conservative business dress WAYWRN: An Experiment

[edmorel]

I am very narrow in terms of how I dress but I don't tell people not to wear something or to only wear another thing. Everyone says, "I like that" or "I don't like that", and given the point of this thread, I thought there were some parameters. Loud socks or ties do not fit in with my definition of conservative business dress, does not mean I am correct nor that I am imposing my views. this is a weird place, WAYWN gets derided because everything is accepted and no criticisms are offered. I take note of the socks and that gets derided

When I offer stronger critiques, it's usually to people I know/have been around forever like Manton, because I know he doesn't really give a sh*t what I have to say.

 

[zalb916]

apropos of above ...

Originally Posted by gdl203

I personally NEVER wear a suit or sport coat without a square - I guess sometimes the square works great, other times not so great but that's just like everything else (tie, socks, whatever), and I would feel naked without one.

Originally Posted by gdl203

 

[Manton]

It's hard to get the balance right in this thread because the definition of conservative business dress will never be precise. There is a massive element of "I like/dislike" which I acknowledged in the very first post.

I think we are trying to do three things here:

1) Post what we actually wear to work, in non-circus environments. I.e., if you are the creative director at a fashion start-up, then conservative business dress is sort of irrelevant for you. This thread is about people who go to normal offices every day and must wear suits but 99% of their colleagues don't care about dressing beyond its obligatory character.

2) TITFD. This is about being less nuts than regular WAYWRN, more sedate. Yes, there will be an element of groupthink, which I do not think is bad. This is a thread with a POV. There are parameters, expectations and limits otherwise it would just be another free for all.

3) Find ways not be too rote or too dull. Push conservative business dress outward a little without breaking the barries totally.

 

[gdl203]

ed - I think most here would prefer real critiques over snarky drive-by comments. I wasn't agreeing with Orgetorix's statement that you want to impose your style on others btw - I don't think you are, I think you're stating your own preferences fairly clearly. I am simply trying to counter-balance a little bit what I see happening here increasingly (the narrow "trademark" look) with a different viewpoint - variety while still conservative business dress.

Both approaches are in the spirit of this thread. We need some counterbalancing from time to time

 

[zalb916]

I actually think Ed has been pretty good over the years of saying when he thinks someone looks good, even if it isn't his style.

 

[gdl203]

Originally Posted by zbromer

apropos of above ...

Eagle-eye lawyer, you don't need a blackline to spot a difference between versions

Yes, I do feel a little naked today - I left home thinking I had one of those drakes mogul squares in my bag... turns out I didn't

 

[zalb916]

Originally Posted by gdl203

Eagle-eye lawyer, you don't need a blackline to spot a difference between versions

Yes, I do feel a little naked today - I left home thinking I had one of those drakes mogul squares in my bag... turns out I didn't

I'm glad you didn't post the Drakes square. I get so angry whenever I see it, because it reminds me that I didn't buy one when they were all the rage a year or so ago. I think it's such a great square.

 

[Orgetorix]

Originally Posted by srivats

I actually like your socks a lot. They add a subtle visual touch to your otherwise sedate outfit. They are far, far better than the horizontal-stripey-mess that gets displayed (and applauded) a lot in the regular WAYWRN. Who's the maker?

Thanks. They're just Daniel Cremieux for Dillards, nothing fancy.

Originally Posted by edmorel

I like to think that I don't do that, at least not to the extent that others do. I acknowledge looks (like o/o today) that are not anything I would wear. Given that this is the conservative business dress thread, I thought the socks looked out of place, although I really barely said anything by saying they were "interesting". At worse, this was a harmless critique. Anyway, i'll refrain from crtiquing your stuff.

Originally Posted by edmorel

I am very narrow in terms of how I dress but I don't tell people not to wear something or to only wear another thing. Everyone says, "I like that" or "I don't like that", and given the point of this thread, I thought there were some parameters. Loud socks or ties do not fit in with my definition of conservative business dress, does not mean I am correct nor that I am imposing my views. this is a weird place, WAYWN gets derided because everything is accepted and no criticisms are offered. I take note of the socks and that gets derided

When I offer stronger critiques, it's usually to people I know/have been around forever like Manton, because I know he doesn't really give a sh*t what I have to say.

I apologize if I've painted your criticisms in too-strong terms. I took your "interesting" comment to be on par with saying that a girl has a nice personality - i.e., everyone knows what's really being said. If I assumed too much, I apologize. But you have critiqued socks before, often, and it just sometimes seems like stones-from-glass-houses coming from someone who wears such loud coats.

Please feel free to keep critiquing my outfits. As to whether my socks today are conservative business dress or not, I don't know. I thought they were acceptable, especially since Manton has critiqued people here for wearing socks that were too boring. Today's fit was aimed at Manton's purposes 1 and 3, while trying not to transgress number 2 too badly.

 

[mmkn]

Originally Posted by edmorel

Since I wear loud coats, I like to keep everything else sedate.

I agree, with most of your pictures the eyes are looking at the patterns on your SCs.

Anything else patterned, even a hint of a white PS, would distract.

- M

 

[IndianBoyz]

Originally Posted by gdl203

I find this decent. There's a certain 80's English look about the combination of patterns/colour here which is something I appreciate. Like has been said, a square is missing, a subtle solid would finish this look.

 

[luftvier]

Originally Posted by fritzl

actually, you don't care about your shoes?

Elaborate?

Relevant shoe notes: AE byrons They're no shop stoppers. They've already been resoled once. I walk miles in them daily, and they get trees in right after wearing. Since the resole, they're a tad snug around the ball of the foot.

 

[srivats]

Originally Posted by luftvier

Same tie and square as yesterday's car wreck. I think it's more harmonious today. PS slid up while I shot these, it's not meant to show nearly as much.



P.S. I don't care about my shoelaces.


Bonus shots:




That is a beautiful suit Lufty -- the jacket fits you very, very well. These fuller trousers are perfect for your frame imo -- the ones you normally post are too skinny for you.

I think the outfit will look better with a fuller break on the trousers. The no/minimal break does not look good on everyone.

 

[oldog/oldtrix]

Originally Posted by Ianiceman

The smooth worsted combined with slimmer fit looks much better than the usual 'baggy and textured' look.

I think the highlighted aspect is primarily what those who have commented are seeing. The shoulders, chest and waist of this coat all measure the same (give or take a millimeter) as those of my "baggy and textured" suits. If anything else is contributing to the perceived svelteness, it is likely the relatively low button stance as compared to my three-buttons and some other two buttons and the slightly narrower lapels and slightly longer skirt on the coat (about a half inch in each case). But even if all those dimensions were the same, the "baggy and textured" suits would look bigger since the thickness of the woolens and the heavier canvassing make the external dimensions larger. I have three suits cut on this model, and I like them neither more nor less than any of my others.

 

[Patrologia]

Originally Posted by luftvier

Elaborate?

Relevant shoe notes: AE byrons They're no shop stoppers. They've already been resoled once. I walk miles in them daily, and they get trees in right after wearing. Since the resole, they're a tad snug around the ball of the foot.

I don't care about the shoes, however, I liked the green socks!

 

[luftvier]

Originally Posted by srivats

That is a beautiful suit Lufty -- the jacket fits you very, very well. These fuller trousers are perfect for your frame imo -- the ones you normally post are too skinny for you.

I think the outfit will look better with a fuller break on the trousers. The no/minimal break does not look good on everyone.

Thanks Sri.

It's funny, I have three BB sacks (navy, charcoal, olive). All are identically cut. But I've now gotten different opinions on each with relation to how the trouser cut relates to the coat.

I think the trou were hiked a little high in these photos. They don't normally appear this short on me, though a lengthening is likely in order. I just don't wanna lose my cuffs.

I still enjoy a slimmer odd trouser, but I agree that suit trou should be fuller. I am looking forward to spring to pull out the whole GTH wardrobe, which is admittedly not conservative business dress, but may be tradly.