# Is dressing well a dying art?



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

I've really noticed that business meetings even at conservative banks are increasingly casual. I break out my suits less and less...is the USA getting to be a sloppy place? Are we losing something by dressing well less?

It's just becoming a less professional environment in places in my opinion.

Am I wrong about this?

What should we do about it? Can we lead by example?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

I hope, as evidenced by the growth of this forum, that it is a growing, rather than dying, art. Yes, we live in a country that exhilarates in the lowest common denominator, and that tends strongly toward amjack dressing; that aside, I have noticed a resurgence in finely dressed gentlemen.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

rip said:


> I hope, as evidenced by the growth of this forum, that it is a growing, rather than dying, art. Yes, we live in a country that exhilarates in the lowest common denominator, and that tends strongly toward amjack dressing; that aside, I have noticed a resurgence in finely dressed gentlemen.


... +1


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

While I am not sure dressing well can be accurately described as a dying art, as I think there always was and always will be a core of those who just seem to dress well, I also am not convinced dressing well is enjoying a ressurection. Rather, it is more of a seasonal thing...many people who dress well during the cooler/colder months, devolve into classic Amjacks as the weather warms and summer leaps fully upon us.


----------



## mack11211 (Oct 14, 2004)

Level of formality and amjack and dressing well are three different things.

The trend toward greater informality is long-standing and, I think, unstoppable. Where are the stroller suits and wing-tip collars of yesteryear? Currently, suits are worn in only a fraction of the professions that wore them a generation ago.

Amjack is a way to wear a shirt and pants. I think people will continue to wear shirts with pants, even if the stripes narrow or disappear and the tails get tucked in.

Dressing well is possible at any level of formality.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Is dressing well a dying art ?*

I have come to believe that America has become more and more a country of fads. A country where traditions have become less and less important.
Dress is one of those traditions that has become less important in America.
We can include dress with religion , marriage , respect for women , child rearing , music , reading etc., as dying traditions,

As a Black American I have seen all the above disappear from a once conserative and once proud people Black Americans. White Americans are not far behind.
Many young White males dress as poorly as most young Black males.
To dress traditionally is seen as selling out in most Black communities , is this also true among many White Americans today ?
Hip -hop an anti-social music and life-style is imbraced by by both Black and White young American men.

At this point I cannot see any change in a behaviour that embraces the slums and anti-social behaviour as an example of success.
This forum is not an example of the trend in male clothing. Dressing is fast becoming a dying art in America. Sadly.


----------



## satorstyle (Jan 2, 2007)

silverporsche said:


> I have come to believe that America has become more and more a country of fads. A country where traditions have become less and less important.
> Dress is one of those traditions that has become less important in America.
> We can include dress with religion , marriage , respect for women , child rearing , music , reading etc., as dying traditions,
> 
> ...


Well stated! As basic positive ideals have slowly diminished, dressing well is just part of the list.


----------



## Soph (Sep 25, 2005)

rip said:


> I hope, as evidenced by the growth of this forum, that it is a growing, rather than dying, art. Yes, we live in a country that exhilarates in the lowest common denominator, and that tends strongly toward amjack dressing; that aside, I have noticed a resurgence in finely dressed gentlemen.


+100

What's bad in the US is that some people take great PRIDE in their sloth.


----------



## NewYorkBuck (May 6, 2004)

rip said:


> I hope, as evidenced by the growth of this forum, that it is a growing, rather than dying, art. Yes, we live in a country that exhilarates in the lowest common denominator, and that tends strongly toward amjack dressing; that aside, I have noticed a resurgence in finely dressed gentlemen.


The further we get away from the late 60s and 70s, the better people will dress.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I doubt we will ever see where people dress up in suits every day for work again.

In most companies where I live, you almost have to justify your reasons for wearing a tie on a particular day. 

My boss does not mind me dressing up a few days a week, but we only have three men that work here (other than our realtors.) I do not get a lot of "casual" peer pressure. Also, I only own one suit and three sport coats (one is a blazer). After I lose all my weight, I may end up owning more, but I really would have use for only one or two more sport coats. (Two of my sport coats are too heavy for June to August.)


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> I have come to believe that America has become more and more a country of fads. A country where traditions have become less and less important.
> Dress is one of those traditions that has become less important in America.
> We can include dress with religion , marriage , respect for women , child rearing , music , reading etc., as dying traditions,
> 
> ...


Silver, you make some very good points. I don't necessarily think dressing well is perceived as selling out by those other than young people. I believe out society has become more accustomed and allowing of dress standards which are more and more casual. I agree with you that many young people don't look at dressing properly as "cool" or necessary and I blame much of that on what they learned was acceptable growing up.

I think for the older crowd (30+) dressing well isn't something we're graded (for no better word) on anymore. I work as a police detective. I don't know about anyone else, but except for the guys working narcotics and having to look like bums, my image of a police detective has always been a suit and tie. This idea of a more casual dress standard is very previlent in my work also. I'm often given a hard time for over dressing.

We've just become a lazier more casual society and the dress standards reflect this.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

Great comments everyone. 



> I hope, as evidenced by the growth of this forum, that it is a growing, rather than dying, art.


Devil's advocate question: Is that because more people are discovering this great forum or is it because fine dressing is expanding?


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

Trenditional said:


> We've just become a lazier more casual society and the dress standards reflect this.


The detective hit it on the head. Our society is becoming both more casual and lazy.

It's too much of an effort to wear something formal for interaction with the public, clients, customers, vendors, teachers, students, employees, etc. The attitude is "why should I wear a tie and coat? It doesn't affect my performanance. People shouldn't judge me by my clothes."

I call it the "casual cancer."

E.g.,

1. Last Friday, two young and rising architects were profiled in the NY Daily News. They sat for full page portraits in jeans and open shirts. One was unshaven.

2. Sen. Obama usually appears tieless at his rallies. He often is in shirtsleeves. Other political figures go tieless from time to time, such as President Bush, John Edwards, and Al Gore. The only political figure that I can think of who always wears a tie is Mayor Guiliani. (I know a tie wholesaler who has a mini-stroke every time that he sees President Bush without a tie.)

3. Lawyers, those most conservative of professionals, occasionally get photographed sans tie and jacket for the New York Law Journal.

The list goes on and on.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> I have come to believe that America has become more and more a country of fads. A country where traditions have become less and less important.
> Dress is one of those traditions that has become less important in America.
> We can include dress with religion , marriage , respect for women , child rearing , music , reading etc., as dying traditions,
> 
> ...


No, for white Americans selling out does not enter into it. It is just seen as old schoolish and not trendy.

My company will soon be merging with one that is casual. They say they are _dress_ casual but I've seen too many god-awful slobs working there. I still plan on wearing a suit as much as possible and will not put up with any pressure to change. People that know me know better than to try that.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

I've always pared it down to one word: "respect". We just don't respect each other anymore. Hell, half the population doesn't even respect themselves. 

Why dress well when one cares neither for one's appearance nor the experience of others?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> E.g.,
> 
> 1. Last Friday, two young and rising architects were profiled in the NY Daily News. They sat for full page portraits in jeans and open shirts. One was unshaven.
> 
> ...


Great observations Mark as usual. I remember the technology section of our local business chronical carrying profiles of tech startups. Heaven forbid one where a tie to those photo sessions.


----------



## ykurtz (Mar 7, 2007)

*My take...*

Style, like anything else that requires effort to maintain, is subject to entropy. A long time ago, well educated people read Homer in the original Greek. Then they read translations. Then a few people who cared about the classics read him. Now its: oh, I didn't know Bart's father wrote a book?

Beau Brummell stole the fire of style from the gods of fashion to make it more accessible to the masses. Perhaps this has continued in a lesser fashion with the continued democratization of the 'lounge suit' since then, and again with 'business casual.'

It takes effort to appear confidently stylish, and we can argue that many people simply do not wish to expend the necessary effort to do so.

However, it is actually quite nice to be an exception, and not the rule. I think stylish people are the exception, and my question to those people is: why try to make it into a rule?

I think dressing appropriately and stylishly confers numerous tangible and intangible benefits. I don't feel bad when the guy in Dockers and a Tommy Bahama shirt gets passed over by the guy in a stylish suit, who has a more serious mind, works harder, etc. Effort deserves to be rewarded.

And I believe, for the things that really matter, effort is still rewarded today.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

Artisan Fan said:


> I've really noticed that business meetings even at conservative banks are increasingly casual. I break out my suits less and less...is the USA getting to be a sloppy place? Are we losing something by dressing well less?
> 
> It's just becoming a less professional environment in places in my opinion.
> 
> ...


If you're breaking out your suits less and less can you be part of the solution?


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> If you're breaking out your suits less and less can you be part of the solution?


Well I can dress better and do it more often.


----------



## bonkboocat (Nov 23, 2006)

*Breaking out the suits more and more*

In my profession, finance, I do see more suits than I did when the business first became biz casual. At my current employer, biz casual is more dominant than at competitors. I've gradually started to wear more and more suits to the point where I do so everyday. For two reasons. Since my business is one of supplying professional services to a client, I think I should appear as a professional. Also, I started buying suits again on a fateful visit to Saks during some unexpectedly quite Christmas shopping day and a Corneliani on sale beckoned me like a siren. I fell (and it was a GREAT deal). I hadn't bought suits in years and had lost about 40 pounds. The new suits created a commitment to keeping the weight off. So that's the other reason I wear suits. It reminds me of my weight. And because of this forum I've ended up with about 12 suits and need to wear them everyday or they'll never get use. Not to mention the shirts, ties, and shoes.


----------



## Brian13 (Aug 9, 2006)

NewYorkBuck said:


> The further we get away from the late 60s and 70s, the better people will dress.


actually i think the 60s and 70s, although awful fashion, they had a distinct style and intent behind the wears. they dressed a certain way to make a statement, whatever statement that was: peace, war, disco, etc.

today, people are apathetic. complacent. 
clothing is just a means to an end.
is just soemthing they perfunctorily throw on to prevent getting arrested when they walk into the street.
the bare minimum. heck ,at my work , people wear sandals with their jeans. dammit.


----------



## somethingsilly (Feb 26, 2007)

Oh, cheer up, anyone with a basic understanding of Aristotlean logic knows that the crass vulgarity of the present is merely paving the way -- by provoking, in its action, a reaction - for a return - in strength - of its antipodal tendency (that being towards class, culture and elegance), as the antithesis to negate the existent thesis.

Just you pray that the inevitable synthesis doesn't mean this:

horrors


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

bonkboocat said:


> In my profession, finance, I do see more suits than I did when the business first became biz casual. At my current employer, biz casual is more dominant than at competitors. I've gradually started to wear more and more suits to the point where I do so everyday. For two reasons. Since my business is one of supplying professional services to a client, I think I should appear as a professional. Also, I started buying suits again on a fateful visit to Saks during some unexpectedly quite Christmas shopping day and a Corneliani on sale beckoned me like a siren. I fell (and it was a GREAT deal). I hadn't bought suits in years and had lost about 40 pounds. The new suits created a commitment to keeping the weight off. So that's the other reason I wear suits. It reminds me of my weight. And because of this forum I've ended up with about 12 suits and need to wear them everyday or they'll never get use. Not to mention the shirts, ties, and shoes.










Well allllll riiiight!


----------



## jsherman02 (Oct 9, 2006)

I am in sales and I would say that 95% of my clients do not dress up at all. I have recently taken a different approach and have traded in the suits for sportcoats and pants. I still wear ties and now include pocket squares more often.

I seem to "fit in" more now which is good for someone in sales. I used to feel a bit overdressed, and looked better than most of my client's CEO!

It is sad, but I have friends who make seven figures and own maybe two suits. 

My problem is casusal attire for the weekend! Everyone seems to wear jeans and t shirts! :aportnoy:


----------



## Cravate Noire (Feb 21, 2007)

Artisan Fan said:


> Great comments everyone.
> 
> Devil's advocate question: Is that because more people are discovering this great forum or is it because fine dressing is expanding?


With me it was the first!
Actually there doesn't exist a German-speaking forum like AAAC and I think it won't come into existence for the next few decades...I think I mentioned the sartorial poorness from that we suffer a few times, I hope the USA won't develop that way!


----------



## Maxten (Jan 25, 2006)

DougNZ said:


> I've always pared it down to one word: "respect". We just don't respect each other anymore. Hell, half the population doesn't even respect themselves.
> 
> Why dress well when one cares neither for one's appearance nor the experience of others?


Well said.


----------



## cpac (Mar 25, 2005)

Come now. This really sounds like a bunch of cranky old men talking about the good old days, when everybody dressed for dinner and walked to school uphill both ways...

Several points:

(1) putting aside our own proclivities, is a society that incorporates strong biases based on dress, really desirable?

(2) does anybody really think that the change in modern dress in the last, say, 60 years, is attributable to anything other than pure economics? (boomers with unprecedented buying power rebelling against conformist 50s, mass produced clothing allowing for more comoditization of clothing and larger advertising budgets, etc.)

(3) Even if economics dont tell the whole story, I'd suggest that "democracy" is just as likely a culprit (or perhaps just another name for) the loss of "respect" complained of above.

(4) How about blaming media? Our shift towards more visual media (color print, movies, television, the web) wherein many of the subtleties of dress are non-apparent, and where, in any case, much more may be communicated by one's dress than at any time in the past

So now to answer the original posters questions:



> Is the U.S. getting to be a sloppy place?


Sloppy is an ill defined term, but if you mean do we dress less formally than we used to, I think the general answer is yes. If sloppy means without regard to how we look, well then, I think the answer is no: I think a great deal of thought gets put into many people's appearance. The hip-hop youth mentioned above, I guarantee, know a great deal, and spend quite a bit of time, analyzing and choosing their clothing (which sneakers with which color of which team's cap, in what size, with what sticker on it, worn at what angle and in what direction?). We may not like the result - but that's just a matter of taste.


> Are we losing something by dressing less well?


Probably, but are we gaining something else?


> Am I wrong about this?


No, I think we can all agree that the trend over the last 60 years or so has been to dress less formally.


> What should we do about it?


That depends on what you wish to accomplish.


> Can we lead by example?


You can set an example. Whether it ends up leading anyone is largely beyond your control, to say nothing of the normative question of whether your example *should* be followed.


----------



## angle_slam (Jan 18, 2007)

Sophistication said:


> +100
> 
> What's bad in the US is that some people take great PRIDE in their sloth.


One of the philisophies of Google is "You can be serious without a suit" (https://www.salientmarketing.com/seo-resources/search-engine-review/google/lighthearted.html). That type of sentiment is prevalent in the technical community. And it leads to the converse notion: to quote a co-worker of mine: "I feel like an idiot when I wear a suit." In other words, a suit is conforming to the norm and, therefore, they feel wrong when they feel a suit.

I don't feel as strongly as some do on this board--I do think you can look good when not in a suit. But I do believe that most men look better in a suit. Basically, the uniformity of the suit makes a guy who usually looks like a slob look much better because he has so few things he can mess up (if he wears a conservative shirt and tie, the only thing he can really mess up are the shoes).


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

I think we have become pretty sloppy and casual in our dress as a nation. But I'm optimistic about the future. More people of influence are starting to care about what they wear. I think we're on the forefront of a style revolution.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> I think we have become pretty sloppy and casual in our dress as a nation. But I'm optimistic about the future. More people of influence are starting to care about what they wear. I think we're on the forefront of a style revolution.


I guess no one cares about being "dressed up" anymore.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Is dressing well a dying art ?*

Yes " The good ole days" Women respected themselves and so did men , we even open doors for them , remember . We heard the word "sir , and thank you " when sufficient other did not exist , people got married. 
Dressing up did mean something when one went out or dressing up to attend church , Buying one's first suit , and feeling proud of one's appearance.
But as Cpac stated that's old fashion.

Hip-hop glorifies the slums , in the Black ghetto young Black American men dress poorly because 70% of Black males were born without a father to teach them how to dress. Before hip-hop Black men took pride in their appearance , remember Duke Ellington and many others. Sadly young White American men are copying that behavior. Where are their fathers ?

I think we all can define "sloppy" . Being well dressed is not formal dress but neatly dressed.
There is a standard of dress as there is a standard of behavior.
As a nation we appear to have forgotten both.

I have learned a great deal about dress while a member of Andy's Forum from those cranky old men and wish more young men would join especially young Black Amercian men and maybe just maybe they could also learn more about dress.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> I guess no one cares about being "dressed up" anymore.


It hasn't hit the mass market yet, but it's slowly trickling down from sites like this and high-end retailers.


----------



## acidicboy (Feb 17, 2006)

StevenRocks said:


> I think we have become pretty sloppy and casual in our dress as a nation. But I'm optimistic about the future. More people of influence are starting to care about what they wear. I think we're on the forefront of a style revolution.


The thing is, that "sloppy and casual" look is a deliberate fashion statement. Its one thing if people dress sloppily because of circumstances beyond the superficial- like having low income, or having no better choices. But most people who wear "sloppy and casual" actually spend good money to look "sloppy and casual." Flipflops at $20, torn and frayed jeans at $200, "distressed" shirts at $40.... That is one fad that I hope will have a limited lifespan.


----------



## ykurtz (Mar 7, 2007)

*No one has responded to my implicit challenge*

Forum members have persisted in decrying the outcast state of stylish habiliment, but have not addressed my question: WHY be stylish? Clearly, stylishness is a minority position, and the discussion I am reading sounds a lot like the political turmoil surrounding a 'minority' position. Yes, people are not dressing up as much as they did in the past. Yes, many members of this forum decry that fact.

But WHY?

I would like to hear why it is so important for the masses as a whole to embrace the notion of 'stylishness' (even if that were a metaphysical possibility, which I highly doubt).

It is clear that people need to be a) educated in stylishness, b) care about appearing stylish, and c) be willing to defend their stylishness in the real world if it happens to be questioned, etc.

These issues have not been addressed in this thread.

I would very much like to hear (actually, read) a clear statement of the credo, and why it's worth fighting for. Even though I myself happen to be stylish (I believe so) and know why I am, I'm interested in hearing what this forum and its members have to say about it.

My hope is that the statement is clearer and has more 'bite' than the reasons I hear when I discuss stylishness with my counterparts and their strongly felt virtues and comforts of 'business casual.'

Certain political movements have no traction and almost no consequence in elections because they simply do not affect or sway the mind of actual voters. So I guess I'm asking: if 'stylishness' is something you'd argue on your platform, what 'reasons' would you put forth to convince the multitude?

Disclosure: I am a firm proponent of stylishness and dressing appropriately for the situation, as well as educating myself in learning the various nuances of such. However, not everyone is in my 'party', so I'd like to hear something cogent that is above and beyond 'preaching to the choir'.

I haven't read anything that has succeeded in that regard so far. The arguments need to be compelling, and not simply condescending or ad hominem or subject to other obvious logical fallacies.

I'm very curious. I've tried my best with people I know and the argument appears to dissolve into pure subjectivity. So if there is a compelling stance that I'm missing, I certainly would like to hear it.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

To me, its got nothing to be with a need to be 'stylish'; it's quite simply dressing in a considered and respectful manner.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> It hasn't hit the mass market yet, but it's slowly trickling down from sites like this and high-end retailers.


But who can we blame for people be dressed up so sloppy?


----------



## prof (Dec 2, 2004)

*the slide toward the slouch*



silverporsche said:


> I have come to believe that America has become more and more a country of fads. A country where traditions have become less and less important.
> Dress is one of those traditions that has become less important in America.
> We can include dress with religion , marriage , respect for women , child rearing , music , reading etc., as dying traditions,
> 
> ...


EXtremely well-said. I've come to believe that dressing well is in fact a dying art. This is, sadly, part of a broader trend toward greater informality. Consider that not only do candidates for President of the United States appear tieless, but Presidents and Vice-Presidents now refer to themselves by nicknames ("Bill" Clinton, "Al" Clinton). Thirty years ago that would have been unthinkable. The law of impermanence rules, of course, but not all change is for the better. For my part, I'm a bit of a contrarian. The more casual dress becomes, the more formal my dress becomes. That's one reason why I took to wearing bow ties on occasion. Besides, it's fun!


----------



## cpac (Mar 25, 2005)

prof said:


> but Presidents and Vice-Presidents now refer to themselves by nicknames ("Bill" Clinton, "Al" Clinton). Thirty years ago that would have been unthinkable.


Again - this is a case of nostalgia trumping reality. "I like Ike!" "Abe Lincoln"


----------



## cpac (Mar 25, 2005)

silverporsche said:


> Yes " The good ole days" Women respected themselves and so did men , we even open doors for them , remember . We heard the word "sir , and thank you " when sufficient other did not exist , people got married.
> Dressing up did mean something when one went out or dressing up to attend church , Buying one's first suit , and feeling proud of one's appearance.
> But as Cpac stated that's old fashion.


You're missing the point and conflating your sense of aesthetics with norms. Did women really respect themselves more when they could not vote? Could not enter the workplace? Are subject to double standard regarding promiscuity? Did men respect them more when they thought that all women should give up their careers when they got married?



> Hip-hop glorifies the slums , in the Black ghetto young Black American men dress poorly because 70% of Black males were born without a father to teach them how to dress.


Really? You think that's the reason people dress the way they do? How about marketing? How about hip hop and sports being two important ways out of the ghetto? As I pointed out before, the average hip-hop-style-sporting youth is very aware of exactly how he looks. He's concious of the sneakers he wears, the brands of jeans and shirts, the sizing etc. What he wears is neither accident nor the result of not having anybody to learn from. As a forum, we generally abhor these choices preferring our own aesthetics to those of hip-hop, but arguing that one is better than the other from inside one aesthetic sense is like arguing another religion is wrong because yours is right: it's pointless, and an argument that can't be won. (We have our own mini versions of this all the time in the trad vs. non-trad aethetic senses)



> Before hip-hop Black men took pride in their appearance , remember Duke Ellington and many others.


Guess what - a lot of those hip hop youths DO take a LOT of pride in their appearance. You perhaps think they should not, but regardless, they do.



> I think we all can define "sloppy" . Being well dressed is not formal dress but neatly dressed.


Again, why should "neat" be equated with good? We all enjoy bits of sprezaturra [sp?] when a pocket square is stuffed non-neatly into a blazer, or (in the trad sense) when a OCBD is frayed at the cuffs and collar. There's always discussion of a look not being good because it "smacks of effort" - the dimple is too perfect, the pocket square too straight, etc.



> There is a standard of dress as there is a standard of behavior.
> As a nation we appear to have forgotten both.


Where, pray tell, are these "standards?" They cannot exist independent of society, and society is always changing. You may lament the switch from agrarian to urban, or from the exclusive manners of the aristocracy to the more common manners that come with democracy. Should we go back to a caste system?



> I have learned a great deal about dress while a member of Andy's Forum from those cranky old men and wish more young men would join especially young Black Amercian men and maybe just maybe they could also learn more about dress.


I too have learned much from cranky old men, and love that this sort of resource exists for those who wish to learn about our collective aesthetic. BUT I am not about to become a postheletizing missionary out to seek converts to our way of dressing.

A challenge to those who disagree:

(1) What is *inherently* better about dressing in our preferred aethetic. (Answers that "it looks better" and the like that posit the aesthetic as an assumption are invalid)

(2) Why should we, comfortable with our own aethetic, and getting along just fine, be out there evangelizing the rest?


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

A few months back, I was speaking to a couple of young fellows who teach at Cal, Berkeley. They are in their mid-thirties ... well educated and intelligent ... on their way to accomplished careers in academia ... _and_ ... both seem to be addicted to jeans and t-shirts. To "dress-up" ... I have seen them sport a pair of khaki trousers and a collared but casual shirt.

On this particular day, I was wearing my usual attire when in town ... a tweed coat and odd trousers ... tattersall shirt & tie ... split-toe bluchers and a pair of wool argyle socks. As we talked ... one of them offhandedly referred to what I was wearing as "your little outfit." Both chuckled ... as if my clothing marked me as less than they ... as if they are beyond the need to dress. I let it fall by the way ... for the time being.

Several weeks later ... I ran into one of the fellows again. After a bit of conversation, he rather boldly asked if I would consider inviting him to dinner when again a particular art historian is on the guest list. I agreed ... waited a few seconds then added ... "By the way, we dress for dinner." He retorted, "You might, but I won't." I responded, "It's not an option. But I'm happy to invite you."

Next he pushed the limits, "So what are you going to do when I show up at the door like this?" I responded, "You've asked for this invitation. Either dress or send your regrets."


----------



## darin_arrick (Mar 6, 2007)

RSS said:


> Several weeks later ... I ran into one of the fellows again. After a bit of conversation, he rather boldly asked if I would consider inviting him to dinner when again a particular art historian is on the guest list. I agreed ... waited a few seconds then added ... "By the way, we dress for dinner." *He retorted, "You might, but I won't."* I responded, "It's not an option. But I'm happy to invite you."
> 
> Next he pushed the limits, "So what are you going to do when I show up at the door like this?" I responded, "You've asked for this invitation. Either dress or send your regrets."


:icon_hailthee:

You are a true gentleman. Unfortunately, your colleague doesn't seem to be one. If someone said to me what I bolded above, I would immediately rescind the invitation; he can eat at home while I dine with an art historian.

Not only does he not have style, he doesn't have respect. And, in many peoples' eyes, they are the same thing.


----------



## son of brummell (Sep 29, 2004)

RSS said:


> A few months back, I was speaking to a couple of young fellows who teach at Cal, Berkeley. They are in their mid-thirties ... well educated and intelligent ... on their way to accomplished careers in academia ... _and_ ... both seem to be addicted to jeans and t-shirts. To "dress-up" ... I have seen them sport a pair of khaki trousers and a collared but casual shirt.
> 
> On this particular day, I was wearing my usual attire when in town ... a tweed coat and odd trousers ... tattersall shirt & tie ... split-toe bluchers and a pair of wool argyle socks. As we talked ... one of them offhandedly referred to what I was wearing as "your little outfit." Both chucked ... as if my clothing marked me as less than they ... as if they are beyond the need to dress. I let it fall by the way ... for the time being.
> 
> ...


Bravo!


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Next he pushed the limits, "So what are you going to do when I show up at the door like this?" I responded, "You've asked for this invitation. Either dress or send your regrets."


Well done.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

Well said, RSS; your academic is something of a boor, IMO.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

RSS said:


> On this particular day, I was wearing my usual attire when in town ... a tweed coat and odd trousers ... tattersall shirt & tie ... split-toe bluchers and a pair of wool argyle socks. As we talked ... one of them offhandedly referred to what I was wearing as "your little outfit."


RSS,

For that academic, it probably would be precisely a "little outfit" if he owned it. Why, he probably would have bought it all to go together and match. It would be his "dress-up-for-tenure-review" outfit. None of the pieces would ever be worn with anything else. It would be a costume.

For you, it was the stuff you put together that day. On any other given day, you might of worn any of its components with any of the other things in your wardrobe. It's not a set piece. Your academic simply can't understand or even conceive of that. Pity for an educated man.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> RSS,
> Pity for an educated man.


I've met too many idiot PhDs in my time to equate an advanced degree with being "educated" in any meaningful way.
Congratulations on 1000 posts AQG.


----------



## Chase Hamilton (Jan 15, 2007)

yachtie said:


> I've met too many idiot PhDs in my time to equate an advanced degree with being "educated" in any meaningful way.


Amen to that! I used to work with PhDs. It never ceased to amaze me how some people with that level of education knew so little about "real world" situations.

Kind Regards,

Chase


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I've met too many idiot PhDs in my time to equate an advanced degree with being "educated" in any meaningful way.


My observation and experience as well.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Chase Hamilton said:


> Amen to that! I used to work with PhDs. It never ceased to amaze me how some people with that level of education knew so little about "real world" situations.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Chase


You seem to be describing most of my in-laws, who seem to be just "dabbling" in life. As I tell my wife:

"Never have so many done so little with so much education".

It's great to be an intellectual. It's even better to be smart.


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

KenR said:


> It's great to be an intellectual. Its even better to be smart.


That, sir, is a quotable line.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

angle_slam said:


> One of the philisophies of Google is "You can be serious without a suit" (https://www.salientmarketing.com/seo-resources/search-engine-review/google/lighthearted.html). That type of sentiment is prevalent in the technical community. And it leads to the converse notion: to quote a co-worker of mine: "I feel like an idiot when I wear a suit." In other words, a suit is conforming to the norm and, therefore, they feel wrong when they feel a suit.
> 
> I don't feel as strongly as some do on this board--I do think you can look good when not in a suit. But I do believe that most men look better in a suit. Basically, the uniformity of the suit makes a guy who usually looks like a slob look much better because he has so few things he can mess up (if he wears a conservative shirt and tie, the only thing he can really mess up are the shoes).


Google is just another, albeit successful, dot.com with the same "we're too cool to dress up" ethos.

For your co-worker who feels like an idiot when he wears a suit: Tell him not to and remove all doubt that he is.

Obviously I do feel strongly about wearing a suit. And yes, one can certainly look good even if not in a suit. But as far as I'm concerned a suit is the most appropriate outfit for business, period. _God, I'm soooo old school_. 

Cheers,

Ken


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

acidicboy said:


> The thing is, that "sloppy and casual" look is a deliberate fashion statement. Its one thing if people dress sloppily because of circumstances beyond the superficial- like having low income, or having no better choices. But most people who wear "sloppy and casual" actually spend good money to look "sloppy and casual." Flipflops at $20, torn and frayed jeans at $200, "distressed" shirts at $40.... That is one fad that I hope will have a limited lifespan.


 It's just as you said, a fad. One thing that will end the trend is a sameness of merchandise. If you go to the mall now, Abercrombie, J. Crew, American Eagle, Aeropostale, Buckle, and all the other major players in slob chic have become interchangable. They're selling to kids and kids get bored easy.

Without a doubt, it's time for some new styles.

The high-end stores are showing tailored looks and that's slowly moving down the pike to the mass market.



Howard said:


> But who can we blame for people be dressed up so sloppy?


That started at the high end. A lot of designers were showing grubby, distressed looks on the runways a few years ago, then celebrities started dressing that way, and it landed on the floors of Anytown Mall _en masse_ just a couple of years ago.


----------



## angle_slam (Jan 18, 2007)

KenR said:


> Google is just another, albeit successful, dot.com with the same "we're too cool to dress up" ethos.


I picked Google, because they actually have that as a motto. But companies like Apple and Microsoft were dressing down 30 years ago.


----------



## angle_slam (Jan 18, 2007)

prof said:


> This is, sadly, part of a broader trend toward greater informality. Consider that not only do candidates for President of the United States appear tieless, but Presidents and Vice-Presidents now refer to themselves by nicknames ("Bill" Clinton, "Al" Clinton). Thirty years ago that would have been unthinkable.


Thirty years ago, our President was named "Jimmy". The President before him was commonly referred to as "Gerry". President Kennedy was often called "Jack".


----------



## RSS (Dec 30, 2003)

yachtie said:


> Congratulations on 1000 posts AQG.


Yes indeed ... AQG ... you are now an official "Super Member!" Welcome to the club!

And thanks to all for the kind words. With your support ... I shall NOT back down on this one.


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

RSS said:


> Yes indeed ... AQG ... you are now an official "Super Member!" Welcome to the club!
> 
> And thanks to all for the kind words. With your support ... I shall NOT back down on this one.


Thanks RSS and Yachtie! So, now that I'm a super member, whom would the two of you recommend for my bespoke cape and leotards? Do I get suit x-ray vision that allows me to see full canvass construction? It's kind of like that show, _Heroes_!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

I think cpac has a lot of it correct. If suits bore you to death your not going to wear suits.

Some people never could afford high end clothes- are they sloven?

Some families sit at the glass dinning room table naked, while others enter the room with top hat, tails and white tie. One boy I went to school with I heard they always wore a tux for supper. A guy I worked for, at least wore a suit, when he was a child and adult when eating in his fathers house.

The hippies didn't like the over ridgedness of life, at that time, and left it. In some ways we are way better off, and in other ways we are paying for it.


----------



## protagonist (Apr 4, 2007)

Hi all, I've been lurking for years...anyway, I am a software engineer at Yahoo and I really feel that I can't get away with wearing a suit to work. When I started my manager asked for a picture for an internal website, I gave him one where I was wearing my bespoke navy suit (which I love). The derision I got for that photo was very off-putting.

The only people that dress well are people in sales and at the exec level. I think its ironic because the old reason for not wearing a suit in tech was to prove you weren't like everyone else. Anyway, I currently wear jeans, a sport shirt (still deciding on tucked vs not) and loafers to work. I wish there was a way to upgrade without causing issues, I was thinking of moving to wool (pleated) or chinos (plain front) and sweaters with dress shirts, it is the same level of dressiness as the horrid polo shirt with pleated dockers and sneakers that people find acceptable here. 

My wife loves it when I wear a tie and a sport coat with a sweater, my favorite casual look, but I can't see that working at the office. Althought my wife suggests this answer when people ask why I wear a tie: "style".


----------



## ykurtz (Mar 7, 2007)

protagonist said:


> Hi all, I've been lurking for years...anyway, I am a software engineer at Yahoo and I really feel that I can't get away with wearing a suit to work. When I started my manager asked for a picture for an internal website, I gave him one where I was wearing my bespoke navy suit (which I love). The derision I got for that photo was very off-putting.
> 
> The only people that dress well are people in sales and at the exec level. I think its ironic because the old reason for not wearing a suit in tech was to prove you weren't like everyone else. Anyway, I currently wear jeans, a sport shirt (still deciding on tucked vs not) and loafers to work. I wish there was a way to upgrade without causing issues, I was thinking of moving to wool (pleated) or chinos (plain front) and sweaters with dress shirts, it is the same level of dressiness as the horrid polo shirt with pleated dockers and sneakers that people find acceptable here.
> 
> My wife loves it when I wear a tie and a sport coat with a sweater, my favorite casual look, but I can't see that working at the office. Althought my wife suggests this answer when people ask why I wear a tie: "style".


A yahoo is a 'boorish, crass or stupid person'. Perhaps Yahoo has decided to live up to its moniker. It sounds like it is trying very hard to do so.

I worked in Silicon Valley for 3 years and the pressure to 'dress down' was palpable. I believe that since I was asian, it was easier for me to skirt certain rules because I was never given the crap certain people were for their attire. Also, I held a Director level position at the time, and even though the other Directors and even VPs didn't wear a suit to work, I was considered the 'dandy' of the group. I thought that was funny since I was in technology and I assumed that someone in sales or marketing would have that distinction.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Welcome, protagonist; nice to have you aboard.

Tuck the shirt in unless worn with shorts. :icon_smile:


----------



## prof (Dec 2, 2004)

cpac said:


> Again - this is a case of nostalgia trumping reality. "I like Ike!" "Abe Lincoln"


Au contraire, my friend. It's simply a matter of decorum, or what's appropriate for the position. That, I do not think, is a matter of "nostalgia."


----------



## cpac (Mar 25, 2005)

prof said:


> Au contraire, my friend. It's simply a matter of decorum, or what's appropriate for the position. That, I do not think, is a matter of "nostalgia."


I was referring to your statement that "Thirty years ago [a president referring to himself by a nickname] would have been unthinkable." That's a case of your nostalgia for the past not correlating to how it actually was back then. Thirty years ago, "Jimmy" Carter was president, and he was not the first to refer to himself by a nickname.

You're free to think it was as inappropriate then as you think it is now, but that doesn't excuse just getting the history wrong.


----------



## IP Guy (May 15, 2006)

silverporsche said:


> I think we all can define "sloppy" . Being well dressed is not formal dress but neatly dressed.
> There is a standard of dress as there is a standard of behavior.
> As a nation we appear to have forgotten both.


You made a great point. Well dressed is not formal dress. I am around many people that weat suits daily. I am always amazed out how one can look sloppy in a suit. tough for the people on this board, but I can't tell you how many suit coats I see that hang down to one's knuckles!


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> It's just as you said, a fad. One thing that will end the trend is a sameness of merchandise. If you go to the mall now, Abercrombie, J. Crew, American Eagle, Aeropostale, Buckle, and all the other major players in slob chic have become interchangable. They're selling to kids and kids get bored easy.
> 
> Without a doubt, it's time for some new styles.
> 
> ...


I guess Steven that people should dress the way they feel,what they feel that is comfortable to them.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

angle_slam said:


> Thirty years ago, our President was named "Jimmy". The President before him was commonly referred to as "Gerry". President Kennedy was often called "Jack".


Let's not forget "Dick" Nixon, "Ike" Eisenhower, "Silent Cal" Coolidge, "Big Bill" Taft, "Teddy" Roosevelt (which nickname TR loathed), "Abe" Lincoln and "Andy" Jackson, just to name a few others.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> I guess Steven that people should dress the way they feel,what they feel that is comfortable to them.


Well, yes and no. Obviously comfort has something to do with how people dress, and it serves as a crutch for people not to follow the rules of clothing appropriateness, but a lot of it is fashion and what their peers are wearing and some of it comes with education and exposure.

Here's what I mean. You see people with t-shirts and no jackets wearing flip-flops in winter. Even with a high metabolism, that's gotta be uncomfortable. But they see it on the models in the stores (and on their friends that don't know any better) and they try to emulate the look. The same could be said of french-blue shirts, black pleated pants and Kenneth Cole clodhoppers. Assoication breeds adaptation.

Okay, take a person that hangs out here. By association, we're pulling out the OCBDs, Alden shell cordovans, and Bill's Khakis. in most of our cases, we're trying to achieve a timeless look, but it's all peer-influenced fashion, with little to nothing to do with comfort.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> Well, yes and no. Obviously comfort has something to do with how people dress, and it serves as a crutch for people not to follow the rules of clothing appropriateness, but a lot of it is fashion and what their peers are wearing and some of it comes with education and exposure.
> 
> Here's what I mean. You see people with t-shirts and no jackets wearing flip-flops in winter. Even with a high metabolism, that's gotta be uncomfortable. But they see it on the models in the stores (and on their friends that don't know any better) and they try to emulate the look. The same could be said of french-blue shirts, black pleated pants and Kenneth Cole clodhoppers. Assoication breeds adaptation.
> 
> Okay, take a person that hangs out here. By association, we're pulling out the OCBDs, Alden shell cordovans, and Bill's Khakis. in most of our cases, we're trying to achieve a timeless look, but it's all peer-influenced fashion, with little to nothing to do with comfort.


That's why some people have hardly any common sense in the way they dress.Maybe that's why when you're walking down the street and one person dresses sloppy and you're dressed preppy.I get strange looks once in a while.


----------



## Murrah (Mar 28, 2005)

"Several weeks later ... I ran into one of the fellows again. After a bit of conversation, he rather boldly asked if I would consider inviting him to dinner when again a particular art historian is on the guest list. I agreed ... waited a few seconds then added ... "By the way, we dress for dinner." He retorted, "You might, but I won't." I responded, "It's not an option. But I'm happy to invite you." 

Next he pushed the limits, "So what are you going to do when I show up at the door like this?" I responded, "You've asked for this invitation. Either dress or send your regrets."

Loose the dogs on the cad or have the staff deal with him.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

cpac said:


> (1) putting aside our own proclivities, is a society that incorporates strong biases based on dress, really desirable?


Yes, depending on the nature of those biases.



> (2) does anybody really think that the change in modern dress in the last, say, 60 years, is attributable to anything other than pure economics? (boomers with unprecedented buying power rebelling against conformist 50s, mass produced clothing allowing for more comoditization of clothing and larger advertising budgets, etc.)


Yes, I do. This is not to say that economics doesn't play a part, but other factors play in just as strongly.

Technology--prior to WWII almost no one had reliable central heating. Today it's all but ubiquitous. Air conditioning didn't really get common until when, the early 70s? It wasn't until the late 80s that cars really became well climate controlled.

In the winter of 1935 you got up in a cold house, walked/drove/rode the trolley to work in whatever the climate was, worked in a cold building and then back home. Sure at times the room you were in was warm, relatively speaking, but it was just as likely to be overly hot.

Today? We (mostly) wake up in houses close to the temperature we want, get into our cars in our garages, or are driving vehicles that heat up within a half a minute, walk into a hermetically sealed office building etc.

Also the technology of textiles, clothing (and shoe) construction and distribution have changed. In 1890 it cost almost as much to be poorly dressed as well dressed (say no more than 2x the cost of being poorly dressed to be *very* well dressed). Today that difference is more like 10x. I can buy a 20 dollar pair of shoes at Payless, a 15 dollar shirt and 30 dollar pair of trousers on sale at Macy's, add a pair of black socks and bob's yer uncle. Of course, most of it is polyester, it doesn't fit well, nor does it flatter my figure, but I'm wearing a collared shirt, trousers and shoes. This is already 50% past most of the Jamokes in SillyCon Valley. This is possible because we can grow, harvest, ship, weave, produce etc. far more efficiently than at any time in the past.

Or I can buy a pair of Aldens ($400), a tailored shirt from Individualized (say $120), a pair of MTM Trousers from Manuel's down in San Jose ($200). Now I look a *little* better to the average person (a lot to someone here), and the clothes are more comfortable, but I've spent almost 10 times as much. And the stuff lasts about twice, maybe three times (average) as long.

And once I've stopped buying properly fitting clothes, clothes that are more expensive to maintain (ironing/drycleaning), then it doesn't make much sense to wear trousers and a collared shirt if I don't have to.

I also think there is a misunderstanding about how well people dressed in the past.



> (3) Even if economics dont tell the whole story, I'd suggest that "democracy" is just as likely a culprit (or perhaps just another name for) the loss of "respect" complained of above.


I think the word you're looking for is "egalitarianism", and is as likely a contributor as any other.



> (4) How about blaming media? Our shift towards more visual media (color print, movies, television, the web) wherein many of the subtleties of dress are non-apparent, and where, in any case, much more may be communicated by one's dress than at any time in the past


Not in this way--I think mass media culture changed after the public at large. Yes, it probably pushed things along (death-spiral), but I don't think it entirely was the instigator.

It is inarguable that during the Cold War the eastern block propaganda machine worked to weaken our culture--heck, we did the same thing in a different way. I've seen references to the Soviets paying (through cutouts) people in this country to push non-objective art with the idea of "uglyfying" the public square.

I think a big cause of "dressing down" is the rise of the anti-hero in popular culture, the villian as protaginist. James dean in a t-shirt and jeans. etc., Couple this with Vatican II style reforms in most organized religions and you have a culture coming un-moored. Everything suffers.

And I say this as someone who still prefers "punk" rock to classical.



> Sloppy is an ill defined term, but if you mean do we dress less formally than we used to, I think the general answer is yes.


Depends on what you mean by "we".


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> That's why some people have hardly any common sense in the way they dress.Maybe that's why when you're walking down the street and one person dresses sloppy and you're dressed preppy.I get strange looks once in a while.


It's a lot better to be overdressed than underdressed, I think. Maintaining some standards and not just running with whatever trend is going will make you look better and feel better, even if people around you don't understand.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> It's a lot better to be overdressed than underdressed, I think. Maintaining some standards and not just running with whatever trend is going will make you look better and feel better, even if people around you don't understand.


So who cares how you're dressed,It's how you feel about yourself and not to care what others think around you.


----------



## StevenRocks (May 24, 2005)

Howard said:


> So who cares how you're dressed,It's how you feel about yourself and not to care what others think around you.


Overall, you're right as far as personal happiness goes. But we live in a subjective world. Looks matter. Clothes matter.


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

Howard said:


> So who cares how you're dressed,It's how you feel about yourself and not to care what others think around you.


This is an underlying theme supporting the abundance of slobwear. What you are saying, Howard, is that it is all about me, me, ME. This is not a personal attack but an observance that your sentiments are those embraced by the multitude.

My alternative view is that clothing serves two purposes: to clothe and express. Keeping warm is a survival instinct and as such clothing, like housing, plays a very important role. However, the survival of most of us is not threatened by a lack of clothing, so it therefore stands that we wear clothes mainly to express ourselves in one manner or other. It's true that some express themselves purely for expression sake, but largely we express outselves as part of a communication process. For communication to be complete, we need to send a message, have it received and gather feedback in return. Now, suddenly, wearing clothes becomes an us, us, US experience as the 'me' combines with the 'you' component.

My view is that if wearing clothes is mainly about a relationship between the wearer and the observer, then the wearer has a moral responsibility in a polite society to consider the impact of dress on others. Not caring about what others think of one's dress shows a lack of consideration and a lack of respect for others. Pared down to a single word, as I said in an earlier post, it is all about 'respect' and I don't believe it abounds in modern society.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

StevenRocks said:


> Overall, you're right as far as personal happiness goes. But we live in a subjective world. Looks matter. Clothes matter.


Sometimes people will judge us by the clothes we wear,You have a point there Steven.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Is dressing well dying art ?*

There was a quote in the book Elegance , written by G.Boyce Boyer , fashion editor of Town & Country . "Clothes talk , in fact they never shut up, and it makes sense to have them say what you want them to." , "The wise dresser is he who appreciates the maxim that it is very experience to buy cheap".

"Good taste I am convined , can be acquired through environment and education" Quote from Stanley Marcus former chairman of Neiman Marcus.
The issue as I see it is good taste in dressing , is it a dying art?, I would say in many cases yes ! Especially with most young Americans. 
Sadly among American Blacks due to hip-hop there is little hope.

There is also elegance which is also dying , Elegance again described by Mr. Marcus 
in his book "Quest for the best " was quoted as sayng "Elegence to me , is a summary denoting the ultimate in beauty , craftsmanship , and quality "
To most Americans today funeral services for elegence has been held , and most Americans were not aware of the long illiness that had preceded its death.

As earlier stated by Howard " So who cares how you're dressed " . How one is dressed tells a great deal as to how one is treated by others. While shopping in Neiman Marcus in St.Louis , there was two young Black men dressed in hip-hop fashion , how do you think they were treated and were they watched ?
Do you think they would have been treated any different if they were dressed in more conservative clothing? YES ! So who cares how one is dressed ?
Is dressing well a dying art ? again yes to most Americans.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

silverporsche said:


> Sadly among American Blacks due to hip-hop there is little hope.
> How one is dressed tells a great deal as to how one is treated by others. While shopping in Neiman Marcus in St.Louis , there was two young Black men dressed in hip-hop fashion , how do you think they were treated and were they watched ?


For once, Silverporsche, I'm not going to edit you because it is a total waste of time. Instead I am going to let your incurable racism hang out for all to see.
_*
NOTE: There is a reversal of this post farther down the page. *_


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

Mr. Kabbaz,
I am a Black American , I made note of the horrible dress that is so prevalent with young Black men. I will not use race again , as I will abide by the rules of your excellent forum. I will ignore your editorital as regards to me personally.
I Would add that your definition of racism and mine or very different.
Racism " The notion that one's own ethnic stock is superior " The American Heritage Dictionary.
My reply did not indicate that Black men were in any way inferior to any one.
My problems is with the hip-hop culture which is shared by many middle-class 
Black Americans. 

To be politically correct is to ignore this problem when discussing dress.
I will again respect your rules , you have an excellent forum regarding dress.
I have learned a great deal about dress while reading your forum.
It was not my intention to engage in racist remarks.
I apologize.
Silverporsche


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Fine. I stand corrected with apologies. 

It would be less controversial had you said something such as, "As a Black American I feel that hip-hop has ruined the hope of Black Americans."

Again, apologies.


----------



## kaiiwa (Oct 15, 2006)

Hmmmm...depends we are required to wear suits(with tie) if we have a meeting with our clients. 95% of my clients are Japanese Corps. and I always wear a suit to our meetings. I am in finance but our marketing and tech group rarely suits up.

While in Japan, you are expected to wear a suit to meetings even in late summer when the temps. and humidity are in the 90's.  

Taste or style is another subject all together.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

I always wear a suit, stiff collar and tie to all meetings. I was told never dress better than the art director but one doesn't have to go too far for that.

It turns out that I've influenced several people into dressing more with an "eye" for what they are doing.


----------



## Hans B (Mar 25, 2007)

What are appropriate responses when your co-workers ask you "Why are you so dressed up today?" I've had people wonder if I had an interview, if I was going to a wedding, a funeral, etc. Just ridiculous.

I'd like a good response without having to defend my attire. In the past, I've merely said "I'm actually not "dressed up" as you say". Any thoughts on other good responses?

regards,
Hans


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

Hans B said:


> What are appropriate responses when your co-workers ask you "Why are you so dressed up today?" I've had people wonder if I had an interview, if I was going to a wedding, a funeral, etc. Just ridiculous.
> 
> I'd like a good response without having to defend my attire. In the past, I've merely said "I'm actually not "dressed up" as you say". Any thoughts on other good responses?
> 
> ...


My reply is, "I was just going to ask why you're dressed as a laborer."


----------



## windsor (Dec 12, 2006)

We had a long thread on this topic. Search for "dressed up'.


----------



## Hans B (Mar 25, 2007)

Mitch - I love that response. Just can't say it to my boss. ;-)

Windsor - thanks so much - I shall.

regards,
Hans


----------



## PJC in NoVa (Jan 23, 2005)

JLibourel said:


> Let's not forget "Dick" Nixon, "Ike" Eisenhower, "Silent Cal" Coolidge, "Big Bill" Taft, "Teddy" Roosevelt (which nickname TR loathed), "Abe" Lincoln and "Andy" Jackson, just to name a few others.


According to biographer Stephen Oates in _With Malice Toward None_ (1977), Lincoln was a man of little or no pretension who nonetheless did NOT like to be called "Abe" (certainly not to his face) and was a bit vexed that when nominated in 1860, he had to explain that his name was "Ab-ra-ham" and not "Abram" Lincoln.

Lincoln was very proud to have risen from being a poor farmboy with less than a year's formal schooling all told to being a successful attorney and community leader, and didn't care for rusticated nicknames like "Honest Abe" or "The Rail-Splitter" (though populism then as now was a potent force in American politics and he was powerless to stop his supporters and promoters from calling him such things).

In this respect--not much caring for a common nickname, I mean--I guess Lincoln resembled TR.


----------



## petro (Apr 5, 2005)

protagonist said:


> Hi all, I've been lurking for years...anyway, I am a software engineer at Yahoo and I really feel that I can't get away with wearing a suit to work. When I started my manager asked for a picture for an internal website, I gave him one where I was wearing my bespoke navy suit (which I love). The derision I got for that photo was very off-putting.


Thanks for the diversity ___holes.



> The only people that dress well are people in sales and at the exec level. I think its ironic because the old reason for not wearing a suit in tech was to prove you weren't like everyone else.


No, the reason for not wearing a Suit in Tech was a function of Power--back in the day good techs were rare, and exercised some of the power that gave them by flouting company rules.



> Anyway, I currently wear jeans, a sport shirt (still deciding on tucked vs not) and loafers to work. I wish there was a way to upgrade without causing issues, I was thinking of moving to wool (pleated) or chinos (plain front) and sweaters with dress shirts, it is the same level of dressiness as the horrid polo shirt with pleated dockers and sneakers that people find acceptable here.


I (currently) do Technical Support for VMware down in PA, and wear a shirt and tie 5 days a week. Occasionally I'll wear cotton trousers, but 19 days out of 20 it's wool.

Yeah, they gave me grief at first, but after 8 or 9 months they realized that the managers weren't going to make that a requirement and stopped hassling me.



> Althought my wife suggests this answer when people ask why I wear a tie: "style".


"What, can't handle the diversity?"


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

silverporsche said:


> There was a quote in the book Elegance , written by G.Boyce Boyer , fashion editor of Town & Country . "Clothes talk , in fact they never shut up, and it makes sense to have them say what you want them to." , "The wise dresser is he who appreciates the maxim that it is very experience to buy cheap".
> 
> "Good taste I am convined , can be acquired through environment and education" Quote from Stanley Marcus former chairman of Neiman Marcus.
> The issue as I see it is good taste in dressing , is it a dying art?, I would say in many cases yes ! Especially with most young Americans.
> ...


I don't think It's dying,Maybe It's just re-inventing itself.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

Hans B said:


> Mitch - I love that response. Just can't say it to my boss. ;-)
> 
> regards,
> Hans


I said it to the boss I had that was jealous of my wardrobe and the attention I was getting from the female staff members. I also mentioned his lack of craftsmanship when applying his Grecian Formula 99 to his gray hair.

Then I quit on him. It was a wonderful day.


----------



## Hans B (Mar 25, 2007)

how about "just some thrift store purchases...hey, can i borrow a dollar"?


----------



## satorstyle (Jan 2, 2007)

Lack luster appearance is a epidemic that is just part of the downfall of respect and dignity of one's self and others. The world has become a very sad state for everyone.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> I said it to the boss I had that was jealous of my wardrobe and the attention I was getting from the female staff members. I also mentioned his lack of craftsmanship when applying his Grecian Formula 99 to his gray hair.
> 
> Then I quit on him. It was a wonderful day.


Classic.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Hans B said:


> how about "just some thrift store purchases...hey, can i borrow a dollar"?


Well If you want to buy things for bargains then I'd say go for it,dress well for less I always say.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

I covered a panel discussion of first responders, law enforcement types and medicos at the local hospital last night. The subject was substance abuse.

Two guys I know well from the rehab where I used to work were there as organizers. Both were wearing suits, and while I could easily dissect their choices and so on they looked like pros. 

As did the plain-clothes officer, the guy from NIDA, the ER chief and the hospital spokesman.

(And me, of course.)

The audience was in casual clothes, for the most part.

When I first my former co-employees a few years ago they couldn't even spell "suit." Now they can't spell "shoe," but it's getting better.

So at least for these two mid-30s men there is a gradual awareness of the effect of clothing.


----------



## protagonist (Apr 4, 2007)

Yesterday a coworker commented on my clothes, he is a guy that wears cargo pants and a company t shirt everyday. He asked me why I don't just wear a t shirt. I replied that I always wear a t shirt, but that I prefer to wear more than just my underwear to work.


----------



## ykurtz (Mar 7, 2007)

protagonist said:


> Yesterday a coworker commented on my clothes, he is a guy that wears cargo pants and a company t shirt everyday. He asked me why I don't just wear a t shirt. I replied that I always wear a t shirt, but that I prefer to wear more than just my underwear to work.


I really enjoy this kind of 'understated' humor. Fits my sense of humor to a "T".


----------



## selfmademob (Jan 23, 2007)

I think one factor is lack of knowledge of how to dress. I am 19 and my whole life I never knew anything about dressing nice. Now I am slowly but surely improving my style of wear.


----------



## silverporsche (Nov 3, 2005)

*Is dressing well a dying art ?*

The problems of dress is no different than the problems of music , art , reading etc,
Dress is learned , it must be taught , many young men are simply not taught by
their fathers how to dress properly. The babyboomers did a poor job of teaching their sons how to dress. The decline in dress can be traced to father indifference. The job of teaching young men how to dress like so many other things has been left to mothers or girl friends.
Many men clothes today is purchased by their wives. In the " old days" one seldom say a women in a mens clothing store or in a mens barber shop , not today. Times have changed.
Can a women really dress a man ?


----------



## KenCPollock (Dec 20, 2003)

petro said:


> I think a big cause of "dressing down" is the rise of the anti-hero in popular culture, the villian as protaginist. James dean in a t-shirt and jeans. etc., QUOTE]
> 
> I agree with this.
> I remember a few of the TV dramas from the late 60s and early 70s, where the writers of these shows (apparently anti-Christian city dwellers from the coasts) always showed their own prejudices in dressing and casting their villains.
> ...


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

silverporsche said:


> The problems of dress is no different than the problems of music , art , reading etc,
> Dress is learned , it must be taught , many young men are simply not taught by
> their fathers how to dress properly. The babyboomers did a poor job of teaching their sons how to dress. The decline in dress can be traced to father indifference. The job of teaching young men how to dress like so many other things has been left to mothers or girl friends.
> Many men clothes today is purchased by their wives. In the " old days" one seldom say a women in a mens clothing store or in a mens barber shop , not today. Times have changed.
> Can a woman really dress a man ?


I don't think a woman really needs to dress the guy,I think the man should dress for himself and not not let anyone else dress him except to give him guidance.


----------



## THORVALD (Jan 30, 2007)

*What a difference a DECADE makes*

Ten+ years ago more people dressed up in a business environment. Today less and less people seem to care.
If you wear a shirt & tie, its whats the occasion? 

THORVALD


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

KenCPollock said:


> petro said:
> 
> 
> > I think a big cause of "dressing down" is the rise of the anti-hero in popular culture, the villian as protaginist. James dean in a t-shirt and jeans. etc., QUOTE]
> ...


----------



## sprinter (Dec 28, 2006)

Hello All,
First post; long time lurker. I don't know if I am posting correctly; if not, please forgive me. I have learned an incredible amount of information from the "collective you" on this forum. It has been wonderful! 

At a risk, I want to initially write on a topic--not relevant to this particular thread-that will, however, serve as a transition to a second topic--relevant to this thread. The first concerns a Hickey-Freeman jacket I picked up a couple of months ago from Nordstrom (Nordstrom's?) Rack. The second concerns Mr. Kabbaz' recent response to Silverporsche's commentary on dress style among black Americans and Silverporsche's apology. 

First, I bought a Hickey-Freeman collection (black label), belt-back, bi-swing 90% wool/10% cashmere blend jacket for $81 a couple of months ago from Nordstrom's Rack. It is medium (Royal?) blue, nailshead, 3 to 2 button, with pleated patch pockets. It has the Hickey stamp below the left inside pocket. The model is "Westchester." Has anyone heard of this model? Might this be some type of custom made initiative that went awry? How much might this cost, typically? It is a great jacket, and I am considering a future MTM jacket in that style.

Second, I do not think that Silverporsche owes Mr. Kabbaz, or anyone, an apology for his views. As an African-American, I understand--to a degree--Mr. Kabbaz' fatigue concerning Silverporsche's commentary. I, further, understand Mr. Kabbaz' view that Silverporsche's commentary is racist; I have heard similar views from others in a number of contexts.

Mr Kabbaz, I believe Silverporsche feels a similar fatigue--similar to what you felt from his commentary--only, he feels it daily and 24/7. I believe this from a standpoint of racial/ethnic collectivity. I believe he feels it, when he is on this forum, because he has the courage to identify himself as an African-American among a group of cultured individuals who are, mostly, non-black. Doing this--identifying oneself and being race-relatedly opinionated is exhausting--it takes a lot of energy. However, you, Mr. Kabbaz, also are courageous--particularly in our politically-correct times which subtly discourage us from honestly discussing our feelings. You gave your opinion, when no one else gave his/hers; doing so took--I would assume--a lot of energy. Perhaps, this is one aspect of what makes you as talented as you are (from what I read) in your work.

Nonetheless, I believe you can recede from being an "other"in ways that Silverporsche cannot. However, I would like to ask you to do an experiment--with rapt attention to how you are feeling and to any degree of self-consciousness--as you perform the experiment: 1) Choose an African-American church, 2) attend it's service on a Sunday morning, 3) arrive subsequent to the start of the service, 3) walk up the center aisle to the front of the church, 4) turn in either direction, and choose a pew in which to seat yourself, 5) remain until the service has ended. 

I hope you take me up on this offer. If you do, you will get a glimpse/feel/understanding of what it is like to be black, on a daily basis, in a context that is primarily white (e.g., this forum, most undergraduate/graduate educational settings, many business settings--I would surmise). When one focuses on it, it is utterly exhaustiing! 

If you choose not to attend the church, you will exert a privilege that Silverporsche cannot exert. And this--that Silverporsche cannot leave a setting where he is in a minority (in the U.S.A.)--is why he cannot be racist; he can be bigoted, perhaps, but he cannot be racist. Racism involves privilege; privilege--a relational dynamic--involves some entity,i.e.,person--having access to some valued commodity at the expense of some other entity; a "more than/less than" or "better than/worse than" comparison that typically equates what is "best" or "right" with what is most closely aligned wth white middle-class culture--here, in the United States. Racism always involves an element of power. I will stop, now. This is very long.


Thank you in advance,

Jim


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Sprinter said:


> Second, I do not think that Silverporsche owes Mr. Kabbaz, or anyone, an apology for his views. As an African-American, I understand--to a degree--Mr. Kabbaz' fatigue concerning Silverporsche's commentary. I, further, understand Mr. Kabbaz' view that Silverporsche's commentary is racist; I have heard similar views from others in a number of contexts.



Double standard though it may be as in the recently front page "inalienable rights" differences between Imus and Snoop Dogg, the following is simply the way it is:

1] Had Silverporsche's statement been made by a Caucasian or other non-Black, it would have been racist.
2] When I read and criticised his statement I had no way of knowing that Silverporsche was African-American.
3] When I was so informed, I immediately retracted my statement and offered an apology to Silverporsche.

End of story. You have chosen to raise the issue again to which I say:

There was and is no "fatigue" in performing my moderation duties here at AskAndy's. More frequently than I would care to see them, contentious issues of race arise on the fora. The current "denim" thread is a perfect example. Given that most post anonymously this is not surprising. As you have witnessed, we deal with them swiftly and decisively and, to the best of our abilities, fairly.

The remainder of your post does not belong on the Fashion Forum and, if as you state you are a long-time lurker, then you know that. You may feel free to post the remainder of your thoughts on the Interchange.


----------



## Artisan Fan (Jul 21, 2006)

> Even rich Southern businessmen and politicians were, as best I can recall (I was never much of TV fan), frequently depicted as "oddly" dressed by Yankee standards, sort of like Col. Sanders with string ties, white suits and such.


They were depicted that way but in Atlanta some businessmen are and have been quite stylish.


----------



## LondonFogey (May 18, 2006)

It's worth remembering that all societies tend to look back on a 'golden age' about fifty years previously when everything was better. 

Now, I do agree that in general, clothing standards are far worse than they used to be, but I think we have to be careful. Remember that the style icons many on here aspire to, such as the Duke of Windsor, Cary Grant, Anthony Eden etc were, even in their own time, held up as being better dressed than everyone else. They were not typical of their time. 

You have to remember that we view history 'through a glass, darkly'. We look at old films and think how well dressed men were then, but we forget that they were film stars and again, dressed far better than most men. We also look at crowd photos, and from a distance, people looked better dressed than they do now, but I don't know if this holds up on close examination. 

Remember that most men before the war worked in manual trades and so spent most of their time in overalls etc. Yes they had one 'good suit', probably made to measure, but they would wear this for all occasions other than work, so could hardly be said to be 'well dressed'. A sports jacket, for example, was a luxury item before the war. My own grandfather (born 1905) always wore a suit - even on the beach! While this sounds admirable, was it really 'well dressed' to do so? He, and most of his generation, would have never have dreamed of wearing slobwear, but nor would they have worn a linen suit. 

Also, if you examine photos of the period closely, you'll see that whilst most wore the uniform of a suit, they didn't actually look that good. Suits were often frayed, shiney, ill fitting, and worn with hand-knitted pullovers, pens in the top pocket, flyaway collars and pea-sized tartan ties, or with an inch of shirt and braces exposed below the waistcoat. Raincoats and hats were often shabby and stained, and hair was plastered down with gallons of oil. 

If you read some of the literature of the 30s-50s, this subject crops up from time to time. Philip Larkin writes about his suit 'smelling like a mouse's cage', Malcolm Bradbury notes young men wearing 'dotards' cardigans', Orwell writes of young men who looked prosperous from a distance, but not when you saw them close up.

It was as a reaction to all this that I believe spawned the leisurewear revolution of the fifties and sixties; but its a shame that we threw away the baby of elegance with the bathwater of conformity.


----------



## sprinter (Dec 28, 2006)

I wish I knew how to quote the replies of others, as background contexts. Mr. Kabazz, I thank you for responding. I was afraid that you might not. 

I want to acknowlege your response and apologize to you for ignoring your apology to silverporsch--that was an outcome of my own bias and bigotry. Generally, your response took me back to one of my credos--to strive to understand others rather than to be understood by others.

I have thoughts on your response, and I want to more fully reply to your response. I also would like to do so on this forum-I think this is the most widely read forum. However, I also want to respect the rules of this forum. I will respect your decision, after you read this post, if you still think I should post on the interchange.

Briefly, I think the fact that race is discussed on this forum is a compliment to Andy, to you and your moderator-colleagues, and to the members of this forum--some people feel sufficiently safe to discuss race. This doesn't happen much in America. I think that that is an opportunity for enrichment. 

Thank you in advance,

Jim


----------



## ROT (Nov 3, 2004)

*The Crux of the Matter (for Me)*

Do others feel as I do? I don't know, but I expect so. I believe that society is still obsessed with the things that inspire me to dress better than I have to. I think that values have changed more than anything else. The problem is defining the terms " dressing well" and "art."

Why do I dress as I do? The simple and ugly truth of the matter (for me at any rate) is that:

1) I'm vain. I want to be the best looking guy at the ball. When my physical demeanor fails me, I rely on my tailor to correct my deficiencies. In my bachelorhood, it accorded me certain privileges and advantages over the rest of my peers. Happily married now, I feel I owe it to my wife who takes pains to look good, as all women do.

2) While I am not a sociopath, I am not a fan of most people. Dressing as I do (in casual and less casual environments) provides me with armor. It gives me an edge or a barrier as needed.

3) This all goes back to two things: a) being a military kid and having to fit in quickly, no matter where I was; b) wanting to be "cool." Much like those who espouse hip-hop culture, etc. I just want to be cool. But cool to me (for as long as I can remember and particularly now over 40) is being very well-dressed and as elegant as I can be. Cool is William Powell, Cary Grant, Fred Astaire, Dean Martin, Gianni Agnelli, Anthony Biddle and the rest of the pantheon. Elegant, charming and well-dressed trumps just about everything but sincerity and humanity and it is the former qualities for which I strive (sometimes to no avail.)

4) When I am forced to meet with someone who is an owner of a company, "more advanced in 'society'," etc. I am confident in the fact that I am equally if not better dressed then he is. Being well-tailored and well-dressed (in my opinion anyway) levels the playing field. Those others assume things about me which notions I will not disabuse.

5) My father was well-dressed and placed a high premium on the way that I presented myself in public. I was a reflection of my parents; it was expected of me to not let down the side.

6) I am treated better when I am dressed well and smile.

7) I am more courteous, thoughtful and a better person when I dress. I tend to notice and act on the small things.

8) I feel I owe it to my hosts to be as decorous and charming as possible. And I expect my guests to shine as well. It makes for a fun evening.

And that's the brutal truth if anyone is still listening. I expect that that is the way that most of us feel on one level or another. But I'm no expert.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

rip said:


> I hope, as evidenced by the growth of this forum, that it is a growing, rather than dying, art. Yes, we live in a country that exhilarates in the lowest common denominator, and that tends strongly toward amjack dressing; that aside, I have noticed a resurgence in finely dressed gentlemen.


I hope you are right, but I fear you are not. My sense of the growth of this forum, is more akin to the population increase of Helm's Deep as the Rohan retreated from the Orcs to make a last stand.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

ROT said:


> Do others feel as I do? I don't know, but I expect so. I believe that society is still obsessed with the things that inspire me to dress better than I have to. I think that values have changed more than anything else. The problem is defining the terms " dressing well" and "art."
> 
> Why do I dress as I do? The simple and ugly truth of the matter (for me at any rate) is that:
> 
> ...


Great post, ROT. Welcome!


----------



## chainsaw4130 (Apr 30, 2008)

In 2000 when I started working at my current job the dress was casual - jeans, t-shirts, and sneakers was the predominant dress - executives included. At the time the office that I worked in was not client facing, I would always travel to clients office and I did not see this as a big deal. In 2003 the company that I work for was acquired by a company that had more of a business dress - dress shirts and pants, but no ties. As our offices were integrated we were encouraged to adopt the business dress. This was important because more & more clients were now coming to our office. There was a ton of resistance to this from the people at my company. I was really surprised by this. The company even offered to reimburse employees for some of the cost of "improving" their wardrobe and there were still people that resisted.


----------



## bluesmobile_440 (Mar 17, 2008)

When banks started only mandating business casual for most of their business lines, I believed the art of dressing well began to die out. I'm relatively young, but I at least expected the professions to continue their business professional mandate.

I think that this forum proves that there is a hunger for sartorial knowledge, but the forum does not prove sheer numbers increase.


----------



## lovemeparis (May 20, 2006)

*Hunger for sartorial...*



bluesmobile_440 said:


> I think that this forum proves that there is a *hunger for sartorial knowledge*, but the forum does not prove sheer numbers increase.


Here you go Professor medwards, you are the expert!!!! :icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big:


----------



## cglex (Oct 23, 2006)

I think many people are confusing dressing well with dressing more formally and/or more conventionally. There has been a long trend towards more casual dress, driven by many factors, the least of which is more comfort. Look at pictures from 100 or more years ago and the dress does not look particularly comfortable and certainly more formal. For many years the business suit, particularly if from Brooks Brothers or some other traditonal place, allowed the many with no clue how to dress well to dress conventionally and convention was not at all bad. Today, however, with the spread of more comfortable casual dress amd lack of standards or convention, those that can dress well stand out from the masses who can't and never could.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

I think there is no doubt that people dress less formally, and yes that means less well, than before (insert your preferred date here).



THORVALD said:


> Ten+ years ago more people dressed up in a business environment. Today less and less people seem to care.
> If you wear a shirt & tie, its whats the occasion?
> 
> THORVALD


Just yesterday I stopped in an establishment and was asked why I was so dressed up. Just cords, turtleneck, work shoes, sportjacket, pocket square and driving cap. No shirt and tie!:crazy: 



ykurtz said:


> Forum members have persisted in decrying the outcast state of stylish habiliment, but have not addressed my question: WHY be stylish? Clearly, stylishness is a minority position, and the discussion I am reading sounds a lot like the political turmoil surrounding a 'minority' position. Yes, people are not dressing up as much as they did in the past. Yes, many members of this forum decry that fact.
> 
> But WHY?
> 
> ...





DougNZ said:


> I've always pared it down to one word: "respect". We just don't respect each other anymore. Hell, half the population doesn't even respect themselves.
> 
> Why dress well when one cares neither for one's appearance nor the experience of others?


While all topics concerning aesthetics ultimately come down to subjectivity I find these reponses pertinent.



DougNZ said:


> To me, its got nothing to be with a need to be 'stylish'; it's quite simply dressing in a *considered and respectful manner*.





ROT said:


> Do others feel as I do? I don't know, but I expect so. I believe that society is still obsessed with the things that inspire me to dress better than I have to. I think that values have changed more than anything else. The problem is defining the terms " dressing well" and "art."
> 
> Why do I dress as I do? The simple and ugly truth of the matter (for me at any rate) is that:
> 
> ...


and from the other side



RSS said:


> A few months back, I was speaking to a couple of young fellows who teach at Cal, Berkeley. They are in their mid-thirties ... well educated and intelligent ... on their way to accomplished careers in academia ... _and_ ... both seem to be addicted to jeans and t-shirts. To "dress-up" ... I have seen them sport a pair of khaki trousers and a collared but casual shirt.
> 
> On this particular day, I was wearing my usual attire when in town ... a tweed coat and odd trousers ... tattersall shirt & tie ... split-toe bluchers and a pair of wool argyle socks. As we talked ... one of them offhandedly referred to what I was wearing as "your little outfit." Both chuckled ... as if my clothing marked me as less than they ... as if they are beyond the need to dress. I let it fall by the way ... for the time being.
> 
> ...


support



darin_arrick said:


> :icon_hailthee:
> 
> You are a true gentleman. Unfortunately, your colleague doesn't seem to be one. If someone said to me what I bolded above, I would immediately rescind the invitation; he can eat at home while I dine with an art historian.
> 
> Not only does he not have style, he doesn't have respect. And, in many peoples' eyes, they are the same thing.





son of brummell said:


> Bravo!





Artisan Fan said:


> Well done.





yachtie said:


> Well said, RSS; your academic is something of a boor, IMO.


more from the dark side



Howard said:


> So who cares how you're dressed,It's how you feel about yourself and not to care what others think around you.


with DougNZ to the rescue.



DougNZ said:


> This is an underlying theme supporting the abundance of slobwear. What you are saying, Howard, is that *it is all about me, me, ME. This is not a personal attack but an observance that your sentiments are those embraced by the multitude.*
> 
> My alternative view is that clothing serves two purposes: to clothe and express. Keeping warm is a survival instinct and as such clothing, like housing, plays a very important role. However, the survival of most of us is not threatened by a lack of clothing, so it therefore stands that we wear clothes mainly to express ourselves in one manner or other. It's true that some express themselves purely for expression sake, but largely we express outselves as part of a communication process. For communication to be complete, we need to send a message, have it received and gather feedback in return. Now, suddenly, wearing clothes becomes an us, us, US experience as the 'me' combines with the 'you' component.
> 
> *My view is that if wearing clothes is mainly about a relationship between the wearer and the observer, then the wearer has a moral responsibility in a polite society to consider the impact of dress on others. Not caring about what others think of one's dress shows a lack of consideration and a lack of respect for others. Pared down to a single word, as I said in an earlier post, it is all about 'respect' and I don't believe it abounds in modern society.*


Well said! When asked why I dress the way I do it is always with the presumption that I am judging a book by its cover and equating better dressed with better person. I've found that this is usually the default position of the more casually clad. My answer is always with the question, "Would you wear jeans and a t-shirt to a funeral?" The rest of the convgersation is a variation of:
"No."
"Why not?"
"It would be disrespectful."
"And why is respect only reserved for the dead or some other special occassion?"
"I never thought of it like that."



Hans B said:


> What are appropriate responses when your co-workers ask you "Why are you so dressed up today?" I've had people wonder if I had an interview, if I was going to a wedding, a funeral, etc. Just ridiculous.
> 
> I'd like a good response without having to defend my attire. In the past, I've merely said "I'm actually not "dressed up" as you say". Any thoughts on other good responses?
> 
> ...


I don't have one. Maybe I should start saying, "Out of respect for people who have to look at me."



Mitchell said:


> My reply is, "I was just going to ask why you're dressed as a laborer."


Too snarky for the man I'm trying to be. But really funny.:aportnoy:



JLibourel said:


> KenCPollock said:
> 
> 
> > You and I were entering the prime of manhood during that era, Mr. Pollock. Somehow I, at least, never particularly considered small-town Southern sheriffs and Baptist ministers as paragons of masculine elegance. Even rich Southern businessmen and politicians were, as best I can recall (I was never much of TV fan), frequently depicted as "oddly" dressed by Yankee standards, sort of like Col. Sanders with string ties, white suits and such.
> ...


I think this is the the time period the social mores really started to crumble and with good reason. Let us not forget the rampant sexim, racism and all the other isms 
endemic to the time. Rightly or wrongly the slobification of society was more a rejection of the ills of the society rather than the aesthetic.
. 



A Questionable Gentleman said:


> Thanks RSS and Yachtie! So, now that I'm a super member, whom would the two of you recommend for my bespoke cape and leotards? Do I get suit x-ray vision that allows me to see full canvass construction? It's kind of like that show, _Heroes_!


Now I have to get a full canvas jacket made of cellophane so that when I meet A Questionalbe Gentleman I can pretend that he really does have x-ray vision.

I am troubled by the repeated references to casual being more comfortable. Am I the only one who doesn't find this to be true?


----------



## gnatty8 (Nov 7, 2006)

Great thread fran.. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## brettski (Dec 13, 2009)

I prefer not to stand out too much, rather when someone notices me then I would like them to then notice how well dressed I am. The fact that everyone I am with is dressed quite casually means I would stick out like a sore thumb... Thankfully my work has not gone casual (well no jackets just ties) allows me to still feed my tie habit


----------



## Marcellionheart (Mar 10, 2010)

Sadly, it is dying out even here in London. As a teacher, my contract says I am required to wear a shirt, trousers, and jacket and trainers (running shoes) are not allowed. And yet, I am the only male teacher (including the brother of the owner of the school) who obeys this part of the contract. In a properly run private school, you must dress better than the students. So I am always in a tweed jacket, shirt, and (bow) tie at the bare minimum (2 piece suit usually). 

The result? I instantly command attention with the students when I walk into the classroom. The parents automatically assume I'm in charge of everything and in control of the situation (many of them confusing me with the Headmaster). Sadly, the Headmaster of this school seems to be a man child who cannot even tie his tie correctly. I'm not talking about a dimple in the wrong place or a loose knot. Whenever he actually does wear a tie usually the skinny end is longer than the fat end. It makes him look like a four year old child. And it makes me laugh.


----------



## Tim Correll (Jul 18, 2005)

Marcellionheart said:


> Sadly, it is dying out even here in London. As a teacher, my contract says I am required to wear a shirt, trousers, and jacket and trainers (running shoes) are not allowed. And yet, I am the only male teacher (including the brother of the owner of the school) who obeys this part of the contract. In a properly run private school, you must dress better than the students. So I am always in a tweed jacket, shirt, and (bow) tie at the bare minimum (2 piece suit usually).
> 
> The result? I instantly command attention with the students when I walk into the classroom. The parents automatically assume I'm in charge of everything and in control of the situation (many of them confusing me with the Headmaster). Sadly, the Headmaster of this school seems to be a man child who cannot even tie his tie correctly. I'm not talking about a dimple in the wrong place or a loose knot. Whenever he actually does wear a tie usually the skinny end is longer than the fat end. It makes him look like a four year old child. And it makes me laugh.


Dressing well in France, Italy and Switzerland has always been alive and well. In these countries, dressing well is more alive and well than ever before.

In several other countries in Mainland Europe (among them Austria, Germany and Sweden) and in Japan, dressing well has become much more or substantially more alive and well over the last 10 to 15 years. In Mainland Europe (which is all countries in Europe excluding England, Ireland and Scotland) and in Japan, dressing well was never rare (for lack of a better word). South Africa and all of Asia outside of Japan has also gotten much better dressed (and fairly well dressed overall). Outside of now being much better dressed than Australia and North America and possibly threatening England, Ireland and Scotland in being well dressed, I know absolutely nothing about how all of Africa outside of South Africa dresses.

Unfortunately, in England, Ireland and Scotland, dressing well is definitely a dying art (but not nearly as much as it is in Australia and North America). The Lower 48 United States of America is the worst offender in the trend toward poor dressing. The rest of North America excluding Alaska and Hawaii is the second worst offender (and almost as bad as the Lower 48 USA). Australia and New Zealand are the third worst offenders (and almost as bad the Lower 48 USA and the rest of North America excluding Alaska and Hawaii). Alaska and Hawaii are the fourth worst offenders but somewhat better than Australia, New Zealand and the rest of North America.

England, Ireland and Scotland are far inferior to what they used to be as far as being well dressed in concerned. However, these three European Countries are still miles better than Australia and North America.


----------



## mlongano (Feb 3, 2010)

StevenRocks said:


> Overall, you're right as far as personal happiness goes. But we live in a subjective world. Looks matter. Clothes matter.


Nobody was ever passed up for a stint as CEO because they were too well dressed.


----------



## mlongano (Feb 3, 2010)

Hans B said:


> What are appropriate responses when your co-workers ask you "Why are you so dressed up today?" I've had people wonder if I had an interview, if I was going to a wedding, a funeral, etc. Just ridiculous.
> 
> I'd like a good response without having to defend my attire. In the past, I've merely said "I'm actually not "dressed up" as you say". Any thoughts on other good responses?
> 
> ...


By wearing a suit and tie more often, you'll problem will automatically disappear.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

*Informally well-dressed*

Several posts in this fascinating and informative thread have touched on and around a situation that many of us confront. We live in social environments where men do not routinely wear jackets and ties. These are places where business casual is considered dressed up, and jeans, t-shirts, running shoes, sweatpants, etc., are customary attire in public. A man who intends to enjoy the assurance, self-respect and social benefits of being well dressed in these circumstances must select his clothing to achieve an improved image without going so far (or so formal) as to be considered contrived. In my university town, shined oxfords, wool slacks, a jacket and tie are too much for weekend shopping. Loafers, pressed khakis and an OCBD or turtleneck, topped by a neat windbreaker or leather jacket move one into the "best dressed" category without the danger of being noticed as over-dressed.


----------



## GBR (Aug 10, 2005)

Define "dressing well"?

If you mean have standards changed then yes they have. However that is nothing new - at one time you would have worn dinner dress at home for the evening meal - today the same fare would be lucky to be greeted with a tee shirt and shorts.


----------



## Wildblue (Oct 11, 2009)

Marcellionheart said:


> Sadly, the Headmaster of this school seems to be a man child who cannot even tie his tie correctly. I'm not talking about a dimple in the wrong place or a loose knot. Whenever he actually does wear a tie usually the skinny end is longer than the fat end. It makes him look like a four year old child. And it makes me laugh.


Ummmm.... really? That's really quite sad. It's very rare that I see someone dressed like that, and I have to wonder what would possess them to care so little, or like they don't even take a peek in the mirror before going out for the day.



Audi S5 TC said:


> The Lower 48 United States of America is the worst offender in the trend toward poor dressing. The rest of North America excluding Alaska and Hawaii is the second worst offender (and almost as bad as the Lower 48 USA). Australia and New Zealand are the third worst offenders (and almost as bad the Lower 48 USA and the rest of North America excluding Alaska and Hawaii). Alaska and Hawaii are the fourth worst offenders but somewhat better than Australia, New Zealand and the rest of North America.


That's really interesting to me, being a current resident of Alaska, but having lived and visited literally all around the world. I actually don't view Alaska as being any better dressed than anywhere else in the USA, or N. America in general, I suppose. Sadly, here in AK, you often see people wearing "Alaska casual" in environments that seem rather odd, such as church and upscale restaraunts. There is a very nice fancy (and quite expensive) Italian restaraunt here in town, where I took my family prior to a formal ball. I was wearing a tuxedo, the girls in formal dresses, and we expected to be a bit out of place with the rest of the patrons, who we thought would be in semi-formal wear. Imagine our surprise, though, when we saw more than one table attired in jeans and t-shirts, or carpenter work pants and flannel shirt. Alaskans are very down-to-earth people, but I'm not sure I would quite describe us as well-dressed to many extents. Audi, I'd really like to hear your thoughts!!!


----------



## YoungTrad (Jan 29, 2010)

*Does any young guys get told they dress old?*

Today while at the market I ran into a classmate. I had on a pair of chinos, an OCBD and some Sperrys. He made the comment that I dress like an old man. I hear this at least once a week at my public school in rural Ky. I also get asked why I am dressed up when I wear a pair of chinos and a polo. I normally just laugh it off, but it does get a little annoying. Does anyone else from a rural area get this, or is it just my hick town?

For the record I dont think it is a bad thing to "dress like an old man" as they say, for one because it's stylish and for two, at the risk of sounding a little arrogant, I think I look damned good.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
LOL...Young Trad, I too occasionally hear the phrase, "you dress like an old man," and my uniform these days (as you reported) seems to be chinos and an OCBD or knit polo shirt, depending on the time of year, paired with LWB gunboats or penny loafers/boat shoes (again, depending on the time of year!). But then, at my age, perhaps I am(?)!

Relax and enjoy the look. It's timeless, I hope!


----------



## Marcellionheart (Mar 10, 2010)

I get 'you dress like a grandpa' quite often from my American friends here. My response usually is 'it's better than dressing like my father' as an off-the cuff (no pun intended) joke


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

YoungTrad said:


> I also get asked why I am dressed up when I wear a pair of chinos and a polo. I normally just laugh it off, but it does get a little annoying.


Just remember: They don't boo nobodies.


----------



## e92m3 (Jun 9, 2009)

I don't think it's dying, I think it was just waning. When times were good and Chinese imports such as shoes, clothes, etc were cheap, the majority bought with little intention of maintaining, repairing or cleaning but rather just buying cheap replacements. For the masses it was quantity over quality.

As this economy continues to grind itself into the ground I believe there will be a swing back toward quality and value. More will begin to take better care of what they own and will appreciate more classic lasting styles (less fads) and higher quality and value. A higher quality shoe or garment may initially be more expensive, but if equally maintained, will last longer than cheap alternatives giving it in the long run better value. As anecdotal evidence, my cobbler has seen a significant increase in business which he hasn't seen in decades. After speaking with him I researched it and came across this interesting article.

During the Great Depression the types of products that fared well were all relatively inexpensive luxuries that boosted one's morale at the time such as candy and cosmetics and stockings for the ladies. In my opinion, dressing well and neat will be one of those inexpensive luxuries more will adopt.


----------



## Kuttermax (Mar 16, 2010)

I believe firmly that dressing well goes hand in hand with professionalism. If I go into a doctor's or dentist's office and see a sloppily (or worse dirty) dressed individual, my opinion regarding their professionalism drops. If they can't take the time to look after themselves, then what kind of message does this send to the consumer.


----------



## Jonny (Oct 9, 2010)

No, but very reduced since somehwere in the 1970's.


----------



## urbanfox (Jul 27, 2011)

Although the answer is definitely yes, there will always be some people such as myself who like to dress smartly. At work I always insist on wearing a tie and either jacket or waistcoat. I accessorise with cufflinks, tie bar, pocket watch. Despite being of the younger generation smart clothes are important to me.


----------



## happilymarri3d (Jul 27, 2011)

This thread caught my eye and seemed appropriate for my first post.

I work as a compliance agent at a Casino and I am typically one of the best dressed individuals in the offices here. Director's and VP's come in in slacks and either Polos or dress shirts with no tie. Nearly evey day I work I come in wearing a suit or sport coat/slacks combo with a tie.

I can't count how many times I have been identified as someone in a managerial role solely based on account of how I am dressed. I am just a Compliance Agent, but due to my own standards, I am treated with a respect typically reserved for management. 

My philosophy is this - If I have to walk into a Director or VP's office and tell him his people just screwed the pooch and he better get them under control, I had damned well be dressed just as well, if not better, than the guy who I am about to chew on.

I do believe that standards of dress have dropped, but I really can't complain because I use that to my advantage.


----------

