It needs to be worn with a black suit. I mean, if people don't like the tie, I'm not going to get upset, but there is not enough black in that outfit to warrant that tie, the black needs to be the bass-note. IMO

dick james wrote:

Your dress taste is quite the same as the great foo, no wonder you're so jealous of him.

My personal taste is very different to his and has not changed in 20 years. I have no need to be jealous of anyone. To respect FNB's wishes, I will not comment further on this thread.

Bishop of Briggs wrote:

Extreme reactions? I rarely react or comment strongly on anything here other than iGent inanity. Our host took exception to my comments on Duchamp, one of his favourite brands, a few months ago. If I offended him, I apologise.

FNB may have a false impression of London. It is rare to see well-dressed men outside Mayfair/St James's these days. Standards have slipped in the City too. Most of the men in my part of West London wear denim jeans (often grubby) with t-shirts. A few office and shop workers wear poor-fitting suits. Such a contrast to the city that I loved in the 80s and 90s!!

I have an interest in composites, archetypes etc.. I have an interest in cultural touchstones and identities. I have never cared about absolute numbers of men wearing certain things, simply that it would be their cultural birth right to choose certain items if they did decide to do so. Maybe when the UK wakes up, they can use my site to reconstruct their own heritage. Perhaps just such a curiosity is why UK readership outstrips US readership  on here?

Most of my UK research is culled from the people that distribute the raw materials or piece goods for mens tailored outfits. They can better supply me with statistics about what the UK market desires. If these men buy the clothes and then never wear them, I dont know what to tell you. But at least you get an accurate picture of what they would look like if they ever decided to debut those items.

Incidentally, although more men in Manhattan are wearing suits than I've seen in years before, most of them are complete train wrecks. I saw one awful looking man in a cheap navy blue three piece suit and tan wallabies. I couldnt believe someone would bother to wear something like that. Anyway, if I ever did a study on what Americans were wearing, my sample would probably be restricted to the NYC area and I would ignore vast quantities of bummy looking men. I do touch on what men in Manhattan are actually wearing in my thread "Street Beef". Unfortunately, I both get ill looking at ugly men and the lousy choices they make and my eyes begin wandering to the fairer sex, many of whom are also badly dressed.

I put it down to the weather. And I'm not even joking.

Last edited by Oo Bop Sh'bam (2012-03-07 11:13:11)

I think in England we have the Northern European approach to design, colours, and geometrics, but we get the French influence to of over-the-top ostentatious design. We seem to hold this line between taste, refinement and eccentricity. I find England is a place you shouldn't take yourself too seriously, as people will soon cut you down, but I think we all appreciate the seriousness of authority, and the romance of the Empire and the dress of the higher-classes. I suppose because of the class system, people have always looked to dress above their station to. And the urge to stand out in a crowd sums up most of our teenage subcultures, since the Teds.

Yes which actually takes most of its influence again from the Saxons and Normans (more Nordic than French). I think it isn't too far or too absurd to say the studies made by the Saxon and Normans on colour has given us the biggest influence on how we began to use colour in this country. I'm sure the Celts were happy just with brown!

Last edited by Oo Bop Sh'bam (2012-03-07 12:31:19)

formby wrote:

Heraldry has a large influence on colour choices in Britain.

And the approach to color is probably a result of the western way of warfare, very plain and direct, thus the interest in primary colors, rather than a million shades.

Flowers also play a role in English color choices as well ass the bleak sky which influences the intensity and tone of those colors.

I know that Saxon colors were very basic as well, part of that was a lack of sophistication with dyes and shading but also with paints used on shield colors. Only the most primary reds, blues and yellows would give even coats that yielded recognition at a distance.

Wool itself was considered a peasant or working mans cloth until the English elevated it to the level of gentility courtesy of Brummel and HRH the Prince of Wales.

...you also mustn't forget the influence of empire. There's something of the magpie about the British. They took the best the empire had to offer and made it their own (literally in a lot of cases), incorporated it.

We see this in the architecture of the country for example, but most of all we see it in our Language.

Oo Bop Sh'bam wrote:

I think the problem is we have the cutting edge of British designers, and the safeness of the TM's and such like. And the average chap either goes along with the safeness of the basics and look like it's still the 90's, or they completely go mad, and try and run before they can walk, and get a half arse attempted at what is in vouge. Or even worse they try and dress like Gary Lineker on Match of the Day.

Either way it is normally a massive disaster. I can't afford to dress beautifully. So I don't even get to have a go.

American men have very short memories and they are used to being bossed around concerning clothing. They choose the English look because it's cheap/inexpensive and because there are a lot of English financial commentators and journalists on the television. I assure you that in the nineties, although I first heard the term "Dress British, think Yiddish", very few American men wore anything approaching an English city look. Now, it's an endless sea of purple gingham checks, pink ties and side vented suits.


OK, here's the thing. You need to learn the basics but at the same time you want to be an individual, accommodate your physicality and stand out. It's a tall order and takes some thought. Not the fantasy thought a child has but real, practical thought that yields results.

Oo Bop Sh'bam wrote:

I can't afford to dress beautifully. So I don't even get to have a go.

You do know that this is rubbish?

You do not have to dress expensively to dress well, dressing well is about observation and talent. Take a look at S.F if you don't believe me.

A good dresser can dress well on a budget and some of the best dressed people I have met have never set foot in a tailors.

formby wrote:

Oo Bop Sh'bam wrote:

I can't afford to dress beautifully. So I don't even get to have a go.

You do know that this is rubbish?

You do not have to dress expensively to dress well, dressing well is about observation and talent. Take a look at S.F if you don't believe me.

A good dresser can dress well on a budget and some of the best dressed people I have met have never set foot in a tailors.

I can dress well, I hope, but 'beautifully' to me, is the height of tailoring. You know the pinnacle. To be dressed in the best, perfectly, and with great colour and pattern to me would be to be dressed beautifully, but that is just clarifying the definition of what I'm saying, I agree to what you said in many ways.

Last edited by Oo Bop Sh'bam (2012-03-07 13:32:09)

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

Heraldry has a large influence on colour choices in Britain.

And the approach to color is probably a result of the western way of warfare, very plain and direct, thus the interest in primary colors, rather than a million shades.

Flowers also play a role in English color choices as well ass the bleak sky which influences the intensity and tone of those colors.

I know that Saxon colors were very basic as well, part of that was a lack of sophistication with dyes and shading but also with paints used on shield colors. Only the most primary reds, blues and yellows would give even coats that yielded recognition at a distance.

Wool itself was considered a peasant or working mans cloth until the English elevated it to the level of gentility courtesy of Brummel and HRH the Prince of Wales.

I'm not sure where the love of pink comes from though. I do know that the Victorians originally dressed baby boys in pink and baby girls in blue. So...

The British got a lot of their weaving expertise (even though they had been weaving and exporting cloth to the continent for centuries beforehand) from Flemish settlers who were encouraged to move here by Edward III in the 14c. Later came the Huguenots fleeing persecution in France who in doing so practically decimated their own silk weaving industry. Their loss was our...

From an industrial perspective an over reliance on the textile industry was sadly to play a part in our industrial undoing.

Probably it arose during the sexual revolution because it appealed to women. Then there's Pink Floyd...

Looking at archival stuff, Pink was in gear during the sixties but I dont see a lot of pink things before that. If someone has a wealth of information regarding pink/lilac established in mens clothing before that, I would love to get the references.

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

I'm not sure where the love of pink comes from though. I do know that the Victorians originally dressed baby boys in pink and baby girls in blue. So...

The British got a lot of their weaving expertise (even though they had been weaving and exporting cloth to the continent for centuries beforehand) from Flemish settlers who were encouraged to move here by Edward III in the 14c. Later came the Huguenots fleeing persecution in France who in doing so practically decimated their own silk weaving industry. Their loss was our...

From an industrial perspective an over reliance on the textile industry was sadly to play a part in our industrial undoing.

Probably it arose during the sexual revolution because it appealed to women. Then there's Pink Floyd...

Looking at archival stuff, Pink was in gear during the sixties but I dont see a lot of pink things before that. If someone has a wealth of information regarding pink/lilac established in mens clothing before that, I would love to get the references.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8401742.stm

Interesting, that bit about pink for boy and blue for girls coming from the gilded age.

When I was a kid, pink on men was a class separator because ordinary middle class men and below wouldn't touch pink. Pink the USA is still somewhat controversial. Occasionally, a guido-esque man will appreciate a pink shirt on someone else to show they are enlightened but will not wear one themselves. They are more likely to wear that stuff with dragons on it than a pink shirt. Lower middle and working class American men are in a constant struggle to assert their manhood which they fear will be withdrawn at any moment for a given act such as choice of the wrong drink.

When that stockbroker rule was passed or dissolved in the seventies in the UK (I forget what that was called), that opened the door for the city boy and they brought some revolution to the types of shirts and ties. Probably, they thought they were never going to mistaken for gentlemen, why dress like one? That helped pave the way for familiarization and adaptation of color in the professional kit. I would imagine the stuffier, more upper class guys saw and envied the effect the city boys rig had with the ladies.