# Is O.K. to use the suit jacket as a odd jacket?



## Othelo (Jan 7, 2012)

I usually do not do this, and I know the difference between the suit and the sport jacket, but I do not have enough space in my luggage and I will be traveling abroad for a week of meetings and I am thinking in pack two suits (blue and grey), and two more trousers. I intend to use as suits (for the more formal occasions) and also the jackets as separates intending to have 4 combinations for a week of meetings. Is that OK or it will look weird? Any suggestions?


----------



## hardline_42 (Jan 20, 2010)

In most cases, suit jackets look like part of a suit. The usual giveaway is the matching buttons, whereas sport coats and blazers have contrasting buttons. If the jackets were solid and you planned to permanently use them as sport coats, I'd say just swap out the buttons. Otherwise, I think it might look a bit strange.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

A blue suit jacket does not look like a blazer, and while grey suit pants will work with a blue blazer, blue pants with a grey jacket really does not work aesthetically. Throw a blazer in the suitcase and you will have 3 outfits. Wear different shirts and ties and you will be fine.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

It will be blatantly obvious. Don't do this where your business associates can see it.


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

gentlemen. I totally disagree. I have worn suit jackets with like jeans .My navy blue chalk Stripe on a striped dress shirt and jeans looks very nice in my world And I am 60 . Been doing this out from work of course My opinion a nice look nice day my friends


----------



## 4dgt90 (Dec 2, 2009)

I'm sure most people wouldn't think twice about you wearing a navy or grey suit jacket as an odd jacket but I would... because I've become much more discerning after joining this fourm.

FWIW I'm 24 and when I was on a business trip last month that consisted of 4 days of meetings, I noticed who was wearing a suit jacket as an odd jacket. I was the only 20 something out of a room of 40-50 y/o men.

I would definitely bring a blazer or another sport coat which you could get away with pairing with the suit pants. You can carry this on the plane if you plan on putting your suits in your luggage.

While I may not have a discerning enough eye to tell the other differences between a suit jacket and an odd jacket, the buttons are the dead giveaway to me.


----------



## joenobody0 (Jun 30, 2009)

DukeGrad said:


> gentlemen. I totally disagree. I have worn suit jackets with like jeans .My navy blue chalk Stripe on a striped dress shirt and jeans looks very nice in my world And I am 60 . Been doing this out from work of course My opinion a nice look nice day my friends


I think this would go particularly well with shell cordovan boat shoes!


----------



## DukeGrad (Dec 28, 2003)

joe

Yea it would LOL

Nice day
Jimmy


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Another one of these? This has been hashed to death. The majority view on this board is that it is anathema.

My view, expressed several times, is that *there is not a rule against wearing suit components separately and never was*. Back in the golden age of clothing, wardrobes were smaller, so mixing-and-matching was not unusual. But now that we have a profusion of cheap stuff, and designers have convinced us that their clothing is some piece of art that must be worn as the "artist" intended, there's some notion that it is wrong. It's virtually impossible, though, for any justification for this notion to be advanced. Nevermind the fact that the original sport coats _were_ suit jackets worn without the matching trousers.

Some people have claimed that sportcoats are cut differently, but, when challenged, those people have never been able to describe what the difference is, at least in my experience.

Some people will tell you that different buttons are selected for odd jackets. I have so many responses to that it's hard to know where to begin. First off, it's simply false that all odd jackets have non-matching buttons, or all suit jackets have matching ones. I have seen many counter-examples. Except for things like leather-covered or brass buttons, the buttons are usually the same.

Second: Buttons? _Buttons_? In this day and age, who the f*** is examining the buttons on another's coat? Ridiculous.

Third, I have never seen buttons that match glen plaids. Glen plaids have multiple colors. Which one are we matching? I suppose on a B&W glen, the suit would have black buttons to match the black threads, while a sportcoat would have black buttons to contrast against the white threads. (Where's the smiley character that rolls his eyes?)

Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, this button business seems to be premised on the notion that it would be terribly embarassing for your friends or colleagues to know that you were wearing a suit jacket with different trousers. Why does that matter? Oh, the don't-mix people say, because the buttons will match the fabric!

The reasoning is the same as someone who doesn't want to drive over 30mph on the interstate, because that will mean that his tires are warm when he gets home. Why does he fear warm tires? Because then people will know he exceeded 30 mph on the interstate! _*Well, what of it?*_ It's not embarassing to get "caught" doing something that *is not a violation of any rule or convention!

*To the contrary, your proposal is exactly what many stylish men do on business trips. Rather than subject their fine tailored clothing to over-pressurized packing, they pack fewer items that can be worn more ways. I do it myself, and I tell you that I have recieved actual compliments on ensembles composed (in their tailored components) _entirely_ of mixed suit elements.

None of which is to say that one should willy-nilly start wearing all suit jackets as odd jackets. There are some things that are simply not amenable to non-suited wear, such as 99% of striped cloth. A chalk-striped DB as an odd jacket is just not going to work except as some deconstructionist, deliberately-mismatched statement. But if you've got a glen plaid or windowpane suit, then that's a fabric that lots of odd jackets (and odd trousers) are made from. The same can be said for trousers.

Like a lot of internet forum advice, the never-mix "rule" was probably started as a prophylactic against the clueless man pairing his olive plaid suit pants with his grey chalk-striped coat. It got repeated until somebody decided that it was more than advice (calibrated for the sartorially retarded), but an actual rule to be observed for its own sake. It is not.

Further affiant sayeth naught.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

tdecast said:


> I'm 24 and when I was on a business trip last month that consisted of 4 days of meetings, I noticed who was wearing a suit jacket as an odd jacket. I was the only 20 something out of a room of 40-50 y/o men.... While I may not have a discerning enough eye to tell the other differences between a suit jacket and an odd jacket, the buttons are the dead giveaway to me.


OK. *What of it?* I'm sure that your newly-discerning eyes were able to tell that some men were wearing point collars, some spread. Since neither is against any rules, you have merely noticed a fact, not a transgression. I'm sure the cop I passed on the way to work today noticed that that my car was silver, and not black. Yet despite this keen observation, he did not pull me over, because there is no rule against driving a silver car.

Also, other than your new-found expertise, how did you confirm your observations? Was it merely the "giveaway" buttons? What if your understanding that all odd jackets have contrasting buttons is, in fact, an error?

On the plus side, please don't beat yourself up about being unable to "tell the other differences between a suit jacket and an odd jacket." Nobody else has developed that talent yet, either.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Here's the definitive thread on the matter:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...t-be-worn-as-a-sports-coat&highlight=orphaned

It contains this post, which I think just about settles whether there is any rule against wearing a suit jacket as an odd jacket: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...e-worn-as-a-sports-coat&p=1053407#post1053407

And here's another one, coming at it from the perspective of the pants: https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...s-a-fashion-don-t&highlight=orphaned+rule+dow (Well, the thread is not actually written from the perspective of the pants themselves, but they're the main topic of discussion.)


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Another one of these? This has been hashed to death. The majority view on this board is that it is anathema.
> 
> My view, expressed several times, is that *there is not a rule against wearing suit components separately and never was*. Back in the golden age of clothing, wardrobes were smaller, so mixing-and-matching was not unusual. But now that we have a profusion of cheap stuff, and designers have convinced us that their clothing is some piece of art that must be worn as the "artist" intended, there's some notion that it is wrong. It's virtually impossible, though, for any justification for this notion to be advanced. Nevermind the fact that the original sport coats _were_ suit jackets worn without the matching trousers.
> 
> ...


You, are correct that some suit jackets can be worn as odd jackets, and you are correct that some suit pants can be worn as odd pants. The trick is knowing which ones can and which ones can't.

Your response goes well beyond the OP's question. My response, on the assumption that one of the suits is a solid, was that the grey pants- blue jacket will work, but a blue pants-grey jacket will probably not because blue pants rarely go with anything. Rather than go beyond the OP's question, what do you think?


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

This is why I love you guys.

:icon_viking:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

ark', one of the things about discussion boards is that the discussions take on a life of their own. I was responding as much to the SP's (subsequent posters) as the OP.

I'm afraid I don't have enough information to have a firm opinion on the specific articles he's contemplating. He mentions that they are grey and navy, but I didn't see anything indicating whether they had patterns, their weight, etc. I'm with you that navy odd trousers are a very tough item, irrespective of whether they are orphaned or not. I have a theory that this is because dark blue trousers are either among the most formal pants (part of a solid navy suit, or midnight navy evening/tuxedo trousers) or the most casual (jeans). Odd navy trousers may create a flickering in the mind, as our brain tries to decide which of the two more familiar, but opposite, roles they fall into. I generally have better luck using a pair of navy trousers without a jacket. Inspired by one old AA/Esky illustration*, I have found one combination that I think works well - navy heavy twill trousers and an olive green tweed jacket. Add a light blue or ecru shirt and a rust-colored tie, and it suits my eye while looking pretty original/unusual.

* https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/181/onbeachlyingcc3.jpg


----------



## 4dgt90 (Dec 2, 2009)

someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

u mad bro?



CuffDaddy said:


> OK. *What of it?* I'm sure that your newly-discerning eyes were able to tell that some men were wearing point collars, some spread. Since neither is against any rules, you have merely noticed a fact, not a transgression. I'm sure the cop I passed on the way to work today noticed that that my car was silver, and not black. Yet despite this keen observation, he did not pull me over, because there is no rule against driving a silver car.
> 
> Also, other than your new-found expertise, how did you confirm your observations? Was it merely the "giveaway" buttons? What if your understanding that all odd jackets have contrasting buttons is, in fact, an error?
> 
> On the plus side, please don't beat yourself up about being unable to "tell the other differences between a suit jacket and an odd jacket." Nobody else has developed that talent yet, either.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

One of my best odd jackets is a blue striped vintage swedish made orphaned broad peak lapel jacket in a fairly old style (coarse) heavy fabric. It just looks and works great with anything from flannels to jeans. Im not sure why, since its pinstripe and an orphan but it sure does. Best 50$ I've spent.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

tdecast said:


> u mad bro?


Where's the trollface pic?

I wouldn't characterize myself as "mad," but I do get vexed when ill-founded "rules" get bandied about. One of the reasons so few men choose to wear proper clothing these days is that they feel it is constraining and imposes too many restrictions; they are also afraid of breaking a secret rule and embarassing themselves, like a diner nervous about which fork to use. Ask a man who, despite having the wherewithal to dress like a grownup, chooses to wear graphic t's in public, and he'll probably tell you that it's to "express myself," or because it's "comfortable." Well, classic dress leaves *TONS* of room for expression; once you are confident that you know what you're doing, it is as _psychologically_ comfortable as anything.

_I'm going to slip into second-person usage here for rhetorical purposes, but don't feel that this is directed at tdecast, personally. It isn't._

Having a bunch of rules that the initiated members can identify and chortle about does not serve the interest of proper dress well at all. Men need to _own_ their clothes, not feel as though they have to curate them and wear them only as precisely prescribed by the "designer" or retailer. Own your suit. Wear it differently than it was shown on the manequin or the model. Look at pictures and film of stylish men to develop your aesthetic sensibility, and then dress to _that_, not to some list of rules-of-thumb intended to prevent a total rube from revealing himself. (BTW, there's no set of rules that will do that.)

That's the message I'm preaching. That, and "respect history." If well-dressed men have been doing something a long time, you'd better have a hell of a reason to come out and say that it's against the rules. What rules? The ones you made up? The ones you read about on a message board? Rules are customs, and customs require longevity. Don't wear suit jackets and trousers as odd items hasn't been around nearly long enough to be a rule. And a lousy one it would be, so I'm going to try to stomp it out before it gets any further.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

hardline_42 said:


> In most cases, suit jackets look like part of a suit. The usual giveaway is the matching buttons, whereas sport coats and blazers have contrasting buttons.


Pardon my ignorance, but what does this mean? What do the buttons match?

I ask this because I do not own any suits, so I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Andy B.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Like the Duke biggrin2 in CD's "definitive" example, I've got a couple of countrified tweed suits that I don't hesitate to wear as odd jackets; on the other hand, I don't think a blue business suit makes a good blue blazer, because I think the buttons define a blue blazer. I share the opinion that striped suits don't make a good-looking odd jacket, except seersucker. I also agree that there is no difference in the cut of suit or sport jacket.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

andy b. said:


> Pardon my ignorance, but what does this mean? What do the buttons match?
> 
> I ask this because I do not own any suits, so I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
> 
> Andy B.


Navy suits have navy buttons, charcoal suits have charcoal buttons,etc. Blazers have gold buttons. Not all odd jackets are made with contrasting buttons but many are. (I do not have an idea of percentages)

You are now a senior member, go buy a suit.


----------



## cdavant (Aug 28, 2005)

Fun watching these threads play out only to rise again, almost like picking up a well-loved leather bound book you've not opened for a long time, pouring a glass of good wine and settling down in front of the fire. I was considering resurecting the concealed carry pocket issue, since things were getting a little quiet with Cruiser gone, but this will do for a while.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> Navy suits have navy buttons, charcoal suits have charcoal buttons,etc. Blazers have gold buttons. Not all odd jackets are made with contrasting buttons but many are. (I do not have an idea of percentages)
> 
> You are now a senior member, go buy a suit.


I do not know the percentages either, and I do have a navy blazer with antiqued brass buttons (I wouldn't really describe them as gold), but every other blazer/jacket that I own has "matching buttons". Hence my wonderment at what the "matching" was referring to. I have no idea how to explain it, but to me, a jacket that is part of a suit, just looks like a jacket that is part of a suit (probably because they are generally a solid color or fine pinstripe). I am fairly certain none of the jackets I own would ever be mistaken as being part of a suit.

I'd buy a suit, but I have not had any occasion to wear one since my wedding many years ago, and my service as a groomsman for several friends' weddings a short time after my own. I think once I hit "Honors Member" it may provide me a reason to purchase a suit. :icon_smile_big:

Andy B.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

CuffDaddy said:


> Like a lot of internet forum advice, the never-mix "rule" was probably started as a prophylactic against the clueless man pairing his olive plaid suit pants with his grey chalk-striped coat. It got repeated until somebody decided that it was more than advice (calibrated for the sartorially retarded), but an actual rule to be observed for its own sake. It is not.


 I find your characterization of certain "rules" as prophylactic not only an intriguing concept but also a correct concept. A rule of safety, if you will. Safety rules are the first things we hear as children, eg. "Don't go into the street." When a rule of safety is observed no one gets hurt, and when a sartorial rule of safety is observed no one commits a faux pas.

Eventually one learns that one can go into the street, at an intersection with a light. When this is observed one rarely gets hurt, but cars do not always stop for red lights. My point is that when one goes beyond a fundamental safety rule one cannot be assured absolutely that one will not be hurt.



CuffDaddy said:


> I wouldn't characterize myself as "mad," but I do get vexed when ill-founded "rules" get bandied about. Well, classic dress leaves *TONS* of room for expression; once you are confident that you know what you're doing, it is as _psychologically_ comfortable as anything.


I cannot agree more with your second sentence. It reminds me of a comment by Baudelaire that he found the sonnet form liberating because once having chosen to write in that form, he no longer had to continuously think about what form to use for the next line. The sonnet allowed him all the room, tons as you put it, needed for expression.

As to your first sentence, I suspect what you get vexed about is the misuse of rules of safety for rules of limitation. The "never mix" suit pants with jackets rule started as and still is a rule of safety, a rule if followed will preclude the faux pas of olive plaid pants and chalk stripe jacket. We agree that it should not be a rule of limitation as many suit pants and jackets can be worn in the right combination as separates.[/QUOTE]



CuffDaddy said:


> Look at pictures and film of stylish men to develop your aesthetic sensibility, and then dress to _that_, not to some list of rules-of-thumb intended to prevent a total rube from revealing himself. (BTW, there's no set of rules that will do that.)


I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed, however to be able to develop a sensibility, to my mind, requires as a foundation thorough knowledge of what I call the rules of safety. I do believe, however, that one can develop a set of rules of safety, rules that if not broken will allow one to always be appropriately dressed, albeit not as expressively as one can if one learns to go beyond the rules of safety. No bluchers with suits being an example of a rule of safety. It certainly is true that by wearing bals, especially black bals with town suits one will not go wrong. Going beyond the rule of safety,knowing when to and which bluchers to wear with a given suit exemplifies the aesthetic sensibility you speak of.

First knowing the rules in order to go beyond them reminds me of Wittgenstein's metaphor of the ladder to express the function of the propositions set out in his book the Tractatus. His propositions (our sartorial "rules") were be used like steps on a ladder in order to climb on it, in order to "see the world rightly"; but thereafter the ladder can be recognized as nonsense and be thrown away.

Thinking about your posts has been most enjoyable.

Regards,

Alan


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Every grown man should own at least one suit. A funeral or some other function that demands a suit could come up. Be prepared for that.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Every time I see another thread about this, I'm reminded of the handful of times I've been shopping at the thrifts and seen blue suit jackets with buttons that the previous owner had wrapped in tin foil. I laugh out loud every time.

I shudder to think how many I would see if I examined _every_ jacket from now on....


----------



## catside (Oct 7, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> You are now a senior member, go buy a suit.


That's funny.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Here are my idiosyncratic 'rules of safety' on this topic:
(1) when in business settings, wear a suit not an odd jacket and trousers
(2) suit jacket with jeans has been done to death and in an older man is ageing, not youthful
(3) when buying a sports jacket/blazer try and go for something that by its fabric and style seems different from a suit jacket and more like a sports jacket...'I know it when I see it'
(4) blue jacket, grey trousers works, depending on the shades of course
(5) grey jacket, blue trousers doesnt work no matter how i try
(6) black not an option for business, other colours also risky

Just a personal list, not preaching on anyone else, but works for me. Boring, but reliable

In answer to the OP I would take two suits and steam and press between wearings. Variety provided by shirts and ties


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Haffman said:


> Here are my idiosyncratic 'rules of safety' on this topic:
> (1) when in business settings, wear a suit not an odd jacket and trousers
> (2) suit jacket with jeans has been done to death and in an older man is ageing, not youthful
> (3) when buying a sports jacket/blazer try and go for something that by its fabric and style seems different from a suit jacket and more like a sports jacket...'I know it when I see it'
> ...


In referrence to your rule#2, do you think maybe my white hair, weathered facial features, wrinkled and brown splotched skin on the backs of my hands and all those tufts of hair trying to grow out of every (and I do mean every!) oraface of my body might tip em off to my age, before they took note of my wearing a suit coat with my Levis(!)? ROFALOL.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

But with the suit coat on you'll look 97 instead of 92! (joking, of course) 

I actually thought I might get some flak for rule 2 and its something of a personal bugbear. At least youve gone for Levis and not some turned up professionally tailored Edwin number? Saw some guy in the financial times saying that 'look' was his personal style signifier...gave me quite a turn...


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

I imagine this has already been done to death, but would anyone indulge a tyro and present a quick recap of:

1. What color pants go with a blue blazer?

2. What color pants go with a grey sport coat?

3. What color pants go with a brown/tan sport coat?

4. What color pants go with a black blazer/sportscoat?

Thanks!

:icon_hailthee:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

In my experience, if it's a solid dark colour and vented you can wear it as an odd jacket. If it's light or patterned don't even attempt it.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

zzdocxx said:


> I imagine this has already been done to death, but would anyone indulge a tyro and present a quick recap of:
> 
> 1. What color pants go with a blue blazer?


Gray, tan



zzdocxx said:


> 2. What color pants go with a grey sport coat?


Gray, black, navy



zzdocxx said:


> 3. What color pants go with a brown


Tan, gray, different brown



zzdocxx said:


> /tan sport coat?


Black, navy, gray, brown, darker tan



zzdocxx said:


> 4. What color pants go with a black blazer/sportscoat?


Gray, tan

For the olive jacket, wear gray, tan, navy, or brown slacks.

I don't do much with black slacks, only char. Some observers deplore navy slacks but captoe/blacktie gives me the creeps much worse. I can't imagine a gentleman wearing a black odd jacket.

You know, I have never read anything forbidding wearing one's underwear on one's head, but that does not mean it follows logically to do so...


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I'm on the fence about this one. I would not wear the jacket from a conservatively styled business suit as an odd jacket, period. However, I might employ the jacket from one of my more casual suits (e.g., with patch pockets) as one. One of my casual suits actually started out as a blazer with smoked MOP buttons, and I subsequently ordered matching trousers for it. I also have a tan suit with patch pockets, the jacket of which I might choose to pair with white or blue seersucker slacks on occasion. I ordered a third casual suit in light gray from Chan, but I don't think I'll ever wear the jacket as a separate, although it might work with white trousers.


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

Thanks Orsini for answering what must seem such an elementary question.

About 35 years ago, I had the book "Dress For Success", I wonder if it is still around somewhere? Maybe in storage or over at my mom's house. . . 

:icon_hailthee:


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

In fact I think I might just print that out.

Also thanks for the tip about the underwear.

:icon_cheers:

Though it reminds me of a weekend backpacking trip as a boyscout where we unexpectedly encountered snow, one of the guys actually did actually resort to wearing a pair of briefs on his head. I ran into one of the fathers just recently at the barber shop, who was on that trip with us 40 years ago, his first comment was, "oh yeah, that was the trip that George K__ was wearing his underwear on his head". Just one of those funny things you remember. . .

It was up on Mt. San Jacinto, what we ended up doing was catching the tram down to Palm Springs, funny how it was so warm and balmy down on the desert floor, where just shortly before we were freezing with a light snow coming down.









OK sorry that was off-topic.

:icon_hailthee:


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

There are rules, of course, but every sartorial rule can be broken. That's what differentiates the best-dressed from the merely well-dressed. The best-dressed know how to break rules and get away with it, which adds a certain pizzazz, charm, call it what you will. The well-dressed never break rules and so are always proper. The poorly dressed break rules without knowing how to get away with it and so appear either sloppy or out of sartorial tune.

We're talking a pretty big rule here. Unless you have the rules down cold and have an eye that allows you to break them, I would not risk wearing a suit jacket as an odd jacket. Lots of folks do it, very few pull it off, no matter what they might think. The situation the OP describes is why God invented navy blazers.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

32rollandrock said:


> There are rules, of course, but every sartorial rule can be broken. That's what differentiates the best-dressed from the merely well-dressed. The best-dressed know how to break rules and get away with it, which adds a certain pizzazz, charm, call it what you will. The well-dressed never break rules and so are always proper. The poorly dressed break rules without knowing how to get away with it and so appear either sloppy or out of sartorial tune.
> 
> We're talking a pretty big rule here. Unless you have the rules down cold and have an eye that allows you to break them, I would not risk wearing a suit jacket as an odd jacket. Lots of folks do it, very few pull it off, no matter what they might think. The situation the OP describes is why God invented navy blazers.


+1 An excellent summary, a book of content in two succinct paragraphs. Well done.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

*With apologies to Andy who has expressed dislike of the look*

As Jimmy and others (Where is Cruiser when we need him?) have observed, a sport coat with Levi's works for informal wear.

As to a suit jacket, I think something dressy, such as Bjorn described, comes off better than a plainer business suit jacket. The greater difference in levels of formality between the jacket and work pants may be what helps the look.

The post regarding blue suit pants was spot on, and ties in to the mention of designer jeans. For the same reason, I have never understood blue chinos, which to me almost always look like some kind of uniform pants.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Go to jail. Go directly to fashion jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.



Gurdon said:


> As Jimmy and others (Where is Cruiser when we need him?) have observed, a sport coat with Levi's works for informal wear.
> 
> As to a suit jacket, I think something dressy, such as Bjorn described, comes off better than a plainer business suit jacket. The greater difference in levels of formality between the jacket and work pants may be what helps the look.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Go to jail. Go directly to fashion jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.


Tut, tut.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If you know clothing the way ARKischner, CuffDaddy and some of the major posters do, you could possibly, even probably get away with a suit jacket as a sport coat.

It's a tricky thing to do. (I would not try it myself.) If you get it wrong, you will look tacky.

Safer just to use blazers and sport coats when that is what you want to wear.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Didn't he wear loin cloths?



Bjorn said:


> Tut, tut.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Didn't he wear loin cloths?


Quite often he wore his ceremonial pinstripe loin cloth together with his very unceremonial brown suede sandals.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Little wonder that trend didn't survive.



Bjorn said:


> Quite often he wore his ceremonial pinstripe loin cloth together with his very unceremonial brown suede sandals.


----------



## Georgetown08 (Oct 5, 2011)

I think the problem with doing it with a solid suit jacket is that other than blazers, solid odd jackets aren't very common, so it might look "off." In CuffDaddy's post (either here or in the thread he linked to) he mentioned that it can work with a patterned suit jacket. The problem in that case is different--if it has a distinctive enough pattern to "look like a sport coat," it will probably be memorable enough that it will undermine what the OP is trying achieve in terms of creating different looks over a short period of time, i.e., "that jacket" effect. In other words, while there may not be anything _inherently_ wrong with wearing a suit jacket as an odd jacket, it might not be a useful solution in these circumstances. It's not something that I personally would have the confidence to do.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> We're talking a pretty big rule here.


No, we aren't. It isn't a rule at all. It has become oft-repeated advice. But it is NOT a rule. See the cited prior threads on this matter.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Sometimes, folks are just wrong. This is one of those times. And no, we--at least I--don't need to hear another long discourse, but I suppose we will, anyway.



CuffDaddy said:


> No, we aren't. It isn't a rule at all. It has become oft-repeated advice. But it is NOT a rule. See the cited prior threads on this matter.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

32rollandrock, I will spare you any long discourse from me, but I would like to hear more from you. When did this rule originate? Where? Does it reflect some deeper purpose, or is it arbitrary? Is it an actual rule, to be followed for its own sake, or just prophylactic advice? Does it apply to all suits? Does it apply equally to trousers? How about a vest - could a vest from one suit be worn as a contrast with other elements, or are only those vests purchased seperately allowed to be worn in that manner?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

The short answer is, I don't know. The true answer is, it really doesn't matter. As with so many things in life, it just is. See my initial post on this thread---that about sums it up. There is a reason why orphan suit jackets, regardless of brand or quality, languish on the secondary market.



CuffDaddy said:


> 32rollandrock, I will spare you any long discourse from me, but I would like to hear more from you. When did this rule originate? Where? Does it reflect some deeper purpose, or is it arbitrary? Is it an actual rule, to be followed for its own sake, or just prophylactic advice? Does it apply to all suits? Does it apply equally to trousers? How about a vest - could a vest from one suit be worn as a contrast with other elements, or are only those vests purchased seperately allowed to be worn in that manner?


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Sometimes, folks are just wrong. This is one of those times. And no, we--at least I--don't need to hear another long discourse, but I suppose we will, anyway.


People are only in the wrong insofar as you can prove the other side being right. No offense...

It may be slightly superfluous to go into a forum thread and say that you people are wrong, just because, and please don't comment any further on it.

There's very little in the way of evidence pointing towards using suit jackets as separates being in violation of any sartorial rule (a rule based on either what looks good or on what is 'correct'). Flusser seems in favor of it.

There are those that feel that if you haven't bought it as a sports jacket (patch pockets seem a returning theme) you shouldn't wear it as a separate, because it isn't one, and proper men have separates bought, well, separately. Using a suit jacket as a separate is something poor people or people who are not in the know do, i.e. the wrong 'type' of people. This smacks a little of bourgeois snobbery, the sort of looking down on people that is very important in the upper middle class. Which incidentally as a group almost never dresses very well.

Suits vary a lot. Some suit jackets will inevitably go very well with some odd trousers. If it does, they can be worn together.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

^^

Sigh. Go ahead. Wear what you want.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> The short answer is, I don't know. The true answer is, it really doesn't matter. As with so many things in life, it just is. See my initial post on this thread---that about sums it up.


OK. You'll understand if I remain wholly unpersuaded.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Yup. I think I understand, in spades.



CuffDaddy said:


> OK. You'll understand if I remain wholly unpersuaded.


----------



## andy b. (Mar 18, 2010)

To me, this is an example of the suit jacket I'd wear as an odd jacket.

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...d-Thrift-Store-Exchange&p=1269292#post1269292










Andy B.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
Indeed, if that beast has suede patches on the elbows and bi-swing shoulders at the back, it looks almost identical to one of my Orvis shooting Tweeds!


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

I was looking at the sport jackets on the Austin Reed website, and this Charcoal Twill Washed Wool Jacket popped up.

Looks very much like a suit jacket in the photo, for example in its details (no patch pocket; no ticket pocket; it is not pattened, etc). The fact that it is a twill weave and has a 'washed' effect, then, lends it to being a sport jacket (?)

(I don't think they have misplaced a suit jacket in the odd jacket section; they don't tend to make that error, and there are no corresponding trousers for them.),


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Agree, it looks like a suit jacket. 

Wonder what the quality is like. I bought some ties off AE plus a whisky flask and all of them were absolutely terrible, including the flask. The last time I bought a jacket from them was mid 90s and they were still doing (German made) Hugo Boss


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Jake, you've just discovered that many people don't know about the "rule" that requires sportcoats to be inherently different than suit jackets. I reckon the maker simply decided that there might be some men who wanted a dark grey solid, tailored jacket without any especially casual touches. So they made it, not realizing their peril of being charged with _aiding and abetting an orphaned suit jacket wearer_. Let's hope God will have mercy on their sole, for those who enforce the "rule" will not.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

Low rise suit pants, featureless sports jackets, squared off shoes, people make all kinds of junk, and other people buy them.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> [...]I reckon the maker simply decided that there might be some men who wanted a dark grey solid, tailored jacket without any especially casual touches.


Guily as charged!

I own, and did own, more conspicuous jackets (checks, windowpane, houndtooth) but I do want to introduce a more 'sedate', if unmaginative, jacket to my collection, and be more forthcoming in the tie and shirt selection. I'm I good to go, then, or, indeed, will I be castigated ...?


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Haffman said:


> Agree, it looks like a suit jacket.
> 
> Wonder what the quality is like. I bought some ties off AE plus a whisky flask and all of them were absolutely terrible, including the flask. The last time I bought a jacket from them was mid 90s and they were still doing (German made) Hugo Boss


I do own a few items from Austin Reed, and they are overpriced. Their shirts are terrible -- TM Lewin and CT are better, and that is saying something. However, I bought my stuff in the sale.

Quality wise? Run of the mill, I'd say, apart from their shirts, which are below par.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Jake, consider this AA/Esky illustration. It looks as though the man on the right is wearing a plain gray jacket with no casual/sporty touches - and a DB no less! The one you've identified is a bit darker, so the white trousers might be out, but I think you're on sound historical ground.










See also https://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/392/dbgreywhitepantscopy7zq.jpg/sr=1


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

Thanks CuffDaddy. Lovely illustrations too.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

I like the smile on the guy in the first one (the one wearing the zig-zag tie - Royal Artillery, I think?). Looks like he's laughing at someone who just told him that wearing his grey suit jacket with different trousers is wrong. I'll bet the heckler made some remark about a striped tie and striped shirt being a problem, too. But the major just thinks it's risible. His younger friend is looking out to sea, pretending not to hear the whole exchange and hoping the heckler doesn't notice that his jacket is buttoned on the lower button.


----------



## Vector Sum (Feb 16, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Jake, consider this AA/Esky illustration.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As an aside, I've seen these illustrations referenced often on style blogs. Are they collected in book?


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

zzdocxx said:


> Thanks Orsini for answering what must seem such an elementary question.
> 
> About 35 years ago, I had the book "Dress For Success", I wonder if it is still around somewhere? Maybe in storage or over at my mom's house. . .
> 
> :icon_hailthee:


My pleasure. I copied it from one of my crib sheets...


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Vector Sum said:


> As an aside, I've seen these illustrations referenced often on style blogs. Are they collected in book?


They are either from the 1930s Apparel Arts or Esquire. Same publisher, AA was a trade publication.

No comprehensive book although Men,In Style ,subtitled The Golden Age of Fashion from Esquire,now out of print is a short book with copies of several dozen, mostly in black and white. An Italian book, (at work and do not recall name) in about 1990 copied 3 issues of AA, out of print , very expensive. Esquire published its own review of the twentieth century with some illustrations, Esquire's Encyclopedia of 20th Century Men's Fashions (1974), out of print and also very expensive. Alan Flusser has a few in his books with permission of those with the AA rights. The author of The Suit attempted to get rights to use illustrations with his commentary but could not get permission. there is some question as to who actually has rights, the publisher or the estates of the various artists.

Our learned member, Anthony Jordan, has had several issues of AA pass through his hands, and may have kept some. Perhaps he will see this thread and add to my limited knowledge of publications.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Vector Sum said:


> As an aside, I've seen these illustrations referenced often on style blogs. Are they collected in book?


They have been reproduced in scattered fashion in a number of books, and somewhat more comprehensively in a volume or two that are out of print and run you several hundred dollars. The good news is that some members of The London Lounge forum have posted a huge number of them, as well as the accompanying text. And a google images search for "AA/Esky" will bring up many of them. Laurence/Lawrence E. Fellows was the artist for most of them, and he's also a useful search term. Google images is where I get almost everything I post here; I have various books with other photos, but I'm too lazy to photograph those, load them to a hosting site, then post here.


----------



## some_dude (Nov 9, 2008)

What about the socks on the guy on the left? They don't seem to match his pants?

As for this particular discussion, I often wear my suit coat as a separate while in transit, rather than packing it. I'm not that worried about someone in an airline terminal making fun of me for wearing a suit coat with different pants-- relative to my fellow travelers, I'm probably in the top 10%, sartorially speaking!

For any actual business or social engagements, I wear it as a proper suit.



CuffDaddy said:


> Jake, consider this AA/Esky illustration. It looks as though the man on the right is wearing a plain gray jacket with no casual/sporty touches - and a DB no less! The one you've identified is a bit darker, so the white trousers might be out, but I think you're on sound historical ground.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

I keep seeing people use separate as in using a suit jacket as an odd jacket. Is there any history in that term for men's clothing? Isn't "suit separates" just the term used when a suit jacket and trousers can be purchased separately so men don't have to worry about the drop? I've never seen any place that sells quality suits as separates.


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

some_dude said:


> What about the socks on the guy on the left? They don't seem to match his pants?
> 
> As for this particular discussion, I often wear my suit coat as a separate while in transit, rather than packing it. I'm not that worried about someone in an airline terminal making fun of me for wearing a suit coat with different pants-- relative to my fellow travelers, I'm probably in the top 10%, sartorially speaking!
> 
> For any actual business or social engagements, I wear it as a proper suit.


He's being natty and coordinating with the rest of his outfit- shoes, shirt, tie, hat

As for your airport point, I do the same, and sartorial life goes on...


----------



## Haffman (Oct 11, 2010)

```

```



Matt S said:


> I keep seeing people use separate as in using a suit jacket as an odd jacket. Is there any history in that term for men's clothing? Isn't "suit separates" just the term used when a suit jacket and trousers can be purchased separately so men don't have to worry about the drop? I've never seen any place that sells quality suits as separates.


I think you're right as to the correct meaning of suit separates.

So this term can be added to the list of words that are no longer used correctly, along with suiting, shirting, blazer, oxford shoes...etc etc


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

'wearing separately' seems correct. As does 'wearing as a separate' (item of clothing).


----------



## hellomarty (May 9, 2009)

Jovan said:


> ...A funeral or some other function that demands a suit could come up. Be prepared for that.


Sadly, this is why I bought a black suit last week. Just a hunch for now...


----------



## hellomarty (May 9, 2009)

Gurdon said:


> As Jimmy and others (Where is Cruiser when we need him?) have observed, a sport coat with Levi's works for informal wear...


Where is CRUISER anyway? I haven't seen him post for awhile. I haven't been reading the forums for a bit either.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

hellomarty said:


> Where is CRUISER anyway? I haven't seen him post for awhile. I haven't been reading the forums for a bit either.


Do a search. Drop the subject


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Bjorn said:


> 'wearing separately' seems correct. As does 'wearing as a separate' (item of clothing).


The first makes sense, the second does not. "A separate" in the way you mention is a women's term which I have never seen used in regards to men's clothing.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I'd mostly be afraid of getting more wear on one part of the suit than the other.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
With my suits, through normal wear of the componets as a suit, the trousers generally fail/wear out before the jacket of the suit well before the jacket begins to show any signs of comparable wear. This even happens in those instances I have purchased the suits with a second pair of trousers. Generally this is the point at which our local Goodwill store finds themselves the beneficiary of another orphaned suit jacket! Wouldn't the occassional wear of our suit jackets as odd jackets with other trousers actually serve to equalize the wear rates of the componets of our suits? :icon_scratch:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^
With my suits, through normal wear of the componets as a suit, the trousers generally fail/wear out before the jacket of the suit well before the jacket begins to show any signs of comparable wear. This even happens in those instances I have purchased the suits with a second pair of trousers. Generally this is the point at which our local Goodwill store finds themselves the beneficiary of another orphaned suit jacket! Wouldn't the occassional wear of our suit jackets as odd jackets with other trousers actually serve to equalize the wear rates of the componets of our suits? :icon_scratch:


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Correct, eagle2250. Suit jackets tend to spend a lot of time resting on a coat hanger on the back of an office door, or draped over a chair, or laid out in the backseat of a car, while their corresponding trousers are getting wear.


----------



## Jake Genezen (May 27, 2010)

'In America [...] the odd jacket as we know today [...] became popular with the resort-bound upper-classes, who took to wearing their blue serge suit coats with white flannel trousers.'

(Antongiavanni, 2006, p. 131)

(I guess in the similar manner as the figures in the the AA illustrations CuffDaddy posted)


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

Exactly, Jake. Wearing a suit coat with non-matching pants is true to the original! 

A further comment, which is advice (and not a rule). It appears that lots of men are worried about the pitfalls in doing this. Lots of focus is put on the pattern, which is reasonable - plaids do well, stripes are tougher - but much of the handwringing is greatest over the solid. To carry off a solid suit jacket with non-matching pants, I think it's useful to think about matching weight. Many men today have only 6, 7, or 8 oz jackets. Of course those are going to look funny with heavy twill or flannel trousers! I have no problem wearing a heavy (Fox) flannel grey suit jacket with olive or mid-brown flannels, or cavalry twill. A light jacket combined with equally light trousers will also do OK. And it helps to make sure that the colors are different enough that there is no question of whether they are supposed to match or not.


----------



## Bjorn (May 2, 2010)

CuffDaddy said:


> Exactly, Jake. Wearing a suit coat with non-matching pants is true to the original!
> 
> A further comment, which is advice (and not a rule). It appears that lots of men are worried about the pitfalls in doing this. Lots of focus is put on the pattern, which is reasonable - plaids do well, stripes are tougher - but much of the handwringing is greatest over the solid. To carry off a solid suit jacket with non-matching pants, I think it's useful to think about matching weight. Many men today have only 6, 7, or 8 oz jackets. Of course those are going to look funny with heavy twill or flannel trousers! I have no problem wearing a heavy (Fox) flannel grey suit jacket with olive or mid-brown flannels, or cavalry twill. A light jacket combined with equally light trousers will also do OK. And it helps to make sure that the colors are different enough that there is no question of whether they are supposed to match or not.


This is also why older orphaned jackets are often better. The main pitfall is indeed with pairing a modern super wools 6-8 oz jacket with heavier trousers with coarser surface. Then it looks like a suit missing it's pants.

Tweeds, flannels, linens and more textured/coarser worsted are more versatile.

I don't think the original wearers of suit jackets / odd trousers had jackets in anything approaching as light as 8 oz.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I've seen descriptions in 1940s catalogues of 8 oz. tropical weight wool. So it's older than you'd think.


----------



## CuffDaddy (Feb 26, 2009)

However, Jovan, that weight was reserved for _the tropics_ at that time. Now, that's towards the heavy end of most standard OTR suits, excluding seasonal specials.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

And it wasn't super delicate.


----------

