Sep 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Embrace the Pocket Square
Like Spencer Ackerman I only rarely read GQ and when I do the results are invariably disturbing. The latest issue exhorts me to, among other things, “embrace the pocket square.” I, for one, refuse to embrace the pocket square. Rep Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI) embraces the pocket square and I’m comfortable leaving it to him:
And then look at this slideshow about how I should dress at work:
Who buys this stuff? I’m hardly impoverished but can’t imagine spending that kind of money on this stuff. Even John McCain’s shoes don’t cost $760 and he owns so many houses he can’t keep track of them all. If there’s really a market for this kind of thing, then we definitely need to make the tax code more steeply progressive at the high end.
66 Responses to “Embrace the Pocket Square”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Defense Budget
Demographics
Denmark
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 30th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
A good watch I can go along with. Maurice Lacroix works for me.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Of course there’s a market for this kind of stuff. I’m in college and I have those sunglasses.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Sure there is a market for this crap. Check out http://www.styleforum.net, where the dandys go to drink it all up.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
The thing is that you can get a nice custom-made suit for much less than $3,500. I cannot imagine what an off-the-rack suit offers that couldn’t be had by having one custom made… so if you’re willing to spend money in the price range, what are you doing following the advice of GQ?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
I dont understand dropping that kind of cash on sunglasses, which I will inevitably lose or sit on (because you can’t wear them indoors).
But I do have a pair of $385 shoes, for which I paid $145 at the Allen Edmonds outlet in Burlington, NC.
I never thought there could be a difference worth that much in shoes. But, there is a real difference.
Not saying I would buy several pairs of them, but I know I will have this pair long after obliterating several pairs of $55 Rockports.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
The latest issue exhorts me to, among other things, “embrace the pocket square.” I, for one, refuse to embrace the pocket square.
Is that some sort of Masonic code?
September 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Every now and then there is something pretty interesting to read in there, but you can’t really keep the thing in your house lest the whole living room ends up smelling like a bunch of douchetastic cologne.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
I’m a card-carrying member of the liberal elite, but if you’d asked me five minutes ago what “embracing the pocket square” means, I would have guessed that it was a Victorian Era euphemism for public masturbation.
Since the House GOP has informed us that the bailout plan is tantamount to socialism, I say let’s do this socialism thing properly. GQ editors will be first against the wall.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The funny thing is not so much the impracticality of the budget for those suits, as the shockingly poor investment they represent. _Look_ at those models, for crying out loud–they look like they’re all trying to squeeze into the suits they got for high school graduation or something, because someone in New York or Paris decided that men’s jackets should be about two sizes too small this year. And God help you if you could stand to lose a pound or too…
No one who’s crazy enough to sink three grand into one of those clown suits will be wearing it in two years, when the designers start thinking that the sleeve should just hit the base of the ring finger or some other such nonsense.
On the whole, men worked out a pretty good business-and-event fashion early in the 20th century. The wasitline came down a bit and the vest got tossed (pity), but that’s about it. Ties and lapels fluctuate, French cuffs seem classy for a while, and then overblown…but a well-built gray or navy suit from 50 years ago will still look _great_ today, and probably 50 years from now, as well. I know people who can wear their fathers’ business suits, and they look universally superb: not “retro,” not flashy, but solid, professional, and even elegant.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
You left out the $360 keyring!
September 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I bought a $250 pair of sunglasses last April on the theory that if I paid a lot of money for them, I would be less likely to lose or break them. My theory has borne out thus far. I also own an expensive watch ($500 is expensive for a watch in my book) because it keeps time very accurately which is sometimes crucial for my job. Other than that I’d be happy in jeans and a t-shirt (or a Jedi robe) the rest of the time.
Expensive clothes exist for the same reason expensive cars and McMansions exist; namely to provide superficial evidence of substance in social circles where the real thing is taboo.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
My girlfriend got me a subscription to GQ last year, which I promptly let expire, after finding that the magazine couldn’t even hold my interest as bathroom reading.
But this last month’s Megan Fox pictorial was nice. Very, very nice.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Expensive clothes exist for the same reason expensive cars and McMansions exist; namely to provide superficial evidence of substance in social circles where the real thing is taboo.
I actually disagree with that statement, although it is sometimes true. Sometimes expensive things really are extremely nice things, well made of rare materials, etc.
And, yes, I know that sometimes expensive things are crappy things with high-falutin’ labels.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
“Who buys this stuff?” People who don’t know how to buy clothes and mistake price for quality. Growing up in a thrift-conscious yet professional New England family, the men had certain rules about clothes: buy traditional and never anything with modish “style” (say, button-down Oxford cloth shirts); only natural fibers (hence, tweed sport coats and worsted wool slacks); shop for winter stuff at the spring sales and shop for summer stuff in the fall sales; if you can’t find it–even at LL Bean–you can probably do without.
Of course, my San Francisco-native wife was initially appalled at my drab haberdashery.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
I think there is a lot to be said for dressing well. This article, however, suggests dressing as a flashy brand whore. A nice custom tailored suit (which last you quite a while) made by one of the many traveling hong kong tailors will run you $700-$1000. A custom made shirt from the same tailor is about $70. Tie: $75. Shoes (alden, will last you a decade): $350. You will look better than the guy in the off the rack armani, will have spent much less and your suit will last much much longer. (the very expensive off the rack suits are made of very expensive wool/silk blends that wear out very quickly)
Buying $3500 off the rack suit is for rich fools (or people who love credit card debt). I have a pocket square. It cost me $30.
If you show up to the office in a shiny $3000 italian off the rack suit wearing those absurd shoes you basically come across as the douchiest guy in the world. I suppose the readers of this article want that.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Another fact that lets you know this stuff is either fantasy or for tools is that from most of the photos you can’t get much of an idea of what’s good about the suits- they look pretty much like regular ones. So either it’s just fantasy for people who like that sort of thing or for people who buy despite the look. At least the Louis Vuitton bag looks okay (you’d still be a fool to buy one for 1.5K) unlike the ones for women which look as if they are an elaborate joke to show how dumb people are.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Well, yeah.
I think we need to market these high tax brackets as exclusive brackets. People don’t buy $6000 handbags because they get $6000 of use out of them. They buy them so that they will have something others don’t.
You could have the Prada bracket, the Minolo Blonic bracket, then for the real high earners the Caracini or Anderson and Sheppard brackets. Just to make them feel like they’re getting their money’s worth, we should audit them with auditors dressed in designer clothing from one bracket down, allowing them to feel superior, but not making them feel like they are slumming. I figure we can get up to 90% marginal rates this way.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
This country has an infatuation with wealthy lifestyles, whether they’re getting celebrated in GQ or in the latest jewel-studded hip hop video. But the times they are a changin, folks! In hard times, like the Great Depression and like what’s staring us in the face right now, people start remembering that extravagant wealth is not just out of reach, it’s outrageous. Check out this anti-McCain spot for saying it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz4Z6L4u8E4
It’s short and shallow (and funny), but I think it captures the mood that this country is headed for.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
Your final paragraph seems to be tacitly assuming that since John McCain doesn’t wear such ridiculously expensive things, anyone who does must have even more income than him. I think you’ll find, though, that the market for these things is actually defined by people who spend a much higher percentage of their income on clothes and such than John McCain or, for that matter, probably you.
The most ridiculous item in this slideshow is surely the $540 cufflinks. I’m pretty sure they’re the things that look like paper clips in the upper left corner of slide 3. That they’re made by Porsche is just icing on the cake.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
My sunglasses probably cost that much, but they’re prescription, so a lot of that was covered by insurance, probably 2/3 or more of the cost was the lenses, because I got the really nice lenses.
Can anyone who doesn’t already know the price tell the difference between a $50 tie and a $175 tie? I sure as hell can’t.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
the dumbest thing is that ‘fashion’ suits that cost $5,000 dollars look old fashioned within two years. to a lesser extent, this is true of shoes.
the lucretius guide to dressing for work:
brooks brothers 1818: c$1,000, church’s loafers, c$500, shirts from thomas pink, c$120, ties c$100 (from wherever / for christmas / hannukkah if you’re named after a church etc).
as most people don’t have to wear suits any more, you probably need no more than two or three of them, so four grand will buy you a work wardrobe for five years.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
That’s not a pocket square: that’s a handkerchief, properly folded. He’s also wearing a three piece suit. That’s the way men ought to dress.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
If you buy a $3500 watch because it’s reliable and with the expectation that it’ll last you ten years or more, I don’t see what’s so wrong with that. $3500 over ten years, for instance, is only $1 a day. Seems more than worth the cost.
In other words, I agree with others who’ve said there’s a difference between buying expensive things for the label and buying expensive things because that expense brings improved quality and longevity.
Shoes are another fine example. I gave up on $50-$100 shoes after I realized that with regular wear, none of them last more than a year. A quality shoe is definitely worth it. (And, similar to a watch, you’ll use it with high frequency.)
September 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
@#14 – As someone who lives in Cambridge and works in Boston, men up here dress so boring. Nobody takes any risk whatsoever, and everyday looks like The Gap had a sale on khakis as long as you bought one size too big and you got a free corporate golf shirt to go along with it. As far as your LL Bean shirts go, if you’re huge and fat, then have it at them. If you want a shirt that can’t hide a sarah palin-shot Moose, you have to shop elsewhere. You can buy an oxford anywhere, but finding one that fits appropriately can be a challenge. You don’t need to spend large amounts on clothes to look good at all, but at least buy stuff that fits. And for the love of god, don’t be so cookie cutter.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I dunno. I’ve been watching Mad Men lately and I’ve been thinking about embracing the pocket square, but not in that foppy wavy way. Just a nice clean line, right above the breast pocket of the jacket.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
wow, if anyone who was thinking of buying a pocket square because they think the kinds of guys who sport them are worth being associated with, i recommend they watch ol’ thaddeus.
what a twat.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
The worst about New England fashion has been the tendency to turn “boring” into a fashion virtue. It’s not uncreative, it’s anti-creative. I refuse under any circumstances to wear khaki pants with a blue blazer.
I don’t have to wear a suit to work, so I don’t have to spend a lot of money on such things. However, it’s worth it to me to have a few suits and shirts which fit very well instead of being draped over me like a tent.
As far as that guy who said he had an expensive watch because accuracy was important: a cheap quartz watch gives you accuracy superior to any other designer watch with an automatic movement, and a mid-level japanese brand will be perfectly reliable for years. On the other hand, if you want to wear a nice piece of jewelry that is acceptable for a man to own, then go ahead and splurge for that upscale watch, but realize that it’s more about spending money to wear a piece of mechanical art than a practical tool.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Nobody buys those things, but the fashion industry makes a lot of money offering similar styles for less at banana republic, e.g.
Instead of pointing to Thaddeus, why not look for a photo of Cary Grant with the pocket square? Fair is fair. Yes to the clean line, no to the floppy dandy “square.”
September 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Based on former roommates of mine, I can confidently assert that this stuff is extremely popular with the spoiled children of wealthy Asian industrialists.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
So big-money bloggers don’t do their work in $1,000 pyjamas? Another illusion dashed.
I like this NY street style’n'fashion blog – the Sartorialist – good for a peek once a month or so. Some of the normal people who look great clearly do spend a lot on their clothes. But the correlation is weak-ish.
http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/
September 30th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
You’re kidding, right? Were you not paying attention to all the discussion of late about how grossly overpaid the kids on Wall Street have been in the last decade. The $38 billion in that bonus pool had to go somewhere. Those of us struggling to get by on a normal six-figure income in NY have been watching this really, really conspicuous consumption freak-show with increasing dismay for years. And the scariest part: that GQ catalog of advertiser brand names doesn’t begin to capture even a faint whiff of the high-end unreality that permeates some of the tonier zip codes.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:50 pm
“Mad Men”–now that’s exactly what I’m talking about. Buy a new tie for any of those guys, a new pair of frames for anyone who has glasses, and they’ll look fantastic out in the real world today.
The women have it harder–female fashion really does get turned upside-down every 10 or 20 years.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
oh, you are so silly… Of course there’s market for these kind of stuff…
Where do you think those CEOs are spending their loot after walking away with hundreds of millions from the companies they bankrupted?
September 30th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Yeah I dunno–a $3500 suit probably isn’t any less necessary than a $3 million condo or a $250k car. If you have the money and that’s what you want to buy… so be it.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Jason Statham can afford it apparently. Of course, being a movie star, he probably got it all for free.
September 30th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
I can’t speak for GQ, but I know that Vogue is 99% aspirational. It’s full of photoshoots with similar price ranges, right between ads for Ford Focuses and $3 mascara. If the people who read these things could actually afford the clothes, they’d have a circulation of thirty.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
A $115 credit card holder pretty much says it all.
September 30th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
Strange shoes, too. Do all GQ models wear size 14, extra-narrow?
September 30th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Oh, yeah, like the guy with a $3,500 suit’s gonna take fashion advice from a blogger… COME ON!
September 30th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
The odd thing about most of these luxury goods nowadays is that they’re cranked out of factories in eastern Asia like just about everything else (except Swiss watches) these days.
One pays for considerably more for the cache than the added value when buying a Lexus instead of its Toyota base model, but that’s a pittance compared to the markup on this crap.
September 30th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
I think my Swissflex eyeglasses cost ~$300, but Sarah Palin wears a comparable pair so it’s all good.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
I’ve dressed like a slob my whole life. As a young man, my look was hipster-slob. As I got older, the hipster part slowly faded until I became an unadulterated slob.
As my 40th b-day approaches, I’ve decided it’s time to start dressing like a grown up.
I have an office job, but I’d look as out of place wearing a tie at my job as would a garbage collector at his. So I thought about buying some pocket squares to add a little color and a subtle dressiness to my look. After reading about this, it’s obvious that pocket square money would be a lot better spent on booze.
September 30th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
For obvious reasons, I don’t know what the clothes in this photoshoot are like. But there’s a clear difference between the high-end stuff and the mid-range stuff (and the low-end stuff).
Last time I went blazer shopping, I was just letting the guy find something I’d like, not checking price tags. And I found one blazer that is the best I’ve ever worn. Fit the best, felt the best, looked the best. I was totally sold. Then I checked the price tag and saw it was $1700. I opted for something less nice but cheaper. But if I had that kind of money, I’d buy the good blazer and call it money well spent–it was a pleasure just to be wearing the thing.
It’s possible I could get something even nicer bespoke, I haven’t looked into it because I don’t have the kind of money to allow either (I’m a grad student–the blazer was a Christmas present). But either way, you’re paying a lot of money both for the cut and for the fabric. And it makes a difference.
Seitz: I can definitely tell the difference between a $50 tie and a $175 tie (although the ones I’ve seen tend to be $30 vs. $120 or so). The latter has a heavier weight of fabric, and a nicer kind of fabric, and looks more solid and just overall better. Drop me in a Brooks Brothers, it’s really easy to separate the cheap stuff from the expensive stuff.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Well, regardless of his speech, McCotter is a fine dresser (perhaps he and Nancy P hang out).
As for GQ, as someone else has said, it is definitely aspirational. I’d prefer to check out the style and pick up the next best thing at Zara.
Now I’ll have to go over to the blogs at CQ and see if they are debating the finer points of CRA’s legacy!
October 1st, 2008 at 1:45 am
What Danton said. You might take ideas from those promotional spreads, but you don’t go buying it up unless you have more money than sense. This is all just Veblen shit.
Now, shoes. There, I can say that if you’re going to buy good shoes from a good maker, the price tag can make sense. But buying off-the-peg tailoring at bespoke prices? That’s bollocks. (And good, hand-lasted shoes don’t look flashy. They are the kind of shoes that don’t make any statement.)
October 1st, 2008 at 1:50 am
Jason Statham can afford it apparently. Of course, being a movie star, he probably got it all for free.
I suspect he may have had to give it all back after the shoot. Even movie stars are just clothes horses in things like that.
October 1st, 2008 at 5:58 am
JT’s envy and hatred is palpable.
I hope the knowledge that my recent bonuses
are why he is exploring tenancies in kind
keeps him up a night.
October 1st, 2008 at 7:02 am
Wait a minute, are you calling my rep. an a..hole? I resent that remark because only a member of his constituency has the right to call him an a..hole. He’s an a..hole….there I feel better. Good work Matt
October 1st, 2008 at 11:40 am
McCotter looks pretty hype in that suit.
Anyway, as Mike said above, that’s not a pocket square, that’s a handkerchief. Rather nice ones can be had at three for ten bucks, and they are a critical part of the man’s wardrobe (whether carried it the brest pocket or the jeans pocket). After all, if you shake someone’s hand and he’s not a man who carries a handkerchief, he’s probably sneezed in his hand already that day.
October 1st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
as a NY’er and a bit of a dandy I’ll say:
1. who pays retail? only Barney’s customers.
2. when it comes to clothing…you do get what you pay for (excepting logoed tshirts and shit like that). the nice stuff really is nicer. and it does help you get laid. women can tell the difference. believe me. especially shoes. shoes are more important than anything else. if you have exactly 1K to outfit an entire wardrobe. spend $250 each on two great pairs of shoes and $500 on everything else. that’s not a joke. shoes are everything.
3. American mass-market brands are made for fat people. if you’re actually in shape you really do have to buy European (though these days you can find downmarket stuff that fits well at H&M).
4. a $500 shirt that you wear 500 times is cheaper than a $20 shirt you wear 5 times.
5. repeat point 4 over and over. it’s simply true. you’re better of spending your money on a small amount of great things than a bunch of crap.
October 1st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Clothes is a hobby for some people. Why slobs feel compelled to quote Ben Franklin in disgust — I don’t get it.
Matt, you might as well whine about what people spend on stereo equipment, on art, on Disneyworld vacations, or on vintage star war toys. Why would a grown man pay anything to own a child’s toy.
Different strokes for different folks. Save your virtuous rage for the real problems in this world. A few men wearing pocket squares — that is not a real problem.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:27 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 18th, 2009 at 11:13 am
You are a very smart person, i have added your site to my reader because i want to keep up to date with your blog, greets.
February 19th, 2009 at 9:57 am
Keep working ,great job!
March 1st, 2009 at 5:49 am
viagra
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
March 5th, 2009 at 1:07 am
McCain married into richness…and he’s still a douchebag…
March 11th, 2009 at 4:45 am
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 14th, 2009 at 5:26 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:29 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 19th, 2009 at 5:45 pm
As I like to say Gentleman’s Quarterly is neither. The editors clearly know little of the fundamentals of style. Real dandies avoid it like the plague, and would only spend that much on a suit if it were bespoke. GQ happens to be right on this one–pocket squares make jackets look better, and are one of the marks of a gentleman.
Rep. McCotter is wearing clothes that don’t suit him, and the pocket square cannot be counted upon to save the outfit. A handkerchief is functional and attractive, and costs next to nothing.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:22 am
tramadol
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:22 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:22 am
I rarely comment on blogs but yours I had to stop and say Great Blog!! viagra