Whatever happened to "coat and tie required"?

[Effingham]

There is a general coarsening of daily life in several directions that is alarming.

Indeed (to quote Teal'c).

 

[The Good]

For my first day back to my local community college, I wore a brown corduroy sport coat, white dress shirt with a dark tie and silver clip, and mid-grey chinos. I was actually remarked upon, "Well you look dressed up," by someone attending to the other students in the line I was waiting in, I certainly think that was a compliment, as she was smiling.

 

[Drappa]

Whilst perusing one of my favourite blogs I saw someone had put up a link to this older news story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8484116.stm

So there you go, no coat and tie, but at least banning pj's...
The more I read about this, the more disturbed I get. I also take back my earlier statements regarding the global nature of this trend...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6200045.stm

http://www.herald.ie/national-news/cafe-tries-to-put-pyjamas-trend-to-bed-with-ban-1473671.html

And a movie:
http://www.iftn.ie/?act1=record&only=1&aid=73&rid=4282424&tpl=archnewshome&force=1

 

[sheeplady]

Several of the less-professional coat and tie only places when I was growing up would take a reservation and then would refuse to seat my parents because they had me with them. (My parents always told them they would have a child of such and such an age with them when they made the reservation, we always met the dresscode, and I acted like an adult). I even had this happen once when I *was* an adult (my parents being refused because of having a "child" with them) and had to show my ID card; we decided not to eat at that establishment because they were very rude about the whole thing, even after I proved I was over 18.

My parents stopped frequenting such places because of two things: these refusals to seat us once we got there and my father found out that many of these places seemed to often "lose" the reservations of some of the people he worked with. He only heard about lost reservations from people who happened to not look white.

I think people got tired of the unprofessionalism in my area. It's one thing to have rules, but you've got to apply the rules equally and be clear about them upfront.

 

[Pompidou]

Several of the less-professional coat and tie only places when I was growing up would take a reservation and then would refuse to seat my parents because they had me with them. (My parents always told them they would have a child of such and such an age with them when they made the reservation, we always met the dresscode, and I acted like an adult). I even had this happen once when I *was* an adult (my parents being refused because of having a "child" with them) and had to show my ID card; we decided not to eat at that establishment because they were very rude about the whole thing, even after I proved I was over 18.

My parents stopped frequenting such places because of two things: these refusals to seat us once we got there and my father found out that many of these places seemed to often "lose" the reservations of some of the people he worked with. He only heard about lost reservations from people who happened to not look white.

I think people got tired of the unprofessionalism in my area. It's one thing to have rules, but you've got to apply the rules equally and be clear about them upfront.

Makes sense - when you're trying to attract a certain kind of customer by denying access to people said customer might not find pleasant to look at, where does the line stop? If the ideal patron only wants to be seated in the vicinity of wealthy looking people, and you cater to that, what grounds do you have to say no when he says he only wants to be seated near adults, and only white ones at that? Granted that's a slippery slope that doesn't always happen, but a patron interested in revisiting the look of say, the Cotton Club, might be concerned with more than just whether one is wearing a suit and tie.

 

[Tango Yankee]

Makes sense - when you're trying to attract a certain kind of customer by denying access to people said customer might not find pleasant to look at, where does the line stop?

On the other hand, if you're so desperate for customers or to appease the masses that can't be bothered to get dressed in the morning that you give up having any standards at all, where does the line stop? As I said, I dread the day that happens. At least the Health Department still requires a minimum amount of clothing on diners.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

On the other hand, if you're so desperate for customers or to appease the masses that can't be bothered to get dressed in the morning that you give up having any standards at all, where does the line stop? As I said, I dread the day that happens. At least the Health Department still requires a minimum amount of clothing on diners.

But not on chefs...

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/food-drink/naked-chef-debut-hong-kong-adult-channel-article-gf08.html

Ewwwwwww...

 

[Pompidou]

But not on chefs...

http://uk.lifestyle.yahoo.com/food-drink/naked-chef-debut-hong-kong-adult-channel-article-gf08.html

Ewwwwwww...

Seems like a promising show. It's not like they've got Paul Prudhomme or Mario Batali in the buff. There are oriental restaurants, sushi ones, I think, where your plate is a naked woman.

 

[John in Covina]

I guess we all have a "right" to show up to a restaurant in bathrobe and slippers wearing an adult diaper.

 

[Pompidou]

I guess we all have a "right" to show up to a restaurant in bathrobe and slippers wearing an adult diaper.

Absolutely, but fortunately, we don't have an obligation to, so "live and let live" is what I'd say.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

There are some groups where oversized, beltless pants are part of the "uniform" just as there are some groups where a suit is still expected wear for work. The problem here is that one specific group--the group that insists that they can wear whatever they damn well please wherever they are, no matter how inappropriate--has managed to convince the world in general that they should get their way....Which was, if I recall correctly, the point of the original poster--the lament that such lines are no longer being drawn. There was a time when the desired ambiance of a nice restaurant was one that allowed the quiet enjoyment of the company and the meal and the level of dress was part of that ambiance. Sadly, it seems that in today's society the "right" to be loud, obnoxious, and to dress in a manner that may make others lose their appetites has superceded the "right" of those who wish to have a nice dining experience in peace.

Hear, hear! Bravo and well-said.

 

[bunnyb.gal]

Seems like a promising show. It's not like they've got Paul Prudhomme or Mario Batali in the buff. There are oriental restaurants, sushi ones, I think, where your plate is a naked woman.

Put perhaps, as a female, I'd prefer to see Paul or Mario in the alltogether plating up my dinner ... Uh, no, not really. There's got to be better ways of leading blokes to the joy of cooking than that tired trick of employing the lowest common denominators (sex, violence, team sport rah-rah-ing...). Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather watch Fanny Cradock, than Cradock's Fanny!

 

[John in Covina]

We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

[John in Covina]

Actually, it already does just as it always has--it just depends upon the social group as to what it is. There are some groups where oversized, beltless pants are part of the "uniform" just as there are some groups where a suit is still expected wear for work. The problem here is that one specific group--the group that insists that they can wear whatever they damn well please wherever they are, no matter how inappropriate--has managed to convince the world in general that they should get their way.




Which was, if I recall correctly, the point of the original poster--the lament that such lines are no longer being drawn. There was a time when the desired ambiance of a nice restaurant was one that allowed the quiet enjoyment of the company and the meal and the level of dress was part of that ambiance. Sadly, it seems that in today's society the "right" to be loud, obnoxious, and to dress in a manner that may make others lose their appetites has superceded the "right" of those who wish to have a nice dining experience in peace.


I do not think of this as progress, nor is it truly the advancement of anyone's "rights."

Regards,
Tom

It also brings the question of as owner of the restaurant what rights does one have?

 

[sheeplady]

Sadly, it seems that in today's society the "right" to be loud, obnoxious, and to dress in a manner that may make others lose their appetites has superceded the "right" of those who wish to have a nice dining experience in peace.
Regards,
Tom

I really can't understand how "peace" has anything to do with dress. Loud and obnoxious comes in all shapes and sizes, and I can reassure you, in suits and ties. I can understand wanting the ambiance of coat and tie, but honestly, it doesn't make me any less at "peace" if I see a person in jeans at the next table. If they are minding their own business and being polite (not obnoxious or loud) me feeling repulsed at their presence is highly impolite. I really should mind my own business and not stare at people (I think being repulsed would take me more than a casual glance). I might not like what they are wearing, but they probably don't like what I am wearing.

I like to think that if people do not like the way I look, they can just not look at me. That means I have to return the favor.

I guess some of what bothers me about this discussion that dress correlates with "manners" or "class." While I fully agree that there are some things that probably shouldn't be worn out in public, if you're not in my house or my family or my establishment or are not my employee, it is none of my business what you wear. If you fall into any of those categories, then I think I have a certain amount of leeway telling you directly (or indirectly) what you should wear. I think that people should take some pride in the way they look, but pride in the way they act is more important.

 

[rue]

I for one stopped eating out as much because of the way people dress. When I go out to restaurants like Morton's or Club 19 I pay for the ambiance as well as the food. I don't want to make an effort to look my best and have Joe shmoe sitting there in his ripped shorts, t-shirt and flip flops (Yes, I've seen it). I may not like it, but I expect it when I eat at Applebees, not when I'm shelling out 100 bucks a plate.

I find it ironic that this is even a discussion on here [huh]

 

[Feraud]

I guess some of what bothers me about this discussion that dress correlates with "manners" or "class." While I fully agree that there are some things that probably shouldn't be worn out in public, if you're not in my house or my family or my establishment or are not my employee, it is none of my business what you wear. If you fall into any of those categories, then I think I have a certain amount of leeway telling you directly (or indirectly) what you should wear. I think that people should take some pride in the way they look, but pride in the way they act is more important.

Agreed and welcome to our small club. The unfounded correlation between dress and manners/morals/dignity is an idea that pervades many comments and conversations here and has done so for a long time.

It is a fair enough discussion to compare the "Then versus Now". It is also fine to list your style likes and dislikes. I have a long list of style dislikes. Where the conversation loses steam is when someone jumps in and makes a superficial connection between dress and morals.

 

[martinsantos]

I don't believe dressing indicates good manners. And I proved (again) this to myself this week. Meeting with two colleagues of profession; impecable suits, those VERY expensive, etc, etc, etc. But the worst manners I've saw in years! Absolutely desclassified.

But I must add a point. Never found a guy that uses a hat that have bad manners...

 

[Pompidou]

Agreed and welcome to our small club. The unfounded correlation between dress and manners/morals/dignity is an idea that pervades many comments and conversations here and has done so for a long time.

It is a fair enough discussion to compare the "Then versus Now". It is also fine to list your style likes and dislikes. I have a long list of style dislikes. Where the conversation loses steam is when someone jumps in and makes a superficial connection between dress and morals.

Finally something I can agree with 110%.

 

[Tomasso]

I really can't understand how "peace" has anything to do with dress. Loud and obnoxious comes in all shapes and sizes, and I can reassure you, in suits and ties.

I was involved with a charity group which held two fundraisers a year; a black tie soiree in the winter and a come as you are Tiki themed party in the summer. Over the years I observed that the level of decorum was much higher at the black tie event even though the attendees were pretty much the same people. I've mentioned this occurrence to dozens of people in the party biz (event planners, venue owners, caterers, etc..) and most agree that there is a correlation between the level of dress and the level of civility. No science here, just an aggregate of personal observations.