or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The perfect tuxedo except for one thing...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The perfect tuxedo except for one thing... - Page 6

post #76 of 142
To each his own. But I don't see the point in participating in a black tie event, if you don't respect/understand the tradition and standards of such an event, and what is expected of you.

If that is inaceptable, why not just call it simply a formal event, and conform to no set standards?

I suppose such sartorial orthodoxy is too old fashion for most...
post #77 of 142
Resorting to calling someone ignorant, and then an idiot, is a sign that you're losing an argument.

Most people don't bother to debate against the logical pretzels you construct to justify a lot of what you say, but I stand by my point. That's just a tuxedo your way.

And I don't even have a center-vent tuxedo.

Chip on my shoulder - against the world? No. Do I have anything against expensive clothes, or the people (in general) who wear them? No.

I do think you're a self-righteous fool though, prone to taking silly positions and using nuance and deviation to explain away your sillyness. Much of this shows itself in your interpretation (as in this case) of a very specific form of dress as being the only proper way. I'm referencing many threads.
post #78 of 142
This thread is about to get really good... lurker[1].gif
post #79 of 142
There was no logical pretzel, just reasoning you didn't understand. As for name-calling, I have no problem with it when others resort to ad hominem argument. If you're going to attack a person, there is no reason not to do it directly, unless you lack the conviction or intellectual clarity to do so.
post #80 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

For any notion of black tie to be sensible, it must comport with "a narrow minded tunnel vision."

After all, it is a standard of attire. Any fool can look back over the past fifty years and note all the different ways that standard has been interpreted (or ignored). But the hard work is in combing through the garbage and distilling what the standard really is--or should be. Failure to do so would make virtually all things permissible, so long as they have been done (and if they haven't, why not be the first?).

What about "cummerbund vs. vest vs. suspenders", or "pleated + studs vs. flat + studs vs. fly front placket", or "wing collar vs. spread collar vs. point collar", etc.?

 

To me, all of those seem to be far more significant deviations from any sort of standard than "no vent vs. side vent vs. center vent."

post #81 of 142
I found this interesting information about Tuxedo Vents in Black Tie Guide. www.blacktieguide.com


Vents


The original dinner jackets were made without vents then later offered with side vents. While side vents provide easier access to trouser pockets and are more comfortable to sit in, they can also make the jacket less slimming and somewhat compromise the intended formality of the tuxedo.


The center (aka single) vent is unacceptable not only because of its sporty pedigree (it was designed for horseback riding) but also because it opens up when a man reaches into his trouser pockets thus exposing the seat of his pants and often a white patch of shirt to boot. Despite its inappropriateness, the single vent is becoming more common on dinner jackets as mainstream manufacturers save money by patterning their tuxedos on standard suit styles. Fortunately, a good tailor can convert these jackets into ventless models by closing the vent.
post #82 of 142
I was in Poole's a few years back and heard the story of how Henry Poole created the first of what would become the "tuxedo". It was an informal dinner jack for Edward VII, I believe. It was decidedly something that stood out, rather than conformed. And was a rather bright blue.

Funny how that evolved into something that looks nothing like the original, and then somehow became fixed and rigid around a set of rules that would make the original appear to be an abomination. How does something evolve for fifty years, and then arbitrarily become fixed in time? It's not a rhetorical question.

For what it's worth, I prefer very traditional peak lapel, no vent single button, proper waste coat, with grosgrain facings and in midnight not pure black. So I adhere to 'proper' tuxedo rules in general. But the question of how something that's not at all like the original became 'proper' is interesting to me.
post #83 of 142
Coalescence over time. There's no cut-off point. But looking at everything that's been done as a whole, then thinking about what would make sense if we are to contrive a "standard," is how we wind up something like your own traditional dinner suit.
post #84 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

Coalescence over time. There's no cut-off point. But looking at everything that's been done as a whole, then thinking about what would make sense if we are to contrive a "standard," is how we wind up something like your own traditional dinner suit.

To the original question, conformity is the point. But there are accepted alternatives that are considered more or less equally proper (grosgrain vs satin facings, peak or shawl lapel, one button single or four button double breasted, black or midnight, etc.). some might argue that even those choices are more or less proper or ideal. Some would argue that a cumberbund should only be worn in the summer in hot climates. (Some might not even consider garnet studs proper smile.gif )

Are certain items absolutely outside the range of 'proper' and if so, who decides? Again, it's not really a rhetorical question. In one sense, it's sort of like trying to define ideal beauty in a woman, or what constitutes a particular genre of music. I know what looks right to my eye, but there are a lot of things that I would not consider proper in a tuxedo, but might still conform to the idea of 'a tuxedo'. I find that line somewhat blurry, myself. Others, maybe more clear for themselves. That's why I struggle with the idea of a universal ideal here.

Just my opinion. Perhaps not as eloquently stated as I would like, but I will blame that on Pappy VanWinkle this evening. smile.gif
post #85 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by JubeiSpiegel View Post

To each his own. But I don't see the point in participating in a black tie event, if you don't respect/understand the tradition and standards of such an event, and what is expected of you.

If that is inaceptable, why not just call it simply a formal event, and conform to no set standards?

I suppose such sartorial orthodoxy is too old fashion for most...

You really think someone shouldn't participate in a black tie event because they've got a vented jacket? There is most definitely a difference between someone eschewing the rules in favor of "creative black tie" and someone wearing a correct rig with vents. I'll pose this question. Which of the following would be preferable - a vented single button peak lapeled jacket, or an unvented 2 button notch lapel jacket?
post #86 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

For any notion of black tie to be sensible, it must comport with "a narrow minded tunnel vision."

After all, it is a standard of attire. Any fool can look back over the past fifty years and note all the different ways that standard has been interpreted (or ignored). But the hard work is in combing through the garbage and distilling what the standard really is--or should be. Failure to do so would make virtually all things permissible, so long as they have been done (and if they haven't, why not be the first?).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flake View Post

To the original question, conformity is the point. But there are accepted alternatives that are considered more or less equally proper (grosgrain vs satin facings, peak or shawl lapel, one button single or four button double breasted, black or midnight, etc.). some might argue that even those choices are more or less proper or ideal. Some would argue that a cumberbund should only be worn in the summer in hot climates. (Some might not even consider garnet studs proper smile.gif )

Are certain items absolutely outside the range of 'proper' and if so, who decides? Again, it's not really a rhetorical question. In one sense, it's sort of like trying to define ideal beauty in a woman, or what constitutes a particular genre of music. I know what looks right to my eye, but there are a lot of things that I would not consider proper in a tuxedo, but might still conform to the idea of 'a tuxedo'. I find that line somewhat blurry, myself. Others, maybe more clear for themselves. That's why I struggle with the idea of a universal ideal here.

Just my opinion. Perhaps not as eloquently stated as I would like, but I will blame that on Pappy VanWinkle this evening. smile.gif

I think a combination of the two posts above best epitomizes the right attitude for approaching black tie. On the one hand you have the rules, and on the other you have the set of decisions to be made within the rules. As has been stated, one may choose between facings, lapel style (peak or shawl), jacket style (SB vs. DB), shirt front (but always white/double cuff), waist covering, color (black or midnight or ivory for the jacket) and footwear and still conform to all of the rules.

So much like any profession, there are clearly ways to not do things but there are a number of equally correct ways to do things and each person will have their own preference on how to do them. Different doctors will prescribe different drugs, different bankers will use different valuation methods and different engineers will use different design principles. Still, no doctor would (should) prescribe antibiotics to cure cancer and no man should use a button-cuff shirt and black and white striped necktie with a tuxedo.

Then of course you get to the point where you must decide which new territory to explore because perhaps established rules don't specifically cover it, or you think the rules are wrong (rather than simply not knowing/caring about them). I see DJs where only the edge of the lapel has silk facings, and while hardly traditional, I don't recall seeing a specific rule that the entire lapel must be covered. Even within the confines of SF this happens. For instance, foo, you've posted that wedding photo several times with your midnight DB DJ and garnet studs and I noted a few things that don't seem to conform to the "rules" yet aren't actually breaking any either (and rules or no rules look damn good):

The garnet studs stand out for sure, but also the midnight DJ faced with midnight silk. A violation? No, I don't recall anywhere that it states the facings must be black (even though I do recall seeing that they are supposed to match the tie) but it's traditionally what I've always seen. I believe you also mention using a cummerbund, in spite of the fact that the DJ is DB. Once again, I know of no prohibition on pairing the two, but at the same time I know that a DB DJ is the one form not requiring a waist covering. I guess my point is that new developments are made by people challenging the established rules bit by bit, but this is markedly different than people throwing the rules to the wind with reckless abandon simply because they don't know better or want to make a point.

And Flake, any night where any shortcomings can be blamed on Pappy is a good night fistbump.gif
post #87 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by unbelragazzo View Post

When you see somebody wearing a single-vented, notch-lapeled tux, how often are they wearing patent shoes, a proper evening vest or cummerbund, and a proper evening shirt with studs? Half the time they'll even be wearing a long tie.

Actually my get-up included a silk evening vest, matte evening oxfords (alternative to patent leather) and an off-white SILK pleated evening shirt w/
onyx studs. The jacket has a center vent- I occasionally went to black tie events on horseback, and notch lapels. At the time I was pure trad-Ivy, but
even now every piece of tailored clothing I own,except for one, has no padding. When it was purchased from Paul Stuart the store was only
slighlty less Ivy than Brooks or Press in that it offered two button suits RTW which were more suitable to those of us whom god gave broad shouders
and chests and had proportinately smaller waists. Today I think it's called an athletic build. Alas, the years of debauchery and athletic injuries have
rendered my build post-athletic at best.
post #88 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

There was no logical pretzel, just reasoning you didn't understand. As for name-calling, I have no problem with it when others resort to ad hominem argument. If you're going to attack a person, there is no reason not to do it directly, unless you lack the conviction or intellectual clarity to do so.

So conviction is a valid reason to be impolite? We're you bullied as a child because you have the signs.
post #89 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by bertie View Post

So conviction is a valid reason to be impolite? We're you bullied as a child because you have the signs.

You have the signs of prejudice. The post I responded to aggressively was itself highly impolite. Yet, you clearly singled me out.

To the extent being bullied is part of the story, I've simply learned that low tolerance is the most effective way to deal with it.
post #90 of 142
Quote:
Originally Posted by mafoofan View Post

You have the signs of prejudice. The post I responded to aggressively was itself highly impolite. Yet, you clearly singled me out.

To the extent being bullied is part of the story, I've simply learned that low tolerance is the most effective way to deal with it.

See what you did there - you managed to be defensive and offensive at the same time. I quoted you as you escalated to name calling. Style is a reflection of character and hence how you treat others.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › The perfect tuxedo except for one thing...