As I’ve previously alluded to, I worked in the locker room of a country club for a few years.

In addition to having to watch overweight middle-aged and elderly men strut about in various stages of undress, I was responsible for shining both the dress shoes and golf shoes of the membership.

Most men at the club didn’t particularly care if their shoes were recently shined. This surprised me. If a mirror-like foot covering is at one end of the spectrum and something purchased for $19.99 with a sole falling off that’s never been near a Kiwi product, or even a wet rag, in its life is at the other end of the spectrum, most men seemed pretty comfortable with their dress shoes (and I use the term very generously) and golf shoes leaning much more towards the latter end of the spectrum.

I don’t mean to encourage vanity. St. Peter probably won’t be checking the shine on your shoes when you arrive at the pearly gates. I’m not saying a man’s shoes need to pass military inspection every day of the week, but shouldn’t they pass inspection sometimes?

The prevalence of the rubber soled abomination from the Sketcher’s “dress shoe” collection also astounded me. I am not an advocate for bespoke footwear for most men.  I am not asking you to fly to London to be fitted for your shoes. Bass, Johnston & Murphy, Alden and Allen Edmonds will all do just fine. Shoes ought to be an investment, not an afterthought.

Also, for heaven’s sake, if you’re wearing a suit and oxfords, I ought to be able to hear you walking behind me on the street. I am thoroughly confounded by the number of power suits which are paired with gumshoes…the sole of a men’s dress shoe is made of wood. 

If you find yourself in a situation where you are paying someone to shine your shoes in 2012, a $5 is de rigeur. Likewise, if you can’t afford to peel a fin out of the iron jaws of your wallet, you shouldn’t be having your shoes shined. Wear Crocs instead.  

Caring about your shoes seems to be correlated with caring about…well, you fill in the blank. Caring about your appearance in general. Caring about your life. Caring about going to the gym. Caring about playing golf well. Caring about your family. Caring about what scotch you drink. Were there men with worn Sketchers that seemed to have things together otherwise and played golf well? Yes. They were, however, the overwhelming exception. 

The specific mechanics of a shoe shine are not alchemy, although a disturbing percentage of the members seemed wary of engaging in what they regarded as an esoteric science. You clean the shoe, either with a damp rag or a leather cleaner. You a first coat of polish, preferably with a brush in small circles and you let it dry. Following this it’s time for the brush, with which you polish the shoe in broad strokes, toe, sides and heel. If necessary, you apply a second coat of polish and repeat the aforementioned. Finish buffing the toe with a rag for an additional bit of shine, or an express shine sponge, if you are so vulgar.

Certainly, there are an endless number of variations on the above, but those are the basic maneuvers. 

There were a few men who obsessed over their shoes. There is really no pleasing this type of shoe fetishist: he who scours StyleForum for the tips for antiquing his brogues, or has spent 1/20th of his annual net income on a pair of John Lobbs. While I appreciate the concern for quality footwear, I don’t support making the things an idol or mourning the first scratch on a pair like the loss of one’s firstborn.

Shining shoes in general may be a dying art, but shining golf shoes is soon going to be a dead art. Within the next few years, all golf shoes will be either look like cross trainers or Vans, neither of which require much maintenance or care, beyond a wet rag. As golf in has become more of a sport, “requiring” sport specific gear, it has become much more casual. There was always going to be a tension between the gentleman’s country clothes and the relatively physical activity of playing a round of golf, so in a sense, it’s not surprising. As long as there are men in suits, it seems, there will be dress shoes. As long as they are made of leather or synthetic leather, I hope they will be recently shined and well-made. 

When I was younger, (more) stupid, generally inebriated and drawn more toward the fringe than the center, I had an appreciation for the stylistic decisions (I dare say fashion) of one Johnny Depp. I suppose I was intrigued by the bohemian/ pirate overtones coupled with grunge staples, the touch of Old Hollywood and zootsuitery and the way all of the previous stood in opposition to the trendy “this is what my stylist picked out for me” looks popular amongst the chiclet toothed “ready for my closeup” celebrities. 

Obviously, I don’t think celebrities ought to be admired, respected or followed the vast majority of the time, but unless you’ve finally purchased that Wyoming homestead and are browsing a manual on canning and preservation by candlelight, rather than the latest headlines, it’s difficult to not at least have an awareness of what’s happening on silver screens and red carpets. Beyond this, I did appreciate, and do continue to appreciate (albeit to a lesser degree) Depp’s work on screen.  

From the standpoint of the traditionalist, Depp is off the mark about 90% of the time and routinely breaks the most basic “rules,” such as propriety of attire based on context. However, from a “personal style” (whatever that means) standpoint, Depp is successful to the extent that he seems to wear whatever he pleases whenever he pleases and there are consistent elements (fedoras, colored sunglasses, scarves, pattern mixing, an abundance of accessories, etc).

With respect to Depp’s sartorial inspiration, Keith Richards and Eddie Vedder, both friends of Depp’s, are stylistically similar to Depp. Richards, with more of a gypsy bend and Vedder with more of a classic Seattle grunge orientation. These avenues, gypsy and grunge, ought to be travelled with great care or not at all by the common gent.

It might be said that Depp is a man who dresses according to instinct or feel and that (again, in a traditional sense) his instincts and feelings are entirely wrong. Again, from the standpoint of individual/ personal style, he succeeds admirably, although I believe this to be a small victory.

Depp dresses in the repellant mode, similar to a “man repeller” or celebrity replete with baseball cap, large sunglasses and the particular look of fear, discomfort and avoidance one gets when hoping not to be seen/ recognized. 99% of men don’t have the luxury of doing this and must comport themselves in the “attractive” mode, using clothing and accessories as tools of aspiration, rather than insulation.

If he weren’t an actor or musician, Depp would likely be a candidate for What Not To Wear. Latitude and liberty have been granted to poets since Greek times, to be sure, but Depp, in addition to not conforming to the dominant concepts of men’s style, doesn’t really conform to any fixed “style,” save for perhaps, “Bag Man.”

Depp has the bizarre distinction of being both “The Sexiest Man Alive” (in a popular/ traditional sense..i.e. People Magazine) and one of the worst dressed men alive (again, in a traditional sense). The two have something to do with each other: Depp is uncomfortable with his good looks and consciously downplays them with distracting and unflattering clothes and accessories, which surely bring him an element of comfort and security. 

Given all this, one might ask: What are the positive elements of Depp’s fashion? What is adaptable or advisable for the common gent of a bohemian orientation?

Perhaps, not much.

However, I present to you the Johnny Depp Getting Dressed formula for your complete rejection or attempted adaptation/ adoption.

The Depp formula looks something like: shirt + something else (jacket, second shirt, scarf) + >1 ring on each hand + >2 bracelets + fedora/ driving cap/ knit hat + >1 necklace + 1 additional accessory (sunglasses, additional scarf, watch or wallet chain).

Depp wears what he wants to. In an immature way, this is commendable on priority. 10% of his outfits “work” and the rest are largely ridiculous. His appearance is too consistent to not be deliberate and purposeful, which makes it all the more confusing. I’ve attempted to offer a few suggestions as to “why” and “for what purpose.” 

I do believe, however, that the 10% of good outfits largely redeem Depp and reinforce the brand. Basically, Depp looks better when he keeps his clothing choices simpler and lets his accessories make a statement. The more he piles on layers (while not removing accessories), the worse he looks. Additionally, he ought to abandon “dressing up” altogether and be aware that red carpet means black tie 99% of the time.

A few of his better efforts, below.

I am neither so adept that I can easily search for and find the article I am trying to remember, nor so astute in the powers of recollection as to recall the its author or even the source, but the essential thrust of the piece was that menswear since 2000 has been a regurgitation of the styles of past eras and that there is no “future” for menswear, only reimaginings of the past, whether that be the suits of the 60’s or the worn denim of the 90’s.

While I may not entirely agree with the piece (I fear Stark Trek jumpsuits and digital skin coverings are ahead) I think it’s an interesting point and an assessment of the past decade which is mostly accurate.

Of course, it is my own private hope that we turn back to clock to 1960 at the latest, 1890 at the earliest, in menswear and somewhere between 1920 and 1960 in womenswear. The depressing escalation of allergy symptoms recent warmth and proximity of Memorial Day have left me pondering, amongst other things, how much shorter womens’ (and really, I must say girls) shorts and skirts and tops will get, how much more bra/ cleavage/ fleshbelt I’ll see this year as opposed to last. 

Read More

Allowing for the vagaries of the spam filter, the legitimate email which goes unanswered is truly an onerous thing. Simply put, every email which is not a blatant and shameless instance of advertising ought to be responded to. Further, such emails ought to be responded to within a day.

What possible excuse is there for doing otherwise? When one writes to a large organization, one should expect a thoughtful response. When one attempts to contact a particular individual, even if said party is unknown to the sender, one deserves a response, however dismissive. 

If one’s volume of correspondence is too large to handle personally, with speed, courtesy and respect, then one must hire help, outsource, or set up a clever autoresponse which is, in the least, a lukewarm shoulder. 

Read More

Dress to impress and show your superior sense of morality at the same time by choosing neckties that are both environmentally sustainable, and support those in need. Here are four options to pull it off:

Read More