Fashion Faux Pas, what would you not be seen dead in?

Discussion in 'General Attire & Accoutrements' started by GHT, Jun 9, 2019.

  1. GHT

    GHT I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    5,862
    Location:
    New Forest
    Fashion has no rules, it's an evolution and it takes confidence to try out new things, regardless of what the masses think. Most folks are pressured to dress conservatively, and when you attempt to break the fashion barrier, well, your creativity defies the purpose of those who try to set your agenda. Fashion journalists write as though they are an authority on what we should wear, they are only able to see trends, share an opinion, and try to get the masses to agree. Think for yourselves, wear what you want, reinvent, and pay no mind to the status quo perception of fashion. Individualistic people prevail, not the retail industry and trends. But................

    I just couldn't be seen in a pair of crocs. Nor could I ever wear a pair of trousers that looked like they had divorced my ankles and married my knees. And you will never see me bare chested except poolside or on a beach. There are so many threads that ask the question, "what should I wear?" Or something worded similar. Wear what you like of course, but you won't see me wearing trainers with a suit, nor could I wear something that looks like a pastiche. Wear a zoot suit, great, but not something that you've hired from the fancy dress shop, unless you're off to a fancy dress party. For the same reason I couldn't wear a white neck tie on a black shirt.

    Those are just a few of my foibles, I didn't add some, there's many of you that love a couple of items that are simply not me, I shall wait to see what you make of this thread, so come on, tell us what has you reaching for the eye bleach? Is it the hat worn back to front, the leather jacket matched to a pair of Jesus sandals or do you hate to see a shirt collar worn over the jacket collar?

    But remember, what you don't like, others can adore, it's why we are all so different, yet interesting, stay civil, please.
     
    Edward likes this.
  2. The Jackal

    The Jackal One of the Regulars

    Messages:
    210
    There seems to be a current trend amongst fashion blogs that insist the bottom of trousers should sit well above the ankle, and that appropriate socks should be worn to match the outfit.

    I, on the other hand, was taught that the trousers should break naturally across the shoe and hang neatly along the heel. Socks should be regarded as what they are, undergarments, and the color matching should be done in an effort to disguise them in instances where they might be seen, such as sitting with your legs crossed.

    Trousers that sit above the ankle used to be a clear indicator that the pants are too short, and as such, I'll never wear them that way, regardless of how many celebrities or fashion blogs insist I should.

    Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk
     
    HoosierDaddy and belfastboy like this.
  3. belfastboy

    belfastboy My Mail is Forwarded Here

    Messages:
    3,080
    Location:
    vancouver, canada
    I have instructed my wife that if she ever sees me wearing capri pants or pedal pushers that she should proceed to shoot me dead as i have clearly lost my mind.
     
  4. PHIL1959

    PHIL1959 One of the Regulars

    Messages:
    260
    Location:
    anchorsholme england
    Baseball caps,shorts,t shirts,sweats,cargo anything,sports wear,Unless playing sport.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2019
    tropicalbob likes this.
  5. GHT

    GHT I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    5,862
    Location:
    New Forest
    Is that right? Trousers should be worn well above the ankle:
    trousers too short.jpg
    Capri pants? Never having heard of Capri pants, I had to look that one up. Three quarter length trousers? Seriously?
    Sometimes I'm at pains to live and let live, your money, your choice, but there are limits. What's worse than trousers too high? Trousers too low. Butt cleavage is just plain gross.
    arse cleavage.jpg
     
  6. belfastboy

    belfastboy My Mail is Forwarded Here

    Messages:
    3,080
    Location:
    vancouver, canada
    I think it is more of a European thing. ....I see them being worn by German tourists in the US
     
  7. Tiki Tom

    Tiki Tom One Too Many

    Messages:
    1,069
    Location:
    Vienna, Austria
    True. I can attest to that. Also, European men are prone to wearing trousers (and suits) in colors that Americans would not wear (red, rust, green, orange). Thirty years ago European men all wore leather shoes; trainers were saved for when you were actually playing sports. No longer, regrettably. And young people in Paris, Berlin, and London are now all but indistinguishable from their brethren in Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Seattle. Baseball caps are by far the most common type of headgear you will see over here.
     
  8. Edward

    Edward Bartender

    Messages:
    19,926
    Location:
    London, UK
    There are a few things I'd genuinely rather die than wear - flared trousers, shorts or any sort other than underwear, most training shoes (hideous - and no more comfortable than a decent brogue for me, I know others find differently), 99% of sportswear, 100% of modern sports wear, shellsuits, tracksuits, low-waisted trousers.... Oh, ripped denim. Even as a kid under twelve in the early eighties when it was the height of fashion, I hated the look of ripped denim, and would roll my eyes at those who sought it out as a fashion thing. UIT's back now - I regularly see girls here in London with jeans with most of the front of the thigh cut out and so on. It's bizarre, like they're aping 'fifteen years after the apocalypse' type stuff - they just need the leather jacket with one arm ripped off to go with it. Crocs I could never wear, though I don't hate the look of the ones they do for ladies that look like ballet pumps (I can see the use for those on wet days). If they did insoles like the inside of their sandals, I'd buy those as that looks nice to walk on.

    There are other things I wouldn't wear because I don't care for the look on me or because I'm (figuratively) uncomfortable with them, but they don't make me think 'yuk' when I see them on other people - a lot of military support-wear, logos, skinny-fit stuff, leather trousers, government tartan (aka 'blackwatch'), some training shoes, some of the more obvious Western wear, cowboy boots.

    In terms of what I wear that other people might consider fairly outlandish.... I know I'm considered unusual in the office in that I like to wear a tie (several very senior people in our department refuse to wear a jacket and tie when they don't have to; one actually keeps three or four ties in the iffice and puts one of them on for certain meetings only). The kilt... nobody bats an eyelid if I attend a 'formal dress' type event wearing the kilt, but (outside of the metalheads and punk set), if I wear a kilt with casual wear (like one of my 30s repro SJC polo shirts, for example), it catches much more comment. I find that as I get older, I'm much bolder in what I'll wear; I never cared much what other people thought of my clothing, but sometimes in the past I'd have toned it back a little because occasionally it got a bit much with everyone assuming I was making some sort of statement all the time. Nowadays - eh, let 'em stare. It's rare that any comments voice are negative, and if they are, so what? That's their problem.

    Interestingly, since I first got into the "vintage" thing, there's a lot of stuff I'd wear now I would never haved dreamed of fifteen years ago - a brown suit, an Irvin or similar, a Grizzly, a beret. I'm even looking at experimenting with a bowler hat at the minute, a style which comes with a certain amount of baggage where I originate.


    I remember Michael Jackson always wore 'flood pants', supposedly the idea was to draw attention to his feet while dancing (black trews and shoes, white socks). Similar to Astaire's white spats with evening wear.

    I like my trousers to sit with just a tiny bit of break, but for me as much a visual error as 'flood' length is the 'stacking' that was fashionable ten years ago or so - especially when combined with denim. THat awful look where they hung over people's heels at the back and got trodden on to the point where there was this odd, fraying 'U' shape in the rear.... bad look.

    The overriding thing I hate most about men's fashion blogs of all sorts, though - and it's particularly common on the sort of 'vintage' / 'classic' / 'heritage' menswear sites that like to sneer at mainstream fashion - is this weird obsession with manliness. Like the world is going to end if they accidently fail to conform to some socially-concocted gender role stereotype in their choice of clothing. It's always the oddest of things they fixate on, too - is it unmanly to wear a ring that doesn't have some Deep Significance, you just like it, or is it unmanly to have the top of an undershirt visible under an open-collar shirt. Weirder than the specific examples is just the obsesssion with 'manliness' itself. I mean seriously - who cares? Aside from that, of course, there's always the more general issue with such blogs that all authors seem to believe that what is 'correct' (whether in dress code or relative quality of one brand compared to the next) maps directly onto their own preferences, however ill-informed (if I read one more time about "James Dean's leather jacket in Rebel Without a Cause"....).

    They were popular in some subcultures - particularly early eighties skinheads - as a way of showing off their tall boots, but as a mainstream fashion item for men, they're fairly new. Always put me in mind of someone thinknig they might want to wear shorts, but not being quite so sure. I guess they're an evolution of sorts from the much older plus-four, but while I'd be happy to wear the latter, capris don't really appeal to me.

    If that guy has an off dressed like that, he'll lose so much skin he won't sit down for a year....

    In my experience, American men are significantly more likely to opt for "proper" shorts than European men. Capris for men and such are very much a high-fashion look that seems to have startyed I think in Italy, then spread north. I think I've seen them being sold as a nautical thing - I guess if you're going to end up with your feet in the water a bit, not having wet trouser round your ankles (back to a similar principle as plus fours for hunting).

    I see a surprising number of men in suits on the tube wearing trainers, obviously folks who keep leaqther shoes in the office and change there. Women have been doing it for a long time, though it makes sense to me given how often women's work dresscodes specify heels. A man who feels the need to wear trainers to and from the office either bought a very poor quality (poorly sized, maybe, too) office shoe, or is simply making a subconscious display of his aesthetic rejection of dress shoes by refusing to wear them on his 'own time' - including commuting. Each to his own, though I find it less egregious as regards my own aesthetic preferences to see someone choosing a pair of, say, Chuck Taylors to match the suit as an outfit choice rather than a pair of clashing Nikes for the commute. Of course, they might find me equally ridiculous, so....


    As the world shrinks, there's certainly a level of homoginisation, though to be honest I tend to find that after a while there are distinct differences between Europeans and American kids, for all the influence of Hollywood. I know it's more common in big cities, but I actually think kids these days are less homogenous than they often were in my era because whatever tribe or subculture you are, the web makes it so much easier to get hold of what you want to wear. I hunted for years when I was a kid for jeans slim enough for what I wanted to wear and still had to compromise often; some things were simply impossible to find because they weren't in fashion, and most stores we had access to only stocked the fashionable. Nowadays, there's much more variance I think amongt the kids than was the case in my day - though I recall a teacher telling us in the nineties, about 1992, in a class where some of use were punks, sopme metal heads, grunge was emering, and then there were the fashion set (mostly spides - what English folks would nowadays call chavs), how individualist we were compared to her generation who came of age in the sixties, and who, she thought, conformed far harder to mainstram fashion norms than any of us.
     
  9. The Jackal

    The Jackal One of the Regulars

    Messages:
    210
    When I first left the military and entered into the accounting field, wearing a tie seemed the most normal choice for my everyday attire. The more formal or "official" the work place, the more business ready the attire should be. Or so I thought. It didn't take me long to recognize none of the other men in the office wore ties, and only about half of them wore a polo (none wore a button up). After about 2 weeks, the co-owner came to me and told me I wasn't allowed to wear a tie anymore. There had been complaints from the other men in the office. I maintained wearing a long sleeve dress shirt for my entire time there, and refused to dress down any further, even for "casual Friday".
     
  10. Edward

    Edward Bartender

    Messages:
    19,926
    Location:
    London, UK
    It's interesting how people can sometimes feel threatened by how others dress; perhaps they were worried management might think you looked more professional and then expect tham all to wear a tie? My brother works in the IT field, very dress down (he has one suit in the wardrobe which he wears for weddings and funerals, as is the modern norm). A few years ago they had a new guy who turned up for the first week in a suit and tie. They all laughed at him until he conformed to their dress-down norm.

    Interestingly, here in London many of the city firms abandoned dress-down Friday about a decade ago; it was blurred anyhow for women, especially in Summer (women's wardrobe from casual to formal being much more of a spectrum than is comparmentalised menswear), while men mostly hated it, because there was little difference from the rest of the week (most firms were 'no denim', some even required collar, tie and blazer, so the only real difference was that the jacket and trousers didn't match), so they had to buy another wardrobe for work (most didn't wear the same stuff at home). Law firms, on the other hand, over the last couple of years have increasingly switched over to a casual dress code. I'm not a fan, myself. Here in academia I have the luxury of no dress code; in the middle of a heavy marking period today I'm in jeans, but most of the time I'll be in collar, tie and a blazer. Always decent leather shoes or boots (I don't actually own any trainers, just not my thing). Ultimately, I'm wearing my own clothes to work whatever I wear - I don't have to maintain a separate work wardrobe, which I really like.
     
    Bamaboots likes this.
  11. GHT

    GHT I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    5,862
    Location:
    New Forest
    Amazing post Edward, you covered quite a wide spectrum there. It has thrown up a few "mea culpas." Back in the early 60's I had a pair of blackwatch tartan trousers that I bought from Carnaby Street, long before anyone had heard of Carnaby Street. In the 70's I was guilty of wearing a pair of flares that all but covered my Cuban heeled boots, but by the 80's the dress down look was gaining momentum, that's when, as a manager in an international conglomerate, I baulked at dressing down. It was a suit, collar & tie and polished shoes. An appearance that gave gravitas to the rank of manager.

    Your bowler hat remark is quite understandable, those that are not aware of The Orange Order or know off the marching season, won't be aware of the baggage that you speak of. Why don't you just avoid wearing a bowler if and when you visit Ulster?

    Had that ultimatum been given to me at work, the next day I would have turned up in a bow tie. And if that got a similar ban, I would have shown up wearing a cravat.
     
    Benny Holiday, tropicalbob and Edward like this.
  12. Haversack

    Haversack Practically Family

    Messages:
    975
    Location:
    Clipperton Island
    What are now called capri pants are actually nothing new for men. Back in the late 18th C. they were known as slops and were part of the working gear of sailors. To wear them ashore pretty much identified the wearer as a working sailor and given a hot press, one could find oneself involuntarily signed aboard one of his majesty's ships.

    [​IMG]
     
    Edward likes this.
  13. Edward

    Edward Bartender

    Messages:
    19,926
    Location:
    London, UK
    IT's interesting you mention gravitas. At the start of my academic career, I always made a point of wearing a suit and tie to lecture in. There was no automatic expectation that I would - I was simply expected to 'dress tidily' (as often would mean 'black jeans, not blue'), but as I started with teaching postgraduates, all of whom were no younger than me and many of whom were markedly older (I've often taught people old enough to be my own parents), I felt that a suit gave me a sense of authority as the lecturer in the room. It certainly seemed to do the trick. As I'm now much longer in the tooth as a lecturer, I've noticed that the students do still respond to it. A lot of the young ladies in my undergraduate class have, at the end of the year, indicated they appreciated my "vintage style"; I think the big thing for a lot of the students is that they notice I make an effort with how I look, and I don't try to be down with the kids, or hip, or whatever. They certainly don't care for lecturers who try faux rebellion; at a graduation ceremony the other year I encountered a lecturer from another faculty where they are less prone to 'dress up' to lecture than in my own. This fellow spent the half hour in the robing room before we processed boasting to anyone who would listen that this was the first time in three years that he'd worn a tie - as if that was not just personal preference, but some sort of achievement. I could only imagine my students rolling their eyes at this. Amusingly enough, one of my Chinese students in Beijing (who, on completion of the computer engineering degree his parents ordered him to do, whent off to New York to do the fashion degree he'd always wanted to do; I don't know what happened after that but I'm sure he's doing well somewhere, he had a good eye for classic styles based on our discussions) once said to me: "You're different than the other lecturers - you care what you look like." :D But yeah, it all started with a desire to create and preserve a sense of authority. IT's intersting how that can still be the case even in such a casual age. (Not to mention how much more fawned over one is when shopping on Jermyn Street!).

    Outside of a veryc specific period costume of some sortg I wouldn't wear one at all over there (or anything else that belies a tribal allegiance - my Pogues scarves with their tricolours are strictly relegated to wearing on the streets of England - the irony!). It's taken a long time to get past the baggage for myself, though - which by this point in my life is, I think, part of the reason I want to try it. I do love a homberg, so the bowler isn't a huge step away from that. I have a black one (a vintage Summer-weight example; it has a softer crown, no liner and a very subtle snow-flake perforation in the top to let the hot air out). Considering trying a cheap wool brown one; I don't tend to think of wool as inferior when it comes to a bowler given the nature of the shaping anyhow. I think brown might be more distinctive, and I do wear a lot of earthtones. Possibly part of the Goodwood Revival wardrobe (after a fallow year, we're back in 2019!).

    You are naughty! I'd have gone for the cravat first, then the bandana, maybe... After that, camp collar shirts with the collar folded out over the blazer lapels. Which is something I need to do more of - I've really gotten to love that look recently. Waqtched TRumbo, and adored all the wardrobe in it, similarly, the 50s wardrobes in Mrs Maisel.

    Fair point. Of course, the sort of heavy cotton/ wool / canvas that they would have been wearing in those days, it would have made significant sense to keep them at 'flood height', given how often they'd have been in and out of the water, working thed deck in heavy rain, down below to pump out leaks while calf-deep in water.... Very practical to have material that takes some time to dry kept up out of the wet. (I remember us all being warned off jeans on our DoE hikes for that very reason).

    The long trouser also came after a long historical period of wearing britches that stopped a little under the knee anyhow. When the full length trouser was first fashionable, it was frowned upon by many. Sir Arthur Wellsley, the celebrated first Duke of Wellington (that great English hero who was actually, er, Irish), once turned up at his club wearing a then fashion-forward and very dandy pair of full-length trousers, only to be turned away for not meeting the dress code. At the time of the Gaelic Revival in Ireland (1880s onwards), there were those who pushed for "True Irishmen" to reject trousers in favour of tweed plus fours, seen to be more properly "Irish" by some. With the relationship with England going so far back, there was a lack of a distinctly Irish national dress of any real sort. Some scholars, looking back ot the medieval era, laid claim instead to the kilt as originating in Ireland; this misconception is still repeated today, but it's based on a mistranslation of the Gaelic for the long tunics the Irish peasantry wore in the 1300s. An Irishness for the kilt was given further weight on the nationalist side of the line by Padraig Pearse; at the turn of the 20th century (before he came to prominence via the 16 Rising), after viewing a find of typical, medieval, Irish clothing found at Killery in County Sligo, he declared to a fellow nationalist:

    "Frankly I would much rather see you arrayed in a kilt, although it may be less authentic, than in a pair of these trews. You would, if you appeared in the latter, run the risk of leading the spectators to imagine that you had forgotten to don your trousers and sallied forth in your draws. This would be fatal to the dignity of a Feis. If you adopt a costume, let it, at all events, have some elements of picturesqueness."


    Of course, the kilt and Highland wear as it is now known is something of a Victorian fiction anyhow, and modern 'Highland Dress' in Scotland itself really only solidified in the 1930s, so it could be argued that the Irish adoption and quirks in the same are not significantly less authentic. Nonetheless, while there were a number of pre-independence Irish nationalists chose to wear the kilt as a manner of rejecting Anglicisation (I suppose they saw the Scots as fellow travellers in that regard), in which is now the present day Republic of Ireland, kilts are a rare sight beyond pipe bands and the occasional wedding party, not the default 'formal occasion' option they are in Scotland. In Ireland, as in so much of the world, the English suit and the American blue jean still dominate. It's certainly not as "Irish" as it is "Scottish", contrary to what the disapora who've never visited the "Old Country" would have you believe. On the Unionist side of the line, they're also popular among piper bands; emblems of Scottishness were clung to as a legitimisation and symbolic of their Britishness. The irony being that the Scottish regalia was seen differently by both sides, much as the relationship with Scotland itself - Scotland as a nation having arisen after the Scots left Ireland and displaced the Picts from the north of Britain - has long been interpreted in different ways to be suit the tribal preferences of one or the other.
     
    tropicalbob likes this.
  14. GHT

    GHT I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    5,862
    Location:
    New Forest
    I shall look out for you at Goodwood. Now will you go for the Captain Peacock look, or maybe Patrick McNee's Steed is more in keeping, but, given your station in life, how about Dick Emery's "college?"
    frank thornton bowler.jpg patrick mcnee bowler.jpg dick emery bowler.gif dick emery.jpg
    Anyone not from our shores, Dick Emery was master at character change. College was an elegant tramp. Google Dick Emery.
     
    Edward likes this.
  15. GHT

    GHT I'll Lock Up

    Messages:
    5,862
    Location:
    New Forest
    The striped summer blazer is on of those garments that can look great, but get it wrong and you could look like you have leaned against some recently painted railings.
    striped suit.jpg
     
  16. Edward

    Edward Bartender

    Messages:
    19,926
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ha, yes.... the only thing definitely decided for Goodwood so far is the Kilt, but as I like to have a different outfit for each day..... I also have my eye on a nice, belted wax-cotton jacket; in 2017, I made the mistake of not bringing something for the wet and cold, and unlike previous years when we'd always had one wet day but usually fairly warm temperatures, it was cold, wet and miserable all weekend.... Won't be making that mistake again if I can avoid it!

    Mn. Any of those pieces alone would be nice, but in combining them all..... rather reminiscent of that photo of Daniella Westbrook in head to toe Burberry check that did enormousd damage to the value of their brand at one point.
     
  17. Thumper15

    Thumper15 New in Town

    Messages:
    26
    Crocs are an absolute no go for me, as are trainers/tennis shoes. My dad calls them slippers, always had. I prefer boots. At work that means Thorogood Moc toe work boots, off work that means either cowboy boots or Red Wing Iron rangers. I also don’t wear shorts unless I’m swimming or actively working out. I also don’t really like the modernish trend of wearing undershirts as outer wear when out in town. Part of that comes from my dad show wore button up work uniform shirts tucked in everyday, and part from the Marine Corps who didn’t consider plain solid color shirts as outer wear. Not wearing a belt is another huge pet peeve. If a belt has belt loops it needs a belt. Otherwise it looks sloppy and usually ends with the pants around the butt
     
    Woodtroll likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.