there has been a growing trend to wear dark worsteds suits (navy or grey suits made from a fine, smooth dressy wool) with a dress shirt and no tie. and it looks so bad. 🧵
everyone who does this thinks they look like george clooney or tom ford. or they're cool and relatable and just a casual sort of dude. they project neither of those things. they just look like every downtown schlub who hates wearing a suit but bitterly does so bc they have to.
the thing is that there are many types of suits. if you want to dress down the suit, make it look intentional. choose a casual suit in a non-business color (e.g., brown, olive) and material (e.g., cotton, linen).
or go with a sport coat, which is inherently more dressed down than a business suit
instead of choosing a bright white dress shirt with a semi-spread collar (very business-y), choose a more casual option, such as an oxford cloth button-down, long-sleeve polo, or some kind of sweater (e.g., turtleneck or crewneck)
in this way, you are making everything casual. you are not just wearing a business outfit but without a tie—the laziest way you can try to "dress down" a suit. a business suit without a tie is like the night sky without stars. the chest area looks empty. the outfit looks sad.
if you're wearing a business suit, put on a tie. if you are trying to communicate something a little more casual and relaxed, then make everything relaxed. do a casual suit. or ditch tailoring and dress casual. make the outfit coherent so it doesn't look like you hate ur suit job
going to be blunt: a good way to dress better is to ask yourself, "does this look like the sort of thing a finance MD would wear?" dress sneakers, dark suit without a tie, fleece vest with dress shirt, business casual, etc. all these things are bad
i know some people are going to be like, "i work in a casual office and can't wear a tie." very reasonable! then just don't wear a dark business suit. many ways to do business casual that's not fleece vest, slacks + dress shirt, or dark suit with no tie
It's true that progressives valorize "ugliness." But I think this person doesn't interrogate this position enough and thus lands at the wrong conclusion.
Let me give you a new perspective on ugliness. 🧵
In popular discourse, the world was once good, people were virtuous, and all things were beautiful. Then modernity came along and destroyed everything. In this view, beauty is an objective standard that has been corrupted by liberalism.
I contend that beauty in personal appearance is subjective, not objective. In fact, its standards rest on the shifting tectonic plates of politics, economics, and technology. Let me give you examples.
Today, we think of these photos as the standard for male beauty and dress:
Earlier this week, I asked which tie knot you think looks better. Of course, you can wear whichever you like. But here's the social history behind both knots and why some people consider one better than the other. 🧵
In the mid-19th century, as ready-to-wear tailoring started to take form, people got around in horse-drawn carriages. After all, the car had not yet been invented. During this time, some formed driving clubs, where they rode drags.
Check out the text in this lithograph:
The term "drag" refers to the carriage you see above, which was a sporting vehicle that was lighter than the more robust stagecoach. Men in driving clubs raced drags. Hence the term "drag race" first appearing in an 1863 issue of Racing Times.
People keep asking me to do a thread breaking down why these suits don't look great. I gather that these are famous, very well accomplished F1 drivers (I don't know these people). Since I only talk about famous people, I will do a thread. 🧵
Please note nothing in this thread is meant to diminish the men in these clothes. If anything, it's the people who dressed them that failed them. I am only talking about the clothes. Hopefully, by pointing out these issues, you will learn something for when you're shopping.
A pinstripe suit with a white business shirt cries out for tie. If you don't want to wear a tie, then you need a more casual shirt or a more casual suit. Additionally, the shoes are too chunky for this outfit.
The US Army celebrated its 250th year today with a massive parade in Washington, DC. It appears @ComfortablySmug believes that this is an appropriate tie for the occasion.
It's once again worth reminding that men's dress used to be governed by time, place, and occasion (TPO). If you were of a certain social station and had to do a certain thing, you were expected to wear a certain outfit.
This tradition can be seen in men's neckwear.
In Britain, where we derive most of our traditions for classic men's dress, the term "regimental stripe" refers to neckwear with diagonal lines, like you see below. These were not purely about decoration. Each design symbolized belonging to some organization.
This is the suit in question. It's a bespoke suit by Anderson & Sheppard in London. The cloth is a 60/40 mohair-wool blend from Standeven's "Carnival" book. The stylist was George Cortina.
To understand why this suit is interesting, you have to know a bit about tailoring history
In the early 20th century, Dutch-English tailor Frederick Scholte noticed that a man could be made to look more athletic if he belted up his guard's coat, puffing out the chest and nipping the waist. So he built this idea into his patterns. Thus the "drape cut" war born.
In 1881, Hans Wilsdorf was born in Bavaria, then part of Germany, to parents who died not long after he was born. At a young age, Wilsdorf set off into the world. He landed in England in 1903, which at the time had virtually no formal immigration controls.
Lucky for him. Two years later, fear of poor Eastern European Jews flooding the UK led to 1905 Aliens Act, which moved the country from an open-door policy to one of stricter control. This was the first British law that labeled certain migrants as "undesirable."