# "Cocktail attire"?



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Last minute invite to our local Zoo charity fund raiser which has always been 'black tie optional', now 'cocktail attire', not otherwise defined.

My initial inclination is dark suit and a bow tie and because of the tempreture (it's a semi outdoor deal) perhaps a V neck sweater. I think a sport jacket is not enough.

Trad folk, what say you?


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

You should be safe with a dark solid suit.


----------



## jwooten (Dec 19, 2010)

Dark suit for sure. "Cocktail attire" is a pseudo dress code without real defined standards. From CNET: "*Cocktail Attire* means short, elegant dresses for her and dark suits for him."; however, CNET is not the end all be all of sartorial or clerical reference. I'd say a dark solid suit with a conservative tie is a good play.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

jwooten said:


> Dark suit for sure. "Cocktail attire" is a pseudo dress code without real defined standards. From CNET: "*Cocktail Attire* means short, elegant dresses for her and dark suits for him."; however, CNET is not the end all be all of sartorial or clerical reference. I'd say a dark solid suit with a conservative tie is a good play.


Thank you for that. 
I have the dark suit covered, probably some simple black smooth leather oxfords, soft, not spit shined, but I can't resist a bow tie. OK, it will be a tasteful, if not 'conservative' tie. For me, an alcoholic opportunity + bow tie = fun.

I will search for some bow tie threads here to see the conventional trad wisdom on those. I like them for social outings, not the office.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

filfoster:

Did you review the "Cracking the Dress Code" article linked from the Home Page?:

https://askandyaboutclothes.com/Clothes Articles/cracking_the_dress_code.htm
*DAY *or *EVENING INFORMAL *(Don't think casual!) also COCKTAIL, or BUSINESS ATTIRE: This requires a business suit, necktie, lace-up shoes, and for evening occasions a non-button-down collar dress shirt. Make certain that the person sending out the invitations really means informal and not casual since this is a common misconception!
​


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Wear a navy or charcoal suit, white shirt with cufflinks, nice tie (no overly fancy stripes or patterns), polished black shoes and pocket square. You'll easily be one of the best dressed men with minimal effort. Believe me, I know from experience.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Jovan said:


> Wear a navy or charcoal suit, white shirt with cufflinks, nice tie (no overly fancy stripes or patterns), polished black shoes and pocket square. You'll easily be one of the best dressed men with minimal effort. Believe me, I know from experience.


Thanks to all, including Andy! I am in the charcoal suit, plain point collar, BB shirt, red bowtie with small navy dots, starched white hankie pocket square and plain-toe polished oxfords. Again, in the interest of creature comfort,(warmth) I may wear a very dark charcoal v neck sweater under the jacket but will see how the temp is-expected to be low 50's this evening. I know the bow tie is fashion forward but I have my Dutch courage on without the drink.


----------



## David J. Cooper (Apr 26, 2010)

Bow Ties are now fashion forward? I suppose the true trad would be animal skins and a club.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

How cold is it there? Maybe some thermal underwear would be in order.


----------



## Binkie Baumont (Jul 30, 2011)

*I suppose it depends on the climate








*


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

What you describe sounds very nice.



filfoster said:


> ...in the interest of creature comfort,(warmth) I may wear a very dark charcoal v neck sweater under the jacket but will see how the temp is-expected to be low 50's this evening...


An extra undershirt or two might be an alternative to this.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

filfoster said:


> Last minute invite to our local Zoo charity fund raiser which has always been 'black tie optional', now 'cocktail attire', not otherwise defined.
> 
> My initial inclination is dark suit and a bow tie and because of the tempreture (it's a semi outdoor deal) perhaps a V neck sweater. I think a sport jacket is not enough.
> 
> Trad folk, what say you?


I really don't understand why those who put together these events don't spend a little time researching proper dress codes. Cocktail attire could mean any of the following:

-- Black tie optional. 
-- Lounge suits. 
-- Business suits.
-- Business casual.
-- Smart casual (a phrase some British friends use to describe dress shirts with jeans).
-- Any combination of these.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

hockeyinsider said:


> I really don't understand why those who put together these events don't spend a little time researching proper dress codes.


I suspect a woman, (or two), wrote the invitation, the term cocktail attire, means something to her , and she is oblivious to the fact it can be taken to mean any number of things to men.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

*resolution*

I guarantee the invitations were done by women who staff this event.
The temp got to low 50's. I opted to man-up and did not wear the sweater,(yes a shawl would have done at my age too, thanks). I looked fine. 
The assortment of men (over 5000 people in attendance total, half that men) covered the entire fashion aviary. About a third in dinner jackets, the next largest similar to mine, a solid business suit and tie, but blue suits predominated (I opted for the charcoal because it is a brand new suit-I will spare myself the forum embarassment of its make-in lieu of the weekly worn navy blue JAB. 
Your collective comments were very much appreciated and I enjoyed them all, even the barbed ones.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

arkirshner said:


> I suspect a woman, (or two), wrote the invitation, the term cocktail attire, means something to her , and she is oblivious to the fact it can be taken to mean any number of things to men.


General thoughts (though, in this specific case, the issue is now academic):

In such a case, my suspicion would be the same (though I guess it's actually closer to a conviction). It means something reasonably specific for women and - in practice - any of a number of things to men. You can ask, though you'd likely be asking the same woman who hasn't thought about it in the first place.

What you're really trying to accomplish (or at least what _I_ would be) is to guess what other men who attend will be wearing, so you'll approximately fit in. That guess probably has more to do with some vague guesses about who/where/when/why is involved.

Or - if you're one of the sort who cares less about fitting in than about the status associated with being-the-only-one-who-did-it-right-ism - just wear white tie or a morning coat (depending on time of day) and be done with it.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

Binkie Baumont said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Over-the-calf socks would have so improved his look.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

The invitation should have read "lounge suits and cocktail dresses requested."


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

hockeyinsider said:


> The invitation should have read "lounge suits and cocktail dresses requested."


I'd more likely have written something like:
"Cocktail attire; suit and tie"
or
"Cocktail attire; black-tie optional."

Sound like the latter was the better fit for the crowd, given the OP's description of the actual event.


----------



## 12345Michael54321 (Mar 6, 2008)

hockeyinsider said:


> The invitation should have read "lounge suits and cocktail dresses requested."


While I respect that this might well be technically accurate, one drawback is that most people have no idea what a "lounge suit" is.
-- 
Michael


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

There was a thread not long ago in which another amorphous term was discussed, (for that matter it could have been the same term). No one could come up with a substitute that was able to convey to a general audience exactly what was intended. My suggestion was "business suit" but I was properly corrected because the term business suit includes both solids and stripes; while solids are also proper for evening social occasions, stripes are not.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

arkirshner said:


> There was a thread not long ago in which another amorphous term was discussed, (for that matter it could have been the same term). No one could come up with a substitute that was able to convey to a general audience exactly what was intended. My suggestion was "business suit" but I was properly corrected because the term business suit includes both solids and stripes; while solids are also proper for evening social occasions, stripes are not.


So 'lounge suit' = solid busines suit?


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

12345Michael54321 said:


> While I respect that this might well be technically accurate, one drawback is that most people have no idea what a "lounge suit" is.
> --
> Michael


And I suspect anyone under 45 would have typed it into Google and quickly found out via Wikipedia.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

filfoster said:


> So 'lounge suit' = solid busines suit?


Not necessarily. I think most on here would agree that a business suit is generally more plain and conservative while a lounge suit is the best of the best, if you will -- a suit where a sartorialist can have ticket pockets, go-to-hell linings, kissing buttons on the cuffs and the like without much controversy.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

filfoster said:


> So 'lounge suit' = solid busines suit?


No, lounge suit is a broad term: all suits for ordinary wear are lounge suits. This includes many that would not be considered business suits.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

hockeyinsider said:


> Not necessarily. I think most on here would agree that a business suit is generally more plain and conservative while a lounge suit is the best of the best, if you will -- a suit where a sartorialist can have ticket pockets, go-to-hell linings, kissing buttons on the cuffs and the like without much controversy.


OK, I think that was my original take on the term. Something that resembles a business suit but is frankly a bit more swank than most of us would wear to the office, perhaps a finer sheen material, more fitted cut, and details like the ticket pocket, linings,perhaps peaked lapels? Double vent? Or am I leaving the Trad and heading for the Fedora Lounge? (Where I also post, as lamely as here.)


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

We're off on some whole other subject here, but my take is:

In terms of plain denotative meaning, at least in American English, "lounge suit" and "business suit" are synonymous. Merriam Webster, indeed, defines "lounge suit" as "business suit."

"Lounge suit" is a primarily British term, like "flat" or "lorrie" or "boot" (when you're talking about that thing in the back of car, anyway). As is the case when you use the word flat, rather than apartment, there are some different connotations involved. If nothing else, you'd be more likely to picture a "flat" as the sort of place more common in London. More important, I think, is the impression you create. To me, an American who uses Britishisms, at least in the absence of some particular reason for doing so, comes of as ostentatious and possibly a bit of a pretentious boob. If anything, ordinary Americans are considerably more likely to understand the word "flat" than to apprehend "lounge suit," which only makes it worse. This isn't a case of recovering some traditional language; it's a case of importing a phrase that isn't part of American English.

In American English, the term "business suit" is broad, and includes solid colored, striped, wool, poplin, silk, etc. suits - even ones that the owner bought to wear to social events or church, and not to wear to work. If someone is, say, an auto mechanic (or, nowadays, a venture capitalist who wears business casual), he may still own a "business suit," even though he never wears it for business purposes. Many people own several business suits, some of which they wear to social events, and some of which they only wear to work.

One might, I suppose, get concerned that just the appearance of the word "business" on an invitation makes it sound too much like a work party, or some kind of press-your-business-card-on-strangers networking event. I think that's unfounded, but if so, the preferable alternative would be just to use the word "suit." That _might_ of course be understood to have too broad a meaning, leading to people showing up in leisure suits, G suits and speedos, but I think you can depend on the context to render that unlikely. Just to eliminate any possibility of such a misunderstanding, the phrase "suit and tie" seems like a good idea. Technically, of course, that could include a tuxedo (or white tie), but that's not usually a problem; particularly not in the case of the event described by the OP, where I guess some people actually _did_ opt to wear tuxedos without apparent incident.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

The point of language is to communicate. I agree that when American English and British English have different words for the same thing it is pretentious for an American to use the British word. (When a man in the UK uses an American word I'm sure it does not come across as pretentious. I'm reminded of the fictional Lord Peter Wimsey who used American slang as a form of linguistic "slumming".) I agree that an American using braces and waistcoats is pretentious as there are clear American equivalents.

On the other hand, when there is no American term for something that is very clear in British English there is no reason not to use it when speaking to those who are familiar with the term. "Lounge suit" is one such term. I do not use it out in the real world but it is not pretentious to use it here.

Other American dictionaries define "business suit" along the lines of a conservative suit worn by businessmen, and I don't believe the majority of American men would consider a white linen suit to be a "business suit". In other words, "lounge suit" and "business suit" are not exactly the same, a business suit being a subset of lounge suit .

Perhaps just "suit" or "suit and tie" are best, although "suit and tie" seems a bit condescending, as if one needed to be reminded to wear a tie. Actually, "black tie optional" connotes either black tie or dressy suit. Those who make the distinction that traditionally striped suits are worn only for business will dress accordingly. 

To me, what is unfortunate is that changing the invitation to cocktail attire implies that the expected standard of formality is less than before.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

I actually agree with this - if not absolutely 100%, pretty close.



arkirshner said:


> The point of language is to communicate.


That's really the bottom line, and I think that putting "lounge suit" on an invitation does some combination of failing to communicate and communicating something one doesn't intend.

I do think that, in a purely technical sense, the word "business suit" is a synonym with "lounge suit," and would - both technically and for all practical purposes - include a white linen suit. Confusion in dictionaries (which is unavoidable ... language isn't quite mathematics, after all) arises from the fact that it's easy to overlook the very existence of white linen suits. After all, how many people actually own white linen suits? There were probably more some decades back, but a fair number of them may have been wearing them for business in the courthouse square in some steamy Mississippi town. To the extent lounge suit has any meaning at all in the US, I think that what one would picture would be a relatively conservative suit of the sort worn by businessmen. The fact a dictionary defines "business suit" that way isn't really the point - what's necessary is that the dictionary define "lounge suit" to mean something _else_, which - at least in the case of Merriam Webster - isn't the case.

I don't think any of the small group of people who own a white linen suit (or something of the sort) is going to be deterred from wearing it to a benefit party because the invitation says "business suit." There are plenty of perfectly legitimate reasons not to wear a white linen suit to a party (or at all), but I don't think the wording of the invitation would have much to do with that decision.



> I do not use it out in the real world but it is not pretentious to use it here.


I do agree with that, and probably should've made it clear I was talking in the context of what one might choose to print on an invitation that (I'm assuming) was mailed to hundred of people.

In this particular case, probably "black tie optional" would've worked the best, as some people did choose to wear black tie; and it carries the implication that - if you're not going to wear black tie - a business suit is a suitable (so to speak) alternative.

On the subject of whether saying "business suit" is bad, because some business suits are insufficiently dressy:

This concern is really that the term "business suit" is too broad. Two thoughts:
- How precisely do you think it's necessary to describe the attire? At some point, invitations are going to have to start including diagrams and swatches.
- How is that problem solved by using what's purportedly a _broader_ term? If business suit includes items that are inappropriate, then lounge suit (if business suits are a subset of it) includes all the same items.

It isn't necessary for the invitation to a party to specify that it's a social event. Nor is the point of the invitation t to give people a lesson in what they should want to wear to a party. It's to give people a sense of what level of formality is expected. At that point, the recipient's own taste - as well as knowledge of the "rules" and respect for them (or absence thereof) - takes over.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

arkirshner said:


> The point of language is to communicate. I agree that when American English and British English have different words for the same thing it is pretentious for an American to use the British word.


I disagree because there are regionalisms with American English to consider as well.



arkirshner said:


> I agree that an American using braces and waistcoats is pretentious as there are clear American equivalents.


Waistcoat is quite proper, sir. It is the original word for what many Americans now call a vest.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

hockeyinsider said:


> It is the original word for what many Americans now call a vest.


FWIW, Wikipedia says you have the order backwards (vest is the original word).

Not that that really matters.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

arkirshner: Have you seen how many men go without a tie when wearing a suit now? It looks incomplete, but obviously they do need to be reminded.


----------



## hockeyinsider (May 8, 2006)

Starch said:


> FWIW, Wikipedia says you have the order backwards (vest is the original word).
> 
> Not that that really matters.


I have done a lot research reading original sources of the early 18th century and waistcoat was used.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

One reason English can be such an expressive language is that often there is a choice of two words with for the same thing; one deriving from the old Germanic of the Saxons and one deriving from the French of the Normans. For example, "clothes" is from the Germanic while"garment is from the French. Interesting that after almost 1000 years the Norman word still has a more upscale nuance when compared with the Saxon. 

Waistcoat is an combination of waist and coat, waist coming from the the Germanic base into Old English; vest is from the Latin base into Old French. Regardless of what was first used where and when, the OED now defines "vest" , in pertinent part, as : "Orig. (now hist.), a man's long sleeveless garment worn under a coat. Later (now N. Amer. & Austral.), a man's waistcoat....." 

Whether or not waistcoat was the word used in N America in the 18'th century, the point is that while "clothes" and "garment" are used interchangeably throughout the English speaking world, at this moment in time "vest" is used in N America and Australia while "waistcoat" is used everywhere else.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

Wear a dark suit and tie (bow or otherwise) and you'll be fine. You'll likely see others there wearing blazers or sports coats (some with or without ties).

I hate, hate, hate the term "black tie optional." It is such a cop-out. If you want people to wear a dinner jacket, say so.

We attended the grand opening gala of the Kauffman Center for the Performing Arts on Friday night, and I am pleased to report I didn't spot a single man in the crowd of 1700 patrons that wasn't wearing a dinner jacket. One young man even wore a full white tie rig (I applauded his creativity, but it was a little much for Kansas City).


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

I have hugely enjoyed this dust up and the help offered. My wife communicated the invitation verbally and was told "Don't let your husband wear a tux!" and that the invitations were 'cocktail attire', because the other folks in her office given similar (expensive) tickets knew their husbands would not want to wear (or perhaps don't have) a dinner jacket/tuxedo. I learned subsequently the invites specified 'black-tie optional/cocktail attire'. One could argue that is even worse guidance. 
I am not sure I would have hauled out one of the tuxes anyway for a last minute opportunity-I selfishly gave myself the privilege of some psychic distance or ambivalence to the thing because of the accidental nature of it.
As a foot note, I did examine my BB tuxes the next day to learn they are in dire need of a pressing and that they both have center vents and thus the source of a thread begun yesterday and answered to my satisfaction.
I don't get out much anymore to affairs that deserve a dinner jacket and that may be a source of some introspection later.
As much learning as appears above on the subject of 'lounge suits', it seems that there will always be some room for lively discussion of exactly what that term describes. My working understanding, or at least a useful definition for me, is that it is a simple, dark solid color business suit of better cloth and cut than I might often wear to work. That distinguishes it from an ordinary 'business suit'. I acknowledge the origin of the term as British usage and that 'business suits' are a subset. It's clear that it's not always easy to know what the user of this term may mean. This citizen plans to just avoid using the term at all, if possible.
At least I know it's not a *leisure* suit.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Please allow me to clarify. A suit is jacket and pants made from the same material. A lounge suit is a suit made in the form that originated around 100 years ago and is still made today. Every suit sold by BB, J Press, Jos Bank on their web sites (other than formal wear) is a lounge suit. As the lounge suit refers only to the cut of the suit, a lounge suit may be wool, cotton, linen or what have you, it can be a solid or any pattern, stripes, plaids, checks windowpane. 

That having been said, what is meant by someone using the term can depend on the context. When used in the context of the expected attire at an up scale evening social occasion such as your Cinn. event, what is implied is a lounge suit suitable for the event. In this instance a lounge suit indeed would mean a dark, solid color suit one might well wear to work. On the other hand at a daytime country sporting event a suitable lounge suit would include checks, plaids and windowpanes. In neither example would a stripe suit be implied. On the other hand, lounge suit in context of business wear would include stripes but exclude say patterned tweeds. 

To confuse matters a little, the OED defines lounge suit as " a man's formal suit for ordinary day wear." Here the use of "formal" does not mean formal as used in "formal evening wear" (white tie) or "formal daywear" (morning suit). "Formal" as used in this OED definition has a broader meaning as can be seen by going to UK shirt websites where "formal" shirts are not restricted to those worn with white or black tie (or their day equivalents). Here "formal" shirts include any shirt one would wear with a suit , eg. not a sportshirt.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

hockeyinsider said:


> I have done a lot research reading original sources of the early 18th century and waistcoat was used.


You'll need to do some more research, as both words were used in the 17th Century.

In any event, it's really beside the point, which is:



akirshner said:


> at this moment in time "vest" is used in N America and Australia while "waistcoat" is used everywhere else.


----------



## JRR (Feb 11, 2006)

filfoster said:


> I have hugely enjoyed this dust up and the help offered. My wife communicated the invitation verbally and was told "Don't let your husband wear a tux!" and that the invitations were 'cocktail attire', because the other folks in her office given similar (expensive) tickets knew their husbands would not want to wear (or perhaps don't have) a dinner jacket/tuxedo. I learned subsequently the invites specified 'black-tie optional/cocktail attire'. One could argue that is even worse guidance. .


Another strike against USB!


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

JRR said:


> Another strike against USB!


Well, indeed! I think you are referring to the USB that is the source of those tickets?


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

*Cocktail attire, beaten to death*

Now for even more obfuscation. My wife and I will be attending my younger daughter's sorority charity fundraiser at South Carolina (the University of...the *original USC*), an event we have enjoyed a lot previously. Drinks, nice dinner out, more drinks, silent auction, time spent with younger daughter, etc, etc. 
Anyway, the dress code for menfolk at this 'cocktail attire' affair is blue blazer, khakis of your shade choice and loafers. This is how 90% of the dads and dates are attired. 
Bow ties are welcome. Is this just a Southern thing? I like it, and I am kitted out now with the BB 1818 Madison blazer just acquired on sale, but it's against the grain of most of the above. Thoughts?


----------



## Orgetorix (May 20, 2005)

Bottom line: cocktail attire is whatever the event's organizer has in mind. Which is not terribly helpful, but there it is.


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

Fil, It appears that the charity function is looking for a uniform appearance from the men... a themed event of sorts and not true cocktail attire. Not the party for an iconoclast; I'd dress as instructed.


----------



## filfoster (Aug 23, 2011)

Bandit44 said:


> Fil, It appears that the charity function is looking for a uniform appearance from the men... a themed event of sorts and not true cocktail attire. Not the party for an iconoclast; I'd dress as instructed.


Yes, from the prior events, I sense 'cocktail attire' means this blazer/khankis 'uniform', and not a narrowly defined 'cocktail attire' dark suit. I wore a dark suit/bowtie to the first one but noted the 'uniform' of the blazers and khakis, which is fine by me. Anyway, this is a sorority party/fundraiser (KD) and no one will feel out of place or unwelcome as long as they have a jacket and tie of some sort.


----------



## Himself (Mar 2, 2011)

Just about every cocktail event I go to is what Andy would call "smart casual" -- blazers/sportcoats, khakis, buttondowns, etc. In that context, people are very well (and expensively) dressed. Rarely is it a suit-wearin' event, except for major theater/museum/gallery openings, big-money charity events, etc.

California really is the capital of casual dress, but often a very upscale casual, which can be confusing.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Show up in a suit just because you can. If anyone asks why, just claim that you don't own a blazer or khakis and made do.

Nah, I'm just joking. Or am I...? :biggrin2:


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

arkirshner said:


> Please allow me to clarify. A suit is jacket and pants made from the same material. A lounge suit is a suit made in the form that originated around 100 years ago and is still made today. Every suit sold by BB, J Press, Jos Bank on their web sites (other than formal wear) is a lounge suit. As the lounge suit refers only to the cut of the suit, a lounge suit may be wool, cotton, linen or what have you, it can be a solid or any pattern, stripes, plaids, checks windowpane.
> 
> That having been said, what is meant by someone using the term can depend on the context. When used in the context of the expected attire at an up scale evening social occasion such as your Cinn. event, what is implied is a lounge suit suitable for the event. In this instance a lounge suit indeed would mean a dark, solid color suit one might well wear to work. On the other hand at a daytime country sporting event a suitable lounge suit would include checks, plaids and windowpanes. In neither example would a stripe suit be implied. On the other hand, lounge suit in context of business wear would include stripes but exclude say patterned tweeds.
> 
> To confuse matters a little, the OED defines lounge suit as " a man's formal suit for ordinary day wear." Here the use of "formal" does not mean formal as used in "formal evening wear" (white tie) or "formal daywear" (morning suit). "Formal" as used in this OED definition has a broader meaning as can be seen by going to UK shirt websites where "formal" shirts are not restricted to those worn with white or black tie (or their day equivalents). Here "formal" shirts include any shirt one would wear with a suit , eg. not a sportshirt.


This seems both helpful and right. To me, one can sum up the distinction as simply -- a business suit is a lounge suit appropriate for business.


----------

