# Stroller Details



## SilkCity (Apr 3, 2004)

Manton, et al.,

In preparation for (finally) taking the plunge (with A&S) on 
a stroller get-up, herewith some related queries:

1. Style of braces?

2. Covering (if any) of coat buttons?

3. Is s/b, lapel-less waistcoat incorrect?

4. Is the wearing of a writswatch incorrect?

Thanks, as always,
SC


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

I would personally avoid covered buttons as they smack too much of evening dress to me (although I dislike them in that context as well, unless it be chequered silk); I believe that a s/b waistcoat without lapels would be correct, although not the only choice. Again, purely personally, I don't feel that a waistcoat is properly "dressed" without a watch and chain but I wouldn't suggest that a wristwatch was incorrect. You might find that grey braces in barathea or boxcloth would work well.

Anthony.


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

If you're going bespoke why wouldn't you get a db waistcoat?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

1) Agree on gray barathea or boxcloth, preferably with white ends.

2) No. Tutee did this on one of his, but then he has three.

3) SB not incorrect, but DB preferable (at least to me).

4) I think, strictly speaking, yes it is. But in this day and age, no one will care.


----------



## LaoHu (Sep 16, 2006)

*Great news!*



SilkCity said:


> In preparation for (finally) taking the plunge (with A&S) on a stroller get-up....


Hope you will keep us all informed on this project with lots of details and pictures. Please accept my best wishes for a successful outcome.


----------



## SilkCity (Apr 3, 2004)

LaoHu said:


> Hope you will keep us all informed on this project with lots of details and pictures. Please accept my best wishes for a successful outcome.


I sure will, and thanks all for the kind replies.

SC


----------



## SilkCity (Apr 3, 2004)

AlanC said:


> If you're going bespoke why wouldn't you get a db waistcoat?


Al.,

Other than winter overcoat--where the 
db serves some utility as providing additional layer of 
warmth--I'm not keen on db.


----------



## qasimkhan (Sep 24, 2003)

Cell phones, Blackberries, and Bluetooth earpieces are incorrect. But all these things have made wristwatches acceptable (even if not strictly correct).


----------



## SilkCity (Apr 3, 2004)

qasimkhan said:


> Cell phones, Blackberries, and Bluetooth earpieces are incorrect. But all these things have made wristwatches acceptable (even if not strictly correct).


...especially since I plan to wear the rig at Sat. matinees at the Met. Opera,
where the Met's handling of patrons missing the curtain is quite punitive!!!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

qasimkhan said:


> Cell phones, Blackberries, and Bluetooth earpieces are incorrect. But all these things have made wristwatches acceptable (even if not strictly correct).


I don't think this is correct. They didn't have Cell phones, Blackberries, and Bluetooth earpieces 20 years and back.

Cars were new at one time, too. People didn't think back then that "We have to ride in a horse drawn buggy because the stroller, morning coat, white tie and frock coat were used before cars." They kept up with the modern world. And, we too, should continue the tradition of keeping up with the modern world.


----------



## Mark from Plano (Jan 29, 2007)

WA said:


> I don't think this is correct. They didn't have Cell phones, Blackberries, and Bluetooth earpieces 20 years and back.
> 
> Cars were new at one time, too. People didn't think back then that "We have to ride in a horse drawn buggy because the stroller, morning coat, white tie and frock coat were used before cars." They kept up with the modern world. And, we too, should continue the tradition of keeping up with the modern world.


Blasphemy. I shall report you to the Buggywhip Maker's Union immediately.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Mark from Plano said:


> Blasphemy. I shall report you to the Buggywhip Maker's Union immediately.


Oh No! You outed me! Now everybody knows I just a lowly Buggywhip Maker.

The real trick is to blend the old with the new keeping the high standards a long the way. Or a cut above.


----------



## Mitchell (Apr 25, 2005)

WA said:


> Oh No! You outed me! Now everybody knows I just a lowly Buggywhip Maker.
> 
> The real trick is to blend the old with the new keeping the high standards a long the way. Or a cut above.


Well said. Bravo.


----------



## Will (Jun 15, 2004)

If anyone is interested in a length of shepherd's check Cheviot for stroller or morning coat trousers, I have obtained a length. There's information at https://asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/2007/04/cloth-for-formal-trousers.html.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Oh yes one more detail on formal trousers - get your tailor to put the buttons for the braces on the OUTSIDE of the trousers. I have a vintage pair of trousers made like this (probably made between 1900 - 20). It makes putting the braces on so much easier, and since you will always be wearing a waistcoat over the top of them they will remain well hidden at all times.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Sator said:


> Oh yes one more detail on formal trousers - get your tailor to put the buttons for the braces on the OUTSIDE of the trousers. I have a vintage pair of trousers made like this (probably made between 1900 - 20). It makes putting the braces on so much easier, and since you will always be wearing a waistcoat over the top of them they will remain well hidden at all times.


There is no right or wrong way to put brace buttons.

Some like the back ones inside, because they catch less on backs of various seats- auto, carriage, even house.

One pair found from 100 years ago does not speak for all.

If you like them on the outside or inside or mixed- it is your pleasure.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

WA said:


> There is no right or wrong way to put brace buttons.
> 
> Some like the back ones inside, because they catch less on backs of various seats- auto, carriage, even house.


I can see how having the back ones on the inside would still make them easier to put on. However, I am still a little puzzled as to how they would catch while riding inside the horseless carriage etc if you have a waistcoat on over the top of them.


----------



## SilkCity (Apr 3, 2004)

My wife and I are going through the complete "Jeeves & Wooster" series on CD,
which has prompted a fear that when I finally do take delivery on the stroller
rig, she will be append "Jeeves" to the directives she now issues in my direction.

Fabulous series for the duds of all involved, esp. Bertie's country get ups!


----------



## The Pharaoh (Mar 27, 2008)

https://collections.mnhs.org/visual...=164747&Page=3&Keywords=1931&SearchType=Basic










https://www.old-picture.com/united-states-history-1900s---1930s/standing-Lincoln-Harding-William.htm


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Those are NOT "strollers" to use the American English term. Those are proper full dress day coats or morning coats (cutaway in American English).


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

What about socks?


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> What about socks?


Definitely must wear socks with a stroller (aka morning jacket or short morning coat), certainly in London this is regarded as _de rigeur._

*W_B*


----------



## Roikins (Mar 22, 2007)

I've tried to search, but have yet to find the vent detail for a stroller jacket. Being the day counterpart of the dinner jacket, should the stroller be ventless as well?


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

I would suggest either ventless or double-vented.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

I tend to strongly prefer ventless myself. However, semi-formal day wear tends to be less rigidly codified than formal morning dress or evening dress - so a vented coat would hardly be a sartorial sin.


----------



## Gruto (Jul 5, 2004)

Is a stroller also "a black jacket"?


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Gruto said:


> Is a stroller also "a black jacket"?


Usually its grey.


----------



## Jay_Gatsby (Mar 27, 2007)

Gruto said:


> Is a stroller also "a black jacket"?


A lot of folks here would agree that a proper stroller should be a black double-breasted jacket with jetted side pockets. Otherwise it would just be a black odd jacket and not technically a stroller.


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

I think that s/b peak lapel is equally permissible (and my own is actually a s/b 3-button notch with flapped pockets, but that is another story.)


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Bogdanoff said:


> Usually its grey.


I beleive it is usually black. It can be a charcoal grey.
S/B or D/B peak are equally acceptable. The S/B would require a vest in either S/B or D/B
Trousers in patterns of stripes, houndstooth, POW checks in greyand black, black and white, grey and white.
Give free rein to your imagination where the colors of the shirt's body and tie come in.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Since we are talking formal day wear, the coat may be black or charcoal grey - same as with a morning coat. Black is probably a tad more conventional for formal dress, though I prefer charcoal grey.

The most orthodox configuration is still single breasted, double breasted styled lapels, with either matching or pearl grey waistcoat. With semi-formal day wear, there is more freedom, and so double breasted coats are permissible, even though they are a touch more casual. Ventless coats and jetted pockets add a touch of sleekness and formality but are by no means absolutely _de rigeur_. Even the lapels need not be double breasted styled.


----------



## Roikins (Mar 22, 2007)

Resurrecting this a year to the day...

I have an odd buff linen DB and peaked waistcoat that goes with a jacket that does double duty as a regular oxford grey suit when matched with trousers and as a stroller when paired with stripped trousers. However, to continue on with the jacket's versatility, I was thinking of getting a matching waistcoat made. Lots of the DB waistcoats I've seen in photos seem to be peaked and not all that low cut, unlike the U-shaped black-tie waistcoats. Would something like that be acceptable for a matching stroller waistcoat?


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

That is low-cut because it is an evening waistcoat. A stroller waistcoat needs to be cut at the appropriate daywear height. I have seen U-cut daywear waistcoats, though I can't remember if any had shawl lapels. Sator will have an answer.


----------



## a tailor (May 16, 2005)

Scoundrel said:


> What about socks?


you have two choices. its either sox, or paint your ankles.


----------



## Roikins (Mar 22, 2007)

Matt S said:


> That is low-cut because it is an evening waistcoat. A stroller waistcoat needs to be cut at the appropriate daywear height. I have seen U-cut daywear waistcoats, though I can't remember if any had shawl lapels. Sator will have an answer.


That's what I was wondering -- what would be an appropriate low-cut day height, especially when a single button stroller can have a button stance similar to a dinner jacket.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

I would think this is about as low as a day vest could go:
https://www.menswearhouse.com/webap...reId=10601&productId=10130&langId=-1&cm_vc=-1
and that one is fairly unusual to my eye. This height for a DB vest looks pretty sharp:
https://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q163/jccavanaugh/DSC00388.jpg
Evening vests will always be lower cut because they are designed to show lots of shirt-front, while the day vest is only meant to show the tie and a minimal amount of shirt.


----------



## Roikins (Mar 22, 2007)

amplifiedheat said:


> I would think this is about as low as a day vest could go:
> https://www.menswearhouse.com/webap...reId=10601&productId=10130&langId=-1&cm_vc=-1
> and that one is fairly unusual to my eye. This height for a DB vest looks pretty sharp:
> https://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q163/jccavanaugh/DSC00388.jpg
> Evening vests will always be lower cut because they are designed to show lots of shirt-front, while the day vest is only meant to show the tie and a minimal amount of shirt.


Yes, the 2nd link is similar to the buff linen one I have.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

After much research on the subject I have now come to quite different conclusions: the (s)troller never existed. If it did at one time as a peculiarly American costume concept, it is dead. I don't think semi-formal daywear exists - or should exist. In this day and age, to wear non-matching trousers with a lounge jacket is _less_ formal rather more so.

What can be said, is that in the past the fashion was to wear black-and-white stripes or checks with a black lounge jacket, as it looked a bit funereal to wear an all black lounge suit. This was considered informal business dress. It was never considered quasi-formal dress, except at some point historically in America and parts of Europe. Apart from that, it was considered more of something worn by bankers and clerics. It is a historically _fashionable_ way of wearing a black lounge jacket. I emphasise the word fashionable because it is fashion pure and simple. Let nobody call it Eternal Style, because that would be dishonest.

There are no "Rules" for what sort of waistcoat to wear with a black lounge jacket. There is no dress code, only what is fashionable historically - and that has been highly variable.

If you still think that is a good way of avoiding the all black look by substituting black-and-white design trousers, then by all means do so, because I think it remains preferable to the all black lounge suit. However, the quasi-formal American (s)troller/perambulator should be declared as dead as the dodo.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Hmmm, so black jacket and cashmere stripes/houndstooth are essentially an 'alternative' to an ordinary suit? OK, maybe this 'semi-formal' business is a myth but surely it is one step above your average suit (even if the degree of which be only minor)? In the scheme of things people probably see it as more formal than a suit given that they associate cashmere stripes with morning dress in theory. Indeed, you don't see them with suits at work and anyone dressing as such looks more grander.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Black lounge coats with matching vests and striped trousers are still worn by Freemasons.

*W_B*


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Has someone kidnapped the real Sator?



Sator said:


> There is no dress code, only what is fashionable historically - and that has been highly variable.


A case can be made for that in everything, therefore there are really no clothing standards at all.

What this really does is get us back to the idea of the stroller as a 'look' rather than as a prescribed uniform. Thus there is quite a bit of room for variation and innovation. That the stroller concept existed seems to me incontrovertible based on the AA/Esky illustrations alone.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

AlanC said:


> That the stroller concept existed seems to me incontrovertible based on the AA/Esky illustrations alone.


Yes. And it was often shown in such illustrations alongside morning coats in the same way that AA/Esky presented tailcoats and tuxedos together -- as the range of formalwear.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

AlanC said:


> That the stroller concept existed seems to me incontrovertible based on the AA/Esky illustrations alone.


In America _perhaps_ it did once exist - past tense. I have yet to find a published American source stating as much however - so it could still be a internet fairy tale. In German it was called ein kleine Besuchsanzug, and I do have a published 1958 reference for this. All British sources see it only as business dress: when a black jacket is worn, different coloured trousers are worn (presumably to avoid the all black mourning suit look). Never in any British text is there a pseudo-formal category - that, if anything is an Americanism, and possibly a dated one at that. The fact that a black jacket with black-and-white cashmere checks and stripes is informal dress is emphasised by the fashion of wearing bowler hats with the look. Bowlers were originally riding hats, and George V frowned on people wearing them into the city ie it was like wearing a baseball cap in town.

As for the American 1920-30s fashion plates, they still in all likehood considered themselves as wearing a form of ordinary business attire worn by bankers and stockbrockers. For that is certainly how the British texts saw it.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Sator said:


> As for the American 1920-30s fashion plates, they still in all likehood considered themselves as wearing a form of ordinary business attire worn by bankers and stockbrockers. For that is certainly how the British texts saw it.


They "in all likelihood" saw it this way because why? Because British texts _that they don't reference_ saw it this way? That's not logical. Your analysis fails to address the fact that the Apparel Arts pictures show the stroller as appropriate alongside the morning coat, and as appropriate at events, such as Easter in Manhattan, at which morning coats were worn. This evidence cuts against the notion that the stroller was "ordinary business attire" in that context.

Your heavyhanded dismissal of American sources and disparagement of American historical trends as less relevant is getting tiresome as well. If anything, American trends by the 1930s are far more relevant to the development of style -- the United States was on the rise while the UK had already peaked. I'm sure you don't like this, but it is true.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

In those days they sometimes wore morning dress to work. 

Sorry, but I'm not interested in American fashions. It's just my taste. Take it or leave it.

But no matter how you see it the stroller is dead. JLiboural said as much, and I agree. Anyone who walks around thinking they are in quasi-formal daytime pseudo-morning dress deserves every bit of ridicule he can get.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Taliesin said:


> Your heavyhanded dismissal of American sources and disparagement of American historical trends as less relevant is getting tiresome as well. If anything, American trends by the 1930s are far more relevant to the development of style -- the United States was on the rise while the UK had already peaked. I'm sure you don't like this, but it is true.


Talk about a chip on the shoulder Taliesin. While the US as a political and economic entity was on the rise, we are not talking about those things. That is for the Interchange. As sartorial matters go, the UK is most definitely more significant for men's clothing.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

The other thing is that I am sceptical that in the America of the 1920-30s there was a concept of a quasi-formal (s)troller. I cannot even find American textual references to such a thing. I get the bad feeling that it is an overblown internet myth. Please feel welcome to prove me wrong.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

I'm confused as to where this argument is heading.

Are you saying that it cannot/should not/ought not be worn in this day and age or are you saying that its supposed/perceived high position in the whole scheme of things sartorial is essentially an overrated myth ergo cannot/should not/ought not be worn in this day and age for such occasions actual or perceived that demand morning dress or a lower form?


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

No, I am merely questioning the concept of quasi-formal daywear, which never existed in Britain. I find the whole semi-formal thing to be like semi-pregnancy. The whole question of whether it looks more stylish and attractive to break up the all-black look by substituting black-and-white trousers is another question. I am not issuing any prescriptives.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Sator said:


> In those days they sometimes wore morning dress to work.
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not interested in American fashions. It's just my taste. Take it or leave it.


That's fine, and I prefer to take it rather than leave it because I value your insight. My point is that it isn't necessary to your analysis to dismissively refer to "Americanisms" and to mock our version of English ("perambulator"). I think it detracts from your reasoning.



> But no matter how you see it the stroller is dead. JLiboural said as much, and I agree.


Dead except as costume in a few rituals, like weddings and apparently Masonic events. Very similar to the current status of the morning coat.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Sator said:


> The other thing is that I am sceptical that in the America of the 1920-30s there was a concept of a quasi-formal (s)troller. I cannot even find American textual references to such a thing. I get the bad feeling that it is an overblown internet myth. Please feel welcome to prove me wrong.


I have provided a few AA plates as visual evidence of this (see above), accompanied by my speculation that showing the stroller alongside the morning coat in such plates is a significant fact.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

JibranK said:


> Talk about a chip on the shoulder Taliesin. While the US as a political and economic entity was on the rise, we are not talking about those things. That is for the Interchange. As sartorial matters go, the UK is most definitely more significant for men's clothing.


Style accompanies other expressions of power. Everyone loves a winner. So yes, JibranK, we are talking about those things. You can visit the Interchange if you like but I'm staying here.


----------



## rmanoj (Mar 6, 2009)

Sator said:


> No, I am merely questioning the concept of quasi-formal daywear, which never existed in Britain. I find the whole semi-formal thing to be like semi-pregnancy. The whole question of whether it looks more stylish and attractive to break up the all-black look by substituting black-and-white trousers is another question. I am not issuing any prescriptives.


I'm pretty sure the concept existed even if it was not actually called semi-formal. If you watch some old television programs and films, you will see that "Strollers" were once de rigeur for senior civil servants, diplomats and barristers in Britain (whilst their American counterparts were settling into a more casual uniform of single breasted two piece suits), whereas lounge suits would have been too informal (although plain charcoal three pieces were an acceptable substitute most of the time).


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

rmanoj said:


> I'm pretty sure the concept existed even if it was not actually called semi-formal. If you watch some old television programs and films, you will see that "Strollers" were once de rigeur for senior civil servants, diplomats and barristers in Britain (whilst their American counterparts were settling into a more casual uniform of single breasted two piece suits), whereas lounge suits would have been too informal (although plain charcoal three pieces were an acceptable substitute most of the time).


Which is another way of saying it was once a very common form of business attire, that with time became old fashioned, and then was worn mostly by older men, before passing out of fashion. Barristers still wear striped trousers with a black lounge, both through the Commonwealth and in the UK. However, it has tended to become more a form of livery than a standard category of dress. That is not to say it is bad as a form of business dress, and one could argue it still has much to commend itself. I just take issue with the notion of quasi-formal daywear.


----------



## pbc (Apr 4, 2008)

Sator said:


> The other thing is that I am sceptical that in the America of the 1920-30s there was a concept of a quasi-formal (s)troller. I cannot even find American textual references to such a thing. I get the bad feeling that it is an overblown internet myth. Please feel welcome to prove me wrong.


Can we drop the "internet myth" idea? Here is your textual reference with illustration. However you cut it, it existed at least in the United States as such. Have many people become educated to the existence and use of a stroller from the Internet? Yes, but it was not born here.

Why does education through the internet somehow make that education false? The same logic would have to apply to all information on the internet, including your Wikipedia articles. Even if they have a reference, so does this which you summarily dismiss. Internet information has to be sifted just like printed text. I have read many supposedly "authoritative" books and even peer-reviewed articles which are junk.

There are those in the UK who do view black jacket and striped trousers as semi-formal day wear. There are various logical arguments to support it. There are also a number of problems with the "textual" references to "correct" British style:

1. No book or collection of books is infallible.
2. No book or collection of books on social customs (such as dress) is authoritative unless it is describing the author's personal habits.

The reason I state number 2 above is that any print on social custom is descriptive and not proscriptive and therefore subject to all manner of inaccuracies and opinions of the author. In no case do social norms follow what has first been printed unless by a dictator creating artificial culture. Social customs and dress vary from city to city or even district to district. We can all think of social or dress customs which we follow and yet are not written anywhere.

Yes, the stroller is dead as much as hats, manners, bow ties, frock coats, morning dress, etc. If I wear one not as costume, how can it be dead? Just because I learned about them first on the internet? Then everything Sator advocates here is also dead, such as heavyweight fabric, by the same measure. "But I can find or order it from somewhere." The same can be said of all the other "dead" items. Does it have to come to me by way of family or national custom to be valid? The Internet is a medium by which information spreads. Just like print, photos, radio, and television it can be true or false, but the medium itself does not determine it. Just like the internet here has served as a means of resuscitating morning dress, formal and semi-formal evening wear (both details and usage), it is doing the same for the stroller. Are they invalid because they were once "dead"? No.

Business dress may also be considered to have been dead due to the rise of "business casual". But I have read of its resurgence and some companies eschewing business casual or "casual Friday" through the internet. Is that trend not "real" especially since many of those companies learned of the need/trend from Internet sources? No.

As for the whole argument that there isn't any category of semi- or half- dress or formality (black tie is "informal") I have found several references in the archives of the Times of London to semi- and half- dress (not for military uniforms).

To follow this argument further, some terminology must also be dead, such as morning dress (clothes worn for morning exercises), undress, evening informal (in reference to black tie), etc. even if "someone" does still use it.

I have no problem with adhering to one style over another (British over American or visa versa). I do have a problem with the declaration that something is dead or wrong because it is not the style you like.

England has not been the source of some of its celebrated styles but only served to popularize them. The top hat, seersucker, cummerbund, and vest (originally called a vest in royal records, not a waistcoat) all passed through England but were not born there. Are they invalid or wrong? No.

pbc


----------



## Sam I'm Not (Nov 26, 2007)

*prams in america*

(Sa)t(o)roller is an internet rumor. I will believe that until shown photographic evidence from a place other than aa/esky.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

I find the whole idea that the Stroller never existed to be an internet myth fostered by a few well-meaning but misguided people.
I would like to ask AA and Esquire if they had read about the Stroller on the internet (in the 20s and 30s) or Knize in Vienna if they had done so.
Especially Knize as they have a long standing tradition and should be awfully ignorant and uniformed to sell it as a proper alternative for rather formal weddings.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

pbc said:


> Can we drop the "internet myth" idea? Here is your textual reference with illustration. However you cut it, it existed at least in the United States as such.


Thank you for that. Though, where do they call it a (s)troller? No, I won't stop questioning things found on the internet and demanding external verifiability. It may disturb you, but I think it is a good thing. After all, do you believe everything you read on the internet? Wikipedia too demands external verifiability and textual references.

As for the idea that semi-formality is more of an American concept, I too am aware of Edwardian British sources talking about evening (but not daytime) semi-dress. However, they are uncommon and largely drop out after that. It was actually Nicholas Storey who suggested the idea that semi-formality is more of an American thing and I agree with him. Most British texts follow that, and the general practice of dress in Britain/Commonwealth follows that. Whife/Bridgland, as senior editors at the Tailor and Cutter are enormously authoritative sources, and cannot be dismissed off hand as petty inconveniences. What I don't see is the need to return to what is an unnecessary and dated concept of semi-dress. I don't see the point of willy nilly resuscitating _everything_ in the history of American costume.

Lastly, the term (s)troller is one that evokes enormous hysteria and misunderstanding. The forced attempt at rescusitating this aspect of American costume history provokes rightful ridicule. We should just let it be the dead historical item of clothing that it rightfully is. Once again, I will repeat that this is not to deny that it is preferable to break up the funereal all-black lounge suit by substituting black-and-white tone trousers to brighten the look up. I just think it unhelpfully anachronistic to try to convince people that it is somehow quasi-formal dress by conferring on it some odd name.

In fact, in British texts - irrespective of whether the trousers match the coat - the look was just referred to as the lounge:

And that is the level where I argue it should stay: as just another way of wearing a black lounge jacket.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Phileas Fogg said:


> I would like to ask AA and Esquire if they had read about the Stroller on the internet (in the 20s and 30s) or Knize in Vienna if they had done so.
> Especially Knize as they have a long standing tradition and should be awfully ignorant and uniformed to sell it as a proper alternative for rather formal weddings.


I have already acknowledged a published 1958 (Willi Leibold) source in German calling a lounge jacket with striped trousers ein kleine Besuchsanzug (evening dinner dress is called kleine Gesellschaftsanzug). It is simply just that I cannot find British sources for such a concept - they all call it a form of business dress. I see no reason to accept American sources as the Gold Standard.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

In movies and television I remember seeing the stroller worn for business wear. I recently watched an episode of the Saint that featured a City business man in stroller, and that was the 1960's. How much history does the stroller have for use at weddings? James Bond wore one at his wedding in On Her Majesty's Secret Service, and that was 1969.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

Well, I am not suggesting to take the American Sources as the Gold Standard, but as far as I know Knize (and Leibold) are not Americans.

What I was trying to point out is that this combination was and is seen as something not unlike a modern or more practical variant of formal daywear and not only in the US but also in parts of Europe (Austrians and Germans are not alone in this belief, Swiss and Italians see it the same way and probably also the French and the Hungarians, but I would like to double check this).
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Sator said:


> The forced attempt at rescusitating this aspect of American costume history provokes rightful ridicule. We should just let it be the dead historical item of clothing that it rightfully is.


I argue the opposite. As long as rented wedding clothing is prevalent--and the industry seems pretty well-entrenched--there must be a feasible option for day weddings. We all know how a rented morning coat is going to look. A stroller, on the other hand, can look reasonably respectable RTW. One might argue we should go back to navy double-breasteds, but the average couple is both inured to the idea of renting clothes and rightfully desirable of greater formality than a suit offers.

P.S.: My father and his groomsmen wore strollers at my parents' wedding in the early 80s.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

amplifiedheat said:


> A stroller, on the other hand, can look reasonably respectable RTW.


All that says to me is that lounges can be argued to be acceptable as wedding attire. I tend to think that it does little about the need for a special category of dress. The combination of navy reefer jacket ("blazer") and grey flannel trousers has no name to it, nor a category of formality. Perhaps it should be called the "meanderer" that is quasi-semi informal dress.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Phileas Fogg said:


> Well, I am not suggesting to take the American Sources as the Gold Standard, but as far as I know Knize (and Leibold) are not Americans.
> 
> What I was trying to point out is that this combination was and is seen as something not unlike a modern or more practical variant of formal daywear and not only in the US but also in parts of Europe (Austrians and Germans are not alone in this belief, Swiss and Italians see it the same way and probably also the French and the Hungarians, but I would like to double check this).
> Yours,
> ...


Once again, I acknowledge that in German speaking countries there was the concept of a kleine Besuchsanzug (as opposed to formal morning dress, which is ein grosse Besuchsanzug). The Knize family are Czech. American trends used to follow European ones, probably because a lot of American tailors were European migrants.

I am afraid I am being a purist here and I am with the British here: the passing off of lounge coat as an ersatz half-baked formal thing is also lazy. I think the vagueness of the concept is why "semi-formal" has never taken hold in Britain or the Commonwealth - it is too much like semi-pregnancy.

That is why I agree with this:



whistle_blower71 said:


> "semi-formal" is not an expression we use in England for evening or daywear.
> 
> *W_B*


Authoritative written textual sources back this statement up to the hilt.

There is also a great deal of truth to this as well:



culverwood said:


> The suit known here as "stroller" I would suggest is most commonly worn as a form of livery by butlers, waiters and shop assistants at high class grocers. As such it is not part of a gentleman's wardrobe formal, semi-formal or informal.


Grocers wear them because there was a time when shopkeepers (along with clerics and businessmen) commonly wore striped trousers with a lounge jacket.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

It seems quite clear that there is still case enough to consider the Stroller/Stresemann/black jacket with striped trousers/ demi-tight a kind of somewhat formal dress in many European countries. 
Sure, maybe this is not true for the UK (where it wasn't used just by grocers and butlers, please see below).
Should you be writing a guide to English dress it could perhaps be acceptable to avoid considering the Stroller as semi-formal but it is clearly wrong to dismiss it altogether as "an invention of an internet group".

As for the comment about grocers and butlers it makes me wonder about the writer. For my part I am rather happy to wear the same style of daywear as some grocers and butlers by the name of:

Sir Winston Churchill, Head of H.M.'s Government
Count Istvan Bethlen de Bethlen, Prime Minister of Hungary
Gustav Stesemann, Prime Minister of Germany
and many more whose profession was Prime Minister, Minister, Ambassador and the like.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## pbc (Apr 4, 2008)

Sator said:


> Though, where do they call it a (s)troller?


The World Book Dictionary
Volume 2 (L-Z)
By World Book, Inc, 2002
pg 2076

The Creative Wedding Handbook
By Wendy Somerville Wall
Newman Press, 1973
pg 16

The Christian Wedding Planner
By Ruth Muzzy, R. Kent Hughes
Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., 1991
pg 57 (Men's Formalwear Dress Chart)

Esquire's Encyclopedia of 20th Century Men's Fashions
By O. E. Schoeffler, William Gale
McGraw-Hill, 1973
pg 246

New Complete Book of Etiquette: The Guide to Gracious Living
By Amy Vanderbilt
Doubleday, 1967
pg 138

Yankee Doodles
By Michael Leapman
Allen Lane, 1982
pg 203

Clothing Selection: Fashions, Figures, Fabrics
By Helen G. Chambers, Verna Moulton
Lippincott, 1961
pg 233

These, among many others.


----------



## pbc (Apr 4, 2008)

whistle_blower71 said:


> I had never heard of a "stroller" before AA but thought it be what is called in London a "short morning coat" or just "black jacket".





Anthony_Jordan said:


> ... I agree that "stroller" is not a British term (I know of "short morning coat", "morning jacket", "black jacket")


Being referred to as a "short morning coat" or "morning jacket" would seem to put it in the morning dress category.

US Army Colonel James McIlroy reported that among the other civilian clothing he brought on his assignment as Military Attache to Japan, were:Long morning coat and trousers
Short morning coat and trousers​A Military Attache in Japan (1929-1933)
By James G. McIlroy
Vantage Press, Inc, 2007
pg 92

If it is any form of morning dress, which this terminology strongly suggests, it would certainly be less formal than a morning coat. Semi-formal describes the concept.

pbc


----------



## pbc (Apr 4, 2008)

Sator said:


> I think the vagueness of the concept is why "semi-formal" has never taken hold in Britain....


I am sure the concept is alive and well in Britain, regardless of terminology (or lack thereof). Were it not so, black tie would be the same level of formality as either a lounge suit or white tie.

pbc


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Phileas Fogg said:


> Sir Winston Churchill, Head of H.M.'s Government
> Count Istvan Bethlen de Bethlen, Prime Minister of Hungary
> Gustav Stesemann, Prime Minister of Germany
> and many more whose profession was Prime Minister, Minister, Ambassador and the like.


All dressing like the grocers who vote for them.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

pbc said:


> Short morning coat


Morning coats (body coat) not made up in a lounge style jacket, were often cut short. They were still usually a bit longer than modern lounges.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

pbc said:


> The World Book Dictionary
> Volume 2 (L-Z)
> By World Book, Inc, 2002
> pg 2076
> ...


Very good. But nothing from before 1961. Certainly nothing American from the 1920-30s.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

Please feel free to think that they dressed like the grocer voting for them.

Still this comment reminds me of an Italian socialist leader who stated (probably in 1945 or 46) that for the good of the people he was making the supreme sacrifice of dressing like an opera musician (he had to wear full dress as he had to be sworn in as a Government minister). Actually he was having a chance to dress like a gentleman only he was so "bright and well educated" that he could not even understand that much.

Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Phileas Fogg said:


> Please feel free to think that they dressed like the grocer voting for them.
> 
> Still this comment reminds me of an Italian socialist leader who stated (probably in 1945 or 46) that for the good of the people he was making the supreme sacrifice of dressing like an opera musician (he had to wear full dress as he had to be sworn in as a Government minister). Actually he was having a chance to dress like a gentleman only he was so "bright and well educated" that he could not even understand that much.
> 
> ...


Sorry, I'm not sure what this is meant to imply. However, a black jacket with striped trousers is called a Stresemann in German not because they gasped at how extraordinarily formally or quasi-formally Stresemann was dressed on entering the Bundestag so dress - they gasped because he dared to dress so casually. Instead of showing up in morning dress, he merely wore a jacket. It was the period equivalent of showing up without a tie. Then, as now, politicians on both sides of the fence tried to dress down to show they were in touch with their voters. Stresemann was a centre-right politician.


----------



## clothesboy (Sep 19, 2004)

pbc said:


> pbc


What is the source of this photo?


----------



## rmanoj (Mar 6, 2009)

Sator, what has caused you to turn against the stroller like this? Your older posts indicate that you were quite a fan. How about defining it as "not formal, but the smartest/_ most_ formal way to wear a lounge coat during the day with the possible exception of the black three piece suit (which is only appropriate for funerals)." Or perhaps "The smartest form of informal business attire".?


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

It is meant to imply a fundamental misunderstanding of a few things 1. who copied who 2. the mindset of people living in the old fashioned Europe 3. of the fact that dressing better is not dressing as a servant.

No self-respecting gentleman would have copied a grocer in order to get more votes. TV was non existent and many people saw the politicians maybe once in their lives, it was easier to hear them on radio and there dress did not matter.
Politics were much different from what they are now. Hitler and Mussolini were the among the first with mass rallies and even there only a small percentage of voters could see them. Cinema was also in an early stage.

Wearing a short jacket was obviously not the same as wearing no tie. Even the top hat made people swoon at first, still it is considered the most formal hat available. 
Streseman was a devout Catholic and convinced monarchist, hardly a rebel, what he wore was far more acceptable than you try to make it sound. Also Istvan Bethlen de Bethlen was an old fashioned aristocrat backed by the most conservative elements of society. 
And Churchill, well that is laughable, Churchill was not even elected for his first Government (and came from the Dukes of Marlborough, hardly people to copy the grocers).

People at the time used to copy their betters when and if they could. I still remember the comment of a family friend about some pictures taken in the 20s ("Yes, we had a car, but most people had to walk at the time" or " We had furcoats for winter but many people had a single coat for all seasons and no more").

The comment about the grocers shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about European society of the 20s to 40s (and maybe more).
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

OK, let us accept that there is no such thing as a 'stroller' (in terms of it being an actual term) and 'semi-formal day wear.' Let us also accept that black with stripes/houndstooth is equiv. in formality to that of a lounge suit and no more.

Now, from that, there is nothing to suggest that it could not or ought not be worn in this day and age for business wear or the like. Indeed, since it is an established pattern, it is sartorially correct to wear. I would not dismiss its practical use so easily or send it to the Sartorial Crimes Tribunal just yet.

Also, barristers wear a bar jacket (sleeved waistcoat) and not an ordinary lounge jacket so they are not wearing black lounge as suggested (and black lounge with bands???)

https://www.stanley-ley.co.uk/acatalog/Stanley_Ley_Court_Waistcoats_and_Barrister_Trousers_23.html


----------



## rmanoj (Mar 6, 2009)

I've heard the sleeved waistcoat called a "bum freezer". Junior barristers, but not QCs, can opt to wear it instead of a black jacket and waistcoat, but either is fine.


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

Phileas Fogg said:


> The comment about the grocers shows a complete lack of knowledge and understanding about European society of the 20s to 40s (and maybe more).


In the 1920s really conservative aristocrats would wear morning dress with frock coats.

Diana de Marley's comment in her book _Fashion for Men_(London, 1925) on this photo of George V at a wedding in 1923 is that:

_The King clung to frock coats for formal occasions....The younger generation, however, begs to differ by wearing morning coats._

To wear a lounge jacket was not merely one but two whole steps down in formality - or worse. Conservative etiquette books of the early twentieth century recommended lounges only as beach and country resort wear. Feel free to call me as ignorant as you wish but that is an indisputable fact.

However, the conservative prescriptives to not wear lounges in town largely fell on deaf ears. Even Devereaux in 1925 recommends a lounge with striped trousers for _*young*_ men as business attire - shopkeepers, bankers, and stockbrockers alike dressed this way.

As far as George V was concerned, to wear lounges in town with a Coke hat was akin to wearing a Hawaiian shirt with a baseball cap. If anyone should wear a bowler hat to Buckingham Palace the King would explode that he was not going to have any ratcatcher's hats in his house.

And, here it is, resort wear worn with the ratcatcher's hat:


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

rmanoj said:


> I've heard the sleeved waistcoat called a "bum freezer". Junior barristers, but not QCs, can opt to wear it instead of a black jacket and waistcoat, but either is fine.


I believe there is a sleeved waistcoat specifically for QCs. IIRC it has braiding on the cuff.

*W_B*


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

rmanoj said:


> Sator, what has caused you to turn against the stroller like this? Your older posts indicate that you were quite a fan. How about defining it as "not formal, but the smartest/_ most_ formal way to wear a lounge coat during the day with the possible exception of the black three piece suit (which is only appropriate for funerals)." Or perhaps "The smartest form of informal business attire".?


I agree with you totally: the lounge coat can vary greatly in formality. While a tweed lounge in colourful checks and patch pockets is very casual, there are smarter ways of wearing a city lounge. Once again, I agree totally that the lounge always remains within the confines of informal and business attire.

The reason why I have taken a disliking to the the term "stroller" is that it tends to make it like some formal category of dress. It evokes enormous misunderstanding by some who wish to inflate it to the status of some sort of bizarre quasi-court attire. In my experience, I just think it causes too many problems and misunderstandings when anyone tries to attempt to inflate the lounge to anything other than its rightful place. There is no special title conferred to a tweed jacket worn with odd trousers and nor should there be one with any other way of wearing a lounge coat. The lounge coat always remains a lounge coat in my view - nothing inflates it into anything else. Yes, I do appreciate that is a staunchly traditionalist view (and rather British at that), but one that is grounded in careful historic research.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

whistle_blower71 said:


> I believe there is a sleeved waistcoat specifically for QCs. IIRC it has braiding on the cuff.
> 
> *W_B*


I don't know about braiding but it does have three buttons and cords (braiding?) on the cuffs. Clear example is (soon to be ex-)Speaker Michael Martin's jacket:










The gown takes place of a jacket/coat so you need not wear a jacket/coat (court dress is meant to be worn inside anyway) and the waistcoat is sleeved so as to cover the white shirt sleeves.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> I don't know about braiding but it does have three buttons and cords (braiding?) on the cuffs. Clear example is (soon to be ex-)Speaker Michael Martin's jacket:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yep. That's the one...

*W_B*


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Sator said:


> I agree with you totally: the lounge coat can vary greatly in formality. While a tweed lounge in colourful checks and patch pockets is very casual, there are smarter ways of wearing a city lounge. Once again, I agree totally that the lounge always remains within the confines of informal and business attire.
> 
> The reason why I have taken a disliking to the the term "stroller" is that it tends to make it like some formal category of dress. It evokes enormous misunderstanding by some who wish to inflate it to the status of some sort of bizarre quasi-court attire. In my experience, I just think it causes too many problems and misunderstandings when anyone tries to attempt to inflate the lounge to anything other than its rightful place. There is no special title conferred to a tweed jacket worn with odd trousers and nor should there be one with any other way of wearing a lounge coat. *The lounge coat always remains a lounge coat in my view - nothing inflates it into anything else*. Yes, I do appreciate that is a staunchly traditionalist view (and rather British at that), but one that is grounded in careful historic research.


Except maybe silk grosgain faced lapels? :icon_smile:

*W_B*


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

whistle_blower71 said:


> Except maybe silk grosgain faced lapels? :icon_smile:
> 
> *W_B*


Of course, the really old fashioned term for a dinner jacket is a _dress lounge_. I believe the term is sometimes still used on Savile Row in the cutting room. A cutter would use your lounge block as the basis of your DJ.

This comes from Vincent's CPG:










The original form probably had roll collars like a smoking jacket, to which it is also related. It was originally a garment with all the informality of a dressing gown - but one for eating dinner in.


----------



## rmanoj (Mar 6, 2009)

Sator said:


> In the 1920s really conservative aristocrats would wear morning dress with frock coats.


That is a rather interesting tie the King is wearing. It is just a four in hand, isn't it?


----------



## pbc (Apr 4, 2008)

Sator said:


> Of course, the really old fashioned term for a dinner jacket is a _dress lounge_.


Another old fashioned term is semi-dress coat, as an 1889 Times advertisement indicated they sold "Semi-Dress Coats or Dining Jackets".


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

rmanoj said:


> That is a rather interesting tie the King is wearing. It is just a four in hand, isn't it?


I think it may be a dress cravat looped through a ring.


----------



## whistle_blower71 (May 26, 2006)

Anthony Jordan said:


> I think it may be a dress cravat looped through a ring.


Yes it is. It was one of George V's idiosyncracies. I am looking through some books for any more info and will post if I find anything.
George V was an immaculate and traditional dresser who despised the casual attitude to dress displayed by his sons, the Princes of Wales and Kent.

*W_B*


----------



## AlanC (Oct 28, 2003)

Well, they were wearing something. There clearly is historical precedent for it. 'Stroller' is certainly the current term for what it is, at least in the US. I wear all sort of historical anomalies already (hats, suits, ties, spectator shoes, cufflinks, pocket squares, bow ties). I'm quite sure this is just another such item. I doubt I'll be ridiculed any more than I already am. I like the stroller, although I don't wear it much. I don't wear black tie much, either, but I enjoy the opportunities when I can.

Sator, you are the one who made many of the original arguments in favor of contrasting trousers and jacket being more formal with the matching lounge suit being less. Which Sator shall I believe?



Sator said:


> It is with tongue in cheek I say "bring back the frock coat" or "morning dress is business casual". But in all seriousness, the best we can do is to keep the position of the lounge suit as "informal dress". That means insisting on formal dress such as morning dress or strollers for daytime formal situations such as weddings. I think we can also rediscover the casualness of the lounge suit by finding ways of making it look more relaxed with more sprezzatura. It also means educating people to the effect that lounge suits will not do as formal wear.


----------



## Phileas Fogg (Oct 20, 2008)

Dear Mr Sator,

we still wear morning coats for formal events in Europe and I still own the frock coat of my great-grandfather whose size was closest to mine (made more than a hundred years ago and almost as good as new). We, as a family, not only did not have to buy our furniture we did not have to buy most of our formal clothes.

The point is that Herr Stresemann did not wear the Stresemann as a tieless look, it was something acceptable and formal enough for the office even though not for the official meetings of the Reichstag. While it is true that King George kept wearing the frock coat till the mid 20s it is also true that some Italian Prime Ministers (I think Orlando and/or Nitti, but should check) were already wearing lounge suits at Versailles treaty meetings (1919) when other Heads of Governments/State wore morning coats!

If you have a look at many period pictures you will see a mix of morning coats, strollers and lounge suits, which means that a mix of styles was acceptable even in public (and not just in the office). This does not make a morning coat informal dress.

And even assuming politicians were dressing down for the audience (as already said at the time they probably had to dress up for the audience) why did diplomats and bureaucrats dress down for the voters? They are among the most conservative and formal members of society and are not elected, still many of them are depicted in strollers.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg


----------



## rmanoj (Mar 6, 2009)

George V can't have been that conservative in his dress - his frock coat appears to have a breast pocket in that picture!


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

AlanC said:


> Sator, you are the one who made many of the original arguments in favor of contrasting trousers and jacket being more formal with the matching lounge suit being less.


I was wrong. I realise now I was merely following forum group think. It's not the only forum dogma I am now seriously questioning. I now even think that black lounge suits are not "wrong" or against any "rule". I think the "rule" about showing 1/2" sleeve is nonsense. I think it is good to question everything rather than reading everything you read on the internet. Feel free to question everything I say too.

However, I should qualify things when I say I was wrong. I still think that it is relatively dressier to wear a black lounge with either matching or contrasting trousers - compared to something like a brown coloured tweed lounge suit. What I am now saying is that it still keeps the lounge coat firmly within the confines of informal and business dress. I now reject the category of "semi-formal daywear". I am just saying that I was wrong to allow myself to so thoughtlessly fall into the trap of internet group-think by accepting some special category of bizarre quasi-formal ceremonial dress. I did not do my research. I merely blindly accepted what I read. I was stupid.


----------



## Cordovan (Feb 1, 2008)

Sator:

Do you have your coats tailored to avoid having any shirt cuff shown or do you just believe that it's not a rule and one can have his coat tailored however he wishes?

And not to press the point - but - as I understand what you are saying, you deny neither the existence nor popularity nor appropriateness of what we misled folks refer to as a stroller. You just maintain that it is it's own level of formality between lounge suit and morning coat. But do you still feel it is slightly more formal than a lounge suit? ie. in the first illustration AlanC posted, are those gentlemen who are wearing lounge coats just as guilty as wearing a regular lounge suit to that wedding, or have they dressed just a notch down in formality from the rest of the crowd which is wearing full morning dress? If they are merely a notch down, but better (ie. more formally dressed) than a lounge suit, then as much as you may wish to not call it a middle level, it in fact really is. 

In the same vein, how do you view Pres. RR choice to don a 'stroller' (excuse the term) as opposed to a regular lounge suit for his inauguration?

Your thoughts please.....

Cordovan


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Sator said:


> I was wrong. I realise now I was merely following forum group think. It's not the only forum dogma I am now seriously questioning. I now even think that black lounge suits are not "wrong" or against any "rule". I think the "rule" about showing 1/2" sleeve is nonsense. I think it is good to question everything rather than reading everything you read on the internet. Feel free to question everything I say too.
> 
> However, I should qualify things when I say I was wrong. I still think that it is relatively dressier to wear a black lounge with either matching or contrasting trousers - compared to something like a brown coloured tweed lounge suit. What I am now saying is that it still keeps the lounge coat firmly within the confines of informal and business dress. I now reject the category of "semi-formal daywear". I am just saying that I was wrong to allow myself to so thoughtlessly fall into the trap of internet group-think by accepting some special category of bizarre quasi-formal ceremonial dress. I did not do my research. I merely blindly accepted what I read. I was stupid.


Why do you _a priori _rule out all the contemporary evidence, from photos to illustrations?

Basically, you seem to have some printed sources which do not mention semi-formal day wear, and you accept their silence as dispositve, but you reject out of hand all the printed sources which _do _mention it.

How is that an example of open-mindedness?


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Sator, FWIW, the 1936 edition of _Modern Tailor, Cutter and Outfiitter _specifically describes the black jacket worn with striped or checked gray or B&W trousers as the ensemble that is below full morning dress but above business dress in terms of formality.

It also says that when a lounge coat is not black, it usually takes matching trousers, but if it is black, it must take formal odd trousers. The latter can be worn for business, but is more formal than the matching lounge. It explicitly excludes the morning coat for business (which is a bit odd, since certain London exchanges still required it back then, and the BofE did until the 1960s as I recall).


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Ah, lay off, you guys. Sator is my pal and, besides, he's done a lot of good for us. If he wants to cop an attitude and go on the war-path about the state of the Stroller in the USA, then as far as I'm concerned, he's earned it... 

But, if I ever get a paycheck again, I'll still gonna wear one...


----------



## manton (Jul 26, 2003)

Stote (1939) describes the same outfit and calls it "semi-formal" day wear. The English book does not use the term semi-formal at all, not even for the dinner jacket, but it makes clear that the black jacket with striped trousers is analagous.

The two _Apperal Arts _"gudes to correct dress" that I have both use the terms "semi-formal" and "stroller."


----------



## Mad Hatter (Jul 13, 2008)

Within the various posts on this topic, you see a variety of illustrations. The jackets all seem to be either SB/waistcoat or DB in black. The trousers; there is much variation. There seems to be shepherds' check, stripes, PoW, plain, houndstooth and possibly some slightly-marled flannel.

Taking neither side, is there a semblance of hierarchy within the "stroller" ensemble by virtue of the trousers? Or the jacket style itself? Or are all combinations treated as equal? Is this where the debate lies, or is it purely whether or not the ensemble has a legitimate claim of any pretense of formality?


----------



## pbc (Apr 4, 2008)

Mad Hatter said:


> ... is there a semblance of hierarchy within the "stroller" ensemble by virtue of the trousers? Or the jacket style itself? Or are all combinations treated as equal?


It would follow the same scale as a morning coat. From my readings I think it is as follows:
striped trousers = most formal
most other patterns = less formal
plain gray = least formal (I read somewhere that younger men/teenagers likely would or should wear plain gray, but I don't recall the source.)

I don't know about the slightly marbled flannel, if it is even "correct" or if what you are referring to is just a gray flannel.

My own interpretation is that with striped trousers, they are more formal if they have a darker tone and higher stripe contrast, e.g. black pants with stark white chalk stripes. Other patterns will probably be more or less formal depending following the same criteria of overall tone and pattern contrast, but the actual pattern will come into play. I suspect this is likely splitting hairs. Personally, I think herringbone and a small houndstooth pattern look more formal than a check or plaid, but it all depends.



> Is this where the debate lies, or is it purely whether or not the ensemble has a legitimate claim of any pretense of formality?


The debate was about the whole stroller ensemble (or black jacket/morning jacket/short morning coat with striped trousers).


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

When you're all dressed up but have nowhere to go except to the bookshelf or the computer screen, funny things happen. It's good to get out every once in awhile.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I've subscribed to this thread for some time and find the debate stimulating. As long as they keep it civil, it should be fine.

Personally, I think if you're going to get one thing that's not too useful for other things besides weddings and the occasional day formal event, you may as well get a cutaway coat first. Just my opinion.

I think the "stroller" is valid as semi-formal or the day equivalent of black tie. Certainly there's enough precedence and people still doing it.

Great picture. The chap on the far right embodies my idea of the perfect stroller ensemble.

I like both their outfits. Despite having pleats, Edward VIII's trousers appear to be just slim enough to make him appear a bit taller. A perfect cut. Are those solid, though? I'm interested in why he's wearing a dark waistcoat and lighter, solid trousers.



Sator said:


> The original form probably had roll collars like a smoking jacket, to which it is also related. It was originally a garment with all the informality of a dressing gown - but one for eating dinner in.


I'm still wondering where that argument (I can't remember who made it) that the first "dress lounge" as it were had a shawl (roll?) collar and TWO buttons came from.



AlanC said:


>


Good evidence. I like your subtly patterned check trousers, too. I'm curious though, do a lot of people use charcoal suit jackets for strollers now? I see a lot of two or three button coats with flap pockets and vents used in the WAYW threads.



misterdonuts said:


> When you're all dressed up but have nowhere to go except to the bookshelf or the computer screen, funny things happen. It's good to get out every once in awhile.


Maybe, but at least we're getting in some good debate staying inside! We _need_ someone to come in and ruffle feathers this way once in a while. It keeps our convictions and minds fresh on why we like wearing fine clothing and certain modes of dress that many now consider "dated."

I somewhat disagree with Sator, but he argues his point very well. I think the stroller is still valid and very rakish, especially when cut with a single button and pointed lapels (that one's for you, Sator :icon_smile_wink. I also disagree with Sator's assessment of Astaire's full dress coat and trousers as an "abomination," but at least he has a good argument for that, too.

Can't we all just get along? :icon_smile_big:

As for being all dressed up and nowhere to go, I feel like that a lot even when I'm not wearing a coat or tie... but wish I had reason to.


----------



## Anthony Jordan (Apr 29, 2005)

In the spirit of bringing written evidence to the debate, I was interested to note in Lady Troubridge's 1926 "The Book of Etiquette" (I have the 1976 reprint), the following reference:

"Since the War, considerable latitude has crept in with regard to men's clothes...Formerly in London it was not permissible for a man to go to a luncheon or afternoon party in anything but a black tail-coat and striped trousers - the official morning-dress. Now he may go in a lounge-suit, but this should be of a dark material or blue serge. _Many men strike a happy mean by wearing a short black coat with striped trousers_" Particularly interesting is the suggestion that this combination is described as a "happy mean" between "the official morning-dress" and a lounge-suit.


----------



## mikevienna (Aug 10, 2008)

Stroller/Stresemann, try a google search for "masonic suit" - check out the notched lapels  :aportnoy:

I see them worn very often when I visit various lodges. Last time I was in the UK I saw alot of people wearing them, if you don't believe me then go to London and stand outside the Grand Lodge building in Queen Street and wait for all the lodge meetings to finish-for a short while everyone in the street is dressed the same way  

Knize in Vienna still sells them, was in their store today.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

Hi,
This is a great question and we have to thank Sator, PBC and the other contributors for bringing illustrations and book citations to this superb debate. Even if the "Stroller" is not a real notch in the hierarchy of formal wear, the fact that it was widely worn through the 1960's, by bankers, diplomats, lawyers, prime ministers and perhaps grocers makes it a valid form of business dress. We can also see from the offered illustrations and etiquette manual that some thought it appropriate for weddings.

To my mind, the crucial point is a small comment by PBC;
"Yes, the stroller is dead as much as hats, manners, bow ties, frock coats, morning dress, etc. If I wear one not as costume, how can it be dead?"

This is exactly the point. If I choose to wear hats, bow ties or the so called "stroller", these archaic styles live again. What would happen if every business, had one man with the courage (or madness) to stubbornly dress well? Could a determined bunch of cultural saboteurs influence our business culture to dress better? I say yes. 

Sator may argue that these things are outmoded, but I say we can influence those around us in some small way. I think the effort is worthwhile.

For whatever reason, I like to see people dress well for business. It makes me more comfortable. I accept others' freedom to dress as slovenly as they please, but somehow, a small percentage of these same office coleagues are made uneasy enough, that when I wear sportcoats and ties, they will walk up to me and tell me I "don't have to wear a tie". But, I stubbornly continue to wear the tie, cufflinks and sport coats anyway. Usually 3-5 days a week and especially for meetings.

Then a curious thing happens after a month or so. Some of the men start wearing better dress shirts, french cuffs, ties or sport coats. Some of them comment positively or ask questions about details of clothing in meetings, or some mention that they'd like to dress better in the office. 

It's like some were waiting for an excuse to dress better. Over the last 5 years I've noticed a trend for Atlanta guys in their 20's to wear sport coats casually and at work. Maybe I'm just reinforcing a trend that already exists? It doesn't matter if the "Stroller" is just a dressier lounge suit, if you like it, wear it any way. You're lifting the culture in your neighborhood in some small way. Perhaps you are delaying the rule of the barbarians for one more day.

So, I encourage all of you with more clothing knowledge to set a good example. You will have more of a positive influence than you expect.


----------



## edhillpr (Apr 19, 2007)

AlanC,
Thanks for posting the great Esky / AA / other illustrations. Good job with your stroller. 

As you say;
"There clearly is historical precedent for it. 'Stroller' is certainly the current term for what it is, at least in the US. I wear all sort of historical anomalies already (hats, suits, ties, spectator shoes, cufflinks, pocket squares, bow ties). I'm quite sure this is just another such item. I doubt I'll be ridiculed any more than I already am."

Well done. You may not realize the good influence you're having on people around you.


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

a tailor said:


> you have two choices. its either sox, or paint your ankles.


spats:icon_smile:


----------



## norton (Dec 18, 2008)

I have a black, single breasted, notch collar blazer with horn buttons. If I were to wear it with gray slacks and a db light gray peaked collar vest would I be looked upon as:

1) wearing a stroller,

2) unsuccessfully trying to wear a stroller,

3) just plain odd, or

4) entirely unremarkable?


----------



## rmanoj (Mar 6, 2009)

It depends. Is the jacket a "blazer" in either of the traditional senses of the word (either a distinctive jacket signifying membership of something or a reefer with shank buttons)? If it is just an odd black coat, and the buttons are black, you should be fine. Plain grey trousers apparently have some historical precedent, but checquered or cashmere striped ones would probably be better, or at least more distinctively "stroller-like".


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

If you mean the general public, they'll probably think #3 or associate you with Captain Peacock. Don't let it stop you, of course!


----------



## Spats (Dec 3, 2008)

*semi serious as a heart attack.*



Cordovan said:


> how do you view Pres. RR choice to don a 'stroller' (excuse the term) as opposed to a regular lounge suit for his inauguration?
> 
> Your thoughts please.....


 Like a lodge member from the mid west waking up one day a "B" actor in Hollywood and later still as President of the free world! Unbe****ingleavable. What outfit would you pick out for yourself in such a circumstance? He coulda worn a toga...


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Disregarding the last reply, this certainly was an interesting thread. So much so that I am bumping it back up into activity . . . maybe. Whether or not Sator was correct in his analysis of British historical usage, the last couple of years seem to be swinging the tide more towards Phineas' argument. That outfit we have come to call a stroller does appear to have been accepted by sartorialists as a form of semi-formal day wear. Even Will recommends it for wear on Easter morning and if I can get a pair of grey houndstooth trousers and a DB vest by then, that's what I shall wear (under my choir robe!)

Your comments, gentlemen? (And any of the ladies who may peruse this chat room, of course.)


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Sator is a very knowledgeable man but on rare occasions his analysis is outside the mainstream. He also holds that all double breasted jackets are descended from, and should be classified as reefer coats. The fact is that there is no accepted authority in the sartorial world, and consequently no universally accepted sartorial taxonomy.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

And as has been pointed out, there are differing traditions. American, UK, Continental . . .


----------

