Glen plaid suit

[montecristo#4]

I am considering having a glen plaid (over light blue windowpanes) suit made up. A classic suit, but I'm having some second thoughts because I'm not sure how versatile it will be.

Can I wear it with anything other than a solid color shirt (white or blue)?

What about belt and shoes? Black, brown, or cordovan?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

 

[The_Foxx]

I just bought a glen plaid suit myself, Brioni Double Breasted; overcheck is light blue, and I think cream (it's being altered in the body right now, actually).

One of the best combos is a white shirt and black knit tie....blue shirt seems to go just as well as a white. There are lots of pix of glen plaid suits in flusser's books, actually, for more ideas. I plan to bring the jacket with me when i visit atlanta the weekend of the 21st, and see what shirt and tie combos they suggest at Neiman marcus; I plan to only buy one or two ties, but they always make the extra effort to show shirts, ties, versatility of each tie with different shirts and squares.

 

[jrh]

I wear a finely stripped shirt with my glen plaid. Go easy on the windowpane.

 

[spalla]

Two words need to be forever expunged from the vocabulary of the well dressed man: versatile and practical. Forget them, banish them and set about to find what is elegant.

The glen plaid should be in the large format with a pronounced overcheck, preferably in west of England flannel, and cut either in DB or as a three piece SB. Sadly, the great glen plaids we see from the 1930s are rarely produced today since few have the taste (or should I say "the balls&quotto wear them. But they do still exist.

The wimpy, whinny, small format, invisible overcheck...is suitable for.....is suitable for.......is suitable for.....well, NOTHING.

I feel better now.

Cheers

 

[Alias]

Two words need to be forever expunged from the vocabulary of the well dressed man: versatile and practical. Forget them, banish them and set about to find what is elegant.

I beg to differ. For those of us without six-figure incomes (and a good knowledge of the best of Europe's tailors), practicality and versatility are two major valuations of any article of clothing. I don't want "elegance" to become synonomous with "clothes-whore" for myself, personally.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, as the saying goes.

 

[Thracozaag]

Two words need to be forever expunged from the vocabulary of the well dressed man: versatile and practical. Forget them, banish them and set about to find what is elegant.

The glen plaid should be in the large format with a pronounced overcheck, preferably in west of England flannel, and cut either in DB or as a three piece SB. Sadly, the great glen plaids we see from the 1930s are rarely produced today since few have the taste (or should I say "the balls&quotto wear them. But they do still exist.

The wimpy, whinny, small format, invisible overcheck...is suitable for.....is suitable for.......is suitable for.....well, NOTHING.

I feel better now.

Cheers

bravo.. Siamo d'accordo.

 

[LA Guy]

On practicality and versatility:

Forget them, banish them and set about to find what is elegant.

I agree, to a point. I think every man should have a capsule or basic pieces forming the backbone of his wardrobe, and then some distinctive pieces that set it apart. I hesitate to use the word elegant because it's much too constrictive. As for Alias's comments, I think that no man should be a clothes whore. In this respect, I agree with Donna Karan. A guy shouldn't have too much clothing - its just wierd. Certainly, his wardrobe shouldn't be larger than his girlfriend or wife's.

 

[montecristo#4]

I seem to have sparked a debate on versatility vs. elegance. Here's my practical $0.02.

Even with an income in the middle of the $100k-$200k range, dropping $3000 on a bespoke suit is still pretty significant. Run the numbers. If I make $150k and 40% of that goes to taxes, then I'm left with $90k of disposable income. A $3000 suit is 3.33% of that--a lot for one item of clothing.

Extremely distinctive suitings are almost inconvenient in an office environment (unless of course you're Deion Sanders--ha ha). I require a suit that can be worn twice in a two week period to the office without raising too many eyebrows. It's fine to catch people's attention once in a while with your elegance, but if you do it every day you come off as very odd--at least in my business.

I like suits which are versatile, in the sense that I can wear them in a lot of different combinations. For example, I have a great bespoke super-150s charcoal windowpane which works with narrow striped shirts, multi-stripe shirts, smaller patterned check shirts, solid shirts, a wide variety of different ties, and just about every black, brown, or cordovan belt/shoe combo I can throw at it. I NEVER have to wear the same combination of items with that suit. It gives me a great deal of flexibility and freshness in my wardrobe on a daily basis. Therefore, not only is it extremely elegant (windowpane being a unique and underrepresented style here in the US due to expense and difficulty of producing correctly), but it is also extremely versatile.

Finally, on the issue of the fabric itself, I agree with Spalla on the elegance of the large format with pronounced overcheck. However, I am not looking for a fall/winter suit in a heavy fabric. I'm looking for a spring summer suit in a very light fabric. To me, that means a much finer pattern. I am not going to buy a lightweight grey or taupe suit, because I already have those in my warddrobe. I would consider a glen plaid in fawn with a tonal overcheck, but that style (to me) is really only useful for high summer.

Maybe Spalla could share his thoughts on interesting spring/summer suitings since he seems to dislike the small-pattern glen plaids as a category. I'd be very interested to hear his thoughts.

Regards,
Montecristo#4

 

[A Harris]

The glen plaid should be in the large format with a pronounced overcheck, preferably in west of England flannel, and cut either in DB or as a three piece SB. Sadly, the great glen plaids we see from the 1930s are rarely produced today since few have the taste (or should I say "the balls&quotto wear them. But they do still exist.

The wimpy, whinny, small format, invisible overcheck...is suitable for.....is suitable for.......is suitable for.....well, NOTHING.

It's so funny to see this thread as I picked up a suit that fits Spalla's description yesterday and was wondering what I would wear it with. I've been looking a LONG time for one, considering it is such a classic.

As for the small format glen plaid, I'm not generally a fan either. I do think there is one exception though. I've had a couple of suits that were a finer scale glen plaid in black in white - one without an overcheck and another with a sky blue and dark yellow overcheck. Both were lightweight worsted and made for great summer suits. I always wore them with a blue shirt and a dark yellow or gold figured tie, with blue and white in the design. I loved the look...

 

[spalla]

The classical 30s glen urquhart plaid, made famous by the Duke of Windsor, was worn by all great dressers of the period. I am not sure who D. Sanders is (a famous US golfer who wore nice clothes?), but names like Gable, Cooper, Astaire, Grant etc are good enough for me. This check is used as a more informal suit, not fit for city wear or for work, reserved for the country on weekends. So, in essence, not very practical, thank goodness. But beautiful.

The smaller patterened glen check was designed for summer wear and it is fine for such. Personally, I find that if one is tall, all those tiny checks create a look similar to that of an out of tune 1950s television set. But if it floats your boat...super.

Regarding a wardrobe, its not a question of "needing" any of the clothes I commission to be made. I am more of a collector and defender of an artform that is dissappearing. I was very dissappointed to learn that this makes me some kind of a "whore" in your vision of the world. Forgive me for not understanding. Especially when I had gone to some great lengths to help one of you. Strange.

Also, I can't say that I have ever gone about counting the number of garments in my collection vis a vis my wife's wardrobe, but, surely my collection would win by a good distance. I like to keep my women as naked as possible. Don't you see?

Montecristo

Spring suits should be of lightweight worsteds (11-13 oz), and heavy Irish linens (14-15 oz). Spring jackets should be of light Donegal or Shetland tweed (14 oz).

Summers suits should be linen, cotton, or wool/mohair. Summer jackets should be silk.

Cheers

 

[Alias]

Regarding a wardrobe, its not a question of "needing" any of the clothes I commission to be made. I am more of a collector and defender of an artform that is dissappearing. Â I was very dissappointed to learn that this makes me some kind of a "whore" in your vision of the world. Forgive me for not understanding. Especially when I had gone to some great lengths to help one of you. Strange.

I just got back from a snowboarding trip, so I haven't been able to check these boards. Still, I'm confused because you took my comment on clothes-whores personally. You shouldn't have. I was using a hyperbole. I do appreciate your help, because you are very knowledgeable about these things. Still, for a person in my station of life, elegance often must take a back seat to wearing what's clean for the day. (An excellent example would be the aforementioned snowboarding trip; I could have cared less about whether or not my gloves matched my boots. <- hyperbole) There are collectors and then there are people who dump huge sums of money on getting whatever's out there for no real reason at all. Not all collectors are clothes-whores (or clothes-horses), but all clothes-whores are collectors, in a sense. I don't want to be the latter. I'm sorry