Are shirts with no pockets acceptable as work shirts?

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by Tailor In Style

...Is it alright with people that I write a short article/post on the Dress Shirt Website www.TailorInStyle.com about this topic and the results?...
Is there any way for us (me) to get any money out of this?

 

[Mark from Plano]

Originally Posted by Tailor In Style

After reading everyones opinion here and thinking some more about it, I really think dress shirts with pockets are more formal.

But dress shirts with no pockets are more 'modern' and 'youthful'....

Actually I think you have this exactly backwards. Until the 1960's or so hardly any dress shirts had pockets, so by definition this is the more traditional approach. I've seen the date on these forums when Brooks Brothers, for example, started putting pockets on some of its dress shirts and it was relatively recently (1960's or 1970's as I recall). Pockets on shirts are an appropriation from sport shirts, making them a less formal, rather than more formal addition.

If you're writing an article which says what you propose to say, I'd advise doing a bit more reading on the subject first.

EDIT: The fact that Donald Trump shirts have pockets should be considered controlling authority for exactly nothing.

 

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by iroh

anyone tried this?
I have read that this works OK if done before the shirt is laundered...

 

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by Golf_Nerd

...the seam of the pocket was collecting dirt...
It is a real nuisance to try to get that stuff out of there!

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

Perfect for professional farmer.

Or the Nazi!

 

[Mark from Plano]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Or the Nazi!

THREAD WARNING: This thread has just been Godwinized for your protection.

 

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by Tailor In Style

...dress shirts with pockets are more formal...
No. Opposite. The less detail, the more dressy...

 

[trajan]

The question in the title is different from the question in the poll. This makes things confusing. I just voted the wrong way.

 

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

Actually I think you have this exactly backwards....
Correct. Generally, the more detail a garment has, the less dressy it is considered, and vice-versa.

 

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by The False Prophet

Exhibit A: pocketed shirt from the Donald J. Trump Signature Collection...
But, is he a gentleman?

 

[Mark from Plano]

Originally Posted by Orsini

Correct. Generally, the more detail a garment has, the less dressy it is considered, and vice-versa.

Yes, if pockets are more formal then I need to take all my tuxedo shirts to the tailor to have pockets sewn onto them.

 

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

Yes, if pockets are more formal then I need to take all my tuxedo shirts to the tailor to have pockets sewn onto them.

Exactly!

 

[Tailor In Style]

Originally Posted by Mark from Plano

Actually I think you have this exactly backwards. Until the 1960's or so hardly any dress shirts had pockets, so by definition this is the more traditional approach. I've seen the date on these forums when Brooks Brothers, for example, started putting pockets on some of its dress shirts and it was relatively recently (1960's or 1970's as I recall). Pockets on shirts are an appropriation from sport shirts, making them a less formal, rather than more formal addition.

If you're writing an article which says what you propose to say, I'd advise doing a bit more reading on the subject first.

Thanks for the information. The post/article will most likely be the objective side of this discussion (like the facts you stated above) vs. the subjective side of it. But this may very well change depending on where the thread heads...

What i was stating earlier was my personal perspective of it...

But I do appreciate the heads up!

 

[Nantucket Red]

The formality logic makes perfect sense, but when dressing for the office, I'm dressing for work, not formality. The pocket is the one necessary concession to utility that I'm not only willing to make but insist on.

 

[tlmusic]

I voted "no" to pockets on dress shirts, because I don't like the way they look on me, and they don't agree with the aesthetic I aspire to.

However, pockets don't bum me out that much, so I can accept that some people might really like them.

Originally Posted by Tailor In Style

After reading everyones opinion here and thinking some more about it, I really think dress shirts with pockets are more formal.

IMHO, shirts with pockets are more casual.

Originally Posted by Tailor In Style

But dress shirts with no pockets are more 'modern' and 'youthful'...

Actually, pockets on dress shirts are a fairly recent addition to men's fashion, first becoming prevalent in the 1960's. I know this is true, because back in the 80's I used to wear tons of shirts from thrift shops. Those shirts were probably made in the 50's and 60's and most did not have pockets. Some of them had "snap" collars and wide spread collars, though.