or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Appropriate Desert Boots w/Suit
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Appropriate Desert Boots w/Suit - Page 2

post #16 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by starro View Post

Bottom line: All the examples you selected still work best in their original settings (or their near equivalents). For other contexts, the more dissimilar they are to the original, the more ridiculous your get-up will look. 90 times out of a 100.

 

The examples I've picked are all modern day staples of what the average man wears on a daily basis. We have come a long way from the days when a suit was the default choice of clothing for most men. It still survives as daily wear for some white collar professions and dressy events but it's days of being daily wear for most have long passed. What we do have is a more casual world and one in which various garments of sporting and military origin have been pressed into service as practical, every day wear. Sure, you can wear them badly but there are plenty of skilled dressers who wear the examples I gave and look a long way from 'ridiculous'.


 

Quote:

Denim jeans: Originally for rough manual labor, and that's about the only place it looks good. Working in the garage? :fonz: Giving a talk on a stage? Tells the audience you are a scrawny white guy trying to be "cool", and/or going through midlife crisis.

 

 

Here's SF's own Gerry Nelson wearing them with a naval pea-coat - do you think he looks like he's going to be doing manual work/within a stones throw of a ship/in the throes of a mid-life crisis?

 

 

 

Quote:
Polo shirts: Still look best in athletic/sporty settings. Playing tennis or golf? :fonz: great. Spending time in your weekend cabin? Probably can still pull it off. Fixing the Internet around the office? Screams "I am a nerdy IT guy who hasn't learned how to buy clothes since last time mommy shopped for me.

 

This makes no sense. A polo-shirt is fine at a weekend cabin but changing the context makes the wearer look like his mother shops for him? A polo may or not be appropriate for office wear depending on the dress code but saying that they look 'nerdy' is ridiculous. Simon Crompton's rig below of a Smedley polo and trousers would make a very nice outfit for a casual office or Friday wear.

 

 

Quote:
Button-down polo shirts: Still excellent for sporty and generally casual affairs. On a weekend, by the lake? :fonz: At work, with a tie bulging out the collars in a way the original designers never intended?

 

Button-down collar oxford shirts were conceived in an age where men wouldn't have dreamed of not wearing a tie with their shirt. The collar was designed to be worn with a tie.

 

Quote:
Sports coats: Still best as countrywear. Notice the earth tone fabrics? They blend really well with Mother Nature, not so much with a concrete jungle. Horseback riding, regatta at the local park? :fonz: With elbow patches, people think "College professor from the 50s." With jeans in the city, people go "Hipster too self-conscious about his own dressing; tries to dress down to fit in.

 

Sports jackets come in a multitude of colours. There's nothing particularly 'countrywear' about say, a blue window pane jacket with grey flannels, nor does a jacket with jeans make the wearer look like a self-concious hipster.

 

 

 

 

 

I would strongly suggest that you consider removing your head from the rectal passage and get over your preconceived notions about clothing usually only looking good when worn for it's original purpose.

post #17 of 50
Looks like I'll have to wait for the next attritional war stalemate before I can wear my Buberry trench coat again. Damn!
post #18 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucido View Post
 

 

The examples I've picked are all modern day staples of what the average man wears on a daily basis. We have come a long way from the days when a suit was the default choice of clothing for most men. It still survives as daily wear for some white collar professions and dressy events but it's days of being daily wear for most have long passed. What we do have is a more casual world and one in which various garments of sporting and military origin have been pressed into service as practical, every day wear. Sure, you can wear them badly but there are plenty of skilled dressers who wear the examples I gave and look a long way from 'ridiculous'.


 

 

Here's SF's own Gerry Nelson wearing them with a naval pea-coat - do you think he looks like he's going to be doing manual work/within a stones throw of a ship/in the throes of a mid-life crisis?

 

 

 

 

This makes no sense. A polo-shirt is fine at a weekend cabin but changing the context makes the wearer look like his mother shops for him? A polo may or not be appropriate for office wear depending on the dress code but saying that they look 'nerdy' is ridiculous. Simon Crompton's rig below of a Smedley polo and trousers would make a very nice outfit for a casual office or Friday wear.

 

 

 

Button-down collar oxford shirts were conceived in an age where men wouldn't have dreamed of not wearing a tie with their shirt. The collar was designed to be worn with a tie.

 

 

Sports jackets come in a multitude of colours. There's nothing particularly 'countrywear' about say, a blue window pane jacket with grey flannels, nor does a jacket with jeans make the wearer look like a self-concious hipster.

 

 

 

 

 

I would strongly suggest that you consider removing your head from the rectal passage and get over your preconceived notions about clothing usually only looking good when worn for it's original purpose.

 

 

It's good to see you finally mustered up the courage to respond a day later. Obviously I said something which affected you personally, when I thought I was discussing clothes, what looks good and not good. But I'll stick to the facts and stay clear of any of your emotional sore points in this post.

 

I love how your defense consists of 3 parts:

  1. Pictures! I got pictures! Pictures of men either unaware they look ridiculous, or consciously looking ridiculous to overcompensate for their obsession with clothes (and nothing in between). Men who, 3 cases out of 4, aren't able to look directly at the camera; unless (the 1 remaining case) they are most likely paid and dressed head-to-toe by a "style consultant" who probably gives less than 2 s--ts if the clothes fit the model, look good on him, are part of his "personal style", or whatever. But it doesn't matter, you say, because pictures are worth 1000 words, so instead of 1000 words of verbal diarrhea, you'll present pictures of men wearing outfits that are more or less ridiculous. And since these pictures definitely exist, you argue, these people in these outfits exist, and so they must look good.
  2. The men in these pictures either post on SF, or run a style blog, or posed in front of a camera like a model. Any of these things automatically confers status as a fashion maven, or--you reason--how else would the gods of style give them an SF password, or a .com address, or a photographer?
  3. Misinformation. Please hit the books on the history of the button-down collar.

 

As to your pictures, I'll be sparing in any criticism, and invite knowledgeable gentlemen to make up their own minds. But if you insist on some commentary, here they are:

  1. I can't say for sure if he's having a mid-life crisis. Whatever ails him, he's trying very hard to portray an image of himself, as something... (I won't spell out the obvious) Furthermore an observer would find his gaze drawn towards Mr. Nelson's midsection, as well as the top of his head, instead of his eyes and face. Maybe he thinks his best features are his gut and crotch, and doesn't believe in the whole "Eyes as windows to the soul" thing?
  2. I don't know what exactly Mr. Crompton is going for; it is a cropped photo, after all. Maybe he wants us to drool over his watch? Maybe in the current political climate he's making a statement about the size of his hand? Maybe he wants the casual observer to wonder why his undershirt is sticking out? (I know, the last question is unfair: We all know what a cash drain blogging is, depriving him of the budget for V-neck undershirts.)
  3. Too easy. I'll just point out he tucks his scarf in his miniature jacket, carrying his purse proudly showcasing the zippers and big logo. (Again, not his fault, since he was probably made to do these things for the cash, just like a self-reliant gentlemen would do). And also: Not a self-conscious hipster?! NOT a self-conscious hipster??? :crackup:
  4. 3 things stick out, working our way down: bald head, sweater sticking out below the jacket button, saggy wrinkle-y jeans. Once again: bald head, sweater sticking out, saggy pants. More quickly: bald head, sweater poking out, saggy pants. But I should refrain; I wouldn't want my personal hero insulted publicly like that.

 

 

These images are of varying levels of sartorial quality. Could these gentlemen look worse? Yes. Could they look much, much better? HELL yes. And one final thing:

I'll take my head out of my "rectal passage" the minute you take your nose out of Mr. Crompton's :) 

post #19 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thin White Duke View Post

Looks like I'll have to wait for the next attritional war stalemate before I can wear my Buberry trench coat again. Damn!

 

I would say the trench has taken on a second life. Still there are limits; would you wear when it's 93 and cloudless?

post #20 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by starro View Post
 

 

 

It's good to see you finally mustered up the courage to respond a day later. Obviously I said something which affected you personally, when I thought I was discussing clothes, what looks good and not good. But I'll stick to the facts and stay clear of any of your emotional sore points in this post.

 

I love how your defense consists of 3 parts:

  1. Pictures! I got pictures! Pictures of men either unaware they look ridiculous, or consciously looking ridiculous to overcompensate for their obsession with clothes (and nothing in between). Men who, 3 cases out of 4, aren't able to look directly at the camera; unless (the 1 remaining case) they are most likely paid and dressed head-to-toe by a "style consultant" who probably gives less than 2 s--ts if the clothes fit the model, look good on him, are part of his "personal style", or whatever. But it doesn't matter, you say, because pictures are worth 1000 words, so instead of 1000 words of verbal diarrhea, you'll present pictures of men wearing outfits that are more or less ridiculous. And since these pictures definitely exist, you argue, these people in these outfits exist, and so they must look good.
  2. The men in these pictures either post on SF, or run a style blog, or posed in front of a camera like a model. Any of these things automatically confers status as a fashion maven, or--you reason--how else would the gods of style give them an SF password, or a .com address, or a photographer?
  3. Misinformation. Please hit the books on the history of the button-down collar.

 

As to your pictures, I'll be sparing in any criticism, and invite knowledgeable gentlemen to make up their own minds. But if you insist on some commentary, here they are:

  1. I can't say for sure if he's having a mid-life crisis. Whatever ails him, he's trying very hard to portray an image of himself, as something... (I won't spell out the obvious) Furthermore an observer would find his gaze drawn towards Mr. Nelson's midsection, as well as the top of his head, instead of his eyes and face. Maybe he thinks his best features are his gut and crotch, and doesn't believe in the whole "Eyes as windows to the soul" thing?
  2. I don't know what exactly Mr. Crompton is going for; it is a cropped photo, after all. Maybe he wants us to drool over his watch? Maybe in the current political climate he's making a statement about the size of his hand? Maybe he wants the casual observer to wonder why his undershirt is sticking out? (I know, the last question is unfair: We all know what a cash drain blogging is, depriving him of the budget for V-neck undershirts.)
  3. Too easy. I'll just point out he tucks his scarf in his miniature jacket, carrying his purse proudly showcasing the zippers and big logo. (Again, not his fault, since he was probably made to do these things for the cash, just like a self-reliant gentlemen would do). And also: Not a self-conscious hipster?! NOT a self-conscious hipster??? :crackup:
  4. 3 things stick out, working our way down: bald head, sweater sticking out below the jacket button, saggy wrinkle-y jeans. Once again: bald head, sweater sticking out, saggy pants. More quickly: bald head, sweater poking out, saggy pants. But I should refrain; I wouldn't want my personal hero insulted publicly like that.

 

 

These images are of varying levels of sartorial quality. Could these gentlemen look worse? Yes. Could they look much, much better? HELL yes. And one final thing:

I'll take my head out of my "rectal passage" the minute you take your nose out of Mr. Crompton's :) 

 

I live in a different time zone from you, hence the delay in my reply. I have no 'emotional sore points' in this discussion - I replied solely because your original and subsequent posts were so far wide of the mark that you needed to be pulled up on it. There is little that I can do to correct your obnoxious posting style but ridiculous statements like the quote below need to be addressed.

 

I find it interesting that you've stopped trying to defend the indefensible:

 

Quote:

Articles of clothing designed and invented for a specific activity usually only works in that context. It's rare that something designed for one environment translates into another.

 

 

And instead you've resorted to nit-picking and finding faults with the clothing and personal attacks on the receding hairlines and physiques of the men I used in my examples. Do you think that you could stick to the point please?


Edited by Lucido - 9/23/16 at 5:05pm
post #21 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucido View Post

 

I live in a different time zone from you, hence the delay in my reply.

 

Put your money where your mouth is. Dig up the user activity log; let's see if you were online when I posted the initial response.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucido View Post
 

I have no 'emotional sore points' in this discussion - I replied solely because your original post was so far wide of the mark that you needed to be pulled up on it.

Right, sure... and the incivilities and ad hominems were for, what? my health?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucido View Post

 

I find it interesting that you've stopped trying to defend the indefensible:

 

 

And instead you've resorted to nit-picking and finding non existent faults with the clothing and personal attacks on the receding hairlines and physiques of the men I used in my examples.

 

False. The original thesis is still valid. You've been hitting strawmen all night long (or all day long, or whatever your story is). To go back to it: Forms follows function. Most of the time ('cause we don't live in black and white world. "Articles of clothing designed and invented for a specific activity usually only works in that context. It's rare that something designed for one environment translates into another."

So what does this mean, by way of example?

  • Jeans: originally worn by cowboys, miners, etc. (and please don't point out that we have fewer of those today; that would be a "No s--t Sherlock" moment). Right contexts: auto shop, backyard chopping wood, shoe shining in the basement. Wrong contexts: out in the street where people can see you, making a fashion statement.
  • Athletic sneakers: originally sports, still best for sports. Right contexts: jogging, basketball, etc. Wrong environments: With a suit, any serious outfit, any occasion where you're on your ass more than your feet.

 

What I've been trying to get you to understand is just because a lot of men wear something someplace does not necessarily mean that look works best. An "is" does not make an "ought". So just posting pictures of ridiculous outfits in ridiculous poses adds zero to the conversation. This is so obvious that my pointing it out will be overkill (but judging from your response, it's clear that subtlety is not your trait, so I apologize and will be much more simplistic in any future posts). In fact, I'd have to give you credit for getting something right--whether you realize it or not is a different issue: in the last photo Mr. Crompton is wearing his sport jacket in the right context; he is amongst Nature, isn't he? What doesn't work is the jeans; the rumpled sloppy nature makes a mockery of the tailored jacket, the neatly folded pocket square, the layering effect of the cardigan.

 

And let's see. I mentioned sport coats, and one of their distinguishing features: the earth tone colors and textures. You managed to find a single picture of a blue jacket, tightly hugging (in a way no traditional sport jackets did) the well-manicured and probably bulimic body of a male model. Another time: I respond to your screed about OCBDs, you latch onto the small part about wearing a tie with button down collars, and erroneously claim it is historically correct. See a pattern here? Who's being nitpicky and not getting the full picture? A psychiatrist would call this projection; you might wanna bring it up on your next visit.

 

And finally--and this I never in a million years thought I had to point out--the WHOLE package matters! When we judge how an outfit looks on someone, OF COURSE all details count! And not just details on the person, but on his surroundings as well. Duh.

Historical awareness matters. Sensitivity to the original intents of the clothes matters. Personal expression through clothing matters. Context matters. And of course, ability to understand the message matters.

 

Rules are meant to be broken by those who get the reasons behind those rules.

post #22 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucido View Post
 

Do you think that you could stick to the point please?

 

Asking me to stick to the point?? That's rich. If you had practiced what you preached, you would have be on topic and giving OP useful suggestions, instead of jump on me for something you completely made up in your head.

 

And BTW, just so I can (once again) explain the same point to you very clearly, so there's no more confusion: pointing out baldness and physical imperfections is not mocking them for having those imperfections (I might do that too, later, to people who are fake and self-promotional). It's pointing out that in those pictures, instead of suppressing their physical limitations (and who amongst us doesn't have a couple of those!?), they accentuate them, through a combination of clothing choice, clothing fit, posture, and environment. That's what's ridiculous, that's what righteously deserves criticism here; and once again, the whole package matters!

post #23 of 50

I'll ignore the rambling in your posts above and focus instead on the core of your argument. The internet is a large place so I'm sure you can find somewhere else to rant about bulimia and psychiatry.

 

Quote:
Articles of clothing designed and invented for a specific activity usually only works in that context. It's rare that something designed for one environment translates into another."

 

This is patently untrue.

 

Once we move away from the dinner jacket and the two or three piece suit, virtually all other forms of modern clothing come from a military or sporting background.

 

It's not a question of one or two exceptions to the rule - it's in just about every garment you'll see men wearing on the street. Jeans, chinos, corduroys, sports jackets, OCBDs, all manner of casual jackets like Barbours and field jackets, trench coats, chukka boots, etc. etc.

 

Your claim that these items only work in their original environment is nonsense. We'll go back to Gerry''s jeans and pea-coat again for a moment - both items were originally designed for specific activities and contexts (physical labour and keeping sailors warm respectively) yet they've translated perfectly well into civilian life in an urban environment. Those of us that wear suits are very unlikely to don one just to run errands about town or collect the kids from school, yet being men who care about clothing we shudder at the thoughts of leaving the house in sweatpants and a NorthFace parka. Denim jeans, tasteful knitwear and a pea-coat fills that gap nicely.

 

You can sit in your ivory tower and bemoan the rise of the denim jean and chinos and every other garment you think should stay in it's original environment but the rest of the world has moved on and adopted casual garments for daily wear - virtually all of which come from a military and/or sporting background. Dressing well is not a false dichotomy between the suit on the one hand and sweatpants/running shoes on the other - there is a whole world of stylish possibilities that exist between those two poles.


Edited by Lucido - 9/23/16 at 7:06pm
post #24 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucido View Post
 

The internet is a large place so I'm sure you can find somewhere else to rant about bulimia and psychiatry.

 

 

Again you pick out 2 words from my post. Who's nitpicking? Who has trouble sticking to the main point? Pot, meet kettle.

You threw up a bunch of ridiculous fashion statements to take the place of a coherent argument, and you call someone else's reasoned logic rambling? I was half-joking about psychiatry before, but now I strongly recommend it. Your denial is a basket case.

 

In any case, it's good to see you abandon your earlier arguments, all those funny pictures...gone. Now you got a new thing, so let's look at that.

 

If I'm going to be charitable to you, I say you have a surface-level understanding of history, and you distort facts and create falsehoods wherever to prop up your case. The French Revolution is the clear boundary between 18th century Enlightenment and 19th century. Huge changes in economics, technology, and social structure. These changes of course are reflected in the clothing. Once again: massive changes in clothing, due to massive change in social environment.

 

Out with the old, in with the new! Gone was the courtier, the court aristocrats; arriving the bourgeoisie, the educated scholar. Out was the ideal of the nobleman; in the ideal of the gentleman. Does such profound social and cultural change necessitate an equally profound change in attire? Of course! So what happened? They borrowed ideas, mixed them into existing ideas, and invented new ideas, all to harmonize with the new context they faced. The old city coats were ornery; their new environment was austere. So they took the plainness from the military and country jackets, mixed with more refined city fabrics, and coupled with existing city garments like the waistcoats and neckwear. Voila.

 

I don't know what you're expecting. The whole social context changed, so clothing largely changed. They got rid of parts that clearly didn't gel (ornaments and frills), borrowed ideas from very similar contexts in military and country gentleman attire, and invented new clothes. Are you gonna take credit for the fact that things change?

 

That you have to reach that far back shows how desperate you are in defending the indefensible. Here's something you can hit me with: originally people wore leaves and twigs, other animals had the wool and silk and fur. So why don't you attack me for recommending wool suits and silk ties?

 

And I'm still waiting for you to say t-shirts and flip flops look good because so many people wear them casually, and for that log that shows you were offline when I made my response.

post #25 of 50

I think we're done here starro. My daily tolerance for batshit crazy was exceeded about three posts ago so I'll leave you in peace to ramble about the sartorial ins and outs of 18th century France.

post #26 of 50

Retreat in peace, my brother. If I were you, I'd leave with my tail between my legs too, when I run out of unsubstantiated BS.

 

I think by now everyone can see @lucido's MO: 

  1. Throw out a wild unrelated falsehood.
  2. When corrected on said falsehood, accuse corrector of "rambling" about something wild and unrelated.
  3. Name call.
  4. When the going gets tough, takes ball and go home. Says "I don't have time for this s---!", or "I got tired of this 3 posts ago!" (then why oh why didn't you pull out 3 posts ago?!)

 

I should learn from you and suggest you change your name to "stupido".


Edited by starro - 9/23/16 at 9:32pm
post #27 of 50
@starro your arguments are simply untrue because they are built on an incorrect premise, that the function of any garment remains static. Were it so, we'd need to design new tires of garments constantly. No, this history of clothing is one of evolution, rather than revolution. Every single component of the modern business suit, for example, are adapted from functional garments ordinarily meant for something entirely different.
post #28 of 50

Strawman, strawman, strawman. If you read what I am talking about, it is the un-evolved garments, specifically designed--and usually optimized--for a certain situation. Who's surprised taking that garment and dropping it wholesale into an entirely different situation fails most of the time?

 

As far as anyone's concerned, when a garment is adapted into a different situation, incorporating new elements, it becomes a new garment. Yes it does have its roots, but its new context as well as its own adaptations makes it a new animal we're examining.

 

To mix apples with oranges is pretty disingenuous if done on purpose.

post #29 of 50
Starro - now you point it out, I can't help but be drawn to the fact that the Crompton does seem to post up a lot of pictures from an unforgiving angle, given his unfortunate bald spam.

q.v. https://www.permanentstyle.com/2016/09/gaziano-girling-bespoke-loafers-and-the-beauty-of-refinement.html from his very latest missive...

I dare say a more thorough search of his blog than I have the appetite to conduct would validate this, which in many ways I find surprising, given his evidently colossal vanity.
post #30 of 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBadBernard View Post

Starro - now you point it out, I can't help but be drawn to the fact that the Crompton does seem to post up a lot of pictures from an unforgiving angle, given his unfortunate bald spam.

q.v. https://www.permanentstyle.com/2016/09/gaziano-girling-bespoke-loafers-and-the-beauty-of-refinement.html from his very latest missive...

I dare say a more thorough search of his blog than I have the appetite to conduct would validate this, which in many ways I find surprising, given his evidently colossal vanity.

 

Very interesting point. I myself don't currently follow his blog with any regularity; maybe in the future. But I think you put your finger on the pulse with his vanity. It just jumps out at you.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Appropriate Desert Boots w/Suit