# Biggest Indicator of Being Poorly Dressed



## VA540 (Dec 15, 2009)

I have to say the easiest way for me to tell if someone has a clue about dressing well is their shoes. They are the most neglected part of a wardrobe. I see someone who has a decent suit and tie on and they ruin it with nasty footwear. Huge Kenneth Cole 1990's inspired square toe or some payless shoes. I also find that their footwear correlates very well the rest of their outfit. I can nearly with hundred percentage accuracy judge someone wardrobe just by their shoes. Anyone else have any indicators, anything that sticks out?


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

I've always passed judgment upon other men based on their shoes :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Dressing inappropriately for the occasion/social circle.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Sloth; unkempt unshaved and unpolished shoes will do it. Also mismatching suit, shirt and tie, tragic.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Shoes are a pretty consistent indication.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

I hate Kenneth Cole with a passion. They make some great colognes but aside from that, trash. A friend of mine emailed me a link to some shoes he was thinking about buying, I saw "Kenneth Cole" in the URL and told him they were the ugliest shoes I'd ever seen, when in fact I never even clicked on the link.

So yeah, shoes without a doubt. Also a white shirt and solid tie, this always makes me think "noob." AND PEOPLE WHO WEAR SPORT SHIRTS WITH SUITS. That has to be the biggest indicator for me. I saw a guy the other day who of course thought he looked cool wearing an RL sport shirt (with the logo on the chest) with a suit and tie. I just stared at him and thought "clown."


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

Some real whoppers:

1. A rare sighting but the hands-down worst - the suit maker's tag is still on the sleeve - often on purpose.
2. The collar stays got warped at the dry cleaner and were never removed or replaced so now the collar points are bent crazy.
3. Black shoes and white socks - although in the 90's in London this was both common and accepted in some office settings, never knew why...
4. Any of the following coupled with a blazer after age 30 - sneakers, a tee-shirt or a baseball cap.
5. skinny and/or low-rise jeans after age 35-40
6. a wife-beater tee-shirt worn at any time by, anyone, anywhere.
7. pants with fraying on the back of the cuffs from being walked on due to lack of tailoring.


----------



## VA540 (Dec 15, 2009)

Black dress shoes with Khakis
Mismatched belt and shoes
Retardedly short tie


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

ajo said:


> Sloth; unkempt unshaved and unpolished shoes will do it. Also mismatching suit, shirt and tie, tragic.


+1.Especially the unkempt shaven look.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

long tie small knot look
white tube socks with dress shoes
pants that are unhemmed (I've seen this before)
no belt


----------



## Dr Kilroy (May 10, 2010)

Shirt cuffs hidden in sleeves of jacket.

Best regards, Dr


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

I just remembered this!

The fake pocket square with the little bit of saw cut fabric attached to the cardboard rectangle you jam into your breast pocket - I think they came in packs of different colors. Its the sartorial equivalent of a toupee!

which reminds me - Toupees !! Does anyone wear them or even make them? Aside from Elton John and John Travolta nobody should be going there anymore.


----------



## OzDresser (Jan 13, 2008)

VA540 said:


> Retardedly short tie


I see this frequently in classic films. Was it a fad?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

It was not a fad, it was the way neckties were originally intended to be worn. They were, after all, _neck_wear. But it looks very odd today.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

VA540 said:


> Black dress shoes with Khakis


This works for the military. I don't know if it's because they're wearing uniforms or because their shoes are so highly polished/patent leather, but the combo works.


----------



## MRR (Nov 19, 2009)

deanayer said:


> I just remembered this!
> 
> The fake pocket square with the little bit of saw cut fabric attached to the cardboard rectangle you jam into your breast pocket - I think they came in packs of different colors. Its the sartorial equivalent of a toupee!


 But how would you know by just looking at someone?

I personally would never do something like that. But, I think it's like saying someone has bad fashion sense for not having underwear that matches his socks. It might be a bad sense of class, but I don't think it downplays fashion sense. After all, the person knew enough to wear a pocket square (or underwear).


----------



## MRR (Nov 19, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> It was not a fad, it was the way neckties were originally intended to be worn. They were, after all, _neck_wear. But it looks very odd today.


 And everyone wore vests.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

There is nothing wrong with a white shirt and solid tie.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

Ties were shorter in the days when a longer rise was fashionable in men's trousers, but yes, nowadays it does not look good at all.

As for the original theme of this thread, I have to agree that ill-styled or ill-kept shoes can bring down an outfit faster than any other detail - a man's shoes (and how they are kept) are a barometer of his sense of style and his self-regard.



CuffDaddy said:


> It was not a fad, it was the way neckties were originally intended to be worn. They were, after all, _neck_wear. But it looks very odd today.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

deanayer said:


> 2. The collar stays got warped at the dry cleaner and were never removed or replaced so now the collar points are bent crazy.
> 
> 6. a wife-beater tee-shirt worn at any time by, anyone, anywhere.


A) Jeff Seagal on HRTV (Horseracing TV) has collar points that curl in. I was wondering why that was. And his shirts are marroon/black/baby poop to boot!! This is a guy who is on TV regularly and owns expensive horses!!

B) I wore mine cleaning the boat last week. Not a good look, but it can still be useful. And for me, better than a shirtless alterantive!!


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

I'm more interested in my fellow man's character, personally. I make an effort to dress situationaly appropriate but the thought of judging another based on their adherence to the same rules never occurs to me. I know how I like to dress, and I am trying to advance my knowledge of the "rules" of men's wear, but I don't believe that they are set in stone or that anyone who ignores them is "wrong." Its really easy to succumb to confirmation bias and believe that ideas and ideals one sees at a forum like this are objective rather than subjective.


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

Definitely the shoes are a major indicator but have you ever stopped to look at the fit of most guy's shirts???

I say this with my pride in my hands because I was one of these guys not too long ago.

The number of guys with ill-fitting shirts is astounding: shirts that are too droopy around the shoulders (the biggest faux pas I think), sleeves that are much too long and shirt waists that billow out loads of excess material.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

some really good ones listed so far, but the best barometer by far is the shoes...hands down. Ill fit is a close second.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

OP, I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking for the most common clothing mistake among the population at large? The most common mistake that is unforgivable/unredeemable? Or the single element/characteristic that is most reliably correlated with being poorly dressed overall? Or something that almost all poorly dressed men have in common?

In order, here are some shots at those:

1. The decades-old answer is: too much black. Black suits, black leather jackets, black everything. It's not necessarily a mortal sin, for black has its (many) place(s)... but an over-reliance on black as a default option is the most common error I see all the time. Too much denim (mainly jeans) is a close second.

2. Tight trousers with a low rise. Nobody wants to see your junk. Yet the current fad for low-rise "slim" pants means that all kinds of men are walking around with radiating crotch wrinkles, pant legs that can't keep a crease because they are clinging to the leg, etc. Ghastly, and now very common.

3. I would say wearing/carrying a backpack in a professional/white-collar setting. Again, not the worst sin in and of itself (though it is hell on jacket shoulders), but I'm not sure I have _ever_ seen even a moderately well-dressed man carrying a backpack in a situation where a briefcase or messenger bag would have been appropriate.

4. Almost all poorly dressed men have a fear of/aversion to french cuffs. Let me be clear: a dislike of french cuffs doesn't make one poorly dressed. They are not a pre-requisite to dressing well. I am saying that, if you had a room with 5,000 men selected at random, and asked them to divide themselves into two groups based on whether they liked double cuffs, the (smaller) side of the room with the pro-FC crowd would have very few, if any, truly lousy dressers.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

ajo said:


> Sloth; unkempt unshaved and unpolished shoes will do it. Also mismatching suit, shirt and tie, tragic.


Are you supposed to shave your shoes?


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

I would add to the above list trousers that are too long, so they are wrinkled about the ankle. Trousers that are too short are not a good look either, but for some reason, the badly dressed usually wear their trousers too long rather than too short.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

jwa_jwa_jwa said:


> shirt waists that billow out loads of excess material.


Personally, I don't like tight shirts. In fact I find I prefer my shirts to be cut like tents and I don't care at all if they billow out.


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

Centaur said:


> Personally, I don't like tight shirts. In fact I find I prefer my shirts to be cut like tents and I don't care at all if they billow out.


Point well taken though I don't believe the opposite of tight shirts is to have a massive amount of material billowing out all over the waist. There is a large middle ground where there is just enough material to drape nicely.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Traditionally, though, jwa, how a shirt fit around the abdomen was of little interest, and had nothing to do with whether one was well-dressed. With a jacket on - i.e., when one is fully dressed - it's not visible at all. This standard is begining to change as more men spend greater time in shirt-sleeves, making the shirt the outermost garment for them. There was another discussion on this recently.


----------



## shandy (Jul 4, 2010)

I always look at shoes. I was brought up being told you can tell the measure of someone by the condition of their shoes. Whilst I hate to generalise about things I have found that one to be one of the more consitan indicators!

Also, I just feel a man is not properly dressed without a watch of some sort, pocket or wrist it does not matter, to me it shows he cares about timing and personal responsibility..And no, the clock on your cell phone does not count!

Clothing is harder nowadays, someone can wear very expensive clothing but due to the designer label is all mentality that seems to be pervasive now it does not mean quality!

I think the hight of crassnes and low class is parading around with lables showing! Polo pony's, sheep hanging, or God forbid any of that Ed Hardy "look at me I'm Gangster" look!

Another slant on that thought is that I have paid good money to wear items. I am not going to be free advertising for that company!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Cheap shoes are a dead giveaway. But, at least in recent years, a red flag is the gentleman who wears Tommy Bahama clothes like they are Garanimals.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

Wearing two or more "logo" items at the same time. Polo ponies should only compete on the field, not on your clothing.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

Country Irish said:


> Wearing two or more "logo" items at the same time. Polo ponies should only compete on the field, not on your clothing.


What if Polo polos are the best fitting polos? Should you not wear a perfectly fitting high quality item just because it has a logo on it?


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

David_E said:


> I'm more interested in my fellow man's character, personally. I make an effort to dress situationaly appropriate but the thought of judging another based on their adherence to the same rules never occurs to me.


Don't be a fuddy-duddy!!

Have an opinion. It's good for you!!


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

I agree about the cheap shoes. It's seems that men don't have a problem spending $100 on a good dress shirt or $750-$1000 on a good suit but that they don't see the value in spending $300 on shoes as many see them as a yearly disposable purchase. 

For me fit is key in whether someone knows how to dress well. You can tell that someone doesn't often wear a dress shirt, dress trousers or a suit if they don't know their own size. 

Also, I agree with jean-paul sartorial that there is nothing wrong with a solid white shirt and a solid colored tie.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Last comment in this thread. But isn't this really just an "I'll know it when I see it" type of distinction? (To quote a Supreme Court Justice).


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bad Fit.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Focusing on the guys who _think_ they're well-dressed versus those who just don't care, here are my Top 10 "Poser" indicators in no particular order...

1. Cheap and/or poorly-maintained shoes (unshined, run-down heels).
2. Worn-out or poorly-coordinated belt.
3. Huge blingy watches.
4. Multiple neck-chains and/or diamond rings.
5. Ties that match the shirt and/or pocket silk.
6. Garish socks or no socks at all.
7. Poorly-fit garments, esp. too-long sleeves or legs.
8. Contrast collar shirts worn without a tie.
9. Sunglasses worn on top of the head.
10. Any of those suits ex-NFL players wear that remind me of Steve Harvey in the 90's.


----------



## VA540 (Dec 15, 2009)

Leighton said:


> Last comment in this thread. But isn't this really just an "I'll know it when I see it" type of distinction? (To quote a Supreme Court Justice).


Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

thefancyman said:


> It's seems that men don't have a problem spending $100 on a good dress shirt or $750-$1000 on a good suit but that they don't see the value in spending $300 on shoes as many see them as a yearly disposable purchase.


Actually I suspect that most men DO have a problem with spending $100 for a dress shirt and $750-$1000 on a suit. I've never done either one. While the same is also true of $300 shoes, I've actually known more men who do this than I've known who buy the aforementioned shirts and suits.

Cruiser


----------



## caktaylor (Sep 3, 2009)

I once had a young man show up for an interview with the sleeve tag still attached to his suit coat. When I suggested that perhaps he should remove the tag for future interviews, he assured me that I was mistaken, the tag belonged on the suit. It was so difficult to not laugh out loud at him. I never saw him again (I didn't extend an offer).


----------



## VA540 (Dec 15, 2009)

caktaylor said:


> I once had a young man show up for an interview with the sleeve tag still attached to his suit coat. When I suggested that perhaps he should remove the tag for future interviews, he assured me that I was mistaken, the tag belonged on the suit. It was so difficult to not laugh out loud at him. I never saw him again (I didn't extend an offer).


Moron, as a youth, i know how obsessed we are with labels and brands.


----------



## Wisco (Dec 3, 2009)

1) Too long jacket sleeves. Other folks have touched on "unhemmed" trousers, but I am surprised at the number of men who didn't think to get their sleeve length altered. You see this on men wearing cheap suits and expensive designer duds. 

2) Crew-neck t-shirts showing "a white patch" under the chin with an open collar shirt. The "without a tie" pseudo-causal tech execs I often see are the prime offenders of this one.


----------



## Beardmidget (Jul 7, 2010)

caktaylor said:


> I once had a young man show up for an interview with the sleeve tag still attached to his suit coat. When I suggested that perhaps he should remove the tag for future interviews, he assured me that I was mistaken, the tag belonged on the suit. It was so difficult to not laugh out loud at him. I never saw him again (I didn't extend an offer).


I had an acquaintance at school who similarly insisted that he would not remove his label, inspite of my insistence that he looked a churl. Bugged the hell out of me, and I had to look at it _every day_

My brother bought a new suit for my wedding, and overlooked the label in all the hubbub before going to the church. I noticed this when i glanced over at him during the ceremony, and pointed subtly at my wrist when I caught his eye. He was mortified, and slipped off to the kitchen to extract the offending item during the signing of the register.

I suppose this demonstrates why my acquaintance flips burgers for a living, while my brother is a newly qualified architect who already has a number of prizes and accolades to his name!


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

It can go the other way too you know - I have seen guys in very wide spread collars, cartoonishly large garish quadruple windsor ties, big loud pocket squares, striped shirt, striped tie, loud jacket, odd loud pants, white loafers, etc. You know, the guy who makes Larry Kudlow seem very researved, that thinks he is a flashy dresser that can't match 5 patters but thinks he is pulling it off with style. Relatively rare, but can be pretty funny. I know someone like that, thinks he is an awesome dresser. People compliment him, but laugh behind his back. Sad really.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Grayson said:


> 6. Garish socks or no socks at all.


Grayson, I agree with all of your list but this one. Some *very *good dresser have worn fairly loud socks. I cannot find it on the internet, but I have seen a picture of the DoW wearing wide-banded horizontally striped socks with a DB chalk-striped suit. I think socks are one of the few places, along with a jacket lining, that a well-dressed man can get away with "garish," in part because they are rarely seen, and then only in small amounts.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Some universal signs, off the top of my head:


cheap and/or unkept socks and shoes

no dimple in tie (loosely knotted)

garments haven't been altered for the individual

wearing seasonal patterns off-season (I see this all the time on WAYWN Styleforum.net)

cuts and fabrics are a mismatch (wearing Italian this, but British that/wearing both coarse and fine wool)

wearer seems uncomfortable in garments (fidgets, has a sense of unfamiliarity with them)

wearer has somewhat neat hair in front, but cow lick(s) in the back (because wearer doesn't look at himself from the back before stepping out )!


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

Scoundrel said:


> wearer has somewhat neat hair in front, but cow lick(s) in the back (because wearer doesn't look at himself from the back before stepping out )!


Good point about hair - I have often seen guys in ok suits and then you see the back of their neck and they have not had a trim or shave back there in weeks and it shows. Looks sloppy. Usually see this with bad shoes. Goes together.

I have to admit when I was doing business very casual that I was not that careful with my hair - but when wearing suits you really have to be recently trimmed or you look like carp. Especially if you are a hairy eastern European ancestry type like me.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

"Worn-out belt."
I have to disagree here. A worn out belt can give an ensemble character. But, each to their own.

"Garish socks."
I also disagree. Socks are the new ties. They are a great way of expressing a mood or idea.

A well dressed NFL player is an oxymoron.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

a!!!!1 said:


> What if Polo polos are the best fitting polos? Should you not wear a perfectly fitting high quality item just because it has a logo on it?


A well-dressed man with a discreet logo on his chest is still a well-dressed man.


----------



## Big T (Jun 25, 2010)

Dressing like I do! That's the reason I'm popping in here now and then (to learn to dress better).


----------



## eyedoc2180 (Nov 19, 2006)

MRR said:


> But how would you know by just looking at someone?


A fake pocket square came with a sport coat that I got at age 10. Believe me, you could TELL! It's an interesting concept, though.


----------



## sirchandler (May 28, 2010)

A very slim guy with an over sized shirt tucked in to his trousers and billowing out on the side.


----------



## Country Irish (Nov 10, 2005)

"What if Polo polos are the best fitting polos? Should you not wear a perfectly fitting high quality item just because it has a logo on it? "

I should point out it is two or more logos that I object to ... or one really large garish emblem could also gag a maggot.
I like RL polos but only if the emblem is subdued.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

+1 on uncared for shoes. Usually these are not that old either, but if you'd suggest a shine you'll probably just get a blank stare..."Huh?"

There are just so many telltales they're hard to cover. The tag left on the suit coat says it all though: "Women/TV/movies/ads taught me how to dress"


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Khaki cargo shorts, brown leather sandals and white socks. :icon_headagainstwal


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

MikeDT said:


> Khaki cargo shorts, brown leather sandals and white socks. :icon_headagainstwal


What about the t-shirt and fanny-pack??


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Actually I suspect that most men DO have a problem with spending $100 for a dress shirt and $750-$1000 on a suit. I've never done either one. While the same is also true of $300 shoes, I've actually known more men who do this than I've known who buy the aforementioned shirts and suits.
> 
> Cruiser


Well I wasn't really speaking about most or the average man more about those men who both can afford and are accustomed to spending those amounts on their garments but not on their shoes. I understand that the average American man doesn't always posses the need, expertise or resources to purchase a $100 shirt or $750+ suit but that those who can don't often see the equation of value in shoes as they do in their shirt, suit or even a tie because they may see shoes as disposable, utilitarian objects whose function doesn't change with improved quality and they feel cheaper shoes are more comfortable.


----------



## Larsd4 (Oct 14, 2005)

All the big ones have been discussed. Here's a minor one: Wearing a belt cinched to the first or last hole. Though not a Cardinal sin, it hints of desperation.


----------



## Bookman (May 19, 2010)

Centaur said:


> I would add to the above list trousers that are too long, so they are wrinkled about the ankle. Trousers that are too short are not a good look either, but for some reason, the badly dressed usually wear their trousers too long rather than too short.


+1 to this...seems to be happening more and more, as well...

I still think the worst is the untucked dress shirt (at least, those which are not meant to be so)...also how one ties his tie is a big indicator (particularly if it is a four-in-hand that has been reduced to the size of a grape).


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Bookman said:


> ...also how one ties his tie is a big indicator (particularly if it is a four-in-hand that has been reduced to the size of a grape).


Uh-oh, bad news for this guy:


----------



## Bookman (May 19, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Uh-oh, bad news for this guy:


good thing he has the "get out of fashion jail free" card.....


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

thefancyman said:


> Well I wasn't really speaking about most or the average man more about those men who both can afford and are accustomed to spending those amounts on their garments but not on their shoes. I understand that the average American man doesn't always posses the need, expertise or resources to purchase a $100 shirt or $750+ suit but that those who can don't often see the equation of value in shoes as they do in their shirt, suit or even a tie because they may see shoes as disposable, utilitarian objects whose function doesn't change with improved quality and they feel cheaper shoes are more comfortable.


OK, but all I had to go on was your comment that "most" men did this. Let me say that "most" of the men that I associate with can afford to buy $1000 suits and $100 shirts, but most of them do not; however, many of them do buy Allen-Edmonds shoes at around $300 a pop. This is probably due to the fact that there aren't many $1000 suits and $100 shirts for sale in the mall, but plenty of $300 shoes.

Cruiser


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

This quote reminds me of an observation made by a friend of mine, a salesman at JAB here in NYC, who noted that, (often enough to be noticeable), he would have customers who would buy low-end JAB suits, then turn around and buy Allen Edmonds shoes to go with them. In some ways, this makes rather perverse visual sense, assuming that the cheap suit in question fits correctly - a moderate quality suit can be paired with better quality accessories much more easily, IMHO, than a very good suit with much poorer quality accessories, to more pleasing effect.



Cruiser said:


> OK, but all I had to go on was your comment that "most" men did this. Let me say that "most" of the men that I associate with can afford to buy $1000 suits and $100 shirts, but most of them do not; however, many of them do buy Allen-Edmonds shoes at around $300 a pop. This is probably due to the fact that there aren't many $1000 suits and $100 shirts for sale in the mall, but plenty of $300 shoes.
> 
> Cruiser


----------



## thefancyman (Apr 24, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> OK, but all I had to go on was your comment that "most" men did this. Let me say that "most" of the men that I associate with can afford to buy $1000 suits and $100 shirts, but most of them do not; however, many of them do buy Allen-Edmonds shoes at around $300 a pop. This is probably due to the fact that there aren't many $1000 suits and $100 shirts for sale in the mall, but plenty of $300 shoes.
> 
> Cruiser


I don't mean to nitpick but the word "most" is not present in my original post.


----------



## Saddleback Leather (Aug 3, 2010)

David_E said:


> I'm more interested in my fellow man's character, personally. I make an effort to dress situationaly appropriate but the thought of judging another based on their adherence to the same rules never occurs to me. I know how I like to dress, and I am trying to advance my knowledge of the "rules" of men's wear, but I don't believe that they are set in stone or that anyone who ignores them is "wrong." Its really easy to succumb to confirmation bias and believe that ideas and ideals one sees at a forum like this are objective rather than subjective.


Smart thought David.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

thefancyman said:


> I don't mean to nitpick but the word "most" is not present in my original post.


No you didn't. Sorry, my bad.

Cruiser


----------



## MidWestTrad (Aug 14, 2010)

Shoes would definitely be #1.
Suits and shirts that don't fit well.
Cheap ties...you know the polyester specials to which I refer.

I used to go to recruiting fairs at my alma mater and never failed to be amazed at what some of the students would show up wearing when the purpose of the event was to try and secure employment!

Never understood why every business school in the country doesn't have a mandatory class on how to dress yourself.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

WouldaShoulda said:


> What about the t-shirt and fanny-pack??


+1 especially the fanny pack/bum bag. Still a common favourite along with the cargo shorts, socks and sandals, with western *tourists* in places like Bangkok, Shanghai and Hong Kong.


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

MRR said:


> But how would you know by just looking at someone?
> 
> I personally would never do something like that. But, I think it's like saying someone has bad fashion sense for not having underwear that matches his socks. It might be a bad sense of class, but I don't think it downplays fashion sense. After all, the person knew enough to wear a pocket square (or underwear).


Yeah, I wouldn't include the fake pocket square as a dead-bang giveaway that someone has no fashion sense. I've actually seen some pretty sharped dressed guys with what I KNOW to be fake pocket squares. The pattern on the square would be a virtual impossibility to form if it were real. At times I have had the urge to go tug on one just to see if it was real!

One indictor for me is the tie with stains. Another is the mismatched belt.


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

David_E said:


> , but I don't believe that they are set in stone or that anyone who ignores them is "wrong." Its really easy to succumb to confirmation bias and believe that ideas and ideals one sees at a forum like this are objective rather than subjective.


Respectfully, I think there are absolute and objective rights and wrongs, both in behaviour, as well as in dress. The whole "it depends on a man's perspective, everything is relative" point of view is what brought us the trenchcoat, combat boots, pierced nose and purple hair crowd. I am 100% sure that a grey pinstripe suit worn with white tube socks is WRONG, and that the man that persists in wearing such has a major character flaw. Period.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Then I'd be 100% sure you're a superficial idiot (though I assume you were jesting).


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Then I'd be 100% sure you're a superficial idiot (though I assume you were jesting).


Enjoy those white tube socks, and please post a picture of yourself wearing them with your nice suit. Or was it the trenchcoat/combat boots style you prefer?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Bernie Zack said:


> Enjoy those white tube socks, and please post a picture of yourself wearing them with your nice suit. Or was it the trenchcoat/combat boots style you prefer?


I may be wrong but I didn't get the impression that he necessarily thought that these things look good. I think it was your characterization of this as being a "major character flaw" that was the focus of the comment. I have to admit that it is really superficial to conclude that someone has a character flaw, much less a major one, simply because of his clothing choices. That's really pretty shallow.

Cruiser


----------



## Bernie Zack (Feb 10, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> I may be wrong but I didn't get the impression that he necessarily thought that these things look good. I think it was your characterization of this as being a "major character flaw" that was the focus of the comment. I have to admit that it is really superficial to conclude that someone has a character flaw, much less a major one, simply because of his clothing choices. That's really pretty shallow.
> 
> Cruiser


Cruiser, please lighten up. The original comment and the follow up comment was COMPLETELY in jest. I thought it was obvious. It was to him (I think?)


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I may be wrong but I didn't get the impression that he necessarily thought that these things look good. I think it was your characterization of this as being a "major character flaw" that was the focus of the comment. I have to admit that it is really superficial to conclude that someone has a character flaw, much less a major one, simply because of his clothing choices. That's really pretty shallow.
> 
> Cruiser


The character flaw isn't that the man dresses poorly so much as it is that when it is explained to him politely and rationally that he persists and defends his poor choices!!


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

WouldaShoulda said:


> What about the t-shirt and fanny-pack??


Or if they are English - a knotted handkerchief for headwear.

This gent was doing it for a jape I must add.


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

Seriously? Are we so superior that instead of discussing those things that indicate a well-dressed man we must resort to school bully talk and tactics? This thread reminds me of the movie _Mean Girls_ and their Burn Book.

Why not focus on dressing well and not on how low Jim's trousers ride on his hips or how square the toes of Bob's shoes are?

Seems to me that low class covered with high fashion is still low class. Lipstick on a pig.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Top Guns, I don't think that was the spirit of this thread. Guidelines are often presented as "do's and don't's." I am under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that you are or were an avaitor, or at least worked in that arena for a time. Surely most discussions of the best ways to perform flying tasks are salted with contra-examples of the _worst_ ways to perform those same tasks?


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Massive white trainers - aka 'moon boots' - with a suit. Just this minute, on TV, Craig David (a British R&B, hip-hop singer) was performing a soul classic with a black suit, white shirt, black tie and massive white trainers.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Top Guns, I don't think that was the spirit of this thread. Guidelines are often presented as "do's and don't's." I am under the (perhaps mistaken) impression that you are or were an avaitor, or at least worked in that arena for a time. Surely most discussions of the best ways to perform flying tasks are salted with contra-examples of the _worst_ ways to perform those same tasks?


Not trying to defend Top Guns (Hey, if he is a Top Gun graduate he certainly doesn't need me because I never rose above sitting in the back seat of a helicopter); but I don't think your analogy is quite the same. Aviators will discuss the mistakes of others in an effort to prevent that same mistake from happening to them in a similar situation. After all, they do perform their daily tasks in life and death situations. In that scenario mistakes by others must be analyzed.

I don't think that's what we're doing in this thread, unless of course someone thinks that there IS a possibility that they might accidently put on a pair of white tube socks with their pinstriped suit. I think what we are doing is pointing at harmless clothing choices and foibles of others and either laughing at them or pointing out how little those folks know about what we call "dressing well."

Cruiser


----------



## Bookman (May 19, 2010)

I think there is a difference between holding an individual up for ridicule and professing which current dressing habits we find distasteful. I believe there was an unfortunate post a while back (here or on SF) which actually had pictures of people on it set up for ridicule...that was way over the line and vulgar. This thread may have tapped over the line once or twice; but, I don't think anyone's psyche is likely to be damaged when saying that tube socks with a suit is an awful look. 
At least, that's my read.....


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Cruiser, I understand the distinction you're trying to draw, but I don't think it really works.

First, I've threads that exist for the purpose of jeering at others' choices usually focus on particular individuals. That's not what's going on here, with a couple of rare exceptions. We're talking about things across the population as a whole, not focused on any one person. We're having a discussion (not a particularly good one, though, IMO, because the question is ill-defined - see my original response - and because the answers are mostly predictable and not insightful) about what constitutes being poorly dressed.

Which leads me to my second reason that your distinction doesn't work. "Well-dressed" is a relative status. Well-dressed compared to _what_? It's _very _difficult to discuss the good at any length without contrasting it against the bad. And that's _more_ true, not less, in matters of taste.

I don't see how a discussion of what _doesn't_ work well in men's clothing is inherently mean spirited, anymore than a discussion of how not to fly into mountains is mean towards those pilots who have, through one error or another, done so in the past.


----------



## MRR (Nov 19, 2009)

Top Guns said:


> Why not focus on dressing well and not on how low Jim's trousers ride on his hips or how square the toes of Bob's shoes are?


We are not focused on Jim's trousers or Bob's shoes. We are focused on making sure that we do not commit any mistakes. What is the point of learning how match suit/belt(braces)/tie/cufflinks/glasses if we then wear the wrong shoes? The easiest way to look good is to get rid of anything glaringly bad.

I, for one, want to be told if I am doing something horribly wrong. Then I can decide if I want to still do it.

But, if anyone wants to get a good posse together so we can go over to Jim's house and ridicule him for several hours about how he doesn't know how to dress, I'll be there.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I like this thread. It gives me a sense of a hierarchy of errors that hopefully might inform priorities I should have when trying to put together a correct wardrobe given limited options. Like, ok, so maybe I don't have a good suit for a given occasion, but since everyone here seems to agree that bad shoes or unpolished shoes are a serious no-no (and an easy fix), let me at least make damn sure that my shoes look fine.



MRR said:


> We are not focused on Jim's trousers or Bob's shoes. We are focused on making sure that we do not commit any mistakes. What is the point of learning how match suit/belt(braces)/tie/cufflinks/glasses if we then wear the wrong shoes? The easiest way to look good is to get rid of anything glaringly bad.
> 
> I, for one, want to be told if I am doing something horribly wrong. Then I can decide if I want to still do it.
> 
> But, if anyone wants to get a good posse together so we can go over to Jim's house and ridicule him for several hours about how he doesn't know how to dress, I'll be there.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Which leads me to my second reason that your distinction doesn't work. "Well-dressed" is a relative status. Well-dressed compared to _what_? It's _very _difficult to discuss the good at any length without contrasting it against the bad. And that's _more_ true, not less, in matters of taste.


Of course the phrase "well dressed" is relative to "poorly dressed" but the problem is that both of these phrases are extremely subjective. What constitutes either may be very different for two people. This high degree of subjectivity simply doesn't exist when we are talking about mistakes made in aviation. If a pilot exceeds his aircraft's capabilities and people die, it's really hard to debate whether or not what he did was really that bad in the same vein that we discuss the merits of wearing a notch lapel tuxedo.

The overwhelming majority of things that are argued about in this forum are purely subjective points of view, yet some bandy them about like they are life and death matters. It is downright comical at times, especially when the hyperbole goes over the top.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Of course what constitutes good or bad clothing is subjective. That's why it's fun to talk, and argue, about it. Would you rather be debating whether 3 is more than 4?


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

I just don't understand what "biggest indicator" means. I mean, you're either dressed (subjectively) well or (subjectively) badly. 

"What is the best indicator of a blue shirt?" Nothing? My eyes? It's just a blue shirt. It is not indicative of anything nor does it require indication. 

It's like there is something sinister happening and we all need a warning like "ooohhhh.... scuffed shoes... do NOT look up. You don't even want to know what a guy with scuffed shoes will wear." Typically, the guy is wearing normal clothes. Possibly even very nice clothes. I just don't feel like I need a warning for that kind of thing.


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

Not an aviator. In the Army, First Sergeants are called "Top" by the Soldiers--an old reference to being the top NCO or top dog in the company/battery/troop. During my period as a First Sergeant at a training base, the young Soldiers were amazed at my ability to bench press--and my big arms (or "guns"). Ergo, Top Guns.

I can appreciate everyone's views on this matter, and even the attempts to pass of this overtly judgemental "snootiness" as a learning endeavor. And I can certainly appreciate that others may wish to learn from this.

But that is NOT what this thread really is.

You see, I work in an office with work studies. The dress code is neither enfirced nor difficult to attain. And yet my work studies put forth an effort to look nice. I would not be surprised if part of that is because of the way I dress. As an example, one of my guys showed up yesterday wearing a fairly nice-looking dress shirt, slacks, black shoes and belt, and a tie. The tie is not required, but it just seemed he wanted to add a bit of flair or professionalism to his ensemble. Now, his shoes were not dress shoes, and his sleeves are terminally rolled up past his elbows, but the guy looks SO much better than he needs to.

Another of my guys showed up today wearing a nice dress shirt, nice slacks, and dress shoes. His shoes, while appropriate, were unpolished and scuffed. Again, he was far better dressed than he needed to be.

Do I decide it is important to correct them on their sartorial ignorance? Absolutely not. I know what right looks like (at least for me) and I expect that as time goes by they will continue to improve their dress without ever being told they are doing it wrong. Because you know what? They are NOT doing it wrong. They are doing absoluely fine. And their dress soes not in any way indicate character flaws. If anything, it indicates _character_.


----------



## TXGent (Aug 20, 2006)

Top Guns said:


> Do I decide it is important to correct them on their sartorial ignorance? Absolutely not. I know what right looks like (at least for me) and I expect that as time goes by they will continue to improve their dress without ever being told they are doing it wrong. Because you know what? They are NOT doing it wrong. They are doing absoluely fine. And their dress soes not in any way indicate character flaws. If anything, it indicates _character_.


Amen, Top Guns. You are absolutely correct. Please keep at it.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Top Guns said:


> ...I can appreciate everyone's views on this matter, and even the attempts to pass of this overtly judge mental "snootiness" as a learning endeavor. And I can certainly appreciate that others may wish to learn from this.
> 
> But that is NOT what this thread really is.
> ....


It is easy to conclude that almost anything is fatally flawed, when things are taken out of context. While I am sympathetic to the scenario described by "Top", regarding outside perspectives /conclusions pertaining to his work studies and am certain those students he refers to are (literally) putting their best foot forward, I am not persuaded to conclude that the primary intent of this thread is to ridicule such groups.

In my experience, well dressed people, sporting poorly maintained shoes (primarily males), is a pretty common occurrence. I have never understood why folks would put so much effort into the rest of their outfit and then neglect their shoes? However, LOL, I do remember, many years back, a team of us were going out to make an arrest, and before we left, I took a moment to pull a tin of Kiwi and my shine rag out of a lower desk drawer (to freshen up my shine)...a habit exhibited by many former military types! After that, for the final dozen years or so of my career, some A/H would gift me with a tin of shoe polish at the office Christmas parties!


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

Please do understand that when I read comments about college students dressing poorly for interviews it seems to me to be excessive snootiness and not an attempt to educate. The comment was not about what a person should do, or what the greatest social faux pas is; no it was judgmental about those college students doing it "wrong." Strangely enough, I recall my college days as not being full of expendable money. It seems that the people who hold good paying jobs are the ones who can afford $1,000 (and up) suits, not college students. And yet, when a college student makes an effort to dress for an interview, he is dressed "poorly?"

The measurement standards are skewed here. We cannot look at a college student, or a low wage-earner, or a person whose job does not require him to dress nicely for work and expect him to be glorious in his knowledge of men's fashion when he suddenly has need to dress differently. To do so is the ultimate in snobbiness, and that kind of snobbiness always strikes me as an ill attempt to make one's self feel better through the derision of others.

Even if that derision is hidden (kind of) on a forum.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Top Guns said:


> The measurement standards are skewed here. We cannot look at a college student, or a low wage-earner, or a person whose job does not require him to dress nicely for work and *expect him to be glorious in his knowledge of men's fashion* when he suddenly has need to dress differently. To do so is the ultimate in snobbiness, and that kind of snobbiness always strikes me as an ill attempt to make one's self feel better through the derision of others.


Can you remind us who, exactly is taking this a bit too seriously??


----------



## MRR (Nov 19, 2009)

Top Guns said:


> Again, he was far better dressed than he needed to be.
> 
> Do I decide it is important to correct them on their sartorial ignorance? Absolutely not.


No, you don't correct them for their "sartorial ignorance" because they are already exceeding the requirements for their location. But, in my mind, we are talking about mistakes people can make when they are trying to look good for a board meeting, or getting a shirt from Mr. Kabbaz.

I won't be listening to a thing anyone here has to say when I make my next trip to Strugis. I'm not even sure which Allen Edmonds would work best with my jacket and chaps. But, I think the advice and (sometimes conflicting) opinions in this fora, and this topic in particular, are of great value. As I pointed out before, we are not mocking anyone in particular (nor in general, really). We are pointing out simple mistakes that people "who are trying to look their sartorial best" can make.

If Realism painters get together to discuss their art and try to help each other become better, the phrase "you have too much red in your sky" is not snobbery, its desired criticism. Using those same words to a five-year-old who is just having fun making a drawing for mommy would be. But this topic is not addressing the children. This site is usually only found and frequented by people who want to know what fashion rules and norms are.

Top Guns;
If the second of your guys from your example and said to you "I'm wearing this out on a date tonight. If you could change one thing about this outfit, what would it be?" would you refuse to answer, because doing so is snobbery, or would you answer truthfully and say, "while you are dressed much better than you probably need to be, polished shoes would be even better"?

As for the text quoted by TXGent. I agree with the spirit of what is being said. Proper or improper dress does NOT indicate character or lack thereof. But learning by observation doesn't work if people don't know what to look for. I think people need honest answers to questions. I also believe in honest suggestions to unasked questions. When I started working, I knew nothing of fashion. Thankfully, a few years in, a co-worker saw that I had a pair of shoes that were woefully worn. He pointed that out to me and told me it was time I purchased a good pair of shoes and start looking fashionable. That was the first time I'd even heard of Allen Edmonds. This would not have happened on my own, because I didn't even know that there were better (and more fashionable) options out there that I could afford (or that fit so much better). Were it not for him, I would still think that black, double-breasted, peak lapel suits were the most correct thing a person could wear, I'd have my poly/cotton wrinkle free shirts (un-ironed) with OTR sizing that cannot accommodate my disproportionally long arms, and two pair of black shoes.

So, in conclusion to my rambling; I disagree that this line of thought is snobbery, because I would welcome people telling me what one thing I could change to look even better.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Top Guns said:


> It seems that the people who hold good paying jobs are the ones who can afford $1,000 (and up) suits, not college students. And yet, when a college student makes an effort to dress for an interview, he is dressed "poorly?"


You can dress "poorly" in a fine fashion sense without it being a problem at an interview. You can also look rather dapper and be dressed _incorrectly_. If you wear a cheap business suit, cheap tie, cheap white shirt, and cheap business shoes, that would have been fine with me. You've demonstrated an understanding of the dress code.

If you wear a $100 maroon shirt to a law interview instead of a white shirt, then you don't understand the dress code, and that is a problem. In that situation, it's not a matter of offending my sense of style. It's just objectively wrong, in the same way a pilot can execute an aerial maneuver incorrectly.

There is a dress code requirement to wear a suit when you sit to take the bar. It is fairly common practice for courts to post dress guidelines for attorneys outside the courtroom. If you intend to be a lawyer and you show for an interview in clothes you can't wear to court, then you have dressed incorrectly.

Yes, it's possible for someone at a firm to instruct you how to dress. Just like if you misinterpret a section of law at your interview someone can easily correct you. But when you have 30 applicants and 10 of them know how to dress AND the relevant piece of legislation, it's not too hard to throw out the 20 who miss one or the other.

My job now is business casual. The positions I hire for are typically internal and entry-level where you will not be expected to meet people. Just sit at your cube and type away. I couldn't care less what you wear to an interview. I've hired people who showed up in a polo and chinos for their interview and they show up every day for work in polo and chinos.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree. We're talking about interviews, which are a formal and significant events. If there's anyone being snooty here it's those that expect people to dress up in fine clothes when there is no social expectation or business requirement to do so.


----------



## upr_crust (Aug 23, 2006)

I think that the focus of this thread was, originally, to note those examples of people who take the trouble to dress, but then forget one (or more) details which undo the overall effect. It wasn't to make fun of those who do not have the means to dress well (or to make fun of anyone, directly - I think that people initially posted their pet peeves about things that they had seen annoyed them, visually, but in a general sense, and not directed at any one example). 

As for the discussion of the maroon shirt for the law interview - clothing, like it or not, is advertising, (as is the interview process) and the gentleman in question was not advertising himself in an effective manner, at least in the opinion of the interviewer.


----------



## 10gallonhat (Dec 13, 2009)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> If you wear a $100 maroon shirt to a law interview instead of a white shirt, then you don't understand the dress code, and that is a problem. In that situation, it's not a matter of offending my sense of style. It's just objectively wrong, in the same way a pilot can execute an aerial maneuver incorrectly.


I agree. It has nothing to do with being snobby; rather, at that stage in the person's life, they should be observant enough to have picked up on what is acceptable dress. If they're still clueless, it may imply that they don't pay much attention to their surroundings or are unable to pick up on these details. So if an equally qualified candidate comes in dressed perfectly, why take the risk? It's a business, not a charity.



upr_crust said:


> I think that the focus of this thread was, originally, to note those examples of people who take the trouble to dress, but then forget one (or more) details which undo the overall effect.


That's what I thought too. For example I used to wear cheap shoes with nice suits/shirts/ties and it was only recently brought to my attention how important shoes are, and I'm glad it was pointed out. I'd definitely like to get back to the topic of pointing out subtle things that maybe even members here do without realizing it that are sabotaging their outfits.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

There's a guy I deal with on a regular basis who is a politician and therefore regularly gives speeches and greets 100's of people in a day. He is actually a pretty stylish dresser... I mean going beyond just the expensive custom suit and power tie look. You can tell he tries to put a bit of flair into it.

The thing is, he has a terrible combover and a bad mustache to go with it. If he were to shave the mustache or grow a beard, and just get a hair cut and accept he is balding he'd look very good. Like the dapper and energetic 60 y.o. he is. Instead he looks like a guy who is trying way too hard to look half his age and failing miserably.


----------



## YoungTrad (Jan 29, 2010)

I dont think the shoes not being polished make someone look bad. I love the way my 4 year old sperry a/o's look, as well as my weejuns with scuffs and major wear. It gives the shoes some character, and it looks good. 

But I would not dare wear either with a suit or in a situation other than running errands or loafing. Just my opinion. 

I almost always go sockless, once again other than when wearing a suit, unless seersucker. I really think that people look goofy wearing socks with boat shoes/penny loafers with shorts or long trousers.


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

MRR said:


> If Realism painters get together to discuss their art and try to help each other become better, the phrase "you have too much red in your sky" is not snobbery, its desired criticism. Using those same words to a five-year-old who is just having fun making a drawing for mommy would be. But this topic is not addressing the children. This site is usually only found and frequented by people who want to know what fashion rules and norms are.


And THAT would be a completely acceptable premise. But that is not what's happening here. The similar situation would be a group of realism painters getting together to discuss how poory painted _*other*_ (non-invited) painters paintings are. There is a difference, and the latter version is snobbery.



MRR said:


> Top Guns;
> If the second of your guys from your example and said to you "I'm wearing this out on a date tonight. If you could change one thing about this outfit, what would it be?" would you refuse to answer, because doing so is snobbery, or would you answer truthfully and say, "while you are dressed much better than you probably need to be, polished shoes would be even better"?


Of course I would help him out. But again, that is not what's happening here. The premise of THIS thread is not that somebody asked for advice. That kind of thread happens all the time here on AAAC and is obviously a very worthy endeavor. But no; this thread is a group of people coming together to discuss poorly dressed people. If people can't see the difference, then there is nothing more I can write.



WouldaShoulda said:


> Can you remind us who, exactly is taking this a bit too seriously??


Just posting my opinion as others have done.


----------



## 46L (Jan 8, 2009)

Top Guns said:


> this thread is a group of people coming together to discuss poorly dressed people. If people can't see the difference, then there is nothing more I can write.


IMO, snobbery would be posters saying they were "better" than poorly dressed people. I am honestly not picking up that vibe here.

I do not think a thread discussing the "biggest indicator of being poorly dressed" needs to become a discussion about character. Some of the best people I know would be considered poor dressers. Does that make them less of a person? Of course not.

In response to what I believe to be the "spirit" of the OP, I would submit that dressing inappropriately for your age is the biggest indicator of being poorly dressed. It drives me crazy when I see guys in their 30's dressing like they just graduated from college. Grown men (unless you are in the arts or a rock star) should not be wearing "skinny" anything. Leave the True Religion jeans for the kids. No more t-shirts out at bars and restaurants. Tuck in your dress shirt and wear something other than jeans with black shoes.


----------



## chamjoe (Oct 26, 2009)

thats so horrid, I want to get a set and add it to my casual friday attire



deanayer said:


> I just remembered this!
> 
> The fake pocket square with the little bit of saw cut fabric attached to the cardboard rectangle you jam into your breast pocket - I think they came in packs of different colors. Its the sartorial equivalent of a toupee!
> 
> which reminds me - Toupees !! Does anyone wear them or even make them? Aside from Elton John and John Travolta nobody should be going there anymore.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

chamjoe said:


> thats so horrid, I want to get a set and add it to my casual friday attire


 Closest I could find


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

But there are mistakes that are made. White cotton sweat socks with dress shoes and slacks is wrong. You might like stretching things and being creative and wear it anyway, but it is just wrong. Many people don't know this, so a thread like this can help people learn that.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

J.Marko said:


> But there are mistakes that are made. White cotton sweat socks with dress shoes and slacks is wrong. You might like stretching things and being creative and wear it anyway, but it is just wrong. Many people don't know this, so a thread like this can help people learn that.


I realize that the reference was to "sweat socks" however, it's interesting that in todays "A Suitable Wardrobe" Will discusses the appropriateness of white non-athletic socks with suits. He pointed out that if wearing white socks with a suit was good enough for Cary Grant, it should be OK for the rest of us. He then shows a picture (I assume to be him) of a black/white houndstooth suit and burgundy shoes worn with white socks.

https://asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/

I would never wear white socks with a suit and I have a feeling that many here who aren't aware that Cary Grant did it would declare any white socks with a suit to be a no-no. I say this because David Letterman has been criticized for wearing white socks with a suit. Now we know that it is OK and Letterman is owed an apology. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Indeed, Cruiser, I will defer to your admonishment regarding apologies owed to David Letterman. However, LOL, all others wearing white socks with a suit (including those, I assume, wearing them for medical reasons) should be straightaway, taken out and burned at the proverbial stake, in abject obeisance to the sartorial gods!


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

I suppose it is possible even the great Carry Grant wore something stupid. 

Just because someone is well dressed doesn't mean sometimes they are not, right?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL. I urge you caution, my good man. Comments such as that could label you a sartorial heretic. Why, next you will be telling us the Gene Kelly could never really dance!


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Cary Grant could bring off various looks that those of us lacking his... Well, his everything cannot bring off. He wore button-down collars with French cuffs and DB suits. 

White socks absolutely have a place with suits, though, for mere mortals. Provide those suits are themselves white. Otherwise, I tend to think you have to CG or the like to make it really work. All due respect to Will, of course, one of the great dressers of our age. The price of being a full-on clothes horse is sometimes taking things one step too far.


----------



## coynedj (Jun 1, 2008)

chamjoe said:


> thats so horrid, I want to get a set and add it to my casual friday attire


There are plenty available on Ebay. Just search for "pocket square" and you'll have a plethora of choices. I hope the people in your office will display a sense of humor when Friday rolls around!


----------



## flylot74 (Jul 26, 2007)

Besides poorly maintained shoes, I see too often what I callously call "assistant grocery store night manager" wear, that is, short sleeve shirt and clip on tie.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

J.Marko said:


> But there are mistakes that are made. White cotton sweat socks with dress shoes and slacks is wrong. You might like stretching things and being creative and wear it anyway, but it is just wrong. Many people don't know this, so a thread like this can help people learn that.


From a post I made on another forum recently.


> .One of my brothers was a scholarship day boy at one fee paying school in Glasgow and I was at a grant aided primary school then a Comprehensive, we both must have been sleeping the day they taught class hatred and in fact the only times in my life class has been a factor it has been in conversation or joking. I can talk with neds in a scheme, workmen on contract work on a site or chat to a rural landowner without being self conscious about it, we all came into the world the same way and confidence and politeness say more about you than any accent or "class", I have met lords and itinerants who could do the same and felt the same. My schooling taught me part of the confidence I need to communicate and I appreciate it.
> 
> Like the time in the army the officer commanding our troop asked to see my socks when I was in civvies for a squadron party.
> 
> The reason! The junior officers had a bet on as to which soldiers would wear white socks with dress trousers and he had won a few quid as they assumed because I was from Glasgow I was a cert to be a sports sock wearer, but as he had spoken to me about sports and knew I played rugby he thought it unlikely.


----------



## max b (Dec 11, 2009)

I know very well this is only in Italy, but my grand father was used to say : real gentlemen only wear over the calf socks. Still now in Italy 90% of the people is used to think wearing crew lenght socks it is the first indicator of bad taste


----------



## Top Guns (Apr 29, 2010)

I absolutely prefer OTC socks. It would seem to me that there is some actual functionality behind this particular view: crew length socks will sink throughout the day, bagging at the ankles and showing shin when seated (especially if crossing one's legs), and therefore looking sloppy. OTC socks due to their construction alleviate this.

However, sock suspenders (garters) would also alleviate this problem and were much more popular 30-60 years ago. Personally, I'd rather just have socks that fit well and stay in place instead of also having to add another device to keep them in place.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

Poor fit.

Nothing says "rube" like some very expensive, very "brandy" or otherwise nice clothes worn by someone who, in place of style, conjured a list of "status" clothes and bought them with no attention to tailoring or suitability for body type.

A pig in Aldens is still a pig 

DH


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I love people who make sartorial mistakes - they make me feel so well dressed! So much, that I throw in a few of my own :icon_smile_big:


----------



## jwa_jwa_jwa (Jul 13, 2010)

Wisco said:


> 2) Crew-neck t-shirts showing "a white patch" under the chin with an open collar shirt. The "without a tie" pseudo-causal tech execs I often see are the prime offenders of this one.


In defense of the 'white patch', I can't stand wearing v-necks. For some reason, they rub against my chest all day long and are just uncomfortable to wear so I resort to the white patch crew necks with open collar shirts.

So just turn the other way when you see me


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

The Rambler said:


> I love people who make sartorial mistakes - they make me feel so well dressed! So much, that I throw in a few of my own :icon_smile_big:


+1 :devil:


----------



## camorristi (May 9, 2010)

Dhaller said:


> Poor fit.
> 
> Nothing says "rube" like some very expensive, very "brandy" or otherwise nice clothes worn by someone who, in place of style, conjured a list of "status" clothes and bought them with no attention to tailoring or suitability for body type.
> 
> ...


or a rap artist


----------



## BamaCPA (Jan 19, 2008)

I would say it is either their shoes or the tie that is too long. One of my partners does both. It shows me that he just tied the first knot he got around his neck and didn't care if it wasn't the right length or not and he doesn't care of how bad of a slouch it makes him appear.


----------



## Peachey Carnehan (Apr 18, 2009)

There are a lot of slobs out there...but I suppose this is more about people who try to dress well and fail. Trilbies and fedoras have made a comeback. That's great, except when people decide that a $10 hat from Target is just as good as a quality hat. That's not the biggest indicator, but its the one most on my mind this moment.


----------



## Peachey Carnehan (Apr 18, 2009)

By the way, I think Kenneth Cole shoes are only slightly ugly when compared to anything by Doc Martin. I'm still doing penance for my horrible 8 eye dark cherry docs (1995-2000)


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Dirty shoes


----------



## TheRomanhistorian (Feb 7, 2010)

Not 'poorly dressed' per se but something which confuses me: Wearing braces or suspenders with a belt. I was at Heathrow recently and saw a chap with proper braces while wearing a belt. I would have thought that the presence of one made the presence of the other redundant.

Anyway, I don't tend to look too much at what other men wear unless they are a superior or peer at a conference or a job interview. I don't try to dress to impress chaps on here (that'd be an exercise in futility, I think, since I'm still a tiro to this). I just wish to look much more neat than I did when I was younger.


----------

