1. And... we're back. You'll notice that all of your images are back as well, as are our beloved emoticons, including the infamous :foo: We have also worked with our server folks and developers to fix the issues that were slowing down the site.

    There is still work to be done - the images in existing sigs are not yet linked, for example, and we are working on a way to get the images to load faster - which will improve the performance of the site, especially on the pages with a ton of images, and we will continue to work diligently on that and keep you updated.

    Cheers,

    Fok on behalf of the entire Styleforum team
    Dismiss Notice

Black suits

Discussion in 'Classic Menswear' started by Classic, Feb 5, 2004.

  1. Ambulance Chaser

    Ambulance Chaser Senior member

    Messages:
    9,790
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2002
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    I think a wedding is a widely accepted exception to the "no tuxes before 6 PM" rule.  You're the one who's going to be looking at your wedding pictures 20 years from now, so wear what you like and to hell with the rules.
     
  2. johnnynorman3

    johnnynorman3 Senior member

    Messages:
    2,686
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    To be honest, ambulance chaser, I'd rather wear a dark charcoal suit with some subtle yet dashing pinstripe. But after some subtle hints to the bride that I didn't want to wear a black suit, she said she wanted black SUITS. No tuxes -- I am in agreement with this (it is not a matter of the 6 pm rule per se; I just think it doesn't fit with the style of our wedding).

    So, now I'm left in this position -- is a black suit a "stylish" thing to wear as the groom?
     
  3. kalra2411

    kalra2411 Senior member

    Messages:
    718
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Location:
    West (central) London, UK
    I feel that in the buisness environment black suits certainly look out of place. However, for evening wear I think that it is has to be the other way round, and I must disagree with the Italian (sorry to call you that but I can't remember your name) a navy suit for a formal (Dinner Jacket - as it were) function would simply be outlandish.
     
  4. Classic

    Classic Senior member

    Messages:
    155
    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    I am sometimes amazed at the extend that we will go to try and fit in with all the "rules" that have been created. What ever happened to the art of self-expression, the creativity that we so like to talk about, but then try to repress with all these "rules" of fashion?
    IMO, if you wish to wear a black suit to a wedding, then go for it. Black suits are indeed very stylish. Accessorize the suit properly, and you will make a "classic" and quite favourable impression that will stand the test of time, that is to say will still look good when you look at pictures 20 years from now. It is your wedding. Make the most of it. Worry more about enjoying the day and occasion and less about the so called "rules" of fashion. (but don't go crazy)

    Classic
     
  5. General Koskov

    General Koskov Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    No black before six is BS.  No evening dress (formal or informal) is, however, a real rule.  Cases in point: Morning coats are often black, and evening coats are often midnight blue.  In fact, informal evening coats (dinner jackets) are often white in hot weather.

    Low-grade black fabrics seem to be greyish and very unflattering, whereas high-quality black fabrics have a richness to them.  Look at some people on TV--I saw Conan O'Brian with a richly-black three-button suit t'other night.  Navy blue looks 'blacker than black,' only in artificial light--in daylight it looks good, but a nice black suit is also stylish.

    I've never understood the exactly-matching-bridal-party idea. If you can afford it, get a rich-black suit made purely because it's a nice garment. But I honestly don't see why the bride should have the veto in wedding dress for the groom. Sure she can pick a shirt and tie, but I think it's time we men had equal status.
     
  6. The Dandy

    The Dandy Active Member

    Messages:
    27
    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2004
    For a wedding during the day, I would suggest morning dress as the appropriate option for the groom. For an evening wedding, white tie would be the norm.

    I think wearing a black suit as the groom to a daytime wedding has funerary conotations, particularly if paired with some variation of a black tie and white shirt.

    Additionally, I concur with the General, letting your spouse dress you is not always the wisest decision. While you are getting married, women aren't always the best arbitrators of men's style, and, if your fiance, however well meaning, is already telling you such things as what to wear, you may be preparing for many years of concessions.
     
  7. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    Corollary: If you talk about style in terms of inviolable "rules", you really need surgery to remove the pickle before it causes severe constipation and probably toxic shock.

    Yes, traditionally, director's suits are worn for morning and afternoon weddings, and tails (or, if you are a dashing young buck, a dinner suit) for evening affairs.

    Protestations from arch-conservatives notwithstanding, black suits are very stylish. They were at one time associated with funerals and mourning, but pretty much every modern designer and nearly all of the traditional clothiers make black suits, which because of their cut and hue, are meant for a variety of occasions. If your bride to be is really against tuxedos and other formal wear, wear a black suit. The gesture will show her that you care about her feelings (it is her day, after all) and show yourself that you are not anal retentive.
     
  8. kalra2411

    kalra2411 Senior member

    Messages:
    718
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Location:
    West (central) London, UK
    I do not mean to sound Pessimistic LA Guy, but I guess it's my Oxford education wearing off on me. Only a fact can be notwithstanding. Never a living being. Sorry if I am sounding rude or anything, I only mean it in good faith. [​IMG]
     
  9. rayk

    rayk Senior member

    Messages:
    167
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Location:
    Inferno: Circle 5
    Grammarian I'm not, but are protestations (formal and solemn declarations of objection) not facts?  To my mind, LA Guy's statement that "protestations [excise clause: "from arch-conservatives"] nothwithstanding...", is not a solecism, because the author isn't implying "arch-conservatives [living beings....or then again, maybe not [​IMG]] notwithstanding", but "protestations...notwithstanding". If I'm in error, I promise to sit quietly like a good pupil and learn my first of grammar   [​IMG]
     
  10. kalra2411

    kalra2411 Senior member

    Messages:
    718
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Location:
    West (central) London, UK
    Actually Rayk that is a very good point, and I too considered that very same thing, perhaps you are right, but in my opinion LA Guy was, more so implying arch-conservatives that have protestations. Perhaps not, perhaps I have finally found a flaw in the English grammatical system.... (Oh what an inferior language we speak, simply look at Latin, Sanskrit or Greek, such greatness...)
     
  11. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    I'm not a grammarian either; but I'm pretty sure the protestations (facts) can be notwithstanding.  The "from arch-conservatives" is, as rayk pointed out, is just a qualifying clause (actually, it's some other type of clause, but my grammar school days are far behind me.)

    Sheesh, I can't believe that my grammar is being critiqued. Some posters don't ever capitalize, capitalize, people are spelling "wear" "ware", and one frequent poster writes in a bad caricature of 19th century parlance aided by a thesaurus, if I may be so bold.
     
  12. Bradford

    Bradford Senior member

    Messages:
    6,708
    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2002
    Location:
    Phoenix
    Somehow I'm guessing that you and the Dandy haven't been married [​IMG] As long as you have some taste (as everyone on this forum does), you can probably work with your bride to determine what outfit you and your groomsman will be wearing. But it's not just a cliche when people say that your wedding day is more for the bride than it is for the groom. Bradford
     
  13. kalra2411

    kalra2411 Senior member

    Messages:
    718
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Location:
    West (central) London, UK
    Well yes but the reason I told you about that was because you were putting together quite a complicated syntax, and whereas the people who spell wear wrong probably just made a typo, and same being for capitalisation, by the way if you were referring to me as the 19th century writer, perhaps that is because I am British. (Although I do not think that you were, as I do not post frequently). By the way, don't get agitated about it I did not mean any insult towards you, I just thought it might better your very good English (the main reason I commented was because the rest was perfect English)
     
  14. General Koskov

    General Koskov Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    68
    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2004
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    But I honestly don't see why the bride should have the veto in wedding dress for the groom. Â Sure she can pick a shirt and tie, but I think it's time we men had equal status.
    Somehow I'm guessing that you haven't been married  [​IMG]
    Yes, I do hope my love of clothes doesn't cause problems in the future....
     
  15. LA Guy

    LA Guy Opposite Santa Staff Member Admin Moderator

    Messages:
    33,419
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2002
    Location:
    Moscow, Idaho
    No offense was taken. And I was not refering to you as the 19th century writer. Peruse some posts, and I am certain you will ascertain of whom I speak [​IMG]
     
  16. hermes

    hermes Senior member

    Messages:
    1,020
    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2003
    Location:
    canada
    you must absolutely hate my posts as i never capitalize or punctuate anything

    i blame it all on e e cummings, of course
     
  17. ernest

    ernest Senior member

    Messages:
    2,564
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2004
    Location:
    PARIS
    Rules are coming from taste of people who managed to made a rule of their taste because they were good looking...

    So following no rules comings from many years of fashion means you can not be "sharp"

    It is like people who wants to becme chessmaster without learning any theory...
     
  18. Brian SD

    Brian SD Senior member

    Messages:
    9,760
    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2004
    Location:
    Tokyo
    ernest seems to be the prominent grammarian of the board.

    Is ernest the alter ego of dug? Maybe he announced it but I missed it.
     

Share This Page

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by