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

Non-Rule "Rules" - Page 11

post #151 of 772
I wear jeans with every odd jacket I own on a frequent basis, yet I never wear blue pants with any of them.
post #152 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquidus View Post

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.

similar to hendrix, i think those would be tough to find a jacket with.

i know others have expressed general dislike of navy office pants, but i find with darker blues, like navy, a brown or gray SC looks very nice. just my opinion.
post #153 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by hendrix View Post

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.

This is kind of my thinking as well. I really don't want people concentrating on my ankles at all. "My eyes are up here, dude!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

When you sit in flat front pants, the cloth is forced to pile up in large folds--unfortunately, often in one large one.

Where you see a bug, I see a feature.

Quote:
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.

So your real rule is to always have your ties custom made.

There are other non-symmetrical tie knots other than the FIH. A double FIH still isn't symmetrical but it does allow you to properly adjust a tie that might otherwise be a bit too long. Definitely a useful weapon in the arsenal.

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.

No.

Do we really need to have the "I like chocolate ice cream" discussion again?

People have reasons for their personal rules. Moreover, the ultimate reason for these personal rules is, presumably, that they somehow advance the same aesthetic as the "real" rules.

The raison d'etre of a message board thread is discussion. Personally, I am hoping that someone will convince me either that some of their rules are good or that some of mine are bad.

For example, Foo has reasons for his rules. I think some of them are ridiculous, but he does have reasons. The whole point of a message board, certainly of SF, is discussing those reasons. Even if I am not convinced, the discussion will be interesting.
post #154 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bounder View Post


No. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Do we really need to have the "I like chocolate ice cream" discussion again?
People have reasons for their personal rules. Moreover, the ultimate reason for these personal rules is, presumably, that they somehow advance the same aesthetic as the "real" rules.
The raison d'etre of a message board thread is discussion. Personally, I am hoping that someone will convince me either that some of their rules are good or that some of mine are bad.
For example, Foo has reasons for his rules. I think some of them are ridiculous, but he does have reasons. The whole point of a message board, certainly of SF, is discussing those reasons. Even if I am not convinced, the discussion will be interesting.

this(whole paragraph)
post #155 of 772
Thread Starter 
I don't know that I have reasons for all my rules. I think I do for most of them but if put to the test to justify them I might have a hard time.
post #156 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

I don't know that I have reasons for all my rules. I think I do for most of them but if put to the test to justify them I might have a hard time.

Of course you have reasons for all your rules. Are we to believe that you somehow generated them at random?

Now they might not be very good reasons. I'm sure we all have some "rules" that served a purpose at one time but are now nonsensical.

Or they may be good rules for your particular situation. For example, I shy away from patterns, probably too much so, because I am colorblind and can all to easily end up dressing like a clown -- and I mean an evil clown, not a funny one.

If your rules no longer make sense, then discussing them may well help you to recognize that. If you have some rules that are very good rules for a particular reason, others may be able to adapt them to their own situations. For example, Ed's recent thread has given me some ideas on how to work around some of the problems I have with patterns.

The point is that if it a good rule, others can learn from it. If you can't justify them, you might want to re-think them. It's a win either way.
post #157 of 772
A few of mine:

1. Every single-breasted coat I have had made since 1987 has had hacking pockets, a ticket pocket, and double vents. Apart from one where I forgot to order the ticket pocket (or the cutter forgot) and I thought I'd give it a whirl without. Every time I wear that coat, I wish it had a ticket pocket.

2. I simply cannot wear brown shoes, however dark, however elegant, with a business suit.

3. Conversely, I am happy to wear black bluchers, monks and loafers with the most conservative of business suits.

4. And I think brown cap-toe balmorals are fine with jeans.

5. I love two-hole horn buttons on single-breasted suit coats. I cannot abide them on double-breasted coats.

6. All my bespoke suit trousers are double-pleated. Only one pair of my non-suit trousers is.

7. All my bespoke suit trousers have a cash/watch pocket in the front waistband.. But I never put anything in it.

8. I never wear button-cuffed shirts with suits.

9. I could not give a toss whether cuff buttons on a coat work or not, and never undo them if they do, but I always order the first two as working buttons.

10. I never wear any form of patterned sock.

The things we're talking about here are personal prejudices, quirks or habits. I'd never say that someone wearing a straight-pocketed, single-vented suit with flat-front trousers, a button-cuffed shirt, patterned socks and brown shoes was by definition badly dressed, inappropriately dressed, or unstylish. But you wouldn't catch me dead wearing the same outfit.
post #158 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

I don't know that I have reasons for all my rules. I think I do for most of them but if put to the test to justify them I might have a hard time.

could you elaborate at all on the navy office pants rule? only because i like them so much. i doubt ill stop wearing them, but i would like to hear more about what the underlying issue is.
post #159 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

could you elaborate at all on the navy office pants rule? only because i like them so much. i doubt ill stop wearing them, but i would like to hear more about what the underlying issue is.

I think it's generally accepted that odd jacket/trouser combinations are more easily accomplished successfully when the trousers are lighter in color. This will obviously never be the case with navy trousers. For the same reason you don't see charcoal odd trousers very often either. Light-to-medium blues can make for nice odd trousers though IMHO.
post #160 of 772
For instance:

post #161 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

I think it's generally accepted that odd jacket/trouser combinations are more easily accomplished successfully when the trousers are lighter in color. This will obviously never be the case with navy trousers. For the same reason you don't see charcoal odd trousers very often either. Light-to-medium blues can make for nice odd trousers though IMHO.

true. however,

1. a dark brown can often be slightly darker than a slightly lighter navy.

2. would you then say that lighter SCs, are also often no go. like a white, or a gray/black/white houndstooth/check, that give a white look.
post #162 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

For instance: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

i think the SC is ligher in that pic, and personally, i like the look. i have done a very similar one myself.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
cd472595.jpg

not expecting a lot of love, but i really like it.
post #163 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

true. however,
1. a dark brown can often be slightly darker than a slightly lighter navy.

Do you mean therefore there shouldn't be dark brown odd trousers either? Or do you mean you could wear a dark brown coat with navy trousers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

2. would you then say that lighter SCs, are also often no go. like a white, or a gray/black/white houndstooth/check, that give a white look.

I have a cream linen DB that I love and the coat in the photo above is a black/white plaid with a kind of royal blue overcheck. I wear it pretty often too, but mostly with pants that are also lighter colored, as the blue in the photo. I think once you're on the light side of the spectrum with both things, the fact of one being lighter than the other isn't such a big deal. Dark/dark, however, is usually unsuccessful, at least for the day. I suppose I should note that the dark jacket/lighter trouser idea goes back to formal morning wear, and so is kind of specific to daytime wear. Midnight blue velvet blazer with dark evening trousers is impeccable. To me, at least (but the contrast in texture is important to making it work).

With tweed black/white herringbone jackets, 1) I don't have one so I don't have too strong of an opinion 2) They resolve to kind of a grey at a distance more than white.
post #164 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by in stitches View Post

i think the SC is ligher in that pic, and personally, i like the look. i have done a very similar one myself.

Here's a better pic of my jacket:

post #165 of 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

Do you mean therefore there shouldn't be dark brown odd trousers either? Or do you mean you could wear a dark brown coat with navy trousers?
I have a cream linen DB that I love and the coat in the photo above is a black/white plaid with a kind of royal blue overcheck. I wear it pretty often too, but mostly with pants that are also lighter colored, as the blue in the photo. I think once you're on the light side of the spectrum with both things, the fact of one being lighter than the other isn't such a big deal. Dark/dark, however, is usually unsuccessful, at least for the day. I suppose I should note that the dark jacket/lighter trouser idea goes back to formal morning wear, and so is kind of specific to daytime wear. Midnight blue velvet blazer with dark evening trousers is impeccable. To me, at least (but the contrast in texture is important to making it work).
With tweed black/white herringbone jackets, 1) I don't have one so I don't have too strong of an opinion 2) They resolve to kind of a grey at a distance more than white.

i meant just that maybe you could wear lighter navy with a darker brown SC. i actually have a combo that i have been waiting to wear that is like this, but its at the tailor. ill lyk when its up, id like to hear your opinion.

at to darker navy, i personally like them, for sure with no SC, but maybe even with a SC. but there i agree, its hard to find a darker SC for dark navy trou.

as to the lighter SC issue. here is one i have just kopped. was planning on wearing with charcoal trou, but i would call the trou darker than the SC, at least based off of the pic. where does that fall in the scheme of these "rules" iyo?

DSC_0079-2.jpg
DSC_0026.jpg
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Non-Rule "Rules"