Lots of guys, even Southern gentlemen, struggle with what sort of gifts to get their ladies. Increasingly the standard gift sets and manufactured gifts for the fairer sex seem like trite and passive purchases. Though I won't suggest that you avoid everything new, for those bigger gifts try something vintage. It shows that you put a bit of thought into it, that it's unique, and it puts your own taste on display rather than that of a marketing executive.
If you're from a town with good antique shops, go by and ask the shopkeeper. If there's much "old money" around, then check the estate sales for the best bargains. For those of you who (like me) have no time or neither of the above options I've recently been turned onto Fay Cullen's online store. Take a look at the collection of Art Deco and Edwardian jewelry.
Personally, I'd rather turn up with something with history over some trite, mass-produced junk that happens to come in a little, blue box. (Of course, Tiffany and Co. is great once you pass a certain minimum. Just don't get suckered into a $500 carnival trinket.) Oh, and when buying old diamonds you can frequently get lovely stones that aren't "certified" for much less money. The diamond market is totally fabricated (mostly by DeBeers), and "certification" is nonsense designed to drive up prices on cartel diamonds over old stones. You can still get great diamonds, measured in all the ways in which "certified" diamonds are that predate the DeBeers monopoly and the "blood diamond" conflicts for far less money than new diamonds which might be tainted by both.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Friday, March 14, 2008
Shoe In
Over the past weeks I've been getting an especially large number of comments and questions regarding shoes. What should I buy? Where should I buy it? What goes with a blue/black/purple-and-yellow plaid suit? Etc. This post should answer some of those questions, and it should serve as foundational advice which will provide you a good "starter" shoe collection.
Some years back Esquire ran an article which suggested that every man should have two pairs of black oxfords, one pair of brown oxfords, a pair of loafers, and an optional pair of white bucks. That sounds shockingly like my grandfather's closet, and also shockingly close to my own with a few modifications.
First, a shoe should have a few basic characteristics. It should be leather, shoe, sole, and heel. Not patent leather or plastic, not some form of synthetic animal mimicry, it should be leather. If you want to save all the cattle in the world or require that horses no longer be allowed to die, then buy yourself a pair of patent leather hooker pumps and scurry off. If you want a nice pair of shoes, get leather. Good leather shoes can be taken to be resoled and re-heeled, and often can even be refurbished by the factory. They might cost more up front, but if taken care of they'll last a long time.
Second, men's dress shoes should have a traditional, rounded toe. If you think that you could stack them with mortar to build a house, forget them. Those chunky square toed things with soles as thick as J-Lo are no good. They look like orthopedic fashion crimes.
Now that we've got that out of the way, let's move into brands. For the wealthier shoe buyer, go to Saks. Find a good sales rep, and say that you'd like to try on every basic oxford from a high-end Italian designer. Try the dress boots too, but stay conservative. Buy one in black, one in brown, and one in cordovan. My favorite pair of shoes is a pair of Ferragamo Riace boots. They're cordovan, and I've never had so many compliments on a pair of simple shoes.
If you're not into spending over $500 on a pair of shoes (which you shouldn't be unless you're rich or someone else is paying), then you can do just fine at a lower level. The problem with the $100-$200 range is that there are a lot of good shoes and a lot of crap. Don't get sucked in by the Kenneth Cole ads. He's a great marketer and a mediocre shoemaker. Johnston & Murphy have gone more mid-range and make a good shoe for under $150. Cole Hahn does the same job. That said, my new favorite bargain is Banana Republic. For years their shoes were gorgeous little torture chambers for your feet. Now Clark's makes them, and they're comfortable, stylish, and affordable. Shop around. Different designers make shoes to fit different types of feet, thus a pair of BR oxfords fit me perfectly while Cole Hahn's oxfords always slip a bit at the heel. When you shop, wear a pair of slacks so you can see how they'll look. Some shoes that look great on the rack, or fine with your jeans, just don't look right with your favorite suit, regardless of color.
As far as decor on the shoes go, think thusly: the more seams/holes/etc. visible, the less formal the shoe. A wingtip with elaborate leather work is less formal than a cap-toe oxford, and a cap-toe is less formal than a plain, smooth lace-up. The cut of the leather around the laces is also key. "Balmorals" are "true oxfords" that have entirely closed lacing (i.e. The leather comes completely together.) "Bluchers" make more of an inverted "V" shape. Balmorals are more formal. All of this is, frankly, a little unimportant for most business attire, and most people wouldn't know the difference. To be safe, a cap-toe oxford is usually appropriate for anything shy of black-tie attire, at least in the South. I have two pair of identical BR cap-toe oxfords, one in brown and one in black. They're wardrobe staples.
Every guy needs a pair of slip-ons. Try for simple. I hate tassels and straps and all of that nonsense. Just get a simple, slip-on leather shoe whether it be a loafer or something in a newer style. I suggest a zip-up dress boot of some kind, as well. They're really versatile, working to make a suit cooler and more casual and really dressing up a pair of designer jeans and a blazer. They're not a must, but they're a great add on. Beyond that we arrive at the "white bucks" part of this post. You don't need a pair, but they can be cool by virtue of their anachronistic nature, especially if you wear light linen or seersucker suits. I wear something of a variant on these. I've got a pair of Steve Madden fashion sneakers that really work with those types of outfits. They probably get worn five times a year, and I'm sure they'll be dated by this summer, but they're fun.
All-in-all, quality is what matters here. Having flashy shoes is fine for dandyish types, but the skill involved in putting alligator skin cowboy boots together with a slacks and jacket combo is beyond the scope of this post. Get the above mentioned basics in your closet to cover the basic needs of a man's wardrobe, then ask about shoes just for Argentine tango.
Some years back Esquire ran an article which suggested that every man should have two pairs of black oxfords, one pair of brown oxfords, a pair of loafers, and an optional pair of white bucks. That sounds shockingly like my grandfather's closet, and also shockingly close to my own with a few modifications.
First, a shoe should have a few basic characteristics. It should be leather, shoe, sole, and heel. Not patent leather or plastic, not some form of synthetic animal mimicry, it should be leather. If you want to save all the cattle in the world or require that horses no longer be allowed to die, then buy yourself a pair of patent leather hooker pumps and scurry off. If you want a nice pair of shoes, get leather. Good leather shoes can be taken to be resoled and re-heeled, and often can even be refurbished by the factory. They might cost more up front, but if taken care of they'll last a long time.
Second, men's dress shoes should have a traditional, rounded toe. If you think that you could stack them with mortar to build a house, forget them. Those chunky square toed things with soles as thick as J-Lo are no good. They look like orthopedic fashion crimes.
Now that we've got that out of the way, let's move into brands. For the wealthier shoe buyer, go to Saks. Find a good sales rep, and say that you'd like to try on every basic oxford from a high-end Italian designer. Try the dress boots too, but stay conservative. Buy one in black, one in brown, and one in cordovan. My favorite pair of shoes is a pair of Ferragamo Riace boots. They're cordovan, and I've never had so many compliments on a pair of simple shoes.
If you're not into spending over $500 on a pair of shoes (which you shouldn't be unless you're rich or someone else is paying), then you can do just fine at a lower level. The problem with the $100-$200 range is that there are a lot of good shoes and a lot of crap. Don't get sucked in by the Kenneth Cole ads. He's a great marketer and a mediocre shoemaker. Johnston & Murphy have gone more mid-range and make a good shoe for under $150. Cole Hahn does the same job. That said, my new favorite bargain is Banana Republic. For years their shoes were gorgeous little torture chambers for your feet. Now Clark's makes them, and they're comfortable, stylish, and affordable. Shop around. Different designers make shoes to fit different types of feet, thus a pair of BR oxfords fit me perfectly while Cole Hahn's oxfords always slip a bit at the heel. When you shop, wear a pair of slacks so you can see how they'll look. Some shoes that look great on the rack, or fine with your jeans, just don't look right with your favorite suit, regardless of color.
As far as decor on the shoes go, think thusly: the more seams/holes/etc. visible, the less formal the shoe. A wingtip with elaborate leather work is less formal than a cap-toe oxford, and a cap-toe is less formal than a plain, smooth lace-up. The cut of the leather around the laces is also key. "Balmorals" are "true oxfords" that have entirely closed lacing (i.e. The leather comes completely together.) "Bluchers" make more of an inverted "V" shape. Balmorals are more formal. All of this is, frankly, a little unimportant for most business attire, and most people wouldn't know the difference. To be safe, a cap-toe oxford is usually appropriate for anything shy of black-tie attire, at least in the South. I have two pair of identical BR cap-toe oxfords, one in brown and one in black. They're wardrobe staples.
Every guy needs a pair of slip-ons. Try for simple. I hate tassels and straps and all of that nonsense. Just get a simple, slip-on leather shoe whether it be a loafer or something in a newer style. I suggest a zip-up dress boot of some kind, as well. They're really versatile, working to make a suit cooler and more casual and really dressing up a pair of designer jeans and a blazer. They're not a must, but they're a great add on. Beyond that we arrive at the "white bucks" part of this post. You don't need a pair, but they can be cool by virtue of their anachronistic nature, especially if you wear light linen or seersucker suits. I wear something of a variant on these. I've got a pair of Steve Madden fashion sneakers that really work with those types of outfits. They probably get worn five times a year, and I'm sure they'll be dated by this summer, but they're fun.
All-in-all, quality is what matters here. Having flashy shoes is fine for dandyish types, but the skill involved in putting alligator skin cowboy boots together with a slacks and jacket combo is beyond the scope of this post. Get the above mentioned basics in your closet to cover the basic needs of a man's wardrobe, then ask about shoes just for Argentine tango.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
To Be or Knot to Be.
Ties. Everybody has opinions about them. Wide or skinny? Big knot or minuscule? Should I wear one, or should I go with a gold medallion amid a blanket of fur? First, except for that last question, there is no right answer. The pendulum swings back and forth on these issues, and the Southern Gent is about classic styles, not here-today-gone-tomorrow trends. But here are some things to consider when answering these questions for yourself. Starting with the two obvious questions:Width
To hear GQ tell it a skinny tie is the only tie. They're wrong. It's the only tie to wear if you're going for that Italian-gangster-meets-Thai-lady-boy look that they push so hard. Skinny ties tend to look a little less aggressive and a little sleeker. Thomas Pink makes some lovely ties that taper well. Tapering is half the secret here. You don't want a tie that goes from narrow point at the knot directly to a 4 inch spread. For a chic look, try Prada, Ferrogamo, or Hugo Boss. A standard tie from Brooks Brothers is 4" wide. That's just stupid. Ties from Gucci, Hermes, and other designers of note will float somewhere between 2 1/2" and 3", while a good quality tie from Thomas Pink is 3 1/8" at the apex. I like Pink's ties a good deal, but I also like slimmer ties. For business attire, I'd lean towards ties around 3" to 3 1/4" and 3" and under for cocktail hour.
Length
Between the center of the waistband and the last visible button on your shirt. Period. Thinner ties toward the long end, wider ties toward the short end.
The Big Knot.
Choose a knot size that your neck size and collar width can support. Check the mirror, if it makes your neck look small, don't wear it. To pick a knot or learn to tie one, try this great website.
Tradition
Italians don't wear Windsor knots. They wear asymmetrical four-in-hands. The asymmetrical look is a little more "thrown-together," and makes you look a little less uptight.
Brits tend to prefer knots popularized by Edward VII, the full-Windsor and the half-Windsor. Ironically, Edward never had the name "Windsor" himself. It was taken by his son, George V, when anti-German sentiment and reasonableness made it inappropriate to have the surname Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. These knots are often mistakenly attributed to the Duke of Windsor, the former King Edward VIII, who abdicated the British throne to marry an American divorcée and generally behave as a brat, a fop, and a Nazi sympathizer. These knots are more symmetrical and structured, and James Bond famously remarks in one of Ian Flemming's novels that a full Windsor is "the mark of a cad." I don't know about that, but it's size and symmetry do give it a certain arrogance and compulsive look. Under the right circumstances, however, that can be appropriate. Save it for the spread or cut-away collars. This is my favorite knot for buttoned-up occasions, but I rarely wear it out for drinks. The elder Edward used to have his ties specially made of wider cloth to make the knot conspicuously huge. I wonder if he was compensating?
When Knot To
Increasingly there is a trend towards casualness in the office. I notice it more and more at church, and it's even creeping into high-end restaurants, those bastions of snobbery. Poppycock. Men should wear ties.
A Final Note on Collars
Unless you're trying to look like an accountant, don't have visible buttons on your collars. A number of shirt makers worth their salt put button loops on the back of their collars. I found these especially prevalent in Italy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)