White Collar
Photographed in Woods Hole, MA (wedding guest)
Noteworthy: saddle shoes, sterling signet ring (worn on little finger), signature cocktail.
left a comment on 7/28/2010 at 2:06 AM:
Another observation. Picture Pierce Brosnan in this
ensemble with it properly altered to his physique,
all of a sudden not too bad.(have a feeling Brosnan
would lose the saddle shoes still)
You have to face it. The more dashingly handsome
the man the more beautiful the woman,face wise
and body type the more you can get away with.
The same outfit that draws criticism on one
person,draws praise on another. NOW, you do
have your “character” types though, which
requires your relationship to yourself to be so
“solid” it produces “CHARM”. The luxury of the
state of “don’t care what you think of how I
dress” is STILL supposed to find praise while
being uncaring. Absolute confidence that
truly does not need praise will still find it,
too obvious to miss. If you’re going for clean
and crisp then have your cuffs correspond.
This overhang at the ankle,better with a beaten
weathered chino which then calls for a different
shirt, which then changes the tie,etc,..at face value
the outfit is fine. OH, and this “real preps"thing.
REAL PREPS don’t care BECAUSE they have got it
right without having to think about it, YOU are
NOT going to be an example for them. You got
it backwards. As far as this guy above,eh,trying
for a leading man look,with a character build
and the “je ne sais quoi” just isn’t there.
left a comment on 7/28/2010 at 1:28 AM:
Or in an alternate universe he could say too: “we welcome you to munchkin land.” choose your pill.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 11:26 PM:
Aside from the sizing; with exception to the jacket, this guys ensemble just invites you to say something so he can reply, “frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!”
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 9:16 PM:
awesome pic
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 7:00 PM:
Love it! Not a fan of saddle shoes (the bloody things should be banned, IMO), but this young fellow looks smashing. Well done chaps.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 4:40 PM:
Such Fun.
Love your posts and relish in all the commentary.
I Will be in Nantucket and the Cape the next two weeks. Be kind should FEC’s camera gets a hold of me.
Best,
Dana
http://dana-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 4:16 PM:
Also, on reflection, not quite sure where else one would wear a signet ring, or who signed the cocktail.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 3:59 PM:
No, further thoughts, splendid fellow; here this would be (down to shin level) just right for a boaty party involving punts or a smallish yacht.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 3:48 PM:
In my country he’d be wearing morning dress and sweating horribly. So good luck to him, but clearly the lobster Albert slippers did not arrive in time, so shame on that. Trousers too long again; no hand me down/‘thrift store’ excuses on that; wwhat are alteration tailors for?
Christopher.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 3:46 PM:
I don’t care if his blazer fits or not; the signet ring alone makes this guy a winner in my book.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 3:23 PM:
I dont care if this is cape cod, it’s far from preppie. From the contrast point collar, to the french cuffs, the faux blazer emblem, and incongruous saddle shoes, this whole outfit screams of effort, a decidedly un-preppie trait. A definite what-not-to-do.
I’m sure hes a nice guy though.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 2:10 PM:
Contrary to a lot of the other comments, I actually think his jacket fits very well. It’s not fashion forward, and ‘too small,’ a la Thom Browne, but does in fact look like he probably had it tailored to fit him as it does. For instance, the sleeves are a perfect fit, and he’s showing the perfect amount of cuff, and he doesn’t look like a tall guy, so I’d guess the sleeves were shortened. The pants, however, look like they’re straight out of the 80s, which may be what he going for, but I think if they were shorter, and slimmed down in the leg some, they’d be much more flattering. But if we believe that all these ‘true preps’ are so secure in their race and class status that they neither need, seek, nor appreciate flattery, then I guess his outfit is, by dint of the fact that he has become defined by the prep renaissance as someone who is always already perfectly dressed (because what he wears IS perfect itself—because it’s done effortlessly, with a got to hell attitude, or whatever) perfect…
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 1:25 PM:
Nice looking, conservative outfit. I’d ditch the cufflinks since the blazer buttons give enough metal to the sleeve.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 1:13 PM:
I agree with Andy, it’s a nice change of pace to see how real people are dressed rather than a photoshoot. I like these.
Who are any of you to decide how his clothes should fit him anyway? They’re his clothes.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 1:03 PM:
Per Elizabeth’s and others’ comments, which seem to suggest that this guy is just some old-school prep who doesn’t take clothes or himself too seriously, I must disagree. The problem with this guy/picture, is that he clearly cares - a lot. This isn’t some sort of “thrown together” outfit - he thought about this one, from the shoes, to the patch and ring, to the collar - and that’s the problem. In trying to piece together the “perfect summer wedding outfit” that would showcase just how stylish and preppy he was, he overdid it and butchered the look. Yeah, there are a couple “elements” in the outfit that could, conceivably work if the rest of the kit did, but that’s not the point - I could browse elements in a catalogue or on store shelves - it’s putting them all together in a way that works that translate into style and potential learning or admiration from blog readers….the only thing I learned from this pic was how great a value properly tailored pants and blazers are.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 12:50 PM:
Straight up terrible. From the “sort of, modern-ish, aviators” to the faux removable contrast collar (which never, ever look good since they’re impersonating removable, washable collars from 100 years ago…), to a double breasted jacket which makes this guy look 4 inches shorter than he already is (what’s the chest patch all about? Even if it’s legit, it screams trying too hard - esp as someone else’s wedding), to the far too long and baggy white pants, this “outfit” is so far off the mark even I’m surprised. Both these guys needs tailors, ASAP - clothing choices aside, style is as much about wearing clothes that fit and flatter as much as it’s about anything else. Whoah…let’s get this train back on the tracks.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 12:33 PM:
Elizabeth has it right… These posts aren’t images to base our fits on, they’re here to showcase some particular elements of preppy style. Most all of us agree that the coats in this and the last post are too big and also that the pants could use some work, but imagine that the fits are just right and suddenly you’re looking at preppy perfection: Loud, festive clothes at a great location with drinks in hand. This isn’t a Rugby photoshoot, it’s people in their real life habitat, which I think is a nice breath of fresh air. Paraphrasing, FEC told us he’s here to show the original preps how to wear their clothes sized correctly and to share their style with the rest of us. I’d say he’s got it figured out.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 11:23 AM:
I don’t think the jacket fits right, but that’s not the problem. Shorter, stockier guys should not wear double breasted jackets. They emphasize your body attributes and make you look even squatier.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 11:09 AM:
Hear, hear! Elizabeth got it-spot on.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:46 AM:
The pinky ring is pretty hilarious.
www.mensstyle101.blogspot.com
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:43 AM:
I should add that I’m not a fan of double-breasted jackets, and the one this fellow is wearing isn’t flattering. But I imagine he’s never even considered getting rid of that thing, or having it tailored properly. One has to admire that sort of…nerve? Moxie? Cluelessness?
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:42 AM:
@Sam—What I want you to understand and be inspired by in this photograph is the noteworthy points I made above. Secondly, this gentleman is the only reason this blog even exists. Without the born-and-bred prep and their uniform, the prep aesthetic ceases to exist much less surface to the mainstream.
@Elizabeth—Your wild assumptions are not too far from the truth.
@fsp—“Too much of all”? When is the last time you read The Official Preppy Handbook?
Take a moment and read M.D. Cooley (comment in the previous post), Glenn, and robdarko’s comments. They understand my mind on this week’s posts. They understand where these posts are coming from…they are coming from a place unadulterated by the fashion industry. They should be received as such.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:41 AM:
@Elizabeth, I completely understand your perspective, and I think most of the “haters” of this post do, as well. The problem is not this particular gentlemen, it’s the fact that his attire made this site. It is in congruent with the majority of the rest of this site. Most people probably look at this site for some sort of inspiration, or simply to see whats out there. This is neither inspirational or original in any way shape or form.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:37 AM:
This man has nothing to prove. He’s got a festive drink in his hand, he’s on Cape Cod on a lovely summer’s day at a happy event, and he’s comfortable enough to let someone take his photo and post it on a blog about preppy style where a bunch of nitpickers are going to take him to task about his attire. And why doesn’t he care about the latter? Because he’s a prep in his native habitat, and probably has no idea that his clothes are supposed to fit perfectly, anyway. He doesn’t have to “get it” because he’s probably unaware that there’s anything to “get” in the first place.
Yes, I’m making a lot of wild assumptions here, but you catch my drift…
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:33 AM:
Mad props on running a pretty great site, but the recent posts have been a bit lacking. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like I keep seeing the same posts.
www.mensstyle101.blogspot.com
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:31 AM:
I understand that old-school preps didn’t care much for fit, but we know better today. And, based on brief looks at Take Ivy, those guys seemed like they had everything pretty much down. These aren’t old pictures, there are plenty of guys with prep influenced style that should be up here.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:31 AM:
Finally, a man wearing a jacket that fits him, instead of one that is at least one size too small.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:29 AM:
Too much of all. In contrast to the other wedding guest he look’s not like someone who know’s what understatement means
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:25 AM:
“I just want everyone to understand that my goal is to have everyone here dressing better than preps themselves. As you will see in some upcoming Dress Code posts from Cape Cod, true preps could care less about the fit of their chinos…and frankly I would like to change that.” FEC 7/7/10
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:20 AM:
For everyone was paying attention FEC told us this was coming (pics from CC) when we were discussing some of the finer points of Prep dress a few weeks ago. The class who “gave birth” to prep was/is not nearly as interested in the finer points of fit as we are. It was/is indeed a uniform. And they could care less if we think their pants and sleeves are to long (they are) and if he’s to short to wear a double breasted jacket (he is).
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:20 AM:
On this post as well as the previous one, it has become pretty obvious that these men are simply wedding attendees, not style experts. So why does everyone expect them to dress as such?
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 10:18 AM:
Hmmm I don’t feel like it fits right for some reason.
However, I would LOVE to see more wedding posts on here!
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 9:59 AM:
while this looks screams get away from me that is what makes it great.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 9:49 AM:
Might have looked better if it had been a proper fit.
Too big..
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 9:38 AM:
It looks like he borrowed this from a taller gentleman, and the result is that he looks four feet tall. His legs just look so short!
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 9:12 AM:
M.D. Cooley nailed the sentiment on the previous post. These wedding guests could care less what we think because to them it’s a uniform. F.E.C. does not go into details regarding the garments but I am sure they are well constructed from quality fabrics. This guy has no agenda.
Save Khaki was an ad campaign or some kind of editorial so there was an agenda.
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 9:06 AM:
and with that, the preppie revival comes to a screeching halt…
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 9:01 AM:
There is such a thing as too much cuff. Everything else - great look!
left a comment on 7/27/2010 at 8:59 AM:
I feel that this, as well as the previous picture are disappointing. These two “wedding guests” should be titled “wedding crashers” because their choices are just a wreck. There has been a lot of talk about “costumes” on this blog lately, but I think these take the proverbial “wedding cake.” Ill-fitting and tacky. Compared to your shoot for Save Khaki, these ensembles aren’t deserving of their place on this great site. They should appear on your partner site “An Affordable Wardrobe.”
Despite these two wedding posts, you have done an incredible job FEC! I love your site, your work, and your style. Keep it up!
F.E. Castleberry left a comment on 7/31/2010 at 11:28 AM:
@Christopher Tawney—At one point, I had an individual argue a signet ring is never worn on the little finger…he argued this because none of the “preps” he grew up with wore them. I simply replied that his friends’ families were not affluent enough to ascribe to such traditions. Here, we see an authentic so-called “prep” in the Cape attending a quintessential social event—a wedding. Lo and behold, he’s wearing a signet ring on his little finger. You can’t argue with that.