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

[A.J.V]

Tuesday browns.

Suit: Herrainpukimo
Shirt: DLA
Tie: Berg&Berg
Pocket square: DLA

 

[An Acute Style]

Bold combo. Pants are olive.

 

[jiredell]

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!

Thanks for your thoughts, @in stitches, and it sounds like you pretty much agree with me, except for the point about white male privilege in this arena, which I'll briefly talk about below.

Although, I'm a relative newcomer to SF, I'm not talking about SF alone when it comes to these axioms of menswear. These are "rules" that have existed since long before the internet, so SF kinda has nothing to do with it. It's just a virtual place to hang out and talk about the same stuff that men have talked about in the office or at the bar or at menswear shops IRL for generations. And I happen to agree with pretty much everyone here, including you. It's definitely "group think," but group think sounds a bit more like mob mentality, and it's not that, I don't think.

This where the white male stuff comes in. It's been well documented that the contemporary mens suit evolved out of the aristocratic dress of the British Regency period. So it is quite literally a white guy thing. Obviously, that's not the case anymore. But you gotta kinda acknowledge that that's where it--and the rules that accompany it--came from. Are there things wrong with that? I don't know, TBH. I mean, we're talking about clothing. I suppose if someone looked at Native American dress and called it uncivilized (which, of course, they did) then that's pretty problematic. But, we live in a different paradigm, and these days it's useful to know and understand the kinds of "rules" that SFers adhere to, which is part of the reason I (and I assume others) lurk around this joint.

Mostly, I just think it's kind of intellectually interesting that such debates wage on. And, really, there ought not to be a debate at all.

 

[heldentenor]

@A.J.V everything about that fit is outstanding--particularly the color palette.

 

[sugarbutch]

Bold combo. Pants are olive.

View attachment 800689
View attachment 800691

Given the rest of the pieces, I think you have to choose between the tie and the shirt. If forced to choose, I would go with the shirt.

 

[wigglr]

Given the rest of the pieces, I think you have to choose between the tie and the shirt. If forced to choose, I would go with the shirt.

Agreed. What about a navy knit?

 

[sugarbutch]

Agreed. What about a navy knit?

Such a bold shirt is tough to integrate with pieces as light as the jacket and pants, so I'd prefer no tie. But a navy knit would be an improvement.

 

[dazedstate]

Tuesday browns.

Suit: Herrainpukimo
Shirt: DLA
Tie: Berg&Berg
Pocket square: DLA

Excellent fit. I'm a fan of those bellied lapels. Very flattering

 

[bienluienapris]

Spectator day :

 

[Betelgeuse]

Hola!

 

[Leanderthal]

 

[A.J.V]

Excellent fit. I'm a fan of those bellied lapels. Very flattering

@A.J.V everything about that fit is outstanding--particularly the color palette.

Thanks a lot guys!

 

[jdp234]

Oxxford
Tyrwhitt
Brooks Bros. tie
Kent Wang square
Meermin black captoes, not pictured

 

[EFV]

Last week:

 

[cavdb]

Last week:

I Really like that jacket you wore at the Plaza Uomo event!