On Dec 8, 2010, at 9:42 AM, Andy Comer wrote:
My two cents: Sure, if you’re shoveling snow or fly-fishing in the Beaver Kill. In other words, if there’s a practical, functional reason to do so. But as a pure style move… Unless you’re a member of Einsturzende Neubauten, not something I’m a big fan of.
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:00 AM, Jared Flint wrote:
I think a lot of it has to do with the transition a lot of guys are making from sneakers to boots. A ton of guys who used to sport Dunks and Jordans have opted for Wolverines and Red Wings but haven’t fully let go of that sneaker swag. There’s absolutely no functionality to it in the West Village. You end up looking like Jerry Seinfeld when he wore cowboy boots… and he didn’t want to be a cowboy. It looks like your ankles are suffocating. If your pants have been effortlessly caught on a boot fringe, so be it… otherwise, a bit precious/contrived.
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Andy Comer wrote:
(Tyler furtively untucks.)
On Dec 8, 2010, at 12:21 PM, Tyler Thoreson wrote:
I must say, for two guys with such admirable personal style you’re coming off a little curmudgeonly on this topic. I’d think twice—and maybe look in the mirror—before making the argument that practicality is the only justification for adopting this look or any other. I mean, couldn’t you use the same argument against any number of wardrobe-enhancement techniques each of you regularly employ, from pocket squares to neckties to cuffed jeans (really so different from tucked-in?)? None of those have any real practical function, either.
What say you to that?
On Dec 8, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Andy Comer wrote:
I’m the last person in the world who would uphold practicality as an absolute. (I’m much more into frivolity! Oh, and for the record I’m an unrepentant curmudgeon, too.) But one principle I will trouble myself to stand up for: aesthetics. And the tucked-in boot thing just doesn’t look right to me. (Again, unless you’re a fly-fisherman or a member of an early-’80s industrial rock band. Or Santa Claus. I love Santa Claus.)
On Dec 8, 2010, at 2:39 PM, Jared Flint wrote:
I never think twice and don’t even own a mirror. That’s not true at all. None of us escape vanity and the sweet spot for guys is fussing about just enough in the mirror (hopefully without anyone seeing) until you’ve tucked and pulled your way to looking like you didn’t give a second thought to how you look… but look great all the same. I think I just don’t enjoy that silhouette right now, at this exact moment in time. Then again, there’s some ugly crap in my closet. Also, Santa Claus always freaked me out. Isn’t he just an over-the-hill cat burglar? He’s the Kenny Powers of home invasion.
On Dec 8, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Tyler Thoreson wrote:
Setting aside your feelings about Santa Claus, who I always imagine to have a filet of smoked salmon in his pocket courtesy of Dan Aykroyd’s memorable turn in red fur in Trading Places, I think we are in agreement. Which is to say: a) fuss and preen all you like but never to obvious affect and never in public, and b) pants tucked into boots isn’t objectively wrong, just subjectively not so right. HOWEVER… I remember being intrigued by the way stylist Natasha Royt wrapped the bottoms of the suit trousers in Rag & Bone’s Fall ’08 runway show with what looked like nineteenth-century ankle weights. (Not that I know what nineteenth-century ankle weights actually look like.) That technique might come off as a little affected for for real-world wear, but it did a nice job of revealing the badass Northampton boots on David Neville and Marcus Wainwright’s models. Of course, it’s also worth nothing that she’s a professional stylist and you (and by you I mean me) are not.
Ed. Note: We just noticed our colleague Mordechai Rubinstein weighing in on this very topic, via Twitter…