Is British style not what it was (or maybe never was in the 1st place)?

[Don Tomaso]

Many of the posters here seem to forget that the tie itself is a relatively recent development, dating back to the "cravate" in the 17th century France when Louis XIII was the king, brought to England by Charles II in 1660, if Wikipedia is right . The pic posted by herringbonekid shows a much more traditional way of wearing your shirt with the collar open and above the jacket, imho.
What Edward said about tailoring is also so true, sadly. Men who are in the age where they achieved something in life cannot wear this stuff any longer, trousers cut so narrow, jackets so slim, shirts so tight. You must be SKINNY to get your frame into these things. And you know what? Even if someone can wear such an outfit, I met a few, they look hilarious!

 

[Edward]

there is much photographic evidence of men going tieless with suit or sportcoat in the U.K. in the 20s - 50s period, but always with the shirt collar worn over the jacket,
which seems to alter the overall appearance into one that doesn't look as if you've just taken your tie off:

Yeah, I like this. A more casual look I do sometimes in Summer. I like it with a linen or cotton jacket.... I'll tolerate a lot of heat before I go out half naked (i.e. jacketless).

Interesting, I always thought the open collar with sport coat was an American look, specifically Broadway or Hollywood. I notice in your picture, it appears to be casual attire for an outdoor occasion on a hot summer day.

The striped jacket in the middle rear appears to be what one would wear to the sea shore.

It's a look I associate with Elvis. (Collar over tie, not the stripes.)

This doesn't surprise me at all! Tie-without-jacket has always been, I believe, more acceptable in the UK than in the USA (many American contributors on style fora seem to have a horror against omitting the jacket). To me it is a perfectly acceptable "professional" look so long as the shirt is long-sleeved and the trousers are flat-fronted (pleats really should be covered by a jacket, surely?). This was what I wore as a teacher in a college in hot weather.

I associate short sleeves and tie with fast food uniforms.

 

[nihil]

That look was also very widespread in Denmark in the 1930s and 40s.

 

[vintage.vendeuse]

How kind! I'll send you a PM with a bit more detail this weekend.

Let me know nearer the time and if your in my neck of the woods I'll do a bit of digging around to see what's on vintage wise locally and point you to a few places where vintage can be found.
I believe you can fly in to Manchester airport from the USA? trains run to Chesterfield and our local Casa hotel is often used by American visitors....we have a very good antique flea and collectors fair every Thursday in our open air cobbled market granted a license in the 12th century.....surrounding countryside is pretty stunning with quite a few castles and stately homes close by.....oh and we have a Crooked Spire the only one like it in the world.

FYI, I've been unable to send you a message, your box is full.

 

[esteban68]

Cleared now V V!

 

[Stormy]

Would I be fair in asking why Americans don't wear cowboy boots and big-brim hats like they used too?

They do in Texas...

 

[Leacock]

Say what you will about modern English style but at least you can find good things like bowler hats there. One simply can't in Canada.

 

[Fastuni]

To me it is a perfectly acceptable "professional" look so long as the shirt is long-sleeved and the trousers are flat-fronted (pleats really should be covered by a jacket, surely?)

Why would that be? Pleated trousers can be worn uncovered by a jacket, of course.

 

[Flat Foot Floey]

Never heard this "rule" either. Sounds like some nonsense from a 2008 version of GQ or something. You know, they just have to fill the pages somehow. I agree with something that has been mentioned elsewhere in this thread though. Half a modern businesssuit doesn't make a good casual outfit. Not even on Fridays.

Vintage casual is my favorite style. So I can't join you to bemoan the loss of formal wear and bowlers because those things really don't interest me. The difference between "casual" then and now is quite big though.

 

[Edward]

Certainly true that yesterday's casual is today's formal.... Always amuses me when we bemoan how 'casually' people dress for weddings nowadays, when most wear a lounge suit. As I've argued before, relative to the times, a man wearing a lounge suit nowadays is actually more dressed up than one back in the day when they were just casual clothes. All depends how you look at it. Most vintage casual would be regarded as fairly formal these days. I think what has been lost most pronuncedly from men's clothing in the last 70s years has been the sense of spectrum.... women still have a huge range of stuff that spans all points between uber-casual and Formal, whereas for men it seems these days to be one or the other, broadly speaking....


As to this rule about pleats, no, never heard it either. It does smack of one of these latter-day GQ/Esquire type made-up things, pushing the current fashion style as a "rule". On the same level as "Don't wear a hat, you'll look old-fashioned."

 

[Hal]

Why would that be? Pleated trousers can be worn uncovered by a jacket, of course.

Never heard this "rule" either.

. As to this rule about pleats, no, never heard it either.

Gentlemen, please don't read into my point what I never meant - I was not suggestiong any "rule" with regard to pleats but stating an aesthetic preference.
The styles in men's clothing that I particularly like are those from around 1960, when there had been some years of "paring down" and the desired outline was streamlined, but before the exaggerated lines of the early 1960s. Pleats interfere with the smooth streamlined look; that's the main reason why I don't like them. ( I should also have said that the trousers should be belted, and - guess what - I wouldn't want turn-ups, either, for the same reason).
I realise that many contributors to these fora prefer earlier styles, and I do like some individual garments from other periods - I have already praised Fastuni's splendid overcoat recently shown.

 

[Edward]

Ah! I misunderstood. I can see the aesthetic notion behind that sort of simplification. Myself, I've gotten so used to turnups that (outside of formal trousers, obviously), trousers seem unfinished without them. Vive la difference!

 

[avedwards]

Though I would argue that a belt goes against the idea of the streamlined look and side adjusters on the trousers (as were relatively common in the UK in the 1950s and 60s) would be sleeker. However, I think that having razor sharp creases on the trousers is more important than the absence or presence of pleats and cuffs in order to achieve a smart but minimalist look.

 

[MikeBravo]

I'm gonna have to beg to differ here. I LIKE wearing ties, and I have more of them than I know what to do with. Unfortunately I also have a very big neck, and finding a shirt that fits well in the chest and shoulders and also closes at the neck is tricky. The best compromises I've found are usually a half inch too tight at the neck, making wearing a tie either uncomfortable, or the look quite shabby. Still because I like the look I go to extra lengths to find shirts that fit well, and endure a bit of discomfort. Most people these days do not like ties that much, or are at best indifferent, and many find them uncomfortable even though they may not have quite as much trouble with it as I do, but where I live anyway, folks are generally more concerned about comfort than fashion. I wear a tie maybe once or twice a week, and that's once or twice a week more than most of my co-workers. My main point though is that I don't think their aversion to ties amounts to "fashionable prejudice" as much as it does to a preference for comfort, and an indifference (at best) to them as a fashion accessory. It also bears mentioning that ties tend to be ridiculously expensive for such a little piece of frip, and I definitely feel folks can be excused for choosing to spend their money instead on something they actually like.

Sounds like you need a couple of custom-made shirts! Mind you, it could cost well over $100.

I found this article about Michael Kehoe Ltd at 117 church street, burlington vt as mentioned in this article:http://www.vermodernist.com/2011/03/sartorial-satisfaction-in-vermont.html

 

[GHT]

I think what has been lost most pronuncedly from men's clothing in the last 70s years has been the sense of spectrum.... women still have a huge range of stuff that spans all points between uber-casual and Formal, whereas for men it seems these days to be one or the other, broadly speaking....

You are right, Edward, it used to be commonplace to see a gent, enjoying a beer at the pub, Sunday lunchtime. He would be attired in an Aquascutum navy blazer, grey flannels, a white or pale pastel shirt, open neck but worn with a cravat and probably some sort of casual loafer shoes. (Casual shoes were so called because they were without laces.)

Another favourite of that type of gent was to wear the blazer with a sports or old school tie and a sleeveless, V-neck, cricket sweater. You just don't see anything like sports jackets, blazers, flannels, long sleeved pastel shirts, shoes, any shoes that are not trainers. There was a time when dog-toothed jackets were casual wear, as were light weight striped summer jackets. How I love the Oxford blazer.

Does anything pass as style these days? It's all a homogenised mix of t-shirts, polo shirts, track suits and trainers. A couple of years ago, I took my wife down to the Bournemouth Air Festival, we looked so different from everybody that people were asking us if we were in a 'show.'

 

[tropicalbob]

This reminds me of the character Eric Idle used to do on Monty Python: "Nudge, nudge, wink, wink."

 

[Hal]

It's all a homogenised mix of t-shirts, polo shirts, track suits and trainers.

Sadly, you're right - today's casual wear is not only homogenised but nondescript into the bargain.

 

[MuyJingo]

mattface, I agree with you completely on ties, and appreciate that you took care to articulate your opinions so.

I am still in the process of learning how to dress well, and I enjoy it a lot. The tie is something I have had trouble understanding, and have been glad to see it as less necessary for many types of dress occasions.

I find them uncomfortable, which is the biggest reason I dislike them. Aside from certain formal occasions that require a suit with tie, I would always opt out of wearing one. I gain no advantage from wearing one, and don't believe I will be perceived as badly dressed if the rest of my outfit is nice.

With many prominent people now having opting for the tieless look for some time now, I believe it is certainly acceptable on a widespread basis and not considered to be any sort of fashion mistake.

 

[Patrick Hall]

With many prominent people now having opting for the tieless look for some time now, I believe it is certainly acceptable on a widespread basis and not considered to be any sort of fashion mistake.

A mistake, no. There are no fashion mistakes anymore. But what if going tieless is a missed opportunity? Men of all ranks used to hang a functionally dubious strip of cloth about their necks to confront the daily grind, I suspect for the same reason they wore generously proportioned hats with wonky and idiosyncratic creases - ties are subtle, artistic gestures of identity. I also suspect (as was said above) that your comfort issue has more to do with ill-fitting collars than with a tie, which can be infinitely tightened or loosened.

 

[AntonAAK]

A mistake, no. There are no fashion mistakes anymore. But what if going tieless is a missed opportunity? Men of all ranks used to hang a functionally dubious strip of cloth about their necks to confront the daily grind, I suspect for the same reason they wore generously proportioned hats with wonky and idiosyncratic creases - ties are subtle, artistic gestures of identity. I also suspect (as was said above) that your comfort issue has more to do with ill-fitting collars than with a tie, which can be infinitely tightened or loosened.

:eusa_clap