'iGent Myths Busted!' - Page 9

I always thought the rule was to ensure there was contrast in odd jacket/pant combinations to avoid it looking like a slightly mismatched suit and that the contrast was also more pleasing aesthetically. That would suggest the rule was base don contrast and yet we have now extended the rule to be that pants must be light than the jacket. I actually get a lot of use from my navy and charcoal flannel trousers with my lighter coloured tweeds.

I agree. To play the game you have to know the rules and the language. Just like you should know whether or not it's polite to belch at the table in whichever country you're about to eat dinner.

The examples you are using are certainly iconic and they adhere to the contrast rule I mentioned just above but I don't see them as defining the light pants rule - merely being well known examples showing contrast between the pants and jacket.

If there is a "rule" regarding jacket & trou, it is that there must be tonal contrast. So, dark coat, light pents. And vice versa. since dark coats tend to outnumber light ones, light pents are more useful.

I would also say that while wearing nothing but dark coats would get dull, if a man had to choose between a closet full of dark or light, he's better off with dark.

My dark coats probably outnumber the ligher ones around 2 to1.

100% agreed. Folks, this is a good example of an iGent-distilled "rule" that is a good rule.

Good rule of thumb. But you can have other kinds of contrast than just tonal. Example: dark blue velvet jacket with barathea black wool trouser at night.

YOU might wear this but I would not.

Naturally the blazer is going to have lighter trousers, as it's so dark. I wouldn't read too much into that.

Camel hair seems to be out of fashion, but I imagine there's a reason you still see 'em.

Always opting for lighter trousers seems very limiting. An outfit where the overall effect is dark -- say medium brown coat with dark brown cords -- can make for a very rich look.

Aside from that, some guys' complexions benefit from a very light coat.

I would not call this an iGent rule. First, it's just common sense, second, it's been practiced this way forever. even my mother was able to explain to me years ago that you don't wear dark gray with a blazer. (This being California, the correct choice was always khaki.)

F
Fair enough, but the dark velvet smoking jacket with tux trousers is a "classic". It's really an ad hoc solution to the problem of wanting a different jacket to smoke in, which then must be dark so as not to get stained by ashes, but still, it's been acceptable in homey black tie situations for a long time. I accept your general principle, just trying to play devils advocate. But yes, I would wear that.

Oh, I agree it's common sense. But do you think it would pass the Sator test? He'd argue that rule has never been stated anywhere in any official capacity and he'd find random historical examples showing it wasn't always practiced.

So if I understand correctly - there are two different underpinnings for the drak jacket/light pants "rule" - one is aesthetic (having contrast - colour or pattern or texture) and the second is practical (based on what is found in the closet). I personally find it useful to break it down that far because the practical dimension may not apply to everyone (since it is based on what is in each person's closet) whereas the aesthetic element is more universal and hence more likely to resul tin a fashion disaster.

would another example be the no mixing black and brown rule?

Sator stopped making sense to me around four years ago. Before that he was rather rational and even pleasant.

I'd be tempted to wear black watch trou with that.

You're pushing at the boundaries here. It could spectacular, or fail dismally.

I have seen some very nice Velvet DJ's over the years. It works and it has form.

You could also substitute a very fine wale cord for the velvet. I've seen that done too.

BW is another good option. I have a pair in the works. On Patrick Johnson's site their used to be a good pic of exactly this. Might still be there.