Was that tie on purpose?

Watch your parents and grandparents with interest. 

It is always fascinating to see how traditions for dress and its practicality become instinct over time. While at home last week, for example, I noticed that my father was wearing dark blue socks yesterday with small pink (or were they white?) dots. They went perfectly with his plain blue slacks and black loafers (see previous post on sock colours). But a question as to why he was wearing that combination only produced confusion. There was no reason; it was just instinct. 

Equally, my grandfather wore a checked grey tie at my wedding that is known as the Macclesfield tie after the town where it was first woven. This weave of small diamonds, squares or circles was fashionable in the 1920s and became the standard, dress tie for formal day attire - in other words, weddings and daytime celebrations. It seemed smart yet not really of the office. Was it a coincidence or did he instinctively wear the 'wedding tie'? (I have to confess I haven't asked him, probably because I'm afraid it was the former.)

Either way, it is interesting to see which traditions or guidelines become instinctive in those that were interested in style at different points in their life. Some relax into a subconscious mode of dressing. Others never stop experimenting. 

What is worried over now can become instinctive (and more personal) over time. 

(Examples of wedding ties are shown above - thanks to askandyaboutclothes.com, a wonderful site I highly recommend, for this pic.)

Shoe rebranding continued...

The advantage of the knowledge I described yesterday is that you can find the shoes cheaper. 

Ralph Lauren is a large chain and is more inclined to reduce some shoes to shift them - it can afford the losses. Edward Green is not. The same logic applies to a certain extent in department stores - they have paid brands a certain price for the product and are then free to discount them as they wish to maximise profits. 

So in mid-January expect to find these luxury Ralph Lauren/Edward Green shoes reduced by 50%, even 60%. I picked up a pair last year reduced from around £550 to £220. They're still not cheap, but Edward Green makes some of the finest shoes you will find. 

Down the scale, Peal & Co shoes are a little cheaper than Church's top start with (£240) and may be reduced even more. Plus, both re-brands create their own styles not found in the shoemakers themselves. So if no styles catch your fancy in the English originals, try these American rebrands. I particularly recommend the Peal & Co black one-piece lace-up.  

Church's and Edward Green, cheap

- 

The brands stamped on shoes aren't always what they seem. 

Here's a tip if you are out picking shoes in the January sales. Two of the most desired brands of English shoe, Edward Green and Church's, can be found cheaper under other brands. Brooks Brothers, that repository of American tradition, has a range of 'fine English shoes' under the label of Peal & Co. These are actually made by Church's for Brooks Brothers, rebranded and resold. Peal & Co was an original family shoemaker, but was bought by Brooks in 1964 and outsourced. (The pictures above are of Peal & Co black derbys, left, and Church's black oxfords, right.) Equally, Ralph Lauren has a luxury range of footwear in its Bond Street store that is made by Edward Green. 

(This makes sense if you think about it - Brooks wants to sell English shoes made to a high standard but is hardly going to set up its own factory. 

As a parallel example, Gucci is a saddlery maker by tradition and Ermenegildo Zegna a master of wool fabrics. There's no reason they would be any good at making sunglasses. So like many brands that have expanded outside of their core area, their sunglasses are made by one company in northern Italy - some don't even design their own sunglasses, but have that done at the same one factory as well.)

More on why this RL/Brooks knowledge can save you money tomorrow... 

Double cufflinks

A point on French cuffs.

If they are worn at all then it is worth wearing cufflinks that have something on both sides of the link. It is interesting to note that they only began to be made with one side decorated when people could not afford four stones or similar decorations. Given the price of some today, that can hardly be an excuse.

And please don't be humourous with your cufflinks. They are only marginally better than humourous ties, and a little worse than humourous socks. Why would you go to the effort in a formal outfit of wearing double cuffs, only to join them with a pair of golf clubs or breasts? Novelty cufflinks should be just that - a one-off, a joke. It wears rather thin when told every day.

The poor single cuff

The single cuff seems much maligned these days.

Last week I overheard someone demand double (or French) cuffs on their shirt. Apparently anything else would have looked cheap. Yet it is a trend that has only grown in London over the past ten years. Doubtless it was a easy way for shirtmakers to suggest they had superior shirts - an extra little touch like collars with two or even three buttons.

Bizarrely, these shirts are often sold as Italian; or in Italian lines from high-street shops. Yet the Italians have always worn a single cuff, dismissing the double cuff as French and foppish. Some of this attitude may also derive from the fact that Italians would wear their dress shirts with greater flexibility, at different times of the day and week - with a sweater on a week day, under a casual jacket at the weekend. A single cuff is more practical here (easier to wear under a sweater, a little too fussy for the weekend). The City businessman who only wears it with a grey suit during the week does not have this problem.

The Italian traditionally also likes his cuff tight to the wrist, as his sleeve is tighter and his armhole higher. But more of that elsewhere.

A shopping tip for those in or visiting London.

Whenever you are around Bond Street, or that end of Oxford Street, it is worth popping into the Paul Smith sale shop on Avery Row. Tucked away down a little alley off Brook Street, it contains all the stock from the brand's London stores that haven't sold. With 30%-50% off.

Now the disadvantage of a sale shop is that it contains everything that no one else wanted. There are therefore a fair number of shiny suits, checked trousers and odd cufflinks. But there are nearly always one or two things to tempt you: of the eight to ten suits there in your size, one or two will be desirable; of the five or six pairs of shoes that fit you, one will probably fill a need.

I've probably only bought something there 10% of the time. But I've still managed to buy two pairs of shoes. No guarantees, but it's always worth popping in. Map here.

The strength of brown

I'm often surprised how well brown and blue work together, and at the same time how readily it is dismissed. For the Americans it has reached the stage of an antiquated 'rule' along the lines of no brown in town. 

If you have a brown suit almost nothing will look better than a blue and white striped shirt with a dark blue tie. Strong dark colours that work well together look more authoritative than the washed-out, everyday business ensemble of grey suit, white shirt and pale tie. The Italians do this a lot better and appreciate the values of a strong yet dark colour. But then it does tend to work best with darker skin. 

Returning to blue and brown, try a dark brown tie (perhaps with a white club stripe) with a normal blue business suit. The strength of colour is often more satisfying than another dark shade - grey or blue for example. (It may also go well with those dark brown brogues. That's dark brown, not tan. But more on too-pale brown shoes later.)

No magazines for me

Working in the magazine industry, it has always startled me that there is no men's magazine catering to an interest in style. 

There's a rank of men's magazines that contains style features - GQ, Esquire, Arena - but that's only a few pages. The rest is filled with normal lad's mag fodder: a cursory summary of new movies, books, music, plus some girls. And a lot of the style coverage is either ridiculously expensive (a recent GQ featured a photo shoot of Loro Piana sweaters ranging from £500 to £2000) or is done through photo shoots where you can't even see the clothes. 

The second rank of magazines has come out recently and is dedicated to fashion, not style - GQ Style, Arena Homme Plus. How many men (not boys) do you know that follow fashion and the catwalks? That are quite happy to wear something for six months and then throw it away as untrendy? 

There's nothing in between as far as I can tell. Something that is all about style and takes a practical look at men's clothes: where you can get designer clothes at high-street prices; which of the labels offer the best value for money; how to tell if your off-the-peg suit fits you; colour combinations and style leaders. Basically, much of what is done for women's style, but for men. 

If anyone finds anything along these lines, please tell me. Plus, if anyone has a few hundred thousand pounds and wants to invest in a start-up magazine, I might be interested. (The only recent discovery is the Arena Big Black Book, but that is only published once a year, in the US.)

Red socks, not red lining

Continuing the guidelines on socks...

Within the custom of socks matching trousers, there are many opportunities for pattern. As long as the background is of that same colour, there is no reason why the sock cannot have a pattern of dots, stripes, even checks, and remain within this tradition. A long single line up the sock was popular in the forties as a means to exaggerate the height. Manhattan playboy Peter Arno was a particular fan (that's him, above). 

The guideline on pattern is the same as with any other - keep them balanced. Patterned socks will generally work best with plain trousers. Or, at the least, they should have a smaller, denser pattern. 

A trifle more exciting is the English country tradition of bright socks, particularly red. This can be effective if subtle. I find it hard to resist pairing a plain navy suit and white shirt, for example, with bright red socks. Yellow also works well. (It has something of a modern echo in the bright lining of a suit, though this is less subtle and less flexible, as it only gives one colour option for a suit. Better to keep the suit plain and play around with socks/handkerchiefs/ties depending on your taste and adventurousness. There is also the risk that one might feel tempted to display the lining, which is certainly not very tasteful.)

The colour of socks

Traditionally, socks are recommended to be of a similar colour to the trousers, preferably in a slightly darker shade. 

Having thought about it, this makes sense because it means that when the sock is exposed - when, for example, you have your legs crossed - the leg appears to end at the top of the shoe, not at the end of the trouser. Again, it is an aid to height. It makes your leg look longer, and so you taller.

A sock that matches the shoe is a second-best option, but obviously negates the lengthening effect. Many men wear black socks with any suit, as these suits tend to be a variety of dark blues and greys. This smacks rather of laziness or a lack of ambition. But it is certainly easier.

More sock thoughts tomorrow. You lucky things you.

Guidelines, not rules

A word in reference to that previous message. 

Everything that will be described here, and every custom it refers to, has solid practical reasons behind it. But it is not a rule. 

Some people are fine with having shirts and suits that are similar. Some think they look good in a black shirt and a black suit. I disagree, but that's just my opinion. I would argue that it is always worth knowing why customs exist. If your shirt and suit do not contrast you lose the slimming, broadening effect it can have. Which is fine, if you don't want that. But every custom is there for a reason. Take the time to know why people call them rules.

Hopefully, this blog will help men understand some of the guidelines, rules or customs a little better. They often don't realise why customs exist, and either follow them slavishly or ignore them out of a faint sense of rebellion. It's far more interesting to investigate and then create. It's easier and more fun. 

This is my philosophy. 

Suits that look like pyjamas

This first post is about how simple yet subtle style can be. Smart dressing can sound so easy: dark suit, pale shirt, dark tie. Then you see someone with a striped shirt under a striped suit. The stripes on each are the same width apart; suddenly it looks like he's wearing pyjamas. The items on their own were fine, luxurious even. But they don't work together. He might not know why, or care. It's a subtle problem, solved by a simple guideline. 

That guideline is that patterns have to balance. Don't wear a striped suit, shirt or tie next to each other unless they are sufficiently different. A dense, pale, striped shirt may be fine against a sparse, dark, bold pinstripe. It can get more complicated than that, but this is a simple starting point. 

Suits look good because the plunging V of the chest gives an impression of being slim and broad. This is amplified by the fact that in a normal, lounge suit the jacket and trousers are the same colour - it creates a long, lean silhouette. If the shirt and suit are the same pattern that effect is lessened. You are a single block of pattern and may as well be wearing a jump suit.