# Morning Dress in America



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

1991


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

1975


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

1974


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

1959


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Compared to most prvious examples, most of the 1991 people are wearing opera hats rather than proper silk which is incorrect...


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

1915


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> Compared to most prvious examples, most of the 1991 people are wearing opera hats rather than proper silk which is incorrect...


The 1915 picture shows the nice shine that a good silk topper has. I'm afraid they aren't as readily available nowadays.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Thank God those days are over and pray God that they will never return. I can't see why one would ever like to look like the guy from the Monopoly game.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

beherethen said:


> Thank God those days are over and pray God that they will never return. I can't see why one would ever like to look like the guy from the Monopoly game.


I'm not sure what you mean, "those days are over." Here's a photo of the same event in 2007.

Note the gentleman's mustache is slightly smaller than the one he sported in 1915.

2007.


----------



## Ekphrastic (Oct 4, 2009)

Bog said:


> I'm not sure what you mean, "those days are over." Here's a photo of the same event in 2007.
> 
> 2007.


Ah, academia, how do I love thee?


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

2007.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

beherethen said:


> Thank God those days are over and pray God that they will never return. I can't see why one would ever like to look like the guy from the Monopoly game.


Yes, they'd look so much better in jeans, t-shirts, flip-flops and sneakers-more distinguished, too.


----------



## bigchris1313 (Apr 16, 2009)

Subtle Reagan allusion: y/n?


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

rsmeyer said:


> Yes, they'd look so much better in jeans, t-shirts, flip-flops and sneakers-more distinguished, too.


They would look less costumed and certainly more in touch with the 21st Century. I would imagine many of the people shown, can't wait to shed their Monopoly suits and don their normal clothing.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

rsmeyer said:


> Yes, they'd look so much better in jeans, t-shirts, flip-flops and sneakers-more distinguished, too.


Now they all look like the guy who lost at Monopoly.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

beherethen said:


> They would look less costumed and certainly more in touch with the 21st Century. I would imagine many of the people shown, can't wait to shed their Monopoly suits and don their normal clothing.


Whatever that is.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

My community has several of these events each year in which folks dress in clothing not routinely seen these days. Here are some pictures taken at those events. I'm not sure if they are advocating a return to these styles or not; but heck, if we are going to live in the past why stop at 1915? :icon_smile_big:




























Cruiser


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> My community has several of these events each year in which folks dress in clothing not routinely seen these days. Here are some pictures taken at those events. I'm not sure if they are advocating a return to these styles or not; but heck, if we are going to live in the past why stop at 1915? :icon_smile_big:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just checked and our local Medieval Times opens it's season today at 6pm. Damn-too late to get a proper outfit:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

There's a difference between putting on a tourist show with your clothes, and actually wearing them as part of your official duty.

While there is now shortage of the former, it is the later that concerns this thread.


----------



## Liam Kingsley (Mar 30, 2010)

beherethen said:


> They would look less costumed and certainly more in touch with the 21st Century. I would imagine many of the people shown, can't wait to shed their Monopoly suits and don their normal clothing.


Monopoly was invented during the Great Depression, and those pictures were in 1915. They would have no clue who you were talking about or what you meant by 'Monopoly suits.' :teacha: Well, the people in the 1915 picture anyway. Can't speak for the other ones.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

The 14th is the One True Century.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

Ah 1915, WW1 was 6 months old, Japan declared economic control over China and the House of Representatives rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote and segregation was rampant. The good old days.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

1963, Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

The Sheriff of Middlesex County leads the procession, holding his sword, followed by Harvard President Pusey. 

Undated, Nathan Marsh Pusey was Harvard President 1953–1971.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Great photos. The Monopoly Man and Renaissance Faire comments are tiresome and add nothing of value. I've had three significant events in my life so far at which morning dress was worn by at least some participants, and all three events were in the United States.

Here's another event (which I've not participated in) where morning dress is worn: the Virginia governor's inauguration. These are from January 16, 2010:


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*What the devil . . .*



beherethen said:


> They would look less costumed and certainly more in touch with the 21st Century. I would imagine many of the people shown, can't wait to shed their Monopoly suits and don their normal clothing.


. . . are you doing on this forum? There's nothing costume about wearing the appropriate attire to an event that requires it


----------



## ourkid (Nov 17, 2009)

beherethen said:


> They would look less costumed and certainly more in touch with the 21st Century. I would imagine many of the people shown, can't wait to shed their Monopoly suits and don their normal clothing.


I'm not so sure about that. I think many people enjoy marking a special occasion by dressing up. Morning suits are surely just one way of turning a potentially humdrum gathering into something more memorable for the participants.


----------



## Gentry (Apr 23, 2010)

Taliesin said:


> Great photos. The Monopoly Man and Renaissance Faire comments are tiresome and add nothing of value. I've had three significant events in my life so far at which morning dress was worn by at least some participants, and all three events were in the United States.
> 
> Here's another event (which I've not participated in) where morning dress is worn: the Virginia governor's inauguration. These are from January 16, 2010:


God bless the greatest Commonwealth in the Union


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey after arguing a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in March, 2008:


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Taliesin said:


> Great photos. The Monopoly Man and Renaissance Faire comments are tiresome and add nothing of value. I've had three significant events in my life so far at which morning dress was worn by at least some participants, and all three events were in the United States.
> 
> Here's another event (which I've not participated in) where morning dress is worn: the Virginia governor's inauguration. These are from January 16, 2010:


Happy to see a state of the Union keeping up traditions, however, I would have gone with a spread collar and FIH rather than wing and ascot.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

beherethen said:


> They would look less costumed and certainly more in touch with the 21st Century. I would imagine many of the people shown, can't wait to shed their Monopoly suits and don their normal clothing.


IMHO, your comments (Sartorially, not politically) are remarkably ignorant, even for Ask Andy. Obviously, these are clothes worn traditionally for specific occasions, and are entirely APPROPRIATE for those occasions, both then and now.The same people would not wear those clothes for other occasions (walking the dog, grocery shopping, etc.), for that would not be APPROPRIATE.This is as true in 2010 as in 1915, with modest modifications to the prescribed attire. Wearing jeans and the like for THESE ocassions would be equally INNAPPROPRIATE as wearing a morning coat to wash one's car in.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

rsmeyer said:


> Wearing jeans and the like for THESE ocassions would be equally INNAPPROPRIATE as wearing a morning coat to wash one's car in.


I don't think anybody suggested that one would wear jeans for these occasions. Besides, I have a feeling that the posts in question were just poking a little good natured fun at a style of dress that few even see these days, much less wear. I know that this was the intent of mine.

Being a clothing enthusiast doesn't mean you can't also have a sense of humor. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## digby_snaffles (May 18, 2009)

beherethen said:


> They would look less costumed and certainly more in touch with the 21st Century. I would imagine many of the people shown, can't wait to shed their Monopoly suits and don their normal clothing.


The very same could be said of the suit as well.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I don't think anybody suggested that one would wear jeans for these occasions. Besides, I have a feeling that the posts in question were just poking a little good natured fun at a style of dress that few even see these days, much less wear. I know that this was the intent of mine.
> 
> Being a clothing enthusiast doesn't mean you can't also have a sense of humor. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Being a clothing enthusiast should mean that you have, among other things, a sense of what is appropriate. Poking fun at what is perfectly appropriate for a specific occasion is dumb.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

In the 1915 photos, some small percentage of the population, would wear morning clothes & top hats on a daily basis. These people were bank presidents, stock brokers, robber barons whatever. This was a style of clothing that was normal for them. 
I assert if you visit Wall Street or LaSalle Street on Monday, you will not see anyone dressed like this. When we wear such clothing it represents a costume, just like the big Spock ears that some wear at Star Trek conventions. I also assert that such costumes should be treated with the same seriousness as the oversize Spock ears at Star Trek conventions or any other costume.
Even in the UK, where they takes this stuff a little more seriously, they will rent you the 2010 Ascot costume for 89 pounds.



I haven't researched the price of a Spock suit.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

beherethen said:


> I haven't researched the price of a Spock suit.


Will they give you a discount if you just get the ears and accessorize the rest of it yourself?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

beherethen said:


> When we wear such clothing it represents a costume, just like the big Spock ears that some wear at Star Trek conventions.


Terribly unpersuasive analogy. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, is real. The Starship Enterprise, I have to tell you and I hope this doesn't sting, isn't real. There's a difference between tradition and fantasy, and in fact it's a very obvious difference.

If you don't like morning dress or think it frivolous, why are you posting so frequently on this thread? You've written in five times so far, but you've said the same thing each time. Do you do the same on your Star Trek message boards? As I said before, it doesn't add value.

And who on Earth is Carl Marks? Does that 'slip' tell us what we need to know?


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Will they give you a discount if you just get the ears and accessorize the rest of it yourself?


You can buy just the ears

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0029F1WOC

but if you are arguing for the state at the Supreme Court, then they are probably a bad idea. The government has it's own dress code.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Yes . . .*



beherethen said:


> . . . , but if you are arguing for the state at the Supreme Court, then they are probably a bad idea. The government has it's [sic.] own dress code.


. . . and that's morning dress for the Solicitor General, and, apparently, the Attorney General when arguing a case before the Supreme Court. _Not_ a costume, but what is considered appropriate attire for the occasion.

Those wearing academic regalia at an academic event are not in costume, and neither are those who are attending in morning dress. It's appropriate attire for the occasion. It's no more costume than wearing a business suit to a business meeting, or a uniform at a military ball, or a kilt at highland games.

Advocating appropriate attire worn in a correct manner is what is done here. I'm pretty surprised that anyone would think otherwise.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Blueboy1938 said:


> Advocating appropriate attire worn in a correct manner is what is done here. I'm pretty surprised that anyone would think otherwise.


I can't speak for the others but I certainly made no mention of something not being appropriate, just somewhat humorous. Like I said, most folks have never even seen this attire, much less worn it; therefore, it can have a somewhat quaint appearance to many.

It's not a lot different than the powdered wigs worn for so long by judges in Great Britain. Those things have been the butt of many jokes, but that doesn't mean that they aren't "appropriate" for the setting since that is what is mandated. I think that uniform is probably more appropriate than costume.

Cruiser


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*For heaven's sake . . .*

. . . Cruiser, whatever made you think my comments were in any way directed at you? I saw that you were having some fun and basically ignored all that to address what is a serious issue that another poster somehow thinks wearing correct attire to a formal academic event during the day is costume. That's simply poppycock!


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

beherethen said:


> In the 1915 photos, some small percentage of the population, would wear morning clothes & top hats on a daily basis.


Which is why the most distinguished in the photo wear a frock coat, not a morning coat.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Only one gentleman in the 1915 photo is wearing a morning coat. The rest are in various frock coats.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

A fashionable, rather than official, morning coat. Note the buttons on the sleeve.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

*Costume*

is defined as
noun1.a style of dress, including accessories and hairdos, esp. that peculiar to a nation, region, group, or historical period.

2.dress or garb characteristic of another period, place, person, etc., as worn on the stage or at balls.

Morning coats seem to me to fit in this definition-garb characteristic of another period.

Anyone on this board wear one daily?
How about once a week?
How about once a month?

Anyone even know anyone who wears one daily? The guy from Planter's Peanuts doesn't count.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

beherethen said:


> Morning coats seem to me to fit in this definition-garb characteristic of another period.
> 
> Anyone on this board wear one daily?


You're starting to sound like a troll. Many items of clothing aren't worn daily. Especially formal wear. They almost never are, and never were.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Morning coat or ...?


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Interesting "informal" wear of a frock or morning coat showing silk revers.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

A wedding. 1973. A morning suit: a morning coat with matching trousers.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

1960.


----------



## amplifiedheat (Jun 9, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I'm not sure if they are advocating a return to these styles or not; but heck, if we are going to live in the past why stop at 1915? :icon_smile_big:


I could see the infrequent use of lacy jabots, but I draw the line at codpieces.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Bog: Great pic of the Babe, later to be Babe Paley. Thank you for helping combat sartorial dumbing-down, so prevalent on Ask Andy, as you can see from some of the posts on this thread.


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

From today's New York Times: A picture of a guy in his Mr. Peanut/ Monopoly Man outfit, somehow not accompanied by pictures from a costumed folk festival, either: https://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/04/25/fashion/25vows02.html 
And nobody is making fun of him, or talking about wigs in Great Britain. Just a guy getting married on the Main Line in Philadelphia, wearing attire proper for a day wedding in 2010.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

beherethen said:


> In the 1915 photos, some small percentage of the population, would wear morning clothes & top hats on a daily basis. These people were bank presidents, stock brokers, robber barons whatever. This was a style of clothing that was normal for them.
> I assert if you visit Wall Street or LaSalle Street on Monday, you will not see anyone dressed like this. When we wear such clothing it represents a costume, just like the big Spock ears that some wear at Star Trek conventions. I also assert that such costumes should be treated with the same seriousness as the oversize Spock ears at Star Trek conventions or any other costume.
> Even in the UK, where they takes this stuff a little more seriously, they will rent you the 2010 Ascot costume for 89 pounds.
> 
> I haven't researched the price of a Spock suit.





beherethen said:


> is defined as
> noun1.a style of dress, including accessories and hairdos, esp. that peculiar to a nation, region, group, or historical period.
> 
> 2.dress or garb characteristic of another period, place, person, etc., as worn on the stage or at balls.
> ...


It might be a bit far-fetched for me to say this but I personally find such a view almost bordering on offensive. If we take into account your generalisation then we must also include the national dress/costume of other countries which more or less fit into said above criteria. As someone has already pointed out, the average suit also fits into this category as well.

Morning dress, like so many other forms of formal dress, is about tradition and dignity for a given occasion and not about conforming to said historical period (which is what fashion is and what style is not).


----------



## DougNZ (Aug 31, 2005)

beherethen said:


> They would look less costumed and certainly more in touch with the 21st Century. I would imagine many of the people shown, can't wait to shed their Monopoly suits and don their normal clothing.


Hmmm. The vast majority at that event were wearing robes based on those worn in, I don't know, the fourteenth century? Maybe they should do away with those, too, to stay relevant.


----------



## beherethen (Jun 6, 2009)

DougNZ said:


> Hmmm. The vast majority at that event were wearing robes based on those worn in, I don't know, the fourteenth century? Maybe they should do away with those, too, to stay relevant.


I think that is a very valid and forward thinking suggestion.


----------



## GrumF14 (Aug 25, 2008)

Rough day to be married, eh?


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

We might as well not bother with the whole ceremony or anything ceremonial for that matter (inc. flags, etc). In fact, those buildings built a few centuries ago are obviously not fit for 'modern' living with their namby-pamby neo-classicism so they would have to be knocked down and new ones built on top. That Van Gogh and that Monet was painted last century, we might as well burn those and only have galleries where 'modern art' which is 'relevant' to our modern society is displayed and of course, once they're pass their use by dates, burn them and put newer stuff up (in fact, why bother with painting at all, it is so old fashioned). And we should not listen music composed before 2000 (of course, violins etc are 'dated' given Handel and Bach used them so we can't include any music with them in it); we should solely listen to popular music which the vast majority of people enjoy and find relevant. Oh, and whilst we're at it, let's forget about the Remeberance Parade et al as they're just really old-fashioned sentimentality of our grandpas that we do not really connect to. Never mind if they are beautiful and dignified and show our admiration and connection with our heritage; they are SOOOOOO last century and so by that criteria alone we consign them to history, literally...


----------



## Sator (Jan 13, 2006)

The sheer classical elegance of these images seemed to have largely silenced the peanut gallery of naysayers.

Thank you for sharing.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I think some of you guys are interpreting comments, at least my comments anyway, incorrectly. There is nothing wrong with morning dress, it's just seldom seen these days outside of a few ceremonial events here and there. Heck, I suspect that more folks wear medieval attire than morning dress each year in the U.S., but I don't think medieval attire is a popular style of dress or making a comeback. I have a feeling that if you stopped the first 100 people you met on the street and showed them one of the pictures posted here, you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who could correctly tell you what they were wearing. 

Actually I think that it is less the coat and pants that is jarring to the eye in 2010, but rather the top hat. Even people who wear the rest of the ensemble rarely wear the hat these days. When JFK wore morning dress he carried his top hat in his hand about as much as he wore it on his head. 

Cruiser


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Sator said:


> The sheer classical elegance of these images seemed to have largely silenced the peanut gallery of naysayers.
> 
> Thank you for sharing.


Those are nice indeed.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Just adding the picture RSMeyer linked to, so we have it in this gallery:










And Cruiser, no one is 'misinterpreting' your 'comments'. I think everyone knows you are merely trying to be funny. You included plenty of those winking, grinning happy faces to indicate such.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Not just for the groom.

The wedding of Jacqueline Bouvier and John F. Kennedy in Newport, Rhode Island.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

The September 17, 1940 wedding of Stanley Mortimer and Barbara (Babe), the youngest of the three Cushing sisters, after their ceremony in East Hampton.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Perhaps morning dress has been relegated to costume in Chicago, Beherethen, but in the South it is still relatively common to see grooms and their close companions wearing it for weddings. People may not know the correct name for it, but they know exactly what it means: someone is getting married. It is a costume in the same way that a bridal gown is, and certainly no more deserving of ridicule.

(I am aware that there are other occassions for which morning dress is appropritate, but in America, weddings are really about it for 99.999% of the population. There's a tiny percentage that have some other opportunity for it, such as members of the Solicitor General's office, and a handful of universities that incorporate some amount of it in the dress of certain officials in graduation ceremonies.)

Also, I think Cruiser's distinction between the top hat and morning dress is spot on. Regretably, the top hat in America probably _has_ become costume. It's very grandeur makes its return unlikely... more subtle anachronisms sometimes come back, but the top hat announces itself too loudly for its supporters to subtly slip it back into use.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

*A good example of why matching clothing is wrong.*


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

More matching in California.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

*Degradation of style in the 1980s.*


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

CuffDaddy said:


> Regretably, the top hat in America probably _has_ become costume. It's very grandeur makes its return unlikely... more subtle anachronisms sometimes come back, but the top hat announces itself too loudly for its supporters to subtly slip it back into use.


The top hat, as the pictures show, appears only in environments where other hats are worn by those wearing other clothes. Since today few wear hats, such occasions are rare. Harvard Commencement is one of those occasions where everyone is wearing hats of one kind or another. Sometimes, even those not wearing a morning suit, such as the Mayor of Cambridge, will wear a top hat. When you are surrounded by thousands of flat academic hats, you'll want a top hat too.


----------



## Mr. Knightly (Sep 1, 2005)

People in morning dress often look bad because it's rented, so it often doesn't fit well.

I prefer it with the trouser stripes very faint, with a straight tie rather than cravat, and (as already mentioned) sans hat. This way it looks a little less costumey, since it is slightly more evocative of a business suit.

As far as the relevance of morning dress goes, I've worn it twice. I've attended 4 weddings where it was worn (2 in which I was of the wedding party). I enjoyed is so much that I've decided to pursue a job in the SG's office


----------



## rsmeyer (May 14, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I think some of you guys are interpreting comments, at least my comments anyway, incorrectly. There is nothing wrong with morning dress, it's just seldom seen these days outside of a few ceremonial events here and there. Heck, I suspect that more folks wear medieval attire than morning dress each year in the U.S., but I don't think medieval attire is a popular style of dress or making a comeback. I have a feeling that if you stopped the first 100 people you met on the street and showed them one of the pictures posted here, you could count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who could correctly tell you what they were wearing.
> 
> Actually I think that it is less the coat and pants that is jarring to the eye in 2010, but rather the top hat. Even people who wear the rest of the ensemble rarely wear the hat these days. When JFK wore morning dress he carried his top hat in his hand about as much as he wore it on his head.
> 
> Cruiser


 Who cares what the first hundred people on the street have to say?? This is a forum of people supposedly interested in the finer points of male attire. The coats and pants, and yes, even the admittedly vestigial top hats should not produce any snide remarks or allegedly humorous photos of folk ceremonies by members of a forum of people who should be more interested in preserving the standards of proper attire for the right occasion.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Kenneth E. Reeves, Mayor of Cambridge, in a morning coat and Senator John Forbes Kerry, Dem., Massachusetts. 2007.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

James Michael Curley (1874-1958) waves his top hat. Curley, a Democrat, served as mayor of Boston, Massachusetts over four terms. He also served as state governor for two years.


----------



## simonfoy (Mar 18, 2010)

Whether or not he frequents this board is unknown but I know of two people who wear a top hat and tails on a weekly basis. This is for their job.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Quite so. For others, especially outside the plutocratic and or ruling classes, a morning coat is something that should be known and recognized but rarely (if ever) worn. And that is simply because so few of us ever attend occasions that call for such formality in the daylight. Shoot, I've only worn a tuxedo once in my life, and in those days it was thought that by wearing it with a white coat, you were suitably attired. Go figure.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

beherethen said:


> but if you are arguing for the state at the Supreme Court, then they are probably a bad idea. The government has it's own dress code.


Does anyone know when the practice of litigants other than the United States wearing morning dress fell into disfavor? I know that when a friend of mine argued there in the mid-80's it was still expected.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2011.


----------



## SirFulkeGreville (Aug 23, 2010)

*The best that has been said and and thought*



Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> We might as well not bother with the whole ceremony or anything ceremonial for that matter (inc. flags, etc). In fact, those buildings built a few centuries ago are obviously not fit for 'modern' living with their namby-pamby neo-classicism so they would have to be knocked down and new ones built on top. That Van Gogh and that Monet was painted last century, we might as well burn those and only have galleries where 'modern art' which is 'relevant' to our modern society is displayed and of course, once they're pass their use by dates, burn them and put newer stuff up (in fact, why bother with painting at all, it is so old fashioned). And we should not listen music composed before 2000 (of course, violins etc are 'dated' given Handel and Bach used them so we can't include any music with them in it); we should solely listen to popular music which the vast majority of people enjoy and find relevant. Oh, and whilst we're at it, let's forget about the Remeberance Parade et al as they're just really old-fashioned sentimentality of our grandpas that we do not really connect to. Never mind if they are beautiful and dignified and show our admiration and connection with our heritage; they are SOOOOOO last century and so by that criteria alone we consign them to history, literally...


While I am three years late the above response is one of the finest, and timeless, responses. I sit in sympathy with these views.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Indeed. Charlie is not only among the most stylish of our members in his dress but in his use of the language as well.


----------



## TheBarbaron (Oct 8, 2010)

To take the discussion back a bit, I am pleased that Gov. McDonnell wore morning attire for his inauguration, and I would agree with the comment that it's a helluva commonwealth. That said, his grandeur may be slightly diminished by the fact that he rented his ensemble at Men's Wearhouse; I know the gentleman who fitted him.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

The heck with the morning coats.

What I _really_ want to wear is an academic robe.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

TheBarbaron said:


> To take the discussion back a bit, I am pleased that Gov. McDonnell wore morning attire for his inauguration, and I would agree with the comment that it's a helluva commonwealth. That said, his grandeur may be slightly diminished by the fact that he rented his ensemble at Men's Wearhouse; I know the gentleman who fitted him.


The governor rents his clothes!? Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Edmund Randolph, Henry Lee, James Monroe, and John Tyler must be rolling over.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Starch said:


> The heck with the morning coats.
> 
> What I _really_ want to wear is an academic robe.


Then go to school, young man.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^


Starch said:


> The heck with the morning coats.
> 
> What I _really_ want to wear is an academic robe.


LOL...and indeed, there will come a point in your life when you will get up in the morning and just as soon pull on a bathrobe, as that academic robe!


----------

