or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › CBD WAYWRN: An Experiment
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CBD WAYWRN: An Experiment - Page 184

post #2746 of 7029
Last Thursday (navy suit, light blue shirt, brown/burgundy quarter(?) brogues):


I like the simplicity. The fit is on the short side, but doesn't bother me and I'll let more knowledgeable commentators weigh in on the details. Next time try to get a front shot little closer to the camera. A very good start, I think.
post #2747 of 7029
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre View Post
I understand you feel immune to criticism but I don't like any of your shoes. I didn't say the monks were cheap I said they look cheap, in general, compared to double monks - but that's because I prefer a slightly (slightly) sleaker look.
PG's many shots of double monks are more compelling than single monks which looks sort of basic.
I also understand you have been to Naples and have now been seduced by the gunboat styles worn there, which in my view look at odds with the overly slim cut of everything else they wear.
There are many pics of people with double monks so I presume some agree with me.



That shoe is a modernistic design -- the only one I have ever liked as it happens, and I realize it's not for everyone. However, one thing it is, is sleek. Much sleeker than the typical double monk, which is traditionally a heavier, bulkier shoe that often takes a double sole. Most makers make it that way.

What I find preposterous is the notion that single monks = cheap looking while double monks = inherently classier. Especially if the reasoning for that is that doubles are on average sleeker--because the opposite is actually the case.

I don't think the people who wear double monks necessarily agree with you. they just happen to be wearing double monks that day. I have loafers, oxfords, bluchers, specs, boots, monks, etc. I don't have any double monks but I may get some one day. The simple fact that they may be on my feet on a given day will not be evidence that I think they are superior to any other shoe or style of shoe. In fact, as it happens, the pair I consider my very finest gets worn perhaps the least.
post #2748 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre View Post
I understand you feel immune to criticism but I don't like any of your shoes. I didn't say the monks were cheap I said they look cheap, in general, compared to double monks - but that's because I prefer a slightly (slightly) sleaker look. PG's many shots of double monks are more compelling than single monks which looks sort of basic. I also understand you have been to Naples and have now been seduced by the gunboat styles worn there, which in my view look at odds with the overly slim cut of everything else they wear. There are many pics of people with double monks so I presume some agree with me.
You may want to quit while you're ahead... that particular monk style (see the EG oundle, and others by Lobb, et al.) are very distinctive; you won't find a shoe like that under $1,000--and that's if it's non-MTM/bespoke. You are showing ignorance of styles at best with your comment. It's like saying you don't like the Ferrari 458 because you think it looks cheap compared to a Lexus SUV because the Lexus has 4-wheel drive and not 2. You are entitled to not like a particular style for sure! But to say it looks cheap evinces a certain lack of knowledge or experience... just sayin'
post #2749 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre View Post
double monks are more compelling than single monks

There's room for both.

Single monk more classic, timeless, less attention calling, looks good with wool trousers, jackets, suits.

Double more with the present, younger, flashier, looks good with denim.

Practically it is like two button shirt cuffs versus one button shirt cuffs. Do you really need to buckle two buckles to keep the shoes on your feet? No.

- M
post #2750 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

What I find preposterous is the notion that single monks = cheap looking while double monks = inherently classier.

This.

I get that one may prefer one over the other stylistically but to define their aesthetic dislike as "cheap" is a complete non sequitur.
post #2751 of 7029
This thread would be better if only Manton were to be allowed to start commenting on the various ensembles posted. And he should also be given the power to delete irrelevant pics.
post #2752 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by radicaldog View Post
This thread would be better if only Manton were to be allowed to start commenting on the various ensembles posted. And he should also be given the power to delete irrelevant pics.
I think you've all been brainwashed. So he is beyond criticism, right?
post #2753 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by EBugatti View Post
You may want to quit while you're ahead... that particular monk style (see the EG oundle, and others by Lobb, et al.) are very distinctive; you won't find a shoe like that under $1,000--and that's if it's non-MTM/bespoke.

You are showing ignorance of styles at best with your comment. It's like saying you don't like the Ferrari 458 because you think it looks cheap compared to a Lexus SUV because the Lexus has 4-wheel drive and not 2. You are entitled to not like a particular style for sure! But to say it looks cheap evinces a certain lack of knowledge or experience... just sayin'

While I'm glad you think I'm ahead I don't understand this premise. Because that monk style is rare and expensive I have to like it and if I don't I'm ignorant?.
The car metaphor is simply bizarre. I don't think a 458 is built for off-roading and the Lexus SUV isn't likely to be used on the track is it?
post #2754 of 7029
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectre View Post
While I'm glad you think I'm ahead I don't understand this premise. Because that monk style is rare and expensive I have to like it and if I don't I'm ignorant?.
The car metaphor is simply bizarre. I don't think a 458 is built for off-roading and the Lexus SUV isn't likely to be used on the track is it?

No, the point is that it's absurd to say one style is inherently classier than the other. That's like saying "bluchers look cheap, you should always wear bals." Really?

Single v. double is just a stylistic choice. You don't have to like either. But neither is inherently nicer or crummier than the other. We're not talking about the difference between Lobbs and Hush Puppies here.
post #2755 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by EBugatti View Post
You may want to quit while you're behind...

ftfy

Really, it was a silly comment and Manton's response was no evidence that he believes himself "immune to criticism," so just drop it. If you like double monks and don't like singles, fine. Just don't act like a basic, classic style that all top makers do in some form is inherently cheap or crappy.
post #2756 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Something funky about your BD collars, TRINI. They make sort of an egg shape outline rather than a bell curve.

And you say I'm nitpicky?
post #2757 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diavolo View Post
I think you've all been brainwashed. So he is beyond criticism, right?

Certainly not. I've clashed with Manton before, and not only about politics. Here I'm proposing a trade-off because I think that the thread would become better, despite Manton's idiosyncrasies. It's just one thread after all, and it was his idea.
post #2758 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post



Sorry if already mentioned, but from what fabric is this suit made?
post #2759 of 7029
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolpapaboze View Post
Sorry if already mentioned, but from what fabric is this suit made?

Minnis 13 oz. sharkskin, lighter of two blues.
post #2760 of 7029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
No, the point is that it's absurd to say one style is inherently classier than the other. That's like saying "bluchers look cheap, you should always wear bals." Really?

Single v. double is just a stylistic choice. You don't have to like either. But neither is inherently nicer or crummier than the other. We're not talking about the difference between Lobbs and Hush Puppies here.

+1. I happen to dislike double monks and I never found the need to give reasons for my likes and dislikes in clothing items. If you don't like something just don't like it. No need to makes silly arguments in favor of your choices.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › CBD WAYWRN: An Experiment