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 1726

post #25876 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by DjangoV View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanGent View Post


I think 5' 10" and above is the rule of thumb for adding them because the cuff can make the leg appear shorter, but if you're over 5' 10" it's not an issue.  I'm 6' and I have both cuffed and uncuffed. 

 


I don't have any trousers with cuffs. Might have to look into it, since I am 6'1".
I'll try some soon and see what I think of it.
Cuffs are traditionally considered less formal and I agree they look best on patterned suits (and double breasted) and odd trousers, but I wear them on plain navy worsted as well just because I really like the look. I'm 6'0 but would wear them even if I was shorter, but maybe not have full 2 inch cuffs. Odd flannel trousers look fantastic with a good sized cuff IMO.
post #25877 of 29358

How long has the short suit jacket been around? The type where it shows a bit of your butt? In America? In Europe? Thinking of getting one for fun/bar events.

post #25878 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMoon24 View Post

How long has the short suit jacket so it shows a bit of your butt been around? In America? In Europe? Thinking of getting one for fun/bar events.
Far too long (sorry couldn't help myself)
post #25879 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmericanGent View Post
 


In modern times, I do not believe that the presence or absence of a cuff determines the formality of a trouser, nor would it render it more or less versatile. 

 

It is a matter of personal taste/preference and your overall height.  I think 5' 10" and above is the rule of thumb for adding them because the cuff can make the leg appear shorter, but if you're over 5' 10" it's not an issue.  I'm 6' and I have both cuffed and uncuffed. 

 

I would mostly agree, when it comes to suits.  No cuffs is more formal, but I cannot envision any setting where it would actually change the appropriateness of that suit for an occasion.  I cannot think of a navy blue suit becoming less appropriate for a wedding, because it has cuffs on its trousers, but next to someone in a similar suit without cuffs, you will look slightly less formal.

 

 Formal wear is different (though I realize the original question was about odd trousers)  According to what I've read, there has never been a tradition of cuffs on evening formal trousers (Black or White Tie), as previously stated.  There have, apparently, always been a handful of gentlemen that prefer cuffs on their morning trousers, and I think that, with a Morning Coat, they do noticeably affect the formality but, in my opinion, doesn't ruin it.  It is a bit of lighter, more fun, way to wear trouser.

 

On a pair of odd grey pants, I agree with the other posters that it comes down to personal preference.  I'm 5'7" and, while I do not currently have any pants with cuffs, my height would not stop me.  I might have to experiment with width, but I would probably start with a full 2" and see how it looks.  I don't see the point in wearing them, if they look wimpy.  And, I'm 5'7"; cuffs are not going to be the thing that makes me look short.  The fact that I'm short will take care of that by itself.

post #25880 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMoon24 View Post
 

How long has the short suit jacket been around? The type where it shows a bit of your butt? In America? In Europe? Thinking of getting one for fun/bar events.

post #25881 of 29358

Funny.

 

I think you can also go with a smaller cuff to lessen the visual effect of shortening the leg- like a 1 5/8" cuff instead of 1 3/4.  I know bigger cuffs are "in" but I think the sizes I mentioned are more traditional(?)

 

In the case of odd gray wool pants I stand by my earlier comments, but in the case of suits I'd agree that cuffs may give a more "country" look to some, but I don't think it is a problem.  I don't have cuffs on my blue suits, just on the tweed and heavy winter stuff , which I feel is more old-school....but again it's all about preference, not right v. wrong. 

 

Good topic though! 

post #25882 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by p.henrik View Post

Does anyone know a decent alterations/repair shop for knits in London? Have a fair isle sweater with a small moth whole and a cashmere sweater that's too voluminous.

 

@marcodalondra is in London, perhaps he might know?

post #25883 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bungle View Post
 

 

The only suit I own now (that's worth wearing) is a pick and pick made of black and white threads, so it looks like a medium grey. I was planning on getting a new suit in the near future, most likely in a plain charcoal but possibly in a herringbone or glenplaid if I'm feeling adventurous at the time. Also, if it's of any importance the suit I have now has side tabs instead of belt loops. The next suit I get will be the same.

 

I figured grey suit -> white shirt -> chocolate knitted tie, or charcoal suit -> pale blue shirt -> choc knit tie would both be safe bets, but I wasn't sure if black shoes would work with them. I don't have any brown shoes at the moment and was hoping to avoid buying some, although a couple of new pocket squares from thetiebar.com won't hurt the budget!

 

 

Thanks for the advice!


Black shoes were traditionally the accepted color for blue and grey suits, but since the late 90's that has been relaxed and now brown shoes are much more common. 

 

I'd encourage you to look into a pair of brown shoes- Allen Edmonds has frequent sales and you can buy second- quality shoes with minor defects for around $160-$200 during their sales.  If you are building your wardrobe this is a great place to start. 

Note- Be prepared to "zero in" on your correct size for each last and if buying seconds you may have to return a few duds.  Shipping in the US is free both ways.

__

 

I was just researching side-tabs adjusters for a suit I recently commissioned.  I fluctuate in weight 20lbs throughout the year so it gets annoying! 

post #25884 of 29358

If you like cuffs for the drape effect, go with reverse cuffs.

post #25885 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImTheGroom View Post
 

 

I would mostly agree, when it comes to suits.  No cuffs is more formal, but I cannot envision any setting where it would actually change the appropriateness of that suit for an occasion.  I cannot think of a navy blue suit becoming less appropriate for a wedding, because it has cuffs on its trousers, but next to someone in a similar suit without cuffs, you will look slightly less formal.

 

 Formal wear is different (though I realize the original question was about odd trousers)  According to what I've read, there has never been a tradition of cuffs on evening formal trousers (Black or White Tie), as previously stated.  There have, apparently, always been a handful of gentlemen that prefer cuffs on their morning trousers, and I think that, with a Morning Coat, they do noticeably affect the formality but, in my opinion, doesn't ruin it.  It is a bit of lighter, more fun, way to wear trouser.

 

On a pair of odd grey pants, I agree with the other posters that it comes down to personal preference.  I'm 5'7" and, while I do not currently have any pants with cuffs, my height would not stop me.  I might have to experiment with width, but I would probably start with a full 2" and see how it looks.  I don't see the point in wearing them, if they look wimpy.  And, I'm 5'7"; cuffs are not going to be the thing that makes me look short.  The fact that I'm short will take care of that by itself.

My understanding here is that cuffs were essentially invented to be "mud flaps" to protect the outside of the trouser leg when getting off your horse on a dirt road. The whole idea of the dinner suit was to change out of your dirty day clothes, so you really wouldn't be riding somewhere in your dinner clothes, and wouldn't have need of cuffs.

post #25886 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by msulinski View Post
 

My understanding here is that cuffs were essentially invented to be "mud flaps" to protect the outside of the trouser leg when getting off your horse on a dirt road. The whole idea of the dinner suit was to change out of your dirty day clothes, so you really wouldn't be riding somewhere in your dinner clothes, and wouldn't have need of cuffs.

 

I believe you are right.  And that is where rules of formality originate - the whole point was to demonstrate you were a fancy enough person to own clothes just for looking and feeling good, not for practical purposes.

post #25887 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by JubeiSpiegel View Post

^
Anything under AE or Meermin quality is considered rubbish on SF.

 

At first read that sounded harsh, but it's not entirely untrue: there is plenty of value below AE price, and more consistent quality at Meermin price, but more or less, that's basically it!  $99 from AE Shoe Bank, or Meermin, Loake L1 (Indian-made), Barker's Indian-made models etc: proper shoes for $100-200, and if you pick the ones with a more natural leather finish, very good value indeed.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickalott View Post
 

Yes they are Gucci.  That is why I was a bit suprised at hearing they were utter shit.  

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pburk View Post

Does anyone know who makes the shoe at the top of this photo?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImTheGroom View Post
 

Florsheim,.... Ferragamo....Hugo Boss

 

I wanted to go back to this point - one of my favourite hobbyhorses: whatever the brands mentioned by JubeiSpiegel above, or me, or anyone else, the point is to buy the shoes and not the brand.  The fact is that buying branded shoes, especially from companies that don't make shoes as their main product, can be counter-intuitive: sometimes it is literally the case that the bigger the brand, the worse the shoes.  

 

None of us are born experts in clothes, suit construction, shoes or sartorial style.  We all learn.  And especially as young men, one of the shortcuts we learn is to buy from a maker we trust.  If I buy a 100% wool jumper from Marks & Spencer, I trust that it is in fact 100% wool, and I expect it not to shrink or fall apart if washed at the advised temperature.  Solid mid-range brands for solid basic things, that we come to trust.  Although I looked for a proper leather belt in M&S a while back, and they didn't have a single one that wasn't "PU" i.e. a plastic laminate.  Shame.  And even more so as we go further upmarket: as we aspire to greater things, we are naturally inclined to seek out what we perceive as "premium" brands in the belief that they represent premium quality.  But this is increasingly a minefield:

 

First, the fake-premium: Balmain.  Pierre Cardin.  Savoy Tailor's Guild.  Impressive sounding names, with fancy-looking shops and prime retail locations, screaming class and sophistication.  Big sales and discounts regularly.  Except they're not really top brands at all.  They are mass market mediocrity, and worse, with premium-sounding badges.  The latter (STG) sells other people's branded stuff too, some of it decent, but mostly not.  It's all about presenting an image beyond the reality.  And the former pseudo-designer labels, are unmitigated garbage.  Supermarket quality at premium price.  No wonder they have 70% sales every five minutes.

 

But the ones that elicit my special resentment are indeed the Guccis - sorry, Nick.  Because these took a brand that really was once a "design house", selling a premium product. and stuck that brand on crap.  They belong to great corporate behemoths (LVMH in this case) that position a dozen "designer" brands alongside each other, each of them carefully positioned above or below the next, but also pulling off a blatant duplicity in marketing.  They still sell some top stuff - usually in solus boutiques, mostly to ladies, and based on small seasonal collections.  All in order to keep their premium "integrity".  But their real money is in putting the same badge on crap, and selling it to the mass market.

 

One of the very worst examples is Armani: as someone mentioned earlier in this thread, even their most famous product - the man's suit - is generally rubbish.  Unless you order a bespoke suit, or at least a made to measure version, you get nothing like a quality suit.  Sure, the cut might be stylish and even the cloth pretty nice looking.  But it's bonded.  That means instead of the different parts being carefully stitched together with a mobile "canvas" or interlining letting the jacket hang and move naturally, they use the same technique as the cheapest K-Mart/Tesco/whatever nasty: they spray glue onto the interlining and just stick the whole thing together like cardboard.  That's ANY off the rail Armani suit.  $2000?  No different in actual quality of construction to a $50 jacket.  And as for the stuff they just put their label on: Chinese-made faux-gold watches, crappy printed T-shirts, you name it.   I'm afraid Gucci fall very much into this category: perhaps they do make a decent pair of shoes in one of their lines somewhere.  But I've seen a few pairs, all north of $500, and all glued together like the rubbish you get in an out of town warehouse store.

 

And another name mentioned above, Salvatore Ferragamo: an actual shoe company, more or less.  Of course they sell more handbags and nicknacks these days, but they are supposed to be famous for shoes.  In fact, they make three levels of shoes: the "Tramezza" line, that are good quality (though VERY expensive the best ready to wear shoes in the world come cheaper).  The "Lavorazione Originale" line, that are decent (though expensive - a dozen very high quality makers are cheaper).  And finally "Studio Ferragamo" - the rubbish.  Glued together, chemically-coated, mechanically sanded leather, just like the supermarket $20 bargains.  Except they don't cost $20.  A couple of weeks ago I was in an airport, and looked in on the Ferragamo boutique in duty free.  They had maybe fifteen models of men's shoes.  All of them over $400.  All of them from the "Studio" line: N.B. that's the one with the wiggly "Ferragamo" logo inside the insole.  The Tramezza and LO ranges have the respective range name on the sole.  To me, that was robbery: selling crap under a golden name.

 

There are lots of examples of this, like Ralph Lauren making a range called "Lauren by Ralph Lauren" that is special low quality ONLY sold in their outlet stores - under the pretence that it's a discounted designer "bargain" end of line.  Many big brands do this kind of thing.

 

So back to shoes.  If you've got $600 to spend on shoes, you can get one of the most celebrated makers in the world (and certainly in SF) on discount through Luxeswap (Gaziano & Girling).  You can get brand new high quality Crockett & Jones or Alfred Sargent.  You can get Antonio Mecciarelli in Naples to make you a pair to measure.  You can can Lazslo Vass shoes made entirely by hand - every stitch - with change.  The world is your oyster.  If you know what you're looking for.  Read around, learn and laugh at your good fortune.  Then buy the shoes, not the brand.


Edited by mimo - 1/17/14 at 11:58am
post #25888 of 29358

@mimo very good post, indeed.  It reminds me of several recent discussions I've had about celebrities seemingly not understanding that there are still tailors in the world.  Of course,designers simply throw clothes at these men, with the goal of becoming attached to the man's fame, and I would wear the $2000, junk Armani suit if I liked the look of it, and Armani sent it to my door, for free, with a lovely note explaining how excited they would be for me to wear it, and wearing it also helped me to be more noticeable and famous, leading to more film roles and more money.  Though, you would think Armani would also want it to fit properly, so that the whole thing is even more impressive.  Why they don't have tailors deliver the clothes, shears, and needle in hand, I'll never quite understand.

 

Though, if I ever do have those kind of resources, I will simply hire a full time tailor.

post #25889 of 29358
Quote:
Originally Posted by ImTheGroom View Post
 

Why they don't have tailors deliver the clothes, shears, and needle in hand, I'll never quite understand.

 

As I understand it, that's almost exactly what they do, even for something as simple as a T-shirt or jeans: they invite the "star" over to the boutique, or arrange a visit to the home or film set, try on sizes until they get to the closest, and then make some adjustments to make it even closer.  Pretty much all of these freebie clothes are at the very least altered by a house specialist when they're handed over.  

post #25890 of 29358
Good stuff Mimo. I have a pair of Ferragamo cap toes that my wife got me about 5 years ago. They are holding up just fine, but as they are black cap toes I don't wear them very often. But, if she had given me the $600 to buy shoes for myself I would have never bought them!
I have a few lux brand items, but all were gifts. I will never buy another item for it's name again, but in order to do that effectively you have to really study.
As it turns out, Styleforum is a primo place to learn- so read up fellas!
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