Style - rules.

[Teacher]

Well....

High collars without ties? That's rather odd...I've never heard of such a thing. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

It seems odd that he advocates wearing brown shoes with nothing but navy and gray suits...what should one wear with brown, olive, and tan suits?

SATOR: a POW check may not be a business staple, but you must admit it is fun!

JEANS
You'll always need a pair of jeans, preferably Levi's, and preferably 501s. They should be dark, should fit like well-cut trousers and have no holes or loose bits of thread (those days are over).

Now, I could have picked on any number of quotes here, but I carefully chose this one. Pretending that everyone can fit into one model from a manufacturer is -- to be blunt -- stupid. I mean really stupid. There's no way in hell I can properly fit into a pair of 501s because of my huge thighs and ass, and there's just no way around that. And I'm not the only one. Instead, one could advocate a certain general style of jeans as being basic, but then that might require too much work. Ah, well.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by James Bluesky

11. No pens or pocket protectors in your shirt pocket. Pens go in your suit coat inside pocket, out of sight.

This advice should be limited to plastic ballpoints. Higher end resin or metal ballpoints or rollerballs are an acceptable minimum standard, but woe betide you if the oil-based ballpoint ink stains your clothes.

Only high-end fountain pens are true elements of style and perfectly acceptable to carry in one's shirt pocket. Anyone who objects deserves to be ignored at best and at worst, treated as a boor and looked down upon with the haughtiest disdain.

 

[drake]

I'm not reading anything in this thread.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by James Bluesky

WATCHES
"¢ You'll need a good chunky sports watch (TAG Heuer), a classic Rolex (mine dates from 1948) and maybe a modern classic, like Cartier's Roadster.
"¢ Your watch strap should always match your jewellery.
"¢ Don't buy cheap watches: you can be walking along a deserted Caribbean beach, wearing only a pair of shorts, but if you're sporting a big, expensive watch then you're still well-dressed. Fact, as David Brent might say.

This is laughably inane. Chunky sports watches should, like track suits, be relegated to sports or, at the outset, casual wear. To assert that every man needs not only one but several is transparent idiocy in the service of rampant consumerism. It should be titled "Tips for the Aspiring Nouveau Riche."

If your watch strap should always match your jewellery, does this mean either that all your jewellery must be black or brown crocodile, or that all your watch bands must be metal? Again, pure idiocy. Ideally, you should strive to match your cufflinks and belt buckle to the metal of your watch case but never hide your head in shame if you don't match them. And anybody who suggests you have to match your watch to your wedding ring deserves to become a laughing stock. By the way, just what other jewellery would you be wearing?

I would definitely agree not to buy cheap watches, but the dictum that one must have a "big, expensive watch" is sheer vulgarity. Slimness is the holy grail of watchmaking and understatement is the pinnacle of style. Of course, choose a watch that expresses your personal tastes. Whether it's big and expensive is beside the point.

Is David Brent some sort of style icon? If he's your style icon, follow all these so-called rules to the letter.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by drake

I'm not reading anything in this thread.

Congratulations on escaping with your sanity.

 

[LabelKing]

Hybrid shoes? More like Bastard Shoes.

 

[Tarmac]

what do you think about the advice of putting shoe trees in only your most recently worn shoe?

 

[James Bluesky]

Haha, ok ok, i get it. No one wants to agree about any rules, and a lot of people dont like them. Surely though if you disagree with these rules you must have rules of your own?

It would be nice for someone here to be brave and tell us their own rules rather than putting down other peoples.

 

[Sator]

Originally Posted by Teacher

SATOR: a POW check may not be a business staple, but you must admit it is fun!

Oh yes! I love a good PoW check too. It was just the way it was lumped together with the black lounge suit as a business staple that made me object.

 

[Tarmac]

Here's one of my personal rules. If you think you will interact with any humans other than your family, do not wear shorts.

 

[Nantucket Red]

Originally Posted by James Bluesky

Haha, ok ok, i get it. No one wants to agree about any rules, and a lot of people dont like them. Surely though if you disagree with these rules you must have rules of your own?

It would be nice for someone here to be brave and tell us their own rules rather than putting down other peoples.

Note that I was putting down the rules you posted, not necessarily putting down you.

Style, per se, can't really be boiled down to a list of rules. Of course, this doesn't mean there aren't certain guidelines, but trying to formulate rules for style is akin to legislating taste; it's doomed to failure.

In terms of rules, it's fair to say that one's tie should be tied at a certain length and one's belt and shoes should match in color at very least. Certain hard-and-fast rules like this are second nature to any true sartorialist. The Ask Andy list is a good point of departure.

Style often has to do with strategically breaking the rules. Certain stylistic tendencies can be a product of upbringing or social class and almost impossible to articulate. Mostly, it's a matter of what one -- and others -- finds aesthetically pleasing, and this depends more than anything on innate sensibilities. It's not amenable to lists of rules, and going by the pronouncements of various fashion magazine idiota pushing some hidden agenda is bound to confuse the issue.

 

[James Bluesky]

Originally Posted by Teacher

Well....

High collars without ties? That's rather odd...I've never heard of such a thing. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.........

It seems odd that he advocates wearing brown shoes with nothing but navy and gray suits...what should one wear with brown, olive, and tan suits?

SATOR: a POW check may not be a business staple, but you must admit it is fun!



Now, I could have picked on any number of quotes here, but I carefully chose this one. Pretending that everyone can fit into one model from a manufacturer is -- to be blunt -- stupid. I mean really stupid. There's no way in hell I can properly fit into a pair of 501s because of my huge thighs and ass, and there's just no way around that. And I'm not the only one. Instead, one could advocate a certain general style of jeans as being basic, but then that might require too much work. Ah, well.

I have the same problem with Levi 501's. Could you recommend jeans that do fit well?

 

[LA Guy]

I think that the problem with the original post is that they are a set of prescriptive rules. Unlike Manton's book, however, the rules do not have a historical basis, and so are a hodgepodge of what the author prefers, at the moment, with no coherent framework that would make the "rules" at least interesting reading, whether or not you agree with them.

I hesitate, in the context of "modern" dressing, to ever use the words "should", "never" and "always". I think that it is much more accurate to use the phrases "For most men, and especially for those who are becoming interested in clothing and style for the first time, the following guidelines will usually prevent them from looking ridiculous", "On most men, XYZ usually does not look good for the following reasons ABC", and "In general, I have found that". If you adhere to a prescribed, archaic style, then determining a set of rules is relatively easy, because that style has come and gone, and thus, static in history. However, "modern" conventions are extremely fluid, and what may be acceptable in 2007 may be ridiculous, or at least quite dated, by in 2010 (if the style is directional) or in 2015 (if the style is quite conservative.)

That said, I think that there are some statements that are just incorrect in the OP. For example, there is no reason that Super 150s cloths are the only acceptable cloth for suits, not even necessarily the best choice in most cases.

Nantucket Red wrote:

In terms of rules, it's fair to say that one's tie should be tied at a certain length and one's belt and shoes should match in color at very least. Certain hard-and-fast rules like this are second nature to any true sartorialist. The Ask Andy list is a good point of departure.[/b]

I would not even go this far. Ties have been worn longer or shorter, for different effects, and imo, matching belts and shoes are a little too precious. I would say that a good "style" guide, which I've never seen, should be written in a conversational style, with very few, if any, prescriptions of what should and should not be done (I'd say that underwear should never be worn over trousers, unless you are a superhero) and with many suggestions on things that would look good.

 

[LA Guy]

Originally Posted by Nantucket Red

Style, per se, can't really be boiled down to a list of rules. Of course, this doesn't mean there aren't certain guidelines, but trying to formulate rules for style is akin to legislating taste; it's doomed to failure.
This, I agree with completely, with the exception that there are probably good rules if you are doing a period piece.

 

[James Bluesky]

I think that the problem with the original post is that they are a set of prescriptive rules. Unlike Manton's book, however, the rules do not have a historical basis, and so are a hodgepodge of what the author prefers, at the moment, with no coherent framework that would make the "rules" at least interesting reading, whether or not you agree with them.

I hesitate, in the context of "modern" dressing, to ever use the words "should", "never" and "always". I think that it is much more accurate to use the phrases "For most men, and especially for those who are becoming interested in clothing and style for the first time, the following guidelines will usually prevent them from looking ridiculous", "On most men, XYZ usually does not look good for the following reasons ABC", and "In general, I have found that". If you adhere to a prescribed, archaic style, then determining a set of rules is relatively easy, because that style has come and gone, and thus, static in history. However, "modern" conventions are extremely fluid, and what may be acceptable in 2007 may be ridiculous, or at least quite dated, by in 2010 (if the style is directional) or in 2015 (if the style is quite conservative.)

That said, I think that there are some statements that are just incorrect in the OP. For example, there is no reason that Super 150s cloths are the only acceptable cloth for suits, not even necessarily the best choice in most cases.

Nantucket Red wrote:

In terms of rules, it's fair to say that one's tie should be tied at a certain length and one's belt and shoes should match in color at very least. Certain hard-and-fast rules like this are second nature to any true sartorialist. The Ask Andy list is a good point of departure.[/b]

I would not even go this far. Ties have been worn longer or shorter, for different effects, and imo, matching belts and shoes are a little too precious. I would say that a good "style" guide, which I've never seen, should be written in a conversational style, with very few, if any, prescriptions of what should and should not be done (I'd say that underwear should never be worn over trousers, unless you are a superhero) and with many suggestions on things that would look good.

I agree, almost completely.

Have you ever read a style book that uses
"On most men, XYZ usually does not look good for the following reasons ABC" or don't use the words "should", "never" and "always"?

I haven't and i'd like to see one made. I have started putting ideas together and am looking for someone / others to work along side. I feel it needs to have input from several open minded people so it does not read as someones opinion but more a collective and carefully worded view. A realisation about how certain style tips work for some and not others.

I've found some guides, in my opinion, have too large an emphasis on well dressed people in the past, even 100 years ago. Some of this information is still very relivant, the rest interesting but often quite useless.

I'd also like to see a guide that is pleasing to the the eye - a style guide that is stylish!

The guide should feature ideas, guidelines, advice that is relivant today, acknowledges the past and has an eye on the future, without being too prescriptive. A tall order but I don't think its impossible!