Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by drizzt3117, Nov 18, 2004.
What do you guys think about pocket squares and tie contrast?
What is the difference between the 2 last?
Is the last one "it SHOULD" ?
it should be "I always match pocket square/tie" at least that's what I meant.
You said "only". What do you want to match but color and paterns? Labels? I have understood that you were trying to say...
OK, lighten up guys. We know what he meant. I think getting the colors close is acceptable; otherwise, go for complimentary colors/patterns. Matching is a little too "Van Heusen."
I suggest that when someone does a poll, the possible poll answers should not overlap each other. You can achieve this by offering a few choices (four max?). Something like: 1) Always, 2) same pattern ok, 3) similar color ok, 4) never.
Why? A poll serves a purpose: to inform people of what is the most common way of thinking. If at the end of a poll the 10 votes it gets are spread among 10 possible answers, it doesn't serve its purpose.
Other than that... I love the polls you are posting on the site. They inform me a lot about the way people think in regards to important style topics.
Speaking of ties and pocket squares -- I think the "rule" against an exact match is not based solely on aesthetic opinion. Â Probably it is based also on the idea that an exact match is more mindless, or less creative, than a thoughtful assemblage of patterns and colors. Â That idea may or may not be true but, IMHO, a tie and pocket square of the same material can look good - sharp and dressy.
Personally, I like the idea of keeping some of the practical heritage of any clothing detail. Thus I only really like handkerchiefs that could actually be used for something in an emergency, i.e. cotton or linen. Silk seems completely impractical for a handkerchief, while it actually makes some sense for a tie. To me, it would be like wearing satin silk gloves. I don't disagree that a silk handkerchief can look good, but it's not for me.
I also don't like the term 'pocket square'; it is one of the most ridiculous terms I can think of and reflects the idea that the item is for decoration only (which in many cases it is). However, in some sense all clothes are for decoration only, so why not call pants 'leg rectangles', socks 'foot tubes' and ties 'neck strips'. It's probably just me. But say it to yourself a few times.. "pocket square.. pocket square.."
Or, in geekspeak: The questions should form an orthogonal set.
I'm not huge into the whole functionality thing. I think items are used for purposes for which they were not originally intended. Some examples would be obviously the polo shirt, the rugby shirt, button down shirts (in general), ticket pockets, etc. I just wear what I think is aestheically pleasing regardless of its functional necessity or lack thereof.
That's cool. I would counter, thought, that almost everything else you (could) list has a function of some kind, while a silk 'pocket square' is purely ornamental. Even the tie keeps the neck warm. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head that is common yet useless is the sleeve buttons on a suit sleeve. Those, I wouldn't go without, but they come with the suit. Can you think of anything else that's purely ornamental like that?
Pocket of a suit
The poll mig htalso take into account that the square should be a different texture than the necktie, such as a linen square with a silk tie or a silk square with a cashmere tie.
I agree with Flusser that silk squares are fine with silk ties that have a flat finish, like a grenadine, but linen or cashmere squares work better with brighter silks.
Separate names with a comma.