# Against Tie Dimples



## Grungydan (Feb 3, 2011)

Hello!

First, let me say that I love the forums. I enjoy the various takes on fashion and dress that exist here, and find myself browsing frequently.

I was reading a thread in which the OP wanted to know if his ensemble "worked," and noticed a reply in which a poster chastised (I use that term lightly) the OP for the lack of a dimple in his tie. Not wanting to hijack that thread, I thought I'd post my thoughts on the matter separately in case it garnered discussion.

I have to say, tie dimples are one of my pet peeves.

The idea that a small divot under your tie knot is empirical evidence of "well tied" is preposterous to me. I go to lengths to ensure that I don't end up with dimples in my ties, as I personally find it foppish and overwrought.

Of course, perhaps my efforts to avoid them is just what I'm trying to avoid, but that's fashion, eh?

Forgive the poor quality picture, but it shows a nicely _un_dimpled tie.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

IMO the tie dimple is one of the tiniest sartorial details, inflicting nothing "foppish" or "overwrought" on the general population.

But then I have my own issues. I have this thing about men who wear their hats indoors. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Can't say for sure if I am feverishly in favor of the dimple frequently found at the base of our tie knots. However, it does seem a nice detail, rather easily achieved and which on a surprisingly frequent basis, garners favorable comment from those I encounter on the day's foray! Perhaps the issue of Foppish intent comes in to play when one becomes overly concerned with this, by it's very nature(), small detail?


----------



## rbstc123 (Jun 13, 2007)

I'm pro dimple myself and I do take the additional time to ensure a dimple lands at the base of all my tie knots.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

rbstc123 said:


> I'm pro dimple myself and I do take the additional time to ensure a dimple lands at the base of all my tie knots.


Same here. It looks good to me and helps the tie stand. I will say that a "perfect" tie dimple on a man who is wearing a suit with cufflinks and monograms and tie bars and whatever the hell other shiney accessories they could find to buy is slightly off-putting. This is where spez should come into the picture IMO

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



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

Yeah, I don't know if I care so much about the dimple itself but it makes the tie look fuller and more balanced. You're constricted the blade of the tie with the knot. So either it's going to bunch up or the sides of the blade end get bent back. I prefer the dimple, and it seems like it's no more work than trying to smooth things out so you don't get one.

You do sometimes see guys who look like they have gone through some effort to create a gigantic perfect power dimple. I guess I think that's a little weird since I notice it, but it doesn't really affect me much one way, other than thinking that might be one of their little quirks or they are a bit "type A." And I've seen gizmos that are supposed to help you with the dimple which I think is a bit over-the-top.

I would guess the vast majority of tie wearers put a dimple in their tie. So to me it's no more "foppish" than buttoning your shirt or making sure your collar is straight. OTOH, very few people wear a waistcoat or a hat, and that's a much more deliberate decision than taking an extra 10 seconds to get your tie the way you want. And of course it's much more noticeable.

The average person is way more likely to regard that as foppish than a dimpled tie. 

But then, why anyone care what the average person thinks? If you're particular about your clothes and accessories and you don't like a dimple, then go for it.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

I think a dimple, in proportion to the knot, makes the tie curve a little better out and down. Without the dimple it just falls right down like a ladies scarf. It flops. 

I find the non dimpled power knot full but not tight Windsor & hairgel combo often seen on various midlevel salespeople to be worse. A tie should have a dimple.

Edit:spelling


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Dimples can be difficult to achieve in a narrower tie (<3.5"), but I find them necessary in a wider tie. The knot opening should be small and tight, and thus a dimple helps fit all the fabric neatly through the knot. Dimples do have a purpose.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

It's gotten to be so much of a reflex, I'd find it hard to tie a tie knot without a dimple.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Grungydan:

If you were in a job interview or any other face-to-face situation where you wanted something from me and you didn't have a dimple under your knot or were wearing a hat inside or had the bottom button of your vest or suit/sport jacket buttoned - you probably wouldn't get it.

*Judgmental ? - you bet!*

You can flaunt the rules at your own expense.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Andy said:


> Grungydan:
> 
> If you were in a job interview or any other face-to-face situation where you wanted something from me and you didn't have a dimple under your knot or were wearing a hat inside or had the bottom button of your vest or suit/sport jacket buttoned - you probably wouldn't get it.
> 
> ...


Well said, sir!


----------



## shore living (Jul 7, 2011)

A tie is a personal expression of ones taste. A conscious decision. As is type of knot, or type of shirt. I would say personal expression is ones style, which makes us all unique. There is no right or wrong just ones own taste.So go with what ever puts a smile on your face when checking the mirror before you leave.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

shore living said:


> A tie is a personal expression of ones taste. A conscious decision. As is type of knot, or type of shirt. I would say personal expression is ones style, which makes us all unique. There is no right or wrong just ones own taste.So go with what ever puts a smile on your face when checking the mirror before you leave.


On your way to collect a welfare check.


----------



## Brize (Jun 21, 2010)

Each to their own, but a FIH knot with a dimple is the only way I would ever wear a tie.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

The ability to hold a dimple is something I look for in a quality tie


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Matt S said:


> Dimples can be difficult to achieve in a narrower tie (<3.5"), but I find them necessary in a wider tie. The knot opening should be small and tight, and thus a dimple helps fit all the fabric neatly through the knot. Dimples do have a purpose.


My feelings exactly. It's mostly been on ties under 3" for me, but depends on the interlining thickness and width where the knot is formed. Those factors can vary considerably.

Edward VIII rocked the dimple-free tie pretty well. Mind you, they were custom made so he could do this and have a wider than usual FOUR IN HAND knot for the time. Not my thing, but he makes it work.

Windsor knot is a gross misnomer. Can we call it something else already?



cdavant said:


> It's gotten to be so much of a reflex, I'd find it hard to tie a tie knot without a dimple.


 Same here. However, I've mostly given up on narrow vintage ties since they're hard to dimple or lose it after just a few minutes.


----------



## BBA (Nov 8, 2010)

For what it's worth, I used to love wearing a dimple in my tie however have recently moved away from it; they feel too flashy -- certainly draws a lot of attention. It's funny, I actually have to make a concerted effort to not have a dimple in my tie, as it is such a habit. On the same token it can be hard to avoid if your knot is small, as with many things it serves a purpose -- as another poster noted, you are bunching up a lot of material into a small space, it has to go somewhere.


----------



## Poindexter (Jul 22, 2010)

I can't imagine a tie dimple 'drawing attention'. Where I live, the fact of the tie is the shocker. I like the dimple because a) it gives a little sprezz, especially if it's slightly asymmetrical, b) it encourages the tie to stand up off the shirt a bit better, and spread out more quickly, and c) as AP said, tends to give a little better shape to the bottom of the knot. I ain't religious about it, though; you got to look in that mirror and do what lets you walk out the door ballin'.

I stayed in a five star hotel in Cyprus a while back, and the management types striding around the place like they were going out to meet the dragon never had a dimple. That tie rolled and rolled and you never saw the full width of it down to the jacket closure, so it's horses for courses.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Flashy? Draws a lot of attention? Hardly anyone is going to say, "Oh look, there's a dimple in his tie. What a cad."


----------



## ddonicht (Jul 21, 2011)

I've never been one to go to great lengths to get a dimple in the tie. Some ties will end up with them naturally and some won't (even in quality ties). Spending my time creating one in those that it doesn't fall naturally is not something I care to do. What generally is more telling is if the tie is hanging at the correct length rather than above their belly button or down past their crotch. 

As for the lower button on vests and jackets, I will leave those unbuttoned. Even though they have them, most of the time they truly aren't designed to be used so the piece doesn't lay or move right with them buttoned. Plus, if you are standing up/sitting down a lot it is much easier to deal with 1 button than 2 each time. 

In general though what I tend to notice is someone's comfort level or confidence while wearing a suit and tie...or the lack thereof. I mean how did a lot of our current style points get started? It was because someone well known started doing something a certain way and were confident about it. This caused others to take after them and a few years later a tradition was born. Regardless of tie dimple or how the jacket is buttoned, you can usually tell if someone is comfortable wearing their suit or if they aren't. 

That's my 2 cents anyway.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Andy said:


> You can flaunt the rules at your own expense.


Andy, don't you mean "flout" (NOT "flaunt")?
Tie dimples seem particularly American to me. I'd never heard they were desirable before I started reading posts on this forum - in fact, I'd always tried to avoid them.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Andy said:


> Grungydan:
> 
> If you were in a job interview or any other face-to-face situation where you wanted something from me and you didn't have a dimple under your knot or were wearing a hat inside or had the bottom button of your vest or suit/sport jacket buttoned - you probably wouldn't get it.
> 
> ...


Note the picture on the right (and the ones of previous commandants). No dimple. About half of the official photos have them, going back to 1936.

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

Dimples under ties aren't "rule." (A Guideline at best) They're a preference, and one that changes based on individual tastes.

Stating you would judge a man based on the presence of a dimple on his tie, is akin to stating whether he had a star on his belly (al a Dr. Seuss).


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

williamson said:


> Tie dimples seem particularly American to me. I'd never heard they were desirable before I started reading posts on this forum - in fact, I'd always tried to avoid them.


My thoughts exactly. They're very rarely seen in Canada, unless they "happen on their own".


----------



## Finian McLonergan (Sep 23, 2009)

I think dimples work well on ties which are cut to flare out sharply from the base of the knot, creating an impression of strength, as here:


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

williamson said:


> ...Tie dimples seem particularly American to me...


Really???


----------



## shore living (Jul 7, 2011)

In regards to the Commadants field scarf, they are cotton and 3in. in width and would be more difficult to dimple. Though I am sure his dress greens are Hong Kong bespoke he may of gone to gaberdine. My father, officer,USMC, 5th of 2nd, always came home over seas with new bespoke dress uniform's.(even had a set of greens and kahkis cut for me)loved to dress now and then, and dimpled his tie but was difficult on his kakhi field scarf. So again, personal taste.


----------



## PhilipJames (Jul 31, 2011)

Grungydan said:


> I go to lengths to ensure that I don't end up with dimples in my ties, as I personally find it foppish and overwrought.


I am the only one who sees irony in this statement. Doesn't going to lengths to ensure that you do not have dimples imply the same amount of foppishness as going to lengths to ensure that you have one?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Is the commandant (in uniform) to be considered a source for sartorial 'rules'? 

Without a dimpled, tight knot, the tie looks like it's been tied by the salesperson dressing the dolls at a menswear superstore. Or like it was tied by the persons girlfriend. 

As for being an American thing, I'm not sure but I don't think so. Edward viii:


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Bjorn said:


> Is the commandant (in uniform) to be considered a source for sartorial 'rules'?


Why wouldn't it be a source? We're talking 75 years of photographic evidence showing from some some of America's Senior "Gentlemen." Using the Commandant in Uniform is no different than using noblemen from other countries.

I used the Commandants (plural) because of the official photograph chain. It's nice when you have a sold link of men in the same role wearing exactly the same thing, but with only minor variations (Hairstyles, Ribbons, Tie dimples). Since the Service Uniform hasn't changed much since modern inception, we're able to see "trad."

Should this be used as a definitive source? No. But is it a valid source? Heck yes.

Personally, I tie my tie. If it dimples, and it looks good, I leave it. If it doesn't, and it looks good, I leave it. I'm not going to force it because of some perceived "rule."


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

shore living said:


> In regards to the Commadants field scarf, they are cotton and 3in. in width and would be more difficult to dimple. Though I am sure his dress greens are Hong Kong bespoke he may of gone to gaberdine. My father, officer,USMC, 5th of 2nd, always came home over seas with new bespoke dress uniform's.(even had a set of greens and kahkis cut for me)loved to dress now and then, and dimpled his tie but was difficult on his kakhi field scarf. So again, personal taste.


Strangely enough the"cheap" issue ties dimple quite well naturally (very thing material). The more expensive replacements do not.


----------



## Yodan731 (Jan 23, 2011)

As someone who wears the optional (read: slightly more expensive) uniform tie every day for half the year (I am a Marine Officer), let me tell you that they don't dimple well. I wear my civilian ties with a dimple and my uniform ties without. Dimples are exceedingly rare in the Corps, fwiw.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Stating you would judge a man based on the presence of a dimple on his tie, is akin to stating whether he had a star on his belly (al a Dr. Seuss).


I believe that the point Andy was making was that the OP had several other REAL faux pas going on that would cause people to judge him well before they noticed whether or not there was a dimple under his neckwear.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

YoungClayB said:


> I believe that the point Andy was making was that the OP had several other REAL faux pas going on that would cause people to judge him well before they noticed whether or not there was a dimple under his neckwear.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Kinda brave to post a picture though. With a face no less. Andy is (of course) correct but I would consider someone showing up in a suit a plus these days.


----------



## lemmy (May 2, 2009)

Apatheticviews said:


> Why wouldn't it be a source? We're talking 75 years of photographic evidence showing from some some of America's Senior "Gentlemen." Using the Commandant in Uniform is no different than using noblemen from other countries. Since the Service Uniform hasn't changed much since modern inception, we're able to see "trad."
> 
> Should this be used as a definitive source? No. But is it a valid source? Heck yes.


Because military formal is rather different than business formal. Perfect case in point, military jackets are completely buttoned up, all 4 of them, and it looks correct. In business formal, you'd look like rube wearing a 4-buttoned suit and for buttoning all the buttons.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

lemmy said:


> Because military formal is rather different than business formal. Perfect case in point, military jackets are completely buttoned up, all 4 of them, and it looks correct. In business formal, you'd look like rube wearing a 4-buttoned suit and for buttoning all the buttons.


Only because you know the "rule."

If you were a first time suit wearer, and saw a button plus button hole, what would you think?

As for Military suits, being 4 button variations, they are "non-traditional" in the single-breasted arena and don't have to follow the rule, especially since the *4th button cannot be seen*. It is covered by the belt. It is also positioned at the waistline making it essential for proper outline of the uniform.

Were it a a civilian suit of the same cut, there would be a 5th button located below it (no belt). Which could then be left buttoned or unbuttoned at wearers discretion. If you removed the belt, it would appear as though the suit had lost a button, because of their spacing and positioning.


----------



## Pliny (Oct 26, 2009)

The tie dimple is part of 'the rules' of dress for gentleman. These rules are not a matter of rational explanation, and if you look at the history of Anglo-American men's clothing you won't find a 'reason' why the dimple is correct and the lack of one is a faux pas. So, OP, by all means flout the rules - don't bother with the dimple, wear hats indoors and button every button. I can't do better than paraphrase another forum member: it won't offend most people and you won't go to jail. It may not even hurt your career. I guarantee it will have no effect on your soul. But it is still against the rules.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> Personally, I tie my tie. If it dimples, and it looks good, I leave it. If it doesn't, and it looks good, I leave it. I'm not going to force it because of some perceived "rule."


Makes excellent sense to me!


Pliny said:


> The tie dimple is part of 'the rules' of dress for gentleman. These rules are not a matter of rational explanation, and if you look at the history of Anglo-American men's clothing you won't find a 'reason' why the dimple is correct and the lack of one is a _faux pas_.


 I'm sorry, Pliny, but I don't believe this to be true for the UK. In my (quite long) memory I can recall no overall preference for or against dimples - in the (fairly wide) circles in which I have moved they have been rare. They are incidental, not fundamental.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I usually dimple, but don't worry if a particular tie won't do it well. I just make sure the knot is neat and that the tie comes to roughly my belt buckle (within an inch or so.)


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Yodan731 said:


> As someone who wears the optional (read: slightly more expensive) uniform tie every day for half the year (I am a Marine Officer), let me tell you that they don't dimple well. I wear my civilian ties with a dimple and my uniform ties without. Dimples are exceedingly rare in the Corps, fwiw.


Question: Its been awhile since I've had to stand review, so my memory is a bit rusty, but I recall being told that a dimple was unsat. Now, I was boot PFC, so even if there wasn't a rule for or against it doesn't mean it was ok, so I'm not sure if its a regulation or not.

In regards to the Commandants, just because it is what they do doesn't make it right. In a previous thread we discussed the use of a visable undershirt in the Dress Blue deltas and Service charlies.

Edit to add: I found the regs. Here they are:
"
2. Neckties (Male)

a. Marines will wear a 3-1/8 inch khaki necktie of any approved cloth with the service "A"/"B" and blue dress "C" uniforms. It will not be worn with the crew-neck service sweater. Neckties may be tied with any type of standard necktie knot which presents a neat military appearance.

b. Approved hook-on (pre-tied) khaki neckties may be worn with the service and dress uniforms at the individual's option and may be used to satisfy minimum requirements.

c. The plain black bow tie with square ends will be worn with the SNCO's evening dress uniform.

d. The necktie will be tied so that the tip of the bottom of the tie is between 1/2-inches above the belt buckle and 1/2-inches below the belt buckle."

For what it's worth, I prefer the dimple because I find that with it, I can get a much tighter knot look, which I prefer.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Look, the tie's blade is wider that the narrow end of the knot. You can deal with this geometry by incorporating some kind of fold, or by simply curling up the edges. A folded approach - i.e., a dimple - emphasizes that the ties is simply fabric knotted around your neck, not some pendulum tacked to your collar and made of rigid material. The dimple is predominant among good dressers for a reason - it looks good.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> d. The necktie will be tied so that the tip of the bottom of the tie is between 1/2-inches above the belt buckle and 1/2-inches below the belt buckle."


If we reference the 'Dandy Quotient' thread, points are assigned at 1 inch +/-. The military with tighter standards of 'normal' dress than us? Wow, what hath the world come to...


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Bjorn said:


> As for being an American thing, I'm not sure but I don't think so. Edward viii:


Yes there are photos, and a considerable number at that, of the Duke of Windsor with a dimple in his tie. On the other hand there are a considerable number of photos without a dimple. I, for one do not have the knowledge to determine where he was when each photo was taken. It may be he wore a dimple in the US and not in the UK and then again maybe not.

Prince Michael never seems to have a dimple.

There are also photos of Prince Charles, Gianni Agnelli, and President Kennedy with, and without dimples.

Quite a few photographs, among other places, are posted at the London Lounge.

Based on the evidence it seems that one cannot formulate a "rule".


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> If we reference the 'Dandy Quotient' thread, points are assigned at 1 inch +/-. The military with tighter standards of 'normal' dress than us? Wow, what hath the world come to...


Yes, well, where my tie ends tends to vary a bit during the day as my trousers slip down a bit. When I was in the Corps my mid section was much firmer and flatter, so this was less of an issue. I suppose one can be a bit more picky when their muscle tone resembles that of Greek gods. I, sadly, no longer fit that description.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I am strongly pro-dimple (I shudder to think of tying my tie without one), but I agree with arkirshner that it clearly does not rise to the level of a rule. It is either a relatively weakly-held convention, or a strong and common preference.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> I am strongly pro-dimple (I shudder to think of tying my tie without one), but I agree with arkirshner that it clearly does not rise to the level of a rule. It is either a relatively weakly-held convention, or a strong and common preference.


As it always enhances, should it not be a rule?


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Bjorn said:


> As it always enhances, should it not be a rule?


But that is a subjective opinion, as we can see by this thread.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Not by my definition of a rule. I think I rule is something that is never or only extremely rarely transgressed by well-dressed (or even competently-dressed) men, and the violation of which would be immediately obvious, jarring, and probably offensive to any man fluent in the relevant sartorial language. For instance, it is a rule that one does not wear one's jacket inside out. It would be very difficult to find photos of well-dressed men wearing their jackets in this way (yes, yes, keep your Fresh Prince of Bel Air vidcaps...), and one would be socially or professionally impacted by breaking the rule. 

It's quite clear that a tie dimple falls well below the threshold. It is possible to find otherwise well-dressed men without dimples in their ties. One can wear a dimple-less tie into a fine restaurant, a business meeting, a wedding, or a court appearance without provoking any real retribution. It's not a rule. Even though I like it.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> It would be very difficult to find photos of well-dressed men wearing their jackets in this way (yes, yes, keep your Fresh Prince of Bel Air vidcaps...)


I was ready to hit reply as I started to read this sentence, only to be cut off by your acknowledgment of the joke I was going to go for. Way to take away my fun. :icon_peaceplease:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Hanzo said:


> I was ready to hit reply as I started to read this sentence, only to be cut off by your acknowledgment of the joke I was going to go for. Way to take away my fun. :icon_peaceplease:


Hanzo: I apologize.

Everyone else: You're welcome.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Hanzo: I apologize.
> 
> Everyone else: You're welcome.


Hey, I resemble that remark.


----------



## JakeGittes (Jul 13, 2011)

Hello,

I wear mostly vintage ties (60s or earlier) so a dimple will not occur naturally in many instances, because of tie dimensions, proportions or width peculiarities, as Jovan has already pointed out. If you "force" it, often it will not last or it will not look good. So, if they appear, fine; if they do not, fine too.

I favour small dimples, like those in the DOW pictures above.

Where I really like dimples is in my bowties, one each side of the knot. They appear naturally most of the time, much more easily in the batwing style, which is not narrower in the center like the butterfly style. With bowties I do actively try to create dimples if they do not form by themselves, which may well happen if the butterfly shape is very tapered, or if the material is thick. For me, lack of dimples in a bowtie make it look, say, sort of fake.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Hanzo said:


> But that is a subjective opinion, as we can see by this thread.


All opinions on clothes are subjective, there's no 'natural law' here. The question is rather, is it a rule based on tradition. Or: is there sufficient negative factors with not complying that it is a de facto rule now.

IMO there is sufficient functional reasons in the way the tie drops. In 'The Suit' NA writes that '[m]ost men contrive their knots so that there is a small dimple in the center of the tie just below the knot, which help the front blade drape properly. Others believe that dimples smack too much of artifice and follow the duke in favoring a small, dimpleless rounded knot, which is actually harder to tie'. P 151.

The duke wore his ties dimpled in all the photos I've seen (?) so I'm not sure where he gets that from, it seems to be wrong. Also, if the small dimpleless rounded knot is harder to tie, that makes it more contrived. The dimple helps the tie drape, thus: go forth and dimple.

According to Flusser: 'To enhance it's [the knots] staying power, a dimple or inverted pleat should emerge from under the knot... Getting the knot to fold this way is important, because if it's tightened properly, the two sides if it's crease will deepen, blossoming out under the knot, anchoring it so that it resists loosening... With the tie positioned smartly up into the collar, it's dimple extending downward, the composition projects a subliminal authority'. P 166f

Russell Smith in 'Mens Style' also states a dimple as a rule, and that '[a] smooth, convex tie-front is unsensual; a dimpled or ruffled tie is more textured and expressive'.

Andy seems to be of the opinion that it is a rule.

My small breakfast Internet investigation seems to say that well dressed men favoured (or favours) dimples: Gary Cooper, Fred Astaire, the Duke (Windsor), Dean Acheson, Jean Cocteau, Luciano Barbera, Sir Anthony Eden, Ralph Lauren, Gianni Agnelli etc.

If it can't be dimpled at all it's too narrow or needs more lining, but dimpling (or at least an inverted pleat(!)) does seem to qualify as a rule.

The 'dimple is too contrived' sentiment feels like it is more recently contrived and more likely than not based in a lot of men just not tying their ties properly, civilians and military, or on too narrow ties being 'in fashion'. Common denominators in how men dress does not make up the rules on how to dress.

Now I'm gonna have second cup of coffee.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

This may be an exception, although there could be an inverted pleat there:
not his best look either, IMO. There's simply a multitude of pictures with him sporting dimples or pleats.


----------



## Pliny (Oct 26, 2009)

williamson said:


> Makes excellent sense to me!
> I'm sorry, Pliny, but I don't believe this to be true for the UK. In my (quite long) memory I can recall no overall preference for or against dimples - in the (fairly wide) circles in which I have moved they have been rare. They are incidental, not fundamental.


I'll have to defer to your observation about the UK, never having been there. Could I quote another well-known aficionado of men's clothing ? 
Dear Film Noir Buff :

'It is essential that you have a dimple in your knot. A necktie sans dimple is the sartorial equivalent of wearing your pants right under your pectorals'.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Pliny said:


> Could I quote another well-known aficionado of men's clothing ?
> Dear Film Noir Buff : 'It is essential that you have a dimple in your knot. A necktie sans dimple is the sartorial equivalent of wearing your pants right under your pectorals'.


Certainly, but FNB is American. Which, of course, raises the question as to whether sartorial "rules" (which are surely descriptive, rather than prescriptive) are international or (more likely) varying from country to country and culture to culture.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> Yes there are photos, and a considerable number at that, of the Duke of Windsor with a dimple in his tie. On the other hand there are a considerable number of photos without a dimple. I, for one do not have the knowledge to determine where he was when each photo was taken. It may be he wore a dimple in the US and not in the UK and then again maybe not.
> 
> Prince Michael never seems to have a dimple.
> 
> ...


But do they also lack a 'pleat', which is equivalent to a dimple-on the side?


----------



## Pliny (Oct 26, 2009)

williamson said:


> Certainly, but FNB is American. Which, of course, raises the question as to whether sartorial "rules" (which are surely descriptive, rather than prescriptive) are international or (more likely) varying from country to country and culture to culture.


 FNB certainly seems to think the dimpled tie is a universal - or as universal as a particularity of a style with an English provenance that traces back to the Beau can be. FNB again: 
"Most men contrive their knots so that there is a small dimple in the center of the tie just below the knot, which helps the front blade drape properly. Others believe that dimples smack of too much artifice and follow the duke (of windsor) in favoring a soft, dimpleless rounded knot, which is actually harder to tie." *If one wants to talk about normative behavior with tie knots they should begin with this premise.* Most men do not know how to tie a tie with a dimple and look sloppy without one. Maybe some have learned to dimple well and have chosen to eschew the dimple as a statement. I have one well dressed friend who does this. He happens to know what he is doing, so yes, it looks natural on his person. Advice that the dimple is contrived seems very self serving to me. On the one hand, if you do not know how to tie a dimple, then this is irresponsible bravado in my opinion. If you do know how to dimple your tie, then it hardly needs be said to you that you can choose not to dimple.A dimple is no more of a contrivance than tying your shoelaces.

My personal preference if for the double dimple: blows the single out of the water.


----------



## ilikeyourstyle (Apr 24, 2007)

I was once told, "Hey, your tie is messed up!" during a business meeting by one of my superiors. I had it dimpled, and apparently he did not know or agree to that convention. Since everyone else in the room was female, I ended up looking uninformed. Lesson here: Not everyone who is judging you, or in a position to judge you, plays by the same rules/conventions that you do.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> The duke wore his ties dimpled in all the photos I've seen (?) so I'm not sure where he gets that from, it seems to be wrong. Also, if the small dimpleless rounded knot is harder to tie, that makes it more contrived. The dimple helps the tie drape, thus: go forth and dimple.


Nah, I can't imagine where he gets it from either.

https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01483/EdwardVIII_1483627c.jpg

https://sl.sky.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/ee08a56d-d5f1-4ee0-949d-e0a0cf12fa0b.Large.jpg

https://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/getty/3/0/52801830.jpg

https://campsmoke.fmallen.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/duke_of_windsor.jpg



Pliny said:


> My personal preference if for the double dimple: blows the single out of the water.


I think the blade look a little too wide below the knot like that. I had a friend (who disappeared off the face of the earth before I became a moderator here) who did the same.



ilikeyourstyle said:


> I was once told, "Hey, your tie is messed up!" during a business meeting by one of my superiors. I had it dimpled, and apparently he did not know or agree to that convention. Since everyone else in the room was female, I ended up looking uninformed. Lesson here: Not everyone who is judging you, or in a position to judge you, plays by the same rules/conventions that you do.


... ignoring the bigger issue that there was no need for him to say that in a business meeting. Pretty tactless.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Pliny said:


> I'll have to defer to your observation about the UK, never having been there. Could I quote another well-known aficionado of men's clothing ?
> Dear Film Noir Buff :
> 
> 'It is essential that you have a dimple in your knot. A necktie sans dimple is the sartorial equivalent of wearing your pants right under your pectorals'.


FNB was a prolific contributor here until he had a falling out with a moderator and established his own site. A man of considerable knowledge and taste, his sense of style is that of a "dandy" as that term is used as a positive appellation by Michael Anton in his book, The Suit. The quotation certainly expresses his preference, one shared by those with a bit of dandy in them, for a dimple*. It is however not atypical of him to write in a bombastic style and the quoted passage was, I am sure , written with a bit of tongue in cheek. For those not familiar with him, his site is well worth visiting.

* Of course, one need not be a dandy to prefer a dimple.


----------



## ddonicht (Jul 21, 2011)

If we are seeing pictures of individuals with it both ways, could it just simply be that they didn't care one way or another and just let the tie dimple or not as it fell naturally? 

And honestly, just because it was written in a book that doesn't make it 100% accurate. It is that particular author's opinion and nothing more without some facts behind it. If they say the sky is blue and the sun is yellow, those are facts we can confirm for ourselves by looking outside (assuming it isn't cloudy). However, if they say "the weather is nice" or "the tie must have a dimple", those are subjective statements and are not necessarily true for someone else.


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

akirshner said:


> Prince Michael never seems to have a dimple.


One thing that seems to have been overlooked is the type of knot being tied: there are hundreds of ways to tie a tie (even if only a few of them are common, the people in photographs we all see are more likely to know or use a strange one). There is, for example, a school of thought that eschews dimples in Full Windsor knots, while approving of them elsewhere. In many of the pictures Jovan posted above, HRH appears to be wearing a Windsor or a Prince Albert, full knots that can more easily go without a dimple. Other knots, such as the Half-Windsors, on the other hand, actually do _benefit _from the dimple.

So if you don't like a dimple, just learn a different knot.

As for the double dimple, I have rarely seen anyone who did that on purpose, although I'll believe that Jovan's buddy did. That sort of thing is generally the sole province of unskilled tie-wearers and should be executed with caution, if at all.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Nah, I can't imagine where he gets it from either.
> 
> https://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01483/EdwardVIII_1483627c.jpg
> 
> ...


He refers to the Duke as not wearing a dimple, when in fact most often he does. Either that or a pleat.

If I had written a book, I wouldn't cite the duke as a reference for a certain practice that a simple google would clearly show he did not adhere to. But maybe that's just me.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

ddonicht said:


> And honestly, just because it was written in a book that doesn't make it 100% accurate. It is that particular author's opinion and nothing more without some facts behind it. If they say the sky is blue and the sun is yellow, those are facts we can confirm for ourselves by looking outside (assuming it isn't cloudy). However, if they say "the weather is nice" or "the tie must have a dimple", those are subjective statements and are not necessarily true for someone else.


So the authors I cited, who I presume did actual research, are in the wrong simply because all statements on dress are subjective?

Also, they do argue their point (see my previous post). Noone here has actually argued why one should not dimple.


----------



## winterbee (Feb 21, 2007)

The "dimple" probably originated from silk's natural tendency to drape and fold. When knotted, the tendency increases.

The 20th century neck tie was originally unlined, often using as much silk as today's seven fold ties (about ten square feet), though with different construction: fewer but wider folds. The 1950s move to skinny mod ties and added wool interlining resulted in a very different beast.

So looking for a dimple which doesn't happen naturally is a sort of nostalgic affectation. My 60+ year old English jacquard ties produce beautiful dimples effortlessly.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Titus_A said:


> One thing that seems to have been overlooked is the type of knot being tied: there are hundreds of ways to tie a tie (even if only a few of them are common, the people in photographs we all see are more likely to know or use a strange one). There is, for example, a school of thought that eschews dimples in Full Windsor knots, while approving of them elsewhere. In many of the pictures Jovan posted above, HRH appears to be wearing a Windsor or a Prince Albert, full knots that can more easily go without a dimple. Other knots, such as the Half-Windsors, on the other hand, actually do _benefit _from the dimple.
> 
> So if you don't like a dimple, just learn a different knot.
> 
> As for the double dimple, I have rarely seen anyone who did that on purpose, although I'll believe that Jovan's buddy did. That sort of thing is generally the sole province of unskilled tie-wearers and should be executed with caution, if at all.


 I'm almost certain it was a four in hand knot and not a Prince Albert. He had ties made especially for him that were wider and more densely lined so his knots would be bigger. The Windsor knot, while it came about when he was alive, was erroneously named as he never wore such an animal. Just looking at photos you'll see that all his knots are asymmetrical, empirically proving this.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Indeed, Jovan. In fact, I have read many times that the DoW himself called the windsor knot "unhandsome." (As this validates/supports my views, it's easy for me to remember.)


----------



## Titus_A (Jun 23, 2010)

Jovan said:


> Just looking at photos you'll see that all his knots are asymmetrical, empirically proving this.


Given the large number of tie-knot permutations, I think it's a bit rash to be quite that conclusive. In fact, several of those pictures do not appear to show asymmetrical knots, but then again, several of the pictures are not of the best quality and it's simply hard to tell much about the knot at all. (I will admit, now that you mention it, having heard that HRH did not wear Windsor knots, but I have never quite believed that the thing was named after him, to be quite beside the point.) But be that as it may, he is wearing very thick knots, regardless of whether they are derived from his special ties or his method of knotting. The underlying reasoning still seems valid: an appropriately large knot can be worn without a dimple to good effect, provided the tie itself will lie properly. But I'm willing to amend my previous statement: if you don't want a dimple, wear a different tie, tie a different knot, or both. I continue to maintain that these things make a difference.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

ilikeyourstyle said:


> I was once told, "Hey, your tie is messed up!" during a business meeting by one of my superiors. I had it dimpled, and apparently he did not know or agree to that convention. Since everyone else in the room was female, I ended up looking uninformed. Lesson here: Not everyone who is judging you, or in a position to judge you, plays by the same rules/conventions that you do.


Seems to be that your "superior" (I will use that term in only the broadest sense) was the only man "messed up". I firmly believe he was simply looking for an opportunity to establish alpha-male dominance in that room full of women.

_(In another life I would have likely followed him into the mens room and peed on his shoes) :devil:_


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Grayson said:


> Seems to be that your "superior" (I will use that term in only the broadest sense) was the only man "messed up". I firmly believe he was simply looking for an opportunity to establish alpha-male dominance in that room full of women.
> 
> _(In another life I would have likely followed him into the mens room and peed on his shoes) :devil:_


Agreed. It was really uncalled for. If anything, you whisper afterwards, "I think you may want to fix your tie."


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

I think the way the "d.o.w." is idolized on this forum is depressing. The man was a monster.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

The Rambler said:


> I think the way the "d.o.w." is idolized on this forum is depressing. The man was a monster.


Thank you for saying it, Rambler. If people knew more about history, few would find it hard to want to emulate anything he did. I too have often been disgusted/depressed by all the adulation heaped upon him.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

The Rambler said:


> I think the way the "d.o.w." is idolized on this forum is depressing. The man was a monster.


Hitler was a monster, Stalin was a monster, Idi Amin was a monster. d o W was no monster, just shallow, frivolous, in certain respects ignorant etc.

As a person Wagner was far worse than the d o W but we can still admire his music. The d o W is not idolized, however his _style _ is worthy of admiration.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

He had an influence on the way men wore clothes that can be felt to this day. To deny that is as bad as denying his faults, which I'm sure everyone who's studied him or his style is well aware of. I don't heap adulation on him, I merely state the facts.


----------



## Regillus (Mar 15, 2011)

Matt S said:


> Dimples can be difficult to achieve in a narrower tie (<3.5"), but I find them necessary in a wider tie. The knot opening should be small and tight, and thus a dimple helps fit all the fabric neatly through the knot. Dimples do have a purpose.


Precisely. Before I started deliberately trying to put in the dimple; I sometimes had trouble with the tie's edges curving out. Doing the dimple solved that. The sides (at the knot) are straight now. Looks better. I'm voting for dimples.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Some ties dimple, some ties do not. I do not look down to see what effect has been achieved each day.

I would like to add my opinion that the sycophantic way the American contributors seem to view the DoW is most curious. A 20's & 30's midget clothes horse has no relevance today, besides which he was a Nazi sympathiser who we were lucky to be rid of when WW2 broke out.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

culverwood said:


> Some ties dimple, some ties do not. I do not look down to see what effect has been achieved each day.
> 
> I would like to add my opinion that the sycophantic way the American contributors seem to view the DoW is most curious. A 20's & 30's midget clothes horse has no relevance today, besides which he was a Nazi sympathiser who we were lucky to be rid of when WW2 broke out.


His contributions to classic menswear, however, is indisputable. Read any book, contemporary or classic, on clothes, and you will find out what they where. No offense, but he quite possibly meant more for what we wear every day today than anyone else in the 20th century.

Would suggest using a mirror to check tie knot, much simpler


----------



## J.B. (Aug 1, 2011)

Basically, all five of my ties do actually have dimples. I think that both can be work, and I do like both ways as well. With the exception of my Pratt knot tie, I normally tie a four-in-hand knot, which is less symmetrical, and I think more prone to have the dimple effect.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

No offen_c_e taken but he probably means more to a narrow clique of i-gents for what they wear every day today than anyone else in the 20th century. To the rest of us he is a popinjay and a traitor.


----------



## Pliny (Oct 26, 2009)

culverwood said:


> No offen_c_e taken but he probably means more to a narrow clique of i-gents for what they wear every day today than anyone else in the 20th century. To the rest of us he is a popinjay and a traitor.


I'm just happy I can be part of a discussion where 'popinjay' is a term of abuse. The Duke was a bounder - a dirty blackguard for cosying up to the Nazis (as did many British aristocrats) and an awful cad for bullying his younger brother. But he did abdicate rather than dump the woman he was in love with, for which I think he deserves some credit, and he was a hell of a dresser. I don't like Picasso's politics either, or the way he treated women, or his children for that matter, but I admire his art.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

culverwood said:


> No offen_c_e taken but he probably means more to a narrow clique of i-gents for what they wear every day today than anyone else in the 20th century. To the rest of us he is a popinjay and a traitor.


The entire Ivy League dress is based on what they brought home from visits to Britain where everybody at the time was emulating the duke.

Patterned clothes in town? The cutaway (windsor) collar? Suede shoes in town? The tab collar? Evening wear (popularising)? The dark blue dinner jacket?

There's no denying his impact on clothes.

And as far as iGents are concerned, that is a term that people who don't understand dress and dress codes use to malign people who take a serious interest. A little bit like the school bully teasing the smart kid for being good at school. It's really not all that cool to hang around AAAC and SF, and never actually learn anything. Read a book, or go talk to a tailor or shirtmaker. This is not directed to the quoted poster btw, whom I don't know besides that he is in the wrong about the Duke.


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Anyone else notice that the OP lit up a 4-page thread with only his second post here? Not a bad contribution, though seems odd he did not contribute further with his opinion that tie dimples were unseemly. I hope we didn't scare him off!


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

"With the greatest respect" I have to disagree with you Bjorn.

Patterned clothes in town? The cutaway (windsor) collar? Suede shoes in town? The tab collar? The dark blue dinner jacket? _Are you having a laugh_ - no gentleman I know would go down that avenue.

I am glad you last paragraph was not aimed at me. Anyone reading it might have formed the wrong impression of what you meant.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Are YOU having the laugh, culverwood? Each of those items is fairly common among truly well-dressed men in America.

As for the _ad hominem_ attacks on the DoW, they simply have nothing to do with whether he was, long *before* WWII broke out, and *before* his abdication, the standard for well-dressed men in western civilization. He was that, in a way that no man has been since. His politics are irrelevant to the discussion.*

*I will note that there was a period when I was interested in trying to learn whether the accusations of "nazi sympathizer" were fair or not. I concluded that the matter is much more murky than can be summarized in two words. Certainly by the time the rest of the world had learned what a monster Hitler was, the DoW was begging to be let back into uniformed service to go fight (as he fought in WWI). Like a great deal of the British aristocracy, he was somewhat sympathetic in the days before "peace in our time." Of course, being strongly anti-nazi in 1936 or '37 in America could get you labeled by the FBI as "pre-mature anti-fascist," and have you marked as a suspected communist! Being sympathetic, to one degree or another, to Hitler in the mid-30's (out of ignorance, mind you) was not unusual.

There is also the fascinating episode when the DoW had to flee Paris during the Nazi invasion and sought refuge in Portugal, staying with a wealthy banker friend. From what I could learn, during that time, various Nazi agents attempted to recruit (and ultimately plotted to kidnap) the DoW in hopes that, following surrender/invasion of the UK, he could be re-seated as a compliant monarch. Despite the immense conflict between the DoW and the crown and UK gov't, he refused those approaches.

I do not mean to suggest that the DoW was a paragon of virtue, nor even an admirable man. He was fundamentally naive, not public-minded, and could often be silly or petty. But he's a more mixed character than some would treat him as being, and probably not a great villain.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

His politics are only relevant in so far as the British opinion of the man is widely at odds with the opinion in the USA as far as I can tell. To me and I expect many other English men he is not a role model and his example is not one I would wish to follow even in clothing.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I suppose that stands to reason. Most Americans view the monarchy as kind of a societal silliness, so a man failing to do his "duty" to such an anti-meritocratic, anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian institution is not much of a transgression in the American mind.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

culverwood said:


> "With the greatest respect" I have to disagree with you Bjorn.
> 
> Patterned clothes in town? The cutaway (windsor) collar? Suede shoes in town? The tab collar? The dark blue dinner jacket? _Are you having a laugh_ - no gentleman I know would go down that avenue.
> 
> I am glad you last paragraph was not aimed at me. Anyone reading it might have formed the wrong impression of what you meant.


We are putting 'respect' in "" now? 

That the Duke was very influential on menswear is a well documented historical fact, if such exist at all.

You are very welcome to argue that point, citing any credible source. We can of course toss Wodehouse and Waugh out the Window as well, for not being anti-nazi enough, but what does that have to do with clothes, or indeed with ties and the way they should or should not dimple.

(I could argue that Douglas Fairbanks JR dimpled, but he apparently may have knobbed the Duchess of Argyle, and should perhaps also be excluded on moral grounds)

Edit: spelling


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

culverwood: The fact that you can wear a turn down collar, backless waistcoat, and midnight blue fabric (looks blacker than black in artificial light) with evening wear can all be attributed to the Duke. That's just a small sliver of his contributions to men's clothing. His influence is felt in every well dressed man's wardrobe, whether you like it or not. I also love how you resort to calling us "iGents" when you have nothing better to say.

_No one_ here adores his personal views and we have made that quite clear a few times now.

End of subject, move on.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

culverwood said:


> To me and I expect many other English men he is not a role model and his example is not one I would wish to follow even in clothing.


 I think you are on to something more universal and that is how we associate articles of clothing with other things and how those associations influence what we will or will not wear. I associate brown shirts with a certain German fascist and consequently will never wear a brown shirt.

I do not want to start a political discussion and so I choose not to say which category I am in but when President Bush was photographed at his ranch in cowboy boots there were some who decided to buy a pair and there were others who swore to never put his foot in such a boot.

If a man should forgo wearing certain pattern combinations, for example, suede shoes with plaid suits because of an association IMO it would be not only quite understandable, it would be quite human.

Does anyone else forgo certain garments because of associations?


----------



## MicTester (Oct 8, 2009)

Andy said:


> Grungydan:
> 
> If you were in a job interview or any other face-to-face situation where you wanted something from me and you didn't have a dimple under your knot or were wearing a hat inside or had the bottom button of your vest or suit/sport jacket buttoned - you probably wouldn't get it.
> 
> ...


I always found it easier to hire people who know how to do the job and then to teach them how to get that dimple, rather than to hire people who know to dimple, if you will, and then try to teach them how to do the job they are hired for. 

So, I am saying, it depends on the job. A Chief of Surgery will learn pretty fast how to get the dimple. But a Chief of Dimple will take a l-o-n-g time to learn surgery.


----------



## Pliny (Oct 26, 2009)

arkirshner said:


> I think you are on to something more universal and that is how we associate articles of clothing with other things and how those associations influence what we will or will not wear. I associate brown shirts with a certain German fascist and consequently will never wear a brown shirt.
> 
> I do not want to start a political discussion and so I choose not to say which category I am in but when President Bush was photographed at his ranch in cowboy boots there were some who decided to buy a pair and there were others who swore to never put his foot in such a boot.
> 
> ...


Doh! Never made this association before. I'm wearing a brown shirt I like right now. Have to wear a red beret with it now.


----------



## Grungydan (Feb 3, 2011)

I've gotten busier and haven't been on much, but I wanted to pop in and see how my little tongue in cheek greeting post was developing.

A few thoughts:

If you were to judge me by the dimple (or lack thereof) in a serious sense, i.e. not give me a job/loan/etc. although I was otherwise qualified, I'd consider myself lucky and consider you in line for a lawsuit.

[Spend time not having dimple as foppish as making sure you have one.]

Of course it is! :smile: It's just a preference, and I was having a laugh about it.

Hat on "indoors." As you can't really see in the cropped picture (I post myself with permission, I took my girlfriend out of the shot), we're heading out the door. I popped my hat on and my sister insisted we let her take a picture. It was dark out and, well, again, you might be taking life a bit too seriously.

Bottom button on vest: Fie and fiddlesticks. I don't know what got into me. I bet dollars to donuts I noticed and fixed it once I got in the car, forcing it to bunch. Take my man card away.

The arguments and history: entertaining as always.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Andy said:


> Grungydan:
> 
> If you were in a job interview or any other face-to-face situation where you wanted something from me and you didn't have a dimple under your knot or were wearing a hat inside or had the bottom button of your vest or suit/sport jacket buttoned - you probably wouldn't get it.
> 
> ...


I don't know weather to laugh or cry at this, but I find the general discussion really boring. Yes, I'm completely disinterested.

I suppose I'm not adverse to a dimple, under the right circumstances. It can compliment an outfit. As long as its discrete.

Etc etc :biggrin:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Hello, not only have you resurrected a THREE YEAR OLD thread, but you add nothing of value to it, especially if you're going to say things like *"but I find the general discussion really boring. Yes, I'm completely disinterested."
*
In which case if you're so bored by it and disinterested you shouldn't have bothered replying to it, especially as it is three years old! 
This is something the moderators frown upon, as I myself was told a couple of times several years ago.

*READ THREAD DATES! READ THE FORUM RULES!

Rule #5* Don't gratuitously bump threads. Adding superfluous posts that in our judgment serve no other real purpose than to bump long-dead threads to the top of the Forum is not allowed. If there is any doubt in your mind whether the post you wish to make falls into this category, please contact a moderator.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Hello, not only have you resurrected a THREE YEAR OLD thread, but you add nothing of value to it, especially if you're going to say things like *"but I find the general discussion really boring. Yes, I'm completely disinterested."
> *
> In which case if you're so bored by it and disinterested you shouldn't have bothered replying to it, especially as it is three years old!
> This is something the moderators frown upon, as I myself was told a couple of times several years ago.
> ...


Sorry, I was not aware of the old threads embargo. I was looking up threads on dimples and something struck me that I thought was of interest and also quite amusing, so I commented on it. I disagree that I have added nothing of value - I think it is more the case that you are unable to perceive the value because you lack the knowledge to do so. And in contradistinction to the dimple argument, there is no argument in this case - there is simply right and wrong. It was intended to be a light-hearted but also revealing post - ideal forum fodder, I would have thought.

Finally, with regard to the part of my post that you quoted, I would simply observe that you would have no need to duck, even if you were atop a ladder wearing a comically exaggerated stove pipe hat.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> Sorry, I was not aware of the old threads embargo.


That's why new members are encouraged to read the rules, as requested in the sticky thread:
https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...apply-for-Ask-Andy-Forum-Membership-Read-This!


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

I don't think it falls foul of that rule. I wasn't attempting to bump a long-dead thread. I think there is much of interest there on a range of topics, including what Wodehouse called "the psychology of the individual", but I was unable to participate when the thread was in its prime. I trust you will take a generous view and allow that this was more due to my misfortune than my fault, given that I was not aware of this forum at that point.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Yea, fair enough


----------

