# Pocket square when not wearing a tie?



## chicagoguy (Dec 8, 2009)

Good afternoon,

I'm a long time lurker and am everyday learning something new from this site it seems. I've recently read through a few threads regarding pocket squares and am slightly embarrassed to say that I have no pocket squares in my possession. My line of work does not require a suit or even jacket so I'm generally at least wearing a jacket out in the evening and of course a suit for special occasions and any other opportunity. 

My question is regarding times when I'll wear a navy blazer out without a tie. Is this a time when a pocket square should/can be worn or are they best left for more formal dress?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

Its absolutely fine to wear a PS sans tie.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Pocket squares can be worn with or without a tie.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

It's overreaching. If you skip the tie, skip the square.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

I pretty much always wear a PS with a jacket, tie or not. PS are fun. I like them. So, I wear them.


----------



## PTB in San Diego (Jan 2, 2010)

Absolutely OK, if you have the confidence to carry it off. Might be on the "sporty" or even a bit raffish side, at least if it is colorful. If you will be self-conscious, then perhaps it would be an error. I do it, but I only learned "how" in very recent years. Nowadays I rarely wear a sportcoat without a pocket square. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a PS w/o tie.

https://www.effortlessgent.com/how-to-wear-a-pocket-square/


----------



## TomS (Mar 29, 2010)

In an increasingly tieless world, surely the pocket square is a way for a man to add some colour back into what can be terribly monochromatic suit/shirt combinations, no?


----------



## Grayson (Feb 29, 2008)

Wearing a pocket square gives me a shot at maintaining a certain amount of flair and style in our no-tie world. I do it all the time, and so another "yes" vote here.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Though I only wear a jacket without a tie once a week at most, I feel 'undressed' if I don't have a PS in place, tie or not.

Absolutely wear the PS. Start at your local Men's Warehouse for pocket squares; nice silks start at $6. Just don't buy any suits there!!!


----------



## mikeh (Feb 18, 2011)

Another yes vote here. I only started wearing a PS within the last 6 months or so, but have come to really enjoy it. I started (you do as you like, of course) with white linen, which can go anywhere and do anything, but have added quite a few others, simple striped patterns in cotton or silk, as well as other patterns in silk or, uh, undefined materials of silky texture. (When you buy them cheap at the thrift, you don't always get to know the material, you just have to accept it for whatever it is.) My latest favorite are a couple of cream colored silk ones. The silk is lighter than the linen, and the cream is more subtle than the stark white of the linen. I feel that it goes with a SC and no-tie better. 
Go for it. Get some colors - people are going to notice it for a while no matter how subtle you are, you might as well get to have fun (although I haven't managed to actually wear the fuchsia square that I own).


Of course, if you ever take this to the Trad forum, stick with white in a "TV square" fold!


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

chicagoguy:

Welcome (and watch the Events Forum for some great get-togethers from the other Chicago Members)!

*Yes!!!*

Without a necktie you *"need"* a pocket square to add some personality and pizazz to your ensemble!


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Hmmm . . . then a trip to a good mens' store for a bunch of pocket squares is in order. I only own one at present.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

TomS said:


> In an increasingly tieless world, surely the pocket square is a way for a man to add some colour back into what can be terribly monochromatic suit/shirt combinations, no?


+1. This is exactly why the pocket square is so important. If we can't wear a tie, the PS is the best way to show some personality.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

This is OK without a tie.


----------



## kakinuma-kun (May 7, 2011)

*Yes*

I wear a pocket square to add some color to a blue blazer whether wearing white or patterned shirts.

On the other hand, the only time that I use a pocket square when wearing a tie is with a white pocket square paired with a white shirt. I simply prefer that the tie and pocket square not clash and a white pocket square and white shirt are easy and clean looking.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Andy said:


> chicagoguy:
> Without a necktie you *"need"* a pocket square to add some personality and pizazz to your ensemble!


I agree wholeheartedly.

I often wear sport jackets without a tie, and occasionally wear suits without one as well, however I _never _wear a jacket without a pocket square.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> It's overreaching. If you skip the tie, skip the square.


 I strongly agree. In any case, the jacket-without-a-tie-look is distasteful to me.


----------



## chicagoguy (Dec 8, 2009)

Wow! Thanks to everyone for all of the replies. I was actually on the Men's warehouse website yesterday and they're having a buy one get one sale on most items including silk squares. Looks like I'll be heading over there in the next day or so to start my collection. Thanks again for all of the replies, the forum has and is helping me build a decent wardrobe. If only my wallet could keep up.... 

Luckily for me the pocket squares are a small investment.


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

chicagoguy said:


> Wow! Thanks to everyone for all of the replies. I was actually on the Men's warehouse website yesterday and they're having a buy one get one sale on most items including silk squares. Looks like I'll be heading over there in the next day or so to start my collection. Thanks again for all of the replies, the forum has and is helping me build a decent wardrobe. If only my wallet could keep up....
> 
> Luckily for me the pocket squares are a small investment.


MWs squares are so cheap that you'll have no trouble!!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

TomS said:


> In an increasingly tieless world, surely the pocket square is a way for a man to add some colour back into what can be terribly monochromatic suit/shirt combinations, no?





Grayson said:


> Wearing a pocket square gives me a shot at maintaining a certain amount of flair and style in our no-tie world. I do it all the time, and so another "yes" vote here.





Matt S said:


> +1. This is exactly why the pocket square is so important. If we can't wear a tie, the PS is the best way to show some personality.


I agree with all of these statements.



williamson said:


> I strongly agree. In any case, the jacket-without-a-tie-look is distasteful to me.


Oh dear, this again?!


----------



## LeggeJP1 (Dec 3, 2010)

Likewise with the above--PS is a great way to add some color to your ensemble.


----------



## Hanzo (Sep 9, 2009)

TheGreatTwizz said:


> MWs squares are so cheap that you'll have no trouble!!!


How did I not realize this???
I just looked them up and feel like I've really over spent on PS in the past. I'll have to make a trip while they're doing their buy one get one. $5 pocket squares? Yes please!


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Got a couple myself. Then went over to Nordstrom's where the first short sleeved dress shirts of the season are in. Summer's coming and it's getting too warm for long sleeves. Unfortunately only the white is available in spread collar. The yellow, pink, lavender and blue are all button down.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

Shirtmaker Carl Goldberg, an AAAC member, has some excellent values--much better than whatever Chinese-made dreck is on tap at Men's Wearhouse:

https://cego.myshopify.com/collections/pocket-squares


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Absolutely wear the square when you don't have a tie. You need the square more than ever. I think Esquire magazine once said, "Pocket squares are the new ties." A pocket square says, "I know how to dress in an elegant and sophisticated manner. I have just omitted the tie because I feel like being more casual today."


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> short sleeved dress shirts


My mother used to make me wear them when I was a boy. :icon_smile_big:

But I suppose I'm something of hypocrite as I do wear short sleeved sport shirts, and sometimes with a jacket.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I'm willing to dress up but not to the extent that I'm miserable.  Somehow it seems illogical to wear a featherweight coat and trousers with a long-sleeved, broadcloth shirt. I know the colonial British did but that's _no_ excuse. They wore red flannel kidney pads, too.


----------



## Tooch (Jun 26, 2010)

I wear pocket squares sans tie all the time. We're at an odd cultural point where, if you wear a bit of silk around your neck, you're "dressy," but if you stuff it in your breast pocket, it just livens things up. So, liven things up!


----------



## mikeh (Feb 18, 2011)

williamson said:


> I strongly agree. In any case, the jacket-without-a-tie-look is distasteful to me.


I like it better than the tie without a jacket look. Maybe because I'm on a university campus and I see that whenever juniors have job interviews.


----------



## mikeh (Feb 18, 2011)

Oldsarge said:


> I'm willing to dress up but not to the extent that I'm miserable.  Somehow it seems illogical to wear a featherweight coat and trousers with a long-sleeved, broadcloth shirt. I know the colonial British did but that's _no_ excuse. They wore red flannel kidney pads, too.


Oldsarge, don't tell me you've stopped wearing flannel kidney pads!


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Grayson said:


> Wearing a pocket square gives me a shot at maintaining a certain amount of flair and style in our no-tie world. I do it all the time, and so another "yes" vote here.


Ditto. I bet I own more pocket squares now than ties.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

mikeh said:


> I like it better than the tie without a jacket look. Maybe that's because I'm on a university campus and I see it whenever juniors have job interviews.


Which look do you mean by "it" in your second sentence?
This is probably a UK rather than a USA viewpoint, but to me long-sleeved shirt, belted flat-front plain-bottom trousers (cotton or wool) and tie look fine in the summer, and were my standard hot-weather wear as a teacher for over 30 years.
I'm sure I've given the reasons for my views on this several times on this forum, but if I were to do so this time I should get another yawn from Jovan.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Oldsarge said:


> Got a couple myself. Then went over to Nordstrom's where the first short sleeved dress shirts of the season are in. Summer's coming and it's getting too warm for long sleeves. Unfortunately only the white is available in spread collar. The yellow, pink, lavender and blue are all button down.





Oldsarge said:


> I'm willing to dress up but not to the extent that I'm miserable.  Somehow it seems illogical to wear a featherweight coat and trousers with a long-sleeved, broadcloth shirt. I know the colonial British did but that's _no_ excuse. They wore red flannel kidney pads, too.


Short sleeves = less authority to most eyes. If you are going to wear them, at least forego the tie and wear them as a sport shirt.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

As a retired middle school teacher/sergeant major, I've _never_ had any problem with a lack of authority. Any six foot, blued-eyed white guy is, for better or worse, the authority figure in this society and will remain so for the foreseeable future. That may be politically incorrect but that doesn't make it untrue.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> As a retired middle school teacher/sergeant major, I've _never_ had any problem with a lack of authority. Any six foot, blued-eyed white guy is, for better or worse, the authority figure in this society and will remain so for the foreseeable future. That may be politically incorrect but that doesn't make it untrue.


Isn't the President of the United States a six foot, brown-eyed black guy? That's a good authority figure.

I certainly agree you are unlikely to lack authority, though something could be missing, judging from your post


----------



## mikeh (Feb 18, 2011)

williamson said:


> Which look do you mean by "it" in your second sentence?
> This is probably a UK rather than a USA viewpoint, but to me long-sleeved shirt, belted flat-front plain-bottom trousers (cotton or wool) and tie look fine in the summer, and were my standard hot-weather wear as a teacher for over 30 years.
> I'm sure I've given the reasons for my views on this several times on this forum, but if I were to do so this time I should get another yawn from Jovan.


I have clarified (I hope!) my earlier post. I did mean the tie-without-a-jacket look. I grew up in the American South, and always viewed tie without jacket as an acceptable compromise with the heat, but still as a compromise. I never liked it, and living in places with milder summers, I don't do it any more. If I don't have to wear a jacket, I don't assume I'm required to wear a tie either. I'm not saying there's anything actually wrong with any of the combinations, this is just what I prefer. In fact, I sometimes remove my jacket while teaching, and so I end up in the tie without jacket combination - but the jacket is there waiting for me when we're done "geting down to business."

And to reiterate (and keep the post on topic) when I wear a jacket without a tie, I nearly always wear a pocket square.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Joe Beamish said:


> Isn't the President of the United States a six foot, brown-eyed black guy? That's a good authority figure.


And about damned time, too. Things _are_ changing but slowly.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I'm good. I don't need too much more "change"


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

mikeh said:


> I did mean the tie-without-a-jacket look. I grew up in the American South, and always viewed tie without jacket as an acceptable compromise with the heat, but still as a compromise. I never liked it, and living in places with milder summers, I don't do it any more.


Fair enough - but I suspect that the Wisconsin summer is hotter than ours - I'd go without a jacket from 25C/77F which is about my upper level of comfort - I wilt at higher temperatures.


> If I don't have to wear a jacket, I don't assume I'm required to wear a tie either.


 This also makes good sense to me.
Americans seem more reluctant to remove their jackets than are Britons (more tolerant of higher temperatures, perhaps?) and also wear pocket squares a great deal more. Most Britons would not, I think, wear a pocket square with anything less formal than a lounge (business) suit.


----------



## gordgekko (Nov 12, 2004)

TMMKC said:


> Ditto. I bet I own more pocket squares now than ties.


I haven't done a count myself but I wouldn't be surprised it I wasn't in the same position as you.

So count me as one of those that votes "Yes" as well. I do it most days myself.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Short sleeve "dress shirts" are OK for machine shop foremen and setup men. Be sure to include a pocket protector with one of those little metal scales. The wire side curtains for your safety classes are good too. 

I looked real sharp in this....


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I keep the machinists' scale on my hip in the same pouch as the marking knife and the tape measure. And the side protection for the glasses is required on campus.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

^^^
You sound uncommonly well dressed.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)




----------



## Lord Byron (Nov 23, 2005)

A yes vote here on pocket squares without a tie. I would suggest a cotton handkerchief during the day (white or blue & white) and a silk pocket square for evening. You'll see plenty of fine examples of the look on the sartorialist blog, especially among the Italians.

https://lordbyronsrevenge.blogspot.com/


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Tooch said:


> We're at an odd cultural point where, if you wear a bit of silk around your neck, you're "dressy," but if you stuff it in your breast pocket, it just livens things up.


 Odd indeed! You can say that again!
Though I have been castigated by no less distinguished a member than Cuff Daddy for saying this, I still assert that the pocket square is several degrees up from the tie in the formality scale; this has certainly been so in the UK, though the tieless brigade have made annoying progress in recent years.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Williamson, I'll try to withhold castigation, but I do feel that a PS without a tie is entirely appropriate, and do it from time to time myself. I don't think it's any more or less formal, it's just more detailed and more dandified. Not every variation in dress can be reduced to a spot along a "formality" spectrum... there's at least one other axis, and probably several. Style is a multi-dimensional concept.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> It's overreaching. If you skip the tie, skip the square.


Why is there a pocket where pocket squares are general used ? An odd jacket , blazer , suit , etc. 
One may not wear a tie with a jacket are in today's casual dress with a suit but the pocket on the jacket was put there for some reason.


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

When I'm wearing a blazer or a sports jacket I seldom if ever wear a tie and I will almost always wear a PS.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> Why is there a pocket where pocket squares are general used ? An odd jacket , blazer , suit , etc.
> One may not wear a tie with a jacket are in today's casual dress with a suit but the pocket on the jacket was put there for some reason.


I wear pocket squares all the time, including with blazers and odd jackets, _when I'm wearing a tie._ Despite all the cheerleading for the "no tie but a p.s." look here, I persist in my opinion that the p.s. looks lonely, out of place, and a bit "overpromoted" when it's worn sans necktie.

Claiming that the existence of the breast pocket somehow makes a p.s. mandatory (as you seem to be implying) strikes me as silly, since it implies that a man without a p.s. but otherwise properly turned out is somehow ill-dressed. That's simply nonsense; a p.s. is always an optional item.

As a lover of both ties and pocket squares, I close with a question: When the tie becomes somehow _verboten_ as "too formal," can the even more dandified pocket square expect to escape obloquy?


----------



## PMRuby (Jan 13, 2010)

PJC in NoVa said:


> I wear pocket squares all the time, including with blazers and odd jackets, _when I'm wearing a tie._ Despite all the cheerleading for the "no tie but a p.s." look here, I persist in my opinion that the p.s. looks lonely, out of place, and a bit "overpromoted" when it's worn sans necktie.
> 
> Claiming that the existence of the breast pocket somehow makes a p.s. mandatory (as you seem to be implying) strikes me as silly, since it implies that a man without a p.s. but otherwise properly turned out is somehow ill-dressed. That's simply nonsense; a p.s. is always an optional item.
> 
> As a lover of both ties and pocket squares, I close with a question: When the tie becomes somehow _verboten_ as "too formal," can the even more dandified pocket square expect to escape obloquy?


I very much agree here. A jacket without a tie is, by nature, less dressy than one worn without. I don't personally see a PS as 'flair,' but rather a way to dress up even more, a way to look even more pulled together. I appreciate that is not the common sentiment here. For that reason, though, I would only ever add a PS to a look that already included a tie.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> I wear pocket squares all the time, including with blazers and odd jackets, _when I'm wearing a tie._ Despite all the cheerleading for the "no tie but a p.s." look here, I persist in my opinion that the p.s. looks lonely, out of place, and a bit "overpromoted" when it's worn sans necktie.
> 
> Claiming that the existence of the breast pocket somehow makes a p.s. mandatory (as you seem to be implying) strikes me as silly, since it implies that a man without a p.s. but otherwise properly turned out is somehow ill-dressed. That's simply nonsense; a p.s. is always an optional item.
> 
> As a lover of both ties and pocket squares, I close with a question: When the tie becomes somehow _verboten_ as "too formal," can the even more dandified pocket square expect to escape obloquy?


Years ago a pair of slacks came with a watch pocket. Even Levi's came with a watch pocket. The wrist watch changed the way men carried a watch. Thus the end of in many men's slacks and Levis a watch pocket.

The pocket for a square still remains in men's jackets , I suppose with the casual attitude 
of dress today maybe the breast pocket may disappear. The well dressed man wears a pocket square , those who take a more casual attitude toward dress will not.
After all not having a breast pocket will save money in tailoring as did not having a watch pocket.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> Years ago a pair of slacks came with a watch pocket. Even Levi's came with a watch pocket. The wrist watch changed the way men carried a watch. Thus the end of in many men's slacks and Levis a watch pocket.
> 
> The pocket for a square still remains in men's jackets , I suppose with the casual attitude
> of dress today maybe the breast pocket may disappear. The well dressed man wears a pocket square , those who take a more casual attitude toward dress will not.
> After all not having a breast pocket will save money in tailoring as did not having a watch pocket.


Thank you for reminding me that if I ever have a suit or trousers made again, I need to specify a trouser-fob pocket! I remember those small pockets just under the waistband (usually on the righthand side, sometimes jetted for maximum unobtrusiveness and sometimes with a small buttoned flap), and I recall them as being handy for coins.

Some blue jeans still come with that extra little coin pocket in the opening of the righthand pocket, don't they? (I'm not much of a jeans guy anymore, tho' I did wear them growing up and recall that coin pocket.)


----------



## donk93953 (Feb 8, 2007)

"a way to look even more pulled together. "
Something I've tried to avoid all my life...I for one use a PS with or without tie...and try never to match anything. Too "pulled together" is just that....its trying too hard.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Thank you for reminding me that if I ever have a suit or trousers made again, I need to specify a trouser-fob pocket! I remember those small pockets just under the waistband (usually on the righthand side, sometimes jetted for maximum unobtrusiveness and sometimes with a small buttoned flap), and I recall them as being handy for coins.
> 
> Some blue jeans still come with that extra little coin pocket in the opening of the righthand pocket, don't they? (I'm not much of a jeans guy anymore, tho' I did wear them growing up and recall that coin pocket.)


Men's slacks had a coin pocket which was inside the pocket , plus a watch pocket which 
was located above the pocket. 
Levi's watch pocket was located above the pocket. Men carried what was called a pocket watch. Other wise where would one place his "pocket watch " if he was not wearing a vest ?


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Today it seems that there is a change pocket inside the regular pocket in men's slacks and the watch pocket in a pair of jeans has become the change pocket (or the cell phone pocket as the case may be.) Personally, I won't be wearing my Great-grandfather's railroad watch unless I've a vest on. Somehow a pocket watch seems to require a three piece suit.


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> Men's slacks had a coin pocket which was inside the pocket , plus a watch pocket which
> was located above the pocket.
> Levi's watch pocket was located above the pocket. Men carried what was called a pocket watch. Other wise where would one place his "pocket watch " if he was not wearing a vest ?


Sure, most of my suit and odd dress trousers have that little coin pocket sewn deep inside the lining of the righthand side pocket, down at the bottom. It's to keep coins from making a hole in your pocket or jingling too much or falling out.

Pocket watches, you say? I believe I have heard tell of them!

But as I recall it, the little riveted mini-pocket on a pair of Levi's wouldn't really be big or deep enough for a pocket watch. I'm pretty sure it was meant for coins (my use) or maybe ticket stubs.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

PJC in NoVa said:


> Sure, most of my suit and odd dress trousers have that little coin pocket sewn deep inside the lining of the righthand side pocket, down at the bottom. It's to keep coins from making a hole in your pocket or jingling too much or falling out.
> 
> Pocket watches, you say? I believe I have heard tell of them!
> 
> But as I recall it, the little riveted mini-pocket on a pair of Levi's wouldn't really be big or deep enough for a pocket watch. I'm pretty sure it was meant for coins (my use) or maybe ticket stubs.


A pocket watch would fit , where else would a working man put his watch ?
Having owned a pocket watch many years ago it would fit. Watch some of the old westerns movies and watch where they place their watches.

Levi's were very practical and durable designed for the hard working man. The pockets could with stand coins. There was no zippers to get stuck.


----------



## TheBarbaron (Oct 8, 2010)

PMRuby said:


> I very much agree here. A jacket without a tie is, by nature, less dressy than one worn without. I don't personally see a PS as 'flair,' but rather a way to dress up even more, a way to look even more pulled together. I appreciate that is not the common sentiment here. For that reason, though, I would only ever add a PS to a look that already included a tie.


Respectfully disagree. Like every other article of dress we debate endlessly on these forums, a tie or a pocket square is not an arithmetic increaser on some sliding scale of formality. Yes, there are guidelines (wear a tie to your interview), but we look for an item that will have a genial, upward or downward, and aesthetically pleasing effect on the rest of our outfit.

If I'm wearing a trim, navy suit with a crisp, white shirt, and a rich, red tie, then a white silk PS will certainly add to the formality of my ensemble; however in a blazer or summer suit, a brightly colored or vividly patterned PS in cotton may be just the bit of casual insouciance I want to suggest a bit of _sprezzatura_.

The PS, in its myriad variations, colors, patterns, folds, and materials, is much more versatile than a "+2 bonus to formality".


----------



## wce59 (May 29, 2011)

I fully agree with TheBarbaron's sentiment. Tie or no tie, if I'm wearing a suit or a sportcoat, I'm usually wearing a pocket square.


----------



## Flip Richards (Mar 31, 2011)

I think it's fine. When I want to be more casual but put some 'pep' in my outfit, I pick one of my more interesting squares. Sometimes I even go white. It's also all right, in my view, to try different folds as well. It makes you dressier even when you're casual.


----------

