Is black suit an acceptable business attire?

I think this gets the award for 'most ridiculous thread about clothing'.

You know, if you started nagging the average guy about black suits, you would probably just get simply laughed at.

BTW, check out my newest line: 'Blacksuit' by Tommy Hilfiger

BTW, check out my newest line:  'Blacksuit' by Tommy Hilfiger

Click to expand...

Do the sleeve buttons kiss? If not, I can't even bear to look.

Quote:

Click to expand...

(Tommy Hilfiger @ Feb. 10 2005,16:43) BTW, check out my newest line: Â 'Blacksuit' by Tommy Hilfiger
Do the sleeve buttons kiss? Â If not, I can't even bear to look.
Actually, I'm going with a new trend here - single button sleeves, with working buttonholes.

Actually, I'm going with a new trend here - single button sleeves, with working buttonholes.

Click to expand...

An ingenius way around the "rules". Perhaps it will spawn a new rule.

No spawning here please. This is not GQ.

No spawning here please. This is not GQ.

Click to expand...

So then I take it you are opposed to my triple-collar shirts?

Aside from all the insults back and forth

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Â There have been no insults back, only forth.

1. Do you believe that clothing "rules" exist (not that ALL the rules asserted by Manton exist, but that ANY exist)?

Click to expand...

Of course. Â I understand that some have objections to the word "rule", and many of those objections are reasonable. Â More on this below.

2. Assuming the answer to #1 is yes, then what would be your definition of what comprises a clothing/sartorial rule?

Click to expand...

Perhaps it would be useful to specify that there are two types of "rules". Â In the first category, let's put rules that govern what goes with what, what a person should wear when, etc. Â In the second, let's put rules that govern how things should be made and how they should look, e.g., no notched lapels on double-breasted suits. Â Maybe, to better keep track of the argument, we may call the former "rules" an the latter "standards." Beyond this, both may be said to have the same definition: customs and principles and practices that are generally accepted and widely practiced by those who make clothes and those who wear clothes, and that are expected of men by society at large, especially among the upper classes, and particularly for formal, ceremonial, and business occasions. Note to anyone who may be temped to latch onto the phrase "especially among the upper classes" as evidence that I am "elitist" or something: it is a historical fact that the rules and customs that have governed male attire since at least the days of ancient Rome have originated with the upper classes. It is also a historical fact that the biggest sticklers for the rules in all societies (whatever those rules may be) are members of the upper middle classes, and those who aspire to break into the upper classes, or to be taken for a member of the upper classes. Â Real aristocrats can afford to be quite careless with their dress because their social status is assured by money, title, lineage, estate, etc. Sorry for the pre-emptive strike, fellas. Â I'm a bit on my guard.

Must it be written down somewhere?

Click to expand...

No, though I think it was inevitable that the rules would get be written down by someone. Â "Rulesets" and codes that are a lot more esoteric than clothing rules end up getting written down. Â Take, for instance, the various feudal Japanese writers who tried to record the principles of "bushido." Â People in general have what Tom Wolfe calls "information compulsion." Â They love to talk about what they know. Â (Everyone but me. Â Heh.) Â The love all the more to explain what they know to peolpe who don't know. But the existence of said rules or codes pre-exists the writings. Â And the writings are only possible because the rules already exist.

Must it be common practice,

Click to expand...

Yes.

and if so where and as adhered to by whom?

Click to expand...

Most everybody, but especially the upper classes, the upper middle classes, and aspirants. Â Also in situations that are governed by non-clothing related rules of etiquette, in which strangers and distant aquaintances are often thrown together (e.g., business). Â And especially in formal situations, which are governed by the most complex and arcane and rigid and ritualistic rules of etiquette of all. Â I find that the rules of clothing and the rules of etiquette track pretty closely, in terms of arcanity and rigidity. Â The rules of etiquette for (say) a picnic are not so demadning, and neither is the dress code. Â But for a wedding, the rules of each are quite involved.

Must there be, at least in certain circles, some penalty or consequence for violation of a rule (this consequence could be as minor as incurring a group's - but not simply an individual's - disdain)?

Click to expand...

I think so. Â The larger the violation, the greater the penalty or consequence. Â Someone who wears a very sharp dress loafer with a suit is not going to suffer much. Â Someone who routinely dresses like Herb Tarlek (remember WKRP?) will almost certainly be an object of ridicule among his peers. Time was all this was much more important. Â To illustrate this with a non-scientific, non-factual, slightly off-topic anecdote: There is a Sherlock Holmes story in which a rich, Austrian murderder is attempting to marry his way into British high society. Â Holmes is hired to break up the engagement. Â He goes to see the chap, they have words, and as a parting shot, Holmes offers this advice: "If you want to get on in English society, I suggest you remove the band from your Havana before lighting it." Little things like that -- and clothes -- are just not taken nearly as seriously as they once were. Â

3. What is the difference between custom and a rule?

Click to expand...

"Custom: 1. A practice followed by people of a particular group or region." "Rule: 3. A usual, customary, or generalized course of action or behavior." Given those definitions (from the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition), it is hard to see much of a difference, in this specific sense and usage of each.  But of course, each word has various uses, and "rule" tends to connote something official, enforced, and/or written down, whereas "custom" tends to connote something habitual and widespread but not necessarily codified, so perhaps the clothing "rules" are better called "customs".

4. How far do the rules extend in terms of geography, social circumstance (i.e. "class," wealth, or other), and social setting?

Click to expand...

Generally speaking, anywhere western tailored clothing is worn. Â There are regional variations which it would take forever to list, even if I knew them all, which I don't. Â For my thoughts on wealth and class, see above.

5. If we don't require the "rules" to be written in order to exist , then how do we determine what the rules are?

Click to expand...

Observation. Â Conversation. Â Practice. Â Peer pressure.

6. What would be necessary to prove the existence of any given rule, assuming they need not be written in order to exist?

Click to expand...

The existence of any rule cannot be "proven". Â A preponderance of evdence can be amassed to suggest, strongly, that said rule does in fact exist. Â That evidence can be in the form of written sources, photos, conversations with people in the trade, and conversations with clothing aficionados, among other sources.

If you assert a rule exists and I assert it does not, how do we decide who is correct?

Click to expand...

Swords or pistols, you choose.

Swords or pistols, you choose.

Click to expand...

Ahhh. We've elevated from spawning to violence? Perhaps, given the environment, pins or needles might be more appropriate?

Eloquently wonderful post, Manton.

7 more pages of this???

We only have about 630 more posts to go before we've exceeded "What are you wearing today?" as the longest post on SF.

Here's a good sartorial sin for ya: when I was 17, and the member of a hardcore powernoise band in LA, a friend stole a very nice suit from one of those places on Rodeo Drive, and gave it to me. I cut the pantlegs off slightly below the knees and wore them with black jungle boots, then sewed various patches all over the jacket, and cut the sleeves off at the shoulders. I used to also wear a shirt and tie with that, although I had a mohawk and pierced lip, and I'm not sure the outfit would have worked well in a job interview. Anyway, on to the thread:

In my home, if you were to ever chew with your mouth open, it would warrant a quick slap from my father, as he considered it the most inexcusable breach of proper manners (a sentiment which I share). You were strictly forbidden from wearing a hat indoors, putting your elbows on the table, and so on (I'm sure many here were raised with many of those same rules). Whenever I used the words "dude" or "like" at the table, my father would harass me to the point that I wanted to punch him. It was also an intolerable crime to use double negatives, or to use fake words such as "utilize", and I was often told to go fetch the Oxford English Dictionary to obtain the proper meaning of a word which I had egregiously misused. However, I commonly meet with people for business dinners and lunches who obviously do not share my own personal customs. While I am sitting there unable to eat, having lost my appetite in disgust at their insufferable smacking, they calmly enjoy their food, totally oblivious to my own personal rules of etiquette, gobbling down their meal with their mouth wide open so the whole world can share it with them. Many of these same rubes will leave their cell phone turned on at the table, and I've seen one ask for A-1 steak sauce with the $75 filet mignon I was treating him to. That last one really made me want to scream, but I held my tongue.

I am, however, very grateful to my father for his unceasing harassment, because it allows me to behave in a way that is more compatible with a wider array of personalities. I may eat one night with some fat pig who likes to chew with his mouth open, BUT he will not notice my own method of chewing, and will not be offended. However, I am horrified to think how it would be for the gentleman dining with me were I to be the one chewing with the mouth open, and he, sickened with disgust, trying to politely finish his meal.

Generally, I don't wear black suits because of the whole lint thing. I don't like it when I take off my overcoat and there is visible hair or lint or anything else on my jacket. I am a total clean freak, completely uptight about that sort of thing. I am also, like Manton, a firm believer in structure and its purpose. Personally, I enjoy baroque and classical a great deal more than romantic. I prefer Leonardo to Picasso. I think the Oxford English Dictionary is the only dictionary worth using. I hate the word "wellness", and agree wholeheartedly with almost everything written by Orwell in regards to the modern bastardization of the English language. I always thought, however, that black was a formal color, and as such, would make a more appropriate color for proper business attire. Shows how much I know.

So, on that note, Manton, when exactly are you expecting your book to be published and by whom? Will you ever post any basic guidelines for us rubes and peasants completely ignorant of the guidelines of proper dress?

Yeah, and 60 odd pages...

ODD being the operative word.

Quote:

Click to expand...

(esquire. @ Feb. 10 2005,14:46) Could somebody please link the threads responsible for Karla and Marc Grayson's banning. After reading some of the crude insults and libel written, I can't imagine that those two banned members could have been much worse.
Here is the thread that got Marc Grayson banned: Â Kabbaz Shirts. Â Notice how he created an alter ego named "learydennis" to support his argument.
That's it?? I was expecting the Anti-Christ. Considering all the things I've read in this thread and other recent ones, I guess I was expecting some really personal attacks from marc39, maybe even some threats of violence. Instead, there were some interesting and legitimate questions which were raised where he unfortunately used another alias to bolster his argument. Its too bad, marc39 didn't need to do that. He could have relied only on the logic of his arguments. Maybe, I'm just a little slow, but if I read read the list of his clients, I would have assumed that Mr. Kabbaz had personally made those shirts for those clients. Does Mr. Kabbaz stretch the truth a bit? Probably, but who doesn't? Does Mr. Kabbaz make the best shirt in the world? I don't know, and cannot judge without comparing them in person with other shirts? But, its pretty obvious that Mr. Kabbaz has a passion for shirt making, and forgotten more about shirts in the last five minutes than I'll ever learn about them in my lifetime.

7 more pages of this???

Click to expand...

Yes, but all quite civil.

This thread may never die. It truly has something for everyone. A fight about inconsequential details, with no politics to turn people off (and let's keep it that way); members who are nonetheless put off by the fight; links to other threads about what gets people banned; its own satirical auction and corresponding thread, helpfully linked; wine heresy; fashion heresy... This may negate the need for the entire rest of the forum.

Shall we condense all other discussion into an Omnibus Discussion of 2005 and just get rid of all the pointless categorization?