It is interesting that long after people stop wearing an item it carries a significance. It is more interesting that clothes tend to send both positive and distressing messages by both wearer and observer.

If I am somewhere in a jacket and tie, strangers are more likely to sit near me or ask me for directions. This includes people you would consider rowdies. I thought we lived in a classless society? One very radical lesbian considered me a dedicated republican because I wore tailored clothing. Often beggars will assume I have money for them even if I spent my last dime on the jacket I am wearing.
Women, not afraid of me under usual circumstances, consider sitting near me when I am wearing jacket and tie a positive. I suppose the idea is I am less likely to grope or attack them; might even protect them because everyone knows a suit wearing man is as strong as a navy seal with the heart of a dragon slaying champion. That cuts across every age, race and status of woman.

Clothing thus has traditional associations, political associations, behavioral associations, wealth and class associations.

On the flip side, why would someone who is never going to be able to compete in tailored clothing going to bother? His choices will often be wrong, colors, fit and quality off. I find that most men are completely lost for choosing ties. You wouldnt think it would be that difficult but many cannot learn unless they have a head start from their environment or have a deep seated interest. I see it on the various forums where some of the most salient personalities have spent oodles on clothing and have not learned anything or advanced a bit; more curiously they've maintained their stylistic hegemony all along. It's rather like matriculating at a college but certain that you know more than everyone else there and after 6 years learning nothing, thinking that you're better than ever. Worse than having bad taste, is the belief that spending money is a surrogate for good taste. It is why many of the people whom we find amusing still dress like airline upholstery. Studying the past can help but relying on it solely presents two problems. All tastes change, even the best tastes change over time and thus, one cannot rely on the past to always make tasteful choices today. Two, relying on the past suggests you have no feel for the current which may very well mean that you have no reference or exposure to good taste and third, reliance on the past may indicate class defensiveness and a desire to assert that you are an expert because it is hard to argue with what is past; it very much takes stamina to figure out what is currently tasteful.

One of the reasons I like the UK system for suits and country attire (They are at sea for truly casual items) is the inherent belief that taste is only tangentially to do with money. Concepts of taste are indeed class based but I daresay many of the best tailors, designers etc. can be from any background as long as the cultural dictates are followed.

Men do not like to be wrong or laughed at and tees and jeans are to a degree a greater leveler (at least conceptually) than a jacket and tie. If you had a choice of being Rob Drydek, skate board king in t-shirt and shorts or running around being someone else's lackey in a crap quality suit and tie, what would you choose?

At the same time, you have Jay-Z and P. Diddy, both street kids, wearing nothing but suits now. Is it the corporate world allure? DId suits become cool again at some point?

Tuck your shirt in mate, you look like my 13 year old nephew.

I'd suggest getting in touch with your brother or sister annadale as it sounds like your nephew may have an over active Pituitary gland. While he's at the GP they should also enquire about some kind of therapy as it is not normal for a 13 year old to wear loafers.

All in jest Annadale. No harm meant. I'm not over the pond either.

Ftitz - I typically add staining agents or zinc depending on what's needed for the outfit. (Actually, I don't need the zinc.)

Annadale - It's a very casual outfit as it was a day-off from the daily grind. As much an untucked shirt is out of place in smart,or even smart/casual attire, I'd say a untucked shirt makes a lot of sense in a relaxed day-off, let is all hang loose type of way. Well to me it does, anything to heighten the sensation of not being at work is welcomed.

Last edited by Oo Bop Sh'bam (2012-03-15 01:03:30)

OK, let's get practical here.
If it's cold enough that I need to wear a sweater I would think socks add to my comfort, keeping my feet warmer.
It's true the feet will be so cold they won't probably smell, but at the exchange of cold air going up the pants legs and chillin' the legs.
By the same token if the shirt is untucked cold air travels up the shirt skirt (which together with the sweater acts like a bellows) as you move, chilling the torso. True you may feel like you are not at work, but also a bit chillier.
If it's not THAT cold, then why the sweater?
In dressing down, as well as dressing up, the first leg upon which Elegance stands is comfort as it facilitates a certain insouciant (souci is the word for care, or worry, e.g. cold or smelly feet amongst countless others) deportement.
And yes dressing down can be elegant, indeed it can be a telling discriminator. And before anyone here takes offense, I am the first to cop to failing in this regard.

Last edited by Chévere (2012-03-16 13:45:17)

Did I really just use the word stroll? More a case of walking to the shop, for cider, at noon.

Film Noir Buff wrote:

At the same time, you have Jay-Z and P. Diddy, both street kids, wearing nothing but suits now. Is it the corporate world allure? DId suits become cool again at some point?

I notice in publicity photos, both Paul Weller and Leonard Cohen are also dressing exclusively in suits.

I picked-up on what Chevere was pointing out that in diverse, dare I say it, in the multi-cultural world, you cannot really be certain that what your statement is sartorially, is going to be understood by those around you. And yet, the allure and power of the suit is still respected, but in many industries, in mine which is oil & gas, very few people bother with suits, let alone shirts and ties.

You can go for a meeting with a major oil company and their representative will be dressed like a skate boarder. Seriously wrong IMO, but it is tolerated and completely the norm now. Is it an attempt to eschew the corporate man, and say we're all creative individuals doing are own thing now? I don't know.

I re-jigged the look with the jacket, I think black lends itself better to purples, because when you look at dark shades of purple they have a far blacker quality than any other colour, and I suppose the warmth kind of contrasts nicely with the black.

Anyway, another attempt, I think this is more cohesive. Although the fit of the collar is shit. I just needed to wear it to get the colour.

Last edited by Oo Bop Sh'bam (2012-04-01 07:05:28)

Yuca wrote:

Dumbing down and laziness, imo.

There's also an innate anti fashion stance for men that champions a lack of grooming. Men are more conflicted than they care to admit. They want to stand out but theyre afraid to do so. They like bold things but they could never get away with it. They wear anonymous street clothing to look younger then become annoyed when they arent recognized and treated with the respect they feel they deserve. Most men cannot survive the clothing learning curve because it's a no mans land of neither being in control nor an expert. While they become more frustrated by the language of clothes, they are supported by a society that lets them throw their arms up an say it's all superficial and frivolous. More the pity because they spend so much time in clothes. If i have to spend all day in clothes I want to feel good and I want to maximize effect.

Ask yourself, if wearing street clothes to work is superior to tailored clothing, then why do TV and film portray men in suits? Even that show "The Office" set in Podunk puts the men in jacket and tie. Somehow the  perceived reality and the reality are different. It is common for me to hear that men have a jacket and tie in their closet for meetings. If everyone is doing this, aren't we all just fooling each other for no reason? Why the charade? The question is are we kidding ourselves about the suit or about the street clothing?

I suppose we took everything to it's immoral and most uncivilised peak, especially in the last ten years, but it started probably since the 60's. We took apart the rules, and the structure, I won't say we live in anarchy, but we had massive moral and social freedoms, and I think people ultimately feel worse for it. But that's because it seemed that the ideology of freedom in people's lives soon gave way to make them feel free to consume, express, give in to there desires. Beautiful things shouldn't be lusted for they should be wondered at, I think thanks to advertising, and the media, we missed the point in all this freedom to create and live as we want.

I have to say, I enjoy casual clothes now that I have to be smart, but then I appreciate smart clothes too. To me the essence of cut, colour and style doesn't change. But the idea of being on or off duty is kind of reenforced to me by my clothes.

Oo Bop Sh'bam wrote:

I suppose we took everything to it's immoral and most uncivilised peak, especially in the last ten years, but it started probably since the 60's. We took apart the rules, and the structure, I won't say we live in anarchy, but we had massive moral and social freedoms, and I think people ultimately feel worse for it. But that's because it seemed that the ideology of freedom in people's lives soon gave way to make them feel free to consume, express, give in to there desires. Beautiful things shouldn't be lusted for they should be wondered at, I think thanks to advertising, and the media, we missed the point in all this freedom to create and live as we want.

I have to say, I enjoy casual clothes now that I have to be smart, but then I appreciate smart clothes too. To me the essence of cut, colour and style doesn't change. But the idea of being on or off duty is kind of reenforced to me by my clothes.

The rules got taken apart because they were too oppressive. Prior to 1960 (The sexual revolution concept not the actual year), clothes were primarily to demonstrate walk of life, class, age, status etc.. not just to promote but to condemn and control. I would imagine part of what started getting men out of suits was the concept that no matter how hard you tried, the man who could go to the better tailor would always sit above you. The concept of cool came about to counter act this. Youth culture rebelled against the idea that kids were merely mini adults. That's why I like the 60s and 70s when the expression was pure and beautiful. It has become garbled and ugly now but there was a time when it was original and exciting and hope filled.

Clothing is confusing. I get confused. The confusion is compounded by this non stop media (constantly introducing new ideas or re-showcasing old ones) by global, multicultural movements (at least in NYC) and by subjective assignments.

FOr instance, shopping for a TV, I noticed mens shirt patterns in shows and commercials. I got to see all sorts of different checks with different suits and if a check looked good with a striped suit. All shades from light to dark and all color combinations from red to green to blue to olive. It gave me ideas. I could go out and get 50 shirts just based on watching those commercials, the ones I saw, the ones I could come up with myself and so on. Thus, what is the norm now, and is this another 1970s anything goes period? Will we wake up in 10 years and ask, what were we thinking? We may not this time because the 60s/70s have developed their own post modern identity as the go to clothes for the youthful, open minded swinger/hipster. I think their design elements simply get re-seeded on an endless, ongoing basis. SHow me a cool item of mens clothing and I will bet I can find something like it from 1960-1980.