or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Ask A Question, Get An Answer... - Post All Quick Questions Here
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ask A Question, Get An Answer... - Post All Quick Questions Here - Page 1261

post #18901 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Dimond View Post

Are all cap toe non brouged shoes considered formal? I know black is, but what about other colors?

They're the most formal option within the color chosen. Formality of non-black shoes varies by color and by what environment you're in.
post #18902 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Dimond View Post

Are all cap toe non brouged shoes considered formal? I know black is, but what about other colors?

Besides what cptjeff has said, as the general rules, the darker the color is more formal it is (black > dark brown > tan > beige, etc.). Also, the smoother the texture the more formal it is (patent > smooth calf > pebbled/suede). Of course, there are exceptions.
post #18903 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by onix View Post


Besides what cptjeff has said, as the general rules, the darker the color is more formal it is (black > dark brown > tan > beige, etc.). Also, the smoother the texture the more formal it is (patent > smooth calf > pebbled/suede). Of course, there are exceptions.

This also depends on your environment. In a business environment, patent is completely out-of-place, so I would not classify a patent leather shoe as more formal than an equivalent calf shoe. Evening wear is a different story.

post #18904 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by msulinski View Post

This also depends on your environment. In a business environment, patent is completely out-of-place, so I would not classify a patent leather shoe as more formal than an equivalent calf shoe.
I would. I'd classify it as too formal to wear in a business environment. Similar to how, oh... I'd classify Sperry Top Siders as too casual to wear to a state funeral, where they would be completely out of place.
post #18905 of 27509
I just got AE McAllisters in merlot color.

Does the burgundy version of this belt match?
http://www.brooksbrothers.com/Leather-Dress-Belt/853C,default,pd.html?dwvar_853C_Color=BLCK&contentpos=15&cgid=0233

And if I wear a 31 waist in pants, will the size 34 belt work? They don't do odd numbers in this belt...
post #18906 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badandy View Post

I just got AE McAllisters in merlot color.
Does the burgundy version of this belt match?
http://www.brooksbrothers.com/Leather-Dress-Belt/853C,default,pd.html?dwvar_853C_Color=BLCK&contentpos=15&cgid=0233
And if I wear a 31 waist in pants, will the size 34 belt work? They don't do odd numbers in this belt...

Yes and yes.
post #18907 of 27509
Thanks, I'll give it a shot!
post #18908 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badandy View Post

I just got AE McAllisters in merlot color.
Does the burgundy version of this belt match?
While belt and shoes should, as a general thing, broadly match - for example, black belt with black shoes, and brown belt with brown shoes - there is no need to seek a perfect match.

If your shoes are in any of the "reddish, wine-connected colors," like merlot, burgundy, bordeaux, etc., and your belt is also one of those reddish colors, it's close enough. Indeed, some might even suggest that seeking out a perfect match is excessive, and runs the risk of being perceived as overly "matchy-matchy."

Within certain limits, a similar principle applies to matching brown belt and brown shoes. It's usually less relevant when it comes to matching black belt with black shoes, as there are fewer commonly encountered shades of black than there are of burgundy or brown. Consequently, if one owns 3 belts - one in black, one in medium brown, and one in burgundy - nearly any shade of shoe ranging from tan to black can be color matched closely enough so as to not be an issue. (Obviously, a given belt may still fail to go with a given pair of shoes for other reasons, often having to do with formality, or with the color of the metal of its buckle, should it not take interchangeable buckles.)

There are even some parallels involving matching sock color to shoe color, or pocket square color to necktie color. Where close enough may, at times, be preferable to exact.
--
Michael
post #18909 of 27509

Anyone here owned orvis sporcoats or blazers before? Whats your opinion on the fit, etc.

post #18910 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badandy View Post

And if I wear a 31 waist in pants, will the size 34 belt work?
It should. Something of a rule of thumb (which, like most such rules, has its exceptions and is not universally accepted) is to buy a belt sized 2" larger than your pants' waist size. So the size 34 belt would, by that rule, be exactly right if your pants had a 32" waist.

I would guess that 31" ought to be close enough.

(Despite this answer, and my immediately preceding one about matching belt color to shoe color, I do respect that precision has its place. It's just that that place isn't everywhere.)
--
Michael
post #18911 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by 12345Michael54321 View Post

It should. Something of a rule of thumb (which, like most such rules, has its exceptions and is not universally accepted) is to buy a belt sized 2" larger than your pants' waist size. So the size 34 belt would, by that rule, be exactly right if your pants had a 32" waist.
I would guess that 31" ought to be close enough.
(Despite this answer, and my immediately preceding one about matching belt color to shoe color, I do respect that precision has its place. It's just that that place isn't everywhere.)
--
Michael

That "rule" is utterly wrong. I've heard it before, often to justify why an otherwise respectable store doesn't bother stocking size 30 belts, and never understood why people continue to repeat it. Your belt size should be the same as your waist size- you're supposed to use the middle hole, with the others to provide some give in either direction. Belts are measured to the middle hole- if you buckle a 32" belt in the middle hole, it will form a loop 32 inches in circumference.

Now, with vanity sizing and the expectation that you'll only get fatter instead of any thinner, getting a larger belt might be justified in some cases, but should hardly be considered the rule. I wear a size 29 or 30 waist depending on the pant and the day, and wear exclusively size 30 belts.
post #18912 of 27509
I am in the market for suede double monks. Do you guys think these Meermin or Peal & Co would be better? Both will be around $300 (assuming Brooks has ~50% off during Boxing Day sale, like last year).

http://www.brooksbrothers.com/Peal-Co.%C2%AE-Double-Monk-Straps/MH00194,default,pd.html?dwvar_MH00194_Color=BRWN&contentpos=10&cgid=0522
http://meermin.es/ficha_articulo.php?id=2311

Which last is better? The better quality of the two?
post #18913 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptjeff View Post

That "rule" is utterly wrong. I've heard it before, often to justify why an otherwise respectable store doesn't bother stocking size 30 belts, and never understood why people continue to repeat it. Your belt size should be the same as your waist size- you're supposed to use the middle hole, with the others to provide some give in either direction. Belts are measured to the middle hole- if you buckle a 32" belt in the middle hole, it will form a loop 32 inches in circumference.
Now, with vanity sizing and the expectation that you'll only get fatter instead of any thinner, getting a larger belt might be justified in some cases, but should hardly be considered the rule. I wear a size 29 or 30 waist depending on the pant and the day, and wear exclusively size 30 belts.

Well now I'm second guessing getting the 34. My waist is 31 inches around, so maybe the 32 would be a better fit...
post #18914 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badandy View Post

Well now I'm second guessing getting the 34. My waist is 31 inches around, so maybe the 32 would be a better fit...

Yes, it would. The 34 is only going to be 32 inches at its shortest, which is still too long for you.
post #18915 of 27509
Quote:
Originally Posted by cptjeff View Post


That "rule" is utterly wrong. I've heard it before, often to justify why an otherwise respectable store doesn't bother stocking size 30 belts, and never understood why people continue to repeat it. Your belt size should be the same as your waist size- you're supposed to use the middle hole, with the others to provide some give in either direction. Belts are measured to the middle hole- if you buckle a 32" belt in the middle hole, it will form a loop 32 inches in circumference.
Now, with vanity sizing and the expectation that you'll only get fatter instead of any thinner, getting a larger belt might be justified in some cases, but should hardly be considered the rule. I wear a size 29 or 30 waist depending on the pant and the day, and wear exclusively size 30 belts.

I have been burned by this before. The people at the Allen Edmonds store told me to size up 2 inches. Well, now I am on the tighest hole. It still looks fine, but if I had bought true-to-size, I would have been able to fasten it right in the middle.

 

Belt makers should understand that we wear belts over pants and size them to accomodate someone of the specified size. The same goes for jackets/coats: they get worn over top of suit jackets, and should be sized with this in mind. I have yet to find a company for which this does not hold true.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Ask A Question, Get An Answer... - Post All Quick Questions Here