The Look goes on...

Man-of-Mystery said:

I had to model it with what I had on at the time. Actually, the blue of the shirt picks out the blue stripe in the window-pane check.

The charity shop in question is Cancer Research UK in Perth

I didn't buy the jacket, I'm just modelling it for you. It's still on sale at the shop.

Click to expand...

I can certainly vouch for the cut and quality of past Mulberry tailoring - although I am not sure how their modern stuff would be. I have been wearing bits of theirs since the mid 80s but have not bought anything since around 2005.

Typical of their attention to detail was to offer a 15 3/4 inch collar on their cutaway shirts as they tend to come up a little tighter than a spread collar. My wife has one of their bags from around 2000. The zip had problems when it was about 5 years old. She contacted Mulberry and they agreed to repair it free of charge. Since they have become a 'Luxury brand' I expect things have declined...

Soul Vision said:

Some dodgy ex UK pollie gets out of jail sporting a bit of the look:

Click to expand...

I have been thinking about this picture a lot this week.
Although not really breaking my 'only 2 skinhead items at the same time' rule,I think that it is a bit to 'skinhead' for me.
I reckon that the Harrington and plain BD would be ok if the Harrington didn't have the tartan lining showing,its just to much for me,a check BD would be much to much,all IMO as usual.

Mr Knightley said:

That's probably enough, I agree.

Saturday evening was very enjoyable and, being in winter, the standard of dress was perhaps higher than I recalled from my last visit. The guy who runs it, Glenn Field is a stylish man and encourages a 'booted and suited' dress code. So I went for my blazer, Prince of Wales trou, with a navy knitted tie and tie bar, new Bass x Mr Porter loafers in Horween leather and then, thinking it all looked a bit too 1969, chose a non BD shirt.

Some guys had tried to replicate an exact 1969 / 70 look with some success and others gave little more than a passing nod to the 60s. Some women were seeking to evoke a 40s / 50s (American) look I thought and others an early 70s one. But most ladies favoured a Quant-ish style.

Music as ever was pretty obscure soul, R&B, reggae and some blues.

A great atmosphere and the closest I have come to finding a real evocation of a 1960s cellar club. Missed @browniecj and his lady though.

New Bass for Mr P:



In the chill-out lounge:


A few random pics of the evening (some from the Ad-Lib closed FB group):

Click to expand...

I think that you made a good choice by not wearing the BD Mr Knightley.
Although I think that the BD would look great with your blazer,POW trousers and your Florsheim longwings,it would have been to retro (IMO),and yet how many people would think that now ?,I think that 99.9% of the population would only think of Dr Martens as skinhead footwear,maybe I have got a bit to sensitive on this subject.
On the other hand I came face to face with a middle aged ( being kind here) skinhead last week at football,sheepskin,check BD,turned up jeans,shiny red Doc Marten boots,white mutton chop whiskers...not a great sight so perhaps I will keep up my sensitive approach.
BTW,I do like the loafers,just goes to show that Bass can still make better shoes than the rubbish that I bought a few years ago.

Belts..now I will admit to being a bit obsessive about matching belts to shoes,its ok with black,a black trouser belt and a black jeans belt and that's it.
Every time I buy a pair of brown shoes however it then involves a search for 2 belts to match them.
I bought a pair of cherry grain Barker brogues in the sales and they are yet another shade of brown to my other shoes/ belts..so looking around I noticed that Barker make belts to match their shoes ( trouser belts not the wider jeans belts) they have a cherry grain belt but its £85,now the shoes were £260 full price so how can a belt be £85 ?.
I don't really fancy paying £85 for a belt,it goes against the grain ( sorry) but it would be the perfect solution,I haven't seen a jeans belt yet that's anything like the same colour.
I know that my approach to matching shoe / belt colour is pedantic but could anyone suggest an alternative ?,perhaps a woven fabric belt with jeans ? what do others do ?.

I know what you mean about too many items. For me in that photo it is the buttondown collar rather than the tartan lining that needs to go (plus the jeans are a bit ****). Same principle differently expressed. As for Mr K he is dressed pretty much how I would for that function. And you won't be at all surprised at my approach to belts, I have 1 and it is black.

Thanks for the thumbs up for my approach to dressing for the Ad-Lib Club. I have to say that, for an occasion like that I would 'risk' more skinhead items together than I would for, say, going to a meeting!

My reaction to the picture of the broken politician was simply how dare he appropriate any of my items of clothing! I suppose, on further reflection, I would agree with cov's comments.

Belts - yes a tricky subject. My history of belt wearing is something like this:

Mid 60s wearing a fairly wide belt with hipster trou.

From around 1967 when I started having MTM suits and trousers I wore them 'self-supporting' with the side adjusters. Jeans worn with braces or no support.

By the early 70s there was a return to belt loops on trousers and the wearing of belts with suits, odd trousers and jeans. Something that has continued for me with the exception of bespoke trousers.

Like @cerneabbas I match my black shoes and belts. Unlike cerne I don't worry too much about actually matching the browns. As long as shoes and belt are from the same brown family I am happy. I do like to match the material and style to the rest of the outfit - that goes without saying. A good crossover belt is a very dark brown plaited leather I find.

covskin said:

I know what you mean about too many items. For me in that photo it is the buttondown collar rather than the tartan lining that needs to go (plus the jeans are a bit ****). Same principle differently expressed. As for Mr K he is dressed pretty much how I would for that function. And you won't be at all surprised at my approach to belts, I have 1 and it is black.

Click to expand...

I agree on the jeans, they look pretty terrible, well worn but not really in a good way. I also don't like the way he has zipped up the jacket just 'one third' of its length, looks very sloppy and just accentuates his beer gut.

cerneabbas said:

Belts..now I will admit to being a bit obsessive about matching belts to shoes.

Click to expand...

I'm the same. It's a suedehead favorite, but more than that just a matter of classic elegance.
I have 3 belt colors to match my shoes : black, brown, and oxblood.
You can match your (leather) watch strap too (if you wear a watch) with your shoes and belt. Something people do here.



Clouseau said:

I'm the same. It's a suedehead favorite, but more than that just a matter of classic elegance. 
I have 3 belt colors to match my shoes : black, brown, and oxblood.
You can match your (leather) watch strap too (if you wear a watch) with your shoes and belt. Something people do here.

Click to expand...

I do the same with the belts and shoes-- though not pedantically. Really, barring personal preference, the only color you SHOULD be sure to match is black. Black belt, shoes, watch strap(unless it's a metal bracelet style). Other than that and obviously clashing colors, you can (and I do) wear various shades of brown, tan, and reds(oxblood, burgundy, Alden #8, etc.).

Or you can do the best you can with what you've got.



Man-of-Mystery said:

Or you can do the best you can with what you've got.

Click to expand...

Naturally. I suppose I should have worded it: 'try to avoid mixing colored leather accessories with black ones.' Of course it ain't the end of the world if you do-- but this is Style Forum after all.

Botolph said:

I do the same with the belts and shoes-- though not pedantically. Really, barring personal preference, the only color you SHOULD be sure to match is black. Black belt, shoes, watch strap(unless it's a metal bracelet style). Other than that and obviously clashing colors, you can (and I do) wear various shades of brown, tan, and reds(oxblood, burgundy, Alden #8, etc.).

Click to expand...

I think to some extent it comes down to personal preference, which in turn is shaped by where you reside and perhaps when you grew up (sartorially). Apart from the late 60s, the period that really shaped my current approach was the mid 80s when 'controlled clashing' was very much the vogue. There is also an Englishness about not matching everything.

TBH then I don't like things to look too 'studied' and, with the exception of black shoes, I am not unduly bothered about matching belts, watchstraps, and so on. For me the belt has to blend with the trousers as far as possible to avoid that unwanted cutting-you-in-half look.

I take the point made by @Clouseau about the suedehead connection, but for me the issue of belts is far more to do with taste and style than maintaining 'The Look' as such.

Going off on a slight tangent (from belts) I had the great pleasure yesterday of having lunch in London with @upr_crust and @Cleav

After lunch, upr and I did a quick bit of shopping in Jermyn Street and amongst other things talked about flamboyance and how it varies from country to country (as you know upr hails from NYC). I just wondered how that may have affected the development of The Look in different parts of the world?

Anyway, check out WAYWRN for Cleav's photo report of the day.



Botolph said:

Naturally. I suppose I should have worded it: 'try to avoid mixing colored leather accessories with black ones.' Of course it ain't the end of the world if you do-- but this is Style Forum after all.

Click to expand...

Oh indeed, point taken.

Anyone who knows me will have seen that I have a broad brown strap for my wristwatch. I have had it since about 1975. It is the only strap I have ever had/tried that is comfortable, and it's one small point on which I will gladly sacrifice style for comfort!

Mr Knightley said:

I think to some extent it comes down to personal preference, which in turn is shaped by where you reside and perhaps when you grew up (sartorially). Apart from the late 60s, the period that really shaped my current approach was the mid 80s when 'controlled clashing' was very much the vogue. There is also an Englishness about not matching everything.

TBH then I don't like things to look too 'studied' and, with the exception of black shoes, I am not unduly bothered about matching belts, watchstraps, and so on. For me the belt has to blend with the trousers as far as possible to avoid that unwanted cutting-you-in-half look.

I take the point made by @Clouseau about the suedehead connection, but for me the issue of belts is far more to do with taste and style than maintaining 'The Look' as such.

Click to expand...

Agree with you about the personal preference, and agree with M-o-M with the 'do the best you can'. Attention to detail can be tricky sometimes and it's often better to get around the rules. I don't like 'things to look too studied' too.
Real elegance must look 'effortless' i think. I dislike the overdressed style (that's why i don't like much threads on Styleforum TBH).

Speaking of belts, in my case, being very tall, it's not bad if the belt doesn't blend too much with the clothes, so it 'breaks' the excessive verticality of the whole look.