How much of SF groupthink do you actually follow?

[Spatlese]

More than I want to admit to, but probably less than I should.

 

[Composer_1777]

I love the responses now, hahaha. I've picked up a lot of tips from reading SF, but always put my own spin on it; or atleast try to.

I'm down for crazy socks, no billboard clothes, I've gotten some oxfords because of SF and am more skilled at picking out clothes rather than being impulsive. SF!

 

[AndrewRogers]

No more than I do elsewhere in life, I suppose.

 

[edmorel]

I follow every last bit of it, down to the tiniest, juiciest morsel.

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Originally Posted by edmorel

I follow every last bit of it, down to the tiniest, juiciest morsel.
If I see someone in a high contrast window pane suit, balmoral boots, knit tie, doily pocket square, shirt with James Bond cuffs and boxcloth braces, then I know it's an

 

[edmorel]

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

If I see someone in a high contrast window pane suit, balmoral boots, knit tie, doily pocket square, shirt with James Bond cuffs and boxcloth braces, then I know it's an

You just described exactly what I wear (you forgot my concealed handgun) to the supermarket

 

[Fuuma]

Originally Posted by edmorel

You just described exactly what I wear (you forgot my concealed handgun) to the supermarket

That's what you call it?

 

[james_timothy]

How much SF groupthink do I actually follow?

Enough as necessary to join the secret society.

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Originally Posted by edmorel

You just described exactly what I wear (you forgot my concealed handgun) to the supermarket
For a Good time call 1-900-BALMORAL

 

[teddieriley]

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

For a Good time call 1-900-BALMORAL

The balmoral boots I just don't get. Every pair that is posted, you have people going gaga over them. I like Chelseas, and some johdpurs for a less dressy look, but I don't see the attraction to clunky combat-style boots passing off as dress shoes. (Yes, I know you can't see the upper boot part under pants - although may be less true with slim fitting ones).

 

[Manton]

Originally Posted by teddieriley

The balmoral boots I just don't get. I like Chelseas, and some johdpurs for a less dressy look, but I don't see the attraction to clunky combat-style boots passing off as dress shoes.

The whole point is, they don't look combattish at all. A Shannon is identical in shape to a Berkeley, except for the uppers, which you can't see when your trouser leg is down.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

i dont get them ethier and they look pretty close to a pair of Carolina combat boots i used to have when i was about 15.

 

[Eccentric]

The biggest change I have undergone since coming to the forum has been in my shopping habits. I am much more careful with my money, usualy waiting for a deal rather than indulging in the instant gratification of a purchase at full retail.

Oh, and I wear pocket squares now.

 

[Cary Grant]

Yeah- I can see the resemblance...

 

[teddieriley]

Originally Posted by Manton

The whole point is, they don't look combattish at all. A Shannon is identical in shape to a Berkeley, except for the uppers, which you can't see when your trouser leg is down.

Well, that being said, what is the attraction to them? When one is seated, you get the full flavor of the boot as the pant leg reveals the uppers. I don't necessarily mean the last shape is any clunkier or inelegant or the soles are thicker, but with the addition of the uppers, I guess to my eye, the overall look is still combat-ish in a dressy way.