My God, I hate the windsor knot

Originally Posted by oman

Click to expand...

what's the one where you start by putting the tie around your neck backwards, with the underside facing out? that's the one i use when completed, the thinner length of the tie (the bit that's hidden behind the broader length) also ends up facing backwards what's this called, any ideas? it's asymmetrical, if that helps
That's the Pratt. But it's symmetrical...at least when I tie it.

Originally Posted by idfnl

Click to expand...

+1

Too much shirt real estate showing
You're kidding. There's hardly any difference in the amount of shirt showing between the two pics. There is, however, a huge difference in the amount of tie knot showing.

The untouched pic is seductive because the exaggerated inverse-V of the full windsor creates a triangular symmetry with the rest of the tie, but this effect is too dominant. It commands all the attention of the viewer, and the rest of the outfit fades into the background.

If you don't believe me, cover the model on the left with your hand while assessing the right. Looks well put-together. Then uncover him. Your eyeballs get sucked towards the tie knot almost immediately.

Originally Posted by DWFII

Click to expand...

How about a Pratt knot? It's one of the easiest knots to tie, smaller than a Windsor and perfectly symmetrical.

I wore it for a short while, but eventually found that I prefer the leaner knots: FIH and half-windsor.

FWIW, when I see a perfectly symmetrical knot these days, my first instinct is that it's a clip-on. Only later do I think Pratt or Shelby.

And if anyone's curious, I re-knotted my tie to a half-windsor.

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

You're kidding. There's hardly any difference in the amount of shirt showing between the two pics. There is, however, a huge difference in the amount of tie knot showing. The untouched pic is seductive because the exaggerated inverse-V of the full windsor creates a triangular symmetry with the rest of the tie, but this effect is too dominant. It commands all the attention of the viewer, and the rest of the outfit fades into the background. If you don't believe me, cover the model on the left with your hand while assessing the right. Looks well put-together. Then uncover him. Your eyeballs get sucked towards the tie knot almost immediately.
My other issue with the windsor, especially evident in this model, is that the knot frames his face terribly. With the wide collar and the wide knot, his slim face is exaggerated to comedic ends. Pardon me for going all fy on you guys - The wide angle of the collar and knot together look too cartoonish and don't frame the model's face properly. It's like putting a 5x7 in a frame that's matted for an 8x10. The FIH, however, sets up the model's face nicely and contrasts the wide spread collar, squaring evenly with the model's jawline. ...Oh, ck, what have I become?

Originally Posted by holymadness

Click to expand...

You're kidding. There's hardly any difference in the amount of shirt showing between the two pics. There is, however, a huge difference in the amount of tie knot showing.

The untouched pic is seductive because the exaggerated inverse-V of the full windsor creates a triangular symmetry with the rest of the tie, but this effect is too dominant. It commands all the attention of the viewer, and the rest of the outfit fades into the background.

If you don't believe me, cover the model on the left with your hand while assessing the right. Looks well put-together. Then uncover him. Your eyeballs get sucked towards the tie knot almost immediately.


I agree the narrow point of the V is too small, it needs to be thicker, but the width of the knot at the top points is appropriate and looks right.

double post. Delete.

Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro

Click to expand...

That's the only collar with which the Windsor isn't wholly inappropriate. But even with a cutaway collar, the four-in-hand is generally the best option.

+1

Originally Posted by onix

Click to expand...

I think Windsor knot has an advantage in the following situations:
- The tie is long (with respect to the person's height), or
- The tie is not substantial enough, or
- Both

There is some truth to this. I will use the Windsor sometimes when the tie isn't up to a good FIH. Usually, however, I will use a half-Windsor in these situations since it usually solves the problems above and doesn't look as stupid as a Windsor.

Originally Posted by luftvier

Click to expand...

My other issue with the windsor, especially evident in this model, is that the knot frames his face terribly.

With the wide collar and the wide knot, his slim face is exaggerated to comedic ends.

Pardon me for going all

fy on you guys -
...

The wide angle of the collar and knot together look too cartoonish and don't frame the model's face properly. It's like putting a 5x7 in a frame that's matted for an 8x10.

The FIH, however, sets up the model's face nicely and contrasts the wide spread collar, squaring evenly with the model's jawline.

...Oh,

ck, what have I become?

Luft, you've spent too much time here

Originally Posted by onix

Click to expand...

Luft, you've spent too much time here
My wife hints at this as well. It might be time for a hiatus. . .

Double FIH beats them all.

The beefiness of the Windsor family without the horrible symmetry.

This is just my opinion...but I am in the "hate the asymmetrical knot" camp. An asymmetrical knot doesn't frame anything. The "negative space" between the collar points and the tie looks unbalanced. And the overall effect is one of carelessness. The lapels on your jacket are not larger or wider on one side than the other (although you can affect the same look by buttoning your jacket askew), the points of your collar are not at one angle on one side and another angle on the other. I have strong doubts that shirts or coats made in such a fashion would ever find acceptance here on SF. Why should a tie knot, set within this frame of symmetry, be an exception? Is it to project an air of insouciance and ennui? Perhaps...add a two day growth of facial hair, a splash of cheap bourbon and it's the very thing.

The style world's obsession with the FIH is more or less justified, but FIH fetishism to the exclusion of all other options is not. There are definitely times and places for a half-windsor. I never go full windsor, but the half-windsor looks great on cutaway collars (and I know quite a few people on this thread disagree).

I think some folks have a false dichotomy in mind when they compare the FIH to the universe of all other knots. They seem to think there's the FIH on one side, and the overly large, cartoonishly bulky, Prince Michael-proportioned knot on the other. In reality, there's a vast and interesting spectrum of options in between those two extremes. To exclude all of them is to willingly forego versatility in the name of dogma.

Originally Posted by Arrogant Bastard

Click to expand...

The style world's obsession with the FIH is more or less justified, but FIH fetishism to the exclusion of all other options is not. There are definitely times and places for a half-windsor. I never go full windsor, but the half-windsor looks great on cutaway collars (and I know quite a few people on this thread disagree).

I think some folks have a false dichotomy in mind when they compare the FIH to the universe of all other knots. They seem to think there's the FIH on one side, and the overly large, cartoonishly bulky, Prince Michael-proportioned knot on the other. In reality, there's a vast and interesting spectrum of options in between those two extremes. To exclude all of them is to willingly forego versatility in the name of dogma.

1+1=+2.

Originally Posted by DWFII

Click to expand...

Why should a tie knot, set within this frame of symmetry, be an exception?
While symmetry is pleasing to the eye, it is often incredibly boring. There needs to be something not symmetrical to avoid the too-perfect look. Hence a splash of asymmetry to liven things up.

How about a Kent knot