To answer people's questions in this thread: the reason why belts and shoes should generally match, especially in tailored outfits, is because no single item should be distracting. 🧵
The focus of a tailored outfit should be the V-shaped section formed by the shirt, jacket, and tie. This was as true generations ago as it is today. This area should lead the viewer's eye up to your face, so the focus is on you, not some random thing in your outfit.
This is why it's hard to wear things such as unusually colored shoes or patterned trousers (in the context of tailored clothing). Such items drag the eye downward.
This is also why tan shoes shouldn't be worn with dark suits. They shine out like flashlights from under your trousers. Tan shoes should be kept to light-colored suits and sport coats, or certain summer outfits.
When tan shoes are worn well, the belt should match.
A belt occupies the center of our body, so it can be very conspicuous if it doesn't harmonize with the rest of your outfit.
As a general rule of thumb, the color of your belt should be roughly in the neighborhood of your shoes. That means black with black, mid-brown with mid-brown, light brown with light brown, and so forth.
This is also generally true of casual clothing.
Compare these two outfits. The outfit on the right is more harmonious, so you end up focusing on the person. Eric's outfit combines non-matching shoes and belt (and tan shoes with a dark suit). It feels like he plucked things at random.
Similarly, compare Trump with his sons. Trump's outfit is harmonious. Don Jr is wearing tan shoes with a dark suit, so his feet make him look like Donald Duck. Eric is again looking like he plucked things at random, as there's no harmony between the belt and shoes.
The concept of harmony extends to other things. A dressy outfit calls for a thinner belt (1.25" inches or thinner), often finished with a thin buckle. A workwear outfit calls for wider belt (1.5") finished with a thicker buckle.
Or maybe you have a Westernwear outfit. In which case, you will want a Westernwear belt.
Sometimes, the belt doesn't need to match the shoes, such as when you're wearing sneakers. In that case, go off the other dimensions of the outfit: a casual belt paired with a casual outfit. Or a leather color that picks up some other leather item.
Choosing a belt requires being able to coordinate color, formality, and style. The casual outfit on the left has a wider 1.5" O-ring belt with a Southwestern cardigan, five-pocket pants, and roper boots. Dressy outfit on the right has a thin 1.25" belt. Belt/ shoe colors match.
By coincidence, my friend Mark at The Armoury recently filmed a video on how to choose a good belt (it was filmed on Chinese New Year, so he's wearing a red sport coat). My only quibble is that I think fine dress belts are dressier with stitched edges.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Sometimes I think about the closure of G. Lorenzi, a Milanese gentleman's shop that had been around for almost 100 years until their closure in 2014. The shop was special because it carried so many one-of-a-kind items from artisans — total handmade craft production, not factory.
At the time of their closure, they still carried over 20,000 items of 3,000 models, including speciality knives, picnic sets, and nutcrackers. They had over 100 styles of nail clippers and 300 different hairbrushes alone. Proprietor Aldo Lorenzi scoured the world for artisans.
There's nothing wrong with factory production. But as more of our lives get taken over by machines — including art and writing — this sort of production feels special.
Trailer for "A Knife Life," a documentary about the store by my friend Gianluca Migliarotti, available on Vimeo
I spent 15 yrs on a menswear forum. The longest argument I had was over a tiny detail that can be seen in this photo. For 6 months, I argued with the same five guys non-stop every day. The argument got so heated the forum owner banned one guy for life.
As I've mentioned before, there's a lot of coded language in menswear. Navy suits can be worn with black oxfords because this was the uniform of London businessmen. Brown tweeds go with brogues because these clothes were worn in the country. In this way, we get formal vs. casual.
The same is true for shoes. Tiny details come together to communicate something, much like how words form a sentence. Black is more formal than brown; calfskin more formal than suede or pebble grain; plain design is more formal than broguing. All of this stems from history.
The year is 2024 and you're browsing for a new shirt online. You come across a store selling shirts from Portuguese Flannel. You do your research and find they make quality garments: clean single-needle stitching, flat felled seams, quality fabrics, MOP buttons, classic designs
So you go ahead and purchase one. The shop charges 139 Euros and throws in free shipping. Given the exchange rate in 2024, that means you paid $163.19.
First, let's do an experiment. Here are two relatively similar outfits: a blue shirt with a pair of dark blue jeans.
Which do you like better? Reply to this tweet with your answer. This way, people can see how the majority of people "voted."
If you said the right, then we have the same taste. This is despite the outfit on the left following this exact guide — and the outfit on the right not appearing in the guide at all.
I both agree and disagree that it's subjective. Like with anything, my views on tailoring stems from a "first principle." That principle is that men wore tailored clothing better in the past (specifically the period from about the 1930s through 80s). 🧵
If we agree on this, then there are certain ideas that naturally flow from this principle, partly because men's dress during this period was governed by time, place, and occasion. As stated before, one such idea was city vs country clothing.
Another such idea was resort or evening wear. Or summer vs winter wear. And so forth.
One can carry these ideas forward into today's age without it look like historical cosplay. Just like how we are currently using words to communicate, some from the early 1900s.
Twitter has a character limit, so I assume (intelligent) people will read context and know I'm talking about interior design and fashion, which today are coded as "gay interests" for men. Not painting or architecture, which carry no such stigma.
IMO, it's absolutely true that American Protestants were uniquely against certain forms of ornamentation, including fashion. For instance, the Quakers deliberately shunned adornment and extravagance in dress, stressing the importance of simplicity.
In his book "The Suit," Christopher Breward writes about how Quakers would talk about "troubling lapses into self-fashionableness by wayward members" during meetings. However, the Quakers were small in number and often seen as unusual by their fellow non-Quaker community members