# Braces and cummerbund



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

I've been getting mixed messages about wearing a cummerbund and braces together,some for,some against.My last DJ was double breasted,so I've never worn a cummerbund,but now that I have a single breasted,I need to know if it's ok to wear braces with a cummerbund?


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

You have two options: braces or side tabs. You cannot wear a belt with a dinner jacket. A cummerbund is designed to cover your waistline to give a cleaner look. There is nothing wrong with braces and a cummerbund, and I have no clue where such an idea got started.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

AlanC said:


> You have two options: braces or side tabs. You cannot wear a belt with a dinner jacket. A cummerbund is designed to cover your waistline to give a cleaner look. There is nothing wrong with braces and a cummerbund, and I have no clue where such an idea got started.


+1

Never heard of this.


----------



## The Transporter (Jul 11, 2008)

And I like white braces to blend in with the shirt, though you're not supposed to take the jacket off so no one should see them anyway. I found mine online at Jos. A. Bank.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

The Transporter said:


> And I like white braces to blend in with the shirt, though you're not supposed to take the jacket off so no one should see them anyway. I found mine online at Jos. A. Bank.


I would go with Albert Thurston - they're not that much more and are better quality.


----------



## The Transporter (Jul 11, 2008)

Cool. I'll have to check them out. I was in a hurry to wear my new MTM tux for a holiday event and saw the ones at JAB and snatched them up.


----------



## Midnight Blue (Apr 22, 2007)

AlanC said:


> A cummerbund is designed to cover your waistline to give a cleaner look. There is nothing wrong with braces and a cummerbund, and I have no clue where such an idea got started.


What he said.

I suspect that uninformed men perceive the cummerbund as a type of belt and consequently believe that it eliminates the need for braces.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> I would go with Albert Thurston - they're not that much more and are better quality.


I have both Thurston (white) and Trafalgar (black).


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

The problem is that some gentlemen think that a cummerbund holds up the trousers!! 

This is from the *Frequently Asked Questions* linked from the Home Page:
*Q:* When I wear braces with my Tuxedo do I need a cummerbund?​
*A: *There are two things going on here which seem often to confuse gentlemen! 

​First formal trousers are held up by (only choice) braces (suspenders in American, but always the kind that attach to buttons inside the trouser waistband! Sometimes the use of "suspenders" is to describe the clip on type!​
The other thing is that the waistband of formal trousers *must always be covered*! From the practice of wearing the jacket of White Tie open, and also that the formal shirt has a pleated front (to the waist only, so that it doesn't buckle when you sit down). This must be "hidden" at the waist and is always covered! 

The choices for this "cover" are cummerbund (has nothing to do with holding up your pants), a vest or a double breasted dinner jacket which is never unbuttoned in public!​​


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Andy said:


> First formal trousers are held up by (only choice) braces (suspenders in American, but always the kind that attach to buttons inside the trouser waistband! Sometimes the use of "suspenders" is to describe the clip on type!


Darn! Guess my red felt ones with alligator clips won't do! :icon_smile_big:

Seem to vaguely remember (Now the norm.) that either white or black are needed. I'd think white with gut might be my first choice.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Flanderian said:


> Darn! Guess my red felt ones with alligator clips won't do! :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Seem to vaguely remember (Now the norm.) that either white or black are needed. I'd think white with gut might be my first choice.


For black tie, black or white is acceptable, while white is the only acceptable color for white tie events.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> For black tie, black or white is acceptable, while white is the only acceptable color for white tie events.


I always thought that this was an interesting rule...given that no one should see them. Is there also a rule as to the color of my boxer shorts?


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Mark from Plano said:


> I always thought that this was an interesting rule...given that no one should see them. Is there also a rule as to the color of my boxer shorts?


None that I know of.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*I wear both white and black braces with ....*

cummerbund. While I stick to black tie and cummerbund, I occasionally wear my formal Albert Thurston royal purple silk moire braces. Regardless of whether you can see the braces or not, I wear a purple pocket square, usually in some kind of pattern, to coordinate with the braces.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Dear Sir

If you are of healthy physique then I would urge you not to wear the cummerbund, because you won't need it!

Braces, of course, would be dashing, and make you feel superb!

Good luck! :icon_smile:


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Mr. Pipps said:


> If you are of healthy physique then I would urge you not to wear the cummerbund, because you won't need it!


It's not a girdle.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Mr. Pipps said:


> Dear Sir
> 
> If you are of healthy physique then I would urge you not to wear the cummerbund, because you won't need it!
> 
> ...


This is a curious statement.

Why would he not need it?

What has his physique to do with it?


----------



## paul winston (Jun 3, 2006)

For those who don't like the "feel" of the cummerbund around their waist you can have the waistband of the trousers serve as a cummerbund. ( You make it as wide as a cummerbund and use the same material as the facing of your dinner suit jacket. As a practical matter this can only be done if you are having the trousers made- it would be too costly to change an existing trouser.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

paul winston said:


> For those who don't like the "feel" of the cummerbund around their waist you can have the waistband of the trousers serve as a cummerbund. ( You make it as wide as a cummerbund and use the same material as the facing of your dinner suit jacket. As a practical matter this can only be done if you are having the trousers made- it would be too costly to change an existing trouser.


But it would not look like a cummerbund would it? There would be the split at the front or do these have a zipper in the rear?


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

paul winston said:


> For those who don't like the "feel" of the cummerbund around their waist you can have the waistband of the trousers serve as a cummerbund. ( You make it as wide as a cummerbund and use the same material as the facing of your dinner suit jacket. As a practical matter this can only be done if you are having the trousers made- it would be too costly to change an existing trouser.


-1. Sorry to disagree, but IMO this looks like what it is...a cheap imitation.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

To really understand the rules here, you have to appreciate the history behind them.

A traditional shirt looked liked this:



Notice the way it doesn't button through to the bottom. To hide this you needed either a cummerbund or a waistcoat. The former option existed because a typical cloth for your dinner jacket would have been about 18 Oz. To make things even cooler in summer (especially if you planned to do some dancing in an environment where air conditioning had yet to be invented) you wore a cummerbund. The best match for the cummerbund, if staying cool was your priority, were trousers with side adjusters so that they could be cut with a lower rise than brace trousers. Brace trousers have a high rise and so run warmer. 

Another option if you wanted to stay cool was to wear a cotton waistcoat - of white pique - with an open back. An attached turndown collar also helped.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

My understanding is the cummerbund originated in colonial British India as a cooler native substitute for the waistcoat, which, as Sator indicates, too hot for the climate. It was then imported to Britain by those returning from time overseas.


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

My understanding is that the cummerbund developed with the Colonial British in India as a means of providing a more flattering appearance for an overweight gentleman.

Hence, why I assert that a slim gentleman should have no requirement for a cummerbund. In fact, a cummerbund would only detract from his physique.


----------



## YYZ-LHR (Jul 2, 2007)

Mr. Pipps said:


> My understanding is that the cummerbund developed with the Colonial British in India as a means of providing a more flattering appearance for an overweight gentleman.
> 
> Hence, why I assert that a slim gentleman should have no requirement for a cummerbund. In fact, a cummerbund would only detract from his physique.


That sounds like utter nonsense.

That said, my impression is that both cummerbunds and vests are quite uncommon in the UK; I'm not sure if that is a new phenomenon or if it has long been the case. I base this on (a) the audience at Glyndebourne, which is well-dressed in parts if not uniformly, (b) Christmas in the City, even leaving aside the square-toes in Moss Bros rentals, and (c) the advice of Buckleigh's, which I think is at the top end of the rental market and ought to know something.

For my part, I go without and don't feel underdressed.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

I tend to regard the omission of both waistcoat and cummerbund to be a modern devolution akin to the wearing of long ties or gaudy pre-tied bow ties in colours other than black. However, I do admit that the fact that modern dinner shirts button through means that in principle one might regard waistcoats etc to be unnecessary. I thought I'd throw that one in to spare others the need to carry on about how times have changed blah blah.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Sator said:


> I tend to regard the omission of both waistcoat and cummerbund to be a modern devolution akin to the wearing of long ties or gaudy pre-tied bow ties in colours other than black. However, I do admit that the fact that modern dinner shirts button through means that in principle one might regard waistcoats etc to be unnecessary. I thought I'd throw that one in to spare others the need to carry on about how times have changed blah blah.


Sound and informed reasoning.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

AlanC said:


> My understanding is the cummerbund originated in colonial British India as a cooler native substitute for the waistcoat, which, as Sator indicates, too hot for the climate. It was then imported to Britain by those returning from time overseas.


Which means that the now well established cumberbund was at one time a new and radical inovation in black tie wear, just as the modern day tail less jacket was in the 1880's. This is why I am amused by all of the hue and cry that goes out from some over any deviation from what we now refer to with words such as timeless and classic.

What is now timeless and classic was at some point in the past new and radical, just as what is now thought to be new and radical may well someday be timeless and classic to another generation. I think that cumberbunds will someday fade into obscurity as more and more men simply stop wearing them. Not saying that this is good or bad, just that I think it will happen.

Cruiser


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

There are those of us who love tradition and who find that it is rich with meaning and interest. This is the characteristic peculiarity of our time. In Mozart's day nobody played the music of the previous generation. All concerts were of contemporary music back then. 

It is a peculiar modernism that concerts today are full of music by dead composers - something increasingly true with both jazz and popular music too. Not only that, but people revel in rediscovering forgotten composers such as Vivaldi and playing his music on instruments such as those made by Stradivarius to recreate the original Baroque Italian sound and musical style.

I am sure that Mozart's music will one day be forgotten as being old hat too, along with the dinner jacket. Yet, I can imagine Harley riders in years to come recreating the historically authentic Harley ethos. Technologically there are more "advanced" racing motorcycles than Harleys, yet people feel a certain charm from clinging to anachronisms. Such retrospective historicism is a characteristic symptom of the utmost modernity. Indeed, never has fashion progressed so slowly as it has in the last 100 years.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Quoted from the Wikipedia article on Harley-Davidson (my emphasis):

_Rather than trying to match the Japanese, *the new management deliberately exploited the "retro" appeal of the machines, building motorcycles that deliberately adopted the look and feel of their earlier machines and the subsequent customizations of owners of that era*. Many components such as brakes, forks, shocks, carburetors, electrics and wheels were outsourced from foreign manufacturers and quality increased, technical improvements were made, and buyers slowly returned. To remain profitable Harley continues to increase the amount of overseas-made parts it uses, while being careful not to harm its valuable "American Made" image_.​
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley-Davidson


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

So those people who still want to ride a Harley are really just old fashioned and hide bound to the old ways. 
Everywhere I go I see people on Hondas and Suzukis. They are excepted as just as good, if not better because they se everywhere, than the Harley. 
I thinkPrince Phillip was seen on a Kawasaki, so it must be just as good. 




I'm having too much fun with this.


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

I think (hope) the return to increased levels of formality in the work place will spill over into other areas of our lives.

Two years ago dress down Fridays were jeans and a polo in my workplace. Now they are sports jackets and dress pants. 

You see a return to more traditional (or at least less garish) black tie on the red carpet. When Brad Pitt wears a highly traditional Tuxedo with a proper vest, other people will want to too. He and others like him are the new style icons of our day and push the boundaries of fashion not by dressing wildly but by looking back to proper formality.

In the 80’s people thought matching sea green cummerbunds and bowties were the height of fashion. People would laugh at you now-a-days for wearing it. The same will happen for pants with built in fake cummerbunds someday too. 

Classical elegance is a fashion which never goes out of style…


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Sator said:


> Yet, I can imagine Harley riders in years to come recreating the historically authentic Harley ethos. Technologically there are more "advanced" racing motorcycles than Harleys, yet people feel a certain charm from clinging to anachronisms. Such retrospective historicism is a characteristic symptom of the utmost modernity. Indeed, never has fashion progressed so slowly as it has in the last 100 years.


I am assuming you picked this example because I have a Harley. You are both right and wrong in your assessment. You are right in that retro, particularly in motor vehicles, is "in" at present. But you misunderstand much of the appeal of something like a Harley-Davidson. Let me explain.

Harley-Davidson enjoy much of their popularity because they are the most easily customized motorcycles in the world. There is an aftermarket out there for them that boggles the mind. Riders love to modify them to look different from everyone else's bike, make it their own. They even give them names.

The saying used to be that if you parked 20 Hondas of the same model together they would all look alike but if you parked 20 Harleys of the same model together no two would look alike. My bike looks so different from the way it did five years ago that some might not know it's the same bike.

In other words, the Harley might be a "classic", but the industry literally encourages everyone to constantly tweak the way it looks; take parts off, put different parts on, change the colors of parts, mix and match everything. If I show up at the ride with no front fender on my bike or a chopped off rear fender, guys with fenders on their bikes aren't critical of me for messing with something that is "timeless and classic". The fact that my bike looks different from theirs or that I'm doing something new with it isn't cause for alarm that I'm destroying tradition. Heck, I might just be starting a new trend.

This is just the opposite with this issue of cumberbunds or black tie in general. All I'm saying is that what we consider "timeless and classic" is merely the current style, nothing more. Someone showed up somewhere wearing the first cumberbund in the U.S. or Europe and it wasn't classic then. I wonder how some here would have reacted to this "bastardization" of black tie if they had been there back then. The same as the first person who showed up somewhere in a jacket with no tails.

My point is that some here are quick to criticize others for not following the rules of classic attire without realizing that the current rules are what they are because someone else didn't follow the rules at some point in the past. I'm not talking about outlandish deviations from the norm, but much more subtle acts such as maybe not wearing a cumberbund or vest to a black tie event. Such an act does not signal the end of Western civilization, but it might signal a gradual change in the accepted style or it might not. Only time will tell with regard to things like this.

Cruiser


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

The Transporter said:


> And I like white braces to blend in with the shirt, though you're not supposed to take the jacket off so no one should see them anyway. I found mine online at Jos. A. Bank.


First of all, buttoned on braces are pretty much the thing to do with formal trousers, black or white tie, and quality trousers always come with the buttons sewn on. There are never belt loops, and a cummerbund is not intended to hold your trousers up, so, even though one's physique may not require trouser support, I believe that having braces buttons and not using them is a trifle "high school." The cloth of the braces should match, in my opinion, the jacket facing: grosgrain with grosgrain, satin with satin. No, no one will see them when you have the jacket on, but _you_ will know (and the valets, unless you always drive to events with your jacket on).

I always wear black braces with black tie, as it's a match, and white braces with white tie (yes, there are white tie events in Southern California), but I also wear the latter with a white dinner jacket so that they will be invisible. Black shows through.

As for "always" having to cover the waistband of tuxedo trousers, I disagree. If the trousers are made with a satin waistband (I have some), I don't see the need, especially when it's hot, although I usually do wear a cummerbund with single breasted jackets myself.


----------



## gng8 (Aug 5, 2005)

Sator said:


> To really understand the rules here, you have to appreciate the history behind them....
> 
> a typical cloth for your dinner jacket would have been about 18 Oz.





Mithras said:


> Classical elegance is a fashion which never goes out of style&#8230;


One of you is wrong or both of you should try wearing an 18 Oz. dinner jacket.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> In other words, the Harley might be a "classic", but the industry literally encourages everyone to constantly tweak the way it looks; take parts off, put different parts on, change the colors of parts, mix and match everything.


Actually no two dress coats are the same. I have been studying patterns for them, and the differences between them are quite fascinating. Custom tailoring meant that more individualised variations were seen with tail coats. The dinner jacket became popular in the age after mass production of RTW garments started to increasingly marginalise bespoke tailoring. Uniformity reigns supreme when it comes to dinner jackets in the age of mass production. With bespoke tailoring only a minor player today, bespoke dinner jackets try to fit in to the uniformity.

I would suggest that the offering of customisation on a motorcycle is itself a kind of retrophile option, akin to that of custom tailoring. It is a nostalgic glance back to an age before mass produced uniformity when custom options were more prevalent. But just as dress coats always look like dress coats irrespective of custom details, I bet that all Harley owners still make sure their bikes look recognisably like a Harley, rather than a Honda.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

gng8 said:


> One of you is wrong or both of you should try wearing an 18 Oz. dinner jacket.


What's so unusual about an 18 Oz dinner jacket for winter wear? I am having a three piece lounge made up of 19/20 Oz cloth right now.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

White tie is meant to be a uniform for those who lack a better uniform, heraldic, military, etc. or wish not to wear it. The derived black tie can indeed be customized more, but it is best when customized less.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

If you look at Victorian tailoring manuals you will find dress coats with shawl collars, half silk (half of lapel covered with silk), whole silk (whole of lapel covered; aka the step roll), and "corded edges". Edwardian manuals have variations with and without a "strap", or even whole cut versions lacking a full waist seam. It was even permissible to wear either a black or a white tie up till the Edwardian era. Even waistcoats were quite varied in the sort of cuts and cloths used for them and could also be either black or white.

I have never come across a cutting manual, dress etiquette guide or discussion of dress history which claimed that a dress coat was an ersatz military uniform. Vincent's Practical Guide c.1890 has an extensive discussion on dress coats but nothing to this effect is mentioned. He does mention that it is a garment for merriment and dancing however.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Sator said:


> Actually no two dress coats are the same. I have been studying patterns for them, and the differences between them are quite fascinating. Custom tailoring meant that more individualised variations were seen with tail coats.


Then you should agree with me that wearing something a little different from the others shouldn't be criticized, unless of course it is terribly tasteless and/or offensive. For example, not wearing a vest or cumberbund with a tuxedo or wearing a notch lapel tuxedo or perhaps a different style shirt than the normal types seen should be seen as just another variation of black tie, not an abomination.

If you disagree with this then you probably shouldn't be wearing a cumberbund or modern day dinner jacket because they were abominations at one time. They only became acceptable (ie. timeless and classic) after men continued to wear them in the face of the same type criticism I often see here toward things that are different.

Unfortunately, I think some of you are totally missing my point. I just believe that tolerance and diversity are good things.

Cruiser


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Yes, but just as there would be customisations that would make a Harley look like a Honda and would doubtless be eschewed by enthusiasts, there are things that would equally bastardise black tie. We like to pretend we live in an age where Anything Goes but I would no more omit a waistcoat or cummerbund than I would wear a dress and tiara in the name of sartorial freedom.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> Unfortunately, I think some of you are totally missing my point. I just believe that tolerance and diversity are good things.


These sort of political comments belong on the interchange. Please keep them there.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Bogdanoff said:


> These sort of political comments belong on the interchange. Please keep them there.


Since when is tolerance of another person's choice of attire and a belief in diversity of attire a political comment? What a silly thing for you to say.

Cruiser


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Cruiser said:


> Since when is tolerance of another person's choice of attire and a belief in diversity of attire a political comment?


Ever since "diversity" and "tolerance" became buzzwords of the political left.



Cruiser said:


> What a silly thing for you to say.


I thought you were one to respect a diversity of opnions, nay? I suppose not. Only if they happend to match your own. So much for tolerance.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

With all fairness to Cruiser, it has always been impossible to separate dress from politics. After the French Revolution people lost their heads over what they wore.

However, the laissez faire attitude that the Old Rules are Dead we now are free to dress as we please is really silly. Unless of course Cruiser rides his chopper dressed in drag. There is a correct uniform for the chopper as there is for evening full dress and I bet he conforms to it. I doubt he wears formal equestrian dress for it, although a red dress coat and tan collared riding boots would probably be perfectly practical as riding costume. The dress rules for an outing on the chopper with fellow enthusiasts may not be so clearly enunciated as with white tie, or a formal fox hunt, nonetheless, as with all human social activities they exist.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Sator said:


> With all fairness to Cruiser, it has always been impossible to separate dress from politics. After the French Revolution people lost their heads over what they wore.


Very true. And as Cruiser just showed, the 'anything goes' attitude, is apparently backed up by political slogans of 'tolerance' and 'diversity'.

The tolerance, of course, is entirely bogus, as those wearing the 'rebel' clothes, are themselves enforcing a set of 'rebel rules.'


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Yikes, I would hate to see someone slide on the pavement in a dress coat. 

Sator, could you make an allowance for a red leather dress coat??


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Sator said:


> We like to pretend we live in an age where Anything Goes but I would no more omit a waistcoat or cummerbund than I would wear a dress and tiara in the name of sartorial freedom.


No one is saying that you shouldn't wear those items if you so desire. The question is, would you be critical of someone who chose to omit them? If so, then I can only assume that if you had been around in the early part of the century when Western men first started wearing cumberbunds instead of vests, you would have criticized their wearing of cumberbunds since it was not accepted attire at the time.

My point is that everything that is accepted now as right or proper had a beginning when it was new and different from the norm. Don't you think that quite a few sartorial experts were critical of this newfangled cumberbund thing that guys were starting to wear instead of the standard vest?

Everything, including clothing, evolves over time. Nothing, not even the sacred black tie, stays the same. What people consider classic and timeless is nothing more than what was the accepted norm when they started wearing it and they see any change as being bad, but the truth is what they are wearing was at one time the result of someone changing the rules.

I'm not going to get all worked up if I see someone wearing black tie a little different than what I wear or what I'm used to seeing. Like I said, there is nothing sacred about it. It's just clothes.

And who knows, the new way that they are doing it may be the classic and timeless attire of the next generation. After all, since you wear a cumberbund I'm sure you appreciate the fact that someone who came before you bucked the naysayers and wore one for the first time in the company of those who thought it to be just wrong. Aren't you glad those guys, and their anything goes attitude, stood their ground. Because of them you can now wear a cumberbund without being criticized. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Yikes, I would hate to see someone slide on the pavement in a dress coat.
> 
> Sator, could you make an allowance for a red leather dress coat??


I am sure the effect of coming off the horse during a fox hunt is hardly much better for the bespoke riding coat and breeches/jodhpurs. The trouble is what it would do to the bespoke John Lobb riding boots.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> No one is saying that you shouldn't wear those items if you so desire. The question is, would you be critical of someone who chose to omit them?


I bet that your buddies would be the first to raise their eyebrows if you turned up on your chopper in full equestrian dress - complete with formal riding coat, tie, boutonnière, and equestrian top boots.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

BTW Cruiser, I have nothing but support for the ideals of free speech, and social tolerance with respect to issues that matter. However, I would urge you to reconsider the possibility that there might be better things to fight for than the ditching of cummerbunds. It strikes me as futile as starting a law suit against the local girl's choir for not letting you join on the basis of your gender: the horrors! - such discrimination in an age of Freedom!


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Lastly - I assume that Cruiser is in favour of using all of the arguments he has in favour of ditching the cummerbund to argue in favour of wearing jeans with a dinner jacket???


----------



## arnaud (Apr 10, 2007)

Sator, you rock!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Sator said:


> Lastly - I assume that Cruiser is in favour of using all of the arguments he has in favour of ditching the cummerbund to argue in favour of wearing jeans with a dinner jacket???


Yes!!!!!!


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

Sator said:


> Lastly - I assume that Cruiser is in favour of using all of the arguments he has in favour of ditching the cummerbund to argue in favour of wearing jeans with a dinner jacket???


My reading of Cruiser's argument is that such a thing may come to pass and perhaps be regarded as the 'correct' form at some time in the future. Whether one likes it or not.

Personally I find cummerbunds to be suburban/provincial and wear my dinner jacket in the same manner I would wear a lounge suit, without one.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Sator said:


> Lastly - I assume that Cruiser is in favour of using all of the arguments he has in favour of ditching the cummerbund to argue in favour of wearing jeans with a dinner jacket???


OK, look at where my simple comment about the evolution of black tie has led. Merely saying that I predict that the cumberbund will fade away in the future (btw I have a cumberbund) and that I don't criticize guys for doing things a little different at times has led to me riding my chopper in drag (I don't ride a "chopper" in drag or otherwise), using buzz words favored by the far left (I'm a conservative Republican), and now I'm in favor of wearing blue jeans with a dinner jacket. Good grief!!!! You guys sure have some vivid imaginations.

Sometimes I wonder if some of you even bother to read the words or do you simply respond to your pre-conceived notion of what you think I'm saying. I have never, ever condoned or said that I believed in an "anything goes" attitude, yet some of you constantly use this phrase in reference to me. Like I said, do you actually read everything or just pick and choose tidbits and take them out of context?

AFWIW, I haven't been arguing for or defending any particular clothing choice here. Like I said, I have a cumberbund.

Cruiser


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

culverwood said:


> Personally I find cummerbunds to be suburban/provincial and wear my dinner jacket in the same manner I would wear a lounge suit, without one.


How urbane...like the "hoodie" or the exposed waisteband of underwear.

I'm a socially liberal Democrat with ultra conservative ideas on dress. Oh my!


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Everyone behave lest this become the Cummerbund Wars.

Viewing the dinner jacket as just another lounge suit is to miss the entire point of the dinner jacket. It is meant to evoke something other than just another business suit. Such thinking is what has led to such things as the four-in-hand with dinner jacket as well. Just because James Bond did it doesn't mean you should.


----------



## Jordan (Mar 2, 2006)

Do people think it's inappropriate to wear a tux without braces? I have side tabs on my pants and have gone braces-less and the pants stay up pretty well. I've been debating buying braces, though.


----------



## videocrew (Jun 25, 2007)

"Correct" Answer: No one should ever see braces, since you shouldn't remove your jacket. They are purely functional, that function being to keep one's pants around their waist and not their ankles. So if your pants stay up on their own, they'd be pointless. 

Possibly realistic answer: They can look cool if you do take your jacket off. Just make sure they're the button-on kind and not the goofy clip-ons.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Everyone behave lest this become the Cummerbund Wars.
> 
> Viewing the dinner jacket as just another lounge suit is to miss the entire point of the dinner jacket.


Actually my comments haven't really been specifically about cumberbunds or dinner jackets. I've really been talking about how we react towards guys who do something slightly different than what the sartorial experts of the day deem as "correct".

All I'm saying is that many of the things we wear today we do so only because someone in the past defied the sartorial gods and stepped outside the box to do something different. The cumberbund is just one example. The modern day dinner jacket is another example.

I just wonder if those guys back then were as ridiculed and derided by those sartorial gods when they defied contemporary thinking of the day as guys are today when they do the same thing. Most of us are probably glad that they did ignore and defy the sartorial experts because we now embrace the very radical things they were doing back then, such as wearing tail less dinner jackets and cumberbunds among other things. That's all I'm saying. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Bracemaker (May 11, 2005)

Jordan said:


> Do people think it's inappropriate to wear a tux without braces? I have side tabs on my pants and have gone braces-less and the pants stay up pretty well. I've been debating buying braces, though.


At last! Debate no further, and come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly...


----------



## outrigger (Aug 12, 2006)

I wasn't going to reply to this thread as I never have a reason the wear black tie, but I do wonder why people want to twist what Cruiser has to say, Culverwood, Jordan, and AlanC, do make valid points but some of you are way out there.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

culverwood said:


> My reading of Cruiser's argument is that such a thing may come to pass and perhaps be regarded as the 'correct' form at some time in the future. Whether one likes it or not.
> 
> *Personally I find cummerbunds to be suburban/provincial* and wear my dinner jacket in the same manner I would wear a lounge suit, without one.


I know what you mean. There is something "fake" about them and are a bit fussy and middle-aged. A bit "rotary club dinner"...

*W_B*


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

If some people don't want to wear a cummerbund then get a DB DJ. 

End of debate.


----------



## Bracemaker (May 11, 2005)

whistle_blower71 said:


> I know what you mean. There is something "fake" about them and are a bit fussy and middle-aged. A bit "rotary club dinner"...
> 
> *W_B*


Hello hello - with over a million Rotarians worldwide you could be upsetting a few people.
Come to think of it, as a current member you could be upsetting me. Except that you are fairly close to the mark...


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

whistle_blower71 said:


> I know what you mean. There is something "fake" about them and are a bit fussy and middle-aged. A bit "rotary club dinner"...
> 
> *W_B*


Tremendous!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> If some people don't want to wear a cummerbund then get a DB DJ.
> 
> End of debate.


As it happens, my DJ is a DB, so it's not an issue there.

I do have a shawl lapel that I need to have altered, though. I'll wear a cummerbund with it

I think the 'Rotary club' issue isn't so much with the cummerbund but rather the overall look of a cheap rental tux. If you wear a nice dinner jacket with quality accessories then I don't think it's a problem. If you wear the 'cheap tux' without a cummerbund it only looks like you didn't know any better.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

videocrew said:


> "Correct" Answer: No one should ever see braces, since you shouldn't remove your jacket. They are purely functional, that function being to keep one's pants around their waist and not their ankles. So if your pants stay up on their own, they'd be pointless.


Agreed, if one's pants stay up, then suspenders are totally pointless. Are the people so insistent on fine braces the same people who give very little attention to the kind of underwear and socks they wear? If so, I find that highly inane.

This thread is giving me a headache. Cruiser, I understand what you are saying. The third piece of a tuxedo is becoming obsolete, whether it is correct or not, whether we like it or not. There is no end in sight of minimalism, unless we are able to comprehend how the new, "progressive" concept of change will take its course. I wouldn't be surprised if, within the next 50 yrs., the tuxedo will not require a cummerbund or vest. I suppose there will always be die-hards, and those who embrace change. Correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't it those who embraced change who discovered the "New World," and eventually, colonized, nationalized it?


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

Scoundrel said:


> Agreed, if one's pants stay up, then suspenders are totally pointless. Are the people so insistent on fine braces the same people who give very little attention to the kind of underwear and socks they wear? If so, I find that highly inane.
> 
> This thread is giving me a headache. Cruiser, I understand what you are saying. The third piece of a tuxedo is becoming obsolete, whether it is correct or not, whether we like it or not. There is no end in sight of minimalism, unless we are able to comprehend how the new, "progressive" concept of change will take its course. I wouldn't be surprised if, within the next 50 yrs., the tuxedo will not require a cummerbund or vest. I suppose there will always be die-hards, and those who embrace change. Correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't it those who embraced change who discovered the "New World," and eventually, colonized, nationalized it?


I thought the preference for braces was that they allow trousers to "hang" as opposed to being pinched around the waist (or hips as with most low rise today). The line of the trouser is therefore enhanced over the buttocks and thigh (because the rear fishtail is being pulled up), and the waist doesn't have to be so restricted. That's the impression I get from all the tailor blogs/fora threads and supporting(!) pictures.

As for the Cruiser bashing, how about playing the ball and not the man please.
I'm afraid I find very little wrong with the logic of his arguments on most subjects, but then I have a contrarian bent myself :devil:

By way of example I sometimes wear a dark blue, notch lapel one button DJ with jeans, to dinner... I get a warm glow thinking of you all...


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Scoundrel said:


> Correct me if I am mistaken, but weren't it those who embraced change who discovered the "New World," and eventually, colonized, nationalized it?


It is my understanding that Colombus did not wear a cummerbund. Your hypothesis is confirmed.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

AlanC said:


> It is my understanding that Colombus did not wear a cummerbund. Your hypothesis is confirmed.


A Colomberbund?


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

AlanC said:


> It is my understanding that Colombus did not wear a cummerbund. Your hypothesis is confirmed.


What does Columbus have to do with it? 

It's Cabot who found the New World. And I understand that he didn't dare wear a cummerbund either.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Well, actually, dear old Columbus thought he was heading to, and arrived in, India, which incidentally is where cummerbunds originated... So, was he actually looking for a cummerbund?:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Who the hell is Cabot?


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

misterdonuts said:


> Well, actually, dear old Columbus thought he was heading to, and arrived in, India, which incidentally is where cummerbunds originated... So, was he actually looking for a cummerbund?:icon_smile_big:


Brilliant! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

culverwood said:


> Personally I find cummerbunds to be suburban/provincial and wear my dinner jacket in the same manner I would wear a lounge suit, without one.


I agree entirely. The greater-spotted upsidedown cummerbund, which I so frequently have to see worn by the so-called trendy city boys is not a pleasant site.

Guess what - I do something trendy - I wear clothes fit correctly and don't concern myself with items of clothing which are completely unnecessary!


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

Mr. Pipps said:


> What does Columbus have to do with it?
> 
> It's Cabot who found the New World. And I understand that he didn't dare wear a cummerbund either.


Some viking beat both of him to it.


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> Who the hell is Cabot?


The first modern day European (as opposed to a Viking) that landed on Mainland North America. He was actuall an Italian (his name was really Caboto). He landed first in Newfoundland (hense the name...). Incidentally the Mayflower stopped in Newfoundland for supplies and beer on its was to what is now the U.S...

Columbus found the Caribbean, not really "America"


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

Let us analyse this point with another example:

I would suggest that a further article of the traditional black-tie ensemble is the cape. Now, would you wear a cape if attending an event in the summer?

Equally, would you wear a cummerbund if you were not overweight, and your trousers and shirt had been tailored to fit you correctly?


----------



## Mithras (Apr 21, 2006)

No.

Yes.

Capes are hot. more of a winter thing...


----------



## Pipps (Dec 20, 2005)

YYZ-LHR said:


> That sounds like utter nonsense.


I think you'll find that the word 'cummerbund' comes from the Hindi for _*waist restraint* - i.e. kamar_, "waist" and _band_, which means "to close".


----------



## videocrew (Jun 25, 2007)

Infrasonic said:


> By way of example I sometimes wear a dark blue, notch lapel one button DJ with jeans, to dinner... I get a warm glow thinking of you all...


Yeah, I have a blazer too, but it's 3 buttons, not 1.


----------



## Infrasonic (May 18, 2007)

With silk lapel facings and covered buttons?


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Infrasonic said:


> With silk lapel facings and covered buttons?


And your bowling team's sponsor's name silk screened on the back.


----------

