or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III - Page 4580  

post #68686 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Henry Carter View Post


Interesting. Only picked up in it being a fly fisherman myself. So looking at it again, taking away the collar, I think you'd benefit also from a bit less yellow there, swap the shirt for light blue. Yellow ties don't get a lot of love here, though personally I don't have anything against them, they always sell pretty slowly when I do them.


I recently picked up some BB no-iron shirts at the outlet in shades of blue and purples. I won a few wonderful  ties that members here had listed on eBay, and I'm happy to announce that they're not yellow. I have resurrected some of my father's suits that my wife didn't donate away (the Leading Co., Samuelsohn, BB Golden Fleece, etc.) and overcoats (Canali cashmere, etc), and picked up a Medit and another Sammy on eBay too. I may be headed in the correct direction, with the help here. Thanks.

 

BTW - I still like yellow.

post #68687 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotton Dockers View Post
 

 

Hmm... I must be confused between the type of silk and where it is made. Can you explain the difference?

 

 

Also is the shirt you wore white or ecru?

 

That shirt is white, but when I originally took the picture, it appeared to be a rich shade of yellow. I had to pull all manner of tricks to get the colors to look right.

 

The understanding I had is that a printed neat (as beloved on SF) was called a "Spitalsfield," after one of the other centers of British silk weaving, while a Macclesfield is a woven pattern (as underrepresented on SF). In this thread I came up with trying to check my facts, Manton says a Spitalsfield is still a woven pattern, but with a larger scale, so I'll defer to him.

 

I think the term "Macclesfield pattern" is a menswear term, not a weaving term, so they make more than just that kind of pattern in Macclesfield. That's a paisley (type of pattern) foulard (type of printing), as far as I know. A "Macclesfield pattern" wouldn't make a good square.

 

Here's an example of a Macclesfield tie, from one of the best things ever written about ties online (Tintin uses the Macclesfield/Spitalsfield terminology as I thought it was):

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
 

 

 

u have some nice repps YRR.. but a repp like that with navy (blazer?) should take a quieter square.

 Patterned square + tie in a 2 pattern fit is  sub-optimal-  esp when they're so colorful. 

Thank you. My inclination would have been towards a quieter square, but I felt I had to do something to play with the brightly colored cotton trousers.

 

I know I've heard :foo: say that the issue with wearing a patterned tie and square with a solid coat and tie is that it tends to make it look like you're trying to stretch a small wardrobe with bold furnishings -- and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm doing just that. :embar:

post #68688 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post

The understanding I had is that a printed neat (as beloved on SF) was called a "Spitalsfield," after one of the other centers of British silk weaving, while a Macclesfield is a woven pattern (as underrepresented on SF). In this thread I came up with trying to check my facts, Manton says a Spitalsfield is still a woven pattern, but with a larger scale, so I'll defer to him.

 

I think the term "Macclesfield pattern" is a menswear term, not a weaving term, so they make more than just that kind of pattern in Macclesfield. That's a paisley (type of pattern) foulard (type of printing), as far as I know. A "Macclesfield pattern" wouldn't make a good square.

 

Here's an example of a Macclesfield tie, from one of the best things ever written about ties online (Tintin uses the Macclesfield/Spitalsfield terminology as I thought it was):

Thank you. My inclination would have been towards a quieter square, but I felt I had to do something to play with the brightly colored cotton trousers.I know I've heard :foo:say that the issue with wearing a patterned tie and square with a solid coat and tie is that it tends to make it look like you're trying to stretch a small wardrobe with bold furnishings -- and I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm doing just that. :embar:

 

 

 

Flusser talks about the diff between Spits and Maccs in Dressing the Man, and IIRC they're the same basic design-  neats  - but one is larger than the other. Not sure which tho.  He describes them both as formal-ish and has some great pics of Grant and others wearing them.  FWIW IMO they both look better narrow with a small knot.

 

 

edit: The Spittalsfield appears to be a smaller denser pattern (tho that's opposite of Manton).  Found this one of Grant in a Spits (from Flusser)

 


Edited by Pliny - 1/16/14 at 9:58pm
post #68689 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by mktitsworth View Post

It was all he had.

 

Man, that's only one step above total ruin and homelessness... :D

 

PS: I was vaguely paraphrasing Oscar Wilde in my comment - no-one seems to have noticed :violin:

post #68690 of 78722

shoes are new, so I had no qualms wearing them indoors.

 

SF Family:

Howard Yount (tie, trousers)

Post-Imperial (square)

Meermin (shoes)

post #68691 of 78722

I really don't like uploading 'selfie cellphone bathroom' photos, but I seldom contribute so I can't be picky. The good ones aren't on my phone or on any website yet.

 

At a Diamondbacks Sponsors Appreciation event, at a local casino. 

 

 

 

Luxire shirt

Kent Wang Blazer

Panta Tie/PS (cream linen)

Epaulet houndstooth pants

EG Westminsters

 

(edit: Sure, you may see the combo quite a bit.. all my favorite items!)

post #68692 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post
 

 

shoes are new, so I had no qualms wearing them indoors.

 

SF Family:

Howard Yount (tie, trousers)

Post-Imperial (square)

Meermin (shoes)

THOSE SHOES!

Fantastic.

 

eta: the square may be a bit high. You don't think so? I always thought a square should kind of just be peeking out, as not to be shouting, "I HAVE A POCKET SQUARE ON!"

post #68693 of 78722

Beautiful shoes Clags.. quick question.. do the Meermins run to size or do you usually have to size up or down?

post #68694 of 78722

Alot of lurking but no posts in a long time.

Corneliani SC

MTM shirt - Thomas Mason fabric

Drakes - royal blue cashmere

Pringle of Scotland cardigan

Farrell PoW flannels - charcoal (double pleats)

Cordovan tassels - Alden

post #68695 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjester View Post
 

 

eta: the square may be a bit high. You don't think so? I always thought a square should kind of just be peeking out, as not to be shouting, "I HAVE A POCKET SQUARE ON!"

I figured with frayed edges, you go big or you go home. I feel comfortable with it, so that's probably enough to pull it off.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by chocsosa View Post
 

Beautiful shoes Clags.. quick question.. do the Meermins run to size or do you usually have to size up or down?

I generally wear 10US and with Meermin go to 9UK. Though actually 9UK is a little bit big while 8.5UK is way too small. So. Meh. Probably not getting Meermin again unless they have something I really like. Gonna just stick with AE or Jalan Swirijaya (the two brands I've tried that fit me best)

post #68696 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLopez View Post

Dear All,

My first post in 2014 so happy New Year to all of you.

Now the pictures with a DB flannel suit and a 7 fold Passaggio Cravatte tie:





Regards,

Beautiful suit and beautiful ancient 7 foulds :)...He's fine

post #68697 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pliny View Post
 

 

 

zoom (Click to show)

 

 

Crusty a DB + bow?  that's sprezz :slayer:

Clags, beautiful~Very nice tie ... but everything is beautifully balanced and sinuous

Very nice tie ... but everything is beautifully balanced and sinuous...compliments.

post #68698 of 78722
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cotton Dockers View Post

 

It is quite warm here, but I wouldn't go sockless for three reasons: 1) I feel a little odd not wearing socks in January,  It is unmanly. 2) my house is quite chilly (for LA) in the morning so I always end up dressed a little warmer than necessary for that day's weather and It is unsightly 3) I would not feel comfortable going sockless in my office despite it's lack of strict dress code. It is unhygienic.

 

 

Good for you.  And looking splendid.  I maintain that socklessness is only ever acceptable if you're on a beach or a boat, or at least next to one.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post
 

I figured with frayed edges, you go big or you go home.

 

Hail the P-Imperial.  What last are your shoes on?

post #68699 of 78722
X-post from the Friday challenge.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pingson View Post

Here we go. Thanks to Mimo for spearheading the three-piece suit in this week's challenge......




Details (Click to show)



post #68700 of 78722

thank you Gianni-  the tie is Cappelli- love that guy

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
This thread is locked  
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part III