or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014) - Page 2117

post #31741 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stefan88 View Post

I'm a fan too. I like both round toes and chiseled. This was meant to be aggressive while the next one will be more of a round one. I think wingtips really work with both square and round.

I'd agree that wingtips go well with both broad categories of toes. However, I think jcusey is on to something because there are "round" toed lasts that are so sleek and bullet nosed that I think a very sleek wingtip makes them look TOO bullet-nosed. C&J 363 might be an example of such a last.



While smart round toes do look good with a robust wingtip, as with G&G's here:


I think a really refined and sleek wingtip like an austerity starts to look TOO bullet-nosed on a smart round (here AE's 8 last):



Even more so on a round needle toe, like this one I ripped from Istvan Toth of Budapest.




See how the stitch cap saves it and gives it some perpendicular interest?

I ordered an austerity wingtip in something very like the AE 8 last, and while it's definitely a good looking boot, there's something just a little TOO bullet-nosed to it. Imagine this St. Crispin's all in dark brown calf:



The suede saves this one, but in dark calf of the same tone, there'd be no centrifugal pressure to counterbalance the backward thrust of the wingtip on that last.
Edited by Testudo_Aubreii - 1/23/16 at 6:09pm
post #31742 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiplomaticTies View Post



Would you post a full shot of the coat in the photo above? Thanks.
post #31743 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

The suede saves this one, but in dark calf of the same tone, there'd be no centrifugal pressure to counterbalance the backward thrust of the wingtip on that last.

 

I'm sorry, what?

post #31744 of 44076
@Andy57: When you look at a sleek shoe from the toe, your eye is naturally drawn back along the vamp across the quarters and toward the heel counter. Whether or not the eye also notes the shoe's perpendicular axis depends on whether there is something to attract it outwards in both directions---thus "centrifugal." The seam of a toe cap naturally does this, since it's a perpendicular line. But if you have a very sleek-seamed wingtip, like an austerity, there's very little to suggest perpendicular volume. Suede gives a shoe more perpendicular volume than smooth calf, because it has nap.
post #31745 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by venron View Post

Would you post a full shot of the coat in the photo above? Thanks.

Unfortunately I dont have a full shot from today. This is an older picture of the same coat. Classic navy coat from Paul Smith.
post #31746 of 44076

 

post #31747 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Koala-T View Post




Nice tie. Not sure about the hank: IMO, it shouldn't relate to anything in the ensemble, and its burgundy dots are echoing the tie. Try that kind of shirt check in red or tan with that tie.
post #31748 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

IMO, it shouldn't relate to anything in the ensemble, and its burgundy dots are echoing the tie.

Nah, B.

post #31749 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

@Andy57: When you look at a sleek shoe from the toe, your eye is naturally drawn back along the vamp across the quarters and toward the heel counter. Whether or not the eye also notes the shoe's perpendicular axis depends on whether there is something to attract it outwards in both directions---thus "centrifugal." The seam of a toe cap naturally does this, since it's a perpendicular line. But if you have a very sleek-seamed wingtip, like an austerity, there's very little to suggest perpendicular volume. Suede gives a shoe more perpendicular volume than smooth calf, because it has nap.

With no disrespect intended, this has to qualify as overthinking this whole menswear thing.
post #31750 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post

Nah, B.

Here is how to test my claim. Scroll back through this thread. Divide the hanks into those that echo a prominent color elsewhere in the ensemble, and those that don't. (White is not a color). Do the ones that don't echo look better than the ones that do? If I'm right, then the answer is "Yes."
post #31751 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post


Here is how to test my claim. Scroll back through this thread. Divide the hanks into those that echo a prominent color elsewhere in the ensemble, and those that don't. (White is not a color). Do the ones that don't echo look better than the ones that do? If I'm right, then the answer is "Yes."

Nah, B.

 

Or, more floridly:

 

The issue you bring up is one on which men of good taste can disagree. The sin is in being overly matchy, or in actually clashing. Anything in between is fair game, and you can draw whatever lines you want for yourself within that.

post #31752 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by YRR92 View Post

Nah, B.
The sin is in being overly matchy, or in actually clashing. Anything in between is fair game

I don't recall saying there was a sin. When I say, "shouldn't," I mean "shouldn't if you want to be excellently dressed." I am talking about principles for excellent dressing, not principles for non-ugly dressing. It's a question of what is excellent and what non-excellent, not a question of what is acceptable and what sinful. I haven't yet accused anyone of ugly/sinful dress. SF has changed since I joined. I find it strange that a lot of people here now seem to think there's firm rules for what's acceptable, and so long as you follow those, then whatever floats your boat, bruh! In the real world, there are many waystations between the ugly and the excellent. It's like the difference between Vass and Allen Edmonds. Both make good shoes of honest quality. But no one who knows anything about shoes would say that AE's shoes are as good as Vass's.
post #31753 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by Testudo_Aubreii View Post

I don't recall saying there was a sin. When I say, "shouldn't," I mean "shouldn't if you want to be excellently dressed." I am talking about principles for excellent dressing, not principles for non-ugly dressing. It's a question of what is excellent and what non-excellent, not a question of what is acceptable and what sinful. I haven't yet accused anyone of ugly/sinful dress. SF has changed since I joined. I find it strange that a lot of people here now seem to think there's firm rules for what's acceptable, and so long as you follow those, then whatever floats your boat, bruh! In the real world, there are many waystations between the ugly and the excellent. It's like the difference between Vass and Allen Edmonds. Both make good shoes of honest quality. But no one who knows anything about shoes would say that AE's shoes are as good as Vass's.
Your posts make me want to quit this forum. Life is too short
post #31754 of 44076
Thread Starter 
Eh, I find it refreshing, especially if he gets past the whole "stating opinions as if they were facts" thing. There a bad opinions and there are good opinions, but good opinions are still opinions, not facts.
post #31755 of 44076
Quote:
Originally Posted by OmarDubaibanker View Post

Your posts make me want to quit this forum. Life is too short

If you don't want to discuss style, then why are you here?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)