except in a desert or, maybe, Chelsea).
The notion that:
- suspenders are underwear.
- buttondown collars can't be worn with a tie or a suit.
- bluchers can't be worn with a suit.

And a few provisional ones, either because the cow doesn't seem all that sacred or is worthy only of incarceration, rather than lethal injection:
Double monks.
Windsor knots.
Horsebit loafers.
Goodyear welted penny loafers (as opposed to tassle loafers, which are different).
Tie tacks and tie bars.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Here goes mine: the AE Park Avenue. It's an ugly, clunky version of what ought to be a sleek, stylish shoe. The last isn't too bad, but the huge welt and tiny toecap are pretty major negatives. Strands, McAllisters, or Kenilworths on the same last? Very desirable. Park Aves or (though I've not really examined these) Fifth Aves? No thanks.
> 
> Of course, there's not really any competition for it in the US, in terms of quality and distribution, and they're not totally atrocious, but they do make me want to ensure that my thrifted old Florsheims (which have the same stylistic issues) hold out until I can deal with ordering Loakes or Meermins.


agreed. i've tried very hard to like AE but I can't. but maybe it's the pictures I see online that don't do the brand justice, or it could be they really do make an ugly shoe. you'd think that with AE's reach in the US they'd at least experiment with sleek new styles, something similar to what's being produced in Northhampton UK, but maybe the US market isn't ready for it yet.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> So you were serious? I thought it was a clever ironic joke, considering your initial sentence compared a pair of boots to rags.


 Where did I compare boots to rags, exactly? As I recall, I was critical of exactly such a comparison.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Back to sacred cows.

Button-popping super-slim-fit anything.

Suit pants hemmed to hover above the ankles.

Skinny FIH knots with cutaway collars.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Please take the following retorts in the light spirited tone the thread was intended...



Starch said:


> My impression is that the purpose of this thread is to confess murderous thoughts directed at sacred cows, rather than bêtes noires.
> 
> Some bovicidal urges:
> 
> ...


-There's a breast pocket on your jacket for a reason and it cries every time you neglect to pacify it.
-I suppose you have a point.
-Far as I can see, no one gets "wound up" about it, it's simply about optimizing your look. Some colours don't work well on some people as others. Yellow looks horrible on me, end of story!
-He innovated or helped popularize things we now take for granted. Thanks to him, you can enjoy pleated trousers with cuffs as part of a business suit, turndown collars with black tie, backless waistcoats for black/white tie, Panama hats, Fair Isle sweaters, and suede brogues just to name a few. So you can understand why he might be well regarded sartorially.
-I don't get them either.



Snow Hill Pond said:


> A couple of quickies:
> 
> 1. Windsor knots...and if I'm cranky, any knot other than a 4-in-hand.
> 2. Anything made of patchwork madras.
> ...


1. What about the Prince Albert?
2. Guess I need to throw away my two pairs of patch madras shorts. :icon_smile_big:
3. Awww...
4. I think those are the same wholecuts I own, or at least a very similar style.
5. Can't argue there.
6. I'm wearing a pair right now. Crap. Set them on fire before I'm infected!
7. ... you cannot be serious.
8. You REALLY cannot be serious. But I might point out that you're talking about a _wing_ collar. Wingtips are for shoes. Most well-dressed men wear a spread collar for black tie now, though.
9. Missing from your list. Neener neener.
10. So... what kind of collars do you wear?



hardline_42 said:


> It's not an ugly shoe, by any means, but it is trying to be something that it's not. It's a Goodyear welted shoe in moccasin's clothing, sporting a row of toe stitching and a flat strap with penny slot to resemble a Weejun. Where a true shell penny moccasin would have two layers of cordovan (the vamp, which wraps around your entire foot, and the top plug) joined at the toe perimeter by a handsewn saddle stitch, the GYW penny is just one piece of shell (the upper) down-lasted to the sole with a line of faux toe stitching on it. It's obscenely expensive and has less cordovan, less comfort out of the box and a less classic shape than the original. That being said, I wouldn't object if I were gifted a pair! :cool2:
> 
> I agree with you. I am not the tiniest bit conflicted when donning a pair of tassel loafers. It's the Weejun-wannabe's (LHS, Randolph, Patriot et al) that I take issue with.


Good point. I'd sooner get a pair from Rancourt or Oak Street, myself. The handsewn look just feels more... right for those kind of loafers.

I'm curious if anyone has experiences with Russell Moccasin though. They do a sort of MTM thing where they adjust a pattern to your foot shape. Their prices are about the same, but I don't know how the quality is. Supposedly they are true handsewns.



Bjorn said:


> Button down collars with ties.
> 
> Button down collars with suits.
> 
> ...


-Uh...
-Oh, stop it.
-Point collars look good on some guys. I've come to believe that the semi-spread is the safest choice overall though, for most all situations and face shapes.
-You... you fascist! 
-Mid brown looks okay, IMO. I mainly don't like the tan/Band-Aid coloured ones with dark suits.
-A lot of guys mistake a tight pull at the button for waist suppression.
-"Men of any age with scraggly beards." Fixed that for you.



Bjorn said:


> Point collars as in collars with very little spread. Sorry if that was obtuse.
> 
> So:
> 
> ...


Hm, I'm thinking it might be helpful to refer to that collar shape as a "forward point" like a few shirtmakers do. "Point" alone is also used to encompass any turndown collar that isn't rounded or button-down.



adoucett said:


> Tie tacks, and to a slightly lesser extent, tie bars. I say let em' fly free.


There are industries and situations where they are useful. Say, for not getting your tie caught in machinery or accidentally dipping it in soup.


----------



## adoucett (Nov 16, 2012)

Jovan said:


> There are industries and situations where they are useful. Say, for not getting your tie caught in machinery or accidentally dipping it in soup.


hmm.. I guess I might change my mind when there are giant spinning gears around, ready to suck me in (may even be the only justification for wearing a clip on!). In this case I'm just speaking form an aesthetics standpoint.


----------



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

RogerP said:


> Back to sacred cows.
> 
> Button-popping super-slim-fit anything.
> 
> ...


I don't know if those are _our_ sacred cows...

How about: the idea that there's only one silhouette for tailored clothing. Strong shoulders can be good. Soft shoulders can be good. A suit can be cut pretty darn lean compared to the '30s and look good ('60s lean, not this month's GQ). A suit can be full-cut and not look dated. As long as the whole thing works together and fits right, it's good.

As for the DoW, I'm glad he brought some things into style, but I wouldn't really want to dress too much like him. Also, you know, sort of an unpleasant guy, from what I've heard. I keep meaning to watch_ Edward & Mrs. Simpson,_ after reading a piece by G. Bruce Boyer on Edward Fox -- which also hipped me to _The Day of the Jackal_, a pretty good movie with a pretty great wardrobe.

Bjorn, the (non-BD) collars that appeal to me most visually are fairly close spread collars. Think Turnbull & Asser, not Finamore. I think you could argue that the widest point collars would be nearly as nice.

I will admit to liking the type of GY-welt penny loafer that's much sleeker than most true moccasins, like so:

But I think of them as much more akin to tassel loafers (in their European form) than to Weejuns. This position might only be tenable because I'm about 50% trad.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> But I think of them as much more akin to tassel loafers (in their _European form_) than to Weejuns. This position might only be tenable because I'm about 50% trad.


Just for clarity, when you and others say tassel loafers in their _European form, _are you referring to this style...








...as opposed to these, which I would call tassel "mocs"?









I consider them both to be American styles, and I'd like to know what these European tassel loafers look like.


----------



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

hardline_42 said:


> Just for clarity, when you and others say tassel loafers in their _European form, _are you referring to this style...
> 
> I consider them both to be American styles, and I'd like to know what these European tassel loafers look like.


No, I'm thinking of sleeker versions of the Aldens, verging into those weird G&G-ish wholecut tassels (which I don't like).


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Langham said:


> a nasty piece.


Translate into American please?


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

*Collars*

Of course, there is such a thing as _too_ forward-and-pointy. For example:









But: (i) the one in the little drawing isn't one of those and (ii) those certainly aren't sacred cows, at least not around _these_ parts. As an aside, if I saw I guy who looked like Joe Pesci in the photo, I'd would not say _anything_ to him about his collar.

*Loafers*

Cows (or calves?) which are appropriately sacred (at least as to general construction):

















Calves which deserve slaughter, though I don't think they're really sacred anyway:









So: why are "fake" mocassins right for tassel loafers and wrong for penny loafers? I don't know. They just are.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Snow Hill Pond said:


> 1. Windsor knots...and if I'm cranky, any knot other than a 4-in-hand.
> 2. Anything made of patchwork madras.
> 3. Nantucket Reds.
> 4. These shoes [photo omitted]
> ...


Even if I don't agree with all of these, or even most, _kudos_ for getting the point of the thread, as all of those are actually sacred cows, rather than whipping boys, or stalking horses, or dancing elk.

There's a general theme of anti-fussiness or -busyness or -showiness or something like that, which kind of makes sense ... though I like patchwork madras, Nantucket reds and french cuffs (in moderation, and not all at once). If I were wearing a tuxedo every day, number 8 might make more sense than it does to me. Of course, number 10 is non-issue with buttondown collars. With straight collars, I take the point (so to speak), as they're a pain in the neck (so to speak), but they do serve a function.



> Thanks to [the Duke of Windsor], you can enjoy pleated trousers with cuffs as part of a business suit, turndown collars with black tie, backless waistcoats for black/white tie, Panama hats, Fair Isle sweaters, and suede brogues just to name a few.


I never wear pleated trousers (with or without cuffs) as a part of business suit, Panama hats, Fair Isles sweaters or suede brogues, so ... that leaves turndown collars with black tie and backless formal vests. Kind of slim.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Most well-dressed men wear a spread collar for black tie now, though.


A spread collar? With a bow tie?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

L-feld said:


> A spread collar? With a bow tie?
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


It has been fairly common since the 1940s. Wing collars went out by the 1950s.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Matt S said:


> It has been fairly common since the 1940s. Wing collars went out by the 1950s.


I just assumed all tuxedo shirts with turndown collars had forward points, or, at most, half spreads.

My Gitman tuxedo shirt has a regular forward point.

I've always thought spread collars looked awful with bow ties. If that's a thing, then add that to my slaughterhouse queue.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

L-feld said:


> I just assumed all tuxedo shirts with turndown collars had forward points, or, at most, half spreads.
> 
> My Gitman tuxedo shirt has a regular forward point.
> 
> I've always thought spread collars looked awful with bow ties. If that's a thing, then add that to my slaughterhouse queue.


Do you think this looks awful:

It's the most classic look IMO. Very wide spread and cutaway collars look awful with bow ties.

What I can't stand is when collar points show under a jacket, unless it's a tab or pinned collar.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Matt could also show you many examples from his blog of spread collars worn with black tie.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Wholecuts - a shoe with an unseemly aspect akin to prepubescent glamour pageants. :icon_pale:

Double monks - unless you are a Victorian and require orthopaedic corrective footwear? 

Shoes worn without socks - No. Just - NO. :mad2:

.
.
.
.

.
.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Matt S said:


> Do you think this looks awful:
> 
> It's the most classic look IMO. Very wide spread and cutaway collars look awful with bow ties.
> 
> What I can't stand is when collar points show under a jacket, unless it's a tab or pinned collar.


That's fine, although slightly wider than I would wear. I guess I was picturing something more like this:










I personally like to stay under 90 degrees.


----------



## coase (Apr 29, 2010)

I have the Park Avenue, and though I do wear it (usually for Sunday mass or events where I choose to present myself more conservatively than usual) I agree with those who say it's clunky. I much prefer the overall shape of my AE Hancocks or the Fairfax which seem sleeker and more elegant without being fashion forward.
I also agree with those who dislike Nantucket Reds. I think a lot of the so-called GTH stuff from the old days are just hideous especially a lot of brightly colored summer pants in various shades of yellow, green, or madras mixtures.
And my biggest sacred cow is the Duke of Windsor. Unlike Grant or Bond/Connery, a lot what he wore seems ridiculous or unimpressive to me. Looking at the lavish coffee table book of his outfits in someone's home, I was struck by how unappealing at least a third of it was. And reading his biography makes me think even less of him. Yes, it's true that he was a style icon and he did help establish many trends we now adhere to. Nonetheless, his taste is a very unreliable guide to good dress. Everytime I hear DoW used as an answer to a debate about clothing my reaction is to think, Fine, maybe Esquire or GQ aren't so bad after all.

In general my respect for tradition, is that the best stuff has an inherent logic that makes sense even in diverse times. In contrast, the things I dislike seem to display arbitrary adherence to a different time, place, or ingroup without any redeeming logic to someone who doesn't revere authenticity for its own sake.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

For me, it's the OCBD, or BD's with ties in general. They have their place, but in America they are worn far too often, and by the wrong men. Nothing makes a jowly or round-faced man look worse than a rolled collar that simply echoes another roll of flesh or fat - and that's what BD's do when snugged with a tie. If you're a taut-necked ectomorph, fine, but middle-aged white-collar professionals who don't run triathalons on the weekends should steer clear.

Note to self: don't argue aesthetics with coase, his taste is so different from yours that it will be a total waste of time.


----------



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

I've got another one:

Patch breast pockets. I don't hate 'em, and one of my favorite jackets has one, but I pretty much always prefer two patch pockets and a welt.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

3/2 sacks.

I happen to be wearing one right now, but I fail to grasp the fuss.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

I hate to throw a Lonsman under the bus, but can we execute Ralph Lauren? Or at least the notion that a garment is "fine" simply because he made it?

Even if he stopped slathering every garment with the much maligned big pony; even if he stopped slathering every garment with the less maligned (but still maligned nonetheless) small pony, his clothes would still be ugly and fit poorly.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Shaver said:


> Wholecuts - a shoe with an unseemly aspect akin to prepubescent glamour pageants. :icon_pale:
> 
> Double monks - unless you are a Victorian and require orthopaedic corrective footwear?
> 
> ...


I think you're focusing far too much on how they look displayed on a shelf as opposed to part of a whole outfit. Can you honestly say that, if a man were dressed well everywhere else, you'd take major points off for wholecuts? Then again, we seem to be discussing the modern kind without any visible stitching at all on the outside.

As for no socks with shoes... are you talking about shoes designed to be worn sockless or business shoes? Because if the former, you're just a stuck up British prig trying to repress us colonists again!

Or... you just have an opinion I don't like. RAWR!



L-feld said:


> That's fine, although slightly wider than I would wear. I guess I was picturing something more like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To my own surprise, I like my Ledbury shirt even though it has a spread somewhat close to that. I think it's about 6" wide? That would be sort of like a Brooks Brothers "Londoner", for reference. I'll have to check.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...2352-March-Acquisitions&p=1384773#post1384773

Honestly though, while I've seen a lot of forward point collars on evening shirts (mostly in movies from the '90s and earlier) and even own a pleated front Gitman shirt with it, I feel a bow tie harmonizes best with at least a semi-spread (4" wide) collar.



Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I've got another one:
> 
> Patch breast pockets. I don't hate 'em, and one of my favorite jackets has one, but I pretty much always prefer two patch pockets and a welt.


I wasn't aware patch breast pockets were sacred cows here. But I do understand where you're coming from. Some people dislike the bulge when wearing a pocket square while others believe it adds to the charm.



tocqueville said:


> 3/2 sacks.
> 
> I happen to be wearing one right now, but I fail to grasp the fuss.


I don't think them the end all, be all of coats or anything, but they do have a nice "casual insouciance" look about them that especially works well for sport coats. I've yet to get a full suit with a sack coat but not out of lack of trying.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Jovan said:


> I don't think them the end all, be all of coats or anything, but they do have a nice "casual insouciance" look about them that especially works well for sport coats. I've yet to get a full suit with a sack coat but not out of lack of trying.


Have you ever though about trying a 2 button sack suit? I don't own any 3/2 roll suits (only blazers & sport jackets), and I'm still on the fence about whether I like a 3/2 roll with finer fabrics like worsteds. A worsted 3/2 that isn't fully canvassed will just sort of lie there looking like a 2 button jacket with a hole in the lapel. Heavier fabrics seem to have a nice roll, even without full canvassing.

If I'm ever in the market to splurge on a fully canvassed suit, I might try a 3/2 worsted and see if it has any life.

At any rate, my primary suit (for the few occasions I actually need a suit) is a 2 button sack. I think it's a good compromise.

I might end up ordering a 3/2 poplin suit for the summer. Clearly that will not end up being fully canvassed, because there is no way I am going to waste money on a fully canvassed poplin suit.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

They definitely existed in the '60s and even Mad Men had a couple in the early seasons IIRC.

That said... I don't know. I like the novelty of a 3/2 roll. But it would be nice to find any vintage sack suits in my size at this point.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Or maybe I will get one of these: :icon_smile_big:

I mean, $500 for a MTM, made in USA three piece sack suit? Only one catch...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Most natural shoulders ever!


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

They also make these awesome braces


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I jumped at my 3/2 sack Brooks Brothers because of the quality of the garment and the correctness of the measurements when I saw it on Ebay. It happens to be an Ivy classic (soft shoulders, patch pockets, etc.), but that's almost immaterial to me. I guess I do appreciate that the coat is sort of a "thing" sartorially speaking.

My wardrobe has gone trad of late, but that is mostly because I shop on Ebay or the Trad Exchange here, and since I'm always looking for "value" when buying used stuff, I aim for labels I know to associate with quality. Thus, I now own tons of Brooks and HF. It so happens that the Brooks and HF I find tend towards classic American looks. So it goes.


----------



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

Those braces though. I think if you wear them with the derringer, nobody will dare point out that you're displaying what is technically underwear.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Random reactions:

_Collar spread_. I suspect that, to the extent there's even a debate here, it's obscured by terminology: kind of like an army shooting at itself in the fog. What one person calls "spread," another thinks is just a normal collar; and I don't really know what a "forward point" collar is to start with. Also, keep in mind that - unlike, say, a buttondown, where it either is or isn't - we're talking about a continuous variable here. If you draw lines, you wind up distinguishing between two shirts whose collar spreads are only an 1/8" different. Also, it's confused in that it's not a discrete variable, as length and height (on the neck) of the collar also come into play.

In any event, I think most (though obviously not all) would agree that there is some width of spread that looks funny with bowtie, but not so funny with a straight tie.

_Patch breast pockets_. Not sure if those are quite sacred, though I guess they have adherents. Perhaps just a sect, rather than a full-on denomination, though. In any event, I agree: they look weird. Patch hip pockets don't (look weird, I mean).

I assume we're talking about jackets here, and not shirts. A welted pocket on a _shirt_ has the bizarre capability of associating the wearer simultaneously with cowboys and women.

_3/2 sacks_. Definitely a sacred cow, so good topic. I think I have a good two dozen of them, between sportcoats and suits (worsted, tweed, cotton, sharkskin, flannel, corduroy, wool/silk blend, etc.). I wouldn't kill that particular cow, but it is bovine and sanctified.

FWIW, they used to be predominant at Brooks Brothers and other places not _that_ long ago. In other words: there was a time you wound up with them without particularly trying to do so.

_Sockless but shod_. That could fairly be described as a sacred cow as well. In casual wear, that is: anyone wearing a business suit and black bal wingtips without socks has joined a congregation of one. Whether killing the (casual) cow makes one a prig is beside the point; indeed, I guess it kind of _is_ the point. It's not a sacred cow if everyone - or even most people - agree with you.

_Another one_. This was mentioned glancingly in an earlier post, but I'll make it more general:

Reflexive deference to Britishisms, formal and informal. A few specifics: those goofy "Welly" boots. Knit caps with little brims. A whole variety of hats, actually. Shirts with weird pleating in the back. Double vents. Tightly-furled black umbrellas.

_Suspenders with holsters_. Also kind of go along with the long-collar-that's-so-narrow-it-covers-the-tie look. If you see anyone with either, keep quiet, even if the guy doesn't look like Joe Pesci.


----------



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

^^

Yep, patch breast pockets. I think I have an Aloha shirt with a welted breast pocket. It's weird.

You've hit it out of the park on collar spreads.

I like double vents, but I'm not a partisan for any one kind of vent arrangement. I find ventless jackets a little inconvenient. If you mean side pleats by "weird pleating in the back" on shirts, I've got to admit that the only time I'm generally aware of that kind of thing is when I'm ironing.

My view on socklessness: It's a personal choice with casual clothes, but it's vulgar to wear wool pants/winter weight pants without socks.


----------



## stephenkarl (Dec 21, 2011)

At 6'6" (198cm):

Reclining seats on airplanes.
Umbrellas. 

If I have my knees crushed again or get poked in the face by an umbrellas spoke... Although I suppose this has more to do with inattentiveness or lack of consideration by others than the actual products themselves.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

stephenkarl said:


> At 6'6" (198cm):
> 
> Reclining seats on airplanes.
> Umbrellas.
> ...


Hah, as a tall-ish 6'2", I agree -- especially about the reclining seats. They are a menace and make air travel miserable for me. I never recline my seat if an adult is behind me. I think it would be better if the damn things were outlawed. I have often speculated that the thoughtless flier who reclines his seats regardless of the comfort of the person behind him is likely also the inconsiderate motorist who drives 55 in the passing lane regardless of the inconvenience to the person behind him.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Jovan said:


> I think you're focusing far too much on how they look displayed on a shelf as opposed to part of a whole outfit. Can you honestly say that, if a man were dressed well everywhere else, you'd take major points off for wholecuts? .


I'd take off *all* the points for the wearing of wholecuts. Nobody wears those things except menswear forum members.



Jovan said:


> As for no socks with shoes... are you talking about shoes designed to be worn sockless or business shoes? Because if the former, you're just a stuck up British prig trying to repress us colonists again!


Now, now. That's not fair.

I am a stuck up _English_ prig. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



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

Shaver said:


> I'd take off *all* the points for the wearing of wholecuts. Nobody wears those things except menswear forum members.


Actually, I saw somebody who struck me as pretty well-dressed on the subway the other day, and he was wearing shoes that were nearly wholecuts but which had something like an adelaide throat. They didn't bug me as much as wholecuts do as an abstract concept.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

While this will be absolute anathema to almost all here, I have some two button coats that look just fine with the bottom button done up, and in sufficient wind/cold I do so. It depends on button stance, of course, and closed quarters are required, but I think it beats your hem flying wildly in the breeze.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

On the contrary, more open quarters look better on coats designed for both buttons to fasten.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Jovan said:


> On the contrary, more open quarters look better on coats designed for both buttons to fasten.


Hmmm, possibly so. I could be thinking of "trendy" cuts where the quarters seem to start at the collar


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> Actually, I saw somebody who struck me as pretty well-dressed on the subway the other day, and he was wearing shoes that were nearly wholecuts but which had something like an adelaide throat. They didn't bug me as much as wholecuts do as an abstract concept.


Did you gain opportunity to ask him which menswear forum he was a member of? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## OH-CPA (Jun 12, 2008)

rsgordon said:


> Hats anytime it is not raining


As a bald man, I can say with strong conviction that Hats in the summer sun are a necessity. Sunburn on the top of your head is not fun!


----------



## abefroeman (Jun 4, 2012)

This quickly devolved into a 'stuff I hate' thread. For example: sneakers and suits are not sacred to anyone on this forum. Many other posts in that vein here.

The OP made a great point about a AAAC approved shoe that is actually pretty ugly. It is no coincidence that PAs or 5As are absent from stylish posts in WAYWT.

I own black PAs and am looking for something more stylish, but its hard to find stitch caps that are stylish AND conservative. Most are way too sleek to pair with a conservative suit. I'm currently eyeing the C&J Audley as a possible upgrade but my pocketbook won't like that very much.

Edit: surprised that this is my first post, I guess I'm a lurker.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

abefroeman said:


> Edit: surprised that this is my first post, I guess I'm a lurker.


Always good to have the Sausage King of Chicago on board!


----------



## abefroeman (Jun 4, 2012)

smmrfld said:


> Always good to have the Sausage King of Chicago on board!


"Are you suggesting that I'm not who I say I am?" 

Park Avenues:









Audleys:


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)




----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

abefroeman said:


> I own black PAs and am looking for something more stylish, but its hard to find stitch caps that are stylish AND conservative. Most are way too sleek to pair with a conservative suit.


These are punch caps, of course, but otherwise might serve (Vass):



OH-CPA said:


> As a bald man, I can say with strong conviction that Hats in the summer sun are a necessity. Sunburn on the top of your head is not fun!


I'll second that emotion.


----------



## abefroeman (Jun 4, 2012)

RogerP said:


> These are punch caps, of course, but otherwise might serve (Vass):
> 
> Gorgeous. They look way better in real photos than on the Vass site. Those would be great in brown.
> 
> Vass bluchers have no equal. Vass bals have stiff competition from the brits. Your pic makes me want some though.


----------



## stewartu (Jan 12, 2008)

OH-CPA said:


> As a bald man, I can say with strong conviction that Hats in the summer sun are a necessity. Sunburn on the top of your head is not fun!


I think wearing hats _leads _to baldness. Every bald man I ever knew wore a hat.


----------



## abefroeman (Jun 4, 2012)

stewartu said:


> Every bald man I ever knew wore a hat.


Correlation = Causation


----------



## ryansto (Feb 23, 2013)

gaseousclay said:


> agreed. i've tried very hard to like AE but I can't. but maybe it's the pictures I see online that don't do the brand justice, or it could be they really do make an ugly shoe. you'd think that with AE's reach in the US they'd at least experiment with sleek new styles, something similar to what's being produced in Northhampton UK, but maybe the US market isn't ready for it yet.


Check out the styles on the 333 last. It has a longer profile, slightly chiseled toe: similar to the John Lobb Beckett








I own the Neumora (dbl monk- ghasp!) in black, and few people guess that it's an AE. The Flatiron is next on my list...


----------



## HalfwayDone (Dec 4, 2012)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Unlike a belt, which is meant as a decorative, functional piece, braces are underwear, period.


I am new here so please don't take my question the wrong way but how is the description of a belt you have given differ at all from braces?


----------



## HalfwayDone (Dec 4, 2012)

Not sure if this is a sacred cow but I really don't understand the "concept" of not looking like one is trying too hard to look well-dressed. This comes up often if some pieces of an ensemble are deemed to be too matchy.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

HalfwayDone said:


> I am new here so please don't take my question the wrong way but how is the description of a belt you have given differ at all from braces?


Excellent point. IMO TGT's opinion on this matter amounts to a simple assertion without reasoning or evidence. It is simply a dogma of his religion.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

Another popular garment on here is the 3/2 roll jacket.
Maybe it is just a U.S. thing, and as I am in the U.K. I do not understand it, but to me a jcket is either 2 button or 3 button.
I just cannot see how it can be both.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Ouch, "now that's going to leave a mark!"
As a devoted adherent to the "sack design" with a 3/2 roll jackets I am compelled to say "nuts-to-you," IvanD. LOL.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

IvanD said:


> Another popular garment on here is the 3/2 roll jacket.
> Maybe it is just a U.S. thing, and as I am in the U.K. I do not understand it, but to me a jcket is either 2 button or 3 button.
> I just cannot see how it can be both.


It's also popular in Italy. A two button jacket would not roll the same way that a 3 button jacket does. At the end of the day, no one buttons the bottom button and most don't button the top in a 3 button, so why not have an elegant roll of the lapel?


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

IvanD said:


> Another popular garment on here is the 3/2 roll jacket.
> Maybe it is just a U.S. thing, and as I am in the U.K. I do not understand it, but to me a jcket is either 2 button or 3 button.
> I just cannot see how it can be both.


Many traditionally cut (English) three button jackets will in fact roll towards the second (i.e. the top button isn't intended to be fastened, and the lapel roll reflects this).


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

My apologies gentlemen, I stand corrected.
I'm afraid it is still not a style that appeals to me though.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

L-feld said:


> I hate to throw a Lonsman under the bus, but can we execute Ralph Lauren? Or at least the notion that a garment is "fine" simply because he made it?
> 
> Even if he stopped slathering every garment with the much maligned big pony; even if he stopped slathering every garment with the less maligned (but still maligned nonetheless) small pony, his clothes would still be ugly and fit poorly.


Every time someone brings up an RL criticism like this I think of the story of the blind men describing the elephant. Ralph Lauren is arguably the most competent brand in menswear and produces within its various sub-brands some of the best OTR clothes _period_. Of course it's a sprawling empire and so produces its share of ghastly offenses, but if you encounter it at Macy's or Lord & Taylor (or an outlet) you'll often have a vastly different opinion than if you encounter it at one of its own flagship stores.

Of course a Polo label is no guarantee, but it's among the most powerful indicators that you're looking at a good product.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

niomosy said:


> Cargo shorts.


eerrrrmm....how are cargo shorts a sacred cow on this forum? I think you've misunderstood the purpose of the thread.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Spectators, braces, sock suspenders, seersucker, collar bars, double breasted dinner suits, cravats, turn-ups on trousers, black brogues, tassles & fringes on loafers, working cuff buttons on jackets. 


A note on just one of those: If I view it formal enough to wear black shoes, then I also view it not appropriate to wear brogues. For me black brogues are a contradiction. A brogue is a country/casual shoe. A black shoe isn't.


----------



## rhdeis (Feb 12, 2013)

Opinion or Sacred Cow? 

Polo Shirt. It is just a T-shirt with a collar. The new business casual in many areas.

​Patchwork/Motiff pants and jackets. Unless the circus is in town.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

rhdeis said:


> Patchwork/Motiff pants and jackets. Unless the circus is in town.


Or you're on a golf course.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

rhdeis said:


> Opinion or Sacred Cow?
> 
> *Polo Shirt. It is just a T-shirt with a collar.* The new business casual in many areas.
> 
> Patchwork/Motiff pants and jackets. Unless the circus is in town.


+1.

I have never grasped the reasoning behind the notion that a polo shirt is somehow to be considered smart casual. Dreadful tatty things, they are.

Many members here vigorously disdain the short sleeve shirt but I will proudly wear a short sleeve shirt on any occasion where a polo shirt might be considered acceptable.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Spectators, braces, sock suspenders, seersucker, collar bars, double breasted dinner suits, cravats, turn-ups on trousers, black brogues, tassles & fringes on loafers, working cuff buttons on jackets.
> 
> A note on just one of those: If I view it formal enough to wear black shoes, then I also view it not appropriate to wear brogues. For me black brogues are a contradiction. A brogue is a country/casual shoe. A black shoe isn't.


Earl, you are absolutely right. About cravats. Way too precious.

That said, if it were a bit sunnier this Easter morning in Atlanta, I'd be wearing my seersucker suit with spectators -- and braces of course. My seersucker suit coat does not have working cuff buttons, but I have a solid navy seersucker sport jacket that does. And in the US black wingtip style brogues are practically a business suit staple. And while I don't own any double-breasted suits, they are a classic option that is handsome on the right man, and I just bought a double-breasted navy blazer via Paul Stuart.

I have never been big on collar bars, but that is just a personal choice, as are sock suspenders (which unlike braces(!!) are underwear so who cares?).


----------



## AGoodEye (Mar 24, 2013)

Gussets on shirts: Am at loss to understand what value does it add to a modern shirt.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

Shaver said:


> +1.
> 
> I have never grasped the reasoning behind the notion that a polo shirt is somehow to be considered smart casual. Dreadful tatty things, they are.
> 
> Many members here vigorously disdain the short sleeve shirt but I will proudly wear a short sleeve shirt on any occasion where a polo shirt might be considered acceptable.


Good to know I have an ally when it comes to short sleeved shirts :icon_smile:
On a side note, would you consider it acceptable to wear a jacket with a short sleeved shirt?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Earl, you are absolutely right. *About cravats. Way too precious*.
> 
> That said, if it were a bit sunnier this Easter morning in Atlanta, I'd be wearing my seersucker suit with spectators -- and braces of course. My seersucker suit coat does not have working cuff buttons, but I have a solid navy seersucker sport jacket that does. And in the US black wingtip style brogues are practically a business suit staple. And while I don't own any double-breasted suits, they are a classic option that is handsome on the right man, and I just bought a double-breasted navy blazer via Paul Stuart.
> 
> I have never been big on collar bars, but that is just a personal choice, as are sock suspenders (which unlike braces(!!) are underwear so who cares?).


I truly don't get this Mike. A tie is a piece of silk worn around the neck and so is a cravat - there's no appreciable difference, bar one is over the collar and the other under it.

A cravat is the perfect solution to a tie-less and open neck shirt. I am wearing one as I type this. Perhaps I am just a touch more precious than I had previously realised. :redface:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

IvanD said:


> Good to know I have an ally when it comes to short sleeved shirts :icon_smile:
> On a side note, would you consider it acceptable to wear a jacket with a short sleeved shirt?


I consider that the anti short sleeve shirt movement is something of a nonsense - an attitude which I had never encountered prior to my membership of this forum.

That said short sleeves are strictly for casual wear* only and there are two things which I would not wear with a short sleeve shirt - a tie and a jacket. Essentially, if it is warm enough for short sleeves then it is too warm for a jacket and tie.

*by choice at least, notwithstanding any job related dress obligations.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

upr_crust said:


> Just to assuage your curiosity, I will attempt a more casual look for tomorrow, as it will be a very quiet day in the financial district (the markets will be closed for Good Friday, though the banking industry will be open as usual). How's that for accommodation?


In the UK public holidays are called Bank Holidays because the banks are all closed. So, in this instance, US banks seem very accommodating.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I consider that the anti short sleeve shirt movement is something of a nonsense - an attitude which I had never encountered prior to my membership of this forum.[/SIZE]


My thoughts exactly on the anti-monk strap movement.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RogerP said:


> My thoughts exactly on the anti-monk strap movement.


....and yet men actually wear short sleeved shirts out there in the 'real' world. Only menswear forum members (and Victorian orthopaedic sufferers, probably) choose the dreaded double monks. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> A cravat is the perfect solution to a tie-less and open neck shirt. I am wearing one as I type this.


Snap - I am wearing one too. Cravats are vastly under-rated in terms of their usefulness; I can't stand open-necked shirts but sometimes a tie is just not right.



Shaver said:


> Only menswear forum members (and Victorian orthopaedic sufferers, probably) choose the dreaded double monks. :icon_smile_wink:


Your attempts to equate double-strap monk-shoe wearers with Victorian cripples are funny but also rather mischievous. My favoured triple-strap arrangement has already been equated with some form of bondage fetishism on another thread, which would really pushing my toleration to the limit were I not such an easy-going pipe-smoking sort of chap.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Snap - I am wearing one too. Cravats are vastly under-rated in terms of their usefulness; I can't stand open-necked shirts but sometimes a tie is just not right.


I am very pleased to hear it! :icon_smile: I agree with you wholeheartedly that they are a vastly under-rated item. We should all be promoting (not denigrating) the cravat on a forum dedicated to stylish traditional menswear.

To fly the flag (as it were) I intend to wear a cravat in each of my upcoming submissions to the WAYWT threads.



Langham said:


> Your attempts to equate double-strap monk-shoe wearers with Victorian cripples are funny but also rather mischievous. My favoured triple-strap arrangement has already been equated with some form of bondage fetishism on another thread, which would really pushing my toleration to the limit were I not such an easy-going pipe-smoking sort of chap.


I have made the S&M connection myself previously and, all good-natured mockery aside, it genuinely* is* a valid observation. I have spent many a pleasant evening attending Skin 2 et al and the triple monk would be an ideal choice for these events.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver,

I agree with you on short sleeve shirts. Certainly they are not dress shirts and should not accommodate ties, but they always work better than a polo IMO. If the event is so casual that a tucked shirt doesn't feel right, then it is usually camp or Hawaiian for me.

As for cravats, I am willing to reconsider. But you must understand they are exceedingly rare in most parts of the US and would be regarded as idiosyncratic if not eccentric. I might be mistaken for a British tourist!

Have a happy and blessed Easter.


----------



## abefroeman (Jun 4, 2012)

We must seem crazy to the casual observer:

Cravats look great!










Monk straps are foppish and should be avoided:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Shaver said:


> ....and yet men actually wear short sleeved shirts out there in the 'real' world. Only menswear forum members (and Victorian orthopaedic sufferers, probably) choose the dreaded double monks. :icon_smile_wink:


Sez you.  I wear them in the real world all the time. Countless manufacturers have made them long before the advent of menswear forums, and have sold them to people in the real world then and now. This "forums only" claim of yours is itself a forum artifice.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> As for cravats, I am willing to reconsider. But you must understand they are exceedingly rare in most parts of the US and would be regarded as idiosyncratic if not eccentric.


Hard to get more foppish than a cravat. They are all but completely absent from the "real world" that I inhabit. It seems that prevalence in contemporary society is a highly variable foundation for sartorial legitimacy.


----------



## HalfwayDone (Dec 4, 2012)

abefroeman said:


> We must seem crazy to the casual observer:
> 
> Cravats look great!
> 
> ...


:icon_smile:

Big +1


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Hard to get more foppish than a cravat. They are all but completely absent from the "real world" that I inhabit. It seems that prevalence in contemporary society is a highly variable foundation for sartorial legitimacy.


I imagine that I could 'get more foppish than a cravat' very easily indeed. :icon_smile_wink:

Ref your statement to prevalence in contemporary society - if I was unclear then I apologise - prevalence is most assuredly not a criteria toward legitimacy which I would ever consider in application (jeans are the dratted prevalence, as one example). The 'real' world to which I was attempting to allude was, in fact, the world of well dressed men this last century or so.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

The Earl has at least got the right idea as to what a sacred cow is.

I'll even add a few of his to my own marked-down-for-death list:
- Spectators
- Cravats (hmm ... a sacred cow, or just an errant calf?)
- Working cuff buttons

I don't really care that much about spectators, actually. If I saw people wearing them more often than - I don't know, three times a year? - I might have a stronger reaction. I don't see cravats even _that_ much, but to call them "way too precious" is an understatement. While you're at it, put on some spats and wear a monocle.

Working cuff buttons have been discussed before, by me among others. On RTW jackets they're ridiculous. On bespoke, they're just mildly misguided.

_Black brogues!_ That's certainly a pretty enormous cow. Black wingtips or captoes with perfs (to use my native terminology, instead of that of some other little country) are practically a business-suit uniform.

I'm not buying the formal legal case against them. Black is more formal than brown, I suppose, but formality is a continuum. Black shoes are not more formal than a business suit, and perfs are not less formal than a business suit.

I think part of the issue here is one I've mentioned before: the emerging notion that a business suit is special dress-up wear. I can't help but think of a suit as everday clothes, even though I guess it's not anymore. I guess there were always circles in a which a suit was associated with wearing your "Sunday best," but those are different circles.

I'm not so sure about sacredness of sock suspenders. Does anybody wear them? And - if so - does anybody else even know?

_Polo shirts_ are another huge cow, and one you're not going to hang if I'm on the jury. "Just T-shirts with collars"? I suppose. And a tuxedo is just a suit with a few bits of satin on it, steak is just raw meat that's been heated for a bit, and a bull is just a steer with balls. For that matter, a cravat is just a tie that's shaped different and is in the wrong place, and a pocket square is just a handkerchief that got dolled up and found its way to the wrong pocket. Other discussion indicates that the _details_ of collars (buttons, spread, etc.) are hot(ish) issues, so certainly their very existence is scarcely a minor detail. Also: polo shirts _vis-a-vis_ tees typically - though not always - are of a bit different fabric and have some tailoring details that are different. But that's not necessary to the point. Collars matter.

_Short-sleeve shirts_, or - to identify the sacred cow - being _against_ short-sleeve shirts, is probably only mildly sacred. To narrow the field: shirts which are casual in other respects (polo shirts, obviously, madras, Hawaiian shirts, if you're so inclined) are appropriately short-sleeved, at least in my view. But: a shirt which is, in all respects other than sleeve length, a dress shirt looks ... well, dorky. If you're going that route, get a pocket protector and tape your glasses together while you're at it. It's a look: if it's the look you're going for, great. If not, not so much.

A short-sleeve shirt with a cravat? Put on a sailor's cap so you can add Gilligan to the Professor and Mr. Howell.

Aside: I'm not seeing the parallel between anti-short-sleeves and anti-monks. Anti-short-sleeves is the sacred cow. Anti-monks is the _attack_ on the sacred cow.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> Double monks - unless you are a Victorian and require orthopaedic corrective footwear?


Shaver, dear heart, that is the best comment on the thread so far and gave me a hearty laugh.


----------



## abefroeman (Jun 4, 2012)

My thought process: 'I bet Shaver is British' [A quick check reveals that Shaver is in fact from the old country]

Upon knowing this important info, all Shaver comments are valid.

Shaver, serious question: Do you carry a 2-iron?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Shaver said:


> I have made the S&M connection myself previously and, all good-natured mockery aside, it genuinely* is* a valid observation. I have spent many a pleasant evening attending Skin 2 et al and the triple monk would be an ideal choice for these events.


Shaver, we must inhabit different universes.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

abefroeman said:


> My thought process: 'I bet Shaver is British' [A quick check reveals that Shaver is in fact from the old country]
> 
> Upon knowing this important info, all Shaver comments are valid.
> 
> Shaver, serious question: Do you carry a 2-iron?


Sir, I am _English_! :mad2: + :icon_smile_wink:

Golf has too much walking to be a good game, and just enough game to spoil a good walk.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Shaver, we must inhabit different universes.


Must we? I have often found a little tendency toward bondage to be at the heart of every robust and well-bred Englishman........ :redface:

.
.
.
.
.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Shaver, dear heart, that is the best comment on the thread so far and gave me a hearty laugh.


Thanks Earl, it's a pleasure to return the favour - I enjoy your own well turned phrasings.

Do you know you have rather surprised me, though? Piecing together your likes and dislikes plus observing your tastes and temperaments (as revealed via your postings here) I would have bet heavily that you were a man who favoured the cravat......


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

(1) The sack suit.

Shapeless, tasteless mass market abomination !

(2) The centre vent

Distracting and unflattering 


As for double monks I don't own any but am warming to the idea...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

^ And there goes pretty much the whole Trad Forum there.

Regarding a lot of these attacks on fun items of clothing... some of you guys will never know joy!


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Sir, I am _English_! :mad2: + :icon_smile_wink:
> 
> Golf has too much walking to be a good game, and just enough game to spoil a good walk.


Reminiscent of Samuel Clemens.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Shaver said:


> I would have bet heavily that you were a man who favoured the cravat......


Have worn them in the past, but in the last couple of years I've developed a dislike for them. When working overseas in very hot countries I will wear a wringing wet neckerchief purely for its correct practical purpose.
https://i471.photobucket.com/albums/rr72/James_de_B/Georgia2012107_zpsb203f0b1.jpg


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

drlivingston said:


> Reminiscent of Samuel Clemens.


Yes MT said, "Golf is a good walk spoiled" And Churchill who also detested golf plagiarised Twain when he said "golf is the best way to ruin a good walk"


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Yes MT said, "Golf is a good walk spoiled" And Churchill who also detested golf plagiarised Twain when he said "golf is the best way to ruin a good walk"


Churchill could have used the exercise to shift some weight off his fat arse.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Not on the cravat train.

What YOU think you look like:








What you ACTUALLY look like:







​


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Balfour said:


> Not on the cravat train.
> 
> What YOU think you look like:
> 
> ...


Spot on B!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Balfour: Mr. Gable is wearing a tasteful day cravat, sport coat, pocket square, plus good grooming and confidence.

The comparison is not even _fair_. Those who know what they're doing could easily be a Clark Gable.

That's like making a comparison picture between Humphrey Bogart and some guy wearing a t-shirt and jeans to demonstrate how wearing a fedora looks "bad" -- oh, wait! :icon_smile_big:



Kingstonian said:


> Churchill could have used the exercise to shift some weight off his fat arse.


Between this comment and your "fat bloke" remark with regards to sack coats, one can only surmise that you have something against those who are overweight. Please share, we're here for you.


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

Iconoclasm.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Not on the cravat train.
> 
> What YOU think you look like:
> 
> ...


This is a facile analogy.

Although....that hat would go rather well with your Admiral Bligh jacket. :devil:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Shaver said:


> This is a facile analogy.
> 
> Although....that hat would go rather well with your Admiral Bligh jacket. :devil:


As I pointed out, so many of these "this is what you think you look like, this is what you actually look like" thingies really are facile. They compare men of style with men who have little to no style wearing a certain accessory.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

They're only facile if you think they're literal. I don't think they're ordinarily intended to be literal: they're jokes which depend on hyperbole and visual symbolism. In other words: to make the point that cravats (or ascots, or whatever we call them) look foppish and silly, you use a picture of someone who's far more foppish and silly looking than is normally the case.

I think that's pretty well understood, since I've seen variants that use pictures of dinosaurs on the "what you really look like" side. Nobody could literally look like dinosaur. Actually, it would be pretty cool if you could, though probably not all the time, and it depends on the dinosaur.

On a related (I guess) point: you can't really look like Clark Gable just by trying to do so. Or George Clooney, for that matter.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> Not on the cravat train.
> 
> What YOU think you look like:
> 
> ...


FTFY :tongue2:


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Top.


----------



## Spin Evans (Feb 2, 2013)

Shaver said:


> FTFY :tongue2:


If a cravat looked as natural on everyone as it does on S̶h̶a̶v̶e̶r̶ Mr. Gable's ghost, then everyone would be in favor of them.

(Quite an immutable mustache, by the by.)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Starch said:


> They're only facile if you think they're literal. I don't think they're ordinarily intended to be literal: they're jokes which depend on hyperbole and visual symbolism. In other words: to make the point that cravats (or ascots, or whatever we call them) look foppish and silly, you use a picture of someone who's far more foppish and silly looking than is normally the case.
> 
> I think that's pretty well understood, since I've seen variants that use pictures of dinosaurs on the "what you really look like" side. Nobody could literally look like dinosaur. Actually, it would be pretty cool if you could, though probably not all the time, and it depends on the dinosaur.
> 
> On a related (I guess) point: *you can't really look like Clark Gable just by trying to do so*. Or George Clooney, for that matter.


Not even if you draw on a moustache with an eyebrow pencil? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> Not even if you draw on a moustache with an eyebrow pencil? :icon_smile_wink:


I used to do that growing up, boy did I look silly.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> FTFY :tongue2:


It looks more like Vincent Price.


----------



## Ματθαῖος (Jun 17, 2011)

My son while traveling by plane yesterday:








:smile:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Howard said:


> It looks more like Vincent Price.


Thank you Howard, what a lovely compliment. :icon_smile:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Thank you Howard, what a lovely compliment. :icon_smile:


Yep - it doesn't get any more real world than that.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

That cravat would go well with double monks, don't you agree?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Yep - it doesn't get any more real world than that.


Looks pretty darn real to me. You don't have singing vampire frogs in Canada?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Looks pretty darn real to me. You don't have singing vampire frogs in Canada?


Of course we have vampire singing frogs - it's just that these days they know better than to get too close to any man displaying such overt foppishness as to wear a cravat. ic12337:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Of course we have vampire singing frogs - it's just that these days they know better than to get too close to any man displaying such overt foppishness as to wear a cravat. ic12337:


You say fop as if it's a bad thing. You do know the raison d'être of this forum, don't you?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Starch said:


> They're only facile if you think they're literal. I don't think they're ordinarily intended to be literal: they're jokes which depend on hyperbole and visual symbolism. In other words: to make the point that cravats (or ascots, or whatever we call them) look foppish and silly, you use a picture of someone who's far more foppish and silly looking than is normally the case.
> 
> I think that's pretty well understood, since I've seen variants that use pictures of dinosaurs on the "what you really look like" side. Nobody could literally look like dinosaur. Actually, it would be pretty cool if you could, though probably not all the time, and it depends on the dinosaur.
> 
> On a related (I guess) point: you can't really look like Clark Gable just by trying to do so. Or George Clooney, for that matter.


Thanks for taking the time to explain, as some seem to have missed the point.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Shaver said:


> You say fop as if it's a bad thing. You do know the raison d'être of this forum, don't you?


I'm not entirely sure I know what the _raison d'être_ of any of the fora is. I tend to click on the "New Posts" link, so I'm often not sure which forum I'm actually in. Perhaps the purpose of the Fashion Forum is foppishness.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's particularly difficult to look like a fop, if that's your aim.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I believe that you fellows may be working from a different dictionary than I. A fop is merely someone who is especially concerned with appearance, demeanour and manners - not such an unreasonable aim, and certainly not one which requires ludicrously flamboyant clothes and behaviour.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> Thank you Howard, what a lovely compliment. :icon_smile:


Your Welcome, the similarity is striking similar.


----------



## Chevo (Jan 3, 2013)

Do folks still use cravats today? I certainly would give it shot. :cool2:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Chevo said:


> Do folks still use cravats today? I certainly would give it shot. :cool2:


I've been to Texas probably a dozen times (Dallas and San Antonio). I don't recall ever seeing one. Is your experience different?

My recommendation for someone 'particularly concerned with their appearance' would be to avoid the cravat. Naturally, the choice is yours.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> I believe that you fellows may be working from a different dictionary than I. A fop is merely someone who is especially concerned with appearance, demeanour and manners - not such an unreasonable aim, and certainly not one which requires ludicrously flamboyant clothes and behaviour.


Perhaps we *are* working from different dictionaries. I think wiki captures the US definitional sense pretty well; perhaps it differs on the other side of the pond.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chevo said:


> Do folks still use cravats today? I certainly would give it shot. :cool2:


Certainly - in our awful winter climate they are essential.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

RogerP said:


> Thanks for taking the time to explain, as some seem to have missed the point.


Oh, I got the point. I just feel the joke would work better if it were someone trying too hard rather than someone not trying enough or wearing a costume. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Langham said:


> Certainly - in our awful winter climate they are essential.


A scarf would be my choice.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Perhaps we *are* working from different dictionaries. I think wiki captures the US definitional sense pretty well; perhaps it differs on the other side of the pond.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fop


That's certainly how I understand the term.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

RogerP said:


> A scarf would be my choice.


I'm reasonably confident he was joking, though the vagaries of international communication leave me a little unsure. If he were talking about raincoats, it might make sense.



RogerP said:


> That's certainly how I understand the term.


Moi aussi.

See how easy it is to be foppish? Just use French unnecessarily.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

RogerP said:


> A scarf would be my choice.


Too bulky under the collar. Sometimes I wear a cravat _and_ a scarf though.



Starch said:


> I'm reasonably confident he was joking, though the vagaries of international communication leave me a little unsure. If he were talking about raincoats, it might make sense.


No joke - it's colder much more often than it rains.

Anyway, what's the problem with cravats - don't you think this









is an improvement on this?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Now I'm confused - was the comment about a scarf being too bulky to wear under a collar a joke? Who wears a scarf that way?

​I would never wear a cravat (see 'fop' definition above) so I can't provide a direct comparison, but I am well familiar with winter (we have that in Canada, along with vampire singing frogs ) and think it is a safe bet that a cashmere scarf worn over the collar will provide more warmth than silk cravat worn under the collar. And it won't draw any whiskey tango foxtrot looks in any corporate / business / professional environment.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

Langham said:


> Too bulky under the collar. Sometimes I wear a cravat _and_ a scarf though.
> 
> No joke - it's colder much more often than it rains.
> 
> ...


Very smart Langham, athough I don't think I would have the confidence to pull that look off.
All credit to you for being able to do so :icon_hailthee:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Just to be clear, while I stand by my understanding that "fop" is not a status worthy of aspiration, I remain open-minded as to the cravat. While it would be seen as ideosyncratic in most of the US, I acknowledge the possiblity that it might work nicely in some forums if done well and with confidence.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

RogerP said:


> Now I'm confused - was the comment about a scarf being too bulky to wear under a collar a joke? Who wears a scarf that way?
> 
> I would never wear a cravat (see 'fop' definition above) so I can't provide a direct comparison, but I am well familiar with winter (we have that in Canada, along with vampire singing frogs ) and think it is a safe bet that a cashmere scarf worn over the collar will provide more warmth than silk cravat worn under the collar. And it won't draw any whiskey tango foxtrot looks in any corporate / business / professional environment.


Just to be clear, I am not advocating cravat-wearing in corporate/business/professional environments. The cravat does not belong there - it exists purely for one's enjoyment and comfort at the pub, or in the countryside, and other leisure opportunities. Just possibly at informal meals out, that sort of thing, or exercising the horse.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

IvanD said:


> Very smart Langham, athough I don't think I would have the confidence to pull that look off.
> All credit to you for being able to do so :icon_hailthee:


Ivan, it's quite kind of you to say that, but really wearing a cravat demands no confidence at all. I find no one looks twice. I certainly don't wear one to make any sort of effect, I just like the feel of wearing it.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> Ivan, it's quite kind of you to say that, but really wearing a cravat demands no confidence at all. I find no one looks twice. I certainly don't wear one to make any sort of effect, I just like the feel of wearing it.


+1.

And here's the cravat I'm wearing right now:


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

Shaver said:


> +1.
> 
> And here's the cravat I'm wearing right now:
> 
> View attachment 7407


Credit to you too sir :icon_hailthee:

You both have managed to turn a look considered by some as "a little eccentric" into what I would call "gentlemen's casual"
But I still don't think I could pull it off


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

As to foppishness. It is a question of degree, a line drawn in the sand and heavily predicated upon one's own personal zone of comfort.

The fellows I go to the football with consider that spending over £300 on a pair of shoes is foppish. To them owning a dozen pairs of such expensive shoes is sheer dandification. They would say that men who argue on the internet about matching belts to shoes are at the very least fops and probably a lot worse than that!

I cannot accept that an acknowledged and essential item of traditional stylish menswear is considered foppish on a forum devoted to maintaining the standards. Just because many simply do not have the balls these days to wear a cravat does not make those who do wear them foppish. At the rate menswear is declining the tie will be an item of foppery within the next ten years. I despair of it all. :frown:

.
.
.
.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

IvanD said:


> Credit to you too sir :icon_hailthee:
> 
> You both have managed to turn a look considered by some as "a little eccentric" into what I would call "gentlemen's casual"
> But I still don't think I could pull it off











A cravat - the mark of a man. :icon_smile:


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

This thread now has me officially confirmed as confused. "Fop" is apparently a term of approbation, and an "awful winter climate" is one where the average low-and-high in January is 36 and 45 (Fahrenheit). That's virtually the same as Seattle, which is usually remarked upon as having mild winters (though it gets pretty cold if you drive an hour east). Also almost no cravats.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

Shaver.
Some of those same fellows at the football match have probably spent an awful lot of money on their favourite team's replica shirt, which was probably mass produced in China.
And _*they*_ think it odd that you would want to spend money on a good pair of handmade English shoes???


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

IvanD said:


> Shaver.
> Some of those same fellows at the football match have probably spent an awful lot of money on their favourite team's replica shirt, which wasc probably mass produced in China.
> And _*they*_ think it odd that you would want to spend money on a good pair of shoes???


True... but I find it easier not to argue with them - especially when they have been drinking, even more especially if we are losing the match. :icon_pale:


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

Shaver said:


> True... but I find it easier not to argue with them - especially when they have been drinking, even more especially if we are losing the match. :icon_pale:


Good point sir.
Even though I am a little too far south to be an officinado, I find the chaps at a rugby (league) match are a lot better behaved.
*AND *you can turn up at a rugby match in a tweed jacket (and cravat too!) and no one will give you a second glance


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Perhaps it's odd, but I'm not all _that_ far off from the football fellows, actually.



Shaver said:


> The fellows I go to the football with consider that spending over £300 on a pair of shoes is foppish.


About $450, which is definitely on the high side for a pair of shoes. Whether it's foppish, though, depends on the shoes: more particularly what they _look_ like. If they're red and you're not the pope, they're foppish. But: you can be foppish on the cheap - perhaps more easily than for relatively bigger money.



> To them owning a dozen pairs of such expensive shoes is sheer dandification.


I wouldn't say "dandification," but a dozen pairs of $450 shoes is getting up there. But, again, it's not the cost that's the issue. You could wear an outfit that - all in - costs $10,000 and not look the least bit foppish, or you could wear a $20 thriftshop find, or drugstore costume, and look silly indeed.



> They would say that men who argue on the internet about matching belts to shoes are at the very least fops and probably a lot worse than that!


No worse than that, certainly, and short of actual foppery. But if they're both brown (or both black), there really shouldn't be much more to discuss as a matter of matching.



> I cannot accept that an acknowledged and essential item of traditional stylish menswear is considered foppish on a forum devoted to maintaining the standards.


Foppish:









In 1790, maybe not. But today: yes.


----------



## JackKelly (Dec 20, 2011)

OK, I love Park Avenues and grenadine ties. I don't show off my braces because I rarely remove my jacket, but c'mon.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I will readily admit to having a shoe problem that is only getting worse. A dozen shoes doesn't seem all THAT many to me (though my dress rotation isn't quite that expansive). Heck, if I had a dozen quality dress shoes, they's still all get regular wear. So perhaps my foppery is confined to the area below the ankles. Unnlike wearing a cravat, however, no-one else can see how many shoes are in the closet as I have but the one pair of feet that only one pair of shoes occupy at any given time. Closet foppery, perhaps?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Starch said:


> Perhaps it's odd, but I'm not all _that_ far off from the football fellows, actually.
> 
> About $450, which is definitely on the high side for a pair of shoes. Whether it's foppish, though, depends on the shoes: more particularly what they _look_ like. If they're red and you're not the pope, they're foppish. But: you can be foppish on the cheap - perhaps more easily than for relatively bigger money.
> 
> ...


Have it your own way Starchy, old boy. But don't come crying to me when cowardly snivelling common consensus consigns your favourite traditional menswear to the dustbin of foppery. :icon_smile:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

One thing I'm not too fond of: Alligator skin belt straps, favoured by a good deal of the Trads worn with an engine turned buckle.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

The only time I think a cravat looks good is when it is worn as part of a uniform. Here's a photo of an Irish Army piper on UN service, probably 1950s or 60s.

https://st.louis.irish.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/piperpainting.jpg


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> +1.
> 
> And here's the cravat I'm wearing right now:
> 
> View attachment 7407


very nice Shaver. How does your face stay nice and clean?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Jovan said:


> One thing I'm not too fond of: Alligator skin belt straps, favoured by a good deal of the Trads worn with an engine turned buckle.


Is it the strap, the buckle or the combination of the two that bugs you? I like my crocogator straps but, I have to admit, they're a bit incongruous with the rest of the trad staples.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Shaver said:


> View attachment 7408
> 
> 
> A cravat - the mark of a man. :icon_smile:


^^LOL.
FOP or not, with that fake facial hair, you look much like the late, great Jack Elam, a film presence who frequently played a villain in western movies. Hello, Snidely Whiplash!


----------



## LordSmoke (Dec 25, 2012)

Perhaps a different perspective. In my experience, something worn around the neck and next to the skin is there to absorb the sweat of toil - a task for which silk seems most ill suited. Just seeing a cravat makes me feel nasty and uncomfortable.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

LordSmoke said:


> Perhaps a different perspective. In my experience, something worn around the neck and next to the skin is there to absorb the sweat of toil - a task for which silk seems most ill suited. Just seeing a cravat makes me feel nasty and uncomfortable.


Don't be all Fredo.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*Ticket pockets*

The outside ticket pocket - I don't know if it's exactly a sacred cow, but they seem to be a fussy and unnecessary addition. I'm sure some people use them, but they could probably get by perfectly well without the additional pocket.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Langham said:


> The outside ticket pocket - I don't know if it's exactly a sacred cow, but they seem to be a fussy and unnecessary addition. I'm sure some people use them, but they could probably get by perfectly well without the additional pocket.


+1. I really don't like the look of those things. I have never owned a jacket with a ticket pocket and probably never will.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

eagle2250 said:


> ^^LOL.
> FOP or not, with that fake facial hair, you look much like the late, great Jack Elam, a film presence who frequently played a villain in western movies. Hello, Snidely Whiplash!


Dick Dastardly is the correlate of Snidely in the UK. Ahh Wacky Races - Penelope Pitstop was a fine looking dame and no mistake. :redface:


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Silk cravats will always remind me of female fast food restaurant managers. I've seen them worn at both McDonalds and Wendy's.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Tilton said:


> Silk cravats will always remind me of female fast food restaurant managers. I've seen them worn at both McDonalds and Wendy's.


LOL! Never thought of that - now I'll never get it out of my head. :smile: Not that I was in any danger of donning a cravat.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

RogerP said:


> ... now I'll never get it out of my head. :smile:


:biggrin2:

Sorry, Langham and Shaver. I am not keen on the cravat.

Jovan: The picture comparison was not meant to be fair; it was a joke to illustrate a wider point: Some things appear to look good because of the charisma and bearing of the individual who happens to sport the look. That was the point.

Shaver: Your cravat isn't bad, but the pencilled in 'tashe nails it. You are the new Mr. B:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> :biggrin2:
> 
> Sorry, Langham and Shaver. I am not keen on the cravat.
> 
> ...


I still suspect that Mr B is really you..........:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Geezer (Apr 22, 2010)

Ticket pockets are a useful place to keep... tickets. Or a cigarette lighter or any other small item that you wish readily to access. All my bespoke has had them for a quarter of a century and I find them both practical and stylish.

As for cravats, I would not touch one, I am afraid. My 77 year old father carries one off, but he has been wearing them since about 1960 when they were hip and edgy. I could not do the same.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

The "rule against black suits". I've abided by it since joining, but I'll be damned if I don't get the most compliments when I wear my cheap *** JAB black suit. I'm seriously thinking of getting a better fitting black suit just because black goes so well with my skin, eye, & hair coloring.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Leighton said:


> The "rule against black suits". I've abided by it since joining, but I'll be damned if I don't get the most compliments when I wear my cheap *** JAB black suit. I'm seriously thinking of getting a better fitting black suit just because black goes so well with my skin, eye, & hair coloring.


Try charcoal gray.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Or even try disregarding compliments from folks who haven't the foggiest notion of what they are talking about. 

Stick with us Leighton, we'll steer you clear of the dratted black suit when temptation rears it's ugly head. :icon_smile:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Or even try disregarding compliments from folks who haven't the foggiest notion of what they are talking about.
> 
> Stick with us Leighton, we'll steer you clear of the dratted black suit when temptation rears it's ugly head. :icon_smile:


Agreed. The first compliment I can recall regarding my dress was in 1977. I was wearing a powder blue floral print shirt with polyester leisure suit. Shaver, all copies of the photo have been burned so don't get any ideas.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed. The first compliment I can recall regarding my dress was in 1977. I was wearing a powder blue floral print shirt with polyester leisure suit. Shaver, all copies of the photo have been burned so don't get any ideas.


Still I admire you for the admitting of it. :icon_smile:

Funnily enough I am ploughing my way through 'Dress for Success' by Molloy (as per Arkirshners recommendation a few weeks back) and polyester leisure suits are recommended under sports wear. It is the 1976 edition I have obtained, though, so we can consider that as _à la mode_ and say no more about it.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Leighton said:


> The "rule against black suits". I've abided by it since joining, but I'll be damned if I don't get the most compliments when I wear my cheap *** JAB black suit. I'm seriously thinking of getting a better fitting black suit just because black goes so well with my skin, eye, & hair coloring.


Soooo, you think you look good in black suits. People around you think you look good in black suits. But.... you're not going to wear them because some guys on the internet said you shouldn't? Okay then.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

RogerP said:


> Soooo, you think you look good in an eggplant tuxedo. Your fiancee and her bridesmaids say you look good in an eggplant tuxedo (especially with the forest green four-in-hand tie). But .... you're not going to wear it because some guys who actually know what they are talking about said you shouldn't. Good for you.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Broke it for you.


Yes, you did. No equivalence between a black suit and a purple tuxedo, except in the i-gent world.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Sack Suits.
Charcoal anything - mostly looks black and, if solid, cheap.
Pants with high rise - I get it, you wanna look like my deceased grandpa.
Pleats - see above.
Pocket Squares - could easily do without it.
Ties - see above. Suits sans tie? ok!
AE Park Avenues - why not buy English or French? (Loding and Septieme Largeur are cheaper and prettier, and have classic versions similar to PAs).
Alden - see above.
Black shoes (or maybe anything other than patinated blue shoes).
Solid blue shirts - unless you work as a bus driver or is part of your uniform.

Really, I could do without any of the above, but was just trying to poke some fun in the spirit of the thread.


----------



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

Funnily enough, I was talking to an older gentleman who spoke to one of my film classes today, and he very nonchalantly put on his coat and hat, then tied a cravat around his neck as he headed out. It was pretty awesome, but then again so was he.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Leighton said:


> The "rule against black suits". I've abided by it since joining, but I'll be damned if I don't get the most compliments when I wear my cheap *** JAB black suit. I'm seriously thinking of getting a better fitting black suit just because black goes so well with my skin, eye, & hair coloring.


They think you're wearing charcoal.

Seriously, black is fine for evening social, just not for US day biz unless one of the glamor industries.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

RogerP said:


> Yes, you did. No equivalence between a black suit and a purple tuxedo, except in the i-gent world.


Apparently the point was too complex for you.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Forgot one: blazers! If high rise trousers make you old blazers make you look like a kid!



bernoulli said:


> Sack Suits.
> Charcoal anything - mostly looks black and, if solid, cheap.
> Pants with high rise - I get it, you wanna look like my deceased grandpa.
> Pleats - see above.
> ...


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

bernoulli said:


> Forgot one: blazers! If high rise trousers make you old blazers make you look like a kid!


So ... if you wear high rise pants with a blazer, do they cancel out and make you look like a regular-age adult?

Congrats on on getting the concept of what a "sacred cow" is, though. I'm with you on the pocket squares, and kind of on the pleats, though you've pretty much lost me on the rest - which is kind of inherent to the undertaking, I think.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

bernoulli said:


> Sack Suits.
> Charcoal anything - mostly looks black and, if solid, cheap.
> Pants with high rise - I get it, you wanna look like my deceased grandpa.
> Pleats - see above.
> ...


I take it you don't like this place very much? I am with you on Park Avenues and sack suits, but the rest are staples of my wardrobe, and have been before I joined this site. The only thing you mention I could do without are pocket squares, but I still prefer to wear them.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

RogerP said:


> Soooo, you think you look good in black suits. People around you think you look good in black suits. But.... you're not going to wear them because some guys on the internet said you shouldn't? Okay then.


Some guys on the internet and basically every conservative fashion writer. Can't think of a single print example outside of perhaps GQ or Esquire that recommends a black suit.

Obviously this DNA in Asia.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

bernoulli said:


> Suits sans tie? ok!


Are you serious? This is a HORRID look, and most writers on this forum who accept open-necked shirts worn with odd jackets dislike it as much as I do. Often billed as "smart casual" (British English usage of "smart"), it is neither smart nor casual.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> Apparently the point was too complex for you.


Yeah.... that must be it....



Orsini said:


> Seriously, black is fine for evening social, just not for US day biz unless one of the glamor industries.


Agreed. It has its place.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Geezer said:


> Ticket pockets are a useful place to keep... tickets. Or a cigarette lighter or any other small item that you wish readily to access. All my bespoke has had them for a quarter of a century and I find them both practical and stylish.
> 
> As for cravats, I would not touch one, I am afraid. My 77 year old father carries one off, but he has been wearing them since about 1960 when they were hip and edgy. I could not do the same.


Slightly to my regret, several of my jackets have them too. As I never use them, the ticket pockets have mostly never been unsewn, My objection to them is first, redundancy, and secondly, asymmetry - there is only ever one, it's under-sized and not quite in the right place, and the appearance puts me in mind somehow of a deformity.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Langham said:


> Slightly to my regret, several of my jackets have them too. As I never use them, the ticket pockets have mostly never been unsewn, My objection to them is first, redundancy, and secondly, asymmetry - there is only ever one, it's under-sized and not quite in the right place, and the appearance puts me in mind somehow of a deformity.


There already is asymmetry in your jacket: you only have one breast pocket. If it weren't so small then it would really upset the balance.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

I love this place. I learned a lot from the forums, the discussions etc. I do think that it leans towards very conservative styles and that it sometimes takes itself too seriously. I don't do either, and my post should be read with my tongue firmly in cheek.

willianson, If you look at my posts at WAYWT I do wear ties most of the time (in fact, will wear one today), but what can I say? I do enjoy open-collared shirts and suits every now and then.



Matt S said:


> I take it you don't like this place very much? I am with you on Park Avenues and sack suits, but the rest are staples of my wardrobe, and have been before I joined this site. The only thing you mention I could do without are pocket squares, but I still prefer to wear them.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Matt S said:


> There already is asymmetry in your jacket: you only have one breast pocket. If it weren't so small then it would really upset the balance.


True. For some reason it doesn't bother me though.


----------



## abefroeman (Jun 4, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> But what can I say? I do enjoy open-collared shirts and suits every now and then.


The world is going casual. We can still be well dressed and casual. Be the guy that does casual well: pinpoint OCBD, blazer and greys, nice shoes. Done.

Last week I witnessed a guy leaving a NYC law firm wearing: navy suit, bright pink contrast collar shirt open 2 buttons, tan loafers (the hand stitched kind that you can _almost_ wear with shorts). Puke.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Let me add to the list:

Loafers.
OCBD with any jacket (or suits for that matter - I am looking at you Americans...)
Tassled anything - even my deceased grandpa with his high-rise pleated trousers would not consider tassled loafers as befitting a living breathing human being...

So blazers with OCBD??? Again, not in high school anymore...

But nice shoes??? Done! Tonight I have to decide between a Finsbury and the patinated olive or blue from Septieme Largeur - or, if I feel conservative, a grey one from Herring that looks like an AE PA.

again, tongue, cheek etc.



abefroeman said:


> The world is going casual. We can still be well dressed and casual. Be the guy that does casual well: pinpoint OCBD, blazer and greys, nice shoes. Done.
> 
> Last week I witnessed a guy leaving a NYC law firm wearing: navy suit, bright pink contrast collar shirt open 2 buttons, tan loafers (the hand stitched kind that you can _almost_ wear with shorts). Puke.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

bernoulli said:


> Sack Suits.
> Charcoal anything - mostly looks black and, if solid, cheap.
> *Pants with high rise - I get it, you wanna look like my deceased grandpa.
> *Pleats - see above.
> ...


bernoulli, in due time the pendulum's going to swing back anyways.  You may think it looks silly _now_, but it's just another vagary of fashion. Just a decade ago no one batted an eye at trousers worn at the waist, as they should be.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Jovan said:


> bernoulli, in due time the pendulum's going to swing back anyways.  You may think it looks silly _now_, but it's just another vagary of fashion. Just a decade ago no one batted an eye at trousers worn at the waist, as they should be.


Agreed.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Jovan, you may be right. I will buy it then...Right now it does look silly. I like variety and the ability to change my mind. Doesn't mean I need to follow fashion, but it doesn't mean I need to be anti-fashion, as a lot of people here are. Yes, low-rises that are too low are silly as well.

So another sacred cow: shoes, suits and clothing in general DO NOT NEED to last decades!!! Why would anybody want to wear the same things over and over and over again? Going to a nice shop every few years is not that big a deal, is it? I see a lot of posts praising some products that have lasted the owner 30 years....why? Of course, I wouldn't want the one season and done of women's fashion, but there has to be a middle ground.



Jovan said:


> bernoulli, in due time the pendulum's going to swing back anyways.  You may think it looks silly _now_, but it's just another vagary of fashion. Just a decade ago no one batted an eye at trousers worn at the waist, as they should be.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Jeez, even Thom Browne knows where trousers are supposed to sit.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

bernoulli: Certain items don't date that easily -- such as a quality pair of wing tips or a Harris Tweed sport coat -- and you end up spending _less_ money over time just maintaining what you have instead of buying something new every few years. Now look, of course some things are going to need outright replacing over time. I'm not deluded into thinking socks, shirts, etc. are going to last decades. But there's something to be said about clothing items that have broken in over time. They're a close friend you've always gotten along with rather than that one person who's only okay in small doses.

L-feld: It's a shame that he messes with the proportions of everything else so much. I've seen some guys who are of a specific height or can size up on the jacket make it look okay. (Ewan McGregor's tweed suit in that mediocre movie _Stay_ comes to mind.) But those are specific circumstances and at his prices I might as well get something custom if I want a '60s look.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Jovan said:


> bernoulli: Certain items don't date that easily -- such as a quality pair of wing tips or a Harris Tweed sport coat -- and you end up spending _less_ money over time just maintaining what you have instead of buying something new every few years. Now look, of course some things are going to need outright replacing over time. I'm not deluded into thinking socks, shirts, etc. are going to last decades. But there's something to be said about clothing items that have broken in over time. They're a close friend you've always gotten along with rather than that one person who's only okay in small doses.
> 
> L-feld: It's a shame that he messes with the proportions of everything else so much. I've seen some guys who are of a specific height or can size up on the jacket make it look okay. (Ewan McGregor's tweed suit in that mediocre movie _Stay_ comes to mind.) But those are specific circumstances and at his prices I might as well get something custom if I want a '60s look.


I would never buy a Thom Browne jacket, bit I always wonder if his trousers would be a good way into some high rise slim fits. I mean, they come unfinished, right? It's not like Thom Browne himself is going to cuff them for you.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## abefroeman (Jun 4, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> again, tongue, cheek etc.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

L-feld said:


> I would never buy a Thom Browne jacket, bit I always wonder if his trousers would be a good way into some high rise slim fits. I mean, they come unfinished, right? It's not like Thom Browne himself is going to cuff them for you.
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


This is true, but it's been widely reported that there's not much allowance in either the sleeves or trousers so he can maintain his "signature look". Brooks Brothers had to fight him on this, supposedly, when collaborating on the Black Fleece collection. If there's a pair of trousers in that collection that are on sale and look right, I might give it a try myself.


----------



## IvanD (Jan 5, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> Sack Suits.
> Charcoal anything - mostly looks black and, if solid, cheap.
> Pants with high rise - I get it, you wanna look like my deceased grandpa.
> Pleats - see above.
> ...


My 2pence worth.....

_Sack Suits. _Personally I prefer a more fitted look (just my preference)
_Charcoal anything. _Better choice than black for a more conservative look.
_Pants with high rise. _NO! Pants with correct rise absolutely.
_Pleats. _For comfort.
_Pocket squares. _Agree.
_Ties. _Essential for a formal look, optional for more casual.
_AE Park Avenues. _I am English so would by default choose English shoes.
_Alden. _See above.
_Black shoes. _Everyone needs at least one pair of black shoes.
_Solid blue shirts. _I *am *a bus driver, but my uniform shirt is white.


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

L-feld said:


> Jeez, even Thom Browne knows where trousers are supposed to sit.


Looks like a suit jacket as odd jacket.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

firedancer said:


> Looks like a suit jacket as odd jacket.


Agreed, which is solid evidence of why the admonition against wearing orphaned suit jackets as sport coats is way too broad. Pinstripe jackets, sure -- bad idea. But mostly it just depends.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

But it _looks_ like he took pieces from two different suits. I don't care for that look.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Jovan said:


> But it _looks_ like he took pieces from two different suits. I don't care for that look.


We usually agree, I think, on matters sartorial, Jovan, but not this time. While perhaps not a favorite look, I think it is a good one. That said, the trousers appear to be charcoal to me. I actually think black would have been an improvement (and would also have perhaps avoided your particular criticism). I know that many folks around here despise black trousers, but I think they have their place especially if properly tailored and paired with the right jacket.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Oh, I didn't say it was horrible or anything, just that I didn't care for it. A guy who only wants to own a couple of suits for everything dressed up could do far worse. Browne, on the other hand, has more resources than the average man.

The tie made out of matching suiting to the trousers, though...


----------



## AnthonyFuller (Apr 11, 2013)

Since I've yet to see any defense of it here (nor do I expect it) I will say the notion of wearing a vest or waistcoat without a jacket.

Does it follow the "rules?" No
But does it look better than a polo shirt, or a BD w/ tie and no jacket? I say yes.


----------



## Anthony Charton (May 7, 2012)

bernoulli said:


> Charcoal anything - mostly looks black and, if solid, cheap.
> Pants with high rise - I get it, you wanna look like my deceased grandpa.


This is two weeks old but I need to respond to that. _What_ ?

1. Garments in conservative tones _never_ look bad because of their colour. When they offend the eye, the problem lies with the fabric or the cut.

https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/515/charcoalwindowpane3.jpg/

See ? Neither black nor cheap.

2. Double _what_ ? I'm sorry, but this is a gross overgeneralisation. I'm wearing high-waisted trousers right now and I'm fairly sure I don't look like your grandfather, God bless his soul. But pray let me elaborate on why high waists don't look as bad as you seem to imply:

a. High waists. It tells us much of the human sense of aesthetics that for much of modern European history formal/proper dress included high waists- especially on the ladies. What does a high waist do to a man ? It emphasises, by contrast, the impact and broadness of torso and shoulders, and, equally importantly:
b. Legs. Long legs. The eyes likes them. These two elements together exemplify the ideal of the hourglass silhouette, a shape that reflect what we see as ideal in a body. (Just in passing, this is best seen in White Tie, which indeed has as one of its prior aims to achieve this).

https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/11/astairevest23zj.jpg/

But let's look at a more modern example:

https://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/558359_438026312909845_1444257015_n.jpg

A high waist doesn't always imply Oxford bags.

(Just to be clear, this isn't an attack- I just believe such unequivocal dismissal is uncalled for)


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

firedancer said:


> Looks like a suit jacket as odd jacket.


Obviously, i'm not here to defend Thom Browne's outfits. I dislike the way he dresses. My point was that even Thom Browne, the king of too short jackets, sleeves and hems, wears his pants at his natural waist.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Anthony,

you do understand that the purpose of the thread was to poke fun at sacred cows, right?  I kinda of agree with you that there are examples of both things being done right - charcoal solid suits, and high rises. However, most of the time those look cheap and high rises weird. A couple of good examples don't invalidate my poking fun at two sacred cows that I see abused all the time - the amount of cheap solid grey suits may outnumber well-cut suits by a factor of thousands (a number that is much less for striped suits in my opinion).

and you got really good examples - I really wish people were dressing like that all the time. Truth is different though, most high-rising trousers are atrocious - and skinny trousers are cool (this last sentence was written just to make some heads explode - although I do wear it from time to time).


----------



## Anthony Charton (May 7, 2012)

I understand what you mean, and I acknowledge my respond was more serious than the atmosphere of this topic. Pardon me for reading obduracy where you meant a bit of fun.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Don't know if this qualifies as a sacred cow but I have a strong aversion to the dress shoes without socks look. I can't understand why anyone would intentionally funk up their nice dress shoes with their disgusting foot odor and sweat. I keep seeing forum users over at SF posting these pics and it drives me mad


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

but those are loafers, right? So go ahead and slaugther that cow. No barefoot and no loafers. We can get rid of two for the price of one!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

*Shoe trees*

Received wisdom is that without immediate insertion of a wooden tree, an untenanted shoe will crumple up and become deformed. After some years of comparing those of my shoes that are kept treed with others that are untreed, I can detect no difference at all, leading me to question the function of trees, beyond that of impeding the drying-out of moist footwear.

So I won't be spending £75 on these to look after my chukkas:

https://www.pediwear.co.uk/la-cordonnerie-anglaise/products/5977.php


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Langham said:


> Received wisdom is that without immediate insertion of a wooden tree, an untenanted shoe will crumple up and become deformed. After some years of comparing those of my shoes that are kept treed with others that are untreed, I can detect no difference at all, leading me to question the function of trees, beyond that of impeding the drying-out of moist footwear.
> 
> So I won't be spending £75 on these to look after my chukkas:
> 
> https://www.pediwear.co.uk/la-cordonnerie-anglaise/products/5977.php


Interesting. How did you decide which shoes to tree and which not to tree ? Were they of the same quality/construction level ?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Haffman said:


> Interesting. How did you decide which shoes to tree and which not to tree ? Were they of the same quality/construction level ?


I matched shoes to trees that seemed to best fit. These were not necessarily the shoes most frequently worn. Not exactly empirical of course as there are several variables at play - age of shoe, wear, composition, type of sole, type of use, accuracy of fit of tree to shoe (and perhaps also how well the shoe fits the foot). The shoes are almost all good quality Northampton makes, Goodyear welted. My suspicion is that most trees are unlikely to exert sufficient pressure on the shoe to achieve very much - most rely on springs that are really very weak - and so I also acquired a Spring Line last (in fact a vast collection of Spring Line lasts, in many sizes, from a redundant shoe maker) and used lasts in one pair. These removed any signs of creasing entirely - but only while they were still in the shoes - and of course a last cannot be used always in this way as they prevent the shoe from drying out.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Langham said:


> I matched shoes to trees that seemed to best fit. These were not necessarily the shoes most frequently worn. Not exactly empirical of course as there are several variables at play - age of shoe, wear, composition, type of sole, type of use, accuracy of fit of tree to shoe (and perhaps also how well the shoe fits the foot). The shoes are almost all good quality Northampton makes, Goodyear welted. My suspicion is that most trees are unlikely to exert sufficient pressure on the shoe to achieve very much - most rely on springs that are really very weak - and so I also acquired a Spring Line last (in fact a vast collection of Spring Line lasts, in many sizes, from a redundant shoe maker) and used lasts in one pair. These removed any signs of creasing entirely - but only while they were still in the shoes - and of course a last cannot be used always in this way as they prevent the shoe from drying out.


I think a big problem, as you say, is that the shoe trees available are usually fairly generic and not customised to the last, size or width. It would be interesting to compare the results with a bespoke tree.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Haffman said:


> I think a big problem, as you say, is that the shoe trees available are usually fairly generic and not customised to the last, size or width. It would be interesting to compare the results with a bespoke tree.


A few makers now provide bespoke trees, but I cannot think they will be any more effective than the actual lasts, whose effect as I mentioned seems rather transitory.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Langham said:


> A few makers now provide bespoke trees, but I cannot think they will be any more effective than the actual lasts, whose effect as I mentioned seems rather transitory.


I actually have some shoes with custom trees for the shoes on order. I will post here again in 10 years and let you know how it's turning out...!


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Langham said:


> Received wisdom is that without immediate insertion of a wooden tree, an untenanted shoe will crumple up and become deformed. After some years of comparing those of my shoes that are kept treed with others that are untreed, I can detect no difference at all, leading me to question the function of trees, beyond that of impeding the drying-out of moist footwear.
> 
> So I won't be spending £75 on these to look after my chukkas:
> 
> https://www.pediwear.co.uk/la-cordonnerie-anglaise/products/5977.php


 Can I see pictures? Shoe trees in question too would be educational.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Can I see pictures? Shoe trees in question too would be educational.


 I can't do this right now but if you will bear with me for a week or so I shall post some pictures.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

bernoulli said:


> but those are loafers, right? So go ahead and slaugther that cow. No barefoot and no loafers. We can get rid of two for the price of one!


 This forum needs a "like" button.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Did they move the goal posts? Are pants which sit at one's natural waist now "high rise"? What do we call those absurdities which barely cover one's crotch?

Oh, and orphaned suit jackets are best left at the orphanage. While there may indeed be exceptions, they are so very few in number as to help define the rule.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Agreed, which is solid evidence of why the admonition against wearing orphaned suit jackets as sport coats is way too broad. Pinstripe jackets, sure -- bad idea. But mostly it just depends.


This is safe only if your eye is good and experienced enough to know what works. Most men, if they don't study clothes much, are better off just avoiding wearing orphaned suit jackets as sport coats.

Some of the posters here will no the difference and can do it "safely." Most men won't have the eye. When you get the "orphaned suit jacket as sport coat" wrong, the results are not flattering.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Two "sacred brands' here I believe are significantly overrated (and overpriced).
They are :

1) Allen Edmonds

2) Bill's Khakis


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

DG123 said:


> Two "sacred brands' here I believe are significantly overrated (and overpriced).
> They are :
> 
> 1) Allen Edmonds
> ...


Allen Edmonds over-priced? I consider their shoes to be the best value available. Can you suggest a better value?


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Amongst leather sole men's lines , at lower prices Florsheim, and at higher prices, Alden. All factors considered, I consider both these brands a better "value" than AE.


Mike Petrik said:


> Allen Edmonds over-priced? I consider their shoes to be the best value available. Can you suggest a better value?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Can you explain why? Honestly, from what I can see Alden's calf leather shoes are about the same quality, just higher in price because they're a smaller production facility.

I will sing one praise about modern Florsheim (on discount): From my experience in theatre, they make great costume shoes since no one cares if they get a bit dinged up.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

DG123 said:


> Amongst leather sole men's lines , at lower prices Florsheim, and at higher prices, Alden. All factors considered, I consider both these brands a better "value" than AE.


I agree with Jovan. Florsheims are junk (and given their useful life more expensive), and while Alden makes a very good shoe I would argue that their prices reflect a fair value, but not an especially good one.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Can you explain why? Honestly, from what I can see Alden's calf leather shoes are about the same quality, just higher in price because they're a smaller production facility.
> 
> I will sing one praise about modern Florsheim (on discount): From my experience in theatre, they make great costume shoes since no one cares if they get a bit dinged up.


Addendum -- Bostonian and Stacy Adams are also used a fair amount, the latter especially for period productions.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I am not terribly familiar with Florsheim, but from what I have seen in my local department stores they seem to be corrected grain and have a plastic feel similar to cole haan, I know Florsheim has higher tier shoes than what they sell in your average Dillards such as Florsheim by Duckie Brown, but just about everyone of those that I have seen is much more fashion forward than anything AE does.

As for Alden I have 1 pair, and I love them. Tassel Loafers that I wear more than any other shoe in the summer, but for the extra 110.00 I don't see the added value. The only reason I bought the Alden Tassel as opposed to the AE Grayson is that the last the Grayson is on does not work well with my foot.

I have seen this topic come up many times and it never really gets anywhere. You either love AE or you hate AE. I happen to love AE and wish I could afford more Alden, but Florsheim being a better value than AE even at a lower price? I find that hard to believe.



DG123 said:


> Amongst leather sole men's lines , at lower prices Florsheim, and at higher prices, Alden. All factors considered, I consider both these brands a better "value" than AE.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I think he meant that among the sub-$150 category, Florsheim are the best value. But I hardly see why one would mention them in the same sentence as Alden.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

I was recently in New York and watched a couple of shows on broadway. In "Ghost" I saw the Broadstreet in burgundy/white. In "Orphans" a gift was given to one of the characters that just so happened to be yellow Veronas by AE, and the lead was wearing Tassel loafer that looked exactly like my Alden Tassel's.



Jovan said:


> Can you explain why? Honestly, from what I can see Alden's calf leather shoes are about the same quality, just higher in price because they're a smaller production facility.
> 
> I will sing one praise about modern Florsheim (on discount): From my experience in theatre, they make great costume shoes since no one cares if they get a bit dinged up.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I cannot say I've ever worked in a show with a Broadway budget.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

gaseousclay said:


> Don't know if this qualifies as a sacred cow but I have a strong aversion to the dress shoes without socks look. I can't understand why anyone would intentionally funk up their nice dress shoes with their disgusting foot odor and sweat. I keep seeing forum users over at SF posting these pics and it drives me mad


I agree with you, particularly if the dress shoes are high quality, leather lined, loafers such as AE, Alden, Rancourt, or any of the British brands. On the other hand, shorts with loafers and socks doesn't look near as good as shorts with loafers and no socks.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

1) Florsheim and Alden both construct their shoes using a shank, which has significant functional benefits to the wearer.

2) The leather Alden uses for its uppers, linings, insoles etc... is of a significantly higher grade than what AE uses.

3) AE is using questionable materials such as polished (corrected) and waxy leathers, poron insoles etc...

4) Florsheim is a value because the fit (width sizing), reasonably good longevity etc... of the shoe, is all for a relatively low price.
5) Alden is a value for the fit (width sizing) materials and construction.
6) AE I do not consider a "value" because the prices are too high for the product offered.



Jovan said:


> Can you explain why? Honestly, from what I can see Alden's calf leather shoes are about the same quality, just higher in price because they're a smaller production facility.
> 
> I will sing one praise about modern Florsheim (on discount): From my experience in theatre, they make great costume shoes since no one cares if they get a bit dinged up.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

DG123 said:


> 1) Florsheim and Alden both construct their shoes using a shank, which has significant functional benefits to the wearer.


So does AE. They just use a fiberglass shank instead of a steel one. There is no functional difference between the two, yet a fiberglass shank results in a lighter shoe and one that can be worn through all kinds of security checkpoints. To some, those two qualities are significant functional benefits.



> 2) The leather Alden uses for its uppers, linings, insoles etc... is of a significantly higher grade than what AE uses.


That may be true (depending on what "significant" means to each individual) but AE leather is also of a higher grade than Florsheim. And all three are in different price ranges. Not really much of a comparison.



> 3) AE is using questionable materials such as polished (corrected) and waxy leathers, poron insoles etc...


So does Alden. Except the poron insoles. I can't defend those.



> 4) Florsheim is a value because the fit (width sizing), reasonably good longevity etc... of the shoe, is all for a relatively low price.
> 5) Alden is a value for the fit (width sizing) materials and construction.
> 6) AE I do not consider a "value" because the prices are too high for the product offered.


Sorry, but all of this is way too subjective to establish a fair comparison.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

AE was born during an era of USA shoe factories, all using steel shanks to construct their shoes. From the beginning, AE has maintained that a shank was not necessary.

As far as I know, for the construction of their shoes, AE still does not use a shank (of steel, wood, plastic, or fiberglass etc...).



hardline_42 said:


> So does AE. They just use a fiberglass shank instead of a steel one. There is no functional difference between the two, yet a fiberglass shank results in a lighter shoe and one that can be worn through all kinds of security checkpoints. To some, those two qualities are significant functional benefits.
> 
> .


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I was under the impression that the 360 degree welt eliminated the need for a shank of any kind...? In any case, it's just a different way to achieve the same thing. I haven't noticed my feet being any more fatigued, hurting, etc. wearing AE compared to a steel shank shoe.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

DG123 said:


> AE was born during an era of USA shoe factories, all using steel shanks to construct their shoes. From the beginning, AE has maintained that a shank was not necessary.
> 
> As far as I know, for the construction of their shoes, AE still does not use a shank (of steel, wood, plastic, or fiberglass etc...).


You are correct, sir. I had to go online and watch the factory video to double check. AE uses a 360* welt on all of their shoes in lieu of a shank of any kind (except in their now-defunct Executive Collection, where they used a fiberglass shank). I apologize for the bad info.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

blue suede shoes said:


> I agree with you, particularly if the dress shoes are high quality, leather lined, loafers such as AE, Alden, Rancourt, or any of the British brands. On the other hand, shorts with loafers and socks doesn't look near as good as shorts with loafers and no socks.


Foot powder and/or loafer socks are your friend.


----------



## blue suede shoes (Mar 22, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I was under the impression that the 360 degree welt eliminated the need for a shank of any kind...? In any case, it's just a different way to achieve the same thing. I haven't noticed my feet being any more fatigued, hurting, etc. wearing AE compared to a steel shank shoe.


Yes, the AE press releases have said exactly this. As a matter of fact, Mr Edmonds founded AE using his new method of 360 degree welts instead of a steel shank.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> You are correct, sir. I had to go online and watch the factory video to double check. AE uses a 360* welt on all of their shoes in lieu of a shank of any kind (except in their now-defunct Executive Collection, where they used a fiberglass shank). I apologize for the bad info.


I think they use shanks in their Italian line. The sole profile is pretty slim.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Jovan said:


> I think they use shanks in their Italian line. The sole profile is pretty slim.


Yeah, I know I could list the exceptions to make myself sound less wrong, but those aren't the styles we typically discuss on AAAC :icon_smile:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Jovan said:


> I was under the impression that the 360 degree welt eliminated the need for a shank of any kind...? In any case, it's just a different way to achieve the same thing. I haven't noticed my feet being any more fatigued, hurting, etc. wearing AE compared to a steel shank shoe.


Agree completely. Some people have a wrongheaded notion that a steel shank is the singular hallmark of quality.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

hardline_42 said:


> Yeah, I know I could list the exceptions to make myself sound less wrong, but those aren't the styles we typically discuss on AAAC :icon_smile:


A shame. I really like the Verona and think any self-respecting Trad who's into bit loafers should give them a try.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

Jovan said:


> A shame. I really like the Verona and think any self-respecting Trad who's into bit loafers should give them a try.


I like the Verona (and bit loafers in general). It's a legitimate, traditional shoe. Ergo, I was right. AE uses fiberglass shanks. :tongue2:


----------



## grankin (Mar 12, 2012)

My sacred cow deserving slaughter? Luccese boots. I bought a pair 30 years ago in Madison, Wisconsin, and they were superb ... until the dude doing the re-soling cut the instep, down by the welt (and then swore it was the leather failing because of age).

So I bought another pair when in Santa Fe at their own shop. Sent them back in 2 weeks, for the leather had been coated in something that began to shed. The manufacturer exchanged them immediately, but when I compared the construction quality between the old ones and the new ones ... *NO* comparison at all. Stitching markedly inferior, ditto the vamp and shaft leather. Later I heard that the family had sold to a big manufacturer.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

Dear Mr. Petrik,

I think I can, in my order of preference: Loding, Septieme Largeur, Loake and Cheaney. All lower price points than AE, and all of equal or superior construction (not to say design, AE is fine, but one never tried any good footwear till one has tried a pair of patinated blue shoes...). But I like AE just fine, I just think it is valid to poke a little fun because few things are more sacred to this forum than AE and Alden.



Mike Petrik said:


> Allen Edmonds over-priced? I consider their shoes to be the best value available. Can you suggest a better value?


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

grankin said:


> My sacred cow deserving slaughter? Luccese boots. I bought a pair 30 years ago in Madison, Wisconsin, and they were superb ... until the dude doing the re-soling cut the instep, down by the welt (and then swore it was the leather failing because of age).
> 
> So I bought another pair when in Santa Fe at their own shop. Sent them back in 2 weeks, for the leather had been coated in something that began to shed. The manufacturer exchanged them immediately, but when I compared the construction quality between the old ones and the new ones ... *NO* comparison at all. Stitching markedly inferior, ditto the vamp and shaft leather. Later I heard that the family had sold to a big manufacturer.


The news about Lucchese boots spread pretty fast in my part of the country. Olathe, on the other hand, seems to have survived the move from Kansas to Texas with essential quality intact.


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

I disagree with both you and Jovan. Florsheims made in Italy are quite nice and I gather comparable to AE. Picked those up in Rome in 2011 (before I knew any better and figured that the way to go are patinated shoes and/or elongated French design...)





Mike Petrik said:


> I agree with Jovan. Florsheims are junk (and given their useful life more expensive), and while Alden makes a very good shoe I would argue that their prices reflect a fair value, but not an especially good one.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

I agree current Lucchese production, including boot shapes, materials, and workmanship is inferior to the brand's earlier history. 
Olathe brand is made by Rios of Mercedes, Mercedes , Texas (Rio Grande Valley). Rios produces 3 brands, Rios, Anderson Bean, and Olathe. Three families own Rios, and they know what they are doing. Production of boots is a reasonable number, not so much volume that things get out of control. The number of authorized dealer accounts is relatively limited.. The materials used , and the construction of the boots is excellent. Nice tight package of in stock styles, good availability of width sizing



godan said:


> The news about Lucchese boots spread pretty fast in my part of the country. Olathe, on the other hand, seems to have survived the move from Kansas to Texas with essential quality intact.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Beautiful pair of dress shoes.



bernoulli said:


> I disagree with both you and Jovan. Florsheims made in Italy are quite nice and I gather comparable to AE. Picked those up in Rome in 2011 (before I knew any better and figured that the way to go are patinated shoes and/or elongated French design...)


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Mike Petrik said:


> Allen Edmonds over-priced? I consider their shoes to be the best value available. Can you suggest a better value?


 Loake 1880.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

DG123 said:


> 1) Florsheim and Alden both construct their shoes using a shank, which has significant functional benefits to the wearer.


You keep saying this but never offer any data to verify your statement.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

I do not know what you mean by "data".
The function of a shank is to provide torsional stability , reduce flexibility, and help the footwear retain its shape. 


Leighton said:


> You keep saying this but never offer any data to verify your statement.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Leighton said:


> Loake 1880.


You make a good point. These can be gotten for under $300 even including shipping from the UK. The tradeoff is that there's hardly anywhere to buy or try them from bricks and mortar stores. This is my hesitation.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Jovan said:


> You make a good point. These can be gotten for under $300 even including shipping from the UK. The tradeoff is that there's hardly anywhere to buy or try them from bricks and mortar stores. This is my hesitation.


Of course. AE charges you a convenience fee. Alden charges you an exclusivity fee along with slight convenience.

English shoes more or less charge you according to the quality of the shoe and the inputs. Church's excepted. But, once you get past Alfred Sargent Exclusive range, we're paying an exclusivity fee and added costs due to smaller economies of scale.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

DG123 said:


> I do not know what you mean by "data".
> The function of a shank is to provide torsional stability , reduce flexibility, and help the footwear retain its shape.


By data, I mean any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that backs up the logical conclusion of your statements.

Logically, your syllogism goes like this:
Shank is necessary to provide XYZ (as stated above)
AE has no shank
Therefore, AE is inferior.

By logical association, people should be experiencing foot problems or pain or something that would validate the inferiority statement.

*However*, I have never heard any anecdotal evidence to support this hypothesis. In fact, the 360 welt is widely used in country shoes. Tricker's uses it, Alfred Sargent uses it, Crockett & Jones uses it, Alden uses it, ****, everyone uses it.

The only difference between AE & everyone else is that AE pretty much exclusively uses it.

Now, I'm not an AE fanboy. I'm replacing my AE's with English shoes. AS, Tricker's, & Cheaney. Would go C&J Handgrade, but $650 a shoe is a little much.

A proper criticism of the 360 welt is that the heel is not as sleek and can never be made as sleek as a 270 welt. That's just a fact. AE has made great strides in reducing the heel protrusion, but it's still there and still very visible and nowhere near as sleek as Northampton shoe wear.

But to say that just because it doesn't have a shank it's worse is just unsupported by evidence.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Allen Edmonds company is about a 100 years old, born during an era when states such as Missouri and Masachusetts had dozens of shoe factories. At that time most all men's shoe production was leather upper, Goodyear welt-with-steel-shank constructed footwear. Allen Edmonds , right from its beginning, differentiated itself by producing shoes without a shank.
This made their shoes flexible and reduced a pair of shoes 'break in" time from weeks to days. Fast forward 100 years and Allen Edmonds concept of flexible shoes is more in vogue than ever before. Right now the athletic shoe industry is promoting minimalist, flexible footwear. AE's 100 year old concept is in perfect harmony with that.
Shank or no shank? Flexible or rigid? Minimalist or substantial ? There are no definitive correct answers to these questions. No scientific data to prove right or wrong.
My belief, formed from a career working in the shoe industry, is that footwear constructed with a shank offers the wearer some real benefits. Specifically, stability, underfoot support, and retention of the original shoe shape. Most beneficial of all is high top, Goodyear welted boots, constructed with a shank, and a low walking heel. Spread around the country there are a few orthopedic custom shoe makers , crafting one pair at a time, who typically incorporate these features into their prescribed footwear. This type footwear design actually helps the wearer achieve good posture, while providing excellent stability and underfoot support.



Leighton said:


> By data, I mean any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that backs up the logical conclusion of your statements.
> 
> Logically, your syllogism goes like this:
> Shank is necessary to provide XYZ (as stated above)
> ...


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Yes, it's just a belief. Thank you for admitting that.

There is no right answer to shank or no shank. It's a dress shoe. It's not designed to help our feet. That's just the bottom line there.

There are studies which suggest that barefoot or plain sandals are best for foot health. Based on the evidence out there, any shoe with a heel is probably bad for our feet.

Therefore, it is unfair to criticize AE for having no shank. Criticize them for any number of their flaws, but not having a shank shouldn't be one of them.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

DG123 said:


> *My belief, formed from a career working in the shoe industry, is that footwear constructed with a shank offers the wearer some real benefits. Specifically, stability, underfoot support, and retention of the original shoe shape*. Most beneficial of all is high top, Goodyear welted boots, constructed with a shank, and a low walking heel. Spread around the country there are a few orthopedic custom shoe makers , crafting one pair at a time, who typically incorporate these features into their prescribed footwear. This type footwear design actually helps the wearer achieve good posture, while providing excellent stability and underfoot support.


My belief, formed from several decades of wearing shoes, is that you're wrong. Because shoes that I own with a 360 welt and no shank have not proven to be less stable, less supportive or more prone to lose their shape over several years of wear than shoes equipped with a shank. It's your belief - and that's fine - people believe in all manner of things. But I see no practical evidence to support the conclusions you so very often state as fact.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

RogerP said:


> My belief, formed from several decades of wearing shoes, is that you're wrong. Because shoes that I own with a 360 welt and no shank have not proven to be less stable, less supportive or more prone to lose their shape over several years of wear than shoes equipped with a shank. It's your belief - and that's fine - people believe in all manner of things. But I see no practical evidence to support the conclusions you so very often state as fact.


I do believe the shank is referred to in the way he has stated above in Vass book about shoes. I'm thinking he'd know.

I can't get to my copy right now but perhaps someone else can check?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

DG123... while I respect your career in the shoe industry and whatever that may have entailed, I find your assertion demonstrably false. Even if I didn't own a few pairs of AE, I would say -- from almost a century of shoemaking behind their belt -- that they know what they're doing. Otherwise, they'd be known as a failed company from the 1920s that just ended up giving everyone back problems.

Thankfully for those who need orthopaedic shoes, AE also makes those in the way they see fit with almost the same processes as their regular line. It may or may not involve a shank, I don't know. Either way I don't need those, so I'm still good to go with the 360 welt.



Leighton said:


> Of course. AE charges you a convenience fee. Alden charges you an exclusivity fee along with slight convenience.
> 
> English shoes more or less charge you according to the quality of the shoe and the inputs. Church's excepted. But, once you get past Alfred Sargent Exclusive range, we're paying an exclusivity fee and added costs due to smaller economies of scale.


It would seem so. As far as American makers go, though, I'd still assert that AE is the best value overall. I may take a chance on Loake 1880 when I have a bit more disposable income and the confidence to have something shipped overseas that may not work.


----------



## DG123 (Sep 16, 2011)

Remember, the footwear industry is a business. At its inception, nearly 100 years ago, AE's business strategy was to offer an alternative to the relatively rigid , steel shank footwear prevalent at that time. The strategy worked, and is still going strong today. In just about all categories of footwear "flexible" is embraced by consumers. Light weight is a good selling point too.
The performance running shoe category has recently transitioned from endorsing relatively heavy, sturdy, built up insoles and outsoles to very light weight sleek profile "minimalist" inspired designs.
Brands feel compelled to give a consumer reason to buy new product, so new design concepts emerge, sometimes even contradicting the premise of that brand's prior design concepts assertions. It's a business.
A major Allen Edmonds selling point has always been the nearly immediate "comfort" a customer gets when trying on a pair of their shoes. Especially in the dress shoe category, where consumers have expectations of initial discomfort, lengthy break-in time etc... AE's design concept is appreciated. You referred to lack of "back problems". That's a separate subject, probably best left to orthopedic surgeons.
AE is a successful business with a large number of satisfied customers. But does that mean every person must agree AE's no shank concept is a good one? That no one should prefer footwear constructed with a shank ? My own preference is relatively rigid, shank constructed, correct fitting footwear. And for the benefit to body posture, I also believe in a walking heel of .75 to 1' height.
I have no problem with people liking Allen Edmonds, and don't expect people to convert to my preferences for footwear. A forum like this one, hopefully , is a place to share information and beliefs. From this forum I have learned some things, including products I've bought and enjoyed using. In return I try to make posting contributions which may benefit others here. The thread title here is "sacred cows you would like to slaughter", and I thought it appropriate to list AE and Bills Khakis. Two favored brands here (sacred cows ) which I believe are overrated.



Jovan said:


> DG123... while I respect your career in the shoe industry and whatever that may have entailed, I find your assertion demonstrably false. Even if I didn't own a few pairs of AE, I would say -- from almost a century of shoemaking behind their belt -- that they know what they're doing. Otherwise, they'd be known as a failed company from the 1920s that just ended up giving everyone back problems.
> 
> .


----------



## bernoulli (Mar 21, 2011)

this thread is not about AE!!! there are 9849834928928 threads about AE in the forum. Unless you are poking fun at AE as a sacred cow, let's keep this funny! (I know all of you make a good point, but I think those points should belong to an AE thread to enlighten those who like AE shoes).


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Okay, this isn't funny, but I think the original thread had pretty much run its course anyway. And - I think it's now fair to say - steel shanks are apparently a sacred cow in some religions, and one that should be butchered.



DG123 said:


> provide torsional stability, reduce flexibility, and help the footwear retain its shape.


- The first is just a specific instance of the second: providing torsional stability = reducing torsional flexibility
- Flexibility is good in shoes (outside of some specific uses)
- AE shoes don't fail to retain their shape, except to the limited extent that they fail to do so in a temporary fashion, which, again = flexibility. To the extent we're talking about permanent deformation, the 360-degree welt substitutes for the shank in this respect.

So there's nothing to this other than flexibility. Flexibility in the mid-sole is bad in some applications, like riding boots. It's not bad for walking, or even ordinary running. Flexible running shoes are not new: when I ran track in the 1970s my shoes were very, very flexible, and light too. Reducing flexibility (or increasing stability) in certain respects may be useful for some other applications (_e.g._ to protect the ankles when playing basketball), but very few of us ever attempt to play basketball in our dress shoes. If that sort of stability were required for wearing a shoe to an office, they'd be selling us "Air Blankfeins."


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Jovan said:


> It would seem so. As far as American makers go, though, I'd still assert that AE is the best value overall. I may take a chance on Loake 1880 when I have a bit more disposable income and the confidence to have something shipped overseas that may not work.


Sadly I don't think there are any American makers other than bespoke/semi bespoke/cowboy boots/AE/Alden/Work shoes. For simplicity's sake, let me rephrase that.

Sadly I don't think there are any American dress shoe makers other than bespoke, AE, & Alden. J&M, CH, Florsheim manufacture overseas and therefore don't count.

I definitely agree that AE seconds are the best bang for the dollar anywhere. However, Tricker's seconds from Retricker on Ebay is a pretty darn close call, but seeing as they hardly ever make mistakes....


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Starch said:


> Okay, this isn't funny, but I think the original thread had pretty much run its course anyway. And - I think it's now fair to say - steel shanks are apparently a sacred cow in some religions, and one that should be butchered.


Indeed. And post-haste.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

DG123 said:


> Beautiful pair of dress shoes.


I agree that those are handsome shoes, but question their characterization as dress shoe. A medium brown blucher longwing would be less than ideal for pairing with a business suit. They would look great with corduroy or tweed trousers though. They may qualify as dress shoes under some standards, but just barely I think.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Leighton said:


> Sadly I don't think there are any American makers other than bespoke/semi bespoke/cowboy boots/AE/Alden/Work shoes. For simplicity's sake, let me rephrase that.
> 
> Sadly I don't think there are any American dress shoe makers other than bespoke, AE, & Alden. J&M, CH, Florsheim manufacture overseas and therefore don't count.
> 
> I definitely agree that AE seconds are the best bang for the dollar anywhere. However, Tricker's seconds from Retricker on Ebay is a pretty darn close call, but seeing as they hardly ever make mistakes....


How much of the line and how much of one shoe has to be made in the US to be considered made in the US? J&M still makes some of their line in the US. Being (partially) made in the DR does not strike me as being made in the US, no matter what AE tells me.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

Tilton said:


> How much of the line and how much of one shoe has to be made in the US to be considered made in the US? J&M still makes some of their line in the US. Being (partially) made in the DR does not strike me as being made in the US, no matter what AE tells me.


My understanding is that AE's goodyear welted shoes are 100% made in Port Washington. It's the cemented shoes and some of the handsewns that get started in the DR and then finished in the US. Those are sold as made in DR, which is remarkably honest when you think about it. Not that I would buy them, anyway.

Besides, the FTC requires that virtually all work be performed in the US in order to use the made in USA label. Otherwise, companies have to use assembled in USA (like new balance does for some of their sneakers). Thr FTC polices the hell out of this and I doubt AE would be able to get away with misleading claims for veey long.

AE uses french Calfskin, so they have to add "imported materials" but per FTC regs, this only covers raw materials, such as calfskin. This doesn't imply that finished materials are imported and then welted and sent off. AE just gets big sheets of calfskin from France and goes to work from there.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> DG123... while I respect your career in the shoe industry and whatever that may have entailed, I find your assertion demonstrably false. Even if I didn't own a few pairs of AE, I would say -- from almost a century of shoemaking behind their belt -- that they know what they're doing. Otherwise, they'd be known as a failed company from the 1920s that just ended up giving everyone back problems.
> 
> Thankfully for those who need orthopaedic shoes, AE also makes those in the way they see fit with almost the same processes as their regular line. It may or may not involve a shank, I don't know. Either way I don't need those, so I'm still good to go with the 360 welt.
> 
> It would seem so. As far as American makers go, though, I'd still assert that AE is the best value overall. I may take a chance on Loake 1880 when I have a bit more disposable income and the confidence to have something shipped overseas that may not work.


It's a cost saving measure. Sure, they know what they are doing. So do all the top makers using shanks. ?


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Tilton said:


> How much of the line and how much of one shoe has to be made in the US to be considered made in the US? J&M still makes some of their line in the US. Being (partially) made in the DR does not strike me as being made in the US, no matter what AE tells me.


Well that is interesting. The $375 price tag does not change my sentiments however.

As L-Feld said, made in the USA is very highly regulated. The whole process must be made in the US otherwise you can only say assembled in the US. Whether you like it or not, the US protectorates are part of the US, they do get to vote and they are citizens.....

edit: Apparently the DR is not part of the US, therefore, no construction can take place there and still maintain the made in the USA designation. It's all part of NAFTA.

https://www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/usajump.shtm

"no or virtually no foreign content"


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

L-feld said:


> My understanding is that AE's goodyear welted shoes are 100% made in Port Washington. It's the cemented shoes and some of the handsewns that get started in the DR and then finished in the US. Those are sold as made in DR, which is remarkably honest when you think about it. Not that I would buy them, anyway.


See post 21 n this thread: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?124741-A-E-Independence-Collection

The comments from the AE CEO leave me in some doubt as to whether there is the bright line distinction between different AE lines in terms of DR content. In particular, his reference to the fact that stitched uppers rom the DR arrive in Port Washington "for our welts" at best muddies the waters and at worst indicated that some welted shoes are indeed made with DR-stitched uppers.

I use best / worst here in reference to clarity of the "American made" issue. I have no reason to believe that the uppers stitched in the DR are of inferior quality to those stitched in the US.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
We seem to be overlooking the reality that in the recent past, AE has added significantly to their Port Washington, WI, based workforce and are producing and selling more shoes than ever before. Sounds like just another 'great American success story' to me! :thumbs-up:


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

RogerP said:


> See post 21 n this thread: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?124741-A-E-Independence-Collection
> 
> The comments from the AE CEO leave me in some doubt as to whether there is the bright line distinction between different AE lines in terms of DR content. In particular, his reference to the fact that stitched uppers rom the DR arrive in Port Washington "for our welts" at best muddies the waters and at worst indicated that some welted shoes are indeed made with DR-stitched uppers.
> 
> I use best / worst here in reference to clarity of the "American made" issue. I have no reason to believe that the uppers stitched in the DR are of inferior quality to those stitched in the US.


The thing is, AE refers to the cemented shoes as being "cement welted." And as I stated before, the FTC would slam AE with huge fines if they were finishing the uppers in DR and trying to pass the shoes off made in USA. They would have to be more specific in their advertising, like "assembled in USA" or possibly "made in USA of imported components." The shoes either say "made in usa" or "made in usa of imported leather" which implies leather as a raw material. If the leather was stitched elsewhere, the FTC would make AE say so.

It would be a different story if AE had a factory in Saipan...

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

L-feld said:


> The thing is, *AE refers to the cemented shoes as being "cement welted." *And as I stated before, the FTC would slam AE with huge fines if they were finishing the uppers in DR and trying to pass the shoes off made in USA. .....


^^^ Yes, that is one possible interpretation of his comments, but not the only one. He did not in fact say "cement welted", and while it is possible he may have meant to, it is also entirely possible that he used the term in its traditional sense. Given that the subject under discussion was the issue of reconciling the "Great American Shoe Company" tag with DR manufacturing that has become essential to the company's success, I suspect he chose his words carefully.

Also, the fact that he was beating the drum pretty loud to proclaim that the uppers received from the DR were not anywhere close to being a wearable shoe, and that such a "transformation" only took place in the States (including the "welting"), it begs the question of why such a comment would even be needed in reference to a separate-stream unwelted DR-made shoe that is clearly identified as such.

As I said, it seems to me that at best his comments leave the issue unclear. At worst, they resolve the issue to embrace the use of DR-stitched uppers in welted AE shoes. Which I don't neccessarily view as a bad thing. You may choose to believe what you wish.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

I think you all missed my attempted snarkiness. Leighton stated that he doesn't consider J&M to be a Made in USA company becuase, while some somes are produced in the US, most are not, and yet AE has some somes shoes produced overseas, while most is made in the US. Where is the line that divides US makers from outsources? I would consider any shoe company that makes any shoe wholly in the US to be a US maker; I'm sure there is someone on here who believes that if the whole line of shoes isn't made in the US, they aren't a true US maker. If J&M made 20% more US-made sheos, would Leighton think they were a USA maker, or is he just making an exception for AE's foreign production?


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

RogerP said:


> ^^^ Yes, that is one possible interpretation of his comments, but not the only one. He did not in fact say "cement welted", and while it is possible he may have meant to, it is also entirely possible that he used the term in its traditional sense. Given that the subject under discussion was the issue of reconciling the "Great American Shoe Company" tag with DR manufacturing that has become essential to the company's success, I suspect he chose his words carefully.
> 
> Also, the fact that he was beating the drum pretty loud to proclaim that the uppers received from the DR were not anywhere close to being a wearable shoe, and that such a "transformation" only took place in the States (including the "welting"), it begs the question of why such a comment would even be needed in reference to a separate-stream unwelted DR-made shoe that is clearly identified as such.
> 
> As I said, it seems to me that at best his comments leave the issue unclear. At worst, they resolve the issue to embrace the use of DR-stitched uppers in welted AE shoes. Which I don't neccessarily view as a bad thing. You may choose to believe what you wish.


Regardless of how you interpret the comments on TOF, the FTC would not allow AE to advertise shoes with DR stitched uppers as being made in USA. It wouldn't have slipped under their radar for this long. Not with a company as high profile as AE.

The FTC requires "virtually all" work to be performed in the usa in order for a product to carry that tag. If the uppers were stitched in DR, the FTC would fine the crap out of AE.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

RogerP said:


> See post 21 n this thread: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?124741-A-E-Independence-Collection
> 
> The comments from the AE CEO leave me in some doubt as to whether there is the bright line distinction between different AE lines in terms of DR content. In particular, his reference to the fact that stitched uppers rom the DR arrive in Port Washington "for our welts" at best muddies the waters and at worst indicated that some welted shoes are indeed made with DR-stitched uppers.
> 
> I use best / worst here in reference to clarity of the "American made" issue. I have no reason to believe that the uppers stitched in the DR are of inferior quality to those stitched in the US.


"no or negligible foreign content" means that no uppers sewn in DR. PR is part of the US, so they could get away with that, but you haven't alleged that, so no. You are wrong.

Unless AE is not making an unqualified claim, you are wrong or AE is a bunch of huge fat liars.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Tilton said:


> I think you all missed my attempted snarkiness. Leighton stated that he doesn't consider J&M to be a Made in USA company becuase, while some somes are produced in the US, most are not, and yet AE has some somes shoes produced overseas, while most is made in the US. Where is the line that divides US makers from outsources? I would consider any shoe company that makes any shoe wholly in the US to be a US maker; I'm sure there is someone on here who believes that if the whole line of shoes isn't made in the US, they aren't a true US maker. If J&M made 20% more US-made sheos, would Leighton think they were a USA maker, or is he just making an exception for AE's foreign production?


No I did not. Don't put words in my mouth.

I did not know J&M had a USA line.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Leighton said:


> "no or negligible foreign content" means that no uppers sewn in DR. PR is part of the US, so they could get away with that, but you haven't alleged that, so no. You are wrong.
> 
> Unless AE is not making an unqualified claim, you are wrong or AE is a bunch of huge fat liars.


I really don't understand the above. The comments I referenced were posted by the AE CEO on the other forum. I maintain that his comments leave the question of which shoes use DR-stitched uppers unclear. I have called nobody a liar - indeed, I maintain that he was being remarkably and admirably candid. What the FTC might or might not make of the situation is a red herring. This is what the AE CEO actually said. I suspect he knows better than you, me or the FTC when it comes to the manufacture of AE shoes.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

RogerP said:


> I really don't understand the above. The comments I referenced were posted by the AE CEO on the other forum. I maintain that his comments leave the question of which shoes use DR-stitched uppers unclear. I have called nobody a liar - indeed, I maintain that he was being remarkably and admirably candid. What the FTC might or might not make of the situation is a red herring. This is what the AE CEO actually said. I suspect he knows better than you, me or the FTC when it comes to the manufacture of AE shoes.


Exactly, his comments were unclear, not definitive. My point is that your interpretation of his comments implies that AE is flagrantly violating major US trade regulations and the US government has either failed to notice or has decided to let it slide. I think the likelihood that the US govenrment has failed to notice is low, since, according to your interpretation, the CEO has publicly admitted to violating these regs.

The simpler explanation is that this is all a case of misunderstanding, and the comments were intended to apply to the handsewns and cement welted shoes. I'm not so naive to say that administrative agencies catch all violations or even that they don't blatantly ignore infractions. However, it seems unlikely that the FTC, under the Obama administration, would let this fall through the cracks for almost 6 years.

At any rate, I have chosen to have a modicum of faith in the ability of my government to enforce its regulations. After all, if the government cannot enforce simple trade regulations, then what benefit is there to buying American anyway? The whole appeal of buying American is the ability to rely on the assumption that the government will enforce trade regulations that ensure a certain standard of quality (of both the product and working conditions). If the government is so ineffective at enforcing even the most simple trade regulations, then the made in USA tag has no value.


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

The FTC has really been cracking down on the use of the "Made in USA" label and it's no joke. One example I always cite is that of Stormy Kromer, a Michigan based company that makes traditional wool hunting caps. When I first bought one a few years ago, the tag was a simple black printed label that said "Made in USA." Now, it looks like this:


When I called and asked why my new hat said "of imported parts" and my old one didn't I was told that their manufacturing process didn't change at all but they were forced to change how they labeled it because of how much (little) work was actually done in the USA. If a small, niche company like SK has to label their hats as made of "imported parts", I can't imagine that AE could possibly skate by unnoticed.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

L-feld said:


> Exactly, his comments were unclear, not definitive.


Which is exactly what I said.



L-feld said:


> My point is that your interpretation of his comments implies ......


You are the one interpreting his comments - by suggesting he meant something other than he said. I am simply pointing to what he said - I'm not interpreting anything.



L-feld said:


> The simpler explanation is that this is all a case of misunderstanding, and the comments were intended to apply to the handsewns and cement welted shoes.


That is certainly a possibility - as again, I have allowed from the outset.



L-feld said:


> I'm not so naive to say that administrative agencies catch all violations or even that they don't blatantly ignore infractions.


True.



L-feld said:


> However, it seems unlikely that the FTC, under the Obama administration, would let this fall through the cracks for almost 6 years.


I really have no idea what the FTC would or would not do, nor do I know whether AE has made a specific claim about a particular being made in America that in fact uses DR uppers. I don't believe AE makes such claims in respect of specific shoes, but rather relies upon generalized "American-ness" as a significant part of their advertising campaign. Whether this would or would not contravene FTC provisions is an open question that I will leave to others who feel the pressing need to look away from the comments of the AE CEO himself.



L-feld said:


> At any rate, I have chosen to have a modicum of faith in the ability of my government to enforce its regulations. After all, if the government cannot enforce simple trade regulations, then what benefit is there to buying American anyway? The whole appeal of buying American is the ability to rely on the assumption that the government will enforce trade regulations that ensure a certain standard of quality (of both the product and working conditions). If the government is so ineffective at enforcing even the most simple trade regulations, then the made in USA tag has no value.


You are entirely free to choose to believe what you will - I am not trying to convince you of anything. I am merely pointing to a series of specific comments from the proverbial horse's mouth on the subject. You are entirely free to interpret those comments in accordance with your stated faith and beliefs, or ignore them completely as you see fit.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

RogerP said:


> I really don't understand the above. The comments I referenced were posted by the AE CEO on the other forum. I maintain that his comments leave the question of which shoes use DR-stitched uppers unclear. I have called nobody a liar - indeed, I maintain that he was being remarkably and admirably candid. What the FTC might or might not make of the situation is a red herring. This is what the AE CEO actually said. I suspect he knows better than you, me or the FTC when it comes to the manufacture of AE shoes.


Well, you may not understand the regulations, but I do. I spent 3 years learning how to read regulations and do research. I also had to research this exact subject for my work.

So, let me spell it out in black & white terms.

Either AE is not making an unqualified claim, which would mean they have to say "made in the USA of imported and domestic parts" (the imported part is important) OR they are violating US trade regulations and could be sued by any number of people, most notably their competitors (who would have a field day with that one).

Now, I don't know which one is correct, but they are mutually exclusive. A fully sewn and clicked upper does not constitute negligible foreign parts. That's almost half a shoe. Or at the very least a quarter of a shoe.

edit: Obviously they could make the qualified claim, but I've never seen it. Every mainline shoe I've examined in their stores has the unqualified label.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Well, you may not understand the regulations, but I do. I spent 3 years learning how to read regulations and do research.


You have my sympathies. :tongue2:



Leighton said:


> So, let me spell it out in black & white terms.


Spell out whatever you wish - so long as your refrain from attributing comments to me which I did not make. I referenced the comments made by the AE CEO on a public forum. He speaks for the company. I don't, and you don't. You are free to accepts his comments at face value, reject his comments, re-interpret his comments in accordance with you expectations and beliefs, or completely ignore his comments as you see fit. You are even free to engage in an analysis of the governing trade regulations if that is what interests you. Aint freedom great?

I am more interested in the products themselves, and that is consequently my focus.



Leighton said:


> A fully sewn and clicked upper does not constitute negligible foreign parts. That's almost half a shoe. Or at the very least a quarter of a shoe.


Hmm. Well the AE CEO went to some lengths to point out that the DR upper doesn't constitute a shoe at all - and to point out that the transformation from a DR upper into a _welted_ shoe takes place in America:



What AE CEO posted on the other forum said:


> Of the 212 steps that it takes to make our welted shoes, only the first few on the upper are done in the DR (as I explained in detail in the post previously cited above). What arrives as a flat, half-sewn and open-ended "upper" in Port Washington for our welts*,* is nothing remotely close to being wearable. All of our insoles are cut to each specific length and width in Wisconsin, then prepped for being teamed with the corresponding lasts and the uppers, many of which uppers were made entirely in Port Washington as well. Once the upper is started in either factory, the entire rest of the process to turn leather into shoe occurs just on the other side of the wall from my desk. (emphasis added)


I appreciate that context is important to understanding a quotation - which is why I linked the thread for anyone interested to view the full text of all of his comments in context. Of course, others are more inclined to ignore his comments (These aren't the droids you're looking for. :cool2 and quote trade regulations instead. That's fine. But as I am more interested in the products themselves, I have greater interest in what the head honcho of the company in question has to say about them. And in my experience, when AE refers to "our welted shoes" they sure aren't talking about a glued-up shoe. Your experience may differ.


----------



## L-feld (Dec 3, 2011)

RogerP said:


> I really have no idea what the FTC would or would not do, nor do I know whether AE has made a specific claim about a particular being made in America that in fact uses DR uppers. I don't believe AE makes such claims in respect of specific shoes, but rather relies upon generalized "American-ness" as a significant part of their advertising campaign. Whether this would or would not contravene FTC provisions is an open question that I will leave to others who feel the pressing need to look away from the comments of the AE CEO himself.


Last post, I promise, and then I'll let this go.

All of the mainline welted shoes, plust the independence line, state (unqualified) "Proudly made in the USA at our Port Washington, Wisconsin factory" on the website.
See eg the Park Ave: https://www.allenedmonds.com/aeonline/producti_SF270_1_40000000001_-1

A bunch of the handsewns and all of the boat shoes, plus all of the cemented shoes state Made in DR. 
See eg the Sedona: 

That seems to be consistent with AE's stated intent when they opened the DR factory - they couldn't find enough handsewers to staff the factory in Maine. That explanation sounds like BS to me, but it does make it sound like the DR factory is sewing loafers and boat shoes, like the MLB shoes that are supposedly such a huge success.
https://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/stories/2007/04/30/story1.html


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

L-feld said:


> Last post, I promise, and then I'll let this go.


No worries my man - I'll be the last person to try to tell you what to post or how often. I do understand the overall point regarding regulations surrounding use of the "made in America" tag. It's just that for me, considering all of that within the context of what the man in charge had to say on the subject, I don't find a complete and conclusive answer as to how and where the products of the DR factory are employed.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

The thing is, I have read all his comments. They are consistent with the lower end shoes being sewn in the DR and then finished in America.

You and others have this idea that somehow that means ALL of AE shoes are first sewn in the DR and then finished in America. That is not what AE has said.

Why you insist that all their shoes are sewn in the DR and then made in America, I don't know. But that has never been stated by AE.

What has been stated by AE is that certain of their shoes are stamped with an unqualified made in America standard. Those shoes cannot use uppers made in the DR.

And yes, a sewn upper is not a shoe yet, but it is not negligible either.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Leighton said:


> You and others have this idea that somehow that means *ALL of AE shoes are first sewn in the DR *and then finished in America.


You just can't resist putting words in my mouth, can you? It's like some sort of weird compulsion. I have NEVER said, suggested or implied that ALL AE shoes are first stitched in the DR and challenge you to point it out if you disagree.



Leighton said:


> That is not what AE has said.


No kidding - unlike you, I actually quoted what he said.



Leighton said:


> *Why you insist that all their shoes are sewn in the DR and then made in America, I don't know*. But that has never been stated by AE.


Again a figment of your very active imagination. Why you insist on inventing comments, attributing them to me, and then attacking them is anybody's guess.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Oh, then what the **** are you trying to say?

You posted comments and keep implying that AE's aren't made in America but are made from imported uppers made in the DR. You don't say it specifically, but you keep attacking my answers which clearly implies you believe that AE's aren't made in America or something. That or you're just trolling me.

What other logical conclusion can anyone come to when you keep citing the CEO's comments about the DR uppers? The only conclusion is that you believe that AE's aren't made in America. I've already pointed out how the CEO's comments mean that some of their line is made from DR uppers, but in order to make the unqualified made in America claim, that cannot be the case for all of their shoes. Now, I've even gone through the trouble of driving down to the AE store and checking on their claims. The answer is below.

For anyone who wants the actual answer as to where their AE's are made, the answer is their welted shoes are made in America from fine imported leather. This means that everything but the leather is wholly made in America with negligible foreign inputs other than the leather.

Their AE by Allen Edmonds are made in the Dominican Republic. Says so in the tongue.

Their glued soles are made in the USA of imported materials. We all know that the uppers are from the DR.

Their Indendence Collection is actually silent on where they're made on the shoe itself. Odd. However, everywhere else says made in America, so the leather may come from an American tannery. I don't know about this one.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Leighton said:


> Oh, then what the **** are you trying to say?


I am trying to say exactly what I have repeatedly said in this and the other thread - the comments of the AE CEO leave the answer unclear as to where and how the DR uppers are used in the AE lineup.



Leighton said:


> You posted comments and keep implying that AE's aren't made in America but are made from imported uppers made in the DR. You don't say it specifically, but you keep attacking my answers which clearly implies you believe that AE's aren't made in America or something. That or you're just trolling me.


I would say inventing comments, attributing them to another member, then attacking them is more troll-like, and that is what you have done. Please don't lay your comprehension problems at my feet. You still can't find a SINGLE post where I have said ALL AE shoes use DR uppers, can you? Even though you have REPEATEDLY asserted that I have done so? First rule of trolling - never ever let the facts get in the way.



Leighton said:


> What other logical conclusion can anyone come to when you keep citing the CEO's comments about the DR uppers?


How about the repeatedly stated (by me, as opposed to invented by you) conclusion that Mr. Grangard's comments leave the issue unclear? I'd go back and quote where I have said exactly that in this thread, but you're clearly not reading my posts, merely fabricating claims that you then find sport in attacking.



Leighton said:


> The only conclusion is that you believe that AE's aren't made in America.


See, you just can't help yourself - you're still trying to tell me what I think. Thanks, but I'm actually capable of thinking for myself.



Leighton said:


> For anyone who wants the actual answer as to where their AE's are made, the answer is their welted shoes are made in America from fine imported leather. This means that everything but the leather is wholly made in America with negligible foreign inputs other than the leather.


I'll rely on you for the content of FTC regulations. I'll rely on the AE CEO for information on how and where his products are made.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

AE's advertising makes it clear that its main line of shoes does not use DR uppers, especially in light of FTC regulation of such advertising. Nothing in the CEO's referenced statement is incompatible with this, though one can certainly *choose* to interpret it otherwise.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

RogerP said:


> I am trying to say exactly what I have repeatedly said in this and the other thread - the comments of the AE CEO leave the answer unclear as to where and how the DR uppers are used in the AE lineup.
> 
> I'll rely on you for the content of FTC regulations. I'll rely on the AE CEO for information on how and where his products are made.


You must believe in conspiracy theories too.

Whatever, believe what you will, but the weight of the evidence is what it is.

AE brands their shoes with the words: "Made in the USA of fine imported leather" others with "made in the USA of imported (stuff)" and AE as "Made in the Dominican Republic".

It is crystal clear what those words mean and they are 100% consistent with the CEO's comments which you keep using to cast aspersions and doubt as to what AE clearly marks their shoes with. Go check a pair if you don't believe me. I did.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Leighton said:


> You must believe in conspiracy theories too.


Keep making stuff up, Leighton. Everyone needs a hobby. I'm still waiting for you to point out where I said that 'ALL AE shoes are made with DR uppers', but I suspect I'm in for a very long wait.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

RogerP said:


> Keep making stuff up, Leighton. Everyone needs a hobby. I'm still waiting for you to point out where I said that 'ALL AE shoes are made with DR uppers', but I suspect I'm in for a very long wait.


"_the comments of the AE CEO leave the answer unclear as to where and how the DR uppers are used in the AE lineup."

There's no lack of clarity. Just you stubbornly refusing to see the evidence in front of you.
_


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Since you're resorted to alternately making stuff up out of thin air, or else just tirelessly repeating yourself, I will leave you to it.

His comments make the issue unclear for the reasons I have stated: they leave open the question of whether DR-stitched uppers are used in some "welted" shoes. You obviously have a deep personal investment in this issue - which is no doubt why it troubles you so much that I just won't buy what you are selling.

As I said from the outset - believe what you wish, interpret or ignore the comments from the AE CEO as you please. Whatever gets you through the day. It really doesn't matter that much to me. Be well.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Maybe both of you need to chill just a bit. 

You might be able to discuss this issue better with PMs than out here. 

For what it's worth, Leighton appears to be a bit more rational - - - -

Please stop arguing.


----------



## Srben (Mar 25, 2012)

Leighton said:


> The "rule against black suits". I've abided by it since joining, but I'll be damned if I don't get the most compliments when I wear my cheap *** JAB black suit. I'm seriously thinking of getting a better fitting black suit just because black goes so well with my skin, eye, & hair coloring.


I've been thinking about getting one lately, too. It's amazing how many times I've heard this "rule", and in the same breath been advised to opt for a midnight blue, instead.
ic12337:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Please at least understand the guideline before you choose to ignore it.


----------



## Srben (Mar 25, 2012)

Jovan said:


> Please at least understand the guideline before you choose to ignore it.


 Please elaborate on the guideline.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

A lot depends on what you will use the black suit for.

If you are working in a conservative office environment or really any office environment not in one of the more creative professions, black suits aren't a good idea.

If you are buying it to wear out socially at night, they can work for some people.


----------



## Srben (Mar 25, 2012)

I've seen Asian (and even a couple of South American) businessmen in nicely tailored black suits that looked spectacular. I guess that's why it's my "sacred cow": there are a lot of people that would look fantastic in one, but are dissuaded by all of the _never_ and _always_ rules that aren't even really rules, but rules of thumb. In the end, an honest look in the mirror is worth all of the carved in stones, imo.


----------



## Michael_D (May 18, 2013)

Shell Cordovan. Give it up.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Michael_D said:


> Shell Cordovan. Give it up.


Did you, by chance, enjoy the play "Equus?"


----------



## ichiran (May 24, 2013)

Tilton said:


> Did you, by chance, enjoy the play "Equus?"


 Funny.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

You still need to be aware of the surroundings in which you are wearing a black suit. Looking "fantastic" never happens in a vaccuum.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I have seen our own crusty rock out some black suits in the 'what are you wearing' thread that would look better than what 90% of the men are wearing at my office on any given day.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Go ahead and wear them. The poster to whom you are referring does not work in a conservative environment and is not required to wear suits at all. (I also wonder if the suits aren't a dark charcoal. There is a difference between that and black.)

You will not be appropriately dressed in a lot of office situations. Perhaps your office is different. Looking "fantastic" never happens in a vaccuum.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Srben said:


> I've seen Asian (and even a couple of South American) businessmen in nicely tailored black suits that looked spectacular. I guess that's why it's my "sacred cow": there are a lot of people that would look fantastic in one, but are dissuaded by all of the _never_ and _always_ rules that aren't even really rules, but rules of thumb. In the end, an honest look in the mirror is worth all of the carved in stones, imo.


Well said.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

In the various times I've seen men wearing black suits in business situations, all of them looked terrible. The suits clashed with their shirts, except when the shirt was white (and in those situations, the wearers looked like busboys), and ties took on a garish appearance. In addition, many of the black suit wearers were youngish, so they mixed the questionable suit with squared-toed shoes (and sometimes black Nikes!) and black shirts. Lots of too-skinny ties as well. 

For traditional business wear, there are innumerable far better choices...


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I suspect if I wore a clashing shirt / black shirt, garish tie / too-skinny tie, ugly square-toed shoes / black Nikes - I could make just about any suit look horrible. "Ugly" never happens in a vacuum. And I have indeed seen horrible-looking suits of all colours. I have also seen some immaculate black suits.

For business wear there are certainly any number of choices that will be more easily integrated and more widely accepted than black. But the absolutes repeatedly thundered on the forums as to black suits never being appropriate / always looking horrible etc. simply don't accord with my experience.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Whatever a single guy in a black suit looks like, something happens when you get a group of them together:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Have worked over thirty years in the professional world in NYC, and have yet to see the black suit-wearing gentleman whose attire impressed me. Empirically and subjectively based, certainly, but not without merit...


----------



## Srben (Mar 25, 2012)

From our very own WAYWT:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...t-Are-You-Wearing-Today&p=1409423#post1409423



















/debate.

:biggrin:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Sure looks like charcoal grey to me, Srben...


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Srben said:


> I've seen Asian (and even a couple of South American) businessmen in nicely tailored black suits that looked spectacular. I guess that's why it's my "sacred cow": there are a lot of people that would look fantastic in one, but are dissuaded by all of the _never_ and _always_ rules that aren't even really rules, but rules of thumb. In the end, an honest look in the mirror is worth all of the carved in stones, imo.


My sentiments exactly. Black hair + tanned skin makes the black suit look good.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Like I said - crusty has posted a few awesome black suit fits (and where he has described them as black, I am more than willing to take his word).


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Tiger said:


> Sure looks like charcoal grey to me, Srben...


Exactly.
Moreover, objections to black suits are generally directed toward solid black, at least when it comes to their appropriateness.


----------



## Srben (Mar 25, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Sure looks like charcoal grey to me, Srben...


Lol. I was just looking at one that Daniel Craig wore that may be black, may be midnight blue. That's precisely why I laugh about the "rule". Either way, I'm not going to beat a dead horse; the people that are "for" or "against" will remain resolute in their opinions regardless of photos to the contrary. No hard feelings from me regardless the opinion.


----------



## TheQue (May 29, 2013)

Suede Bucks and Two Tone Shoes.

Lets start with the Suede Bucks. First of all they look like an unfinished shoe to me. Secondly, I am sure there are members here who keep them in impeccable condition. However, I have to polish my regular shoes on a regular basis because I must be a foot klutz I mean I have tons of scuff marks that I am constantly buffing out. I'm not Elvis, and I do not need suede shoes.

Two Tone shoes make everyone I see look like they are trying to look like a 1920's gangster. Seriously, they look great on the shelf, but your not Al Capone. If your wearing saddle shoes you look like a 1950's 16 year old girl at the local soda shop... Want a skirt with those shoes?

That was a lot of sarcasm and attempted humor on my part. But the fact is, I honestly hate those shoes.


----------



## Buffalo (Nov 19, 2003)

Anything with a logo, such as polos, lambs, fish etc etc etc. Kill that cow.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Buffalo said:


> Anything with a logo, such as polos, lambs, fish etc etc etc. Kill that cow.


This, I think, is another one that reverses the cow and the butcher (or, perhaps, the buffalo and the hunter).

Perhaps not quite a _sacred_ cow, but leaning in a religious direction in this forum: "no logos on anything, including polo shirts."

Which - and, of course, this is just me, or I wouldn't be attacking a sacred cow but beating a dead horse - I think is silly. Logos on polo shirts are (a) a long-standing tradition, going back to pretty near the birth of the shirt and running through the reign of Fred Perry, (b) consistent with the near-universal logos on sporting goods (and, though less to the point, almost everything else in the world) and (c) not all that different from various details that are readable by people who know "the code," _e.g._ hook vents, #1 stripes, etc.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

On the "no black suits" sacred cow, I'm going to defend the livestock in this instance, with some explanation.

"No black suits" is kind of shorthand, and - literally - broader than the actual rule. The actual rule, I think, is something more like: "a black suit is not a proper business suit."

When people say "suit," they typically mean a business suit, though not always. Of course, there are lots of other kinds of suits, including sweatsuits and speed suits, which certainly aren't business suits. Add to the roster of non-business suits: groovy night-club suits. They, I suppose, can be black.

A black suit looks wrong in a situation where a business suit is called for. The same goes for a heavy tweed suit, though in a different direction (so to speak). Both might by charming in another context, but they're not business suits any more than a blazer and khakis is a business suit.

The reason isn't because there's anything fundamentally wrong with wearing black: it's just convention. Obviously, black suits don't have some fundamental aesthetic flaw, or tuxeduos wouldn't be black. But it's not right for a business suit any more than medium gray is right for a tuxedo. Pale blue is wrong for a business suit too, though it makes a very nice-looking shirt. The same goes for gleaming white.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

TheQue said:


> Suede Bucks and Two Tone Shoes.
> 
> Lets start with the Suede Bucks. First of all they look like an unfinished shoe to me. Secondly, I am sure there are members here who keep them in impeccable condition. However, I have to polish my regular shoes on a regular basis because I must be a foot klutz I mean I have tons of scuff marks that I am constantly buffing out. I'm not Elvis, and I do not need suede shoes.
> 
> ...


Spectators are terrific summer shoes. I've got three pair and am wearing a pair today with seersucker trousers and navy blazer. Tons of compliments, both at the law office and at the Alexis de Tocqueville Society luncheon. I can assure you that no one in that high cotton crowd confused me with a gangster of any era. I also wear white bucks with seersucker trousers and occasionally bring out the brogued white bucks when wearing a seersucker suit. Spectators and bucks are classic shoes appropriate for gents who prefer classic men's clothing. Such gents still exist in the South and on the East Coast, but perhaps y'all are sadly deprived in California where true gangster garb is adopted by Hollywood and exported to civilization like drugs from South America.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Starch said:


> On the "no black suits" sacred cow, I'm going to defend the livestock in this instance, with some explanation.
> 
> "No black suits" is kind of shorthand, and - literally - broader than the actual rule. The actual rule, I think, is something more like: "a black suit is not a proper business suit."
> 
> ...


Absolutely right. A business suit is a lounge suit appropriate for business. Solid black suits don't qualify outside of certain creative professions that pride themselves on rebelling against business norms and conventions. While I don't care for black suits in most social forums, they are not "wrong" in this context as they are in most business forums. Trust me, you don't see black suits at Federal Reserve board meetings, except among the ladies.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Starch said:


> The reason isn't because there's anything fundamentally wrong with wearing black: it's just convention. *Obviously, black suits don't have some fundamental aesthetic flaw, or tuxeduos wouldn't be black.* But it's not right for a business suit any more than medium gray is right for a tuxedo. Pale blue is wrong for a business suit too, though it makes a very nice-looking shirt. The same goes for gleaming white.


Careful now - I made a similar observation a while back and got lambasted for it. I agree that convention would generally exclude black from a conversative business venue, but the anti-black-suit brigade generally goes further and holds that black suits are inherently cheap-looking and that just about everyone looks horrible in one. That's the cow I'd be happy to chop up for steak.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

In my case, I was referring to business wear (re: black suits) and my posts pretty clearly stated that.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

RogerP said:


> Careful now - I made a similar observation a while back and got lambasted for it. I agree that convention would generally exclude black from a conversative business venue, but the anti-black-suit brigade generally goes further and holds that black suits are inherently cheap-looking and that just about everyone looks horrible in one. That's the cow I'd be happy to chop up for steak.


I agree that there is nothing inherently ugly about black lounge suits. That said, every black suit I've ever seen appeared cheap looking and ill-fitting. I suspect that is not a coincidence of color, but instead a function of the fact that such suits are most commonly worn by men who are not interested in or knowledgeable about men's clothing. I know several men who own black suits. In each case I know for a fact that the gent bought the suit because the salesman (MWH or Macy's) told him it was the most formal, conservative, and practical option for a gent who only owns one or two suits. These men just got poor advice from men who themselves didn't know better, and the tailoring and quality of the suit is exactly what you would expect under the circumstances. Although generally not appropriate for business, there is no reason that a solid black suit cannot be well-made and well-tailored. While I prefer to reserve black to formal wear, I don't think that there is anything wrong with a solid black suit in certain social settings. That said, I do think it can appear odd, even jarring, to many men who appreciate classic men's clothing. We typically see lounge suits in business settings and associate solid black with formal wear, and solid black lounge suits just look odd to many of us.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that there is nothing inherent about black suits that make them ugly. I also agree that every black suit I've ever seen was cheap looking and ill-fitting. I suspect that is not a coincidence of color, but instead is related to the fact that such suits are more commonly worn by men who are not interested or knowledgeable about men's clothing. I know several men who own black suits. In each case I know for a fact that the gent bought the suit because the salesman (MWH or Macy's) told him it was the most formal, conservative, and practical option for a gent who only owns one or two suits. These men just got poor advice from men who themselves didn't know better, and the tailoring and quality of the suit is exactly what you would expect under the circumstances. Although not appropriate for business, there is no reason that a solid black suit cannot be well-made and well-tailored. While I prefer to reserve black to formal wear, I don't think that there is anything wrong with a solid black suit in certain social settings. That said, I do think it looks odd, even jarring, to many men who appreciate classic men's clothing. We associate solid black with formal wear and solid black lounge suits just look odd to us.


Succinct, precise, and powerful. Well done!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that there is nothing inherently ugly about black lounge suits. That said, every black suit I've ever seen appeared cheap looking and ill-fitting. I suspect that is not a coincidence of color, but instead a function of the fact that such suits are most commonly worn by men who are not interested in or knowledgeable about men's clothing. I know several men who own black suits. In each case I know for a fact that the gent bought the suit because the salesman (MWH or Macy's) told him it was the most formal, conservative, and practical option for a gent who only owns one or two suits. These men just got poor advice from men who themselves didn't know better, and the tailoring and quality of the suit is exactly what you would expect under the circumstances. Although generally not appropriate for business, there is no reason that a solid black suit cannot be well-made and well-tailored. While I prefer to reserve black to formal wear, I don't think that there is anything wrong with a solid black suit in certain social settings. That said, I do think it can appear odd, even jarring, to many men who appreciate classic men's clothing. We typically see lounge suits in business settings and associate solid black with formal wear, and solid black lounge suits just look odd to many of us.


I agree with all of that, except that I have seen a good many examples of quality, well-tailored black suits over the years. And not just in crusty's posts.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Mike Petrik said:


> Absolutely right. A business suit is a lounge suit appropriate for business. Solid black suits don't qualify outside of certain creative professions that pride themselves on rebelling against business norms and conventions. While I don't care for black suits in most social forums, they are not "wrong" in this context as they are in most business forums. Trust me, you don't see black suits at Federal Reserve board meetings, except among the ladies.


Black business suits are, in my experience, also worn by Asian businessmen. The Asian businessmen I've seen in black suits wear them well. (Perhaps they would not wear them as representatives to the Federal Reserve Board; I lack the experience to say.) As a non-Asian myself, I don't see myself wearing a black suit for business purposes.

Just wanted to add a cohort beyond "creative professions" to those who can pull this look off in a business setting.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

MaxBuck said:


> Black business suits are, in my experience, also worn by Asian businessmen. The Asian businessmen I've seen in black suits wear them well. (Perhaps they would not wear them as representatives to the Federal Reserve Board; I lack the experience to say.) As a non-Asian myself, I don't see myself wearing a black suit for business purposes.
> 
> Just wanted to add a cohort beyond "creative professions" to those who can pull this look off in a business setting.


Fed members are limited to Americans and American customs prevail. I acknowledge that Asian customs differ, but I'll speculate that the Asian preference for black suits is perhaps derived from a misunderstanding of Anglo-American traditions (the business suit is not derived from any Asian sartorial tradition). But that is just speculation, and I certainly could be wrong.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

MaxBuck said:


> Black business suits are, in my experience, also worn by Asian businessmen. The Asian businessmen I've seen in black suits wear them well. (Perhaps they would not wear them as representatives to the Federal Reserve Board; I lack the experience to say.) As a non-Asian myself, I don't see myself wearing a black suit for business purposes.
> 
> Just wanted to add a cohort beyond "creative professions" to those who can pull this look off in a business setting.


Good point.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Mike Petrik said:


> I agree that there is nothing inherently ugly about black lounge suits. That said, every black suit I've ever seen appeared cheap looking and ill-fitting. I suspect that is not a coincidence of color, but instead a function of the fact that such suits are most commonly worn by men who are not interested in or knowledgeable about men's clothing. I know several men who own black suits. In each case I know for a fact that the gent bought the suit because the salesman (MWH or Macy's) told him it was the most formal, conservative, and practical option for a gent who only owns one or two suits. These men just got poor advice from men who themselves didn't know better, and the tailoring and quality of the suit is exactly what you would expect under the circumstances. Although generally not appropriate for business, there is no reason that a solid black suit cannot be well-made and well-tailored. While I prefer to reserve black to formal wear, I don't think that there is anything wrong with a solid black suit in certain social settings. That said, I do think it can appear odd, even jarring, to many men who appreciate classic men's clothing. We typically see lounge suits in business settings and associate solid black with formal wear, and solid black lounge suits just look odd to many of us.


A laudably even-handed comment on a subject which arouses much passion. :icon_smile:


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Srben said:


> Lol. I was just looking at one that Daniel Craig wore that may be black, may be midnight blue. That's precisely why I laugh about the "rule". Either way, I'm not going to beat a dead horse; the people that are "for" or "against" will remain resolute in their opinions regardless of photos to the contrary. No hard feelings from me regardless the opinion.


The one unfortunate thing about black tie attire is that its strict rules don't flatter men of summer colouration the best, like our man Daniel. Most of the Bond actors (aside from Roger Moore, who looked in his best in lighter colours) up until now were a winter, so they were well suited to the starkness of black tie. Midnight blue does soften the effect a bit, though its main purpose is to look better in artificial light than plain black fabric.

Black looks best when the sun is down, which is why it isn't particularly suited for business, most of which takes place during the day. It is true that some ethnicities make it look better during the day than others, particularly those with black hair and olive to dark brown skin tones. However, the other problem is that black makes anything with colour next to it look a lot brighter. That great maroon tie that went well with navy will look firetruck red and the light blue shirt that harmonized with a grey suit will look almost aqua. Believe me, I know from experience. My first suit purchase was (mistakenly) black. Yes, you can wear a white shirt and black tie, but at that point you may as well audition for the next Wachowski Brothers or Tarantino flick. Not to mention, it mimics the colour scheme of black tie, thus making it appear like a poor tuxedo substitute (or a waiter's uniform).


----------



## jamesbarns (Jun 4, 2013)

MaxBuck said:


> Black business suits are, in my experience, also worn by Asian businessmen. The Asian businessmen I've seen in black suits wear them well. (Perhaps they would not wear them as representatives to the Federal Reserve Board; I lack the experience to say.) As a non-Asian myself, I don't see myself wearing a black suit for business purposes.
> 
> Just wanted to add a cohort beyond "creative professions" to those who can pull this look off in a business setting.


I agree. I just don't think that black business suits are meant for people with a whiter-toned skin (not saying if you are Caucasian or not because I don't know). That's just my opinion on it. The brown and grey looks more natural and rugged while the black gives it a kind of preppy and flashy feel to it.

-----------------------------------------
James


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

jamesbarns said:


> I agree. I just don't think that black business suits are meant for people with a whiter-toned skin (not saying if you are Caucasian or not because I don't know). That's just my opinion on it. The brown and grey looks more natural and rugged while the black gives it a kind of *preppy* and flashy feel to it.
> 
> -----------------------------------------
> James


That word may not mean what you think it means... When I see a black business suit on a younger American man, I think "former guido" or "wore ruffled shirt to prom" or "city-slicker" or "wore fedora in his OKcupid profile picture". None of those are necessarily bad things, just things that I personally don't like, but I'm just one guy and don't make personal decisions for anyone but myself. I don't care what others choose to wear, but if someone asked me my opinion...

On the other hand, I recall being at an interviewing skills workshop at UVA where I wore a charcoal suit and the group instructor singled me out saying I probably wouldn't get a job wearing that because the ONLY appropriate suit for an interview was a black suit. Had I not been so confused (or had I been a bit quicker and wittier), I might have made some comment about how I didn't want to be confused for the waitstaff.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Tilton said:


> That word may not mean what you think it means... When I see a black business suit on a younger American man, I think "former guido" or "wore ruffled shirt to prom" or "city-slicker" or "wore fedora in his OKcupid profile picture". None of those are necessarily bad things, just things that I personally don't like, but I'm just one guy and don't make personal decisions for anyone but myself. I don't care what others choose to wear, but if someone asked me my opinion...
> 
> On the other hand, I recall being at an interviewing skills workshop at UVA where I wore a charcoal suit and the group instructor singled me out saying I probably wouldn't get a job wearing that because the ONLY appropriate suit for an interview was a black suit. Had I not been so confused (or had I been a bit quicker and wittier), I might have made some comment about how I didn't want to be confused for the waitstaff.


Agreed.
A black suit can be described in many ways. Preppy is certainly not one of them.
And that group instructor should be "released."


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Black suit ≠ preppy.
Flashy ≠ preppy.

I think the word preppy isn't the one he was looking for.


----------



## Srben (Mar 25, 2012)

Tilton said:


> ...I recall being at an interviewing skills workshop at UVA where I wore a charcoal suit and the group instructor singled me out saying I probably wouldn't get a job wearing that because the ONLY appropriate suit for an interview was a black suit...


What an ugly thing to say to someone. In a group, too. :mad2:


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

It wasn't quite as embarrassing as it sounds, I guess. "Singled out" was probably poor word choice, in hindsight. As annoying as it was, I won't make it sound worse than it was - he pulled me aside, as well as a guy in a navy suit. I ended up getting a job, of course, and one I wanted, at that. I didn't ever have to wear a black suit, or a white shirt, or a solid colored tie, or even black shoes to do it either.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Tilton said:


> It wasn't quite as embarrassing as it sounds, I guess. "Singled out" was probably poor word choice, in hindsight. As annoying as it was, I won't make it sound worse than it was - he pulled me aside, as well as a guy in a navy suit. I ended up getting a job, of course, and one I wanted, at that. I didn't ever have to wear a black suit, or a white shirt, or a solid colored tie, or even black shoes to do it either.


When I suggested that he be "released," it was not because he singled you out; it was because his advice was patently incompetent. Good gosh, at UVA too!!!


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Tilton said:


> I recall being at an interviewing skills workshop at UVA where I wore a charcoal suit and the group instructor singled me out saying I probably wouldn't get a job wearing that because the ONLY appropriate suit for an interview was a black suit.


UVA just took a *big* hit there. I always had such a high opinion of the school ...


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Considering their placement with McKinsey & Co, either not that many folks take those courses or they're able to parse out the BS from the good stuff. FWIW, it was otherwise a very useful program.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

UVA is a terrific school, I'm sure its workshop is overall valuable, and McKinsey is certainly smart enough to look for substance; but the instructer in question is in need of serious fraternal correction.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

He took aside the two guys in the correct interview suit colours to say that they were wrong... that's just amusing to me. I don't think the guy needs to be released, just given a copy of Alan Flusser's "Dressing the Man".


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Mike Petrik said:


> UVA is a terrific school, I'm sure its workshop is overall valuable, and McKinsey is certainly smart enough to look for substance; but the instructer in question is in need of serious fraternal correction.


Something tells me he didn't turn down McKinsey, BCG, or Bain to take that job :icon_smile_wink:


----------

