Who still wears a suit to work?

[Thomson]

@TheFoo

And what exactly is this “business casual” you repeatedly refer to? Can you articulate precisely what constitutes it in the same way you can a suit or tailored country (sport) dress?

I find it strange that none of the “suit antagonists” have been able to properly define what replaces the suit. Besides of course the narrow odd midtown Manhattan fleece vest which I’m fairly sure is a passing plague contained to midtown Manhattan.

It is much like being in opposition politics just for the sake of flame throwing without having any practical ideas to replace the status quo.

Alan Bee

I do a lot of business travel within Europe - some of it in first class on high speed trains which is great for people watching.

Practically everyone in first class is travelling on business, lots of (IT) consultants, accountants etc. (impossible not to notice from the conversations and logos on laptops. Many to see clients. People on there are not necessarily from a metropolitan centre.

So most of the people on there have dressed up to some degree.

The men? There really doesn’t seem to be a standard dress.

I’d say a third are suits, often without ties - maybe they put one on at the end of the journey.

The rest, nothing like ‘(dressy) chino plus button down or polo’ or anything like that (which I think can
look at least consistent and presentable). Often five pocket casual trousers (jeans, chino, brown or beige jeans), often with formal black leather shoes, seldomly nice ones. Combined with an odd jacket of some description - often quite a formal one. It is quite ghastly.

Very seldomly you get someone wearing a nice combination of dress trousers, odd jacket and nice brown leather shoes.

Infrequently someone wears a casual suit (think Margaret Howell) with trainers. Maybe someone working in a creative function.

My impression: People with limited interest in clothes are at a complete loss while there isn’t a standard uniform (as it might exist in the US).

 

[TheFoo]

I do a lot of business travel within Europe - some of it in first class on high speed trains which is great for people watching.

Practically everyone in first class is travelling on business, lots of (IT) consultants, accountants etc. (impossible not to notice from the conversations and logos on laptops. Many to see clients. People on there are not necessarily from a metropolitan centre.

So most of the people on there have dressed up to some degree.

The men? There really doesn’t seem to be a standard dress.

I’d say a third are suits, often without ties - maybe they put one on at the end of the journey.

The rest, nothing like ‘(dressy) chino plus button down or polo’ or anything like that (which I think can
look at least consistent and presentable). Often five pocket casual trousers (jeans, chino, brown or beige jeans), often with formal black leather shoes, seldomly nice ones. Combined with an odd jacket of some description - often quite a formal one. It is quite ghastly.

Very seldomly you get someone wearing a nice combination of dress trousers, odd jacket and nice brown leather shoes.

Infrequently someone wears a casual suit (think Margaret Howell) with trainers. Maybe someone working in a creative function.

My impression: People with limited interest in clothes are at a complete loss while there isn’t a standard uniform (as it might exist in the US).

Sounds accurate to me.

@Alan Bee: In the U.S., standard-issue business casual is trousers (could be odd trousers, chinos, five-pocket non-denim pants, etc.), a dress shirt (with a sweater, when cold), and dress shoes (usually brown). The more well-paid the job, the nicer the versions of those things people wear. The addition of a sporty vest emanated from the tech industry and Silicon Valley, then caught on with VCs and private equity guys, then infected the investment banks, etc. So, it is not unique to Manhattan, but that’s probably where the get-up has become the most conspicuous.

I can’t speak to what Magic Circle lawyers dress like, but London’s finance professionals appear to dress in-line with their NYC counterparts. Suits are not unusual, per se, but business casual is more the norm. And, now that I think of it, I’ve seen more than a couple of my English colleagues sporting the full-on Midtown Uniform. Admittedly, this is harder to imagine on the Continent, but that’s not to say they haven’t gone broadly business casual in equal measure.

 

[Loathing]

It's impossible to prove causality in history, so ... yeah. I mean, there's no way to prove the effect because we can't have alternative worlds where we can switch an event on and off, like a test variable. But I will say, my interpretation isn't a fringe one. If you read men's fashion books, this is pretty much the popular narrative.

I think you’ve mixed things up quite a bit with a heavy dose of American exceptionalism. The standard history is that the end of WW1 marked an explosion of liberalisation (in norms and in clothing) across Europe, which then spread to the US — the US always remaining more conservative than Europe, as it remains today.

 

[Alan Bee]

Sounds accurate to me.

@Alan Bee: In the U.S., standard-issue business casual is trousers (could be odd trousers, chinos, five-pocket non-denim pants, etc.), a dress shirt (with a sweater, when cold), and dress shows (usually brown). The more well-paid the job, the nicer the versions of those things people wear. The addition of a sporty vest emanated from the tech industry and Silicon Valley, then caught on with VCs and private equity guys, then infected the investment banks, etc. So, it is not unique to Manhattan, but that’s probably where the get-up has become the most conspicuous.

I can’t speak to what Magic Circle lawyers dress like, but London’s finance professionals appear to dress in-line with their NYC counterparts. Suits are not unusual, per se, but business casual is more the norm. And, now that I think of it, I’ve seen more than a couple of my English colleagues sporting the full-on Midtown Uniform. Admittedly, this is harder to imagine on the Continent, but that’s not to say they haven’t gone broadly business casual in equal measure.

Aha, little wonder Cucinelli is selling those sweaters for $3,000. I mean, the bonus money has to go somewhere if bespoke suits are out. No?

Reminds me of when I was a middling fellow in New York City at what is perhaps the largest asset manager today (it was still boutiquey at the time). The dress code was “biz caszh”. It was a total ****-show, an absolute mess.

The guys compensated by spending ungodly amounts of money on watches. With watches at least, you didn’t have to endure the rigor of learning how to dress. think. You just bought the most expensive version of whatever Patek was trending.

I would guess the same fellows have now added $3,000 Cucinelli fleece vests to their Pateks.

Alan Bee

 

[smittycl]

Please touch on what does it have to do with gender fluidity? Also, what is it that you are referring to as gender fluidity?

Also, did the legging of Robin Hood have to do with the same thing? Were LGBTQ rights part of Magna Carta?

You guys were going late last night.

I think Derek is quite correct. The gay influence on menswear is clear. I would also imagine, I know you were being silly, that people think RobinHood wore tights because Errol Flynn wore tights.

 

[gs77]

Just because you can find examples of skinny pants throughout history -- which is possible because people have been wearing clothes for thousands of years -- doesn't mean that you're wearing a look because of George Washington. Just like how today's double rider trend is about Hedi and Kanye, it's not about Marlon Brando.

Anyway, I guess my entire argument was shot down by "you're virtue signaling," so u win ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

MY double rider is not about Brando, it's about Ramones. Someone else's is about Brando and yet another guy's is about Kanye.

I'm still waiting for your explanation on how does super expensive, designer interpretation of working class clothes help to eradicate economic inequality.
I'm guessing similar to how some poor guy wearing american indigenous traditional wear to Hellowin party eradicates racism?

 

[gs77]

You guys were going late last night.

I think Derek is quite correct. The gay influence on menswear is clear. I would also imagine, I know you were being silly, that people think RobinHood wore tights because Errol Flynn wore tights.

I think it's about changing expressions of both masculinity and femininity that were happening through history, as a consequence of bigger social changes. Sometimes we all get a bit liberal, having it turn to much to decadence causes the negative feedback, which draws us back a bit to conservatism, and the circle goes and goes... this all probably mixed up by usual economic circles...in the big picture the society experiences progress towards more liberal, but saying that this all is a new phenomenon and somehow we have to thank the present day fashion designers and celebrities of Kanye type for liberating us and eradicating all kinds of inequalities is just silly.

 

[smittycl]

A suit?!? I'm the only man in my office who always wears a necktie!

My division is majority female, but among the men, my sense of dress stands out as conservative. (N.b. Said conservativism is strictly aesthetic, I'm a monster raving lefty on most social issues, which befits the son of a Cleaver voter) There is one man in the division who has been around long enough to remember when all of the men wore suits and ties. He even mentioned how he liked them, although he wears just a dress shirt and dress-ish trousers these days. He's also set to retire in a few weeks.

Oddly enough, I'm more likely by far to wear a suit outside of work. It's less a requisite professional uniform than sort of self-expression. The thing about myself that I want to express being that in all but age I should be collecting social security checks and complaining about 'kids these days'.

Speaking of suits and females, all the men in my office wear suits as they are required. Most guys barely seem to notice what other guys are wearing but the women do. They see the symmetry in showing the same amount of linen on the shirtsleeves and collar. They notice a good silhouette and a well-fitting suit, good tie, etc. I think that, among many possible reasons, they appreciate someone who puts in a little effort.

Women are held to different standards and have to put a great deal of effort into their clothes. Most guys could wear the same blue suit daily and no one would notice.

Going back to suits bringing a level of formality, I’m reminded of one of my favorite scenes in Mad Men. Don Draper is hanging out with his Bohemian mistress and her friends in Greenwich Village and there’s a major police incident outside. He’s bored and gets up to leave and one of the proto-Hippies says “You can’t go out there, man!” or something like that. Draper, wearing a smart suit, looks him up and down and says “You can’t. I can.” Of course he walks outside and the cops look him up and down and say “Have a good night, Sir.”

I’ve been in plenty of situations (none so dramatic and sadly none involving Bohemian mistresses) where looking sharp let me get my way.

 

[smittycl]

So we must then all donate our tailored clothing (suits) to the local museum, run out and acquire cargo pants and fleece vests Derek? Is this your logical conclusion?

So we don’t “miss the philistinic boat” about to sail ...

Alan Bee

My wife made an interesting point as I was typing my last comment. She agreed about the radically different standard for men and women and that women notice well-dressed men.

She also commented on the ridiculousness of cargo short wearing slobs who think they should be issued an Instagram Girl. Extrapolate from that the obvious lesson.

 

[beargonefishing]

MY double rider is not about Brando, it's about Ramones. Someone else's is about Brando and yet another guy's is about Kanye.

I'm still waiting for your explanation on how does super expensive, designer interpretation of working class clothes help to eradicate economic inequality.
I'm guessing similar to how some poor guy wearing american indigenous traditional wear to Hellowin party eradicates racism?

You're very easily triggered.

 

[yanagi]

but saying that this all is a new phenomenon and somehow we have to thank the present day fashion designers and celebrities of Kanye type for liberating us and eradicating all kinds of inequalities is just silly.

Is anybody saying that, or is your worldview causing you to distort other people's words?

In Derek's article, there is 1 line (1!!!) about "fluidity," and that's enough to set you on a rant about tights, Robin Hood, and the Magna Carta.

The Suit Died, but for Good Reasons — Die, Workwear!

Men in suits love nothing more than to talk about how no one wears suits anymore. And it’s true that with each passing year, fewer and fewer people wear traditional tailored clothing. One retailer tells me that he mostly considers his necktie inventory part of his store decor these days, like...

dieworkwear.com

 

[gs77]

Is anybody saying that, or is your worldview causing you to distort other people's words?

In Derek's article, there is 1 line (1!!!) about "fluidity," and that's enough to set you on a rant about tights, Robin Hood, and the Magna Carta.

The Suit Died, but for Good Reasons — Die, Workwear!

Men in suits love nothing more than to talk about how no one wears suits anymore. And it’s true that with each passing year, fewer and fewer people wear traditional tailored clothing. One retailer tells me that he mostly considers his necktie inventory part of his store decor these days, like...

dieworkwear.com

And what exactly do you think is my worldview? What did I distort?

 

[yanagi]

And what exactly do you think is my worldview? What did I distort?

Please, you've made it very obvious with your posts what your worldview is. As per Fok's prohibition on politics in this thread, I won't discuss it in detail, except to say that if you need confirmation on what I think your worldview is, you nicely summed it up as preferring to "die in piece [sic]" in a state of decline rather than to make changes that would reverse the decline because those changes are "just too disgusting."

As for your distortion, I already pointed it out. In a long post about how "formal" clothing has changed over time, Derek writes 1 sentence, just 1, about "fluidity," and that's what you think the entire post was about. 1 sentence on "fluidity" was enough to get you talking about tights, Robin Hood, the Magna Carta, Halloween, and Kanye West.

 

[RJman]

Please, you've made it very obvious with your posts what your worldview is. As per Fok's prohibition on politics in this thread, I won't discuss it in detail, except to say that if you need confirmation on what I think your worldview is, you nicely summed it up as preferring to "die in piece [sic]" in a state of decline rather than to make changes that would reverse the decline because those changes are "just too disgusting."

As for your distortion, I already pointed it out. In a long post about how "formal" clothing has changed over time, Derek writes 1 sentence, just 1, about "fluidity," and that's what you think the entire post was about. 1 sentence on "fluidity" was enough to get you talking about tights, Robin Hood, the Magna Carta, Halloween, and Kanye West.

Pretty sure the modern incarnation of the Robin Hood myth, Oliver Queen, wears a double rider. There’s even a Twitter account set up to identifying the clothes the characters wear. #youhavefailedthisthreaq

 

[gs77]

Please, you've made it very obvious with your posts what your worldview is. As per Fok's prohibition on politics in this thread, I won't discuss it in detail, except to say that if you need confirmation on what I think your worldview is, you nicely summed it up as preferring to "die in piece [sic]" in a state of decline rather than to make changes that would reverse the decline because those changes are "just too disgusting."

As for your distortion, I already pointed it out. In a long post about how "formal" clothing has changed over time, Derek writes 1 sentence, just 1, about "fluidity," and that's what you think the entire post was about. 1 sentence on "fluidity" was enough to get you talking about tights, Robin Hood, the Magna Carta, Halloween, and Kanye West.

Wow, politbiro early on Sunday.
In that post (that has nothing to do with this discussion) I was expressing what my read is on current growth of political right in Europe. Actually the only country where I have a right to vote has a sitting premier openly lesbian, and I did vote for the party that elected her to the seat. I am as far ideologically from what you read my worldview is as one can be, so blackout please.
As for Robin Hood, I was pointing that expressions of masculinity and femininity changes throughout history and somewhat runs in circles.
I am more worried with the notion that designers pushing working class clothes is somehow the best thing that happened to working class since they got two days of weekend.