But The British Are No Better…

At the beginning of June I wrote an across-the-pond view of North American wedding wear customs. I wrote of the ‘contradiction’ of the wedding couple’s attire, and how ‘inappropriate’ it was to wear evening clothing to morning and afternoon ceremonies.

My thoughts appeared to resonate with some of the readers: one remarked that the clothing choice was partly to do with the ‘utilitarian’ theory; that a wedding requires a ‘dressed up’ choice and black tie = dressed up. Another commented that the origins of the American nation (“We are almost all descended from the European lower class”) are partly to blame.

I have thought that, on reflection, I have been a little bit rough on this point. I do not retract my view that black tie at daytime weddings looks wrong to me but I do feel that one who resides in a glass house should not throw such stones. As immaculate and appropriate as some are attired in the UK for a wedding, a huge number of the ceremonies and receptions that take place in churches and marquees, between Land’s End and John o’Groats, are a far cry from the image of sartorial perfection that this nation often likes to portray.

The average British wedding is utterly depressing. The people are generally wonderful but the ghastly clothing that the seemingly uncaring grooms’ parties choose to don is astonishingly awful. Why is this? For what possible reason could a nation of such history in cut and cloth be clothed in such cardboard-waistcoats, synthetic tailcoats, vomit-inducing matching cravats and, usually, inappropriate accessories and footwear? Wedding hire. The sad fact of the matter is, most people rent their wedding clothing and while this is perfectly acceptable, and by no means a modern practice, it does mean that for one of the most formal occasions in your life, a major turning point and a new beginning, you’ll be wearing the most generic of the generic; a suit made for a market, not for a man.

How many times has the wedding-going Brit seen that lilac, burgundy or golden cravat? That matching brocade waistcoat or those overly long trousers with one too many breaks? I for one have seen these things too often. It’s hardly surprising, given Moss Bros. market dominance, that on wedding days churchyards and chapels up and down the country are littered with their coats, trousers, waistcoats and accessories.

However it is not just ubiquity which I find rather distasteful. My biggest gripe with this practice is that the aesthetics are entirely off. The jackets are not only made for someone in your chest size category but usually for men of varying heights, arm sizes and shoulder width. Even on the photogenic models in the catalogue, on whom a mankini would look partially flattering, they look utterly rigid and shapeless.

The ‘cardboard’ waistcoats are exactly that; as stiff as a board. The pattern is almost always a woven paisley or brocade – something akin to grandmother’s bedroom curtains – and the sheen is breathtakingly vulgar. The cravat, now so hackneyed, is no daub of elegance but a blob of tack that looks more like a used napkin. A pocket square that matches the cravat and the waistcoat in colour and texture sits in a contrived, starched fashion in the breast pocket. The worst thing about such a common combination? Better options are available at the renters. Although there is great variety available, it seems that most wedding parties in Great Britain end up choosing the same damn thing.

If I were advising a groom and his party on attire I would instruct him to hire one of the classic (non-Edwardian) cutaway morning coats, if he does not wish to purchase his own, and nothing else. He should always purchase his own trousers (cut to his length), his own waistcoat – single or double breasted – and his own tie or Ascot (which doesn’t have to be plain) and pocket square.

The waistcoat should not be of a high break or have any woven pattern. Dove grey is the most classic and masculine choice. The groom should also differ slightly from others in his party; a different tie, pocket square or colour of waistcoat would make him stand out from the rest. Finally, it is likely that he and his party possess better shirts in their own wardrobes than the wing-collared things they try and foist at the renters; always a turn down collar for ties and always a wing collar for Ascots.

Leave a Comment

Are You Going Out In That

I am often asked this question; “What do you wear when you go out?”

Why am I asked such a question? Chiefly, because my particular inclinations (bow ties, paisley pocket squares and fuss) do not seem to marry with the idea of what that particular person considers ‘going out’ clothing. ‘Going out’ is unambiguous code for late night bar-hopping, clubbing, guest list queues and almost any activity past 6 in the evening that involves the purchase and consumption of alcohol and the ‘musical’ assailing of the ears.

For women, ‘going out’ is frankly ceremonial. Hours before departure, dresses are trialled with necklaces, shoes, bags, bracelets and boleros. Make-up is invariably applied, hair remarkably coiffed, skin moisturised and nails shining. Men make no such effort. In fact, men often make no distinction between day wear and evening wear at all. This is largely because the line between the two has blurred considerably, but also because eveningwear used to be so easy for the poor, uninterested male. All he needed was a few white evening shirts, a black bow tie and a dinner suit. He never cultivated alternatives or variations as women did. As stiff and as formal as it sounds, black tie was perfect for the man who didn’t care.

These days, he has the misfortune of choice. The most common dilemma is ‘Which clean shirt shall I wear?’ followed by ‘Which jeans match smell the best?’ For the shirt, usually untucked, worn with jeans is by far the most common ‘going out’ ensemble for men in my neck of the woods. I cannot stand it. It lacks invention. It lacks presence. Although, I admit, it is rather perfect for the environments in which it is often seen – dark, cramped, sweaty clubs that remind me more of a musical Tube ride at rush hour than an MTV video set.

Although I would always encourage a gentleman to wear the clothing he feels most comfortable in, even if this be tweed n’ cords, I always adjust my signature a little when I venture out for a ‘hit’ of nightlife. I tend to tone down; bright clashes of colour that work well in the sunlight have little effect in the gloom of a club. Also, I tend to work with more monochromatic colours – greys, white, black, navy blue – and stay away from brown. Colour and flourish added can be rather simple. Ties, if I wear them, tend to be simpler and stronger in contrast if patterned. If I go without a tie, I invariably add a silk pocket square. Silhouette is always important but at night it is particularly pertinent as less detail is on display; ergo, trousers should be flatteringly slim and jackets short.

I also think playing with texture is more important than playing with colour subtleties; the odd patent belt, velvet jacket or slub-silk trouser adds depth. The best thing is, ‘going out’ clothing is far easier for the male to achieve as so much of it can be borrowed from what is considered to be his ‘work wardrobe.’ For that ease of transition, the male is envied.

Leave a Comment

Style Movie: Coco Avant Chanel

One of the most interesting things about ‘Coco Avant Chanel’ was that for all its triumphant, feminist messages about suffragette-era women, succeeding ‘in a man’s world’, and rejection of conformity (including the institution of marriage), it actually paid peculiar, and not necessarily intentional, homage to the man.

Certainly, the ‘beast’ was duly embarrassed; boorish aristocrats proved to be no match for the cutting wit of little Coco, very well played by Audrey Tatou, who flicked her French fingers facetiously, clucked disapprovingly and smoked incessantly whilst the men surrounding her somehow succumbed to her interesting beauty and evident charm. She practically devoured Balsan, the boozy beast in the castle, and though she was certainly ‘targeted’ by the love interest, Arthur ‘Boy’ Capel, you couldn’t help but conclude it was she who had fired the arrow.

However, the reason the film was made was not because Chanel was simply another story of a determined woman who had battled sexism and prejudice before feminism had been invented, but because she was a fashion designer. The message of the film was valid but I was far more interested in what had possessed this sometime milliner, what had influenced her in achieving not, as some have concluded, merely parity with men but a style of such simplicity and grace that it completely changed the way males and females perceive dress.

The irony of the film is that Chanel inadvertently credits the timelessness and refined simplicity of Edwardian male style. It’s obvious that she isn’t wearing trousers, boaters, shirts and jackets simply because she is rebelling but because they appeal to her. And, of course, though men are blamed by Chanel for imprisoning women in the over-elaborate dresses of the early 20th century, she also admires them for the way they wear their own clothing. She copies them, borrows from them and not only finds inspiration in them but also genuine friendship; it’s very odd that so many have written it up as a battling, feminist tour de force.

To view her adaption of male clothing, pyjamas and rejection of frilly fuss as merely bog-standard, feminist nose-thumbing is to miss the point; Coco Chanel was an aesthete who happened to respect male clothing more than female clothing and it was clear she had not merely made a self-conscious decision to reject male oppression. Some of her comments about corsets and skin-exposure did have resonance of suffragette grievances but largely, her adjustment of female clothing seemed to have a lot more to do with her distaste for overcooked fashions.

Beautifully presented, Anne Fontaine’s film has plenty of examples of majestic menswear; glorious white tie, country tweeds and pre-war pinstripes. As much as it is a toast to one of the most influential personages in fashion, and one of the most famous women of the twentieth century, it is also a nod to Chanel’s famous line; “Fashion fades; only style remains the same.”

Leave a Comment

Autumn Tactics

Readers south of the equator will have to excuse the ‘timing’ of this article; it is biased. Even readers north of the equator might consider it a little premature. After all, we are yet to see the end of summer; the yachts are still bobbing, the barbecues still smoking, and yet I am already writing of the autumn. However, I believe in preparation. Although it might be a little depressing to flick through the new season’s wools and cashmere the sooner it is confronted, the sooner the shock will pass. Some time needs to be given to wardrobe changes, additions and subtractions need to be made, and in some cases, our rib n’ burger fatted bodies will need a re-evaluation with the tape measure.

I have compiled a list of four items I have considered - paying a little attention to the upcoming trends, much more attention to the overall aesthetic - as good investments for the coming season.

The suit: Three Piece Suit

While I am definitely a fan of odd waistcoats, nothing quite beats the majesty and impact of a waistcoat worn as part of a suit. Enough has been written of the flattering effect of waistcoats, and of the practical, but the thing that should be reiterated is that a three piece suit will upgrade almost anything you wear with it; it makes one look ‘tailored’ and refreshingly ‘buttoned-up’ in an increasingly casual world. It is important to remember to break up the fabric monotony with a pocket square and the more eccentric may wish to add a rather dandy silver-chained pocket-watch although you should remember not to wear a wristwatch when you do so.

The occasion: The Velvet Jacket

Evening jackets are very different to day jackets. And as the days turn darker, there’s even more of a division. Texture is a useful quality when we begin to layer our clothing a little more and velvet is the perfect foil for dreary grey evenings. Even with a plain shirt and trousers, the VJ will make you look like you have made a decent effort for that after-work cocktail party. Look out for the rakish shawl collared versions that are slowly appearing in the shops. Traditionally made in burgundy, deep blue or black, the VJ can easily be worn with denim.

The everyday: The Corduroy Jacket

If you think wearing a tweed jacket shouts ‘I know stats!’ you might wish to opt for a corduroy jacket. Both are perfect for the bookish, Ivy Leaguey autumn casual looks but corduroy is definitely the ‘younger’ jacket. When it begins to look battered, like a Barbour, it simply looks better. The matt texture allows for great contrasting with, for example, a paisley bow tie or a silk polka dot pocket square. It’s a robust old thing so it will be hard-wearing as well as warm. Dark brown is common, if not a little boring. Try navy blue, mustard or slate grey.

The versatile shoe: The Monkstrap

I love my lace up Oxfords but my ‘friend’ shoes – the ones I always rely on at times of indecision – are generally slip-ons. The monkstrap is not officially a slip-on but the more it gets used, the more likely it is that the strap will remain fastened when the shoe horn is put into action. My uncle has a battered pair of Church’s monkstraps that, he claims, haven’t been unfastened in 10 years. However, these shoes are of interest to more than the purely lazy – they have a character that makes them ‘jump out’ like no lace up; a shiny buckle will attract admiring glances. My particular favourite is the double monkstrap – of which I own a lovely Bordeaux pair; as fabulous with cords and jeans as cashmere and tweed.

Leave a Comment

What About Swimwear?

It is always interesting to see how far the man of style will go with his particular emphasis on and awareness of the importance of dress. What event or circumstance would limit such a man? Would he be put off when potholing? Chastened by cliffwalking? Or indeed, would he adjust his standards for even the most minor, everyday pursuit. I know of men of elegance, boulevardiers of style, whose self-taught panache seems to disappear when sporting activity is on the cards. The lesson, according to the arbiters of apathy, is that the sporting arena is about performance and not appearance. Whilst that may be true, it is never pleasant to contradict your code. I recently had to wear a pair of quite hideous Nike swimming shorts, as I had not travelled with a pair myself, and spent most of the time wading in the water, attempting to conceal their arresting-yet-tasteless luminosity.

Swimwear is generally a forgotten area in the stylish gentleman’s wardrobe. Whether this is a resignation, an acceptance of the paucity of stylish swimwear or rather a rebellion – a shedding of formality and ‘seriousness’, an opportunity to play the clown – I know not. However, I do know that it is possible to purchase a decent collection of swimming shorts that will not compromise the style of a gentleman; he can stand proud at the edge of the diving board, not cowed in the safety of the palm-shaded shallow-end.

Firstly, you will note that I stated the decent collection being composed of ‘shorts’ – avoiding trunks and thongs. For most men are rather modest in nature and are more likely to look for comfort and practicality in swimwear; tight fitting trunks may look fantastic on splendidly built gentlemen but they are made for speed in the water and not comfort on the beach. We need pockets – for currency to buy an ice cream, for the buzzing Blackberry, to carry the yacht keys – and there is nothing so revolting as a hotel guest who swings by the pool bar for a bite wearing a pair of Speedo’s finest nutcrushers.

The second thing to consider is size. Many men, of otherwise good style sense, wear swimshorts that defy the definition of the word ‘short’; the longer Bermuda style are in my opinion for spiky, spotty teenagers only. They remind me of the pirate pantaloon that made the often attractive male leg entirely shapeless. This is an important consideration. Women, and indeed some other men, can find a male leg very appealing. It is strong and has better definition than the female leg – which is why companies like Aristoc use male legs in their photography – and the more of it on display, the better. Longer shorts will make you appear shorter, and juvenile. The perma-bronzed surf-mad beefcake McConaughey tends to cover his powerful thighs with clown-like shorts – making his entire body look top-heavy, when it is anything but. If he were to wear proper swim shorts, the surf fraternity may laugh at him, but he would look far better; the balance would be much improved.

The second consideration is an important one; colour and pattern. Ironically, the men’s swimwear market is dominated by bright colours and floral patterns whereas the women’s swimwear market exhibits remarkable restraint. Hawaii-ism is rife in pattern choice with manufacturers like Vilebrequin (VILEbrequin an acquaintance once quipped) offering a glutton of petal and palm. Although it would certainly be fun to possess a pair of swimshorts covered in martini glasses, I’d never build a collection of such extravagance. Patterns are fine, but the majority of the collection should be composed of plainer models. Navy and mid blues are a good starting point as they will suit all skin tones and look richer in sunlight than black. Lighter colours such as lemony yellow look splendid with tans and richer colours like Ferrari red have great impact. Stripes are also a good idea as they recall some of the nautical notes of earlier eras of swimwear – I once saw a French gentleman in Crete wearing the most perfect Tricolore stripes. Logos, unfortunately, are hard to avoid but logically, the smaller the better.

Leave a Comment