Formal Dress Forum

[Anon.]

Do Americans have a dress category of "evening dress with decorations"? You never see them wearing it, do you - even at the most formal events such as state dinners, like this one at the White House in May 2007:


Might this be because American decorations and medals are only ever worn with military uniforms? That's a bit hard cheese on the recipients of civilian awards.

[AKB Cusack]

We do indeed have evening dress with decorations, at least we do here in New York. Small decorations are more frequently worn with black tie, but one certainly sees neck decorations worn with white tie alongside small decorations. Neck decorations are usually those of noble, chivalric, or state orders, or sometimes of the American hereditary societies.

There is a general perception that the decorations (or, more properly, the insignia) of hereditary societies should not be worn except at the events organized by hereditary societies, but of course there is no strict rule and things are more lax today than ever.

At military events (mess dinners, balls, etc.) decorations are worn, but these are almost always black tie affairs rather than white tie.

[LonelyPilgrim]

My (limited) understanding is that the general custom is to wear ribbon bars with formal dress, but the medals themselves - in the case of military awards - should be worn only with uniform attire. I do not know about civilian awards.

[bdw]

I heard this morning of the arrest of those morons who apparently were plotting to off Obama. Apparently they were going to carry out their nefarious and, frankly, half-arsed excuse for a plan wearing white tuxedos and top hats. Disregarding for the moment the Morrissette irony of two would-be white supremacists deciding to dress up like Cab Calloway, would the FDF be tempted to hand down a stern sentence for their choice of eveningwear alone?

[Eliot Wilson]

Very. But they were Americans, and therefore operating under the handicap system.

[AKB Cusack]

I had been under the impression that the wearing of trews with black tie required a Prince Charlie jacket or the like. Our chancellor & outgoing vice-chancellor think otherwise:



Acceptable or unacceptable?

[Al]

I'm more interested in why the outgoing Principal was wearing his Vice-Chancellor's gown while having his portrait painted. I'm not sure how such an occasion is deputising for the Chancellor in the awarding of degrees.

[Eliot Wilson]

I think trews with a standard dinner jacket are perfectly acceptable. I also admire the Chancellor's waistcoat - very smart.

[exnihilo]

I'm more interested in why the outgoing Principal was wearing his Vice-Chancellor's gown while having his portrait painted. I'm not sure how such an occasion is deputising for the Chancellor in the awarding of degrees.

According to the accompanying story, it was the artist's favourite of his ceremonial gowns. So, as long as there's a good reason. Perhaps when she paints Ming's for the House of Commons she'll pick his royal robes from Mongo?

[Jamie potton]

Birley's portrait of Principal Irvine shows him in the VC robes, in a composition very similar, though somewhat more traditional (in fact this new one could easily be of Irvine. Or anyone). It's a precedent.

[Anon.]

Is the Chancellor wearing trews in Campbell of Cawdor tartan? Campbell "undifferenced" is, of course, better known as "Black Watch" tartan. To which branch of the family does Sir Menzies belong?

[Anon.]

I am amazed anew at the awfulness of the portrait. It looks like something on the walls of a primary school assembly hall. Apart from the presence of hair and the red socks it could be of either of them.

Actually on the subject of socks: thinking back to the days when I regularly used to watch PMQS whilst skiving off games on the pretext of going for riding lessons... that is to say, circa 2000: who was the Liberal frontbencher whose most eye-catching characteristic was his contrasting hooped socks? Would that have been the then Mr Menzies Campbell?

I still can't ride. If I were to, though, would riding breeches (as opposed to jodhpurs) be just too laughable? Or could one get away with them?

[Kizzy]

Gosh - something on the FDF I know about!

Breeches. Anon, it depends if you're thinking about relatively modern breeches, that you'd be able to buy in any self-respecting saddlery, like these: http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.frogpool.com/prod-5943.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.frogpool.com/prodcat-852.html&usg=__tCE-pgNbK6ygiaCCrwJq_9ey5b8=&h=288&w=350&sz=18&hl=en&start=8&um=1&tbnid=Doml1wXaOFuX3M:&tbnh=99&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmens%2Bbreeches%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DKUK_en-GBGB293GB294

or if you have in mind more traditional ones, that you'd have to scour ebay and the like for, like these: http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.hotboots.com/breeches/breech37.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.hotboots.com/breeches/breeches11.html&usg=__P5HkjkNrdPYwWjT7LBrJkOu63y8=&h=450&w=285&sz=41&hl=en&start=16&um=1&tbnid=2wVD8fEyUXE5tM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=80&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbreeches%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rlz%3D1T4DKUK_en-GBGB293GB294%26sa%3DN

If the former, then certainly: they're harder-wearing, give better grip, and, if dressage is your thing, a better contact with the saddle. If you're more of a cross-country type, they're also nice and warm.

If the latter, then just...no. Not only will you be significantly less comfortable, less secure in the saddle, and more prone to unpleasant thigh-bruises, you'll also have to ride along in the knowledge that in this instance, the fact that you're the only peson doing wearing them doesn't work in your favour!

[Anon.]

Kizzy - you know I meant the baggy-thighed sort.

I had thought that riding breeches went out of fashion for practical purposes as a result of advances in fabric technology, jodhpurs being legwear that could both grip the saddle and stretch to allow ease of movement. Prior to that advent baggy riding breeches in cloth seated with leather or entirely made in a smiliar style from something like buckskin were simply a necessity. Surely that sort of legwear would still be allowable.

Naturally sporting the kind of breeches notably flaunted for reasons of "style" by the SS, American motorcycle cops, and Chris Eubank would make the wearer look a prize tit.

[Kizzy]

Ah, no...you're confusing what breeches are!

They're still very much used, but have progressed a bit: rather than being baggy cloth, breeches have adapted to changing technology too: the differences between jods and breeches now are more subtle, but still remain, in that:
a) breeches tend to be made of slightly less stretchy, thicker material.
b) they tend also to have a reinforced suede seat
and most importantly
c) they stop about halfway down the calf: this is because they're designed to be worn with long boots, rather than jodhpur boots (for which, surprisingly enough, jodhpurs are a good match). Breeches have a kid of velcro-fastening thingy halfway down the calf which allows the ankle to flex more and means you don't get a great big rumpling of fabric where your boots naturally fold at the ankle.

When I'm riding competitively, it's always breeches that are worn. Ladies' ones, naturally.

What you're thinking of, then, are ancient breeches. And I say this with the greatest deal of fondness, and in the knowledge that you'll do it anyway...just don't. Nobody's going to stop you doing it, although they wouldn't let you into some show rings wearing them, but you'll look like a bit of a fool, you'll be colder, bruised, and sore. Not least because it'll be really hard to find proper ones nowadays that aren't in fact 'stylish' ones as worn by Chris Eubank, etc - which were never designed to go anywhere near a horse. In fact, thinking through the 'old-fashioned equestrian men' of my acquaintance, I haven't seen anyone ever wearing old-style breeches.

If you absolutely must wear them, do it in the summer - at least you'll be warmer then!

[Jos Dad]

Since all has gone very quiet, maybe the experts will have time to give me advice.
I have twice recently been invited to a book signing ( as a "rabble" guest, not a principal). In each case I felt my dress was inappropriate - in the first I as mistaken for the author, and in the second I stood out like a sore thumb.
Should I stop dressing for such occasions in a velvet smoking jacket, stock, and cummerbund and stick to a lounge suit and graduate bo tie and waistcoat, or is something else more appropriate. The MC at one event was in DJ, jeans, and suede shoes, but I don't like to think of him as an arbiter of fashion.

[Mystery Alum]

I am certain you have all seen this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8365971.stm

[Anon.]

I've never been to a book signing, but I would have thought something rather bohemian like a green corduroy jacket and a knitted tie would fit the bill.

I suppose I can make myself see where Bercow is coming from. I suppose there are some people who just wouldn't want to appear on national television in knee-breeches, stockings, buckled shoes and a jabot. It takes all sorts.

[Jos Dad]

I don't know if there is still anyone out there, but I have a question. I am starting a BD course at St Mary's in September. I believe I do not get to wear the St Mary's undergraduate gown but should wear my graduate gown, which raises a question. On what occasions should I wear my BSc hood with it?

[Dave the Explosive Newt]

I have just been chided for doing up the bottom button of my waistcoat when wearing it with black tie. Is this correct?