Gotta say no to a vest. Vests are not meant to be worn on their own and they have a very unfinished look when worn alone. To me, wearing a vest to try a "church up" an outfit without wearing a jaket looks very "high school prom" or waiter-ish. As for the formal/non formal issue, a vest doesn't make you formal in the least IMO. Formal is white tie.
Very hot weather dress - Page 3
Styleforum Top Picks
We'll have to agree to disagree there.
As I said, we're compromising here. One simply can't follow the established Northern Hemisphere rules blindly in some climates. Adjustments have to be made. The whole waiter reference is culturally specific (doesn't hold up in Australia in any way, shape or form IMO and IME, for example).
Rigidity just leads to sweat, misery and hating 6 months of the desert year (sucks!)
He said he felt naked without something more than a shirt, so a vest is one suggestion. If he can get over that initial feeling of nakedness I'd stick with a simple shirt and pants look. Although I personally like vests on their own, it's not something for everyone.
To be pedantic, I said 'more formal than others'. In a lot of work places here people wear shorts because of the heat, not exactly a high bar.
I get what you are saying, but it's a bad look. If we are talking about the rules for the northern hemisphere then he shouldn't be wearing a vest at all. They are used for layering and warmth. As I mentioned previously, I have lived in hot climates most of my life. I will tell you this, a vest WILL make you sweat. You simply have a wet pattern in the shape of the vest. Especially if you are conducting business, walking around outdoors with just a vest on will look out of place. I'm not the style god or anything, but I do feel like I have been exposed to the business/government world long enough to know that just a vest is a bad idea.
I know what you meant, but formal has a meaning. To some, anyone wearing a sport coat is "formal". The fact remains that there is a difference between formal wear and business attire.
Was this in dispute? Although 'formal' doesn't always mean 'formal wear', of course.
We're going around in circles now, it's pointless.
If he's smart he won't be wearing much. If he's stubborn he'll hate it. Things are as simple as that.
One of can use a dictionary, the other lives in the UAE.
Your monkier is accurate, tried several times to leaves things lie and move on. Since you're insisting on being obnoxious I see no reason to continue to attempt to be polite.
"Formal wear (US, Canada) and formal dress (UK, Australia, New Zealand, and other Commonwealth Realms) and eveningwear are general terms forclothing suitable for formal social events, such as a wedding, formal garden party or dinner, débutante cotillion, dance, or race."
Saying that you aren't going to respond to me anymore and then sending me a private message continuing the debate isn't doing yourself any favors. Either you ignore my statements or you don't. I apologize for the tangent this thread ended up going on, however if you want to discuss the issue further you will have to do it in public. Not via private message.
And to hop on the derailment: I think formal can refer to formal wear (as CM is doing) and in a looser sense, like an odd jacket is more informal than a blazer, though a blazer isn't strictly formal wear (as Matt is doing). And though I occasionally see three piece suits (as business attire), I've always associated the vest as more a part of formalwear. Sadly...I normally see vests worn by Koreans with no jacket...and often with a tshirt...
As far as heat, in the very humid summer when using public transportation, I carry both my tie and jacket in the crook of my arm and then put them on later. Or go without the jacket.... .... .... ....
and uchhhhhhh on the idea of no undershirt