First time at a club

[drizzt3117]

Well, Rain, Ghostbar, Garden of Eden, etc... have dress codes, whether or not they enforce them uniformly for celebs is another story.

LA Guy, I agree with you that truly upscale clubs may not have a posted dress code, but they will certainly prevent the random guy showing up with jeans/t-shirt that is thoroughly out of place. It's a matter of appropriateness, similar to recommended attire at higher end restaurants.

I actually think certain jeans/black designer loafers looks can be cool, depending on the shoe.

 

[matadorpoeta]

Quote:

the best clubs are those that not only have no dress code, but no security as well (other than a door man to check i.d.s). once inside you see people in t-shirts and jeans, and you see people wearing suits, but no one is being forced to dress one way or another.
Hear, hear. Â Matador, I'm interested in what clubs in L.A. you particularly like.
i haven't been going out lately but my favorite club of all time was "synthetic" at the echo in echo park. they were playing electro years ago when it first started. there was an old man taking i.d.s at the front door but no other security. inside there were people of all ages and everyone had style, in their own way. later on it started turning gay and people stopped going because electro got popular. there used to be clubs in south central that would just spring up for the night and anyone who heard about it would show up. there were poor people from the neighborhood, westsiders, eastsiders, and usually the cover was like $3. there was one where everyone was just openly passing drugs around, including needles. i didn't partake in the needles, but that was a good night. Â drizz, i enjoy an elegant restaurant as much as the next guy, but there's a big difference between going somewhere to eat and going somewhere to, get lost, as chet baker puts it. this discussion was about clubs, which i assumed meant dance clubs. btw, if you consider upscale to mean a high cover charge, there's an after hours club on highland ave. that's charging $60 cover. it starts at 3:00am sunday morning--lots of beautiful people--no dress code.

 

[jimboni]

hmm... it looks like i'm the only member who spends time on the other side of the rope: when i'm not drawing buildings, i often dj at clubs and can pretty much show up wearing whatever i feel like. while i understand dress codes to an extent - new orleans has a lot of gangbanger wannabes and ali-g types - every rule like that should have blatant exceptions (and not just the club owner's slut girlfriend who asks you to play top 40 rap when you play house).

p.s. the clubs with dress codes are the ones most likely to not pay the guest DJ (or try to pay one in drugs).

 

[drizzt3117]

I refer to upscale as upscale in terms of attire/decor, etc, and high end to refer to the selection of food/beverage, the cover doesn't really apply to whether the club is upscale although most upscale clubs will have a relatively high cover/table charge.

 

[gregory]

I enjoy walking to the Metropolitan Museum on Sundays. When I walk past some Fifth Avenue co-ops, the residents leaving the buildings seem to be dressed anywhere from immaculate to ordinary (i.e. t-shirt and shorts). I think it's quite hard to tell someone's economic standing based on his/her clothes.

 

[gregory]

I would venture to argue that the most trustworthy indicators of economic standing for a man, as far as clothing is concerned, are his watch and shoes.

True?

 

[Leo Jay]

I would venture to argue that the most trustworthy indicators of economic standing for a man, as far as clothing is concerned, are his watch and shoes.

True?

I wouldn't say it's a reliable indicator.  There are many people of considerable means who simply don't care much about clothes/accessories, or who feel that spending more than a modest amount of time and money on such things is vulgar, stupid or both.

 

[kidkim2]

Is this the place for me to admit that when I first saw the title of this thread I thought, "Oh, somebody's joined the Knickerbocker Club, or the Pacific Union, or the Century"?

No, not the place?  

(But I will say that it's rather fun to read these posts with the University Club in mind. . . )

(And, BTW, I read once long ago that just as a woman's hands are the best gauges of her age, so are a man's shoes the best indicators of his socio-economic status.)

(And, yes, matadorpoeta, that's a sweet little song--"Let's Get Lost".)

 

[drizzt3117]

I would agree that it's not a good indicator in some circumstances (travelling, etc) but when someone is dressed up at an elegant restaurant, it could be a good measure. I know salespeople will typically look at watches/shoes to determine how much attention a client should be given at a high end shop.

 

[globetrotter]

both are pretty good, but not entirly accurate. a lot of the really rich people I know wear very basic rolexes, the only person I know personally with a very expensive watch (one of those >20K puppies) is a salaried employee (although with a pretty good salary).

you can easily tell the difference between a $50 pair of shoes, a $400 pair of shoes and a $2500 pair of shoes, but a lot of people who could afford the $2500 pair of shoes are wearing the $400 shoes. not a lot, however, are wearing the $50 pair.

 

[LA Guy]

I know salespeople will typically look at watches/shoes to determine how much attention a client should be given at a high end shop.

You know that this would count for crap in SoCal. Pretty much everyone is wearing sneakers except for the industry execs and their *assistants* and that lots of rich people are wearing the latest novelty watch (Dean, Red Monkey, etc... rather than, say, a Patek Phillipe.)

 

[kidkim2]

globetrotter--

Please excuse the tone of this message.  It has nothing whatever to do with you--or the value of your opinions.

Why is it that, whenever social class is mentioned, somebody calls attention to the exceptional case of a slob who's rich as Croesus?  What does this show us? That social class indicators are fallible?  Is this news?

I have no idea whether the reported correlation between shoes and SES is valid.  (In my case, I hope not.)  But I do know that Henry Ford's once having worn tennies to a deb party is a 64-point non sequitur.  As is the Bullwinkle watch of somebody else in the social register.

There.  I've said it, and I'm glad.

 

[kidkim2]

Oh, and BTW, if shoes--or watches, or roadsters--are indicators, it may not be their expense that is most telling. . . .

 

[globetrotter]

salesmen, of all kinds, have to be able to size people up very quickly and make snap judgments. the better you are at making these judgments, the more accurate they are, the better you end up doing. that is why a lot of people in sales and customer service use tricks like looking at shoes and watches. but the flip side of that is the people who don't fit in, or the "subcultures", for want of a better word - like SoCal - that have different standards. or people who blow the wad on a good fake watch or a single pair of good shoes to knock peoples perceptions off.

KK, sorry I didn't understand your point, so I guess you can count that as no offense taken...

 

[LA Guy]

Oh, and BTW, if shoes--or watches, or roadsters--are indicators, it may not be their expense that is most telling. . . .

Yep. It depends on geopphical area, but most of the old Brahmin types around here dress very in very modest clothing(and I don't mean understated, I mean relatively inexpensive) and in L.A., that's another story altogether. New money dresses like no money, no money dresses like new money, and there is no old money to be found (unless Madonna counts.)