or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Skinny ties: how skinny is too skinny?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Skinny ties: how skinny is too skinny? - Page 3

post #31 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I'm in the midst of ordering some new ties and need to stipulate a width. Currently, almost all my ties are 3.5 inches across. My lapels are a touch under 3.75 inches wide. I'm tempted to try a 3-inch width, but I'm afraid it will look too narrow. I also realize that skinny ties are trendy right now, and want to avoid picking something will look out of place in a couple of years. What width do you think I should go with? How do you go about choosing the width for your own ties?
Mafoofan, I tend to take a practical approach to the question of tie widths. First, most of your ties are 3.5 inches. I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you do not have 3.25 or narrower ties or you would have your answer already. You should order one tie only in a 3.25 inch width and see how you like it. Again as a practical matter I would not be concerned at all with fashion. Another thought is your shirt collar, if you tend to wear wide collars you might want to ask your tie-maker to keep the "knot" area of the tie a bit wide even if you go with a narrower width at the widest.
post #32 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey View Post
I think the actual measured width is overrated. If a tie is coming across as loud, or somehow extra central, then I think it plays wider than it is. For example, block stripe ties, or a solid black tie with a white shirt and a tan suit. What's important is the perception. The perception is the reality. If a tie is 3" wide but plays extra loud or heavy in the outfit, it's going to look and feel wider than a quiet tie that's 3.25" or 3.5" wide. That's been my experience at least.

So the lapel width : tie width thing is just a guideline, not some kind of ironclad law, that I think anyone could flout thoughtfully and well -- especially if the ties and lapels in question are not radically skinny or wide.
I agree. The practical approach does not appeal to me. I take the approach that if something appeals to me, then it is correct. I love the look of a small knot in a good sized collar, so that is what I do. The lapel issue is the same. If it looks good, then it is good. There is no further determination necessary.
post #33 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lel View Post
You do not give off that impression, weird. Maybe that's why I always found your suits very fitted, yet still safe and classic.

Ouch!
post #34 of 56
Thread Starter 
Everyone, thanks for the comments and insight. I agree that my existing Marinella ties (the ones I recently sold on the B&S forum) could stand to be a tad narrower. I mulled over everything for a while and finally settled on an 8 cm width for my new Rubinacci ties (about 3.1 inches). I was afraid of going much narrower than that for fear of getting stuck with what are notably 'skinny' ties.

I just put in my new order. Hopefully, I'll have my ties within a month or so!
post #35 of 56
I'm torn between wishing you success or wishing you failure.

Are you doing any unlined, untipped seven folds with Rubinacci?

- B
post #36 of 56
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria View Post
I'm torn between wishing you success or wishing you failure.

Are you doing any unlined, untipped seven folds with Rubinacci?

- B

Haha. Is 8 cm too narrow for you, Bill?

I'm only doing unlined, untipped seven-folds from Rubinacci .
post #37 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Haha. Is 8 cm too narrow for you, Bill?

Not at all...I get three-folds that I like (e.g., Charvet) narrowed to 8 cm if they are not so already. I have a batch of lined six-fold grenadines in the mail now from David Hober that are 3.25."

I do have quite a few Italian six-folds that are 3.75"...since my closet is diverse, they remain handy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
I'm only doing unlined, untipped seven-folds from Rubinacci .

Wonderful...can't wait to see photographs of them. My next batch of stuff from David Hober will be just like that.

- B
post #38 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocHolliday View Post

Doc, beautiful.

MFan, the ties I have that are on the skinnier side (3.25-3.5") are very thick, so they don't seem all that skinny because of the thick knot they make & how they hang. I would take into account the overall girth of the tie in conjunction with the width when opting for slimmer width (if that makes any sense).
post #39 of 56
^^^ I cannot imagine anything worse than a skinny, beefy tie.
post #40 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post
Everyone, thanks for the comments and insight. I agree that my existing Marinella ties (the ones I recently sold on the B&S forum) could stand to be a tad narrower. I mulled over everything for a while and finally settled on an 8 cm width for my new Rubinacci ties (about 3.1 inches). I was afraid of going much narrower than that for fear of getting stuck with what are notably 'skinny' ties.

I just put in my new order. Hopefully, I'll have my ties within a month or so!

The tie width shown in your SC shot looks fine- as I said above it goes with the wider lapels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
I agree. The practical approach does not appeal to me. I take the approach that if something appeals to me, then it is correct. I love the look of a small knot in a good sized collar, so that is what I do. The lapel issue is the same. If it looks good, then it is good. There is no further determination necessary.

The way to go if you have a good aesthetic sense. Often, folks know "something" is wrong but can't put their finger on it. Even otherwise good dressers. I like guidelines- that way I know what to ignore.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iammatt View Post
^^^ I cannot imagine anything worse than a skinny, beefy tie.

+1. Winds up looking like a bolo.
post #41 of 56
For a regular pointy end tie, 3 1/4" is as narrow as I will go, and even then repps only. For a knit, I will go below 3". Wide knits look stoopid.
post #42 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
Wide knits with square bottoms look stoopid.

Fixed.
post #43 of 56
The classic 3.25in width is safe and will never go out of fashion.

but then again who cares about what is presently fashionable? Classic style will not change.
post #44 of 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sartorial in Seattle View Post
The classic 3.25in width is safe and will never go out of fashion.

but then again who cares about what is presently fashionable? Classic style will not change.

...

Quote:
Originally Posted by tlmusic View Post
You could also consider Alan Flusser's advice on neckwear,

"Widths between 3 1/4 inches and 4 1/4 inches will generally ensure longevity."
Dressing the Man (2002), Alan Flusser, pg. 165.

But wait! Back in the 1980's he was writing,

"The proper width of a tie, and one that will never be out of style, is 3 1/4 inches (2 3/4 to 3 1/2 inches are also acceptable."
Clothes and the Man (1985), Alan Flusser, pg. 85

Quote:
Originally Posted by LabelKing View Post
My skinny ties are all 1.75 inches. They are the real '60s deal, made by respected makers.
post #45 of 56
My Thresher & Glenny tie is also rather skinny, measuring in at 2.6 inches.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Skinny ties: how skinny is too skinny?