The State of Black Tie: Your Observations - Page 66

And what's so bad about showing up to a black tie optional party and being the only one in a tux? It shows you've got some balls and weren't too intimidated by the fear of being the only one. Also makes the other schlubs wish they had worn one and vow to get one pronto. Be a role model to the insecure out there!

Yes, sigh, definitely not his best move. Why oh why can't someone on this forum get throu to him?

That's kind of the problem in the US... there is no standard of interpretation. No one knows what to expect. Maybe it's different in the UK. The question of dress code is on every wedding web site and in every wedding planning book because it's very confusing now.

Regarding the last point, many people invite friends of parents, distant relatives, etc. There's no way to talk to everyone before the wedding unless you have a really small guest list. (Ever been to an Indian wedding? 300 guests is tiny, 600+ is common.)

I never said that. I said you should not specify a dress code you know most of your guests will have to shell out money to abide by.

Based on my fiancee's extensive experience performing at weddings, the reality of the sitatution ("state of black tie") is that if you specify "black tie optional", you* are going to get the wedding party and a handful, if any, guests in BT. Hell, she even tried to discourage me from wearing my tux to a BTO wedding because of this, but I insisted. If you're okay with that as a host, go for it. Personally, I don't like the idea, and I would rather have everyone on the same level of formality.

* You = average, middle class American, which is the perspective I'm writing from.

Even "black tie requested" isn't clear to people. Just Google that phrase and look at some of the wedding forum threads full of confusion and outrage.

Van Veen, I hope you don't think I was implying that you did say that. I wasn't.

On the invitation, it's easy to just spell it out for people. "Tuxes if ya got 'em. Dark suit and tie if ya don't". No reason a host should have to take questions from every invitee. If that's the case, then the invitation isn't done right.

Perhaps as men, we all need to realise that we almost certainly will be invited to a couple of black tie events in our lives: friends weddings, our own wedding(s), New Years parties, whatever. And thank goodness, because dinner jackets are so very wonderful. We should just prepare ourselves for it. And gladly. As David Mitchell says, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66c7el1E11o

The President wore the same ensemble to his first inaugural ball, if I'm not mistaken. I'm certain the choice of a notch-lapel jacket instead of a tailcoat was a deliberate one. As with all things political, no small measure of calculation is involved. In this instance, his counsel must have been that a jacket with a notch lapel would be more relatable to the average American. A proper tailcoat and white-tie attire, on the other hand, might make him appear elitist or out of touch. Unfortunate, because it would have been nice for the President to be properly attired at his own ball, even if his past brushes with white tie might have needed a little help.

Yup, but the issue is some people read WAY TOO MUCH into dress codes.

"BT optional" should mean, "you can wear a tux if you'd like, but you don't have to", but to most people it means, "we put this on the invitation so people don't show up in jeans and a polo shirt. If you wear a tux, you'll look like a waiter, so just wear a suit."

"BT requested" should mean, "if you own a tux, wear it. If you really want to rent or buy one, we won't stop you, but don't feel obligated to do so," but to most people it means, "this is just a polite way to say they expect everyone to wear a tuxedo. I can't believe they're making me rent one! What's the cheapest thing on the registry?"

IMO the best option (but for some reason some people think this is bad etiquette??) is to put the dress code on the invitation (or leave it off, I guess) and have a more detailed FAQ on the wedding site.

(Sorry for taking this thread off on a semi-tangent here, but planning a wedding basically takes over your life. Fiancee is sitting in the other room making herself some sort of headband right now.)

Or maybe he's just a fan of Nucky Thompson...

+1. Any excuse to wear the tux is good in my book.

 

Ok, you've taken quite a leap here. My position was that black tie is not an entirely unreasonable or unrealistic request for a wedding invitation (speaking nothing of my own preferences; just talking about black tie in general). You've taken five steps forward and declared that not only is black tie unreasonable, but in fact, anyone who requests black tie at his wedding is a selfish asshole. These are two different issues you're conflating.

 

Regardless, I disagree that someone would request black tie necessarily for self-centered reasons. More likely than not, someone requests black tie because that happens to be the tradition in his culture, or that's the way his parents and grandparents did it, or that's what his church has requested (especially true at Catholic weddings), or that's what he believes to be proper, etc. Black tie may present an inconvenience to a lot of guests, and it may or may not be realistic for most of those guests to accommodate it. But I would never assume malice or selfishness on the part of the groom.

 

The general rules of the game these days seem to be to treat black tie as black tie optional, anyhow. Those who have 'em wear 'em, and those who don't wear dark suits and ties. Nobody's going to play tux police, or deny admittance to those who aren't dressed properly. That would be a legitimately dick move.

 

(On a side note, black tie is technically incorrect at a day wedding, and I do get a little annoyed by those who request it as such. But that's a very minor technicality).

No what's insufferably elitist is your belief that you know "the rules" but that everyone else is an unwashed rube who doesn't. See my actual data point below.

I didn't (specify a dress code) and they didn't (show up in khakis) and I don't (run in high social circles).

I live in North Carolina, got married in 2008, did thermographed invitations in Edwardian Script with no dress code but with the ceremony time announced as "half after six o'clock in the evening". The men who owned tuxes wore them, and the rest wore suits. Maybe one sportcoat - I'd have to check the pictures. A few guys did consult with our most "fashion-forward" friend as to whether tuxes would be appropriate, and she properly told them that the ceremony time and invitation typeface implied that evening wear was welcome.

We specifically omitted a dress code so as to not make the men who didn't own tuxes and didn't want to go to the expense of renting one feel like they were inadequate by having to opt out of "black tie optional".
Edited by musicmax - 1/23/13 at 1:18pm

"Cocktail attire" is ridiculously ambiguous. I have a "cocktail attire" event next month at a local museum. I'm torn between wearing a Brioni tux and ordering Vespers, or a Jack Daniels t-shirt & Canada Dry ballcap (backwards of course) and chugging bourbon & gingers....
Edited by musicmax - 1/23/13 at 1:24pm