HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)

[Roycru]

Juan Bautista De Anza and I.

Middishade Madras jacket, Brooks Brothers PPBD shirt, Tie Bar tie, Generic pocket square, Leatherman blue and tan surcingle belt, Lands' End cord trousers, Eddie Bauer argyle socks, and Florsheim Imperial wingtip kiltie tassel loafers.

For those who are wondering what the plaque on the base of De Anza's bust says, here it is.

Since today is Father's Day in some countries, here's a picture of my Father on his way to school, showing what boys in San Francisco wore to school when Warren G. Harding was President. (I also had blond hair when was a little boy, but like my Father and Grandfather, my hair later turned brown and is now turning grey.)

 

[Jamesgatz]

Butler: that's a great shot.

 

[Cleav]

 

[cavdb]

Long time lurker, jumping in the deep end!
I was originally wearing a tie but had to remove by mid day due to the heat.

Hat: Christys' London
Sunglasses: Vintage Alfred Dunhill
Jacket: Vintage DB cotton Jacket I got tailored to fit me. Took the tailor a lot of work.
Pocket Square: Turnbull and Asser
Braces: Vintage
Shirt: Camicissima
Trousers: Polo Ralph Lauren (part of a suit)
Slipper: Monogrammed Bowhill and Elliott
Bag: Carlo v.d. Broeck

 

[Roy Al]

Welcome in the club, cavdb. Might be too much going on, but keep on posting. Here is lot to learn.

 

[cavdb]

Welcome in the club, cavdb. Might be too much going on, but keep on posting. Here is lot to learn.

I look forward to learning more!

 

[DiplomaticTies]

Long time lurker, jumping in the deep end!
I was originally wearing a tie but had to remove by mid day due to the heat.

Hat: Christys' London
Sunglasses: Vintage Alfred Dunhill
Jacket: Vintage DB cotton Jacket I got tailored to fit me. Took the tailor a lot of work.
Pocket Square: Turnbull and Asser
Braces: Vintage
Shirt: Camicissima
Trousers: Polo Ralph Lauren (part of a suit)
Slipper: Monogrammed Bowhill and Elliott
Bag: Carlo v.d. Broeck

View attachment 799635

Yes, possibly too much going on but I like several of the individual pieces. What's the fabric in the jacket, is it cotton? Even seersucker?

 

[cavdb]

Yes, possibly too much going on but I like several of the individual pieces. What's the fabric in the jacket, is it cotton? Even seersucker?

it's a cotton half lined jacket

 

[TheoProf]

 

[in stitches]

But in reality, there are a variety of fits and styles and to assume that there's a natural hierarchy with classic menswear at the top is a construct and one that is privileged and, frankly, reeks of older white male dominance in an ugly way. Who am I to say that the young man with the pants that are three sizes too big and belted so that they hang under his buttocks is "poorly dressed"? And the same thing goes for anyone who prefers some of the current trends in mens suits and sport coats (i.e., tighter-fitting, shorter coats, very slim-fitting pants, etc.).

So, this about one of the longest standing points of contention on the forum, at least over the past half-decade, and one that has both been discussed, and will likely continue to be discussed, ad nauseam. And, yet, I feel compelled to comment, once again. Let me preface thought with my apologies if I am off-base here in my comments, as I am jumping in without having gone back pages and pages to root out the origins of the above comment.

What I think must be understood as implicit, regarding the asseveration's of those on SF towards what is good and what is poor, vis-a-vis menswear, is that we are conversing solely within the confines of what the collective group here believes to be good or poor; aka, group think. I hesitate to use the phrase "group think" because it seems to provoke a negative connotation, but I do not think that it inherently must be a negative concept.

When a group of individuals come together, and collectively decide what they do and do not appreciate, and subsequently share images and words to discern whether or not any given representation succeeds in achieving the agreed up stamp of approval, and, if so, to what degree, there is nothing wrong with that. It is simply hobbyists coming together to discuss a shared interest, with shared definitions. And without shared definitions, you are left with a mindless and unintelligible cacophony which is impossible to decipher.

No one is about to be thrown off the forum for dressing in such a manner that evokes chagrin from the SF collective, nor are they likely to be accosted in real life, and redressed by those who "know better". Rather, the idea is that the collective here has spent quite a bit of time defining what is appreciated as properly dressed, and what is out of bounds. And, I will reiterate, as I have time and time again, it is a rather broad brush stroke. The value set herein that has produced the definition of good allows for a great deal of range within what it terms as well dressed. Not only so, but there are even agreed up areas of "agree to disagree", where certain matters are accepted as matters of personal preference, even within the prescribed value set.

Consequently, there most certainly is a hierarchy. I cannot say whether it reeks of old white dudes or not, but there is a hierarchy. It is not a universal, catch-all, do-or-die type of hierarchy, but it is a hierarchy within the halls of SF. Anyone is more than welcome to dress as they please and post as they please. However, to demand that a pre-existing group which gets along just fine, and one that has an established pre-existing value set, must welcome said newcomer's definition of looking good, because who the hell is anyone to put an objective label on matters that are purely aesthetic, is really nothing more than inanity.

The goal of the group is to discuss their value set, analyze it to death, give acclaim to those who succeed, and offer advice to those who fail. Personally, I oppose chastising and deriding, but I do not at all oppose politely and civilly informing someone that they do not look to be well dressed. For those who come across this forum and appreciate the value set of this collective, by and large, when they try to implement the ideals of the forum, they achieve success, to one degree or another. Most such people begin to develop their own personal style, and make the decision of where in the spectrum of the aforementioned broad stroke they prefer to dress. There are very few here that dress identically, even those who aim for the same aesthetic. I.e., SF is by no means short on individual expression and style.

If there is anyone who does not appreciate the value set put forth here, that is fine. But to decry it as unfair or unjust is simply wrong. There is nothing unjust about a collective of individuals agreeing upon certain subject matter as a group and sticking to their guns. And if such a group is to be considered as reeking of older white male dominance in an ugly way, I would retort that the demands against the group reek of unabashed and vile self-righteousness, in an equally ugly way.

In conclusion, then, if it helps anyone, when one is vexed at being labeled poorly dressed, simply read the words, even if they are unstated, poorly dressed "as per the agreed upon standards of this here group, who fully acknowledge that our value set is not universal, and that amongst other collectives you may very well be considered dashing and sharply dressed". Conversely, to object to the collective, and consider them as being daft and wrong, is an exercise in futility, and a waste of everyone's time.

Have a great day, y'all!

 

[Mr Tewkesbury]

Make it stop

 

[jdp234]

Almost conservative business dress. (Is pink conservative business dress?)

Caruso
Tyrwhitt
Chipp2 grenadine fina
Kent Wang square
Meermin black captoes

 

[AunToni]

So, this about one of the longest standing points of contention on the forum, at least over the past half-decade, and one that has both been discussed, and will likely continue to be discussed, ad nauseam. And, yet, I feel compelled to comment, once again. Let me preface thought with my apologies if I am off-base here in my comments, as I am jumping in without having gone back pages and pages to root out the origins of the above comment.

What I think must be understood as implicit, regarding the asseveration's of those on SF towards what is good and what is poor, vis-a-vis menswear, is that we are conversing solely within the confines of what the collective group here believes to be good or poor; aka, group think. I hesitate to use the phrase "group think" because it seems to provoke a negative connotation, but I do not think that it inherently must be a negative concept.

When a group of individuals come together, and collectively decide what they do and do not appreciate, and subsequently share images and words to discern whether or not any given representation succeeds in achieving the agreed up stamp of approval, and, if so, to what degree, there is nothing wrong with that. It is simply hobbyists coming together to discuss a shared interest, with shared definitions. And without shared definitions, you are left with a mindless and unintelligible cacophony which is impossible to decipher.

No one is about to be thrown off the forum for dressing in such a manner that evokes chagrin from the SF collective, nor are they likely to be accosted in real life, and redressed by those who "know better". Rather, the idea is that the collective here has spent quite a bit of time defining what is appreciated as properly dressed, and what is out of bounds. And, I will reiterate, as I have time and time again, it is a rather broad brush stroke. The value set herein that has produced the definition of good allows for a great deal of range within what it terms as well dressed. Not only so, but there are even agreed up areas of "agree to disagree", where certain matters are accepted as matters of personal preference, even within the prescribed value set.

Consequently, there most certainly is a hierarchy. I cannot say whether it reeks of old white dudes or not, but there is a hierarchy. It is not a universal, catch-all, do-or-die type of hierarchy, but it is a hierarchy within the halls of SF. Anyone is more than welcome to dress as they please and post as they please. However, to demand that a pre-existing group which gets along just fine, and one that has an established pre-existing value set, must welcome said newcomer's definition of looking good, because who the hell is anyone to put an objective label on matters that are purely aesthetic, is really nothing more than inanity.

The goal of the group is to discuss their value set, analyze it to death, give acclaim to those who succeed, and offer advice to those who fail. Personally, I oppose chastising and deriding, but I do not at all oppose politely and civilly informing someone that they do not look to be well dressed. For those who come across this forum and appreciate the value set of this collective, by and large, when they try to implement the ideals of the forum, they achieve success, to one degree or another. Most such people begin to develop their own personal style, and make the decision of where in the spectrum of the aforementioned broad stroke they prefer to dress. There are very few here that dress identically, even those who aim for the same aesthetic. I.e., SF is by no means short on individual expression and style.

If there is anyone who does not appreciate the value set put forth here, that is fine. But to decry it as unfair or unjust is simply wrong. There is nothing unjust about a collective of individuals agreeing upon certain subject matter as a group and sticking to their guns. And if such a group is to be considered as reeking of older white male dominance in an ugly way, I would retort that the demands against the group reek of unabashed and vile self-righteousness, in an equally ugly way.

In conclusion, then, if it helps anyone, when one is vexed at being labeled poorly dressed, simply read the words, even if they are unstated, poorly dressed "as per the agreed upon standards of this here group, who fully acknowledge that our value set is not universal, and that amongst other collectives you may very well be considered dashing and sharply dressed". Conversely, to object to the collective, and consider them as being daft and wrong, is an exercise in futility, and a waste of everyone's time.

Have a great day, y'all!

Happy you admitted it. I mean that genuinely. For the record, I never demanded anything and never claimed anything to be unjust. I understand you didn't quite me, but seeing as the person you did quote was responding to me, I'll take me to be included in your audience. To me, injustice is the "queer" person who is physically assaulted and/or bullied for the way they dress, the way they speak, the way they move their body through space, but injustice is not this forum.

My main point through all this was to maintain that if you're going to criticize someone for the way they dress, at least admit in the end that you're not standing on as solid of a ground as you think. I would even argue so much as to say that this idea of "group think" functions in a more subtle way. It is not so much that there is an agreed upon standard, but that those standards are selectively applied and there is much more ambiguity here than maybe we want to admit.

Was I wrong to assume that this thread was less about getting feedback or critiques and more about posting what you're wearing right now? One may read that as, "oh, he just wants positive feedback and affirmation." However, this is not so. I think the value in posting in a thread such as this is to give others ideas about what to do and what not to, both of which can be decided by those people.

That being said, I appreciate your words as they have helped me to better understand this thread and the forum as a whole.

 

[Leanderthal]

 

[Roy Al]

For the love of navy pants.