The London Lounge

What are gents' thoughts on this?

Is spezzatura, throw away elegance achieved through conscious contrasting or matching of accessories with each , and with the outfit.?

Is sameness good , or is contrast good in making ones' selections?

For example:

Texturally, do we want pocket squares to match or contrast with tie material?; i.e, silk tie with silk square or better, a contrasting texture, i.e., silk tie with linen square?

Do you prefer silk ties with rough tweed sports coats, or better a wool tie? Pocket square?

How about mixing/matching ties/squares with smooth, business worsted woolens?; would contrasting textured ties such as shantung, cashmere work with worsteds or is it preferred to wear same-texture , smooth silk ties?


When selecting a shirt, do you prefer matching or contrasting fabric, texture and weight to the coat? ; i.e., when wearing linen coat, is it preferred to choose a same genre linen mix shirt? Or a contrasting textured and weight shirt such as a heavier weight cotton oxford?


Finally, color matching belts and shoes...... Some shoe makers like EG offer same color/same leather belts to go with their shoes. Is this level of matching, excessive, a faux paux, similar to exactly color matching tie and pocket square?

Would you rather prefer contrasting belt in both color and texture to your shoes?; say, when wearing Chestnut oxfords to choose a Dark Oak calk, or even alligator belt?

I’ll defer on history to manton, but here are some reflections:

Sprezzatura in dress requires both a pleasing aesthetic effect and the impression that it was achieved without effort--an unstudied look. To judge the first, general principles of design and color composition can be adduced from other arts; for the second, the degree of order and complexity imposed on the ensemble must be constrained. Let’s look at how these intersect, and we’ll see that the binary choice of sameness or contrast can’t be used as an unchanging rule. Context is all.

In sensory arts generally, dynamism and energy come from contrast; harmony and repose from similarity, symmetry and repetition. The successful whole balances some of each. In dress, these polarities can be in color, (http://www.color-wheel-pro.com/color-theory-basics.html), light-dark value, texture, weight and thickness of materials, scale of pattern, cut (fitted or draped), line (angular and geometric or soft and organic).

Take a classic, simple spring-season example. Navy or midnight lightweight worsted flannel blazer, white smooth cotton spread-collar shirt, pale yellow silk shantung tie, white linen pocket hank, lightweight charcoal flannel trousers, polished calf shoes.
Here there’s dramatic contrast between jacket and tie (in color, light/dark value, and texture), jacket and shirt, jacket and hank. This is bracing and refreshing--but introducing contrast in pattern, weight, and drape, or a third distinct color group, would unbalance the look. So it’s aesthetically successful. What about studied? No. The complementary color scheme is basic, obvious, and traditional, so it doesn’t look effortful. It should be worn with some looseness and imperfection of assembly; if such a basic ensemble looks meticulously pulled together, it suggests that this degree of complexity is the greatest the wearer is capable of--thus no sprezzatura. (The old summer version, replacing the gray flannels with off-white flannels or gabs, with white bucks, works the same way--the trousers and shirt contrast with the jacket, but don’t introduce a third major color or pattern). You’ll recognize an outfit like this as a cornerstone of the trad and RL anglo-trad styles. A great staple, but not very adventurous.

Likewise formal dress offers maximum contrast in color but constrains pattern, weight and cut, relying on manipulation of texture for subtle variation. Here the contrast is so great, and the occasion sufficiently structured, that more careful assembly is appropriate--but here too, the elegant dresser finds a place for the slightly assymetrical tie, boutonniere, etc.

More sophisticated combinations provide the creative opportunities. Reducing light-dark and color contrast in the main garments, adding secondary or tertiary colors, multiple cloth patterns or weights, all make for a more elements to balance. Less color contrast in main garments might be balanced by stronger contrast in pattern scale, or by brighter-colored accessories, or textural contrasts, or a combination of these. A low-contrast or monochrome palette directs more attention to cut, drape, weight, and texture.

So to the specific pairs you ask about (matching or contrasting belt/shoes, etc), I can imagine ensembles where each would look well, and unstudied, depending on how much similarity or contrast appears in other elements, and how the pieces were assembled and worn. A solid mid-gray business worsted with blue/white pinstripe shirt and solid navy tie with matching black calf belt and oxfords, with a blue and white dot hank would be very correct but would require a very dashing cut and/or manner of wearing, or accessories, to show any sprezzatura at all, given its absence of contrast.

The great dressers, it seems to me, not only balance contrast and similarity, but consistently introduce one or two surprising and unexpected elements into each outfit—an unusual cloth, or way of fastening a belt, stuffing a beautiful pair of peccary gloves into a jacket pocket instead of a hank, a subtle color match, a careless scarf—and balance that idiosyncratic touch with restraint elsewhere. It’s finding the line where such gestures stop short of affectation, but look naturally personal, that provides the challenge. And sometimes the wearer’s attitude makes the difference between one side of that line and the other. It’s in this area where posts like etutee’s and Schuman’s Sartorialist photos offer such instructive examples, at least to me, and I’m grateful to them and other members for their/your efforts.