'iGent Myths Busted!'

Interesting.

I'd have to read some of those.

Its always worth remembering that if the rules or guides as I prefer to call them were so rigid in the first place, then there'd have been little or no evolution and we wouldn't be where we are now.

Fashion has always been central to what is considered classical dress. It is ahistoric to deny this.
Edited by Lovelace - 2/9/13 at 4:38am

Without getting into the trenches:

One, because there is evidence that something was done once does not mean it was done routinely, or was well accepted.

Two, these things are often more complicated than we'd like to believe. That's true.

Three, the forums often treat "the rules" as fixed dictats rather than reflections of the changing mores of the times. Partly for ease of discussion, partly because of individual preferences, partly because of a general consistency in men's clothing in the 20th century. But make no mistake: What was done in 1890 was not what was done in 1910 was not what was done in 1950. These things evolve, and it is up to us to sort out what applies to today, and to our lifestyles.

You guys didn't know this?   Welcome to sensible style.

Interesting read. Another influence is the culture of the environment. I would say the "rules" are more followed in conservative places (e.g., Washington, D.C.) than more trendy locales (e.g., NYC).

I would hazard to say that with style, much of what are preached are guidelines instead of rules.

There's a difference between something being "against the rules" and something that's completely unremarkable and foolproof. I assure you, if Obama or Boehner or some other major politician started wearing brown suits all the time, it would be remarked upon.

Reagan wore brown suits regularly.

that's absolutely crazy talk, 20 lashes with you.

And we're still talking about it to this day. I'm not saying it's wrong. Just that it's a thing.

It was, wasn't it, when Gore switched over to 'earth colours' in the presidential campaign?

well, I don't know that when people think about Reagan, they think about his suit colors. I would be willing to bet that if you took a poal as to what suit colors he wore, brown would be very far down the list.

Yea - I don't remember if he was actually wearing a brown suit in a room full of navy suits or just wearing "earth colors" in more casual settings, but it became a thing. Basically, you go up on the Hill, everybody will be in dark navy or charcoal suits or blazers. If you wear something else, it will be noticed.

Every time the discussion of whether brown is OK for business comes up, the answer is "well Reagan wore brown suits". Again, I am not saying it's wrong or that he didn't look great in them. I love brown suits. I have one. But clearly they are going to be much rarer in a formal business setting than navy or charcoal suits. If brown suits were so common, we'd have more than just Reagan to hold up as an example of their appropriateness. You'll see way more pinstripe suits than brown suits.

it was actually noted and notable at the time and discussed in the press. As in, "the brown suit, the also-ran sign of the midwestern shoe salesman, is back: the president is wearing them!!" In other words, not only did he not wear them that often, they really didn't catch on much beyond him.

I've quoted this before, but in 1993 the Federation of Merchant Tailors in London put out a press release saying "It is now OK to wear brown in town." Still, one almost never sees it in London.

"The farther west you get in the country, the more important brown becomes,'' said Sheldon Brayer, senior vice president for the Hickey-Freeman suit making company.