wanted to share something which i was thinking about this morning and wondered if any of you have gone through a similar process in your own dress sense ..
when i first started taking an interest in dressing well (previous to this i was very much against dressing up, i dressed neatly, but quite modestly as i believed myself to have an intellectual bent which dressing well in my own mind didnt seem congruent with .. the simpler the better was my philosophy) .. i started off by sticking to very classic items which were conservative and were deliberately chosen to be easy to put together with one another ... so to give you an example i loved wearing the blue sb blazer with flannels or chinos (when dressing down) .. a lot of the reason i liked it was for the fact that it would go with everything and was so classic that you knew nobody could ever view it as a bad choice. in a way it was dressing well .. in a very obvious dressing well sort of way .. if that makes sense!
as im getting more interested in clothing im finding that i like to wear things which others may not like, things like tweed jackets, yellowy jackets .. colourful patterned shirts (obviously not all at the same time) .. becoming more interested in wearing things which have a certain feel or texture as compared to just looking at appearance and colour, so there is an evolution of my own personal tastes even though i was always wearing what is probably considered to be classic menswear. i think lifestyle has dictated some of this, i now probably go to more informal places so veering away from a suit and blazer is probably a natural thing to do but regardless i think my character has become more relaxed and informal and my taste in clothing is evolving in this direction.
if what i have experienced is common to many then i think many truisms in dressing probably are false, for example advise on 'buying the best' you can afford is a classic line touted by menswear gurus .. but if you are new to dressing well then this could prove to be deadly for your bank balance as you will end up experimenting with items that you may ditch in a year or two .. also the truisms that every man should have 2 * X, 3 * Y, 1 * flannel suit, 2 * mid weight navy blue suit, 1 * dinner suit & so one .. you are all probably quite familiar with these sorts of articles. once you like a few pieces .. why wouldnt you just want to wear that sort of thing rather than be 'fully hedged' against all eventualities & possible functions you may be invited to (which you may or may not end up go to)?
fruity
Last edited by Oldfruit1 (2012-12-15 07:25:57)
I'll just throw this thought into the ring to start with. I'll contribute more as/if the thread develops.
If I were asked If I could only were one suit what would it be. I'd pick a mid-grey pick and pick in the best cloth and with the best tailoring I could afford.
If it were two, then I would add a navy blue.
I think that is good advice, especially for those on a limited budget or those just starting out.
Like all subjects you master the basics first, before you move onto the more advanced choices. The WAYWT thread over on StyleeForaz drives this home and brutally in some cases.
Few will probably have as varied or extensive a wardrobe as FNB, but I bet you'll find he has plain greys and navies lurking.
Last night, I went to a largish Christmas party. Twas a very preppy crowd. I wore this Blackish burgundy suit in a super 150s cloth with a disappointingly hard to see red dotted zigzag. A black open collared shirt with a specially designed 70s collar and an all over dotted paisley pattern and a pair of black suede Chelsea boots and a Pucci pocket square. When I arrived, all the male guests were wearing either drab tweed jackets or navy blazers with some sort of plain pale shirt and a nondescript tie. The host had on a tweed Scottish jacket that went with his tartan kilt. I stood out like lounge lizard Larry. But all the girls found their way to me. Sometimes being a failure in the eyes of some is pretty good.
There is always going to be tension in clothes. If you live in fear or are restricted by your pocket book, then wear the navy blazer for everything. The problem is that I see lip service paid to the spirit of the aristocracy but choices made by the blandest most conventional imaginably unimaginable middle class.
yes thats exactly what i did formby .. i started with the basics .. but as time went on i felt somewhat bored by the basics, the plain navy suit being a prime example, i have several but i dont get a thrill out of wearing them as i do with my other suits (a couple are v nicely tailored, others being good OTR english suits) so i wear them as a sort of uniform when im not that concerned about my appearance and as regular work clothes. my favourite suits are royal blue chalkstipes .. i find to be elegant but still striking. i have also taken to wearing floral print shirts (which FNB seems to be partial to as well) with a claret velvet jacket in the evening when i go to bars and nightclubs .. the blazer is still useful as a way to transition from different enviroments, smart parties, dinners and such like.
fruity
I came to Ivy via a dangerous flirtation with i-gentism. So I have lots of stuff in my wardrobe which I no longer like to wear very much (e.g. jackets with waist suppression, slanted pockets and/or ticket pockets). It's an expensive way to learn from one's mistakes.
The problem with Ivy is it is not a sharp look, and I appreciate that is off putting to some people, I think what I see of Italian tailoring in period films from the time is very much the style I'd look towards if I wanted a neat look, but I'm not a neat person, I'm very much take n by Miles' look though it did look relatively cleaner and modern than the college Ivy. Also I really do like 1920's Brooks and of cause Jack Dempsey's style.
Casually thou I like mid-50's - 60's cheap dept store clothes, and outdoors wear. Not of much interest to the wardrobe crowd.
Last edited by formby (2012-12-15 16:50:14)
i wouldnt wear velvet jackets & floral shirts anywhere apart from a nightclub or in a bar .. but in this enviroment i think its perfect .. velvet has a certain sheen which looks great in the evening .. and i think in a bar or club you need a certain pezaaz factor .. tbh the places i go most guys turn up in jeans, an open necked plain white or black shirt & no jacket .. so in that context a dinner jacket is totally out of context, suits would look stuffy, a blazer probably too conservative .. so this formula seems to hit the right note.
fruity
Last edited by Oldfruit1 (2012-12-15 12:58:57)
Oldfruit:
My two cents worth- and they are really worth two cents.
FNB has (seems to me) very clear and stimulating ideas about clothing, your surroundings and the interaction between them. Formby, on the other hand, comes from a very stable base of knowledge about what is right for him. That is one of the reasons I love this forum, because it is just fascinating to see how people think about what they wear, not necessarily what they wear.
My choice of clothing comes from two sources.
The first is emotional memories. They are tied up with smells, feel of the fabric, and an attitude that I saw amongst my father's peers growing up. As I have come to understand now this was all italian influenced, and I try to recapture that world by purchasing items that hit one of those memories head on.
The second comes from leaving the island and spending time in the US and different parts of Europe during my professional training. Clothing as an instrument to fit in, or give cues to what you're up to.
So what I think is important is not necessarily the items you get, but using your wardrobe to explore certain conceptions about the world that are knocking around in your brain, and to "ping" the world around you.
If you don't mind flailing about and falling on your face once in a while it can be a lot of fun but more importantly, you will get some outfits that really sing about the best of you.
...too much ramble...
Last edited by The_Shooman (2012-12-25 04:25:32)
''But still...like most men l never knew how to co-ordinate colours well for years. Why don't men combine colours well? Because it is a right brained activity and most of us use the left side of the brain primarily. Professional jobs, stress, materialism and cooked animal foods cause us to predominantly use the left side of our brain,''
The corpus callosum allows both hemisphere of the brain's frontal lobes to communicate. Left being systematic, the right being holistic.
Your ability for your own brain to communicate with both sides, is mainly decided before you're born in the womb due to testosterone exposure, the more testosterone, the smaller the corpus callosum, and the larger the amygdala.
Only 20% of men are born with bridge brains, ie. A brain that uses both sides effectively. As to which side become dominant is again down to formation in the womb, and the reason why most other men concentrate on one specific interest, those that are dominated by the left part of their brain do become systematic in their thoughts, but this does not mean they become our masters and babylonian overlords, there are many other factors that come into play for people to become, in your eyes Shooey, 'evil'.
The only way a person with brain with little hemisphere communication to improve this is to eat omega 3 oils, as this increases the connections between both hemispheres.
There is also an argument to suggest men have less need for colour recognition than women, and also that men's sensitivity to colour is less than women due to lower serotonin levels, anyone that has every taken MDMA will understand the increased appreciation of colour that comes with the serotonin boosting drug.
COlour matching then is something better suited for women, and or men that have female type brains, in fact, no wonder then that some of the world's best designers, and artists have been gay. As typically gay men have a female type brain.
Anyway, my brain is pretty much cut off from the left hemisphere, I have little organisational skills, I was number blind up until my 20's when I began to take EPAs to improve my brain function.
I would argue though sense and reasoning is equally available to a right brain thinker as it is a left, I'm a very reasoned person, maybe because I can see the big picture, where as detail distract people from other outcomes that were not foreseen through their lack of imagination?
Anyway my point is, if you aren't a troll SHoo, I really do worry about your mental health.
Last edited by The_Shooman (2012-12-25 04:35:18)
I'm sure you do cosmic knowledge a world of justice by using it to thumb your nose Shoo.
Last edited by adorable homunculus (2012-12-26 05:33:51)
Only men can be colourblind apparently. There is some cheap man made knowledge for you. I don't have direct communication with the angels yet.
The thing with colour is that is something we are not taught to use so it remains a mystery, music has a clear system, well many systems, language has many systems, colour as it was so hard to observe before we had the technology of the last century is held up to so many subjective points that no one really has a model.
Which is why I use my music theory over the top of a colour wheel split into 12 segments or notes, I then adopted the Jazz theory of stacking thirds to get colour harmonies that are not really talked about with traditional colour theorieos, all design is observed mathematics, art is when you put your heart into it, you can express yourself better when you've learnt a language. Which is what I always intended to do, I can now match colour a lot better because I've become conscious of it and have studied it, same as how I learnt to play the guitar. I really don't see it as being much different, but still it gets shrouded in mystery.
It doesn't need to be talked of in a flighty way like FNB does with jewel tones and earth tones, although grouping colours into tints and shades can help, the hues all remain the same, and it is those that have the harmonic relations.
Last edited by My Grandfather's Pants (2012-12-26 07:45:12)
Last edited by My Grandfather's Pants (2012-12-26 08:22:25)
Culture, age, place, taste &c
Your theory takes none of these into consideration.
Your mechanistic approach may provide colour combinations that whilst 'mathematically' correct, are actually revolting to the eye.