Blue tie. The tribute by Giovanni Gastel to Richard Avedon, for Style Magazine (2010). “Severe” light, off-white background. The models’ action counterposes the solemnity of the tribute of a great photographer to a popular predecessor. The models, like they’re dancing, seem not to care about the mess they create in the clothes: the movements dissolve the severity of a normally impeccable attire as the tuxedo is. Out of the fashion sets, in real life, we can imagine a similar ease choosing a different way of “wearing the evening”: for example, breaking black with blue.

British in the DNA. I don’t think there’s anything more appreciated by men like a beautiful tailored-made suit. With this kind of attire everybody can make a good impression. With a well cut suit and a british-inspired styling we never get wrong. The exception to the rule? If the matching with shirt, tie and accessories prevails on simplicity. If you choose, thinking to be à la page, fashionable shirt and/or tie and shoes, belts and socks, not balanced with the outfit, you make a mistake. It usually happens to overdo, to break the rules creating a personalized look with more “trendy” elements. No way. Classic wear, the real one, has such a powerful image that is more than enough. The proof? Look at how many teenagers dress like David Niven or Michael Caine. Coherence, naturalness, spontaneity: don’t force the hand.

Epochal choices. Today we talk about the importance and added value of accessories, that dignify (or mortify) the look. Shirts, ties, and then shoes, socks, watches, bags, briefcases, hats. Everything can, if matched in the proper way with the outerwear, make us look a little more special. Today is very easy, due to the extraordinary supply of products. But at the same time it’s easier to make mistakes, exactly because the supply is really wide. The “decades of elegance”, like the 30s or the 40s, had rules about shapes and lenghts, fabrics and collars, and everything else: so it was hard to fail. Today, while enhancing the individual personality, there could be the possibility of provoking confusion (and making a mess of bad matchings). The secret stays in coherence. Dandy, eccentric, conformist, traditionalist, pop, unconventional: everything is permitted, as long as you are focused on the style you decide to adopt. Right, a 1935 adv of Arrow shirts.

The perfect single. In 2009 A single man, directed by Tom Ford, was out in cinemas. The cinematographic adaptation of the novel by Christopher Isherwood got an Oscar nomination and won a Coppa Volpi for Best Male Actor (Colin Firth, playing the part of the californian professor George Falconer). The novel lingers neither on the care that Falconer has for his appearance, nor on the nearly obsessive attention to details that, instead, represents a key element in the movie. Who internalized the figure of the professor thanks to Isherwood’s virtuosity, and then watched Ford’s adaptation, could have been annoyed by the softened and cold perfection of the character. The same thing happened for his bestfriend, Charlotte, interpreted by a sensational Julianne Moore. Tom Ford projected himself onto Falconer, even if he keeps the dramatic nature of the story. This would be Firth’s look (with accessories) if the story would have been set in 2016 instead of 1962. Tom Ford portrayed by Terry Richardson for Style Magazine (2009).

Divergent thinking. Wide trousers with turn-up, maybe intentionally turned on a leg for this picture, pullover with a wide oval neckline worn on the bare skin, watch with a round clock face, penny loafers and…white, short socks. The etiquette of menswear has very strict rules, and one of them is about socks: they mustn’t be white nor short. But history of fashion and style icons prove just the opposite. The picture we are talking about is from 1951. More than sixty years have passed by, but this is here, flawless, to show us that the charm of some men and of a certain movie iconography is timeless. Is breaking the rules a luxury allowed only to movie, literature and art stars? Maybe. But the temptation to revalue that casual-chic look, which is so “imperfect” in its elegance, is really strong: try to add some garments, to set the tone of the outfit, and see if it works. Gene Kelly in 1951, picture by Alfred Eisenstaedt.