In Praise of Business Casual

[Sir Jack II]

I would categorize some of these outfits as business casual and thus assert that they support my premise that business casual can be done well. In my view, BC isn't all shiny pants, corporate shirts, and oxfords.

 

[Mirage-]

Those looks are great, but I just have to point out that if we go by OP definition, the looks with jackets are excluded, but the rest is in fact BC. So you claimed BC is bad, but showed that it can actually be good!
Moral of the story: the problem probably isn't really the dress code, it's people that are lazy and unconcerned with clothing that just wear orphaned suit trousers and open collared shirts that weren't meant to be so.

 

[Mirage-]

I would categorize some of these outfits as business casual and thus assert that they support my premise that business casual can be done well. In my view, BC isn't all shiny pants, corporate shirts, and oxfords.

Seems I was late to the point

 

[smittycl]

Pics were nice but dude should button up his shirts a little higher. Reaching Barry Gibb levels of exposure there.

 

[Mirage-]

Pics were nice but dude should button up his shirts a little higher. Reaching Barry Gibb levels of exposure there.

I don't get why they do this either, but after much internal struggle, I gave up trying to decipher it and just wrote it off as a bad trend.
I understand the second open button creates a more pleasing v-shape and I generally do that to. But there's no need to open the third or fourth too, and even reach the navel. Still, even very high profile people/otherwise great dressers seem to love this, including some young tailors...
That's one of the few #menswear things that actually do scream such from a mile away to me, to go back to DWW's description of i-gent looks. At least with a jacket on. Without, it might be more like "wannabe playboy" vibes.

Although, to be honest, in most of the photos it's fine imo. Just a couple have probably one button too far.

 

[物の哀れ]

If you define business casual as broadly as “a shirt paired with trousers”, then sure many of the outfits that I posted qualify.

But business casual, as practiced, is an aesthetic beyond that.

You need to take people by their actions, not their words.

 

[dieworkwear]

Playboy vibe is what makes those looks good.

 

[smittycl]

Playboy vibe is what makes those looks good.

Needs chest hair and large gold medallions.

 

[dieworkwear]

Needs chest hair

This is canon

 

[NorCal]

I think that business casual is inherently incoherent.

Its practitioners are often holding on to their traditional “business” items - shiny twill shirts, dark trousers, and oxfords.

I think they would be better served by whole heartedly embracing casual menswear.

I think that Lenn Castillo provides a great example of the latter.

View attachment 1692603
View attachment 1692599
View attachment 1692606
View attachment 1692610
View attachment 1692611
View attachment 1692612
View attachment 1692613
View attachment 1692616
View attachment 1692617
View attachment 1692618
View attachment 1692619
View attachment 1692620
View attachment 1692621
View attachment 1692622

Dude is well dressed but there is no way that is "casual" in this modern world.

 

[VegasRebel]

There was a millennial attorney wore camo pants in the office sometimes. It worked for the person and the internal client they supported. For myself, well, I went with the Proper Cloth pants above.

I do wear jeans on occasion, but to be effective in my role, I have to be relatable. Overdressing comes across as pretentious for a lot of people in my company.

Same here. Government attorney, usually wear jeans on Fridays and occasionally other days, though Monday-Thursday is at least business casual as a general rule. I do more motion practice than court appearances, so generally don't have to dress for court, but there's still a (loose) general standard.

 

[Sir Jack II]

If you define business casual as broadly as “a shirt paired with trousers”, then sure many of the outfits that I posted qualify.

But business casual, as practiced, is an aesthetic beyond that.

You need to take people by their actions, not their words.

To borrow from a lexicon I’ve seen used here, maybe the difference is whether your view of BC is descriptive or aims at some kind of normativity.

 

[物の哀れ]

Touché.

 

[JFWR]

I think that business casual is inherently incoherent.

Its practitioners are often holding on to their traditional “business” items - shiny twill shirts, dark trousers, and oxfords.

I think they would be better served by whole heartedly embracing casual menswear.

I think that Lenn Castillo provides a great example of the latter.

View attachment 1692603
View attachment 1692599
View attachment 1692606
View attachment 1692610
View attachment 1692611
View attachment 1692612
View attachment 1692613
View attachment 1692616
View attachment 1692617
View attachment 1692618
View attachment 1692619
View attachment 1692620
View attachment 1692621
View attachment 1692622

Oxfords are certainly not required in any BC sense at all.

In fact, the majority of men in BC do not wear oxfords, I'd imagine, but loafers or """dress"""" sneakers.

You can wear oxfords, if you so please. All that is being asked is that the leathers be made of some sort of leather, in general, to meet BC, or at least fake leather.

 

[Herders_Gulch]

I would categorize some of these outfits as business casual and thus assert that they support my premise that business casual can be done well. In my view, BC isn't all shiny pants, corporate shirts, and oxfords.

Which of these would meet your definition of BC? This is Jonathan Sigmon from Alan Flusser, wearing a denim shirt 3 ways:

With a suit

Jacket & jeans:

With gray pants: