shirt tie...no jacket?

[academe]

Originally Posted by FreedBird

I don't see anything wrong with this look if it is done with well fitted trousers and a well fitted shirt. I think the problem is that most people who do the shirt and tie without a jacket disregard fit and wear poor quality, poorly chosen clothing and this is an absolute disaster. So, it can be done, but do it right.
+1 Although I personally do not like the shirt+tie sans coat look, I do not think that this look in and of itself is a bad one. In my mind, there are really two issues here: one issue is that of aesthetics, i.e., whether you like the look of the shirt+tie sans coat. The other is one of dress as a social signifier of class, occupation, status, etc. For a group as fine-tuned to sartorial details as this one, I feel that Manton et al are missing some of the subtleties, while snobs like Mr Meursault are conflating aesthetics with class signifiers. In terms of aesthetics, there really isn't any point arguing this any further. For various reasons some find shirt+tie alone as distasteful. Others think it is a pragmatic choice, depending on climate (e.g., John Ellis' comments), or circumstance (e.g., stepping out for a bite to eat during a warm period of the day; no practical reason to bring a coat, unless you like to sweat & swelter). This should not be confused with class signifiers. For example, if I see a gentleman at lunch time wearing a well-cut pair of trousers, finely-made tie, Glashutte watch and C&J shoes wearing only a shirt+tie, I'm likely to think "well-heeled professional, out for lunch/running errands." If I saw the same fellow wearing loose polyester trousers, cheaply-made tie, and square-toed gunboats on his feet, I'm more likely to think "lower level employee or clerk." I'm not going to automatically jump to the conclusion that said individual, just because they are wearing a shirt+tie is a clerk. There are many reasons why they might not throw on a coat, ranging from temperature/climate, aesthetic choice, etc. etc. I suspect that any one of us on the forum would be able to spot the difference if we met this individual in person, whether or not we approved of the aesthetics of their choice. On a more personal note, it also seems like a bit of waste of energy to me to bring a non-functional coat along, just to make a point about social status or class. If that is your aesthetic choice, fair enough, but if you really feel so insecure about your social status that you really need to rub it in other peoples' faces, then that is IMO more than a little pathetic.

 

[sweisman]

Originally Posted by academe

+1

Although I personally do not like the shirt+tie sans coat look, I do not think that this look in and of itself is a bad one. In my mind, there are really two issues here: one issue is that of aesthetics, i.e., whether you like the look of the shirt+tie sans coat. The other is one of dress as a social signifier of class, occupation, status, etc. For a group as fine-tuned to sartorial details as this one, I feel that Manton et al are missing some of the subtleties, while snobs like Mr Meursault are conflating aesthetics with class signifiers.

In terms of aesthetics, there really isn't any point arguing this any further. For various reasons some find shirt+tie alone as distasteful. Others think it is a pragmatic choice, depending on climate (e.g., John Ellis' comments), or circumstance (e.g., stepping out for a bite to eat during a warm period of the day; no practical reason to bring a coat, unless you like to sweat & swelter).

This should not be confused with class signifiers. For example, if I see a gentleman at lunch time wearing a well-cut pair of trousers, finely-made tie, Glashutte watch and C&J shoes wearing only a shirt+tie, I'm likely to think "well-heeled professional, out for lunch/running errands." If I saw the same fellow wearing loose polyester trousers, cheaply-made tie, and square-toed gunboats on his feet, I'm more likely to think "lower level employee or clerk." I'm not going to automatically jump to the conclusion that said individual, just because they are wearing a shirt+tie is a clerk. There are many reasons why they might not throw on a coat, ranging from temperature/climate, aesthetic choice, etc. etc. I suspect that any one of us on the forum would be able to spot the difference if we met this individual in person, whether or not we approved of the aesthetics of their choice.

On a more personal note, it also seems like a bit of waste of energy to me to bring a non-functional coat along, just to make a point about social status or class. If that is your aesthetic choice, fair enough, but if you really feel so insecure about your social status that you really need to rub it in other peoples' faces, then that is IMO more than a little pathetic.

Well put...

 

[Meursault]

Originally Posted by williamson

How do you know? I think you should substantiate or withdraw this.

I doubt I will be able to substantiate this to you satisfaction, and maybe I shouldn't have expressed it with such an air of certainty. It is based merely on casual observation: most of the people I see wearing a tie without a jacket are young people, often interviewees or work experience people, who do not usually wear 'smart' clothing but feel that their environment or the situation (interview or work in a relatively formal office) demands a measure of formality, and so, finding a shirt, tie and trousers cheaper to buy than a suit, and probably feeling that the tie is the element that makes the outfit 'smart', rather than the suit, that is what they buy. Also, see the customer assistants at most high street chains: the stereotypical white shirt, company tie and name tag look, parodied a million and one times. If jackets were as cheap as polyester ties, I bet they'd be wearing jackets, but the're not, so they don't.

Originally Posted by williamson

This is undoubtedly true, but both the action and the reason for it I find unsatisfactory.

I worked in two schools, in neither of which there was a dress code for the staff, though in the first there was a uniform for the pupils, and in neither institution would any figure of authority have said anything to colleagues about this. The question of "summer dress" simply did not arise.
I'm happy to admit my school was unusual.

Originally Posted by williamson

Suit and open-necked shirt are (I repeat) incongruous. The suit belongs to the "formal" mode, the open-mecked-shirt to the "casual". Mixed modes, mixed messages.
Open-necked shirts with jackets were around in the early 1950s and the early 1970s. They looked sloppy and unfinished then and they do now.

This is the interesting bit. I don't agree that the suit necessarily belongs to a formal mode, whether you look at this historically or in the context of contemporary social norms. Historically, as any number of books and forum members will tell you, lounge suits were relatively informal, starting off as sports wear and gradually acquiring greater formality until they reached position they hold today, of being for most people relatively formal office and ceromonial wear. When you look at today's culture, whilst I'd agree that most people tend think of a suit as relatively formal, I would contend that it is much less formal than a tie. You often see people putting on a suit and open-necked shirt to go to an evening lecture, play, or nightclub - and it's young people as well as old. Some even wear waistcoats, though I suppose you could dismiss that as as semi-costume. But you almost never see people wearing ties to these relatively social events, unless they're worn with a full-on jacket and smart trousers. People see jacket and shirt as one step up the formality scale from shirt and trousers. Wearing a tie is a further notch more formal. Thus, I would argue, most people see the tie as the most formal element of the suit-shirt-tie triumvirate, not the suit. Therefore, wearing a shirt and tie seems more incongruous than wearing a suit and tie.

Thomas Mahon used to have a nice story on his blog. He was a trainee tailor at Anderson & Sheppard, and one summer's day popped out to get a sandwich in just a shirt and tie. On his return, his boss was furious: how dare he go out without his jacket! Didn't he know that a shirt was merely underwear, and thus by wearing a tie but no jacket he was little more than naked? According to a rather stuffy tailor, shirt and tie were not acceptable dress, and though I wouldn't go so far as to call a shirt underwear, an element of this attitude still lingers.

Originally Posted by williamson

As the son, brother, nephew, cousin, great-nephew and great-grandson of teachers, I am well used to the cheap gibes that people make about the dress of that profession, and am sorry that (admittedly in a gentle way) they appear on this forum.
Agreed. I've seen some wonderfully-dressed teachers, and still sometimes dream of becoming a history teacher in a really rough secondary school, and finding out whether I could hack it. Only the knowledge that I probably couldn't holds me back.

On the issue of class and clothing's status as a social signifier that has come up - well, yes I think the issue does have something to do with social status. But no more so than members who say they judge someone's status based on whether they're wearing a Glashutte watch or not. Tailored clothing, partly because of its considerable expense (and the prohibitive expense of getting it made really well) has always been an expression of status, since well before Brummel's time, though he did it better than most. When people buy expensive suits, shirts or shoes, they mostly want to say something about themselves (leaving aside the few people like those us this forum who genuinly care about the minutiae of quality and fit for the sake of mere aesthetics.) I very much doubt that, when Manton picks up his jacket in the morning and throws it over his shoulder, he's doing it because he fears that otherwise people may take him for the office junior. Rather, I would guess it's because it just doesn't feel 'right' to him to do otherwise, and were he to leave it behind he would feel somewhat uncomfortable. (Obviously, if I am wrong on this, I apologise to Manton and welcome his correction.) Very few people who adhere to 'rules' on clothing do it because they want to say something about their social status, but the desire to differentiate between people was, I would argue, one of the reasons that these 'rules' developed, and so when we see something that breaks those rules and looks bad, if we actually stop for a few minutes to wonder why we dislike it and the subconscious (or otherwise) messages it sends to us, this issue of status is often at the root of the issue, as it is at the root of most things to do with clothing, male and female.

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by Kappa Brandon

Is it acceptable to just wear a shirt and tie with out a jacket or sweater? Are there any "rules" as far as this is concerned?

Originally Posted by Manton

Yes. The rule is, you will look like a DMV clerk or an entry level data processor, sent forward in time from 1983.

Don't do it.

Originally Posted by dopey

The NY DMV offers better service and is more efficient than it had been in the past.

Originally Posted by Manton

The line process four people per hour, instead of three?

Fellows, fellows ... here in California one can make appointments at his local DMV. Even so ... I do recall seeing lots of shirt & tie with no jacket.

As for the original question ... unless you have removed your jacket temporarily ... it's not a good look. I'd avoid it. Besides Manton is THE final word on such matters.

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by academe

+1
This should not be confused with class signifiers. For example, if I see a gentleman at lunch time wearing a well-cut pair of trousers, finely-made tie, Glashutte watch and C&J shoes wearing only a shirt+tie, I'm likely to think "well-heeled professional, out for lunch/running errands."

Well-heeled professional he may be, but he's still a sartorial third-rater in my book. In fact, his omission of the jacket or suit coat is all the more heinous because he should know better.

If I saw the same fellow wearing loose polyester trousers, cheaply-made tie, and square-toed gunboats on his feet, I'm more likely to think "lower level employee or clerk."

In fact, I would be more forgiving of this poor doofus because he probably has neither the means nor the know-how to dress well. I think the point Manton and others make is that the man in your first example is adopting a mode of dress that is typical and characteristic of the man in the second example.

There are many reasons why they might not throw on a coat, ranging from temperature/climate, aesthetic choice, etc. etc.

In my book, there is NO reason why a man who is attempting to dress well should eschew the coat/jacket that is the very foundation good dress. Any well turned out gentlemen should have a suits and jackets in a variety of fabric weights and types so that he may be suitably attired regardless of "temperature/climate, etc., etc." Obviously, I am only talking about situations where a man requires or adopts the formality of the necktie yet foregoes the jacket, not a situation that warrants more casual apparel.

I suspect that any one of us on the forum would be able to spot the difference if we met this individual in person, whether or not we approved of the aesthetics of their choice.

Oh sure, I (and I am sure many of us) see men at the market on the way home from work who look as if they had been well dressed earlier, but, with their jackets removed, their ties loosened, their collars unbuttoned, they still look like holy hell to me, regardless of the price and quality of their apparel!

On a more personal note, it also seems like a bit of waste of energy to me to bring a non-functional coat along, just to make a point about social status or class. If that is your aesthetic choice, fair enough, but if you really feel so insecure about your social status that you really need to rub it in other peoples' faces, then that is IMO more than a little pathetic.

I am not sure what a "non-functional" coat is. Really, isn't it all about aesthetics? If "functionality" is what is foremost, I can clothe my body perfectly well against the elements with windbreakers, barn coats, sweat shirts and the like. I hardly see dressing well as an affirmation of social status. At least in my neck of the woods, many rich people are horrible slobs, and few people will have a sufficiently discerning eye to distinguish between my bespoke blazer and something picked up at a small fraction of the price from J.C. Penney. If wishing to appear elegant and gentlemanly is "rubbing my social status in other peoples' faces," then I suppose I am guilty as charged!

 

[Bradford]

I'd like to think of shirt and tie with no jacket as being rather Kennedyesque...

Unfortunately, I think the image has been subverted by the prevalence of the ill-fitting khakis, along with the rumpled blue or white shirt with a tie that just screams "I work at Kinkos".

 

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by academe

...if you really feel so insecure about your social status that you really need to rub it in other peoples' faces, then that is IMO more than a little pathetic.
Cruiser, what are you doing here?

 

[FidelCashflow]

If the shirt fits properly and the shirt and tie are well-matched, it looks good. I know some people here are convinced the only thing you can wear in the workplace is a full suit and tie, but that just doesn't work in biz casual environments. This does.

At my firm, even one of the partners who ardently opposed to the very existence of casual fridays takes off his jacket as soon as he enters the office and walks around with the shirt and tie look all day.

 

[Dewey]

For aesthetic reasons, I have come to despise the shirt + tie + no coat look on me. Mainly it is about depth; I think a tie needs to be flanked by substantial material to work well.

So I think the shirt + tie + no jacket looks better on men with large, billowy, blousy shirts,. The folds of the fabric can flank the tie a little bit and provide some cover for it. The tie can sink in a bit, nestle down in that big shirt.

Now that all my dress shirts fit pretty well, close to the body, I understand why some regard them as underwear. A good-fitting dress shirt does not wear like a jacket, whereas a poorly-fitting dress shirt, especially in a heavy fabric or dark color, does feel to me more like outerwear. I feel more naked without a coat.

And a tie looks awful on me, to my eye, over a good-fitting dress shirt if worn with no coat. It hangs out in front of me, on its own plane, completely exposed on three sides - like the trunk on an elephant. This is ridiculous looking to me.

 

[johnny_flapjack]

I'm a contractor in a building right now where you see quite a bit of shirt & tie with no jacket. It's an old-school company, so I chalk it up mostly to a cultural thing. Most men at this company wear just a shirt and trousers, then you'll see quite a bit of the shirt/tie with no jacket (my department manager chooses to finish it off with a windbreaker / golf jacket / members only type number for a classy touch on those cool mornings) and then you'll see a few of the chiefs wearing suits. I am truly an oddity for coming in wearing a blazer / or jacket most days.

And you can't even get into the club if you're not showing a good three fingers of sock in between your slacks and black loafers.

 

[JLibourel]

Originally Posted by Orsini

Cruiser, what are you doing here?

Yeah, some of my comments above were reminiscent of those that earned me the appellations of "bigot" and "hateful snob" from ol' Cruiser. I wish he would come over here where he could be engaged free from the protective shield he enjoys through the despotic moderation regnant in "his" forum!

As I say, I've come to enjoy the existence of Cruiser. He fulfills the function of a villain in professional wrestling!

 

[Cordovan]

Originally Posted by Meursault

Thomas Mahon used to have a nice story on his blog. He was a trainee tailor at Anderson & Sheppard, and one summer's day popped out to get a sandwich in just a shirt and tie. On his return, his boss was furious: how dare he go out without his jacket! Didn't he know that a shirt was merely underwear, and thus by wearing a tie but no jacket he was little more than naked? According to a rather stuffy tailor, shirt and tie were not acceptable dress, and though I wouldn't go so far as to call a shirt underwear, an element of this attitude still lingers.

You're close, but not quite. The sentiment was all the same, and although in 'more proper' times shirts were underwear, Mr. Hallbery's reference to T Mahon's underwear was in specific reference to wearing his braces in public.

http://www.englishcut.com/archives/000014.html

Cordovan

 

[academe]

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Well-heeled professional he may be, but he's still a sartorial third-rater in my book. In fact, his omission of the jacket or suit coat is all the more heinous because he should know better.
I appreciate your passionate conviction that shirt&tie sans coat is a sartorial faux pax; I don't actually disagree with you, Manton and others on this point. What I object to is justifying this relatively irrational point of view on the grounds that only really uneducated, young and/or "lower class" people would adopt this look. If you don't like this look on aesthetic grounds or sartorial ones, that's all fine and good, but I don't actually think you need to abuse people who adopt this look as being "stupid plebs," which is what I read into Meursault's post. It may be "fair" to say that they are sartorially uneducated or lazy, but on some level I fundamentally object to insulting someone on the grounds that they are poor/uneducated/plebs. In my book, it's not very charitable, socially understanding or kind. Make that what you may, but that is how I feel on the subject.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

In my book, there is NO reason why a man who is attempting to dress well should eschew the coat/jacket that is the very foundation good dress. Any well turned out gentlemen should have a suits and jackets in a variety of fabric weights and types so that he may be suitably attired regardless of "temperature/climate, etc., etc." Obviously, I am only talking about situations where a man requires or adopts the formality of the necktie yet foregoes the jacket, not a situation that warrants more casual apparel.
No objections to your argument here. If you are going to wear suits daily, this is a given.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

Oh sure, I (and I am sure many of us) see men at the market on the way home from work who look as if they had been well dressed earlier, but, with their jackets removed, their ties loosened, their collars unbuttoned, they still look like holy hell to me, regardless of the price and quality of their apparel!
Yes, I am again in agreement; however, this doesn't not automatically mean that they are stupid plebs. It just means they are sartorially lazy/challenged, and/or have different aesthetics to yours.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

I am not sure what a "non-functional" coat is. Really, isn't it all about aesthetics? If "functionality" is what is foremost, I can clothe my body perfectly well against the elements with windbreakers, barn coats, sweat shirts and the like. I hardly see dressing well as an affirmation of social status. At least in my neck of the woods, many rich people are horrible slobs, and few people will have a sufficiently discerning eye to distinguish between my bespoke blazer and something picked up at a small fraction of the price from J.C. Penney. If wishing to appear elegant and gentlemanly is "rubbing my social status in other peoples' faces," then I suppose I am guilty as charged!
When I spoke of a non-functional coat, I was responding to Manton's comment, where he wrote:

Originally Posted by Manton

Then I would do what certain hat-hating Englishmen do when they go to events where hats are required: carry it. Carry the jacket to the office, hang it up, and carry it home.
It seems silly to me to bring a coat along that you're not going to wear, just to show that you have it. This is what I meant when I said it would seem like a needless class signifier, etc. If you're going to bring a coat on a hot day, wear it! If wool is too heavy wear linen.

Originally Posted by JLibourel

I hardly see dressing well as an affirmation of social status. At least in my neck of the woods, many rich people are horrible slobs, and few people will have a sufficiently discerning eye to distinguish between my bespoke blazer and something picked up at a small fraction of the price from J.C. Penney. If wishing to appear elegant and gentlemanly is "rubbing my social status in other peoples' faces," then I suppose I am guilty as charged!
I live in Britain, where - by and large - clothing is still a key signifier of social status and class, unless you happen to be a slightly eccentric thrifting aristocrat. I can appreciate your point however, as I used to live in San Francisco, where "dressing-up" for the affluent meant putting on a open-collar shirt underneath their fleece

YMMV depending on country.

Originally Posted by Orsini

Cruiser, what are you doing here?

This isn't really fair, as I wasn't trolling...

 

[Orsini]

Originally Posted by academe

...This isn't really fair, as I wasn't trolling...
I assure you, I did not mean to imply that you were trolling or are otherwise like unto a troll. I said that because that piece of your rhetoric reminded me of old what's-his-name and it amused me to take his name in vain. If my gag has caused any hurt feelings to you, I apologize.

 

[babygreenspots]

Jeez...I can't get embroiled in the class argument or even the aesthetics one at this stage. When the shirt itself is pretty stifling, I'm not usually inclined to add a jacket, tie, or anything else. I just tend to wish that the short sleeve shirt did not have all the negative associations and that shorts and sandals were allowed at the office. With the air clogged with smog and humidity and the temperature is 40+, I don't even want to look at my jackets - even the unlined ones in 220 oz. fabric.

Londoners and New Yorkers in finance can be forgiven for their prejudices since they are used to living with blasting AC and minimal smog. They can go directly from car or subway to office, sort of denying the reality of the temperature. Will I be tarred and feathered for mentioning global warming and the contribution of air conditioning? Most likely, but perhaps we should be discussing new modes of dress that minimize that impact.