or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › WAYWRN Composite -- 25 thumb minimum
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WAYWRN Composite -- 25 thumb minimum - Page 8

post #106 of 2070
Thread Starter 

I suspect it's that the points don't quite fall under the lapel. A very minor quibble given the excellence of the fit as a whole. For me, what really takes the cake about that fit is the white (silk) square. That's one of the few instances I've seen where a solid white, non-linen square works wonderfully.

post #107 of 2070
We should acknowledge that having collar points tucked under the lapel is a StyFo bugbear, not a commandment from on high.
post #108 of 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

We should acknowledge that having collar points tucked under the lapel is a StyFo bugbear, not a commandment from on high.


Except that they often look better when they do. In Butler's case, the collar points are close to the lapels and I think they look great on him (i.e. this is not a case where the "often look better" point applies). They "line up" with the collar which is an intentional look, I suspect, and a fine one. If I had a collar that didn't lie under the lapel, that would be the way to do it.

 

However, I dislike it when the points are very far from the lapels (e.g. when there is very little spread such as in "point" collars). Perhaps they lead to an effect like the jacket is "too big" relative to the shirt, and I find that seeming incongruity visually off putting. I'd put up an example, but never learned how to embed images (Stitches tried to teach me once but I was too dumb to get it).

post #109 of 2070

SB, I do agree with your point, namely that there isn't a useful rule that in all cases, collar points should lie under the lapels. There's just the statistical point which I think is true: they generally look better when they lie under the lapels.

post #110 of 2070
I prefer them tucked as well, but I don't think there's a lot of historical support for that position. It's just what we like (and have been conditioned to like).
post #111 of 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

I prefer them tucked as well, but I don't think there's a lot of historical support for that position. It's just what we like (and have been conditioned to like).

true, but i still think that fit would look better with collar points under the jacket.
post #112 of 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by sugarbutch View Post

I prefer them tucked as well, but I don't think there's a lot of historical support for that position. It's just what we like (and have been conditioned to like).


Well some of it is conditioning (no disagreement there), but some of it can be argued for.

 

Think of someone with a wimpy collar height, small collar wings and very little spread wearing any reasonable jacket. I don't think conditioning could rule out the plausible argument that the collar just gets dwarfed by the person (neck/head) and the jacket. You'd probably have to shrink the lapels and tie so much to introduce harmony that perhaps unless the person was very lanky and small, it would just look bad. With wide lapels, it will look bad; with a normal size tie, it will look bad (on most people); with a person with a normal head or neck, it will look bad, etc...there is a word for such looks, of course: "fashion."

 

What Butler's collar shows, to my mind, is a kind of intentionality with one's clothes; it's lining up with the lapel rather than being covered by it. It's a subtle thing, but I think one that can be appreciated (assuming it was intentional!).

post #113 of 2070
Thread Starter 

SF Kool-Aid or not, we can probably all agree (and most non Kool-Aid drinkers would be likely to concur) that collar points under the lapel are neater.

post #114 of 2070
post #115 of 2070
Thread Starter 
I hate gifs. I know I'm the minority here.
post #116 of 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

I hate gifs. I know I'm the minority here.

I'm learning to hate them.
post #117 of 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post
 

SF Kool-Aid or not, we can probably all agree (and most non Kool-Aid drinkers would be likely to concur) that collar points under the lapel are neater.


Well, I don't mind a glimpse of Emma Stone.

 

But what is meant by "neater"? That you can't see the points? Should BDs have their points under the lapel? Obviously, that would ruin a roll, but does that mean that BDs are always sacrificing neatness at some level?

 

Actually, my wife prefers the points to be visible. She's not a menswear expert by any means, but she is responding to something that is an issue of how things look to her, a question of aesthetics. I don't think it will be hard to find other folks who have that response. I also don't see a problem with it, and as I said, Butler's way of doing it is how I would do it (and it looks "neat" because, I have assumed, it is intentional).

 

I agree with you in that I like my points under the lapel. If they were to just make it and hence shift around while I move, that would annoy me (it would be "messier" in a clear sense, like one's tie shifting because one tied it too loose).

post #118 of 2070
Thread Starter 

Maybe cleaner is a better word than neater? Anyway, just in terms of lines. With a button down, you've got a bit more of a transition between the collar and the shirt. Some of the collar is flush along the shirt. So I'd say that's neater than a normal point collar which doesn't rest beneath the lapels. And then there are those weird shrunken collars where not only do the points fail to come anywhere near the lapels, but much of the collar itself fails to touch the jacket.

post #119 of 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post
 

Maybe cleaner is a better word than neater? Anyway, just in terms of lines. With a button down, you've got a bit more of a transition between the collar and the shirt. Some of the collar is flush along the shirt. So I'd say that's neater than a normal point collar which doesn't rest beneath the lapels. And then there are those weird shrunken collars where not only do the points fail to come anywhere near the lapels, but much of the collar itself fails to touch the jacket.


I don't disagree with you, and as I also noted in a previous post, yes, those weird shrunken collars are awful.

post #120 of 2070
Quote:
Originally Posted by TweedyProf View Post


Well, I don't mind a glimpse of Emma Stone.

But what is meant by "neater"? That you can't see the points? Should BDs have their points under the lapel? Obviously, that would ruin a roll, but does that mean that BDs are always sacrificing neatness at some level?

Actually, my wife prefers the points to be visible. She's not a menswear expert by any means, but she is responding to something that is an issue of how things look to her, a question of aesthetics. I don't think it will be hard to find other folks who have that response. I also don't see a problem with it, and as I said, Butler's way of doing it is how I would do it (and it looks "neat" because, I have assumed, it is intentional).

I agree with you in that I like my points under the lapel. If they were to just make it and hence shift around while I move, that would annoy me (it would be "messier" in a clear sense, like one's tie shifting because one tied it too loose).

Having the collar points of a BD under the lapels does not ruin the roll at all, I actually prefer it that way. I don't like seeing all the buttons.
Edited by Monkeyface - 3/8/14 at 10:36am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › WAYWRN Composite -- 25 thumb minimum