# Can I wear a normal white dress shirt with a tux?



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Force majeure prevents me from wearing my new Tyrwhitt evening wear shirt at a wedding this weekend (a storm caused the power to fail in my neighborhood, which prompted the cleaners to close before I could get there and pick up my shirt). I have to leave tomorrow before it opens in the morning. Do I:

a) buy a new shirt tomorrow? I refuse to spend the money to buy anything as nice as the Tyrwhitt, so I'll be hitting JosBanks on the road.

b) make do with a nice white dress shirt? Would that simply ruin the outfit? The rest of the rig consists of a black cumberbun, black bow tie, black tux, etc.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

If it's your wedding: No.
If you're in the wedding (_i.e.i_ best man or usher): Not unless the bride, groom and families are very fond of you.
If you're just a guest: It's not proper, but if you've got the minimum degree of aplomb you can carry it off.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Buy another shirt. It never hurts to have a "backup" for situations like this.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Starched and pressed, at least medium spread, no pocket, French cuffs--it should do in a pinch. The difference certainly isn't apparent at a distance.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Get the inexpensive replacement. You should have more than one formal shirt anyway.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Hopefully I can talk JSBank into recognizing my AAAC discount! Of course, I left my card at the office...


----------



## suspenders2010 (Jun 10, 2010)

buy another tuxedo shirt. You should have two on hand anyways in situations like this.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I get in trouble for saying things like this but, sure you can. More and more men are choosing to wear a simple white dress shirt (with French cuffs) with their tuxedo. Although I have a pleated shirt hanging in the closet I'm about ready to give it to Goodwill because it doesn't get worn. My tuxedo shirt is a white on white herringbone dress shirt with a semi-spread collar and French cuffs. No studs, just buttons. I may give my studs to Goodwill also.

I think more and more men are recognizing the elegance of simplicity. Things like cummerbunds, studs, and patent leather shoes are gradually falling by the wayside as men adopt a more simple manner of dress. I know that this trend isn't held in high regard in this forum, but I like it.

Cruiser


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

JAB sells tuxedo shirts - you wont have a problem...

https://www.josbank.com/menswear/shop/SubCategory_11001_10050_11521


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I get in trouble for saying things like this but, sure you can. More and more men are choosing to wear a simple white dress shirt (with French cuffs) with their tuxedo. Although I have a pleated shirt hanging in the closet I'm about ready to give it to Goodwill because it doesn't get worn. My tuxedo shirt is a white on white herringbone dress shirt with a semi-spread collar and French cuffs. No studs, just buttons. I may give my studs to Goodwill also.
> 
> I think more and more men are recognizing the elegance of simplicity. Things like cummerbunds, studs, and patent leather shoes are gradually falling by the wayside as men adopt a more simple manner of dress. I know that this trend isn't held in high regard in this forum, but I like it.
> 
> Cruiser


Nonsense. Of course the hoi polloi will dress like the hoi polloi... as they always have.
The choice (as it always has been) is whether or not one desires to join them.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

If it's in a good white cloth with a hidden placket I doubt anyone will even notice.
Yesterday I ordered a shirt with ¾ spread collar and hidden placket in white stripe on white herringbone. I just liked the idea for a shirt to wear with my dinner suit.
I also ordered one in red with a batwing collar - but that's for a friends Halloween party I have ordered devil horns to go with it. Probably it's much cheaper than hiring a costume and looking like someone else.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

> I think more and more men are recognizing the elegance of simplicity. Things like cummerbunds, studs, and patent leather shoes are gradually falling by the wayside as men adopt a more simple manner of dress. I know that this trend isn't held in high regard in this forum, but I like it.


It is not uncommon to wear a white silk shirt with a DJ, Budd sold me one for the purpose the other day.

I do not always agree with Cruiser but a plain white shirt is perfectly adequate if you do not have the shirt you want to hand. I also happen to agree with him on cummerbunds, studs and patent leather but I realise that we are missionaries in this respect.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

The fact that the shirt is plain white qualifies it as a good shirt to use. Don't bother getting another one. A plain white shirt is actually superior to the majority of "tuxedo shirts" sold, which feature an incorrect attached wing collar.


----------



## Holdfast (Oct 30, 2005)

tocqueville said:


> Can I wear a normal white dress shirt with a tux?


Of course you can. What, you're going to get tarred and feathered for daring to wear the wrong shirt? 95% of people won't even notice.

Will it be as technically correct as a proper formal shirt? No. But you knew that already, so why ask... I mean, what sort of validation can we give you on this anyway? What possible answer could we give that would adequately address your concerns. Sorry for being salty, but sometimes I can't help wondering what extra information would possibly satisfy some of the questions asked here.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Buy a correct shirt.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

tocqueville said:


> b) make do with a nice white dress shirt? Would that simply ruin the outfit? The rest of the rig consists of a black cumberbun, black bow tie, black tux, etc.


Should be OK so long as your white dress shirt doesn't have a pocket.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

Bog said:


> The fact that the shirt is plain white qualifies it as a good shirt to use. Don't bother getting another one. A plain white shirt is actually superior to the majority of "tuxedo shirts" sold, which feature an incorrect attached wing collar.


I sort of agree with this. The last black tie event I attended there were some men there in plain white shirts with bow ties but no cummerbunds. I did not think them scoundrels. They looked better than the guys in tuxedos with regular black ties. I was the guy in the incorrect attached wing collar and pleated shirt.  No matter what though, someone will look worse than you - if that is any consolation.

Otherwise it is a budget issue. How much do you want to spend to feel more comfortable at the event without wondering what people think and if you are ruining the wedding pictures for someone? Might be worth the expense for the peace of mind.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I get in trouble for saying things like this but, sure you can. More and more men are choosing to wear a simple white dress shirt (with French cuffs) with their tuxedo. Although I have a pleated shirt hanging in the closet I'm about ready to give it to Goodwill because it doesn't get worn. My tuxedo shirt is a white on white herringbone dress shirt with a semi-spread collar and French cuffs. No studs, just buttons. I may give my studs to Goodwill also.
> 
> I think more and more men are recognizing the elegance of simplicity. Things like cummerbunds, studs, and patent leather shoes are gradually falling by the wayside as men adopt a more simple manner of dress. I know that this trend isn't held in high regard in this forum, but I like it.


 You know you just make everyone mad every time you say "more and more men" or "trend."


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Taliesin said:


> Should be OK so long as your white dress shirt doesn't have a pocket.


Yes, a good point should have made in my post.

Cruiser


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Buy a new shirt - the alternative does not bear thinking about unless you want to look dreadful.


----------



## deanayer (Mar 30, 2008)

If you wear a regular shirt or one without studs along with your tuxedo (especially your three button, flap pocket, notch lapel, no waist covering tuxedo) you will look like
these guys and its only made worse if you are both victims of a drunken plastic surgeon....










monster #1 - button cuffs, notch cut with a second button, button front shirt, flap pockets, notch collar, no vest/cummerbund, no studs or cuff links

monster #2 - its called a tee-shirt - you wear it under your hidden placket cheese-cloth shirt

Neither shirt has pique bib or pleats giving it that cheap after-thought look.

Let this image haunt your sartorial dreams !!!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

deanayer said:


> If you wear a regular shirt or one without studs along with your tuxedo (especially your three button, flap pocket, notch lapel, no waist covering tuxedo) you will look like
> these guys and its only made worse if you are both victims of a drunken plastic surgeon....


Or, heaven forbid, you might even look like this guy. And to think there are people in this forum who actually think this guy knows something about clothing. :icon_smile_big:



















Cruiser


----------



## JerseyJohn (Oct 26, 2007)

Why would you buy or rent a tux without getting the appropriate shirt? That's like ordering a Shelby GT500 Mustang without the limited slip axle. I'd say get a proper formal shirt.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

JerseyJohn said:


> Why would you buy or rent a tux without getting the appropriate shirt? That's like ordering a Shelby GT500 Mustang without the limited slip axle. I'd say get a proper formal shirt.


He has a shirt. It's stuck in the cleaners.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> He has a shirt. It's stuck in the cleaners.


Plus, addessing the original poster (rather than just commenting on the topic generally) is rather pointless, as he left early this morning to go wherever it is he's going.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

Thank you Cruiser, you nailed this one. Here are a couple more:










Some one will say "well you aren't Sinatra, or Clooney, Dean Martin or whomever, and besides they were not really known for being well dressed" to which I reply:



















Plus, I don't think the two hideously deformed fellows in deanayer's post look all that bad, clothing wise. The second guy is wearing a single button shawl lapel flapless jacket, too. The ties look pre-tied but not hideous, and they are not wearing high buttoned vests in funkadelic colors. They are having a good time, which counts for a lot. Daring hairdos. They appear not to know they look like Batman villeins, nor do they seem to care.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

deanayer said:


> If you wear a regular shirt or one without studs along with your tuxedo (especially your three button, flap pocket, notch lapel, no waist covering tuxedo) you will look like
> these guys and its only made worse if you are both victims of a drunken plastic surgeon....


I had no idea who these apparent victims of either Photoshop or some hitherto unknown plastic-arts equivalent might be, but the photo's URL provided the necessary clue.

One thing these guys don't want for is aplomb. Indeed, I think when trying to place them on some sort of scale, we go past "aplomb" and shoot right by "chutzpah" into some territory where ordinary abstract nouns and adjectives fail.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogdanov_Affair


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I also ordered one in red with a batwing collar - but that's for a friends Halloween party I have ordered devil horns to go with it.


Interesting idea. Two years ago, when Hallowe'en was at the height of the financial crisis, I attempted to dress as an evil Wall Street executive, with devil horns and an otherwise appropriate look, but nobody got it. A blood-red shirt (with a white collar and cuffs, of course) might make it sufficiently obvious.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JerseyJohn said:


> Why would you buy or rent a tux without getting the appropriate shirt? That's like ordering a Shelby GT500 Mustang without the limited slip axle.


Not a good analogy at all. It would be like ordering a Shelby GT500 without the racing stripes. I would probably do that because I've never liked racing stripes. The limited slip differential is not visible and is purely for performance.

The better analogy for the limited slip differential would be cheap underwear that was riding up under the tuxedo; thereby hindering one's ability to move about with ease. In other words a performance option rather than an aesthetic one.

Cruiser


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

I'm in agreement with Cruiser here. The simple shirt is best. 

Avoid the red tie and cummerbund: You'll look much better in black.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm no evening wear expert, but think a plain white, spread collared, double-cuffed shirt would pass muster with ease. I've done it a few times myself. As for those urging him to have a backup: really? A backup to an item that is worn 1-3 times a year and is credibly substituted with another item?


----------



## Richard Baker (Feb 13, 2009)

Answering the question as: Is it proper or desirable to wear a normal shirt with a tux? With a classic proper black tie, i.e. black and white only - No, a proper tuxedo dress shirt has to go with that tuxedo. Should you wear a 'creative' tuxedo, the rules are relaxed and the 'normal' shirt goes ok.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

I am hoping the OP posts what he did and how it went.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

J.Marko said:


> I am hoping the OP posts what he did and how it went.


I just logged on to do that!

On the road to the wedding I headed for JAB but saw a K & G and made a quick turn. I picked up a P.O.S. for $15. They only had one kind. I think it did the trick. I'm glad I bought it, since for me wearing black tie, particularly for this particular groom, has more to do with making the effort than the final results. And after going through all the trouble to put together the whole ensemble (new Park Avenues, bulled to brilliance, vintage tux via ebay, massive alterations, etc., etc. ), the thought of showing up with out a proper shirt made me want to cry. I also noted that very few of the guests heeded the "black tie optional" hint and showed up in suits of a variety of shades. My South American wife noted that the women were even more inappropriately dressed, which confirmed her suspicion that American women don't know how to dress. I'll leave that debate to her.

The groom by the way, who is an AAAC member, looked fantastic in proper mourning suit with a sort of beige linen waist coat and a stunning black and white English wedding tie that seemed to have a blue sheen because of the silk. The bride, of course, was worthy of burning Troy.

So I'm left wondering when I'll ever get to wear my Tyrrwhit shirt and what I should do with my K&G rag. What's the best way to store a tux and a shirt?

Although this is the subject of another thread, perhaps, the cost effectiveness of going the vintage + alterations route is very debatable and I guess hinges on the perceived value of the tux itself. I ended up spending as much as I would have had I bought a new, albeit low-end tux. I frankly don't know enough to tell if what I now own is higher quality than a low-end Overstock.com rig. I do think the wool is heavier and of a higher grade than what I would have gotten otherwise. The seamstress commented several times that "this is good wool." Her English skills stopped there, so I couldn't get an explanation. What matters, though, is that I think it looks good.

ps. Because of AAAC I spent a lot of time hunting single-button peak lapels. Interestingly, they are relatively hard to find.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Happy to hear that it turned out well for you.

Just a note: I would hope that the groom wore a _morning _suit, and had nothing to mourn on his wedding day.

(A mourning suit would be a plain black suit.. I believe there is a thread about those somewhere here...)


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

*Morning vice Mourning*

Indeed! Thanks for the spellchecking. That was not a day for mourning.



Checkerboard 13 said:


> Happy to hear that it turned out well for you.
> 
> Just a note: I would hope that the groom wore a _morning _suit, and had nothing to mourn on his wedding day.
> 
> (A mourning suit would be a plain black suit.. I believe there is a thread about those somewhere here...)


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

tocqueville said:


> I also noted that very few of the guests heeded the "black tie optional" hint and showed up in suits of a variety of shades....The groom by the way, who is an AAAC member, looked fantastic in proper mourning suit with a sort of beige linen waist coat and a stunning black and white English wedding tie that seemed to have a blue sheen because of the silk.


?? A daytime formalwear groom, evening semi-formal guest(s), and most everyone else in lounge suits ??

If the groom wore a morning coat, then the guests in lounge suits were more properly dressed than the guests in black tie. Assuming the wedding was during the day.


----------



## J.Marko (Apr 14, 2009)

What shirt did you get, wing tip or point with pleats?

It's funny, my crappy old black tie shirt is from K&G - wing tip pleats from back before I found this forum. I thought wing tips were more correct and formal, and assumed the pleats went with them because that is what you could buy. I figured that since I only wear once or twice a year that the cheap shirt would be fine. When prof pressed, it is fine (even if 'wrong'). Next black tie event though I will probably get a turn down collar somewhere better. And a new tux. Won't wear the three button again, hehe.


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

Taliesin said:


> ?? A daytime formalwear groom, evening semi-formal guest(s), and most everyone else in lounge suits ??
> 
> If the groom wore a morning coat, then the guests in lounge suits were more properly dressed than the guests in black tie. Assuming the wedding was during the day.


Ah, yeah, I was wondering about this, too. What time of day was the wedding?


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

*Wedding time*



JJR512 said:


> Ah, yeah, I was wondering about this, too. What time of day was the wedding?


I think we straddled the time zones between leisure and evening wear. The ceremony was at four; reception began soon after and quickly bled into the dinner. Perhaps the thing to do was to wear a normal suit at the ceremony and change later. I've been to weddings where that was done, although in those instances there was a lot of time between the wedding and the dinner. In this case there really wasn't enough time to do that. Perhaps for the guys, but not the women. For personal reasons involving sleeping children and baby sitters, I couldn't go back to my room to change even if I wanted. If it was too late to wear a morning suit, frankly, I enjoyed wearing my morning coat at my wedding so much that I could see wanting to stretch the rules just so that I could wear such an outfit. When else does one get the chance to do that? The groom looked great, and he had the groomsmen in matching outfits. I'm pretty sure they've never been dressed so well and are unlikely to do so again. If it was too early for a tux, I enjoyed wearing it and am glad I had the excuse to get one, finally, whatever the rules might say.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

By the way, I don't associate Sinatra with style. I associate him with nicotine addiction and schmaltzy vocals. No class.



J.Marko said:


> Thank you Cruiser, you nailed this one. Here are a couple more:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I would have gone with dark suits for everyone, in that case. Glad you had a good time though.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> By the way, I don't associate Sinatra with style. I associate him with nicotine addiction and schmaltzy vocals. No class.


Indeed. That was a rather poor attempt to justify dressing poorly.
Francis Albert was hardly known as a gentleman. (In fact, some may have considered him quite the opposite.)

I would suggest that anyone who would want to look to entertainers for dressing cues, might consider men such as Gregory Peck, Sean Connery, or Sidney Poitier, none of whom would be likely to consider (or have considered) sartorial sloppiness.

Of course, a man's choice of role models can say much about the man himself.

....After all, if one chooses to decry accepted standards as unimportant, it is perhaps only a short slippery slope before wanting to emulate this man:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

tocqueville said:


> By the way, I don't associate Sinatra with style.





Checkerboard 13 said:


> Indeed. That was a rather poor attempt to justify dressing poorly.


Since I brought Sinatra up let me respond from my perspective. I was not using Sinatra to "justify" anything. I don't care for the man. In fact, my post was meant to be sarcastic in that I often find it silly when folks here start pointing to Cary Grant or some member of the British Royal Family the absolute authority on what one should wear; and in the event that someone like Cary Grant did wear something they don't like the response is something along the lines of "He can break the rules because of who he is." It's all such nonsense.

As far as I'm concerned it you think that something as innocuous as wearing a plain white dress shirt with a tuxedo or a tuxedo with notch lapels is "dressing poorly" then you have a bigger problem than the person to whom the criticism is directed.

This same scenario seems to repeat day after day. If the subject of jeans, for example, comes up the jeans haters will immediately start throwing up horrid pictures of guys in torn, baggy jeans to demonstrate how evil they are rather than post a picture of a neat, clean guy wearing a nice pair of jeans with a nice shirt and shoes. It's always this immediate jump to extremes.

It's the same with the picture you posted. I'm sure that I could find a picture of a guy in a one button peak lapel tuxedo with a pleated shirt and patent leather shoes that looks like crap, just the same as I can find a picture (the picture of Sinatra for example) of a guy in a notch lapel tuxedo and plain white dress shirt who looks pretty good regardless of whether you personally like it or not.

You don't have to use him as your personal role model for attire, but others don't have to use Cary Grant either. There is a lot of territory in between and the vast majority of it is nothing more than personal preference. I guess I will never understand guys who get dressed every day with a rule book in hand. Heck, even the vainest of women don't do that.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Cruiser, pictures of various people should not be offered to demonstrate what must be worn, but to demonstrate what well-dressed men _have_ worn. I resort to pictures of well-dressed men when this or that item/combination is attacked as being improper. If I can easily find multiple pictures of well-dressed men doing it, that's evidence that it's not very wrong. I though the pictures of Sinatra, _et al._, made for a powerful argument that the prohibition against a plain white, spread-collared, FC shirt with a tuxedo is not a very strong one.

I think there could be an entire thread about *how* to argue about clothes. What constitutes evidence, what kind of arguments are constructive and which are just annoying, etc.


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I guess I will never understand


And therein may lie the truth.

Honestly, it is beyond my comprehension why someone would frequent a website devoted to sartorial excellence, yet constantly instigate for the lowest common denominator, or what is generally accepted by the masses.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I thought bringing Sinatra into the discussion made sense. And it did support the argument that one need not get hung up on "the rules." I object to Sinatra just because I object to Sinatra.

Here's Sinatra (wearing what appears to be a standard white dress shirt) getting his nicotine fix on stage with Jobim. I don't know what's going on with Jobim's collar. But I can't stand that Sinatra's being such a boor AND singing when he should be shutting the frack up and letting Jobim do his thing. Ick. 1960s lounge music.


----------



## ykurtz (Mar 7, 2007)

While I personally lean more towards formality than Cruiser, I do enjoy his perspective, especially since he rarely gets frazzled (at least in print) when he gets ganged up on for leaning more towards casual choices. I really do believe there's a continuum, and a lot of the arguments I read sound like people qualitatively arguing about when something is 'orange', and people weigh in with 'no, it's yellow' or 'no, it's red.' While it would be nice to settle the matter once and for all (or would it?), I happen to agree that there is enough room for personal preference. Injecting dandification by wearing a less formal shirt with a tux is no different than Fred Astaire wearing a button down shirt with a double breasted suit. I think confident people do this, even knowing that someone out there might frown or shake their head in disagreement. That's the difference between being comfortable in one's own skin (or, in this case, clothes) versus trying to appear 'right and correct' at all times. I think Cruiser appreciates situations where formality is required, but doesn't mind injecting more casual or dandified elements if he feels he can get away with it. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Checkerboard 13 said:


> And therein may lie the truth....


If the goal is merely "excellence" without any other consideration entering into the discussion, the answer is almost always simple. If nothing but excellence matters: spend more money, throw away anything that's dirty or has a problem and replace it, reschedule events to fit your clothes, etc.

It seems to me (as if I know anything), that the forums are more about something elusive, variable and personal - sometimes vaguely called "style" - heavily tempered by practical considerations and limitations (including economic ones).

Another observation (synthesizing several recent threads): I see a bit of a divide here - somewhat along young vs. old lines, but that's too simplistic - between the more practical "fit ins" and the bordering-on-fetishistic worshippers of the excellence of "standing out." While it seems perverse, the advice that one should _never_ wear a plain-front shirt with a tuxedo seems to be driven by the desire to "stand out" by being the _most_ excellent dresser in town. What's perverse about it is that the source of the "rule," and the rules of formal wear generally, was a desire to make it relatively easy for men to know what to do in order to _fit in_.*

As mentioned in another thread, this divide (particularly the old/young dimension) is perhaps more obvious in the "trad" topics. The Ivy League students who wore pennyloafers, khakis and J. Press jackets in the '50s and mid-'60s were just trying to fit in, while those who study their photos today are trying to stand out. The attitude toward business suits is another interesting area. There's a lot of attention here to very precise details of exactly how one should be worn, etc. - essentially treating the wearing of a suit as a sort of "special occasion." For a (slightly) older demographic: after you've worn one 200 days a year for a couple of decades, the excitement and mystery wears off a bit, and they're just, you know, "clothes." This is less the case with formal wear, though it's present there also. Wearing of tuxedoes, today, is fairly rare: one comment referred to a formal item as something you might wear 1-3 times a year, and I suspect, for most people in 2010, that might even be on the high side. In the '80s and '90s, at least in Northeastern colleges and New York, you'd wear a tuxedo at least 20 or 30 times a year, what with all the casino nights, women's-college "formals," benefits, etc., etc. After you put the exact same clothes on that many times, you start to get a bit more _laissez-faire_ about a lot of the details.
________
* Women - who approach clothes in a different manner, and with far more confidence - can wear a huge variety of colors, styles, fabrics, etc. to formal events. Women do have rules (some), but, because they are assumed to have the expertise and confidence to know what works as a matter of personal style, their rules are very general, with lots of room for personal choice. Men's rules are highly prescriptive with very little in the way of options, precisely because men are assumed not to be able to figure out whether something works, absent very specific rules.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Cruiser, pictures of various people should not be offered to demonstrate what must be worn, but to demonstrate what well-dressed men _have_ worn.


I don't disagree. When I post a picture like I did of Sinatra it is to counter some silly picture that someone else posted attempting to demonstrate how bad certain items of clothing look. Go back and look at the picture that was posted by someone trying to show what a plain white shirt with a notch lapel tuxedo looks like. People do that here all the time. They take some item of clothing that they don't like and post some ridiculous picture that shows that item taken to the extremes. I simply try to counter that silliness by posting a picture of someone else wearing the offending item in a more tasteful manner. I think that the picture of Sinatra accomplished that goal.

I'm not asking anyone to like the shirt and tuxedo that he was wearing in the picture. I don't particularly care for shawl lapel tuxedos, but I certainly don't think that someone who chooses to wear one is poorly dressed just because I don't like it. I've seen many well dressed men wearing plain white dress shirts with a tuxedo and they didn't look poorly dressed.

Clothing styles evolve over time. What is considered to be classic and timeless also evolves over time regardless of how badly some want to deny this. For example, the shawl lapel tuxedo was once considered to be no more formal, or proper, than a notch lapel but it got kicked up a notch (no pun intended) when celebrities like James Dean wore it. Now it is accepted on par with the peak lapel. We are currently seeing the same evolution of the notch lapel. Nothing stays the same.

This same evolutionary process seems to be taking place with regard to shirts, cummerbunds, and shoes. I'm seeing more and more knoweldgable men wearing plain white shirts and plain calfskin shoes than ever. These appear to be conscious choices rather than clueless men wandering through life. If James Dean can give the shawl life, surely Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Barack Obama have the power to do the same with notch lapels.

Again, you don't have to dress this way, or even like it; but there is no reason to denigrate those who do. I've never thought that I looked bad in a tuxedo even when it is a notch lapel and I have on a plain white shirt. I would even go so far as to say that I often look much better than others who are dressed "proper." :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

ykurtz said:


> I think Cruiser appreciates situations where formality is required, but doesn't mind injecting more casual or dandified elements if he feels he can get away with it. Nothing wrong with that.


You are correct. Despite what many here think of me, from a pure appearance standpoint I think that I generally rank near the top of the men in the room. I try to dress appropriate to the situation.

For example, when a suit and tie is required, I put on a suit and tie and if I do say so myself I look pretty danged good in it; but that doesn't mean that I want to wear a suit all the time. Heck, I don't particularly care to wear one at all, but I try to look good when I do.

The same is true with casual wear, my preferred mode. Don't get me wrong, I can be really casual when I'm just bumming around doing nothing; but I can assure you that if I'm wearing jeans or khakis for anything higher up the formality scale, they're going to look good. They are going to be neat, clean, and accessorized in a nice way that is suitable to my environment.

No matter what I'm wearing I do try to always be in the upper echelon of the room as far as my appearance goes, and I think that I generally succeed. From my perspective, if someone thinks that they always have to wear a suit and tie to do this, I have a hunch that they aren't as skilled in sartorial matters as they might think. Anybody can put on a suit and tie and think that they've outdresssed everyone else; however, in reality the guy in the jeans and blazer may well have made a much better choice for the situation.

Like I said in my other post, I know for a fact that I've worn a tuxedo and plain white shirt and looked a darn sight better than many other men in "proper" black tie. Dressing is a more art than science.

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512 (May 18, 2010)

The thing is, though, you can't just find a picture of a man wearing whatever it is that's being discussed, then say that since he's wearing it, he's well-dressed, then use the "fact" that he's a well-dressed man to justify that it's OK to wear whatever it is that's being discussed.

I mean, using that kind of logic, if we were discussing wearing unbuttoned shirts with multiple necklaces, I could just find a picture like...










...then say, "Look at this well-dressed man, obviously it's OK to wear your shirt unbuttoned with multiple necklaces in this manner because he's doing it."


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

Black tie is a convention, no more, no less. As such, there are certain terms (what some refer to as rules) which define the convention. When one dresses within the terms of the convention, they are considered to be wearing "proper" black tie. That is simply a definition.

Yes, conventions evolve and "rules" can be creatively bent or broken - sometimes to good effect - however one must know and "own" those rules before being able to take latitudes with them (and we all have seen horrific examples of people going outside the convention. I shudder at some of the images that the term "wedding tuxedo" brings to mind!)
Picasso mastered representational painting long before he ventured into abstract work. 

Lest we forget, the OP was a guest at a wedding. It is the most basic of respect to the bride and groom (and their families) that one dresses as well as one is able, when attending a wedding. The OP had adequate time and inexpensive options for purchasing a replacement shirt. That he did so was, in my opinion, the correct thing to do.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

JJR512 said:


> The thing is, though, you can't just find a picture of a man wearing whatever it is that's being discussed, then say that since he's wearing it, he's well-dressed, then use the "fact" that he's a well-dressed man to justify that it's OK to wear whatever it is that's being discussed.


OK, ignoring the fact that this statement gave me a headache :icon_smile_big:, I don't think that anyone did that; or at least I didn't. Personally I don't look at whether or not someone else is wearing something in order to decide whether it's "OK" for me to wear it. Heck, I'll let other people look at me to decide if it's OK if they wear what I'm wearing.

The fact of the matter is that regardless of what I might think of Frank Sinatra, I don't think that his attire in that picture looks bad nor would I hesitate to wear it to a black tie function.

The only reason for the picture was to counter the ridiculous picture posted prior to that purporting to show what one would look like if they wore that attire. It's a fairly simple concept and I'm having difficulty understanding why some are having such a problem getting this. I would have used a picture of Joe Blow if I had one, but the one of Sinatra was all I had at the time.

Cruiser


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

For those of us who are here to learn, these exchanges are invaluable, particularly for newbies like myself who go from not even knowing that there are "rules" to wanting to master all of them now. We're in danger of approaching them with the zealotry of the convert and, in the process, becoming ridiculous. I think Cruiser's contributions here and on many other threads help keep things sane. My dislike of Sinatra aside, the fact remains, as Cruiser points out, that he looks pretty good. Perhaps one lesson is that the whole can still be worth more than the sum of the parts when it comes to an entire outfit. The rules are mainly helpful as guidelines for people who don't know how to dress. I don't, so I'm grateful to have a check list. Frankie clearly does, I'll give him that. And with that, let's let this thread fade into Google cache oblivion.


----------



## ATLien (Jan 6, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> You are correct. Despite what many here think of me, from a pure appearance standpoint I think that I generally rank near the top of the men in the room. I try to dress appropriate to the situation.
> 
> For example, when a suit and tie is required, I put on a suit and tie and if I do say so myself I look pretty danged good in it; but that doesn't mean that I want to wear a suit all the time. Heck, I don't particularly care to wear one at all, but I try to look good when I do.
> 
> ...


Cruiser thank you for this statement! Could not agree more - rules are great as some sort of inital guidelines, but blindly applying them like a checklist just results in boring uniformity.


----------



## Kurt N (Feb 11, 2009)

ATLien said:


> ... rules are great as some sort of inital guidelines, but blindly applying them like a checklist just results in boring uniformity.


It might if a lot of people did it. On the other hand, when the rules are widely flouted or not learned in the first place, it can be fun to observe (or be) the rare individual who takes pleasure in mastering them.


----------

