# GQ's Style Guy doesn't think a Button-down Collar shirt is a dress shirt



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

I was hoping to find a link but nothing yet. In the August GQ pg 45 Glenn O'Brien (the Style Guy) answers a question about button-down collar shirts projecting an image of "middle-management" or lower!

He agrees and is of the opinion that they should *not* be worn with a suit.

_"The button-down is the shirt equivalent of the loafer."

_I know they are not proper after 6 PM with a necktie nor with the dressier double breasted suit. I've actually cleaned out most of the button-down collar shirts from my closet (sorry TRADS) since they are less versatile.


----------



## sbdivemaster (Nov 13, 2011)

Absurd. I've known plenty of senior law partners, doctors, CEO bankers, etc. who all wear BD's - even with a suit. Gasp!

Yeah, this guy is "'middle management' or lower":










Lemme guess: Style Guy wears black shirts with silver satin ties...

Sheesh.


----------



## johnpark11 (Oct 19, 2009)

I kind of agree with the style guy on this one. I read that too and think he was saying its a more casual/prep look.


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

My shirt makers make a mean Button down but I only wear them casually myself. I do have a lot f them though.


----------



## salgy (May 1, 2009)

johnpark11 said:


> I kind of agree with the style guy on this one. I read that too and think he was saying its a more casual/prep look.





David Reeves said:


> I only wear them casually myself.


+1 to each of you... i guess growing up in the northeast, i have always seen/worn a button down collar as a casual shirt...


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

I know they're a d*mned PITA to put a tie on. But being that I am much more given to wearing a dress shirt with coat _minus_ a tie (being retired and all, don'tcherknow) I am inclined to have my shirt collection half-and-half. Can't help but believe that even with a tie BD's are essential under tweed and preferably patterned.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Actual research: I looked through a couple of editions of the facebook, from the late '80s and early '90s, for what was (and still is) among the most high-end "white shoe" law firms in the country. The photos were taken by a sort of roving photographer, who would come around to people's offices and take an _in situ_ (not to mention in suit, as suits were in those days explicitly required) photo of the subject in what he happened to wear to the office that day. The figures:

Button-down collars were worn by approximately 40% of the subjects
They were slightly more common among partners than associates, and generally correlated with higher seniority
They also seemed (this is more impressionistic) to correlate with higher-status backgrounds (all Ivy League, extremely wealthy families, Exeter, and that sort of thing).

Bottom line: the GQ guy is dead wrong. To use British terminology (only semi-applicable here), he's displaying "non-U" pretension ... like saying "passed on" instead of "died" or "luncheon" instead of "lunch," in the wrongheaded belief that former is more "classy."


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

WOW! After many decade of catering to the lowest common denominator of style, GQ finally got one right.

To be clear, I am not claiming that 40% of professionals don't wear button-down collars. I'm just saying that they shouldn't ... except on the tennis court or upon their polo ponies.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Starch said:


> ... Bottom line: the GQ guy is dead wrong. To use British terminology (only semi-applicable here), he's displaying "non-U" pretension ... like saying "passed on" instead of "died" or "luncheon" instead of "lunch," in the wrongheaded belief that former is more "classy."


I enjoyed this. Of course a button down shirt in a traditional English law firm would be received about as well as a stroller at NASCAR.

Luncheon is not non-U. Using dinner to refer to the midday meal is non-U. Luncheon is a more traditional way of describing lunch, and is distinctly U (if pretentious). Of course, well-bred English public schoolboys(*) are likely to fake an estuary accent these days in order show they are down with the kids.

(*) To avoid confusion, privately educated. I know the American usage is different.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Balfour said:


> I enjoyed this. Of course a button down shirt in a traditional English law firm would be received about as well as a stroller at NASCAR.


That is absolutely correct. The only acceptable attire for NASCAR is a black suit.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> WOW! After many decade of catering to the lowest common denominator of style, GQ finally got one right.


You're saying that even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Oldsarge said:


> You're saying that even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn?


Actually, I thought blind pigs gravitated more towards white truffles. But I'll go +1 for your analogy anyway.


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

They do things a little differently at Bonneville.








https://sjoyce.blogspot.com/2010/08/bonneville-speed-week.html


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Mox said:


> They do things a little differently at Bonneville.
> View attachment 4827
> 
> 
> https://sjoyce.blogspot.com/2010/08/bonneville-speed-week.html


NASCAR is for racing addicts. Bonneville is for Ripley's aspirants.


----------



## dks202 (Jun 20, 2008)

Around here, South Texas, blue and white button downs are very prevalent with suits. So are cowboy boots.....


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Oh Boy. This thread's gonna be FUN!

Thanks, Andy. So you're taking tomorrow off and leaving me with this mess?


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> NASCAR is for racing addicts. Bonneville is for Ripley's aspirants.


And would-be Darwin Award recipients!

Hmmm, and that explains the appropriateness of the black suit before six?


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

When I was still in business, I rarely wore a BD for business, but as a retiree I often do, particularly since I'm mostly in a sports jacket. Had nothing to do with whether it is appropriate or not, I simply favored a more formal/dressy appearance. I have a bottle green corduroy suit made by my tailor with which I wore BD's often. And to a lesser degree, with my tweed suits as well. 

A BD is one note in a composition, a less formal one, and it can be used just as well as any other collar if the entire composition ends up sounding good. I see nothing wrong with a BD with a suit, depending upon what one is trying to achieve.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Balfour said:


> I enjoyed this. Of course a button down shirt in a traditional English law firm would be received about as well as a stroller at NASCAR.


I'll take your word on "luncheon" in Britain. Like the collars, that example was an American one, rather than British. Of course, the use by Americans of words that are used in the UK and not in the US is, all by itself, a non-U tendency.

"U / Non-U" isn't really the right name in the US either, as the US lacks a real upper class. There are no hereditary titles, thus no nobility, and not really a gentry either: hereditary landholdings never had the same importance, given the huge quantity of land, mobility occasioned by Westward expansion and an historical aversion to primogeniture. The most telling cultural division is between the upper middle class (who, unlike a true upper class, generally do work) and the middle class. The manifestations are pretty similar to the Mitfordian U/non-U distinction, though.


----------



## BluePincord (May 14, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Oh Boy. This thread's gonna be FUN!


Yup...this can't end well. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Starch said:


> The most telling cultural division is between the _*upper middle class*_ (who, unlike a true upper class, generally do work) and the middle class.


Rumor is that this term is soon to be replaced with the term _*Overseer Class*_. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bandit44 (Oct 1, 2010)

I generally prefer a spread or point colar with a suit, but will occasionally wear a button-down, especially with a bow tie. The wonderful thing about the ocbd is that with a tie, it is dressy, but without, it is casual. At least, that's the way it works for me.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

^+1^:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Comparing a OCBD to a Loafer is a good one....but how do we make that leap to this one



Alexander Kabbaz said:


> To be clear, I am not claiming that 40% of professionals don't wear button-down collars. I'm just saying that they shouldn't ... except on the tennis court or upon their polo ponies.


Clearly you can wear loafers with a sport coat and slacks - are you suggesting that you cant wear a OCBD with a sport coat or blazer?


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

mrkleen said:


> ... are you suggesting that you cant wear a OCBD with a sport coat or blazer?


Oh, darn. Did I wander over to the Trad Forum by mistake? _Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa_.

And I wouldn't know. I do not own nor have I ever owned nor shall I ever own a non-tennis button down.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Andy said:


> I've actually cleaned out most of the button-down collar shirts from my closet (sorry TRADS) since they are less versatile.


Less versatile? I'm sorry to disagree with you on that one, Andy! Most of my sized shirts are BDs and will continue to be so. They are the only dress shirts I will wear as sports shirts (open-necked and without a jacket). I nearly always wear them with sport coats. I prefer them with casual suits, which constitute the majority of my suits at present. They can be used to dress down the formality of a conservative business suit to present a "softer," more casual look, if desired.

"Improper with after 6:00 p.m. with a necktie"? I'll have to admit that was a new one on me. Given the apparel of diners at even the most elegant of restaurants that I frequent, I can scarcely imagine even the snootiest of maitre d's looking askance at a customer in a BD and a necktie. Perhaps in other parts of the world, though. "Nor with the dressier double-breasted suit": I knew that rule, but Fred Astaire violated it with aplomb, but, of course, he was Fred Astaire.

I have seen photos of my late father-in-law (Phillips-Exeter, Harvard Class of '40) sporting a white OCBD with black tie. Now that I would draw the line at!


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Gentlemen,
One has many button down collar shirts of various kinds for various purposes; That's a given, and it is also true that in the 80's one did wear button-down shirts with suits. That is not my practice at this time.
One perfers point collars with a more business suit and will allow for a bit of variation with casual suits and odd jacket and trousers. A spread collar is also possible though less preferable.
One has rules; one is to abandon bdc with suits in favor of either a spread collar, or prefferably a point collar. Don't have any round collar shirts at this time.
Certainly Mr. Alex is correct in principle in my view, but one may certainly do as one feels is most appropriate on the day: we are free persons because we honour law, custom, and repect of others and are willing to fight for principle. One may do as one will should no other be harmed.
But one does tend to think that a bdc is more casual. Sometimes more casual is what is required. One has lots of loafers and derbys as well as boots and bals.
There is a time and place for most things.
As stated elsewhere, one prefers not to wear bows with bdc. But that's not to say that a bow may not be always inappropriate on the day. Things Change.
Thank you all for a topic of some interest.
regards,
rudy


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Bandit44 said:


> I generally prefer a spread or point colar with a suit, but will occasionally wear a button-down, especially with a bow tie. The wonderful thing about the ocbd is that with a tie, it is dressy, but without, it is casual. At least, that's the way it works for me.


Sounds about right to me, maybe it's a North Carolina thing...or _thang._ Best thing about BDs sans ties is you don't get the disco spill over your lapels


----------



## Olifter (Jun 9, 2012)

I do not recall where I read this, or, of course, if it is even true, so here goes.

Button down collars were the brain child of polo players, who found that their collars flapped around or blew into their faces when playing polo and hampered vision.

Someone came up with the idea of buttoning them to the shirt. Polo is a casual activity, therefore, the button down collar is for casual dress.

I know I read this somewhere. Any one think it may be true?


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Oh, darn. Did I wander over to the Trad Forum by mistake? _Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa_.
> 
> And I wouldn't know. I do not own nor have I ever owned nor shall I ever own a non-tennis button down.


I would never wear a BDC with a suit...but I am puzzled by the idea that you dont own any, but still feel like you need to make a statement about them?

Isnt that kind of like giving advice about a country you have never visited?


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Would I wear a BDCD with a suit if I were serving on a jury? No. If I worked in a bank in the city? No. In the suburbs? Quite possibly. To church? Yep. In the summer? Yep. Under a California Tuxedo? Hell, yes! In fact, at present I only have four 'dress' shirts and none of them are white. The Mrs. proposes attending the theater this fall and winter. Since I have a black suit appropriate for such occasions, I need a white dress shirt. And while I'm at it, I'll have Hemrajani make two (non-iron!ic12337 and one of them will be BD so I can wear it to lunch on the beach with my blazer and chinos. In January I'll have Russell Moccasin make me a pair of boat shoes, too.


----------



## Youthful Repp-robate (Sep 26, 2011)

Olifter said:


> I do not recall where I read this, or, of course, if it is even true, so here goes.
> 
> Button down collars were the brain child of polo players, who found that their collars flapped around or blew into their faces when playing polo and hampered vision.
> 
> ...


Yes, buttondown collars were invented for polo playing in the 1910s. Weren't modern suits invented for sports, along with low-cut lace-up shoes?

I mean, if you look at what the President wears, he would have been considered "casually dressed" in the 1910s. I suppose one could point out that buttondown collars were not meant to be worn with a tie when they were first invented, but that can equally well be countered with years and years of (mostly American) men wearing them with ties.

In addition, my impression of Glenn O'Brien is that he's prone to big picture pronouncements, leaving no room for differences of opinion. I've also seen him in black suede bucks (w/neon sole), which doesn't make any sense to me as a style choice, but oh well.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

He writes for GQ. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid . . .


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> Would I wear a BDCD with a suit if I were serving on a jury?


Not only would you not wear a BD with a suit on a jury, you would not wear a suit on a jury. Or at least you would not get selected while wearing a suit from among the jury panel for a criminal trial. Peremptory challenge! *BUZZ*, toss the Sarge! The opposing attorneys are both looking for guys and gals who appear unable to count to ten.


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

Youthful Repp-robate said:


> I mean, if you look at what the President wears, he would have been considered "casually dressed" in the 1910s.


I've recently been reading a lot of Europe-between-the-Wars history, and in the pix most of the men are wearing DB suits, or at least 3PSB. Any man in "only" a 2PSB looks rather underdressed. And while I hadn't noticed any BDs, collars are all over the place: long point, batwing, spread, club, etc. And yes, when dressed for a weekend at leisure in the country, they are wearing jackets, ties, polished shoes and hats....even for bird hunting


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Flanderian said:


> Not only would you not wear a BD with a suit on a jury, you would not wear a suit on a jury. Or at least you would not get selected while wearing a suit from among the jury panel for a criminal trial. Peremptory challenge! *BUZZ*, toss the Sarge! The opposing attorneys are both looking for guys and gals who appear unable to count to ten.


And your point is? :devil:


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

phyrpowr said:


> I've recently been reading a lot of Europe-between-the-Wars history, and in the pix most of the men are wearing DB suits, or at least 3PSB. Any man in "only" a 2PSB looks rather underdressed. And while I hadn't noticed any BDs, collars are all over the place: long point, batwing, spread, club, etc. And yes, when dressed for a weekend at leisure in the country, they are wearing jackets, ties, polished shoes and hats....even for bird hunting


As they should. It shows respect for the game.


----------



## Fraser Tartan (May 12, 2010)

More examples can be found here.

That's Glenn O'Brien.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Snerk!


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Oldsarge said:


> And your point is? :devil:


Other than the point on top of my head, not much of one. Your description of a suit worn on a jury reminded of my one stint on a criminal jury about 35 years ago. After noticing that the attorneys were bouncing anyone who made eye contact or was dressed in anything but the most casual clothing, on my next shot at voir dire I wore jeans and a denim shirt and mumbled. Worked like a charm!


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Actually, I never get picked for a jury. I was once asked my views on firearms. As a Life Member of the NRA, a career soldier and former competitive pistol shooter I thought my answer was fairly moderate. "Dismissed!"

Happens every time. I guess I just look too independent and domineering or something . . .


----------



## zzdocxx (Sep 26, 2011)

OK ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE DISTINGUISHED PANEL ! ! !

Here's my idea, it is taking something suggested by Alex K, having to do with shirts being worn with no tie.

Specifically, having shirts made so the second-highest button is in a higher up position so the collars will not flip and flop all around.

I was thinking about taking some of my newer shirts from BB (have some button-downs) and having the alterations Vietnamese tailor down the street just put an extra button between the two top buttons.

Will this work ? ? ? Or would it look gauche ? ? ?



> Definition:tactless, unsophisticatedSynonyms: awkward, bumbling, clumsy, crude, graceless, green, halting, ham-handed, heavy-handed, ignorant, ill-bred, ill-mannered, inelegant, inept, insensitive, lacking, maladroit, oafish, uncouth, uncultured, unhappy, unpolished, wooden


----------



## Checkerboard 13 (Oct 6, 2009)

zzdocxx said:


> OK ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE DISTINGUISHED PANEL ! ! !
> 
> Here's my idea, it is taking something suggested by Alex K, having to do with shirts being worn with no tie.
> 
> ...


a) It would look gauche.

b) Don't hijack someone else's thread. Start your own.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

zzdocxx said:


> OK ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE DISTINGUISHED PANEL ! ! !
> 
> Here's my idea, it is taking something suggested by Alex K, having to do with shirts being worn with no tie.
> 
> ...


zzdocxx,
As one may buy shirts off rack with two collar buttons, one higher than the other, which it seems to be what you are suggesting, why would one?
Of course, one admits that perhaps one has not understood exactly your intent.
Please feel free to enlighten me,
regards, my friend,
rudy


----------



## Thomas Martin (Aug 12, 2011)

I like BD shirts but would never wear them with a suit. For a more casual look they're great. Problem is that they have become virtually unavailable around here. Apparently they seem to have become quite out of fashion.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Bandit44 said:


> I generally prefer a spread or point colar with a suit, but will occasionally wear a button-down, especially with a bow tie. The wonderful thing about the ocbd is that with a tie, it is dressy, but without, it is casual. At least, that's the way it works for me.





phyrpowr said:


> Sounds about right to me, maybe it's a North Carolina thing...or _thang._ Best thing about BDs sans ties is you don't get the disco spill over your lapels


...and a big +1 from way out here in Hoosierville. Although, in the interests of full disclosure, I am compelled to reveal that button-down collars outnumber any other collar designs in my closet by at least 10 to 1. Truth be known, I never did think much of GQ...a generally over-priced and under-written rag, featuring far more advertisers pics than they openly acknowledge!


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Starch said:


> I'll take your word on "luncheon" in Britain. Like the collars, that example was an American one, rather than British. Of course, the use by Americans of words that are used in the UK and not in the US is, all by itself, a non-U tendency.
> 
> "U / Non-U" isn't really the right name in the US either, as the US lacks a real upper class.


Agreed. I think trying to apply Mitford's U v. non-U taxonomy to the US was what tickled me about your post in the first place. Of course, it is very non-U to talk about what is U and non-U!



Flanderian said:


> Not only would you not wear a BD with a suit on a jury, you would not wear a suit on a jury. Or at least you would not get selected while wearing a suit from among the jury panel for a criminal trial. Peremptory challenge! *BUZZ*, toss the Sarge! The opposing attorneys are both looking for guys and gals who appear unable to count to ten.


Yes. It is much more difficult to challenge jurors in the UK. But if I wished to be excused jury service, I would wear a double-breasted chalk-stripe suit with pocket square, carrying a umbrella hooked over my arm and the Financial Times hooked under it!


----------



## Aussie (Aug 8, 2011)

Although today many people consider Brooks Brothers a very traditional clothier, it is known for having introduced many clothing novelties to the market throughout its history as a leader in the industry. 

In 1896, John E. Brooks, the grandson of Henry Sands Brooks, applied button-down collars to dress shirts after having seen them on English polo players.

Personally, I wear button downs daily, without a tie. Under a suit I generally wear a point collar. The buttons keep the collar neat when not wearing a tie.. 

There is nothing wrong with wearing a tie with a BDC - it's personal preference. Simple as that -- BDC collars are not as common in Australia -- I guess that's because they are American (like Cordovan shoes).

I don't like loafers, monk straps or short wing tips! That's just my preference..


----------



## darchard (Mar 11, 2012)

How would this writer feel about a tab collar? Does anyone wear a tab anymore? I have one Ike Beher from NM that I wear from time to time.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

mrkleen said:


> I would never wear a BDC with a suit...but I am puzzled by the idea that you dont own any, but still feel like you need to make a statement about them?
> 
> Isnt that kind of like giving advice about a country you have never visited?


_Mea culpa_. My expertise in the field of shirts is quite narrow. I shall henceforth restrict my comments solely to garments I wear.



zzdocxx said:


> OK ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE DISTINGUISHED PANEL ! ! !
> 
> Here's my idea, it is taking something suggested by Alex K, having to do with shirts being worn with no tie.
> 
> ...


That would look like an afterthought. However, you can do one of the following****:

1] Insert a button/buttonhole between every front button thus doubling their number. This will look as if it were a "designer" style.

2] Insert a button halfway between the collar button and the first button; hallfway between the 2nd and 3rd buttons; halfway between the 4th and 5th button. This, too, will look like a "designer" style.

**** _Caveat_: Although "treatment #2" is one I have made on a few dozen clients' shirts over the years and "treatment #1" is one I use rather frequently, I don't own either of these nor have I ever owned either nor do I think I ever shall own either. I shouldn't be commenting.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> _Mea culpa_. My expertise in the field of shirts is quite narrow.


:icon_smile_big::devil::icon_smile_big:


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

A button down shirt is more casual than a regular collar. If you choose to wear a button down with anything more than slacks you start to look preppy. If that is the look you want then go for it - nothing wrong with that but it isn't what I prefer to wear at this stage in my life although I used to like them when I was younger and in general I think they favor younger people. It looks very nice with a tie and navy blazer and I like that look on my sons who are in their late teens. I think it really doesn't look good with a suit. Personally, I stopped wearing OCBDs in the early 90s.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

Flanderian said:


> Not only would you not wear a BD with a suit on a jury, you would not wear a suit on a jury. Or at least you would not get selected while wearing a suit from among the jury panel for a criminal trial. Peremptory challenge! *BUZZ*, toss the Sarge! The opposing attorneys are both looking for guys and gals who appear unable to count to ten.


Last time I had jury duty I was selected as an alternate. It was a criminal trial, and I was wearing a suit.


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Must not have been a firearms homicide . . .


----------



## David Reeves (Dec 19, 2008)

Interestingly when I went for my Green Card interview I consciously wore a Navy 2 button suit, blue button down with a blue and green club stripe, unpolished shoes and a cheap watch. Didn't want to look flashy in any way but I think I was the only one there in a suit....


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

I would wear a BD with a "going out", i.e. casual, SB suit. But I would never wear one with a DB suit. It's just wrong. (There is a photo, IIRC, of Cary Grant wearing a BD with a DB suit. It shows he got it wrong occasionally as well.) But then I'm British. I can't answer for Americans who wear a BD white or blue shirt cut like a spinnaker with a grey sack suit, yellow or red be-dotted tie and burgundy tassel loafers. That's their uniform - it's not mine.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

JLibourel said:


> Last time I had jury duty I was selected as an alternate. It was a criminal trial, and I was wearing a suit.


Sir, Mr. Libourel,
That has been similar to my own experience with this civic duty.Though one has sat on a panel with a verdict on another occasion. One always wonders if the justice was just, but that is not for me to say.
However, it eludes me how this may have anything to do do with wearing a bdc with a suit.
Did wear a suit and have done so subsequently. Whenever one is at courthouses, one seems to be more appropriately attired than the others present.
But your mileage may vary.
regaards,
rudy


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

JLibourel said:


> Last time I had jury duty I was selected as an alternate. It was a criminal trial, and I was wearing a suit.


Different place, different rules, I guess.

Or perhaps just a friendly demeanor? :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Or something . . . :icon_smile_big:


----------



## TheBarbaron (Oct 8, 2010)

In general, I agree that the BD collar is less dressy. In New England, in the South, and in places with long prep/Trad/Ivy League histories, they are a habit or affectation of many. This is not a terrible thing, and much like the wearing of brightly colored socks or fanciful cufflinks, can be charming or natural on those gentlemen who practice the habit. The advice in a style column is directed at men who do not have a habit, or who are wading into unfamiliar territory. If you don't have the background that influences you to BD collars as a matter of tradition, then there's no reason to jump on board if style orthodoxy is your goal.

While Glen O'Brien does in fact write for GQ, and while he does practice eccentric modes of dress from time to time, most of his output is of a very high quality. Yes, his pronouncements are generalized and sometimes lack nuance; that is the medium of a one to two page letter answering column at work. He fights the good fight against the slovenliness of modern life, discourages readers from taking trends to extremes, and often injects a little testosterone-free elegance into the aggressively over marketed magazine.

While Flusser (the arguable authority on our hobby) certainly knows more and advocates for more completely timeless looks, he is the worst example of "Do as I say, not as I do." O'Brien's oddities seem much more low-key in general, and if I had to choose one of them to emulate in word _and_ deed for an example, I would pick O'Brien.


----------



## JLibourel (Jun 13, 2004)

I'd agree that most of what Glen O'Brien writes is pretty sound stuff. The fact that he is (reservedly) pro-ascot endears him to me.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

TheBarbaron said:


> In general, I agree that the BD collar is less dressy. In New England, in the South, and in places with long prep/Trad/Ivy League histories, they are a habit or affectation of many. This is not a terrible thing, and much like the wearing of brightly colored socks or fanciful cufflinks, can be charming or natural on those gentlemen who practice the habit. The advice in a style column is directed at men who do not have a habit, or who are wading into unfamiliar territory. If you don't have the background that influences you to BD collars as a matter of tradition, then there's no reason to jump on board if style orthodoxy is your goal.
> 
> While Glen O'Brien does in fact write for GQ, and while he does practice eccentric modes of dress from time to time, most of his output is of a very high quality. Yes, his pronouncements are generalized and sometimes lack nuance; that is the medium of a one to two page letter answering column at work. He fights the good fight against the slovenliness of modern life, discourages readers from taking trends to extremes, and often injects a little testosterone-free elegance into the aggressively over marketed magazine.
> 
> While Flusser (the arguable authority on our hobby) certainly knows more and advocates for more completely timeless looks, he is the worst example of "Do as I say, not as I do." O'Brien's oddities seem much more low-key in general, and if I had to choose one of them to emulate in word _and_ deed for an example, I would pick O'Brien.


Hear, hear. Well said, sir.


----------



## temple_gym (Oct 10, 2010)

Buttoned-down shirts are less dressy. Agree. I've not seen the article but it seems like a generalization. There are "middle-mgmt or lower" guys out there who dress better than the CEOs! IMHO - to each his own. No right /wrong. And thats what style is all about. Here's something I stumbled upon on the Net. Not everyone can be like Fred or Agnelli with buttoned -downs. But I think you get the point. Have a look here.

https://levinerwood.com/2010/08/30/...he-full-collar-roll-oxford-button-down-shirt/


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

GQ v. Cary Grant. Grant wins every time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=car...-KImS9QSG1oG4CQ&ved=0CFkQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=909


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Jacket, tie, and logger shirt. How clever.


----------



## Aussie (Aug 8, 2011)

I attended a clients annual Christmas party last year. This is a large, multinational, fortune 500 company.. I wore a OCBD (sans tie), sport coat, odd trousers and cordovan derby shoes.

The result; the restaurant staff presented ME with the cheque; mistaking me for the CEO! It was rather awkward to say the least! I explained that I was NOT the CEO, and pointed out the CEO (dressed in a rather boring, unremarkable, suit and tie).. The staff remarked that "we just assumed you were the boss"..

Casually elegant.. That's exactly the way I would describe the OCBD..


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

Aussie said:


> The result; the restaurant staff presented ME with the cheque; mistaking me for the CEO! It was rather awkward to say the least! I explained that I was NOT the CEO, and pointed out the CEO (dressed in a rather boring, unremarkable, suit and tie).. The staff remarked that "we just assumed you were the boss".


Must have done wonders for your career! :devil:


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

I must be buttoned down, must!!


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Just to expand upon my age-old stance, I am not totally against button-downs:

​


----------



## firedancer (Jan 11, 2011)

^ Alex, do you actually "own" those socks?


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Just to expand upon my age-old stance, I am not totally against button-downs:
> 
> ​


Those shoes don't fit.



firedancer said:


> ^ Alex, do you actually "own" those socks?


Hmmmmmm, he probably shouldn't be commenting....


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

firedancer said:


> ^ Alex, do you actually "own" those socks?


Now? One pair. In September? 250 pairs.



TheGreatTwizz said:


> Those shoes don't fit.
> 
> Hmmmmmm, he probably shouldn't be commenting....


That'll be the day!


----------



## TheGreatTwizz (Oct 27, 2010)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> That'll be the day!


Probably shortly after we see a picture of you in an OCBD.... :devil:


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

TheGreatTwizz(Signature) said:


> Whats missing? That part of this box where I said I'm always looking for......and I've yet to get a single freakin' PM.


No longer true. You got one. Now whatcha gonnado?


----------



## Racer (Apr 16, 2010)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> NASCAR is for racing addicts.


Uh, no. NASCAR is for racing tourists.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Racer said:


> Uh, no. NASCAR is for racing tourists.


Gentlemen:
Actually, one kind of agrees with that a bit as one has respect for Formula One and GTP Motoguzzi, GP Sports Car and similar road course events, and one would dearly love to have an all-wheel drive, supercharged, intercooled turbo car with an adjustable turbogate and adjustable front to rear torque converter; like an old school rally car. Of course, one could probably never, not to mention that it would be difficult or impossible to make it street legal, which is where I live. On the street, rather than the track, is where it matters to myself, very much a tourista, but the dream lives on. At least some of our members have made it to raceday...
The only time I ever lost a street race was when running unknowingly on flat-tire having just gotten off the freeway and rolled up to the traffic light. Oh well, a loss is a loss, and equipment failure is not a reason to throw out the result. Though, otherwise, certainly, one would have won. Had that guy and his V8 Chevy.
Too bad; so sad. One time many years ago,
Better fortune to the Gentlepersons here gathered and many thanks to our good hosts,
rudy


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

There is something to be said for being able to see the entire track from one point.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Orsini said:


> There is something to be said for being able to see the entire track from one point.


Sir,
Thank you; would never disagree with one who has been there and done that on the day. And one has no reason to do so, certainly that is a true statement and good guidance for others than ourselves. One is not a professional and may never aspire to be at this time in my life. It is my pleasure to observe others who may have a better opportunity through their own efforts to achieve something grand in the sport they assay.
Regards to you, Sir, much respect and deference is due and deserved,
rudy


----------



## Mox (May 30, 2012)

Racer said:


> Uh, no. NASCAR is for racing tourists.


Hey now... There's a lot more going on there than meets the casual eye. I was strictly a road course person until I participated in some in-depth simulation racing and engineering on the oval side. It's a different style for sure, but a lot of skill is still involved, both in the driving and the engineering. Getting the school bus that is the Sprint Cup car around the track without taking down a wall is a feat in and of itself.

On the driving side I still prefer road racing, but I love the engineering involved on the circle tracks.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Mox said:


> Hey now... There's a lot more going on there than meets the casual eye. I was strictly a road course person until I participated in some in-depth simulation racing and engineering on the oval side. It's a different style for sure, but a lot of skill is still involved, both in the driving and the engineering. Getting the school bus that is the Sprint Cup car around the track without taking down a wall is a feat in and of itself.
> 
> On the driving side I still prefer road racing, but I love the engineering involved on the circle tracks.


Sir,
Yes, we know and respect that; however, much as these good persons have contributed, it is child's play as compared with the examples given previously. Cannot begin to compare in the level of expertise required of the driver, the pit crew, the design team, and the competition offered by other manufacturers and racing teams that are completely competent and capable. These are really serious engagements. It is much easier to be an Indy car driver than a Formula One driver, even if not a world champion. A world champion motorcycle racer at the highest level is not someone to be disregarded; their achievements are certainly displays of courage, knowledge, and skill that will always leave the rest of us wanting should be be so bold as to attempt to go there. Whole other world.
USA auto and motor racing is a serious matter and has considerable levels of expertise to overcome to be great, stipulated, but world class racing is another game altogether, should you please to look into these subjects.
Yeah, and 'I may be wrong, but I don't think so', as Randy Newman has said.
Not to say that one does not respect your position, which, certainly, one does.
regards to you, and good fortune to you on race day.
rudy


----------



## 3holic (Mar 6, 2008)

mrkleen said:


> I would never wear a BDC with a suit...but I am puzzled by the idea that you dont own any, but still feel like you need to make a statement about them?
> 
> Isnt that kind of like giving advice about a country you have never visited?


When I first read this, I felt like asking you if you know what Alex does for a living. Then I looked at your join date and realized that you probably did.

So I will ask you this instead: I have never owned a Yugo or a Ferrari, does that disqualify me from commenting on their functions and aesthetics?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

3holic said:


> When I first read this, I felt like asking you if you know what Alex does for a living. Then I looked at your join date and realized that you probably did.
> 
> So I will ask you this instead: I have never owned a Yugo or a Ferrari, does that disqualify me from commenting on their functions and aesthetics?


Absolutely contra-indicated in any circumstances.

Actually I was commenting on the blasted Summer rain, this morning. Imagine my embarrasment when I realised that I had never owned the weather.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

RM Bantista said:


> Sir,
> Thank you; would never disagree with one who has been there and done that on the day. And one has no reason to do so, certainly that is a true statement and good guidance for others than ourselves. One is not a professional and may never aspire to be at this time in my life. It is my pleasure to observe others who may have a better opportunity through their own efforts to achieve something grand in the sport they assay.
> Regards to you, Sir, much respect and deference is due and deserved,
> rudy


Thank you, but to clarify, I meant as a spectator...


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Racer said:


> Uh, no. NASCAR is for racing tourists.


Being a Gymkhana kind of guy, I wouldn't know. Only turning left becomes somewhat boring after a time.



Shaver said:


> Absolutely contra-indicated in any circumstances.
> 
> Actually I was commenting on the blasted Summer rain, this morning. Imagine my embarrasment when I realised that I had never owned the weather.


Uhhh ... sir ... you brought your internet access with you to East Hampton??? I was eagerly awaiting the respite of a week of dumbed-down Yanqui Ingles.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Being a Gymkhana kind of guy, I wouldn't know. Only turning left becomes somewhat boring after a time.
> Sir,
> What's not to love?
> One agrees, very fine and difficult. Bit boy racer in some aspects, which is not, one suspects, where you live.
> ...


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

3holic said:


> When I first read this, I felt like asking you if you know what Alex does for a living. Then I looked at your join date and realized that you probably did.
> 
> So I will ask you this instead: I have never owned a Yugo or a Ferrari, does that disqualify me from commenting on their functions and aesthetics?


I dont care what Alex does for a living....when someone makes a statement as ridiculous as no man should wear a BD collar unless he is playing polo or tennis - it is going to get a response.

He clearly knows his business - but so do generations of people at J Press, Andover Shop on down the line. Lots and lots of us own OCBD shirts...and we aren't wearing them to play polo.

If you want to tell me about your opinion about a Ferrari - or what you have read elsewhere - fine. But if you are going to dissuade me from buying one based on NEVER having drove one...forgive me if I put you on ignore.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

A shirt with a button-down collar is a sports shirt. If you chose to wear a sports shirt with a suit and tie you are welcome to. It's the same as wearing slip-ons or a knit tie with a suit. Those are casual items, but people do indeed wear them with a suit. To be able to pull it off effectively you need to be aware of what you're wearing.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

Matt S said:


> A shirt with a button-down collar is a sports shirt. *If you chose to wear a sports shirt with a suit and tie* you are welcome to. It's the same as wearing slip-ons or a knit tie with a suit. Those are casual items, but people do indeed wear them with a suit. To be able to pull it off effectively you need to be aware of what you're wearing.


NO ONE is talking about wearing a BDC with a suit. Alex said it is not appropriate to wear a button down collar period...unless you are playing tennis or polo. That is silly.

Clearly very many people here wear sport coats or blazers with loafers and OCBD collars all the time....as have many, many well dressed men for many, many years.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

mrkleen said:


> *NO ONE is talking about wearing a BDC with a suit.* Alex said it is not appropriate to wear a button down collar period...unless you are playing tennis or polo. That is silly.
> 
> Clearly very many people here wear sport coats or blazers with loafers and OCBD collars all the time....as have many, many well dressed men for many, many years.


Go back to the original post and you'll see suits mentioned. The question isn't about sports coats.

Don't take Alex too literally. He might actually be serious, but more of what he's saying is that it's a sports shirt, not a dress shirt. He doesn't think it's appropriate for the office or for a dressy occasion. That's a legitimate point of view.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

mrkleen said:


> I don*'*t care what Alex does for a living....when someone makes a statement as ridiculous as no man should wear a BD collar unless he is playing polo or tennis - it is going to get a response.
> 
> He clearly knows his business - but so do generations of people at J Press, Andover Shop on down the line. Lots and lots of us own OCBD shirts...and we aren't wearing them to play polo.


Lots and lots of people wear flip-flops, a cheap plastic perversion of the age-old leather sandal. Does that make it right? Lots and lots of people no longer even bother to punctuate properly, a calamity of the new technology. Should we all follow suit? Lots and lots of people wear O.C.B.D. shirts, a Brooks' style feature borrowed from a polo active sport shirt. Does that make them proper office wear?

You are certainly free to have your opinion. You are not free to begrudge me mine.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

Now don't go disparaging the fip-flop, Alex. Them are fightin' words down here in Florida. By the way, mine are leather (not "cheap plastic").....and sandals are for girls.

On a serious note, I'm curious, do you really think that button-down collared shirts are inappropriate for office wear? Even with a blazer or SC? Preference is one thing, but inappropriate?


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

I have a couple of photos of a group of men, here in New Orleans. The annual gathering of this group is a collection of a couple hundred of the most powerful/influential men in the city; it was taken at a point in the evening from before they changed from suits into evening wear. I can't identify any collars in the photos that are NOT button down.


----------



## Flanderian (Apr 30, 2008)

rwaldron said:


> I have a couple of photos of a group of men, here in_ *New Orleans*_. The annual gathering of this group is a collection of a couple hundred of the most powerful/influential men in the city; it was taken at a point in the evening from before they changed from suits into evening wear. I can't identify any collars in the photos that are NOT button down.


There *are* regional differences!


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Shaver said:


> Actually I was commenting on the blasted Summer rain, this morning. Imagine my embarrasment when I realised that I had never owned the weather.


If original, well said; if not, well borrowed.


----------



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

The only thing I have to add to this excellent discussion is that I don't own a suit and all of my collars are button down. I'm even considering a button down collar golf shirt like McDowell wears.

Funny thing is as preppy as I try to be I've never worn a BD collar while playing tennis, I think Lacoste improved on that idea in the 20s. I reserve judgement on what I would wear if I ever play Polo.


----------



## jhpetrey (Feb 8, 2012)

*Benefits of button-down*

I have mild scoliosis and cervical disc maladies which result in a slight tilt of my neck to the right. A button-down collar does a much better job minimizing the slant; I'd much rather appear less formal than have a collar with points at two different levels.


----------



## mrkleen (Sep 21, 2007)

rwaldron said:


> I have a couple of photos of a group of men, here in New Orleans. The annual gathering of this group is a collection of a couple hundred of the most powerful/influential men in the city; it was taken at a point in the evening from before they changed from suits into evening wear. I can't identify any collars in the photos that are NOT button down.


The same is true in Boston, Cape Cod, Much of DC and the campus of EVERY Ivy league university and places their graduates live and work.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

mrkleen said:


> The same is true in Boston, Cape Cod, Much of DC and the campus of EVERY Ivy league university and places their graduates live and work.


True ... and the last takes up a lot of geography, though sometimes it's in pockets.

Going to an earlier rhetorical question: Does simply stating that there's a rule against wearing buttondown collars with a suit mean that there is such a rule?

People in the most social-rule-abiding walks of life don't think there is. If anything, they're _more_ likely to wear buttondown collars with suits. It's not just a matter of being sloppy, as when people mangle grammar. The irony of such an idea is kind of delicious: Wall Street lawyers are people who are capable of going apopletic over a misplaced comma or sloppily-structured sentence in a 150-page bond indenture. People who do nothing but worry about rules and details believe that the rule doesn't exist.


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

Starch said:


> True ...
> Going to an earlier rhetorical question: Does simply stating that there's a rule against wearing buttondown collars with a suit mean that there is such a rule?


This is exactly the core of the issue. On the buttondown collar matter specifically, who made the rule, when and why? Who follows and who ignores it? There are similar questions all around this interest in attire we all share, but the buttondown collar "rule" seems apt for robust analysis.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

To the extent there's been any argument in support of the rule, I think the following have been advanced:

*Derivation.* Essentially, "The buttondown came from a polo shirt, and therefore is inappropriate in a business setting." The problem is this argument proves way, way too much. Almost everything we wear was derived from something older that was worn in a different situation. Neckties come from some sort of scarf worn by Croatian soldiers. Cummerbunds are from something similarly weird. The long center-vented tail of a white-tie formal coat was originally an adaptation to riding a horse. More to the point: dress shirts in general are derived from what used to be underwear.

*Formality in General.*. In essence, the argument is, "Straight collars are more formal than buttondowns, and therefore are better." There's a second premise missing there. In it's most bald form, I think some people are acting on the unspoken premise that "More formal = better." Clearly, that's not the case. If it were, wearing white tie or a morning suit would be better still, and turning up for a summer cocktail party in a tophat and spats would be the height of sophistication. It's not. It's the opposite.

A more subtle variation on the missing premise relies, I think, on the notion that a business suit is a highly formal get up. That may be the case in some circles, where a suit is reserved for special occasions. If you wear (or at least used to wear) one every day, a suit isn't special ... it's just clothes.


----------



## RM Bantista (May 30, 2009)

Gentlemen,
I see no ladies have joined us here in this thread; perhaps one is mistaken.
No. There may be no 'rule', though there should be. As stated, one did at one time and does not now. How could that possibly render me reprehensible?
Not so, one thinks, and much less for one of our good hosts and gracious benefactors. Gentlemen, please get a grip and settle yourselves down.
We certainly do not need any ill-humoured posts on these fora.
Certainly you are free to continue to do as you may please, but, please, do also be respectful and not discount the wise council of others who have earned your deference and respect. Naturally, one is not speaking of one's self. One is certainly able to withstand such criticism as may present. But please, never be less than respectful to those who pay the bills and keep the home fires burning.
A thought. Our hosts may not always wish to sustain us in our discourse, though one hopes that they will.
It would be a great sorrow if a home for civil discussion should turn to the dark side.
One has seen it happen before in other times and places. Never pretty. Let us, please conduct ourselves as we might wish were the usual thing. We know it is not, but that does not mean that we may not aspire to be better than the world we have been given.
Regards, Gentlemen,
rudy


----------



## LeeReynolds (Jan 23, 2012)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> WOW! After many decade of catering to the lowest common denominator of style, GQ finally got one right.
> 
> To be clear, I am not claiming that 40% of professionals don't wear button-down collars. I'm just saying that they shouldn't ... except on the tennis court or upon their polo ponies.


Seems to me that the people who actually work in a particular environment get to decide what they should and should not wear. Etiquette is largely arbitrary. If 40% of a particular group do something, and they don't disparage the practice among themselves, then that is an acceptable norm for that group.

All this discussion about what people should wear or should not wear misses the point that if everyone dresses the same, there is no room for personal style.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

arkirshner said:


> If original, well said; if not, well borrowed.


Thank you. I elect to assume the approbation, sanguine of my novel arrangement.

However erudition and the concomitant gallimaufry of fragmented prose extant as pith to my wit may yet blazon paltry chicanery.


----------



## rwaldron (Jun 22, 2012)

Starch,

the cummerbund originated when British Military Officers would put folds in their waist sashes to hold keys or opera tickets as the uniforms they wore the sashes with did not have pockets.


----------



## Fashion Frank (Jul 14, 2012)

Andy said:


> I was hoping to find a link but nothing yet. In the August GQ pg 45 Glenn O'Brien (the Style Guy) answers a question about button-down collar shirts projecting an image of "middle-management" or lower!
> 
> He agrees and is of the opinion that they should *not* be worn with a suit.
> 
> ...


Hi Andy, I hope all is well with you ?
My question in regards to this Thread is as follows :

Why is it or is it NOT proper to wear a button down shirt with a suit, as I see people all the time wearing them with a suit , and I also wear double breasted suits so thats another reason I ask .

Pease forgive my ignorance on this subject as I am new to "fashion" and all this. 
Thank you in advance .

All the Best, Frank


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Starch said:


> To the extent there's been any argument in support of the rule, I think the following have been advanced:
> 
> *Derivation.* Essentially, "The buttondown came from a polo shirt, and therefore is inappropriate in a business setting." The problem is this argument proves way, way too much. Almost everything we wear was derived from something older that was worn in a different situation. Neckties come from some sort of scarf worn by Croatian soldiers. Cummerbunds are from something similarly weird. The long center-vented tail of a white-tie formal coat was originally an adaptation to riding a horse. More to the point: dress shirts in general are derived from what used to be underwear.
> 
> ...


IMO this is entirely correct. Yes, straight collars are more formal than button-downs, just as suits are more formal (usually) than sport coats. But it does not follow that one should therefore wear button downs with sport coats and straight collars with suits. Instead, one might choose to dress down a suit just a bit or dress up a sport coat by selecting a shirt collar with that in mind. Shoe selections can serve the same purpose.

And the idea that shirts with button down collars are inappropriate with suits is simply an indefensible affectation, at least in the US. What has long been commonplace, if not standard, in the boardrooms of big business, large law firms, banks, and accounting firms, as well as a staple in the dress of Cary Grant, can hardly be dismissed as "inappropriate." Some folks just cannot resist the temptation to regard their own idiosyncratic preferences (to which they're entitled of course) as "rules." But there is a difference between a preference and a rule, and to confuse the two is a conceit.

Finally, I think that button down collars don't so much express "middle management" as they express "business." As such, context matters -- they seem to work better with a suit that is worn as a business suit rather than a lounge suit.


----------



## Brooksfan (Jan 25, 2005)

Reluctantly I have come to accept that despite having been my default choice for over 40 years, the OCBD leaves much to be desired as a dress shirt. Particularly now that I have amassed a sizable collection of great ties that aren't really Ivy or TINSL, I will be buying the Tennis collar for dress shirts going forward. It's the forward point with a slight longer point and slightly more spread. To each their own but I guess it's time to try something a little different. 

I remember years back when I bought the book Indispensible Guide to Classic Clothing, in which Alexander Kabbaz characterized the button-down as academic and slovenly. For years (long before joining AAAC) his comments resonated and I thought "what does he know?". Turns out, he knows quite a lot and in this case I think he's right.


----------



## MicTester (Oct 8, 2009)

Okay, if O'Brien knows so much, how come he never heard of a hair brush? 

Someone may switch BD in his sentence and claim "uncombed hair is the equivalent of a loafer, or even worse, a flip-flop." To each his own.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Brooksfan said:


> Reluctantly I have come to accept that despite having been my default choice for over 40 years, the OCBD leaves much to be desired as a dress shirt. Particularly now that I have amassed a sizable collection of great ties that aren't really Ivy or TINSL, I will be buying the Tennis collar for dress shirts going forward. It's the forward point with a slight longer point and slightly more spread. To each their own but I guess it's time to try something a little different.
> 
> I remember years back when I bought the book Indispensible Guide to Classic Clothing, in which Alexander Kabbaz characterized the button-down as academic and slovenly. For years (long before joining AAAC) his comments resonated and I thought "what does he know?". Turns out, he knows quite a lot and in this case I think he's right.


Thank you for your kind words.

Having never seen the publication you reference (a telephone interview IIRC), there is one correction: Although I do consider button-downs as a hallmark of academia, "slovenly" is the author's inference and not my statement. My characterization was - and is - a word of my own, "frumpled", which has specific characteristics and is the basis of my opinion. A contraction of "folded" and "rumpled", it derives from these incontrovertible physical characteristics:

The points of a non-BD collar are free to slide as necessary in all directions as the wearer moves head and neck. By contrast, the points of the BD are locked in place. When the wearer tilts head left, the left point compresses and the right point extends. Head back; both extend. And so forth. When the head tilts forward or the wearer slouches, both points compress, fold in random ways, and rumple. Hence: "Frumpled".

This opinion became mine, all too long ago, at the hands of William Buckley. The master debater, sitting in his 35th Street NR office, explained to me that he preferred the folded and rumpled "look" as it implied a studious, knowledgeable character concerned more with factual accuracy than unimportant details (such as one's collar). If you look at old shows of _Firing Line_ you'll see exactly what I mean. Slouched in the chair, suit askew, collar frumpled, Buckley's low, deep throated voice exudes unassailable authority and mastery of all that matters.

A funny aside reinforcing my "academia" assertion. I recently saw Charles Krauthamer on TV. He was wearing a patterned shirt with white collar. As a shirtmaker, I immediately noticed that it was a refurbished shirt with a new (white - no matching fabric was available) collar. No, I have neither eagle eyes nor personal spies. The original collar had apparently been a BD; the replacement was not. Whomever changed the collar simply cut off the buttons and did not bother to remove the thread which had attached them. And the academician never noticed this extreme _faux pas _despite hours preparing assertion, citation, and rebuttal necessary to intelligently opine before 7,000,000 viewers.


----------



## JBierly (Jul 4, 2012)

Thats a nice commentary on how the shirt moves and why it looks "frumpled." For me, it just doesn't make sense to put on a really sharp suit, impeccably polished shoes, a nice tie - in essence all the accoutrements of a fine outfit and then wear a OCBD. It just doesn't match as nicely - and it looks frumpled thereby detracting from the overall appearance. Then again there are people who fly out to California, spend a fortune on golf clubs, and play Pebble Beach with XXXOOO balls - that doesn't make sense to me either. (FWIW, I first heard Nicklaus note that he could never understand why people would spend so much on golf (clubs, green fees, clothing, etc,..) and then play with cheap balls). I had a "prepster" room mate in college who had to have BD on all his collars - so much that if given a shirt without BD's he would have them attached. There are some who just don't know any other way and don't care to know any other way. But I am not down on OCBDs completely, I still think it is a nice look when you go full prep - navy blazer, club tie, OCBD, tan slacks, Penny loafers - wear socks please....


----------



## godan (Feb 10, 2010)

It is interesting that Mr. Kabbaz, whose posts I read with pleasure, would associate rumpled or, deliciously, "frumpled" with the academic button down collar. During a long career as a university faculty member and eventually department head, my favored outfits included a sweater (v-neck or crew neck) or a lab coat over an OCBD, worn with a tie. I selected the BD partly from long academic habit, but also because the buttons kept the collar points from protruding over the outer garment, especially the v-neck sweater. I thought then and believe now that the BD kept things neat and created a more finished, less askew appearance. Appointments outside of the department called for a sport coat, and for those off-campus I wore a suit - always with a button down collar, but also always crisp, pressed, neat and clean. True, it was unusual for academia, but it worked for me.


----------



## Georgetown08 (Oct 5, 2011)

godan said:


> It is interesting that Mr. Kabbaz, whose posts I read with pleasure, would associate rumpled or, deliciously, "frumpled" with the academic button down collar. During a long career as a university faculty member and eventually department head, my favored outfits included a sweater (v-neck or crew neck) or a lab coat over an OCBD, worn with a tie. I selected the BD partly from long academic habit, but also because the buttons kept the collar points from protruding over the outer garment, especially the v-neck sweater. I thought then and believe now that the BD kept things neat and created a more finished, less askew appearance. Appointments outside of the department called for a sport coat, and for those off-campus I wore a suit - always with a button down collar, but also always crisp, pressed, neat and clean. True, it was unusual for academia, but it worked for me.


I'm not crazy about the combination of a BD and a suit, but it's definitely my preferred collar with a sweater.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

godan said:


> It is interesting that Mr. Kabbaz, whose posts I read with pleasure, would associate rumpled or, deliciously, "frumpled" with the academic button down collar. During a long career as a university faculty member and eventually department head, my favored outfits included a sweater (v-neck or crew neck) or a lab coat over an OCBD, worn with a tie. I selected the BD partly from long academic habit, but also because the buttons kept the collar points from protruding over the outer garment, especially the v-neck sweater. I thought then and believe now that the BD kept things neat and created a more finished, less askew appearance. Appointments outside of the department called for a sport coat, and for those off-campus I wore a suit - always with a button down collar, but also always crisp, pressed, neat and clean. True, it was unusual for academia, but it worked for me.


I completely agree with you ... in theory. As I said above, it is not as you are staring forward looking neither up nor down when the Frumpling occurs. It is when you cant your head sideways, forward or backward.

Consider that, upon finishing your dressing regimen, you look in the mirror to make sure everything appears as it should. You are staring straight at your eyes. You collar lays perfectly.

Thereafter, every time your head and neck are in that position the collar will be correct. Cock your head to speak on the phone. Sit looking down at your desk and work on your papers. Type on your keyboard in its underdesk pullout tray. Rest your chin on one hand imitating The Thinker. Under all of those circumstances you are not looking straight forward. One side - or both - of your collar is either compressed, expanded, or simply pulled into a different shape. Why? Because the collar points are tethered and cannot enjoy the natural movements of a non-BD collar.

Given my field I have had to study these things. If you were previously aware of the tribulations of anchoring your collar points and have no objections, my bloviations were for naught. If you had only looked at yourself in the mirror as I first described, you are now a bit more aware of what happens when you move.

In either case, your preference is paramount. I will only offer this simple bit of my history, during which I have made thousands of button-down collars: In the last thirty-plus years I have had many clients learn these truths and convert away from wearing button-down collars. I have not - yet - experienced the reverse.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

For what it's worth, I was at a family wake in Central Florida on Sunday, and there was a former US senator in attendance. He was very nicely and appropriately attired in a navy pinstripe (subtle) suit, black PTB's, and a navy repp stripe tie framed by a crisp, white.....button-down collar shirt. In fact, we were dressed very much alike, though my suit was charcoal.

Certainly not "middle management" or lower....


----------



## jsbjoey (Aug 6, 2012)

Shaver said:


> Thank you. I elect to assume the approbation, sanguine of my novel arrangement.
> 
> However erudition and the concomitant gallimaufry of fragmented prose extant as pith to my wit may yet blazon paltry chicanery.


You, sir, must be British for no American could so hold forth, but whatever your pedigree, be it hither or yon, your erudite though indecorous prose doth surely present a self fulfilling prophecy _par excellence_.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

jsbjoey said:


> *y*ou, sir, must be British for no American could so hold forth. *b*ut whatever your pedigree, be it hither or yon, your erudite though indecorous prose doth surely present a self fulfilling prophecy _par excellence_.


A minimum knowledge of grammar and punctuation also doth go a long way in making a positive impression!


----------



## Oldsarge (Feb 20, 2011)

Okay, as a retired NCO and retired academic, I should be right at home in a BD. And I do have three tattersall shirts with BD's and will be having Hemrajani make me one in white with FC. Let me emphasize that that shirt will never be sullied with a necktie. I just like cufflinks, that's all, and silk knots will go nicely with it and a blue blazer for informal occasions where considerable alcohol is being served.

To be honest, I _like _being frumpled, but when aiming to intimidate, straight collars are required.


----------



## jsbjoey (Aug 6, 2012)

To Andy, our Fearless Leader:

Your reproof has been duly noted; henceforth my sentential expressions shall originate in the upper case. I fully accept your animadversions and you may rest assured that all prior errors have been rectified.

By way of exculpation, I freely admit that I am no more than a tyro in matters of style, whether sartorial or prosaic in nature -- I promise that you shall find no vainglory here.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

jsbjoey said:


> By way of exculpation, I freely admit that I am no more than a tyro in matters of style, whether sartorial or prosaic in nature -- I promise that you shall find no vainglory here.


No vainglory in matters prosaic? The profusion of syllabic excess in your vocabularial pomposity might cause the reader some skepticism regarding the veracity of your claim.

In other words ... yeah, right.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

jsbjoey said:


> You, sir, must be British for no American could so hold forth, but whatever your pedigree, be it hither or yon, your erudite though indecorous prose doth surely present a self fulfilling prophecy _par excellence_.


My dear fellow, I am proud to confirm, I am an Englishman.

We do not claim sole superior management of this bless'd language however. For example Samuel Clemens possessed the ability to turn a phrase with a most admirable talent and did not allow his heritage to confine this expression. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Olifter said:


> I do not recall where I read this, or, of course, if it is even true, so here goes.
> 
> Button down collars were the brain child of polo players, who found that their collars flapped around or blew into their faces when playing polo and hampered vision.
> 
> ...


I've read this as well, and I've always assumed it was true, but the more I think of it the less I like it for a couple of reasons.

First, as I think about the shirts I wear, I don't really think the collars are onb enough to fly up in my face even if they were loose and buffeted around by the wind and the movement of a horse.

Second, what about the fact that the garment we call a polo shirt has a collar without buttons?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Flanderian said:


> Not only would you not wear a BD with a suit on a jury, you would not wear a suit on a jury. Or at least you would not get selected while wearing a suit from among the jury panel for a criminal trial. Peremptory challenge! *BUZZ*, toss the Sarge! The opposing attorneys are both looking for guys and gals who appear unable to count to ten.


The only time I have been on a jury I wore not a suit, but a sports jacket and tie every day. Of course, being a lawyer I would feel uncomfortable going to court without it. The funny thing is that I knew both of the lawyers and I presume they both had the mistaken impression that I liked them. In this particular case it was probably in the interest of the defense to have a lawyer on the jury, since the key was the burden of proof, but based on the deliberations I know that the defendant would have been acquitted without me.

My next day back I didn't get picked for any trials.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

Olifter said:


> I do not recall where I read this, or, of course, if it is even true, so here goes.
> 
> Button down collars were the brain child of polo players, who found that their collars flapped around or blew into their faces when playing polo and hampered vision.
> 
> ...


Olifter:

Sure it wasn't The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes, Dress Shirt Chapter?https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1314668#post1314668


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Brooks Brothers tells the same story, and has for years referred to their buttondowns as "The Original Polo Shirt."

Things to consider:

- At the time the polo players (whether historically or apocryphally) adopted the buttons, collars were significantly different from collars now in that they were detachable. If you've ever worn a detachable collar, you'll realize that doing so introduces a number of different ways a collar can come loose and flap about beyond the obvious ones.

- What people now call a "polo shirt" really should be called a tennis shirt, I think. While the subject is ripe for apocrypha in general, my impression is that the shirt was essentially invented by Rene Lacoste specifically as tennis wear.

- The former (and, even more so, the original) use of an item doesn't limit or define how it's worn at later times. The buttondown dates back (I think) to the late 19th Centurey. If you choose to go to the office wearing only items that would've been appropriate to wear to an office in the 1890s, go ahead. You'll look pretty weird, of course. And that doesn't really do the trick either, as various items that would've been appropriate businesswear at that time were originally worn for, or as, something else entirely (ties, shirts, loose pants ...). You'd better not wear a tuxedo: the jacket was derived from an informal smoking jacket; and don't think tails will make you safe: the long center vent was a concession to the practical necessities of riding a horse; I don't know how one would even interpret modern women's clothes from the standpoint of 1890s history.


----------



## Olifter (Jun 9, 2012)

Andy said:


> Olifter:
> 
> Sure it wasn't The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes, Dress Shirt Chapter?https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=1314668#post1314668


Yeah, I read it years ago, before I knew about this site. Sounds as though I need to look at The Encyclopedia.


----------



## cosmic (Aug 11, 2012)

Rules, if legitimate, perform a function - they quickly guide you to superior behaviour, without having to work out all the reasoning for yourself. Therefore, if a rule is based on no reasoning, or flawed reasoning, or the reasoning does not apply to the situation in question - then the rule is not applicable and should be ignored. The sole value of rules is the extent to which they result in you (and others) making superior choices. And if you don't understand the reasons behind the rules, then you have no way of deciding which rules make sense, and which don't. 

So, when questioning a rule, it is largely irrelevant whether the rule exists, whether everyone (or no one) follows it etc. Some guy from New Orleans saying he saw lots of big-shots wearing it, and some banker from London saying you'd be laughed out of the room for wearing it, is not going to settle the question. The sole thing that matters is whether the behaviour recommended by the rule, makes logical sense. 

Thus, we must ask what are the pros and cons of a button down shirt? What inherent qualities in this style of shirt make it more, or less, suitable for wear with a suit and tie, compared to a spread collar for example?

There are only two differences between a BD and a normal dress shirt. Therefore, our decision whether to accept BD with suit and tie must be based solely on these two differences. They are i) there are two buttons just below the collar in the BD ii) the points of the collar are visible, rather than hidden under the lapels. 

Personally I think that the buttons detract from the clean look of a shirt, tie, and suit jacket (or even odd jacket). A tie covers all the buttons of a normal dress shirt, but cannot cover the two buttons of a BD shirt. So, the look is less clean, and thus less formal (just as highly decorated brogues are less clean and formal a look than whole-cuts). 

And for the collar points - it is widely accepted that spread collars look more smart with a suit and tie, than point collars. Part of the reason is that point collars struggle to fit a good-sized tie knot. The other is aesthetics - visible points add detail and thus clutter to the shirt front, a spread collars points are hidden and thus the shirt front presents smoother lines and less clutter. Since BDs are almost always point collars, virtually by necessity, it follows that BDs are less smart than spread collars. 

So, we now have two logical reasons why BDs are much more casual than spread collar shirts - one of them aesthetic, the other functional. The aesthetic reason is that the buttons and collar points are visible, giving them a much more cluttered front with extraneous detail. The functional reason is that they are less accommodating of a tie, due to the narrower gap and the smaller space under the collar. If the extra detail added functionality, it might be acceptable. But the fact that a BDs extra detail and clutter *detracts* from functionality, makes it significantly inferior as smart/formal wear.

Part of the reason BDs work better with sports jackets, is that sports jackets are often worn without ties, and look fine without them; whereas worsted suits generally don't look good without ties (if you want a semi-casual look, something like a linen suit or a sports jacket will fit that better than a worsted suit without a tie). A BD may even be considered superior when a tie is not worn, as it prevents the collar flapping around and losing shape. Since the no-tie look generally only works with sports jacket + odd trousers, the more casual outfit, then it makes sense that the BD is considered a better match for more casual clothes.

After considering the specific factual differences between a spread collar and a button-down, it becomes quite obvious and logical why the BD is considered more casual, and considered a poor match for a suit. It is nothing to do with stuffiness, rules, tradition, and little to do with conformity (although it would indeed be a bit silly to wear a BD with a suit to a meeting with London bankers or barristers). It is simply a case of the inherent aesthetic and functional properties of the BD making it less compatible with a suit, and more compatible with a casual sports jacket (or not jacket at all).

Note that the 'inferior' function of the buttons, is actually a functional advantage in the arena where the BD was first used - sports. As a sportsman you want your collar to stay in place, rather than flap about. As a businessman you have no such requirements, because you aren't riding a horse vigorously, or rushing the net in tennis. So - the casualness of BD is not just some arbitrary snob tradition, it is a logical result of its sporting origins, and is based upon the sporting function of the buttons; just as the classic dress shirt is more formal because it looks cleaner and better with a suit, and accommodates a tie better.

So, I think I've made a good case why the BD is not as good a match with suits as the classic dress shirt. It is functionally and aesthetically inferior when paired with a tie. Since tradition also agrees with this assessment (the rule being that BD = casual, like a loafer, as the GQ man wisely put it), then IMO it is usually inferior to wear a BD with a suit and tie. You are going against function, logic, aesthetics, and tradition. 

Is it something you should *never* do? I wouldn't go that far. If you are wearing a more casual suit e.g. a tan linen suit in summer, or a glen check, then it doesn't clash as much. If you are wearing a suit without a tie, it's less of a clash. If you are wearing a suit to a tennis or polo event, then it may be a nice stylistic touch to wear a BD shirt. But, I would say it is a blunder to wear one to the office. Yes, Cary Grant wore them with suits - but he was an actor and a dandy, not a lawyer or a businessman or a politician.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

Nice try, but none of this reduces to logic. Items and details of clothing are like words: the meaning of a word is an often arbitrary social construction, and isn't derived from logic. There's no way to talk about whether something is appropriate, inappropriate, or whatever without referring to what people _do_, just as there's no way to understand a sentence without knowing how people use the words in it. There's no "inherent quality" in the word "fart" that makes it mean one thing in English and something entirely different in German.

Just to hit a few points:



> the look is less clean, and thus less formal


Cleaner = more formal is not derived from logic. It's just a convention, and has no more power than the more specific convention (in the US) that buttondown collar = more "Ivy League."

Also: you've got another, entirely unstated premise in there as well: more formal = better. That's obviously not true, or a morning coat would be better to wear to the office. What you want to be, in any particular situation, is just at the _right_ level of formality (or at least in the right range). It's entirely supportable, and often accurate, to say, "Yes, the straight collar is more formal; in this situation that's what's wrong with it: it's _too_ formal." This fits with the buttondown collar = more "Ivy League" observation above. A person who wears a suit every day (_i.e._ a professional white-collar worker) treats a suit less as a special-occasion formal item than someone who only wears it only as part of his "Sunday best."



> it is widely accepted that ...


What happened to working from pure logic?

By the same token, it is widely accepted (in the US) that buttondown collars are appropriate wear with suits. How can you tell? By looking at what people (could be lawyers in a "white shoe" firm, because that's what I have at hand, could be big-shots in Louisiana, could be something else) actually do in the real world.



> point collars struggle to fit a good-sized tie knot


"Good-sized" isn't exactly precise, but I don't have trouble getting a tie knot in a point collar.



> visible points add detail and thus clutter to the shirt front, a spread collars points are hidden and thus the shirt front presents smoother lines and less clutter


Another hidden premise: less clutter = better.

Plus, consider: wouldn't no collar at all present even _less_ clutter? For that matter, eliminating the buttons down the front also eliminates clutter. Yes, you've noted that they're covered by a tie, but the tie itself is clutter, not to mention any texture or pattern it may have.

So: it follows that dress shirts (with or without ties) are less smart than T-shirts, for both aesthetic and functional reasons.

If that's wrong, the reason why has everything to do with "rules, tradition, and ... conformity." The same is true of the buttondown collar and, for that matter, the suit itself. There is no guide except socially-constructed (and, to some extent, arbitrary) rules, tradition and conformity. Of course, the rules and traditions are different in one society (or, more narrowly, subculture) than in another, just as the meanings of words are, or whether you're supposed to stop what you're doing and eat a little meal in the late afternoon.



> As a sportsman you want your collar to stay in place, rather than flap about


Have you actually ever watched a sport being played? I mean _now_? I don't think I've ever seen a tennis player wearing a buttondown collar, unless he wandered onto the court directly from someplace else and didn't have an appropriate tennis shirt with him. Polo players don't wear buttondown collars either. Neither do football players (of the American, English or, Australian sort), gymnasts or beach volleyball players.

Or look at what the equestrians at the Olympics wear ... wait: they wear tailcoats and tophats. But of course: tailcoats and tophats are sporting wear, and inappropriate except in a casual setting.



> Yes, Cary Grant wore them with suits - but he was an actor and a dandy, not a lawyer or a businessman or a politician.


As I've already noted - and by an objective count, not just a subjective impression - lawyers who are certainly not "dandies" wear them regularly, in New York (if not in London).


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Agree with Starch on all counts. In the US lawyers at the most prestigious law firms, senior bankers at our largest financial institutions, partners of the Big 4, and many well-dressed US Senators wear button down collared shirts routinely. It is a staple of traditional American dress for gentlemen. I am given to understand that the practice differs in the UK, but button down collared shirts with suits are classic businesswear in the US. 

That said, I do think that they are somewhat less formal than spread or point collars, which is why you will never see them on a tuxedo shirt. But lounge suits do not demand the highest formality, and a gentleman may choose which type of collar he prefers for his business suit. Accordingly, while BD collars with suits are commmonplace among the elite business class, they are by no means necessary. If you don't prefer to pair your suit with a BD collar shirt, no one will think less of you. They are just a perfectly acceptable option. 

Finally, while the notion that spread collars look more smart with a suit and tie may have wide currency in the UK, I don't think that is the case in the US. It is true that spread collars better accomodate a wider necktie, but they are a poor match for narrower ties, and many well-dressed men avoid the bulkier neckties because they think they look silly. That is just an aesthetic preference of course. Within reason, both wide and narrow ties are equally acceptable.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

^What he said. 100%.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

This might be interesting. Could you gents please restate your positions in, say, twenty-five words or less?


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

There's no arguing with the button-down collar's history in America. It's most at home with a sack suit, which is slightly less formal than the standard darted lounge suit. I tend to look at things from the British perspective, which doesn't consider the American history of the button-down collar. The button-down collar looks quite out of place with a Savile Row or Roman suit. But with a trad sack or soft Neapolitan suit a button-down collar can fit in quite well. Still, it's only a spread collar for me since I'm not a sack suit guy.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Orsini said:


> This might be interesting. Could you gents please restate your positions in, say, twenty-five words or less?


Wonderfully restrained understatement, Orsini.

Syllogistics seem the wrong tool for the job when performing autopsy of sartorial gustation. A more visceral implement may adequately reveal the filaments of this diaphanous subject.


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

Matt S said:


> There's no arguing with the button-down collar's history in America. It's most at home with a sack suit, which is slightly less formal than the standard darted lounge suit. I tend to look at things from the British perspective, which doesn't consider the American history of the button-down collar. The button-down collar looks quite out of place with a Savile Row or Roman suit. But with a trad sack or soft Neapolitan suit a button-down collar can fit in quite well. Still, it's only a spread collar for me since I'm not a sack suit guy.


What he said.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Shaver said:


> Wonderfully restrained understatement, Orsini.
> 
> Syllogistics seem the wrong tool for the job when performing autopsy of sartorial gustation. A more visceral implement may adequately reveal the filaments of this diaphanous subject.


Now, where was that British/Yankee translator link I saw the other day? ...


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Orsini said:


> Now, where was that British/Yankee translator link I saw the other day? ...


George Bernard Shaw once avowed that America and England were two great nations separated by the same language.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Orsini said:


> This might be interesting. Could you gents please restate your positions in, say, twenty-five words or less?


LOL. Perhaps we should post by haiku?

But I'm not sure that the comprehension of Shaver's posts is a British / American thing ...

Shaver - you know this is well-intended, and I have enormous respect for your vocabulary, but have you established yourself as a contra to the Plain English Campaign?:biggrin:


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Balfour said:


> LOL. Perhaps we should post by haiku?
> 
> But I'm not sure that the comprehension of Shaver's posts is a British / American thing ...
> 
> Shaver - you know this is well-intended, and I have enormous respect for your vocabulary, but have you established yourself as a contra to the Plain English Campaign?:biggrin:


Yes. :devil:


----------



## StephenRG (Apr 7, 2005)

Balfour said:


> LOL. Perhaps we should post by haiku?


Button-down with suit
Is not worn by gentlemen.
Americans, yes.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Shaver said:


> George Bernard Shaw once avowed that America and England were two great nations separated by the same language.


I thought General Patton said that...


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Orsini said:


> I thought General Patton said that...


He did, quoting Shaw with attribution.


----------



## Starch (Jun 28, 2010)

With apologies to myself:

From a small button
Dappled pink cloth rises and
Curls - like falling leaf


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> He did, quoting Shaw with attribution.


Yes, I know. That was just a gag....


----------



## arkirshner (May 10, 2005)

StephenRG said:


> Button-down with suit
> Is not worn by gentlemen.
> Americans, yes.





Starch said:


> With apologies to myself:
> 
> From a small button
> Dappled pink cloth rises and
> Curls - like falling leaf


Please, you have no need to be so modest. While I do not teach English, nor have I played a teacher on TV, allow me to give you two stars and an A.


----------



## dmac (Jun 30, 2006)

Wow, I can't believe this is still going on, since button down collars are all I see. Just to be sure I wasn't losing it, I did a quick web search of a few pillars of my local establishment (some of which have national and international reach). One of you had better tell a substantial portion of these men that they're not dressed properly. As for me, still climbing the ladder, I will probably just try to look like them as they currently are rather than try to change their appearance (whilst being immensely thankful that something as comfortable and attractive as a button down collar is unassailably proper dress at all levels of American life).

Delaware Court of Chancery (click tabs to see all chancellors):
https://courts.state.de.us/chancery/judges.stm

Executive leadership of the DuPont company:
https://www2.dupont.com/corp/en-us/our-company/leadership/executive-leadership.html

Delaware's US Senator:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/_65wVG6Fngi0/TJEs_Qi78rI/AAAAAAAAD7w/nDuklXdZ60o/s1600/chris-*****.jpg
Our other senator:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thomas_Carper.jpg

Just to be sure that button down collars are not a result of Delaware provincialism, I checked the Bar Association of the City of New York and found&#8230;.button down collars all around! Including on the executive director and members of New York's oldest and most cosmopolitan firms as well as the GC of the NYTimes:

https://www.nycbar.org/about-us/ass...officers-a-members-of-the-executive-committee


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

dmac said:


> Wow, I can't believe this is still going on, since button down collars are all I see. Just to be sure I wasn't losing it, I did a quick web search of a few pillars of my local establishment (some of which have national and international reach). One of you had better tell a substantial portion of these men that they're not dressed properly. As for me, still climbing the ladder, I will probably just try to look like them as they currently are rather than try to change their appearance (whilst being immensely thankful that something as comfortable and attractive as a button down collar is unassailably proper dress at all levels of American life).
> 
> Delaware Court of Chancery (click tabs to see all chancellors):
> https://courts.state.de.us/chancery/judges.stm
> ...


Exactly right. While I can understand why one might *prefer* to avoid BD collars with suits, especially for certain social events (e.g., cocktail attire), the assertion that they are not appropriate for business suits in the US is tenable only to the extent one is trying to elevate his own idiosyncratic preference to a rule.


----------



## FLMike (Sep 17, 2008)

This thread has gone on long enough, but I do hope that "cosmic" has had the opportunity to read the last several posts, in order to realize what a "blunder" this statement was....



cosmic said:


> But, I would say it is a blunder to wear one to the office. Yes, Cary Grant wore them with suits - but he was an actor and a dandy, not a lawyer or a businessman or a politician.


----------



## Brio1 (May 13, 2010)

Shaver said:


> George Bernard Shaw once avowed that America and England were two great nations separated by the same language.


Yes, but he wasn't to live until the era of Donald Trump. :wink2:


----------

