OBTC Lesson Two

or, How To Hurt Strangers' Eyes By Wearing Four Patterns Simultaneously

A couple of wiseacres (they know who they are) blasted the last OBTC lesson by saying:

1. That the hankie was solid white, and thus not truly OBTC; and
   
2. That the suit was too subdued. A lighter color and a bold stripe would be more in keeping with the true spirit of OBTC.

Lest any of the rest of you jackals think I don't listen to criticism, however insipid and unjust, I present the following lesson.

Moritmer Levitt says (or said; he's quite dead) always to wear "two plains and a fancy." Others say that two elements can take a pattern. A small number say three. Flusser alone says, try for four!

Well I'm here to say: DON'T!



The suit is blue, but much lighter than navy; postman's blue is one term for it. Would you wear Cliff Claven's signature color? No effing way.

A while back there was a spirited debate on Ask Andy whether any stripe properly deserves the distinction "gangster stripe." I think this should put that debate to rest once and for all. Deniers: YOU LOSE! Really, this might be better termed a "prison stripe", but I will leave semantic debates to the master practioners on this board.

The vest only makes it worse. Vests were conservative business dress in the '40s and for maybe the first third of the '50s. Since then, no.

The shirt is a busy, Jermyn Street riot of color, pattern and weave. In and of itself, it's loud enough, but pair it with an 80s YELLOW POWER TIE and you've got magic, baby!

The coup de grace: a pocket square. But not just any square, a silk square (gay), in the least conservative fold (the puff), and with a bold medallion/paisly pattern.

All in all, this is guaranteed to give innocent passersby vertigo at a single glance. Your colleagues who have to look at you all day risk blindness.

I like it. It's bold, but tastefully bold. This lesson is more interesting than the previous one. If lesson 1 was ketchup, this is BBQ sauce. There's still a few more lines to cross before we get into the truly frightening OBTC.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

Moritmer Levitt says (or said; he's quite dead) always to wear "two plains and a fancy."

What would you expect from a man who flunked out of Brooklyn's Boy's High.

Wow, I can't stand that tie. Nice looking suit, but it looks purple. Doesn't that make it gay?

Originally Posted by texas_jack

Click to expand...

http://cgi.ebay.com/Oxxford-Crest-NW...QQcmdZViewItem

Wow that's a hideous jacket.

Originally Posted by DrCool1978

Click to expand...

Wow that's a hideous jacket.

Is that a sportcoat or a dinner jacket....not that either would make it less ugly.

Is the mismatched cutting of the collar an essential ingredient of the genre or just a dash of à lan?

Didn't you once say that's your favorite shirt?

I remember seeing that tie and pocket square as well somewhere.

I love how the PS is of a completely different colour set than the shirt/tie.




And that plaid monstrosity is to be worn with a kilt, no?

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

The coup de grace: a pocket square. But not just any square, a silk square (gay), in the least conservative fold (the puff), and with a bold medallion/paisly pattern.

A true cad would wear Pucci.

Originally Posted by Manton

Click to expand...

All in all, this is guaranteed to give innocent passersby vertigo at a single glance. Your colleagues who have to look at you all day risk blindness.

Or at least a nasty migraine.

I must register the most strenuous exception to the OP's caution against the folly of wearing four patterns. I will attend the nuptials of a good friend and his beautiful bride later this summer and plan to do exactly that. My attire will consist of

1) navy/blue birdseye suit with baby blue/red double windowpane
2) blue glen plaid shirt with pink overpane
3) neat tie, bright pink with navy squares (and square textured weave)
4) blue/white houndstooth pocket square with hot pink overpane
5) baby blue socks (solid, unfortunately)

While I admit that my intended raiment is neither conservative business dress nor UCBD, neither does it fall in the category of OBTC. The unity of color and pattern I display will simply respect the festive nature of the occasion, as the tone of my post displays my utmost respect for my fellow forum members.

If that gorge were any higher, it'd be on the backside of the suit. It's closer to OBTC, but the paisley square is too dark. Should have gone with an electric/sky blue silk square with a bright pattern.

Originally Posted by thinman

Click to expand...

I must register the most strenuous exception to the OP's caution against the folly of wearing four patterns. I will attend the nuptials of a good friend and his beautiful bride later this summer and plan to do exactly that. My attire will consist of

1) navy/blue birdseye suit with baby blue/red double windowpane
2) blue glen plaid shirt with pink overpane
3) neat tie, bright pink with navy squares (and square textured weave)
4) blue/white houndstooth pocket square with hot pink overpane
5) baby blue socks (solid, unfortunately)

While I admit that my intended raiment is neither conservative business dress nor UCBD, neither does it fall in the category of OBTC. The unity of color and pattern I display will simply respect the festive nature of the occasion, as the tone of my post displays my utmost respect for my fellow forum members.
If you want to insult your friend, disrupt his wedding, and probably get kicked out, then wear this. What an inconsiderate jerk you must be.

Manton, the pattern of this suit reminds me a lot of the pants on the person in the photo posted in a previous thread of yours; who you went out of your way to insult. On a positive note I am happy to see that you got the shoulders straightened out on this jacket, not sure if it was designed that way of if you used spray and starch like I suggested.