Survey Results: the American and the Dandy

Thank you to all who took the time to fill out last week’s menswear survey. At almost 400 respondents, it was great to see so many involved in a poll of what today’s men are wearing, and what they think about what they are wearing.

There seemed to be an interesting split between a dandified minority and a more conservative majority. On most questions that explored flamboyance or dandification, there was a stubborn 15% to 25% that revealed more adventurous tastes. For example, 27% considered themselves a dandy, 26% said they wear a pocket handkerchief and 13% answered that yes, don wear a bowtie casually.

It is not surprising that the numbers varied a little. Some are always a little more adventurous than others – I myself answered yes to the first two questions but no to the third. But there is a consistency across the answers. French cuffs are not necessarily that adventurous, but they do tend to be preferred by the more dandified – and so the result was at the top end of this dandy bracket: 30%. A minority owns a double-breasted suit (20%); and owns a bespoke suit (25%). Given a rough averaging of the numbers, this dandy minority also owns a minimum of around six or seven suits. (The number of suits also highlights the majority – if not necessarily conservative, at least less expansive – that owns between one and four suits.)

Of course, there is a chance that none of these minorities overlap. But it does seem unlikely that someone would wear a bowtie casually and not consider himself a dandy.

Countries and their historical, sartorial appeal is a fascinating subject. The results support two common assumptions. First, that most people identify with England as a style centre above others. Which is always surprising to most English people, at least those not steeped in its tailoring history. And second, that few people identify with the French, despite its reputation in womenswear (Tom Ford: “French men just can’t dress. They can’t”). The surprise is probably the 29% that pick America as the country they would most like to identify their dress sense with. I think this is testament to the power of Ralph Lauren, Calvin Klein and other US designers that have built up the idea of clean, historically aware American classics in recent years.

Which segues nicely into the branding question, where Ralph romps home. This is testament to the American and probably less flamboyant majority. But most interesting to me was the 14% of people who associated most with Hermes – a brand that does not spend much time or money advertising its menswear. This was my personal choice, but I assumed I would be in the smallest minority. The lesson may be that brand identification can be through ephemeral and more conceptual links than magazine ads and big runway shows. By contrast, the high fashion of Gucci and Prada disappear with just 6% each.

Thank you again to all 391 respondents, and I think this survey should be an annual feature of MensFlair.com. We will change the odd question here and there, but it will be fascinating to see how ideas and responses change over time.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment

The Tricky In-Between

In a recent post, my fellow blogger Chris Hogan referred to my distrust of the boat shoe. He suggested that one reason for this distrust was that “for some men the space between formal and casual is much tighter – like Simon or my father.”

I can understand why I might give that impression. I listed my preferred loafers as those with thinner, leather soles, a more elegant waist and – above all – without that fold of stitched leather around the toe. On a leather shoe that seems ugly and inappropriate to me. It is entirely a matter of taste, but that is where my taste lies.

However, from Chris’s description it sounds like the space between formal and casual is actually wider for me than it is for him. His preferred casual outfit is khakis, polo shirt and docksiders. I generally go for jeans, a t-shirt and an old brown leather jacket, probably with battered purple-and-brown Converse boots. So while my formal is more formal, my casual is more casual.

As stated, this is all a matter of taste. But Chris’s post prompted me to consider why I tend to these sartorial extremes. And I concluded that it is because is implicitly distrust the space in between formal and casual. It is tricky and many men get it horribly wrong.

Let’s start with some basic examples. There has been a horrifying trend in the UK in recent years of men wearing suit jackets casually, with t-shirts. It might work if the jacket was a rougher, more casual material – flannel, tweed, linen. But it was not. More often than not it was worsted, in blue, often with pinstripes. The t-shirt wasn’t a v-neck, let alone a polo shirt. It was high-necked and the jacket was worn open.

It is hard to imagine a combination that more effectively nullifies every flattering aspect of a jacket. There is no gorge, and so no plunging V in the chest. There is no waist (as it is worn open), and so no contrast with the shoulder width. There is generally no consideration of fit whatsoever.

Other examples: When men wear chinos casually they seem to think they will look good worn like jeans – very low in the waist, very long in the leg. They don’t. When they wear a shirt untucked they seem to think it matters little how long the tail is. It does. If it is a formal shirt, chances are the tail will be so long you will look like you are wearing a night shirt.

Now, the disclaimers. It is perfectly possible to do “the in between” very well. Tailored polo shirt perhaps, with a pale grey flannel jacket – shorter and less structured, but fitting well nonetheless. I’m sure that Chris does the in-between look very well indeed. And I am equally certain that the American readers of this blog wear the loafer/khakis/polo look very well, with no less attention to fit and effective colours than that given to their formal wear.

But I think they are the minority. Much of the in-between attire smacks of laziness because it is so often worn lazily. Chris mentioned his father – who has never owned a pair of jeans in his life and wears neat chinos with deeply polished loafers. Unfortunately, my experience is that for every ageing gentleman dressed this well, there are 10 that wear their old flannels with no idea of how they fit or how tatty they are. They may even – as I depressingly witnessed recently – wear trainers instead of leather shoes.

For better or worse, this puts me off the in-between look. And I’ll stick to my brown leather bomber for now.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment

Fit Above All Else

Several men’s style websites run forums that ask ‘what am I wearing today?’ Several blogs out there do the same. A few days ago I made the mistake of perusing them, looking for inspiration.

In my mind, the people on the site would look like those photographed on The Sartorialist. They would be dressed with obvious care and knowledge of the pieces that clothed them, with a spark of originality that inspires. Each would be a budding style expert, translating the experience of such forums into fresh, personal creations.

Instead, it was all rather depressing. First, they were keener to talk about the brands that made their garments than about how those garments were made, cut or designed. Each person listed the relevant brand for each item – Loro Piana, Zegna, Brioni – without anything about why they thought a particular combination worked, or why they admired the shape of a particular piece.

Second, not one single post impressed with its understated elegance. Each seemed to equate an interest in men’s style with flamboyance. One individual was particularly pleased with his cream suit, cream tie and white shirt. With a white fedora. This is not style, it is caricature. Another finished off his grey jacket and black trousers with a pair of white clown shoes. With their pointed toes they were almost as long as his shins.

Thirdly, most depressingly, and in a way linked to the other two sources of woe, none of them showed any knowledge or indeed any interest in fit. Trousers puddled on shoes. Shirt cuffs hung three or four inches beyond the jacket sleeve. Shoulders bulged out of jackets that were too small. Indeed, several jackets weren’t even done up, which is not a good sign in itself but also prevents anyone seeing whether it fits.

This is linked to the first two points as fit had obviously been sacrificed to brand and exuberance. There were many discussions of shops and over-the-top accessories. But none on cloth or cut.

One gentleman was very proud of his Zegna jacket, which was lovely except that his shoulders were visibly straining against the top of the jacket sleeve. Not just a little, but a lot. It looked like he was wearing a sweater. A polite suggestion from another contributor that his jacket was too small brought the response that “I like my jackets in this style, it’s a personal thing. I think it makes the outfit tighter and sleeker.”

Now, fit is obviously a variable. There are many questions of personal choice, and many variants in style around the world. But the variations are all more subtle than most people think (with the probable exception today of Thom Browne). The difference in silhouette between the Sack, the Drape and the Continental is largely in the waist and the trousers, in small alterations to the length of the jacket or the curve through the chest. No one advocates puddled trousers. No tailor has ever deliberately made jackets so tight that the back strains against its stitching. If you want a tighter suit, this is achieved through darts and a sleeker chest; perhaps through less shoulder padding or a shorter jacket. Material does not strain on purpose, because it is uncomfortable and because it is inelegant.

Fit is more important than anything else. If I have realised one thing about menswear in past five years, it is that. Clothes can be cheap, they can be threadbare and they can be hideously patterned. But the man wearing them will always look better than his contemporary if they fit him well, and his contemporary’s do not.

Of course, this tenet is debateable at its extremes. But rules are always so – they are simple in order to be easy to remember and easy to bend. I believe that fit is more important than anything else, and this is the first advice I would give to any style novice.

While there are few websites that display photographs of their authors wearing well-fitting clothes, they seem to be vastly outnumbered. Hopefully, there is a forum out there on fit that I am yet to discover.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment

The Loci of Style Satisfaction

There are few things more satisfying than raising your arm to read the time, and being presented with a perfect triplet of complimentary colours: on your jacket sleeve, on the inch or so of cuff, and on the watch strap. Today that is tan (a houndstooth linen jacket), sky blue (a cotton shirt) and dark brown (leather watch strap). That triplet sums up my outfit for the day; it is its locus.

There are two other obvious loci on the body, which sum up an outfit. The first and most direct is that contained within the gorge of a jacket – the triplet of shirt, tie and lapel. This gets the greatest attention when dressing, and deservedly so. That combination of colours and textures is the first thing that hits people. To distort (and I suppose contradict) an old phrase, it walks into a room almost before the man wearing it.

It is worth spending the time getting that combination correct. But it is unfortunately the area of your outfit you are likely to see least. Unless you spend a large proportion of the day looking into mirrors and shop windows, you are unlikely to be struck pleasantly by how that combination works together.

As such, the wrist is a much more satisfying locus. It strikes you as you glance at the time, as you stretch for the computer keyboard, as you reach out to shake a colleague’s hand. It reminds you of how well your outfit goes together and, perhaps more importantly, of how well your clothes fit. The length of jacket and shirt sleeves have to be exact to get that pleasant combination in all its harmony.

The other, less direct but no less satisfying combination is the trouser/sock/shoe triplet. This mainly reveals itself when you cross your legs, and is therefore probably displayed less often than the wrist. But there is something very pleasing about seeing your grey flannel trousers complemented by dark brown leather brogues and pumpkin-coloured socks. And even without the flare of a tie, or cufflinks, its harmonies are both pleasing and reassuring, akin to catching a fleeting scent of your aftershave.

The last, possible locus is that containing belt, shirt, trousers and tip of tie. While this does sum up an outfit it its harmonious combination, it displays itself rarely to you (given location on the body) and almost as rarely to others (presuming your jacket is buttoned when standing). Plus, you won’t necessarily be wearing a belt everyday, certainly not with more formal outfits and suits.

The style loci have this to teach us: appreciate them, for they are your reward for an outfit well bought and well assembled. And if they do not work, let it irritate you to the point where you have your clothes altered or think more carefully about your combination the next time.

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment

The Menswear Poll

This poll is intended to take the temperature of menswear at a particularly interesting time for the industry, with a resurgent interest in more formal attire and explosion of debate and discussion online. Thank you for taking the time to fill it in. I will be fascinated to see the results.

Many assert that style goes in phases, with daywear or office wear being relegated over time to semi-formal wear, and semi-formal to formal. Tails, for example, have fallen through all three stages, and the lounge suit has gone from casual wear to smart office wear today…

Bookmark, Share or Email this article   •  Leave a Comment