I have noticed a trend where otherwise very stylish guys dressed in finely tailored clothing tie their tie in a way where the back blade is longer than the front and very prominently showing. To me this looks very bad and "wrong", quickly catching my attention and diverting my gaze there over anything else in the outfit. To me it evokes the vibe of a child who has not yet learned how to properly tie a tie, or a slovenly dressed guy who tosses the tie on before work as part of a required uniform while wishing he was not required to don it. Two explanations are offered for this:
1) It is "sprezzatura" style. Something of a devil may care look of nonchalance and lack of effort in the details. There seems to be a major incongruence here to me when considering that the other elements of these outfits are immaculately coordinated and neat. Moreover, when a tie is introduced to an outfit it immediately establishes a certain formality, and therefore, a need for attention to details. I could understand wearing less formal articles of clothing with tailoring, or even wrinkled or slightly disheveled clothes to give off this sort of vibe, but the tie seems to me the very worst place to try to introduce this. It's like wearing a tuxedo with a wife beater underneath instead of a shirt. Additionally with the tie keeper eschewed, and effort and intention put forth to purposefully show both tie blades, any cover of nonchalance is instantly blown. All in all to me it comes off as a very bad type of affection.
2) This is necessary for a shorter gentleman who choses high rise trousers, as most ties are too long for this type of gentleman. I can commiserate with this argument, my knit ties are long enough where I need to make the back length almost as long as the front, however I take care to make sure it is at least half an inch to an inch shorter. To me having the back blade longer looks so bad that it is by far the worse choice of the other options: making the front a bit longer than normal (which with high rise trousers I think there is some space for this) or using a knot that requires a bit more fabric: stepping a four-in-hand up to a half windsor, a half windsor to a full windsor. I know many gentleman prefer small, skinny knots, but what is the point of a skinny knot with a perfect dimple if 99% of people immediately stare at the skinny blade sticking out and judge you as being incapable of getting the front blade longer. I would rather a fat politician style double windsor than that burden. As a last ditch, failing all else, at least you could use the keeper, keep the jacket closed...or even tuck the small blade into your trousers.
One may respond to this that as long as the wearer is not bothered by it, who cares?. A fair enough statement, however, in a world where the internet is full of the classic menswear warriors (you know which ones) dissecting outfits and rather dogmatically discussing things like collar point length, jacket button stance, trouser rise, and pant leg width etc., it is very strange that this basic detail gets a pass when it blatantly makes the wearer look juvenile and unkempt.
What do you all think?
1) It is "sprezzatura" style. Something of a devil may care look of nonchalance and lack of effort in the details. There seems to be a major incongruence here to me when considering that the other elements of these outfits are immaculately coordinated and neat. Moreover, when a tie is introduced to an outfit it immediately establishes a certain formality, and therefore, a need for attention to details. I could understand wearing less formal articles of clothing with tailoring, or even wrinkled or slightly disheveled clothes to give off this sort of vibe, but the tie seems to me the very worst place to try to introduce this. It's like wearing a tuxedo with a wife beater underneath instead of a shirt. Additionally with the tie keeper eschewed, and effort and intention put forth to purposefully show both tie blades, any cover of nonchalance is instantly blown. All in all to me it comes off as a very bad type of affection.
2) This is necessary for a shorter gentleman who choses high rise trousers, as most ties are too long for this type of gentleman. I can commiserate with this argument, my knit ties are long enough where I need to make the back length almost as long as the front, however I take care to make sure it is at least half an inch to an inch shorter. To me having the back blade longer looks so bad that it is by far the worse choice of the other options: making the front a bit longer than normal (which with high rise trousers I think there is some space for this) or using a knot that requires a bit more fabric: stepping a four-in-hand up to a half windsor, a half windsor to a full windsor. I know many gentleman prefer small, skinny knots, but what is the point of a skinny knot with a perfect dimple if 99% of people immediately stare at the skinny blade sticking out and judge you as being incapable of getting the front blade longer. I would rather a fat politician style double windsor than that burden. As a last ditch, failing all else, at least you could use the keeper, keep the jacket closed...or even tuck the small blade into your trousers.
One may respond to this that as long as the wearer is not bothered by it, who cares?. A fair enough statement, however, in a world where the internet is full of the classic menswear warriors (you know which ones) dissecting outfits and rather dogmatically discussing things like collar point length, jacket button stance, trouser rise, and pant leg width etc., it is very strange that this basic detail gets a pass when it blatantly makes the wearer look juvenile and unkempt.
What do you all think?
