MEN'S
STYLE

,_ ..........
---·---·-
II . l Edwin Illustrations Fotheringham by �l'
I '" " ' """"'.....
t- " :T. M::IN'S PRESS -- N:Y�R'K • •JI' 'l
. . ....................__.....--.·--
r-· . ·--·- . .. .....___. . . -···-
THOMAS DUNNE BOOKS.
An imprint of St. Martin's Press.
MEN's STYLE. Copyright © 2005 by Russell Smith. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America. No part of this book may be used
or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written permission
except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles or
reviews. For information, address St. Martin's Press, 175 Fifth Avenue,
New York, N.Y. 10010.
www.thomasdunnebooks.com
www.stmartins.com
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Smith, Russell, 1963-
Men's style : the thinking man's guide to dress I Russell Smith ;
illustrations by Edwin Fotheringham
p. cm.
Includes index.
ISBN-13: 978-0-312-36165-5
ISBN-10: 0-312-36165-3
1. Men's clothing. I. Title.
TT617.S65 2007
646'.32-dc22
2007001220
First published in Canada by McCielland & Stewart Ltd.
First U.S. Edition: April 2007
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
For Mitty Smith

INTRODUCTION WHY BOTHER? 1
1 SH 0 ES 27
C/.)
2 SUITS 45
I 3 JACKETS 88
;;;;:::::: 4 SHIRTS 97
5 Tl ES 121
6 HARDWARE 142
7 FORMAl WEAR 152
8 CASUAl 169
__.,.-- 9 UNDERWEAR 185
10 DUTERWEAR 193
( ) 11 SCENT 213
c =, 12 HAIR 218
13 WORDS TO liVE BY 232
WORKS CONSULTED 236
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 237
INDEX 239

INTRODUCTION
WHY BOTHER?
"There are moments, ]eeves,
when one asks oneself, 'Do trousers matter?'"
"The mood will pass, sir."
- P.G. WODEHOUSE
U is f ais ll, the andmost it had fundamental best be settled question off the
top. Who cares? If I confess - even to myself - an
interest in the superficial, am I not admitting to
superficiality generally? Am I not admitting my
failure to qualify as a practical man, as the kind of
quiet and sober man who has built empires and
scored winning touchdowns, the wholesome but
unassuming man that this continent most values?
For let's admit it, it is in North America that this
thought worries us most. This is still a fundamentally Protestant and democratic place, a place which
defines a man, quite sensibly, by what he accomplishes, not by how he appears. The land's hostility,
the brutal task of producing and building while surviving in such vastness, makes even art and culture
2 I M E N ' S STY L E
low priorities: at best a luxury; at worst morally
suspect, the indulgent pursuit of idlers. This distrust
we see demonstrated whenever our publicly funded
galleries make a purchase.
If art-making is suspect here, then think what a
rocky foothold have the more frivolous pursuits of
ornamentation, the trivially aesthetic. What could
be more condescending in, say, academic life than
to call someone, man or woman, fashionable?
Trendy, perhaps, would be worse, since it clearly
means unsubstantial; slacker, which means the same
thing, is definitely worse; vain maybe, since it connotes self-centredness- but all are indeed associated
with the dreaded fashion. Dandy is the worst of all,
signifying a lack of all that gets the harvest done,
the skyscraper built: manliness, team spirit, cooperation, self-effacement, simple practicality. How
does a dandy build a railroad?
Curiously, this queasiness about appearing to
take an interest in the aesthetic comes from both the
right and the left. And it comes from both men and
women.
The old-fashioned opposition originates in
simple social conservatism: sensuality is unseemly
in a man - its ultimate manifestation, flamboyance,
an embarrassment. And then of course there's
homosexuality, which is, as heroin addiction is to
marijuana smoking, the logical end of such an
unhealthy preoccupation. Even more offensive than
homosexuality is mere effeminacy, retreat of the
WHY BOTHER' I 3
weak-willed, of the boys afraid to join the rugby
game or buffalo hunt.
Conservative women are just as likely to be
embarrassed by overly beautiful or tasteful men.
Taste itself seems like a feminine trait to many
women. I have heard women of all ages - particularly young women from wealthy suburbs who are
attending exclusive universities - sneering at guys
who "dress up, " meaning those who wear anything
but jeans and a T-shirt. "Trying too hard, " say the
girls with manicured nails and sun-lamp tans. For
more formal occasions, they would put their men in
khaki trousers and polo shirts. Bland is attractive to
conservative women - it seems reliable. Maybe it
reminds them of their dads.
The socialist opposition has a slightly more complicated origin but ends in the same place. The sensitive scorner of fashion is concerned about elitism,
about consumerism, about materialism generally.
He thinks it ridiculous that people should spend so
much money on frippery, when people are all basically the same and so many in the world are starving. He thinks that distinctions in clothing lead to
distinctions in social class, which is an injustice to
be eliminated, if possible, or at least masked. He is
the type who defiantly wears his old sweater to a
black-tie gala as some kind of inarticulately political protest.
The socialist/sensitive opposition also often takes
the shape of one argument: a distaste for the false.
"BLAND is
attractive to
CONSERVATIVE
women - it
seems
RELIABLE.
Maybe it
REM INDS them
of their DADS!'
4 I MEN'S STYLE
What is good is natural and pure; what is bad is
artificial and pretend. The word pretentious comes
up frequently in reference to metropolitan social
life: it refers to fancy restaurants and martini bars,
and especially to any nightclub with a barrier of
velvet ropes before its door, and a doorman with a
clipboard. People who dress up are "pretentious"­
meaning, I think, that they are pretending to be
better than the rest of us.
Actually I'm not sure what "pretentious" really
means in this context; it has become an all-purpose
insult among those opposed to sophistication,
exactly what "gay" means on the playground. In
my experience, at least in Canada, where I grew up,
"pretentious" tends to mean someone who gets
better marks than you do. (Which is what "gay"
means on playgrounds, too. )
I have struggled through many a tofu-heavy
dinner party to convince the detractors (real people
they, unaffected people) of what really goes on
behind those velvet ropes- that there is in fact little
pretense, that no one inside is pretending to be
anyone else. In a dark and fashionable bar, there
are rarely conversations about books that people
have pretended to read or ideas people have pretended to understand; indeed, there are rarely conversations at all. No one would claim otherwise.
The dark and fashionable bar is a place for the
intercourse of surfaces.
But there we have it: surfaces, the superficial -
WHY BOTHER? I 5
that, we all know, is inherently ungood. That is
shallow. Isn't it?
Let us consider music, something usually not
thought to be shallow. I know little about the finer
points of music - can't read it, never studied it,
never played an instrument - and yet I love the
works of certain composers. The pleasureI get from
them is intense and physical - and intellectual, too,
sinceI know enough to compare their structural and
textural qualities. I know that Brahms, say, is from
an earlier historical period than Shostakovich, and
since I studied history in high school I know that
Brahms's formal preoccupations and the general
tone of his music match those of his era, and ditto
for Shostakovich.
So it's pleasant to listen to Shostakovich's music
and be thrilled by it and also think about it as modernist music as opposed to Romantic. All this is tied
up together; I can't separate the intellectual and the
visceral. And yet there's no question that I like the
surface, I like the pretty effects of Shostakovich and
Brahms. It's not a verbal thing. And I can't tell you
exactly what Brahms is doing that is different from
what Shostakovich is doing, I can only describe it in
vague emotional metaphors, the way I would
describe the flavours of Bordeaux and Rioja.
The same goes for Matisse and Uccello and
Vermeer. I've never painted, so I don't understand
the importance of this colour and that technique.
The colours are pretty. I like the surface, the rich
6 I MEN'S STYLE
materiality of it. I crave Matisse as I crave a silk tie
or a plummy Burgundy.
But I can say that and not be shallow. Matisse,
say the encyclopedias, is not shallow. Discussing
Matisse as a sensual stimulus on a sensitive palatemy psyche - is also not shallow. When I talk about
fashion and go to nightclubs, I am shallow.
This does not make sense.
Both left and right oppositions stem fundamentally, I think, from a religious impulse - specifically
from religious injunctions to modesty. I wish the left
wing were as honest about this as the right wing is.
If you feel that those injunctions are outdated and
not useful, then you may enjoy the following advice
without guilt.
And even if you agree with the religious premise,
fear not: I would argue that it is possible to be
attractive and modest at the same time; indeed, I
will be consistently on the lookout, in these pages,
for the overly flamboyant and the tacky - for too
much of the tie-bar and the signet ring - in an effort
to eradicate them from all of our lives. And of
course it is possible to be attractive and religious at
the same time. (People who have spent time in
Catholic countries know that it is even possible to
be religious and flamboyant at the same time. )
As for the conservative argument, I always enjoy
pointing out that until very recently it was conservatives who were most concerned with the details
of masculine appearance. Until the democratic era,
WHY BOTHER? I 7
aristocrats in most European countries displayed
their status through clothing which was so
flamboyant that it looks ridiculous to modern eyes.
Most European countries had "sumptuary laws"
until at least the eighteenth century, which forbade
the wearing of luxurious fabrics, and even certain
colours, by commoners (that is, by all of us - the
vast bulk of the population) . The masculine display
of beauty represented as deep a conservatism as
ever existed.
The most famous dandy in British history,
George "Beau"Brummell (rn8-r84o), was in fact
anti-flamboyant: his contribution to received ideas
about men's dress was to insist on simplicity and
modesty. Virginia Wool£ wrote of him:
Everybody looked overdressed, or badly dressed - some,
indeed, looked positively dirty - beside him. His clothes
seemed to melt into each other with the perfection of their
cut and the quiet harmony of their colour.Without a single
point of emphasis everything was distinguished....He was
the personification of freshness and cleanliness and order....
That "certain exquisite propriety" which Lord Byron
remarked in his dress stamped his whole being, and made
him appear cool, refined and debonair among the gentlemen
who talked only of sport, which Brummell detested, and
smelt of the stable, which Brummell never visited.
His shirts were plain white linen. His trousers were
plain, although they did fit very snugly, evidence of
Beau Brumme/1
8 I M E N ' S S T Y L E
their superior tailoring. In the day h e would wear
them with riding boots and a riding coat; in the
evening, tight breeches with stockings and pumps.
A dandy could not wear embroidery on his coat.
Brummell shunned perfume, insisting on "country
washing. "
In fact most of his dress was a variation on what
had until then been thought of as country dressing,
and in this his modesty was actually part of a larger
social revolution. In the early nineteenth century,
democracy was erupting in bloody revolutions
everywhere. France had been in disarray from 1789
tor8or, during which dressing like a fop was actually life endangering. (Even the English government
put a tax on hair-powder in 1795, so it was almost
immediately abandoned as a fashion by young men. )
France then had two more revolutions, in r83o and
1848 , which served as grisly warnings to the anciens
regimes still hoping to keep their heads in the rest of
Europe. Aristocracies were decidedly out of fashion.
The wealthy middle class was in the ascendant; it
began to seem more respectable, less decadent- and
thus decidedly safer- to look like a bourgeois rather
than a duke. English dress - country dress - became
the official uniform even of French men after r8oo.
Even Beau Brummell's formal outfit of tight
breeches and fine hose had disappeared from everyday life by around 1840 . It is still worn in certain
European royal courts on special occasions, as it has
come to signify aristocratic associations.
WHY BOTtlER? I 9
It was at this time that the dark suit, white shirt,
and dark tie first approached the status of uniform
for men of all classes. It has evolved in only minor
ways since then.
King Louis-Philippe of France (r. I83o-184 8 )
became known as le roi bourgeois because of his
insistence on wearing the sober black suit of the businessman. He provoked ridicule in the French press
by making a public appearance with an umbrella
under his arm, looking more like a businessman than
a king. The ridicule was short-lived: from this
moment on, dandyism lost its cachet. Power and
status were no longer signalled by ostentatious
display. The great era of male uniformity had begun.
There were a couple of exceptions to this set of
values. The most significant is the military. Here,
the toughest warriors have always been got up like
peacocks, plumed and feathered and shiny with
gold braid. This is the area of greatest paradox- for
isn't this kind of colourful and meticulously
groomed display supposed to be feminine?
Try telling that to an officer in Wellington's
cavalry, with his vast bearskin hat and miles of intricate lanyard, his supertight breeches and little cape.
Or to the Swiss Guard, the oldest military force in
the world, with their Harlequin-striped pantaloons.
These are not sissies.
It wasn't until the First World War that camouflage became actively valued by armed forces in
Europe. The idea of dressing to disappear would
10 I M E N ' S S T Y L E
have been thought cowardly by nineteenth-century
soldiers- and also feminine. Concealment, disguise,
manipulating the body's silhouette - all constitute
a kind of false advertising, and was that not a
woman's specialty?
Camouflage was and still is restricted to the
battlefield. Right through the twentieth century, military dress uniforms were far flashier, far more fussy
and beribboned than their civilian counterparts. The
English novelist Simon Raven describes, in a memoir,
a memorial church service just after the end of the
Second World War, in which all the servicemen
present are decked out in their dress uniforms:
While all of us were wearing scruffy grey flannels and
patched tweed jackets, the champions of England were hung
about with every colour and device....There were the black
and gold hats of the guardsmen, the dark-green side-caps of
the rifles, kilts swaying from the hips of the highlanders, and
ball buttons sprayed all over the horse artillerymen; there
were macabre facings and curiously knotted lanyards; there
were even the occasional boots and spurs, though these were
frowned on in 1945 because of Fascist associations.... I
myself had a place in the Sixth Form block which commanded a good view of the visitors, and I could see that the
magnificent officers were openly preening themselves.
My point is that although one might think these
peacock warriors a little silly, no one would think
WHY BOTHER? I I 1
them feminine. There is nothing unmanly about a
proud and meticulous appearance.
Here, of course, my detractors from the left are
crowing in satisfaction. Yes, exactly, they are saying,
and is the vain and overdressed warrior really a valuable model for contemporary man? Do we really
want to dress like imperialist murderers?
The sensitive socialist opposition to refinement
and elegance in dress was at its most powerful in the
196os and 70s. A strange thing happened to men's
appearances in theWestern world some time around
the middle of the r96os. As part of the general social
revolution of the era, the natural was embraced over
the artificial. One might as well put these words in
quotation marks, as they are so vague and inaccurate and paradoxical as to be almost meaningless,
but we all follow the general idea: natural man did
not attempt to restrain the physical processes. He
let his hair grow on his face and head; he did not
restrict his body with supposedly uncomfortable
clothing such as shoes and ties; his clothes were
loose and rough. Rough was manly and egalitarian;
smooth was fake and old-fashioned.
These beliefs are still widely held in rural areas
and among baby boomers. You read middle-aged
newspaper columnists and hear talk-radio hosts
snickering at the idea of male grooming: they bring
up the laughable term "metrosexual"; they paint a
caricature of a preening sissy who spends his time
"As part of
the general
SOCIAL
REVOLUTION
of the 1960s,
the NATURAL
was embraced
ove r the
ARTIFICIAL!'
rzl M EN'S STYLE
being manicured and pedicured and waxed, who
sits on the phone with his friends arguing the merits
of hair products. Again, recognize that women are
just as disconcerted by these supposedly contemporary practices as men are: it is female newspaper
columnists in provincial papers who are going to be
the most scornful about men who wear cologne and
"smell like girls. "
This idea of manliness is, in historical terms,
highly unusual and also very short-lived. The hysterical radio hosts are threatened by the twenty-yearold men they see dashing by on skateboards with
dyed and gelled hair, and possibly wearing cologne.
Younger men's sexuality is not so easily threatened.
Sophistication, and expression through appearance,
are back in style.
To illustrate this, I would like you to consider
quiche. A young friend who is not a native speaker
of English once asked me rather shyly what was the
understood meaning of the word quiche. She knew
what a quiche was: a French tart made with eggs.
She had even eaten quiche. But in books she had
read it seemed to have a strange significance: it
seemed to connote weakness or even homosexuality. Why was this? As far as she knew it was a rather
rugged dish, indeed a peasant dish.
So I painstakingly explained one of those longforgotten American cultural tropes that makes one
embarrassed now. There was a time, I explained, in
the late 1970s and early 198os, whenNorthAmerica
WHY BOTf-IER? I 1 3
was going through a kind of cultural adolescence, and
the idea of subtlety and sophistication and all things
European were becoming popular in large cities. This
was frightening to people outside large cities. For
example, for the first time, the English pop groups
who appeared in American magazines had short hair,
evidence that they rejected the essentially manly and
patriotic and democratic values of rock and roll. It
was upsetting that some people on this side of the
Atlantic would embrace their music; it seemed snotty.
It was also upsetting that some people- the same
kind of people, probably - became interested at the
same time in eating food that wasn't very heavy and
fatty. Eating french fries every day, they said, was
bad for your heart. This also seemed, to many North
Americans, to be an insidious attack on respectable
values. There were jokes about "nouvelle cuisine, "
a style of cooking with lighter sauces, a rip-off that
had you paying twenty bucks for a sliver of salmon
and a sprig of parsley - common-sense folk could
see through such pretension, as they could see
through the sham of modern art.
It was hard to explain to my friend the idea that
any kind of pie, with a crust made with lard, could
have qualified as diet food, but I tried to get her to
understand that as an alternative to a burger and
fries it probably did. The fact that quiche wasFrench
likely made it seem doubly silly to many.
The joke was concretized in the 1982 book Real
Men Don't Eat Quiche, by Bruce Feirstein and Lee
I4 I MEN ' S STYLE
Lorenz, which listed all the aspects of civilization
that were emasculating: any kind of sensitivity, any
kind of self-expression, any interest in the aesthetic.
The book was self-satirizing- its intent was to mock
the extremism of its fears - but it was nevertheless
extremely popular among people for whom it was
not entirely a joke. It was, I remember, a popular
gift book for dads at the time.
I listed for my friend the other associated terms
that were humorously used by the media at the time
- fern bar (remember that? ) , wine bar, spritzer, aerobics, Chardonnay, brie, yuppie - to signal pretension, effeteness, and a kind of California flakiness.
People who ordered spritzers in fern bars were
posers. In other words, the term "quiche-eater"
once meant pretty much what "metrosexual" does
now. But it doesn't any more, and many restaurants and bars are furnished with cut flowers and
plants, and drinking wine instead of beer doesn't
seem quite as gay any more, and most middle-class
people would qualify as yuppies, so we don't use
the word.
That quiche has lost its negative connotations
indicates the culture has changed. It is a little more
sophisticated. Gradually, we push through our fears
and widen our interests to include foreign food and
music and even, occasionally, books. Now nineteenyear-old tough guys shave their body hair. Quiche
doesn't worry anybody: it has become just a dull egg
tart again.
WHY BOTHER? I 15
There are still barriers to cross, as the scorn over
"metrosexual" indicates. The next terrifying barrier
is the male use of moisturizers, contemplation of
which still induces hoots of hysterical giggles among
people of a certain age. This will fade.
That period of insecurity, and the triumph of the
natural, were a historical blip. Outside those dark
twenty-odd years in the middle of the last century,
sophistication was always masculine. Even in the
19so s, it was considered manly to be well-groomed.
Consider Cary Grant, the romantic hero of 1950s
Hollywood. He was clean-shaven and wore elegant
suits; he knew about what wine to drink with fish
and how to mix a martini. Nor is there anything
new about pampering: the ritual of the hot shave in
a barbershop was a deeply masculine convention
right into the 1970s.
More importantly, the privileging of the natural
over the artificial is philosophically unjustified. It
leads to repressive thinking. For there is nothing
inherently morally impure about the artificial. Art
and artifice come from the same root - ars, artis;
skill, practice. Skill is a particularly human value.
Art is a uniquely human activity. All art is artificial.
We always have an urge to humanize the natural,
to stylize and artificialize. Think of tattoos, the
imposition of art on the untamed flesh, or tribal
scarring, which marks the transition from mere raw
flesh to part of civilized being, member of society.
It's an old urge.
"There is
nothing NEW
about
PAMPERING:
the ritual of
the H OT
SHAVE in a
BARBERSHOP
was a deeply
MASCULINE
convention
RIGHT into the
1970s!'
lVinston has a sentimental
attachment to his beat-up
uld Timex
r6 I M E N ' S S T Y L E
Society is fun. The parties are good and the
debates are complex. I would no more return to
the natural than I would give up Shostakovich and
Brahms and the Louvre.
All right. Let's move on to the thornier issue of
social class. For are we not, in proposing a set of
rules, a system of values, enshrining privilege itself?
It is true that men's clothing relies much more
heavily on tradition and convention than it does on
fashion, and that these conventions vary among
social classes, so as to be actual indicators of social
class. Knowledge of these indicators serves to
include and to exclude. The people who are aware
of very old conventions of men's dress, and particularly of dress-up - suits and ties, military uniforms,
formal wear - tend to have come from more privileged backgrounds.
This is a quite understandably an upsetting topic
in a democratic society which claims to be classfree, so I have to provide a few caveats here. I am an
egalitarian. In discussing class differences, I do not
propose to reinforce them. It is a wonderful thing
that this society attempts to be, or sees itself as,
class-free. Would that it really were.
The sad thing is, it's not. The people who are
most aware of social class are the privileged. This is
how privilege works: it is a secret.
Note that when I say class I do not mean money.
Many people have money. Money is very common
on this prosperous continent.
WHY BOTHER? I 17
Imagine watching a very wealthy salesman pull up
outside a flashy new martini bar downtown, in his
new convertible Porsche sports car. It is bright yellow.
He has a very tanned, very blonde woman with him
with expensive breasts. Let's call him Derek. He
wears a Rolex, and a gold bracelet on the other arm.
And a cream linen suit that cost $3,000. He is tanned
too, because he has just come back from a week in
PalmSprings. We watch him air-kiss the model standing at the velvet ropes and disappear into the scented,
ivory-walled sanctum of pleasure, and we say that
because he belongs to this tiny percentile of similarly
privileged people, he represents the upper class. This
is the media definition of class: it can be quantified.
The genuinely privileged guy inside this bar- let's
call him Winston - has been dragged here by some
new clients. He doesn't feel comfortable. He is
wearing a beat-up old Timex. He has a sentimental
attachment to it; it was his dad's. He has not travelled anywhere recently, because he has only fifteen
hundred dollars in the bank right now (Derek, on
the other hand, has $2 . 1 million, and that's just
what's liquid) .
But Winston's family has $400 million. (Or had,
actually: his father lost most of it. But only after
sending Winston to some strangely violent private
schools.) That's why he doesn't worry about watches
or Palm Springs much. He has become very interested in Proust, lately, and has been brushing up on
his French in an effort to read it in the original.
IJerek wears a Rolex and a
cream linen suit
18 l l\;lEN ' S S T Y L E
Winston may find Derek fascinating and even
intimidating. But he would not describe him as upper
class. Winston would not even describe himself as
upper class, that stratum being strictly speaking a
European concept, only applicable to actual aristocrats; that is, people with a title. Even very established
families in England call themselves "upper-middle
class" if they don't have a title. In North America,
lacking titles of any kind, our very top stratum is in
effect only upper-middle class. Winston would not
call Derek even that. He would call him a successful
businessman. But he would not have this conversation with anyone; it would be impolite.
Class is something inherited (often, but not
always, along with money) , or acquired through
elite education (which usually also costs money) .
Class can build itself up as a result of money - but
usually only after several generations and serious
efforts at assimilation. Social class is reflected and
stored in social habits that are dependent on money,
but do not come solely from the money itself. It is
reflected by certain kinds of education, certain
modes of speech (this is where the most insidious
shibboleths are preserved) , and aesthetic choices,
including, particularly, dress.
These indicators are worthy of an entire book
(andI can recommend one- PaulFussell's admirably
dispassionate Class). So I can only skim the surface
of those that do not belong to the sartorial domain.
But the linguistic and the sartorial indicators often
WilY BOTHER? I 19
go hand in hand. You do not know, for example,
that people of a certain privileged class do not easily
use the word tuxedo unless you belong to that class
yourself. The majority of the world - clothing manufacturers and salesmen included- use the word.
The same goes for limousine and chauffeur- the
people who are most likely to be wearing tuxedos
in limousines driven by chauffeurs are in fact the
least likely to use those words. (They will say they
are wearingdinner jackets incars driven by drivers.)
Again, the secret codes exist for entirely pernicious
reasons: they identify members of the club, like
secret handshakes, only to each other.
There are many such class codes in the arcana
of men's clothing. Take shoelaces. As in questions of
how-many-buttons or which-knot-to-tie, a man of a
certain social class believes that there is a correct
way and an incorrect way to lace your shoes. (Later
in this book, I will show you the "correct" way. ) In
this context, all "correct" means is a signifier of
breeding, of "gentlemanliness, " recognized only by
other "gentlemen. "
Yes, these are outmoded, if not nasty and dangerous, concepts. Like many of these codes, the
lacing has a military origin: it is often said that the
horizontal laces are easier to slit with a knife in an
emergency, if your shoe must be removed rapidly.
This association with action and danger makes
men feel more manly. But the practical function is
utterly irrelevant to a lawyer in a boardroom. The
"THERE are
many CLASS
CODES in
the ARCANA
of men's
clothing. Take
SHOELACES!'
2.0 I MEN'S STYLE
horizontal lace is now a mere rule, a symbol of military lineage.
All such rules - such arcane conventions as
closing the top two, but not the bottom, buttons of
a jacket, or ensuring a dimple in your tie, or not
removing yourjacket in a restaurant, or not wearing
brogues with a dinner jacket, or wearing a tie at all
- serve no practical function. Sure, they once did.
Ties, for example, evolved from knotted scarves,
which served to keep the collar closed and the neck
warm. But in an age of Velcro, we no longer need
$I 50 pieces of printed Italian silk to keep the
breeze out. And yet the conventions remain, serving
largely as a barrier against the free social mobility
of those with the misfortune to have been born at
any distance from country clubs and hidebound
tailors. Why, then, do I- in a supposedly class-free
society- persist in promoting a catechism of exclusionary practices?
I have no interest in perpetuating exclusion. My
hope is that my explanation of these codes will
have exactly the opposite effect: to open up the
country club to all, by revealing the secret codes of
the initiates.
One could argue that even in merely describing
class practices one helps to promote them. I disagree. Class will be around for a long time to come,
whether I talk about shoelaces or not, and it will
remain a powerful force in society. It is better to
WilY BOTHER? I LI
understand it- and use it, cynically perhaps (why
not? ) , to one's advantage.
(As an aside, I should explain that I find both
Winston and Derek fascinating, and feel, like most
people, that neither of them describes me. Certain
things are attractive about each. I want to drive
Derek's car, no question - I might not get it in
yellow. And I think I might prefer Derek's dangerous girlfriend to Winston's somewhat brittle wife -
there are only so many fundraisers I can attend. But
I don't want that Rolex. A part of me still admires
that beat-up old Timex. )
It is also important to explain, to my socialist
opposition, that I am not insisting on great expenditure. Indeed, this book is specifically directed at
those who are just beginning to assemble their
grown-up wardrobes, and I am assuming that they
are not yet wealthy. (I hope to help them become
so. ) Throughout, I will include tips on cheaper alternatives to the ideal.
I myself don't value money all that much, which
is why I have been able to tolerate living as a freelance writer for fifteen years, on a very small income
by urban standards. I have been able to afford very
few of the clothes I have written about. I choose a
few pieces very carefully, I match them with cheaper
items and vintage pieces. It is possible to look good
on very little. It's just a matter of paying attention
and thinking about it.
"FASHION
seeks to do
away with
TRADITION,
and with it all
the SPECIAL
knowledge
REQUIRED to
enter the most
POWERFUL
circles!'
221 MEN'S STYLE
And, as my example of Winston and Derek
demonstrates, it is rarely desirable to look as if one
is wearing expensive clothes. The second-hand
dinner jacket often looks much more distinguished
than the trendy new one.
I once read an interview with an exclusive and
prohibitively expensive Savile Row tailor, who said,
"If someone approaches one of our clients and says,
that's a natty suit you're wearing, we have not done
our job well." He wants people to notice the client,
not the suit. He knows a "gentleman's" values.
I would also point out to the socialists that
fashion- that is, a set of changing rules, as opposed
to convention - is actually an egalitarian force.
Conservatives hate fashion even more than you do.
Fashion seeks to do away with tradition, and with
it all the special knowledge required to enter the
most powerful circles.
Fashion influences men's clothing far more slowly
than it does women's. But it does. Those wacky
runway shows you see sometimes on TV, with
androgynous male models slumping along in skirts
and sandals or with flowers in their hair - those
trends actually do trickle down toFit-RiteClothiers
on your town's main street, in some diluted form,
five years later. The rules - the old rules, the classdetermined conventions - do change. And fashion
is, as North America grows more sophisticated and
European, gradually becoming more powerful,
gradually more accepted by the old guard. Fashion
WHY BOTHER? I 23
- the idea of clothing as artistic palette, rather than
as uniform- has a greater and greater impact on
men's attire. Rules about matching shoes with suits,
for example, have greatly relaxed over the past ten
years, even in conservative circles. High-fashion
designers and, in particular, stylists - the people
who dress the models for photos- have little respect
for rules.
Let me give an example of how this works. I was
arranging a photo shoot for a newspaper feature on
shirts and ties.We had borrowed a $2,700 Gianluca
Isaia suit for the shoot, and it had arrived with its
basting still sewn in. (The basting is the white thread
over certain seams that is removed once alterations
are done.) The stylist, who like all stylists was wildly
glamorous, an unfathomably young woman in long
skirt, clingy top, puffy runners, was taken with the
idea of shooting the suit with the basting still in. I,
bound by rules, was horrified. She thought it looked
kind of cool: deconstructed, perhaps, or just ironic.
This is how massive trends are born. It only takes
one stylist. Sure enough, a few weeks later I saw
some hip black suits in a downtown designer's
window with big white stitching on the shoulders
and cuffs as a reference to tailor's basting.
This is why conservatives loathe fashion: it opens
the game to twenty-five-year-old female stylists.
Which makes it a pleasant game to be in.
I still cannot help lacing my shoes in exactly the
same way my father taught me, in case I run into
"lt is USEFUL
to know
RULES,
particularly
if you are
NEW to this
whole GAME
and don't
TRUST your
own TASTE.''
24 I MEN ' S S T Y L E
someone who knows the pointless and archaic
rules, andI am going to go on telling you these rules.
In case you want to know.
And you might want to know, you really might.
It is useful to know rules, particularly if you are
new to this whole game and don't trust your own
taste. Men are not brought up to cultivate their aesthetic side. Rules are men's friends: they can substitute for taste.
If you are proud of your taste, know a great deal
about fashion, and know the rules and are not
afraid to break them, then you will not need to read
this book. You are already in the Advanced Classand the point of this book is to get you into that
class, to develop your taste to the degree that you
no longer need rules.
I myself am interested in both fashion and convention, andI enjoy their uneasy balance, the tension
between them. I have very particular views on when
to be daring and when to be cautious. I am interested in cynical self-advancement and in very
serious self-expression through how I dress. These
are complex and endlessly fascinating topics.
I don't recommend an instant following of every
new trend. Some fashions are simply ugly. Alexander
Pope came up with a useful adage regarding trendiness: "Be not the first by whom the new are tried/
Nor yet the last to lay the old aside. "
This brings up the old distinction between
fashion and style: fashion is what is out there for
WHY BOTHER? I 25
you to choose from; style is what you choose. It is
common for aesthetic experts to proclaim at this
point that style is all and fashion is not worth bothering about; style relies on what is timeless and
classic, blah, blah. Very safe advice, but also very
conservative. And a little dishonest. You do have to
follow fashion, or at least be aware of what is in
and out, to be stylish. The line between them is a
blurry one at best. There is no such thing as timeless
fashion- if there were, we would still be wearing
togas. Those who claim to avoid fashion are usually
simply in the grip of an older fashion. When your
dad encourages you to check out the sale at Fit-Rite
Clothiers in your hometown, where there are
"good, solid, classic" suits which "never go out of
style, " he is in denial. He is fooling himself and
trying to fool you. Those suits are going to look perfectly acceptable, but they are not going to make
you feel sexy and cool. Their minor, almost imperceptible differences from the ones in downtown
stores in big cities- their button stance, the size of
the armholes, the length of the jacket- make a difference to the way you will be perceived.
This book is more concerned with convention,
and with fashions that seem to be stable, than with
the newest fashions, those runway shows with the
sarongs and the windsurfing boots or crocheted
swimsuits. Those trends- the "forward" end of the
business - tend to affect casual wear more than
they affect city attire. Furthermore, those who are
26 I M E N ' S S T Y L E
truly unintimidated by the deep end of men's
fashion are in the Advanced Class already, and
have no need of me.
It's not that I am opposed to all and every excess.
I don't believe that flamboyance - what some
would call vulgarity - is always unmanly. The
opposite of cool is not vulgar; it is bland. Bland is
the enemy of style. The occasional bit of vulgarity
can be charming.
No, the enemy is the blight of athletic wear for
comfort in mall parking lots and in restaurants; it is
bright blue fleece jogging jackets and kayaking
sandals, pleated khaki shorts and T-shirts with
faded concert advertisements on them.
I am about to offer you some alternatives. If you
must feel altruistic about everything you do, think
of your appearance as a gift to others. A pleasant
aspect shows respect for people around you. Physically attractive people are pleasant to be around,
just as beautiful buildings are pleasant to live in, and
warm rooms are preferable to cold. You are not a
superficial man: you are making the world a more
beautiful place. This is what art is about, and it is a
serious thing to do. It will be, like art, at once pleasurable and intellectual. It will be like Shostakovich.
And we begin at the roots of your appearance,
the fundament on which your whole style will be
built: your feet.
CHAPTER ONE
SHOES
Fashion is only the attempt to realize Art
in living forms and social intercourse.
- OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES
A n experienced society columnist once
�\ summed up her whole method of
placing people in the social hierarchy by telling me,
"It's all in the shoes."
Nowhere is your taste and social background so
neatly summarized as in your choice of shoe. It is
the single most important part of your image, the
root from which your projected self grows. Large
numbers of single women judge prospective male
partners rapidly and solely by looking at their feet.
Shoes are the only item of clothing on which you
really must spend a great deal of money. It is not
really important for the rest of your ensemble. An
inexpensive but modishly cut suit can fool TV
cameras and fashion journalists alike; an H&M
QUARTER CUFF
WELT
COUNTER
THROAT LINE
Anatomy o(thc shoe
28 I M EN ' S S T Y L E
shirt is perfectly hip during its six-month lifespan; a
twenty-dollar tie from Wal-Mart is still pure silk.
But cheap shoes always look bad. Cheap shoes will
also wear out. Good shoes can be resoled almost
infinitely and will obviate shoe-buying for ten years.
From a purely financial standpoint, you cannot
afford cheap shoes.
To know quality you must be aware of technical
specifications. There is a scene in Don DeLillo's
novel Underworld in which a Jesuit intellectual
attempts to educate a delinquent pupil by teaching
him the names for all the parts of the shoe: sole,
heel, lace, tongue, cuff (the strip of leather around
the top edge), quarter (the rear sides), counter (the
strip of leather over the heel, also called the backstay), welt (the leather base between the upper and
the sole), vamp (the front area over the instep),
eyelet, grommet (the metal rings that reinforce the
eyelets), aglet (the plastic sheath at the end of the
lace). And the wooden form that the cobbler makes
shoes on is called a last (leading to the old joke
about shoemaking: the last comes first). The Jesuit's
contention is that "everyday things represent the
most overlooked knowledge."
For our purposes, the point is not only that great
literature is obsessed with fashion (something
repeatedly demonstrated in these pages), but also
that you cannot know a thing until you have words
for it. I think that the words welt and sole are the
most overlooked "everyday knowledge" in fashion.
SI-IOES I 29
In the first half of the twentieth century, a fine,
light shoe was probably Italian-made, and therefore
evidence of wealth and sophisticated taste. Many
elegant Italian shoes were constructed without a
welt - that is, with the uppers stitched directly to
the leather sole, with no intervening stiffener.
Heavily welted English shoes, made for walking in
cold climates, were, in the 1950s, the mark of the
plodding Anglo-Saxon in a baggy suit; Europeans
had trimmer silhouettes and lighter feet.
This is no longer the case. Mass-produced footwear has been emulating the narrow, slipper-like
Italian style since the seventies. Thin-soled shoes
have become indicators of cheap production techniques (most uppers are now glued, rather than
stitched, to the welt) and connoters of discount
malls and oily moustaches. A thick leather sole and
leather welt will give you authority, will cost you
more, and will last forever.
Soles wear out long before uppers do. One way
of ensuring your sole's longevity is to take your new
shoes to your cobbler (you have a cobbler, don't
you?) the day after you buy them and have him
install a thin protective rubber sole over the leather
before the original sole wears out. This procedure
will cost you about twenty dollars. Make sure the
rubber layer is not too thick, and it will be invisible.
It will give you greater traction. And when it wears
out, you spend another twenty dollars rather than
buying a new pair of shoes.
"A THICK
leather sole
and LEATHER
WELT will
give you
AUTHO RITY,
will cost you
M ORE, and
will last
FOREVER!'
"A BUS I N ESS
suit is
CAPSIZED by a
comfy pair of
RUBBER-SOLED
shoes, no
matter how
SHINY the
leather
UPPERS!'
30 I M E N'S STYLE
Guys with a lot of money won't need or want to
do this - in wealthy circles, this practice is seen to
be a little parsimonious, and it is certainly more
elegant to have a plain leather sole than one with a
rubber coating, no matter how thin. Wealthy guys
may worry that when they sit and cross their legs,
their rubber protective sole will become visible and
make them look like penny-pinching students. I still
insist that if your cobbler does it right, the rubber
layer will be completely unnoticeable from above.
And if people are staring at the soles of your feet
when you sit down, they are looking rather determinedly to find fault somewhere, so let them. The
practice of resoling good shoes has saved me hundreds of dollars - I am currently still wearing, with
formal wear, a pair of very plain black leather
oxfords with a toecap (a line of stitching across the
toe), which I bought from the Canadian firm Dacks
in 1987, making them, at the time of this writing,
eighteen years old.
Note that the original sole, in a pair of dress
shoes, must be leather. In a casual outfit, for bars
and parties and shopping, you may wear Dr. Martens
or Blundstones or police boots or heavily lugged
streetwear boots from techno-playing East Village
stores. But a business suit is capsized by a comfy
pair of rubber-soled shoes, no matter how shiny the
leather uppers. Rockports - the popular sport shoes
that disguise themselves as dress shoes with leather
uppers in brogue styles - are the worst blight to hit
S H O E S I 3 1
office-wear conventions. (Okay, second perhaps to
casual Fridays.) Your Rockports aren't fooling
anyone: they still look like sneakers to me.
There is also a new style of faux leather sole - a
sole that is half leather, with rubber patches in the
centre and leather around the edges, so that it looks
to be all leather when viewed from above. These
look civilized, and are often quite expensive, but
your cobbler cannot affix the aforementioned protective layer to them. This is fine if your financial
situation allows you to replace your shoes once
every two years or so.
Which with What - Shoe Styles
Very conservative thinking has it like this: for a suit
and tie, black lace-up oxfords only. No options.
Even brogues, the heavy walking shoes decorated
with strips of hole-punched ("tooled") leather -
also called "wingtips," because the decorative layer
of leather on top of the toe often comes to a point ­
were once thought to be too casual for a city suit
and more appropriate for tweeds and other country
wear. (Note that a brogue, by coincidence, also
means a heavy rural accent.) But now brogues,
black or burgundy, are considered just as serious a
suit foundation as any plain shoe. (Again, as long
as they have a grown-up leather sole.)
"Long wingtips" are so called because the sides
of the toecap - the part that makes the wingtip
design - extend right back to meet at the backstay.
Oxford (/eft) and brogue
shoes
Long and short wingtips
Closed lacing (right) versus
open
3 2 l M E N ' S S T Y L E
"Short wings" means that the toecap curves downward at the sides and vanishes into the welt.
There are several hybrids of brogues and oxfords.
If the decorative tooled leather runs across the toe
in a straight line, that is, without coming to a
"wingtip" point, it is called a half-brogue. But this
is truly useless information. The important thing to
know is that the more decoration there is on a shoe,
the less formal it is. For example, some shoes have
a texture known as "pebbled" - the leather looks
slightly bumpy or wrinkled. Nothing wrong with
this, but I picture it more with a sports jacket and
flannel trousers than with a severe pinstriped business suit. Highly ceremonial occasions demand very
sleek, unadorned leather.
Note too that the way the flaps that hold the
eyelets are sewn into the rest of the upper indicates
a hierarchy of dressiness. " Closed " lacing means
that the two sides of the upper that are drawn
together by the laces are sewn under the rest of the
upper. The tongue is a separate piece which is also
sewn onto the underside of the vamp. " Open" lacing
means that the two flaps are sewn onto the top of
the upper. The tongue is just an extension of the
vamp. Shoes with open lacing are sometimes called
Bluchers in Britain, apparently because the Prussian
field marshal Blucher (who was Wellington's highly
successful ally at Waterloo) issued his troops with
boots in a similar style. They are also sometimes
called Derbys.
S H O E S I 3 3
Again, it is of no practical value whatsoever to
know these terms, which are increasingly forgotten
by the industry anyway, but I cannot help revelling in
the words as much as in the objects. If you must look
at this in practical terms, know that the only lesson
here is closed lacing means a more formal shoe.
Shoes with open lacing will often have metal
grommets placed in the eyelets. This creates a rugged
outdoorsy or industrial look which may be appropriate for corduroy trousers and a tweed jacket, but
not for a business suit.
Generally, the rules for pairing shoes with suits
have relaxed greatly. Slip-ons, for example, can be
quite formal-looking these days, as long as they have
a high vamp (the vamp is the part where the laces
are if the shoe has laces - the part that covers the top
front of your foot). Low-vamp, moccasin-like loafers
still look too much like slippers for wear with a tie.
And no one wants to see too much of your socks.
Even buckles, on slip-ons, can look quite sober, as
long as they are to one side: loafers with a gleaming
snaffle in the centre of the vamp (like the standard
real-estate-developer Gucci loafer) are, however, just
too casual for a suit (and too plain tacky for anything else).
And finally, let me make this clear: There is no
occasion or outfit in civilized society which justifies
the wearing of loafers with a leather fringe and a
dangling tassel over the vamp. These shoes are an
abomination.
,.The re is no
OCCASION or
OUTFIT in
civilized
society which
JUSTIFIES the
wearing of
LOAFERS with
a leather
FRINGE a nd a
dangling
TASSEL."
'Chespll a7tdjJ1J/isl!
metftt,d
Traditional military
methods provide the best
shine. There are all kinds
of military tricks for
i nstant results, if you are
late for parade and need a
quick fix, such as rubbing
the inside of a banana peel
all over your shoe (not
recommended, even i n a
fix), or slathering a heavy
layer of wax on the shoe
and then melting it with a
match held close (dangerous: it's easy to burn the
leather). The only reliable
shine is the most labourintensive one: it's the old
spit and polish method.
This shine builds over
weeks of meticulous repetition. lt requ ires oldfashioned wax polish,
available i n cute l ittle tins
at any grocery store (Kiwi
brand is still the best). You
take a soft shoe cloth,
wrap it around your
finger, and use it to smear
on a generous amount of
polish. Oh no! lt looks as
if you've ruined it - your
shoe has gone all dull! leF
3 4 I MEN ' S S T Y L E
A recent trend among fashion-forward designers
has been to pair shiny, lace-up ankle boots with
dark suits. This turn-of-the-century look I find
romantic. It is for the daring only, and not appropriate for the more conservative boardrooms of the
financial or political world.
A "Chelsea boot" is a slip-on ankle boot (sometimes also called Beatle boots, for obvious reasons).
Its current incarnations tend to have round toes,
rather than the pointy toes of their Carnaby Street
forebears (more on the blunt/pointy conundrum in
a moment); both are appropriate with casual suits ­
that is, suits worn without ties - for fashionable
rather than conservative environments.
The shape of men's shoes changes with fashion.
These changes are even more noticeable than those
in suits and shirts. As I write this, the most fashionconscious have just shifted their loyalties en masse
from wide square toes to narrower shoes that
almost look pointy (indeed, the current style resembles the "winkle-pickers" of the mod era). The new
pointy shoes still have slightly blunted toes - if you
stand the shoe upright on its backstay, you can
balance a quarter on the toe.
Variations in stitching are also increasingly popular: fashionable shoes often have a "split toe"; that
is, a visible line of stitching joining the two sides of
the upper, visible on the toe. Or you will find two
seams running down the vamp, right to the sole. All
of these can be acceptable for dressy suits, but use
S H O E S I 3 5
your judgment, because the stitching can be excessive.
And remember that these styles are ephemeral.
You can never go wrong with a classic round-toed
oxford, either with a toecap or without, or with
classic brogues.
Colours
There were once strict rules for matching the colour
of your shoe with the colour of your suit, but these
are disappearing as well. I have caused a veritable
firestorm of outrage by writing in a newspaper that
I accepted the wearing of brown shoes with charcoal or navy suits. This was once strictly taboo in
class-conscious circles; brown shoes with a dark suit
were, in my father's day, a sign of an outsider, like
the wearing of a pre-tied bow tie or clip-on suspenders. My father tolerates brown shoes only with
a sports jacket - particularly with a tweed jacket,
which demands them.
But like the old adage that red wine is for meat
and white for fish, the injunction that brown shoes
are casual is outdated. Indeed, a man pairing a navy
suit with a pair of brown suede oxfords is quietly
displaying his confidence and his aestheticism,
which I admire. Burgundy or oxblood (which is
slightly darker; also called cordovan, from a kind
of expensive leather) is a particularly versatile
colour with suits, matching light grey, dark grey, or
beige. These combinations will make you look
modern and possibly Italian.
No fear; this is only the
beginning. You spit - only
a little bit - on the mess
you've made and then
start rubbing i n tiny
circles. This is crucial: tiny
circles, not wide swaths.
You go over and over the
circles you've just made
until a shine starts to
come up. If it doesn't, spit
a little bit more. You will
get to learn, with practice,
what exact ratio of spit to
polish will bring up the
best gloss. If you do it
with enough patience, you
will not need to brush off
excess polish afterward.
You might use an even
finer shoe rag - a woman's
nylon is particularly effec·
live here - to buff when
you are finished. The
process lakes experimentation, failure, frustration.
11 takes layer after fine
layer, applied week after
week. But soon - sooner
than you know it - your
shoes will be impervious
lo even salted slush, at
least for the duration of
the walk between the taxi
and the red carpet. ,.,
ti?.aalfb
By the time you have
graduated from elementary school you should
know that you don't lace
your dress shoes i n a
simple criss-cross pattern.
A gentleman knows that
his laces should he neatly
parallel. Now, there are
different methods for
achieving this, and some
steamy debate over which
is the most elegant or
practical. I have included
some handy diagrams here
so that you can analyze
the problem and make
your own decisions.
The first, the system we
might call the Underweb,
provides the most flexible
tightening ability, but does
rely on some messy underpinning. We want to cut
down on all the visible
strings under your neat
row of parallel l ines.
The second, which we
will baptize the Secret
Web, has fewer visible
underpinnings, but is a
bitch to tighten.
The third, which we
shall call the Ballroom, is
the most sleek and �
3 6 I M E N'S S T Y L E
I would, however, warn against very lightcoloured leather shoes: grey or tan or white. They
always look cheap, no matter how expensive they are.
Bright colours are fine for very casual shoes such
as sneakers or running shoes, meant for wearing
with shorts or jeans and skateboarding in. If we are
not talking about suits and ties, then you don't need
my advice: go nuts.
Suede shoes can be beautiful with sports jackets
of all colours. Suede shoes should be brown; they
are too informal for black.
A particular kind of moulded rubber sole - a sole
that looks organic, like an approximation of the
foot itself, and that curls up at the front and back to
become particularly visible - became popular in the
1990s and is still influencing fashion-forward styles
even in dress shoes. This was the great contribution
to the history of masculine footwear from the
Italian designer Miuccia Prada, and its influence has
been far out of proportion to its beauty. For about
ten years you couldn't see an architect or curator
walking a loft floor without glimpsing the telltale
red heel dot of the Prada label; it was the mark of
downtown consciousness. It was probably popular
because the curvy sole looked both futuristic and
athletic, like something to keep your feet stuck on a
wet windsurfing board. I have always been baffled
by the success of the Prada sole design and have long
wished it a speedy obsolescence.
My wish is coming true, as the Prada sole has
S H O E S I 3 7
been copied by so many low-end casual shoe manufacturers that it is now a staple of the discount
racks at mall outlets.
Stick with sober flat soles and you will avoid this
association.
Shoes with Formal Wear
For black or white tie, ancient wisdom demands
patent leather oxfords (in Britain) or court pumps
(in America). Patent leather is that treated leather
that looks as shiny as plastic. It doesn't need polishing. Court pumps are those very low-vamp loafers
with a little grosgrain silk bow just above the toe.
Both demands are outdated. Patent leather is
great if you can afford a special pair of shoes for
your dinner jacket. But to court pumps I wish a curt
good riddance, as they always looked frilly and
ridiculous. Nowadays a simple black leather oxford
will match both black and white tie, as long as it is
polished to a high gloss.
I still would avoid brogues, however, with black
tie. Remember that the more elaborately patterned
or stitched the shoe, the less slick and therefore less
formal it is.
I don't need to tell you, by this point, that loafers
with little tassels, indeed loafers of any kind, or any
shoes with rubber soles, are embarrassingly wrong
with black tie.
And if you think it's amusing to break the rules
of formal dressing by matching a dinner jacket with
elegant of all, but is
hugely impractical when it
comes t.o tightening your
shoe. Furthermore, it is
only practicable on shoes
with a certain number of
eyelets. Try it with a fiveeyelet shoe, and you will
be backed into a deadly
end-game with no option
but to have two ends
emerging from the same
hole. lt works with four
eyelets, however. ,.,
(clockwise tiom top left)
The Secret Web, the
Undenveb, the Ballroom
3 8 I M E N ' S S T Y L E
canvas tennis shoes, then you should stop reading
immediately. You are angry about something, and
want to be talking about politics instead.
Sandals
This is possibly the most treacherous terrain for the
male foot. It is hot; you are bound for a boardwalk
or ice-cream cafe; you are wearing shorts . . . a sandal
comes to mind. And yet, and yet . . . there is something inherently squirm-making,