or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Worst Look
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Worst Look - Page 7

post #91 of 389
Manton,

I have a question - recently somebody posted some old esquire pictures of men, probably from the 20's-40's, wearing striped ( I think suit) pants with solid DB blazers or sports coats. so this was something that has happened before, no? they actually looked pretty good, if a little off to our tastes of today.
post #92 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

Manton,
I have a question - recently somebody posted some old esquire pictures of men, probably from the 20's-40's, wearing striped ( I think suit) pants with solid DB blazers or sports coats. so this was something that has happened before, no? they actually looked pretty good, if a little off to our tastes of today.

I think that you are referring to " Strollers" : Dark gray to black jackets worn with striped
or (small) checked trousers, along with a pear gray or black vest (waistcoat). It was considered
semi-formal morning wear:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/182/1930sesquire0801tw6.jpg/sr=1

The guy on the left.
post #93 of 389
What is wrong with, say, navy striped pants and a white shirt, both well tailored, matched with dark green socks, and a pair of black double monks for instance? Is one not supposed to wear a striped pants without a matching jacket?
post #94 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

What is wrong with, say, navy striped pants and a white shirt, both well tailored, matched with dark green socks, and a pair of black double monks for instance? Is one not supposed to wear a striped pants without a matching jacket?

For me, everything is wrong with that outfit you describe. Striped pants are best left to suits. Not sure what the green socks are doing here with the black shoes and blue pants.
post #95 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by bboysdontcryy View Post

What is wrong with, say, navy striped pants and a white shirt, both well tailored, matched with dark green socks, and a pair of black double monks for instance? Is one not supposed to wear a striped pants without a matching jacket?

This sounds horrifying. Why green socks? Why striped odd pants? Why black double monks?
post #96 of 389
Going to read all of Manton's posts starting with this.

I guess I can learn a lot as I fall into this category working in the Silicon Valley

Today:
Blue OCBD (minimal blousing at the chest and waist, still looking to get tailored)
Navy wool trousers with black leather belt (1.5" in width I believe)
Black captoes with midnight blue socks (basically black)

This is pretty much everyday unless I have to suit up then it will either be gray suit + blue silk tie and white PS with black captoe or navy suit + purple knit tie and navy/maroon/red PS with black captoe. Sometimes the blue silk tie will be changed for a forest green knit tie.

Looking to pick up some gabardine ties as upgrades soon as well as new suits by S/S '13 . . .

Going to see if I can get a sports jacket tailored too for everyday wear so I do not fail the no tie/no jacket but can still be casual without over dressing my seniors. I already am FWIW
post #97 of 389
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

Manton,
I have a question - recently somebody posted some old esquire pictures of men, probably from the 20's-40's, wearing striped ( I think suit) pants with solid DB blazers or sports coats. so this was something that has happened before, no? they actually looked pretty good, if a little off to our tastes of today.
you do see that in old pics. I am not sure what to make of it. Three possibilities. One is that, a lot of what was in AA/Esky was stuff that actually was not practiced on the streets but was dreamed up by the editors and artists as a way to push the envelope. As I noted in another thread, you saw some stupid stuff that I KNOW was never done IRL, such as patent leather half brogues with white tie. Another possibility was that it happened but it was a fad that died fast, like the mess jacket fiasco of 1936. The third is that it was common then but has faded out.

Also note that when you see it in old pics the pants are ALWAYS flannel. It was rather common in those days to wear flannel suits separately, so maybe they extended it beyond solids.

In any event, it's been no go for many decades. I would not do it today.

This thread needs tutee.
post #98 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

Another possibility was that it happened but it was a fad that died fast, like the mess jacket fiasco of 1936.

Allow me to quote the relevant dialogue. As always, Jeeves was on the right side of that particular trend.

Jeeves: I assumed it had got into your wardrobe by mistake, sir, or else that it had been placed there by your enemies.
Bertie: I'll have you know, Jeeves, that I bought this in Cannes!
Jeeves: And wore it, sir?
Bertie: Every night at the Casino. Beautiful women used to try and catch my eye!
Jeeves: Presumably they thought you were a waiter, sir.

(from "Right Ho, Jeeves")
post #99 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Moo View Post

This sounds horrifying. Why green socks? Why striped odd pants? Why black double monks?

Surely, forest green (which is almost 'black') would be fitting for a lawyer? I think you gents might forget that not all lawyers have the privilege of wearing brown shoes to work.

And the question is: Why NOT striped odd trousers? What's the rationale for it? There are stylistic conventions that ought not to be broken(showing a little shirt cuff when jacket is on, no gap between the shirt collar and jacket collar etc) because it is plainly an affront to aesthetics, but odd striped pants?

Why does it differ from say, grey wool trousers, if say, the color shade on the striped odd trousers is similar to that of the grey wool trousers (the only exception being the stripes). What is it about the stripes (on the trousers) that should prevent one from wearing it on its own, if it does not look 'ugly', and is well matched?
post #100 of 389
I think stripped odd trousers attempt a comeback every thirty years or so. I recall traditional men's stores offering them in cream or pale yellow with navy in the 70's (paired with a blue blazer).
post #101 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by afreegreek View Post

what gives you the impression I'm not interested in clothing? I like clothes.. I usually spend a couple of hundred dollars every payday on something to wear, sometimes I save up for few months to buy something little more expensive.. I just have no interest in suits..

I think it's the same for me as well, always has been. I like tailored jackets and trousers, but not suits. Where I am at the moment, suits are for if you work in a bank.
post #102 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post

Manton,
I have a question - recently somebody posted some old esquire pictures of men, probably from the 20's-40's, wearing striped ( I think suit) pants with solid DB blazers or sports coats. so this was something that has happened before, no? they actually looked pretty good, if a little off to our tastes of today.
you do see that in old pics. I am not sure what to make of it. Three possibilities. One is that, a lot of what was in AA/Esky was stuff that actually was not practiced on the streets but was dreamed up by the editors and artists as a way to push the envelope. As I noted in another thread, you saw some stupid stuff that I KNOW was never done IRL, such as patent leather half brogues with white tie. Another possibility was that it happened but it was a fad that died fast, like the mess jacket fiasco of 1936. The third is that it was common then but has faded out.

Also note that when you see it in old pics the pants are ALWAYS flannel. It was rather common in those days to wear flannel suits separately, so maybe they extended it beyond solids.

In any event, it's been no go for many decades. I would not do it today.

This thread needs tutee.

Not quite the same, but I saw something along these lines IRL last Christmas (I posted about it then) - an older chap, in his eighties, at a drinks party wearing grey chalk stripe flannels with a velvet smoking jacket (he also wore monogrammed slippers (black monogram on black velvet which I thought was cool), a jermyn st striped shirt, a neat patterned tie). The impression was he had taken off his suit jacket and shoes for the day, replacing them with the smoking jacket and slippers. Just as it should be. He looked great, the chalk stripes did not look out of place in the slightest. But yes, I think it was important that they were flannel. Not quite sure why. This guy was unlikely to have ever heard of SF and most of the gear predated the internet by a clear decade - it was the genuine article.

And as comrade points out, they're ok with semi formal and formal day wear.
post #103 of 389
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeviMay View Post

In my neck of the woods, any type of jacket instantly qualifies as "Formal", and only one other employee, also in management, ever wears one, and then only very occasionally.
For work, it's black pants all around, including with brown shoes. plain.gif
Anything other than a t-shirt qualifies as "business-apporpriate": polos with visibly fraying collars, dress shirts that never really fit, and those horrendous stripey shirts that were popular bar-wear in the 90s.
I have the freedom to dress as I will, and most definitely stick out wearing a suit or odd jacket. Everyone's used to it by now, though, so I soldier on.

You have described, in my experience, most of the wastelands of suburbia all across Canadia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by celery View Post

Funny no one has mentioned the most annoying of comments when wearing a sport coat, "Nice suit." Aaaarghhhh! Just because you wear a blazer or sport coat, or even an unstructured jacket that has some form of lapel, people call it a "suit". Jeebus.
The worst offenders aren't men though. At least the sad sack business casual look is fairly consistent. But women generally don't know what they're doing and I'm tired of seeing "matching" = "cute style" LAME. Just because red and red are the same color doesn't mean you need to wear all red ffs.

I get this all the time, especially from young people.

At work I might go tie-less twice a year, and then always for some sort of costume deal. Otherwise, coat and tie all the time.
post #104 of 389
Thread Starter 
I would never wear odd striped pants and will always consider them an affront to aesthetics. Only exception is with a stroller jacket, which is a dead look.

But if you guys want to, knock yourselves out.
post #105 of 389
I wore a black and white herringbone jacket with black wool trousers with white pinstripes when I was a freshman in college. I didn't know any better then though.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The Worst Look