Bentley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2009
- Messages
- 443
- Reaction score
- 25
I like the tie...but if you're going to burn it, please take it off first!
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
I have no explanation or theory. In my case, it's simply what I'm used to: 1.75" to 2" cuffs, all the way back to boyhood...and my boyhood is a while back compared to many of you. Shorter cuffs look wrong and off to my eye. I would rather see no cuffs at all than cuffs that look anemic, or as we might have said once, "sharpie." But, it is always present in the back of my mind that the superficial social associations ingrained as a youth have no relevance in modern life.
My boyhood is even more distant than yours and included 3/4 inch cuffs. During a period in the late 1950s, when the so-called "Continental" look was the rage, I just had to have a couple of pairs of pin wale corduroys (one green, one brown as I recall), cut very close, with beltless extension waistbands fastened with two square silver/black checkerboard snaps and 3/4 inch cuffs just at the anklebone. They were worn with white socks and black plain vamp loafers similar to a Venetian loafer but with the mocassin seam running very close to the sole.
- bespoke
I don't know if you are being sarcastic or not, if not it means a lot coming from you.
It's a good thing that your pants remained dry.
- no sarcasm & not the alcohol talking
Blonde to your left (Grimslades right) is Fire! Correction, both blondes to your left (Grimslades right) are fire.