# Really? Jeans are considered dressy?



## KenCPollock (Dec 20, 2003)

Parents lament that they cannot get their young sons to wear something as dressy as jeans to wear for dinner out.
I remember when they were considered slob-wear. 
How low can we go?

______________________________
The New York Times 

Jeans? Some Boys Shout, ‘No Way!’


By DIONNE SEARCEYMARCH 11, 2015 


The Schad brothers, Jackson and Kasey, may be twins, but the similarity doesn’t extend to their outfits. Kasey likes jeans; Jackson, sweatpants. 

Jackson Schad gave up on jeans in kindergarten.

“They’re really tight, and I just don’t like how they fit on me,” said Jackson, who is 7½ and now in second grade.

Instead, on any given day, Jackson leaves his Brooklyn home outfitted in sweatpants that are fuzzy and baggy and, compared with denim, “a lot more looser,” he said. His favorite sweats are a red pair that he hikes up with matching suspenders.

Jackson’s identical twin brother, Kasey, however, considers himself a dressy kind of guy and likes a more polished look.

“Comfy pants are more for wearing when you’re relaxing,” Kasey said. “Jeans are more for all kinds of things. Like if I went to a restaurant, I would wear jeans.”

In a sign that America’s embrace of casual wear has trickled down, way down, the nation is now teeming with throngs of little kids in track pants looking as if they just stepped out of an episode of “The Sopranos.”

The culture of casual has invaded every place from airport runways, where plane cabins are filled with passengers in yoga pants, to fashion runways; Tommy Hilfiger last month offered an athletic-themed line complete with a catwalk designed as a football field.

It used to be that moms couldn’t get boys out of jeans for formal affairs. Now, they can’t seem to get their sons into them. While some girls also eschew jeans, it is a particularly comic phenomenon that part of a generation of boys — reared by dads raised in Sears Toughskins and in an era in which tightly woven Carhartts became a fashion trend — won’t do denim.

Jeans are too uncomfortable, these boys complain. They’re stiff, itchy and just too tight. Instead, as their parents wince, the boys demand pants that are baggy and easy to pull on.

Pleas for help roll into various parenting blogs.

A forum topic on babycenter.com is titled, “Do any of your kids hate jeans?” One parent responded: “My son is 10. Hates jeans. Like seriously refuses to wear them.”

On netmums.com, one mother wrote: “My 2.5 year old hates wearing jeans. He was never keen on them, but he now screams murder as soon as he sees me coming with jeans.”

Many families experiencing denim rejection have a nickname for nondungarees that their boys adore: swish-swash pants, slippery pants, slicks or soft pants. These pants proliferate on the racks at Target, Old Navy and Baby Gap. They need frequent replacement as they fray at the hems, succumb to tears in the knee area or show other signs of wear.

Marina Lansdown, who lives on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, said that her three sons wear only track pants and sweats. “It’s driving me insane, ” she said.

When the family goes out to dinner, she can sometimes compel the boys, ages 6, 8 and 10, to put on corduroys. “I don’t want you to look like you just came off the basketball court,” she said she tells them.

Laurel Howe of New Canaan, Conn., said that her 11-year-old son wore khakis and a collared shirt to school most days. Then in fourth grade, a friend asked him why he always wore church clothes to school.

It’s been track pants ever since, said Ms. Howe, who said the entire middle school is suffering from an anti-jeans epidemic.

Designers of boys clothing are trying to help by creating sweats and track pants for boys that look more fancy and by making jeans out of more pliable, soft denim.

A few labels and retailers, like Lands’ End and H&M, offer synthetic athletic pants, some with tapered ankles, as well as sweatpants with colorful trim and pocket linings.

New bluejean styles for boys include brushed-cotton linings, baggy cuts and stretchy denim blends or prewashed denim that feels softer. Even Sears has adapted its Toughskins line, adding knits and styles in relaxed fit or with skinny bottoms and a “jogger silhouette,” said Mike Allen, Sears’s divisional vice president for children’s apparel.

Jeans are still a top seller at MiniBoden, the children’s collection from Boden USA. But to please picky customers, the company has integrated more designs with elasticized waistbands, said Theo Ford, who runs boys’ wear design for the company. Over the past couple of seasons, designers have tweaked track pants, also a big seller, to make them roomier, he said. And the company plans to expand its fleece pants line.

Focus groups informed designers at J. Crew’s Crewcuts line that boys prefer lighter-weight fabrics, so the company is gussying up track pants to appease boys and parents. Boys’ sweatpants are pegged toward the ankles and can be paired with a matching track jacket for an urbane look. Cargo pants come in a softer fabric and are slimmer through the legs than past designs.

“We’ve been working our way toward the most comfortable pants possible while still being something they can wear to school,” said Jenny Cooper, the head of design at Crewcuts, whose own 9-year-old son has declared a war on denim.

Older boys tend to outgrow bluejean aversion. Patty Ward’s 12-year-old son recently decided he would succumb to jeans, as other boys his age were doing. But the moment he walks in the door after school, he takes them off and lounges around their Chicago home in his boxer briefs.

“In hindsight, the soft-pants stage wasn’t so bad,” Ms. Ward said.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Pandering to children's whims leads to a downward spiral.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

As a father of two twentysome odd year old sons, I can state with certainty that the problem lies in the parents. A home is not a democracy, but a benevolent dictatorship. These boys cited in the article are all too young to have an independent source of income. If the only clothes they have are those the parent's deem appropriate, then they wear those or go naked. Parents need to set the standards and lay down the law. It's their way or the highway. Parents seem too willing to cave in to the pressure of childish demands and tantrums. 

Whether it be the clothes they are expected to wear, the food they are expected to eat, the phone they are expected to turn off at the table ( or not have until old enough for one), the games they can play, the amount of time watching TV, or any other number of issues, parents need to hold the line. The path of least resistance, giving in to childish whims, creates an environment, where parental standards are undermined. Any child who repeatedly is faced with bilateral parental fortitude, learns at a very early age the futility of resistance, and the loses it can cause to other issues the child is interested in. While I don't advocate an intransigent attitude (one must pick one's fights), raising children demands a tough skin, and willingness to stand firm for what a parent deems important. There will be time for rebellion, and charting their own course, but that should be done when a child has been trained, and educated in the values their parents hold dear.

Did this work for us? I like to think so. After their teenage years, upon entering the adult world and workforce, I see my sons manners and dress to be significantly more refined than many others their age. They have bonded with peers who are like minded, and from what we know of many of the parents, they raised their children in a no flip flop atmosphere with a unified parental front. Parental disagreements were resolved way from the children.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

KenCPollock said:


> Parents lament that they cannot get their young sons to wear something as dressy as jeans to wear for dinner out.
> I remember when they were considered slob-wear.
> How low can we go?
> .


Oh, just wait. I can see some "Helicopter Mom" taking her adolescent son out in diapers, with MD notes that he has "Genital Binding Aversion Disorder" or "Non-Specific Crotchital Paranoia".

As for jeans being dressy, Hollywood and the fashion industry seem to think so. Have you priced some of those things recently?


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

These young children are trying to emulate the teenagers. Sweatpants are a big trend.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

momsdoc said:


> I can state with certainty that the problem lies in the parents.


I assumed that the moment I read the name Jackson.

As for this 12 year old boy walking around in his underwear, turn the heat down to 68 or lower.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

The children have already come halfway towards solving the problem. They've rejected jeans. Now the parents only have to get them to embrace khakis.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Tempest said:


> I assumed that the moment I read the name Jackson.


We have two very good friends with sons named Jackson. I think I understand the spirit of your comment, but I don't understand the rationale behind it. Would you care to explain?


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

I think he's insinuating that Jackson Pollock had overly indulgent parents.:devil:


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

"Different" names for children tell you that the parents are a bit full of themselves and socially liberal. I feel bad calling others pretentious, given this forum, but the name is chosen to highlight how "special" they are.
You have to babysit a room full of boys. One room has boys named Michael, Robert, Thomas, and John. The other has boys named Mackenzie, Schuyler, Liam, and Trevor. Which would you choose?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Tempest said:


> "Different" names for children tell you that the parents are a bit full of themselves and socially liberal. I feel bad calling others pretentious, given this forum, but the name is chosen to highlight how "special" they are.
> You have to babysit a room full of boys. One room has boys named Michael, Robert, Thomas, and John. The other has boys named Mackenzie, Schuyler, Liam, and Trevor. Which would you choose?


Sorry, but I think your premise is ignorant, and couldn't be further from the truth in my personal experience. I'd say the vast majority of families I know have kids with unconventional names. They are far from being pretentious, and are certainly not socially liberal. They have terrific values, are productive members of society, and have raised their children to be respectful, polite, well-behaved, high academic and athletic achievers, and all around great kids. I think you've made an absurd generalization.


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

FLCracka said:


> Sorry, but I think your premise is ignorant, and couldn't be further from the truth in my personal experience. I'd say the vast majority of families I know have kids with unconventional names. They are far from being pretentious, and are certainly not socially liberal. They have terrific values, are productive members of society, and have raised their children to be respectful, polite, well-behaved, high academic and athletic achievers, and all around great kids. I think you've made an absurd generalization.


+1. This is one of the most ludicrous things posted on here in a while...and that takes some effort.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> Sorry, but I think your premise is *ignorant*, and couldn't be further from the truth i*n my personal experience*. I'd say the vast majority of families I know have kids with unconventional names.


1. Go to a church social or some other nice place where there will be children with traditional names. Then you'll be more informed of the range of children's behavior.
2. Can you tell that my experience is the exact opposite? Pretentious name is a harbinger of an insufferable child. There are exceptions, but the correlation is heavy.
3. So which room are you hypothetically choosing to babysit? Mike, Rob,Tom, and Jack, amirite? 
4. Most importantly, how do these cleverly-named little darlings dress, especially when out to dinner?


SlideGuitarist said:


> Parents of all classes select "special" names for their children. An exception might be parents who, for cultural reasons, name their children after close relatives.


I said nothing of class, but was anyone shocked to read that Jackson is being raised in Brooklyn? I knew right away that this was a SWPL family. Thank you for pointing out that lack of family tradition is very entwined with elitist name syndrome.


----------



## jm22 (Apr 18, 2013)

And this thread is a reminder of how close minded and waspy it can get on here.

Who cares what parents name their children? What matters is the way the child conducts his/her self in public as well as the household. I'm 25 and grew up in a household that stressed manners and dressing as nice as possible when it was a holiday or nice dinner. I grew up poor, so it wasn't very often, but I always was taught to dress appropriately. My military training only furthered this. 

Don't give into your kid's whims and provide structure. My parents said something very similar to momsdoc regarding the house being a dictatorship, not a democracy. It has served me well and I have been fairly successful thus far.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

KenCPollock said:


> I remember when they were considered slob-wear.


Nope. The dress jeans are "selvage" denim, the hip jeans. You know, the one's that still look a lot like the ones your mom used to buy for a few bucks, except that folks fork up a couple hundred for them instead.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

It must be the first visit for the blond lady in the white and black (or is it blue and gold?:biggrin sundress. A few pounds of Paula's butter and bacon grease, and she'll fit in with the rest of the crowd. 

Do they have specially reinforced chairs there? I can see it now, an insulin syringe in every doggy bag.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

"Jeans are considered dressy?" We may be witnessing the coming of the 'Sartorial Apocalypse.' The end is near! LOL.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Your display of ignorance is compounding by the syllable.



Tempest said:


> 1. Go to a church social or some other nice place where there will be children with traditional names. Then you'll be more informed of the range of children's behavior. I attend church (and other "nice places" with children of all names) every week, and volunteered in the children's Sunday School for many years. I'm plenty informed of the range of children's behavior.
> 2. Can you tell that my experience is the exact opposite? Pretentious name is a harbinger of an insufferable child. There are exceptions, but the correlation is heavy. What is a pretentious name? What makes it pretentious? Assuming you're still talking about "different" names, this is, again, an absurd and ignorant generalization.
> 3. So which room are you hypothetically choosing to babysit? Mike, Rob,Tom, and Jack, amirite?
> 4. Most importantly, how do these cleverly-named little darlings dress, especially when out to dinner? The unconventionally named kids of the families I know are among the best dressed kids in my community.
> I said nothing of class, but was anyone shocked to read that Jackson is being raised in Brooklyn? I knew right away that this was a SWPL family. I have no idea what this means but I'm guessing you just made another condescending generalization. Thank you for pointing out that lack of family tradition is very entwined with elitist name syndrome. I'm glad you mentioned that....I meant to say in my earlier post that many of my friends' kids' "different" names are family names, which is why they seem so unconventional and unfamiliar to many.


By the way, the two Jacksons I know....one is a high school senior, a starter on the varsity basketball team and a Rhodes Scholarship finalist.....the other plays in the #2 spot, as a freshman, on the varsity golf team and is already getting attention from college scouts. Both young men are extremely well-mannered (always yes/no ma'am and sir), humble, articulate, and yes, well-dressed. As for the parents, very down to earth...not the least bit pretentious.


----------



## Deoraby (Feb 6, 2012)

Tempest said:


> "Different" names for children tell you that the parents are a bit full of themselves and socially liberal. I feel bad calling others pretentious, given this forum, but the name is chosen to highlight how "special" they are.
> You have to babysit a room full of boys. One room has boys named Michael, Robert, Thomas, and John. The other has boys named Mackenzie, Schuyler, Liam, and Trevor. Which would you choose?


Tempest's email seems a little poorly informed....Liam and Trevor are very traditional names...Conventionally classed as Irish but I believe of German and Welsh origin, respectively. 
my kids have names that may be considered 'pretentious' for downtown Toronto...Eoin and Shea. But, Tempest, consider that I am English, my wife is Irish, Eoin was born in Ireland six months before we moved to N America where Shea was born a couple of years later and that Eoin and Shea are Irish versions of John and James and you will see that there is little that could be classed as pretentious at all.
i am happy to report that Eoin and Shea's behaviour, like all healthy young boys, falls at both ends of the good-bad behaviour spectrum....depending, not on their names or liberalism of my wife and I, but on factors such as tiredness, hunger and availability of super hero toys.


----------



## winghus (Dec 18, 2014)

eagle2250 said:


> "Jeans are considered dressy?" We may be witnessing the coming of the 'Sartorial Apocalypse.' The end is near! LOL.


 Damn! I just started dressing well recently! Oh well, off to the prepper store to buy dried food and ammo.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

I hope this thread gets saved in the 'classics' archive.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

eagle2250 said:


> "Jeans are considered dressy?" We may be witnessing the coming of the 'Sartorial Apocalypse.' The end is near! LOL.


How about the arrival of the *grammatical* apocalypse? Emblematic of the *cultural* apocalypse?

Now, it's been more than a half century since I've enjoyed grammar instruction, and on a good day I can remember my name, and that of my wife and children. And I appreciate, perhaps more than some, that language continues to evolve, but . . . .

*"that look more fancy"*

Really?

Perhaps I'd be less unhappy if it were not to be found in the New York Times, late, the unassailable newspaper of record; more recently a clown-car of impenetrable prose, poseurs and plagiarists.

Now I realize that Miss Price was not an absolute arbiter of grammar. But I was taught that (In American English.) the comparative form of the adjective fancy, is _fancier_.

More recent grammatical innovations aside, no one asked me if they could change this, and lord how this grates on my ear!


----------



## Winny94 (Feb 19, 2015)

Tempest said:


> "Different" names for children tell you that the parents are a bit full of themselves and socially liberal. I feel bad calling others pretentious, given this forum, but the name is chosen to highlight how "special" they are.
> You have to babysit a room full of boys. One room has boys named Michael, Robert, Thomas, and John. The other has boys named Mackenzie, Schuyler, Liam, and Trevor. Which would you choose?


Many valid opinions in this thread. This, however, is not one of them.


----------



## Tomayto (Sep 10, 2014)

I despise jeans. 

I tried buying a pair in middle school once so I could fit in. I could count on my fingers the amount of times I wore it before tossing it. I normally wore cargo pants or khakis. To me, khakis were always like cargo pants, except with less pockets, so I just gravitated towards them as well. Happily, I grew up to realize that khakis are a "dressier" casual look, so nowadays I pretty much wear them exclusively. 

Just thought this thread could use some input from someone actually in the age group described.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Tempest said:


> "Different" names for children tell you that the parents are a bit full of themselves and socially liberal. I feel bad calling others pretentious, given this forum, but the name is chosen to highlight how "special" they are.
> You have to babysit a room full of boys. One room has boys named Michael, Robert, Thomas, and John. The other has boys named Mackenzie, Schuyler, Liam, and Trevor. Which would you choose?


Interesting that Liam and Trevor are included in the "wrong" room. Liam has become a bit commonplace over here - a bit "footballer".

Trevor is a bit old-fashioned and maybe a bit Welsh. Though Ian Dury warns against "clever Trevor"
*▶ *www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiulgP9kR7c​

(Billericay) Dickie is the one you should really worry about though
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuNyzEa0gU8​
​

Carry on....​


----------



## Deoraby (Feb 6, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Interesting that Liam and Trevor are included in the "wrong" room. Liam has become a bit commonplace over here - a bit "footballer".
> 
> Trevor is a bit old-fashioned and maybe a bit Welsh. Though Ian Dury warns against "clever Trevor"
> *▶ *www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiulgP9kR7c​
> ...


i hear Trevor and Liam, I think 70s footballers ...I don't think over indulged children...

I suspect the use of Liam in the UK is an offshoot of '90s kids growing up and having their own children....Liam Gallagher from Oasis and Liam Howlett from the Prodigy...although the former is actually a William...which is probably a tempest approved name

.....which is where it all starts to get very confusing


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

SlideGuitarist - My first thought also. I freely admit I wear me Levi's proudly, when and where appropriate. However, I would NOT consider cargo pants of any kind a step up. Maybe, just maybe a step up from sweat pants. Maybe...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tempest said:


> You have to babysit a room full of boys. One room has boys named Michael, Robert, Thomas, and John. The other has boys named Mackenzie, Schuyler, Liam, and Trevor. Which would you choose?


I'd choose whomever is paying me the most.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I'd choose whomever is paying me the most.


The parents of the bratty kids pay most, obviously.

Anyway, if it hasn't already been stated, we can safely assume that these parents are not themselves wearing suits and dresses and leather-soled shoes. It is hard to blame the children for the sins of the parents.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Deoraby said:


> i hear Trevor and Liam, I think 70s footballers ...I don't think over indulged children...
> 
> I suspect the use of Liam in the UK is an offshoot of '90s kids growing up and having their own children....Liam Gallagher from Oasis and Liam Howlett from the Prodigy...although the former is actually a William...which is probably a tempest approved name
> 
> .....which is where it all starts to get very confusing


Liam is and always has been a very common name in Ireland. (It's also the Irish translation of William).
The only footballer named Liam I can think of is the famous Liam Brady, who must be in his sixties by now.

Trevor seems to belong to the era of Austin Allegros.


----------



## Tomayto (Sep 10, 2014)

SlideGuitarist said:


> :cold:


Gimme a break, it was middle school! You ignored the rest of my story.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I wouldn't say that jeans are dressy per say, just as long as they're pressed nice and neat.


----------



## Oak City Trad (Aug 2, 2014)

Howard said:


> I wouldn't say that jeans are dressy per say, just as long as they're pressed nice and neat.


For me that's creased, cuff, no break. Oh, and elaborate back-pocket stitching to differentiate me from the "normies" that also happen to be in attendance for the Hoobastank reunion show.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Neither are khakis.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Odradek said:


> Liam is and always has been a very common name in Ireland. (It's also the Irish translation of William).
> The only footballer named Liam I can think of is the famous Liam Brady, who must be in his sixties by now.
> 
> Trevor seems to belong to the era of Austin Allegros.


Liam Brady is fine. Liam Rosenior? For a start, he is the wrong colour for a Liam..

Irish names can go further afield like Kevin has, but they used to have the benefit of continuity.

Nowadays it is Goodbye Pat and Goodbye Mike and Goodbye Kate and Mary.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

To be honest, I wanted to use Tyler instead of Liam. And this is all in context. Naming a child Tyler Worthington is not poncy, but when Iannunzio family chooses this name, it probably is. I really don't object to ethnic names if not unnecessarily contrived.
My litmus test is if one can readily think of a historical figure, to include religious figures, with that name. Trevor and Travis fall short for me, and Pollock is the only Jackson...
I am very tempted to pull up photos of how infants and toddlers were dressed a century or more ago. They did not look uncomfortable.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Tempest said:


> To be honest, I wanted to use Tyler instead of Liam. And this is all in context. Naming a child Tyler Worthington is not poncy, but when Iannunzio family chooses this name, it probably is. I really don't object to ethnic names if not unnecessarily contrived.
> My litmus test is if one can readily think of a historical figure, to include religious figures, with that name. Trevor and Travis fall short for me, and Pollock is the only Jackson...
> I am very tempted to pull up photos of how infants and toddlers were dressed a century or more ago. They did not look uncomfortable.


Trevor Brooking?

Trevor Francis? - ("Trevor Francis track suits from a mush in Shepherds Bush")


----------



## Deoraby (Feb 6, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Trevor Brooking?
> 
> Trevor Francis? - ("Trevor Francis track suits from a mush in Shepherds Bush")


Trevor Steven...England and Everton

...now im struggling.....Trevor Hebberd..played for Derby, Oxford and Southampton


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Tempest said:


> [1] I really don't object to ethnic names if not unnecessarily contrived.
> 
> [2] My litmus test is if one can readily think of a historical figure, to include religious figures, with that name.


I'm not sure your attempt at clarification is doing you any favors. For example, the first statement I quoted above sounds as if you think that when parents are selecting a name for their newborn, you have a vote in the matter. I know that you know that parents don't need your seal of approval, but your sentence still sounds a bit highfalutin.

The second statement I quoted also comes off, albeit unintentionally, as condescending. Accordingly, it, too, fails to flatter your position. A newborn's name is not a stool sample that needs to be submitted to your lab to see if it contains an invisible speck of blood. I don't think new parents need to concern themselves with whether or not a name passes your "litmus test" before it goes onto the birth certificate. You don't believe this either, but your comment gives off a different, and unpleasant, implication.

There are times when it makes sense to provide further elaboration, and times when additional explanations just make one sink deeper into the muck that one has stepped in, contrary to one's intentions. My policy is that I don't give advice unless I am specifically asked for it, but in this case I am going to make an exception: I recommend you just let it go. For your own sake, stop trying to explain, or justify, your thought experiments and musings and guesses about some imagined correlation--if there is any--between kids' names and their behavior. This is one of those instances where every time you try to fix it, it will just get worse. You cannot make your argument more credible; the best you can do is keep the damage from spreading. To that end, silence on your part will be your only ally.

By the way, I frequently encounter kids and teenagers who have first names that sound like last names. For the most part, they are polite and pleasant people. Are they privileged? Many are. But they are not spoiled. They know their manners, and if they forget them, their parents quickly remind them to show them.

Now for the clothes: In even the wealthiest parts of wealthy Marin County, just north of San Francisco, kids below the middle-school level love to wear T-shirts and shorts to school--both public and private (unless the school has a strict dress code). Every day. T-shirts. Shorts. Brightly-colored athletic shoes. All income levels. The unofficial uniform. I see this with my own eyes. The clothes are Under Armor or some similar moisture-wicking, quick-drying synthetic fabric. I guess that's a function of both the mild climate as well as the generally very casual way of dressing there. And they are nice kids. Moreover, a lot of them have what could be considered high-toned names. Big deal.


----------



## Winny94 (Feb 19, 2015)

Tempest said:


> The parents of the bratty kids pay most, obviously.
> 
> Anyway, if it hasn't already been stated, we can safely assume that these parents are not themselves wearing suits and dresses and leather-soled shoes. It is hard to blame the children for the sins of the parents.


Realy? How is that obvious? Every daycare provider I've known has charged a flat rate, not behavioral based.

Also, are you insinuating you can judge the quality of parenting by how they dress?


----------



## smmrfld (May 22, 2007)

Tempest said:


> To be honest, I wanted to use Tyler instead of Liam. And this is all in context. Naming a child Tyler Worthington is not poncy, but when Iannunzio family chooses this name, it probably is. I really don't object to ethnic names if not unnecessarily contrived.
> My litmus test is if one can readily think of a historical figure, to include religious figures, with that name. Trevor and Travis fall short for me, and Pollock is the only Jackson...
> I am very tempted to pull up photos of how infants and toddlers were dressed a century or more ago. They did not look uncomfortable.


Just curious where your kids' names fall in this continuum. You do have kids, right? Am assuming so, since you seem so expert on these matters. If not, well, SMH.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If we can't move back to the subject of jeans this will be moved to the interchange or possibly closed.

I'm a bit surprised also at the tone of the name thing, but let's get back on track.

If you want to argue the name thing further, please do it through PMs. If you do, please be aware that if your PM is nasty and gets reported, that could cause a banning if nasty enough.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Just to be clear; there is to be absolutely no more of the "name game" discussion in the fashion forum.

This is getting close to turning into a destructive argument.


----------



## Winny94 (Feb 19, 2015)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Just to be clear; there is to be absolutely no more of the "name game" discussion in the fashion forum.
> 
> This is getting close to turning into a destructive argument.


Can we still argue about the validity of the instigator's views on parenting as it pertains to how they (the parents) dress?


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Winny94 said:


> Can we still argue about the validity of the instigator's views on parenting as it pertains to how they (the parents) dress?


I'd venture that is one for the Interchange.
The whole thread should probably have gone there anyway.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I would avoid anything that comes anywhere near a fight as far as this thread goes. The parenting issue is better done on the interchange, I think.

We are one post away from the interchange at this point.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

On this point, I have to agree with the boys. 

"Jeans are too uncomfortable, these boys complain. They’re stiff, itchy and just too tight."

It's their alternative choice that's gone astray.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Triathlete said:


> Neither are khakis.


or dungarees.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I guess I was wrong, there are some pictures out there that you see guys wearing "dress jeans".


----------



## jm22 (Apr 18, 2013)

They're can be dressier jeans, but it really depends where you're going to determine if they're enough. I prefer chinos on the weekends as they're much more comfortable. Otherwise, a pair of trousers are still more comfortable than jeans. Hell, my suits are more comfortable than jeans.


----------



## simplec7 (Feb 21, 2013)

Another thing to keep in mind is all jeans aren't really created equally. I do notice quite a difference in raw denim and raw denim with a little elastene in it.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

@ the Modertor 'forsbergacct2000' - I deleted my avatar as I was totally embarrassed at the way the thread went. There's more to being a gentleman than putting on nice clothes... I'm really quite shocked.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

The kids in the article were 7 1/2 years old? What kids are allowed to make those kind of decisions at their age and speak in such a manner. I'd have thought the article was more likely something from The Onion.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Sta-Prest style jeans are still below chinos in formality, IMO. Not saying they can't be creatively worn with a sport coat, maybe even a tie a la Take Ivy, but they're still not that dressy at all.

As for the article, I have to second SlideGuitarist as it reads like your typical doom and gloom "journalism". They use a few anecdotal examples to support a "fact" that standards are declining more and more. Despite that evidence to the contrary -- ties and tailored clothing are quite fashionable now and selling better than they did two decades ago -- says otherwise.


----------



## crocto (Dec 12, 2012)

I fail to see how a 7 year old wearing sweats is preventing anyone from buying and wearing a shirt from Charles Tyrwhitt.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

BECAUSE MILLENNIALS SUCK AND ARE RUINING THE WORLD!!! :eek2:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think jeans were meant to be lounged around in.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Howard said:


> I think jeans were meant to be lounged around in.


They were meant for prospecting. Then cattle-herding.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Pantaloon de Nimes are perfectly good for many things. Tempest has provided us with two of them, the other of course is looking like about 95% of the other inhabitants of the West at any given time. Honestly, I was recently in a mixed group of around 8 people, men and women, ages ranging from 20s to 60s, and I was the only one not wearing some variety of blue jeans.

I did have a genuinely lovely pair from Borrelli (purchased at a huge discount via Yoox), but no longer sport them in public. My underpinnings were designed for cladding of greater elegance.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Tempest said:


> They were meant for prospecting. Then cattle-herding.


With wearing jeans you can get them as dirty as you want.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Could someone please explain to me again what is so egregious about a grown man wearing a nice pair of dark wash denim? 

One caveat; please no references to coal mining, prospecting and cattle herding. Many of them wore boots that we proudly display here.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> Could someone please explain to me again what is so egregious about a grown man wearing a nice pair of dark wash denim?
> 
> One caveat; please no references to coal mining, prospecting and cattle herding. Many of them wore boots that we proudly display here.


There's nothing wrong with it per se, although the ubiquity is somewhat baffling, given the fact that it's not a terribly good cloth - no warmth in winter, but unpleasantly hot in summer - and that we live in age where every conformist drone loudly proclaims his or her originality or (God help us) "uniqueness". Perhaps it is because it retains a (false) air of rebellion and antinomianism, in much the same way as many baby boomers, in what must be the most transparent and pitiful pose in human history, like to maintain they are still radical and anti-establishment.

Jeans are fine, if one likes them. However, they are very much a casual item, and in my opinion should be reserved, if worn at all, for certain situations.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Just to be clear: you are expecting an explanation of what is wrong with jeans but without referencing much of what is wrong with jeans?

Are we allowed to mention that they are the uniform of the dimwit? That they drape like cardboard? That they are uncomfortable and unflattering? That in any given situation there is a superior choice? That they are normally blue? No? Well then, I give up. There must be nothing wrong with jeans.



SG_67 said:


> Could someone please explain to me again what is so egregious about a grown man wearing a nice pair of dark wash denim?
> 
> One caveat; please no references to coal mining, prospecting and cattle herding. Many of them wore boots that we proudly display here.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Are we allowed to mention that they are the uniform of the dimwit? That they drape like cardboard? That they are uncomfortable and unflattering? That in any given situation there is a superior choice? That they are normally blue? No? Well then, I give up. There must be nothing wrong with jeans.


In fairness to panatloon de Nimes, in the land of the feral imbecile (such as Britain now is), the mere dimwit can be a king. I share your distaste for jeans, and your objections are well made. But they are at least preferable to those awful saggy grey tracksuit bottoms (tusked into unlovely white athletic socks) that certain inhabitants of our island favour.

It behooves us to remember that the modern sartorial standard is like the situation in the Middle East at any given time - utterly appalling, but it could always be worse.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> There must be nothing wrong with jeans.


I knew you would eventually see it my way! :biggrin:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> There's nothing wrong with it per se, although the ubiquity is somewhat baffling, given the fact that it's not a terribly good cloth - no warmth in winter, but unpleasantly hot in summer - and that we live in age where every conformist drone loudly proclaims his or her originality or (God help us) "uniqueness". Perhaps it is because it retains a (false) air of rebellion and antinomianism, in much the same way as many baby boomers, in what must be the most transparent and pitiful pose in human history, like to maintain they are still radical and anti-establishment.
> 
> Jeans are fine, if one likes them. However, they are very much a casual item, and in my opinion should be reserved, if worn at all, for certain situations.


There's certainly a time and place for them.

As for the quality of the cloth, like anything else be it cashmere, cotton, wool, silk and leather there are varying degrees of quality. There are times when I enjoy donning a nice pair of dark wash denim when going out to a casual dinner with my wife.


----------



## crocto (Dec 12, 2012)

Shaver said:


> That they are uncomfortable and unflattering?


Not on me. They look great. My butt looks fantastic.


----------



## nbj08 (Feb 6, 2015)

I love this thread. In less than 3 pages, I've gone from confidently wearing dark wash jeans to class many days, seeing that I present better than the majority of my peers (at a good school, to boot - one should expect excellent clothes to accompany the pretentious attitudes, but the former is absent), to questioning their place in my wardrobe ("I guess they weren't very warm this winter..."), to accepting them back into my life and accepting them for what they are.

All kidding aside, one difficulty I've encountered lately while (whilst?) dressing nicer is classmates perceive me negatively, as if I'm trying to garner attention for all the wrong reasons.

When this feeling overwhelms, I'm compelled to conform to very casual clothes and retain my anonymity by wearing jeans and an untucked J Crew polo...


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

crocto said:


> Not on me. They look great. My butt looks fantastic.


I've always wondered if the people on this forum who dislike, or even hate, jeans do so because they look terrible in them.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

nbj08 said:


> I love this thread. In less than 3 pages, I've gone from confidently wearing dark wash jeans to class many days, seeing that I present better than the majority of my peers (at a good school, to boot - one should expect excellent clothes to accompany the pretentious attitudes, but the former is absent), to questioning their place in my wardrobe ("I guess they weren't very warm this winter..."), to accepting them back into my life and accepting them for what they are.
> 
> All kidding aside, one difficulty I've encountered lately while (whilst?) dressing nicer is classmates perceive me negatively, as if I'm trying to garner attention for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> When this feeling overwhelms, I'm compelled to conform to very casual clothes and retain my anonymity by wearing jeans and an untucked J Crew polo...


There is absolutely nothing wrong with a nice pair of dark wash, straight leg denim.

Style is all about having options and being able to dress appropriately for a given occasion or context. A suit and tie is just as out of place at times as would be denim at a funeral or wedding.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

Though I have a few pair, I rarely find a use for them outside of gardening, and home cleaning/repair chores. The only place they have been seen in public is during quick runs to Home Depot or the local garden center whilst performing the appropriate chores. However they did come in handy last Summer for a Rodeo in Crystal Springs. Who knew there were Rodeos in NJ?


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

nbj08 said:


> I love this thread. In less than 3 pages, I've gone from confidently wearing dark wash jeans to class many days, seeing that I present better than the majority of my peers (at a good school, to boot - one should expect excellent clothes to accompany the pretentious attitudes, but the former is absent), to questioning their place in my wardrobe ("I guess they weren't very warm this winter..."), to accepting them back into my life and accepting them for what they are.
> 
> All kidding aside, one difficulty I've encountered lately while (whilst?) dressing nicer is classmates perceive me negatively, as if I'm trying to garner attention for all the wrong reasons.
> 
> When this feeling overwhelms, I'm compelled to conform to very casual clothes and retain my anonymity by wearing jeans and an untucked J Crew polo...


LOL. Back in the late 1950's and early 1960's the "cool kids" in my school wore Khakis (jeans were rarely seen)...so that's what I wore. The habit became so ingrained that I'm still wearing them most of the time! However, our school aged youth can be some of the most harshly judgmental peers we will ever have to deal with. Dressing well is a noble aspiration, but you must live in the present...the operative word being live!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> I've always wondered if the people on this forum who dislike, or even hate, jeans do so because they look terrible in them.


 I'll probably never live this down but here goes! I shall allow you to judge for yourself.....


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> I'll probably never live this down but here goes! I shall allow you to judge for yourself.....


You look fabulous! Now what's wrong with that?


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> Though I have a few pair, I rarely find a use for them outside of gardening, and home cleaning/repair chores. The only place they have been seen in public is during quick runs to Home Depot or the local garden center whilst performing the appropriate chores. However they did come in handy last Summer for a Rodeo in Crystal Springs. Who knew there were Rodeos in NJ?


I participated in quite a few rodeos in N.J. in my youth, mid 50's, long time ago. Jeans dominated.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> You look fabulous! Now what's wrong with that?


In my view that's the best possible way to wear them, and of course Shaver looks absolutely fine. However, as he himself said, there are better options.

It's really a question of what's appropriate for a given circumstance. I don't see anything wrong with them here, I just wouldn't choose to wear them myself.

I am actually wearing pantaloon de Nimes at this very moment - we are removing some beams today and I felt justified in leaving the chinos aside.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> There is absolutely nothing wrong with a nice pair of dark wash, straight leg denim.
> 
> Style is all about having options and being able to dress appropriately for a given occasion or context. A suit and tie is just as out of place at times as would be denim at a funeral or wedding.


Could you name some social contexts where jeans are clearly the best choice?

I've only worn them for manual labor since I graduated high school but I'm considering getting a pair of "nice" jeans. Just not sure it's worth the hassle of buying and storing them, given that there always seems to be a better option.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Natty Beau said:


> Could you name some social contexts where jeans are clearly the best choice?
> 
> I've only worn them for manual labor since I graduated high school but I'm considering getting a pair of "nice" jeans. Just not sure it's worth the hassle of buying and storing them, given that there always seems to be a better option.


Sure. Sometimes my wife and I want to go out for a casual meal, to the movies or just walking about town. I would consider them as appropriate as chinos or cords or other cotton slacks.

I wear wool slacks to work every day. On the weekend or in the evenings, I want to wear something different. I think dark wash denim pairs very well with brown or snuff suede. They pair well with boots as well.


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Jovan said:


> BECAUSE MILLENNIALS SUCK AND ARE RUINING THE WORLD!!! :eek2:


of course we are, that's how we get our kicks. Wearing shorts one day, sparking social unrest the next :biggrin:

Per the jeans conversation, I couldnt care less if someone chooses to wear jeans, it doesn't effect my life. I have a pair of Diesels that I've worn maybe 4 times, and a pair of Levi 505's that I'll wear occasionally, but I find chinos to be far more comfortable. The cotton is softer and lighter, the fabric tends to be more breathable, and they tend to fit better. Of course, I also wear fitted chinos, so I may be contributing to the downfall of civilization on that front


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> Sure. Sometimes my wife and I want to go out for a casual meal, to the movies or just walking about town. I would consider them as appropriate as chinos or cords or other cotton slacks.
> 
> I wear wool slacks to work every day. On the weekend or in the evenings, I want to wear something different. I think dark wash denim pairs very well with brown or snuff suede. They pair well with boots as well.


That's what I figured: at best they're on par with chinos or cords. They seem non-essential if you've already got those options.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ it's just another option that's all. Sometimes you just want to mix it up a bit.


----------



## nbj08 (Feb 6, 2015)

Natty Beau said:


> That's what I figured: at best they're on par with chinos or cords. They seem non-essential if you've already got those options.


If they're on par with chinos or cords, then it seems personal preference would dictate whether jeans were essential, wouldn't it?


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

nbj08 said:


> If they're on par with chinos or cords, then it seems personal preference would dictate whether jeans were essential, wouldn't it?


Sure. You could say a man needs either chinos or jeans, but not both. Having both is going beyond essentials.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Natty Beau said:


> Sure. You could say a man needs either chinos or jeans, but not both. Having both is going beyond essentials.


These fora are all about going beyond the essentials!


----------



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

Tempest said:


> 1. Go to a church social or some other nice place.


'nuff said.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

SG_67 said:


> Could someone please explain to me again what is so egregious about a grown man wearing a nice pair of dark wash denim?
> 
> One caveat; please no references to coal mining, prospecting and cattle herding. Many of them wore boots that we proudly display here.


I guess it's looks nice and it shows off your features.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

SG_67 said:


> I've always wondered if the people on this forum who dislike, or even hate, jeans do so because they look terrible in them.


I love wearing jeans.


----------



## sskim3 (Jul 2, 2013)

SG_67 said:


> You look fabulous! Now what's wrong with that?


agreed.... i see nothing wrong with this look... i understand that compared to khakis, trousers, etc you will not get that straight line look... and you aren't going to look as elegant... demin was never made for that purpose and your rock them pretty well. Shaver - you are even smiling!


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

momsdoc said:


> As a father of two twentysome odd year old sons, I can state with certainty that the problem lies in the parents.


When I saw reference to red suspenders and their "Brooklyn home" I realized that, unfortunately, overly tight pants had not sterilized all the hipster-dads-to-be and that you were indeed correct.


----------



## crocto (Dec 12, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> You look fabulous! Now what's wrong with that?


Shavr put on jeans ONE time and he came dangerous close to having, what I hear is called, a "good time". Needless to say the gabardine got put back on forthwith!

Seriously, that's a good look Shavr.


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Shaver said:


> I'll probably never live this down but here goes! I shall allow you to judge for yourself.....





SG_67 said:


> You look fabulous! Now what's wrong with that?


+1, I'd say it's a great look. Pretty similar to my typical meeting/out for dinner attire (it's acceptable for both in my circles). I'd say you'd be remiss for not doing it more often.

One small thing: I do think that the yellow clashes a bit with your particular shirt choice. Perhaps when opting for such an outfit, consider taking out your other helicopter for the day .


----------



## AMProfessor (Sep 9, 2011)

I'm sorry, but I agree you have destroyed your anti-jean argument. You might as well just throw in the towel, move to the US, and join me at a NASCAR race.


----------



## tck13 (Nov 4, 2005)

Was going to post George Carlin's rant about names but not sure about that video on this forum.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

tck13 said:


> Was going to post George Carlin's rant about names but not sure about that video on this forum.


A good rant but probably not one the moderator would be keen on. In future years you will be able to guess the age of the person behind the names with some accuracy. They become popular then fade.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Jeans were invented to be work clothes - and that's how I wear them. Gardening, shoveling snow, etc. I do have two "nicer" pairs that will occasionally see casual wear, but I will almost always reach for a pair or cords or chinos instead. Shaver looks quite dashing in his ensemble in no small part because Shaver IS dashing. But replacing those jeans with chinos would certainly elevate the outfit, IMO.

Same jacket - you tell me which looks better:


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

That's not a fair comparison. I can't see above your shoes in the second pic.:biggrin:


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

Roger,
While I like you, try to limit my jeans wear to gardening, occasionally a trip to market etc. these days, I have to be totally honest, I like the look of the jeans better than the cords in those two photos. Crazy? I know, from someone who might have worn jeans with SC once in my lifetime.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jeans have been worn in smart contexts since the 1960s, over 50 years ago!


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Roger,

I think the main issue with the first pic is that the jeans aren't dark enough. If you found a really dark pair, perhaps with slightly brown undertones, they'd look phenomenal with that jacket. However take my opinion with a grain of salt; all of my pants fall into two categories: jeans, and trousers that came with a matching jacket .


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Jeans have been worn in smart contexts since the 1960s, over 50 years ago!


I know. I'm old enough to remember. I've worn jeans for the better part of my life, I just never thought them appropriate to be paired with SC. I guess with the advent of "dress" jeans they have become more acceptable for casual dress. I don't put down jeans for those who choose to wear them in casual surroundings if done tastefully, Roger and Shaver have shown it can be done quite well. Perhaps I'll buy a pair of dressier jeans, if I can find a pair that suits me and give it a whirl


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

RogerP said:


> Jeans were invented to be work clothes - and that's how I wear them.


And bluchers were invented by this guy:










You got any of those, or are they just for wearing when fighting Napoleon?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Shaver said:


> I'll probably never live this down but here goes! I shall allow you to judge for yourself.....


That's a very nice look Shaver.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

> Jeans were invented to be work clothes - and that's how I wear them. Gardening, shoveling snow, etc.


That's how I see them as work clothes.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Peak and Pine said:


> And bluchers were invented by this guy:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You make your choices, I make mine, okay? Rock sneakers and jeans to your heart's content. Add a beanie cap if it pleases you to do so. I won't be joining you, and we'll both be happy.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

RogerP said:


> You make your choices, I make mine, okay? Rock sneakers and jeans to your heart's content. Add a beanie cap if it pleases you to do so. I won't be joining you, and we'll both be happy.


Whoa. Looks like I've struck a little nerve there. Not my intent tho. Not at all. So what's with you? Consider someday replying in the same flavor as the original comment. It's a big Baskin-Robbins world out there, you're not limited.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Peak and Pine said:


> Whoa. Looks like I've struck a little nerve there. Not my intent tho. Not at all. So what's with you? Consider someday replying in the same flavor as the original comment. It's a big Baskin-Robbins world out there, you're not limited.


Not so much a nerve, as my inclination to respond to your persistent sniping sarcasm with more of the same. Whenever you take the opportunity to respond to one of my posts, that seems to be your favored course of action. So going forward, please don't be surprised by my choice of response.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

There are some cranky folks on the forum today! Lighten up, it's just clothes!!


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

As someone who works in the tech industry in a startup in San Francisco, jeans are pretty much the standard work pants (and some quite expensive Japanese selvedge), even among the tech executives where it is commonly paired with a dress shirt and perhaps a jacket.

That being said, they have to be the right wash (darker usually preferred), no torn knees, and definitely no Obama-style mom jeans.

One advantage of jeans-as-business-casual is that most men who don't give a damn about fashion tend to look better in jeans than in the dumpy pleated Docker khakis that were more common 10 years ago.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Being completely serious, the first look is of course absolutely fine. However it is a very 'ordinary' or 'standard' look (albeit very nicely done). It could, for example, be that of a man who is reluctantly "dressing up" because he's going somewhere nice for dinner, wearing a jacket that his wife bought him for when she wants him to look "smart".

The second look is entirely different. Bold but understated, elegant yet practical, distinctive without wackiness, it could serve as a pictorial representation of the phrase 'effortless style'. It speaks of taste and discernment, utterly classic but thoroughly individual.

The first is fine, nothing wrong with it, perfectly OK, nice, etc etc. The second is approaching a triumph. Pataloon de Nimes are fine for manual labour (although even for that there are better options) - for everything else a gentleman should sport alternative trouserings. 


RogerP said:


> Jeans were invented to be work clothes - and that's how I wear them. Gardening, shoveling snow, etc. I do have two "nicer" pairs that will occasionally see casual wear, but I will almost always reach for a pair or cords or chinos instead. Shaver looks quite dashing in his ensemble in no small part because Shaver IS dashing. But replacing those jeans with chinos would certainly elevate the outfit, IMO.
> 
> Same jacket - you tell me which looks better:


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

So can we all agree that tech industry workers are now dressing better than seven year old boys?


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

^ good one.:thumbs-up:


----------



## TimelesStyle (Aug 25, 2013)

Tempest said:


> So can we all agree that tech industry workers are now dressing better than seven year old boys?


I've never seen a seven year old boy in socks and sandals. Just sayin'


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Its not because of jeans in the first photo, it's because of 'those' particular jeans.



Il Signor Crispone said:


> Being completely serious, the first look is of course absolutely fine. However it is a very 'ordinary' or 'standard' look (albeit very nicely done). It could, for example, be that of a man who is reluctantly "dressing up" because he's going somewhere nice for dinner, wearing a jacket that his wife bought him for when she wants him to look "smart".
> 
> The second look is entirely different. Bold but understated, elegant yet practical, distinctive without wackiness, it could serve as a pictorial representation of the phrase 'effortless style'. It speaks of taste and discernment, utterly classic but thoroughly individual.
> 
> The first is fine, nothing wrong with it, perfectly OK, nice, etc etc. The second is approaching a triumph. Pataloon de Nimes are fine for manual labour (although even for that there are better options) - for everything else a gentleman should sport alternative trouserings.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Shaver is rocking the jeans with tweed quite well. They are dark, a flattering fit, and in good repair. Soon as mine fade/fray significantly or wear holes in the crotch is when I retire them to washing the car.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Soon as mine fade/fray significantly or wear holes in the crotch is when I retire them to* washing the car.*


You actually own a car, or are you just washing them? Why can't I picture this? Does it have a crate of live chickens strapped to the roof? Hmmmm. So many questions. (Now don't go all Roger P. on me.)


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

My own car. Now where did you get the chicken idea from?


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

watchnerd said:


> As someone who works in the tech industry in a startup in San Francisco, jeans are pretty much the standard work pants (and some quite expensive Japanese selvedge), even among the tech executives where it is commonly paired with a dress shirt and perhaps a jacket.
> 
> That being said, they have to be the right wash (darker usually preferred), no torn knees, and definitely no Obama-style mom jeans.
> 
> *One advantage of jeans-as-business-casual is that most men who don't give a damn about fashion tend to look better in jeans than in the dumpy pleated Docker khakis that were more common 10 years ago.*


Um..... they are fooling no one but themselves. Business casual and jeans don't belong in the same sentence. Just because jeans are common doesn't mean they are dressy. whats next? Will we consider yoga pants dressy? Stop the madness. Nothing wrong with wearing jeans if thats your thing. Just don't confuse them for anything dressy.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Jovan said:


> Shaver is rocking the jeans with tweed quite well.


I wouldn't go so far as to say he's _rocking _the jeans. Of course it would help if I knew what that meant. Would you say I was _rocking_ that Brooks Brothers Marlins blazer currently being showcased in WAYWT, or are you just sucking up to the English-y members? Being from Maine means what, nothing to you?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

immanuelrx said:


> Stop the madness. Nothing wrong with wearing jeans if that's your thing. Just don't confuse them for anything dressy.


Are you putting that out there as a dictum for the rest of us, or is that just a personal belief?

I was standing in an airport yesterday near two business-y types traveling together. One in baggy, pleated, no-iron chinos and blue blazer, the other in jeans and a tweed. The first was all wrinkled and ill-fitting, the second tight and sharp. Yet, it could have been the other way around. It seems it's how you wear these things which determine how the mark is made.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Peak and Pine said:


> Are you putting that out there as a dictum for the rest of us, or is that just a personal belief?
> 
> I was standing in an airport yesterday near two business-y types traveling together. One in baggy, pleated, no-iron chinos and blue blazer, the other in jeans and a tweed. The first was all wrinkled and ill-fitting, the second tight and sharp. Yet, it could have been the other way around. It seems it's how you wear these things which determine how the mark is made.


Don't be that guy man.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Answer the question.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Peak and Pine said:


> Answer the question.


Sure, one doesn't know how to wear dress clothes and the other is nothing more than a man with jeans and tweed. Jeans are still not "dressy." Whats your point? One has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

Peak and Pine said:


> The point is contained in the last line of the initial response.
> 
> I think you and I may have different definitions of dressy. Your putting a "y'" at the end of "dress" seems to bring the word down a notch, a workable notch, one that it would seem could be filled with well-fitting jeans. But maybe not. I'm not a stickler on these things.


I used the word dressy because that was the word originally used in the title of the thread. If jeans work as "dressy" for you then wear them as such. We disagree, such is life.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I actually think P&P has a point. One can be better dressed than someone else even if they're wearing something of technically lower formality. The man in the well fitting, pressed suit is undoubtedly going to look sharper than the one wearing a too big (or too small), wrinkly mess of a tuxedo at a black tie optional event.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

immanuelrx said:


> Stop the madness.


Why is it madness and why must it be stopped? And how?

How would you have convinced Steve Jobs (when still alive) to stop wearing jeans on stage?

Certain industries have a distinct counter-cultural element to their tribes' chosen attire. A tech worker or creative industry worker does not want to look like a banker or a lawyer. Trying to force software developers to dress like Wall Street traders (unless they work as developers on Wall Street) would be a complete leadership fail.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> Certain industries have a distinct counter-cultural element to their tribes' chosen attire.


It's not really counter culture any more though (or certainly not in the United Kingdom - things may be different across the pond). Over here, the establishment is composed of les soixante-huitards - with all the naivete, selfishness and yes, ill-fitting denim that entails.

Possibly that is why we are beginning to see a counter-cultural shift in favour of more elegant modes of dress here?


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

Triathlete said:


> Its not because of jeans in the first photo, it's because of 'those' particular jeans.


I would certainly concede that darker denim would look better than the mid colour shown. Nonetheless, I still think there are no denims that would be preferable to the look set out in the second picture.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Jovan said:


> I actually think P&P has a point. One can be better dressed than someone else even if they're wearing something of technically lower formality. The man in the well fitting, pressed suit is undoubtedly going to look sharper than the one wearing a too big (or too small), wrinkly mess of a tuxedo at a black tie optional event.


More of a red herring than a point, as it addresses neither the general appropriateness of jeans nor the degree (if any) to which they can be successfully paired with a jacket. Using the example of someone otherwise poorly dressed as a barometer is rather meaningless.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

immanuelrx said:


> I used the word dressy because that was the word originally used in the title of the thread. If jeans work as "dressy" for you then wear them as such. We disagree, such is life.


No, you must agree with him. It's a new rule.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

watchnerd said:


> Why is it madness and why must it be stopped? And how?
> 
> How would you have convinced Steve Jobs (when still alive) to stop wearing jeans on stage?
> 
> Certain industries have a distinct counter-cultural element to their tribes' chosen attire. A tech worker or creative industry worker does not want to look like a banker or a lawyer. Trying to force software developers to dress like Wall Street traders (unless they work as developers on Wall Street) would be a complete leadership fail.


Completely missed the point here.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

I think this thread is jinxed.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> As someone who works in the tech industry in a startup in San Francisco, jeans are pretty much the standard work pants (and some quite expensive Japanese selvedge), even among the tech executives where it is commonly paired with a dress shirt and perhaps a jacket.
> 
> That being said, they have to be the right wash (darker usually preferred), no torn knees, and definitely no Obama-style mom jeans.
> 
> One advantage of jeans-as-business-casual is that most men who don't give a damn about fashion tend to look better in jeans than in the dumpy pleated Docker khakis that were more common 10 years ago.


That image of some dorky guy in dumpy, ill-fitting, pleated Dockers khakis (usually with squarish cheap black rubber-soled shoes and often a belly bulging over the waistband due to the insufficient rise) keeps a whole lot of people away from khakis around here. There's a strong anti-khaki bias in this part of the country for the most part, especially among younger people.


----------



## AMProfessor (Sep 9, 2011)

Oddly enough, my high school age son has entirely rejected jeans except for when we go camping. Khakis only for his cohort. Completely the opposite from when I was that age.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

FLCracka said:


> There are some cranky folks on the forum today! Lighten up, it's just clothes!!


We all have to try to get along.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Peak and Pine said:


> I was standing in an airport yesterday near two business-y types traveling together. One in baggy, pleated, no-iron chinos and blue blazer, the other in jeans and a tweed. The first was all wrinkled and ill-fitting, the second tight and sharp. Yet, it could have been the other way around. It seems it's how you wear these things which determine how the mark is made.


I wear Levi's 514s with Harris Tweed and brogue shoes on a weekly basis. It's a great combination that pairs well for a 'smart casual' look.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> I wear Levi's 514s with Harris Tweed and brogue shoes on a weekly basis. It's a great combination that pairs well for a 'smart casual' look.


Perhaps, but the point made by many forum members is that there are far better trouser choices, ones in which you would look superior to what you achieve with jeans.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Perhaps, but the point made by many forum members is that there are far better trouser choices, ones in which you would look superior to what you achieve with jeans.


That is only true if one equates 'better' with 'conveying the social signaling that comes with said trouser choice'. I generally prefer to air on the side of sprezzatura.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

watchnerd said:


> I wear Levi's 514s with Harris Tweed and brogue shoes on a weekly basis. It's a great combination that pairs well for a 'smart casual' look.


If that is your thing and you enjoy it then wear it happily. Just don't get offended when most people on this forum categorize this ensemble outside the business casual or "dressy" category. Casual? Very much so IMO.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Sorry, but maybe some just don't know how to work the jeans + tweed look. Clearly others do:


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

immanuelrx said:


> If that is your thing and you enjoy it then wear it happily. Just don't get offended when most people on this forum categorize this ensemble outside the business casual or "dressy" category. Casual? Very much so IMO.


Never claimed it was formal or dressy; I said it was "smart casual".


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> Sorry, but maybe some just don't know how to work the jeans + tweed look. Clearly others do:


The 1st and 3rd look are great! I don't care for the second. I don't like gray jeans, at least that's how those appear on my monitor.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as to wear a tie, but the overall look is certainly in keeping with how I wear denim.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> The 1st and 3rd look are great! I don't care for the second. I don't like gray jeans, at least that's how those appear on my monitor.


It's David Beckham, so he gets fashion liberties that us mere mortals don't.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

watchnerd said:


> Never claimed it was formal or dressy; I said it was "smart casual".


Sorry, I thought we were still discussing whether jeans are "dressy" or not. I guess we have moved on from that topic.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> It's David Beckham, so he gets fashion liberties that us mere mortals don't.


That's Beckham? I didn't even recognize him. I guess I've gotten too used to seeing him wearing nothing but underwear!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

A tie with jeans? Whatever it is that he "knows" I don't want to learn.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Dear Lord. Oh the horror.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

RogerP said:


> A tie with jeans? Whatever it is that he "knows" I don't want to learn.


+1

On a side note I have enjoyed your more recent lively posts Roger. Maybe I haven't notice previous, but they seem to have more spunk to them. Hope all is well in Canada good Sir!


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

RogerP said:


> A tie with jeans? Whatever it is that he "knows" I don't want to learn.


When done well, I think it can look great:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

That does not even approximate my understanding of greatness.

In fact, the combination of jeans and a tie strikes me as quite foolish. A step further than sneakers with a tuxedo, but along the very same path.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

RogerP said:


> That does not even approximate my understanding of greatness.
> 
> In fact, the combination of jeans and a tie strikes me as quite foolish. A step further than sneakers with a tuxedo, but along the very same path.


Indeed. They simply don't go together. The pantaloon de Nimes destroy the look.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

RogerP said:


> That does not even approximate my understanding of greatness.
> 
> In fact, the combination of jeans and a tie strikes me as quite foolish. A step further than sneakers with a tuxedo, but along the very same path.


Why must ties be associated with formalwear?

'Schoolboy ties' are certainly paired with casual wear. Ties were once worn when hunting in the country (usually with tweed). Heck, even gas station attendants once wore ties.

Sneakers with a tuxedo destroys the formality entirely, but ties with jeans raises the level of the outfit. Why is that bad?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

^ I agree with the caveat that the tie would need to be as course and informal as jeans. Some woolen thing works, but printed silk looks totally wrong.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ It's not bad, it's not good. It's personal preference. If you like it, go for it.

As for me, I don't like it. It looks out of place. Unlike this, which you referenced:


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

watchnerd said:


> Why must ties be associated with formalwear?
> 
> 'Schoolboy ties' are certainly paired with casual wear. Ties were once worn when hunting in the country (usually with tweed). Heck, even gas station attendants once wore ties.
> 
> Sneakers with a tuxedo destroys the formality entirely, but ties with jeans raises the level of the outfit. Why is that bad?


Sneakers and a tux don't go together because they represent disparate levels of formality. So do a tie and jeans, though they are a less extreme example. That is why it's bad.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> Sneakers with a tuxedo destroys the formality entirely, but ties with jeans raises the level of the outfit. Why is that bad?


If you wish to raise the level of the outfit, all you need to do is replace the jeans with cords, moleskins, or chinos. As I've previously said, all the combinations that are being posted with jeans would look better with an alternate choice. The only part of those ensembles that look good are the non-jeans parts!

Catherine Zeta Jones might look good in a beautiful dress while wearing flats. She would look better with proper shoes...and that's the point many are making!


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Tiger - that's not the point they are trying to make. They are speaking in absolutes when it is there opinion. Who cares what some guy thinks of how some guy dresses? Why do they get to set the rules? One of the members who is in this thread gets blasted for wearing navy blue pants. Why? Life is so short. This thread is embarrassing in that grown men are arguing about things like this, in such absolutes.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Triathlete said:


> Tiger - that's not the point they are trying to make. They are speaking in absolutes when it is there opinion. Who cares what some guy thinks of how some guy dresses? Why do they get to set the rules? One of the members who is in this thread gets blasted for wearing navy blue pants. Why? Life is so short. This thread is embarrassing in that grown men are arguing about things like this, in such absolutes.


I see it as two different sets of ideas on how to dress well, rather than any attempt at rule establishment. If we can't express clothing opinions here, where can we do so?

What hurts the pro-jeans side is that they seem to need the vests, blazers, sport coats, and ties, et al. to show us all how great jeans can look. I think it is those very things that make the outfits look good; the jeans are the weakest part. Those very same outfits with an alternate set of trousers would look far better. Average beef with a great side dish and a superb bottle of wine will be elevated, but wouldn't top notch beef with that very same side dish and wine be all the better?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ You seem to be suggesting that denim is on par with average beef and wool, cords or moleskins pass as top notch beef.

Like anything else, denim ranges from the cheap and mass produced (Levis, etc.) to the artisanal. I think a dark wash denim worn with the right sport coat looks great and is perfectly acceptable for a range of social occasions. Depending on the industry, for work as well. 

I agree with RogerP, I would lose the tie. I just don't like the look. But otherwise, I don't believe that wearing jeans somehow brings the outfit down in anyway.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

In all these pics, I see guys who made an obvious effort to dress nicely. They certainly own extensive wardrobes. They took the time and made the effort to coordinate their shirts, jackets and if worn, vests and ties. Then I look at the lower half of the pics and see the jeans, and I have to wonder, Why? It's not like they didn't have anything more appropriate to choose from. It's not as if they weren't giving their clothing a thought. So what would make someone deliberately choose a pair of pants that is incongruous? They weren't dressing in a casual manner when they picked out the jacket and shirt, so those jeans were a deliberate decision. Based on the jackets alone, each of these men know what good taste is.

just noticed the above post, it came up while I was typing.

What on earth is "artisanal denim"? Some fairy tale term made up by denim lovers to rationalize spending hundreds of dollars on cotton pants? They will still drape like cardboard, sit too low on the waist, and be heavy, stiff, and uncomfortable. Don't go on about how they are made by Tibetian monks, who weave unicorn hair with cotton picked by virgins from a plantation in a hidden valley of South Carolina,that has only been seen by the first born sons of a descendant from the mayflower, and is woven under the full moon during the first 5 minutes before a lunar eclipse, than dyed with indigo grown by the first Native American tribe to have planted it. It's just denim with a big price tag. Worst of all, those true aficionados will wear it for years without washing, smearing their moo shoo pork and buggers greasy hands all over them, after sitting on the lawn of an outdoor concert that a million dogs have pooped on over the years.
rinsing them off with the microbrewed beer they spilt on them (because everyone knows that if it's a microbrew it's got to be great).

I would like to see one of the raw selvedge denim gang go to their mom's house and sit on her new couch in their treasured jeans. See how she appreciates their quality then.


This is not a rant against jeans, just the mindset that they are some special holy piece of clothing.

You may commence the bashing now. I will give it as much credence as I do for jeans being anything but workwear, or very casual dress, appropriate for leisure time activities where you aren't interested in looking your best. Shapely women in skin tight jeans are of course excepted from this. Their butts I want to see showcased, not yours. That's not being sexist, I just like looking at shapely women's butts.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> ^ You seem to be suggesting that denim is on par with average beef and wool, cords or moleskins pass as top notch beef.
> 
> Like anything else, denim ranges from the cheap and mass produced (Levis, etc.) to the artisanal. I think a dark wash denim worn with the right sport coat looks great and is perfectly acceptable for a range of social occasions. Depending on the industry, for work as well.
> 
> I agree with RogerP, I would lose the tie. I just don't like the look. But otherwise, I don't believe that wearing jeans somehow brings the outfit down in anyway.


I think artisanal jeans are still jeans, and artisanal sneakers - if there is such a thing - are still sneakers. Again, you refer to jeans being "acceptable"; I think many of us are saying that the alternatives to jeans elevate an outfit. What you believe looks "great," we believe looks either incongruent, sloppy, or pedestrian. I'd take navy cords, moleskins, or flannels over "dark wash denim" jeans in this context in a heartbeat. Those jeans don't "make" the outfit - the outfit makes the jeans more presentable. A different set of trousers will make the entire outfit better - sartorial gestalt?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Wow, seven pages dedicated to a subject about which there will NEVER be agreement among the members here. Entirely a matter of opinion/preference. Which begs the question, what's the point? Doesn't everyone have better things to do with their time? (See also, Shorts and Going Sockless)


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

FLCracka said:


> Wow, seven pages dedicated to a subject about which there will NEVER be agreement among the members here. Entirely a matter of opinion/preference. Which begs the question, what's the point? Doesn't everyone have better things to do with their time? (See also, Shorts and Going Sockless)


Not many will advocate shorts, or going sockless with a jacket and tie, so not the same level of disagreement. See my previous rant, by the time I finished it, it got moved up.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

FLCracka said:


> Wow, seven pages dedicated to a subject about which there will NEVER be agreement among the members here. Entirely a matter of opinion/preference. Which begs the question, what's the point? Doesn't everyone have better things to do with their time? (See also, Shorts and Going Sockless)


If we eliminated all topics that were matters of opinion, we would greatly diminish our universe of topics to discuss...


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Just to be clear, I don't advocate "dressing up" jeans. I mean one can wear a tie in the same way they can carry a hammer in their belt.







If you are not needing the disposable rugged nature of dungarees, wear something better. Unless so poor as to have nothing better, of course.


----------



## Mute (Apr 3, 2005)

While many of these examples show men who are obviously well turned out and fashionable, I just don't like the look, especially when a tie is added. It's like an itch that you just can't scratch.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

FLCracka said:


> Wow, seven pages dedicated to a subject about which there will NEVER be agreement among the members here. Entirely a matter of opinion/preference. Which begs the question, what's the point? Doesn't everyone have better things to do with their time? (See also, Shorts and Going Sockless)


I disagree. Wearing jeans is a preference. Calling jeans "dressy" is incorrect and needs to be said as much. One thing this forum does way better than the other forum is it separates trendy from dressed up. Momsdoc asked the question a few replies ago, "why?" Why dress up the upper portion of your body but wear jeans? Because it's trendy. No one should be saying you are wrong wearing jeans and whatever if you like the look. The lines between casual and dressed up should not be blurred though. That is for the other forum. I don't mean to come across as snobby or stuck up. I am far from it. I do like to keep this forum the way is it and not evolve into the other forum. Do you understand where I am coming from? It all makes sense in my head at least. Maybe thats the problem


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Did anybody actually read the article copied and pasted by the OP? The only reference I saw to jeans being 'dressy' was by a 7.5 year old in the article and the OP.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

immanuelrx said:


> The lines between casual and dressed up should not be blurred though.


It's these blurred lines (cue song?) that I find to be interesting.

In addition, when paired with tweed, you have two fabrics, from two continents, that originally served as rugged outdoor / work wear. They both have rugged roots.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

SlideGuitarist said:


> As does moleskin, right?


Indeed. Which is why I consider it strange that it is considered to be superior. It's also a 'work fabric'.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

watchnerd said:


> *It's these blurred lines (cue song?) that I find to be interesting.
> *
> In addition, when paired with tweed, you have two fabrics, from two continents, that originally served as rugged outdoor / work wear. They both have rugged roots.


Then I suggest you check out the other forum as well, especially when it comes to those blurred lines. This forum is IMO the best when it comes to classic menswear. The other is better for those blurred lines, again IMO.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

immanuelrx said:


> Then I suggest you check out the other forum as well, especially when it comes to those blurred lines. This forum is IMO the best when it comes to classic menswear. The other is better for those blurred lines, again IMO.


Um...isn't this thread is in the fashion forum, not the trad forum?


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

True, moleskin was initially employed in steel mills to protect against burns. However it has evolved. All the moleskin trousers I have seen(and I have many) ate cut with a medium or high rise. I would not wear a 5 pocket low rise moleskin pant any more than one of those LE 5 pocket cords that are cut like jeans. Moleskin even as heavy as it is, still drapes better than denim, and until up close appears to be khakis.

It's not soley the material that makes jeans incongruous with a SC and tie, but the cut. If you were to wear a pair of jeans, no tie, and a rustic SC, I would see no problem. I might even do it myself, if there was a situation that warrented it. Maybe to dinner out West, but in the cosmopolitan Northeast? 

But I still have a problem with the rise of jeans, they just aren't flattering for my trim shape. One of the advantages of losing weight has been the ability to wear high rise pants without suspenders. This gives my short legs (29 inseam) a longer appearance, and is slimming IMO.

Another point no one has brought up. Maybe it's just in my mind, but a well cut high rise pair of trousers appears more mature. Now I'm 58 years old, and no one is going to mistake me for a teenager, so why not dress my age. I'd rather come across as a dapper middle aged man, rather than some old dude trying too hard to be young and hip. That's why if money was no object I'd rather drive a Bentley, than a Lamborghini. OK, that BS, I'd totally love to rock a Lambo.


----------



## immanuelrx (Dec 7, 2013)

watchnerd said:


> Um...isn't this thread is in the fashion forum, not the trad forum?


The trad forum is more college prep. It is classic menswear but classic college prep wear. I know it says fashion forum but it is more for classic menswear. If you read through the different threads you will see what i mean.


----------



## EclecticSr. (Sep 21, 2014)

momsdoc said:


> True, moleskin was initially employed in steel mills to protect against burns. However it has evolved. All the moleskin trousers I have seen(and I have many) ate cut with a medium or high rise. I would not wear a 5 pocket low rise moleskin pant any more than one of those LE 5 pocket cords that are cut like jeans. Moleskin even as heavy as it is, still drapes better than denim, and until up close appears to be khakis.
> 
> It's not soley the material that makes jeans incongruous with a SC and tie, but the cut. If you were to wear a pair of jeans, no tie, and a rustic SC, I would see no problem. I might even do it myself, if there was a situation that warrented it. Maybe to dinner out West, but in the cosmopolitan Northeast?
> 
> ...


^^^Yeah, all of that tho I'm a tad older than doc.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

watchnerd said:


> Um...isn't this thread is in the fashion forum, not the trad forum?


The "fashion forum" isn't really about current fashion. That's just a name.
The "trad forum" has an entirely different focus.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Denim worn appropriately can be, dare I say, dressy. I cannot see how a pair of cords or moleskins automatically elevates the outfit to something above the wearing of denim. 

As mentioned by others, the cut and wash play a big part. Yes, if wearing the jeans you garden in with a SC, one looks silly. Denim offers another option, that's all. I believe above all that style is about having options and being able to look one's best regardless of the option chosen. 

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go put a crease in my acid washed Versace jeans.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Denim worn appropriately can be, dare I say, dressy. I cannot see how a pair of cords or moleskins automatically elevates the outfit to something above the wearing of denim.
> 
> As mentioned by others, the cut and wash play a big part. *Yes, if wearing the jeans you garden in with a SC, one looks silly*. Denim offers another option, that's all. I believe above all that style is about having options and being able to look one's best regardless of the option chosen.
> 
> Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go put a crease in my acid washed Versace jeans.


Gardening? But that is a task one pays some other chap to do, surely....?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Gardening? But that is a task one pays some other chap to do, surely....?


What about the few hours of leisure time you afford him on Sundays to spend with his family? My what a tyrant you must be!


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

SG_67 said:


> Denim worn appropriately can be, dare I say, dressy. I cannot see how a pair of cords or moleskins automatically elevates the outfit to something above the wearing of denim.


In my experience, the very idea of cords is repellant to many younger men. When I mentioned to some of my younger peers that I needed to get some corduroy pants, their reaction was:

"Ewww. Really? Cords are what toddlers wear."


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> Yes, if wearing the jeans you garden in with a SC, one looks silly.


Not if one gardens in the coat as well. And really, wearing the coat gardening makes infinitely more sense than pretending that workwear are dress clothing.
Why does this sophistry only go one way? A sport coat, meant for sport, is considered dressy. Jeans, meant for dirty work, get upgraded to presentable, no dressy!, clothing. Why is it always a downward drift toward low culture, poverty, and inelegance?


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tempest said:


> Not if one gardens in the coat as well. And really, wearing the coat gardening makes infinitely more sense than pretending that workwear are dress clothing.
> Why does this sophistry only go one way? A sport coat, meant for sport, is considered dressy. Jeans, meant for dirty work, get upgraded to presentable, no dressy!, clothing. Why is it always a downward drift toward low culture, poverty, and inelegance?


I think this misses the point, which was that nicer washed, tapered, slimmer cut jeans are not the same type of jeans one gardens in.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Il Signor Crispone said:


> Being completely serious, the first look is of course absolutely fine. However it is a very 'ordinary' or 'standard' look (albeit very nicely done). *It could, for example, be that of a man who is reluctantly "dressing up" because he's going somewhere nice for dinner*, wearing a jacket that his wife bought him for when she wants him to look "smart".
> 
> The second look is entirely different. Bold but understated, elegant yet practical, distinctive without wackiness, it could serve as a pictorial representation of the phrase 'effortless style'. It speaks of taste and discernment, utterly classic but thoroughly individual.
> 
> The first is fine, nothing wrong with it, perfectly OK, nice, etc etc. The second is approaching a triumph. Pataloon de Nimes are fine for manual labour (although even for that there are better options) - for everything else a gentleman should sport alternative trouserings.


Apologies- I missed this response in the frantic flurry of posts in this thread. Thanks for your kind words. I think you have hit upon an aspect of jeans wear - particularly when one attempts to pair such with a jacket, let alone jacket and tie - that resonates with me. It does indeed present as someone reluctantly - even grudgingly - "dressing up". 'Well, I HAVE to wear this here jacket, but dammit, I'm sticking with my jeans.'



Shaver said:


> Gardening? But that is a task one pays some other chap to do, surely....?


I'd have to stop buying shoes to be able to afford a gardener. :tongue2:


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Triathlete said:


> Did anybody actually read the article copied and pasted by the OP? The only reference I saw to jeans being 'dressy' was by a 7.5 year old in the article and the OP.


I did. Which makes this thread all the more hilarious.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

vpkozel said:


> I did. Which makes this thread all the more hilarious.


I did, as well. Which is also why I find this thread amusing -- not only has the anti-jeans crowd lost this battle long ago, the pro-jeans crowd is also losing with the youngest generation. In 10 years we will be discussing what types of track suit pants are best for wearing to a nice restaurant.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

In a room full of Texas moneymen in Stetsons, best hand made and decorated shirt, best jeans and best boots, it is the man who turns up in a cheap suit or SC and chinos that looks scruffy and not dressy. 

STOP with the jeans bashing already! It's so boring! 
Jeans can very easily by dressy. 
If all you have ever worn or ever seen is dirty baggy Wranglers then you are in no position to say that jeans can't be dressy. 
Jeans stopped being workwear DECADES ago. No professional manual worker has worn or been allowed to wear jeans now for over 20 years! They wear proper protective and for purpose clothing.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> In a room full of Texas moneymen in Stetsons, best hand made and decorated shirt, best jeans and best boots, it is the man who turns up in a cheap suit or SC and chinos that looks scruffy and not dressy.
> 
> STOP with the jeans bashing already! It's so boring!
> Jeans can very easily by dressy.
> ...


I've been to Texas many times. I've seen the jeans / jacket / cowboy boots / cowboy hat look. I have absolutely NO desire to emulate that particular aesthetic, thanks all the same.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

RogerP said:


> I've been to Texas many times. I've seen the jeans / jacket / cowboy boots / cowboy hat look. I have absolutely NO desire to emulate that particular aesthetic, thanks all the same.


Who asked you to?

Dressy varies from place to place, context to context, country to country. 
Quite a few of the WAYW photos on this forum would be considered 80s rejects if they wore those rigs in the UK or much of the rest of western Europe.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

SlideGuitarist said:


> I haven't bashed jeans. I don't think anyone has.


Really?


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

SlideGuitarist said:


> No, but such jeans are the opposite of raw selvedge jeans, which are jeansy to the max: rougher, more irregular, irregularly faded. I don't like the look of raw selvedge (or or raw selvedge chambray shirts) next to a more finished sport coat. If you post photos of Beckham wearing something, we're entitled to a gut response: "I just don't like that." Those of us with too much free time can try to articulate why. It seems almost tautological that "dressy" means conformance to a code: which GQ implicitly acknowledges every time they have yet another article proclaiming that you can mix and match inconsistently coded items. This does not imply that "dress casual" or completely casual is déclassé, let alone ugly. I'm not going to elevate the beer 'n' burger place I like to go to by wearing wool trousers there; I like beer, and I don't _need_ to elevate it.


I find this interesting because I think we're seeing the same items an interpreting them differently. Or perhaps it's just the economy of words.

I think of a Harris tweed SC as a rough item (at least the ones I have are, with a definite rustic look), casual and 'country', and thus pair well with denim for its unrefined appearance. Brogues and bluchers are good matching shoes.

I think of a Super120 worsted SC as a fine item (begs the question of what is 'sport' about worsted, but I digress), dressy and 'town', and thus do not pair well with denim. Oxfords are good matching shoes.

I've never claimed jeans are dressy. What I am claiming is that jeans can qualify as 'smart casual' (if the right jeans), are widely accepted business attire when paired with the right dress shirts in some geographies/industries (one can rail against this all one likes, but it is empirically true if one observes the jeans:trousers ratio in some places), and are perceived by my cohort as infinitely less dorky/dumpy/unflattering than khakis.

As for moleskin and cords, they're not even on the radar with the younger set.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Geesh, don't y'all having some TPS reports to file.....or something more productive than continuing this inane argument?


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

No, Cracka. It's fun. It's joyous.

But there's a down side: when a fella sees himself as the center of a special universe and the planets don't align exactly as he's chosen, it can be mighty frustrating. Drive a man to drink. Or buy more shoes.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> Is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?


:cool2: :beer:


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

RogerP said:


> A tie with jeans? Whatever it is that he "knows" I don't want to learn.


It's called the "preppy" look.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Peak and Pine said:


> No, Cracka. It's fun. It's joyous.
> 
> But there's a down side: when a fella sees himself as the center of a special universe and the planets don't align exactly as he's chosen, it can be mighty frustrating. Drive a man to drink. Or buy more shoes.


I like this argument.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> I've never claimed jeans are dressy. What I am claiming is that jeans can qualify as 'smart casual' (if the right jeans), are widely accepted business attire when paired with the right dress shirts in some geographies/industries (one can rail against this all one likes, but it is empirically true if one observes the jeans:trousers ratio in some places), and are perceived by my cohort as infinitely less dorky/dumpy/unflattering than khakis. As for moleskin and cords, they're not even on the radar with the younger set.


Amazing how you add qualifications (e.g., the "right jeans", et al.) for jeans but describe khakis as "dorky/dumpy/unflattering." Surprisingly, some of us wear khakis and other types of pants that actually fit!

Not sure I wish to base anything upon your "younger set." Using that yardstick, I'm sure they've never heard of Crockett and Jones, H. Freeman, Sam Hober, Pantherella, Turnbull and Asser, Vacheron Constantin, and a few hundred other brands. Are these items now disqualified, because "they're not even on the radar with the younger set"? Perhaps we should all begin wearing squared-toed shoes, Affliction sweatshirts, Robert Graham shirts, and of course, denim pants! (Because with what other type of pants can you go right from cleaning the garage to dinner, which seems to be the real way such pants are being worn, despite the various protestations here.)


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

RogerP said:


> A tie with jeans? Whatever it is that he "knows" I don't want to learn.


Robert Redford is thus attired in "Three Days of the Condor".


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> STOP with the jeans bashing already! It's so boring!


The option to not read the thread does exist.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

StephenRG said:


> Robert Redford is thus attired in "Three Days of the Condor".


That's a costume for a movie.


----------



## VaEagle (Oct 15, 2013)

SlideGuitarist said:


> Here's how people dress to go out to eat in a more socially conservative, more religious part of the country, where the children are all named after Confederate generals or founding fathers or martyrs of the early Church. It's Paula Deen's restaurant, by the way. You know, somewhat pricey, not a Waffle House. Basically, almost _no one_ in America dresses well. I wouldn't look for the explanation for that obvious fact solely in some demographic that I happen to dislike. It's way too prevalent.


To all of the European members of this forum, we really cannot apologize enough.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Great post, VaEagle!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ It is indeed. 

Please note also that no one is wearing denim. I guess they must be reading what's written here.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> ^ It is indeed.
> 
> Please note also that none of them are wearing denim.


A year filled with nearly four thousand posts has affected your eyes, my friend!

Observe my girl in the center of the pic, with the tattooed right leg and the clogs(?). On the far right, looks like denim cargo shorts. On the far left (second one in), appears to be denim knickers. My, how "dressy" they all are!:devil:

No doubt David Beckham and watchnerd will be showing up soon in their non-moleskin denim ; they'll fit right in!


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ We're counting shorts and knickers now?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> ^ We're counting shorts and knickers now?


OK, you can count the woman in front (with the lavender t-shirt) as a khaki wearer...deal?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Tiger said:


> OK, you can count the woman in front (with the lavender t-shirt) as a khaki wearer...deal?


Admit that there's someone cropped from the picture with moleskins, another with cords and we'll call it even! :beer:


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SG_67 said:


> Admit that there's someone cropped from the picture with moleskins, another with cords and we'll call it even! :beer:


Done!

And RogerP will agree, if I may be so bold, to admit that the guy in the red basketball shorts (to the left) is wearing Saint Crispin flip flops!


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Amazing how you add qualifications (e.g., the "right jeans", et al.) for jeans but describe khakis as "dorky/dumpy/unflattering." Surprisingly, some of us wear khakis and other types of pants that actually fit!
> 
> Not sure I wish to base anything upon your "younger set." Using that yardstick, I'm sure they've never heard of Crockett and Jones, H. Freeman, Sam Hober, Pantherella, Turnbull and Asser, Vacheron Constantin, and a few hundred other brands. Are these items now disqualified, because "they're not even on the radar with the younger set"? Perhaps we should all begin wearing squared-toed shoes, Affliction sweatshirts, Robert Graham shirts, and of course, denim pants! (Because with what other type of pants can you go right from cleaning the garage to dinner, which seems to be the real way such pants are being worn, despite the various protestations here.)


Since I seem to seem to have touched a nerve, let me clarify some things:

1. I'm 45, an executive in a software startup. But the fat part of the bell curve of my professional cohort is 25-35. I'm solidly middle aged myself, but work in an environment that is awash in youth and "eats its old." Thus I'm professionally immersed in a culture that is 10 years younger than I am.

2. I didn't say khakis *are* dumpy, etc. I said they are *perceived* as dorky, etc. And for people 25-35, that is true. It's probably unfair, but I'm not responsible for that perception. Just as jeans are equally *perceived* as sub-par by many here.

3. I'm very aware of Turnbull & Asser, Vacheron Constantin, Dunn & Co, etc, etc. But you are probably correct that my coworkers aren't. In large part because they're not fashionistas, but also because those brands aren't popular in their age bracket.

4. None of them wear square-toed shoes or Afflication or Robert Graham shirts. That's the Jersey Shore look (and from a couple years ago, at that), not the Silicon Valley look. Around here they wear stuff from Ben Sherman and Uniqlo.

I asked one of my subordinates what he thought of the idea that jeans don't qualify as 'business casual' and his response was 'Unless you're on Wall Street or a lawyer, they need to get with the 21st century." Then he brought up a long list of celebs who appear in TV interviews in jeans.

I don't think his sentiment is unusual for his age. Also note the reference to celebrities as the style-setters, not the dress codes of gentleman's clubs.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

So, looking at that picture ... and thinking that it was posted for reasons other than the clothes, can we give members on this forum who are overweight a hard time also?

It's cracking me up how people are suggesting that it is better to wear one type of 'work' clothing as a better option to another type of 'work' clothing. Chinos - (Olive Green, Khaki, Navy Blue) started and still work wear, dirty work. Moleskins (ugh) - started as work wear. And on the subject of 'dressing up' with sports coats (Tweed, Wool or otherwise). They are by nature and definition 'casual'. Maybe dressier to a certain population, but, casual by nature none the less. Why do you think the call them 'sport coats?'


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Tiger said:


> Done!
> 
> And RogerP will agree, if I may be so bold, to admit that the guy in the red basketball shorts (to the left) is wearing Saint Crispin flip flops!


Lol!!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Triathlete said:


> So, looking at that picture ... and thinking that it was posted for reasons other than the clothes, can we give members on this forum who are overweight a hard time also?
> 
> It's cracking me up how people are suggesting that it is better to wear one type of 'work' clothing as a better option to another type of 'work' clothing. Chinos - (Olive Green, Khaki, Navy Blue) started and still work wear, dirty work. Moleskins (ugh) - started as work wear. And on the subject of 'dressing up' with sports coats (Tweed, Wool or otherwise). They are by nature and definition 'casual'. Maybe dressier to a certain population, but, casual by nature none the less. Why do you think the call them 'sport coats?'


I haven't made the "work" clothes argument; I simply have said many times now that I believe there are superior choices to jeans when wearing the types of clothing discussed heretofore in this thread. It's the aesthetic that I've been discussing, not provenance.

I think overweight people are targeted frequently and cruelly. I have not done so (but I have ridiculed the clothing, if not in print then certainly in my thoughts).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> Since I seem to seem to have touched a nerve, let me clarify some things:
> 
> 1. I'm 45, an executive in a software startup. But the fat part of the bell curve of my professional cohort is 25-35. I'm solidly middle aged myself, but work in an environment that is awash in youth and "eats its old." Thus I'm professionally immersed in a culture that is 10 years younger than I am.
> 
> ...


No nerves touched at all!

As to point #2, not sure you have the inside scoop on what 25-35 year olds think about khakis or anything else. Even if they disdain the choices that I (or others on this forum may make), it is immaterial; all of us have our own opinions. I'm not here to proselytize, but rather to discuss/opine on various things.

My initial point re: your response in #3 was that anyone who makes decisions based on the predilections of the 25-35 year old age group will find themselves excluded from some of the most estimable products one can buy. That age group tends to drink a helluva lot more beer than very good wine; I won't be switching anytime soon. In addition, the brands I cited aren't for "fashionistas" but rather high quality products that the 25 year olds haven't yet graduated (gravitated?) to...

My "square-toed shoes/Affliction" remark was based on my New York City and New Jersey observations. They still predominate here, if not on the West Coast.

One should be careful in "getting with the 21st century" - there's far too much we've lost already, and many more things that are dear that will soon disappear as well. This, of course, refers to far more than clothing, but I do not wish to derail the thread, nor enter the Interchange. Besides, if "getting with the 21st century" means dressing like most modern celebrities, I prefer to be a remnant of the past - a well-dressed relic!


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tiger said:


> No doubt David Beckham and watchnerd will be showing up soon in their non-moleskin denim ; they'll fit right in!


Nah, because:

1. I don't eat at Paula Dean's
2. I don't wear denim shorts or cargo shorts
3. I don't wear running shoes or flip flops
4. I don't wear athletic shorts to restaurants
5. I don't wear white socks with shorts
6. I don't have leg cellulite


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tiger said:


> My initial point re: your response in #3 was that anyone who makes decisions based on the predilections of the 25-35 year old age group will find themselves excluded from some of the most estimable products one can buy. That age group tends to drink a helluva lot more beer than very good wine; I won't be switching anytime soon


Oh I don't make clothing decisions based on what they wear -- I'm simply aware of their tastes. I wear what I think looks good on me and sends the social signals I want to send (doesn't everyone?).

As for me, except for vintage finds, I don't actually buy off the rack from anyone these days. All my shirts, jackets, and trousers are MTM from various places. Shorts, jeans, sweaters, and shoes are still OTR. I might go MTM for some jeans and I've been desperately seeking an MTM cardigan maker (with no luck).


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> Oh I don't make clothing decisions based on what they wear -- I'm simply aware of their tastes. I wear what I think looks good on me and sends the social signals I want to send (doesn't everyone?).
> 
> As for me, except for vintage finds, I don't actually buy off the rack from anyone these days. All my shirts, jackets, and trousers are MTM from various places. Shorts, jeans, sweaters, and shoes are still OTR. I might go MTM for some jeans and I've been desperately seeking an MTM cardigan maker (with no luck).


Have I got a pair of shoes and jeans for you! (Please see the thread on thin-soled shoes that just popped up):


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Tiger said:


> My initial point re: your response in #3 was that anyone who makes decisions based on the predilections of the 25-35 year old age group will find themselves excluded from some of the most estimable products one can buy. That age group tends to drink a helluva lot more beer than very good wine; I won't be switching anytime soon. In addition, the brands I cited aren't for "fashionistas" but rather high quality products that the 25 year olds haven't yet graduated...


Amen. The notion of confining our sartorial choices to that which registers on the radar of the younger set is as sound a recommendation as pairing jeans with a tie.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tiger said:


> In addition, the brands I cited aren't for "fashionistas" but rather high quality products that the 25 year olds haven't yet graduated (gravitated?) to...


I think most of the brands you cited are unknown to 95% of the American male public. I know them, but does my father? No. Does my brother? No. Do most of my male friends? No. Thus, I think the idea that those men who are not 'clothing hobbyists' (of whatever style school) will 'graduate' to these brands seems far-fetched.

If I walked into my local pub (a real Cheers type place with everyone from union construction workers to lawyers to business men to 90 year old retirees) and asked the guys to name an upscale brand of men's clothing, most could name Hugo Boss, Armani, Brooks Brothers, Ralph Lauren, and that's probably about it. And these men are old enough to have 'graduated'.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Have I got a pair of shoes and jeans for you! (Please see the thread on thin-soled shoes that just popped up):


Why are those for me?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> I think most of the brands you cited are unknown to 95% of the American male public. I know them, but does my father? No. Does my brother? No. Do most of my male friends? No. Thus, I think the idea that those men who are not 'clothing hobbyists' (of whatever style school) will 'graduate' to these brands seems far-fetched.
> 
> If I walked into my local pub (a real Cheers type place with everyone from union construction workers to lawyers to business men to 90 year old retirees) and asked the guys to name an upscale brand of men's clothing, most could name Hugo Boss, Armani, Brooks Brothers, Ralph Lauren, and that's probably about it. And these men are old enough to have 'graduated'.


Not sure what your point is - are you saying that the vast majority of men know nothing about good taste? Dress poorly? Seems so, and I concur - and that's why their opinions/arguments/predilections won't ever sway me!

"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." - Thomas Paine


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tiger said:


> Not sure what your point is - are you saying that the vast majority of men know nothing about good taste? Dress poorly? Seems so, and I concur - and that's why their opinions/arguments/predilections won't ever sway me!


Yes, that's exactly my point -- and why the idea that most young men will graduate to the aforementioned brands seems unlikely.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> Why are those for me?


I thought that was your style?

No, just joking, and if you wish to laugh too, please check out the thread on thin-soled leather shoes!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

watchnerd said:


> Yes, that's exactly my point -- and why the idea that most young men will graduate to the aforementioned brands seems unlikely.


I should have included the word "if" when I mentioned "graduate"...


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tiger said:


> I thought that was your style?
> 
> No, just joking, and if you wish to laugh too, please check out the thread on thin-soled leather shoes!


Ha, and hell no...my wrists are bigger than that guy's ankles. :tongue2:


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

So if you don't know about or wear what's on your list, you don't have taste and dress poorly?



Tiger said:


> Not sure what your point is - are you saying that the vast majority of men know nothing about good taste? Dress poorly? Seems so, and I concur - and that's why their opinions/arguments/predilections won't ever sway me!
> 
> "A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right." - Thomas Paine


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Triathlete said:


> So if you don't know about or wear what's on your list, you don't have taste and dress poorly?


I think you should reread the entire dialogue, rather than trying to manipulate what I wrote...


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

i did.

Edit: If I came across in this thread, in any way that seemed combative and un-gentleman like I apologize. Some of the posts have bordered on something I detest (nothing really to do with jeans or any other pants) and yes, is a hot-button. It is for this reason that I recently lost a long time friend and why I chose to not participate anymore.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

SlideGuitarist said:


> Wouldn't it be possible to want to dress well w/o disdaining others' choices or priorities? I don't want to consult 20 somethings about what to wear, but frankly, wearing ridiculous clothing and looking
> good in it because one is young and attractive is the prerogative of youth. There's no cause to resent it.


Not sure who your post is directed to, but I have no resentment toward anyone's clothing choices...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Triathlete said:


> i did.
> 
> Edit: If I came across in this thread, in any way that seemed combative and un-gentleman like I apologize. Some of the posts have bordered on something I detest (nothing really to do with jeans or any other pants) and yes, is a hot-button. It is for this reason that I recently lost a long time friend and why I chose to not participate anymore.


I don't think you were ungentlemanly at all, nor do you need to apologize to me (or anyone else, as far as I can tell). These threads often become a bit combative, as people with strong opinions dig their heels in and fire away.

Otherwise, your message was a bit cryptic, but I am sorry that this thread caused you any distress...


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Wrap your mind around this, gents -- Ralph Lauren denim suit:


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

So, they really do make Canadian Tuxedos after all.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

As a Canadian born man, I find that description preposterous!

I mean, it doesn't even have peak lapels. Sheesh.


----------



## momsdoc (Sep 19, 2013)

It's the Hollywod notch lapel version. Also available in shawl., but alas no peak or midnight blue.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tiger said:


> The option to not read the thread does exist.


Or I'll just keep reading and airing my views. The option also exists for people not to write such nonsense. If people don't want to hear views contrary to their own then they shouldn't be expressing them on a discussion forum.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Or I'll just keep reading and airing my views. The option also exists for people not to write such nonsense. If people don't want to hear views contrary to their own then they shouldn't be expressing them on a discussion forum.


Have you paused to consider the option of taking your own advice? Considering you were the one demanding that everyone STOP bashing jeans?

That's not expressing an opinion on the subject matter. That's demanding that nobody else express an opinion that is contrary to your own.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

RogerP said:


> Have you paused to consider the option of taking your own advice? Considering you were the one demanding that everyone STOP bashing jeans?
> 
> That's not expressing an opinion on the subject matter. That's demanding that nobody else express an opinion that is contrary to your own.


I always love when people do that - tell people that they are free to ignore things and deal with it, while at the same time continuing to tell people how to think about a subject.

It's like when people scream free speech when they want to say something, but then gets upset when someone else gets the opportunity to criticize them.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

RogerP said:


> Have you paused to consider the option of taking your own advice? Considering you were the one demanding that everyone STOP bashing jeans?
> 
> That's not expressing an opinion on the subject matter. That's demanding that nobody else express an opinion that is contrary to your own.


Making a request is not the same as expressing an opinion.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> I always love when people do that - tell people that they are free to ignore things and deal with it, while at the same time continuing to tell people how to think about a subject.


You're easily amused! You will have also loved Tiger's comment to me then, "The option to not read the thread does exist."


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Making a request is not the same as expressing an opinion.


This is a request?



Earl of Ormonde said:


> STOP with the jeans bashing already! It's so boring!


We understand that term differently.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

I wonder how far a double breasted suit bashing thread would get?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I am looking for some dressy painter's pants. What weight canvas should they be? White or natural? Is one hammer loop sufficient?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tempest said:


> I am looking for some dressy painter's pants. What weight canvas should they be? White or natural? Is one hammer loop sufficient?


Painters pants are always heavyweight white and they usually come with several loops and large pockets.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tempest said:


> I am looking for some dressy painter's pants. What weight canvas should they be? White or natural? Is one hammer loop sufficient?


Carhartt overalls have my endorsement. Practical and good-looking enough for post-painting happy hour at the bar (when paired with appropriate shirt and shoes).


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Is the double knee too informal?


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

This is veering toward unacceptable fighting - - -

No problem yet, but please keep it civil.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tempest said:


> Is the double knee too informal?


Yes, it is.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Painters pants are always heavyweight white and they usually come with several loops and large pockets.


Ah silly me, I never reocgnise irony or sarcasm.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Can't we all just agree that jeans are not dressy (in much the way that neither chinos nor tweed jackets nor loafers are dressy), and agree to disagree about whether or not they look good? 

There's no accounting for taste, as my grandmother used to say. And if there's one place to live and let live regarding dress, shouldn't it be our casual clothes?


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Natty Beau said:


> Can't we all just agree that jeans are not dressy (in much the way that neither chinos nor tweed jackets nor loafers are dressy), and agree to disagree about whether or not they look good?


I actually agree, although I still place khakis, tweed, and loafers a rung higher on the formality ladder than denim.
Of course I want these items to be every-man daily wear but somehow you (respectively) look as though you're planning on buying the place if you don them in most locales.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ All of this is purely subjective, especially when it comes to levels of formality with casual dress.

If Steve Jobs had worn chinos on stage vs. denim, would he have upped his wardrobe in your eyes. Sorry, but I cannot see how chinos are more or less formal than denim on a scale as arbitrary.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

SG_67 said:


> ^ All of this is purely subjective, especially when it comes to levels of formality with casual dress.
> 
> They're both cotton pants, originally made for hard activities. From the late 1940s onward, one was re-purposed by the elite and aspiring; the other by the rebellious and idealogically egalitarian.
> 
> I think those associations are the strongest reason people choose to wear either one, to this day, even if subconsciously.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Patch pockets, rivets, contrast stitching? These don't make something of lesser formality than a pair of cotton pants with the general shape and construction of real dress trousers? And this is before mentioning the curved pockets, the low rise, and the snug fit or the visible branding or the stingy visible hem.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ Formal in what sense? Tweed trousers aren't formal either. How about slacks made to look like "dress slacks" but made of denim? 

Is it the material you have the issue with, or the styling or the way the bits are fastened and held together.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Tempest said:


> Patch pockets, rivets, contrast stitching? These don't make something of lesser formality than a pair of cotton pants with the general shape and construction of real dress trousers? And this is before mentioning the curved pockets, the low rise, and the snug fit or the visible branding or the stingy visible hem.





SG_67 said:


> ^ Formal in what sense? Tweed trousers aren't formal either. How about slacks made to look like "dress slacks" but made of denim?
> 
> Is it the material you have the issue with, or the styling or the way the bits are fastened and held together.


Tempest makes a good point, actually. I don't have "an issue" with anything about jeans, but sure, holding together pockets with brass tacks is more casual than a discrete seam.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

I can't recall seeing anyone wear chinos with rolled-up cuffs - which seem to be the darling of the selvedge set.


----------



## irish95 (Sep 27, 2011)

Okay boys, I am going to jump in the deep end and see if I can clear anything up--probably not.

I grew up in a blue collar town. As a youngster, all I ever wore were jeans. Just to the south of my town was a community with money. A majority of the kids, teenagers etc. wore chinos. We wouldn't think of wearing a pair as we considered those kids to be "soft". As I got into high school, some of us came to the realization that jeans made us look, let's say, not well educated. As a result, we all started to change how we dressed. We also noticed that the "class" of women you attracted seemed to be directly related to how you dressed. Moving forward many years, I get tired of dressing up 5/6 days a week. I love putting on some dark jeans, sport coat and going out with my wife and friends on the weekend. Someone suggested that there may be some rebellion in wearing jeans with a sport coat, maybe so, but I enjoy it. In all honesty, most of the older guys I started working with always wore chinos on the weekend, and I vowed I wouldn't look like them when I reached their age. And I don't, thank God. 

I don't think they are "dressy", but you can dress them up. On the other hand, I don't want to look like a middle manager at a widget company when I'm out on the weekend with my wife. Fire away boys!!


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Okay Gentlemen,

If Shaver can post a pic of himself in jeans and RogerP too, then the Watchman can certainly post a pic:

This is me in 1 of my only 2 pair of Raw Selvage Denim:










And not to mention Alden Ravello DayTrippers....

This is not a normative ensemble for me. But, after loosing almost 90 lbs the last 3 yrs I figured that it would be cool to get some Levi's 511 slim fits.

Due to their slim fit nature they mean something a little more to me than simply being trendy, especially after the weight loss.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

^^^ Jeans are excused due to awesomeness of boots. :fish:


----------



## sskim3 (Jul 2, 2013)

Watchman said:


> Okay Gentlemen,
> 
> If Shaver can post a pic of himself in jeans and RogerP too, then the Watchman can certainly post a pic:
> 
> ...


The shoes outshine the denim. Nicely done. I do like the casual look. So what does the upper look like? 

11 pages in and going strong guys! :cold:


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

To suggest that chinos are more "formal" or dressy relative to jeans makes no sense. They are bred of the same stock and for the same purpose. Because one has slanted pockets it doesn't change the fact that both are clothes made for manual labor. Assigning one higher or lower on a scale of formality is purely arbitrary. There's really no occasion for which chinos are appropriate (outside of work obviously) where a nice pair of well fitted, dark wash denim cannot just as easily be substituted. 


As for cuffing the selvedge, I don't care for it. Mostly because I don't like the break in continuity and the contrast it delivers.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

RogerP said:


> ^^^ Jeans are excused due to awesomeness of boots. :fish:


Thank You Sir. :biggrin:



sskim3 said:


> The shoes outshine the denim. Nicely done. I do like the casual look. So what does the upper look like?
> 
> 11 pages in and going strong guys! :cold:


I think I wore these with a CT slim fit shirt w/o a necktie.

Lets just say that 2-3 days a week in the gym and a lot of healthy eating have changed my life...and body shape for the better.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

irish95 said:


> Okay boys, I am going to jump in the deep end and see if I can clear anything up--probably not.
> 
> I grew up in a blue collar town. As a youngster, all I ever wore were jeans. Just to the south of my town was a community with money. A majority of the kids, teenagers etc. wore chinos. We wouldn't think of wearing a pair as we considered those kids to be "soft". As I got into high school, some of us came to the realization that jeans made us look, let's say, not well educated. As a result, we all started to change how we dressed. We also noticed that the "class" of women you attracted seemed to be directly related to how you dressed. Moving forward many years, I get tired of dressing up 5/6 days a week. I love putting on some dark jeans, sport coat and going out with my wife and friends on the weekend. Someone suggested that there may be some rebellion in wearing jeans with a sport coat, maybe so, but I enjoy it. In all honesty, most of the older guys I started working with always wore chinos on the weekend, and I vowed I wouldn't look like them when I reached their age. And I don't, thank God.
> 
> *I don't think they are "dressy", but you can dress them up. On the other hand, I don't want to look like a middle manager at a widget company* when I'm out on the weekend with my wife. Fire away boys!!


I categorically reject the notion that pairing chinos, cords or moleskins with a sport coat necessarily makes one look like a middle manager of a widget company any more than wearing jeans necessarily makes one look like a coal miner.

Actually, come to think of it, I have no idea what a widget company middle manager looks like.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

SG_67 said:


> To suggest that chinos are more "formal" or dressy relative to chinos makes no sense.


Well, I agree with you there. :tongue2:


----------



## nbj08 (Feb 6, 2015)

RogerP said:


> I categorically reject the notion that pairing chinos, cords or moleskins with a sport coat necessarily makes one look like a middle manager of a widget company any more than wearing jeans necessarily makes one look like a coal miner.


A look at your photos above, Roger, quickly dispel this "middle manager" fear.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

watchnerd said:


> Wrap your mind around this, gents -- Ralph Lauren denim suit:


That is nice, How much does that cost?


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

SG_67 said:


> To suggest that chinos are more "formal" or dressy relative to chinos makes no sense.


This is what this thread has devolved into. Can we just shut it down on that note?!


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> This is what this thread has devolved into. Can we just shut it down on that note?!


I thought a pricing inquiry on the denim 3 piece suit was really the perfect spot.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Sadly that denim suit from Ralph Lauren's Spring 2014 collection was not continued because customers figured that if they wanted poverty fabric in a suit, they could get seersucker or polyester cheaper.


----------



## jm22 (Apr 18, 2013)

Tempest said:


> Sadly that denim suit from Ralph Lauren's Spring 2014 collection was not continued because customers figured that if they wanted poverty fabric in a suit, they could get seersucker or polyester cheaper.


Denim is "poverty fabric"? Don't worry guys, the thread is back on track.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Or I'll just keep reading and airing my views. The option also exists for people not to write such nonsense. If people don't want to hear views contrary to their own then they shouldn't be expressing them on a discussion forum.


You obviously missed the point.

If the sentiments in the thread bother you - and based on your responses, they clearly do - then you have the option to not read the thread. If you wish to chime in with your opinion, no one will stop you. You may think that some of us have written nonsensical posts; some of us believe the same of you. Please don't tell us what we should or shouldn't write. As for your last sentence, _*you *_are the only poster in this thread that was demanding a cessation of a certain type of expression. That's both audacious and misguided. As others have said, you may wish to take your own advice.


----------



## Faust (May 1, 2012)

This is no surprise, young adults continue wearing very informal clothes even in college. I can't tell you how many students show up to class in their pajamas.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Faust said:


> This is no surprise, young adults continue wearing very informal clothes even in college. I can't tell you how many students show up to class in their pajamas.


Yeah, but are they "dressy" dark blue denim pajamas?


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Faust said:


> This is no surprise, young adults continue wearing very informal clothes even in college. I can't tell you how many students show up to class in their pajamas.


I thank God that the school I went to had a strict dress code.

Shirt and tie and jacket for day classes.

Collared shirt and khakis for evening classes.


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

^^^On one occasion I walked into a day class in a pair of dark denim and the chancellor of our school publicly humiliated me...

As you can imagine, I never did that again.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Watchman said:


> ^^^On one occasion I walked into a day class in a pair of dark denim and the chancellor of our school publicly humiliated me...
> 
> As you can imagine, I never did that again.


However, in a supremely ironic twist, that chancellor has now succumbed to the dark side, and can be seen on the left in the picture below, flaunting his red basketball shorts and flip flops while making an emphatic and crucial pedagogical distinction (notice the outstretched finger) long since lost to faded memory...


----------



## Watchman (Jun 11, 2013)

Tiger said:


> However, in a supremely ironic twist, that chancellor has now succumbed to the dark side, and can be seen on the left in the picture below, flaunting his red basketball shorts and flip flops while making an emphatic and crucial pedagogical distinction (notice the outstretched finger) long since lost to faded memory...


Ha, ha, although that pic is quite comical/tragic all at once. My chancellor is still alive and in his eighties I believe. The last time I saw him, 3 yrs ago, he was adorned in JCP Stafford OCBD, rep stripe tie and wingtip oxfords...

What an old War Horse he is...


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

All you need to do now is bring up Black PJs and we'll have a perfect storm of a thread! Jeans ... Dark Blue Pants ... Black Suits!!!!


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

I was considering not posting this, but what the heck, it'll add to the conversation. Since my demographic seems to be the one primarily targeted here, if it's any consolation:

Im a 26 year old MBA in the financial industry. I prefer chinos to jeans casually, as I find chinos more comfortable. In college and grad school I primarily wore chinos and polo shirts with boat shoes (Sperry), chino shorts in the hotter months (still do this, but with more OCBDs and madras mixed in). I not only recognize, but have a fond appreciation for, the brands that were cited as examples of "brands younger folks wouldn't recognize". I strongly prefer wine to beer (actually, can't stand beer except for stouts and porters), and prefer a good single malt scotch and cigar to wine, if given the option (preference to Laphroaig and Ardbeg). Most of my closet is Brooks Brothers, with strong representation (in the shirt arena) from RLPL and Hamilton. I own one pair of Levi 505's and one pair of Diesels - the Levi's for work at my inlaws' property, the Diesels I've worn probably half a dozen times. 

Im not posting this to brag or be combative, but it seems as though much of this thread has turned into a tirade against "these d*mn kids (20-30 age set) and their crappy denim". I'm just trying to show that not all twenty-something's prefer jeans, nor are ignorant of the "finer things".


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

RogerP said:


> Well, I agree with you there. :tongue2:


Yikes! I typed that? I meant jeans vs. chinos but thanks.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

While I doubt anyone would be so prejudicial as to paint all young people with a certain brush, I can understand how some of our posts might give that impression. Excellent post, orange fury!


----------



## orange fury (Dec 8, 2013)

Tiger said:


> While I doubt anyone would be so prejudicial as to paint all young people with a certain brush, I can understand how some of our posts might give that impression. Excellent post, orange fury!


I appreciate it - like I said, i certainly wasn't trying to target anyone or take a combative stance, so I apologige in advance if anyone takes it that way. Fwiw, ive had an Old Fashioned and a Mint Julep, and I'm halfway through my second Oliva Serié G, so my filter is pretty much gone at this point :biggrin:


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

Well said, OF! Way to represent our generation.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I like jeans and finer things all the same. In fact, I just bought a pair of cream Levi's today before heading home to detail my car and enjoy some fine Scotch. Bring it. :devil:


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Jovan said:


> I like jeans and finer things all the same.


Please stop being reasonable. It gets in the way of all the irrationality and end of the world stuff.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Black jeans are dressier. Let's get to page 13!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

vpkozel said:


> Please stop being reasonable. It gets in the way of all the irrationality and end of the world stuff.


Much as I like clothes, sometimes there are more important things in the world.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Tempest said:


> Black jeans are dressier. Let's get to page 13!


If no jeans are dressy, how can any color be dressier?


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

orange fury said:


> I appreciate it - like I said, i certainly wasn't trying to target anyone or take a combative stance, so I apologige in advance if anyone takes it that way. Fwiw, ive had an Old Fashioned and a Mint Julep, and I'm halfway through my second Oliva Serié G, so my filter is pretty much gone at this point :biggrin:


Careful, or the moderators will pull you aside for typing under the influence. Then you'll really have to apologige.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

RogerP said:


> I can't recall seeing anyone wear chinos with rolled-up cuffs - which seem to be the darling of the selvedge set.


Really? It's very common in Europe.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Historically, the late Joe Paterno rolled the cuffs of his chinos on game days...that's good enough for me! :thumbs-up:


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tempest said:


> Black jeans are dressier. Let's get to page 13!


Black jeans are only suitable for funerals, you dope :rock:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

In reading through the first twelve pages of this thread, I frequently found myself considering possible answers to perhaps the most oft repeated deliberation that appears in these fora...why are so many turning their backs on style and dressing in such slovenly fashion, as they live their daily lives? I think so many are resistant to our repeated calls for a return to some semblance of a sense of style in their daily dress habits because of our intransigence/inflexibility in the application of our more traditional sartorial expectations/standards. Our unwillingness to entertain any degree of variation/flexibility in the face of even insignificant aberrations of said standards is off putting to others. Our unwillingness to even entertain the possibility that pairing a nice pair of jeans with a blazer or sport coat or other casual ensemble as being acceptable, has a very real potential for driving "the young Jedi's away!" Perhaps we need to consider the reality that they could be choosing to wear a printed T and faded, torn jeans and be thankful for the progress represented by the nice jeans and blazer option?


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

I will concede that denim is by no means dressy. I wear jeans everyday and most of you would probably roll your eyes at my appearance, but I am simply not required to dress up. On top of that, I would stick out like a sore thumb if I were to suddenly start wearing chinos/khakis/moleskin trousers. But, dressing up certainly has its place when and where appropriate. YMMV

For me the popularity of denim, especially among the selvedge crowd, is the history and tradition of denim as it was created over a century ago. I liken it to shell cordovan in many ways - I've read numerous threads about how many of you appreciate every crease, every crinkle your shell shoes/boots take on in appearance. Likewise, denim afficianados love the natural aging of denim and the characteristics of each unique fabric. This is where I see a convergence in the style community, that is, appreciating the qualities of a product versus the formality of that product. Is the guy wearing a $145 Filson flannel shirt, $350 pair of Iron Heart selvedge jeans and $500 Indy boots a slob compared to the guy wearing $50 GAP khakis, $75 Banana Republic OCBD and $200 AE's?


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

eagle2250, the reason this thread was started was based on an article where a 7 1/2 year old boy considered jeans dressy when compared to sweat pants. If people can't agree that jeans are 'dressier' than sweat pants, well, I can't help them. The OP stated that 'jeans are dressy' and from there it went. I did not see in the article where the parents said that jeans were dressy.

It doesn't matter whether I consider jeans dressy or not, I'll do what I want, and I don't care what anybody really thinks. Certainly not a group of grown men talking about clothes and posting pictures of themselves. It's that some of the attitudes are rather snotty. The way personal ideas are stated as fact astounds me and with the snarky way the posts come across. If I didn't know better I'd swear the OP was a troll trying to wind everybody up. If that was the intent, he was highly successful.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> Black jeans are only suitable for funerals, you dope :rock:


You wear blue jeans after 6pm? What are you, a farmer?


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

Triathlete said:


> If people can't agree that jeans are 'dressier' than sweat pants, well, I can't help them.


I think we should all agree that sweat pants are universally loathed in the style community, unless you're George Costanza


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

eagle2250 said:


> Perhaps we need to consider the reality that they could be choosing to wear a printed T and faded, torn jeans and be thankful for the progress represented by the nice jeans and blazer option?


Indeed.

Sartorial talibanis don't convert anyone.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

gaseousclay said:


> Is the guy wearing a $145 Filson flannel shirt, $350 pair of Iron Heart selvedge jeans and $500 Indy boots a slob compared to the guy wearing $50 GAP khakis, $75 Banana Republic OCBD and $200 AE's?


I'm not going to call either a slob (either might or might not be a slob depending on fit, coordination, etc), but automatically equating higher cost to better dressing is dubious.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

Around a month or six weeks ago I was walking around the Union Square area of San Francisco on a balmy Saturday evening. A few paces in front of me, strolling hand-in-hand, were a man and woman. The guy was tall, slender, and appeared to be in his early to mid-forties. He was wearing a grey sport coat and blue jeans--the dark-washed, somewhat pricy kind that are not meant for the ranch or construction site but, rather, for social occasions I guess. My first thought was, "Hmm, I wonder what the Ask Andy members would think about that rig?!" And here we are! A 12-page (and counting) post about that very subject.

My next thoughts that evening were as follows:

1. Well, maybe that's not the best look for a forty-something man out on the town with his wife/lady friend.
2. Wool trousers would be much better on a guy that age on this fine Saturday night.
3. However, the jeans are in excellent condition, fit well, and are hemmed at just the right length.
4. He seems happy; the lady seems happy.
5. Actually, his outfit looks reasonably good. Pretty okay. Could be better but on second thought, not bad.
6. It's none of my business anyway.
7. It's only clothes.
8. And furthermore--my God, look at those two young ladies over there. Tourists. They're gorgeous!! Ya gotta love this town! What a crossroads this place is!
9. Huh. I'm starting to get hungry. Almost time for dinner.
10. Hope they have a good time.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Triathlete said:


> It's that some of the attitudes are rather snotty.


Some members seem to affect an air of a disapproving English butler from a by-gone era, which is eccentric, at best, and immensely parochial, at worst.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Charles Dana said:


> 2. Wool trousers would be much better on a guy that age on this fine Saturday night.


Why / how does age enter into the calculus?


----------



## ruvort (Mar 11, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> Why / how does age enter into the calculus?


I can't speak for Charles, but in my mind it would mean that he (the man observed) has the years to know better and went through a different generation than the current jean wearing youth.

Sent from my LG-VS980 using Tapatalk


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

Triathlete said:


> eagle2250, the reason this thread was started was based on an article where a 7 1/2 year old boy considered jeans dressy when compared to sweat pants. If people can't agree that jeans are 'dressier' than sweat pants, well, I can't help them. The OP stated that 'jeans are dressy' and from there it went. I did not see in the article where the parents said that jeans were dressy.
> 
> It doesn't matter whether I consider jeans dressy or not, I'll do what I want, and I don't care what anybody really thinks. Certainly not a group of grown men talking about clothes and posting pictures of themselves. It's that some of the attitudes are rather snotty. The way personal ideas are stated as fact astounds me and with the snarky way the posts come across. If I didn't know better I'd swear the OP was a troll trying to wind everybody up. If that was the intent, he was highly successful.


Actually I think the above sounds pretty snotty. "Sartorial talibanis" too. Mind your glass houses, they don't react well to thrown stones.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

watchnerd said:


> Indeed.
> 
> Sartorial talibanis don't convert anyone.


Classing up the thread, I see. Nice.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

watchnerd said:


> Why / how does age enter into the calculus?


That's good question, and I don't have a rational answer. My irrational answer is that, prejudicially, part of me wants to associate jeans on a Saturday night date with twenty-something, not forty-something, guys. I admit that is outmoded thinking. To my credit, you will notice in my post, above, that I set aside my fusty initial attitude and came around to conceding that the man looked fine. Sometimes it takes my feelings a while to catch up to my thoughts. Things tend to clank along rustily in the gray matter as one gets on in years. Still, a good question.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

RogerP said:


> Classing up the thread, I see. Nice.


This thread shed all semblance of class on page 1.


----------



## gaseousclay (Nov 8, 2009)

watchnerd said:


> I'm not going to call either a slob (either might or might not be a slob depending on fit, coordination, etc), but automatically equating higher cost to better dressing is dubious.


my point is that most men _try_ to dress for themselves rather than to seek approval from others, and the notion of judging a person's wardrobe from a pedestal seems rather silly (this entire thread). The guy wearing expensive denim/work boots thinks he looks good. The guy wearing inexpensive mall brands thinks he looks good. I mean, who really cares? I would pull my hair out by the roots if I sat and thought about how other men dress.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

I love how the tastemakers keep trying to shift the target on denim in order to differentiate their product from the actual identity of denim wearers (paunchy old white dudes, retirees). You can see it in this thread with the goofy distinctions about dark rinse, selvedge, low rise, straight leg etc. 
Jeans is jeans. The $200 designer ones and the elastic-backed crud are all the same uniform. They all announce that the wearer is stuck idealizing some iconic symbol of teen rebellion from over half a century ago.
And congrats on getting to page 13!


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

^Come man, quit trolling. I know this is becoming sport for some that just want to keep this abomination of a thread going. Get a life...you've been trolling this thread since page one. All suits are the same, too, right? Same level of formality, same fit, same use, etc.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

gaseousclay said:


> my point is that most men _try_ to dress for themselves rather than to seek approval from others, and the notion of judging a person's wardrobe from a pedestal seems rather silly (this entire thread). The guy wearing expensive denim/work boots thinks he looks good. The guy wearing inexpensive mall brands thinks he looks good. I mean, who really cares? I would pull my hair out by the roots if I sat and thought about how other men dress.


I agree. I never go out of my way to pay attention to what other men are wearing (what women are wearing: that's another topic for another time on another forum). However, if a man is nearby and something about his clothing catches my attention for some reason, I'll do a little sartorial assessment, just because it's fun and free. Usually, though, I'm too wrapped up in my thoughts to notice. Last weekend I spent hours walking around San Francisco, and I could not tell you anything about what any other man was wearing. I never noticed.


----------



## TexJake (Jan 12, 2015)

I'll chime in here, although I probably wont be saying anything that hasn't already been said in some form or fashion at least twice already...

I recently (over the past 3-5 years) have started to take more care in my dress and appearance, and thus have changed many of my opinions of what "looks good" or is considered to be "acceptable" as dressy or casual. Partly because both of those words are subjective to begin with, but mostly because I have taken some time to educate myself. I would venture to say most in my demographic and/or age bracket have not put in the time or effort to do the same. Thus, they are influenced by what they see around them as acceptable, as was I. When you shop at a department store, jeans and most khakis are pretty much right next to each other (whatever that means... tweed SC and worsted suit separates are also close to each other in that example, so there's that as well). 

Growing up and beginning my career in TX, jeans are everywhere. Work in the yard, shopping, eating out, even at work. They have bled into what I might call the "uneducated" (fashion, not schooling) and more relaxed business casual setting pretty extensively. Again, business casual means something different depending on where and what you are doing. When I started, jeans and polo was most widely chosen and accepted, right or wrong. I have no problem wearing khakis, I have no problem wearing jeans, but I never have liked wearing polos for anything other than the most casual wear, but that's just a personal preference. I have always liked wearing sport shirts or dress shirts instead of polos, and my preference here probably stems from my father's influence on my dress as a youngster. He was almost always suit for business and khakis/sport shirt casual; I have never seen my father wear jeans. Ever. He did at one point in his life, and there are pictures to prove it, as he was a rodeo cowboy in his youth, but in my lifetime, it has not happened. Growing up, he taught me how to dress properly, and what was acceptable as dress/formal and casual, but I infrequently needed to dress formally (aside from attendance at synagogue or formal functions). 

So at work, I started occasionally putting a SC over my shirt and jeans or khakis. At first, I rotated between an old Levi's tweed, my old navy blazer, and a charcoal orphaned suit jacket. As casual (and in some cases probably not recommended) as these combinations were, I still received comments of "Why are you dressed up?" or "Who do you have to meet with today?" My responses of "No reason" or "No one in particular" were an attempt to refrain from saying "because I want to look nicer" because I felt that my efforts would be perceived as my being elitist, or trying to brown-nose, or curry favor with superiors, which of course was not true. When I started to really change my wardrobe, and wear odd trousers properly matched with SCs, or even (gasp!) a tie, the reception was not the warmest. I say all this to make this point: Some, I would venture to say many, men, even those who are the least bit conscious of their appearance, would rather not deal with the comments or extra attention being paid to their wardrobe choices, so they choose not to make a change. They are accepted, and fit with most of those around them. Over time of course, my coworkers have come to expect that I will show up wearing a jacket and tie almost every day of the week, and no longer pay it any mind.

This of course all blends into the choices that a man will make in his clothing once he leaves the work setting. If he's wearing jeans and a polo to work, then he probably feels that putting on a button down shirt and a jacket for dinner dresses up his look considerably. Which it does, but it does not make the jeans "dressy." Which, of course, was the first question in all of this anyway. It doesn't mean that the SC/Jeans look is or isn't better or worse than some other alternative. It just is a different look, perceived by many (who may not know any better) as a "good" look, for WHATEVER reason.

That's all to say: 
A) I've worn (and will likely continue to, on occasion wear) jeans with a SC. 
B) I don't consider them "dressy." 
But I don't think those are contradictory statements, as seems to be a lot of the reason for some of this discussion. 

As far as a 7 year old's perception of "dressy," I don't really care. My 6 year old thinks that she looks fabulous with black tights, a pink tutu, a purple shirt, and sequined flip flops. And she loves to say that she likes my jackets, no matter which one I happen to pick. I venture to say her tastes will change as she ages. But I will also be doing my best as a parent to educate her on what is appropriate casually and formally, trends be damned. That may or may not be the case with the families that are highlighted in that article, which some have pointed out was written as a "what is happening to our population/world is going to end as we know it" type of work. And judging by some of the discussion it sparked here, I'd say it did its job. 

It also bugs me that so many of our population looks like crap in public. I can only change my behavior and choices, with the goal being to look good, and the hope that it may influence another.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> This thread shed all semblance of class on page 1.


Really? The ideology and methodology of the Taliban are well known. Did someone else equate those of an opposing view with vicious mass murderers as early as page 1? I joined quite a bit later, so I may have missed it.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

RogerP said:


> Really? The ideology and methodology of the Taliban are well known. *Did someone else equate those of an opposing view with vicious mass murderers as early as page 1?* I joined quite a bit later, so I may have missed it.


No. Is that the only way to declass a thread? I suggest reading page 1.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> No. Is that the only way to declass a thread? I suggest reading page 1.


Maybe you could just point out something remotely equivalent.


----------



## irish95 (Sep 27, 2011)

I was always taught not to discuss religion and politics at a party. I will now know not throw jeans vs. chinos into the mix as well. All kidding aside, I believe that many of us have "drawn a line in the sand" in regards to our opinions on this issue. Very few can wear chinos as well as RogerP, as many will look like an unmade bed. I agree with gaseousclay, the mere fact one wears chinos does not elevate that persons level of dress(I don't believe his point was amount of money spent, but rather the overall look and presentation), but much like Cubs vs. White Sox fans---there is no answer that makes either side happy.

RogerP--widgets is a word used to describe a hypothetical product in economic and law school classes. The purpose is so the students will focus on the issue/problem as opposed to the product itself. Without having seen anyone's response---I know and I agree


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

I'd say this is a very balanced middle ground and probably a sartorial journey that many of us can relate to.

I especially agree with your last sentence.



TexJake said:


> I'll chime in here, although I probably wont be saying anything that hasn't already been said in some form or fashion at least twice already...
> 
> I recently (over the past 3-5 years) have started to take more care in my dress and appearance, and thus have changed many of my opinions of what "looks good" or is considered to be "acceptable" as dressy or casual. Partly because both of those words are subjective to begin with, but mostly because I have taken some time to educate myself. I would venture to say most in my demographic and/or age bracket have not put in the time or effort to do the same. Thus, they are influenced by what they see around them as acceptable, as was I. When you shop at a department store, jeans and most khakis are pretty much right next to each other (whatever that means... tweed SC and worsted suit separates are also close to each other in that example, so there's that as well).
> 
> ...


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

RogerP said:


> Maybe you could just point out something remotely equivalent.


No thanks...that exercise would be completely irrelevant to my original comment. You told someone, "Classing up the thread, I see. Nice". Assuming you meant the opposite (that whole sarcasm thing), I said that this thread shed all semblance of class on page 1. Frankly, I don't even need to know why you found his comment to be unclassy. Helping you find something in the thread that is "remotely equivalent" to what your offender said has no bearing whatsover on my statement. As an attorney, I know you can follow that logic chain. Methinks the evidence shows that RogerP enjoys engaging in confrontation.....


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

irish95 said:


> I was always taught not to discuss religion and politics at a party. I will now know not throw jeans vs. chinos into the mix as well.


Clothing is related to manners, when you get down to it. That's why it can be so touchy. Some issues like tie width are purely stylistic; others, like formality, can be perceived as polite or rude choices. Jeans are one of the fault lines between views. They have been for 50 years or more.


----------



## Tempest (Aug 16, 2012)

Natty Beau said:


> Clothing is related to manners, when you get down to it... can be perceived as polite or rude choices.


Yes. If we dress to show respect for others, as we should, wearing jeans when nicer clothing would do is an affront. 
And make no mistake, the intended message is "I'm not dressing up for you" expect in the case of spoiled children aware that jeans are uncomfortable, presumably having been exposed to nothing better.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> No thanks...that exercise would be completely irrelevant to my original comment. You told someone, "Classing up the thread, I see. Nice". Assuming you meant the opposite (that whole sarcasm thing), I said that this thread shed all semblance of class on page 1. Frankly, I don't even need to know why you found his comment to be unclassy. Helping you find something in the thread that is "remotely equivalent" to what your offender said has no bearing whatsover on my statement. As an attorney, I know you can follow that logic chain. Methinks the evidence shows that RogerP enjoys engaging in confrontation.....


No worries - it's not like I actually thought you would back up your claims.


----------



## irish95 (Sep 27, 2011)

Natty Beau, I agree with your comments 100%, but I also think your comments could be interpreted as " I dress better, therefore I am better". I know that was not your intent, but that is why this thread as went on for so long. I think many of us taking the "jean" side feel that way. I think we all know when and when not to wear jeans, but I certainly don't believe anyone is disrespecting me if I meet them on the weekend and they are wearing jeans. Now if they show up in beat up in jeans, squared toed shoes and a sweatshirt I don't think it's a lack of respect, but rather they are a slob.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

RogerP said:


> No worries - it's not like I actually thought you would back up your claims.


Hmm. I take that back, maybe you didn't follow the logic chain.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

FLCracka said:


> Hmm. I take that back, maybe you didn't follow the logic chain.


Hmm, maybe you were looking in the mirror when you were making accusations of being argumentative.

Or maybe you are just working hard to derail this thread.

I'll leave you to it.


----------



## Natty Beau (Apr 29, 2014)

irish95 said:


> Natty Beau, I agree with your comments 100%, but I also think your comments could be interpreted as " I dress better, therefore I am better". I know that was not your intent, but that is why this thread as went on for so long. I think many of us taking the "jean" side feel that way. I think we all know when and when not to wear jeans, but I certainly don't believe anyone is disrespecting me if I meet them on the weekend and they are wearing jeans. Now if they show up in beat up in jeans, squared toed shoes and a sweatshirt I don't think it's a lack of respect, but rather they are a slob.


I get where you're coming from, but what did I say that gave that impression?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

FLCracka said:


> This is what this thread has devolved into. Can we just shut it down on that note?!


Why would you want to?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Faust said:


> This is no surprise, young adults continue wearing very informal clothes even in college. I can't tell you how many students show up to class in their pajamas.


kids today have hardly any class whatsoever.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Tempest said:


> Black jeans are dressier. Let's get to page 13!


I own a pair of black jeans.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

RogerP said:


> "Sartorial talibanis" too.


I'll admit that "fashion fascists" has more alliterative snap, but thought it too retro to use.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Howard said:


> kids today have hardly any class whatsoever.


I believe every generation has been accused of this by their elders going back to documented instances from the time of Socrates.

In fact, many of the fashion items today held as marks of being 'classy' now were items of rebellion at one point against prior norms.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

irish95 said:


> .....Very few can wear chinos as well as RogerP, as many will look like an unmade bed.....


I don't think I've ever seen a pic of RogerP wearing chinos.


----------



## Oldsport (Jan 3, 2012)

Someone convince me those rich, prep-school kids weren't rebelling when they lost their wool pants and started wearing left-over or used military khaki pants from the war...



watchnerd said:


> I believe every generation has been accused of this by their elders going back to documented instances from the time of Socrates.
> 
> In fact, many of the fashion items today held as marks of being 'classy' now were items of rebellion at one point against prior norms.


----------



## Charles Dana (Nov 20, 2006)

RogerP said:


> Maybe [FLCracka] could just point out something remotely equivalent [to the Taliban reference].


As an impartial observer--that is, someone who has high regard for both RogerP and FLCracka--I'd like to make a couple of quick statements, and then I'll let it go.

Quite simply, FLCracka cannot cite any other statement in this long thread remotely equivalent to the Taliban comment, because there isn't another one. So RogerP is correct: FLCracka won't be able to do it. And yet, I believe the criticism of FLCracka is not warranted.

Very early in this thread--on the first page, to which FLCracka referred--an ill-advised, unsubstantiated, and in any case irrelevant comment appeared. One could reasonably characterize the statement as lacking class. The statement was justifiably criticized (by myself, among others). For awhile, that comment, rather than the essence of the original post in this thread, became the topic of animated discussion. Indeed, that discussion temporarily derailed the thread, and things only got back on track when a moderator threatened an imminent shut-down of the thread.

Much, much later--on page twelve of this thread--another participant attempted to make a point via a melodramatic metaphor involving the Taliban, a tribe of vicious, raping, mass-murdering thugs. RogerP and I and every other decent person cannot hate the Taliban enough. I thought the metaphor was clumsy and misplaced, but I shrugged it off because this is an Internet discussion forum in which the comments we post tend to be the first and only iterations of our views; our rough drafts generally are our final drafts. Further, most of us are not professional writers, and it's difficult enough for a pro to think up an apt metaphor, let alone an amateur. So I cut the maker of the Taliban comment a lot of slack.

FLCracka opined--yes, simply opined, as was his right--that this "thread shed all semblance of class on page 1." Due to the extremely controversial statement that FLCracka was alluding to, as well as the fact that the statement indirectly let to the near locking of this thread, FLCracka's opinion is sound. Why? Because as bad as the Taliban are, the reference to that terrible group on page twelve could not serve to retroactively negate the big brouhaha that began on page one.

A request was made that FLCracka point out a comment, prior to page twelve, that is substantially as egregious as likening some people to the Taliban. This is not fair to FLCracka because at no time have we unanimously agreed that a thread loses its classy nature only when members are compared to unspeakably horrific fanatics or to something equally odious. At no time have we agreed on the definition of the expression "to shed all semblance of class." FLCracka is being criticized for failing to meet a non-existent standard.

RogerP is right to be appalled at the Taliban's past and ongoing crimes against humanity. FLCracka is right in his observation about when this thread first got dicey.

Thank you.


----------



## RogerP (Oct 31, 2012)

You're right. Who but a professional writer could do any better than equate those of an opposing view with the Taliban? He deserves to be cut ample slack indeed.


----------



## watchnerd (Mar 18, 2015)

Prince William in jeans and jacket.



















And, whoa, looks like cuff links, with jeans, too!


----------



## irish95 (Sep 27, 2011)

NattyBeau, sorry for the tardy response, but I didn't think you meant it that way. I only believed it could be interpreted in that fashion. I just feel that any form of "absolutes" in clothing is not always right and lends itself to 13 pages on a forum. As an example, when I play golf with my former boss I will wear the nicest pair of shorts/linen pants I own. When I play with my high school friends I wouldn't think of wearing the same clothes. They would think I was "showing them up". Although I was dressing "down" in the later example, I would be acting more appropriately for the venue. I know it might not be the best example, but I believe the "rigid" opinions in this thread could use a little push in both directions.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> I believe every generation has been accused of this by their elders going back to documented instances from the time of Socrates.
> 
> In fact, many of the fashion items today held as marks of being 'classy' now were items of rebellion at one point against prior norms.


'Twas ever thus really isn't a good argument, which is perhaps why it is wheeled out with such depressing frequency. If you want to stop using it, try applying it to something you disapprove of - that should be sufficient to work a cure.


----------



## Il Signor Crispone (Jul 18, 2014)

watchnerd said:


> Prince William in jeans and jacket.


And he looks fine. He'd just look a lot better with different trousers.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

That's enough. We've asked people to keep the thread civil; you have chosen not to. 

No infractions this time against anyone.

Please EVERYONE who has gotten person which is a number of you, this is not a forum for catfighting. Other forums are more open with that. We are not.


----------

