Advice/help for my wedding near Houston

[ValidusLA]

Then why bother asking anyone to dress black tie?

Because all guests in BT looks coherent, and can lend to class.
1-5 men in tuxes surrounded by a mishmash looks like prom photos.

 

[rjc149]

Because all guests in BT looks coherent, and can lend to class.
1-5 men in tuxes surrounded by a mishmash looks like prom photos.

What would you wear to "black tie optional" event?

 

[Leiker]

What would you wear to "black tie optional" event?

Black tie.

 

[ValidusLA]

What would you wear to "black tie optional" event?

Black tie. But I have stated before I think BTO is a cop out. Black Tie Prefered is better.

BTO is very clearly "we want you to wear black tie but we are afraid to tell you to."

In the case of what I would wear to BTO, even though I think it creates a discordant look, I would wear what I'm fairly sure the hosts want (BT).

What is your point with these questions? Do you think grooms in tuxedos at non BT weddings are a good look?

 

[rjc149]

What is your point with these questions? Do you think grooms in tuxedos at non BT weddings are a good look?

The groom, or groomsmen, wearing tuxedos at a non-BT wedding is not something that occurred to me as being a 'bad look' or 'misplaced conception of class' until you mentioned it.

I see BTO more as "we want you to wear black tie, but realize that you probably don't own a BT outfit and we don't want you to trouble yourself with the circle jerk and added expense of renting one or buying one. A nice suit is fine, and we want you to come in what you have." Which I see as considerate and welcoming which is what hosts should be, not a cop-out.

As for groomsmen wearing tuxedos where no one else is, that doesn't occur to me as misplaced, because the wedding party holds a certain status in the celebration and their dressier attire is allowed to reflect that. I think this also satisfies the uniformity that you feel is necessary in order for BT to be appropriate.

A singular groom being the only tuxedo at the wedding is where I tend to agree with you.

 

[ValidusLA]

The groom, or groomsmen, wearing tuxedos at a non-BT wedding is not something that occurred to me as being a 'bad look' or 'misplaced conception of class' until you mentioned it.

I see BTO more as "we want you to wear black tie, but realize that you probably don't own a BT outfit and we don't want you to trouble yourself with the circle jerk and added expense of renting one or buying one. A nice suit is fine, and we want you to come in what you have." Which I see as considerate and welcoming which is what hosts should be, not a cop-out.

As for groomsmen wearing tuxedos where no one else is, that doesn't occur to me as misplaced, because the wedding party holds a certain status in the celebration and their dressier attire is allowed to reflect that. I think this also satisfies the uniformity that you feel is necessary in order for BT to be appropriate.

A singular groom being the only tuxedo at the wedding is where I tend to agree with you.

I get where you are coming from, and I would hazard to say your outlook is probably the most common one in general.

I disagree on a few points.

I really like Black Tie in general. I think its a good look when both men and women (long dress, not black) are following it. But I think it loses a lot of its luster when its half and half.

I don't think most wedding should be black tie, because most guest lists, you are right wont have access to rigs. I think a wedding party in charcoal or navy suits with traditional wedding ties will always look better than rented tuxedos.

So much depends on venue and setting and general input into the event. Every time I see grooms in tuxedos at some outdoor winery or the like I am reminded that a different choice would look much more coherent.

Reason I don't like BTO is that I think it sends mixed messages and I do really believe it comes around from hosts "feeling bad" about "asking" guests to come in BT. I think a lot of this has to do with what circles one might be in.

I'm on a couple charity boards, for example, and BTO always comes up at Gala time. BTO usually ends up getting used because they don't want to be "pushy." The hilarious thing is tickets cost $300-1000 dollars depending on the event. Every single person coming probably has access to a tuxedo.

I think the "option" of "optional" gets misconstrued. Most brides and grooms likely take it to mean: "Please if you can." But guests take it as "if you want to."

Black Tie Preferred is much better. it actually means "Please if you can." Its less mealy mouthed about the request. More direct.

EDIT: I don't think the wedding party needs tuxedos to set them off.
This will be achieved by:
- Being at the front of the ceremony
- Being at central tables
- Having wedding ties
- Having suits probably in the same shade
- Likely having boutonnieres of some kind.

 

[rjc149]

I think the "option" of "optional" gets misconstrued. Most brides and grooms likely take it to mean: "Please if you can." But guests take it as "if you want to."

Black Tie Preferred is much better. it actually means "Please if you can." Its less mealy mouthed about the request. More direct.

"Preferred" is more assertive to the point of nearly being "required." I would be compelled to go through the trouble of getting a tux if it were "preferred." Requiring a guest to go rent or purchase a black tie outfit is unduly imposing and I personally appreciate the option of wearing a suit to these events without feeling inappropriately dressed.

Both "preferred" and "optional" translate to "if you can" -- "if you want to" implies a choice to wear one or not, not to go get one or not.

EDIT: I don't think the wedding party needs tuxedos to set them off.
This will be achieved by:
- Being at the front of the ceremony
- Being at central tables
- Having wedding ties
- Having suits probably in the same shade
- Likely having boutonnieres of some kind.

Given that evening attire is inherently festive and celebratory, I don't see how a wedding party wearing tuxedos per se is out of place at all.

The only issue I see is that most wedding ceremonies take place during the day (this would go for outdoor wineries), with the reception later in the evening. To be "correct" the wedding party would need to wear suits for the ceremony, then change into tuxedos for the evening reception, which is pointless.

 

[ValidusLA]

Given that evening attire is inherently festive and celebratory, I don't see how a wedding party wearing tuxedos per se is out of place at all.

Because Black Tie is a dress code, not a costume for special people. A dress code applies to an event.

To be "correct" the wedding party would need to wear suits for the ceremony, then change into tuxedos for the evening reception, which is pointless.

While in general I agree, I would much rather see an entire wedding full of tuxedos an hour before sunset for an on-site service that continues to an evening/night reception than I would 5 tuxedos in a sea of suits, blazers, sportcoats, and (gasp) people in OCBDs sans ties.

"Preferred" is more assertive to the point of nearly being "required." I would be compelled to go through the trouble of getting a tux if it were "preferred." Requiring a guest to go rent or purchase a black tie outfit is unduly imposing and I personally appreciate the option of wearing a suit to these events without feeling inappropriately dressed.

No.

Black Tie = Required
Black Tie Requested = We want you to go get one. (This one is a bit gauche).
Black Tie Preferred = Please wear if you have one.
Black Tie Optional = You may wear one if you want.

Do you attend many black tie events? I say from both attending and hosting BT, BTP, and BTO - BTO always looks the most discordant because it is not clear.

Also define "unduly imposing." A guest is free to turn down an invitation. If a couple or a foundation is throwing a BT/BTP event at huge cost, are they not allowed to prefer a dress code?

This is where I go back to venue. If a young couple is throwing a low key wedding w/ a buffet and a cash bar - yes, it is unreasonable to ask their guest to acquire a tuxedo. I also argue this is not black tie event, and the groom and groomsmen should wear something else. If a couple is doing seated dinner, open bar, wine service, huge decor and an expensive venue, the cost per seat probably blows a tux rental out of the water. (Also a large amount of the guests will already have them).

 

[rjc149]

Because Black Tie is a dress code, not a costume for special people. A dress code applies to an event.

Black tie is the dress code and the associated event. The tuxedo is the garment itself. You're conflating these, when I think what you're trying to say is that a tuxedo should either be mandated, or not, because you ascribe a certain level of exclusivity to them that is undone when they are not mandatory. Which bothers you, because you personally hold black tie (the event and the outfit) in high regard and believe they should be elite and exclusive.

Black Tie = Required
Black Tie Requested = We want you to go get one. (This one is a bit gauche).
Black Tie Preferred = Please wear if you have one.
Black Tie Optional = You may wear one if you want.

Do you attend many black tie events?

No, I don't, but I do appreciate the clarification going forward.

Also define "unduly imposing." A guest is free to turn down an invitation. If a couple or a foundation is throwing a BT/BTP event at huge cost, are they not allowed to prefer a dress code?

You know, I didn't consider this perspective, and I can appreciate it. My brother's ex fiancee wanted a massive, lavish wedding and wanted it to be black tie. Now, it wasn't her money that was being spent (one of many reasons she's the ex) but if it were her money, she's allowed to cry if she wants to I suppose.

I don't find a tux rental to be an imposition, but I hate ill-fitting clothing. Worse yet, buying an expensive outfit I'll wear on rare occasions, if ever. I think 90% of the American male population who don't regularly attend or host black tie events would agree with me. The other 10% just like tuxedos. I'm indifferent to them.

If I'm holding a benefit or charity event, I want people to come. I don't want people to turn my invitation down, or hold people to bars of entry which require them to take extra steps in order to attend. I want them to attend. It's not a lot of ask a man to wear a suit. It's a little more to ask a man to go get a tuxedo for me.

 

[ValidusLA]

You know, I didn't consider this perspective, and I can appreciate it. My brother's ex fiancee wanted a massive, lavish wedding and wanted it to be black tie. Now, it wasn't her money that was being spent (one of many reasons she's the ex) but if it were her money, she's allowed to cry if she wants to I suppose.

I don't find a tux rental to be an imposition, but I hate ill-fitting clothing. Worse yet, buying an expensive outfit I'll wear on rare occasions, if ever. I think 90% of the American male population who don't regularly attend or host black tie events would agree with me. The other 10% just like tuxedos. I'm indifferent to them.

I think it runs both ways. If a host is going to be throwing a black tie event, I would expect, at minimum:
- Plated, often multi-course, dinner service
- Non-well liquor open bar (and probably tableside wine)
- Hosted Valet
- Live music

I think a guest has a right to expect a top quality event if they are being asked to dress up.

I agree most men don't own tuxes and don't need them. But I also think most people shouldn't throw black tie events.

If I'm holding a benefit or charity event, I want people to come. I don't want people to turn my invitation down, or hold people to bars of entry which require them to take extra steps in order to attend. I want them to attend. It's not a lot of ask a man to wear a suit. It's a little more to ask a man to go get a tuxedo.

Sad truth on this is that charity events are about raising money. Events are very expensive to throw - the venues and vendors might give slight discounts to charities, but the Foundations still spend a lot of money.

Most of the money raised at these is from the live appeal during the event. So, for example, if I buy a table for 10, to make it best for the charity, I need to fill it with people who will donate hundreds or thousands of dollars live at the event.

These types of people, generally, own tuxedos. And I live in LA! Land of casual!

 

[ValidusLA]

Black tie is the dress code and the associated event. The tuxedo is the garment itself. You're conflating these, when I think what you're trying to say is that a tuxedo should either be mandated, or not, because you ascribe a certain level of class and exclusivity to them that is undone when they are not mandatory. Which bothers you, because you personally hold black tie (the event and the outfit) in high regard.

I get what you are saying. I guess I could pivot to - a tuxedo is black tie attire to be worn at appropriate events, not a costume for special people at an event.

I don't think that you can only wear a tuxedo to black tie events per se. I think there are some members here who wear dinner jackets out to restaurants etc and do so quite well.

I think weddings are a particular sink hole in which the wedding industrial complex (said somewhat tongue in cheek) and brides with bad ideas of what is involved in good-taste menswear have created some weird franken-dress code where having groomsmen and the groom in tuxedos somehow means something. It does not.

I think events should be consistent to themselves.

 

[breakaway01]

Sad truth on this is that charity events are about raising money. Events are very expensive to throw - the venues and vendors might give slight discounts to charities, but the Foundations still spend a lot of money.

Most of the money raised at these is from the live appeal during the event. So, for example, if I buy a table for 10, to make it best for the charity, I need to fill it with people who will donate hundreds or thousands of dollars live at the event.

These types of people, generally, own tuxedos. And I live in LA! Land of casual!

part of raising money at gala events is convincing people that there is social status to be gained by attending, and often being photographed for society pages/blogs/posts. Dressing up is an important part of the allure of the gala. not saying this is how it should be, but that is how it works.

 

[ValidusLA]

part of raising money at gala events is convincing people that there is social status to be gained by attending, and often being photographed for society pages/blogs/posts. Dressing up is an important part of the allure of the gala. not saying this should be how it is, but that is how it works.

100% correct.

 

[rjc149]

I think it runs both ways. If a host is going to be throwing a black tie event, I would expect, at minimum:
- Plated, often multi-course, dinner service
- Non-well liquor open bar (and probably tableside wine)
- Hosted Valet
- Live music

I think a guest has a right to expect a top quality event if they are being asked to dress up.

A very fair point of view.

 

[suitedcboy]

I think this thread moved away from the OP's question. The skinny tie, overly short, overly tight suits look broke the rule book so discussions of what is proper is a waste in 2022. Sounds like the bride wants the groom to be dressed up and that a unique look is in line with her wishes too. If your wedding isi nn the Hamptons then maybe your guests will desire to attend a black tie affair. He is in Houston. If the lift kits on the guests trucks are less than 10 inches and the trucks have mufflers then it is considered a formal affair (I live in Texas). Tux up top, starched jeans with boots on bottom are formal and common.