Unusually Smart-Looking Men

[Flicka]

Now, by afternoon do you mean the same thing as we would down here, i.e. 12 noon - 6pm?

Absolutely. I think all weddings I've ever been to have taken place between 2 pm and 4 pm - the ceremony that is. Usually the dinner and ensuing party runs into the wee hours of the morning, of course.

That is a bit like asking someone who loves old cars to accept people who buy them in order to hotrod them and pose. The aesthetic may be similar, but the ethic is poles apart.

Absolutely not true. Your version of the past is not the "truth". Your version of the past is, I daresay, very much a sanitized and simplified version based on a very selective set of facts; very much "hotrodding" if you ask me. You and I like different aspects of the past, and I respect that, but please let us keep it at that and not start down that more-vintage-than-thou road, because it's rarely a productive line of discussion.

 

[William Stratford]

On the other hand, if all we old punks and old goths deserted the British vintage scene, it would leave an awful lot less for the remaining three people to complain about.

Feel free to do so, as I have no time for the notion of a "vintage scene" (which is just another set of products for people to consume). These are not fashions that I choose, they are traditions that I inherit.

Not at all. Some folks object to what are now considered vintage cars being mechanically or structurally modified. That's a very different thing to the very considerable number of old punks and old goths on the vintage scene who wear vintage. It's a constructed, authentic look. They're not cutting up the suits, or doing anything to alter them (beyond a little necessary tailoring - cuffs down/ up, that sort of thing). Suits were butchered in the Seventies. Many of them original demob suits.... but in those days they really were just old clothes. No different than the Eighties tat at which I now sneer... except less fashionable. Nowadays, they'd never do that. Much more like someone with the audacity to buy a vintage car because they think it looks cool, then selling it (in vintage spec and condition) should they ever leave that hobby. FWIW, though, I've never met anyone from one of these tribes who wasn't deadly serious about their vintage, and most would be rather insulted at the insinuation they were just wanting to be "different" (which, on such a superficial level, was never the reason why they were punks or goths to begin with). Ironically, given the car analogy, I grew up around the vintage car scene in the Six Counties. In over twenty years of going on runs and rallys throughout the Summer, I can honestly only remember once seeing a couple who were dressed to match their car. It was a little 1920s open-top Fiat. In red and yellow. And they were dressed as Noddy and Big Ears. Those car people were interested only in the cars, and nothing else about the period. Often I suspected many of them were just not interested in clothing at all. lol

You misunderstand me. My point was that many people "in the vintage scene" apparently do not care about old things beyond it being an expression of their own need for attention and to be "different"....the result being a disrespectful attitude to the things that others love for what they are rather than for how they can serve the same motivations you find equally behind modernist consumerism.

Absolutely not true. Your version of the past is not the "truth". Your version of the past is, I daresay, very much a sanitized and simplified version based on a very selective set of facts; very much "hotrodding" if you ask me. You and I like different aspects of the past, and I respect that, but please let us keep it at that and not start down that more-vintage-than-thou road, because it's rarely a productive line of discussion.

See above.

 

[Baron Kurtz]

It highlights the essential problem of the notion of a unified "vintage scene". I have, and have always had, trouble with this notion. There are people who like the clothing and how it looks (myself), there are people who go the whole hog and live their life as if it was still 1921 (there are some who frequent this website). And there are all the variations in between. There are even, god forbid, people who collect and would love to wear their collections, but are so scared of "ruining" the clothes that they simply languish in closets waiting for moths to arrive.

For me, I couldn't care less about other folk's motivations. Personally I am in the "just old clothes" camp, but I'm happy to accept those in other camps. To me there's nothing inherently special about the fact that the clothing comes from a specific era. In my view there's actually nothing all that special about the time period ("The Past"), other than the aesthetic appeal - and relative cheapness - of the clothing. This probably stems from my disbelief in the notion that the very fabric of society is disintegrating; that we're so much worse now than before.


On the tuxedo question, I am far more exercised. This particular cultural construct (ignoring the straw man of "why don't we all just go naked, then?") is incredibly recent. It seems to me a lazy "get-out clause" for men. I just don't understand why men should want to have such an easy out! Most of the joy of clothing, for me, is in trying new things, experimenting with pattern, fabric and colour. To be so restricted feels like being in a cage, and no by choice.

 

[Undertow]

...There are people who like the clothing and how it looks (myself)...On the tuxedo question...It seems to me a lazy "get-out clause" for men. I just don't understand why men should want to have such an easy out! Most of the joy of clothing, for me, is in trying new things, experimenting with pattern, fabric and colour. To be so restricted feels like being in a cage, and no by choice.

Aha, I understand you now. Thanks for clarification. I wasn't putting forth the "loin cloth" example as an actual argument, only to say that much of human behavior is essential arbitrary. I mean really, why do we do all sorts of insane things; e.g. war, suicide, bake sales, etc? Humans are funny creatures.

Regarding formal/semi-formal wear, I think that's one time when I don't mind fitting into a cage. It's like bringing a gift to a wedding, or offering a taxi to a young lady behind you. I see it as a polite thing, an expectation, a way of winking and nodding, and saying, "Yes, I'll play your game tonight."

Moreover, it's a wonderful equalizer (albeit for those who can afford it ) If I attend a party, I will at least "look" like the rest of the crowd. Granted, my dinner jacket may not be name brand, my shoes not patent Italian leather, my cufflinks not 24k gold, etc. There are differences, but I fit in just like all the others. I don't mind it. It's one of the few instances that I actually DO fit in.

Shame I'm the only one wearing black tie to evening events...lol

 

[Cobden]

I must admit to agreeing with Mr Mitchell on this one. The thing is, with men's evening wear, the traditional format does seem to work better than the modern permutations being flung around at it's job of making men look good and the women look better

 

[O2BSwank]

I also agree with Mr Mitchell. Formalwear, and even just suits and sports coats help a man to present himself in the best light. When worn appropriately it does remove a lot of considerations. It does serve an equalizing function. There's nothing to stop anyone from dressing creatively in any manner they see fit, but it does make it easier on the rest of us.

 

[Edward]

It highlights the essential problem of the notion of a unified "vintage scene". I have, and have always had, trouble with this notion. There are people who like the clothing and how it looks (myself), there are people who go the whole hog and live their life as if it was still 1921 (there are some who frequent this website). And there are all the variations in between. There are even, god forbid, people who collect and would love to wear their collections, but are so scared of "ruining" the clothes that they simply languish in closets waiting for moths to arrive.

For me, I couldn't care less about other folk's motivations. Personally I am in the "just old clothes" camp, but I'm happy to accept those in other camps. To me there's nothing inherently special about the fact that the clothing comes from a specific era. In my view there's actually nothing all that special about the time period ("The Past"), other than the aesthetic appeal - and relative cheapness - of the clothing. This probably stems from my disbelief in the notion that the very fabric of society is disintegrating; that we're so much worse now than before.


On the tuxedo question, I am far more exercised. This particular cultural construct (ignoring the straw man of "why don't we all just go naked, then?") is incredibly recent. It seems to me a lazy "get-out clause" for men. I just don't understand why men should want to have such an easy out! Most of the joy of clothing, for me, is in trying new things, experimenting with pattern, fabric and colour. To be so restricted feels like being in a cage, and no by choice.

Agreed on most things... I love black tie, though. Hell, I love white tie.

 

[John in Covina]

The formal wear business is dropping like flies, if there is no support it will vanish in the US soon. Plus in LA few tux shops actually have "formal" wear - every jacket has an open notch lapel.

I own a tux -and am proud to wear it on occasion. You get compliments in a tux you don't get in a suit.

 

[Gin&Tonics]

Now, by afternoon do you mean the same thing as we would down here, i.e. 12 noon - 6pm?

Hmm my reading on the subject lead me to believe that wearing white or black tie before 6pm was a horrendous faux-pas. Isn't such formal wear reserved only for evening functions, while morning dress is appropriate for similar levels of formality during daylight hours?

 

[Baron Kurtz]

The second part of your statement I agree with. I disagree that it's an equaliser. In fact it serves to heighten differences. A bad suit is bad enough; a bad tuxedo or white tie get up, however, is horrendous - unforgiveable. You can spot the cheap polyester ones from a mile off. Much better to wear a good dark suit than cheap sh*t badly fitting formal attire.

What got me into vintage really was a friend's tuxedo in college (weird, no, for someone who's come to hate tuxedos). he had inherited his grandfather's tuxedo from 1937. He was also quite pretty. Thus he was the best looking man in the room. All the rest of us chumps, with our cheap-o modern crud were left in his wake.

Moreover, it's a wonderful equalizer (albeit for those who can afford it

The reason I do like morning dress is that it allows endless options for experimentation. Want to wear tweed trousers - no problem! All those lovely brightly coloured silk waistcoats! And so few supposed "rules". Fantastic - You can look formal at the same time as pushing the boat out a bit. This is all we adventurous dressers ask.

bk

 

[Flicka]

Hmm my reading on the subject lead me to believe that wearing white or black tie before 6pm was a horrendous faux-pas. Isn't such formal wear reserved only for evening functions, while morning dress is appropriate for similar levels of formality during daylight hours?

I'm sure it may be a cultural thing but here white tie is perfectly correct for afternoon weddings. I refer you to a picture from our royal wedding last year (Crown Princess): http://www.detkungligabrollopet.nu/...2010/06/best_storgruppbild_jonasekstromer.jpg As you can see the groom and male guests are in white tie (unless they are in uniform, which is incidentally what my father wore when he married my mother).

Whatever you may say about royals, they do know etiquette.

 

[Undertow]

...In fact it serves to heighten differences. A bad suit is bad enough; a bad tuxedo or white tie get up, however, is horrendous - unforgiveable. You can spot the cheap polyester ones from a mile off. Much better to wear a good dark suit than cheap sh*t badly fitting formal attire...

Yes, and that's the rub. If one wears a poly blend, or notched lapels, or *shudder* a matching colored bowtie/cummerbund/pocketsquare combo, they look like a solid rube. And that's just the basics. Then there's the guys with buttons in their shirt instead of studs, flashy cufflinks, badly cut vests, cheap looking satin, cap-toed oxfrods vs pumps, London Fog brown overcoats vs black wool, and on and on ad nausem.

In "the era" (read pre-1980's), I think you were relatively safe wearing formal clothes. Most folks that needed to dress formally knew of which pieces a tuxedo suit consisted, or what was necessary for white tie/morning dress.

Unfortunately, it's a dying art whose torch is typically carried by the wealthy; and really only the older money who bother with tradition. Why own a tux when you can rent one for an evening?

So yeah, I agree - to be an equalizer, everyone must equally understand the rules. That's not the case today. (*pulls head from clouds for a moment lol)

 

[William Stratford]

Hmm my reading on the subject lead me to believe that wearing white or black tie before 6pm was a horrendous faux-pas. Isn't such formal wear reserved only for evening functions, while morning dress is appropriate for similar levels of formality during daylight hours?

You are correct there G&T. Before 6pm, "Morning Dress" was appropriate, whilst after 6pm it was the time for Black Tie (or even White Tie on truly formal occasions).

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

Unfortunately for America, the only time anyone wears formal clothing is at their Prom and nine months later, at their first Wedding. O.K. seriously, Out of 450,000 people in Wichita, probably 200 went to the Symphony, and not all of those wore a tux / evening wear. Proms and weddings, my daughter is a bride's maid and is wearing a nice looking purple gown, but with low top Converse Sneakers in Purple.

Later

 

[Edward]

Hmm my reading on the subject lead me to believe that wearing white or black tie before 6pm was a horrendous faux-pas. Isn't such formal wear reserved only for evening functions, while morning dress is appropriate for similar levels of formality during daylight hours?

If memory serves, the original "rule" was that evening wear should be worn after dark, or something like that - the 6pm rule came in for practical reasons, such as.... well, the Summer. for a start. That's the case in the US/UK, though. Of course, from what I see from the outside, it appears to be changing rapidly in the US, with black tie now being the default "formal dress" for any time of day? It would seem entirely plausible that this varies between differing cultures and locales.

The second part of your statement I agree with. I disagree that it's an equaliser. In fact it serves to heighten differences. A bad suit is bad enough; a bad tuxedo or white tie get up, however, is horrendous - unforgiveable. You can spot the cheap polyester ones from a mile off. Much better to wear a good dark suit than cheap sh*t badly fitting formal attire.

I did read a theory some years ago that a lot of these dress codes (as with so many rules of etiquette) were created by the leisured upper classes as a form of elitism, mocking those who didn't fit in, didn't get it, or got it horribly wrong. Not unlike the Bullingdon Club uniform, the whole point of which is it is sufficiently expensive to keep certain types out. No idea whether there's any weight to that theory, but I thought an interesting hypothesis.

The reason I do like morning dress is that it allows endless options for experimentation. Want to wear tweed trousers - no problem! All those lovely brightly coloured silk waistcoats! And so few supposed "rules". Fantastic - You can look formal at the same time as pushing the boat out a bit. This is all we adventurous dressers ask.

bk

Never really given that any thought before, but yes, you are quite right - there is significantly greater breadth of personal choice within the bounds of what is "correct" for morning wear. I wonder whether - bringing it back to the "simplicity / not having to think" argument advanced in the opinion piece in the OP - that might be in part the reason for its demise? I love formal daywear too, but outside of weddings where one is part of the wedding party, royal occasions of state and the races, it is rarely seen nowadays, alas. One trend I hate is how wedding hire companies treat formal daywear. I'm not talking about some of the Premiership Football Player-worthy abominations, but simply this reducing it to a uniform. On a black tie occasion, you'll at least see a whole range of subtle differences - shoes, lapel type, DB or SB, cummerbund or waistcoat.... With hired morning wear, all the boys n the party are wearing a uniform. Simple as. I wish just one hire place would think to vary what they hire out so that it has the feel of a black tie night where they all meet the dress code but it looks "real" rather than "fake" - even if it is all hired (as, let's face it, I can't blame most modern people who will probably only ever wear morning dress once, to their wedding, for wanting to hire rather than buy).

I'm sure it may be a cultural thing but here white tie is perfectly correct for afternoon weddings. I refer you to a picture from our royal wedding last year (Crown Princess): http://www.detkungligabrollopet.nu/...2010/06/best_storgruppbild_jonasekstromer.jpg As you can see the groom and male guests are in white tie (unless they are in uniform, which is incidentally what my father wore when he married my mother).

Whatever you may say about royals, they do know etiquette.

Oh, yes. The royals are the pinnacle of the old Upper Classes, and they Do These Things Right. I am sure it is a cultural variance rather than anything else.

Yes, and that's the rub. If one wears a poly blend, or notched lapels, or *shudder* a matching colored bowtie/cummerbund/pocketsquare combo, they look like a solid rube. And that's just the basics. Then there's the guys with buttons in their shirt instead of studs, flashy cufflinks, badly cut vests, cheap looking satin, cap-toed oxfrods vs pumps, London Fog brown overcoats vs black wool, and on and on ad nausem.

In "the era" (read pre-1980's), I think you were relatively safe wearing formal clothes. Most folks that needed to dress formally knew of which pieces a tuxedo suit consisted, or what was necessary for white tie/morning dress.

Unfortunately, it's a dying art whose torch is typically carried by the wealthy; and really only the older money who bother with tradition. Why own a tux when you can rent one for an evening?

So yeah, I agree - to be an equalizer, everyone must equally understand the rules. That's not the case today. (*pulls head from clouds for a moment lol)

I don't know that most folks did.... back in the Thirties, it probably wasn't an issue for most people as they simply weren't in a position to be able to afford to go to the sort of lace or move in the sort of circles where it was an issue. I don't know if there was a hire business back then, but I suspect that very many people never wore black tie in their lives. If it just wasn't part of their lives they wouldn't need to have known, as it simply wasn't relevant to them. A sort of connected thought I've had for a while is that while in some ways the world is undeniably more casual in general than it was back in the day, it is also somehow more formal in certain narrow respects. Back in the day, the average man married in a lounge suit, went to weddings in one too. Today that's how guests normally go, and an increasing numbers of grooms. A lounge suit is considered formal today... but back in the day it was simply everyday clothing. Does this mean that in a bizarre way the average wedding in our uber-casual society is now actually more formal than it was in the forties, by contemporary standards?

 

[V.C. Brunswick]

Gotta love the Prom Night 1978 look. :doh:

 

[William Stratford]

Gotta love the Prom Night 1978 look. :doh:

I suspect that this is responsible for a great many people's response to the word "Tuxedo"! :eeek: Especially with those god-awful shirts. :doh:

 

[Undertow]

...Does this mean that in a bizarre way the average wedding in our uber-casual society is now actually more formal than it was in the forties, by contemporary standards?

Yes, I think so.

The tuxedo is, and had always been, a casual extension of the white tie affair. After the 20's and into the 30's, when black tie came into its own as an acceptable form of dress, I think it was still reserved for the upper echelon who already observed white tie. The average person had suits, but few, and typically something they would wear to work or social functions.

I think the split from this standard was post-WWII when everyone wanted a car, and a house, and a college degree; i.e. the good things in life. Thus, the tuxedo gradually started making its appearance as a functional suit (vs a purely formal thing). Catalog scans from the 30's show two, maybe three options in black tie evening suits (usually a DB and two SB with differing lapel material). However, into the late 50's and 60's, we start not only seeing black tie in catalogs, but also in regulars like TIME - and not just as a rich man's get up. We also start seeing many options in style; e.g. DB, SB with various collars, vests, cummerbunds, playful patterns, etc. Then we have popular cultural icons like James Bond running around in a white jacket with black satin lapels.

The precedent was set. It is now status quo to wear black tie to your own wedding, as opposed to your best suit. It's become a costume more than a functional suit or casual extension of white tie.

 

[Flicka]

If memory serves, the original "rule" was that evening wear should be worn after dark, or something like that - the 6pm rule came in for practical reasons, such as.... well, the Summer. for a start. That's the case in the US/UK, though. Of course, from what I see from the outside, it appears to be changing rapidly in the US, with black tie now being the default "formal dress" for any time of day? It would seem entirely plausible that this varies between differing cultures and locales.

Oh, yes. The royals are the pinnacle of the old Upper Classes, and they Do These Things Right. I am sure it is a cultural variance rather than anything else.

I definitely think this is a case of differing social customs then - I dug out one of my old [ETA: Swedish] etiquette books (from 1933) and it states that white tie is worn at weddings, except at morning weddings. White tie is always correct for audiences (yes, at court) and funerals, no matter what time of day it is. It's also worn at formal dinners, balls and large parties, but, it says, the old custom of wearing white tie simply because it is your first visit as a guest to someone's home, isn't used anymore (never heard of that one, but there you are). On the other hand, it says that a dinner jacket is only ever worn at night (yes, it's actually bolded in my book so it's clearly a Rule). I think the difference is that a dinner jacket is for dining, while white tie is simply a man's best.

Anyway, remember that for your next visit to the Swedish court - no lounging about in morning wear just because it's early. Whip out your tails!

 

[John in Covina]

Gotta love the Prom Night 1978 look. :doh:

I can't see the pix it's just a red x on my screen.