great job on those patch pockets.
agree 100% on the lapel, pocket square pocket overlap.
I can't help but wonder how much more sophisticated this outfit would look if the watch was a thin dress watch with leather strap.
I am sure it's your favorite watch, but I see no difference between wearing a sports watch with a suit and replacing your dress shoes [or in this case, dress boots] with tennis shoes.
It is the same idea and creates the same image; one that is not harmonious.
Intriguing that you failed to quote the explanation I gave of criticism: "It is the same idea and creates the same image; one that is not harmonious."
Wearing such a watch with a suit is a disharmonious look. There is nothing about that idea that is an exaggeration.
The idea that the disharmony is no different than the disharmony created by wearing tennis shoes with a suit is not hyperbole, much less an exaggeration..
But you are entitled to your opinion as well.
I usually find such opinions are often based strictly on the cost of a item and not how IT LOOKS. Correct me if I am wrong.
FYI: this is a SPORTS WATCH and should be worn with SPORTSWEAR not a suit or dinner jacket:
I am sure that millions will prove me wrong every day by wearing something because they can and not because it looks good on them or it's correct.
I see, so there is a range of disharmony where some is acceptable and the balance intolerable?
Well, I guess I don't have as wide a range as as yourself.
The wearing a dive watch with a lounge suit, might seem absurd to the same degree as tennis shoes to some [me included].
I am content if we agree in principle but will continue to disagree upon the particulars such as the range of disharmony which might be acceptable, since I find only harmonious compositions appealing and therefore acceptable.
A suitable metaphor only if the caca de la mosca is the size of a Rolex in real life.
We agree in principle that disharmony is both present and visible.
You would like to attack my position by pretending that the disharmony is insignificant, even while it is visible.
However, your metaphor that implies the disharmony is neither significant nor visible.
You can do better, no doubt, but why would you attack an opinion based on something that is entirely visible?
I understand. But you do understand that you are implying that your argument was ad hominem, or against me, and not against my position?
I find no offense in this, just curious about why you would make that clarification, since we are discussing an idea and not my suitability as a presenter of ideas, or did I get this wrong?
Again, just curious, not offended.