Stubbly
Super Member
This rule is frequently violated, and the offenders seem hopelessly unaware.
Rule 6. Avoid the pretentious, the exaggerated, the coy and the cute.
This rule is frequently violated, and the offenders seem hopelessly unaware.
Rule 6. Avoid the pretentious, the exaggerated, the coy and the cute.
However, cute yellow chinos & Nantucket reds are available from no-name brands.Mostly because designers push pretense, exaggeration, coyness and the cute. If one looks dignified, how would anyone know they were wearing a designer suit?
Ah, very true, but as the writer acknowledged, this principle can be tricky.This rule is frequently violated, and the offenders seem hopelessly unaware.
Ah, but you have situational awareness. Many men do not.I am well aware that someone unaccustomed to the ascots I sometimes wear might find them pretentious. And in some venues they certainly would be.
Also, bit loafers/no socks and rolled-up trousers of any kind.Yeah, that sockless thing with loafers instead of sandals and in custom suits is pure "cute" and in no way stylish.
Thank you, I try.Ah, but you have situational awareness. Many men do not.
The lounge suit is often touted as a garment which makes a man look his best. The continuity between the jacket and trousers draws the eyes in a straight line, making men appear taller, trimmer and more muscular. And whatever other nonsense people want to add to it. And yet 150 years ago, the lounge suit was considered the most garish thing a man could wear. It was derided as mere fashion for classless dandy wannabes.I think that may be missing the point.
Less left-brained.
Yeah, that sockless thing with loafers instead of sandals and in custom suits is pure "cute" and in no way stylish.
The only shoes I wear without socks are boat shoes, and only around the house.Actually, I had that one down as coy!
Particularly lovely on seniors!
I think you're still missing the point, and what you're missing is that dressing stylishly isn't about wearing this thing or that thing, but about creating a stylish whole. And such is almost never achievable by wearing only fashion.The lounge suit is often touted as a garment which makes a man look his best. The continuity between the jacket and trousers draws the eyes in a straight line, making men appear taller, trimmer and more muscular. And whatever other nonsense people want to add to it. And yet 150 years ago, the lounge suit was considered the most garish thing a man could wear. It was derided as mere fashion for classless dandy wannabes.
I'm all for resisting the ever changing whims of the fashion industry and I even see great value in tradition. I just don't think that there is such a thing as "timeless" style that exists outside the confines of history and culture. If you want to dress in clothing that is unfashionable, go for it, but you should be aware that you are sending a particular social message and that your non-fashionable clothing will be perceived in relation to the current fashion of the times, not in some sort of aesthetic vacuum.
And I say this as someone who wears clothes that make me look like an old fuddy duddy professor, even though they were intended to project the image of a young college student when they were conceived.
TLDR : fashion vs. style is a false dichotomy. We shouldn't take for granted that any particular thing is "stylish."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Agreed.The lounge suit is often touted as a garment which makes a man look his best. The continuity between the jacket and trousers draws the eyes in a straight line, making men appear taller, trimmer and more muscular. And whatever other nonsense people want to add to it. And yet 150 years ago, the lounge suit was considered the most garish thing a man could wear. It was derided as mere fashion for classless dandy wannabes.
I'm all for resisting the ever changing whims of the fashion industry and I even see great value in tradition. I just don't think that there is such a thing as "timeless" style that exists outside the confines of history and culture. If you want to dress in clothing that is unfashionable, go for it, but you should be aware that you are sending a particular social message and that your non-fashionable clothing will be perceived in relation to the current fashion of the times, not in some sort of aesthetic vacuum.
And I say this as someone who wears clothes that make me look like an old fuddy duddy professor, even though they were intended to project the image of a young college student when they were conceived.
TLDR : fashion vs. style is a false dichotomy. We shouldn't take for granted that any particular thing is "stylish."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
OTH, barefooted, wearing suit and tie with rolled up cuffs while walking along the beach is stylish as well as practical. And it reflects situational awareness.Ah, but you have situational awareness. Many men do not.
Also, bit loafers/no socks and rolled-up trousers of any kind.
Makes sense to me. If/when I replace my seersucker sport coat, I'll look for a sack cut version.It depends on the fabric. On something with a bold, distinct pattern, like seersucker or madras, I find that darts make the jacket seem "off" to me, while on a solid navy or subtle POW check the darts are much less obvious.
As a connoisseur of drinks I can relate to your analogy, but what baffles me is the dogmatism, not that someone can notice the detail in question. It's like if a gentleman was to make it well known that he only drank bourbon, no other kind of whiskey, and made a point of telling all young men that bourbon is the only kind of whiskey for a man of taste, and all other recipes are beyond the pale.When a man first begins to drink he learns to distinguish between beer, wine and hard liquor. As he gets a little experience he begins to distinguish between ale, stout and lager; between Bordeaux, Rioja and Chianti; between Vodka, Tequila and Scotch. As he gains more experience he can distinguish between different Scotchs , different Tequilas , and different Vodkas etc, etc,
Sack and darted, to some there is little difference, to others the difference is clear.
There is no dogmatism on my part. Personally, I believe a man, depending on his body shape, should chose darted or undarted jackets on the basis of which is more flattering.As a connoisseur of drinks I can relate to your analogy, but what baffles me is the dogmatism, not that someone can notice the detail in question. It's like if a gentleman was to make it well known that he only drank bourbon, no other kind of whiskey, and made a point of telling all young men that bourbon is the only kind of whiskey for a man of taste, and all other recipes are beyond the pale.
Well said! Thanks for humoring my little rant.T...if a man must be dogmatic it is benign to have his dogmatism directed to darts or bourbon.
How so?Rule 10 is for example absolutely ridiculous.