Am I violating the "Matchy Matchy" rule?

[Sanguis Mortuum]

What on earth is happening to this forum? Pin-dot socks are a classic formal choice and not the least bit foppish.

As has been mentioned, you should probably be wearing black shoes to a wedding though.

 

[gringodaddy]

with a matching tie?

 

[size 38R]

What on earth is happening to this forum? Pin-dot socks are a classic formal choice and not the least bit foppish.

As has been mentioned, you should probably be wearing black shoes to a wedding though.

it is condensing into something rather tame, and grey. with a repp tie.

-love pin-dots. polka dots, herringbones, plaids and stripes.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Yeah, my preference is never solid socks, but for whatever reason it is getting harder and harder to find discreet patterned socks.

 

[Veremund]



I know it's a faux pas to match your tie exactly to your pocket square, but I was wondering if the same is true for matching your tie to your socks.

It's not. Feel free. Hardly anyone will see your socks at all. And no one will be seeing your tie and socks simultaneously. Enjoy yourself!

 

[size 38R]

^^ what he said.

 

[msulinski]



I wouldn't wear black shoes, unless it was formal hosiery. Navy socks is ok, but it does lean on the fashionable side with a grey suit. Of all of your choices for the wedding I would go with the solid grey socks with the grey suit. As for burgundy shoes, it is a wedding and burgundy shoes are getting close to the casual side of traditional business attire. Furthermore, I think the only shoes that should be burgundy are shell shoes, so if your burgundy shoes aren't shell get rid of them. I mean, it is a wedding, you have a sleek white shirt, a sleek pocket square, why break that line with something like burgundy shoes? Go with classic black shoes. There is a school of people, myself included that asserts that white shirts call for black shoes anyway.

The whole "fun socks" thing while you think it is only for you and nobody notices, trust me, people notice.

I think there are plenty of good looking burgundy shoes that are not shell. The colors I have seen are not too far from dark brown and appear to be at the same formality level.

 

[oxfordamerican]

Okay, now I'm a bit confused. How exactly do the socks I described fall under the category of "fun socks"? I have several pairs of dress as well as casual socks that range from black, grey, and navy, to red, green, brown, blue, and burgundy. More than half are solids, but the pairs that are not are all patterns like argyle, pin dot, and a few striped. The ones with the stripes are relatively subtle (grayish white stripes, spaced fairly far apart) not the loud crazy ones with a thousand multicolored pastel abominations crammed together like inmates in an overcrowded cell block. I always thought of "fun socks" as the ones with loud colors or silly designs like anchors or skulls and crossbones on them. Can someone please clarify what constitutes a "fun sock"?

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Fun socks is as you are stating, but it can also just be anything that stands out in a loud way. With a grey suit wearing polka dot navy socks is a "fun" way to wear them. If they were with a navy suit I would say it is fine. It is even more fun if you're wearing them with a matching tie. Just depends on the context.

 

[oxfordamerican]

Offending people is probably at the bottom of my priority list in almost all situations in life and weddings are no different honestly. I just think what looks good looks good. Fun socks, when I see them (almost daily) I just can't help but think it is somebody trying too hard to be stylish. It isn't personal flare, which is the rationalization for it, because 95% of people are doing "fun" socks these days. It is just as tacky as Ugg boots and a $2,000 handbag that's commonplace on college campuses around the country.

I never thought I was guilty of this. In fact, I lean much more toward classic, traditional looks (suit, with or without a tie, sportjacket with a shirt and sweater, jeans and a solid colored tee when I don't feel like bothering too much etc) I just like to occasionally throw in some colors and patterns with socks and pocket squares to keep it from getting too monotonous. Where do you draw the line between personal flare and trying too hard or being tacky? Am I doing something wrong here?

I wouldn't wear black shoes, unless it was formal hosiery. Navy socks is ok, but it does lean on the fashionable side with a grey suit. Of all of your choices for the wedding I would go with the solid grey socks with the grey suit. As for burgundy shoes, it is a wedding and burgundy shoes are getting close to the casual side of traditional business attire. Furthermore, I think the only shoes that should be burgundy are shell shoes, so if your burgundy shoes aren't shell get rid of them. I mean, it is a wedding, you have a sleek white shirt, a sleek pocket square, why break that line with something like burgundy shoes? Go with classic black shoes. There is a school of people, myself included that asserts that white shirts call for black shoes anyway.

The whole "fun socks" thing while you think it is only for you and nobody notices, trust me, people notice.

How are burgundy shoes breaking the line?
I thought "the line" consisted of a properly tailored jacket of the correct length and nicely fitting pants with a rise that is complimentary to your height and proportions with very little break.
If you're saying black shoes are more appropriate for the occasion, I accept that and I'll take your advice, but I don't understand how any color shoe can break the visual line of a suit when the suit is a neutral color.

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Well burgundy shoes are simply not appropriate for a wedding in the traditional sense, but my personal opinion is that non shell burgundy shoes aren't awesome.

As for your first paragraph, a suit without a tie is not traditional, it's awful. A sport coat, however without a tie is totally traditional and appropriate.

As to the line of personal flare? I don't know honestly. I just know what I like, what I don't and what I see a lot of others doing to say "look at me"

 

[oxfordamerican]

Well burgundy shoes are simply not appropriate for a wedding in the traditional sense, but my personal opinion is that non shell burgundy shoes aren't awesome.

As for your first paragraph, a suit without a tie is not traditional, it's awful. A sport coat, however without a tie is totally traditional and appropriate.

As to the line of personal flare? I don't know honestly. I just know what I like, what I don't and what I see a lot of others doing to say "look at me"

Fair enough. It seems you and I just differ on what looks good and what doesn't. As far as what's traditional, I'm sure most SF members know more about that than me. The intention of my original question was not so much to solicit opinions ( though I'm grateful ) but to find out whether what I was proposing is incorrect in the technical sense, i.e., matching one's tie exactly to one's pocket square, buttoning the bottom button of a suit or sport jacket, etc. And not to belabor the point, but isn't one, when making any attempt at being stylish or dressing nicely, ostensibly saying "look at me"?

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Absolutely, but one is in good taste and one isn't. Tradition generally points to the former rather than the latter.

 

[archetypal_yuppie]



I wouldn't wear black shoes, unless it was formal hosiery. Navy socks is ok, but it does lean on the fashionable side with a grey suit. Of all of your choices for the wedding I would go with the solid grey socks with the grey suit. As for burgundy shoes, it is a wedding and burgundy shoes are getting close to the casual side of traditional business attire. Furthermore, I think the only shoes that should be burgundy are shell shoes, so if your burgundy shoes aren't shell get rid of them. I mean, it is a wedding, you have a sleek white shirt, a sleek pocket square, why break that line with something like burgundy shoes? Go with classic black shoes. There is a school of people, myself included that asserts that white shirts call for black shoes anyway.

The whole "fun socks" thing while you think it is only for you and nobody notices, trust me, people notice.

That's kind of like saying "I think gray suits are better than navy ones, so if you have any navy suits, get rid of them."

 

[patrickBOOTH]

No arguments there. It is purely my opinion, yes.