I’m sorry, but I don’t think I like this at all- a litle too old world for my liking. The only thing that lends to modernity is the scarf, which is nicely wrapped by the way. But what kills it for me are the shoes! Brown suede?! Say it isn’t so Sart!
this comment is not specifically for this picture but for the blog as a whole. I stumbled upon your site and I think it is amazing. Iâ€™ve never heard of your site before this(probably because I live in Malaysia) but I think you really capture the wonderful styles of the people all around you. New Yorkers are so colorful and stylish and they have character.
I Love this look…..suede shoes and I think suede gloves played against various classic earth tones. I’m sure the weather there lends itself to dress this way …with the scarf n all……that look is not happening here in Dallas…not without packing an icepak.
Forgive me, because the gentleman does look nice, but he also looks really studied, and in my view like a dandy. My question to you/others: At what point does concentrating on the outer appearance become unattractive because it becomes all about vanity? I don’t know this man, so he could be full of depth and could care for plenty other things than clothing. . . But, still, that’s my question in a nutshell.
Truly scrumptious…to me this look echoes the 1960s–not the style of James Bond exactly but the person whose clothes create a micro-environment in which everthing has a place. An epitome (there are many) of cool.
Sometimes I wonder if this blog became even more popular and everyone in NYC started following it, it would make more New Yorkers dress up more often on the off chance they might be spotted by your camera.
God knows I got all dressed up every day on my last visit for exactly that reason, but alas….
It’s a nice look. Nice mix of textures and colors. The shoes are the only thing a little bit off. They are a tad too bulbous for me. I like a nice angular cut on the shoes. Especially near the arch. Otherwise great. Thankfully no cuffs on the pants. I clearly disagree with others here. What is the obsession with cuffs on the pants? It’s a messy look that kills the drape of the pants.
If I may also address Anon 2:48, the point at which dress becomes studied or “vain” is when the wearer has tried an effect that calls attention to itself in a nonharmonious way. It is, in other words, sartorial self-consciousness.
Also, dressing like a dandy is not per se an undesirable thing; quite the opposite. Few people can, however, pull of that kind of heightening, shall we call it, without…well, see my first paragraph.
I worked with Eric over ten years ago at SFA and as well as being a stylish dresser he drove a very stylish old Jag in very good condition. Most unusual and very grovie for someone living on the upper westside. Last time I bumped into him I learned he now has kids and after we parted wondered if he managed to hold onto the car. I hope he did…
The most stylish people are those who appear effortlessly put together, rather than self-consciously so. Dandy man, for my taste, looks way too studied. An earlier comment asks at what point someone’s apparent obsession with the outer appearance becomes unattractive. I’m not sure exactly, but that point certainly does exist for me.
when i saw this pic, my first thought was that this guy reads sart and was hoping to have his picture taken. in the best possible way. i totally agree, the entire outfit is the most wonderful mix of colors, textures, shapes… perfection.
i just have a couple of questions/comments for some of the other commenters:
- what’s wrong with the brown suede shoes? perhaps it’s not “standard” (i don’t know exactly, i’m a woman commenting on men’s fashion here) but when combined with the glen plaid, the soft scarf, and the flannel-y looking pants, i think it adds to the whole sort of “soft warm cozy fall” feel of the outfit. that’s also why i think the rounded toe works for me as opposed to a sharper more “angular” one.
- regarding the line between well-dressed and dandyishness: this is going to sound extreme but i feel the need to say it – i think fear of looking like a “dandy” is partially responsible for the sometimes slovenly state of dress so many men seem to think is standard nowadays. as a woman, i’m quite sick of it. dressing well and putting care into one’s appearance shows care/respect for OTHER people too (if you’re going to work, meeting with friends, etc). to me, this guy’s look communicates a seriousness of purpose – “i mean business” – in a good way. that he thinks through the details of his look to me suggests that in all aspects of his life, he’s detail-oriented, which is only a good thing… etc. etc. etc.
i also think that the way a person carries themselves communicates whether they’re dressing out of vanity or not. if in person this guy was constantly fidgeting, making sure his outfit was just so, smoothing his hair etc – that would certainly suggest a level of vanity. if however, he were comfortable in his own skin, and HE came through, and what he was wearing became the background, well then that would convey a… well, a non-dandy-ness i suppose.
i’m reminded of a (college-aged) guy i met once (long ago, when backpacking through the mediterranean) who was wearing a pair of jeans that were ripped and shredded beyond belief (remember those days? perhaps they’re not gone, i don’t know what the state of youth fashion is now). the rest of his outfit was similarly torn to pieces, which i thought was the result of travel wear-and-tear, which would be understandable… but it turns out (he took the trouble of explaining to me) that his jeans were some particular brand made just to look that way (as was much of the rest of his outfit). furthermore his whole body language/demeanor communicated “i’m obsessed with how i look”. yet he was wearing clothes which were supposed to look unstudied… i found him so profoundly irritating!
his look was all about an overstudied/vain slovenliness, i suppose, which i think is in fact WORSE than an overstudied/vain neatness, because it’s in fact trying to appear to be exactly what it’s not. and i guess i’m getting all worked up about this, and slightly veering off-topic as well, because i think more and more men exhibit the former look rather than the latter, at least where i am (west coast). does that make any sense? anyone else care to comment? i know similar topics have been discussed on this site before so apologies if this is old news.
Vanity is his favorite sin. He looks so perfect, that it is not working. He is almost a mannequin. Have said the negatives… i love his perfect pant length. His shoes are just like mine., weathered down. This is why i hate wearing new clothes. I try to mask my new clothes with the old ones so i do not get noticed. i want to be noticed by just the right amount of people.
anon 5:29 i have a similar pair of shoes which i purchased about 10 years ago. He are out of shape to the viewer but fit like a glove on me. I am not going to discard these beauties. I recently got them resoled.
Fascinating how much discussion a claim of ‘perfection’ can evoke! As noted, the fellow works in fashion retail, and it’s literally his job to look Just So… I agree 100% with Sart about the quality of what’s in your closet. If it’s all really good stuff, you’ll keep it longer and in better condition. Buy less but buy better. And I applaud the movement to oust the slouchers, the baggies, the dry land surfers, the backward cappers, and all those who wear shorts or jeans to the opera.
I do not agree: this is not perfect: I think the jacket is a bit too short (it should entirely cover the bottom), and the pants are a bit too short too… But this is perfect because this is not perfect, that is the point! (comment from the old world)
A fantastic outfit, love it. It’s classic but not stodgy at all. The brown suede shoes are perfect and are absolutely appropriate. I had my own rant about this issue on my blog. As for cuffs/no cuffs, it can go either way in this case; as they are, the pants look clean and modern, with cuffs theyâ€™d have a more classic feel.
Either way, a great look – especially the glasses behind the pocket square.
Is it vanity to care how you represent yourself to the world? Whether we like it or not, we’re judged by our outward appearance (look at the judgements – positive and negative – we’re casting in this gentleman’s direction). I kind of like the idea that my outward appearance can be a reflection of my inner character: who I am, what I like, what I value.
To me, the vanity kicks in when the individualism phases out. You’re trying to craft something that you don’t actually possess.
as always bitches trying to bring down a perfect cup… the gent in reference is perfect because it’s obvious he knows his profession, attention to quality is what makes this look stand out, this man is a relic from a bygone era, before sweetshops dressed the masses…..bravo for him, and i hope he makes a lot of babies, the world needs more aesthetes like you sir….
The tie clip has roughly the same width as the sunglasses and has the same texture. Placed near each other, they balance each other. With no clip, the sunglasses would have stuck out. Now they’re harmonized.
Again some spirited commenting above. “a” at 8:17 nails it in my view. Nowadays there are very few firm fashion rules. It’s the image you wish to project. “a”‘s comment about the pre-ripped jeans is a perfect example. Subliminal fashion message from ripped jeans wearers: “I really don’t want you to know that a few years ago I wore Wranglers my mom bought me; I’ve been cool since age 7″. On the other end, gentlemen like this wish to project a different image: “I live in a white glove doorman building on Park; I’m old money”. I think the 1st Amendment lets us do this. So who are we to criticize the manner in which someone wishes to present themselves, whther they are a pre-ripped jeans wearer who actually lives in a suburban track house in Jersey or a swell gentleman who actually lives in a walk up on the UWS;it provides us the street theater we should all be enjoying.And perhaps it gets them through life.
This fellow is quite good looking, and I wonder what influence that might have had in some of the questioning here. If he had a quirkier look perhaps he'd be more readily viewed as a man with great style, without pondering his vanity. Just a thought.