# Well dressed



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

What does well dressed actually mean today? And what has it always REALLY meant?

There has long been the assumption I feel on this forum and in the real world that anyone in a suit or a jacket & tie is automatically "well dressed". 

But why should jacket and/or tie automatically confer the status of well dressed on men? 

Smart perhaps, but well dressed? nah... for me a tie confers only one thing, formality, either in the workplace or in a formal social setting.

"Well dressed" for me applies to anyone who takes care in his appearance and has nothing to do with the type of clothes worn, or the tie versus no-tie issue.

We all know that a man in a nice white tennis shirt, nice jeans and shoes, a nice watch, well groomed skin and hair looks decidedly more well dressed than your average club bouncer or store detective in dirty,unpressed black suit and tie and dirty, cheap black work shoes.

Yet well dressed continues to apply to anyone wearing a jacket and/or tie.

Strange! I think! And this is based on my observations in Sweden, nowhere else.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

There are standards of dress,as there are standards in most things. Jeans are not a standard . In America jeans were designed for the poor , are as work pants. Tennis shoes are athletic shoes were designed for sports not normal dress. 

Certainly proper dress has declined especially with young people. As has music and proper manners , an example wearing a baseball cap indoors. What we are seeing is a decline in western values in both Europe and America. Men's clothing is only one example of that decline.


----------



## mlongano (Feb 3, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> What we are seeing is a decline in western values in both Europe and America. Men's clothing is only one example of that decline.


I couldn't agree more...the question is whether or not this trend will ever reverse?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Silverporsche, you've interpreted my position in a way I hadn't expected. My point is this (and it has nothing to do with standards, poverty or wealth) that unlike quite a few people here I don't automatically equate suit & tie or blazer & tie with being well dressed. For me the devil is in the detail, in how a person actually wears clothing, what they combine different pieces with, if they actually look good or not in a suit or blazer. I suppose partially I'm talking about style and partially about being able to carry off any combination of clothes that go well together and then being deserving of the term "well dressed".

Bottom line and the crux of my argument is that: "well dressed" doesn't mean wearing formal clothes i.e. suit/tie/blazer. There is far more to it than just throwing on a suit & tie. 

And I'd like to stress again that it has nothing to do with standrards, poverty or wealth. Although some of the rich and/or elitist snobs here will certainly disagree with me


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

I think the bottom line is actually possession of a certain pride in one's appearance. Where that is lacking, a fellow will never look well dressed; and vice versa.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

mlongano said:


> I couldn't agree more...the question is whether or not this trend will ever reverse?


No ! not in the near future. This trend will continue. Poor dress, poor manners , the love of one's country and it's institutions will continue to decline. Read Esquire , DQ etc, men's clothing magazines that sets the standard's of poor dress. Hollywood once set an example of men's clothing. Today has become an example of poor taste in men's clothing. This all began in the 1950's. Elvis , McQueen , Brando , etc. 
The well dressed man today is in the minority ! Only a few publications such as the Robb Report bother.
If anyone thinks things are bad now , just wait a few more years. You ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Centaur said:


> I think the bottom line is actually possession of a certain pride in one's appearance. Where that is lacking, a fellow will never look well dressed; and vice versa.


EXACTLY, that's partly what I'm getting at, care in one's appearance, pride in one self, care of ones clothing, footwear, accessories etc. Also though it doesn't hurt to actually look comfortable and confident in whatever you're wearing be it jeans and a tennis shirt or a 3-piece tweed suit.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> No ! not in the near future. This trend will continue. Poor dress, poor manners , the love of one's country and it's institutions will continue to decline. Read Esquire , DQ etc, men's clothing magazines that sets the standard's of poor dress. Hollywood once set an example of men's clothing. Today has become an example of poor taste in men's clothing. This all began in the 1950's. Elvis , McQueen , Brando , etc.
> The well dressed man today is in the minority ! Only a few publications such as the Robb Report bother.
> If anyone thinks things are bad now , just wait a few more years. You ain't seen nothing yet.


Now you're using the term "poor dress" without defining it on a thread where I'm asking what "well dressed" means. 

Let's ask both quesitons then, so let's add "what does poorly dressed really entail?"

The thing is that too many people, again back to my basic argument, call anything less than a blazer and tie poorly dressed, and that is just nonsense it has nothing to do with the style of clothes.

For me poorly dressed means dirty, uncared for clothing regardless of style and formality of the items on a person who doesn't care about their appearance & I don't care if they're wearing jeans, flip flops and a T-shirt or white tie. Poorly dressed and well dressed can apply to both!

As terms they have IMO nothing to do with the style or formality of the clothes per se but, as I said earlier how they are worn, what they are worn with & what condition they and the person wearing them are in.


----------



## mlongano (Feb 3, 2010)

We can (and have in the past) fill pages with the definition of "well dressed" and "poorly dressed"...

...the bottom line is that well dressed men typically have a certain respect for themselves as well as others...poorly dressed men typically have neither.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Bottom line and the crux of my argument is that: "well dressed" doesn't mean wearing formal clothes i.e. suit/tie/blazer. There is far more to it than just throwing on a suit & tie.


I've made this same argument on a number of occasions in the past and generally been dismissed by most. It seems that many think that the only well dressed men are those who wear a suit and tie all the time. I remember one poster talking about how a guy he knows mows his lawn in a tie.

To me "well dressed" simply means wearing neat, clean, coordinated clothing that is appropriate to the situation in which it is being worn; and by appropriate I mean something that doesn't stand out in a glaring way from the surroundings. For example, if you want to wear a suit and tie to a casual restaurant, that's fine; but don't think that you are dressed any more appropriate to that situation than the guy sitting in the next booth wearing neat, clean khakis and an open collared sport shirt.

This discussion almost always reverts back to the casual nature of most workplaces today and laments the decline of suits and ties in said workplaces. Two things about that.

First of all I'm old enough to remember men regularly wearing suit and ties to the same offices that are now business casual and I can assure you that all of those men weren't necessarily "well dressed" just because they had on suits and ties. I remember many old, well worn suits often with visible repairs and/or stains. I remember shoes that weren't always in the best condition. I remember shirts, ties, and suits that didn't match well. Most of these things just don't show up in the old black and white photos that people look at while lamenting about those by-gone days.

Secondly, there is no rule that says that one cannot be "well dressed" in business casual attire. Granted, many guys aren't the same as many of the guys in the olden days weren't particularly well dressed in their suits; but the problem here isn't the absence of the suit and tie as much as it is the simple act of not wearing neat, clean, coordinated clothing.

At the end of the day I know guys who almost always wear suit and ties but aren't particularly well dressed, while I know other guys who almost never put on suits and ties but always look well dressed.

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Silverporsche, you've interpreted my position in a way I hadn't expected. My point is this (and it has nothing to do with standards, poverty or wealth) that unlike quite a few people here I don't automatically equate suit & tie or blazer & tie with being well dressed. For me the devil is in the detail, in how a person actually wears clothing, what they combine different pieces with, if they actually look good or not in a suit or blazer. I suppose partially I'm talking about style and partially about being able to carry off any combination of clothes that go well together and then being deserving of the term "well dressed".
> 
> Bottom line and the crux of my argument is that: "well dressed" doesn't mean wearing formal clothes i.e. suit/tie/blazer. There is far more to it than just throwing on a suit & tie.
> 
> And I'd like to stress again that it has nothing to do with standrards, poverty or wealth. Although some of the rich and/or elitist snobs here will certainly disagree with me


There are clothing standards. Well dressed does not always mean a tie , but it is considered a standard in men's dress. Does not a Ferrari set the standard in high performance cars ? Patek Philippe set the standard in men's watches ? Jeans will never mean well dressed , jeans are cheap cotton denim ! Designed to be worn while at work or because one cannot afford anything better.

A well dressed man does not wear tennis shoes except when playing tennis, or relaxing in his back yard.
One is judged by what one wears, that goes back a thousand years. Dress like a clown and one expects you to tell jokes. Wear jeans and one expects you to ride a horse or work in a field.

Many of us have forgotten what proper dress is , especially young Americans and young Europeans.
Again we all have standards , in dress there are standards , if one chooses to dress down that is one's right , but don't confuse it with proper dress.

Wealth ? I once bought a pair of Levi's for $5.00 ,a pair of tennis shoes for $10.00 leather uppers.
Some add man came alone and changed not the quality but the image of these cheaply made products.
Now some of us consider them proper dress ?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> There are clothing standards. Well dressed does not always mean a tie , but it is considered a standard in men's dress. Does not a Ferrari set the standard in high performance cars ? Patek Philippe set the standard in men's watches ? Jeans will never mean well dressed , jeans are cheap cotton denim ! Designed to be worn while at work or because one cannot afford anything better.
> 
> A well dressed man does not wear tennis shoes except when playing tennis, or relaxing in his back yard.
> One is judged by what one wears, that goes back a thousand years. Dress like a clown and one expects you to tell jokes. Wear jeans and one expects you to ride a horse or work in a field.
> ...


Silverporsche we will have to agree to disagree because I don't agree with one single word you said there.

Standards, shcmandards! As far as I'm concerned standards have got nothing to do with it and the standards you list are for the ultra-rich only! 
And standards anyway are only set up by people who think they know what the standard should be becasue standards are more often than not nothing more than personal taste and opinion.

A standard by definition must be applicable across the board not just for a select elite few.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I've made this same argument on a number of occasions in the past and generally been dismissed by most. It seems that many think that the only well dressed men are those who wear a suit and tie all the time. I remember one poster talking about how a guy he knows mows his lawn in a tie.
> 
> To me "well dressed" simply means wearing neat, clean, coordinated clothing that is appropriate to the situation in which it is being worn; and by appropriate I mean something that doesn't stand out in a glaring way from the surroundings. For example, if you want to wear a suit and tie to a casual restaurant, that's fine; but don't think that you are dressed any more appropriate to that situation than the guy sitting in the next booth wearing neat, clean khakis and an open collared sport shirt.
> 
> ...


Thank you Cruiser. We're on the same page. That is EXACTLY what I mean.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I would submit that a full understanding of the term "well dressed" includes at least 3 components/axe: 1) appropriateness of attire; 2) whether the clothes are flattering to the wearer (this includes both fit and color/texture); and 3) a display of aesthetic judgment or imagination (competently executed but utterly pedestrian day after day does not make one "well dressed" - more is required). It is possible to do very well along one or two of those axes, yet fare poorly on a third. 

An alternative understanding would just be to say that the person speaks the language of clothes fluently, can consistently and reliably "say" what he wants to say using those clothes, and has a broad enough vocabulary to express various sentiments.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

CuffDaddy said:


> I would submit that a full understanding of the term "well dressed" includes at least 3 components/axe: 1) appropriateness of attire; 2) whether the clothes are flattering to the wearer (this includes both fit and color/texture); and 3) a display of aesthetic judgment or imagination (*competently executed but utterly pedestrian day after day does not make one "well dressed" - more is required*). It is possible to do very well along one or two of those axes, yet fare poorly on a third.


Exactly my view on all three but especially on your bracketed note to No.3.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I think that bracketed note is precisely where Cruiser and I most often part company. He doesn't seem to view that as part of the definition at all. And that's OK. He's allowed to be wrong.


----------



## Saltydog (Nov 3, 2007)

As a friend told me about the changing standards of dress in the workplace from suit and tie to business casual--I might not dress up...but I still dress well.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> I would submit that a full understanding of the term "well dressed" includes at least 3 components/axe: 1) appropriateness of attire; 2) whether the clothes are flattering to the wearer (this includes both fit and color/texture); and 3) a display of aesthetic judgment or imagination (competently executed but utterly pedestrian day after day does not make one "well dressed" - more is required). It is possible to do very well along one or two of those axes, yet fare poorly on a third.
> 
> An alternative understanding would just be to say that the person speaks the language of clothes fluently, can consistently and reliably "say" what he wants to say using those clothes, and has a broad enough vocabulary to express various sentiments.


I can agree and disagree with your post. The word that is missing is standards. Many on this website will agree that Brioni and Kiton designs the finest men's suits. That Lobb and Green the finest men's shoes.
We began there. 
Certainly an overweight and slopply dressed man would look poorly in whatever he chooses to wear. 
One dressed in jeans and tennis shoes could be seen as properly dressed if he has just finished playing tennis or riding a horse. A sports jacket and a pair of slacks would be considered more elegant for casual dress depending on one's environment and how one was (taught) to dress by one's parents are in the last case one's peers.

Well dressed is really what this post is about , I wonder who would be considered well dressed Elvis or
Sinatra. Cary Grant or any of toay's top men actors ? 
Most young men are generally not taught by their fathers as to what being well dressed is, as a result we have seen over the last two decades a sharp decline in men's dress especially young men's dress.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

The essential point for a gentleman is, as mentioned above, "appropriateness of attire." In many places these days, a jacket or suit with a tie can make the wearer stand out and attract a shallow sort of attention. In my university/retirement community, the only assured places assuredly find men in suits is around the courthouse or in the biggest bank. Otherwise, business casual rules the world of commerce here. Within that that context, one can dress very well in carefully chosen, quality garments that fit well. Tomorrow, I will be in a more rural environment, well-dressed in jeans.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

silver, I would suggest to you that what you are calling "standards" are reflected in all three of my criteria. Dressing appropriately includes the level of formality. And I certainly intend "appropriately" _not_ to be determined by the mean, median, or mode of dress exhibited by those in a situation. Clothes being flattering picks up what you're talking about as well. Most traditional items of classic men's dress got to that status because they are near-universally flattering. Tailored jackets make everybody look good. Thus, if it can be done appropriately, wearing a tailored jacket will be more flattering. Finally, the quality of clothing is part of how aesthetic judgment is illustrated. Not only is a Brioni jacket more flattering to a man than a JAB jacket, it is likely to be more interesting.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'd like to stress again that it has nothing to do with standards, poverty or wealth.


Surely the point is that standards have nothing to do with poverty or wealth? Are you an aesthetic relativist? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder? _De gustibus non est disputandum_? I know that aesthetic absolutes are difficult to argue for, philosophically speaking, but am inclined to believe that they exist - the word "appropriateness" surely points in that direction, for the purposes of this discussion.
That apart, you and CuffDaddy make important points with which I agree (though with respect to jeans I agree with silverporsche). The latter, however, is wrong if he attributes declining standards of behaviour to casualisation of clothing; the two may be correlated but there can be no causal relationship.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

I will agree that well dressed means clothes that fit well, are flattering to the wearer and _appropriate_ to the occasion. However, assuming these constants, if things have gotten more casual, i.e. business casual instead of suit and tie, then maybe standards have dropped.

I often wear a suit and tie to work, even when it is not necessary (it is on occasions). I get a little good natured ribbing at times but everyone has learned not to make any snide comments to me about it.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> I've made this same argument on a number of occasions in the past and generally been dismissed by most. It seems that many think that the only well dressed men are those who wear a suit and tie all the time. I remember one poster talking about how a guy he knows mows his lawn in a tie.
> 
> *To me "well dressed" simply means wearing neat, clean, coordinated clothing that is appropriate to the situation in which it is being worn; and by appropriate I mean something that doesn't stand out in a glaring way from the surroundings.* For example, if you want to wear a suit and tie to a casual restaurant, that's fine; but don't think that you are dressed any more appropriate to that situation than the guy sitting in the next booth wearing neat, clean khakis and an open collared sport shirt.
> 
> ...


I completely agree with Cruiser. Being "well dressed" means being neat,clean, and coordinated.


----------



## Busterdog (Jan 1, 2010)

I recently attended a Regimental reunion, over 500 veterans - former members of my old (Scottish) regiment - were 'on parade' ages ranged from mid 90s down to late 20s. All were what I would term 'well dressed' - sure there were inexpensive suits and shoes visible, some wore the kilt - though all were clean, well pressed, shoes shone to perfection, all wearing regimental ties, well groomed hair, etc. All - even the gentlemen in their 80s and 90s - oozing confidence, standing tall. They were well dressed men. Perhaps it's the way one wears one's clothes, how one presents oneself.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

I would posit that implied standards for appropriateness of attire no longer exist. Even when guidelines are promulgated, they are never enforced, so they are ignored with impunity. This creates two categories - the first is, "Clothed." The second is, "Overdressed." Most people fall into the former. Most participants here fall into the latter.

This was illustrated to me by a recent event:

I was privileged to witness a Naturalization Ceremony at the US District Courthouse here in Nashville. The invitation included guidelines for appropriate clothing, specifying "attire suitable for a courtroom." The guidelines specifically stated that ballcaps, shorts, t-shirts, athletic shoes, hoodies, and the like are totally inappropriate. The message was clear - wear your best clothes.

It was absolutely fascinating to see what the vast range of people from different cultures and backgrounds saw as their "best clothes." Amongst the 52 newly minted US Citizens, the Europeans and Middle Easterners were generally the best-dressed (by my standards), with suits, dresses, and jacket/trousers business attire being the general rule. Africans and Asians were a mixed bag, ranging from suits (China, Egypt, Ghana, Korea, Nigeria) to open-collar sport shirts/cotton trousers or casual skirt/blouse (Egypt, India, Pakistan), to traditional Muslim garb (Chad, Sudan). The North American (Canada, Mexico, Central American countries) immigrants were the most casually-dressed - there wasn't a single one with a tie, or dress, or anything above typical go-to-the-mall attire. The woman from Canada was wearing a sleeveless cotton shirt, capri pants, and flip-flops.

There were about 150 spectators. I was the only one wearing a suit. The vast majority wore much more casual clothing than the new citizens. One twenty-something man apparently believed that none of the attire rules applied to him - he was wearing a ballcap, t-shirt, shorts, and cross-trainers. His belief was justified - no one said a word to him about his outfit.

The court and government staff would have had absolutely no moral authority to question anyone's choice of clothing anyway. Without exception, the Federal Court workers in attendance were so fat that it didn't matter what they wore. My Congressman sent a representative from his office, who was wearing a half-tucked short-sleeve sport shirt, wrinkled Dockers, and black Nike walking shoes.

By the OP's original definition of "well-dressed," there were quite a few people in that category, but since there was absolutely no consistency in adherence to or enforcement of guidelines for appropriateness of attire, it did not matter at all. What was abundantly apparent is that "dressing up" = "overdressed."


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Racer said:


> *I would posit that implied standards for appropriateness of attire no longer exist*.
> 
> *It was absolutely fascinating to see what the vast range of people from different cultures and backgrounds saw as their "best clothes."*
> 
> By the OP's original definition of "well-dressed," there were quite a few people in that category, but since there was absolutely no consistency in adherence to or enforcement of guidelines for appropriateness of attire, it did not matter at all. *What was abundantly apparent is that "dressing up" = "overdressed*."


Good points Racer.

And to focus on your last point you could take it to its logical conclusion and say that in the context of what you saw at that ceremony that: *dressing up = overdressed* = *badly dressed for that specific event.* In the same way that a man turning up in black tie for a casual event where casual was specified on the invitation is to my mind also badly dressed.

And that well dressed would have been what the majority deemed appropriate for that event i.e. not a suit and tie.

Which brings me neatly back to your first point "*I would posit that implied standards for appropriateness of attire no longer exist*."

And I agree. And stress my orignal point yet again, suit & tie should not automatically on its own be called or viewed as well dressed.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Busterdog said:


> They were well dressed men. Perhaps it's the way one wears one's clothes, how one presents oneself.


Indeed, which is what I said earlier.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Racer said:


> Without exception, the Federal Court workers in attendance were so fat that it didn't matter what they wore.


I've got to take exception to that comment. There have been many, many well-dressed men in history who were portly, or downright corpulent. A male model in a hoody and jeans is still poorly dressed, and a monstrously fat man in a Poole-cut bespoke suit with appropriate furnishings is still well-dressed (provided he's not working on the car or something). All else being equal, the more fit guy will look better, just as the 6'2" man will be percieved as being more attractive than the 5'6" man. But that has jack sh!t to do with who is better dressed.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

I appreciate your remark, but I stand by what I said. Like many here, I'm very attuned to what people wear. Sometimes, though, there are attention-grabbing factors that are so significant that they overpower things one might normally notice. In this particular instance, the extreme obesity of all of the court workers completely overpowered their attire.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Their obesity may have distracted you, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been well dressed. Plenty of people find male baldness unattractive, and cannot see past it in evaluating the attractiveness of one so afflicted, but that doesn't mean bald men cannot be well dressed.

Here is a picture of a man who was almost universally regarded during his life as the best-dressed man on the planet. 



However out-of-shape he might have been, he was still very well-dressed. I doubt any of the courthouse workers were (around here, they tend to aim for "appropriate" and hit "barely passable") well-dressed, but if they weren't, it was not because of their weight. Unless they had just outgrown all their good duds.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ...well dressed would have been what the majority deemed appropriate for that event...
> Which brings me neatly back to your first point "*I would posit that implied standards for appropriateness of attire no longer exist*."


So aesthetic judgment is a matter of majority vote, then?


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Their obesity may have distracted you, but that doesn't mean they couldn't have been well dressed.


I never said they weren't well-dressed.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

williamson, that is an unfortunate (IMO) consequence of living in a society in which everyone matters. In the old days, people simply looked past people who didn't understand the niceties of various social customs, including dress. They didn't count socially or professionally, and therefore didn't count as people. Their dress was simply irrelevant. The fact that the manual laborer wore jeans said nothing whatsoever about what the banker or professor or captain of industry ought to wear.

On the whole, things are vastly better now that everyone counts in most ways. But one unfortunate side-effect has been the decline (and even end) of certain customs that were _always_ minority practice - but practiced by the "right" minority. Now there *is* no "right" minority, so the majority does often rule.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

CuffDaddy said:


> Plenty of people find male baldness unattractive


Say what??????

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Racer said:


> I never said they weren't well-dressed.


Well then I'm confused about why their weight was relevant to this thread. This isn't a fitness forum. The thread is *titled* "Well dressed."


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> Say what??????


Oh, people are crazy. You can't worry about them.


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Well then I'm confused about why their weight was relevant to this thread. This isn't a fitness forum. The thread is *titled* "Well dressed."


I'm sorry you're confused. You asked me to clarify my remark, and I did so. Your arguments will not change how I perceived the various people in the courtroom. If that offends you, so be it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

williamson said:


> So aesthetic judgment is a matter of majority vote, then?


No ,not at all.

But in this case we weren't talking about taste and style we were talking about appropriateness. I grant you, too many take their clothing guidance and tips and "style" from what the majority are wearing.

BUT the opposite to that is that a minority (e.g. tweed suit wearers) cannot deem themselves "well dressed" if the majority are saying to them be it in spoken words, NVC, or written text "you're incorrectly dressed" or "you're badly dressed" or "you look like you're in fancy dress" or "you do know its the 21st century, right?"

Again, what is well dressed nowadays is not I posit the same as what was considered well dressed as recently as 1980.

"Well dressed" like everything else changes or should change with the times.

However, the term seems to have gone into suspended animation sometime around the late 1940s for some people...you know who you are


----------



## LanceW (Jun 2, 2009)




----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I'm with Cruiser and Earl. I fail to see why well dressed has to mean a suit and tie. But I'm 26, so...

To me, well dressed means fit first and foremost. It won't matter what you wear if it doesn't fit. This is definitely the golden rule. It applies to the athletic model and the corpulent man alike.

The second part of being well dressed is coordination. Coordination in both color and style/garments. For some reason, certain color combinations work and some do not. The same goes with types of clothing. You cannot wear a t-shirt with creased dress pants. Thats just wrong. Similarly, a tie does not work with a polo shirt. Nor does that polo shirt work too well with dress pants.

The third part of my analysis would then be cleanliness. (I suppose a certain segment of the population likes grunginess, and they can have their grunge, but they are not well dressed and never will be in my mind).

The final part is appropriate shoes that look good. Appropriate because you cannot wear patent dress shoes with jeans, regardless of the color of the jeans. They should look good because tennis shoes do not look good. They are comfortable, they do not look good. I've worn brown and burgundy oxfords with dark colored jeans, so I think they work. But I would not do so with faded jeans. That look just does not work.

If I think of anything else I'll add to the list.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> ...In the old days, people simply looked past people who didn't understand the niceties of various social customs, including dress. They didn't count socially or professionally, and therefore didn't count as people. Their dress was simply irrelevant. The fact that the manual laborer wore jeans said nothing whatsoever about what the banker or professor or captain of industry ought to wear...


I take your point, but I believe that "in the old days" the manual labourer would only have worn jeans for work, and would have striven - often at great comparative expense, to wear a suit and tie as "Sunday best" or similar. An employee of the then National Coal board told me that those attending a miners' gathering in one of the old industrial areas of the UK were very annoyed when their guest lecturer (a prominent member of the intellectual left) turned up in jeans and check shirt when they had put on suits. An isolated occasion, perhaps, but not, I think, unrepresentative.


----------



## williamson (Jan 15, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> ...in this case we weren't talking about taste and style we were talking about appropriateness. I grant you, too many take their clothing guidance and tips and "style" from what the majority are wearing...


My misunderstanding - apologies!


> "Well dressed" like everything else changes or should change with the times.


 Really? (my underlining)


> However, the term seems to have gone into suspended animation sometime around the late 1940s for some people...you know who you are


I must confess that, in sartorial terms, I'd be happy if it were the mid1950s!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Busterdog said:


> I recently attended a Regimental reunion, over 500 veterans - former members of my old (Scottish) regiment - were 'on parade' ages ranged from mid 90s down to late 20s. All were what I would term 'well dressed' - sure there were inexpensive suits and shoes visible, some wore the kilt - though all were clean, well pressed, shoes shone to perfection, all wearing regimental ties, well groomed hair, etc. All - even the gentlemen in their 80s and 90s - oozing confidence, standing tall. They were well dressed men. Perhaps it's the way one wears one's clothes, how one presents oneself.


I would agree , how many of those well dressed men wore jeans and tennis shoes ? I might also add
that the officers were always considered to be better dressed than the enlisted men in the British Army.
An example the trenchcoat was very smart and elegant worn by British officers. Certainly other 
western European officers were well attaired.

All of the responses were excellent , my point is jeans was designed for field work and tennis shoes for playing tennis. One in my opinion is not " well dressed " if one wears tennis shoes and jeans.
My example was Elvis and Sinatra , which in your opinion was a better dresser Elvis or Sinatra , Brando
or Gable ? The formers were often see in jeans and athletic shoes the latters rarely , if see in jeans there was usually a horse present.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Racer said:


> I'm sorry you're confused. You asked me to clarify my remark, and I did so. Your arguments will not change how I perceived the various people in the courtroom. If that offends you, so be it.


I'm difficult to offend, and you haven't come close to doing it. You just seem to have some muddled thinking. Dressing ≠ fitness.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

To me, the best dressed guy in the room is always the one who looks the best _while still looking like he belongs_. It's the guy the most people are interested in meeting based on physical appearance alone.

How you pull that off is up to the individual. Certain people are handsome enough or just exude enough charisma that they have a lot of choices in attire while still being well-dressed. Some people just have a way of knowing the crowd and dressing to fit in while still adding just a touch of style. And some people have a knack for dressing so as to completely stand out while still not appearing snobby, or lazy, or crazy.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Why so much hatred for jeans?

The only argument against them is that they used to be and still are the clothing of choice of the working man.

Exactly what is it that makes a black pair of jeans any different than a twill cotton trouser? Other than the cut of the pockets and the fact that denim can be stiff. Is it the undyed cloth? What if the denim was completely dyed black instead of only the weft(?). Are the cut and placement of pockets that important? The lack of a crease? The drape? What? They're just pants...


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> You just seem to have some muddled thinking. Dressing ≠ fitness.


Edit: This is pointless. I'm not sure what you're on about, and I really don't care anyway. Have a nice day.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Leighton said:


> Why so much hatred for jeans?
> 
> The only argument against them is that they used to be and still are the clothing of choice of the working man.
> 
> Exactly what is it that makes a black pair of jeans any different than a twill cotton trouser? Other than the cut of the pockets and the fact that denim can be stiff. Is it the undyed cloth? What if the denim was completely dyed black instead of only the weft(?). Are the cut and placement of pockets that important? The lack of a crease? The drape? What? They're just pants...


Hatred for jeans ? jeans have their place as does any item one wears. Jeans are work clothing. not something one feels well dressed in. When one puts on tennis or athletic shoes one should not feel well dressed the shoes were designed for sports.

The point I have been making is a man who is well dressed is not wearing working clothes(jeans) and athletic shoes.

No one would disagree that there has been a decline in dress for men especially with younger men.
More men are seen today wearing work pants jeans with a suit coat than ever before. and wearing athletic shoes with a suit ! A mans shoes set the standard as to how well a man was dressed. Men today wear jeans to the office. 
The New York Yankees the most successful sports team in America has a dress code. Small wonder the new York Yankees is not in decline America is.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

I think I understand now.

Well dressed not only means that the clothing is well... nice, but it must be of a certain formality to be considered "well-dressed". Did I get it right? If so, I can see where your coming from.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Leighton said:


> The only argument against them is that they used to be and still are the clothing of choice of the working man.
> 
> Exactly what is it that makes a black pair of jeans any different than a twill cotton trouser? Other than the cut of the pockets and the fact that denim can be stiff. Is it the undyed cloth? What if the denim was completely dyed black instead of only the weft(?). Are the cut and placement of pockets that important? The lack of a crease? The drape? What? They're just pants...


Actually, Leighton, you do a pretty good job of listing many of the things that make jeans unappealing to me. But there are more. There are many unsatisfactory things about jeans that most people look past because, well, they're jeans, and they're supposed to have these faults. Try to consider them objectively, rather than as an object with which you are already familiar.

Forget about "jeans." Look at "western" pockets on tailored clothing. Don't they look ridiculous? They only look better on jeans because you're used to them. 
Forget about "jeans." Look at pants cut to virtually guarantee radiating lines around the crotch. Aren't they unappealing? Or even vulgar? 
Forget about "jeans." What if one pair of pants in one color and one general configuration became so completely ubiquitous that you were guaranteed to look like everyone else no matter where you went. Wouldn't that be boring, and a total abdication of individual expression? 
Forget about "jeans." What if someone proposed trousers made of a fabric that would be hot in the summer, cold when wet, deadly heavy if you fell into water, and held stains, sweat, and stink like a vault? Would you buy them?
Forget about "jeans." What if someone designed a pair of pants that could either be worn snug as panty hose, or rumpled and baggy, but never with anything aproaching ease or drape. Would you want them?

I submit that jeans are not favored for themselves, but for something that they communicate. We like them because they have the whiff of rebelion about them, the cowboy, the motorcycle, the dive bar. They are the uniform of rejecting "the man." The problem is that the man wears them, and has been wearing them for 40 years. There's no rebelion left in them, even if that's how Levi's and others still market them. They're just trousers that suck, and that look like what everyone else has on. No thanks.


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

CuffDaddy said:


> Forget about "jeans." Look at "western" pockets on tailored clothing. Don't they look ridiculous? They only look better on jeans because you're used to them.
> Forget about "jeans." Look at pants cut to virtually guarantee radiating lines around the crotch. Aren't they unappealing? Or even vulgar?
> Forget about "jeans." What if one pair of pants in one color and one general configuration became so completely ubiquitous that you were guaranteed to look like everyone else no matter where you went. Wouldn't that be boring, and a total abdication of individual expression?
> Forget about "jeans." What if someone proposed trousers made of a fabric that would be hot in the summer, cold when wet, deadly heavy if you fell into water, and held stains, sweat, and stink like a vault? Would you buy them?
> ...


1. Never thought about that one. Not disagreeing, but doesn't the reverse also hold true that we like suits because we're used to them? People used to dress in this fashion not all that long ago (considering human history) (note: just adding to the conversation, I haven't developed a personal opinion yet):










2. Well, I see that with flat front pants so I must disagree with you on this one. But if your position is that only pleats or very roomy FFs are acceptable, we'll just agree to disagree.
3. Understandable. But suits got to that point in the 70s. Everyone only wore the white shirt with a grey or navy suit. But I agree, too much conformity is boring.
4. The underlying problem with most cotton clothing. Agreed that its a problem, but not a problem soley relegated to jeans. Have no personal knowledge about the inability to swim, so I'll take your word about that one. I also disagree about holding odors like a vault. Only a problem for the grungy, stinky, people who don't wash their jeans. But in general, I see your point.
5. Don't see this point as I like my jeans and FF pants. I am both physically and mentally comfortable in all my clothes. With the exception of my swim trunks and shorts and only because my trunks are ridiculously old and baggy and the same goes for my shorts. (too cheap to buy new shorts, plus I don't like the look too much)

Agree with your conclusion. I still like them for how they look. For casual clothing, I refuse to wear anything with a crease down the front. Jeans are good for the winter when its cold, but bad for the summer as pointed out. They also look more casual. But yes, I agree, for more formal wear, jeans are an absolute no-no, unless your trying to make a statement or something.


----------



## ajo (Oct 22, 2007)

Coming in late I would add that well dressed is a number of simple factors first. Clean neat and tidy. Doest matter if your wearing casual or a suit. If your shirt is ironed you pants pressed and shoes shined to me that is half way there. 

Secondly I would state that wearing appropriate attire for the occasion, if its a casual function then polos and khaki's would be fine. Or even jeans and t-shirt. I would not wear this to a wedding or a funeral but that would not be the appropriate circumstances.

Its wearing what you believe and know from both a tradition and cultural approach that is the appropriate dress for the occasion, to this end I would refer people to a recent post by rgrossicone dated the 28/8 which demonstrates what I mean by wearing appropriate attire for the situation. Or Upr-crust whose daily business attire I think is bench mark for 'well dressed'. ( and whose tie collection I am exceptionally jealous of)

I think that circumstances dictate a response and its in the mind and attitude of the wearer how they respond and then dress for the occasion.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Leighton said:


> I think I understand now.
> 
> Well dressed not only means that the clothing is well... nice, but it must be of a certain formality to be considered "well-dressed". Did I get it right? If so, I can see where your coming from.


For over 2000 years men were judged by the clothing they wore. blue collar working class and white collar
management class this was due as a result of mass produced clothing which began in the 19th century.

Today there is a stigma to being well dressed , this website has devoted itself to helping those who may not know what dressing well is. Borrelli is not a household name nor is Kiton.
One does not have to wear a Borrelli shirt or Kiton suit to be well dressed but they and others like them sets a standard of dress for the well dressed man.

Ferrari sets a standard in high performance cars , few can afford a Ferrari as many can't afford a Kiton
suit but they are the standards as the New York Yankees are the standard in major league baseball.
If one is asked which better when buying a suit , two suits for $200.00 each or one suit for $500 ? today 
with the decline in taste in men's clothing the answer would be two $200.00 suits or maybe a suit aand a pair of jeans and a jacket.


----------



## Polemarkhos (Aug 22, 2010)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Silverporsche we will have to agree to disagree because I don't agree with one single word you said there.
> 
> Standards, shcmandards! As far as I'm concerned standards have got nothing to do with it *and the standards you list are for the ultra-rich only! *
> And standards anyway are only set up by people who think they know what the standard should be becasue standards are more often than not nothing more than personal taste and opinion.
> ...


I beg to differ. I have a picture of my working class great grandpa at a restaurant with my great grandma in which both are quite formally dressed. Pa is looking damned fine in a dinner suit, including ps. You can see the pride in his appearance all over his face.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> The New York Yankees the most successful sports team in America has a dress code. Small wonder the new York Yankees is not in decline America is.


You have got to be kidding.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

A well-groomed man in clothes that fit his body _and_ the occasion is a well-dressed man.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> jeans have their place as does any item one wears. Jeans are work clothing.


I have the same feelings about cummerbunds. After all, they were initially worn only by servants in India. While I will admit that cummerbunds have somehow over time become part of the attire of men who aren't working servants, the fact remains that this is what they are.

Don't you just hate it when sophisticated folks start wearing working man's clothing for things other than work?

Cruiser


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I have the same feelings about cummerbunds. After all, they were initially worn only by servants in India. While I will admit that cummerbunds have somehow over time become part of the attire of men who aren't working servants, the fact remains that this is what they are.
> 
> Don't you just hate it when sophisticated folks start wearing working man's clothing for things other than work?
> 
> Cruiser


And isn't the modern suit based off of 18th century military uniforms?


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

Leighton said:


> And isn't the modern suit based off of 18th century military uniforms?


18th-century military officers were noblemen/royalty/all-around filthy-rich guys


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Racer said:


> 18th-century military officers were noblemen/royalty/all-around filthy-rich guys


Is there anything wrong with being rich ? You are correct military unforms set a standard for dress in Europe for over three centuries. The trench coat is an example of of that trend.
Khaki worn by the British colonial troops now a very popular cloth. A british officer might be well dressed
in khaki but certainly not well dressed in jeans. A British officer in tennis shoes !

Wallstreet one of the most quoted movies of the past 30 years , I am not aware that Gordon Gekko wore
jeans are tennis shoes in Wallstreet. 
Prince Charles in my opinion one of the best dressed men in the world , I would not think he would wear jeans unless there is a horse present.

One can be well groom in tennis shoes and jeans but not well dressed. Jeans are work clothes , tennis shoes are for sports.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Prince Charles ... I would not think he would wear jeans unless there is a horse present.


They might be suitable for mucking out in, but I would be quite surprised if Prince Charles rides in jeans. Obviously cowboys wear them, but the tight crotch and raised inner seams must make them quite uncomfortable.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Is there anything wrong with being rich ? You are correct military unforms set a standard for dress in Europe for over three centuries. The trench coat is an example of of that trend.
> Khaki worn by the British colonial troops now a very popular cloth. A british officer might be well dressed
> in khaki but certainly not well dressed in jeans. A British officer in tennis shoes !
> 
> ...


I have seen British army officers in jeans on casual pottering about or even social occasions (rugby team night out or drinks with their men on an 18th or or stag or similar). They never seem to wear blue though, red, brick or moss green seem preferred and I have seen yellow, purple and mustard. I have no clue where they get them.

I have seen British army officers in jeans on casual pottering about or even social occasions (rugby team night out or drinks with their men on an 18th or or stag or similar). They never seem to wear blue though, red, brick or moss green seem preferred and I have seen yellow, purple and mustard. I have no clue where they get them. Worn with a chequered country shirt or a rugby.


Edited to add - Once Prince Charles was famously pictured at a Status Quo performance wearing a double breasted suit. If he didn't wear jeans then I doubt he would ever wear them.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I have seen British army officers in jeans on casual pottering about or even social occasions




I don't know about British Army officers, but I was stationed with some young British Naval officers in 1971 and they weren't bashful about wearing jeans when off duty.

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> I have seen British army officers in jeans on casual pottering about or even social occasions (rugby team night out or drinks with their men on an 18th or or stag or similar). They never seem to wear blue though, red, brick or moss green seem preferred and I have seen yellow, purple and mustard. I have no clue where they get them.
> 
> I have seen British army officers in jeans on casual pottering about or even social occasions (rugby team night out or drinks with their men on an 18th or or stag or similar). They never seem to wear blue though, red, brick or moss green seem preferred and I have seen yellow, purple and mustard. I have no clue where they get them. Worn with a chequered country shirt or a rugby.
> 
> ...


Would you want the possible next king of the United Kingdom seen dressed in jeans ,tee shirt and tennis shoes ? A well dressed British officer in jeans ? The British officer corp is one of the best dressed officer
class in the world.

Prince Charles is the example of British tradition , conservative dress , The empire may cease to exist 
but it has not fallen that far , when a future king wears jeans ! clothing designed for a field worker.
Have things gotten that bad in England ? I hope not.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Would you want the possible next king of the United Kingdom seen dressed in jeans ,tee shirt and tennis shoes ? A well dressed British officer in jeans ? The British officer corp is one of the best dressed officer
> class in the world.
> 
> Prince Charles is the example of British tradition , conservative dress , The empire may cease to exist
> ...


There is a Noel Coward song in there, somewhere.


----------



## Gromson (Oct 11, 2009)

Centaur said:


> They might be suitable for mucking out in, but I would be quite surprised if Prince Charles rides in jeans. Obviously cowboys wear them, but the tight crotch and raised inner seams must make them quite uncomfortable.


I believe Wrangler jeans have the raised seem on the outside instead of the inside for exactly this reason.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Wallstreet one of the most quoted movies of the past 30 years , I am not aware that Gordon Gekko wore jeans are tennis shoes in Wallstreet.


You realize that Gordon Gekko was supposed to represent everything that was wrong with the US at the time, and that the reason he is quoted is because he was such a memorable villain? The point of that movie is to repudiate just about everything you've said in this thread.

Office Space, Scarface, and Star Wars are equally quoted. Should we dress like those characters?


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> You realize that Gordon Gekko was supposed to represent everything that was wrong with the US at the time, and that the reason he is quoted is because he was such a memorable villain? The point of that movie is to repudiate just about everything you've said in this thread.
> 
> Office Space, Scarface, and Star Wars are equally quoted. Should we dress like those characters?


You are correct , but Gekko became a hero on wallstreet and around the country. 
Gekko became a lovable villain , Gekko's quote "Greed is good" has become one of the most popular quotes in the past 30 years !

Most Americans still hold financial success as the American dream. Should we dress like those characters in wallstreet many Americans aspire to. If not why would Ask Andy exist ?


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

Seems to me, from reading three pages of commentary, the term "well dressed" is subjective to each person's individual tastes and standards, albeit some more stringent than others.

My take on being "well dressed" is what a few have already mentioned:

1. wearing clothes that fit well; 
2. are appropriate to the occasion; 
3. without drawing unwanted attention to oneself; 
4. while separating the wearer, just by a little bit, from the pack.

For example, when I play tennis, I am well dressed for the occasion in appropriate tennis clothes: clean shoes, socks, and moisture wicking shorts, shirt, and cap. I'm better dressed than some players I have seen on the courts occasionally, dressed in cotton t-shirts or polo shirts (which get terribly heavy and wet-stained when sweaty), and not so clean white shoes with dark/colored socks.

Similarly, when I am in ethnic dress at a cultural ceremony, I am better dressed in simple and conservative ethnic attire, IMO, than men wearing garish ethnic attire of the same style at the same event.

Certainly, the man wearing properly fitted khakis and sport shirt at work is better dressed than the guy wearing an ill-fitted suit and tie. I remember observing a Manager level candidate during an interview a few weeks back, who drove a BMW, but wore a terribly fitted suit, and a poorly knotted tie. What really struck me, was when he mentioned that he had to wear a suit and tie everyday at his last office, where he had worked for seven years. Surely, in seven years, and making a six-figure income, he should have improved on his fit. The day being casual Friday, my VP and I were both dressed in well fitted casual clothes, and I considered us both better dressed than the interviewing candidate.

How one carries oneself also, IMO, dictates how "well dressed" one comes across. The man who carries himself confidently will appear better dressed than the one who seems uncomfortable, given that they are both wearing similar well fitted clothes, occasion-appropriate clothes.

Well, there it is, my two cents and them some.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> If not why would Ask Andy exist ?


I would assume because many people are interested in finding a proper fit for their clothes so as to be more comfortable, while others simply enjoy dressing in a certain fashion. It's a hobby.

I don't really know what else to say. I suspect you and I would never see eye-to-eye (or anywhere close) on the issue of traditional formal dress and it's impact on a person's character, achievements, or the state of a country.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Would you want the possible next king of the United Kingdom seen dressed in jeans ,tee shirt and tennis shoes ? A well dressed British officer in jeans ? The British officer corp is one of the best dressed officer
> class in the world.
> 
> Prince Charles is the example of British tradition , conservative dress , The empire may cease to exist
> ...


I don't believe I said that at all. I commented on officers off duty dressing down where it merited it and on HRH the POW dressing in a suit even at a heavy rock band's performance.

Slow down you might take more in.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Prince Charles is the example of British tradition , conservative dress , The empire may cease to exist
> but it has not fallen that far , when a future king wears jeans ! clothing designed for a field worker.
> Have things gotten that bad in England ? I hope not.


I do believe that a future King of England does wear jeans.



















Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I do believe that a future King of England does wear jeans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It appears British royal conservative tradition is coming to an end. The Royal family will dress more like the
working class. First the empire , the navy , and now dress . Is there anything left of a once proud nation ?


----------



## Saddleback Leather (Aug 3, 2010)

I think what one man views as the declining standards of being "well dressed," a younger generation may view as its evolution. Surely there was a time when men lamented the fact that the younger generation had exchanged their powdered wigs for tightly cropped haircuts....


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray (Jun 7, 2010)

I am pretty sure Prince William will grow out of it. I don't think him wearing jeans is in any way terrible. He is following a Royal tradition - that of letting your hair down when you can and not when you have taken the mantle of power on.

I like this picture of him and it compares well to his dad when younger.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

.....


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> He is following a Royal tradition - that of letting your hair down when you can and not when you have taken the mantle of power on.


I can't help but be curious here. What "power" does the King/Queen actually have? I know that they have vast power in theory, but almost none in reality. I've heard it said that if the King/Queen ever actually tried to exercise any power in a matter of any real substance it could possibly spell the end of the monarchy.

I always assumed that their official duty was to determine what clothes people are supposed to wear and how they are to wear them. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


> Edited to add - Once Prince Charles was famously pictured at a Status Quo performance wearing a double breasted suit. If he didn't wear jeans then I doubt he would ever wear them.


She wears denim wherever she goes
Says she's gonna get some records by The Status Quo

--Teenage Fanclub, "The Concept"


----------



## Leighton (Nov 16, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> It appears British royal conservative tradition is coming to an end. The Royal family will dress more like the
> working class. First the empire , the navy , and now dress . Is there anything left of a once proud nation ?


Their American offspring?


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

Unrelated but, I'll drink to the demise of the British "empire" anyday. They ruled my subcontinent for 190 years, and the only thing they managed to learn correctly is how to drink tea. Don't get me started on the British version of "curry", or use of the cumberband.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Jeans are NOT work clothing. They ceased to be purely work clothing in about the mid 1950s.
Plus NO manual worker wears jeans nowadays, no manual worker unless self-employed is allowed to wear jeans. They are required by libraries full of H & S legislation to wear clothing that protects them from any of the followng: moisture, heat, cold, fire, dirt, vibration, machinery, chemicals or to be reflective or ventilated and so on. 
Jeans have been as much a part of the fahsionable gentleman's wardrobe as blazers since at least the 1960s.
This is a general discussion on the FASHION forum. This isn't a discussion about being traditionally dressed.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Jeans are NOT work clothing. They ceased to be purely work clothing in about the mid 1950s.
> Plus NO manual worker wears jeans nowadays, no manual worker unless swelf-employed is alloed to wear jeans. They are required by libraries full of H & S legislation to wear clothing that protects them from any of the followng: moisture, heat, cold, fire, dirt, vibration, machinery, chemicals or to be reflective or ventilated and so on.
> Jeans have been as much a part of the fahsionable gentleman's wardrobe as blazers since at least the 1960s.
> This is a general discussion on the FASHION forum. This isn't a discussion about being traditionally dressed.


In America where jeans were invented migrant works wear jeans will working in the fields, construction workers wear jeans while working , miners wear jeans in the coal mines , farmers wear jeans while riding their John Deere tracters and suburban housewifes wear jeans while digging in their backyards.

To post that construction workers , miners and farm workers are not allowed to wear jeans while working 
is nonsense !
It is true that some add man thought up a wonderful promotion selling work pants as a fashion idea.
Again Hollywood , which at one time set a trend in dress in America , Elvis , McQueen , Brando , Dean ,
all wore jeans in the 50's none were considered well dressed.

The blazers origin is very different than jeans , Levi Strauss invented jeans and he did not invent them to 
be worn with a blazer , some park avenue add man did that. It worked bad taste usually does.


----------



## tennesseeato (Jun 25, 2010)

silverporsche,

It's not like "cool guys" haven't set all kinds of fashion standards over the centuries, including many that are accepted by the folks on this board as examples of being "well dressed".


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> It is true that some add man thought up a wonderful promotion selling work pants as a fashion idea.
> Again Hollywood , which at one time set a trend in dress in America , Elvis , McQueen , Brando , Dean ,
> all wore jeans in the 50's none were considered well dressed.
> 
> ...


Which brings me back to the example I gave earlier which you ignored. How is your discussion of jeans any different from the British military officers who decided that it would be a good idea to incorporate the cummerbund worn by Indian servants (and only by servants as servant wear) into their semi-formal evening wear? I could be wrong and if I am I'm sorry, but I have a feeling that you have at some point in your life worn a cummerbund.

In other words just like the guy who puts on clothing designed for a working man when he wears jeans, you have done precisely the same with another item of clothing. The only difference is that you like one and don't like the other, which is perfectly OK because no one is required to like the same things that others like; but it does make your argument somewhat lame about jeans being only for manual labor. Things change over time. Jeans and cummerbunds are both examples of such change.

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

tennesseeato said:


> silverporsche,
> 
> It's not like "cool guys" haven't set all kinds of fashion standards over the centuries, including many that are accepted by the folks on this board as examples of being "well dressed".


What does cool mean , when cool became a byword it began in music it was Miles , Peter Gunn , Brubeck , Mancini , etc., Cool jazz.
Cool in Hollywood might be James Bond , certainly I have never read anywhere that McQueen , Brando , Elvis , Dean etc., were considered well dressed. The members of the " Rat Pack " were cool. That was the early 60's. Sinatra and Dean Martin. Both were well dressed. As a matter of fact Sinatra was critical of
Elvis dress. 
Cool means what ? Was Elvis and McQueen as "cool " as Sinatra and Miles ".


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

riyadh552 said:


> Unrelated but, I'll drink to the demise of the British "empire" anyday. They ruled my subcontinent for 190 years, and the only thing they managed to learn correctly is how to drink tea. Don't get me started on the British version of "curry", or use of the cumberband.


Off topic, I know, but if there had never been a British Empire, you would not be sipping tea in Georgia.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Sinatra and Dean Martin. Both were well dressed. As a matter of fact Sinatra was critical of
> Elvis dress.


Interesting since both of these men have been criticised in this forum for their sloppy black tie wear. Both often wore notch lapel tuxedos with plain white dress shirts and no waist covering. This brings up another example of where your work clothes analogy regarding jeans just doesn't hold up.

Like I said, both Sinatra and Martin often wore the plain white shirt worn by working men everywhere with their tuxedos in lieu of the more formal black tie shirts that most here demand of those wearing tuxedos. It's just one more example of clothing being worn by "well dressed" men in situations other than the original purpose of the garment.

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> In America where jeans were invented migrant works wear jeans will working in the fields, construction workers wear jeans while working , miners wear jeans in the coal mines , farmers wear jeans while riding their John Deere tracters and suburban housewifes wear jeans while digging in their backyards.
> 
> To post that construction workers , miners and farm workers are not allowed to wear jeans while working
> is nonsense !
> ...


I said it earlier and I'll say it again, I don't agree with anything you say. I was addressing the board in general about jeans not you in person

Now if you seriously think I was talking about the type of jeans farmhands wear when I mentioned the wardrobe of fashionable gentlemen then we are not only not on the same page, we're not even in the same library! If that is the limit of your opinion about jeans.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

Cruiser said:


> I can't help but be curious here. What "power" does the King/Queen actually have?
> 
> Cruiser


Politically, the Queen has no power at all. The whole edifice of monarchy is just a vast illusion based on pageantry, sustained and fortified by an entire nation's attachment to tradition.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

You've never read that Steve McQueen was (and is) considered well-dressed and "cool?"


----------



## tennesseeato (Jun 25, 2010)

"Cool" is what is -- "cool". "Cool" is defined by the audience, not the person himself. A HUGE portion of US society thought Elvis was "cool" and didn't give a rat's backside what Sinatra thought of his dress. That segment wanted to dress like Elvis BECAUSE he was "cool", at least in their collective eye. Just because the term wasn't used 100 years ago doesn't mean there weren't "cool" people making fashion statements that became incorporated into the fashion zeitgeist.

Why does anyone only button the top button of a 2-button jacket, for example? Because a fat prince then king couldn't get jackets to fit properly, that's why. Now it's the "standard". In the early 20th century I imagine there were "well dressed" folks who were aghast at the notion that anyone would wear a jacket without buttoning all the buttons.

And I am certainly not implying that every fashion decision made by a popular/cool figure will (or should) result in a change of fashion "standards" (whatever that term means).

I'm not trying to get into a debate with you about "standards", but I think that term is not synonomous with "well dressed". Personally, I think society sets "standards" and a person's dress is judged against those "standards". If a guy wears jeans to the ballgame, he's within the "standards" society has established for attire. If I open a restaurant with a "business casual" (a term I absolutely loathe by the way) and a guy comes in with khakis and an open-collared shirt, he's within that "standard". The guy next to him in a suit may or may not be "better dressed" than him. The simple fact of wearing a suit, at least in that context, does not, ipso facto, make him "better dressed" than the other man.

I get that you may not agree with a particular "standard" of attire. I'm right there with you a lot of the time. I just don't believe it's appropriate to be critical of a particular person's attire when it doesn't jibe with your particularized notion of the proper "standard".

As far as what is "well-dressed", going back to the OP, I think of things in terms of a letter grade. If a guy is wearing properly fitting, properly coordinated attire that is appropriate for the setting, he is "properly dressed". I would give him a "C" grade. Others in this thread might give him a "C+" or even a "B-". I suspect you would give him a "D+" -- barely passing but absolutely no better.

To get to a "B" in my book, the attire must be a step-above in terms of quality than the bare-bones minimum and must be worn with a self-assuredness. I think people who are uncomfortable in a tie, for example, typically do not wear a tie well.

To get to an "A", my threshold for "well dressed" status, there must be a certain as the French say "something, I know not what". But I do know that certain something is not necessarily more formal attire. Indeed, more formal attire in some settings is an indication of being more poorly dressed. For example, a guy in an Oxxford suit sitting in the bleachers of Wrigley on Saturday afternoon in July is "poorly dressed". I believe Justice Stewart said it best (albeit trying to define "hard-core pornography", but it still fits and is more eloquent than anything I could say about it): 

"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, ...."


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

silverporsche said:


> What does cool mean , when cool became a byword it began in music it was Miles , Peter Gunn , Brubeck , Mancini , etc., Cool jazz.
> Cool in Hollywood might be James Bond , certainly I have never read anywhere that McQueen , Brando , Elvis , Dean etc., were considered well dressed. The members of the " Rat Pack " were cool. That was the early 60's. Sinatra and Dean Martin. Both were well dressed. As a matter of fact Sinatra was critical of
> Elvis dress.
> Cool means what ? Was Elvis and McQueen as "cool " as Sinatra and Miles ".


You must be joking! Steve McQueen was the epitomy of cool, albeit a different kind of cool than The Rat Pack.


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

Centaur said:


> Off topic, I know, but if there had never been a British Empire, you would not be sipping tea in Georgia.


No doubt, and I don't deny the Empire's contributions to many facets of western culture (although drinking tea is an indirect contribution, by way of the Indian Subcontinent). I just am very glad, both as a Subcontinental by origin and as an American, to be not ruled by the Empire.


----------



## Centaur (Feb 2, 2010)

riyadh552 said:


> I just am very glad, both as a Subcontinental by origin and as an American, to be not ruled by the Empire.


That's OK, I don't think it's likely to happen to you anytime soon.


----------



## Apatheticviews (Mar 21, 2010)

Busterdog said:


> I recently attended a Regimental reunion, over 500 veterans - former members of my old (Scottish) regiment - were 'on parade' ages ranged from mid 90s down to late 20s. All were what I would term 'well dressed' - sure there were inexpensive suits and shoes visible, some wore the kilt - though all were clean, well pressed, shoes shone to perfection, all wearing regimental ties, well groomed hair, etc. All - even the gentlemen in their 80s and 90s - *oozing confidence, standing tall.* They were well dressed men. Perhaps it's the way one wears one's clothes, how one presents oneself.


Bolded for emphasis.

Neat, clean, confident. Showing an effort.

In one of Terry Pratchett's books he talks about the "Monks of Cool," and how during their final test they are shown a gaint warddrobe full of fantastic clothes. They are asked which is the coolest. The correct answer is "Whatever I put on."


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

riyadh552 said:


> You must be joking! Steve McQueen was the epitomy of cool, albeit a different kind of cool than The Rat Pack.


Cool became the "in" thing to be beginning in the late 50's , ending in the middle 60's. entertainers that was 
associated with cool were generally those that listen to jazz , Brubeck , Miles , a little more sophisticated
Mancini and Riddle. A Playboy club membership was considered cool as an example in that period.

The Italian look was cool in men's clothing . Steve McQueen was seen not as being cool but as a
rebel. Sinatra was cool so was Mancini's Breakfast at Tiffany's , the musical score was "cool". 
Drugs , was not a part of being cool , McQueen was a drug addict. Cool was the big city , jazz not rock was cool , Sinatra was cool not Elvis , George Shearing not the Beetles.

Sinatra and anyone cool did not generally wear jeans are t-shirts. That was worn by rebels those opposed
to the clothing standards of that era. 
The Beetles ended cool , rock ended cool , jeans ended cool and so did drugs and bad taste.


----------



## tennesseeato (Jun 25, 2010)

Apatheticviews said:


> In one of Terry Pratchett's books he talks about the "Monks of Cool," and how during their final test they are shown a gaint warddrobe full of fantastic clothes. *They are asked which is the coolest. The correct answer is "Whatever I put on."*


Silverporsche probably wouldn't agree unless Sinatra said it first, but in my opinion THAT is cool.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Silver, I'm a pretty big jazz fan. I can assure you that drugs _were_ part of the original "cool."

Coolness has always implied some level of indifference, detachment, etc. Yes, that's in Miles Davis' harmon-muted trumpet solos, but it's also in McQueen's _Great Escape_ character reacting to being placed in solitary confinement (in "the cooler") by nonchallantly bouncing a baseball. I don't admire McQueen's clothes, for the most part, as he was a victim of his age. But he was cool, in any meaningful sense of the word.


----------



## twon12 (Aug 30, 2010)

I agree. I noticed that back in the day starting around the 1940's men of all races were always dressed proper...smooth regardless of where he was going. He was always Suited, Booted, All Tied up regardless of income level. It was just the thing to do. As per manners, the gen X and Y generations don't know or realize that one should act like a southern gentleman. I try to always open a door for a lady or hold it open. Sometimes I am not able to because she may be far away, and I may be with my wife and kids. 

Dressing well makes me feel good, and projects a positive image. While I was a poor undergrad, I tried to dress well.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Comments:

"Cool," in its common meaning, is subjective. What's cool to 6th grade girls is, almost by defintion, not cool to college students. The word has no meaning outside of a context. I am, here, talking about its current meaning, not its etymology. It is likely that the current meaning derives from a time when it had a more specific (jazz-related) meaning. That's not what it means nowadays.

"Well-dressed" seems to be used in two different senses, and it seems that people often create confusion by not distinguishing them. The phrase seems, to me, to be used both (i) with the ordinary meaning of "well" and "dressed," _i.e._ attired appropriately, nicely, pleasingly (or something of that nature) _and_ (ii) dressed more formally, or higher "up" the "dressed up" scale. It is, at least in the modern world, often the case that the people who are the most well-dressed in some situation are also the most formally dressed, but the opposite can also be true: wearing a tuxedo to a casual cocktail party might make you more "well-dressed" in the second sense, but not in the first. It's easy to come up with other examples.

Jeans are sometimes worn by workmen, but are worn much more often as casual wear, often while at leisure. To deny the latter would require one to be utterly blind. If you went out across the US today, September 2, 2010, and counted the number of pairs of jeans in use and classified what the wearer was doing while wearing them, the vast majority (90% or more) would be wearing them as casual clothes: those "working" in them would most likely be doing schoolwork, or some non-manual labor (like, say, accounting). I don't quite know why this matters, in any event. If you were to do the same exercise with suits, you'd probably find nearly opposite percentages: the majority of those wearing a suit would be doing so while working. Indeed, the same people would much more likely wear a suit as work clothes, and switch to jeans when not working.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Cool became the "in" thing to be beginning in the late 50's , ending in the middle 60's. entertainers that was
> associated with cool were generally those that listen to jazz , Brubeck , Miles , a little more sophisticated
> Mancini and Riddle. A Playboy club membership was considered cool as an example in that period.
> 
> ...


OK, the slang term "cool" is extremely subjective and each person can define it in terms of his/her own thoughts about what is and isn't cool. What you are doing is taking your own personal definition and thinking that this is what everyone else is supposed to think. Personally I was around in the 50's and 60's, and I didn't see it like you do at all. I watched Elvis on the Ed Sullivan show in '56 and I watched _The Beatles_ on the Ed Sullivan show in '64, and they were both "cool" as many of us defined the term.

You say that Miles Davis was cool, but Steve McQueen wasn't because he was a drug addict? Yes, McQueen was noted for his marijuana and cocaine use; but how can you discount the severe heroin addiction that Davis went through in the '50's? Are you saying that heroin is more "cool" than marijuana and cocaine?



> Sinatra and anyone cool did not generally wear jeans are t-shirts. That was worn by rebels opposed
> to the clothing standards of that era.


Once again you have totally ignored Sinatra's disregard for black tie standards. Sounds like he was a "rebel" to me. Or is it that rebellion that you agree with is not actually rebellion; but any rebellion that you don't like is, well, rebellion.

You really live in your own little world, don't you? :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> OK, the slang term "cool" is extremely subjective and each person can define it in terms of his/her own thoughts about what is and isn't cool. What you are doing is taking your own personal definition and thinking that this is what everyone else is supposed to think. Personally I was around in the 50's and 60's, and I didn't see it like you do at all. I watched Elvis on the Ed Sullivan show in '56 and I watched _The Beatles_ on the Ed Sullivan show in '64, and they were both "cool" as many of us defined the term.
> 
> You say that Miles Davis was cool, but Steve McQueen wasn't because he was a drug addict? Yes, McQueen was noted for his marijuana and cocaine use; but how can you discount the severe heroin addiction that Davis went through in the '50's? Are you saying that heroin is more "cool" than marijuana and cocaine?
> 
> ...


Who is us ? or you speaking of someone other than yourself ? Have you ever heard of cool jazz ? Certainly in the 60's Mancini's music was considered cool as it applied to musical arrangements. 
What was it that made Elvis cool ? it was not his dress , his speech ? I would not expect Elvis to be hanging out with the cool jazz performers of that period. Which is where the term cool began.

I will not comment on your references to me. There was a rebellion against traditional values that began in the late 1950's in dress , music , art , clothing the movies etc., 
You might remember the out cry against Elvis type of music or anyone performing rock n roll.
The Ed Sullivan show would not show Elvis below his waist because of hip movements. Many movie houses would not play the music while showing Blackboard Jungle. Why ?

Sinatra was the establishment , his music and his clothing were establishment, Sinatra detested rock and Elvis. As for as Steve McQueen an excellent actor as was brando and Dean but a new breed of actors ,
departing from the Gables , Coopers Stewarts and yes Sinatra's of the golden days of motion pictures.
Times were changing it began in the 1950's.
The period known as "cool " was very brief.


----------



## David_E (Apr 18, 2010)

*Earl *- just wanted to congratulate you on starting another interesting thread. You seem to have a real talent for skewering sacred cows and putting your finger on some of the more out of touch ideas held around here.

Great job!


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Starch said:


> Comments:
> 
> "Cool," in its common meaning, is subjective. What's cool to 6th grade girls is, almost by defintion, not cool to college students. The word has no meaning outside of a context. I am, here, talking about its current meaning, not its etymology. It is likely that the current meaning derives from a time when it had a more specific (jazz-related) meaning. That's not what it means nowadays.
> 
> ...


Visit the area's of America where there are migrant workers they are wearing jeans , visit construction sites they are wearing jeans , visit farms in the midwest the farmers are wearing jeans and also visit the mines the miners are wearing jeans.

Sure jeans are worn as casual wear , the clothing industry is not stupid , why not market cheap cotton denim as a fashion item and charge 10 times the price for the same item worn by migrant workers give it a designers name. Makes sense from a profit standpoint.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Silver, I'm a pretty big jazz fan. I can assure you that drugs _were_ part of the original "cool."
> 
> Coolness has always implied some level of indifference, detachment, etc. Yes, that's in Miles Davis' harmon-muted trumpet solos, but it's also in McQueen's _Great Escape_ character reacting to being placed in solitary confinement (in "the cooler") by nonchallantly bouncing a baseball. I don't admire McQueen's clothes, for the most part, as he was a victim of his age. But he was cool, in any meaningful sense of the word.


I agree , but McQueen was more of a rebel opposing traditional values. Jazz musicans did engage in drugs.
Jazz musicans , many were establishment performers , most detested the music McQueen might listen to or the way in which McQueen dressed. 
Elvis was also viewed as anti-establishment , there was a popular trend in the late 1950's with middleclass white youngsters. Again there was change in the air which has led us to the present hip-hop generation.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

I'm not saying there are no workers wearing jeans (I don't really know, actually).

What I'm more saying is: visit (say) any college campus and count the number of pairs of jeans. Go to the park on a Saturday afternoon and count the number of pairs of jeans. Do this on a large scale, and I'm pretty sure you'll find the number of jeans worn by migrant or construction workers is a small fraction of the number of pairs worn by other people.

And anyway: what's so horrible about migrant workers and construction workers in the first place?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Have you ever heard of cool jazz ?


I do believe that you are putting way too much emphasis on a style of music, in this case cool jazz. You somehow seem to be of the opinion that the idea that something could be "cool" originated with the phrase "cool jazz." I have a feeling you are getting this from the old Miles Davis album _The Birth of Cool_ in whichthe word "cool" refers to a particular style of music, not the concept of something being "cool" in general.

Things were "cool" long before cool jazz. The word might not have been "cool" but there has always been a word or phrase to describe what came to be called cool. I don't even know what the current word for cool is but I'm sure it isn't cool as I seldom hear that word used anymore in that context. I have a feeling that Walt Whitman was considered to be "cool" in his day but I'm sure they had another word for it.

Cruiser


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

Which one of these guys is "cool," and which one is the "rebel?"


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

jean-paul sartorial said:


> Which one of these guys is "cool," and which one is the "rebel?"


Steve McQueen's image was that of a rebel in Hollywood. McQueen did wear a suit in the "Thomas Crown Affair " But he looked out of place. There were several actors of that period that was considered rebels.
Sinatra was cool , Dean Martin cool, The Playboy club cool , George Shearing cool , an expensive stereo system cool , a swinging bachelor apartment cool , etc, etc.

One who listened to rock "n" rool or rythmn and blues was not cool, A beatnik was cool , I hope you get my point.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Starch said:


> I'm not saying there are no workers wearing jeans (I don't really know, actually).
> 
> What I'm more saying is: visit (say) any college campus and count the number of pairs of jeans. Go to the park on a Saturday afternoon and count the number of pairs of jeans. Do this on a large scale, and I'm pretty sure you'll find the number of jeans worn by migrant or construction workers is a small fraction of the number of pairs worn by other people.
> 
> And anyway: what's so horrible about migrant workers and construction workers in the first place?


Jeans were created for workers in the field, cheap denim was used.Migrant workers or workers wear them because they are inexpensive , cheap to produce and sturdy.
Why would one pay anything but the lowest price for inexpensive cotton denim ?

Wearing an item designed for workers in the field is not my idea of being well dressed.Why do you think every cowboy movie for 80 years wore jeans ? John Wayne wore them folded up at the end and so did Tom Mix.
I would not think that most college students today know much about proper dress. But than jeans are cheap and sturdy.


----------



## jean-paul sartorial (Jul 28, 2010)

silverporsche said:


> Steve McQueen's image was that of a rebel in Hollywood. McQueen did wear a suit in the "Thomas Crown Affair " But he looked out of place. There were several actors of that period that was considered rebels.
> Sinatra was cool , Dean Martin cool, The Playboy club cool , George Shearing cool , an expensive stereo system cool , a swinging bachelor apartment cool , etc, etc.
> 
> One who listened to rock "n" rool or rythmn and blues was not cool, A beatnik was cool , I hope you get my point.


What I'm trying to say is that if there was once such a distinction between "cool" and "rebel" or "jazz" and "rock" that extended to dress, it no longer applies. Or at least applies much less.

The picture on the left is Daniel Craig playing James Bond in Quantum of Solace. The picture on the right is Steve McQueen relaxing on the beach (in real life, not in a movie role).

They are dressed nearly identically--- brown suede desert boots, chinos, navy shawl cardigan. I believe the shoes Bond is wearing are Church's and the clothes are Tom Ford (hardly a stranger to a suit). I have no doubt the similarity is intentional.

The last two Bond movies are credited with revitalizing the franchise at the box office. And while long time fans will always disagree on which Bond they like best, I think most would concur that Daniel Craig's Bond is the closest in spirit to Connery's and what is in the books. There was a bit of grit and physicality to the original Bond; he was a spy after all, not Dean Martin just drinking martinis and telling jokes.

Therefore, Craig's Bond is "cool" in the way that Connery's Bond was "cool." Only Craig's Bond bears a physical resemblance and strikingly similar dress style to Steve McQueen. While they are not wearing jeans, they certainly aren't wearing suits either.

The college kids of today would not hesitate to call either picture "cool," and desert boots, chinos, and shawl cardigans are flying out of J. Crew and Land's End like nobody's business. J. Crew now has their "Signature" line and Land's End has "Canvas" specifically to capitalize on that.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

silver, I'm afraid that none of the great jazz musicians of the 50's or 60's thought of themselves as establishment musicians. It was not until Wynton Marsalis and his contemporaries made the case for jazz as American classical music that it was in any way considered establishment. Read up on Charles Mingus, the best bassist of the post-war era, for an idea of the kind of anti-establishment views that were popular among jazz musicians. Many of the prominent black jazz musicians (including Miles Davis) dated white women, which was as rebellious and anti-inflamatory as anything you could do at the time.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> silver, I'm afraid that none of the great jazz musicians of the 50's or 60's thought of themselves as establishment musicians. It was not until Wynton Marsalis and his contemporaries made the case for jazz as American classical music that it was in any way considered establishment. Read up on Charles Mingus, the best bassist of the post-war era, for an idea of the kind of anti-establishment views that were popular among jazz musicians. Many of the prominent black jazz musicians (including Miles Davis) dated white women, which was as rebellious and anti-inflamatory as anything you could do at the time.


dating white women was not an issue , music and attitudes were. Many of the jazz as well as popular
singers of that era considered R & B and rock n roll as rebellious music. Miles Davis and other jazz musician was very comfortable performing Gershwin , Hart or Berlin's music which was establishment music. Miles Porky and Bess was one of Miles most successful recording. Gershwin is establishment.
Charlie Parker's and Strings was establishment music , need I add Getz , or Brubeck who were very establishment jazz musician. Are we forgetting Oscar Peterson quite classical.
What was Earrol Garners signature recording ? Misty , which he composed and is very establishment.
Need I add Coltrane's most successful recording " My favorite Things " From the Sound Of Music "


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> Miles Davis and other jazz musician was very comfortable performing Gershwin , Hart or Berlin's music which was establishment music.


So is Willie Nelson. His album _Stardust_ containing the classic compositions by Gershwin, Berlin, and Hoagy Carmichael, among others, stayed on the charts for over ten years and is considered by many to be one of the greatest albums of all time. More recently Willie has teamed up with Wynton Marsalis.

I always knew that Willie was cool and guess what; the old boy wears jeans for things other than working in the fields. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## tennesseeato (Jun 25, 2010)

Wow, I didn't realize I would set-off such a firestorm by injecting the word "cool" into the discussion. I'm sorry I used it because it has certainly taken the discussion off on a tangent.

My point was that specific individuals have influenced fashion for centuries based solely on their clothing choices. Don't call them "cool", call them "popular" or "influential" if that helps. That Elvis and other "rebel rock 'n rollers" influenced fashion "standards" for a large segment of the US population is simply not debatable. It doesn't matter if they were "cool" or not. SP clearly loathes that particular shift in "standards" and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I get it, I really do. Pretending like it didn't happen, however, is simply engaging in revisionist history. 

Going back to my original analogy, King Edward may or may not have been "cool", but there is no debate that his fatness coupled with the inability to get a jacket that fit properly has changed the "standard" for buttoning jackets, at least until someone else who is influential decides to button his jacket differently. That shift in the "standard" is OK with virtually everyone now. I'll bet there were lots of "well dressed" men in the early 20th century deeply offended by that shift though.

The point I was trying to make is that "standards" are not absolute. They change over time and change whether we want them to or not. I think you should judge a man's dress against the backdrop of current "standards" whether you agree with the "standards" or not.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

To all and sundry:

I fail to see the relevance of the connexion between jeans and field workers. Is it perhaps the dated and erroneous assumption that one might be mistaken in 2010 for a Mexican mellonfarmer if one wore jeans? The idea is risible and reeks of snobbery.
Are there still such people in 2010 who think looking like a manual labourer is so far beyond the pale as to be avoided at all costs? 
Only a time traveller come to 2010 from the first half of the 20th century would think like that.
And only such a time traveller would be so ignorant of the multitude of very elegant and expensive jeans, as well as the masses of everyday jeans worn by everyday people in everyday settings from hospitals to offices to courtrooms to police forces to schools to govt agencies and beyond.
And only such a time traveller would still believe that people might make the horrible assumption...heaven forbid...that he was a manual worker.
Jeans are no longer effective or sufficient as workwear; and so only such a time traveller would still think that qualified workers in the western world in mines, foundries, chemical plants, shipyards, building sites,factories,warehouses etc still wear jeans!

But again, I fail to see how what a worker wears has anything to do with a gentleman's wardrobe or with being well dressed.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> So is Willie Nelson. His album _Stardust_ containing the classic compositions by Gershwin, Berlin, and Hoagy Carmichael, among others, stayed on the charts for over ten years and is considered by many to be one of the greatest albums of all time. More recently Willie has teamed up with Wynton Marsalis.
> 
> I always knew that Willie was cool and guess what; the old boy wears jeans for things other than working in the fields. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


I doubt very seriously that anyone would consider Willie Nelson as well dressed ! his music is country a far cry from Gershwin or Cole Porter. His range in that type ofmusic is very limited, especially his vocal range.
The era in which cool was in vogue I would hardly think that Willie Nelson would fit in.


----------



## riyadh552 (Mar 4, 2009)

Willie may not be the sharpest dresser, but he sure is cool. :cool2:


----------



## tennesseeato (Jun 25, 2010)

riyadh552 said:


> Willie may not be the sharpest dresser, but he sure is cool. :cool2:


Amen to that.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> To all and sundry:
> 
> I fail to see the relevance of the connexion between jeans and field workers. Is it perhaps the dated and erroneous assumption that one might be mistaken in 2010 for a Mexican mellonfarmer if one wore jeans? The idea is risible and reeks of snobbery.
> Are there still such people in 2010 who think looking like a manual labourer is so far beyond the pale as to be avoided at all costs?
> ...


If you don't see the connection between work clothing and jeans than you ignore history ,Levi Strauss
who invented jeans invented jeans for that purpose. Jeans for over a hundred years has been used as
work clothing in America as is the case today.
Jeans are durable and inexpensive.

I would suggest you visit a construction work site or an area where farm work is done especially in places where migrant workers toil and you will find that the majority of them are wearing jeans, cheap and durable pants.

The trenchcoat was invented in world War One and worn by officers , that does not prevent one from wearing a trench coat today who is not engagaed in trench warfare and is not a British officer.

In my opinion one who wears clothing associated with field work is not well dressed. As casual attaire jeans is exceptable. In Texas or other southwestern settings jeans may be exceptable worn casually or where farm work is done or there is horses near. But even in Texas one is well dressed in 
a pair of wool slacks and a blazer and not with jeans and a blazer.
Wearing jeans as a substitute for slacks is another example in the decline in mens clothing.
We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

tennesseeato said:


> The point I was trying to make is that "standards" are not absolute. They change over time and change whether we want them to or not. I think you should judge a man's dress against the backdrop of current "standards" whether you agree with the "standards" or not.


Exactly.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> I fail to see the relevance of the connexion between jeans and field workers.... The idea is risible and reeks of snobbery.


Ditto.

What's "cool," "hip," "in", "acceptable," "fashionable," "appropriate," "phat," "da bomb" or "respectable" _*today*_ is what's c/h/i/a/f/a/p/d/r today.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

silverporsche said:


> If you don't see the connection between work clothing and jeans than you ignore history ,Levi Strauss


But we're not discussing history, of which I'm fully aware, we're discussing being well dressed. You are the one who keeps stressing the aspect of jeans being work clothing and thus anathema to you. And it is your own statement above about the historical use of jeans that defeats your own argument, yes, I agree with you, historically jeans were work clothing. And historically Dr. Martens' patented airwear soles were originally for polio sufferers.Historically a cravat was a Croatian military scarf. Historically all shirts had detachable collars. Historically all men wore hats. Historically...etc. The list is endless of clothing history that has of course changed over the decades...and that includes the use, look, quality, price, and acceptance of jeans.

And just to respond to one thing you said,
*"In my opinion one who wears clothing associated with field work is not well dressed."*

This is where you've completely got everything out of date by about 60 years. Jeans ARE NOT associated with field work, not in Europe and not in the US!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> I doubt very seriously that anyone would consider Willie Nelson as well dressed


You not only missed my point, but you definitely missed the sarcasm. Even so, perhaps you don't remember, or never even knew, Willie when he was well dressed. Oh yeah, good old Willie was as establishment as they come; suit, tie, the whole nine yards. Thing is, Willie is a smart guy. He found that being an outlaw sells more records. There is nothing wrong with being "well dressed" but if it is between that or being known and loved all over the world, I say bring on the jeans. :icon_smile_big:



















Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

David_E said:


> *Earl *- just wanted to congratulate you on starting another interesting thread. You seem to have a real talent for skewering sacred cows and putting your finger on some of the more out of touch ideas held around here.
> 
> Great job!


Thank you David.

Regards
James


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But we're not discussing history, of which I'm fully aware, we're discussing being well dressed. You are the one who keeps stressing the aspect of jeans being work clothing and thus anathema to you. And it is your own statement above about the historical use of jeans that defeats your own argument, yes, I agree with you, historically jeans were work clothing. And historically Dr. Martens' patented airwear soles were originally for polio sufferers.Historically a cravat was a Croatian military scarf. Historically all shirts had detachable collars. Historically all men wore hats. Historically...etc. The list is endless of clothing history that has of course changed over the decades...and that includes the use, look, quality, price, and acceptance of jeans.
> 
> And just to respond to one thing you said,
> *"In my opinion one who wears clothing associated with field work is not well dressed."*
> ...


Read American history jeans are a part of that history. In America today jeans are cheap and durable ,K-Mart and WalMart
sells a pair of jeans for $9.99 a pair. Certainly a good value for those looking to find a natural fiber at a more than affordable price.

I will not dismiss the fact that some very creative adverting executive saw an opportunity to take advantage of a very popular and inexpensive item, add a designers name bleach or place the label on the
outside increase the cost by more than 500 % use a very effective promotion campaign and we have 
a very inexpensive item made from denim that has met with overwhelming success.

In Europe it is a fashion item , imported from the states. In America jeans are a mix , some may dress up in jeans while others use it when washing their car. Again visit any construction site in America , mine , 
farm , mechanic shop and you will find men at work in a pair of jeans.

Why would one pay more than $9.99 for a pair of cheap durable cotton denim ? To Europeans jeans may be see as chic because it is an imported item , but in America it's still to many pants one cleans their 
garage in.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> You not only missed my point, but you definitely missed the sarcasm. Even so, perhaps you don't remember, or never even knew, Willie when he was well dressed. Oh yeah, good old Willie was as establishment as they come; suit, tie, the whole nine yards. Thing is, Willie is a smart guy. He found that being an outlaw sells more records. There is nothing wrong with being "well dressed" but if it is between that or being known and loved all over the world, I say bring on the jeans. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I am not a fan of Willie Nelson , I have never heard him perform country is not something I listen to.
I have had on glimpse of him on television.I am sure he is a success to those who enjoys his performances.
As for as his dress , he appears no different than many other rock or country performers. 
I am sure there are those who appreciate both his music and dress.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> I am not a fan of Willie Nelson , I have never heard him perform country is not something I listen to.
> I have had on glimpse of him on television.I am sure he is a success to those who enjoys his performances.
> As for as his dress , he appears no different than many other rock or country performers.
> I am sure there are those who appreciate both his music and dress.


Once again you totally missed my point. Now I'm beginning to wonder whether you do it deliberately or whether you just don't get it. I guess it doesn't matter because I will freely admit that I don't understand what you are trying to say either. We'll just leave it at that, OK? :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I do believe that you are putting way too much emphasis on a style of music, in this case cool jazz. You somehow seem to be of the opinion that the idea that something could be "cool" originated with the phrase "cool jazz." I have a feeling you are getting this from the old Miles Davis album _The Birth of Cool_ in whichthe word "cool" refers to a particular style of music, not the concept of something being "cool" in general.
> 
> Things were "cool" long before cool jazz. The word might not have been "cool" but there has always been a word or phrase to describe what came to be called cool. I don't even know what the current word for cool is but I'm sure it isn't cool as I seldom hear that word used anymore in that context. I have a feeling that Walt Whitman was considered to be "cool" in his day but I'm sure they had another word for it.
> 
> Cruiser


there was a period in American history when cool was in. Late 1950's until the early 1960's. It happen mostly in the midwest East and west coast. The beatnicks were the poster child of what was known as the beat generation. Jazz was in soft cool sounds was the hallmart. It was before Woodstock.

You might find that period appeared also on the left bank in Paris. The music of Mancini , Miles , Sinatra , Brubeck
Strayhorn , Gillespie etc , was cool. Goatees was in , as was the Playboy Club. It was a mood.
" Cool man " was normal speech.

It ended when the white American middle class moved more toward rock , rebellion , loud music , the woodstck generation put an in to cool in America and on the west bank in Paris. The Blue Note in New York closed , jazz clubs on the west coast closed and the Playboy club was no longer popular.

Anything can be called cool , but there was an era in American history when was "cool" was a way of life.


----------

