Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Rules of attired
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rules of attired

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 
I'd like to start a thread of rules about dress that each member could add to.

I'll kick off -

1. Never wear shoes lighter (in colour) than a Romeo y Julieta churchill cigar.
2. Never unbutton your jacket cuffs unless a. you're washing hands between operations or b. you want to look like a "merchant banker" (note for the septic tanks - I'm using rhyming slang).
3. Never wear a string tie, or vest.

Please share your thoughts.
post #2 of 31
Can we remove rules instead of adding?
post #3 of 31
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdl203
Can we remove rules instead of adding?

No.
post #4 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruprecht
No.

Too bad. Your #1 rule is so silly I don't think I can add anything after that.

post #5 of 31
What's a Romeo y Julieta churchill cigar? I think people should be able to dress how they want to (but I don't mean looking like a bum at the office). Most of these kinda rules are on askandy anyway, aren't they? Tom.
post #6 of 31
I think rule # 3 is a bit silly as well. Vests are great with three piece suits and I like sweater vests under sports coats. I also think the string tie is a perfectly reasonable regional accessory. I probably would not wear one, but a lawyer I occassionally work with in Texas carries it off.
post #7 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruprecht
3. Never wear a string tie, or vest.

That's drivel, seriously: vests are a staple of a man's style, they have their place and serve their purpose.

Jon.
post #8 of 31
One thing I hate about fashion are rules about fashion
post #9 of 31
Are we talking about a Havana R&J or one of the Dominican ones? Because the wrapper colors are not the same. Not that it matters to me, as a quarter or so of my shoes are lighter than Macanudos, and I ain't getting rid of them.
post #10 of 31
I suppose Ruprecht may mean undershirt when he writes vest.
post #11 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJman
I suppose Ruprecht may mean undershirt when he writes vest.

Who knows? I mean, we're talking about a man who eats with corks on his forks so as not to hurt himself...or others. (not mother?)
post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by RJman
I suppose Ruprecht may mean undershirt when he writes vest.

How, can one possibly make that error? It's like saying that when I say waistcoat I actually mean shoes.

Jon.
post #13 of 31
I think that Ruppretch is writing according to British usage, in which your vest is what you wear under your shirt if you are prone to the cold, or your mother makes you. In this usage the sleeveless garment worn under the jacket is a waistcoat (except to a few Savile Row tailors, who prefer the old usage of "vest"). I read Rupprecht as cautioning us against wearing string vests, which is perhaps not bad advice...
post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony Jordan
I think that Ruppretch is writing according to British usage, in which your vest is what you wear under your shirt if you are prone to the cold, or your mother makes you. In this usage the sleeveless garment worn under the jacket is a waistcoat (except to a few Savile Row tailors, who prefer the old usage of "vest"). I read Rupprecht as cautioning us against wearing string vests, which is perhaps not bad advice...

I'm lost now. So what would a "string vest" be? A string undershirt?
post #15 of 31
Ah, two peoples separated by a common language.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Rules of attired