# No Brown in Town? Outdated Adage or an Absolute?



## zcm (Mar 16, 2014)

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. It started when I started looking for a jacket that is almost as versatile as a navy blazer. I was tipped off in another forum to this article at Put This On, which eventually lead me to purchase (darker in person) to see how I felt after wearing brown in town. I have worn it a few times now and really like it and have found it to be pretty versatile and haven't had any problem wearing it in town. What are your thoughts on brown and earthy tones in the city? No way? A polished to semi-polished jacket is okay? What about a brown tweed? I am hoping to hear some differing opinions on this. Thanks!


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

zcm, I know you're serious, but seriously... are you serious? Next you'll be telling me not to wear my white jeans before Memorial Day.

Sorry, man, I'm editing to remove the snark. I personally don't put much stock in those adages about clothing. I go by what I feel comfortable in. I've worn seersucker, for example, well into fall if the day is very warm, and in recent years, we've seen even October days in Iowa with temps reaching the 80s.

I use temperature and context as the guidelines. Certain "city" situations might not feel right to wear a brown jacket, and others might.

Brown tweed, specifically--I bought my brown tweed jacket in Charleston, no small city, and I wore it there and I've worn and do wear it in other big cities, when the temps call for it.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Town is the financial district of London. Unless you're doing elite business in a major city, this "rule" isn't really applicable.


----------



## zcm (Mar 16, 2014)

Duvel said:


> zcm, I know you're serious, but seriously... are you serious? Next you'll be telling me not to wear my white jeans before Memorial Day.
> 
> Sorry, man, I'm editing to remove the snark. I personally don't put much stock in those adages about clothing. I go by what I feel comfortable in. I've worn seersucker, for example, well into fall if the day is very warm, and in recent years, we've seen even October days in Iowa with temps reaching the 80s.
> 
> ...


Thanks Duvel. I've missed your quips  As I said before I thought the LE jacket was fine, but I was interested in thoughts on say a brown herringbone tweed. Also wear your jeans whenever you like.



Tempest said:


> Town is the financial district of London. Unless you're doing elite business in a major city, this "rule" isn't really applicable.


I didn't realize that was a specific place. I knew it originated in London though. I have seen it discussed with regard to other places IIRC.

Honestly, this is something I never heard of until recently (here and other places) so please excuse my ignorance. Really wasn't thinking that brown shouldn't be worn in cities, I was trying to see what your thoughts were personally


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

And even the Savile Row tailors' association declared the 'no brown in Town' obsolete. It's probably preferable to wear grey or blue, especially if one is in the financial sector in The City but for the rest of the world it's hopelessly dated. Heck, a good look at _Apparel Arts_ in its heyday showed businessmen in brown suits in urban areas. I doubt that The Rule has had any real traction since the end of WWI anywhere but London.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Looks fine. It is indeed an obsolete old adage.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

Honestly, it floors me that these adages still surface from time to time and cause concern. I am all, more and more, for the traditional in clothing, but not to include these obsolete restrictions.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I was going to say that business conservative attire doesn't include brown suits or shoes, but even that's not definite now.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tempest said:


> Town is the financial district of London.


That is The City


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I recall when Reagan caused an uproar by wearing a brown suit. I'm very much a fan of brown--I think that it has a potential to set one apart as more a leader and less a sheep. These days, at least hereabouts, anyone who puts more than ten seconds of thought into their clothing is a sartorial genius.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

One rule I do tend to follow in regards to brown/black is that I don't wear black until the evening. I don't know why, but I've never felt comfortable in black shoes during the day, even before I knew that used to be a "rule". The exception would be during the winter with gray pants on a cold, rainy day. But 99% of the time, if it's before 6pm- brown.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Jovan said:


> I was going to say that business conservative attire doesn't include brown suits or shoes, but even that's not definite now.


Yes, you got to the heart of the matter. Like many expressions, no brown in town, is not a "rule" but shorthand for a broader custom. At the time the phrase originated blue and grey were the colors for serious occasions, business being one such occasion. Brown, and other earth tones were colors of the country and less serious occasions. No brown in town did not mean one couldn't wear brown or earth tones in a city, it meant one should not wear brown or earth tones for serious occasions in the city where everyone else would show up in blue or grey. In this broader sense it is still good advise.


----------



## drlivingston (Jun 21, 2012)

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?83720-No-brown-in-town-what-does-it-mean


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

My thoughts here:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...llence-of-brown-in-town&p=1376353#post1376353


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Tempest said:


> Town is the financial district of London. Unless you're doing elite business in a major city, this "rule" isn't really applicable.


Correct. Even there it is not universally adhered to now.

Jaws do not drop as in the Bateman cartoon of the man who asked for a large Scotch in The Pump Room at Bath.
https://www.hmbateman.com/royal_enclosure.htm

So probably irrelevant in Badiddlyboing, Odawidaho.


----------



## zcm (Mar 16, 2014)

Missed the 2013 thread somehow. If I may dig up some old quotes to add to this conversation:



Oldsarge said:


> As Simmo says, it is a 'rule' restricted to the financial district of London. Nowhere else in the world is such a rule recognized, nor should it be. CuffDaddy's exposition is spot on. Given the future of cities, it will be total nonsense and adhered to only by those who have neither taste, style or sense of their surroundings. This is not to say that wearing brown in town will become essential. That is equal nonsense and simply an 'anti-rule'. If you don't like wearing brown suiting in urban areas, don't. Let your personal style and good taste determine your ensembles. Balfour and Shaver are well within their rights, especially given their demonstrated splendid taste, to forgo it. And I presume that if any of us should, for the least likely possible reasons, have need to go to The City in hopes of a major loan, we would stick to charcoal. I know I would. But if I were just sightseeing? Bring on the tweed! :icon_smile_big:





Shaver said:


> Balfour and I occasionally pleasantly disputed over the 'No Brown in Town' notion but as it might relate to shoe leather rather than to clothing.
> 
> At any rate I would suggest that the 'town' in question is more of an allegory for 'business' and more pertinently the traditional business (such as law, politics, banking etc.) than it is a reference to any specific location. Historically most traditional business would have been conducted solely in London and as brown just happens to rhyme with town, thus the pithy phrase was made.
> 
> ...


Seems, that most from the old thread and this one agree that it is whatever you prefer, which is what I expected. For instance, you can choose to not wear white after labor day but it really doesn't matter if you do. Anyone else choose to avoid brown for business dress altogether? I haven't seen tweed much at all since graduating. Does this really stem from academics at English universities? If you saw someone wearing tweed today would you think they are ignorant, bold, or indifferent about tradition?

Re black shoes: wouldn't only black shoes and the absence of brown clothing go hand in hand to a point? Obviously brown shoes are fine with navy and grey but I think most of the time black shoes would look off with brown trousers or jacket.


----------



## FiscalDean (Dec 10, 2011)

32rollandrock said:


> I recall when Reagan caused an uproar by wearing a brown suit. I'm very much a fan of brown--I think that it has a potential to set one apart as more a leader and less a sheep. These days, at least hereabouts, anyone who puts more than ten seconds of thought into their clothing is a sartorial genius.


Truer words were never written.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

"No Brown in Town" went out of use decades ago! Probably pre-war! There is plenty of photo and film footage of men in the City of London wearing brown suits as early as the 40s, and probably even before that if one spends the time to look for it.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I think the 'official' decree by the Savile Row tailors is dated 1939 or thereabouts. And of course we all know that they were just acknowledging something that had already happened by then. Yeah, decades ago.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

zcm, you haven't seen anyone wearing tweed? I find a little surprising. A tweed jacket is one of those timeless pieces that I don't think has ever gone out of fashion. Three out of every four posts in the what to wear thread here seem to feature tweed anytime of year.


----------



## zcm (Mar 16, 2014)

Duvel said:


> zcm, you haven't seen anyone wearing tweed? I find a little surprising. A tweed jacket is one of those timeless pieces that I don't think has ever gone out of fashion. Three out of every four posts in the what to wear thread here seem to feature tweed anytime of year.


Not much, like I said. I personally like the look a lot. Obviously it is well represented in online forums but that isn't really a good litmus test for the rest of the population unfortunately. I was really referring to tweed in more of a business setting which isn't always the background for a WAYW pic. I'm moving soon and will start working in Downtown DC. I have worked there before (when I didn't to care about how I dressed) and don't remember seeing much tweed or browns for that matter. Curious if I would stick out like a sore thumb in a sea of Feds...


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

My view is probably skewed by my work environments, of course. I've never worked in a heavily business-corporate environment, only (aside from my USAF career) in academia and a department of the federal government, where, in both places, men wear both grey and brown tweed jackets quite a lot.

How one dresses among the Feds (if you're a federal worker) is really dependent on what department you're working for, what branch of that department you're working for, even down to the very work office of the branch, etc. In my 5 years as a Fed, depending on where I was, whether on temporary duty somewhere else, including DC, or my own office, I saw a whole range--everything, believe it or not, from Grateful Dead t-shirts and jeans to chinos-and-OCBDs to blazers to suits, etc. Even when I was on temporary duty in DC, I saw everything you can imagine on Federal workers. Federal workers in DC are hardly a sea of grey flannel Brooks Brothers suits.


----------



## zcm (Mar 16, 2014)

Duvel said:


> How one dresses among the Feds (if you're a federal worker) is really dependent on what department you're working for, what branch of that department you're working for, even down to the very work office of the branch, etc. In my 5 years as a Fed, depending on where I was, whether on temporary duty somewhere else, including DC, or my own office, I saw a whole range--everything, believe it or not, from Grateful Dead t-shirts and jeans to chinos-and-OCBDs to blazers to suits, etc. Even when I was on temporary duty in DC, I saw everything you can imagine on Federal workers. Federal workers in DC are hardly a sea of grey flannel Brooks Brothers suits.


haha. I agree the attire can vary quite a bit. By Feds I meant typical fed employees that don't care about what they look like rather than wearing something that is ultra conservative.


----------



## Duvel (Mar 16, 2014)

There is an assumption "out there" that Federal workers often don't care how they dress. It's no more so or less so, though, than most other places of employment. Unless you are somewhere high in the food chain, at least GS-14 or above, where a suit is almost expected, it's likely that you'll work in the broad "business casual" environment, and there you will see all the ususal suspects, from people who look like they work in their pajamas to those who dress at least as well as the people you see in these forums.

At the same time, a lot of Federal workers have to work in a uniform. Again, it all depends on the job, and on the individual.



zcm said:


> haha. I agree the attire can vary quite a bit. By Feds I meant typical fed employees that don't care about what they look like rather than wearing something that is ultra conservative.


----------



## zcm (Mar 16, 2014)

Duvel said:


> There is an assumption "out there" that Federal workers often don't care how they dress. It's no more so or less so, though, than most other places of employment. Unless you are somewhere high in the food chain, at least GS-14 or above, where a suit is almost expected, it's likely that you'll work in the broad "business casual" environment, and there you will see all the ususal suspects, from people who look like they work in their pajamas to those that dress at least as good as the people you see in these forums.
> 
> At the same time, a lot of Federal workers have to work in a uniform. Again, it all depends on the job.


Business dress code and engineers don't mix well. Perhaps that is why I have the views I do when it comes to feds. More often than not it ends up looking something like this:

with a jacket on the back of their chair.


----------



## Quetzal (Jul 25, 2014)

Maybe it was more of an English rule, as brown seems to have been a staple suit color alongside blue and gray since at least the Interbellum in the United States, judging from photographs and amateur color footage.

-Quetzal


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Oh, decidedly an English rule. I doubt that outside of possibly Boston or New York anyone ever heard of it until after WWII, by which time it no longer mattered.


----------



## TheoProf (Dec 17, 2012)

orange fury said:


> One rule I do tend to follow in regards to brown/black is that I don't wear black until the evening. I don't know why, but I've never felt comfortable in black shoes during the day, even before I knew that used to be a "rule". The exception would be during the winter with gray pants on a cold, rainy day. But 99% of the time, if it's before 6pm- brown.


I've never heard of a rule against wearing black shoes for daywear? I don't believe such a rule ever existed. In fact, the rule used to be the opposite: Brown shoes with a navy or grey suit were considered heterodox.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Will Boelke is firm in the opinion that black shoes are for after six wear but much as I admire the man's taste he is fastidious beyond not only my ability but beyond my interest. Personally I wear black shoes under any conditions that advise a black suit and also with grey trousers and a blue blazer. Not a rule, really, or even a guideline. More of an opinion.


----------



## TheoProf (Dec 17, 2012)

Ah, that explains OF's comment about a "rule". I'm in the minority here, as well, in that I prefer black shoes with a navy or a grey suit (although I do like burgundy with grey) to brown, rule or no rule. Sometimes shoes that don't draw attention to themselves (but have a quiet elegance) are a good thing IMHO. Less is sometimes more.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I don't understand the revulsion to black shoes by the #menswear society.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

In Britain it would have been the case that brown shoes were frowned upon for business wear. Black, blue or grey would be paired with black shoes.

Anything goes now of course.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

And as for tweed, unless the occasion is actually black or white tie, or morning dress, that prince among fabrics should be welcome and honoured everywhere and at all times.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

I'll admit, "rule" was probably too strong of a word for me to use, "opinion" is better suited here. I have heard the opinion pushed though that black (similar to black tie) is for after 6pm because it's more of a formal color. Either way, like I said, I occasionally wear black with gray or navy during the day, I just tend to prefer brown in the day/black at night.

ultimately, wear what you like, like what you wear


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

Jovan said:


> I don't understand the revulsion to black shoes by the #menswear society.


It's the whole patina thing, I think. (That is, black shoes don't develop patina over time, and you know how the #menswear folks love patina, whether it be on shoes, a Barbour jacket, or whatever.)

That, and #menswear tends to lean heavily toward Italy in its influences, where brown shoes are much more common. (Yes, they like British style, too, but one only need look at the Instagram-fest that is Pitti Uomo to see the fascination with Italian style.)

This brings up a good point, though, one that's already been touched upon: the "no brown in town" rule is very British in its origins. A friend of mine lived in Spain (Madrid? Barcelona? certainly one of the big cities); there, brown shoes--and not even _dark_ brown shoes, at that--were worn with everything.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Traditional British style is a strange beast. It's probably the most regimented and restrained, and yet at the same time the most eccentric and forgiving of non-conformity. There was a deep love of privacy and a proper appreciation of the difference between power and authority (sadly, no longer). This was one reason why the British were so mad about clubs and other voluntary associations (which themselves are wonderful mines of sartorial flair).

It's hard to explain, but it makes perfect sense once one understands. If anyone is interested, I'd recommend "England: An Elegy" by Roger Scruton. It helps to explain why for example if one person bumps into another, they both apologise. Anyway, the British style reflected the British character (something we've entirely thrown away - now we are once again a nation of savages, as we were for most our existence, but that's probably not an appropriate topic for the forum). It was always something that was entirely separate from the Continent.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

And I think that last may be a telling point. *Being separate from the Continent* was for so long so important. Yes, a well-bred young chap would go on the Grand Tour to pick up those bits and pieces of foreign culture that appealed to him (so as to add a bit of sheen to his persona that would attract attention from the ladies, perhaps) but it was less an enlightening experience than, as Pratchett put it 'the Grand Sneer'. For centuries Paris was the traditional enemy and the seat of power on the continent and naturally no gentleman wanted to be sympathetic to those bounders over there. It may even be a strain in the current London/Brussels conflict. There is just something about those people on the other side of the Channel that gets under the British skin.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

> One of the more bizarre things to come out of the news of Cazenove's sale to JPMorgan is the revelation that the Queen's banker didn't favour anyone wearing brown shoes on its premises.
> According to The Times, wearing brown shoes to work at Cazenove has been a barrier to promotion in the past.
> A quick scan of the  website reveals that most of their men's shoes do, in fact, still seem to come in black as a default. However, an employee at the Canary Wharf branch assures us they do sell each style in brown too: "Sales are a 60:40 split between black and brown," he claims.


The prejudice against wearing brown 'in town' - the City of London - still exists to a point. The idea of one's promotion prospects hanging on the correct choice of footwear quite appeals to me.

I treat anything an 'image consultant' tells me with the utmost suspicion:



> So are brown shoes acceptable in the City these days? Apparently so. Barney Tremblay, an image consultant with investment banking clients, says youthful European bankers are bringing a more relaxed dress code to the City: not only are brown shoes now fine, so are pastel shirts.
> "The younger guys are doing what they want and bringing more style, flair and colour to banking," Tremblay says. "The only thing they need to be careful of is not buying all their shirts and ties from the same shop."


https://news.efinancialcareers.com/...ances-of-getting-ahead-in-investment-banking/


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

zcm said:


> I'm moving soon and will start working in Downtown DC. I have worked there before (when I didn't to care about how I dressed) and don't remember seeing much tweed or browns for that matter. Curious if I would stick out like a sore thumb in a sea of Feds...


I was a Fed in DC for a few years just when I was starting to care about clothes. I got quite the reaction once I really starting trying. If you try to look good at all, you'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Look good anyway, but don't wear tweed.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Jovan said:


> I don't understand the revulsion to black shoes by the #menswear society.


Me neither. Five days a week, I rotate two pairs of black cap toe oxfords day in, day out and I get by just fine.

But then, when I dress "city" I tend to go full tilt, and the same when I dress "country" or "summer." I enjoy specialization in clothes. To me the jacket and shoes that are appropriate everywhere are also boring everywhere.


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

orange fury said:


> One rule I do tend to follow in regards to brown/black is that I don't wear black until the evening. I don't know why, but I've never felt comfortable in black shoes during the day, even before I knew that used to be a "rule". The exception would be during the winter with gray pants on a cold, rainy day. But 99% of the time, if it's before 6pm- brown.


no black during the day? The vast majority of lawyers, stock brokers, etc. wear black shoes during the day. I understand just because the majority does anything doesn't make it right, but in business especially conservative environments like law offices, the rule is black shoes. Unless you are really making a statement and then it might be burgundy/cordovan. That's why black shoes outsell any other color my leaps and bounds. Allen Edmonds and Johnston Murphy both claim that presidents for the last several decades have worn their shoes and the ones they always point to a black cap toe whether it's the Melton or the Park Avenue.

I remember bee reading a guide to law firm interviewing and the rules were rigid. Navy or grey suit, black shoes, white shirt. If you have been to capital hill, the Congressman, Senators, staffers, and lobbyist will be in Navy Blue suits, white shirts, red ties and black shoes.


----------



## Nobleprofessor (Jul 18, 2014)

To elaborate on the actual topic, brown is fine, just wear brown shoes with it. Never, in my opinion, should black and brown be mixed.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Contrary to that being said by many people, black and brown can work fine together. Cool/dark shades work best.

Two examples:
https://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=502
https://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=130


----------



## zcm (Mar 16, 2014)

Jovan said:


> Contrary to that being said by many people, black and brown can work fine together. Cool/dark shades work best.
> 
> Two examples:
> https://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=502
> https://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=130


I can't believe I didn't know that site existed until just now. Awesome!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I probably reference it a little too much, but it's a good resource for clothing inspiration and examples of what works and doesn't work. The author is a member of this forum, he goes by Matt S.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Contrary to that being said by many people, black and brown can work fine together. Cool/dark shades work best.
> 
> Two examples:
> https://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=502
> https://thesuitsofjamesbond.com/?p=130


On the contrary, black goes very, very well with the lightest of browns.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

zcm said:


> Anyone else choose to avoid brown for business dress altogether?


Yes.

And in the City, there are definitely still environments where brown will be noticed and not regarded as CBD.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Nobleprofessor said:


> no black during the day? The vast majority of lawyers, stock brokers, etc. wear black shoes during the day. I understand just because the majority does anything doesn't make it right, but in business especially conservative environments like law offices, the rule is black shoes. Unless you are really making a statement and then it might be burgundy/cordovan. That's why black shoes outsell any other color my leaps and bounds. Allen Edmonds and Johnston Murphy both claim that presidents for the last several decades have worn their shoes and the ones they always point to a black cap toe whether it's the Melton or the Park Avenue.


Quite.


----------



## oxford cloth button down (Jan 1, 2012)

orange fury said:


> One rule I do tend to follow in regards to brown/black is that I don't wear black until the evening. I don't know why, but I've never felt comfortable in black shoes during the day, even before I knew that used to be a "rule". The exception would be during the winter with gray pants on a cold, rainy day. But 99% of the time, if it's before 6pm- brown.


I have heard (and only heard. I do not run in the right circles) that you should not be in evening wear before 6pm. Meaning a tuxedo. This is most likely outdated as well. perhaps this were the "no black before 6" saying originated.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

If I recall the stated history correctly, the whole thing is alleged to go back to the English country house etiquette where His Lordship spent the daylight (before six) hours out riding the estate, shooting pheasant, trout angling and otherwise attending to his land and his guests. This was done in tweed because it was tough, warm and water resistant. It was also rather 'wet dog' smelly when it got wet and if you add to that the smell of a sweaty horse the result would be rather strong . . . as well as rural. So when it came time for the evening meal (High Tea, I believe it was called) the men would come back in and change clothes so as to not subject the ladies' delicate sensibilities to all that masculine 'perfume'. And since the ladies would dress for dinner in their most fashionable, the gentlemen would wear plain black and white to provide the ladies with a suitable background. After all, it wouldn't do to be more stylish than one's lady.


----------



## fishertw (Jan 27, 2006)

vpkozel said:


> That is The City


Yes, " The City" and " In Town" are interchangeable and refer to about one square mile within the old city of London from what I recall.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Of course, the whole question becomes more or less irrelevant because hardly anybody wears brown suits (not including tan or taupe) anywhere anymore.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Check this ad from 1938 which mentions brown suits, specifically "for town".


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Oldsarge said:


> ... time for the evening meal (High Tea, I believe it was called) ...


Dinner or supper.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

fishertw said:


> Yes, " The City" and " In Town" are interchangeable and refer to about one square mile within the old city of London from what I recall.


The City is the 'square mile', London's traditional financial district. Town would be understood to be broader (e.g. including Westminster, St James's, etc.).

On 'no brown in town', I remember an anecdote that shows how absurd this all got, of a young MP fretting about whether brown or black shoes were appropriate for Town on the weekend. To which the response was: "No self-respecting gentleman is in Town on the weekend."


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> I treat anything an 'image consultant' tells me with the utmost suspicion:


+ 1,000,000!


----------



## FiscalDean (Dec 10, 2011)

JLibourel said:


> Of course, the whole question becomes more or less irrelevant because hardly anybody wears brown suits (not including tan or taupe) anywhere anymore.


Really? I'm probably not "anybody" but my winter wardrobe has four brown suits in the rotation and I'd like to add a fifth.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

I've got a couple, one cotton and one worsted.



JLibourel said:


> Of course, the whole question becomes more or less irrelevant because hardly anybody wears brown suits (not including tan or taupe) anywhere anymore.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

FiscalDean said:


> Really? I'm probably not "anybody" but my winter wardrobe has four brown suits in the rotation and I'd like to add a fifth.


Dr. Libourel, of course, can speak for himself, (not only in English but also in Greek and Latin). I respond because it gives me a chance to link to photos of the best known academic of the 20th century. Dr. L did say hardly anybody which simply means very few wear brown suits today. I am sure you are familiar with; "The few, the proud, the Marines." While few wear brown suits today you can hold your head high because you are keeping up standards.

https://images.search.yahoo.com/ima...pscka6&.crumb=JqdRt8B2Gg7&fr=mcafee&fr2=sa-gp

https://images.search.yahoo.com/ima...9j0n0v&.crumb=JqdRt8B2Gg7&fr=mcafee&fr2=sa-gp

A smart Prof. knows when his complexion is best framed by earth tones rather than cool clear navy or grey.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The gorge on that first suit dates it much more than the second suit (and Denholm Elliott's is pretty nice too). I think it's because the first image is from The Last Crusade, released in 1989 when low gorges were fashionable.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

32rollandrock said:


> .....anyone who puts more than ten seconds of thought into their clothing is a sartorial genius.


It takes me a lot longer than ten seconds to decide what to wear every day. Isn't that why we're all here?


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

FiscalDean said:


> Really? I'm probably not "anybody" but my winter wardrobe has four brown suits in the rotation and I'd like to add a fifth.


Actually, if I lived in Wisconsin, I would probably want a few brown suits myself for winter wear. I think it's a good color for a heavy flannel. However, in my Sun Belt haunts, you just don't see them anymore.


----------



## FiscalDean (Dec 10, 2011)

JLibourel said:


> Actually, if I lived in Wisconsin, I would probably want a few brown suits myself for winter wear. I think it's a good color for a heavy flannel. However, in my Sun Belt haunts, you just don't see them anymore.


I would have to agree, in CA, I'd think taupe and tan would be more common.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

You're right, though blue and grey still dominate.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> Actually, if I lived in Wisconsin, I would probably want a few brown suits myself for winter wear. I think it's a good color for a heavy flannel. However, in my Sun Belt haunts, you just don't see them anymore.


What colour suit do you see in the Sun Belt? I don't understand why plain linen isn't more popular in warm climates--as in older movies like _To Kill a Mockingbird_ or _To Have and Have Not_. They are almost never seen in Australia, where they make good sense.

I actually counted wrong--the new math has me all messed up. I own not two but three brown suits, including an overlooked glen plaid from BB.

One of the complexities of the discussion may be British disdain for American students who attend university dressed like a gentleman farmer. I now know my attempts to blend in by wearing a Barbour and a tweed jacket had the opposite effect when I lived in Cambridge.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Depends on the town, of course (Lawndale being different from Paris), but I don't think I'd do it for business, probably just for more informal day social. While we're on the subject, our hero might not need a brown _*suit*_ in his closet at all, just a few pair of earth tone slacks for less dressy days at the less dressy office.

If I went to England I would observe this strictly.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

P Hudson said:


> What colour suit do you see in the Sun Belt? I don't understand why plain linen isn't more popular in warm climates--as in older movies like _To Kill a Mockingbird_ or _To Have and Have Not_. They are almost never seen in Australia, where they make good sense.
> 
> I actually counted wrong--the new math has me all messed up. I own not two but three brown suits, including an overlooked glen plaid from BB.
> 
> One of the complexities of the discussion may be British disdain for American students who attend university dressed like a gentleman farmer. I now know my attempts to blend in by wearing a Barbour and a tweed jacket had the opposite effect when I lived in Cambridge.


My heavens! When I was at Oxford, almost everybody wore tweed jackets. However, that was a half-century ago. These days, most of the undergraduates seem to prefer hoodies and the like, from what little I've seen.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

When I was there (a little over a decade ago), standards were higher than at most other universities, but still very poor. They will have declined still further since.

Most students (and most people in general) have adopted the international uniform of slum youth.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

It could be due to nostalgie de la boue - vicarious savagery has always had its attractions. It is doubtless partly explained by the desire to appear poorer and less privileged than one actually is. And of course there is just plain old egotistical, arrogant, selfish laziness.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

fishertw said:


> Yes, " The City" and " *In Town" are interchangeable *and refer to about one square mile within the old city of London from what I recall.


Not so! As an ex-pat Londoner, I can assure you that phrases like "going into town" or "going up town" for a Londoner mean going into the West End NOT into the City of London.

City = City of London (the square mile)
Town = City of Westminster

Some ridiculous sources, for example on wiki, stretch the West End far, far beyond what a Londoner considers the West End, some stretch is as far west as Notting Hill Gate, as far southwest as Chelsea, as far north as Camden Town and as far east as Finsbury.

BUT for a Londoner the TRUE West End has razor sharp boundaries.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> My heavens! When I was at Oxford, almost everybody wore tweed jackets. However, that was a half-century ago. These days, most of the undergraduates seem to prefer hoodies and the like, from what little I've seen.





Il Signor Crispone said:


> When I was there (a little over a decade ago), standards were higher than at most other universities, but still very poor. They will have declined still further since.
> 
> Most students (and most people in general) have adopted the international uniform of slum youth.


I spent the first half of the 90s in Sheffield, Cambridge and Sydney. Cambridge dressed better than the other 2, but none gave the impression of caring for style. Students in each, of course, had their own uniform, Sheffield being, as I recall, the most monochrome.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not so! As an ex-pat Londoner, I can assure you that phrases like "going into town" or "going up town" for a Londoner mean going into the West End NOT into the City of London.
> 
> City = City of London (the square mile)
> Town = City of Westminster
> ...


I'm fortunate in that I only visit the Great Cess-Pool for pleasure, and so can avoid all the disagreeable parts. Which for me are basically anything that isn't St. James's. Mayfair is horribly vulgar, the tone set by the great sartorial sewer that is Bond Street, the final triumph of marketing over substance. Chelsea, Belgravia, Kensington and that way - well, I'm not a gangster (legal or otherwise) from Russia or the Middle East, nuff said. Westminster is full of the British political class, in other words the absolute scum of the earth; literally no people worse than them on the planet (and yes, I am using 'literally' in the correct sense of the word). Go across the far end of Jermyn Street and one finds oneself in that quarter of town in which they stage what are known as "shows", although 'West End Horrors' would be a mot that is considerably more juste if you ask me. God forbid you should go even further east - you'll find yourself in the City.

Green Park is nice for a stroll, and it's always good to have a squint at the Duke's place. So London for me is bounded by No 1 in the west, Piccadilly in the north (with a slight exemption for the Row and the Burlington Arcade), Haymarket in the east and Pall Mall in the south. There is the occasional oasis of civilisation outside, and those islands in a sea of barbarity are worth the risk involved in reaching them. But for the most part the rest of it is, frankly, unspeakable.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

On those few occasions when I've been there, admittedly in the summer, I've found London to be a smoggy hole. It's worse than L.A. these days.


----------



## P Hudson (Jul 19, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> On those few occasions when I've been there, admittedly in the summer, I've found London to be a smoggy hole. It's worse than L.A. these days.


Try it in the Spring. It can be fantastic.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> Traditional British style is a strange beast. It's probably the most regimented and restrained, and yet at the same time the most eccentric and forgiving of non-conformity. There was a deep love of privacy and a proper appreciation of the difference between power and authority (sadly, no longer). This was one reason why the British were so mad about clubs and other voluntary associations (which themselves are wonderful mines of sartorial flair).
> 
> It's hard to explain, but it makes perfect sense once one understands. If anyone is interested, I'd recommend "England: An Elegy" by Roger Scruton. It helps to explain why for example if one person bumps into another, they both apologise. Anyway, the British style reflected the British character (something we've entirely thrown away - now we are once again a nation of savages, as we were for most our existence, but that's probably not an appropriate topic for the forum). It was always something that was entirely separate from the Continent.


Your recommendation of Scruton's excellent book is appreciated. The University of Wyoming library has a copy that I read it with interest and dismay - but not surprise.


----------



## Trimmer (Nov 2, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not so! As an ex-pat Londoner, I can assure you that phrases like "going into town" or "going up town" for a Londoner mean going into the West End NOT into the City of London.
> 
> City = City of London (the square mile)
> Town = City of Westminster
> ...


I am not so sure.

The City is certainly the City of London; the West End is, well, the area that runs west from the City as far as say Mayfair.

But neither term is completely geographical: not every business in the square mile is a 'city firm'; not every tailor in Westminster is a 'West End tailor'.

Londoners talk about going 'into the City' or 'up West', rather than 'into town'. But again it depends more on what you are doing. You go 'up West' to a show, or for a day's shopping (assuming you do not live in the West End - in which case you might go 'into town').

Tourists don't go 'into town', they go to specific places; whereas I go 'into town' to do specific things.

And I dress accordingly: black shoes for business, a memorial service, dinner in the evening etc., brown shoes for most other things.

'No brown in town' to my mind just means 'dress appropriately'.


----------



## wwilson (Jul 13, 2012)

I found this as an interesting approach:

"Country tweeds are for one purpose: they are for the country. The maxim "brown in town should never be seen" is something one ought to stick to, no matter who one might be... It saves one from becoming a caricature."

Ref:https://willowbrookpark.blogspot.com/2009/12/country-gentlemans-attire.html


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

wwilson said:


> I found this as an interesting approach:
> 
> "Country tweeds are for one purpose: they are for the country. The maxim "brown in town should never be seen" is something one ought to stick to, no matter who one might be... It saves one from becoming a caricature."
> 
> Ref:https://willowbrookpark.blogspot.com/2009/12/country-gentlemans-attire.html


This may work in England, or for more distinguished gentlemen (I'm thinking 65+ here) but for a young American man, pulling off a suit casually in the country is pretty hard.

Will from _A Suitable Wardrobe_ also draws some nice distinctions between town and country wear for modern Americans, but I feel that his interest in casual suits doesn't work well for younger men.

My approach is suits for the city, sport coats and blazers for the country, with very little overlap. I find nobody questions a suit downtown, no matter what you're doing, and a sport coat doesn't offend people's sensibilities out in farm country so much, especially sans tie.

Hence, I plan to wear the vintage tweed sack suit I just bought in town on a Saturday sometime. I will stick to odd tweed jackets in the country.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Natty Beau said:


> Hence, I plan to wear the vintage tweed sack suit I just bought in town on a Saturday sometime.


To paraphrase a great line, (not to be taken literately) : No gentleman is in town on the weekend.



Natty Beau said:


> I will stick to odd tweed jackets in the country.


You are a gentleman, By the way, the "country" is now generally considered to include suburbs.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

arkirshner said:


> By the way, the "country" is now generally considered to include suburbs.


This! If you're not surrounded by high-rise, wear sport coats when dressed up unless you're just addicted to a suit Sunday morning. It's hard to go wrong anywhere with a blue blazer and slacks.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Oldsarge said:


> This! If you're not surrounded by high-rise, wear sport coats when dressed up unless you're just addicted to a suit Sunday morning. It's hard to go wrong anywhere with a blue blazer and slacks.


I quite agree, and I live in the suburbs. But on Sundays I still suit up usually because I worship at a church in downtown DC. If go to church in the suburbs/country, though, I swap the suit for a double breasted blazer with white trousers and bucks.


----------



## Mrharristweedmbe (Jul 27, 2014)

I do not think it really matters anymore. I was at a upscale mall today and got many compliments on my brown harris tweed hat. It all depends on what you wear with it. I typically go for a "siegfried farnon" look (khaki vest, tweed coat, pocketwatch and my trilby/bucket hat.


----------

