# The Ascendancy of Casual Wear



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

It seems that men today are no longer inclined to dress well. If one were to look at pictures from the great depression, even the poorest man on the street wore a suit and tie. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find someone wearing even a blazer, at least from where I live. 

I am by no means bashing those who wear casual. But I do believe in dressing presentably, and courteously. As a young man in high school, I always try to wear a sport coat and tie to class. The style may not be in vogue, but it elicits positive attention from the teachers, who now treat me much more seriously than they would a regular student. 

Still, I am curious as to what caused the ascendancy of the casual wear. Was it the summer of love?


----------



## oxfordcloth (Feb 19, 2014)

This is a question that I've been thinking about recently as well, and I think it has to do with a mixed bag of issues.

1. The influence of sports in American fashion. This goes way back to the early 1900s, when Brooks Brothers first attached the polo collar onto dress shirts after being inspired by English polo players. Moving along, Ralph Lauren and Rene Lacoste, with their lookbooks, made it alright for people to look like they just finished playing a round of doubles. What these have in common is that they all drew from what was inherently informal and incorporated it into a more mainstream look. 

2. A push-back against the relatively conservative styles of early to mid 1900s. Take a look at the counter-generation culture beginning in the 60s. Out went the suits and in came the field jackets, tie-dyed t-shirts, and bell bottoms. But the issue here goes further. In rejecting sartorial knowledge, what stylistic values could they (the counter-culture generation) then pass on to their kids? 

3. The rise of information technology. In fact, the whole sector was filled with multi-millionaires dressed down in business casual. Heck, Steve Jobs did his keynotes in a black turtleneck with jeans and New Balances. The casual dress code has become largely acceptable on the West Coast (home of Silicon Valley), and is actually somewhat of an unspoken rule in the IT sector at this point.

Of course, much of this is just my own speculation.


----------



## rsgordon (Dec 6, 2012)

Sorry but Ralph Lauren didn't open until the late 60s so I don't think he goes way back

I agree that comfort and the sportswear look was a driving force in it all.


----------



## Fading Fast (Aug 22, 2012)

A couple of contributing factors:

- The 1960s social and political upheaval undid long held societal standards for dressing that had "enforced" a dress code. Also this change was most prominent for teenagers and young people; whereas, prior to the change, college kids were not only some of the best dressed people in the country (of any age group) they were passionate about their Trad clothing and gave the style a verve and freshness. Once, college kids gave up on Trad dressing, not only was their leadership / inspiration gone, but there was no natural initiation into dressing Trad for many people. 

- The 1970s / 80s "me culture" with its emphasis on personal expression and personal comfort inspired many to "no longer want to wear ties, suits, get dressed up" which since the old dress code was only "enforce" by social norms, further broke down the Trad standard of dress.


----------



## Magnusson (Feb 4, 2014)

I don't think the cultural revolution of the 1960s can be emphasized enough in terms of prevailing clothing fashions. Before that, it was simply expected, culturally, for anyone going out their front door to look presentable, well-put-together, and as polished as their station in life allowed. There was an active pride which came, I think, from being confident in yourself and your society, and wanting to play a dedicated role in it. In the 1960s, there was a wholesale rejection of anything that was associated with the previous generations -with adults- in terms of appearance and ways of viewing the world. Kids wanted to distance themselves. For youth, it was no longer "cool" to be "Trad Jr.," who would grow up to dress much like his father, and by association inherit his father's "stodgy" views on the world (like overt patriotism, "warmongering," support of capitalism, etc.) Instead, it was cool to wear a t-shirt and jeans, about as casual as it is possible to dress, to signify stylistically that one rejects any conventions of society beyond simply putting clothes on for the practical purpose of not getting cold in a breeze. Egalitarianism run amok, we might say. 

This movement affected the culture of the West as a whole in a profound way, because many of the hippies never "grew up," and rejected their college-age rebelliousness, and so subsequent generations of youth have adopted it as well. Steve Jobs, for example, was definitely a young hippie, and he never graduated from casual clothes to traditional businesswear, even as he built a large company. Nowadays kids could have endless debates about what sneakers or jeans are "best," but most of them don't even learn how to tie a necktie until they're in college, and even then only wear one when they have to. I predict that as time moves on and pre-60s generations become less influential in public life as they age, there will be less and less pressure to dress in a particular way, unless it is casual, as the hippies and those who embrace their sartorial approach fill the patriarch and elder-statesman roles.


----------



## MarkY (Mar 24, 2005)

mcfrankshc said:


> As a young man in high school, I always try to wear a sport coat and tie to class. The style may not be in vogue, but it elicits positive attention from the teachers, who now _*treat me much more seriously than they would a regular student*_.


Maybe true years ago, but I don't believe so. Hell, teachers dress like slobs, and when I was in high school in the 70s, I can't recall a single teacher ever wearing a tie. A young man wearing a sport coat and tie to class today would look very odd, and probably get a bunch unwanted ridicule.

Times change, some people have a hard time accepting that. Golf is my pastime, and there is no sport that has more tradition than golf (maybe Polo). People years ago used to golf in coats and ties, can you imagine that today? Just because something was "normal" years ago, doesn't mean we have to accept it, OR carry on with it.

All that said, I agree with one thing... a lot of people today dress like slobs. I'm not talking casual, I'm talking dirty, with holes, ill fitting, polyester CRAP. You can be casual and look good.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

Strangely enough, I have yet to be ostracized by my peers for wearing what I wear. Perhaps I go to a very well-mannered public school? Most of my classmates are tolerant, if not approving.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

I guess my question is: would traditional sartorial elegance ever make a comeback?


----------



## Reuben (Aug 28, 2013)

mcfrankshc said:


> I guess my question is: would traditional sartorial elegance ever make a comeback?


I'm bringing it back, by hook or by crook.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Spin Evans (Feb 2, 2013)

mcfrankshc said:


> I guess my question is: would traditional sartorial elegance ever make a comeback?


Social expectations are so low that I just don't it happening again, on a large scale, for a very long time. However, there will always be cycles where it's fashionable to choose to dress more traditionally (such as today, or perhaps 2-3 years ago).


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

There is a factor I didnt see mentioned and I believe it forms the largest part of the equation. It does tie directly with looking back to the 60s and I'm not at all sure about the how&why but I believe the cultural influence of television at the heart of it.


----------



## tigerpac (Jan 23, 2014)

^^Agreed. For the time being I'll continue to 'overdress' for the situation a notch or two.


----------



## WICaniac (Sep 25, 2013)

TV reflected but did not cause the broader social changes described by the earlier posts, and at least through the early 1960s it actually reinforced the mainstream culture against which the counter-culture rebelled. TV and advertisers eventually coopted the counterculture simply because it was profitable to do so. If TV is culpable for the decline of American style it is because its promotion of consumer materialism (which included dressing well) in the 50s and early 60s invited the counter-culture response. Without recourse to academic work on this topic, one can get a good sense of this by watching the arc of "Mad Men" throughout its several seasons.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I blame the hippies. 

Of course, I blame everything on the hippies.

Stupid hippies.

You want to be a rebel today? Wear our stuff — and don't apologize for it, either.


----------



## oxfordcloth (Feb 19, 2014)

mcfrankshc said:


> I guess my question is: would traditional sartorial elegance ever make a comeback?


I think Trad, or at least a variation of it, did have a resurgence three or four years ago...albeit in the form of Abercrombie & Fitch.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I sense a lot of people here grew up in suburbs. For every bell bottomed hippie, there were, and are, several camo-ed truck drivin' _Real Americans_ who thought suits and ties were "sissy", and that's more the vibe today than anything the counter culture had to do with. Jeans, jorts, vulgar tees, and baseball caps are far less "Woodstock" than "Dukes of Hazzard". You'll note that when presidential contenders get out of the cities, they wear boots, not Birkenstocks, buffalo plaid shirts, not tie-dye.

Just where the post-frat BMW driving "BroDudes" in their constant team jerseys fit in, I'm not sure, but there are likely no _Utne Readers_ lying around their abodes.


----------



## WICaniac (Sep 25, 2013)

phyrpowr said:


> I sense a lot of people here grew up in suburbs. For every bell bottomed hippie, there were, and are, several camo-ed truck drivin' _Real Americans_ who thought suits and ties were "sissy", and that's more the vibe today than anything the counter culture had to do with. Jeans, jorts, vulgar tees, and baseball caps are far less "Woodstock" than "Dukes of Hazzard". You'll note that when presidential contenders get out of the cities, they wear boots, not Birkenstocks, buffalo plaid shirts, not tie-dye.
> 
> Just where the post-frat BMW driving "BroDudes" in their constant team jerseys fit in, I'm not sure, but there are likely no _Utne Readers_ lying around their abodes.


You're quite right--but it was the counterculture and the attendant changes it wrought that swept away the old dress codes, leaving room for new casual alternatives to take their place. The one you describe is part of the counter-counterculture, but it also reflects the United States' longstanding celebration of "the common man."

On a less serious note, you remind me of Earl Pitts' sartorial distinction between white trash and a *******: "White trash would put on a holey, sweat-stained, dirty Iron Maiden t-shirt to go to a wedding. Now if you [be] a *******, you goin' to a wedding', you gonna clean up, shower n' shave, [and] put on a brand new Travis Tritt t-shirt."


----------



## Magnusson (Feb 4, 2014)

WICaniac said:


> On a less serious note, you remind me of Earl Pitts' sartorial distinction between white trash and a *******: "White trash would put on a holey, sweat-stained, dirty Iron Maiden t-shirt to go to a wedding. Now if you [be] a *******, you goin' to a wedding', you gonna clean up, shower n' shave, [and] put on a brand new Travis Tritt t-shirt."


Brilliant!


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

WICaniac said:


> You're quite right--but it was the counterculture and the attendant changes it wrought that swept away the old dress codes, leaving room for new casual alternatives to take their place. The one you describe is part of the counter-counterculture, but it also reflects the United States' longstanding celebration of "the common man."
> 
> On a less serious note, you remind me of Earl Pitts' sartorial distinction between white trash and a *******: "White trash would put on a holey, sweat-stained, dirty Iron Maiden t-shirt to go to a wedding. Now if you [be] a *******, you goin' to a wedding', you gonna clean up, shower n' shave, [and] put on a brand new Travis Tritt t-shirt."


You might be right on the chicken-egg aspect, though I knew people in the '50s who would *not *wear a tie, and their sport coat was some sort of Davy Crockett meets Ernest Tubb rig. On that "white trash" vs. "*******", you are spot on! Hunter Thompson in _Hell's Angels_ had a brief but really accurate exposition on the white lowest socio-economic classes. A great line was something like: "They had a fierce, inherited sense that they had been done out of something."


----------



## jimw (May 4, 2009)

You're a brave young man, MC - unless you're attending UCC, Appleby or Crescent, where this is uniform, I would think that the daily wearing of jacket and tie would lead to a lot of 'accidentally' being slammed into lockersby your classmates and other indignities.

Stick with it, of course, if its your true compass. Like many of us who considered high school a necessary bump in the road, the end is in sight.

Best,

Jim



mcfrankshc said:


> It seems that men today are no longer inclined to dress well. If one were to look at pictures from the great depression, even the poorest man on the street wore a suit and tie. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find someone wearing even a blazer, at least from where I live.
> 
> I am by no means bashing those who wear casual. But I do believe in dressing presentably, and courteously. As a young man in high school, I always try to wear a sport coat and tie to class. The style may not be in vogue, but it elicits positive attention from the teachers, who now treat me much more seriously than they would a regular student.
> 
> Still, I am curious as to what caused the ascendancy of the casual wear. Was it the summer of love?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess people these days have gotten lazy, maybe they have stopped dressing well as much as they used to.


----------



## jimw (May 4, 2009)

Well stated, Sir - I like the Cut of your Jib!!



Patrick06790 said:


> I blame the hippies.
> 
> Of course, I blame everything on the hippies.
> 
> ...


----------



## sarakali (May 19, 2013)

I think social class and perceptions have a lot to do with it as well. For the greater part of the 20th century, the affluent upper classes were ones to be emulated and admired. Ambition and aspirations to be perceived as genteel accompanied the practice of dressing well. As of late, a desire to mimic the wealthy through clothing comes across as gauche and pretentious. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing; it merely correlates to the fact that being wealthy is no longer an indication of possessing other good qualities such as intelligence or class, as was the popular notion in the early 1900s.


----------



## Joe Frances (Sep 1, 2004)

The decline of western civilization; the rise of the Silicon Valley casual look; dirty, junky Hollywood dress; the rise of cool; a reverse trend toward country "manliness" away from city dress; a decline of "codes" of civility at every level; a subtle cultural reaction of straight men against general acceptance of homosexual lifestyles; the concomitant rise of interest in men toward high tech gadgets and sports in lieu of reading and the arts; the decline of women's role as an arbiter of mens fashion; Casual Friday becoming Casual Every Day; a loss of the idea of "occasion" for men to dress; a further swift decline in gentlemanly manners and behavior; not going to Church as another reason to dress; the overall "let it all hang loose" and I have to be myself; increase in the costs of good tailored clothing; the oppressive "lemming" instinct of men to follow whatever everyone else is doing; the disassociation of style of dress and wealth and the imposition of cars, watches and jeans as a sign of status, and there you have it.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

Joe Frances said:


> The decline of western civilization; the rise of the Silicon Valley casual look; dirty, junky Hollywood dress; the rise of cool; a reverse trend toward country "manliness" away from city dress; a decline of "codes" of civility at every level; a subtle cultural reaction of straight men against general acceptance of homosexual lifestyles; the concomitant rise of interest in men toward high tech gadgets and sports in lieu of reading and the arts; the decline of women's role as an arbiter of mens fashion; Casual Friday becoming Casual Every Day; a loss of the idea of "occasion" for men to dress; a further swift decline in gentlemanly manners and behavior; not going to Church as another reason to dress; the overall "let it all hang loose" and I have to be myself; increase in the costs of good tailored clothing; the oppressive "lemming" instinct of men to follow whatever everyone else is doing; the disassociation of style of dress and wealth and the imposition of cars, watches and jeans as a sign of status, and there you have it.


I think it is very popular, and certainly politically correct today to denounce all followers of tradition as mindless conformists - certainly not true.


----------



## Hitch (Apr 25, 2012)

WICaniac said:


> TV reflected but did not cause the broader social changes described by the earlier posts, and at least through the early 1960s it actually reinforced the mainstream culture against which the counter-culture rebelled. TV and advertisers eventually coopted the counterculture simply because it was profitable to do so. If TV is culpable for the decline of American style it is because its promotion of consumer materialism (which included dressing well) in the 50s and early 60s invited the counter-culture response. Without recourse to academic work on this topic, one can get a good sense of this by watching the arc of "Mad Men" throughout its several seasons.


 Im not thinking in terms of programming per se but the fact that television had, within a single generation, entered nearly every American household a culturally historic chain of events that followed on the heels of WWII.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

I wore a tie and cardigan virtually every day of my freshman year. I transferred schools and found myself surrounded by somewhat rougher companions, so the ties and cardigans went away in favour of turtleneck sweaters, safari coats and khakis.

To be honest, I could never figure out why somebody would buy a 300 dollar leather coat from the GAP, but not a twenty dollar necktie.


----------



## Barrister & Solicitor (Jan 10, 2007)

jimw said:


> You're a brave young man, MC - unless you're attending UCC, Appleby or Crescent, where this is uniform, I would think that the daily wearing of jacket and tie would lead to a lot of 'accidentally' being slammed into lockersby your classmates and other indignities.
> 
> Stick with it, of course, if its your true compass. Like many of us who considered high school a necessary bump in the road, the end is in sight.
> 
> ...


Jim is asking good questions. Do you attend Upper Canada College or a similar school? Perhaps you're from the Rosedale or Bridle Path area?

I would never have dreamed of wearing a tie in high school. It was third year law school before I showed up to class in such rig, and that's because I worked part time in a law firm.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

Barrister & Solicitor said:


> Jim is asking good questions. Do you attend Upper Canada College or a similar school? Perhaps you're from the Rosedale or Bridle Path area?
> 
> I would never have dreamed of wearing a tie in high school. It was third year law school before I showed up to class in such rig, and that's because I worked part time in a law firm.


Thanks for the encouraging comments, everyone; I appreciate them. As for the question regarding my school - no, I do not go to UCC, though I wish I did. Rumours go that their matriculation rate to Ivy League colleges is the highest in Canada.

I must say, however, I enjoy my own public school. The people there are friendly enough to even compliment me at times, which I find rather odd.


----------



## WICaniac (Sep 25, 2013)

mcfranksmc: how many of your classmates dress as you do?

I ask because your original post seems to imply that you are a rarity, whereas my own observations of HS and college students suggest that "style" is in the midst of a renaissance driven by younger people. Students who try to dress "professionally," are likely to invite the derision not only of their classmates but of their teachers/professors as well. (I'm thinking of now-governor Scott Walker wearing a three-piece suit to classes at Marquette and explaining that he was "in the private sector"). Dressing _well_, however, is an entirely different matter--and while young men lag behind young ladies in this regard, there are rays of hope. Pop artists like Justin Timberlake and One Direction--to say nothing of professional athletes--are style icons for young people, and their influence is evident in the bow ties and leather-soled shoes I see with increasing regularity. Whether someone is mocked or admired depends entirely on how well the individual pulls off the look. Some kids can wear a tie every day and look great, others wear a tie once in a while and look pretentious. The difference is between dressing up and dressing well. I'm encouraged to see more and more young men doing the latter.

(BTW: for a student, dressing well needn't mean wearing a coat and tie. Of the best dressed male students I can recall, only one of them regularly wore a tie, and none of them wore jackets except for special occasions).


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

WICaniac said:


> mcfranksmc: how many of your classmates dress as you do?
> 
> I ask because your original post seems to imply that you are a rarity, whereas my own observations of HS and college students suggest that "style" is in the midst of a renaissance driven by younger people. Students who try to dress "professionally," are likely to invite the derision not only of their classmates but of their teachers/professors as well. (I'm thinking of now-governor Scott Walker wearing a three-piece suit to classes at Marquette and explaining that he was "in the private sector"). Dressing _well_, however, is an entirely different matter--and while young men lag behind young ladies in this regard, there are rays of hope. Pop artists like Justin Timberlake and One Direction--to say nothing of professional athletes--are style icons for young people, and their influence is evident in the bow ties and leather-soled shoes I see with increasing regularity. Whether someone is mocked or admired depends entirely on how well the individual pulls off the look. Some kids can wear a tie every day and look great, others wear a tie once in a while and look pretentious. The difference is between dressing up and dressing well. I'm encouraged to see more and more young men doing the latter.
> 
> (BTW: for a student, dressing well needn't mean wearing a coat and tie. Of the best dressed male students I can recall, only one of them regularly wore a tie, and none of them wore jackets except for special occasions).


My classmates don't necessarily dress sloppy. The more fashionable ones, in my observation, always aim for a more rakish look, complete with dark jeans and sport shirts. Nonetheless, I consider a sizeable portion of them to be sartorially ignorant. Not in the insulting sense, of course, as they simply do not know any better.

While I don't pretend to pose as the epitome of style, or worse, a garish hothead, I still cannot understand why anyone would wear t-shirts with emblazoned company logos on them. The majority of my classmates are guilty of this offence, and I can't help but to feel a bit sorry for them. Paying Hollister CO for a $30 t-shirt with free advertising? No thanks.

As for the difference between dressing up and dressing well, it really boils down to the definition of formality. As much as we trad aficionados would love to believe, style is not fixed, and nor should we attempt to limit its fluidity by imposing the sartorial image of a specific era upon innocent onlookers. My approach to formality is probably quite different from yours. Whereas the average student sees any two-buttoned jackets as "dressed up", I see it as the bare minimum to step outside the door. On this issue, we can certainly agree to disagree.

I have to admit though, dressing the way I do is expensive. My parents have no incentive to support my trad ambitions (nor do they look favourably upon it), and understandably so, because style is hardly a necessity for school. I pay everything with the money I earn from the company I co-founded, which, ironically, sells "fashionable" t-shirts to youth (sans the logos, because I hate those).


----------



## WICaniac (Sep 25, 2013)

mcfrankshc said:


> My classmates don't necessarily dress sloppy. The more fashionable ones, in my observation, always aim for a more rakish look, complete with dark jeans and sport shirts. Nonetheless, I consider a sizeable portion of them to be sartorially ignorant. Not in the insulting sense, of course, as they simply do not know any better.
> 
> While I don't pretend to pose as the epitome of style, or worse, a garish hothead, I still cannot understand why anyone would wear t-shirts with emblazoned company logos on them. The majority of my classmates are guilty of this offence, and I can't help but to feel a bit sorry for them. Paying Hollister CO for a $30 t-shirt with free advertising? No thanks.
> 
> As for the difference between dressing up and dressing well, it really boils down to the definition of formality. As much as we trad aficionados would love to believe, style is not fixed, and nor should we attempt to limit its fluidity by imposing the sartorial image of a specific era upon innocent onlookers. My approach to formality is certainly different from yours. Whereas the average student sees any two-buttoned jackets as "dressed up", I see it as the bare minimum to step outside the door. On this issue, we can certainly agree to disagree.


I'm not sure we even disagree, as I'm not knocking dressing up and didn't mean to imply that dressing up and dressing well were mutually exclusive. My point is merely that students today dress better than they did when I was a student (which is a positive development). The best dressed, however, tend to yet dress casually. Examples:

A: Wolverine or Red Wing boots, designer jeans, chambray shirt, decent watch on a custom leather band.
B: Cardigan, oxford, bow tie, flat-front khakis, loafers.
C: Tweed jacket, OCBD, cords, J&M casual wingtips.
D: Any male model from a BB "Red Fleece" ad.

In my experience, it is in fact harder for young people to dress both "up" and well for school--but I have seen a few that can do it. I am, frankly, envious of a generation that allows greater latitude for style than my own did at this age, and of individuals who can put on just about anything and look good. I had to get over the hill before I could adopt a trad style without it looking like an affectation.

Both style and formality suffered after WWII and (especially) the 1960s. Formality will never fully recover, whereas I think style is very much making a comeback.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

The modern man holds a grudge against ties, or so I've heard.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

WICaniac said:


> I'm not sure we even disagree, as I'm not knocking dressing up and didn't mean to imply that dressing up and dressing well were mutually exclusive. My point is merely that students today dress better than they did when I was a student (which is a positive development). The best dressed, however, tend to yet dress casually. Examples:
> 
> A: Wolverine or Red Wing boots, designer jeans, chambray shirt, decent watch on a custom leather band.
> B: Cardigan, oxford, bow tie, flat-front khakis, loafers.
> ...


Sorry if I misunderstood you. Yes, style is making a limited comeback, though I imagine the trend is ephemeral.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> To be honest, I could never figure out why somebody would buy a 300 dollar leather coat from the GAP, but not a twenty dollar necktie.


Wow, someone bought a leather jacket for $300.00?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

mcfrankshc said:


> The modern man holds a grudge against ties, or so I've heard.


Why is that?


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

Howard said:


> Wow, someone bought a leather jacket for $300.00?


Didn't know GAP had super 200's items


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I don't mind wearing a shirt and tie while pushing carts during late spring and summer and I'm the only one that does that and I don't mind at all.


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

Howard said:


> Why is that?


Not sure, but somehow they are a symbol of corporatism around where I live. Strange.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

mcfrankshc said:


> Didn't know GAP had super 200's items


usually a leather jacket gos for 100-200 dollars.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

sarakali said:


> I think social class and perceptions have a lot to do with it as well. For the greater part of the 20th century, the affluent upper classes were ones to be emulated and admired. Ambition and aspirations to be perceived as genteel accompanied the practice of dressing well. As of late, a desire to mimic the wealthy through clothing comes across as gauche and pretentious. This is not necessarily a good or bad thing; it merely correlates to the fact that being wealthy is no longer an indication of possessing other good qualities such as intelligence or class, as was the popular notion in the early 1900s.


There is a element of the class warrior about it.
Went out this week to a casual social event with my brother in law, and even though I was wearing jeans, I also wore a wool tie. 
Nobody really commented on the tie, although I'm sure it raised a few eyebrows, but my brother in law did manage to make a dig at my wearing a tweed jacket.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

mcfrankshc said:


> The modern man holds a grudge against ties, or so I've heard.


I think this is very true.
Apart from attending the odd wedding or funeral, I'm rarely in a situation where I'd have to wear a tie, but lately I'm making an effort to do so when I can, though I'm sure my wife thinks it weird.
It usually attracts comments, generally confused comments, as if I was wearing a top hat.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

I see ties coming back, honestly. I know more people my age (which is close to your age) who'll wear a tie when they have a choice than people ten years older than me. 

But if we have high standards, most men have never been all that well-dressed. The '30s were a great period for clothing -- but if you look at old photos, most men aren't what you'd call classically well-dressed. There have always been fashion victims.

And the Ivy look has always been about a bit of ease -- but to quote Heavy Tweed Jacket, "No Good Being Too Relaxed."


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Howard said:


> usually a leather jacket gos for 100-200 dollars.


Depends on quality. A custom jacket from someone like Langlitz will start well above that, and additional features add more. That said, my Langlitz jacket fits perfectly, has lasted for decades and shows little or no wear. So, to me, it is worth the cost. Even OTR, there are many brands that approach $1K.


----------



## Canadian (Jan 17, 2008)

I remember being in my freshman year. One day, there was an ad on TV by GAP called, "Everybody in leather". Most of my well to do friends bought jackets which I saw in the GAP for 295. 

Then there was an ad called, "Everybody in vests". Not sweater vests, but fleece zip up vests. Everybody had one.

Sadly, there was never a "Everybody in cardigans" or "Everybody in ties".


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

"Everybody in Leather"





 (YouTube)


----------



## Magnusson (Feb 4, 2014)

Leather jackets are popular in high school because they're a youthful look, and they aren't so off-puttingly formal (to people accustomed to abhor any formality and strive to look like they have not put an iota of effort into their dress) like a sport coat and tie. A leather jacket has "cool kid," "bad boy," "edgy" masculine associations that are decidedly toned down in men's dress clothing. When I was in high school, my leather jacket cost $75 at Wal-Mart and looked fine, but a lot of my friends were able to con their parents into shelling out $400-500 for theirs. 

The only men I can ever remember wearing ties when I was in school were the principal, vice-principals, and maybe one or two of the oldest male teachers (the ones who were only a year or two away from retirement.) I don't find ties as hard to pull off in non-work environments though. Many people may dress like slobs, but they still seem to accept that a tie and sportcoat aren't too excessive, but it really depends on the context. I also think younger guys have a harder time with it -not from other younger guys, but from older men who feel the young sprat is putting on airs or "too big for his britches."


----------



## mcfrankshc (Dec 8, 2013)

I think trad can be a very youthful style, if worn correctly. What I consider "too old" is when certain retiring staff members pull their pants up to the chest :tongue2:


----------



## DaveS (Dec 11, 2011)

Joe Frances said:


> The decline of western civilization; the rise of the Silicon Valley casual look; dirty, junky Hollywood dress; the rise of cool; a reverse trend toward country "manliness" away from city dress; a decline of "codes" of civility at every level; a subtle cultural reaction of straight men against general acceptance of homosexual lifestyles; the concomitant rise of interest in men toward high tech gadgets and sports in lieu of reading and the arts; the decline of women's role as an arbiter of mens fashion; Casual Friday becoming Casual Every Day; a loss of the idea of "occasion" for men to dress; a further swift decline in gentlemanly manners and behavior; not going to Church as another reason to dress; the overall "let it all hang loose" and I have to be myself; increase in the costs of good tailored clothing; the oppressive "lemming" instinct of men to follow whatever everyone else is doing; the disassociation of style of dress and wealth and the imposition of cars, watches and jeans as a sign of status, and there you have it.


Outstanding - absolutely nothing can be added to this commentary!


----------



## Magnusson (Feb 4, 2014)

I would add one thing: technology that allows us to be more comfortable without resorting to clothing to achieve that comfort. Nowadays we tend to drive everywhere, instead of walking and braving the elements, and when we get to our destination it has efficient central heating and air conditioning. This takes away any practical need for people to have a waistcoat, a jacket, an overcoat, or a hat, and if all that is jettisoned in the name of comfort (because in pleasant ambient temperatures one layer will inevitably be more comfortable than several, if only because it feels less constraining) then it's a minor step to ditch the tie as well, and then swap out the dress shirt for something with a soft collar and short sleeves. 

Such casual clothes are able to be mass-produced and are cheap, and don't depend on individual tailoring for a good fit. Thus they can be purchased in quantity, replaced frequently, and make people balk at the idea of spending more money on old-fashioned dress clothes, giving further incentive for people to wear their casual clothing in whatever circumstances they can get away with it.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

mcfrankshc said:


> I think trad can be a very youthful style, if worn correctly. What I consider "too old" is when certain retiring staff members pull their pants up to the chest :tongue2:


You will learn many things about rise as the years progress.

I say this while wearing very low-rise pants, but whatever.

A young person in tailored clothing (or tasteful casual clothing) will tend to seem a bit older, while an older person will never seem down-at-heel.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Odradek said:


> I think this is very true.
> Apart from attending the odd wedding or funeral, I'm rarely in a situation where I'd have to wear a tie, but lately I'm making an effort to do so when I can, though I'm sure my wife thinks it weird.
> It usually attracts comments, generally confused comments, as if I was wearing a top hat.


I don't think it's weird, that's the way you want to dress, so be it, why is it up to them on the way you want to look? It's none of their business.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Magnusson said:


> Leather jackets are popular in high school because they're a youthful look, and they aren't so off-puttingly formal (to people accustomed to abhor any formality and strive to look like they have not put an iota of effort into their dress) like a sport coat and tie. A leather jacket has "cool kid," "bad boy," "edgy" masculine associations that are decidedly toned down in men's dress clothing. When I was in high school, my leather jacket cost $75 at Wal-Mart and looked fine, but a lot of my friends were able to con their parents into shelling out $400-500 for theirs.
> 
> The only men I can ever remember wearing ties when I was in school were the principal, vice-principals, and maybe one or two of the oldest male teachers (the ones who were only a year or two away from retirement.) I don't find ties as hard to pull off in non-work environments though. Many people may dress like slobs, but they still seem to accept that a tie and sportcoat aren't too excessive, but it really depends on the context. I also think younger guys have a harder time with it -not from other younger guys, but from older men who feel the young sprat is putting on airs or "too big for his britches."


weren't leather jackets popular in the 1950's era? you had the jackets, slick hair and comb and bad attitude.


----------



## cumberlandpeal (May 12, 2006)

People dress down so they can look like the Hollywood rich guys who stopped dressing up to look like "the people." Or "the suits." The "casual look" began in the late 80s and has accelerated in its appeal to the present. In the 80s in Hawaii the bankers would wear Aloha shirts on Fridays. Casual Friday was born. Now people look like they are about to mow the lawn or head off to golf or to Home Depot or to bed. Or to some crazed gym where people dress like idiots.

I put on a coat and a tie every workday. Usually a suit and tie. It is called "game on" and though it annoys many it does not cause disrespect. On the contrary. I think it raises fears. Better to be feared than loved. So you can go about your days pretending to be a rich Hollywood guy, which you are decidedly not, or a hedge fund founder, which you are decidedly not, or a tech genius, who you are decidedly not, or you can look like you have some regard for yourself and some respect for those with whom you do business.


----------



## katon (Dec 25, 2006)

mcfrankshc said:


> It seems that men today are no longer inclined to dress well. If one were to look at pictures from the great depression, even the poorest man on the street wore a suit and tie. Today, you'd be hard pressed to find someone wearing even a blazer, at least from where I live.
> 
> I am by no means bashing those who wear casual. But I do believe in dressing presentably, and courteously. As a young man in high school, I always try to wear a sport coat and tie to class. The style may not be in vogue, but it elicits positive attention from the teachers, who now treat me much more seriously than they would a regular student.
> 
> Still, I am curious as to what caused the ascendancy of the casual wear. Was it the summer of love?


When studying history, there is a certain style of bias that one is warned to watch out for, called "Presentism". Presentism is looking at the past from the perspective of the present, and then assuming that that is the same way that those in the past saw it as it was happening.

Formality level of clothing is a good example of this. While the clothing worn by the poorest man in the street may seem formal to our eyes, it was not formal to their eyes. For instance, in the 1930s, formal was wearing a shirt with a detachable collar when the average man wore collar-attached shirts.

A good example of this might be a description of the 1930s formal man by Elizabeth Hawes, in her 1939 book Men Can Take It:



> I am interested in that small group of men still extant who wear stiff collars with business suits. When we later look into the nature of some of their business, we shall see that at times it is not their fault. But with those who are allowed to choose and still choose a stiff collar, we meet one of our most curious phenomena. They represent to me the most backward men of our civilization. Once when I was pregnant I met one of them and - well, it was this way:
> 
> I was pregnant and so I had to go to an obstetrician and I went once and he seemed a little formal, but pleasant enough. He did take the attitude that if I insisted upon going to work every day, I would probably just have to take the consequences of my madness, but since I had to go to work every day anyway, I ignored that. The second time I went we spoke about driving the car, and he said I had better not do it because I might have an accident. I said I had been driving for fifteen years and never had an accident, but he shook his head anyway. Well, it was then I noticed he was wearing a stiff collar. I realized he probably thought that woman's place was still in the home and there was very little I could do for him, - or he for me.


There has always been a slow drift in clothing formality. As each generation brings new clothing styles into daily life, the previous generation's styles are bumped up a level in formality, slowly climbing up the scale until their use is eventually limited to ritual and ceremonial purposes, like the powdered wig, or forgotten.

Certain styles move more slowly than others -- they are the ones that new generations have agreed to carry over from the past without too much modification; the ones that ultimately gain the reputation for being "classics".


----------



## Billax (Sep 26, 2011)

^ This, Sir, is an excellent post!


----------

