1. The slimmer the better!
It was a predictable overreaction to the enormous fits of the 90s. Clothes should skim. Not cling. Nor should passers-by be able to tell whether or not a man has been circumcised, simply by observing the astonishingly precise topography of his denim.
2. Only dress for yourself. Considering what others may think makes you a poser.
Usually said by the same types who claim to have “no regrets”. Look, no one is saying you should dress with the mindset of a middle-schooler desperate to fit into a lunch room clique. But always placing your own personal clothing preferences above the context of social interaction puts far, far too great of an emphasis on clothes and style in terms of the bigger picture. Clothes can be a tool, and they can be a factor in charm. Charm is making people feel genuinely comfortable around you. What do you want? If taking it down a notch, OR, stepping it up a bit, will help improve the perception of you, by others, and that gives you an advantage to achieve something greater than winning an online style poll… then what’s wrong with that?
3. Always pay for quality or you’ll end up certainly regretting it.
Not true. We all made mistakes on the way. Sometimes it’s actually better to pay a little less while you’re still figuring things out (preference in fits, styles, details, etc…) than sink a bunch of money into something you end up hating soon after.
4. Criticism is always helpful, and implicitly requested.
Sometimes an outfit suggestion is just a suggestion, or a WIWT post is just a WIWT post, and thus, no one is asking us armchair stylists for a dissertation on how each item doesn’t work for their tastes, or how they would have worn it, or designed it, or built-it-from-scratch. Does the dissent have value to someone other than the person expressing it? Or, are we all just getting played, convinced by those who need clicks (hi.), that our opinion matters more than it really does?
5. Pleated pants are awful
Depends on the rise of your pants. If you’re wearing a more traditional, higher rise, pleats actually look decent, and more importantly, move better. Just like pleats on the back of a shirt help your (wider) shoulders move better in relation to your waist, a human’s hips are wider than their waist (yes, even on us dudes). That fabric needs to be gathered at the more narrow opening at the waist. Pleats accomplish that in an orderly fashion. Now that rises have rebounded from the pubicishly low level of the early 2000’s, expect pleats to make a limited comeback in suiting. When it comes to more casual pants like chinos? Stick to mid-rise flat fronts.
6. Shoulder divots on a jacket means it’s too big
Nope. See threads user LCDR go over this, with his own experiences on threads over here. See the jacket below. Sizing down isn’t possible due to the laws of the universe of which our physical existence operates under.
7. Getting complimented on my clothes is proof that I. look. AWESOME.
Not necessarily. You just might be standing out more than the rest. Some dig that, sure. But the top of the heap is occupied by those who make it look effortless (probably because it is). Those types might not get as many compliments since it’s the norm for them. Peacocking is sort of like being pregnant. Your appearance will often come up, because it’s hard not to notice.
8. Creasing on leather shoes is a sign of poor quality
This perception seems to be really overblown. Leather is skin. Over time, skin creases. Just look at your forehead. Now, if you pull a pair of cheap shoes out of the box, take them for a spin around your house, and after one wear they end up looking like Magda from There’s Something about Mary, then there might be an issue there.
9. Wool is too warm for spring & summer
Not if it’s a lighter weight tropical wool. Wool breathes well, doesn’t hold moisture like cotton, and won’t wrinkle like linen. It’s just a matter of finding and/or paying for the stuff that’ll move in the slightest breeze, not a heavy blanket-like tweed.
10. There are certain, unbreakable rules of style
Wait, so if this is a list of things that aren’t true, then this ^ is saying there are no hard and fast rules. But isn’t that in and of itself.. a rule? But how could that be?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but just because you can’t size down the whole jacket when you’ve got shoulder divots, doesn’t mean that parts of it aren’t too big. That is – if it was made for you, then it wouldn’t have the divots. Or at very least, having it tailored. Which is the end-goal for many people here I’m sure, even if it at times it is unaffordable!
Going along with 4, there seems to be a misconception by some individuals that dressing well makes you better than the poorly dressed, probably leading to such ridiculous criticism.
It is pretty much impossible to have a jacket’s shoulders taken in.
Agreed – that’s why I like going made-to-measure from the start!
As per #6, it still means the jacket doesn’t fit right. If you can’t size down, then that cut of jacket just isn’t for you. Some cuts of jackets just don’t work for some people, but that doesn’t mean you should just force on a 40R and say, “Well I know this doesn’t look good, but a 38R would have looked even worse.”
not impossible, but difficult without the right tailor and can be expensive. OTR jackets fit a certain type of body of the population the brand is trying to market to.
I am trying to break out of the “the slimmer the better” mindset. The first suit I bought I got altered so slim that after going to the gym a bit the jacket hardly fits. And I am really upset about that. But I just took two jackets I picked up at a thrift store to be altered yesterday and left a bit of room. It felt weird doing that but I know its for the best.
Another “rule” that I was hoping to see is the myth that there are styles that are 100% timeless. There is always an element of trend whenever wearing anything (skinny lapels on your Ludlow jacket for example). The relentless pursuit of timeless just ends up with you dressing up like 40-60s Hollywood (the first time mass media allowed us a glamorized baseline of what style was).
True to an extent and in a perfect world, but let’s be realistic. Not everyone is going to fit in OTR suits/coats perfectly or can afford to go the bespoke route. And slight divots aren’t a big enough reason not to wear an otherwise well-fitting piece.
I know the feeling. Been on the Stronglifts 5×5 routine for a while and have definitely felt the squeeze.
Thank you for this post. I really enjoyed the points about the slim-fit obsession as well as the pleats. Where I’m from in th South, pleats are often one of the quintessential elements of a well-dressed gentleman’s wardrobe. This probably has a lot to do with the fact that Southern style often has roots in practicality (e.g. Seersucker suits and overall looser fits for hotter temperatures), and pleats are no exception, as they too allow more breathability.
I also enjoyed #7. Too many times have I seen some outlandishly dressed person get complimented as “stylish” just for wearing loud clothes. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but more often than not, these types simply look like try-hard clowns.
As the most interesting man in the world once said, “Let’s leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pocket, you had better use them to call a tailor.”
perhaps this is splitting hairs, but i think this largely depends on how/if you differentiate between style and trends/fashion. the trend is the skinny lapel. the style is wearing a jacket in the first place.
A lot of these comments re: shoulder divots are really giving me flashbacks….
https://dappered.com/2013/06/why-the-web-is-addicted-to-the-hyper-critical/
There is good fit and there is perfect fit. And one of those two things is a figment of your imagination. If the Prince of Wales’ tailors have not figured out how to solve the “problem” of the minor shoulder divot, then there is no hope for mere mortals like you or I. Forget the perfect, embrace the good.
http://www.ecouterre.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/prince-charles-537×402.jpg
Fair enough, but also some jackets fit me better than others. Banana Republic vs Brooks Brothers vs Jcrew vs whoever. I can certainly wear a jacket from any of those places, but for me I just go with the one that fits the best (brand 1) rather than smashing myself into the “correct size” of brand 2. You could of course say that the brand 2 is good, so why bother getting a better fit from brand 1, but for me it’s worth the extra effort.
“Too many times have I seen some outlandishly dressed person get complimented as ‘stylish’ just for wearing loud clothes.”
*cough* TSBMen *cough*
[Which is not to say I don’t enjoy that site.]
No one has argued that embracing “good fit,” versus the unattainable “perfect fit,” means that a poor fit is tolerable or that it isn’t possible to shop around to find what brands and cuts work best for you. My argument is the simple fact that a jacket’s fit is not “perfect” doesn’t mean that it is not nonetheless perfectly good and wearable.
Earlier in the comments you stated that the presence of shoulder divots “means the jacket doesn’t fit right. . . that cut of jacket just isn’t for you.” This, to me, is an example of letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.
As our impeccably-dressed friend Charles demonstrates, it is scarcely humanly possible to create a well-fitting tailored jacket that doesn’t exhibit a bit wrinkling or a divot below the shoulder cap. Even if no divot is visible while the wearer is standing straight up and perfectly still, a divot or wrinkling will certainly appear the moment the wearer starts to move or assume a different posture. The fact that the best-fitting jacket a man can find still exhibits a minor shoulder divot should not bar him from wearing that jacket with confidence.
First of all, I’ve usually heard shoulder divot in reference to the top of the shoulder. This is the way Put This On, Ask Andy, and others define it. It does not appear Charles has that issue above.
Even if we are switching definitions to the side of the shoulder, Charles’s shoulder looks a world of difference from Joe’s picture above (which isn’t really that bad), and even further from lots of actual bad fits. I understand your point to be that we can never get a 100% perfect fit, which I agree with. But there are also useful indicators of when you have a bad fit, and the shoulder divot is one of the most commonly used ones out there. My point is not that once you get a jacket you should not wear it with confidence, but that you should get a jacket that fits well in the first place. Charles’s fit isn’t 100% perfect, and mine will never be even 90% perfect, but I can use some helpful indicators to let me know when I’m at 60% perfect and maybe do something to get it a little better.
Absolutely. No online men’s fashion site community is immune from this, unfortunately. Don’t judge or look down on other people because they have different interests…
Great list. Thanks for keeping us honest.
One rule that I hear thrown around is to not buy black suits or black shoes because they’re not “versatile”. I think that’s nonsense, personally.
FWIW I’ve never heard “shoulder divot” used to refer to unsmoothness (for lack of a better term) of the way the jacket fits on top of the trapezius. A quick google image search indicates that most sources use the term “shoulder divot” to refer to dimpling or wrinkling on the sleeve under the shoulder cap. I’m almost certain that was the intended use in the main post above.
I would agree that a jacket that does not lay smoothly ON TOP of the shoulder is probably not a well-fitted jacket.
A cap-toe oxford from a place like Allen Edmonds is 100% timeless. It will look just as good a hundred years from now as it does today.
He (or she) who dresses the loudest elicits the most comments. I get more comments when I wear my Nantucket red chinos with a t-shirt and sneakers than I do when I’m in a jacket and tie. Heck, I get more comments on my electric blue running shoes at the gym. (I say “comments” and not “compliments” because I feel like a lot of the “Hey, those shoes are awesome” type comments are really more expressions of admiration for your chutzpah than actual praise for the item in question.)
The same thing goes for watches. An orange Seiko Monster or a red G-Shock will garner a lot more attention than a Hamilton Khaki or an Orient Ray.
The moral of the story is, people apparently like shiny things.
Hey Joe – Where is that light grey suit from?
Early in my “style awakening,” I wasted an awful lot of money on stuff, especially thrifted coats and jackets, that I thought could be “fixed” by tailoring. These days I won’t buy something if I wouldn’t be comfortable wearing it off the rack with no alterations (sleeve length excepted). Tailoring can be an expensive exercise in frustration and disappointment if you try to use it for major overhauls rather than minor tweaks.
I think it’s also important to note that a lot of times the divots result from a more fit/broad/average guy wearing a suit that is too slim, or, more specifically, a jacket with arm holes that are too high.
THIS
I agree regarding black shoes (IMO, the core dress shoe is a black captoe), but disagree regarding black suits, which I’ve always thought were best reserved for funerals and/or formal evening events.
At the very least, a man should own a black suit for funerals, weddings, evening events, etc. (say, a third or fourth suit).
I think they’re fine for work as well – wouldn’t wear them for interviews, but for day-to-day, just fine.
Most of Fred Astaire’s suit styles would look great on me right now, today.
Unless it doesn’t. And if it does, what about 200 years? 300 years? Would it have looked good in medieval Europe? Or in ancient Greece? Nothing is 100% timeless :-). That said, I doubt any of us will live long enough to see a time when something like a cap-toe oxford looks out of place.
I vehemently disagree. I have a couple jackets with minor shoulder divots that happen to look pretty damn good on me.
The answer is; yes. It would have looked good at any point in the past, and will look good at every point in the future. 🙂
Adapted from the gun adage:
Either you are the fashion, and your clothes are the tool, or your clothes are the fashion and you are the tool.
I made the mistake of getting a few shirts tailored while in Sweden. (I could probably end there…). When I picked them up they were fine by Swedish standards, “just don’t wear a shirt underneath them” the tailor said.
Back in the US and a few trips to the gym later I’m embarrassed to wear them due to TMI.
I always wonder about the forum comments that say things like “I wear X chinos and get tons of compliments on them.” I mean, I’ve been complimented on my attire once in a blue moon, but… Chinos? Really? Tons?
Why is it that the “dress for yourself” rule always seems to be taken to the most extreme end of the spectrum when it is being discussed?
I work in telecommunications and this work takes me inside (in ceilings, under floors and behind walls) as well as outside (up poles [keep your minds out of the gutter] and towers, into manholes [see previous note] and in the dirt), generally pretty dirty work. I choose to wear jeans and a polo shirt while my co-workers choose to wear jeans and a t-shirt. Some have even questioned why I always wear a polo shirt to work in. Quite simply, this is the way I like to dress. I choose to portray a more professional image in the way I dress.
At the same time, due to the nature of my work and the overall nature of the particular part of the industry that I work in, I will probably never own a suit simply because, at this time, I can see no context in which me wearing a suit would be justifiable. I would simply come across as trying to hard in some form or fashion.
My point is, dressing for yourself can work as long as it is not taken too far outside of a persons context.
I have a pair of navy dockers that have white paisley in them. I bought them because they were 10 dollars and I have a weakness for patterns. I get at least three compliments a day when I wear them.
Yes #3! Dont spend like crazy if youre just getting your feet wet
I continue to proudly stand in staunch opposition to pleated pants. I’m with you on everything else, though.