The Oxford-Shoe-Worn-Casually Appreciation Thread

[dieworkwear]

It's strange how you pick and choose the antiquated from the non-antiquated sartorial rules.

"Don't wear oxfords without suits" is something you find acceptable as a rule, despite it's increasing irrelevancy, but "don't wear hats inside" is too antiquated?

I'm always trying to discover coherence in your world view and finding it difficult to pin down any.

I only care about aesthetics and don't care for these "gentleman rules" when it comes to manners or whatever.

 

[JFWR]

I only care about aesthetics and don't care for these "gentleman rules" when it comes to manners or whatever.

Okay. So sartorial rules that are etiquette-based in nature, you have no truck with; however, if it is a matter of aesthetics, you think at least some of the rules ought to be followed?

I'll accept that as a principled distinction.

Though doesn't that exclude almost all the levels of formality of dress, which are strictly etiquette in nature? Like, there is nothing aesthetically wrong about wearing an aesthetically pleasing casual outfit to a white tie only affair. You will look like an ass, though, because you have violated the dress code, which is a matter of etiquette.

 

[dieworkwear]

Okay. So sartorial rules that are etiquette-based in nature, you have no truck with; however, if it is a matter of aesthetics, you think at least some of the rules ought to be followed?

I'll accept that as a principled distinction.

Though doesn't that exclude almost all the levels of formality of dress, which are strictly etiquette in nature? Like, there is nothing aesthetically wrong about wearing an aesthetically pleasing casual outfit to a white tie only affair. You will look like an ass, though, because you have violated the dress code, which is a matter of etiquette.

It's really not that deep. I like the look of the past so I try to emulate it. I don't care about acting like a gentleman. I think that attitude is actually kind of phony and off-putting.

 

[物の哀れ]

The "did you dress like an adult today?" thread is an interesting sub-community.

I think the participants view an outfit as a check list of individual objects, with a focus on antiquated accessories such as pocket watch chains, fedoras, and signet rings, rather than an aesthetic whole.

There's obviously a large respectability politics component, which explains the distaste for baseball caps.

 

[JFWR]

It's really not that deep. I like the look of the past so I try to emulate it. I don't care about acting like a gentleman. I think that attitude is actually kind of phony and off-putting.

Your clarification is appreciated.

I think I'll stick with the "don't wear hats inside", though, as it is definitely not in line with traditional norms of dress to do so, at least in public contexts.

With a hat you can catch me ousside, howaboutdat?

 

[dieworkwear]

This is one of my favorite posts by Simon. I actually kinda hate all the "gentleman" **** that revolves around CM. I think you should just be a good person.

Permanent Style

I am not a gentleman

www.permanentstyle.com

 

[物の哀れ]

I actually kinda hate all the "gentleman" **** that revolves around CM. I think you should just be a good person.

Same.

I suspect that people who are really into "being a gentlemen" and take a hard line on rules like "don't wear a hat indoors", grew up in an environment that didn't have those norms, so they overcorrect.

 

[dieworkwear]

Same.

I suspect that people who are really into "being a gentlemen" and take a hard line on rules like "don't wear a hat indoors", grew up in an environment that didn't have those norms, so they overcorrect.

I once watched a video where some menswear person painfully went through the "rules of etiquette" when eating, like how to behave like a proper gentleman at the table. But the result is this stilted persona where it seems like, unless you only move in similarly niche circles, is going to make guests feel uncomfortable.

It seems totally misplaced to me to memorize all these rules of etiquette, like "don't place your elbows on the table" as if the rule itself means anything. It seems like the rule only means something if you're sitting next to people, and thus placing your elbows on the table is inconsiderate, as you're crowding out the people next to you. You can follow a simpler rule: be considerate of others.

Rather, it seems, people memorize this stuff and then find things to get upset about because someone isn't following (socio-economic) class norms. It's like a game of gotch. "Oh he put his elbows on the table, that's a no-no." "He's in a pub and wearing a ballcap, that's a no-no." It ends up being class exclusionary, which is the opposite of being a gentleman.

 

[yorkshire pud]

I once watched a video where some menswear person painfully went through the "rules of etiquette" when eating, like how to behave like a proper gentleman at the table. But the result is this stilted persona where it seems like, unless you only move in similarly niche circles, is going to make guests feel uncomfortable.

It seems totally misplaced to me to memorize all these rules of etiquette, like "don't place your elbows on the table" as if the rule itself means anything. It seems like the rule only means something if you're sitting next to people, and thus placing your elbows on the table is inconsiderate, as you're crowding out the people next to you. You can follow a simpler rule: be considerate of others.

Rather, it seems, people memorize this stuff and then find things to get upset about because someone isn't following (socio-economic) class norms. It's like a game of gotch. "Oh he put his elbows on the table, that's a no-no." "He's in a pub and wearing a ballcap, that's a no-no." It ends up being class exclusionary, which is the opposite of being a gentleman.

The reason you can't wear a baseball cap (or Burberry check/Stone Island patches) in many city centre British pubs is so you can't hide your face from the CCTV, this makes it easier for the police to identify football hooligans etc.

It isn't anything to do with good manners, such is the reputation of "ball caps" in the UK ?

 

[JFWR]

I once watched a video where some menswear person painfully went through the "rules of etiquette" when eating, like how to behave like a proper gentleman at the table. But the result is this stilted persona where it seems like, unless you only move in similarly niche circles, is going to make guests feel uncomfortable.

It seems totally misplaced to me to memorize all these rules of etiquette, like "don't place your elbows on the table" as if the rule itself means anything. It seems like the rule only means something if you're sitting next to people, and thus placing your elbows on the table is inconsiderate, as you're crowding out the people next to you. You can follow a simpler rule: be considerate of others.

Rather, it seems, people memorize this stuff and then find things to get upset about because someone isn't following (socio-economic) class norms. It's like a game of gotch. "Oh he put his elbows on the table, that's a no-no." "He's in a pub and wearing a ballcap, that's a no-no." It ends up being class exclusionary, which is the opposite of being a gentleman.

I am honestly, and not sarcastically or antagonistically, baffled by you DWW.

You literally embrace the most picayune of sartorial rules based almost exclusively on past socio-economic and cultural capital based arguments, and then turn around that etiquette is an unbearably elitist exercise?

Your entire fashion sense is "this is how rich and famous people used to dress, or at least, people in the gentry who attended prestigious colleges", and yet you disparage etiquette...?

You even make, effectively, classist arguments against BC, etc.

You're legitimately a mystery to me, DWW.

 

[dieworkwear]

I am honestly, and not sarcastically or antagonistically, baffled by you DWW.

You literally embrace the most picayune of sartorial rules based almost exclusively on past socio-economic and cultural capital based arguments, and then turn around that etiquette is an unbearably elitist exercise?

Your entire fashion sense is "this is how rich and famous people used to dress, or at least, people in the gentry who attended prestigious colleges", and yet you disparage etiquette...?

You even make, effectively, classist arguments against BC, etc.

You're legitimately a mystery to me, DWW.

Yes, when it comes to clothes, I only care about aesthetics. I don't wear what I wear to seem more upper class or whatever. I only wear stuff because I think it looks good.

 

[JFWR]

Yes, when it comes to clothes, I only care about aesthetics. I don't wear what I wear to seem more upper class or whatever. I only wear stuff because I think it looks good.

So it is merely incidental that it is associated with the upper classes? With rich and famous people? Because a lot of the normative arguments you have articulated here basically boil down to: this wasn't done back then by these people.

I mean, I feel like we're going off the rails again, so this will probably be my last articulation on this point.

 

[dieworkwear]

So it is merely incidental that it is associated with the upper classes? With rich and famous people? Because a lot of the normative arguments you have articulated here basically boil down to: this wasn't done back then by these people.

I mean, I feel like we're going off the rails again, so this will probably be my last articulation on this point.

I don't like aesthetics because they're associated with the upper class. Half of my wardrobe is made up of Kapital, RRL, Engineered Garments, and weird workwear brands. I also like 1970s sleaze and other aesthetics that have nothing to do with upper class dress norms.

I dislike certain aesthetics, such as business casual. This all started when someone asked if they can wear AE oxford with their Lands End chinos. I said no, and when asked why, I explained my reasoning. This board used to be about notions of good taste or classic me's style. Increasingly, it has become about business casual and "shoe guy" aesthetics. This is not to say that everyone in the past dressed according to notions of "good taste." DocHolliday dressed very well and was not about "good taste." LabelKing and Barims were definitely not about "good taste." But "good taste" used to hold more cache here than it does currently, and I tried to resort to that reasoning.

Notions of "good taste" come from that class of people. There's really no way to separate out that history. I like the aesthetics, but don't aspire to be part of that class. I also like many aesthetics that are not about good taste. I just dislike business casual and "shoe guy" stuff. When pressed on why someone shouldn't dress like that, I harked back to what used to be an accepted standard of taste here, but failed to convince people.

A lot of the stuff that I'm talking about isn't even about good taste or "good" notions of bad taste, like 70s sleaze. It's just oddball outfits. This is what I mean when I say people are wearing oxford with jeans and green shoes with sport coats. Stuff has no language, whether it's traditional notions of good taste or any of the rebellious stuff. It's just 90s business casual with expensive shoes or internet dandy.

 

[ValidusLA]

Same.

I suspect that people who are really into "being a gentlemen" and take a hard line on rules like "don't wear a hat indoors", grew up in an environment that didn't have those norms, so they overcorrect.

100%.

High chance anyone talking about "rules for gentlemen" online is not one.

 

[acapaca]

I too did not expect the prim and proper norms crowd to be on the side of '*******, wear your hat indoors'.