or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The State of Black Tie: Your Observations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The State of Black Tie: Your Observations - Page 278

post #4156 of 4603
eBay. smile.gif
post #4157 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veremund View Post

Historical precedent or not, I just don't think it looks that nice on a dj.


Agreed. Always fully faced. The historical use will have been almost entirely down to thrift and the expense of silk.

post #4158 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrock View Post


Agreed. Always fully faced. The historical use will have been almost entirely down to thrift and the expense of silk.
I've seen plenty evening tailcoats with silk facings but self edges/piping. Maybe DJs too, but not certain. I would say that could look good (provided sizeable lapels) on a DJ if one wanted to bend the rules to stand out a bit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Veremund View Post

eBay. smile.gif
eBay, savvyrow and eBay, got it.
post #4159 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwlbu View Post

Question:

I currently use my black Oxford cap toes as my black tie shoes. I have an event coming up this spring and I'm toying with the idea of getting some new shoes to go with my tuxedo. Obviously patent oxfords would be my first inclination. However, I've seen pictures of patent shoes from good quality producers that look susceptible to extreme creasing after a few wears, which I think looks sloppy. (Maybe they were improperly cared for and my fears are unwarranted?)

It makes me almost want to just go for a pair of normal calfskin whole cut oxfords instead and give them a good wax shining.

Tossing aside the notion that I could wear the calfskin wholecut oxfords in a business setting(I already have black cap toes that I don't wear often), and given a clean slate to start from -would you choose whole cut oxfords in normal leather or go the patent oxford route?

I agree that patent tends to look cheap, even from the best makers, because today's patent is always made by synthetic coating applied to leather. The one exception I've seen are these older looking Lobbs, which were made the "right" way:

http://i201.photobucket.com/albums/aa284/Satorarepo/Plain_toed_patent_Lobb.jpg

FWIW, I would absolutely go the high-polished, whole cut calf route. I prefer a slip-on (though not a slipper) and got these last year:

http://www.barneys.com/crockett-jones-kensington-loafers-503461727.html#prefn1=brand&prefn2=productAccess&prefv1=Crockett+%2526+Jones&prefv2=isPublic&start=11
post #4160 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbrock View Post

Krauss-Science-Prizes-690.jpg

Money blindness. I want to poke my eyes out. How is it possible to get it so wrong? And with so much money and presumably advisors.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, is rich enough to wear pants that tight without being able to display a legitimate bulge.
post #4161 of 4603
I ended up scoring these Cheaney wholecuts on eBay for $70 (they came with the shoe trees too!). Barely worn and exactly my size. I didn't really use any of my budget up. Those C&J slip ons are sick, I definitely might keep an eye on them.

This is the eBay photo, I have since re-laced them in bar lacing and shined them up real good.
post #4162 of 4603


Out and about with my Valentine.

post #4163 of 4603

Question about cummberbunds: 1. Are they necessary for black tie? 2. When wearing a cummberbund, what is the proper thing to do regarding its relationship to the bow tie (ie. should they be matching or should they be deliberately not matching?).  Obviously, for black tie, the cummberbund & the bow tie should be black, but not all black is the same, and one can see a difference with the satin vs. jacquard. 

post #4164 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanS View Post

Question about cummberbunds: 1. Are they necessary for black tie? 2. When wearing a cummberbund, what is the proper thing to do regarding its relationship to the bow tie (ie. should they be matching or should they be deliberately not matching?).  Obviously, for black tie, the cummberbund & the bow tie should be black, but not all black is the same, and one can see a difference with the satin vs. jacquard. 

1. Technically, in current practice, no they are not. But my opinion and (I believe) the consensus of the board is that you should wear a cummerbund or waistcoat to prevent any shirt from showing below the button of the jacket, which creates a white triangle that draws the eye to the crotch area. The exception is if you are wearing a double breasted jacket, in which case it will always be buttoned so there's no reason for a waist covering.

2. Your bow tie should always be black and match the lapels of your dinner jacket (all satin or all grosgrain). Your cummerbund/waistcoat may either match both of these, or if you want to add some flair you can go with a different cummerbund. Preferably patterned because IMO solid colored cummerbunds (e.g. solid red) look prom-y and tacky.

... and wear suspenders. Don't let your pants sag. Looks sloppy.
post #4165 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post
 
1. Technically, in current practice, no they are not. But my opinion and (I believe) the consensus of the board is that you should wear a cummerbund or waistcoat to prevent any shirt from showing below the button of the jacket, which creates a white triangle that draws the eye to the crotch area. The exception is if you are wearing a double breasted jacket, in which case it will always be buttoned so there's no reason for a waist covering.

2. Your bow tie should always be black and match the lapels of your dinner jacket (all satin or all grosgrain). Your cummerbund/waistcoat may either match both of these, or if you want to add some flair you can go with a different cummerbund. Preferably patterned because IMO solid colored cummerbunds (e.g. solid red) look prom-y and tacky.

... and wear suspenders. Don't let your pants sag. Looks sloppy.

 

Thanks & I like the idea of a patterned cummerbund - possibly a blackwatch cummerbund. Also, Shirt studs are a must, correct?

post #4166 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

1. Technically, in current practice, no they are not. But my opinion and (I believe) the consensus of the board is that you should wear a cummerbund or waistcoat to prevent any shirt from showing below the button of the jacket, which creates a white triangle that draws the eye to the crotch area. The exception is if you are wearing a double breasted jacket, in which case it will always be buttoned so there's no reason for a waist covering.

2. Your bow tie should always be black and match the lapels of your dinner jacket (all satin or all grosgrain). Your cummerbund/waistcoat may either match both of these, or if you want to add some flair you can go with a different cummerbund. Preferably patterned because IMO solid colored cummerbunds (e.g. solid red) look prom-y and tacky.

... and wear suspenders. Don't let your pants sag. Looks sloppy.

I'll just add to #1 that the entire thing can be midnight as well, if you are wearing a midnight tux with midnight facings, go that route. My preference on a non-matching cummerbund would be some kind of tonal pattern (paisley, etc.). I also think that the cummerbund's texture can differ from the tie/facings; I personally have a grosgrain cummerbund since it was far and away the darkest blue I could find and I have a midnight tux with midnight facings/tie.
post #4167 of 4603
Black watch is good. Yes shirt studs are a must. A fly front shirt (no visible buttons) is also an option.
post #4168 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonathanS View Post
 

Question about cummberbunds: 1. Are they necessary for black tie? 2. When wearing a cummberbund, what is the proper thing to do regarding its relationship to the bow tie (ie. should they be matching or should they be deliberately not matching?).  Obviously, for black tie, the cummberbund & the bow tie should be black, but not all black is the same, and one can see a difference with the satin vs. jacquard. 


The thing to remember is that the purpose of the cummerbund or the waistcoat (whichever you choose) is to cover the waistband of your trousers. The purpose of the stripe down the outside seam is to cover that outside seam. So the answer to the question is it necessary is no, it's not necessary, but some sort of waist covering is, formally, necessary. There are three ways to accomplish that: a waistcoat, a cummerbund, or by wearing a double-breasted dinner jacket.

 

Think twice about wearing anything other than a black cummerbund. Then think again.


Edited by Andy57 - 2/17/16 at 7:56am
post #4169 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Van Veen View Post

Black watch is good. Yes shirt studs are a must. A fly front shirt (no visible buttons) is also an option.

And, should one insist on going without a waist covering, a fly front shirt is a must, because it will eliminate that awkward studs-to-buttons transition visible when the jacket is open.
post #4170 of 4603
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy57 View Post

Some sort of waist covering is, formally, necessary. There are three ways to accomplish that: a waistcoat, a cummerbund, or by wearing a double-breasted dinner jacket.

+1. The ridiculous white triangle should be prevented at all costs.
Edited by Veremund - 2/17/16 at 2:54pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The State of Black Tie: Your Observations