Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Manton, Jul 30, 2012.
That is why I said it works for him .
It is entirely appropriate to wear cuff links with a blazer.
Blazers straddle the gap between the formality of a suit and the casualness of a sports coat.
I thought Italians had an aversion to cuff links though.
I mean I have done so several times. I always feel weird when I do. It might just be me.
If the man on the right was wearing trousers made from the same material as the man on the left, it would look magnificent.
I like dark grey trousers with a navy blazer - its as dressed up as you can be without wearing a suit.
Completely agree on the socks. How can loudly drawing attention to your ankles possibly seem like a good idea?
No, its not just you.
You prefer a button cuff under a blazer. Nothing wrong with that.
I honestly think he pulls the outfit off with much aplomb. Whilst I will not speak to whether his dress falls within a specific orthodoxy, or straddles between two, I think his subtle introduction of colour does do wonders to the otherwise nondescript coat and trousers (when viewed as individual pieces) he has on. And maybe it's a difference in culture, but in the parlance of Americans, 'across the pond', the English would liven up a dark suit with more prominent ties/pocket squares/shirts and yes, this might also include red socks. Note, though, they should be invisible in most settings.
There's nothing subtle about those socks.
I wear French cuffs with my odd jackets regularly. Sure, I can see why a barrel cuff would be more fitting, but I think the difference is marginal relative to everything else. Your shirt style, choice of tie and square, etc., are infinitely more important.
I know. Though not so much during this discussion. But I wasn't just referring to you. The great thing about an internet forum is that you can use both words and images to share what you want to share. If people think charcoal trousers work well in combinations, I'd rather have them show good examples than use descriptions. Not that I cannot picture what something looks like, but it could be more convincing to just show photos or images.
Yes, the colour of the socks are not subtle. But I somehow think that, let's say he had on a pair of charcoal socks to match his trousers, I'm not positive that this outfit would come together, visually, quite as nicely as in this picture. For the most part, at least in England, people don't have break on their trousers, so really, socks should be invisible for the most part, except when one sits down. Obviously, one wouldn't wear red socks to a court etc (at least, I would not), and incidentally, this post has somehow triggered my memory about a particularly humorous post made on filmnoirbuff, and which I shall excerpt here:
'Socks are again conservative. In the UK that means plain black or grey. I go much brighter myself - happy with purple, red, green and patterned - but it definitely draws looks. The last time my opponent made a final speech he got a tad upset at the black with hot pink stripes and accused me of distracting the jury.'
The problem is that images convey anomalies as well as they do general good sense. A lot of mistakes are made by relying on what one has seen in a photo.
I don't wear French cuffs with a tweed sports coat because I never wear a tie with my tweeds and I never wear French cuffs sans tie.
Wearing bright coloured socks is something of an English affection.
In England if the trousers have been made by a tailor they will almost certainly have break. But by far the vast majority of trousers worn are RTW.
Separate names with a comma.