TKI67

Advanced Member
On another board Smmrfld shared the opinion that going matchy matchy with nubuck shoes was not a good look. I agree. However, I think there are times when matchy matchy rocks. I like No. 8 cordovan tassels with a matching cordovan belt. I like softly shiny black calf cap toes and a matching black calf belt (on others...I only wear black shoes with evening clothes). I like a brown chromexcel belt with shoes or boots in the same color, even if they are also chromexcel, although they do not have to be that well matched. White bucks and a white belt sounds like Al Czervik at Bushwood. Why is it that sometimes matchy matchy works and sometimes it does not? Is there a rubric? Or are my likes and dislikes outside the norm?

Matchy matchy rules also extend to ties and pocket squares. It is not always the case, but more often than not I dislike matched sets. I generally favor a tie or PS that pops but is balanced or anchored by a more subdued partner.
 

drpeter

Super Member
Perhaps the dislike of having two items of clothing match comes out of a desire to rebel against a convention that was created earlier. So those who liked championing individual style as opposed to conforming to what lots of people wore as part of a fashion, created a new fashion: That of non-matching items in the same category as the matching ones, like different ties and pocket squares, different belts and shoes, etc.

In the end, it is what pleases your eye that matters. I have learned to trust my own judgment entirely and not bother to seek others' advice in such matters. I can't recollect the last time anyone said anything that was not complimentary about either my clothes or my style. So I think my philosophy is working well!
 

Andy

Site Creator/ Administrator
Staff member
For the Traditional look, rules are:

Socks match trousers.
Shoes match belts.


And there is a technique named Monochromatic where shirt, trousers, etc. are all in the same color family, not necessarily the same color like a uniform, but the effect is to make you look taller and thinner.

Review the in depth Clothing Coordination article linked from the Home Page.

And really watch the coordination of patterns.
 

TKI67

Advanced Member
For the Traditional look, rules are:

Socks match trousers.
Shoes match belts.


And there is a technique named Monochromatic where shirt, trousers, etc. are all in the same color family, not necessarily the same color like a uniform, but the effect is to make you look taller and thinner.

Review the in depth Clothing Coordination article linked from the Home Page.

And really watch the coordination of patterns.
Is it possible that nubuck shoes present an exception? There may be others, like white bucks.

Personally, it has never been an issue or question for me, but when another member raised the point it got me wondering and I decided to float the question to see what others thought.

As regards socks, I have never clicked with that rule. For most trousers I prefer navy or dark grey, and for dark grey trousers I go with navy but not dark grey.
 

smmrfld

Super Member
For me, it's sorta like porn...you know it when you see it. Though I will attempt a closer match with business attire than with casual, preferring smooth leathers in the same color for shoes and belt, though not necessarily the same leather. And never matching PS and tie...or even close.
 

delicious_scent

Super Member
Sometimes it just happens for me, and I roll with it. Burgundy shawl cardigan and oxblood derbies for example.

Andy brings up a good point on monochromatism as well, I made a thread about this some time ago.

 

drpeter

Super Member
Of course, those of us who are past the 'business' part of a business suit, can do pretty much whatever we please. It's just that the phrase 'geezer power' keeps whispering in my ear. How geezerly do I want to be? :amazing:
Today is the first live meeting, in almost nine months, of a group of friends whom I call the Tuesday Geezer Lunch Group. I'll ask them about the quality of geezerliness -- or is it geezeritude?
 

Dhaller

Advanced Member
I think what really matters with clothing is not so much "matching" or "contrast", but "flow".

Note even sure what that means, but it sounds good!

Ultimately, I think if you're buying clothes from the same basic "color palette", you're fine - for me, that's earthen/heathery/tweedy colors, as befits my Anglo-Saxonishish heritage.

Occasionally I'll go off the farm and buy like a bold pastel sweater or something, and it winds up being kind of orphaned... it just doesn't "flow" with the overall palette. My wife - who looks good in very modern stuff like black, or primary colors, for awhile tried to "modernize" my look, but things she got me just piled up, unworn. She sought to interrupt my flow. She failed.

Now, matching nubucks. I think the basic thing here is that matching shoes to belt works if they are *dark*, like black/black, brown/brown, or cordovan/cordovan. Dark belts and shoes *accentuate*, they don't *punctuate* the way light-colored accessories do. White draws the eye in a way dark leathers don't.

A white belt with white bucks: is that not Rodney Dangerfield in "Caddyshack"? It is, and for a reason - the character was a punctuation mark, not an accent.

The same would apply to lime green/lime green (yes, I have owned lime green loafers... do not ask), or yellow/yellow, or any other light-color matching.

Socks? I'm with fishertw... Argyle cheats the matching system. And really, men have few enough opportunities for a bit of colorful fun - especially in an era of waning neckties - so why not play up the hosiery a bit? Argyles, stripes, and so on.

DH
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

IMPORTANT: BEFORE POSTING PLEASE CHECK THE DATE OF THE LAST POST OF THIS THREAD. IF IT'S VERY OLD, PLEASE CONSIDER REGISTERING FIRST, AND STARTING A NEW THREAD ABOUT THIS TOPIC.