Morning Dress for Church?

[Abraham]

I have long attended a church where there is a struggle between the suits/blazers vs. khakis/jeans. Actually the khakis/jeans group ignores the other group, while the other group tries to pressure them into wearing suits/blazers.

Along comes a new pastor who is staunchly (and obnoxiously) on the side of the suits/blazers. Since I don't want to leave (at least not yet) I have decided to wear morning dress at Sunday (10:00 am) services and black tie at evening services. I already own a tux but I would really appreciate from input on how to wear morning dress?

Since I will be wearing it just about every Sunday morning, what different types of shirts and ties are acceptable? Are black brogues acceptable for footwear? I would love to hear any and all ideas. Thanks.

 

[MB5]

Check out the supplemental section of black tie guide.
They have a very nice breakdown of options.
http://www.blacktieguide.com/Supplemental/Morning_Dress.htm

They also recommend the following sites for more detail.
http://www.morningdressguide.com/
https://andrewsandpygott.wordpress.com/

 

[Two Types]

Is evening dress ever suitable for church? I would have thought a plain suit would be more suited to evening church services.

 

[Rabbit]

Abraham, you'll find everything you need to know in the Black Tie Guide linked to above.

Is evening dress ever suitable for church? I would have thought a plain suit would be more suited to evening church services.

In our day, I would say it's a matter of personal interpretation, aside from being highly influenced by regional customs. For instance, one has to make up his own mind what constitutes dressing modestly, a general requirement of church etiquette.

Going by 1930s U.S. standards (since we're talking about the U.S. here), morning dress is for morning church weddings only, evening dress is for evening church weddings only. Formalwear was recommended for these purposes, so it would have been morning dress and full dress, respectively, although in practice black tie was quite common for the guests of evening church weddings.
For church service, people wore their Sunday best - no formal or informal wear.

This rather recent idea of wearing black tie for church service apparently derived from the custom of evening weddings, which is an American custom to begin with.

 

[scotrace]

Also see the extensive http://www.thefedoralounge.com/showthread.php?6761-Formal-Wear-Primer&highlight=formal+wear+primer Formal Wear Primer thread here.

I'm on the side of avoiding formal wear for normal church services (weddings, yes -- if you're a participant).

 

[Quetzal]

Is evening dress ever suitable for church? I would have thought a plain suit would be more suited to evening church services.

NO.

It is a Sartorial Sin to wear Evening Wear, ESPECIALLY Black Tie (recall that Black Tie was only intended to be worn for private and social gatherings, and this would be Extremely Inappropriate in the House of God), to any type of religious service, whether an archaic (this forum) or contemporary (modern-minded) sartorialists. How many people would don a Tux or Tails for a funeral? If a wedding is to be held in the evening, then White Tie is what the Groom would wear; the Groomsmen would, per the discretion of the Groom, wear Tails, but in this day and age, few people would be able to comprehend the idea or wearing, let alone the existence, of White Tie and Tails (yes, some don't believe that Tails are "real"), leading to regular suits being worn.

In regards to Morning Wear for regular service, few, even one-hundred years ago, would wear a Cutaway or a Frock to an everyday service. These would be reserved for Weddings, or, if one were wealthy and owned more than one pair of Sponge-Bag Trousers, special services, such as Easter (assuming that this question pertains to Christians; I cannot vouch for other religions, but I don't believe that Formalwear would have been considered). This is a stretch; in the Golden Age, most would have defaulted to an everyday Suit, judging from films and photographs, when the "best" of the era was captivated. Even back in the 1930s and the 1940s, wearing "Pin-Striped Trousers" would have signaled a Wedding for the majority of Americans.

As for the "Stroller," which was either the livery of household servants, shop-keepers, and those trying to fake a Cutaway (just as some try to fake a suit by wearing an odd black coat and odd black pants), before the Great War, I'd recommend saving it for Easter or Christmas. It wasn't until the 1960s that it really became acceptable as a Morning-Wear alternative (some may argue the Apparel Arts depicted men wearing them, but remember that the majority of men didn't actually dress like the men in the illustrations).

Hopefully this helps,

-Quetzal

 

[Abraham]

NO.

It is a Sartorial Sin to wear Evening Wear, ESPECIALLY Black Tie (recall that Black Tie was only intended to be worn for private and social gatherings, and this would be Extremely Inappropriate in the House of God), to any type of religious service, whether an archaic (this forum) or contemporary (modern-minded) sartorialists. How many people would don a Tux or Tails for a funeral? If a wedding is to be held in the evening, then White Tie is what the Groom would wear; the Groomsmen would, per the discretion of the Groom, wear Tails, but in this day and age, few people would be able to comprehend the idea or wearing, let alone the existence, of White Tie and Tails (yes, some don't believe that Tails are "real"), leading to regular suits being worn.

In a word, poppycock. When it really comes down to it, morning dress/morning suit and white or black tie is far more appropriate for a religious service than the sack suit which was developed for secular business activities.

Further, it's absurd to suggest that wearing black tie to a public function is inherently wrong.

In regards to Morning Wear for regular service, few, even one-hundred years ago, would wear a Cutaway or a Frock to an everyday service. These would be reserved for Weddings, or, if one were wealthy and owned more than one pair of Sponge-Bag Trousers, special services, such as Easter (assuming that this question pertains to Christians; I cannot vouch for other religions, but I don't believe that Formalwear would have been considered). This is a stretch; in the Golden Age, most would have defaulted to an everyday Suit, judging from films and photographs, when the "best" of the era was captivated. Even back in the 1930s and the 1940s, wearing "Pin-Striped Trousers" would have signaled a Wedding for the majority of Americans.

Morning dress is still common in the UK on Christmas and Easter Sunday in Anglican parishes...

As for the "Stroller," which was either the livery of household servants, shop-keepers, and those trying to fake a Cutaway (just as some try to fake a suit by wearing an odd black coat and odd black pants), before the Great War, I'd recommend saving it for Easter or Christmas. It wasn't until the 1960s that it really became acceptable as a Morning-Wear alternative (some may argue the Apparel Arts depicted men wearing them, but remember that the majority of men didn't actually dress like the men in the illustrations).

Hopefully this helps,

-Quetzal

It didn't...

 

[Abraham]

Check out the supplemental section of black tie guide.
They have a very nice breakdown of options.
http://www.blacktieguide.com/Supplemental/Morning_Dress.htm

They also recommend the following sites for more detail.
http://www.morningdressguide.com/
https://andrewsandpygott.wordpress.com/

Thanks -- wonderful resources!

 

[Patrick Hall]

I am familiar with the wardrobe wars you describe in your post. There has been that kind of emotionally loaded bifurcation in every parish I've served - blazers/suits vs. casual dress.

Speaking for my Church in particular, there was a time just beyond living memory when morning dress was expected for Sunday service. There are Episcopal churches in the Northeast where that custom is still observed by ushers, or so I'm told. Full dress was the norm for evening weddings. Dinner jackets were initially frowned upon, but as full dress has been marginalized and dress codes have been reduced and streamlined, black tie is now the most common choice for evening weddings that strive to maintain some degree of formality. Of course, there were many, perhaps most, for whom such dress codes were out of reach. I imagine, as Rabbit says, Sunday best was the best they could do and so what they wore. Interestingly, the clerical garments which correspond to the morning coat and the tailcoat are also almost extinct - I know of only one church haberdasher who retains the necessary guides for making them.

All that being said, I would recommend against donning a morning coat for regular Sunday services if you intend to do it as a way of indicting the wardrobe choices of your fellow worshippers. In my experience, there are enough indictments flying across the pews in every congregation, and I'm not sure how the Church is benefitted by adding one more. On the other hand, if a morning coat feels as natural to your back as a pair of pajamas, and wearing one to church seems as second nature to you as those ripped up jeans and t-shirts seem to your fellow worshippers, then go right ahead. If anyone bothers you, tell them you think people should wear what makes them comfortable in church.

EDIT: It seems for the sake of consistency that if you are going to wear a morning coat to morning services, you are obligated to wear a tailcoat to evening services, but I'd doubt anyone will know enough to know the difference.

 

[Abraham]

I am familiar with the wardrobe wars you describe in your post. There has been that kind of emotionally loaded bifurcation in every parish I've served - blazers/suits vs. casual dress.

Speaking for my Church in particular, there was a time just beyond living memory when morning dress was expected for Sunday service. There are Episcopal Churches in the Northeast where that custom is still observed by ushers, or so I'm told. Full dress was the norm for evening weddings. Dinner jackets were initially frowned upon, but as full dress has been marginalized and dress codes have been reduced and streamlined, black tie is now the most common choice for evening weddings that strive to maintain some degree of formality. Of course, there were many, perhaps most, for whom such dress codes were out of reach. I imagine, as Rabbit says, Sunday best was the best they could do and so what they wore. Interestingly, the clerical garments which correspond to the morning coat and the tailcoat are also almost extinct - I know of only one church haberdasher who retains the necessary guides for making them.

All that being said, I would recommend against donning a morning coat for regular Sunday services if you intend to do it as a way of indicting the wardrobe choices of your fellow worshippers. In my experience, there are enough indictments flying across the pews in every congregation, and I'm not sure how the Church is benefitted by adding one more. On the other hand, if a morning coat feels as natural to your back as a pair of pajamas, and wearing one to church seems as second nature to you as those ripped up jeans and t-shirts seem to your fellow worshippers, then go right ahead. If anyone bothers you, tell them you think people should wear what makes them comfortable in church.

EDIT: It seems for the sake of consistency that if you are going to wear a morning coat to morning services, you are obligated to wear a tailcoat to evening services, but I'd doubt anyone will know enough to know the difference.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I will definitely take what you said into consideration.

 

[Two Types]

Morning dress is still common in the UK on Christmas and Easter Sunday in Anglican parishes...

Really? Maybe for the Queen and a few of her hangers on. But I've never spotted morning dress in general use at those times. Half the time people don't even wear suits for weddings and funerals, let alone church other church services.

Are you sure you haven't been watching too much Downton Abbey?

 

[Edward]

Is evening dress ever suitable for church? I would have thought a plain suit would be more suited to evening church services.

It wouldn't be normal... certainly not outside weddings... though I get the impression the OP intends it more as a riposte to the "suit and blazer" crowd, so presumably that's intentional? [huh] I wouldn't be sure of the wisdom of stirring things up that way, but....

This rather recent idea of wearing black tie for church service apparently derived from the custom of evening weddings, which is an American custom to begin with.

I get the impression that black tie is fast becoming a generic, catch-all "formal" dress in the US. Is that the case?

Morning dress is still common in the UK on Christmas and Easter Sunday in Anglican parishes...

Really? To be fair, I'm not an Anglican, but I know a fair few, and the only Anglican church I've ever seen morning dress in was St Paul's (and probably one or two other major cathedrals) - and then only on the staff.

 

[The Good]

For what it's worth, I've worn something close to the Stroller or Stresemann suit to church, several times, although without a waistcoat (though my three-button jacket would have likely concealed one anyway). The trousers have been grey tones. I've even worn my new black homburg with these clothes, once. Perhaps you could consider the Stroller as an alternative to the longer Morning coat? I attend a mostly casual church, although some, mostly older men, still wear suits. I'm young, but I don't see a problem if the intention is to be respectful. Many of us on this forum are probably well known to like vintage and more formal clothing, as well.

 

[Rabbit]

I get the impression that black tie is fast becoming a generic, catch-all "formal" dress in the US. Is that the case?

Well, I'm sure you know about the general trend of black tie replacing white tie for events where full dress used to be mandatory or at least recommended, which has been going on for much of the 20th century, beginning as early as the 1920s, and now relegating full dress to a select number of occasions.
Just consider the American term "semi-formal" for informal evening wear, which elevates black tie - you can see that this trend started rather soon in the history of the 20th century. Today, "formal" on an invitation sometimes means black tie rather than white tie, or so I'm told, leaving it up to the guests to make a call and clarify.

Except for us vintage wearers who might not even give it a thought, full dress is such an odd sight nowadays. I imagine that dinner clothes have indeed become the generic "formal" wear for many reasons.
Living in Germany I'm actually in no position to talk about contemporary American dress customs, though.

I only know from the old Esquire surveys that black tie used to be commonly worn by wedding guests as far back as the early/mid 1930s. Of course, the Esquire stuff is hardly representative of the population. I wonder how many church evening weddings were actually attended to by the guests in anything but Sunday best.

Edit (a little off-topic):
If I may add my personal observations to the question of black tie replacing full dress over time, I would find it difficult to don full dress if everyone else wore dinner clothes. In the words of P.G. Wodehouse, I would look like a perfect ass. On the other hand, I feel perfectly fine wearing black tie to an evening affair where no one else is wearing more than a lounge suit. It's like wearing my vintage suits during the day, I don't give that a second thought either. The psychological difference between full dress and dinner clothes seems pretty large to me nowadays. So, with the common denominator and all that, I can see that white tie is getting the brush-off for any event but those where at least some group of guests is actually applying formal dress. It's still subjective, though.

 

[scotrace]

This is from Flesh and the Devil, 1927, but it's set in Germany or thereabouts. And it's 1920s, probably Lutheran service. I maintain that following vintage dress in some instances might be perceived as boorish or insensitive.

The main question here, I suppose, is the usual dress of your church and denomination. If you attend a church that sees attendees in morning suits, then yes, by all means. But as most Abrahamic religions speak of modesty, humility and self-denial, that would be an odd-man-out congregation.

 

[Quetzal]

In a word, poppycock. When it really comes down to it, morning dress/morning suit and white or black tie is far more appropriate for a religious service than the sack suit which was developed for secular business activities.

Further, it's absurd to suggest that wearing black tie to a public function is inherently wrong.

I never suggested that wearing Black Tie to a public function is "inherently wrong" in today's society. When conceived, it definitely would have been, and seeing how you address the Everyday Business Suit as a "Sack" (practically all modern suits are darted) leads me to believe that you prefer to use archaic terminology, and if this is the case, you would also believe that the Tuxedo (or "Dinner Suit," as it should be called) would have been inappropriate for events outside of private gatherings.

-Quetzal

 

[Abraham]

This is from Flesh and the Devil, 1927, but it's set in Germany or thereabouts. And it's 1920s, probably Lutheran service. I maintain that following vintage dress in some instances might be perceived as boorish or insensitive.

The main question here, I suppose, is the usual dress of your church and denomination. If you attend a church that sees attendees in morning suits, then yes, by all means. But as most Abrahamic religions speak of modesty, humility and self-denial, that would be an odd-man-out congregation.

My parish church (Catholic) sees everything from jeans to proper business suits and everything in between. Many of those pushing suits/coats-ties dress hideously -- old suit jackets (say a charcoal chalk stripe) with new slacks (khakis), ties a mile (or an inch) wide, that sort of thing. So long as they are wearing a tie and coat they feel they are golden -- they also feel others should dress as they do.

 

[volvomeister13]

My parish church (Catholic) sees everything from jeans to proper business suits and everything in between. Many of those pushing suits/coats-ties dress hideously -- old suit jackets (say a charcoal chalk stripe) with new slacks (khakis), ties a mile (or an inch) wide, that sort of thing. So long as they are wearing a tie and coat they feel they are golden -- they also feel others should dress as they do.

I'm so glad someone else has noticed this. It drives me insane. I don't know about other denominations, but I'm also Catholic and I've noticed the exact same phenomenon at many churches here in Southern California and it boggles my mind. Add the to list an obscene number of baggy trousers hemmed four inches or so above the top of the shoe, jackets a milllion sizes too big, etc. As much as we on the Lounge may find lacking in the high fashion side of modern suits, these guys don't even come close to that (low) level of quality. It's like a bunch of Chaplin-esque tramps raided a thrift store full of mismatched low-quality menswear from the 1980's.

Two things about this strike me as really odd. I used to assume that such gentlemen were in reduced circumstances, but I've noticed the phenomenon is just as bad or worse at churches in more well-to-do areas. Also, this large contingent seems to be almost exclusively seniors doubtless old enough to remember a time when such a thing would never have been acceptable. What gives?

With quality menswear so hard to find and with so few role models to show how to do it correctly I can relate to why so many people revert to modern casual attire. If it's at least decent (button down shirt with nice-ish jeans) it's not great but at least better than what those guys are wearing, sad to say.

That said, if anyone wants to sport some properly done morning attire I say more power to you! Even if it's unorthodox in your setting, I think pulling it off is all about feeling confident in your own clothes.

 

[Edward]

A lot of people do dress poorly now when required to wear 'formal' clothing. I suspect it's often as simple as that so many will never wear a collar and tie outside of a Sunday service / wedding / funeral that they're simply loathe to spend more on it than they absolutely have to. Of course, it could also be as simple as that's just their aesthetic preference, for whatever reason. Maybe they like that look, or maybe (like the current London Mayor), they like to give the impression, however calculated, that they don't much care about how they look. To be honest, I think we in a place like this often forget that many people 'out there' really don't care that much about how they look, and would be happy in the same shoes / shirt / trousers / jeans forever.

Well, I'm sure you know about the general trend of black tie replacing white tie for events where full dress used to be mandatory or at least recommended, which has been going on for much of the 20th century, beginning as early as the 1920s, and now relegating full dress to a select number of occasions.
Just consider the American term "semi-formal" for informal evening wear, which elevates black tie - you can see that this trend started rather soon in the history of the 20th century. Today, "formal" on an invitation sometimes means black tie rather than white tie, or so I'm told, leaving it up to the guests to make a call and clarify.

In the UK, white tie is all but dead. We'll see it turn up regularly at vintage dos, of course (those of us who enjoy it find many excises to wear it, as you'd expect), but otherwise outside of state banquets in the rarefied royal circles and certain City of London events, it's basically dead. Events here will typically specify "white tie" or "black tie", the latter being the norm, rather than the old formal/semi-formal classification. "Black tie optional" is common, and means black tie or lounge suit. You tend to see this at events in London which take place on a weeknight, and which many attendees will arrive ta straight from the office.

I only know from the old Esquire surveys that black tie used to be commonly worn by wedding guests as far back as the early/mid 1930s. Of course, the Esquire stuff is hardly representative of the population. I wonder how many church evening weddings were actually attended to by the guests in anything but Sunday best.

I raised the question because I've seen very many photos of American weddings over the past few years, the vast majority of which have clearly taken place during the daytime (I know evening weddings are also common in the US. I don't believe they happen at all across the UK, with the exception of Scotland), and also have the men in black tie...

You're quite right in the suggestion that Esquire didn't necessarily reflect reality. I do think we need to be careful about placing too much stock in fashion plates or, indeed, Hollywood, to accurately reflect day to day life for most people. I've long argued that events like weddings have, relatively speaking, become more formal in the last few decades. In my grandparents' day, it was common for people to get married in lounge suits (during and immediately after the war, the women often didn't wear traditional wedding dresses either). In contemporary times here in the UK, it's rare for a bride not to wear a dedicated wedding dress (a trend which both feeds and was probably created by a dedicated industry). In my parents' generation and my own, it is more or less a norm for the men to wear (typically hired) morning dress or some (often dubious) approximation thereof. In recent years, I've seen a bit of a return of men wearing lounge suits again - this tends to be more common at civil rather than religious ceremonies, or where people marry or remarry in their forties and onwards. Of course, there are also folks who opt to marry in lounge suit because they're seeking a specific vintage aesthetic, but in the broader scheme of things that's quite rare in the UK.

Anyhow.... my point is that for the average man in the UK nowadays to wear a lounge suit to get married, and especially just to go and watch somebody else get married, is much more formal, relative to the day to day norm, than it would have been in the days when you wore a lounge suit to these things because that was simply your clothes, what you wore. For many folks back then it must have been the equivalent of wearing your nice, new jeans that you keep for going clubbing. Which is not a slight, merely an observation that perhaps increasing casualization isn't hitting every social occasion as hard as we tend to think sometimes. [huh]

Edit (a little off-topic):
If I may add my personal observations to the question of black tie replacing full dress over time, I would find it difficult to don full dress if everyone else wore dinner clothes. In the words of P.G. Wodehouse, I would look like a perfect ass. On the other hand, I feel perfectly fine wearing black tie to an evening affair where no one else is wearing more than a lounge suit. It's like wearing my vintage suits during the day, I don't give that a second thought either. The psychological difference between full dress and dinner clothes seems pretty large to me nowadays. So, with the common denominator and all that, I can see that white tie is getting the brush-off for any event but those where at least some group of guests is actually applying formal dress. It's still subjective, though.

I understand what you mean. I suspect the difference is that, subconsciously, albeit that there is still more room for manoeuvre than with white tie, we still tend to think of black tie as a form of 'uniform', where the purpose is to blend in rather than stand out. Hence wearing white tie when everyone is in black tie would be a bit of a faux pas, whereas casual occasions tend to be "wear what you like", so if what you like is a lounge suit....

The psychology of clothing is fascinating, isn't it?

 

[HudsonHawk]

I would question whether or not church was the appropriate place for petty passive aggressiveness, irrespective of what one is wearing. My $0.02.