The Rules and How to Break Them. No.2

Rule 2. Do not wear brown in town

It’s worth repeating my maxim from the first instalment in this series: “Rules are there for a reason, but there is nothing wrong with breaking them. These statements are not contradictory. Once you understand the rules, you can work out how to break them effectively.”

So, why does the rule ‘no brown in town’ exist? Because brown was the colour that a gentleman working in the city wore when he returned home, or on the weekend. During the week he wore black, blue or grey, all in suitably dark tones. Brown was the colour of the country, of tweed and felt hats; of shoes more than anything.

The colours of hats and shoes demonstrate this rule most effectively.

Shoes show how English the rule is. For decades other countries have worn shoes other than black for business without any implied lack of decency or formality. The Italians wore little other than brown, the French (though fairly conservative themselves) strayed into other colours, and the Americans developed a fondness for oxblood – as well as a love of brown in some areas.

But for the English, business meant black. They were therefore free to characterise anyone in brown shoes as off-duty, casual, and come up with a rhyming code like ‘no brown in town’ to remind anyone who was tempted to stray.

Hats show how practical the rule still is. Even today, most lovers of hats would say they do not wear a brown hat for business, sticking to blue and grey. In this slightly antiquated item of dress, therefore, the rule continues to be relevant, reminding people that they should treat business with the dignity it deserves (as the Austin Reed maxim goes).

However, the most important thing to realise about this rule is that it is out of date. Brown shoes, suits or jackets are no longer forbidden for business in England, or anywhere else. It is the spirit of the rule that is still relevant – wear business attire for business. In any office there will be items that would be considered unprofessional to wear. For some, that would be trainers, or jeans. In my office, unfortunately, the only thing that would probably be unacceptable would be shorts.

That is what the rule means, and understanding it allows you to break it intelligently. Wear brown, but make sure your attire is always and everywhere appropriate to the work you are doing.

Leave a Comment

I Want to Browse Your Brand

One wise old editor at my company is sceptical about websites. Whenever he gets into a discussion about redesigning, upgrading or reformulating a magazine’s site, he always asks “do you really want a website?” This is, of course, a rhetorical question; it does not expect a response. It is therefore quickly followed by a similar question: “Why do you want a website?”

If the first question befuddles the colleague he is addressing, the second stops them dead. For the first answer seems obvious; the second has never really occurred to them.

Few magazine editors ask themselves why they want or need a website. And this leads to muddled approach when they put their magazine online. Fashion brands are no different.

Most brands’ websites will tell you where their shops are, how to contact them and give you a flavour of the collections. But often the collections are merely represented through advertising campaigns – which can be obscure to say the least. Kilgour is a good example: beautiful, shadowy images, but little clue as to what the clothes look like. An online shopping element has been added recently, but this is just accessories.

Some brands happily display their wares, attractively photographer, but stop there. Many of the classic shoemakers do this. Edward Green, for example, will take you through a small number of shoe models. But there is little beyond a short biography to give you a sense of what Edward Green is or what it stands for.

You may argue that this suits Edward Green – simple, modest. But even a display of the major lasts, or of the elements of shoe quality, would help (both of which you have been able to get at various times as leaflets in the shop). And luxury brands suffer from the same problem – Dunhill.com is dull, pedestrian, communicating nothing of its rich history and philosophy to those shoppers who are not within easy reach of a store.

The fact is, a modern brand’s website needs both these things – stock and philosophy. Just like in a store, I need to be able to see the merchandise easily, attractively, and get a sense of the brand. The designers of luxury goods stores spend a lot of money making sure the décor, the staff, the mannequins and everything else in a shop tells the customer what this brand is, what it stands for.

Because they are just brands. More and more today these companies are simply brands that one associates with a package of images, ideas and aspirations. To make them unique, to make sure people know the difference between Canali and Corneliani, to make sure they know why John Lobb shoes cost so much more than Gucci, to make sure no one thinks Sartoriani is a Savile Row tailor, each one has to differentiate in every way they can. And websites are one of the most important ways to do this – particularly today, when brands want to reach out to consumers scattered across the world.

You need to be able to browse a website, like you do a shop. Gucci is quite good, with videos and runway shows. But Hermes is the best in my opinion. Go to Hermes.com and click on the on-line boutique to brose products, or travel the world of Hermes to browse the brand. It makes Hermes seem unique, playful, luxurious. All brands need a site like this you can browse.

Leave a Comment

Problem Solved: Sweaters with Ties

Ok, here’s the problem. I like ties. Such is their ability to add an exciting dash of colour to an outfit, I prefer to wear one whenever possible. Yet sweaters have their advantages as well, and the two are hard to wear together.

Let me explain. If you wear a V-neck sweater with a shirt and tie, the back of the shirt’s collar is pulled forward, hugging the neck as its top button is fastened. The collar is at least an inch higher and probably half an inch closer to the neck that when that button is undone.

No V-neck sweater can cope adequately with both situations. Either it is bunched when your collar is undone, or (as is nearly always the case today) the sweater stands away from the collar when it is done up. So when you wear a sweater, shirt and tie, there is likely to be a gap, however slight, however variable, between your shirt collar and sweater at the back.

Some sweaters attempt to deal with this problem by adding a strip of felt to the inside of the back at the neck. Reiss often does this, even taking the effort to add a felt strip in a complementary colour. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really keep the sweater in place – rather like the rubber tabs that some tailors include in the inside of a trouser waistband.

Of course, a waistcoat wouldn’t have this problem, being both stiffer and tailored to fit a fastened collar. But that’s a different bias and a different argument.

If it’s sweaters you want, the key is a sweater with a collar. There are broadly three options (as illustrated by the three Ralph Lauren pictures opposite): the folded, shirt collar; the shawl collar; and the zip collar. I personally prefer the shirt collar, followed by the shawl. But this is largely a personal antipathy towards zipped sweaters born of some shoddy Gap varieties worn in my youth.

These collars solve the shirt/tie problem because they all have a greater rise at the back of the neck, avoiding any chance of a disconnection with the shirt.

I advocate the Ralph Lauren merino wool collared sweaters, which have only just been reintroduced for the fall/winter line this year. I bought one in a dark grey last year and found it so versatile and such good value that I looked for more. Unfortunately, they are not considered spring/summer items and so were put away until this month.

The other, secondary advantage of this look is that you can get away with some bold short/tie combinations, given that they only have a narrow triangle of wool to play in.

I quite liked the combination of a pink gingham shirt under a bright green tie (with red crests). It fizzed around the neck without any danger of overwhelming the outfit, thanks to the sombre grey surrounding it. A Paul Smith shirt decorated with small blue flowers also benefited from this limited exposure. Equally, one noticeable thing about Etro catwalk outfits is that many shirt/tie combinations look great under a sweater, but would look ridiculous worn on their own.

Leave a Comment

The Rules and How to Break Them. No.1

Rule 1: Your trousers should fall so that there is one clean break at the front, and none at the back.

Rules are there for a reason, but there is nothing wrong with breaking them. These statements are not contradictory. That is one of the most important things to understand about the traditions of menswear.

All rules are there for a reason. They are useful rules of thumb that become formalised over time. And they become formalised because they have practical advantages that encourage men to apply them regularly.

So why is the generally recommended length for men’s trousers? Because it creates a clean line at the back of the trouser, adding to the lengthening silhouette that is the suit’s main aesthetic advantage. Because when a man is walking it looks more elegant if his suit trousers flap less and expose less of his ankle.

If the trouser were longer, it would create a puddle of folds that could ruin the silhouette of a suit, dragging the eye down and making a man look shorter. If the trouser were shorter, it would flap around the ankle and remove any elegance – probably reminding the viewer of a schoolboy in short pants.

That’s why the rule, or guideline, exists. But once you know this, there is nothing wrong with breaking it. Knowing why the rule is there helps you break it well.

For example, men on the European continent tend to wear their trousers shorter than is recommended here. They do that because they wish to expose their footwear, and perhaps their socks, to more inspection. Both are more a part of their outfit than for a English or American man. To quote one famous Italian “I don’t necessarily want people to see my socks, but I want to make sure they can see my shoes.”

Now, if men on the continent simply wore their trousers shorter, they would encounter the aforementioned problem with flapping. But they aware of the rules and why they exist. So they wear their trousers narrower as well, fitting them closer to the ankle and minimising any flapping. Hey presto: the shoe is on display, the silhouette is intact, but it is still possible to walk with elegance.

Once you know why the rules are there, you can work out how to break them effectively.

Leave a Comment

Step-by-Step: The Odd Waistcoat and Kilgour

Picking out and wearing an odd waistcoat with a suit needs a little more explication.

The previous post on this topic produced some surprise and scepticism, both among friends and on my blog (Permanent Style). The reaction, I find, is similar to that enjoyed by a suggestion on ties with jeans. Both are looks I favour because they add a twist to classic style (to paraphrase Paul Smith); they demonstrate an understanding of men’s style without sticking to a rigid set of rules.

They are, however, both hard to pull off. As was pointed out, they are not for the uninitiated, as small things – the weight of the waistcoat, the material of the tie – turn them from personal style into cringe worthy quirk.

The key to wearing a tie with jeans is material, as explained in comments to that post. The more casual the material, the better – wool, cotton, linen, in that order; but never silk unless it is knitted (and even then it is perhaps a little too dressy). Proportion, also, is important, with the narrower and more lightweight the tie the less formal it appears.

The waistcoat is similar. One reader commented that an odd waistcoat with a suit is “just odd, dandified in the extreme.” I can understand this reaction entirely, especially as the odd waistcoat that springs to everyone’s mind is brightly coloured, or at least lightly coloured – such as the buff waistcoats worn to many formal occasions.

But I would argue that if this waistcoat is plain, dark and of a slightly more casual material - flannel works well - it can look very suitable (no pun intended). After all, it is only slightly more dressy than a V-neck sweater underneath a suit, and performs a similar function.

Another reader commented that “I would be careful about using the third piece of a three-piece suit as an odd waistcoat. Especially if it is a stripe.” The waistcoat must, of course, be plain. A striped sweater would be hard to work, but possible. A striped waistcoat would not.

It must also be dark, falling as a shadow to the suit rather than a highlight. Dark grey with a lighter grey, patterned suit, for example (a checked suit works better than a stripe again, I’ve found, probably because the check is inherently more sporty). Black, also, can work well, though perhaps a little funereal. To avoid this, stick with a blue shirt, not white.

As if to prove my point, Kilgour has just come out with a selection of odd waistcoats in black and blue wool with its Autumn/Winter collection. I personally prefer the range without white piping (unlike the item pictured). But the suggestion that the customer might like to wear it with his winter, flannel suit demonstrates how far Kilgour has already run with this idea.

Also, having tried one of these on in the Savile Row store, the great thing about the Kilgour odd waistcoat is that it is cut much longer than the average part of a three-piece suit. This reflects the fact that men tend to wear their trousers on the hips rather than the waist today, yet the waistcoat should leave no exposed shirting between it and the waistband. A perennial problem (see the second part of The Waistcoat Theory for more) has been solved.

Leave a Comment