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 1419

post #21271 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thahmas View Post

Hi, I've just had a suit made. Not overly happy with the fit so will be taking it back for some tweaks shortly. One other thing I've noticed is some stitching on the underside of the lapel? Is this normal or is it a short-cut? Does this mean that there's no canvas in the lapel? 

 

Hi all, just hoping for some advice before I start fretting over this - none of my other jackets have any sort of stitching/tacking on the underside of the lapel so would like to know why they did that and what it means. I know the pictures are hard to tell, but the stitches are quite randomly spread across the cloth. 

Thanks, T

post #21272 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by DerangedGoose View Post

Is it possible to wear my black cordovan Alden loafers with shorts? If not, is it possible to wear them sockless with colored chinos in the summer?

 

 

I am trying to figure out what the hell I can use these things for or if I should just get rid of them

 

Where them with socks, always.   Socklessness is a sin, an evil fad that will pass.*

 

Coloured chinos would work great.  A suit in a less formal business environment.  And there's no rule that says you have to wear brown or burgundy with a blazer and khakis.  Go for a more interesting coloured sports coat, khakis, black belt....they'll be fine.  And maybe go a little bolder than usual on the socks.

 

 

*I know what you think, sockless-sinners, and I don't give a fuck.  It's unsightly, unhygienic and unmanly.  And bad for your shoes.

post #21273 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Where them with socks, always.   Socklessness is a sin, an evil fad that will pass.*

*I know what you think, sockless-sinners, and I don't give a fuck.  It's unsightly, unhygienic and unmanly.  And bad for your shoes.

Never heard of no show socks or loafer socks?
post #21274 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

 

Where them with socks, always.   Socklessness is a sin, an evil fad that will pass.*

 

Coloured chinos would work great.  A suit in a less formal business environment.  And there's no rule that says you have to wear brown or burgundy with a blazer and khakis.  Go for a more interesting coloured sports coat, khakis, black belt....they'll be fine.  And maybe go a little bolder than usual on the socks.

 

 

*I know what you think, sockless-sinners, and I don't give a fuck.  It's unsightly, unhygienic and unmanly.  And bad for your shoes.

I agree that socks a preferred with long pants, but what about shorts? There is no way I am wearing socks with shorts, bad for my shoes or not.

 

Regarding the original post, black loafers aren't the most versatile things in the world, but you can get away with them with odd jackets or no jacket. I wouldn't wear them with shorts, socks or not.

post #21275 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiejake View Post


Never heard of no show socks or loafer socks?

 

I have.  They do address the "unhygienic" and "bad for your shoes" points.  But "unsightly" and "unmanly" remain.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by msulinski View Post

I agree that socks a preferred with long pants, but what about shorts? There is no way I am wearing socks with shorts, bad for my shoes or not.

 

Regarding the original post, black loafers aren't the most versatile things in the world, but you can get away with them with odd jackets or no jacket. I wouldn't wear them with shorts, socks or not.

 

Haha...quite right.   I don't think cordovan loafers are the thing to wear with shorts.  

 

The thing is, we're talking "Classic Menswear" on this side of the forum.   And in my febrile, reactionary mind, shorts have no place beyond the beach or the sportsfield, and would therefore require either no shoes at all or the requisite sport shoes (which, incidentally, do not have any place beyond the sport field either!)

 

I will concede happily that there are occasions when one might be walking from the car or hotel room to the beach, or onto one's boat while wearing shorts, in which case some kind of sandal, espadrille, boat shoe etc might be appropriate.  But I'd save the cordovan loafers for the post-sailing sundowners, with a light blue linen shirt and terra cotta chinos, perhaps.

post #21276 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thahmas View Post

Hi all, just hoping for some advice before I start fretting over this - none of my other jackets have any sort of stitching/tacking on the underside of the lapel so would like to know why they did that and what it means. I know the pictures are hard to tell, but the stitches are quite randomly spread across the cloth. 
Thanks, T

Yes, that is weird. Stitches going through the outer cloth and into the canvas or interlining are definitely not normal. No idea what it means, but I'd ask your tailor about it.
post #21277 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thahmas View Post

Hi all, just hoping for some advice before I start fretting over this - none of my other jackets have any sort of stitching/tacking on the underside of the lapel so would like to know why they did that and what it means. I know the pictures are hard to tell, but the stitches are quite randomly spread across the cloth. 

Thanks, T

 

Hand-basted suits can have this kind of stitching behind the lapels, and some tailors make a point of leaving it visible: it's one of those things like a visible pick stitch around the seams that can make a suit look more obviously hand-made.  In this case, it appears your tailor has used a contrasting thread to accentuate the effect.  In a way, it's a good thing.

post #21278 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

Hand-basted suits can have this kind of stitching behind the lapels, and some tailors make a point of leaving it visible: it's one of those things like a visible pick stitch around the seams that can make a suit look more obviously hand-made.  In this case, it appears your tailor has used a contrasting thread to accentuate the effect.  In a way, it's a good thing.

I've never seen it as straight up stitches like that though. At first I though he was talking about the subtle dimpling you can see with that, but this looks like the kind of thick stitching you might see a tag or label attached with. It's very weird.
post #21279 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post

Depends on the shade of gray; the darker the gray, the less likely tan will look good.

I agree with you here.   With a darker grey, a camel would probably look better

post #21280 of 28369

How do you keep a silk pocket square still on your jacket? Because it is silk it always falls into the pocket rather than staying still. It's okay when I am wearing it but it falls in when I take it off. And no, I don't like cotton pocket squares.

post #21281 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

 

I have.  They do address the "unhygienic" and "bad for your shoes" points.  But "unsightly" and "unmanly" remain.

 

 

Haha...quite right.   I don't think cordovan loafers are the thing to wear with shorts.  

 

The thing is, we're talking "Classic Menswear" on this side of the forum.   And in my febrile, reactionary mind, shorts have no place beyond the beach or the sportsfield, and would therefore require either no shoes at all or the requisite sport shoes (which, incidentally, do not have any place beyond the sport field either!)

 

I will concede happily that there are occasions when one might be walking from the car or hotel room to the beach, or onto one's boat while wearing shorts, in which case some kind of sandal, espadrille, boat shoe etc might be appropriate.  But I'd save the cordovan loafers for the post-sailing sundowners, with a light blue linen shirt and terra cotta chinos, perhaps.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

 

Where them with socks, always.   Socklessness is a sin, an evil fad that will pass.*

 

Coloured chinos would work great.  A suit in a less formal business environment.  And there's no rule that says you have to wear brown or burgundy with a blazer and khakis.  Go for a more interesting coloured sports coat, khakis, black belt....they'll be fine.  And maybe go a little bolder than usual on the socks.

 

 

*I know what you think, sockless-sinners, and I don't give a fuck.  It's unsightly, unhygienic and unmanly.  And bad for your shoes.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by msulinski View Post

I agree that socks a preferred with long pants, but what about shorts? There is no way I am wearing socks with shorts, bad for my shoes or not.

 

Regarding the original post, black loafers aren't the most versatile things in the world, but you can get away with them with odd jackets or no jacket. I wouldn't wear them with shorts, socks or not.

 

 

As far as I understood it, its not so much the leather as the color black that makes the loafers unsuitable for supremely casual outfits like sockless+shorts.

 

The point of it being "unmanly" is a bit of a strange one, not sure what that means in this context?

 

Trouble is, they are that weird 10.5 a/c size and are already pretty snug. I think its best to let them go in favor of a brown, more versatile shoe. I have black plain-toe AE kenilworths that can be dressed down, since they arent captoes. Or am I wrong about that?

post #21282 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by rudals1281 View Post

How do you keep a silk pocket square still on your jacket?
If the silk square is stuffed into the pocket (a "puff" style pocket square), there shouldn't be any problem, unless perhaps the square is unusually small.

If you're folding a silk pocket square to wear in your pocket, it may well fall into the pocket. That's because silk can lack the body and stiffness for wearing folded. And that's why cotton and linen pocket squares exist, whether you happen to like them or not.

If your silk pocket square is being worn stuffed into the pocket, and it's full sized, and it still falls into the jacket pocket, I suppose it could be that your jacket pocket is unusually large or loose-fitting. In which case, just stuff another pocket square into the pocket first, to take up all that open space at the bottom, so your second square will not drop out of sight.

Do not be that guy who staples a piece of cardboard to his pocket square, in order to have it stay in place better in his pocket. (I've actually seen pocket squares sold this way - stapled to pocket-shaped pieces of cardboard, and meant to be worn like that.) A stapled pocket square is... is... well, I don't know how to accurately describe just how wrong it is. Maybe you could think of it as being pre-tied necktie wrong.
post #21283 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by aravenel View Post


I've never seen it as straight up stitches like that though. At first I though he was talking about the subtle dimpling you can see with that, but this looks like the kind of thick stitching you might see a tag or label attached with. It's very weird.

 

Thanks both - I was worried it was a horrible shortcut so somewhat relieved that it may not be. Will enquire further when I next go to see him. 

 

Thanks, T

post #21284 of 28369
Quote:
Originally Posted by mimo View Post

 

I have.  They do address the "unhygienic" and "bad for your shoes" points.  But "unsightly" and "unmanly" remain.

 

 

Haha...quite right.   I don't think cordovan loafers are the thing to wear with shorts.  

 

The thing is, we're talking "Classic Menswear" on this side of the forum.   And in my febrile, reactionary mind, shorts have no place beyond the beach or the sportsfield, and would therefore require either no shoes at all or the requisite sport shoes (which, incidentally, do not have any place beyond the sport field either!)

 

I will concede happily that there are occasions when one might be walking from the car or hotel room to the beach, or onto one's boat while wearing shorts, in which case some kind of sandal, espadrille, boat shoe etc might be appropriate.  But I'd save the cordovan loafers for the post-sailing sundowners, with a light blue linen shirt and terra cotta chinos, perhaps.

I think we can still discuss shorts in the context of Classic Menswear. Over on the Streetwear side, I'm sure they have a different approach to shorts than in Classic Menswear. I realize that a large segment of this group thinks that shorts have no place in Classic Menswear, but I disagree. I think it can be done well, but always without socks.

post #21285 of 28369

Saw this on a tumblr page.  Can anyone ID this sweater, or suggest one similar?   Thanks. 

 

tumblr_mlnvc9vyN31qhwwz0o1_500.jpg

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