or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by mensimageconsultant

htttp://trove.com/me/content/lgUNa?chid=27843&utm_content=tedigclnx20140406-3284&utm_medium=email&utm_source=toppicks&utm_campaign=td20140406 That would help explain why dot ties, dot shirts, etc., have never been very popular. There probably are non-style implications that others can think of.
The Bourbon should be fine, and tacking on the question to another's thread delayed a response until now.
As a rule, the more questions, the fewer answers. Many of the questions cannot be answered definitively, but the answer to #2 is yes and most people probably don't deem chinos/khakis "odd trousers." If they're colorful, they likely are too casual for wear with cufflinks. Also, whether a blazer or jacket is formal enough for cufflinks depends on many details - for example, patch pockets are casual and point toward no.
Healthy bump there. It's very possible that an aversion (probably justified in the situation) to mixing brown with black clashes with a general dislike for heavily brown outfits, whereas people don't seem to mind wearing several blue or black items at a time, and prompts people to reject brown ties as unwearable. Actually, one could get around that by using burgundy shoes or belts instead, but many men probably don't own them.
If that happened already, update, please? If it hasn't happened, don't wear a cashmere tie. It might be judged as too fancy. Also, monk strap shoes on an interview always will have more potential to harm than to help. Safely deviating from the norm on an interview means looking only slightly outside the norm.
How about a vague guideline that weight distinguishes shoes from "pure boots" (those that can't substitute for shoes in general circumstances)? (That would classify even dressy riding boots as "pure boots," which probably is how most people view them.) @DWFII Your opinion was specifically wanted. Thank you. For the record, could you explain "mean formes"?
It was. The people liked it. To present an educated guess, "work shoes" might have evolved into "work boots" in part from government regulations that probably require "boots." Possibly the same manufacturer was making for both industrial workplaces and the army and decided to start calling everything ankle-high "boots." Meanwhile, history pages suggest desert boots evolved from custom-made footwear designed to replace soldiers' footwear that they probably called already...
Thanks, interesting. What language is that? The Oxford Dictionary carries more weight than some sources, but it's not a fashion dictionary. Obviously boots aren't the same as shoes - the issue is whether they're a subset of shoes. It's like a murkier version of pants vs. jeans, though probably everyone would agree that the latter is a special form of the former.
Well, at least that was an answer. Some people do say boots are shoes. It would be simpler re discussion if everyone considered the two types distinct. Terminology is an issue for navigating retail sites, by the way, re boots, socks, etc. - their location depends on what a retailer deems them. Anyway, it's just an attempt at a topic that isn't the usual tired stuff and hoping a footwear professional would opine.
New Posts  All Forums: