Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Claghorn, Sep 15, 2015.
Eliod's second looks like a neat to me.
It randomly uploaded a crosshatch tie and a dotted tie? Very odd.
Size (scale) is important. Small & repeating geometric.
Intriguingly, there is no hard and fast boundary on when we move into "big" scale. But you know it when you see it.
This was described as a "neat" tie. But look at the size. That appellation would be ridiculous in this context.
I copied the pic from the soporific thread, where I posted it before. Probably just took the wrong one.
Edit: @sprout2 that's why I thought mine wouldn't qualify as a neat.
Perhaps an arbitrary ratio between object and blank space? I still think Elio's qualifies. I mean, I think we're really just making something up in absence of anything hard and fast.
Perhaps the space between an object and its repeat should be equal or greater than the diameter of that object?
I don't think so -- there are very densely clustered neat ties that still qualify. When the lozenges or rosettes grow beyond a certain size, though...
The Japanese term for a neat tie includes the character for "small" in it, as in a small, repeating crest or medallion.
How about the role of contrast?
Compared to the one you posted above, is this a neat or knot not?
I guess so. That is sui generis.
Probably if it didn't have that bizarro background.
Generally, the objects are small in these, enough so that the rule would work.
I don't think that red is a neat (and note that it breaks the space standard).
Neats ties are like porn, in more ways than one.
@EliodA You mean this one (of two)?
Indeed Sir, that's the one I meant.
Now, in light of the ongoing discussion: is this a neat? Is it a 'jacquard'? I'd say it's both, what say you?
Interestingly, NMWA describes this tie as jacquard:
Yep. That looks like a floral grenadine? And since all grenadines are jacquards and it has a neat pattern; yep.
Separate names with a comma.