# Shell cordovan witha tuxedo?



## jml90 (Dec 7, 2005)

Pittdoc's latest post in the Footwear thread got me thinking. Is it acceptable to wear cordo with a tuxedo? I think it'd be something a little different and a solid middle ground between calf and patent. Is it okay or is it a tradvesty?


PittDoc said:


> Alden plain toe bals
> Black shell cordovan


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I think anything other than black footwear, whether patent leather, calfskin, or black velvet slippers, is going to look too casual and, frankly, strange with black tie. 

Unless, for reasons known only to yourself, "casual and strange" is the look you're deliberately aiming for in a wry, ironic, deliberately-breaking-the-rules kind of way.


----------



## bd79cc (Dec 20, 2006)

PittDoc's cordovans, as shown, would look great with a dinner jacket. You can brush them just enough to remove the loose dirt and get a very rich low-key lustre, or you can give them the Mac Treatment and get something approaching a mirror shine.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

rojo said:


> I think anything other than black footwear, whether patent leather, calfskin, or black velvet slippers, is going to look too casual and, frankly, strange with black tie.
> 
> Unless, for reasons known only to yourself, "casual and strange" is the look you're deliberately aiming for in a wry, ironic, deliberately-breaking-the-rules kind of way.


Pitt Doc's shoes are black shell.

I think they would work. I'd give 'em the mirror shine treatment, though. I think dinner jacket = black patent, or a mirror-shined black non-patent leather shoe.


----------



## I_Should_Be_Working (Jun 23, 2005)

Those shoes resemble many I've seen offered as black tie wear. 

The trouble would be in keeping them in a condition nice enough for formal occasion.


----------



## mcarthur (Jul 18, 2005)

With my tux I will the following (1) wear black shell tassel loafer (2) black shell straight tip bal oxford (3) black shell plain toe blucher oxford


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

mcarthur said:


> With my tux I will the following (1) wear black shell tassel loafer (2) black shell straight tip bal oxford (3) black shell plain toe blucher oxford


Avoid the tassels; they are, by definition an extremely casual shoe. The blucher is just one step up from the loafers, still less than formal. Of this group, only the bal approaches the requirements of formal attire.


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

What a great idea. In today's world, most of the men you'll see at a black tie event will:

No. 1 Not be wearing it at all.
No. 2 Something with a notched lapel.
No. 3 Something rented (see No. 2)

So, who's gonna bust your Slazengers about black shell cordovan? I give you huge style points for it. 

Back in the mid 80s (right after college) when I went to black tie events in Philadelphia and NYC...those of us who were poor...bought our tuxs at second hand shops. My first was a double breasted, peak lapel, closed vent (what I would have given for double vent) that I picked up at a resale shop somewhere on the Main Line. 

Along with a lot of other guys... I wore black calf tassel loafers. With a hand tied bow tie. Once the dancing got going - - the idiots in patent leather oxfords from Jos Bank or wherever...were the guys with pre-tied, if not clip on bows. So, go cordovan and huzzah to your style, mate.


----------



## LeatherSOUL (May 8, 2005)

I would wear black shell with a tux as long as it's a simple style such as PittDoc's plain toe oxford.


----------



## PittDoc (Feb 24, 2007)

I am quite amused by this thread. Honestly, these shoes were purchased earlier this year to wear to a very special black tie event AND still get some use with dark suits and occasionally with every day slacks/sport coat (grey, black, navy). 

As mentioned above, a big-time brushing and buffing precedes a black tie event. Not so much for every day and wearing with suits.

I'd put patent leather bals/wholecut > shell plain toe bals > shell captoe bals > calf plain/captoe bal > blucher, tassel, etc (not really acceptable in my book).

Eventually I'll spring for the patent leather but for now these were practical and looked better than the majority of others at the event. Any of the mentioned options will also be superior to what most of the uninitiated will wear to a formal event.


----------



## A.Squire (Apr 5, 2006)

OK by me. I'd say you're way ahead of the crowd on this one.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

On my monitor, they look brown, not black. 

But yes, as long as the shoes are black, it's simply a mater of personal taste whether they are patent leather, calfskin, or shell cordovan -- or black velvet slippers at home or in a private club.


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

rojo said:


> Unless, for reasons known only to yourself, "casual and strange" is the look you're deliberately aiming for in a wry, ironic, deliberately-breaking-the-rules kind of way.


Great, I've been found out. I usually wear either my black wingtips or black penny loafers. I consider them black tie GTH. I've done this deliberately and consciously for almost 40 years. Remember rebellion can be a good thing - guess I read too much Thomas Payne in high school. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Good loking shoes, and they will clearly take a really good shine. I have no problem with them with a DJ.


----------



## septa (Mar 4, 2006)

I remember going to the opening debate at the Oxford Union. I wore what I had at the time...a hand me down DJ, a white broadcloath formal shirt with a turndown collar from Brooks worn without studs, bow tie and cummerbund and some well shined bals. I was kind of embarassed and thought that everyone was going to be dressed to the nines like James Bond. When I got there I saw a member of the House of Lords wearing a battered DJ, a point collar shirt, with bowtie and destroyed captoes. It was only the poor saps from America that looked like James Bond. So I guess the point is, I think wearing well polished shells, like tintins tassel loafers, is a good example of Aristocratic idosyncracy and I wholly support it.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

tintin said:


> What a great idea. In today's world, most of the men you'll see at a black tie event will:
> 
> No. 1 Not be wearing it at all.
> No. 2 Something with a notched lapel.
> ...


I think the shoes look fine and would definitely be on the upper end of fashion at most of the events I have attended.

With regard to the "notched lapel" comment, I wear a notch lapel dinner jacket by choice, and it isn't rented. I like the look more so than the other two styles and when I consider how few people I ever encounter who look down their nose at such things, I feel just fine about wearing it. I really don't mind being in the majority at most events I attend.


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

I have seen some major wars flame up regarding notch evening wear. I thinkthey were pretty silly for the most part. And thank goodness we don't all wear the same thing or have the same tastes. And I've never looked down my nose on someone wearing a notch tux. I just always assumed they don't know any better. Alas, I may have been proven wrong. And being a liberal who wears Lilly P. trousers - - Well, I love being in the minority.


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

Someone here once remarked, by way of derogation, that Clinton wore a notched-lapel DJ. It's of course possible that he didn't "know better", but I assume he liked the way it looked.

I myself tend to cut a man a fair bit of slack in this area -- if his bow is self-tied, his jacket and pants properly tailored, and his shoes polished, he's already made it well into the 90th percentile.

Worth remembering that Buckley wore an OCBD with his DJ.

EGF


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

I totally agree. Especially about the self tied bow. 

I worked for a guy who came from huge money and a political family you and the world know well. At a black tie event he and his wife sat next to me and my wife deep in the bowels of the Palmer House Hotel. I looked at my boss and couldn't help thinking something was wrong with his attire.

Then I saw it. No cumberbund. And not just, no cumberbund, but belt loops on his tux trousers. And no stripe down the trousers. In fact, he was wearing a black belt with a monogramed, engine turned silver buckle (probably his Dads). I looked at him and whispered, "Hey, what's with the pants?" He just smiled and replied, "I wore 'em out years ago. But this works. Don't you think?" You bet, boss.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

> if his bow is self-tied


I know a fellow who ties a beautiful bow tie; however, he is so afraid that someone will think that it is a pre-tied bow that he deliberately ties it askew. If you ask me far too many of us worry far too much about what others think. Whether I tie or snap depends entirely on my mood at the time with absolutely no regard for what others might think. But that's just me, although I will admit to some degree of satisfaction in doing something myself.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

egadfly said:


> Someone here once remarked, by way of derogation, that Clinton wore a notched-lapel DJ. It's of course possible that he didn't "know better", but I assume he liked the way it looked.


Really? My assumption has always been that Bill Clinton relies on image consultants, focus groups, and handlers to make wardrobe decisions for him, and that the notch lapel dinner jacket was chosen because it was more likely to make the mythical "everyman" feel comfortable with him than would a shawl collar or peak lapel.


----------



## egadfly (Nov 10, 2006)

rojo said:


> Really? My assumption has always been that Bill Clinton relies on image consultants, focus groups, and handlers to make wardrobe decisions for him, and that the notch lapel dinner jacket was chosen because it was more likely to make the mythical "everyman" feel comfortable with him than would a shawl collar or peak lapel.


Well, you've obviously given this a lot more thought than I have.

EGF


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

rip said:


> Avoid the tassels; they are, by definition an extremely casual shoe. The blucher is just one step up from the loafers, still less than formal. Of this group, only the bal approaches the requirements of formal attire.


I agree. A shell or calf straight tip bal approaches technical acceptablity, but probably just misses. That said, I don't think that these types of technicalities are of sufficient import such that either buying new shoes or skipping the event is required. Even the most persnickity dresser would not consider the lack of formal shoes to be a faux pau worth noticing, especially if the shoes were the bals described.

That said, I question the wisdom of deliberately expressing GTH sartorial sentiments at formal (ok, technically semi-formal, but you get my point) occasions. A host has requested black-tie attire and a gentleman normally should make an honest attempt to comply. I'm not trying to start a flame war over this -- that is just my two cents.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

rojo said:


> the notch lapel dinner jacket was chosen because it was more likely to make the mythical "everyman" feel comfortable with him than would a shawl collar or peak lapel.


I can assure you that the average person, even those who have worn a tuxedo at one time or another, really doesn't pay any attention to what kind of lapel is on someone's tux. A tux is a tux is a tux to them. And a large percentage of those who do know the difference really don't care one way or the other. Only the small percentage of people who really pay attention to fashion bother to concern themselves with something like what kind of lapel is on a dinner jacket.

And I don't mean this in a negative sense. I compare it to my hobby of amateur astronomy. My smallest telescope is also the most expensive in that it is an exquisite 3 1/2" F7 handmade apochromatic refractor with the tube assembly alone costing over $2000 fifteen years ago. A complete computer controlled 8" cat can be had for less than this. The overwhelming majority of people in the world would have no idea as to the differences, but just about any amateur astronomer would know and appreciate the quality of the smaller instrument.


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

septa said:


> I remember going to the opening debate at the Oxford Union. I wore what I had at the time...a hand me down DJ, a white broadcloath formal shirt with a turndown collar from Brooks worn without studs, bow tie and cummerbund and some well shined bals. I was kind of embarassed and thought that everyone was going to be dressed to the nines like James Bond. When I got there I saw a member of the House of Lords wearing a battered DJ, a point collar shirt, with bowtie and destroyed captoes. It was only the poor saps from America that looked like James Bond. So I guess the point is, I think wearing well polished shells, like tintins tassel loafers, is a good example of Aristocratic idosyncracy and I wholly support it.


Breaking the rules with elan, as opposed to plain old breaking the rules ie, notches, pretied, etc. First you have to know the rules to know you are breaking them, then to break them right.

If one of you trad dudes wore your Press dinner jacket acceorized correctly save for a pair of black cordo tassels, I would applaud it to no end.

I usually wear opera pumps or velvet slippers but have side vents on my peaked jacket and formal shirts made with spread collars. Those are my quirks, or rules infractions if you will. Have I broken the rules, yes. Has the guy in the notch/pre-tie/cheap loafers, yes. But who "pulls it off", so to speak? I think I and Mr. Tradly Van Tassel have pulled it off in our own way. Mr. Notchy Pretied is just another cluless prole who got on the guest list somehow.

Cheers


----------



## mpcsb (Jan 1, 2005)

Literide said:


> Mr. Tradly Van Tassel


I _*love*_ that, can I change my name?

Oh yes, and to answer the question, yes.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> I can assure you that the average person, even those who have worn a tuxedo at one time or another, really doesn't pay any attention to what kind of lapel is on someone's tux.


How do you know?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

rojo said:


> How do you know?


Ok, let me rephrase that. As an average person myself let me say that it is my belief that the majority of the people that I have known in my 59 years on this earth would not pay any attention to the lapels of a dinner jacket. But also let me say that the majority of the people I have known in my life do not participate in fashion forums on the internet.

I guess I think this because most of the folks in my circle of friends, which includes professional folks such as physicians, attorneys, accountants, and even a politician or two, absolutely abhor having to put on a tuxedo and only reluctantly do it when they have to do so. That's such a contrast to members of this forum who enjoy it and look for opportunities to do so. Most of these folks I know clip on their bow ties and pay little attention to the style of the dinner jacket which they really don't want to put on anyway. I have a feeling that these folks are probably more representative of the general population than the members of this forum.

But having said that, if you really think that the average man on the street throughout most of America pays attention to dinner jacket lapels then by all means feel free to think that without any objections from me. :icon_smile:


----------



## Tom Buchanan (Nov 7, 2005)

egadfly said:


> Someone here once remarked, by way of derogation, that Clinton wore a notched-lapel DJ. It's of course possible that he didn't "know better", but I assume he liked the way it looked.
> 
> I myself tend to cut a man a fair bit of slack in this area -- if his bow is self-tied, his jacket and pants properly tailored, and his shoes polished, he's already made it well into the 90th percentile.
> 
> ...


Without delving into politics, I think Bill Clinton is in some ways a great example of why many people chose formal wear that others find inappropriate. Clinton is by all accounts extremely intelligent, and he rose to the highest position in the country, perhaps world. Yet he routinely wore things like a wing collar (very formal) with a notch lapel tux (less formal). For suits, he relied on advisors who set him up with the then haute Donna Karan, who put him in big shoulders and dropped lapels like this.

https://www.obu.edu/inauguration/images/Clinton_Bill.jpg

What is interesting is that now that he has money and probably more time to think about his appearance, he wears much better clothing. I think he is an example of the fact that many men just wear what is "in" or available, until they study up.

https://cache.viewimages.com/xc/223...752006EF5F0ED9C3CAE92E1623D815A5397277B4DC33E


----------



## CharlieChannel (Mar 16, 2006)

*I Wear Black Shell Cordovan*



rojo said:


> I think anything other than black footwear, whether patent leather, calfskin, or black velvet slippers, is going to look too casual and, frankly, strange with black tie.
> 
> Unless, for reasons known only to yourself, "casual and strange" is the look you're deliberately aiming for in a wry, ironic, deliberately-breaking-the-rules kind of way.


 For a long party in dinner dress, I wear well shined plain toe lace up Black
shell cordovan. After that first hour far more comfortable than
"fancier" shoes.
Pumps, patents etc. are ok, but so is this look (not that anyone
notices). I polish with heavy black paste wax then, for a party,
put on a light top coat of Allen Edmonds "polish" (not cream). AE changes
names, but the thing is, they always carry a light consistency product
intended as a top coat of high shine after waxing.


----------



## tintin (Nov 19, 2004)

Literide hit the nail on the head. And whether you're a politicain, President or a Doctor doesn't mean you can't be a Prole. In fact, most of the lawyers and doctors and politicians I have encountered dress like schlubs. 

And if you claim to know better but persist in dressing in a notch tux with a pre-tied bow because you wanna join the majority but don't care what people think about you... Well, I have a book for you. "Class" by Paul Fussell. You'll see more with this book than you'll ever see with a telescope.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

tintin said:


> And if you claim to know better but persist in dressing in a notch tux with a pre-tied bow because you wanna join the majority but don't care what people think about you... Well, I have a book for you. "Class" by Paul Fussell. You'll see more with this book than you'll ever see with a telescope.


I wear a notch lapel because I like it and I wear what I like without regard for what the majority likes. If the majority likes what I like, so be it. I care about what people think about me. I just don't care what people like you think about me. Your values are obviously screwed up if you are so simple minded as to think that wearing a certain type of clothing gives you "class".


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> I _*love*_ that, can I change my name?
> 
> Oh yes, and to answer the question, yes.


ah, I think I'll keep it. Use it on the trad forum. A Knickerbocker nom de guerre if you will


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

Tom Buchanan said:


> Without delving into politics, I think Bill Clinton is in some ways a great example of why many people chose formal wear that others find inappropriate. Clinton is by all accounts extremely intelligent, and he rose to the highest position in the country, perhaps world. Yet he routinely wore things like a wing collar (very formal) with a notch lapel tux (less formal). For suits, he relied on advisors who set him up with the then haute Donna Karan, who put him in big shoulders and dropped lapels like this.
> 
> https://www.obu.edu/inauguration/images/Clinton_Bill.jpg
> 
> ...


I think it was Barbara Streisand who was the Donna Karan connection. Perhaps the big shoulders fashionable at the time made him appear less pear shaped. The "designer" connection was widely publicized so not sure how that went over with "everyman". The flight delay causing, high priced haircuts were also well known but didnt seem to hurt him at election time.
Agreed he probably was a sartorial novice at the time. I cant link to the current picture so I cant comment.
Bush also wears a notch I think, but he should know better given his background. His father wore a shawl if I recall.
As far as Buckley wearing an OCBD with his DJ, I would say he can "pull it off"


----------



## Literide (Nov 11, 2004)

mpcsb said:


> I _*love*_ that, can I change my name?
> 
> Oh yes, and to answer the question, yes.


Cheers


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> ...A host has requested black-tie attire and a gentleman normally should make an honest attempt to comply. I'm not trying to start a flame war over this -- that is just my two cents.


It is interesting to note that the vast majority of formal events I attend these day are events that I was invited to, so the host can ask for money to support some favored cause. As a matter of practice, my footgear for such events are either a pair of AE Leeds or AE Park Aves, both in black calf, each of which sports an unblemished mirror (read spit) shine. As Cruiser has suggested, I really do not take note of the design of other attendees Tux...I am there to enjoy the event and not to denegrate other attendee's dress. Now if the host of such should find my footgear so offensive, as to take note of it, I guess I could reduce my contribution by an amount sufficient to purchase a proper pair of patent shoes or just choose not to attend the event at all. Somehow I don't think even the most discriminating host would want that!

PS: In my book, Pitt Doc's black shell cord Alden Bals would look fine with a Tux!


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> I wear a notch lapel because I like it and I wear what I like without regard for what the majority likes. If the majority likes what I like, so be it. I care about what people think about me. I just don't care what people like you think about me. *Your values are obviously screwed up if you are so simple minded as to think that wearing a certain type of clothing gives you "class".*


Very excellent comeback. :icon_smile_big:

And to respond to the original posting, I'd say go ahead my good man and wear that delightful pair of shoes. We all know that 90% of the people in America barely dress halfway that good anyway.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

eagle2250 said:


> It is interesting to note that the vast majority of formal events I attend these day are events that I was invited to, so the host can ask for money to support some favored cause. As a matter of practice, my footgear for such events are either a pair of AE Leeds or AE Park Aves, both in black calf, each of which sports an unblemished mirror (read spit) shine. As Cruiser has suggested, I really do not take note of the design of other attendees Tux...I am there to enjoy the event and not to denegrate other attendee's dress. Now if the host of such should find my footgear so offensive, as to take note of it, I guess I could reduce my contribution by an amount sufficient to purchase a proper pair of patent shoes or just choose not to attend the event at all. Somehow I don't think even the most discriminating host would want that!
> 
> PS: In my book, Pitt Doc's black shell cord Alden Bals would look fine with a Tux!


Eagle,
Don't you think that you quoted somewhat selectively? Except for the immoderately wealthy, I do not think that one should feel compelled to purchase shoes for a black-tie event when a pair of serviceable Leeds or Park Avenues are already owned. My point is that a gentleman should make a good faith effort to comply with a host's request and should be cautious about sartorial expressions of GTH sentiments, especially when that request intends a certain element of formality. I don't think the purpose of the black-tie event is especially relevant. What is relevant is the guest's understanding of the host's wishes, and with sufficient understanding a GTH expression may be perfectly appropriate.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Eagle,
> Don't you think that you quoted somewhat selectively? Except for the immoderately wealthy, I do not think that one should feel compelled to purchase shoes for a black-tie event when a pair of serviceable Leeds or Park Avenues are already owned. My point is that a gentleman should make a good faith effort to comply with a host's request and should be cautious about sartorial expressions of GTH sentiments, especially when that request intends a certain element of formality. I don't think the purpose of the black-tie event is especially relevant. What is relevant is the guest's understanding of the host's wishes, and with sufficient understanding a GTH expression may be perfectly appropriate.


While I certainly can't speak for Eagle, I got the distinct impression that he was being facetious in his remark. I think his point was that it is highly unlikely that a host, or anyone else for that matter, is going to take offense at someone's choice of footwear unless you show up wearing flip flops.

I know that I don't see too many men wearing patent leather anymore, most choosing instead a nice black lace up dress shoe with a good shine. In fact, this month's GQ magazine suggests not wasting your money on patent leather and instead investing in a good shoe that you can wear more often.

Cruiser


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> While I certainly can't speak for Eagle, I got the distinct impression that he was being facetious in his remark. I think his point was that it is highly unlikely that a host, or anyone else for that matter, is going to take offense at someone's choice of footwear unless you show up wearing flip flops.
> 
> I know that I don't see too many men wearing patent leather anymore, most choosing instead a nice black lace up dress shoe with a good shine. In fact, this month's GQ magazine suggests not wasting your money on patent leather and instead investing in a good shoe that you can wear more often.
> 
> Cruiser


I respectfully disagree with GQ. A black-tie event calls for opera pumps, patent leather, or shoes of similar formality. I agree that bals in cordavan or calf are acceptable if the ideal shoes are impractical or unaffordable, and I agree that no well-adjusted person is going to waste time worrying about the footware selections of his fellow party-goers, but complete indifference to traditional sartorial norms is not preferable in my view. I realize that many men now wear dark business suits to black-tie events, but I disfavor that practice as well. I may sound like a stickinthemud, but if so, I'm a charitable one. I try always to assume lack of knowledge or means, rather than lack of consideration; and would never elevate a sartorial blunder, no matter how terrible, to a matter of gravity. It is just clothes.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Mike Petrik said:


> Eagle,
> Don't you think that you quoted somewhat selectively? Except for the immoderately wealthy, I do not think that one should feel compelled to purchase shoes for a black-tie event when a pair of serviceable Leeds or Park Avenues are already owned. My point is that a gentleman should make a good faith effort to comply with a host's request and should be cautious about sartorial expressions of GTH sentiments, especially when that request intends a certain element of formality. I don't think the purpose of the black-tie event is especially relevant. What is relevant is the guest's understanding of the host's wishes, and with sufficient understanding a GTH expression may be perfectly appropriate.





Cruiser said:


> While I certainly can't speak for Eagle, I got the distinct impression that he was being facetious in his remark. I think his point was that it is highly unlikely that a host, or anyone else for that matter, is going to take offense at someone's choice of footwear unless you show up wearing flip flops. Cruiser


Mike: I did selectively quote from your earlier post and do appologize for any misunderstanding. I agree wholeheartedly with the position reflected in your earlier post. However, several other posters in this thread seem to place extreme emphasis on the design of one's Tux or the type of (formal) shoes worn. Your statement pertaining to the hosts expectations provided a perfect lead in for me to share my experience, that the hosts of the charity/formal events I most often attend are just happy to have us there and are quite appreciative of our support,...our presence as well as our presents! As long as our jackets have a satin lapel/collar and our shoes are shined and black, the "hosts" are satisfied with our effort to dress appropriately. Cruiser's assessment of my earlier post is on the money but, "flop-flops(!)"...Never! However, could we consider a pair of monochrome, black Chuck Taylor's? (winks)

Again, sorry for any misunderstanding.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Eagle,
We are in complete agreement.
Cheers!


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

*If Prince Phillip Can Wear A Notch Lapel DJ, Then Why Not?*



jml90 said:


> ...Is it acceptable to wear cordo with a tuxedo?...


If there is any hint of "California Black-Tie" dress code then all bets are off and the sky is the limit. Unless the traditional formal/semi-formal rules are being strictly applied then you probably will not be publicly denounced. 

If Prince Phillip can wear a notch lapel DJ, then why not?


----------

