# Rolex Datejusts with a suit?



## phr33dom (May 4, 2009)

Is it appropriate to wear this mid-size Rolex with a navy blue 3 piece suit for workwear? I am considering wearing it with plain blue shirts or striped or chequed blue-on-white shirts and silver cufflinks. I know that for formal wear sports watches are frowned upon by some, as are metal bracelets. However, I woudn't classify this as a typical sports watch although it is not discreet either. 








Also, how about this version that has a mother of pearl dial with diamond markers but fitted with jubilee bracelet as above. With grey or navy 3 piece suit and a plain white shirt?









Thoughts appreciated.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Yes.

Most if not all watches are fine for work and indeed most purposes. Concerns are entirely illusory and nonsense. The Duke of Windsor and his cronies might have had funny self imposed 'rules' but in the twenty first century no one else should.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

A suit being casual dress, you can wear whatever watch you care to watch. With formal clothing, you have to start worrying about being appropriate to the occasion.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

My DateJust is more on the order of your first photo, but with a silver dial. An Explorer I looks pretty much like your first photo, without the bubble. I wear both with suits. The Explorer is my daily wear watch for all but robust sports activities. For some country club/reception/opening night-type events, I will wear an IWC. Almost nobody ever notices.


----------



## Mike147 (Jan 15, 2006)

Yes and Yes


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Rolex pretty much designed their entire line to be worn as "one watch, one lifetime." I wouldn't really worry about about the "sports watch" vs "dress watch" issue.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I am not a fan of throw type of watch pictured, but the reality is that, in this day and age, a "sports watch" means a digital black rubber gadget. Anything remotely traditional will be viewed as a "dress watch." I do think that it's entirely appropriate and traditional to stick with one watch all the time, as long as it's not too outré.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

A Rolex Datejust is a sports are casual watch. The watch was not designed to be worn with a three piece suit. There are Rolex's that can be worn with a business suit the Rolex Datejust as well but with a leather band.

It appears there are those who resent tradition , especially younger people. The Chinese
and Japanese business man would seldom be seen wearing a sports watch with a business.
suit.
When President Obama met with Chinese leaders the dress was blue suits , white shirts and burgundy ties ! 
Maybe the decline of the west especially western Europe is due to the younger generations 
rejection of western European traditions.


----------



## BespokeMex (Nov 13, 2010)

GBR said:


> Yes.
> 
> Most if not all watches are fine for work and indeed most purposes. Concerns are entirely illusory and nonsense. The Duke of Windsor and his cronies might have had funny self imposed 'rules' but in the twenty first century no one else should.


What he said.

One more note: DateJust is not a style but rather a function of the watch self adjusting the date on its own on the first day following a 30-day month. The Date watch will not do that, and you need to do it manually. Rolex watches have mostly steel, gold, and platinum wristbands, except for the Daytona that came out with in both leather, gold and platinum. Rolex makes the Cellini that for the most part has only leather writsbands, but I have always thought of it as not the top of the line but higher in precision and quality than the Tudor line.

If you are stickler for following etiquette rules, however, then these rules dictate that formal or evening wear requires silver tone accesories, including watches, as opposed to the gold tones that are more for day-wear.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

BespokeMex said:


> If you are stickler for following etiquette rules, however, then these rules dictate that formal or evening wear requires silver tone accesories, including watches, as opposed to the gold tones that are more for day-wear.


I would love to see a citation/authority for this proposition. What's your basis for claiming this?


----------



## Mike147 (Jan 15, 2006)

I say again - Yes & Yes. You can wear the Datejust with anything and no one in the US will ever question you. If they do - give em a slap and tell them to focus on something more important. 

I don't see how one can attribute the 'decline of the west' to anything associated with Men's dress. If we didn't have guys wearing jeans to work, we wouldn't have Apple, Facebook, + most innovative tech sector accomplishments. Different strokes for different folks... Clothes don't make the man - it's all about character and work ethic.


----------



## BespokeMex (Nov 13, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> I would love to see a citation/authority for this proposition. What's your basis for claiming this?


This is what I remember from being forced to read Emily Post when I was a kid, but mostly from personal experience and from my parents. Because of the nature of my father's work, he usually always had someone who would pull out a big book with all the guidelines and protocol for different kinds of formal events, day and evening, depending on the country we were in at the time.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

Apatheticviews said:


> Rolex pretty much designed their entire line to be worn as "one watch, one lifetime." I wouldn't really worry about about the "sports watch" vs "dress watch" issue.





Mike147 said:


> I say again - Yes & Yes. You can wear the Datejust with anything and no one in the US will ever question you. If they do - give em a slap and tell them to focus on something more important.
> 
> I don't see how one can attribute the 'decline of the west' to anything associated with Men's dress. If we didn't have guys wearing jeans to work, we wouldn't have Apple, Facebook, + most innovative tech sector accomplishments. Different strokes for different folks... Clothes don't make the man - it's all about character and work ethic.


I believe between these two gentlemen they have nailed the answer to the OP's question perfectly. When I was presented with my Rolex a number of years ago it symbolized a number of things. I wear it with jeans and khakis and a Tuxedo. I plan to leave it to my grandson someday. It's not really a practical timepiece given today's technology. But, if you come from my background, there is a pride of ownership that makes such questions totally without merit.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

BespokeMex said:


> If you are stickler for following etiquette rules, however, then these rules dictate that formal or evening wear requires silver tone accesories, including watches, as opposed to the gold tones that are more for day-wear.... This is what I remember from being forced to read Emily Post when I was a kid, but mostly from personal experience and from my parents. Because of the nature of my father's work, he usually always had someone who would pull out a big book with all the guidelines and protocol for different kinds of formal events, day and evening, depending on the country we were in at the time.


I'm sorry, but I believe this is flatly contrary to tradition. It is contradicted by every source I can lay hands on at the moment. Gold is considered the most traditional evening accent color for men's metal wear. (Because men's evening accessories are traditionally limited to cufflinks and stud sets, a rule about "evening accessories" is a discussion of 'links and studs.)

Alan Flusser, in _Dressing the Man_, states, "Investing in matching set of antique dress studs crafted during the late nineteenth or early twentieth century in mother-of-pearl, *18-karat gold*, or other precious metal... would be money well spent." Pg. 239. He suggests that, if a watch is worn, a gold pocket-watch with chain would be a good choice.

Bernhardt Roetzel discusses cufflinks and stud sets in _Gentleman: A Timeless Fashion_. He holds, "Gold is very appropriate, as are combinations of gold and black semiprecious stones." Pg 325. No mention is made of silver-toned evening jewelry at all.

Nicholas Antongiavanni, author of _The Suit_, similarly opined, "Studs should be of some precious but not ostentatious material, such as mother-of-pearl, *gold*, or onyx." Pg. 174. He goes on to emphasize that no watch at all should be worn with evening wear.

Turning to the respected online sources, Black Tie Guide says this: "Classic black-tie shirt studs, waistcoat studs (if applicable) and cufflinks are made of gold and onyx..." https://www.blacktieguide.com/Classic_Components/Accessories.htm

Will Boehlke, of A Suitable Wardrobe, favors gold dress sets with small stones. See, e.g., https://asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/2010/06/as-conservative-as-englishman-may-be-in.html .

Here's an old AA/Esky illustration showing gold studs:

Here's Fred Astaire wearing what appear to be gold and onyx studs:










When Henry Poole, the Savile Row house that lays a good claim to having invented the tuxedo rigged one to display on their website, they chose gold studs as well:

In short, not only is there no rule AGAINST gold accessories at night, *gold is THE most traditional and correct material/color*. Mother of pearl and onyx are also prominently mentioned in the literature, and MOP was the favorite of the DoW, but silver-toned studs and cufflinks are, in fact, slightly daring.


----------



## MikeDT (Aug 22, 2009)

Apart from the connoisseurs of the AAAC forum. Does anyone really care or notice what the watch looks like, regardless of outfit? Or even if one is wearing a watch at all?

If I see someone wearing the all too common Rolex, my first thought it's a fake. Of course that has a lot to do with my surroundings.


----------



## BespokeMex (Nov 13, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> I'm sorry, but I believe this is flatly contrary to tradition. It is contradicted by every source I can lay hands on at the moment. Gold is considered the most traditional evening accent color for men's metal wear. (Because men's evening accessories are traditionally limited to cufflinks and stud sets, a rule about "evening accessories" is a discussion of 'links and studs.)
> 
> Alan Flusser, in _Dressing the Man_, states, "Investing in matching set of antique dress studs crafted during the late nineteenth or early twentieth century in mother-of-pearl, *18-karat gold*, or other precious metal... would be money well spent." Pg. 239. He suggests that, if a watch is worn, a gold pocket-watch with chain would be a good choice.
> 
> ...


There you go. You've answered your own question. Kudos to you! Like I always say...I may not always be right, but I'm damn sure I'm never wrong!


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> Maybe the decline of the west especially western Europe is due to the younger generations rejection of western European traditions.


The decline of the West is not due to the rejection of traditions in clothing, but rather clothing is a reflection of the decline.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Gold is the traditional material for decorations and studs etc., in the evening. 

Silver is a lesser material that is more artistic and fashionable, because it is cheaper.

Wearing any sort of wristwatch with formal evening dress is not to be done.

Wearing a wristwatch with a suit is normal.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Bog said:


> The decline of the West is not due to the rejection of traditions in clothing, but rather clothing is a reflection of the decline.


Bog you are absolutely correct. Men of the upper class in the 20th century did not generally wear gold except for a gold band.

I have had a Rolex Datejust since 1968 which I purchased new for $ 340.00 ! As for as a gold pocket watch it was carried in a watch pocket , not on one's arm.
It is western traditions that is under attack by the younger generation. The traditions that 
enable the west to achieve goals undreamed of for hundreds of years.

it is not that one should not wear a wristwatch with a suit but a watch designed for sport 
casual wear and adding to poor taste with gold ! " The basic rule about men's jewelry is the less the better " John T. Malloy Dress for success.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Witness the number of threads that have people feeling uncomfortable wearing gold buttons (buttons, the horror!) on blazers.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

MikeDT said:


> Apart from the connoisseurs of the AAAC forum. Does anyone really care or notice what the watch looks like, regardless of outfit? Or even if one is wearing a watch at all?


Yes and no. As with most things, anyone can tell that something looks "off" whereas connoisseurs can tell, through practice and experience, _why_ something looks off.

The watch in the OPs initial query would draw attention mainly because of the band. I think there are worse sartorial sins, but if you have a watch with a leather band I'd favor that option. It seems that if someone goes to the trouble of wearing a 3 piece suit, it's odd to stop caring about correctness just at the wrist.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

A Datejust sounds like it would suit you well, especially if you prefer to own only one watch.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Bandit44 said:


> A Datejust sounds like it would suit you well, especially if you prefer to own only one watch.


A watch such as a Rolex Datejust brings attention to the person wearing it. . Because it is a Rolex in-addition because of the gold. People will make decisions about the persons wearing the watch. That decision can be negative or positive.

Generally a man's dress is an understatement. it is often stated that people don't dislike
Big Mercedes but dislike the person driving them. Is a stainless steel and gold Rolex any different ?

A man may wear a three piece suit with a Cartier having a lizard band , the watch shows good taste and does not make a postive or negative statement.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

phr33dom said:


> Is it appropriate to wear this mid-size Rolex with a navy blue 3 piece suit for workwear? I am considering wearing it with plain blue shirts or striped or chequed blue-on-white shirts and silver cufflinks. I know that for formal wear sports watches are frowned upon by some, as are metal bracelets. However, I woudn't classify this as a typical sports watch although it is not discreet either.
> View attachment 1993
> 
> 
> ...


Do it and don't look back. I've been whittling my watch collection down lately and have it pared down to a 38mm Hamiton Khaki Field Auto on a stainless bracelet. I wear it with suits, casually, washing the car, etc. It's never off my wrist and I never think it looks out of place.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Mr. Mac said:


> I wear it with suits, casually, washing the car, etc. It's never off my wrist and I never think it looks out of place.


But others might, and that's what counts.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> I'm sorry, but I believe this is flatly contrary to tradition. It is contradicted by every source I can lay hands on at the moment. Gold is considered the most traditional evening accent color for men's metal wear. (Because men's evening accessories are traditionally limited to cufflinks and stud sets, a rule about "evening accessories" is a discussion of 'links and studs.)
> 
> Alan Flusser, in _Dressing the Man_, states, "Investing in matching set of antique dress studs crafted during the late nineteenth or early twentieth century in mother-of-pearl, *18-karat gold*, or other precious metal... would be money well spent." Pg. 239. He suggests that, if a watch is worn, a gold pocket-watch with chain would be a good choice.
> 
> ...


Hello,
Hmm, I'm afraid you're not correct here. For a start all of your "sources" (and let's face it not one of them is an authority on jewellery in any way shape or form) simply mention gold. Gold can of course be white and in the Edwardian and Deco period it usually was white. Simply take a look at the selection of dress sets available at the world-renowned SJ Phillips and see how many are in yellow gold as opposed to platinum or white gold:

If you're taking your style references from the Victorians then yes yellow gold is more "correct". However the discovery of platinum revolutionised the making of all forms of jewellery and white metals took over as the favoured setting for diamonds in the evening and men's jewellery naturally followed suit. 
Today either colour is appropriate though obviously the choice of silver is (usually) a budget conscious decision.

Chris.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

christc, fair enough. I certainly did not intend to argue that white/silver-toned accessories were incorrect, as such, though I can see that I took a few steps down that path. I was merely trying to debunk a claim that yellow gold was somehow inappropriate; I might have overswung a bit at the end. You are doubtless correct that white gold or platinum is also entirely acceptable.


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> christc, fair enough. I certainly did not intend to argue that white/silver-toned accessories were incorrect, as such, though I can see that I took a few steps down that path. I was merely trying to debunk a claim that yellow gold was somehow inappropriate; I might have overswung a bit at the end. You are doubtless correct that white gold or platinum is also entirely acceptable.


Hello,
Point taken and it seems we're in overall agreement then. 
Merry Christmas 

Chris.


----------



## wpking (Jul 13, 2010)

You can wear this watch with any outfit. Rolex goes with everything.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

It is incorrect to wear a 'sports watch' with a suit. That means your submariner, daytona, sea dweller, etc. However, a more 'subdued' Rolex like a standard Datejust or Air-King would be splended. Having one with a diamond bezel, is a little over the top, and, frankly, gaudy. If you'd like a bit of 'glitter', get a fluted bezel, and maybe a face with a diamond or three at the 12, 9, and 6 markers. Anything more is a too much. I, personally, wear a Milgauss on a daily basis with a suit, and a submariner when wearing a blazer. It is a bit of a casual watch, but it is so different and simple, I love it. While there are many other brands I prefer, a Rolex is a part of the uniform of my industry.

The jubilee band is 'dressier' than the oyster band. I find the oyster more comfortable, and it will wear better than the jubilee (less links to sag). 

In the price range you are looking, I'm much more fond of Glashutte. Beautiful, elegant, different, and of the highest (if not higher than Rolex). When you want to spend 10k+, look at antique Pateks. I had an attorney once who wore one. Classy old Brit he was. 

Two tips: 1 - buy new. 2 - If not buying new, DEMAND that the back of the watch be opened and inspect the movement. Fakes don't have Rolex movements. From outward appearances, you can hold a $200 'Folex' next to a $5,000 real thing, and experts can't tell the difference. The chinese have gotten very good at replicas, and even put more reliable movements (Japanese) than the Rolex. 

When it comes to formal wear, I'm nearly CERTAIN (and, given time, could cite the source) that it is incorrect to wear any timepiece when wearing a tuxedo. The premise being that if you are in a tuxedo, then the time of the evening is irrelevant and it would be offensive to your host to be checking the time (such as you have somewhere better to be).


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Fakes don't have Rolex movements....


 Neither, of course, do most Rolex. :devil:

Very well said, GreatTwizz. Regardless of what is considered to be proper form, any watch that looks too casual will not look right with a lounge suit, irrespective of it's cost or brand cachet.

A big Panerai the size of my head certainly won't look good either. Let your common sense be your guide. A beautiful leather strapped platinum dress Vacheron C. will look out of place with an untucked polo and jeans where a quartz Omega Seamaster would look great. Change into a suit and the statement is reversed. Just because a jeweler or Rolex claims a watch is designed to ""go with everything" doesn't make it fact. It makes it marketing speak. Sort of like "one size fits all" socks.

Blair


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Bog said:


> But others might, and that's what counts.


Only if you care what others think.

This is the best all around watch I've found:

I've retired everything else but my Nike workout computer. Like I said, I wear it with suits (in fact I wear it with suits while selling suits), casually, washing the car (love the 100WR), etc. It wears smaller than it's 38mm size (a main reason I bought it). And to date no one has ever commented on it - which is what I like most about it.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr. Mac said:


> Only if you care what others think.
> 
> This is the best all around watch I've found:
> 
> I've retired everything else but my Nike workout computer. Like I said, I wear it with suits (in fact I wear it with suits while selling suits), casually, washing the car (love the 100WR), etc. It wears smaller than it's 38mm size (a main reason I bought it). And to date no one has ever commented on it - which is what I like most about it.


No one need comment , but one who sells suits should know better. 
But than it depends on the types of suits and in what environment.

People do make decisions about other people based on what they wear , than why wouldn't a captain and a private wear the same type uniform ? Certainly no one would compare Cary Grant with Steve McQueen , dress plays a major role in determining how one 
one is received.
Wearing a sports are casual watch with a three piece suit ask several questions about that person.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> No one need comment , but one who sells suits should know better.
> But than it depends on the types of suits and in what environment.
> 
> People do make decisions about other people based on what they wear , than why wouldn't a captain and a private wear the same type uniform ? Certainly no one would compare Cary Grant with Steve McQueen , dress plays a major role in determining how one
> ...


Apparently I do know better. That's why I wear whatever watch I want.

As to your point: If a person forms a negative opinion of me for wearing a "sport watch" with a stylish suit, crisp shirt, sharp tie, and great shoes, then I suppose that reinforces my decision to not care what anyone thinks.


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

As far as I know, Cary Grant and Fred Astaire are no longer with us. I read these threads and often wonder who it is that one might randomly encounter on the street or at work that one need worry--or derisively scoff--about wearing a metal watchband with a suit.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr. Mac said:


> Apparently I do know better. That's why I wear whatever watch I want.
> 
> As to your point: If a person forms a negative opinion of me for wearing a "sport watch" with a stylish suit, crisp shirt, sharp tie, and great shoes, then I suppose that reinforces my decision to not care what anyone thinks.


" YOU NEVER GET A SECOND CHANCE TO MAKE A FIRST IMPRESSION " Will Rogers.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> " YOU NEVER GET A SECOND CHANCE TO MAKE A FIRST IMPRESSION " Will Rogers.


Whenever Will Rogers trotted by on Trigger of course, my lasting impression was always of a horse's ass. That aside, you are correct. If I was interviewing applicants for a private banking position and a candidate was wearing such a watch that would be noted by me as it might be noted by clients. If I walked into a high end store and the service person was wearing the same, I would be less likely to believe their advice would be helpful. My loss, perhaps, but that is how I would feel.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

neskerdoo said:


> As far as I know, Cary Grant and Fred Astaire are no longer with us. I read these threads and often wonder who it is that one might randomly encounter on the street or at work that one need worry--or derisively scoff--about wearing a metal watchband with a suit.


One who appreciates a well dressed gentleman. You are correct both Cary Grant and Fred Astaire are both deceased , what they did was set a standard of elegance.
Ralph Lauren in a recent article in The Robb Report stated " They had a sense of their own style , and they just knew how to wear it ".

Ralph Lauren continued " The clothes do not make the man , in other words , the wearer makes the clothes "

There are few Hollywoods stars if any that has the elegence and style of Fred Astaire and Cary Grant today. Would either man wear a sports watch with a three piece blue suit ?


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

blairrob said:


> Whenever Will Rogers trotted by on Trigger of course, my lasting impression was always of a horse's ass.


LOL. I'm afraid you have confused your Rogersses. *Roy* Rogers was the cowboy-actor-singer with the horse named Trigger.


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> One who appreciates a well dressed gentleman. You are correct both Cary Grant and Fred Astaire are both deceased , what they did was set a standard of elegance.
> Ralph Lauren in a recent article in The Robb Report stated " They had a sense of their own style , and they just knew how to wear it ".
> 
> Ralph Lauren continued " The clothes do not make the man , in other words , the wearer makes the clothes "
> ...


Hmmm... The logic strikes me as somewhat inconsistent. If these men had a sense of their own style and knew how to wear it, what is to preclude another from knowing his own--and not necessarily identical--style, and then knowing how to wear it? Why would it matter if Grant or Astaire would wear a sports watch with a three piece suit, if, say, Peak and Pine--or hockeyinsider--can do so without a hitch? If the clothes do not make the man, one would thus imagine that there is more than one template out there for constructing a "gentleman," at least on paper.

I cannot help but picture some of the posters on this site in their respective elegant dinner jackets at their respective prestigious parties sipping single malt Scotch in the corner while some ne'er-do-well scoundrel in a silver watch--who does not know the rules but can carry a conversation--making friends (and clients) nearer to the center of the room.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> LOL. I'm afraid you have confused your Rogersses. *Roy* Rogers was the cowboy-actor-singer with the horse named Trigger.


Oh my. I'm afraid I just trotted on by the forum showing the same viewpoint I just described, didn't I? Exposed at last... :icon_pale:


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

I'd say "no", as I prefer a slimmer plain white face, black numerals, leather band. 

Which I almost never wore when I wore suits: usually wore a Seiko railroad model, white face/black numbers, but thickish and with metal bracelet.

Does that help? It confuses me, but then...


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> It is incorrect to wear a 'sports watch' with a suit. That means your submariner, daytona, sea dweller, etc. However, a more 'subdued' Rolex like a standard Datejust or Air-King would be splended. Having one with a diamond bezel, is a little over the top, and, frankly, gaudy. If you'd like a bit of 'glitter', get a fluted bezel, and maybe a face with a diamond or three at the 12, 9, and 6 markers. Anything more is a too much. I, personally, wear a Milgauss on a daily basis with a suit, and a submariner when wearing a blazer. It is a bit of a casual watch, but it is so different and simple, I love it. While there are many other brands I prefer, a Rolex is a part of the uniform of my industry.
> 
> When it comes to formal wear, I'm nearly CERTAIN (and, given time, could cite the source) that it is incorrect to wear any timepiece when wearing a tuxedo. The premise being that if you are in a tuxedo, then the time of the evening is irrelevant and it would be offensive to your host to be checking the time (such as you have somewhere better to be).


You say it's incorrect to wear a sports watch with a suit, yet you wear the Milguass daily? You do realize that the Milguass & the Explorer are nearly identical watches. I understand how you might consider the Milguass a "tool" watch instead of "sports" watch like the Submariner, however the Explorer is definitely a Sports watch (at least as defined by Rolex). Additionally, with the Milguass and Sub, we're talking about essentially the same watch. They are both Oyster Perpetual cases (one without bezel or crown guards), and have the same bands. They are both "shielded" for their intended purposes (one for water & depth, the other for magnetic).

As for wearing it with a suit... Convention refers to "sports" watches & suits. I really do think they are referring to Nylon & rubber straps (or shielded faces), not conservative business watches like the Rolexes discussed above. As an example, our beloved fictional hero James Bond always wore the Rolex Submariner (or later Omega variant) even when in suit.

As for evening wear.. keep in mind.. sometimes you will be out on the town, and you need to arrive someplace on time. A gentleman is always punctual. Having a timepiece aids in that.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

If you have a Rolex and like the look, you can - and probably should - wear it when you're wearing a business suit.

If you either don't have a Rolex, or don't like their look (typically these two characteristics are coupled, but one never knows), then don't.

There's a lot of silliness in the world.


----------



## PMRuby (Jan 13, 2010)

A few points to raise:

1. The OP is apparently in London. The majority of us, it appears, are in the US. What is considered stylish and appropriate w/r/t watches varies significantly between the two. 

2. Wearing practically any sport watch like that with cufflinks is likely to be cause both inconvenience by the caught on each other as well as related poor appearance from time to time - that's just a lot of stuff in area where there's not much real estate.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> You say it's incorrect to wear a sports watch with a suit, yet you wear the Milguass daily? You do realize that the Milguass & the Explorer are nearly identical watches. I understand how you might consider the Milguass a "tool" watch instead of "sports" watch like the Submariner, however the Explorer is definitely a Sports watch (at least as defined by Rolex). Additionally, with the Milguass and Sub, we're talking about essentially the same watch. They are both Oyster Perpetual cases (one without bezel or crown guards), and have the same bands. They are both "shielded" for their intended purposes (one for water & depth, the other for magnetic).
> 
> As for wearing it with a suit... Convention refers to "sports" watches & suits. I really do think they are referring to Nylon & rubber straps (or shielded faces), not conservative business watches like the Rolexes discussed above. As an example, _*our beloved fictional hero James Bond always wore the Rolex Submariner (or later Omega variant)*_ even when in suit.
> 
> As for evening wear.. keep in mind.. sometimes you will be out on the town, and you need to arrive someplace on time. A gentleman is always punctual. Having a timepiece aids in that.


 Not the best examples I would suggest; those instances are product placement contracts where I would suspect the brand's marketing department makes the decision as to which model the actor will wear, and it would be one appropriate to the movie's audience, not the actor's costume.

I plan to purchase a Planet Ocean in February but will never wear it with a suit or casual business attire as I dislike that mix of dress and watch. Others comfort level may vary but I suspect I won't like that combination on them either. I doubt they will care.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Mr. Mac said:


> And to date no one has ever commented on it - which is what I like most about it.


People don't regularly comment on incorrect, or even outrageous, clothing on others. If you looked good, on the other hand, you would regularly be approached by people telling you, you look great.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Starch said:


> If you have a Rolex and like the look, you can - and probably should - wear it when you're wearing a business suit.
> 
> If you either don't have a Rolex, or don't like their look (typically these two characteristics are coupled, but one never knows), then don't.
> 
> There's a lot of silliness in the world.


I agree. Criticisms of quality automobiles, shotguns, fountain pens and other similar items are often voiced by those who don't have them. Wearing an Explorer or a Datejust, I have never encountered another Rolex owner who observed that we both should have left them home and worn Dad's old Waltham. Nobody has ever said anything at all about an IWC. Perhaps I don't travel in circles where they are recognized. Or, it may be that anyone advanced to recognize one is also too polite to mention it. Starch is right about the silliness.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

blairrob said:


> Not the best examples I would suggest; those instances are product placement contracts where I would suspect the brand's marketing department makes the decision as to which model the actor will wear, and it would be one appropriate to the movie's audience, not the actor's costume.
> 
> I plan to purchase a Planet Ocean in February but will never wear it with a suit or casual business attire as I dislike that mix of dress and watch. Others comfort level may vary but I suspect I won't like that combination on them either. I doubt they will care.


Actually Ian Fleming didn't have a contract with Rolex for the books, and during the first movie no Rolex was provided by the company. It actually came directly off the wrist of the producer so that it could be in the movie at all.  In this specific case it was writer's intentions (a Rolex Oyster Perpetual) coupled with availability which established canon (the Submariner). Later in the series it was modified to be the Omega, however my point still stands that James Bond ALWAYS wore a watch, whether in suit or not (book or movie version).


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

godan said:


> I agree. Criticisms of quality automobiles, shotguns, fountain pens and other similar items are often voiced by those who don't have them. Wearing an Explorer or a Datejust, I have never encountered another Rolex owner who observed that we both should have left them home and worn Dad's old Waltham. Nobody has ever said anything at all about an IWC. Perhaps I don't travel in circles where they are recognized. Or, it may be that anyone advanced to recognize one is also too polite to mention it. Starch is right about the silliness.


Where is there any criticism of quality automobiles ,pens ,and shotguns ? Rolex is the most recognized quality watch in the world ! Rolex attracts either positive or negative reactions.
Environment does play a major role in everything we do.

The issue is a well dressed man does not wear a sports watch with a three piece suit !
Others may do as they wish. Some wear a pair of jeans with a sports jacket , poor taste.
There are standards , some wish to ignore standards.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Apatheticviews said:


> Actually Ian Fleming didn't have a contract with Rolex for the books, and during the first movie no Rolex was provided by the company. It actually came directly off the wrist of the producer so that it could be in the movie at all.  In this specific case it was writer's intentions (a Rolex Oyster Perpetual) coupled with availability which established canon (the Submariner). Later in the series it was modified to be the Omega, however my point still stands that James Bond ALWAYS wore a watch, whether in suit or not (book or movie version).


The literary Bond did wear a Rolex Oyster Perpetual watch (double as brass knuckles ) Personal car 1933 Bentley , company car , Aston Martin DB3.
The movie version of Bond was quite different , example Bond smoked sixty Chesterfields a 
day in the book , the movie version did not smoke.


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

This discussion has taken an absurdly fictional turn. This cannot be how we should make decisions on what to wear/ what goes with what, can it?


----------



## chrstc (Jun 11, 2007)

Hello,
Sadly I think if you surveyed a number of tailors about the looks that their customers ask for and if you asked, say, T&A about the number of customers who come in asking for a copy of a shirt you would find that Bond holds amazing sway. I find it rather depressing myself too but that is why companies are willing to pay so much to have their products featured in the franchise.
Back on the subject of watches, one of my favourite designs of all was apparently inspired by a short passage in From Russia With Love.
https://www.luxurybazaar.com/items/..._1966_-_Full_Calendar_RG__White__Leather.html

Now there's a watch to wear with a 3 piece suit!!
GP actually came up with this watch as a direct result of the reference in the book but some 40 years later. Bond is powerful stuff.

It seems that to most people here the ideal examples of dress are a make-believe spy and a nazi-sympathiser turncoat who "opted out" of the Royal family...  I suppose the common response would be that admiring their dress doesn't have to lead to admiring anything else but I do still find them both to be bizarre role models in any way shape or form.

Just playing devil's advocate,

Chris.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> Actually Ian Fleming didn't have a contract with Rolex for the books, and _*during the first movie no Rolex was provided by the company. It actually came directly off the wrist of the producer so that it could be in the movie at all.  In this specific case it was writer's intentions*_ (a Rolex Oyster Perpetual) coupled with availability which established canon (the Submariner). Later in the series it was modified to be the Omega, however my point still stands that James Bond ALWAYS wore a watch, whether in suit or not (book or movie version).


 _I hate being wrong. Are you my ex? Finally catching me in an error? Hope you're still enjoying my house_:mad2:

Blair
(formerly honeybunch)


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> The literary Bond did wear a Rolex Oyster Perpetual watch (double as brass knuckles ) Personal car 1933 Bentley , company car , Aston Martin DB3.
> The movie version of Bond was quite different , example Bond smoked sixty Chesterfields a
> day in the book , the movie version did not smoke.


silverporsche, I don't have all the books, but I seem to have retained the impression that the Bentley might have been a Service vehicle (confiscated) and that Bond was "assigned" another vehicle later, same reasons for the Beretta>Walther upgrade. Can you recall?

But I also have some memory of Bond discussing the work he had done on the Bentley, indicating it was personal vehicle. Oh, man, now I gotta go hit the used book store...


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

phyrpowr said:


> silverporsche, I don't have all the books, but I seem to have retained the impression that the Bentley might have been a Service vehicle (confiscated) and that Bond was "assigned" another vehicle later, same reasons for the Beretta>Walther upgrade. Can you recall?
> 
> But I also have some memory of Bond discussing the work he had done on the Bentley, indicating it was personal vehicle. Oh, man, now I gotta go hit the used book store...


Ian Fleming himself owned two Thunderbirds and an Avanti. I would guess that whenever there is a discussion concerning men's clothing today , James Bond a fictional characer
is mention. Why because there are very few well-dressed men in Hollywood today especially
young actors. Where Astaire , Gable , Grant , Cooper , Etc, set examples of elegant dress
sadly men today in Hollywood dress very poorly and could care less about proper dress.

The new Bond may end that , he is both short and ugly ! More of the Bruce Willis type.
Those two actors would wear a sports watch with a three piece suit and who would notice.
Times are changing.


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> Ian Fleming himself owned two Thunderbirds and an Avanti. I would guess that whenever there is a discussion concerning men's clothing today , James Bond a fictional characer
> is mention. Why because there are very few well-dressed men in Hollywood today especially
> young actors. Where Astaire , Gable , Grant , Cooper , Etc, set examples of elegant dress
> sadly men today in Hollywood dress very poorly and could care less about proper dress.
> ...


Perhaps one who is so judgmental about not only rules of attire, but also of a man's height and facial appearance (really?) should learn the difference between "could" and "couldn't"? Now that is an easy rule.


----------



## Mr. Mac (Mar 14, 2008)

Bog said:


> People don't regularly comment on incorrect, or even outrageous, clothing on others. If you looked good, on the other hand, you would regularly be approached by people telling you, you look great.


Is _that _how it works?

You assume that because you'd never wear a suit with a "sport" watch (whatever that means) that 1.) No one else should, and 2.) It's improper. Problem is - you're wrong. There's no fashion commandments outside our own perceived peccadilloes. This "rule", along with a host of others (like no button downs with suits, no loafers with suits, etc.) have as many adherents as detractors, and thus the moral of the story is: wear what you like, develop your own personal style, keep your mind open to new ideas, and enjoy getting dressed in the morning.

And like I mentioned earlier, I don't need compliments from strangers to feel confident in my own clothes and trade.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

neskerdoo said:


> Perhaps one who is so judgmental about not only rules of attire, but also of a man's height and facial appearance (really?) should learn the difference between "could" and "couldn't"? Now that is an easy rule.


We live in a judgemental world like it or not. Tall men are preferred as are facially attractive men. Rules of attire are 
a part of the western European tradition dating back to the Romans. As an english major you should understand that !
An easy rule.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr. Mac said:


> Is _that _how it works?
> 
> You assume that because you'd never wear a suit with a "sport" watch (whatever that means) that 1.) No one else should, and 2.) It's improper. Problem is - you're wrong. There's no fashion commandments outside our own perceived peccadilloes. This "rule", along with a host of others (like no button downs with suits, no loafers with suits, etc.) have as many adherents as detractors, and thus the moral of the story is: wear what you like, develop your own personal style, keep your mind open to new ideas, and enjoy getting dressed in the morning.
> 
> And like I mentioned earlier, I don't need compliments from strangers to feel confident in my own clothes and trade.


Tradition sir , There are those who reject tradition. There is also proper attaire , , there are also those that reject proper attire. 
Wear what you like may not always be exceptable. Some fine resturants rquire jackets others ties. 
I would assume that one enjoys dressing when one is traditional as well. A blue three piece
suit and a sports watch does appear a little odd doesn't it ? 
Fashion commandments , is it any different than eating commandments ? why not fashion ettiquette or eating ettiquette ? 
I would say that one may follow eating ettiquette and dressing ettiquette and still have an open mind.
There was a scene in "Wallstreet " when Gordon Gekko informed the young buddy that he could not come into the resturant dressed like that and handed him a card to see his tailor.
Very interesting. Was this "Club 21" in New York ?


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> The literary Bond did wear a Rolex Oyster Perpetual watch (double as brass knuckles ) Personal car 1933 Bentley , company car , Aston Martin DB3.
> The movie version of Bond was quite different , example Bond smoked sixty Chesterfields a
> day in the book , the movie version did not smoke.


Movie Bond smokes as well, all the way up until Pierce Brosnon's rendition (19 films in). If I recall correctly, the opening seen of Dr. No has Sean Connery lighting up.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

blairrob said:


> Neither, of course, do most Rolex. :devil:
> 
> Very well said, GreatTwizz. Regardless of what is considered to be proper form, any watch that looks too casual will not look right with a lounge suit, irrespective of it's cost or brand cachet.
> 
> ...


Blair, not sure what you are referring to in terms of the movement. Every Rolex I've owned (more than enough), has had a Rolex movement, the majority of them COSC certified. In fact, Rolex is the largest manufacturer of certified chronometers in the world. I can't say I'm aware of a Rolex that doesn't have a Rolex movement, but it'd be a pleasure to be educated. It is absolutely agreed that most Panerais look silly with a suit. The Luminor (and similar) case is simply too big for dress.


----------



## PatentLawyerNYC (Sep 21, 2007)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Blair, not sure what you are referring to in terms of the movement. Every Rolex I've owned (more than enough), has had a Rolex movement, the majority of them COSC certified. In fact, Rolex is the largest manufacturer of certified chronometers in the world. I can't say I'm aware of a Rolex that doesn't have a Rolex movement, but it'd be a pleasure to be educated. It is absolutely agreed that most Panerais look silly with a suit. The Luminor (and similar) case is simply too big for dress.


As far as I know, every modern Rolex uses a Rolex manufacture movement. I could be wrong. I do know that for a while the Daytona used a Zenith movement, but I'm pretty sure those days have passed.

As for Panerai, I found it interesting that serveral models of vintage Panerai used Rolex movements.

And I generally agree that the Luminors are usually too chunky for dress; but I find it works in every other situation. A gold Radiomir is a better fit for dress IMHO.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> You say it's incorrect to wear a sports watch with a suit, yet you wear the Milguass daily? You do realize that the Milguass & the Explorer are nearly identical watches. I understand how you might consider the Milguass a "tool" watch instead of "sports" watch like the Submariner, however the Explorer is definitely a Sports watch (at least as defined by Rolex). Additionally, with the Milguass and Sub, we're talking about essentially the same watch. They are both Oyster Perpetual cases (one without bezel or crown guards), and have the same bands. They are both "shielded" for their intended purposes (one for water & depth, the other for magnetic).
> 
> As for wearing it with a suit... Convention refers to "sports" watches & suits. I really do think they are referring to Nylon & rubber straps (or shielded faces), not conservative business watches like the Rolexes discussed above. As an example, our beloved fictional hero James Bond always wore the Rolex Submariner (or later Omega variant) even when in suit.
> 
> As for evening wear.. keep in mind.. sometimes you will be out on the town, and you need to arrive someplace on time. A gentleman is always punctual. Having a timepiece aids in that.


Apathetic, I do agree with you that they are quite similar watches, but I'd compare a Milgauss to an Explorer before a sub. Yes, the (modern variant) Explorer is only 1mm smaller, but with the smooth bezel, smooth crystal, lack of crown guard, and sticks on the face, I have a hard time using a sub for comparison. Also, the Milgauss has polished centerlinks on the bracelet, whereas the Explorer and sub both are just brushed. Really, can anyone consider a watch with an orange lightning bolt for a second hand a dress watch? No. I'm not even an engineer, nor need the magnetic shielding, I simply like the aesthetics and uniqueness. A datejust with an unusual face could serve the same purpose. But no orange second hand  I wear it as a daily piece, even on the harley with jeans and a t-shirt. An Explorer used to be the order of the day, and I even gashed the bezel really good on a control arm while doing a brake job. It was clear to read, discreet, and colleagues in the repair industry never blinked twice at it.

I understand that many men choose to wear their sub with a suit, but I simply find that watch just too casual if you are looking to purchase something with the express intent of wearing with a suit. My definition of a sports watch does vary from that of Rolex; I'm with you: nylon/rubber straps, bezels with a purpose, chronos, etc. A dress watch should tell time and be attractive. No more, no less.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

PatentLawyerNYC said:


> As far as I know, every modern Rolex uses a Rolex manufacture movement. I could be wrong. I do know that for a while the Daytona used a Zenith movement, but I'm pretty sure those days have passed.


Correct. Current Daytonas use the 4130 movement. Which happens to say both 'Daytona' and '4130' on the movement.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> A blue three piece suit and a sports watch does appear a little odd doesn't it ?


Assuming that by "sports watch," you mean a Rolex: no, at least not to me.



> Fashion commandments , is it any different than eating commandments ? why not fashion ettiquette or eating ettiquette ?


I think the real question isn't etiquette vs. no etiquette, but imaginary etiquette vs. actual etiquette.



> Was this "Club 21" in New York ?


There is not, so far as I am aware, any "Club 21" in New York. There is, however, The 21 Club.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Incidentally, you do know that grilled cheese sandwiches must be eaten with a knife and fork, right? Because the bread is cooked together with the cheese, the "hands ok" rule that applies to closed-face sandwiches is inapplicable. I mean, you wouldn't eat a salad with your hands just because it has croutons in it, would you? Same thing for French toast (which is why a Monte Cristo must also be eaten with a knife and fork).

And, of course, you can never lift a bite to your mouth with the fork in your left hand.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Apathetic, I do agree with you that they are quite similar watches, but I'd compare a Milgauss to an Explorer before a sub. Yes, the (modern variant) Explorer is only 1mm smaller, but with the smooth bezel, smooth crystal, lack of crown guard, and sticks on the face, I have a hard time using a sub for comparison. Also, the Milgauss has polished centerlinks on the bracelet, whereas the Explorer and sub both are just brushed. Really, can anyone consider a watch with an orange lightning bolt for a second hand a dress watch? No. I'm not even an engineer, nor need the magnetic shielding, I simply like the aesthetics and uniqueness. A datejust with an unusual face could serve the same purpose. But no orange second hand  I wear it as a daily piece, even on the harley with jeans and a t-shirt. An Explorer used to be the order of the day, and I even gashed the bezel really good on a control arm while doing a brake job. It was clear to read, discreet, and colleagues in the repair industry never blinked twice at it.
> 
> I understand that many men choose to wear their sub with a suit, but I simply find that watch just too casual if you are looking to purchase something with the express intent of wearing with a suit. My definition of a sports watch does vary from that of Rolex; I'm with you: nylon/rubber straps, bezels with a purpose, chronos, etc. A dress watch should tell time and be attractive. No more, no less.


I think we agree in general terms. Explorer = Milguass (mostly). My point bout the Milguass and the Sub was ~stretching~ that the Explorer is part of the "Sports" collection, and if A = B and B = C, then A = C. The watches are all very comparable, and if it wasn't for the fact that Rolex refers to them as a "Sports" watch, I doubt anyone else would.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Starch said:


> Assuming that by "sports watch," you mean a Rolex: no, at least not to me.
> 
> I think the real question isn't etiquette vs. no etiquette, but imaginary etiquette vs. actual etiquette.
> 
> There is not, so far as I am aware, any "Club 21" in New York. There is, however, The 21 Club.


There are many sports watches not just Rolex. Etiquette is defined as -rules governing socially acceptable
behavior . As for as Club 21 or The 21 Club , the movie " Wallstreet " in one scene dealt with the improper 
dress of the younger Buddy as viewed by Gordon Gekko in a high end New York restaurant.

Rolex manufactures several types of watches , not all are sports watches , the Rolex Datejust is a sports watch.
One may wear what one chooses . Should one wear a Rolex Datejust with a blue three piece suit is the question , an excellent question.
As I view the question the answer is no. I would think a well dressed gentleman would prefer a watch less sportier.


----------



## oldschoolprep (Jun 21, 2007)

Hey, Boq - Does that mean that I should permanently ensconce my new Aston Martin in the garage because somebody might be offended by it? 

Suggest you read David Riesman's "The Lonely Crowd" to update your perspective. "Trads" by nature are inner-directed. In spite of claims to the contrary by the diversity crowd, America's protracted slouching toward other-directedness has not worked out too well for us. 

Merry Christmas!


----------



## neskerdoo (Jun 23, 2009)

Wait, we are now looking to fictional terrible people for social rules? All is surely lost.


----------



## tomchicago (Jan 24, 2009)

any rolex looks good with a suit. just different statements depending on model.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> There are many sports watches not just Rolex.


I suppose that's true, though its relevance escapes me, as _this_ thread is about Rolexes.

Though it's not what you said, I suppose it's also true that there are many Rolexes, and some of them - many of the ladies' models, at least - aren't appropriate for wearing with a men's suit (except, perhaps, by Annie Hall).

To clarify: If by "sports watch," you mean a Rolex like those in the original post: no, it wouldn't look odd with a blue three-piece suit.



> Etiquette is defined as -rules governing socially acceptable
> behavior .


There's no issue with the definition of the word "etiquette;" there's an issue with defining what the rules actually are. I'm taking the position that someone who makes up imaginary "rules," then decries those who don't follow them as advancing the downfall of etiquette, is not only confused, but perhaps wilfully perverse. If one were to frame a devilish plan to destroy all regard for etiquette, a clever approach might be to convince people that it is a set of 
arbitrary rules that nobody follows.



> As for as Club 21 or The 21 Club , the movie " Wallstreet " in one scene dealt with the improper dress of the younger Buddy as viewed by Gordon Gekko in a high end New York restaurant.


I don't know about James Bond, but holding up Gordon Gekko as a (fictional) arbiter of etiquette is more than a little odd. Gekko was an exemplar of crass showiness, not etiquette.


----------



## blairrob (Oct 30, 2010)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> Blair, not sure what you are referring to in terms of the movement. Every Rolex I've owned (more than enough), has had a Rolex movement, the majority of them COSC certified. In fact, Rolex is the largest manufacturer of certified chronometers in the world. I can't say I'm aware of a Rolex that doesn't have a Rolex movement, but it'd be a pleasure to be educated. It is absolutely agreed that most Panerais look silly with a suit. The Luminor (and similar) case is simply too big for dress.


 It is I who stands corrected. It is Omega using F. Piguet and ETA based movements I was thinking of, though I am aware their new 8500 movement is inhouse.

I am spending Christmas in an internet inaccessible area so I will say Happy Christmas for all of those celebrating.
Cheers, all!

Blair


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Starch said:


> I suppose that's true, though its relevance escapes me, as _this_ thread is about Rolexes.
> 
> Though it's not what you said, I suppose it's also true that there are many Rolexes, and some of them - many of the ladies' models, at least - aren't appropriate for wearing with a men's suit (except, perhaps, by Annie Hall).
> 
> ...


This last one I couldn't let get away. The scenes and dialogue in "Wallstreet " are the most quoted of any motion pictures in the past 40 years , Gekko's greed speech may have won Michael Douglas an academy Award ! 
Michael Douglas clothing was designed by Alan Flusser for the movie " Wallstreet " Of course the character Gekko
was " showiness " in the movie he was acting the part of a well dressed billionaire ! His extravagant elaborateness
was meant to reflect his wealth and attitude concerning greed.

If you saw the motion and have any understanding of dress than You might understand what the character in the movie was referring to about proper dress in a proper setting. 
Many of us today thumb our noses up at at proper dress, dress etiquette , and a host of traditional values. Again wearing a Rolex Datejust with a three piece suit in my opinion is not proper dress.
By the way I own a Rolex Datejust purchased in 1970 and a Rolex Submariner purchased a few years later. Than the watches sold for less than $500.00 each !
We just agree to disagree.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Hunh?*



Starch said:


> And, of course, you can never lift a bite to your mouth with the fork in your left hand.


Thus spake Andy:

"There are two styles of eating, Continental and American. In the Continental style, which is more practical, the knife (for right handed folks) is kept in the right hand and the fork in the left, with no switching unlike the zigzag practice of the American style where the fork is changed from the left hand to the right after cutting food."

I, a rebellious lefty - really ambidextrous - that cut with my right and refused to switch hands while eating, was never more grateful to be in Europe in the service, when I looked around and saw everyone around me were eating like I always had:aportnoy:


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Blueboy1938 said:


> Thus spake Andy....


I was, of course, holding that up as a metaphor for some of the silliness others have advanced in this thread. I tend to eat "Continental" myself, just because it's more practical.

I may also have been remembering quick throw-away in an episode of "Twin Peaks."


----------



## Erok32 (Feb 27, 2015)

Resurrecting an ancient thread just to laugh at the silliness....


----------



## ADutchmaninNY (Oct 3, 2017)

I was wondering...


----------



## CMT (Mar 11, 2014)

Erok32 said:


> Resurrecting an ancient thread just to laugh at the silliness....


Agreed:










Absolutely comical.


----------



## never behind (Jul 5, 2016)

That was an interesting read. Who knew the myriad reasons for the decline of the West?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hebrew Barrister (Oct 1, 2017)

Starch said:


> And, of course, you can never lift a bite to your mouth with the fork in your left hand.


As a lefty, I say, down with that rule. I ignore it daily.


----------



## Dhaller (Jan 20, 2008)

I'm happy to have learned all these rules during my mercilessly overcorrect upbringing so that I now know what to ignore.

I generally wear a Rolex Sea Dweller with a suit. My wife - who is more respectful of sartorial rules that I am - has for years implored me to buy a Breguet Classique (some specific model she likes) for dress wear, but my Rolex has seen me through some serious adventures in my field-work years (Antarctica, the Himalayas, anywhere unbelievably windy, cold, and inhospitable), so I don't see why it can't come along to dinner at The French Laundry or a night at the Symphony!

DH


----------

