I cannot think of any friends or family that are particularly interested in clothes.
They are mostly very good company - but not particularly well dressed.
If I see someone wearing a decent pair of shoes it is noteworthy these days.
However, I do see posers from time to time. iGents are one subset and various fashion tribes as well.
Provided I do not dress like a c*** I would be happy enough. For decades I worked on that basis. I had other priorities than clothes.
Discuss.
Let's say we are meeting up to visit a few pubs in central London, on a mid week evening. Where do you cross the line between being well dressed and being a poser?
Pub in Central London:
Sturdy shoes, up to double-souled C&Js in a darker-than-tan colour
no bright socks
Regular length trousers
Shirt can be with cufflinks
No tie needed in a pub
Sweater or odd/tweed jacket
no pocket square please
keep your voice down
have a good/meaningful/funny conversation
drink a bit, but not over the top
have food if you must
done
The socks part is subject to some debate, and probably a pocket square that isn't obtrusive, but I would agree otherwise. Sounds like a pretty foolproof outfit to me.
I think if you think about clothes a lot and are always considering how you look, you might come across as a poser. I think if you just be more natural about it, just wear the clothes and not get too peacocky about it, you'll look like you're simply a guy with a good wardrobe. Key is keeping the ostentation factor down -- nothing too flash, garish, or trendy, and nothing that looks too much like you're a historical reenactor.
Last edited by Chipper (2016-12-01 18:22:02)
Before leaving the house, just delete one accessory from your outfit - the pocket square, the gloves in your coat pocket, the Fedora, the walking stick, the stick-on moustache.
There is perhaps a demeanour which allows certain men more latitude than others. Advancing years also deflect the poser interpretation.
I would wear as beastie suggests but with the pocket square.
Let's face it- decent clothes are increasingly an anachronism in this day and age but better that than parading about in the average tat.
Last edited by adorable homunculus (2016-12-01 23:36:47)
My preference would be highest quality and best fit. Often you see people with priorities upside down - Donald Duck coloured shoes, tight suits, garish colours, large cheap watches.
Dark brown C&J waxed Chelsea boots
Navy blue 501
Light bluie button cuff H&K Shirt
Simple Cordings tweed jacket with discreet overcheck
Vintage Rolex, Omega, Vacheron, Union
Some good humor, some serious topics with decent friends
Three pints of a not-in-your-face kind of beer
Home by midnight
Rinse and repeat
The tie will probably invite questions. As will the suit.
"Decent" clothes are not an anachronism when worn in line with the context.
Pocket square or suit at pub outside W1/Sw1-6 London - simply wrong. Nothing wrong with blending in sartorially, one can still stand out by wit and humour.
A triple overcheck suit will not turn a dull person into the centre of a London dinner table.
And quality clothes are always alright. Decent shoes and knitwear can never be wrong. Garish shades and cheap materials are always bad.
Last edited by Beestonplace (2016-12-02 11:36:40)
Decent in parenthesis then employed without? Longfarsightedness?
You guys crack me up.
I like beastie. Reasonably well informed, tastes mostly aligned with my own, and humble too.
Please don't go away.
no you go away
and you forgot to mention "good looking"
Pics or it didn't happen.
We use to call someone who had pushed the sartorial envelope too far a ponce. I think both terms are probably a tad archaic now, I haven't heard them used for sometime. Mainly because outside of the limited demographic of AAAC forums members and Pitty Poor Uomo types no one dresses that far out to be called a poser and what's more, there's not an appreciative audience to recognize it!
We dined and wined in our local neighborhood hangout last evening. The place attracts a lot of millennials, and I saw more than a few of what I'd call the poser. They fell into either the lumberjack category, i.e., the tight on the sides but long on top haircut with a full neck beard, selvedge jeans, buffalo check flannel; or the skinny urbanite, i.e., pointy leather boots, tight and cropped flannel dress pants, skin-tight spread collar dress shirts, colorful socks. I was the oddball in my blue LL Bean v-neck sweater, university stripe Brooks Brothers OCBD, and traditional fit cuffed LL Bean lightweight wool pants. Boy, did I get some strange looks.
Last edited by Chipper (2016-12-03 07:17:46)
Those types you have described would fall back in the day, into categories as scruffy gits and Prada Mummy boys.
Better to be the oddball than a member of the herd.