Page 1 of 134

Formal Dress Forum

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 4:37 pm
by Eliot Wilson
As so often these little conundra pop up, I thought the Debating Society message board might be a place for like-minded individuals - even if it does just turn out to be Messrs. Joss, Renouf and Blair, and m'good self - to air views on the thorny subject of What To Wear - I'm coming over all Trinny and Susannah (oh, God...).

To start us off, I pose two questions:

Cummerbund with trews - acceptable to what degree?

Smoking jackets - viable for the under-60s, or just too sweet-sherry-and-a-cat-called-Clothilde?

[hr]"In a battle between yourself and the world, back the world." Kafka

Re:

PostPosted: Thu Nov 13, 2003 7:44 pm
by Tobias Joss
[s]Eliot Wilson wrote on 16:37, 13th Nov 2003:Smoking jackets - viable for the under-60s, or just too sweet-sherry-and-a-cat-called-Clothilde?

And presumably, a camel named Sopwith?

Trous and cummerbund. Hmm. I would say possibly if the cummerbund is plain black and the jacket is in the manner of a single breasted dinner jacket, or an Argyle. Tartan cummerbund, no, never. If its the same tartan it'll look like your waistband is as high as Simon Cowell's, if its different, well ... shudder.

Smoking jackets. Also, hmm. For smoking, yes. As evening dress, perhaps so, if the cut is appropriate. Single stripe evening trousers I would assume, or trous. Though we know who you would look like if you did that. All you would need to complete the Brian Lang/Dr Who outfit would be slip-on shoes.

That said, I have a fondness for smoking jackets in a double breasted with frogging format and the little cap. But then I used to own one, and to smoke a pipe. Deary, deary me.

[hr]
I hate people who think that admitting a fault is licence to practice it: "Oh, I'm always late!" Sorry, unacceptable.

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 12:53 am
by Eliot Wilson
Largely my thinking.

Cummerbund yes, provided it's black, and that you are not so rotund that it assumes the status of a 'gut-bra'. Because no-one wants to see that.

Smoking jacket, smoking jacket, smoking jacket. So very, very tempting, in a gren velvet, perhaps, with trews. But, looking like BLang aside, it makes a statement. And, all too often, I fear that statement may be "I am as camp as a row of tents, and have grown out of my dinner jacket". Which, again, no-one wants.

It's all so difficult.

[hr]"In a battle between yourself and the world, back the world." Kafka

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 5:23 am
by Anon.
Cummerbunds with trews: m'yes. Maybe. Waistcoats, of course, are always preferable. As long as they're the low-cut sort. Black, natch - but surely a black cummerbund with ordinary dress-trousers also makes one look "as if one's waistband is as high as Simon Cowell's" - so what is the objection to tartan cummberbunds on that account?

Smoking jackets: in one's own home: perfectly fine. And simply replacing the coat of whatever form of evening dress one would otherwise be wearing - be it black tie, white tie, or any of the Caledonian variations. Out in public... I think anything other than a black velvet one cut like a dinner-jacket is rather too attention-grabbing to be in the best of taste.

Edited to reduce the ridiculously large number of "of course"s.

Oh, and I think a green velvet smoking-jacket with tartan trews would be rather too department-store Christmassy for my liking. All you'd need would be gilt-edged red ribbons down your shirt-front.

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 11:57 am
by Tobias Joss
That's a delightful image, Mr Renouf!

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 12:18 pm
by Eliot Wilson
Now here's a really tough question. Is it possible, in this day and age, to wear a bow tie where one would normally wear a straight tie, without looking either absurdly gay or like the human embodiment of the word 'geek'?

[hr]"In a battle between yourself and the world, back the world." Kafka

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 12:31 pm
by Tobias Joss
Not so much that one would look gay, more camp, but in that peculiar way that Latin teachers who you just know are paedophiles would do it. Bow ties are a thorny area, and one best avoided. Also, you run the risk of being taken for Michael Penrice, nobody wants that, probably not even him.

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:18 pm
by Eliot Wilson
Thorny indeed. I had a Latin teacher - didn't we all? - who wore bow ties and green corduroy jackets, sometimes waistcoats. He did, though, seem quite touched when, at the end of term, all six of us in the class arrived wearing bow ties by way of a tribute.

[hr]"In a battle between yourself and the world, back the world." Kafka

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 1:32 pm
by Tobias Joss
Sadly, no, we did not all! Having spent a week instructing a horde of Latin-less students.

Were I your teacher, Wilson, I'd have slapped the spit out of you. And not just for the bow tie.

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 3:28 pm
by Eliot Wilson
"Spit", Mr. Joss? Or is this a euphemism? He took it very well. But then, his middle name was Wenceslas, which in itself is an indicator of a) being Czech, or (more likely) b) being a bit weird.

[hr]"In a battle between yourself and the world, back the world." Kafka

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 6:41 pm
by Tobias Joss
Unless he chose the name for himself (and I see no problem in that), surely its more likely to indicated those things about his parents?

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:03 pm
by Eliot Wilson
Heredity is a powerful thing.

Moving on, acceptability of - and logic behind? - pale waistcoats with dark suits? And where one might obtain such waistcoat?

(It is to be hoped that neither mr hunch nor rubbermuffin finds this forum - my, how they'd hate it.)

[hr]"In a battle between yourself and the world, back the world." Kafka

Re:

PostPosted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 7:47 pm
by Tobias Joss
I'm 100% in favour, for appropriate occasions. I especially favour a light waistcoat with a dark suit and a smart dark silk knot. Tres 1900s.

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:18 am
by Anon.
Does this count as "formal dress"? Or did you mean "formal" in the sense of "not jeans"?

For a formal occasion, I think both bow-ties with day wear and light waistcoats would be inappropriate, unless (in the case of the latter) one is wearing a morning-coat. Fine otherwise.

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:21 am
by Tobias Joss
I suspect Mr Wilson has moved on from formal in the sense we would understand it and is now using it largely in the sense of not casual. But I may be wrong.

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 12:30 am
by Eliot Wilson
I should not like to seem like the Queen of Hearts (was it she?), but, certainly, I think that for the purposes of this forum 'formal dress' can mean a little more than evening dress and morning "suits". I think that in a general sense a suit of clothes could reasonably be classed as formal wear.

Excuse me while I slip into my Kappa tracksuit and Burberry wanker hat.

[hr]"In a battle between yourself and the world, back the world." Kafka

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:38 am
by Donald Renouf
Righto. :)

We all know the rule that one should wear a plain tie with a patterned shirt and a plain shirt with a patterned tie.

However, I have heard it claimed that when sporting a striped tie of the club or Old Boys' persuasion, simultaneously wearing a patterned shirt is not incorrect (though it may still look frightful).

Thoughts, anyone?

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 3:45 am
by Donald Renouf
Oh, and on the subject of striped ties...

Wearing a striped tie in colours of those other than those of one's school, university, club, regiment, society or family arms is inadvisable, as one may be inadvertently wearing a tie to which one has no right. But is it actually *wrong* to wear a striped tie with no particular significance attached to the colours?

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 10:32 am
by Eliot Wilson
It is, in fact, a question to which I've given some thought. Certainly, I tend to avoid striped ties which are not signifying something specific - I wear my graduate tie and my old school tie, but that's about it - on the grounds that either I may inadvertently be wearing an inappropriate tie, or, worse, that someone may think I'm claiming to be something I'm not. I once received a very smart navy-and-maroon striped tie for Christmas... the problem being, of course, that it was to all intents and purposes the tie of the Brigade of Guards. But I would say that it is not actually wrong to wear a striped tie simply of pleasing hues. Though one might do well to check beforehand that it does not signify anything.

As for plain-and-patterned, you are perhaps, Mr. Renouf, somewhat more puritanical than I on this matter. I think a muted pattern can be acceptable with a less than plain tie. For example, I have a pale blue shirt with a faint Prince of Wales check and a thin yellow overlaid check, which I wear with a yellow tie with navy spots. The effect is, I think, rather pleasing. But of course a bold pattern would be a different matter. I was once forced by lack of other laundered and pressed shirts to take a tutorial in a bold reddish-pink checked shirt and my graduate tie. The overall effect was, to quote Jeeves, "a trifle sudden".

I shall be interested to hear others' opinions on these matters.

[hr]"In a battle between yourself and the world, back the world." Kafka

Re:

PostPosted: Sat Nov 15, 2003 11:50 am
by Tobias Joss
[s]Eliot Wilson wrote on 00:30, 15th Nov 2003:
I should not like to seem like the Queen of Hearts (was it she


No. Humpty Dumpty, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less. The question is who is to be master."

As to the tie situation, yes caution on the striped, ohterwise in agreement the majority of the foregoing. Especially as I too wear a yellow with blue spotted tie on a blue with yellow P of W check shirt.