Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by earthdragon, Nov 18, 2008.
Went for a coffee and saw the brownman accessorising in herringbone.
Haha, just saying hello to the old crew. You caught me with my Movember 'stache and New Balance sneakers. It's the "advertising hipster" meets "potential child offender" look.
On a serious note, how do you guys approach dressing during stages of body transition?
To give you some context, I started this year at 92.3kg and am now something like 83-84kgs and will likely shed more weight in the coming months. Naturally, this has impacted on my measurements. Right now, most of my clothes hang. Luckily, in an ad agency I can wear t-shirts and chinos everyday and it doesn't matter. But, on the odd occasion I do have to wear more classic menswear, most of my clothes are a bit too big. Thoughts?
Seriously, wtf has happened in the last few years? Cup day has now morphed into this four day holiday. They cancelled kids' swimming lessons on Saturday because of Cup day. It was freakin Saturday! Nobody turns up on Monday any more. I remember when everyone turned up on the Monday and it was all chicken and champagne and office cup sweeps.
I know it's tradition, but I think cup day should be changed to a Monday and the whole thing made a three day w/e.
It's just silly at the moment.
RE weight change - I hover between 80 and 84kg.
I think they key is to buy clothes to fit your "winter" weight, and to know a good tailor.
I don't think a 10kg weight range can really be accommodated, though....
Perhaps just don't throw away your too big clothes that can't be taken in with the expectation that your weight might head back up at some stage of your life.
Theres an inherent problem I think in double monks. A basic contradiction if you like. A single monk - especially a black captoe or "wholecut" is a very traditional and formal shoe. (depending on the tastefulness of design I suppose)A double monk - is, by several definitions a more casual shoe - added ornamentation plus they just look a bit more casual. (I'm excepting those monks that are I suppose technically double but are more like a single with two buckles positioned close together higher up and further back). But they are generally leather - except when they are suede - and therefor "formal".
With a single monk your trousers bottom can cover the buckle when standing - with a double generally one buckle will be standing out noticeably. With a black single monk then you only show the buckle & strap when sitting and exposed so to speak. So it meets that definition of discreet / non showy dress beloved of us gents everywhere.
I think thats the problem with a double monk - as a casual shoe its somewhat too formal and as a formal shoe its somewhat too casual.
Perhaps a good shoe to wear with suit to the races, with a jacket or suit out at night to a bar or whatever, but too showy for work.
The black single monk - done well, will work as a business shoe with the infrequent glimpse of tasteful eccentricity for the cognoscenti.
My other - emerging - problem with the double monk is that a few years ago they were rare and unusual enough without being showbiz. Now everyone has seen a pair at least on sockless models in magazines and have an association whether you like it or not. To make it worse - I'll bet that within the next 12 months we'll see a proliferation of (not so) cheap and tacky "fashion" versions of double monks in various cream colours with turned up toes and they will be a favourite of footballers. You'll not get a chance to explain to the receptionist or PA who ooohs over them how yours are a different thing to what she saw at the casino bars and clubs on Saturday night.
It's not even a public holiday here. Nor should it be for a bloody horse race! Who needs to take a day off for something that lasts 3 minutes? (and I'm not talking about Craig Thompson...)
Well it's only a problem if you accept the premise that just because a shoe is leather is it "formal". I would refine your observation and say that black leather is inherently formal, which makes black double monks more of a contradiction (never really thought about it this way but I think this is why I dislike them). Brown x2 monks are informal shoes, no doubt about it, but I don't see any contradiction there. You wouldn't really wear them with a suit, maybe a summer lounge suit, but not for business dress. For that a black single monk is better, but unless you're wearing a heavier fabric your pants will catch on the buckle regardless, unless you are a mannequin (may apply to some SF members in WAYWT thread).
The fact is both types of monk shoe are showy. They are for peacocks of varying degrees and have either a larger single shiny buckle or two smaller shiny ones. Either way, the buckles are there to be noticed, so why go with half measures? Have the whole hog and wear double monks...
As an aside the only supposed technical advantage of a double monk is that it spreads the pressure over a larger area of the vamp and is therefore supposed to be more comfortable (I say 'supposed' because personally I don't see much difference in comfort between x1 and x2 monk shoes if they both fit you properly).
Deal with it until you hit your goal weight. I have the same but opposite issue as you. Everything I have is too tight but I'm not getting a new wardrobe or altering my existing garments until my bulk/cut cycle is finished for the year.
I'm not sure that I disagree with you - but lets try.
I think when I said leather - I meant not suede or not pebble grain - as well as not something else. And I really meant more formal rather than strictly formal as we forum gents know it. Probably though these days its a fact that any sort of real leather shoe is "formal". And that business wear is about as formal as anyone gets now.
I think its possible that a single black monk is not that showy at all. I've seen many old school blokes without a lot of peacock in them wear black single monks.
I just did a quick and dirty search.
I don't mind this one below:
or even this
I must say Ijust don't get black shoes with jeans - perhaps heavily brogued gunboats - black boots with jeans ok.
Mainly in my head jeans = boots - desert, chukkas or otherwise. Brown or Burgundy heavey brogues ok. Business shoes not.
Sneakers perhaps depending on sneaker design and blokes age - no one over 30 or so should wear sneakers.
Thats a fair bit of loss of weight - more than 10% - I'm not sure if thats a lot but it seems so to me. Are you shedding weight or shedding width etc? I mean clearly you are doing both - but on me my waist and barrel shrinks dramatically if I lose a kilo or so - I've not got chunky bones so to speak.
I think it depends a lot on what your genetic makeup will dictate. You can get a bit of an idea by looking at older uncles on both sides. Sad but true that, you'll end up looking a bit like them to large extent. You wont get taller. If they are skinny when older then your chances are good. Things like thighs don't get smaller by much if any - ...
That means that as you get older - and you will get older - each day even - usually you'll put on weight to an extent. What that means is hang on to the well made more "timeless" stuff and let go of the other stuff. (I put timeless in qualifying quotes because nothing is really timeless - but somethings are more so than others)
Trousers can be let out or in, jackets much less so. Loose isn't always bad - as you get older you might prefer a less "fitted" look and what seems loose now can easily look just right with different eyes.
Theres others here who have lost big amounts of weight who can give their experience.
I found that an interesting (frightening) possibility, so I decided to see how many of the pathetic shoe manufacturers here are selling dub monks. I thought that none would be. But it turns out Betts and Zu both have them, complete with toes pointing skyward.
PoP - I mean you can only begin to imagine the sort of idiot who might wear things like this:
Nice try but I think we are on the same page actually ;-) Yes only black gunboats with jeans, black/black suede spectators can look ok as well but either way it needs to be a dark denim (a formal denim if there is such a thing - dark jeans you'd wear to a nice restaurant here, rather than a pair you'd change your oil in), i.e. no dad jeans.
As for those monks, if I was a facetious fellow I might point out that they are really monks in a technical sense only. They are sculpted to such an extent as to be seeking forgiveness for being a monk shoe, the buckle raised so high or swept back so far as to be as unobtrusive as possible. Perfect for wear with a suit. It just goes against the spirit of monk shoes IMO! This has always been the classic design of a single monk as I've conceived of it:
I think we can agree then to say that monk shoes vary widely in their style and their formality? That's the difficulty with trying to make up these "rules" - there's always an exception, and really it just comes down to what actually looks good with what, on a case by case.
Separate names with a comma.