Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by CushyCouture, Oct 21, 2012.
What about the played-out 2" cuff..........
I've worn a tie with jeans since the mid 80's. I was inspired by Andy Warhol. I used to run into him in NYC at the Museum of American Folk Art events. I liked his look of Levis, Brooks Brothers OCBD, Blue blazer and a rep tie.
The idea that pleated is now coming back "in" and plain going "out", when the two have peacefully co-existed for generations. My rule-of-thumb is:
More casual = plain front = no cuff = sits on hips and belt is for ornamentation only = worn without suit or sportcoat
More dressy = pleated front = cuffed = waistband at navel or even slightly above = braces = worn with suit or sportcoat
Stacked jeans. YES left, NO right
Freakishly skinny lapels
And freakishly skinny collars
I agree with most of what has been already placed in this thread:
1. Skinny "things": Jeans, Lapels, Ties, what-have-you.
2. High water trousers
3. Affliction/Ed Hardy
4. Pleats vs. Flat Front: Pleats are for larger thighs, Flat fronts are for trimmer people. This is their designed function.
5. Cargo pockets on wool trousers
7. Square-toe shoes
High water trouser are absolutely terrible.
And what 'purpose' does a tie serve when worn with anything other than jeans?
+1, lol. Really, some silk ties will undoubtedly look ridiculous with jeans. More casual ties can look good with jeans, as seen above.
I'm OK with most current trends, even if many of them are a bit tired. The camouflage trend, however, felt tedious and played out before it even got going.
They don't but with a dress shirt and slacks don't look ugly.
Silly blanket statement to make. Ties can look ugly in any combination. It's the specific aspects of the tie that makes it "work" or look good.
Every time I have seen a tie with jeans I think 2 things: "man that's awkward" and "that serves absolutely no purpose"
a) Military-inspired coats (i.e. with epaulets)
b) Blazers so short they barely go below your belt, now ubiquitously sold at H&M, Zara, Topman, etc.
c) Burberry's pattern scarf: we all know you got it for 5 bucks in Chinatown.
For me: "that person owns no real dress pants"--particularly when it's on "young" people (that 18-34 demographic, I guess).
I can see how some of the earlier posted pics work as conscious attempts to integrate formal and informal elements. But I'm not a fan of how jeans, a tie, and a sweater counts for formal for many young people mainly because that's all they have in their closet.
I would have agreed that jeans and running shoes is "bad" until I had to go to physical therapy for ankle problems and needed shoes that were comfortable to walk around in. I remember reading on blogs and such that the right, well-fitted, usually expensive dress shoe can be just as comfortable as sneakers. I've never found that to be true and still don't buy it.
Separate names with a comma.