Ambrosi Napoli - Page 41

No one is saying they have to be special. Again, it's the formality gap. Throwing one or two more or less formal items into the whole is interesting and fun. But when the gap is that large, it just looks dumb.

I suppose our fundamental disagreement is over the formality of light grey flannel trousers. I think they are essentially as adaptable as khakis.

No.

Also, the shoes. Don't forget the shoes.

would like to hear what vox has to say about this.

I'm momentarily back from my spreadsheet...wasn't there an entire thread to helping Vox match dress pants to his clothes? For that reason alone, I too would like to hear his opinion on the matter.

No I think the gap between everyone and you relates to the formality of the sweatshirt. To me, a sweatshirt with writing on it as as formal as a T-shirt with writing on it, and less formal than a plain t-shirt.

Sweatshirts are only appropriate when exercising, doing rough outdoorsy activities, or attending an outdoors football/lacrosse/etc. match. Also, wearing the full name of your school outside of the gym is completely naff; you should have gotten a sweatshirt with just a B on it.

You should have just stuck with some sort of knit sweater. Cotton would have been fine.

I actually agree with Zach. In college, the few kids who wore sportcoats and ties to class looked ridiculous. No amount of Neopolitan shoulder is going to make you not look like a douchebag.

Along the same lines, I flew to Louisville for the Derby this past weekend. From my vantage point in a box, I saw a lot of people wearing suits in the infield. Again - ridiculous. Shorts and a t-shirt would be entirely appropriate. If you paid $40 for your ticket on the day of the event and have kids dressed in togas to one side of you and superheros to the other, you needn't wear a suit. (In the stands, naturally, there were plenty of well turned-out people, as there should be.)

It's not the 1920s any more. Suits used to be worn to class, to the Derby infield...hell even to the beach. Anyone who would argue that wearing a suit to the beach with a lady who is wearing a dress is anything other than totally absurd fails to grasp how significantly social norms have changed.

100% of the MC side? No one wears pocket squares unless they want to put up some costume. I say this as a guy who wears pockets squares and jackets with tees...

Foo's outfit is casual. Casual as in a I-don't-care-what-you-think way.

Kind of like how Oldog pairs very loose fitting hawaiian short sleeve shirts (see below) with carefully pressed, pleated trousers. I love the casual vibes in that look very much. What makes the look is oldog's attitude that comes through in the photo -- casual and super comfortable. He certainly looks stylish. Most of you disagree, probably.

(emphasis mine)


I wear something similar on hot summer days here -- a short sleeve madras shirt with pressed, pleated/flat-front bills khakis poplins and suede shoes. Note that I work in a university setting so I don't have to look any more formal on most days.

Foo's outfit is on the same lines with the short sleeve shirts replaced with the brown sweatshirt. There is nothing wrong about his outfit -- it is inherently casual and it does not matter if he is wearing ambrosi pants or jeans or khakis. It is possibly not work appropriate where he works, but he is enjoying a day in the park!

Jeans would not have the made this outfit any more casual -- it is certainly more commonly seen, agreed. I'dve probably worn a pair of khakis with an outfit like this, but that's because I dislike jeans and own a single pair that I wear during colder days here.

Pocket squares are all over workaday Manhattan these days.

I really don't think %'s Tommy Bahama shirts/pleated trousers look is going to help foo's cause here unless it's meant in a "what would you prefer to wear between these two" kind of way.

Sock ad pocket square is next for Foo. I can feel it.

Two big differences with his outfits and foo's. Oldog is in the office at work, not at the park on the weekend. He is also not in his 20s. Dressing for the context.

....

That's about accurate.