HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)

[acridsheep]

View attachment 1091220

I am eating something (hopefully) fairly healthy, a honey bran muffin.

The very picture of hopefulness.

 

[AJL]

^ A sheep sighting!

 

[useless_username]

This is a rant.

A long time ago when I began wearing suits I learned a rule of thumb: 'two plain, one fancy'. I have no idea where I heard it, but it stuck with me. Basically, the idea is that in the sartorial trinity of suit, shirt, and tie, one must have no more than one patterned item. For example, a very basic combination of plain suit, plain shirt, and patterned tie.

It may sound austere and boring, but I think it makes sense. Especially when dressing for business or similar, less can be more. For more casual outfits, like tweed for example, one might break the rule and wear 'one plain, two fancy'. But never 'three fancy'. It's just too visually confusing. (For sake of academic interest, I should add that 'three plain' rarely looks good either; without any patterns, the outfit truly does become boring).

I don't know if it's a psychological thing, perhaps a result of the online peacocking culture, but some people here seem to overdo it. Too many patterns, too many layers, too many colours, too many details, too much everything. The posts that I tend to enjoy the most are the understated and classic looks.

Apologies if this offended anyone's religious convictions. I just had to get it off my chest.

 

[smittycl]

This is a rant.

A long time ago when I began wearing suits I learned a rule of thumb: 'two plain, one fancy'. I have no idea where I heard it, but it stuck with me. Basically, the idea is that in the sartorial trinity of suit, shirt, and tie, one must have no more than one patterned item. For example, a very basic combination of plain suit, plain shirt, and patterned tie.

It may sound austere and boring, but I think it makes sense. Especially when dressing for business or similar, less can be more. For more casual outfits, like tweed for example, one might break the rule and wear 'one plain, two fancy'. But never 'three fancy'. It's just too visually confusing. (For sake of academic interest, I should add that 'three plain' rarely looks good either; without any patterns, the outfit truly does become boring).

I don't know if it's a psychological thing, perhaps a result of the online peacocking culture, but some people here seem to overdo it. Too many patterns, too many layers, too many colours, too many details, too much everything. The posts that I tend to enjoy the most are the understated and classic looks.

Apologies if this offended anyone's religious convictions. I just had to get it off my chest.

I totally agree. Just because mixing four patterns is possible (curse you Windsor and Flusser) doesn’t mean it should be done constantly. I usually go one step further and only have one bold pattern. Plaid suit? Then solid shirt and subdued tie and so forth.

 

[am55]

This is a rant.

A long time ago when I began wearing suits I learned a rule of thumb: 'two plain, one fancy'. I have no idea where I heard it, but it stuck with me. Basically, the idea is that in the sartorial trinity of suit, shirt, and tie, one must have no more than one patterned item. For example, a very basic combination of plain suit, plain shirt, and patterned tie.

It may sound austere and boring, but I think it makes sense. Especially when dressing for business or similar, less can be more. For more casual outfits, like tweed for example, one might break the rule and wear 'one plain, two fancy'. But never 'three fancy'. It's just too visually confusing. (For sake of academic interest, I should add that 'three plain' rarely looks good either; without any patterns, the outfit truly does become boring).

I don't know if it's a psychological thing, perhaps a result of the online peacocking culture, but some people here seem to overdo it. Too many patterns, too many layers, too many colours, too many details, too much everything. The posts that I tend to enjoy the most are the understated and classic looks.

Apologies if this offended anyone's religious convictions. I just had to get it off my chest.

I grew up with an even more austere rule of thumb, in that everything should be plain except perhaps the tie.

Over time evolved to think what is best matches the personality of the wearer (as a shortcut of what can be expected from interaction). A crushingly enormous personality wearing the dullest possible conformist clothing will leave the new acquaintance unprepared for the assault on their mind; a bit of what you call peacocking can prepare the unaware to steel themselves sufficiently ahead. And vice-versa too bright a plumage covering what Nigel Farage so poetically described as a "wet rag" will cause disappointment. Think Gareth's and Charles' respective sense of dress in Four Weddings and a Funeral, and tune for the appropriate mean and standard deviation of the social setting involved.

 

[upr_crust]

That hat looks familiar @upr_crust - I think I may have been with you when you bought it. If so, it was the same day I left my own purchases on the counter at Fortnum's and only remembered when we were in New and Lingwood. We rushed back and the bag was still there

Your memory is quite keen - you are correct on all counts. Happily, Fortnum's and New & Lingwood are mere steps away, and the honest folk of London town left your goods where you had last abandoned them, quite unintentionally. It was, like all of our lunchtime adventures in retail, a very happy experience.

@upr_crust , duly noted. Next time. Meanwhile, you look great as always. Flawless.

With cufflinks such as I was wearing today, how could I look anything but flawless?

As for the comments in re: the coordination of multiple patterned articles of clothing, I will merely quote the late great operatic basso Boris Christoff, who said, "There can only be one diva on the stage at one time." The same can be true for attire - one article of clothing is that which one wishes to highlight - the other items should complement, but act as the chorus to the diva.

 

[bernoulli]

As you stated yours is a good rule of thumb for business environments. Maybe you should consider that many here in the forum are peacocking, as you put it, because there is no down side from putting together too many colors in an increasingly gloomy world.

In my case the two plain one fancy rule would mean I would be constantly very well dressed for a business meeting that would never come. Variation is good. One day peacocking, another following your rule, yet another dressed down. I prefer that (in essence choosing the peacock level day to day) to living by one rule all the time.

I would claim that this yours not a "rule" but merely a good suggestion for some people. Maybe a true "rule" for those who toil in a particular profession. But certainly not something that one might expect from ALL posters ALL the time.

This is a rant.

A long time ago when I began wearing suits I learned a rule of thumb: 'two plain, one fancy'. I have no idea where I heard it, but it stuck with me. Basically, the idea is that in the sartorial trinity of suit, shirt, and tie, one must have no more than one patterned item. For example, a very basic combination of plain suit, plain shirt, and patterned tie.

It may sound austere and boring, but I think it makes sense. Especially when dressing for business or similar, less can be more. For more casual outfits, like tweed for example, one might break the rule and wear 'one plain, two fancy'. But never 'three fancy'. It's just too visually confusing. (For sake of academic interest, I should add that 'three plain' rarely looks good either; without any patterns, the outfit truly does become boring).

I don't know if it's a psychological thing, perhaps a result of the online peacocking culture, but some people here seem to overdo it. Too many patterns, too many layers, too many colours, too many details, too much everything. The posts that I tend to enjoy the most are the understated and classic looks.

Apologies if this offended anyone's religious convictions. I just had to get it off my chest.

 

[am55]

As for the comments in re: the coordination of multiple patterned articles of clothing, I will merely quote the late great operatic basso Boris Christoff, who said, "There can only be one diva on the stage at one time." The same can be true for attire - one article of clothing is that which one wishes to highlight - the other items should complement, but act as the chorus to the diva.

Well Monsieur, I beg to disagree at least when it comes to the absolutism of the rule: there are many types of successful choral and vocal works. (I did intend to include Ades' Tempest but did not manage to find the right scenes promptly enough...)

This is of course without mentioning the tiring argument about the superiority of the concerto over the symphony, although from that debate I would pull the works of Charles Ives pitting two or more "orchestras" against each other on terms as balanced as the Somme and Marne a century ago. Then again, perhaps I ought not to pick composers more rarely performed than appearances of structured 3 button suits on this thread...

 

[SplurgeFrugal]

In the winter, a gray cardigan goes well with everything... everything!

 

[caschta]

This is a rant.

A long time ago when I began wearing suits I learned a rule of thumb: 'two plain, one fancy'. I have no idea where I heard it, but it stuck with me. Basically, the idea is that in the sartorial trinity of suit, shirt, and tie, one must have no more than one patterned item. For example, a very basic combination of plain suit, plain shirt, and patterned tie.

It may sound austere and boring, but I think it makes sense. Especially when dressing for business or similar, less can be more. For more casual outfits, like tweed for example, one might break the rule and wear 'one plain, two fancy'. But never 'three fancy'. It's just too visually confusing. (For sake of academic interest, I should add that 'three plain' rarely looks good either; without any patterns, the outfit truly does become boring).

I don't know if it's a psychological thing, perhaps a result of the online peacocking culture, but some people here seem to overdo it. Too many patterns, too many layers, too many colours, too many details, too much everything. The posts that I tend to enjoy the most are the understated and classic looks.

Apologies if this offended anyone's religious convictions. I just had to get it off my chest.

I understand where you are coming from and I have a similar rule (two fancy (similar size), one plain) but I think a very good exception to the rule is u/Claghorn (previous page). It's subtle enough to not look like you're peacocking and it's far off from boring. In other words: mixing more than two patterns is very advanced, in my opionion. I'm still not there. And my wardrobe isn't, too.

 

[chocsosa]

Flannels, Wools and Cashmere...

 

[blekit]

OCBD with a tie, something I don't wear that much recently.

Spoiler: Details

* Suitsupply
* Osovski shirt
* tie and ps from Poszetka
* Benevento pants
* Yanko boots

 

[Alan Bee]

FALL SERIES (Cont’d)

One pattern, two solids.

Alan Bee

 

[Luigi_M]

@Alan Bee
Nice bold chalkstripe!
Would you mind to post a side pic while standing?
This would help me to understand how your tailor managed the balance between front and rear part of the trousers while tapering them.
Thank you. Luigi.

 

[upr_crust]

Well Monsieur, I beg to disagree at least when it comes to the absolutism of the rule: there are many types of successful choral and vocal works. (I did intend to include Ades' Tempest but did not manage to find the right scenes promptly enough...)

This is of course without mentioning the tiring argument about the superiority of the concerto over the symphony, although from that debate I would pull the works of Charles Ives pitting two or more "orchestras" against each other on terms as balanced as the Somme and Marne a century ago. Then again, perhaps I ought not to pick composers more rarely performed than appearances of structured 3 button suits on this thread...

Please note that I said "dominant pattern" - not that the other items must be plain, merely that they should harmonize (and not fight) with the dominant pattern. As for absolutism, I am hardly a believer in such things, and as for three-button structured suits, I wore one yesterday, though not while singing a theme from Charles Ives .

This evening, there is an event at the main branch of Brooks Brothers, and, with that in mind, I have tried to wear as many items from that emporium as I can, tastefully. We shall see if the help recognizes my efforts.

Suit - Brooks Brothers MTM
Shirt - Brooks Brothers
Tie - Drake's, via the Armoury, NYC
Cufflinks - Tiffany
Vintage watch chain
Pocket square - no name brand
Shoes - Edward Green, via Brooks Brothers
Overcoat - Brooks Brothers
Scarf - Turnbull & Asser
Hat - Selentino, via JJ Hat Center

Spoiler