or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Non-Rule "Rules"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Non-Rule "Rules" - Page 10

post #136 of 772
First, someone asked about hacking/riding/hunting jackets. Yes, they are usually single vented. Women's jackets -- even though hunt gear is supposed to be largely unisex -- can be either single or double. But there are sold aesthetic reasons for this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Holdfast View Post

I'm pretty sure I've done this at least once and liked the effect. It's a quasi-military aeshetic , which can be sort of fun to play with. Talking of personal preferences though, what I really wanted to ask was whether you felt as strongly about this with a khaki-coloured suit (say, paired with white shirt and black knit tie)? I don't own such a suit, but I can imagine it looking pretty fun.

Yes, the effect is quasi military, that's why it's to be avoided, at least in the U.S.. In the UK, this look evokes the British Expeditionary Force in the Raj. Here it says, " mall cop."

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

1. Socks should never be the same color as trousers.

You need to expand this a bit. You don't match them to your shoes, do you?

Or do you mean you always include a bit of a pattern? I usually do this, too. But typically, when I'm wearing a suit, I'm not reaching for the fun socks.
Quote:
3. If not black, belt and shoes should not match.

Once again, not exactly, but pretty close. I have one belt that hits a real sweet between brown and red that works with a surprising number of different shoes.
Quote:
5. Trousers worn with jackets should be pleated.

This really depends. First, I'm not buying your theory about the "pleasing vertical lines." If you're wearing a jacket, no one ought to be able to see the pleats when you are standing up. Second, pleats don't look that great when you sit down. I certainly have some suits with pleated pants but most of my odd trousers are flat front. There may be a day in my not-too-distant future when I have to switch entirely to pleats, but not today.
Quote:
7. The only acceptable tie knot is the four-in-hand.

This one really surprises me. I am fairly tall and sometimes even I resort to at least a double four-in-hand. Four-in-hand is certainly the default but some other knots do serve a useful purpose on occasion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

I just find it easier to wear the suit then I don't have to carry a garment bag.

I can see not wanting to carry a garment bag. But you can certainly put a pair of pants in just a regular carry-on without them suffering. Or are these just day trips?

I used to have a pair of "saddle bags" that went over my laptop case. They were the ultimate in minimalist travel. They held one shirt, 1 pair underwear and socks, one tie and one pair of pants. They were just perfect for overnight trips. But then, for some reason, the airlines began giving me such regularly grief about them that I gave up and I haven't used them in quite a long time. But it was great while it lasted. I could go directly to meetings and no one realized I had all me luggage right with me.
post #137 of 772
I only wear plain, no pattern whatsoever, socks with tweed or plaid trousers. Otherwise I find it all too fussy down there.
post #138 of 772
I live in a quiet suburb in the Bay Area. My name is Mr. Moo. I'm 29 years old. I believe in taking care of myself, and a balanced diet and a rigorous exercise routine. In the morning, if my face is a little puffy, I'll put on an ice pack while doing my stomach crunches. I can do a thousand now. After I remove the ice pack, I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower, I use a water activated gel cleanser. Then a honey almond body scrub. And on the face, an exfoliating gel scrub. Then apply an herb mint facial mask, which I leave on for 10 minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an aftershave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion. There is an idea of a Mr. Moo, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me. Only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our life styles are probably comparable, I simply am not there.
post #139 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

You need to expand this a bit. You don't match them to your shoes, do you?

Why are matching to your pants or shoes the only choices? I think of my socks the same way I think of everything else I wear. They ought to integrate into the outfit, but that doesn't mean they need to "match" whatever they are adjacent to. Surely you don't think about your tie or pocket square that way--if you do, you are doing something wrong on a much larger scale.

All of my regular socks are solid navy, burgundy, or brown. Navy pretty much complements everything but navy trousers. The other two colors fill in the gaps. I don't consider such socks to be "fun socks" at all.

I am not categorically opposed to patterned socks, but they are more trouble than they are worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

Once again, not exactly, but pretty close. I have one belt that hits a real sweet between brown and red that works with a surprising number of different shoes.

Sounds about right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

This really depends. First, I'm not buying your theory about the "pleasing vertical lines." If you're wearing a jacket, no one ought to be able to see the pleats when you are standing up. Second, pleats don't look that great when you sit down. I certainly have some suits with pleated pants but most of my odd trousers are flat front. There may be a day in my not-too-distant future when I have to switch entirely to pleats, but not today.

I unbutton my jackets from time to time, so the pleats do show. But, as I pointed out, they also help pants drape better. That effect comes through whether or not someone can see the actual pleats.

When you sit in flat front pants, the cloth is forced to pile up in large folds--unfortunately, often in one large one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post

This one really surprises me. I am fairly tall and sometimes even I resort to at least a double four-in-hand. Four-in-hand is certainly the default but some other knots do serve a useful purpose on occasion.

Four-in-hand isn't just for size, but shape. Nothing is worse than a symmetrical tie knot. If you are tall, you should have your ties made appropriate for your size. Then, you can wear them four-in-hand, as God intended.
post #140 of 772
All my trousers are flat front because that's what my wife likes and insists on. shog[1].gif
post #141 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Why are matching to your pants or shoes the only choices? I think of my socks the same way I think of everything else I wear. They ought to integrate into the outfit, but that doesn't mean they need to "match" whatever they are adjacent to. Surely you don't think about your tie or pocket square that way--if you do, you are doing something wrong on a much larger scale.
All of my regular socks are solid navy, burgundy, or brown. Navy pretty much complements everything but navy trousers. The other two colors fill in the gaps. I don't consider such socks to be "fun socks" at all.
.

They're never going to exactly match your pants though. The ankle is not an area in which i want the line of the eye to stop.
post #142 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Why are matching to your pants or shoes the only choices? I think of my socks the same way I think of everything else I wear. They ought to integrate into the outfit, but that doesn't mean they need to "match" whatever they are adjacent to. Surely you don't think about your tie or pocket square that way--if you do, you are doing something wrong on a much larger scale.
All of my regular socks are solid navy, burgundy, or brown. Navy pretty much complements everything but navy trousers. The other two colors fill in the gaps. I don't consider such socks to be "fun socks" at all.
.

Burgundy socks with a navy suit are "fun" in a good way. Just laid mine out to wear tomorrow.
post #143 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

oh man.
gunboats sure, but black???? with khaki???

sure
post #144 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

I don't know why navy odd trousers are wrong. I just know that they are.
Without a jacket they are not terrible but with a jacket, noooo.
A couple of years ago I had to be somewhere for a dinner and I also had a lunch in the same place. I wore my navy linen suit with a cream linen BD shirt. For the lunch and the rest of the afternoon I wore just the pants and the shirt with no coat or tie. Then for the dinner I put on the tie and coat. Could have been worse.

ridiculous, imo.
post #145 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

What are "your" rules? Things you always do that are not cannonical rules but that you rarely stray from?

Seems that some folks are straying from the stated theme of this thread by disputing other folks' "rules." It is, of course, unpardonably rude to deviate from the moderator's theme in any thread. And in this instance it makes no sense to argue; an individual's idiosyncratic "rules" are indisputably correct for that individual.

It occurs to me, however, that a separate thread, containing illustrations contrary to various of the "rules" stated here, to good or I'll effect, could both entertain and provoke endless emnity. Perhaps I'll start such a thread.
post #146 of 772
Thread Starter 
I agree with foo re: sock color. I do not agree that they all have to be solids. On that, I agree with philosophe: I have almost no solid socks.
post #147 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldog/oldtrix View Post


Seems that some folks are straying from the stated theme of this thread by disputing other folks' "rules." It is, of course, unpardonably rude to deviate from the moderator's theme in any thread. And in this instance it makes no sense to argue; an individual's idiosyncratic "rules" are indisputably correct for that individual.

Thank you for posting this.
post #148 of 772
i rarely wear a tie with a non solid shirt. i know its perfectly allowed, but i just dont feel comfortable with it most of the time.
post #149 of 772
Can someone with more experience than I comment on blue pants like these from Howard Yount? I'm looking for options beyond grey pants, and they seem like they might be a nice pairing with grey jackets, but I'm not sure how I'll feel when I actually see the combo.
post #150 of 772
I have a pair of pants like that and it's a very difficult colour to wear. They're almost never worn, tbh.

Of course, I don't have anything near what might be considered a classical wardrobe; I don't even own a navy blazer, which i'd imagine might be the obvious choice to wear those with.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Non-Rule "Rules"