Different patterns, same size

[iammatt]

It may just be that I have trouble following rules , but for the life of me, I cannot get this to work. I have no problem mixing three of the same king of patters, all sorts of different patterns etc, but every time I try this one, I end up with a stripe that looks like it it morphing into a check as it goes from shirt to jacket, or my eyes start to bug out at the fuzzy effect emanating from my attempt.

Does anybody else have problems with this kind of look, and if not, where might I be going wrong.

[manton]

One problem with the concept of "rules of clothing" is that rules are conveyed through words whereas clothnig is tactile and visual. There is no way to exhaustively say in words all the things that will look good, and all the things that will look bad. It only gets harder when exhaustiveness is dropped as unworkable and we try to boil things down into rules. The shorter the rule is, the more likely it is going to be remembered and heeded (and thus be useful). But also the more exceptions there will be, and a multitude of exceptions tends to make a rule appear invalid or useless.

The foremost rule about pattern mixing is that two adjecent patterns need to be different enough not to blend into one another visually. If they are too close, they can appear like an optical illusion. The three ways to do this are by varying the patterns' type and/or scale and/or color. Varying all three (e.g., thick, spaced out maroon stripes with small close-together white dots) will work most of the time and is the easiest to do well. Varying two out of three is harder, but still easy enough. Varying only one is harder. In my opinion, the hardest mix to do well is when the patterns are different but the scales the same. You get that hypnosis illusion effect, more often than not.

Another rule is that three patterns together (coat, shirt and tie) should be avoided. The bolder any pattern is, the more important this rule becomes. Yet if two or three of the patterns are subtle enough and different enough, it can work -- in numerous combinations. You can even add a fourth (handkerchief).

Now, I think these are good rules. They help beginners get it right. They offer principles that veteran dressers can use to put together ensembles.

But even a useful rule can't cover everything. Experience and trial and error and good taste will come up with combinations that violate one or more of these rules. So use the rules as a starting point, but don't follow them by rote.

[iammatt]

Thak you for the thoughtful explanation. The hypnotic illusion effect is the one that I seem quite skilled at producing.

[kidkim2]

We are in danger of missing something important here. The "different patterns, same scale" guideline, properly understood, can really help in the vast majority of cases. Needless to say, no rule will solve all of our problems. Nor will its having done so in the past guarantee success in the future.

But these truisms do not mean that the guideline is valueless. The "different patterns" rule--and its inverse--can be a powerful aid to the achievement of sartorial variety.and force.

Specific to "different patterns, same scale":

(a) Keep Etutee's acute observations in mind (see recent discussion here of Fall Esky illustrations): Pay attention to intensity of pattern as well as to color, texture, and scale. (But first, scale!)

(b) Pre-eminently, make sure the patterns are linked--usually by color as well as size. If you are mixing a blue checked shirt with a blue polka dot tie, scrutinize the hues for compatiblity. And try this test of scale: if you were to connect the dots on the tie with a felt-tipped pen, the resulting boxes should be the same size as the checks on the shirt.

(c) But also make sure the two elements (e.g., shirt and tie) are clearly separated. Best if the polka dot boxes are diagonal (that is, diamonds rather than horizontal squares).

Let the principles guide you toward combinations you would not otherwise be able to visualize. They will do so!