What follows is my humble opinion, meant to be an observation of one person still near the beginning of his sartorial journey, but I hope having learned some things that may be of use to others. In most of my comments I'm exaggerating the extent of what I see as the "problem" for effect and clarity. Many of us come here for inspiration, education, and guidance in our modes of dress. I do think this, on balance, raises the level of sartorial accomplishment and appreciation of the typical SF user. But at times, and I can't plead innocence myself here either, it can results in an almost legalistic vision of dressing, wherein a "fit" must follow a number of rules. Fits not following these rules are not pleasing. Fits following the rules are. I want to suggest that this is a backwards way of thinking about the problem, and stunts development. The goal of any fit should be to achieve the effect that is desired by the wearer. This is almost circular ("the goal is to achieve the goal"), but I can't write it in any more specific terms, since desired effects vary significantly. I was tempted to define the goal as "to look good" but this is hardly better than what I have now. But this is all rumination for another post. My main point is this: Rules can help you achieve a desired effect or help you realize what's wrong when you're not achieving the effect you want. But adherence to the rules is NOT an end in an of itself. The only way to figure out if you've got what you want is to look at it and decide. Style is art, not science. I think "it just looks bad to me" is an under-appreciated as a completely legitimate response in this forum. It's perfectly reasonable for someone else to ask why, but not having a "why" does not invalidate the impression. This is not a math class where you have to prove every statement. An impression is proof in and of itself. After that, you're just trying to explain the phenomenon. For instance, if someone comments on a fit that the patterns look like a mess together, you cannot prove that they are wrong by explaining that the fit follows all the rules of pattern-matching laid out by Flusser et al., and therefore the fit must be impeccable. If your impression of a fit is at odds with your "analysis" of a fit, or the degree to which it is "SF-approved", trust your impression, not your analysis. Again, my point is not that the rules are useless. Far from it. The number of choices you make in putting together a fit are extremely large, especially if we are considering not just the items in your wardrobe, but all the items that could be your wardrobe. Considering every combination of color, pattern, silhouette, styling, and accessorizing may literally be an impossible computational problem. Rules help us pare down this space in order to guide us to where the best choices are likely to be. But writing down a list of rules and never breaking them is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition for elegance. The only necessary and sufficient condition for style is style itself. You identify it by looking, not by analyzing. Not only do I think this leads to better style, but it is much more satisfying. Perhaps the more OCD among us derive some level of utility from observing that their fit for the day conforms to the checklist handed down from SF elders. The rule-follower is always the discovery of a new rule away from feeling completely distraught about his entire wardrobe. In some ways, this is a higher form of brand-whoring. It does not lead to deeper satisfaction. But a greater appreciation of style, both in oneself and others, awaits those who recognize style as art, not science. This appreciation is more personal, inspirational, and in the end, comforting. What do you think?