# The Black Suit Myth



## Earl of Ormonde

The Black Suit Myth 

I'm writing this from the jumping off point of my own taste in suits i.e. I don't like black suits, and the idea put about on these forums that a black suit is not the done thing as regards daytime business wear. 

Well, over the last few months at many business meetings and conferences, (especially a week long conference 2 weeks ago) I've been keeping an eye on suit colours. 

So two weeks ago I was at a week long international conference (ISO) at which over 40 countries were represented.
At the opening plenary on the Monday afternoon, I was surprised, based on the views of this forum to note, which I actually did by writing down the numbers, by the high number of black suits. 

Of the 3 out of the 14 Brits wearing suits, 2 black, 1 light grey 
Of the 9 Japanese delegates all in suits: 7 black, 1 light grey, 1 navy.
Of the 9 Koreans, again all in suits: 8 black, 1 navy.
Of the 10 Chinese delegates: ALL black, not a charcoal or navy or light grey in sight.
Six Americans in attendance only one in a suit, which was a light beigy, greeny, brown colour, actually a very nice suit.
Of the four Canadains, only 1 suit, a nice choclate brown pinstripe and that was on the woman covening my Working Group 
The only charcoal suits present were on the Norwegian in my WG, the Swedish chairman for the entire Technical Committee, and on one of the three South Africans present.
Also a handful of light greys on younger men, primarily from Holland, Sweden and Germany. 
Of all the African and Asian countries that only sent one or two delegates, those in suits were nearly all in black, apart from the one African in a green thing from the mid-80s.

Now this is a very mixed collection of academics, emergency services practitioners and managers, scientists and politicians, so a very representative group.

And black suits were by far the most common.


----------



## Mad Hatter

On balance, what, about half the men were in suits of any color? Taking out the Asians, whom seem to favor black suits, how old were the black suit wearers on guess? Interested to know if it's more a "young man" thing or generic.

I am ambivalent about black suits; I don't have one but don't personally find them a transgression. IMO it's either the "one suit" theory, connotations of seriousness or the belief black looks good on everybody that makes them popular.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

The majority of the men in black suits ranged from about 40 to 60. A few of the Chinese and Koreans were considerably older. The 2 Brits in black both between 40 and 45. The other interesting demographic was that to a man all the light grey suits were on "youngsters" i.e under 45-50


----------



## Centaur

Are you sure they were black - not very dark navy? I'm surprised. It sounds a bit like an undertakers' convention.


----------



## StephenRG

I think that your survey was taken from an unrepresentative selection - black suits are _very_ common amongst Asians/Orientals.


----------



## Cruiser

It just so happens that I was in a local department store over the weekend and as I walked through the men's department I couldn't help but notice all of the black suits. I'm guessing that anywhere from a third to one half of all the suits were black. Black also appeared to be the most popular color in the pants section.

Cruiser


----------



## De-Boj

I understand that this forum takes a more conservative (some might say "old school") business view of things. I think everyone here needs to just get over this black suit thing. Black suits are in the stores, people buy them, and they do actually wear them in public. The world of clothing is a dynamic marketplace, things change. One such change is black suits becoming more popular. What is the big deal? After all this is not the first time men have donned black during the work day, is it?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

StephenRG said:


> I think that your survey was taken from an unrepresentative selection - black suits are _very_ common amongst Asians/Orientals.


It wasn't unrepresentative at all. The conference delegates were mostly from Europe, the Americas, Africa and Australasia (112 delegates) 
The only Asian countries present were Japan, China, Singapore, South Korea, India, Israel, and Thailand. (33 delgates, of which 3 women, but even the Chinese and Korean women were wearing black suits)

(NB: not a single Muslim country attended. This was remarked upon)

What is obvious for me though is that the whole raison d'etre of suits as business daywear outside Asia, especially at large internaiotnal meetings is brought into question, because out of all the Europeans, Africans, Austrlains, and Americans (north & south) you could almost have counted the total number of suits on your fingers. And that's from 112 delgates!!!

Norway 1
Holland 1
Germany 1
Sweden 3
UK 3
USA 1
Canada 1 (woman) 
South Africa 1
Zimbabwe 1

All the rest were in smart casual wear, myself included, navy jacket, khakis.

No Frenchmen in suits. 
No South Americans in suits 
No Australasians in suits
No Eastern Europeans in suits (Serbia, Hungary) 
The Danes, Italians, Spanish, Greeks, Russians, Irish, and most Eastern Euros not present.

Smart casual was the order of the day really. Apart from one American in his sandals and jeans and 2 Africans in traditional dress.

Conclusion - suits outnumbered, most suits black.


----------



## Richard Baker

Black suits are very stern during daytime and often bought for they are offered in MTM shops. They imitate Pulp-Fiction or Godfather/Underbelly Italo-Crim style, especially when worn with sunglasses - not very recommendable for serious work. They also smack a bit of a lack of imagination, but they an are an appropriate option in very important events, e.g. appearing in a higher law court. They also might be an emergency compromise when there is no time to change for an evening event, for at night they are less conspicuous. In some elegant night clubs where any note of standard business garb would be out of place they come to their own, a note less elegant than a Tuxedo. Not a great choice during daytime, but, especially in cooler climes, not necessarily a terrible faux pas. Incidentally, statistics are not necessarily the best way to elucidate style.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Centaur said:


> Are you sure they were black - not very dark navy? I'm surprised. It sounds a bit like an undertakers' convention.


Yes, I'n sure. Because there were 1 or 2 navy suits,including my own blazer, which made it easier to spot black.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Cruiser said:


> It just so happens that I was in a local department store over the weekend and as I walked through the men's department I couldn't help but notice all of the black suits. I'm guessing that anywhere from a third to one half of all the suits were black. Black also appeared to be the most popular color in the pants section.
> 
> Cruiser


Snap!!! In all the clothing stores in my town in Sweden over the last month or two, the number of black suits has increased dramatically to cater for all the graduating students. Now on the graduation Friday,2 weeks ago, I was in the centre of Stockholm, when all the open lorries ferry all the students around the centre of the city.I'd say 99% of the boys in suits were in black suits, there was the odd white jacket. And 99% of the girls in gowns/cocktail dresses were in white, with the odd yellow or pink.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Richard Baker said:


> Black suits are very stern during daytime and often bought for they are offered in MTM shops. They imitate Pulp-Fiction or Godfather/Underbelly Italo-Crim style, especially when worn with sunglasses - not very recommendable for serious work. They also smack a bit of a lack of imagination, but they an are an appropriate option in very important events, e.g. appearing in a higher law court. They also might be an emergency compromise when there is no time to change for an evening event, for at night they are less conspicuous. In some elegant night clubs where any note of standard business garb would be out of place they come to their own, a note less elegant than a Tuxedo. Not a great choice during daytime, but, especially in cooler climes, not necessarily a terrible faux pas. Incidentally, statistics are not necessarily the best way to elucidate style.


I have to disagree, I find it highly unlikely that elderly Korean, Chinese, Japanese and UK politicians and respected academics are aping pulp fiction or the Mafia. 
Are those just your own views and theories?


----------



## jefferyd

The idea that black suits are inappropriate for daytime or business presupposes two things- that the association of the colour black with funerals and formalwear exists within one's culture, which can be said only of western cultures. To the populations who wear white to funerals, the black suit would carry no such funereal quality, and in those cultures whose formalwear is traditionally anything other than the dinner jacket , such as the Sherwani, the Hanbok, etc., black is not necessarily associated with formality either so it is not surprising that black suits would be popular in the rest of the world.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Richard Baker said:


> Incidentally, statistics are not necessarily the best way to elucidate style.


My thread has never mentioned style and is not responding to style. It is a response to the view held here, by many it seems ,that black suits won't do for daytime business wear. I disagree. Even at my own govt agency most of the guys who wear suits wear black.

Personally I don't like it and would never wear a black suit in the daytime or the evening for that matter. Navy or grey.
But style and preference aren't the issue here. 
I'm simply questioning on what basis so many here say that black is a no no for a business suit when the fact of the matter is that so many men around the world wear black business suits.

Might it be a case again of us gentlemen being a bit too sure of ourselves and assuming that our preferences are correct and thus should apply to everyone? I think it might be. 
And clearly black suits are very popular, no amend that, are _*the *_most popular colour for a suit.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

jefferyd said:


> The idea that black suits are inappropriate for daytime or business presupposes two things- that the association of the colour black with funerals and formalwear exists within one's culture, which can be said only of western cultures. To the populations who wear white to funerals, the black suit would carry no such funereal quality, and in those cultures whose formalwear is traditionally anything other than the dinner jacket , such as the Sherwani, the Hanbok, etc., black is not necessarily associated with formality either so it is not surprising that black suits would be popular in the rest of the world.


I take your point & I'd like to agree but for the fact that 2 Brits were in black suits.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

There is a sartorial Black Abyss out there for sure.

Avoid it at all costs!!


----------



## David_E

I think the other interesting observation to be drawn from this is in regards to the vehemence with which this board tries to dissuade people asking about interview suits from wearing black. We might want to start taking the apparent fact (which I can also confirm from my MUCH less exacting observations) that black is accepted as "normal" in a business setting into account.


----------



## WindsorNot

Warning: Suiting customs in America may differ from those abroad. I'd still prefer navy or charcoal in a business setting any day in the good old U S of A. Black suits also limit your tie colors.


----------



## sowilson

Well then, this Thursday I'm doning my seersucker suit, white OCBD, white nubuck and navy bucks, ribon belt (blue and pink), bright yellow socks (or lime green w/ multicolor dots) and either a pink tie or one of the following bows - madras, pink/navy,or wild blue polka dots Top it off with a Stetson straw fedora and walk through the business district on my way to work.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

David_E said:


> I think the other interesting observation to be drawn from this is in regards to the vehemence with which this board tries to dissuade people asking about interview suits from wearing black.


Exactly. And that is exactly the kind of thing on this forum that I'm questioning. The ridiculous "elitist" idea that someone turning up for an interview in a black suit clearly knows nothing about dressing and would be somehow frowned upon (by who, I don't know) for wearing a black suit.


----------



## Cruiser

This thread originated with the OP's observation that black suits are being worn in abundance out in his world. He really didn't express any opinion as to whether he thought this was a good thing, bad thing, or if he even cared one way or the other. It appeared to be nothing more than an observation.

Most of the responses to this observation really have had little to do with what is happening out there in the world, but rather folks have been expressing their dislike for black suits by pointing out all of the arguments usually put forth by clothing enthusiasts including the old mafia stereotypes.

Although I can't speak for the OP, I get the feeling that the point being made is that despite the fact that clothing enthusiasts and hobbyists have a general disdain for black suits (and pants, shirts, etc.), this disdain isn't found in the greater world at large. That isn't a vote for or against, it's just an observation. 

Keep in mind that the men of the world aren't buying black suits because the manufacturers are filling the stores with them. The manufacturers are filling the stores with them because that's what sells. This doesn't mean that you have to join in and start wearing black. Heck, if you don't like it, don't wear it. 

I don't wear my black suit for business or during the daytime for any reason because I don't personally think it's the best choice; but it doesn't bother me if someone else does. (Wear their own black suit that is, not mine. :icon_smile_big: )

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WindsorNot said:


> Warning: Suiting customs in America may differ from those abroad. I'd still prefer navy or charcoal in a business setting any day in the good old U S of A. Black suits also limit your tie colors.


Well clearly, six American men turned up. One was in sandals and jeans, four in tieless smart casual and one in a light coloured suit, mentioned above. No charcoal or navy suits at all. Now I know that's only six men, but it was six men on the US delegation representing the USA on an international forum.


----------



## Mr. Mac

Our stores sell black suits (in solids, stripes, patterns) at _least _4 or 5 to one over any other single color. I don't recommend them to my customers as a first or second suit because you can't wear all the same shoe colors you can with a navy or gray suit; but that doesn't seem to slow down sales.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl, as one of those ill-disposed towards black suits, I do not contend that they are not commonly worn. I merely contend that they are sub-optimal for daywear, and do not communicate those messages that I frequently want to communicate. The fact that some attendees at a conference wore black suits is of no moment.


----------



## WindsorNot

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well clearly, six American men turned up. One was in sandals and jeans, four in tieless smart casual and one in a light coloured suit, mentioned above. No charcoal or navy suits at all. Now I know that's only six men, but it was six men on the US delegation representing the USA on an international forum.


The Americans probably would have been better off in black suits than in casual dress, then. It's my personal opinion that as long as a man is dressed well (in the year 2010), traditional conventions be damned! It's a sign of the times. You don't have to be correct, just be decent and you'll be ahead of the game. That being said, I'm personally against black suits for standard business day wear, but we all have our opinions and I would not be bothered or even think twice about someone who wore a black suit.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

De-Boj said:


> I understand that this forum takes a more conservative (some might say "old school") business view of things. I think everyone here needs to just get over this black suit thing. Black suits are in the stores, people buy them, and they do actually wear them in public. The world of clothing is a dynamic marketplace, things change. One such change is black suits becoming more popular. What is the big deal? After all this is not the first time men have donned black during the work day, is it?


Exactly. Well said.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> The fact that some attendees at a conference wore black suits is of no moment.


Yes it is, for the purpose of this thread.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Cruiser said:


> This thread originated with the OP's observation that black suits are being worn in abundance out in his world. He really didn't express any opinion as to whether he thought this was a good thing, bad thing, or if he even cared one way or the other. It appeared to be nothing more than an observation.
> 
> Most of the responses to this observation really have had little to do with what is happening out there in the world, but rather folks have been expressing their dislike for black suits by pointing out all of the arguments usually put forth by clothing enthusiasts including the old mafia stereotypes.
> 
> Although I can't speak for the OP, I get the feeling that the point being made is that despite the fact that clothing enthusiasts and hobbyists have a general disdain for black suits (and pants, shirts, etc.), this disdain isn't found in the greater world at large. That isn't a vote for or against, it's just an observation.
> 
> Keep in mind that the men of the world aren't buying black suits because the manufacturers are filling the stores with them. The manufacturers are filling the stores with them because that's what sells. This doesn't mean that you have to join in and start wearing black. Heck, if you don't like it, don't wear it.
> 
> I don't wear my black suit for business or during the daytime for any reason because I don't personally think it's the best choice; but it doesn't bother me if someone else does. (Wear their own black suit that is, not mine. :icon_smile_big: )
> 
> Cruiser


Exactly Crusier, exactly. Thank you.
I don't even own a black suit as I have no use for one.

But just to reiterate my point again:

I didn't create this thread to discuss black suits and preferences per se. I created it to question the view commonly held on this forum that black sutis shouldn't be worn during daytime which is in clear opposition to the evidence before us provided by myself, a store owner and others. 
Black suits are worn everywhere, in abundance it seems. So members here constantly telling newcomers not to wear black suits is basically a load of codswallop!


----------



## CuffDaddy

Well, Earl, if your point is that the members of AAAC are more discerning in their dress than population at large, and often balk at wearing things that other people do, in fact, wear, then it hardly needed a thread. Anybody would have stipulated to as much.

As usual, I'm going to come back to my clothing-as-language analogy. Many, many people use questionable grammar. Some constructions (e.g., "where are you/we at?") have become quite prevalent, even amongst the reasonably well-educated, and the primary/intended meaning is generally understood. But the use of such phrases still communicates a secondary meaning to a portion of listeners, and that secondary meaning is not complimentary of the speaker. Similarly, black suits are fairly commonly worn, but to a portion of viewers, the secondary message is not good, assuming that the wearer wishes to be percieved as a man of taste and sophistication. 

These kind of secondary meanings are obviously regionally-dependent. But where I live, a black suit in a serious setting such as a courtroom is percieved by a certain group as slightly tacky. And the group is not those who frequent AAAC. It is highly correlated with both present and famlial wealth and education - and that's part of what makes wearing the black suit read as tacky. A lot of the meaning of clothes is tied up in these kind of secret meanings. You either know the "code," and are therefore "in the club," or you do not and are not.


----------



## Hanzo

CuffDaddy said:


> As usual, I'm going to come back to my clothing-as-language analogy. Many, many people use questionable grammar. Some constructions (e.g., "where are you/we at?") have become quite prevalent, even amongst the reasonably well-educated, and the primary/intended meaning is generally understood. But the use of such phrases still communicates a secondary meaning to a portion of listeners, and that secondary meaning is not complimentary of the speaker. Similarly, black suits are fairly commonly worn, but to a portion of viewers, the secondary message is not good, assuming that the wearer wishes to be percieved as a man of taste and sophistication.


Excellent point, CuffDaddy.

I was always of the opinion that in clothing, what is "correct" is based on current norms, but your language arguement has swayed me a bit. I say a bit, because some things have become so outdated that they have basically ceased to be, but the same can be said of language I suppose.

And you're right, some people, albeit a small group, will know the rules and come to conclusions based on the fact that they aren't followed. Fair or not, thats the way the real world works. My personal view on black suits is that they are rather boring and generally, due to the plainess, come off as looking cheap. Plus, I COULD be judged by those in the know. Neither of these issues come about with a grey or navy suit, so I figure I'll just make it easy on myself and avoid a single color in the rather huge spectrum.


----------



## JJR512

I recently posted a thread here about brown suits for business use, it's been an active thread within the last few days. Judging by the amount of resistance I read against brown for business, I'd suppose there'd be even more against black.

On another note, I'm curious to learn something from those of you who find it acceptable to wear black for business: When you wear a black suit as part of a daily business suit, do you also wear a white shirt and a plain, muted tie, or are you likely to offset the somberness of the black suit with a colorful shirt or tie?


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> As usual, I'm going to come back to my clothing-as-language analogy. Many, many people use questionable grammar. Some constructions (e.g., "where are you/we at?") have become quite prevalent, even amongst the reasonably well-educated, and the primary/intended meaning is generally understood. But the use of such phrases still communicates a secondary meaning to a portion of listeners, and that secondary meaning is not complimentary of the speaker. Similarly, black suits are fairly commonly worn, but to a portion of viewers, the secondary message is not good, assuming that the wearer wishes to be percieved as a man of taste and sophistication.


But can't you say that about most things? There are many items of clothing, and combinations of those items, that while held in high regard by clothing enthusiasts, are thought to be less than complimentary by many other folks. In fact, not even all clothing enthusiasts agree on what looks good and what looks bad.

For example, outside of the world of the clothing enthusiasts I think you will find that just about as many people think brown shoes don't go well with gray at all. So if you wear brown shoes with a charcoal suit no matter how good you might think it looks, you will encounter many during the course of a day who simply think you aren't good at matching your shoes and suit.

Once before going into a meeting with a group representing a Senate sub-committee my boss, the man who controlled my fate at the time, quietly informed me that the bottom button on my vest had come undone and that I should button it before we went in so I would look proper. Like I said, not everyone is in agreement on what looks good and what doesn't.

My point is that no matter what you wear it is very likely to be perceived by a portion of the people that you encounter during the day as less than complimentary.

As for language, depending on the circumstances poor grammar can sometimes be beneficial. When I was teaching a class, dealing with underlings on the job, or even handling one of the two kids I raised when they were teenagers, sometimes communication worked best when language was butchered. For example, if I was telling someone that something wasn't likely to occur and I wanted to make sure that they got the message, something along the lines of "It ain't gonna happen" generally worked better than using proper English. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy

As is so often the case, Cruiser, there's a level of truth in what you're saying. Different diction appeals to different people, in oral language and clothing alike. You won't appeal to many 15 year old hip-hop fanatics by using "whom" or structuring your sentences so they never end with prepositions. And you won't increase your odds of succesfully defending your dissertation by following a strong declarative statement with "fo' real, though, y'all!" 

Clothing is similar. You have to pick what messages you want to send and to what audiences. Most of the rules/conventions/preferences discussed by American AAAC members are generally calibrated to speak the language of, and appeal to, people who have the cultural identity of being part of the affluent establishment. Of course, in America, people who have grown up dirt poor but been diligent and fortunate enough to find great success can learn most (indeed, virtually all) of the "grammar" of this group, and to thereby become a member themselves. 

Solid black suits in the daytime are not reliably found in the "vocabulary" of this group. If that group is what you want to be a member of, or who you are trying to appeal to (and a great many white-collar job applicants are, or should be, trying to do just that), they are a poor choice.

They also happen to be a poor aesthetic choice for many men, though Asians are often well-equiped in complexion and hair color for black suits. I would suggest that this is why the cultural prejudice against them never really found root in Asia.


----------



## clotheshorse69

You're barely realizing the color black is an acceptable suit color in the West now? While not my preference, I'd rather see professionals in black suits than no suits (when appropriate).



Earl of Ormonde said:


> The Black Suit Myth
> 
> I'm writing this from the jumping off point of my own taste in suits i.e. I don't like black suits, and the idea put about on these forums that a black suit is not the done thing as regards daytime business wear.
> 
> Well, over the last few months at many business meetings and conferences, (especially a week long conference 2 weeks ago) I've been keeping an eye on suit colours.
> 
> So two weeks ago I was at a week long international conference (ISO) at which over 40 countries were represented.
> At the opening plenary on the Monday afternoon, I was surprised, based on the views of this forum to note, which I actually did by writing down the numbers, by the high number of black suits.
> 
> Of the 3 out of the 14 Brits wearing suits, 2 black, 1 light grey
> Of the 9 Japanese delegates all in suits: 7 black, 1 light grey, 1 navy.
> Of the 9 Koreans, again all in suits: 8 black, 1 navy.
> Of the 10 Chinese delegates: ALL black, not a charcoal or navy or light grey in sight.
> Six Americans in attendance only one in a suit, which was a light beigy, greeny, brown colour, actually a very nice suit.
> Of the four Canadains, only 1 suit, a nice choclate brown pinstripe and that was on the woman covening my Working Group
> The only charcoal suits present were on the Norwegian in my WG, the Swedish chairman for the entire Technical Committee, and on one of the three South Africans present.
> Also a handful of light greys on younger men, primarily from Holland, Sweden and Germany.
> Of all the African and Asian countries that only sent one or two delegates, those in suits were nearly all in black, apart from the one African in a green thing from the mid-80s.
> 
> Now this is a very mixed collection of academics, emergency services practitioners and managers, scientists and politicians, so a very representative group.
> 
> And black suits were by far the most common.


----------



## SeptemberSun

From the 2006 book _The Suit_:

"Still valid...is the rule which holds that solid black is too sever for suitings. Hipsters and celebrities denounce this rule and even deny its existence...For my part, I do not deny their right to wear black suits; I assert only that in doing so they look bad. For black either overwhelms or overvivifies other colors...Gentlement understand that on men it looks oily. Light gray or white stripes can make a black ground look gray but the black makes the stripes glow like neon. These are popular in chest-thumping environs like the mafia and the counting houses of the City of London but _outre _anywhere else."

I owned a solid black suit for 8 years and wore it once. People at work wear subtle pinstriped black suits and they look like limo drivers...


----------



## Blueboy1938

I, like Cruiser, see predominately black in suit departments. Armani at Neiman Marcus is about 30% black. I don't have any problem with it at all, although I generally don't wear black suits except to funerals myself. I mostly see black suits on sales associates, as I'm not going into business venues of other types much anymore.


----------



## JJR512

The above quote from _The Suit_ refers to the Mafia, and there was another comment earlier referring to the movie _The Godfather_. I know next to nothing about the real Mafia; however, insofar as the movie _The Godfather_ is concerned, I do not recall an excessive use of black suits.


----------



## J.Marko

I wonder if there is a predominance of black suits at departments stores because most of the people that buy their suits there are buying them for a wedding or a funeral almost exclusively. Most people don't wear suits any more except on those occasions (and less and less at those as well). On the rare occasion someone needs to dress up, they go to their closet and there is that black suit, so they wear it regardless of the occasion. 

Another factor is that when you wear a black suit, you often get complimented on it or on your tie (since it makes colors look brighter). Back in my old small law firm days wearing suits, my black suit generated the most compliments, followed by a dark grey with a fine dark burgundy pin stripe. Actually, maybe I got more compliments on the grey . . .  Women seem to like the black suit on men. That may be another reason why many men wear them - the wife helps pick out the suit. Black just looks great - why else are dinner jackets usually black?

By the way, you all have convinced me to banish black tailored clothing from my daytime attire, so don't jump on me.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, Earl, if your point is that the members of AAAC are more discerning in their dress than population at large, and often balk at wearing things that other people do, in fact, wear, then it hardly needed a thread. Anybody would have stipulated to as much.
> 
> As usual, I'm going to come back to my clothing-as-language analogy. Many, many people use questionable grammar. Some constructions (e.g., "where are you/we at?") have become quite prevalent, even amongst the reasonably well-educated, and the primary/intended meaning is generally understood. But the use of such phrases still communicates a secondary meaning to a portion of listeners, and that secondary meaning is not complimentary of the speaker. Similarly, black suits are fairly commonly worn, but to a portion of viewers, the secondary message is not good, assuming that the wearer wishes to be percieved as a man of taste and sophistication.
> 
> These kind of secondary meanings are obviously regionally-dependent. But where I live, a black suit in a serious setting such as a courtroom is percieved by a certain group as slightly tacky. And the group is not those who frequent AAAC. It is highly correlated with both present and famlial wealth and education - and that's part of what makes wearing the black suit read as tacky. A lot of the meaning of clothes is tied up in these kind of secret meanings. You either know the "code," and are therefore "in the club," or you do not and are not.


Good points all. You won't get any arguments from me.


----------



## Cruiser

SeptemberSun said:


> People at work wear subtle pinstriped black suits and they look like limo drivers...


Some of the guys where I worked wore navy blazers with gray pants and they looked like security guards. Others wore khaki pants and they looked like waiters.

And then there were those who wore navy or charcoal suits and they looked liked Enron executives.

After deciding that whatever one wore was going to make you look like someone else, I decided that looking like a security guard, a waiter, or a limo driver isn't all that bad. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Cruiser said:


> After deciding that whatever one wore was going to make you look like someone else, I decided that looking like a security guard, a waiter, or a limo driver isn't all that bad. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Excellent and very relevant point. Despite your best efforts to create your own style or conversely your dismissal of what anyone else might think, someone is always going to think you look like something else i.e. something or someone other than yourself. It seems to be unavoidable. I mean some people have said I look like a soldier in this photo, simply because I'm wearing a green uniform.







Like I said, it seems to be unavoidable  (For military fans: Just above the passport, you'll spot the butt of a Sig Sauer, sticking out of its concealed chest holster. I drew it out slightly just to intimidate a bit more... I love exercises)


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Earl of Ormonde said:


> (For military fans: Just above the passport, you'll spot the butt of a Sig Sauer, sticking out of its concealed chest holster. I drew it out slightly just to intimidate a bit more... I love exercises)


In the US, wearing your cover (cap) indoors tells everyone you are armed.

But sometimes a little extra goes a long way!!


----------



## Flanderian

Somewhere Jake and Elwood are smiling.

But seriously, my theory is that all the men seen wearing black suits are actually sinister visitors from another dimension.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Flanderian said:


> Somewhere Jake and Elwood are smiling.


And what did their black suit/white shirt/dark tie attire get them? This remark:

"We got two ******* out there dressed like Hasidic diamond merchants."


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

WouldaShoulda said:


> In the US, wearing your cover (cap) indoors tells everyone you are armed.
> 
> But sometimes a little extra goes a long way!!


Basically the same in the UK, both in the police and armed force. When armed you must always be in full uniform.
That's why RAF Snowdrops, RN Provies & the Army's Redcaps never remove caps on entering a building, 'cos they're nearly always tooled up!


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> Most of the rules/conventions/preferences discussed by American AAAC members are generally calibrated to speak the language of, and appeal to, people who have the cultural identity of being part of the affluent establishment. Solid black suits in the daytime are not reliably found in the "vocabulary" of this group.


Don't know what it's like there in Atlanta where you are and while I'm not yet the Governor of New England, though it's something I aspire to, I can tell you, tho perhaps not as sweepingly as you have done, that, after mingling with many suit-wearing types here for a few decades, and a few more spent closer to you than here, Washington, DC, what you're dishing really isn't so. And I'm not crazy about the tone you're taking here either.


----------



## JJR512

Cruiser said:


> After deciding that whatever one wore was going to make you look like someone else, I decided that looking like a security guard, a waiter, or a limo driver isn't all that bad. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Another interesting way to look like someone else is to wear black trousers, white shirt, black necktie, and a red vest. If you wear that and hang out by a hotel's entrance, sooner or later, someone's bound to give you a free car! :icon_smile_big:


----------



## CuffDaddy

P&P, I'm not asking you to like it. I'm asserting it as a description of the world. You, apparently, disagree. That's fine; each of us has different experiences. But, to be clear, the set of people I'm talking about are not "suit-wearing types," but rather a smaller subset.


----------



## At Law

WouldaShoulda said:


> There is a sartorial Black Abyss out there for sure.
> 
> Avoid it at all costs!!


I agree.
Black suits should NOT EVER be worn for business.
The people wearing these suits are attempting to be well
dressed, however, they are far from it.
Grey and Blue suits only for business. PERIOD.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> but rather a smaller subset.


In which case then they're hardly relevant to the man at large in the world at large, where black suits predominate.
I think CD that you're simply positing the case for stylish gentlemen, and I agree, as I indicated earlier in repsonse to your points.

However, our preferences (again as I said earlier) have no bearing on the discussion in hand.

I think I need to clarify my position even further; I think members here when advising those who ask questions should cover both sides of the coin 1, black suits are very common all over the world for business and leisure; however 2, the careful gentleman does not wear one during the day.

In other words, bottom line: stop telling newbies that black suits are wrong for business. Or at least qualify it.


----------



## De-Boj

At Law said:


> I agree.
> Black suits should NOT EVER be worn for business.
> The people wearing these suits are attempting to be well
> dressed, however, they are far from it.
> Grey and Blue suits only for business. PERIOD.


Wow! Grey and Blue only? That seems a little extreme to me. 
Some guys in some industries may be able to wear a black suit (for business purposes). I really think most guys out there think black is a safe color. Since they don't have to wear suits everyday, they purchase the safe one. Maybe they think a black suit is the male equivalent of the womens black cocktail dress.

All I am saying is that I don't hate it.


----------



## CuffDaddy

First, they are indeed relevant, in much the same way that those men who expect reasonably correct grammar are relevant - they are disprorportionately influential. 

Second, I'm not sure you'll find me telling anyone that black suits are "wrong." I rarely use that word to describe clothing choices. In fact, I went on at some length a few months ago about how we ought to distinguish between rules (which are over-claimed on this board), conventions, and preferences. I don't tend to even think about clothes in terms of "right or wrong," but in their communicative effect. 

I'm not a fan of black suits because, to a disproportionately influential portion of the population, their communicative content is not good. However, you are very unlikely to be stoned in the street, or even barred admission to a public space, on the grounds that you are wearing a black suit. Whether that means they are "right" or "wrong" is open to debate, I suppose. 

All that said, where I work - among white-collar, reasonably succesful professionals (I work in a law firm in a building mostly filled with bankers and lawyers and a few consultants, and spend time in corporate offices, other lawyers' offices, and court) - black suits are certainly the exception, and found disproportionately among the more junior employees. There are exceptions, but they are scattered.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

De-Boj said:


> Some guys in some industries may be able to wear a black suit (for business purposes).


Funeral Directers, Priests, Black Suit Salesmen...


----------



## expressingmyself

CuffDaddy said:


> Second, I'm not sure you'll find me telling anyone that black suits are "wrong." I rarely use that word to describe clothing choices. In fact, I went on at some length a few months ago about how we ought to distinguish between rules (which are over-claimed on this board), conventions, and preferences. I don't tend to even think about clothes in terms of "right or wrong," but in their communicative effect.


Excellent outlook -- hopefully yours is the prevailing opinion in time. I think I'll like it here if that's the case!


----------



## JJR512

Also, expanding on what CuffDaddy said, I have to wonder if those who think people look "bad" in black suits (or brown, going back to my own thread on that subject) really honestly feel that people do not look good in them, or if they're just saying that because it goes against the "rules".

My point is that there's a big difference between looking *bad[/i] and looking inappropriate, and I just wonder if those people who think black is inappropriate for business are aware of that distinction.*


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> * I'm asserting it as a description of the world.* You, apparently, disagree. That's fine; each of us has different experiences. But, to be clear, the set of people I'm talking about are not "suit-wearing types," but rather a smaller subset.


Yikes, now you've done it. You've covered yourself in classist froth. This is not your courtroom; easy up on the assertions. There may come a time, maybe tonight after happy hour, when you'll regret ever having said _I'm asserting it as a description of the world,_. That's Old Testament talk. God-speak. This is about wearing a black suit and that my phrase_ suit-wearing types_ strikes you a wee declasse may say more about your attitude here than you wanted it to. I don't write posh; I could; I have, but I don't choose to do it here or hardly anywhere. I think your stance and your phrasing of it is perhaps why so many non suit-wearing types have it out for those who do wear them, particularly in the, ahem, small subset, you describe.

As for your more immediate post just above, consider making copies, then passing them out to the other swells you describe that inhabit your building. See if they're comfy in the satorial aery in which you've placed them, or even know that they're in it.


----------



## Hanzo

JJR512 said:


> Also, expanding on what CuffDaddy said, I have to wonder if those who think people look "bad" in black suits (or brown, going back to my own thread on that subject) really honestly feel that people do not look good in them, or if they're just saying that because it goes against the "rules".
> 
> My point is that there's a big difference between looking *bad[/i] and looking inappropriate, and I just wonder if those people who think black is inappropriate for business are aware of that distinction.*


*

Good question. For me personally, if I were to say that it looked 'bad' (and I'm not sure I'd use that phrasing, but I understand your question) it would be because I feel that the solid black color tends to look rather dull. There's no pattern, no variety of color, no depth of color and generally no texture difference. For the same reason that I generally don't like cotton suits, I find black suits to look boring and thereby, cheap. And when I use the word cheap, I don't mean inexpensive, but rather so cookie cutter and boring to appear to say "I have to wear a suit, so I bought one, this is the one with the least personality I could find so that I follow the rules but so I don't have to think about it". Which, I'm afraid, is exactly what's happening. Its like the kids I see in mall wearing shirt and tie. Their trousers are halfway off their butt, their shirt is 15 sizes too large and their shoes resemble work boots with deep gouges and scuffs that have never seen a can of polish. They are doing what they have to in order to obey the letter of the 'law' but are not comfortable in dressing nicely so they do the bare minimum. In my opinion, it shows through, which I think is what CuffDaddy means when he mentions speaking the language.*


----------



## Cruiser

JJR512 said:


> My point is that there's a big difference between looking *bad[/i] and looking inappropriate, and I just wonder if those people who think black is inappropriate for business are aware of that distinction.*


*

When we are talking about something like wearing a black suit for business, whether or not one thinks it "looks bad" or is "inappropriate" is really nothing more than that individuals personal perception. It isn't like we are trying to apply the same values to this as we would to a situation where someone asks if it's OK to wear cutoffs and a tank top to a wedding or funeral; however, regardless of one's own perception of this, if a majority of the people were actually wearing cutoffs and tank tops to weddings and funerals then one would have to answer the question that it is OK, even if we personally found it to look bad and be inappropriate.

My point is that there is a big difference between whether or not something is acceptable out in the world at large and whether or not it is acceptable to the tiny group of people who identify themselves as serious clothing enthusiasts. That's why I think any answer should be qualified as to whether you are answering purely from the perspective of a clothing enthusiast or whether you are giving real world advice. I think the best approach is to give both answers and then the person can choose which best suits his needs and wishes.

A good example of this involves tuxedo advice. Of course just about everyone here believes that a notch lapel in inappropriate or at least not the best choice of lapel type. You are clothing enthusiasts. While my tuxedo is a notch lapel, I fully understand where the clothing enthusiasts and purists are coming from and have no problem with that. My problem comes when people are led to believe that they are somehow going to look terrible to the world at large and made to feel inferior if they have a notch lapel tuxedo. Nothing could be further from the truth, at least in the U.S..

I've seen people here say that they are going to go out and buy a new tuxedo for no reason other than they have been told here that their notch lapel is "wrong." It is wrong to lead folks down this road. Tell them what clothing enthusiasts like and endorse, but also let them know that the notch lapel is the overwhelming choice of American men and the choice of many well dressed men who know the rules. Heck, I was watching an old James Bond movie from the 60's the other night and Sean Connery was wearing a notch lapel tuxedo. Tell people what you like and why, but give them the whole story at the same time. This should be the approach whether the topic is black suits, tuxedos, or whatever.

Cruiser*


----------



## CuffDaddy

P&P, I don't know how you've managed to become offended by some pretty modest statements. The statement you bolded does not mean "I'm DECREEING how the world should be," as you seem to read it. To the contrary, my statements are intended to reflect the world as it is, whether I like it or not. I have yet to make a statement indicating that I think it is _good_ that black suits=tacky in the minds of many. What you're doing is like someone getting angry at the thermometer for indicating that it is unpleasantly hot outside. It's hot outside (or is not) no matter what the thermometer reports.*

I did not regard your phrase "suit-wearing types" as being declasse or classy, one way or the other. I just interpreted it to mean and include the entire population of people who routinely wear suits, which includes bank presidents and car salesmen alike.** One can slice and dice that population countless ways, but one way is to identify a particular subset that I've tried to describe in prior posts. Among that population, it is my observation that black suits are generally not worn, and are often understood to communicate something unfavorable about the wearer - such as a newness to suits.

Now, if you find that state of affairs objectionable, so be it. Many things in the world are objectionable, and I don't know why this should be any exception. Alternatively, you could disagree with the accuracy of the statement, and contend that there is no such perception among that particular group. We would disagree as to a fact, and we might marshall evidence in support of our positions, or not. But I don't see how you can contend that I am being a bad person or a snob. You've confused my descriptive statements with normative ones.

* In the event that I misunderstand your outrage, and all you are upset about is my choice of words, there's not much I can (or want to) do about that. But if it makes you happier, you can substitute "I'm telling you how it is" for "I'm asserting it as a description of the world."

** Since you seem to be in an eager-to-be-offended mood, I suppose I had better make explicit that I do not mean to cast aspersions on bank presidents or car salesman by stating that they are two different things. I hate cluttering up a post with constant disclaimers of ill-intent, but it seems to be necessary in this instance.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser, I broadly agree with your post, although I would suggest to you that the group of people who do not wear, and would not have positive impressions of another's choice to wear, a black suit is much greater in number than the group of people who care about tuxedo lapel styles. Perhaps 10 times greater. Lapel notches are the sort of detail that is important to the clothing enthusiast, but scarcely noticed by non-enthusiasts. Black suits, OTOH, are noticed (or at least avoided) by many men who are not otherwise particularly keen on clothing. At least that has been my experience.


----------



## juffman

Hanzo said:


> Good question. For me personally, if I were to say that it looked 'bad' (and I'm not sure I'd use that phrasing, but I understand your question) it would be because I feel that the solid black color tends to look rather dull. There's no pattern, no variety of color, no depth of color and generally no texture difference. For the same reason that I generally don't like cotton suits, I find black suits to look boring and thereby, cheap. And when I use the word cheap, I don't mean inexpensive, but rather so cookie cutter and boring to appear to say "I have to wear a suit, so I bought one, this is the one with the least personality I could find so that I follow the rules but so I don't have to think about it". Which, I'm afraid, is exactly what's happening.


Great points. Going back to the depth and texture.... do you think that the quality of an expensive suit gets obscured when you get it in black?


----------



## JJR512

I think these guys look good. If they were ordinary businessmen and showed up for work in a corporate office dressed like this (sans sunglasses and guns), would I think they looked odd, or out of place? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that they look good.


----------



## Flanderian

CuffDaddy said:


> I do not mean to cast aspersions on bank presidents or car salesman


Why the heck not, it's well earned!

Frothy, *very* frothy.


----------



## Hanzo

juffman said:


> Great points. Going back to the depth and texture.... do you think that the quality of an expensive suit gets obscured when you get it in black?


To a degree, yes. Though, I think this can happen with any color, but more especcially with black. I think everyone here would agree that a solid charcoal or navy suit is very appropriate, but I think also that the material and the quality of the suit need to be very high simply due to the fact that there is nothing to distract the eye. The quality of the material is easier to observe because of this, so it needs to be better. In my opinion, black accentuates that in the same way that if you're going to have a vehicle painted black, it needs to be a good paint job because flaws are more obvious.

But more than an expensive suit being obscured by the color, I think its more like a cheap suit will look cheaper based on the color.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Hanzo said:


> I think everyone here would agree that a solid charcoal or navy suit is very appropriate, but I think also that the material and the quality of the suit need to be very high simply due to the fact that there is nothing to distract the eye. The quality of the material is easier to observe because of this, so it needs to be better.


I strongly agree with this proposition. The quality of construction and cloth, and the fit, of a plain/solid suit must be very good... it is an unforgiving arena.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks

CuffDaddy said:


> All that said, where I work - among white-collar, reasonably succesful professionals (I work in a law firm in a building mostly filled with bankers and lawyers and a few consultants, and spend time in corporate offices, other lawyers' offices, and court) - black suits are certainly the exception, and found disproportionately among the more junior employees. There are exceptions, but they are scattered.


Do the big guns in your building wear anything more adventurous than navy and grey? Just curious, I don't live in the corporate world myself.


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> What you're doing is like someone getting angry at the thermometer for indicating that it is unpleasantly hot outside.


We're misunderstanding each other. I'm not yelling at the themometer because it's hot outside, I'm yellling at the thermoter because it _says _its hot outside when it's not. Here's the statement we're twisting over. It's yours:



> Most of the rules/conventions/preferences discussed by American AAAC members are generally calibrated to speak the language of, and appeal to, people who have the cultural identity of being part of the affluent establishment. Solid black suits in the daytime are not reliably found in the "vocabulary" of this group.


You've said two things with that, neither of which I believe true. Unless I've been duped since September 11, 2007, I've never thought the forum to be the somewhat exclusive domain of those trying to worm their way into your _affluent establishment_ by aping their attire. Actually I'm fairly well convinced that a high degree of the membership here still live with their mom, down in the basement. And as much as you and some others here might believe/like it to be true, I don't believe there's much of a prohibition against black suits in the daytime by anyone anywhere. But I may just be be part of a demi monde that thinks that. That I, until a few hours ago, had never heard of any of this means little except if it makes me a total ignoramus. I will ponder that. Perhaps I am. Been called worse tho. Like by my mom just this morning when she called me up for breakfast. Cruiser, get the car. I may need a lift.


----------



## Mr. Knightly

I second everything CuffDaddy has said.

Among the establishment, black suits are not worn. You should understand the message that suits can send to these people, not because they are better, or because they have great taste, but because you may have to work with these people. You may want to be employed at an elite law firm or bank. You may want to do a deal with some of these people. You may want a post in government....then again, you may not. If you don't deal with these people, then you can thumb your nose at their snooty conventions. But at least know what you're doing.

An anecdote: In law school, many 1Ls show up with one black suit in tow. They replace it by the start of 2L year, and never wear black again.


----------



## CuffDaddy

PinkPlaidSocks said:


> Do the big guns in your building wear anything more adventurous than navy and grey? Just curious, I don't live in the corporate world myself.


Sure. Brown and olive are extremely common. Tan in summer. Many are biz-cas some part of the time.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Peak and Pine said:


> We're misunderstanding each other...
> You've said two things with that, neither of which I believe true... I've never thought the forum to be the somewhat exclusive domain of those trying to worm their way into your _affluent establishment_ by aping their attire... I don't believe there's much of a prohibition against black suits in the daytime by anyone anywhere... That I, until a few hours ago, had never heard of any of this means little except if it makes me a total ignoramus.


Yeah, we are talking past one another a bit, especially with regard to the first point. I do not contend that the membership of AAAC is entirely, or even predominantly, members of the affluent establishment (though they are well represented). I contend that most of the "rules" bandied about on AAAC are those "rules" that are calibrated to help individuals speak the sartorial language of that group, whether those individuals are themselves (already) members of that group or not. Just as most grammar and syntax rules taught in schools are calibrated to make the students speak/read/write the English language of the affluent and successful, even if the students are not themselves affluent or successful.

Secondly, one does not have to know the "rule" as such to follow it. Like many social norms, lots of rules of dressing go unspoken by anyone who does not have an unusual level of interest in those rules; like many social norms, those rules are nevertheless followed, and deviations therefrom noted. Many men just wouldn't pick a black suit, and just wouldn't think a black suit worn by another man looked appropriate. Whether they could/would reliably say "no black suits" would vary from man to man, but many would get an uncomfortable feeling. Again, not everyone knows the names of various parts of speech and tenses, but the well-spoken generally know a grammatically incorrect sentence when they hear it. They may not consciously think, "that ignoramus has failed to achieve agreement between his subject and verb." They will probably stop at "that ignoramus."

A black suit produces a very similar reaction in a generous percentage of the affluent successful. As others have pointed out, everyone is free to disregard that reaction. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## P Hudson

Interesting thread. I'd say that in downtown Sydney, 9 of 10 suits will be black. Shoes will be almost entirely unpolished rubber-souled black laceups. Now that I think about it, I don't even know where you could buy a shoe better than the low end of Florsheims in Sydney. The result is often a very shabby look, since an over-worn cheap black suit (which here wouldn't be all that cheap) quickly looks sloppy.

I really dislike the black suit (I had a good quality one, but soon gave it to a nephew). I suppose I'm biased, since my mother told me from when I was young to avoid black because it shows any and all dirt. 

I can't for the life of me figure out why poplin/khaki suits aren't more popular here, esp. in the summer.


----------



## monkeypie

This is mainly true for North American cultures, but anything less than formal conservative in Asian countries would be unusual. Take a look at cities such as Seoul, Tokyo, Hong Kong etc. and you will see black or dark navy suits or some variant 99% of the time, regardless of position. In fact it is much more common amongst the upper echelons to have a black suit (or variant, such as pin stripes). Most, if not all the non-black colors, such as grey, were worn by the western folks.


----------



## eagle2250

It was not so long ago that our doorbell sounded and, peering through the sidelights, I saw two, scrubbed clean young men, attired in black suits. Opening the door, we learned they were missionaries on a mission (of all things) to save our souls. I patiently explained that we were already members of a church. I think I experienced a case of the vapors, as my wife suggested the young fellows looked like they could use some refreshments, as they worked to save me from eternal damnation. Recovering quickly, I suggested we enjoy "our refreshments" and the message, not to be avoided, on our front porch. In spite of it being rather cold and damp that day, we heard what these fine gentleman had to say, sipping coffee, nibbling tea cakes and shivering on our front porch as these two "men in black" delivered their blessedly short(!) message. I swear, as they finished and got back in their innocuous white mini-van to leave, I saw one of them flip me "the bird", with some of the accumulated winter dust from our porch furniture clinging to the backs of their nice black suits! Alas, I confess being left with a dislike for black suits!


----------



## Sean1982

I don't wear all black suits, and a large majority people I see in suits are the same here in London, although I do see a fair few people in them (yes, Mormons are one of those groups!).

As others have said, it wasn't done in the past, and some people don't know 'the rules'. I'm not saying it's wrong to wear a black suit, but I am saying I don't personally like the look.


----------



## Mike Petrik

JJR512 said:


> I think these guys look good. If they were ordinary businessmen and showed up for work in a corporate office dressed like this (sans sunglasses and guns), would I think they looked odd, or out of place? Yes. That doesn't change the fact that they look good.


They would look odd, yes. I may wear some linen trousers with a madras shirt on Saturday and look quite good, but that wouldn't work for a corporate meeting either. These two look good for their roles -- not sure what other forum. Costumes often are that way.


----------



## Mr. Mac

I'm trying to imagine a group of executives sitting in a meeting (perhaps and informal one) discussing the fate of an employee who follows the _letter_ of the company dress code by wearing a suit and tie, but violates the _spirit_ of the company dress code by sneaking a black (or dark brown, or lighter gray) into the mix every now and then...

...and it's just not happening. I just can't conjure up such a bizarre scenario.

Good grief. All of the semantic nattering over 'appropriate' vs 'stylish' aside; outside of AAAC La-La-Land, a dark conservative suit (be it black, blue, brown etc.) will always be appropriate, acceptable, and stylish for a 'suit' office.


----------



## JJR512

Mr. Mac said:


> I'm trying to imagine a group of executives sitting in a meeting (perhaps and informal one) discussing the fate of an employee who follows the _letter_ of the company dress code by wearing a suit and tie, but violates the _spirit_ of the company dress code by sneaking a black (or dark brown, or lighter gray) into the mix every now and then...
> 
> ...and it's just not happening. I just can't conjure up such a bizarre scenario.
> 
> Good grief. All of the semantic nattering over 'appropriate' vs 'stylish' aside; outside of AAAC La-La-Land, a dark conservative suit (be it black, blue, brown etc.) will always be appropriate, acceptable, and stylish for a 'suit' office.


In fairness to the anti-black contingent, of which I am not necessarily a member, I feel I should point out that although no committee will be convened to discuss the fate of said employee, his behavior is most certainly being noticed and remembered. No, there may not be a committee as you describe, but when it comes time for raises, promotions, being put in charge of projects, etc., his black suits will be remembered.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mr. Mac, it's not that formal adverse employment action will be taken against a black suit wearer, and I agree that your scenario is preposterous. It's that a subtle impression will be left of not knowing how to fit in, of not being "polished," of being "a bit unsophisticated." Very few of those forming the impressions would even be aware of the black suit's role, and fewer still would say something about it. And these impressions can be overcome, given enough actual substantive interaction between the wearer and evaluator. But they can be very harmful in interview situations, or where the "big boss" doesn't get much exposure to more junior employees, or where one of the primary evaluative criteria is being a "good fit."


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Don't do Black.

Black is Whack!!


----------



## Thurnau

I am glad that real world findings prove that black is a more popular suit color that this forum lead me to believe in the past. I personally like black suits. I'm not a lawyer, or a funeral director. I am a small business owner who doesn't wear suits to work, but I do for an important business meeting. I am surprised to see such a strong dislike for a black suit. Despite its lack of originality, it lets a bad dresser look the best dressed in the room.

Also I never get many compliments on a sports coat. I got one compliment on a greenish brown Lauren sports coat in an airport by a guy, one on a grey sports coat by my step dad, and I get a compliment every time I wear my black one. Maybe black suits look better to the 30 something crowd that to the 40+ crowd. 

I think if my wife had her way, any suit I'd buy would be black too.


----------



## JJR512

WouldaShoulda said:


> Don't do Black.
> 
> Black is Whack!!


Many of the younger set see this as a positive.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Thurnau said:


> I am glad that real world findings prove that black is a more popular suit color that this forum lead me to believe in the past. I personally like black suits. I'm not a lawyer, or a funeral director. I am a small business owner who doesn't wear suits to work, but I do for an important business meeting. I am surprised to see such a strong dislike for a black suit. Despite its lack of originality, it lets a bad dresser look the best dressed in the room.
> 
> Also I never get many compliments on a sports coat. I got one compliment on a greenish brown Lauren sports coat in an airport by a guy, one on a grey sports coat by my step dad, and I get a compliment every time I wear my black one. Maybe black suits look better to the 30 something crowd that to the 40+ crowd.
> 
> I think if my wife had her way, any suit I'd buy would be black too.


My points exactly. All of them. The real world does not concur with AAAC. Also anyone in a suit regardless of colour will always (in the real world) be considered as looking more formal (not necessarily smarter or more stylish) than anyone in the most expensive, most exclusive blazer & tie rig.


----------



## Mr. Mac

I've dressed thousands of business men, accountants, lawyers, educators, politicians, physicians, bureaucrats, morticians, clergymen, and laborers, and have yet to meet a single one of them that felt a black suit (I'm not limiting the discussion to plain, solid black, but including softer blacks such as stripes, patterns, etc.) would be inappropriate for their line of work.


----------



## Srynerson

WindsorNot said:


> Warning: Suiting customs in America may differ from those abroad. I'd still prefer navy or charcoal in a business setting any day in the good old U S of A. Black suits also limit your tie colors.


Strange observation about ties. To me a black suit is the only color choice that gives you complete freedom to wear any color tie you'd like (subject only to the constraint of the shirt color).


----------



## JJR512

Srynerson said:


> Strange observation about ties. To me a black suit is the only color choice that gives you complete freedom to wear any color tie you'd like (subject only to the constraint of the shirt color).


You probably get the same freedom with a white suit, too. Although a black tie with a white suit may not look as good as a white tie with a black suit...


----------



## CuffDaddy

JJR512 said:


> [A] black tie with a white suit may not look as good as a white tie with a black suit...


The hell you say!


----------



## Billyjo88

I love my black suit. I am a professional. I am upper managment and would be the holder of meeting where people's close are critiqued. Have done just so for people who dress sloppy -- never had the color of suit come up as an issue. 

Black suit wearers of the world unite!


----------



## amplifiedheat

JJR512 said:


> You probably get the same freedom with a white suit, too. Although a black tie with a white suit may not look as good as a white tie with a black suit...


 Backwards. Ignoring cotton pique, a white satin tie with a black suit is rookie mistake #1.

To weigh in on the general debate: Of the well-dressed men I have known, forumites aside, I can't think of any who wear black suits. Of the guys I know in cheap off-the-rack suits, it's a substantial portion.

I never thought of 'no black suits' as an Internet-only rule. ('No bluchers with suits', on the other hand...) I remember as a young boy talking with my parents about the colors of suits, and it being explained that navy and grey were standard for suits, while black was reserved for tuxedos. This would have been sometime in the 90s.


----------



## JJR512

It astounds me that one could get to the upper management level without having a better grasp of grammar and spelling, i.e., "close" instead of "clothes".

This observation is not intended to pick on or belittle any one person, just the condition of the modern world in general.


----------



## JJR512

amplifiedheat said:


> Backwards. Ignoring cotton pique, a white satin tie with a black suit is rookie mistake #1.


This depends on context. In a business environment, you're absolutely correct. At a swanky nightclub, a white tie with a black suit could be just fine. It might be to _your_ taste and it might be something _you_ might not ever do, but it's not "wrong" in every imaginable situation.


----------



## ToryBoy

JJR512 said:


> In fairness to the anti-black contingent, of which I am not necessarily a member, I feel I should point out that although no committee will be convened to discuss the fate of said employee, his behavior is most certainly being noticed and remembered. No, there may not be a committee as you describe, *but when it comes time for raises, promotions, being put in charge of projects, etc., his black suits will be remembered*.


There is a photograph of our CEO and three main UK directors in our hallway, all four are in black suits; on our company website there are individual photographs of the four people, only one is wearing a non-black suit (navy). 
There are not many suit wearers in my company and most are in senior positions; but black is the most popular shade, although some do wear navy and grey suits.

Even at previous companies I have worked at, black suits were never frowned upon. One company had a strict dress code, the suit had to be conservative - which meant: black, navy, med or dark grey suit.


----------



## JJR512

I don't have anything against black suits, ToryBoy. I was just illustrating a point from the other side of the fence, what it could be like if the boss _did_ have something against black. In that hypothetical company, there might not be a business meeting to decide the fate of the black-wearer, but it is being noticed and remembered. But in a company like that, someone would probably find a way to quietly slip word to that guy that the bosses don't like it.


----------



## CuffDaddy

ToryBoy, FWIW, my understanding has always been that the view that black suits are gauche is more an American view than a British one. For many decades, Brooks Brothers did not offer a black suit at all (save a dinner suit), and BB is a particularly American institution (or was, until the last 20 years or whatever).


----------



## Cruiser

JJR512 said:


> I was just illustrating a point from the other side of the fence, what it could be like if the boss _did_ have something against black.


What if the boss didn't like wingtip shoes? Believe it or not, I once worked with a guy who absolutely hated wingtips. He would make derogatory comments about them whenever he saw them. I know, someone will say that it is more likely that you will encounter someone who hates black suits than someone who hates something else, like wingtips; however, after having spent over 35 years working with the coat and tie crowd, I heard exactly one more person express negative comments about wingtip shoes than I ever heard make similar comments about black suits.

In fact, the first time I ever heard anything negative about a black suit was in this forum, and this is still the only place where I've heard anything negative like that. I don't wear a black suit to work, but that's just a personal preference and has nothing to do with any pre-conceived negative connotations.

Cruiser


----------



## Billyjo88

JJR512 said:


> It astounds me that one could get to the upper management level without having a better grasp of grammar and spelling, i.e., "close" instead of "clothes".
> 
> This observation is not intended to pick on or belittle any one person, just the condition of the modern world in general.


Clever post and good point on grammar. I forgot we get extra credit for that in this forum and certainly appreciate the reminder.

By the way, proper grammar would have been to use "e.g." as opposed to "i.e." that was incorrectly used in your post. Based on the construction of your sentence, "i.e." would have been appropriate if and only if you were citing examples of both poor grammar AND poor spelling -- not either one alone. However, there is no need to alert the AAAC grammar police since this is a common grammatical error often made by people living in their mother's basement.

Of course, this observation is not intended to pick on or belittle any one person, just the condition of the modern world in general.


----------



## JJR512

Yes, I often get those expressions mixed up--and I've never even lived in my mother's basement.

Regarding the last statement of your post: When _I_ wrote it, I meant it sincerely. However, your penultimate sentence--particularly, the latter half--belies your final statement. I guess making thinly-veiled insults is what it takes to get to upper management these days? Maybe that's why I'm not there yet...Well, just one more example of the condition of the modern world, I suppose. How unfortunate.


----------



## P Hudson

I read again on Friday night, with this thread in the back of my mind, that John T Malloy (author of _Dress for Success_) asked a couple thousand respondents to suggest which twin was more authoritative. One was dressed in a black raincoat, the other in tan. The verdict was overwhelming that the tan-dressed man was more authoritative. Two things emerged (1) black was associated with "lower middle class" and tan with "upper middle class" (not my terms); and (2) they weren't really twins, just the same guy in different coats.

I suppose one might reply that (1) it is an inappropriate sample, (2) it is dated, (3) suits and raincoats have differing connotations.


----------



## Billyjo88

JJR512 said:


> I guess making thinly-veiled insults is what it takes to get to upper management these days? Maybe that's why I'm not there yet...


I think you may find that direct communication will get you to upper management much faster than making sarcastic side comments and not owning up to them. Again, more of an observation... 
:icon_study:

Onward and upward...and, most importantly, back to the black suit dialogue.


----------



## Mad Hatter

P Hudson said:


> I read again on Friday night, with this thread in the back of my mind, that John T Malloy (author of _Dress for Success_) asked a couple thousand respondents to suggest which twin was more authoritative. One was dressed in a black raincoat, the other in tan. The verdict was overwhelming that the tan-dressed man was more authoritative. Two things emerged (1) black was associated with "lower middle class" and tan with "upper middle class" (not my terms); and (2) they weren't really twins, just the same guy in different coats.
> 
> I suppose one might reply that (1) it is an inappropriate sample, (2) it is dated, (3) suits and raincoats have differing connotations.


A guess-I think the lighter color draws the eye, possibly leading to the impression of authority.

Black seems to be the default color for raincoats and topcoats, perceived as "working with everything". Tan is less common (in my world) and might by extension suggests a person confident in their dress and station.


----------



## JJR512

Billyjo88 said:


> I think you may find that direct communication will get you to upper management much faster than making sarcastic side comments and not owning up to them. Again, more of an observation...


I could not agree more. That is why when I say something, I endeavor to say exactly what I mean--nothing more, nothing less. Unfortunately (for me), this is a very foreign concept for many people, who insist on trying to decipher the hidden meanings and messages that simply aren't there. This seems to be happening with you right now, in fact. You seem to think that I've been making "sarcastic side comments" and have something to own up to, but this is not the case. I said everything I wanted to say. If you think I meant more than what I actually said, then I can assure you that you are mistaken.


----------



## ykurtz

Black suit threads seem to be the longest on the site. Or do I just feel that way?


----------



## P Hudson

Mad Hatter said:


> A guess-I think the lighter color draws the eye, possibly leading to the impression of authority.
> 
> Black seems to be the default color for raincoats and topcoats, perceived as "working with everything". Tan is less common (in my world) and might by extension suggests a person confident in their dress and station.


Do you think, then, that the class associations are meaningless? It wouldn't surprise me if somebody said that tan raincoats are a "waspy" color, while "ethnics" wear black. I can't picture George Will wearing a black raincoat, or for that matter George Pepard in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Of course, topcoats are different animals.

(I'm not trying to stir things up with "waspy" and "ethnic", just pursuing the question. Sorry if the language causes offense).


----------



## Mr. Mac

All this talk makes me want to go buy my first black suit.

I've resisted the urge all these years (and have a couple of suits to prove it); but the thought that by wearing a black suit in public, I may be the last straw in pushing some anal-retentive suit-colorist into going all Micheal Douglas in "Falling Down" on me is just too hard to resist.

I think I've been too spoiled lo these many years by not working for and with people and organizations which care how sharp you look, not what imaginary fashion rules you follow!


----------



## Peak and Pine

No one enjoys a good dust up on this forum more than me and I'm itching to get smack in the middle of this one, but JJR512 has been extraordinarily decent with me (I have him to thank for the tiny picture of Jack Paar up there to the left) and I don't yet know BillyJo enough to comment, but have no reason to believe he would be otherwise.

So I've decided pick on Cuff Daddy. He's a gentleman I have loudly praised often here, but can't tonight, since I think he's out of his head on this black suit thing. Cuff, an attorney apparently, appears to be conducting his own star chamber comprised of himself and himself. He will not relent and I truly believe that if he were to openly poll his associates who he says feel similar, he would find out they don't. I think his thoughts on this approach the bizarre and, except to the few here who seem to appreciate the view down his nose, do not reflect the opinion of the world at large or even at small. I think he proffers that which he wants to be true (tho I can't for the life of me guess why someone would want to take such a damning view of others and base it on the color of their suit). This whole black suit thing is completely new to me and I am not exactly a rube when it comes to dress. Cuff Daddy, give this up. It's not working.


----------



## CuffDaddy

P&P, I'll try to keep this brief.

1. I've told you several times that all I'm doing is describing the views of a substantial minority of men. The fact that you have been ignorant of these views until lately (and appear determine to remain so) does not change the accuracy of my description.

2. You urge me to "give [] up," because "it's not working," as though convincing me would do anything to the views/understandings I have described. Sorry, I don't have that kind of pull.

3. I'm hardly the first person to describe this phenomenon, and this forum is hardly the first place the views have been aired. To quote Will of ASW, "every other respected clothing writer of the second half of the twentieth century advises against black daywear." https://asuitablewardrobe.dynend.com/2010/06/black-is-for-evening.html Flusser's _Dressing the Man_ suggests no fewer than 20 different suiting fabrics, of which precisely zero are black. Roetzel similarly suggests various arrangements of blues and greys and others, but no black. Antongiavanni has been quoted earlier in the thread. For more than a _century_, Brooks Brothers, the prime purveyors of American establishment rectitude, declined to carry a black suit. The internets tell me (though I do not know for sure) that Amy Vanderbilt, the arbiter of etiquette, decreed that black suits were for servants and the dead.

Even this website, which overally defends the legitimacy of the black suit, acknowledges that there is substantial prejudice against it in many quarters, with the less hip crowd being especially ill-disposed towards it. https://www.ravistailor.com/customtailor/History_Of_The_Black_Suit_For_Men.htm And here's another commentary on the point: https://www.dailyxy.com/lead-stories/are-black-suits-tacky/

And, since this topic came up, I have been on the lookout for men in black suits. I do see them... and they are not in positions of authority or "prestige." I do not see them worn by men with whom I would be willing to trade places.

4. I sense that what really irks you is the classism implied in the matter. But most conventions of clothing have class and status tied up in them. All men's classic clothing echoes the clothing of upper-class Brits in the inter-war years, sometimes by way of the American Ivy League post-war.

I'll say it once again. Clothing is a language. Wearing a black suit for daytime business is a bit like adopting slang. In some circumstances, that's fine - particularly if you have standing, or need to be cool. In other circumstances, it's likely to be poorly received. I suggest that if the situation is one where ending sentences with "ya feel me, dog?" would be appropriate, so would a black suit - and vice versa.

All of the foregoing aside, though, in environments where people are wearing jeans to white-collar offices, and a sportcoat and knit tie generate questions about why someone is so "dressed up," the islands of people who take strong negative connotations from black suits are probably shrinking. In 20 years, if current trends hold, we'll all be wearing black spandex bodysuits with the legs cut off (ideally with some very dull scissors for lots of loose threads) mid-thigh - and I'll be pining for someone to come into my office in a cheap black suit.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Mr. Mac said:


> I've dressed thousands of business men, accountants, lawyers, educators, politicians, physicians, bureaucrats, morticians, clergymen, and laborers, and have yet to meet a single one of them that felt a black suit (I'm not limiting the discussion to plain, solid black, but including softer blacks such as stripes, patterns, etc.) would be inappropriate for their line of work.


Another voice from the real world, thank you Mr Mac, your input is very important.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Srynerson said:


> Strange observation about ties. To me a black suit is the only color choice that gives you complete freedom to wear any color tie you'd like (subject only to the constraint of the shirt color).


Although I'm questioning the validty of this forum's approach to black suits I have to agree with Windsorknot on this aspect. A light grey or a charcoal is far more versatile for ties. Because the black of a suit is far too stark for both very bright colours and very dark colours. You can't wear a navy tie or a bright yellow, gold, orange tie with a black suit without looking completely wrong in my opinion. A black suit limits you to mid-range colours and preferably multi-coloured stripes to offset the sharpness of a single coloured tie against the strength of the black suit.


----------



## 3holic

JJR512 said:


> In fairness to the anti-black contingent, of which I am not necessarily a member, I feel I should point out that although no committee will be convened to discuss the fate of said employee, his behavior is most certainly being noticed and remembered. No, there may not be a committee as you describe, but *when it comes time for raises, promotions, being put in charge of projects, etc., his black suits will be remembered*.


Utter nonsense. Raises and promotions are based primarily on merits and achievements, not the color of one's suit. Have you any corporate experience?



Mr. Mac said:


> All this talk makes me want to go buy my first black suit.
> 
> I've resisted the urge all these years (and have a couple of suits to prove it);* but the thought that by wearing a black suit in public, I may be the last straw in pushing some anal-retentive suit-colorist into going all Micheal Douglas in "Falling Down" on me is just too hard to resist.
> *
> I think I've been too spoiled lo these many years by not working for and with people and organizations which care how sharp you look, not what imaginary fashion rules you follow!


+1. I do have a black suit expressly for funerals. But it is of so-so quality. I may now go buy a good one -- and wear it in public in day time -- just to yank the chains of those old fogies.


----------



## Mad Hatter

P Hudson said:


> Do you think, then, that the class associations are meaningless? It wouldn't surprise me if somebody said that tan raincoats are a "waspy" color, while "ethnics" wear black. I can't picture George Will wearing a black raincoat, or for that matter George Pepard in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Of course, topcoats are different animals.
> 
> (I'm not trying to stir things up with "waspy" and "ethnic", just pursuing the question. Sorry if the language causes offense).


Class association relative to clothing? Sure, some people telegraph their life via their clothes; sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously. Insecurities or false perception drives most sartorial gaffes-although there is room to disagree.

Black is to me somewhat like what tan is to others-boring and safe. Not wrong, but overrelied upon and often misused. Only way I'd want a black suit would be as a DB, so at least I could express individuality within a confining color.


----------



## J.Marko

*Some clarification of the issues*

I can't help notice that of the two primary people arguing in this thread over whether there is a bias against dark suit for business wear, one is from New England (apparently), and the other is from Georgia. This is not surprising when you think of New England's historic aversion to class distinctions, and the South's relative embrace of such distinctions, largely for historical reasons. This may explain why more than a few people are getting hot about this issue - notice where people are and it seems to correlate somewhat to how angry they get about class distinctions (I noticed CA and TX don't seem to like class distinctions either). I am in Maryland/Virginia and have frequently noted class distinctions being drawn and being sometimes very important in the legal world.

These variations in regional vies on class are not new. I recall reading an incident from the American Revolution, where in a New England regiment an officer was personally giving shaves to the men in his unit (I won't say he was shaving his privates, because that comes across wrong . . . ). A general staff officer had to explain to the New England officer that such things were not done - the officer considered himself equal to the men and resisted the order. Such a thing would not be seen in one of the Southern regiments (including Maryland).

I think that P+P should acknowledge the possibility that CuffD may have observed something that P+P has not, for whatever reason.

There are several issues that are being conflated in this thread and I believe that is causing more friction than necessary, so I will try to tease them out and separate them:

1. Are there people outside of this forum that believe that black suits are appropriate to business?

2. Why do some people (even if just in this thread) believe that suits are not appropriate to business?

3. Are the reasons given valid? (e.g., do black suits look bad, or are they viewed as lower class?)

4. If black suits are not appropriate for business, why do so many people purchase and wear them?

5. Do people actually wear suits for business, and at what level?

5. Is this an outdated distinction, and is it now ok for people to wear them in business (I think this is, or should be, the main question)?

6. Is there a class distinction implicit in the belief that black suits are not to be worn for business?

That is just a few of the different questions that are getting all jumbled up here. I believe question 1 is a straightforwardly empirical question, and the answer is clearly yes, at least some people outside of this forum believe that black is not for business. I for one have been told that by several tailors and the guy that measured me for my MTM Tom James suit 15 years ago when I worked at a large national law firm in D.C.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe that black suits are popular because most people do not wear any kind of suit for business, although if they only occasionally need a suit for business, such as for a conference or presentation, they will reach for the lone black suit in their wardrobe. Also, obviously black looks good on people at least in some contexts - see dinner jacket (Tuxedo).


----------



## indieprep

In my opinion, black suits are good for one thing and one thing only, to attend funerals, or to the be the one being buried...And even in such ocasions, I preffer charcoal suits...


----------



## Finian McLonergan

What I found interesting about the OP's post was not that Asians predominantly wore black suits. As a previous poster mentioned their complexion works perfectly well with a black suit, whereas a typical Northern European ends up looking washed out in daytime, which is why those of us with such complexions who understand clothes will relegate black to evening wear. 

No, what I noted was the fact that most Asians wore suits while most Westerners did not. This I put down to the fact that modern Western society is overwhelmingly individualistic, as opposed to Asian societies which are group and consensus-driven.


----------



## mafoofan

Finian McLonergan said:


> No, what I noted was the fact that most Asians wore suits while most Westerners did not. This I put down to the fact that modern Western society is overwhelmingly individualistic, as opposed to Asian societies which are group and consensus-driven.


This is utter dribble. Aside from the grossly misinformed cultural generalizations you're making, you're also conflating suit-wearing with the issue of individuality. Just as many Americans and Europeans as Asians dress exactly as they do, suit or not, precisely because they care about fitting into groups. Need proof? See the Western fashion industry and the popularity of branding over substance.

As for black suits: whether they are 'right' or 'wrong' is far less important than the fact they are generally ugly. Aside from being the starkest of colors, and thus arguably the most difficult to complement, black also conceals texture and lacks tonal variation. Even worse, it tends to look washed out in daylight.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Great post, Mr. Marko. Lots of insight, along with a few things I would have liked to have said myself, if I hadn't been so fixated on responding to P&P's outrage.


----------



## Cruiser

I've never worked in Chicago or New York so I can't really speak to the general feelings in those areas about black suits for business. I have worked in Atlanta, Nashville, Baltimore, and Washington D.C., and I saw or heard nothing in those places that was even remotely indicative of the fact that wearing a black suit is a negative. Unless the suit is mustard or purple or something like that, I think it unlikely that you will encounter very many people in those places who give a hoot in hell what color your suit is. It's just a non-issue.

Clothing enthusiasts live and breathe clothing issues that go unnoticed by the world at large. I think that many find it difficult to accept the fact that their passion is of such little importance to most others. I'm not trying to infer that people don't think about clothing, of course they do; they just don't get so much into the details. 

I get it. A black suit is a big deal to most of you guys; but so is the type of lapel on your tuxedo. You think about these things, you anguish over them, you consult books to see what the "experts" have to say, you pay attention to what other guys are wearing; like I said, you live and breathe these issues. Most folks just don't care, and "most folks" are who you are generally dealing with out in the world.

To take this a step further, I wonder how many of the clothing enthusiasts of the world ever really consider that some of the things that clothing enthusiasts like don't always go over well outside of that small fraternity. For example, I've seen plenty of pictures posted in this forum of guys mixing colors and patterns of shirts, suits, and ties (I won't even get into some of those socks) that made me do a double take and wonder, "What in the world was he thinking when he put those things together," and then see other clothing enthusiasts here start talking about how good it looks.

Now let's play the odds. I suspect that one is far more likely to encounter an average guy when it comes to clothing during a business day than he is likely to encounter a clothing enthusiast like one finds in a forum such as this. What this means is that you are probably less likely to be on the receiving end of a negative thought wearing a black suit than you would be wearing some of the colors, combinations, and pattern mixing that one routinely sees here. Like I've said before, I've known more guys in my lifetime who think that only a rube wears brown shoes with a gray suit than I've known guys who think negatively about a black suit. 

Personally I don't wear a black suit for business nor do I wear brown shoes with a gray suit; however, I don't give it a second thought when someone else does either one. I suspect that is most likely how the world at large tends to look at these things; it doesn't really care one way or the other.

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512

3holic said:


> Utter nonsense. Raises and promotions are based primarily on merits and achievements, not the color of one's suit. Have you any corporate experience?


Yes, I've worked in corporate offices before. And it is foolish to believe that all promotions and raises are given solely on the basis of merits and achievements. If the boss doesn't trust men with blonde hair, and you have blonde hair, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like pink ties, and you wear pink ties, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like overweight women, and you're an overweight woman, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If your boss doesn't like homosexuals, and he suspects you're a homosexual, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like wingtips (to answer an earlier question), and you wear wingtips, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like black suits, and you wear black suits, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. On your review sheet, will the boss note the real reason you've been passed over for promotion or not given the maximum raise? No, of course not. Some plausible-sounding reason will be made up and written down. And of course, not all bosses are like this; most probably aren't. But to make a blanket statement that this doesn't happen is the true "utter nonsense" here.

I am not saying that this practice is right; it isn't. But it _does_ happen. To think otherwise, to think that you can _always_ be as creative with your dress as possible as long as you stay in within the letter of a company's rules, is foolish. *It pays to know not just what the written rules are, but what the unwritten rules are as well, and that's my overall point here.*


----------



## JJR512

Cruiser said:


> I get it. A black suit is a big deal to most of you guys; but so is the type of lapel on your tuxedo. You think about these things, you anguish over them, you consult books to see what the "experts" have to say, you pay attention to what other guys are wearing; like I said, you live and breathe these issues. Most folks just don't care, and "most folks" are who you are generally dealing with out in the world.


You are quite correct to observe that "most folks" don't care about the issues being discussed here, but what the "average member" here finds sad, I believe, is that this used to not be the case. It used to be that everyone would had cause to wear a suit (or better) at all knew what the "rules" were and at least tried to follow them. Now, it's just a fact of the modern world that this is no longer true.

But think about that from the point of view of the average member here. Should they realize that since most other people don't care, they may as well stop caring, too? Should they just give in to the old adage, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" Or should the average member here keep trying to keep the bar from sinking any further, should they keep trying to provide a positive example to the apathetic majority of humanity?


----------



## Billyjo88

Cruiser said:


> I've never worked in Chicago or New York so I can't really speak to the general feelings in those areas about black suits for business. I have worked in Atlanta, Nashville, Baltimore, and Washington D.C., and I saw or heard nothing in those places that was even remotely indicative of the fact that wearing a black suit is a negative. Unless the suit is mustard or purple or something like that, I think it unlikely that you will encounter very many people in those places who give a hoot in hell what color your suit is. It's just a non-issue.
> 
> Clothing enthusiasts live and breathe clothing issues that go unnoticed by the world at large. I think that many find it difficult to accept the fact that their passion is of such little importance to most others. I'm not trying to infer that people don't think about clothing, of course they do; they just don't get so much into the details.
> 
> I get it. A black suit is a big deal to most of you guys; but so is the type of lapel on your tuxedo. You think about these things, you anguish over them, you consult books to see what the "experts" have to say, you pay attention to what other guys are wearing; like I said, you live and breathe these issues. Most folks just don't care, and "most folks" are who you are generally dealing with out in the world.
> 
> To take this a step further, I wonder how many of the clothing enthusiasts of the world ever really consider that some of the things that clothing enthusiasts like don't always go over well outside of that small fraternity. For example, I've seen plenty of pictures posted in this forum of guys mixing colors and patterns of shirts, suits, and ties (I won't even get into some of those socks) that made me do a double take and wonder, "What in the world was he thinking when he put those things together," and then see other clothing enthusiasts here start talking about how good it looks.
> 
> Now let's play the odds. I suspect that one is far more likely to encounter an average guy when it comes to clothing during a business day than he is likely to encounter a clothing enthusiast like one finds in a forum such as this. What this means is that you are probably less likely to be on the receiving end of a negative thought wearing a black suit than you would be wearing some of the colors, combinations, and pattern mixing that one routinely sees here. Like I've said before, I've known more guys in my lifetime who think that only a rube wears brown shoes with a gray suit than I've known guys who think negatively about a black suit.
> 
> Personally I don't wear a black suit for business nor do I wear brown shoes with a gray suit; however, I don't give it a second thought when someone else does either one. I suspect that is most likely how the world at large tends to look at these things; it doesn't really care one way or the other.
> 
> Cruiser


Great post, Cruiser -- gem of the thread, IMHO. Thank you.


----------



## Blueboy1938

*"The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit"*

That title was made possible by the conventional thinking of the day - the '50s - of what was _the_ most appropriate wear for business. It was the cliché of the corporate "uniform". It seems to me that, as corporations no longer have quite the hold on their employees that was once the case, there is less adherence to corporate dress standards now than was hitherto the case. That means to me that less import is given by both management and employees to whether a person strives to make a good impression by appearances and more import given to making a difference. I think that both good managers and good employees realize that there is more at stake - especially in the current economic situation - to demonstrate and value good performance than simply meeting some probably unspoken appearance standard.

That being said, I believe that there is more latitude, even in the most conservative business environments, for dress variations, and that includes the wearing of a black suit.


----------



## JJR512

Blueboy1938 said:


> That means to me that less import is given by both management and employees to whether a person strives to make a good impression by appearances and more import given to making a difference. I think that both good managers and good employees realize that there is more at stake - especially in the current economic situation - to demonstrate and value good performance than simply meeting some probably unspoken appearance standard.


In the current economic situation, the smart employee will best demonstrate good performance by making sure that his or her good performance is his or her most outstanding quality, and that this quality will not be detracted from by going outside the standards, norms, or rules of the organization, including its dress code, written or unwritten.


----------



## Mr. Mac

JJR512 said:


> But think about that from the point of view of the average member here. Should they realize that since most other people don't care, they may as well stop caring, too? Should they just give in to the old adage, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" Or should the average member here keep trying to keep the bar from sinking any further, should they keep trying to provide a positive example to the apathetic majority of humanity?


I'm a member of AAAC and a menswear retailer, but I hardly feel qualified to deputize myself in some vigilante quest to write the rules of men's fashion - especially when the "rules" are ridiculous. Black suits are not a new invention. Lot's of well dressed men _who care_ wear them well on a daily basis. That point can't be argued.


----------



## MikeDT

I find it totally interesting how a colour of a suit could cause so much heated debate and argument. Personally, I would like to see more purple with bright day-glo pink polkadots suits.


----------



## JJR512

Mr. Mac said:


> Lot's of well dressed men _who care_ wear them well on a daily basis. That point can't be argued.


No, and I, personally, am not arguing that point. I happen to agree with it, in fact. As I said, that was more of a "devil's advocate" argument. I, personally, do not mind the black suit. I'm not going to wear one on a regular basis because I choose to reserve that color for mourning or formal wear; that's my personal preference, though, and I'm not going to think negatively about someone who chooses a different viewpoint. It's not that big of a deal to me; until recently, I didn't even know there was such a "rule", anyway.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Alright, let's recap. A bunch of guys say that, until AAAC, they'd never heard of any prohibition on black suits. Some of us respond with numerous non-AAAC sources indicating that black suits are "not the done thing." So I think we can definitively set aside the notion that the anti-black-suit sentiment is an iGent/AAAC invention.

Some more guys say that they see/sell/wear lots of black suits. Some of us on the other side of the generalized argument respond that, sure, black suits are very common. Just not very frequently on people who are of a certain class/achievement level. It's difficult to prove a negative, but I think it's notable that there have not been pictures posted of well-dressed captains of industry and aristocrats, etc., wearing black suits. (And I think posting pictures of what indisputably well- and classically-dressed men wear is the best way to "argue" on AAAC.)

Everything else seems to boil down to a bunch of personal experience. Some say they've never noticed a taboo against black suits. Others say that, in certain groups, black suits would raise an eyebrow. That seems to just be a difference of personal experience. But let me ask the black-is-fine crowd this: If you weren't "in the club," would the people who _are_ in the club be telling you all the rules of what makes one look like a member? Maybe you've never be let in on the secret about black suits because you wear them from time to time... 

Final note: I don't care for black suits, but I don't think they're "wrong." I have a hard time imagining clothing without swaskitas or the like being "wrong." Black suits have a communicative content different from grey and navy suits, and that content varies from "listener" to "listener." Everybody has to decide if they want to communicate the message that comes with a black suit.


----------



## lizardking

If I only had an hour to live, I would put on a black suit and read this thread. It would seem like an eternity.


----------



## lt114

Black suits are not worn regularly where I live for anything other than funerals. The few people I've seen that tried to pull it off all looked like undertakers. When you think about it, it's hard not to look like a mortician when you wear a black suit for business wear, because the variety of shirts and ties you can wear with a black suit are limited. As someone else said, it is invariably hard to compliment a black suit.


----------



## JJR512

CuffDaddy said:


> iGent


Did you just invent this term? Or is it already established? :biggrin:


----------



## CuffDaddy

I wish I could take credit for it. Alas, it is not my creation.


----------



## ZachGranstrom

lizardking said:


> If I only had an hour to live, I would put on a black suit and read this thread. It would seem like an eternity.


Best response on this thread......


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> Alright, let's recap. A bunch of guys say that, until AAAC, they'd never heard of any prohibition on black suits. Some of us respond with numerous non-AAAC sources indicating that black suits are "not the done thing." So I think we can definitively set aside the notion that the anti-black-suit sentiment is an iGent/AAAC invention.


Not necessarily. I'm one of those who wasn't aware of this negative black suit idea and this is based not on something I read, but rather on 40 years in the work force. In other words, it's what I observed.

On the other hand the "numerous non-AAAC sources" are esentially the opinions of other clothing enthusiasts in other mediums. Heck, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that this bias against black is present among this group. Remember, AAAC isn't the only source out there for info directed at clothing enthusiasts. What we're saying is that this bias isn't found in the general public where almost all of us spend our work days. That's probably why I didn't know anything about it because, like most of the general public, I didn't seek out information from clothing enthusiasts.

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512

Peak and Pine said:


> So what you're saying is that the contributions of Cuff, Cruiser, JJR512, Billy Jo (I like to put those two next to each other), Mr. Mac, Marko, the Earl and myself are what, chopped liver?


Speaking for only myself (tossing out all the other names on that list), I would have to say the answer to that question is "Yes". I didn't really contribute any value to this particular conversation. All I really said from my own point of view is that I am not really against black suits in general. I also presented a devil's advocate argument to illustrate that if an employer really didn't like black suits, he or she could find a way to hold it against an employee, whether consciously or not, even without doing it directly and openly.


----------



## Peak and Pine

A dial-up connection combined with a summer lightning storm here in the very tippy top of the northeast does not for fast post deletion make. Justin refers to a ghost post originally put up as a response to Zach, but Cruiser ruined the juxtaposition, so's I took her down. It wasn't much anyway.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser, may I suggest to you that the line between "clothing enthusiasts" and "the general public" is not as clear as you seem to think. Clothing enthusiasts are members of the general public, and many of them are members of the work force.

Moreover, I do *NOT* agree that the anti-black-suit sentiment is confined to "clothing enthusiasts." I work with many different lawyers in my firm, and except for some summer clerks and brand new lawyers, do not recall _ever_ seeing a black suit, even among those who are decidedly *not* clothing enthusiasts. To some people, the black suit issue is percieved as one of class, not clothing enthusiasm. These people would form a more favorable impression of someone in a rumpled, ill-fitting grey suit than an immaculately tailored black suit. That's not my view, but I'm telling you that it is a real view in the real world by people who have never been on AAAC. And that view is what the authorities are drawing on. They're not making up the "rules" from scratch.

I would think that my long track record of arguing that one AAAC "rule" or another is _not_ a rule in the real world (see, e.g., bluchers-with-suits; no-unbuttoning-SB-jackets-when-standing; no-unbuttoning-DB-jackets-when-seated; ties-must-all-end-at-the-waistband, etc.) would have earned me some credibility. Apparently not. Oh well.


----------



## Mad Hatter

> But let me ask the black-is-fine crowd this: If you weren't "in the club," would the people who _are_ in the club be telling you all the rules of what makes one look like a member? Maybe you've never be let in on the secret about black suits because you wear them from time to time...


Let me guess, it'll be cast as sparing their feelings to withold this? Something that their career track and social circle seems to hinge in some way upon? Not cool.

Would you tell one of the navy-suited insiders if they had a booger on their nose? Decency dictates letting someone know if there's something amiss. Lack of conviction or stones means you don't.

I'm not getting involved in the propriety of black suits, nor class stratification. I made it clear I'm ambivalent about black suits and having been in the military I'm fine with dress distinctions. If it's an impediment to acceptance, help them out.


----------



## amplifiedheat

Cruiser said:


> On the other hand the "numerous non-AAAC sources" are esentially the opinions of other clothing enthusiasts in other mediums. Heck, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that this bias against black is present among this group. Remember, AAAC isn't the only source out there for info directed at clothing enthusiasts. What we're saying is that this bias isn't found in the general public where almost all of us spend our work days. That's probably why I didn't know anything about it because, like most of the general public, I didn't seek out information from clothing enthusiasts.


Pre-AAAC, these were some of my understandings, gleaned from neither books nor dandies:
1)shoes with suits should be dark lace-ups
2)notch lapels are not wrong _per se_, but peak and shawl lapels are nicer
3)never button the bottom button of a jacket
4)business suits are mostly navy or gray


----------



## Billyjo88

CuffDaddy said:


> To some people, the black suit issue is percieved as one of class, not clothing enthusiasm. These people would form a more favorable impression of someone in a rumpled, ill-fitting grey suit than an immaculately tailored black suit. That's not my view, but I'm telling you that it is a real view in the real world by people who have never been on AAAC.


I do not have any basis to disagree with you, CD, so I will not. I just find I this this statement so very counter to my own personal experience. I have sat in the so-called star chamber and have had many a conversation about improperly attired staff (too casual, too sloppy, too revealing, and too ill-fitting), but color of suits has never come up. I suppose each office environment has its own standards and norms...and perhaps I have simply dodged this bullet in my own career.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mad Hatter said:


> Let me guess, it'll be cast as sparing their feelings to withold this? Something that their career track and social circle seems to hinge in some way upon? Not cool... If it's an impediment to acceptance, help them out.


Uh, what do you think I'm doing???


----------



## CuffDaddy

Billyjo88 said:


> I have sat in the so-called star chamber and have had many a conversation about improperly attired staff (too casual, too sloppy, too revealing, and too ill-fitting), but color of suits has never come up.


Of course not. Likewise, very, very few employers would hold a pre-performance review meeting to talk about how a staff member accent sounded lower-class, or about how fat or short they were. Yet there is tons of evidence that each of those things has the potential to be a serious drawback in a professional career, even where none of them is directly related to job requirements.

I'm not suggesting that people sit around talking about their underlings' black suits. This issue is one that takes place at the level of the subconscious and barely-conscious, and would very rarely be spoken aloud. (Although I have heard one remark after an interview with an otherwise-_un_impressive candidate, "How about that black suit?" draw some chuckles.)

Likewise, people don't ever talk about how short a managerial candidate is, but the unfortunate, reprehensible, grossly unfair fact of life is that some significant percentage of the population will perceive a taller person to be more of a "leader" than an otherwise-identical candidate. The fact that it is unspoken, or that some people don't have that impression, doesn't mean that it's not a very real phenomenon. Now, we can't make ourselves taller, but we can leave off the black suit... why wouldn't we?


----------



## Mad Hatter

CuffDaddy said:


> Uh, what do you think I'm doing???


Don't know, other than this in a post on page three of this thread


> Second, I'm not sure you'll find me telling anyone that black suits are "wrong."


.

If you are helping them, then good on you.


----------



## uman

The length and intensity of this thread proves to me that the subject is a very central one in the discussion about men's style - the allure, the relevance and the meaning of certain colours of the formal suit. 
My personal perspective is that of a European clothing enthusiast in his late 50's. 
From this point of view, I feel an almost instinctive dislike for solid black suits. Although there could be many personal roots for this attitude, rationally I believe in the evolution of mens' costume as a positive force that cannot be reversed. For this reason I think that black suits belong to an era that has been surpassed in the evolution of men's taste and social context. For those of you who may not have read it, I would suggest a very solid book that talks about this subject in depth: _Men in Black_, by John Harvey (1996). There it becomes clear that black was _the colour of social immobility _in the Victorian age, to express belonging to a specific class or loyalty to strict tradition/rules. For precisely the same reasons black (which technically is not even a "colour") is ideal for evening wear; as it comes across from another interesting piece of literature: the catalog of an exhibition that recently took place in Australia, _Black in Fashion: from Mourning to Night_ (2008). 
This is the "meaning" (in the sense expressed by Cuff Daddy) that I personally attribute to black and the reason why I find it useless in a modern daytime wardrobe; but probably for these same reasons it is beloved by a certain "avant-garde" fashion.


----------



## ZachGranstrom

uman said:


> The length and intensity of this thread proves to me that the subject is a very central one in the discussion about men's style - the allure, the relevance and the meaning of certain colours of the formal suit.
> My personal perspective is that of a European clothing enthusiast in his late 50's.
> From this point of view, I feel an almost instinctive dislike for solid black suits. Although there could be many personal roots for this attitude, rationally I believe in the evolution of mens' costume as a positive force that cannot be reversed. For this reason I think that black suits belong to an era that has been surpassed in the evolution of men's taste and social context. For those of you who may not have read it, I would suggest a very solid book that talks about this subject in depth: _Men in Black_, by John Harvey (1996). There it becomes clear that black was _the colour of social immobility _in the Victorian age, to express belonging to a specific class or loyalty to strict tradition/rules. For precisely the same reasons black (which technically is not even a "colour") is ideal for evening wear; as it comes across from another interesting piece of literature: the catalog of an exhibition that recently took place in Australia, _Black in Fashion: from Mourning to Night_ (2008).
> This is the "meaning" (in the sense expressed by Cuff Daddy) that I personally attribute to black and the reason why I find it useless in a modern daytime wardrobe; but probably for these same reasons it is beloved by a certain "avant-garde" fashion.


I really enjoyed reading your response...


----------



## CuffDaddy

Mad Hatter said:


> Don't know, other than this in a post on page three of this thread .
> 
> If you are helping them, then good on you.


Oh, you misunderstand me entirely. When I say I won't tell anyone that black suits are "wrong," it's because I don't really believe in that word as applied to clothes. But I have no hesitation in slipping the word to I know/like and who will listen that black suits are a risky choice for business, since they have a connotation to some people as being tacky, or louche, or hip-not-classic. If they choose to run that risk, that's their decision. Although, to be frank, that _particular_ point has never come up, because I've never worked with a young lawyer with a preference for black suits. I've clued a couple of them in to other points of things not to wear, though.

And, I hope it goes without saying, if I knew someone well enough to have that conversation with them, neither their choice of suit color nor any other aspect of their dress would influence my opinion of them. I may have come off as some sort of snob in this thread, and that surely was not my intent. As I took some pains to explain earlier in the thread, I am not saying that *I *hold black suits against people... just that I am aware that some others do, usually at a subconscious level.

Finally, and to bring our little exchange full circle, part of the reason for my (frankly exhausting) participation in this thread is that young men seeking enlightenment sometimes come to AAAC seeking advice. While I do not hold myself out as any sort of arbiter or absolute authority, I thought that this thread needed a counterweight to those who say "black is fine, don't worry about it." From my perspective, that advice may not be sound, depending upon the goals and circumstances of the reader. But my advice and thinking has been laid out. I tire of defending it against those say "nuh-_uh_" over and over again.


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> To some people, *the black suit issue is percieved as one of class,* not clothing enthusiasm... *That's not my view, *but I'm telling you that it is a real view in the real world...


Yes it is. It is your view. Go back and reread yourself. You're not writing as a fly on the wall, observing and chronicling the eccentric minutiae of upper crust Atlantans. What you say they say is actually what you yourself say. You have set up this sartorial star chamber here on line because one in real life won't wash. But prove me wrong. Sit down with this bunch in your building and say to them straight out, say: real-life fellas, I just told my on-line buds that I've never, ever seen even one of you in a black suit ever and I mean ever, is that because, like me, you feel it sends a dirty, low class message? Get back to us on that.

Here in the High Northeast, it's sometimes said that certain of us dress like Kennedys. That wording is not quite correct. There's no aping quality about it. We, Kennedys included, dress in a somewhat neglectful manner and who knows who came first with this. The question is pondered only here; no one openly speaks of this, but not because we are sworn to keep it sub rosa. It just never comes up, dress as that vocabulary that you so often speak of, the vocabulary of that second language of snoot. Politics may come into play here tho; we are quite Liberal in the High Northeast; many colors among us, both suits and people and the black suit peppers in every so often. I have a black linen one I well wear once this season. The only admonition against black that I've ever heard up here, and I've heard it only twice and many years apart, was that a black suit is too powerful, too majestic, too striking, but very, very sweet. I added the sweet part. I never actually heard that one.

And to Uman, those books you just mentioned about black suits, I'll be sure to order me a few of those because I wanna be like you; I wanna _believe in the evolution of mens' costume as a positive force that cannot be reversed._ I wanna talk like that. Maybe spill a little vodka on my black linen as I do.


----------



## DavidLeoThomas

lizardking said:


> If I only had an hour to live, I would put on a black suit and read this thread. It would seem like an eternity.


An eternity wearing a black suit...


----------



## Mad Hatter

CuffDaddy said:


> Oh, you misunderstand me entirely. When I say I won't tell anyone that black suits are "wrong," it's because I don't really believe in that word as applied to clothes. But I have no hesitation in slipping the word to I know/like and who will listen that black suits are a risky choice for business, since they have a connotation to some people as being tacky, or louche, or hip-not-classic. If they choose to run that risk, that's their decision. Although, to be frank, that _particular_ point has never come up, because I've never worked with a young lawyer with a preference for black suits. I've clued a couple of them in to other points of things not to wear, though.
> 
> And, I hope it goes without saying, if I knew someone well enough to have that conversation with them, neither their choice of suit color nor any other aspect of their dress would influence my opinion of them. I may have come off as some sort of snob in this thread, and that surely was not my intent. As I took some pains to explain earlier in the thread, I am not saying that *I *hold black suits against people... just that I am aware that some others do, usually at a subconscious level.
> 
> Finally, and to bring our little exchange full circle, part of the reason for my (frankly exhausting) participation in this thread is that young men seeking enlightenment sometimes come to AAAC seeking advice. While I do not hold myself out as any sort of arbiter or absolute authority, I thought that this thread needed a counterweight to those who say "black is fine, don't worry about it." From my perspective, that advice may not be sound, depending upon the goals and circumstances of the reader. But my advice and thinking has been laid out. I tire of defending it against those say "nuh-_uh_" over and over again.


Fair enough. Despite some insisting you have an elitist perspective, I comprehend the sentiments and think you're not disparaging the wearer. And my post wasn't phrased antagonistically; I see you understood it wasn't.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Peak and Pine said:


> Yes it is. It is your view. Go back and reread yourself.


First of all, no thanks. It was quite painful enough to write it... re-reading it sounds unbearable.

Second, only on the internet would person A have the temerity to tell Person B what their Person *B's* views are over B's objections, and then tell Person B how wrong they are for having those views. Tiresome in the extreme.


----------



## JJR512

CuffDaddy said:


> Second, only on the internet would person A have the temerity to tell Person B what their Person *B's* views are over B's objections, and then tell Person B how wrong they are for having those views. Tiresome in the extreme.


I've been doing this online message board thing for over then years...posted well over three dozen thousand messages on at least a dozen and a half message boards...and people telling me what I meant, and arguing with me over it, happens to me all the time.  May as well get used to it.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> Cruiser, may I suggest to you that the line between "clothing enthusiasts" and "the general public" is not as clear as you seem to think. Clothing enthusiasts are members of the general public, and many of them are members of the work force.


Of course clothing enthusiasts are members of the general public and of course they are members of the work force. I've never suggested otherwise. The only point that I've made is that the portion of the general public that even thinks enough about suit colors is so small that it really shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not to wear a black suit.

I suspect that there are more folks out there who think brown shoes look bad with a gray suit than there are folks who think bad things about someone wearing a black suit; however, I doubt that this is going to stop a clothing enthusiast from wearing brown shoes with a gray suit. Nor should it.

I've known more people who think it is tacky to mix any shade of green, including light olive, with any shade of blue, including navy. In fact I would bet that there are more people in the world who know this "rule" about not mixing green and blue than know most of the rules mentioned in this forum. Is that going to stop a clothing enthusiast from mixing blue and green? Of course not, but I will admit that I was in my 50's before I could bring myself to do this because this is something that you just didn't do. Sounds silly now, doesn't it? Heck, tomorrow I'm going to wear a light green checked shirt with my navy blazer and if some out there thinks it looks bad, I'm not going to worry about it.

Remember, my boss told me once that my vest looked tacky because I forgot to button the bottom button. People who don't know the rules become bosses too.

My point is, if anyone thinks a black suit looks bad, then don't wear a black suit; but they shouldn't suggest to others that it is because they think the world around them will form a negative opinion of them. It won't. Obviously if you work in an environment where a black suit is frowned upon, then you don't need someone in a forum to tell you that it would probably be better if you chose another color; but just because you work in that environment doesn't mean that others do also. A few probably do, but most don't. I've been out there for forty years and never encountered a black suit bias.

Cruiser


----------



## expressingmyself

I jumped in a little ways back, and then saw this thing getting bumped and wondered "what could they possibly still be talking about?" Well, here I am, questions answered -- and I have to say that I learned a little something. I'll be a little more judicious with my use of black going forward.


----------



## J.Marko

CuffDaddy said:


> . . .black suits are a risky choice for business, since they have a connotation to some people as being tacky, or louche, or hip-not-classic.


I hope you will forgive me for using such a short quote, but for me it encapsulates what many people on this board seem to think about black suits - especially the "hip-not-classic" remark. I suppose that this comment, in one swoop, could explain why black has become very popular in the department stores, and why it is not always well favored among the elite in business it is "hip".

I for one would rather be classic than hip, although I love it when classic is hip again (that is how I feel about side vents on jackets, by the way).

I want to thank you for your carefully worded posts and the pains you have taken to say that you do not share the opinion that black is tacky or shows that someone comes from the lower classes, but that some do feel this way. If it si true that some people in business feel this way, this is useful information for people to hear - similar to other so called 'rules' one hears on this forum. If it is not true, than someone needs to come up with a better argument against it than "no it isn't". I would not be surprised at all if it is true, and you have quoted numerous published sources that seem to agree.

I think someone could go through this entire thread and substitute "squared toed rubber soled shoes" for "black suit" and it would match pretty well, although there would be more agreement that such shoes are not very well regarded in business by those in the know. That they are hip, fashionable and not so great would be agreed to by many on this board. Black suits seem a bit more questionable, perhaps any stigma remaining from Victorian morning wear is finally beginning to fade in the business world (or has mostly faded, depending on which side of this argument one is on).

Anyway, I thought I would add another historical note. From what I understand, in women's wear, the little black dress was introduced by Coco Chanel in the 20s, and it was fashionable in part because it broke the taboo against wearing black when a woman was not in morning. I am not sure if this is true, but it is out there. The reason why I am not sure it is true is that I have also read that black became fashionable during the Victorian era because the Queen was perpetually in morning, so the use of black spread. Not an expert on Victorian fashion, so please forgive my throwing this stuff out there and seeing if it sticks. Not sure it adds anything to this conversation, but I am not paying by the word so what the heck.


----------



## J.Marko

JJR512 said:


> I've been doing this online message board thing for over then years...posted well over three dozen thousand messages on at least a dozen and a half message boards...and people telling me what I meant, and arguing with me over it, happens to me all the time.  May as well get used to it.


I agree. I have also notice that often the more diplomatic I try to be, the more offended some people become. Sometimes it is best to just let people have it.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Ooh my God Igor, what have I created? It's a monster! 

And the villagers are on their way!


----------



## JJR512

J.Marko said:


> I hope you will forgive me for using such a short quote...


In my opinion, not only is it forgivable, it's applaudable. Not necessarily referring to AAAC specifically, but looking back over my vast experience of participating in online message boards, I'd have to say that many people do not seem to realize it's possible or allowable to edit down a quote to the portion to which one is responding. No need to take up space by quoting 20 lines of text if one is only responding to one particular point in it, in other words.


----------



## Mike Petrik

First, having been too busy to join this contest earlier I would just like to convey a sincere thanks to CuffDaddy for saving me from having to make all the fine points he made.

Second, while I certainly appreciate that some folks like black suits (it is a free country, still), and I'd be the last to ridicule them for it, I find the idea that the objection to black suits is a contrived innovation of certain members of the forum to be incompatable with the idea of being informed about men's clothing. The view that black (solid, as opposed to pin striped) is an inappropriate color for a business suit has been around for many decades. Indeed, I think it has been pointed out that Brooks Bros did not even offer such a suit until fairly recently. (And if you are interested in purchasing a solid black business suit from Brooks Brothers you would do well to avoid the older very experienced staff, who I assure you will try unsuccessfully to hide their haughty air of disapproval). Now, one can certainly assert that this view is a poor one and deserves jettisoning, but it simply is not tenable to suggest that the idea is an idiosyncracy of a few members of this forum. 

Finally, I find few things less helpful than trying to settle arguments by counting noses and taking polls. Sure, many men (probably most men under 30) now wear their trousers at their hips rather than at their waist. Fine, as Cuff would point out, there is nothing "wrong" with that -- it is neither illegal nor immoral (unless perhaps if one's butt crack is showing, which is simply disgusting). Nonetheless, I continue to think that it is shows poor judgment. But there will always be people who are perfectly comfortable saying inanities like "I could care less" or "irregardless" precisely because they can show that such inanities have wide currency, just as there will always be a minority who know better and advise their friends and loved ones to know better.


----------



## David_E

Just a quick observation from driving through downtown Chicago last week (been too busy to post recently).

In the lunch hour rush, in the financial district and a few other parts of down town, it was at least 25-1 black vs any other color of suit - all ages, all levels of prestige. I saw exactly 2 blue suits. (post recession when all excuses to lay people off have already been exhausted)

Maybe its just a Chicago thing (I HAVE noticed that Chicago business dress tends to be very dark, all year round) but pragmatically it appears the safest suit color to wear to work *here* is black.

I've been watching the suits the gents on TV wear on our local channels. At least one anchor on each program is wearing a black suit each day.

All our politicians wear black frequently.

Most of the high profile lawyers (when appearing on TV) wear black.

My lawyer usually wears black.

The president, CIO, and Chancellor at my institution usually wear black suits on "public appearance" days.

I saw one of the attorney's in the Blago case wearing a frigging black blazer for goodness sake.

The upper brass in my wife's company - lots of black suits.

I'm not saying I like it, but __for Chicago__ I would not advise wearing anything OTHER than black to an interview as it is the absolute safest color (here). If you can't bear to wear it, then go for a very dark charcoal and hope they just assume its black. If your interview panel are all wearing brown, blue, and gray, then make sure you switch to something different for your second interview.

Now obviously I haven't done a scientific study, just what I see down town, on the streets, and on the news in the 3rd biggest city in the US. (and definitely the most "mainstream" of the 3. OK yeah that's debatable lets not get sidetracked.)

Any other Chicago members want to chip in? I'd really like to see some evidence that my observations are incorrect as I don't really want to go buy a black suit before I start interviewing again. (Evidence please, not opinion or belief).

There was another post earlier that mentioned that this might be a regional thing. I strongly suspect that the sartorially "right" choice is far more location specific than we would like to believe.

Finally one final *opinion*: If your working in a place where they take your suit color into consideration when thinking about your place in the company, run, run fast and far. Those are scary creepy people and I at least would not want to work for them. If the company lets people like that get to positions of power, I wouldn't even want to associate with that organization - its corporate culture has gone to rot and its probably not long for the world.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Very interesting, David. I've spent a bit of time in Chicago for work and never noticed that particular phenomenon, but I haven't been in about 3 years... maybe it has come on strong of late. But now that I think about it, I had a trial a few years ago here in Atlanta. All the lawyers on my side were from ATL. On the other side of the case were a mixture of lawyers from ATL and from Chicago. The opposing male ATL lawyer never wore a black suit (although he did wear oxblood and black saddle shoes, which I thought was interesting), but the Chicago lawyer did wear a black suit several days. The judge was not a fan of his, but it had more to do with his arguments and demeanor than his suit color. 

As for not working someplace that takes suit color into consideration, that sounds good if you say it fast, but I doubt you mean it. If you wore an *electric blue suit* or a *royal purple* one (Steve Harvey-style), would you expect it to have no impact on your ability to move into upper management? Of course suit colors can and do matter, and it does _not_ reflect poorly on an employer that they do so. The only question is whether black is in the acceptable collumn. You make a good case for it being acceptable in your neck of the woods.


----------



## Mr. Moo

This is a racist thread and I am reporting it to High Chancellor Andy. A shame, all of you.


----------



## Peak and Pine

David_E said:


> Finally one final *opinion*: If your working in a place where they take your suit color into consideration when thinking about your place in the company, run, run fast and far. If the company lets people like that get to positions of power, I wouldn't even want to associate with that organization.


Wish you had PM'd me before writing that. I would have then bought it from you and put my name on it, which apparently is now just "Person A", if you checked out the Daddy post above. (I of course know you're not talking about electric blue or royal purple, but I did enjoy his font colors.)


----------



## J.Marko

I have a dark navy suit that apparently looks black. Often I see TV news people wearing what I think is black on my HD TV, but when I look closer I see it is charcoal or dark navy. I am not saying all those black suits are not really black, but perhaps some of them are not. I suppose it doesn't matter much though, if it looks black it might as well be black. 

As for racism, I reject the notion that suits can be classified by race - I believe each suit should be judged on its own merits, and color.


----------



## DavidLeoThomas

Something I find interesting is the tendency of people to think that clothing having influence over hiring/advancement/acceptance/etc must necessarily be conscious to be occurring at all. If you don't look good in what you're wearing - or if you look like you should be at the club rather than your place of business - how can that do anything but hurt you? Should it be a significant factor? No, of course not. Will it be? Probably not. Will it have any impact at all? Probably! People are not strictly rational - taller people are paid more, better looking people are paid more. It is not at all ridiculous to suggest that clothing could have a similar impact.

So how does this fit into the present argument? Well, those cautioning against wearing a black suit in a business setting are warning about this kind of effect. Those dismissing it out of hand are wrong to do so. This is not to say that the warning is accurate - that's an empirical question, and I certainly haven't got the data to answer it.

Now, personally I don't tend to find a black suit appealing in the daytime, on myself or other caucasian men. Perhaps this is an intrinsic aesthetic judgement, or perhaps it's conditioning - who's to say? It certainly informs my wardrobe, however.


----------



## Fraser Tartan

Mr. Moo said:


> This is a racist thread and I am reporting it to High Chancellor Andy. A shame, all of you.












Smiles, Mr. Moo! Smiles!


----------



## P Hudson

David_E said:


> Just a quick observation from driving through downtown Chicago last week (been too busy to post recently).
> 
> In the lunch hour rush, in the financial district and a few other parts of down town, it was at least 25-1 black vs any other color of suit - all ages, all levels of prestige. I saw exactly 2 blue suits. (post recession when all excuses to lay people off have already been exhausted)
> 
> Maybe its just a Chicago thing (I HAVE noticed that Chicago business dress tends to be very dark, all year round) but pragmatically it appears the safest suit color to wear to work *here* is black.
> 
> I've been watching the suits the gents on TV wear on our local channels. At least one anchor on each program is wearing a black suit each day.
> 
> All our politicians wear black frequently.
> 
> Most of the high profile lawyers (when appearing on TV) wear black.
> 
> My lawyer usually wears black.
> 
> The president, CIO, and Chancellor at my institution usually wear black suits on "public appearance" days.
> 
> I saw one of the attorney's in the Blago case wearing a frigging black blazer for goodness sake.
> 
> The upper brass in my wife's company - lots of black suits.


This doesn't surprise me. Black is the current "power suit". It is the suit you wear if you want people to recognize your authority/power. It is a suit that makes a statement. It is thus the antithesis of Ivy League--where soft shoulders and a sack silhouette were fine, because the wearer wasn't trying to tell anybody that he was important or that he belonged. He knew it, and that was enough. Maybe the prevalence of black suits represents the ascendancy of the aspirational at the expense of...well, you know. If so, while I still wouldn't wear one, I'm ok with that.


----------



## Peak and Pine

DavidLeoThomas said:


> If you don't look good in what you're wearing - or if you look like you should be at the club rather than your place of business - how can that do anything but hurt you? Should it be a significant factor? No, of course not. Will it have any impact at all? Probably!


I believe you've spoken truth. As have most of the posters here, especially those on 'the other' (and prevalent, it seems) side of this; truth, that is, as concerns what one's clothing choice may say about them. The only probably here is with the one specific item we're actually talking about: the black suit. We're not talking about jeans or nipple rings or electric blue or royal purple. We're talking about an Abe Lincoln-wearing, Ralph Lauren-making, Zegna-selling, CEO-endorsed BLACK SUIT. That an extremely small set of individuals consider them gauche is okay. Really. Bar them from your closet. But please don't proffer that earth-shaking decisions of an employee's, associate's, friend's or just a guy walking down the street's ability to move onward and upward at work or in society is somehow affected negatively by them.


----------



## Cruiser

DavidLeoThomas said:


> Something I find interesting is the tendency of people to think that clothing having influence over hiring/advancement/acceptance/etc must necessarily be conscious to be occurring at all. If you don't look good in what you're wearing - or if you look like you should be at the club rather than your place of business - how can that do anything but hurt you? Should it be a significant factor? No, of course not. Will it be? Probably not. Will it have any impact at all? Probably! People are not strictly rational - taller people are paid more, better looking people are paid more. It is not at all ridiculous to suggest that clothing could have a similar impact.


I agree fully with this; however, you don't really have any way of knowing or controlling what the other person thinks looks good or bad. Clothing enthusiasts such as frequent a forum like this are a very small minority and yet many seem to think that because they don't like something it will be held in similar regard by the much larger majority. That simply isn't so in many cases, and based on my personal experiences it isn't so when it comes to black suits.

Let's get off of the topic of black suits and look at tuxedo lapels. Anytime the peak lapel is mentioned here the reaction is such that one would think that if you showed up in a notch lapel you would be shamed out of the room when in reality nothing could be further from the truth. The notch is the overwhelming favorite in the U.S., worn by Presidents, CEOs, tycoons, you name it. It is only in the small fraternity of clothing enthusiasts that it is derided.

It's the same with the black suit. The black suit is extremely popular out in the world. If you go back through this thread you will see that the only persons saying that wearing a black suit will somehow be a negative in one's professional life are die hard clothing enthusiasts and references to articles and books written by die hard clothing enthusiasts. In other words the same people who talk about the notch lapel like it's an abomination while totally ignoring the real world around them.

Cruiser


----------



## Pirendeus

J.Marko said:


> I hope you will forgive me for using such a short quote, but for me it encapsulates what many people on this board seem to think about black suits - especially the "hip-not-classic" remark. I suppose that this comment, in one swoop, could explain why black has become very popular in the department stores, and why it is not always well favored among the elite in business it is "hip".


I'm one of those people who consider black suits to be "hip-not-classic"; however, in business school classes at my university, professors have actually instructed students to wear black suits because they see them as more professional. I guess everyone has a different viewpoint. I don't know if this is attributable to the liberalness of universities in general?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Is Black the new Charcoal then?


----------



## Jovan

When I bought my first suit, the sales associate at J.C. Penney tried to get me into charcoal rather than black. I should have listened to him. :icon_pale:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Jovan said:


> When I bought my first suit, the sales associate at J.C. Penney tried to get me into charcoal rather than black. I should have listened to him. :icon_pale:


Indeed. But tell us, how many times have you actually worn that black suit? If you've had good use out of it, surely that's the main thing. Or have you hated it?


----------



## Matt S

I know most of the traditional clothing brands don't offer a solid black suit. BB has given in and started selling them, but I can't recall ever seeing a Polo Ralph Lauren suit in black (not counting the fashion forward RLBL). The high-end American and English brands don't seem to sell solid black suits OTR. The black suit is most prevalent amongst new suit wearers people who think all dark suits are black. Before I was taught that black suits were only for funerals (long before AAAC) all dark suits struck me as black. I just didn't notice the navy and charcoal. I didn't look that closely, and when I saw dark, black is what I thought. The people I was around wearing suits never actually wore black suits, and the people in the movies I watched (like James Bond) didn't wear black suits either. Dark suits just seemed like black.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Matt S said:


> ...I can't recall ever seeing a Polo Ralph Lauren suit in black (not counting the fashion forward RLBL).


Maybe the three button Italian number I've got, maybe Ralph made it just for me (thanks, Ralph.). However, I've been recently shamed into keeping in the attic (sorry, Ralph), which is tough because trailers don't have much attic space.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Peak and Pine said:


> which is tough because trailers don't have much attic space.


   Best laugh of the day so far, thanks PP!


----------



## Peak and Pine

Earl, could you pull out one of those Lugars, or whatever it is you carry, and shoot this thread dead?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

It's a Sig Sauer, and I'd gladly do it but then I'd be a kill-joy literally. 

But I also think while there's grist for the mill let members grind it, till they realise (as I did long ago) that trying to change opinions on this forum is like changing water into wine....and only one man managed that


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser said:


> If you go back through this thread you will see that the only persons saying that wearing a black suit will somehow be a negative in one's professional life are die hard clothing enthusiasts and references to articles and books written by die hard clothing enthusiasts.


Cruiser, that's an assinine argument. Of course the only people advancing the case against the black suit are clothing enthusiasts. With the exception of you and one or two others, those are the only people on this forum. Again, with rare exception, the people extolling the black suit are also clothing enthusiasts, albeit misguided ones.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> But I also think while there's grist for the mill let members grind it, till they realise (as I did long ago) that trying to change opinions on this forum is like changing water into wine....and only one man managed that


I've actually had my mind changed a number of times, and have changed the mind of others. For instance, when Sator (I believe) posted pictures of early 20th centure notch-lapeled tuxedos, I changed my position on them from wrong-but-few-will-care to simply not being my preference. Some actual evidence of indisputably well/classically-dressed men wearing black suits would be a welcome addition to this thread, if they exist in significant numbers.


----------



## 3holic

JJR512 said:


> Yes, I've worked in corporate offices before. And it is foolish to believe that all promotions and raises are given solely on the basis of merits and achievements. If the boss doesn't trust men with blonde hair, and you have blonde hair, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like pink ties, and you wear pink ties, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like overweight women, and you're an overweight woman, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If your boss doesn't like homosexuals, and he suspects you're a homosexual, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like wingtips (to answer an earlier question), and you wear wingtips, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like black suits, and you wear black suits, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. On your review sheet, will the boss note the real reason you've been passed over for promotion or not given the maximum raise? No, of course not. Some plausible-sounding reason will be made up and written down. And of course, not all bosses are like this; most probably aren't. But to make a blanket statement that this doesn't happen is the true "utter nonsense" here.
> 
> I am not saying that this practice is right; it isn't. But it _does_ happen. To think otherwise, to think that you can _always_ be as creative with your dress as possible as long as you stay in within the letter of a company's rules, is foolish. *It pays to know not just what the written rules are, but what the unwritten rules are as well, and that's my overall point here.*


Do you have problem with reading comprehension? I wrote "Raises and promotions are based *primarily* on merits and achievements, not the color of one's suit." Of course other factors such as nepotism, cronyism, political connections, affirmative action, etc. are also in play. And I had witnessed them.

As an aside: some years ago, my friend's wife was offered a senior level position at one of the largest bank in the U.S. -- not because of her qualifiications, but because at the time, her father was the Treasury Secretary of a foreign nation. I had also witnessed promotions because of the old boy network, and on the flip side, based on affirmative actions.

*But by and large, raises and promotions are based on merit.*

I had held managerial postions in a Fortune 100 firm in both Finance and Marketing departments, so I believe I am qualified to speak on the subject of raises and promotions.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray




----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> I've actually had my mind changed a number of times...


Whoa, you have? Well that's an unexpected revelation. Hold on while "Person A" (me) goes out and sounds the town siren.



> For instance, when Sator posted pictures of early 20th centure notch-lapeled tuxedos, I changed my position on them...


Oh big deal. Forget the siren then, if it was just about some 100 year old notch lapel tux or something. I thought you were talking about changing your mind about something that's been worn _since_ 1910, not_ in_ 1910.


----------



## CuffDaddy

3holic, you are generally right, but I would suggest a more nebulous category has about as much influence as "merit," which is always a tricky thing to define. That other thing: personal affinity. People like to give raises and promotions to people that they like. And people generally like people like themselves. This affinity issue goes a long way towards explaining why organizations have to focus so hard on diversity to get anything like a representative population of employees promoted. And why firm/company/enterprise cultures are so hard to change: a-holes hire other a-holes, and frat boys hire frat boys, and nice folks like other nice folks. Obviously, in some worlds, merit is so readily objectively measurable (in a sales context, for instance) that affinity is diminished in importance; but in fields where merit is more subjective, or where the complexity of data and variables makes it hard to rely entirely on objective measurements, affinity is guaranteed to come into play in a significant way. 

Merit is always paramount, or should be, and anyone who tries to substitute any other tactic/method for merit will eventually be frustrated and disgraced (although sometimes it takes a long, long time). But ignoring the affinity issue is simply foolish.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Peak and Pine said:


> Oh big deal. Forget the siren then, if it was just about some 100 year old notch lapel tux or something. I thought you were talking about changing your mind about something that's been worn _since_ 1910, not_ in_ 1910.


Notch lapels are worn plenty today. (Which is why my original position was that they were historically-incorrect, but that their impact in the real world would be quite negligible.)


----------



## CuffDaddy

Douglas Brisbane Gray said:


>


Seriously?

OK, I'll stipulate that, if you are wearing a bowler, a black suit will not attract much attention.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> Cruiser, that's an assinine argument. Of course the only people advancing the case against the black suit are clothing enthusiasts. With the exception of you and one or two others, those are the only people on this forum. Again, with rare exception, the people extolling the black suit are also clothing enthusiasts, albeit misguided ones.


Please note that I am not one of those who is "extollling the black suit" or in any way promoting the wearing of such. I've never worn one in a business situation. Heck, I don't even wear one for a funeral. I'm just saying that outside of a small minority, most folks really don't care or have an opinion one way or the other about black suits. It's just a non-issue with most.

As I've noted before, this is yet another of those details that clothing enthusiasts debate, think about, anguish over, etc., etc., which the vast majority of folks out in the world don't give a second thought about. That doesn't mean that it isn't fun to do this, it is; and that's how we should approach it. It's just that we err when we think that many others view this the same way.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser, I agree it's a non-issue with "most." But, in many places, it's an issue (whether consciously or sub-consciously) with a non-trivial minority who are disproportionately socially and professionally influential.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

CuffDaddy said:


> Seriously?
> 
> OK, I'll stipulate that,
> if you are wearing a bowler, a black suit will not attract much attention.


Variations of that are the "uniform" for some merchant banks and law firms around the City of London and in Edinburgh for some barristers and judges at the High Court of the Justiciaries. Archaic and uncomfortable but they do wear black suits, occasionally with striped trousers instead of solid black. Possibly a reaction against that earlier look led to the black suit becoming unpopular in business circles.


----------



## CuffDaddy

You make an excellent case, DBG, for the appropriateness and full acceptibility of a black suit in those contexts. 

If nothing else, this thread illustrates that national and regional differences on this point are pronounced.


----------



## 3holic

CuffDaddy said:


> 3holic, you are generally right, but I would suggest a more nebulous category has about as much influence as "merit," which is always a tricky thing to define. That other thing: personal affinity. People like to give raises and promotions to people that they like. And people generally like people like themselves. This affinity issue goes a long way towards explaining why organizations have to focus so hard on diversity to get anything like a representative population of employees promoted. And why firm/company/enterprise cultures are so hard to change: a-holes hire other a-holes, and frat boys hire frat boys, and nice folks like other nice folks. Obviously, in some worlds, merit is so readily objectively measurable (in a sales context, for instance) that affinity is diminished in importance; but in fields where merit is more subjective, or where the complexity of data and variables makes it hard to rely entirely on objective measurements, affinity is guaranteed to come into play in a significant way.
> 
> Merit is always paramount, or should be, and anyone who tries to substitute any other tactic/method for merit will eventually be frustrated and disgraced (although sometimes it takes a long, long time). But ignoring the affinity issue is simply foolish.


As someone with a minor in Psychology (specializing in Social Psychology), I understand the personal affinity issue. Each company has it own corporate culture and those who fit in have a better chance of career advancement. However, in my experience, while wearing a suit may be part of a corporate culture, the suit color itself -- as long as it is not some outrageous color -- is not.

Metrics contained in performance reviews are used to judge employees' job performances. It is the corporation's way to ensure objectiveness and minimize the potential for law suits. Needless to say, suit color is not one of the metrics.

A manager who discriminates against a black-suit-wearing employee who has exceeded all his performance metrics and accomplished all his goals, will have to answer to upper management, if not found him/herself as the defendant in a law suit.


----------



## Pirendeus

3holic said:


> As someone with a minor in Psychology (specializing in Social Psychology), I understand the personal affinity issue. Each company has it own corporate culture and those who fit in have a better chance of career advancement. However, in my experience, while wearing a suit may be part of a corporate culture, the suit color itself -- as long as it is not some outrageous color -- is not.
> 
> Metrics contained in performance reviews are used to judge employees' job performances. It is the corporation's way to ensure objectiveness and minimize the potential for law suits. Needless to say, suit color is not one of the metrics.
> 
> A manager who discriminates against a black-suit-wearing employee who has exceeded all his performance metrics and accomplished all his goals, will have to answer to upper management, if not found him/herself as the defendant in a law suit.


In my experience, unless those goals are all quantitative, there is always plenty of wiggle room for the reviewing manager to insert their personal (whether conscious or subconscious) desires.


----------



## 3holic

^ True. But OTOH, I have yet to meet someone who would deny a promotion/raise/bonus to a black suit wearer.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Many jobs are not amenable to "metrics contained in performance reviews." Or, at least, the "metrics" are actually quite subjective. I am quite aware of the role of objective, or objective-seeming, performance evaluations in employment-law risk reduction.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Pirendeus said:


> In my experience, unless those goals are all quantitative, there is always plenty of *wiggle room *for the reviewing manager to insert their personal (whether conscious or subconscious) desires.


Of course there is. But maybe you've lost the thread of this thread (and if you have, I can't blame you): the wiggle room to which you allude would here pertain specifically to the wearing of a _black suit._ Do you know a lot of people, except a few up-tights here, who would actually wiggle themselves around that?


----------



## CuffDaddy

3holic said:


> ^ True. But OTOH, I have yet to meet someone who would deny a promotion/raise/bonus to a black suit wearer.


Again, you seem to be imagining someone consciously thinking, "Mu-ahh-hah-HAH-HAH, I hold your fate in my hands, and I choose to banish you to the customer service department for the crime of wearing a black suit, you peon!" Nobody is suggesting that is what happens. What is far more realistic is this internal monologue: "Bill and Bob are both pretty good performers by the numbers, but there's only one spot. Bill's nice enough, but Bob is really my kind of guy... classy, polished, and he'll fit in great with the upper managment. I should take him for a round of golf at the club. Yep, Bob's the one." The words "black suit" are unlikely to appear in the supervisor's mind... but that does not mean that it made no impact and had no role in the decision.


----------



## 3holic

CuffDaddy said:


> Many jobs are not amenable to "metrics contained in performance reviews." Or, at least, the "metrics" are actually quite subjective. I am quite aware of the role of objective, or objective-seeming, performance evaluations in employment-law risk reduction.


See Peak and Pine's post -- "But maybe you've lost the thread of this thread (and if you have, I can't blame you): the wiggle room to which you allude would here pertain specifically to the wearing of a _black suit._ Do you know a lot of people, except a few up-tights here, who would actually wiggle themselves around that? "


----------



## 3holic

CuffDaddy said:


> Again, you seem to be imagining someone consciously thinking, "Mu-ahh-hah-HAH-HAH, I hold your fate in my hands, and I choose to banish you to the customer service department for the crime of wearing a black suit, you peon!" Nobody is suggesting that is what happens. What is far more realistic is this internal monologue: "Bill and Bob are both pretty good performers by the numbers, but there's only one spot. Bill's nice enough, but Bob is really my kind of guy... classy, polished, and he'll fit in great with the upper managment. I should take him for a round of golf at the club. Yep, Bob's the one." The words "black suit" are unlikely to appear in the supervisor's mind... but that does not mean that it made no impact and had no role in the decision.


I can argue that there are supervisors who favor people who wears black suits. When I was a marketing manager, a subordinate of mine who oversaw 60-70 service reps once told me she wears black suits to project a no-nonsense image. Thus, personal affinity in this case will favor those who imitate her and wear black suits.

And if the black suit hating managers and black suit loving manager even each other out, things boil down to merit and performance.


----------



## CuffDaddy

3holic, I think that takes us right back to where we were. 

Based on this thread, I think I'm comfortable saying this: the reaction to black suits varies significantly by region, perhaps by profession, and by class (within a region). Those variances are sharp and strong. The safest course is to try to determine the specific practices and habits of relevant supervisors/managers/hiring personnel with regard to black suits. Until you have determined that those people themselves wear black suits, avoid them. If you determine that black suits are occassionally worn by respected/influential/authoritative figures within the enterprise, feel free to wear them if you believe they flatter you. 

Any disagreement? (As long as we're on the topic, I'd say similar advice could be given regarding brown, olive, taupe, and tan suits, and I like a number of those.)


----------



## upr_crust

With regard to this thread, I have worn a black suit to the office today - so far, no one has either improved my corporate lot, or condemned me to a corporate fate worse than death. Documentation of my attire is in today's WAYWT thread, for those who care to examine . . .


----------



## JJR512

3holic said:


> Do you have problem with reading comprehension?


No, I don't. Do you have a problem with polite conversation?

I've always maxed out the score on any reading comprehension test I've ever taken. But I'm not perfect, of course. I don't see how the part of my quote that you emphasized indicates a lack of comprehension of what you said. I stand by what I said, whether you think it was a misstatement, or wrong, or whatever.


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> "Bill and Bob are both pretty good performers by the numbers, but there's only one spot. Bill's nice enough, but Bob is really my kind of guy... classy, polished, and he'll fit in great with the upper managment. I should take him for a round of golf at the club. Yep, Bob's the one." The words "black suit" are unlikely to appear in the supervisor's mind... but that does not mean that it made no impact and had no role in the decision.


Gonzo journalism has just entered the thread.

Unless Daddy is making that up, and if he is, let's disregard it, for fiction doesn't play well here, then he actually has experienced something similar. But since he's describing the interior dialog of the supervisor, he's allowed a little license, as am I, I hope, as I propose this rewrite:

"Let's take Bob for a round of golf rather than Bill because, ah because, well I can't quite put my finger on it but, damn I knew it was something, what is it, funny too because Bill's actually a better golfer than Bob, am I losing my mind I can't remember why I think Bill is not up to my standards of ferocious social climbing combined with scorn and pity for the little people oh well I'll just make a snoot list and go thru it later because it is a firm rule of mine that I must always have solid reasons for my complete and utter disdain of those who are beneath me, maybe I'll remember by the back nine...wait, back, back yes, _black_ that's it, something to do with black."


----------



## Jovan

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Indeed. But tell us, how many times have you actually worn that black suit? If you've had good use out of it, surely that's the main thing. Or have you hated it?


 I wore it a few times. Its last outing was almost three years ago, then I gave it to a friend. I kept wishing I had gone for something more versatile a year after I got it, especially as I was starting to watch the original Bond movies.


----------



## J.Marko

Cruiser said:


> I'm just saying that outside of a small minority, most folks really don't care or have an opinion one way or the other about black suits. It's just a non-issue with most.


I think you might be able to say this about almost any topic discussed on this forum. Most men don't seem to think much about what goes with what, if their shirt sleeves should protrude past their jacket sleeves, what the soles of their shoes are made of, the shape of the toe on their shoes, how slim their shirts should be, if their suit is fused, canvassed, etc. If they do think about it at all, they want things that will fit in with those around them, so I am not surprised many of those pick black suits and square toe shoes.

Perhaps the interesting question here is how small is the small minority that cares about such things, and of that minority, what percent care have a negative opinion of black suits for day business wear. It is interesting that even among those that care about these things, the black suit issue is hotly contested. I don't see many people claiming that square toed shoes are fine, although they do make an appearance in those threads.

My conclusion from all this is that the bias against black suits for daytime non-funeral wear is not a myth, but seems to be regionally based and in decline. I am still not adding a black suit to my rotation, however.

I think it is also useful to warn people that are new to the sartorial world or asking for advice that some people believe black suits are not for business. I wonder if this is at the same level of people that believe you shouldn't wear a striped suit outside of business. Old rule, fading fast.


----------



## J.Marko

The other day I was having lunch al fresco and was watching people walk by coming out of a nearby office building. They were almost all in shirts without ties and black trousers. I would not have noticed before I joined this thread, but I don't think most of them looked very good. The very few wearing grey or navy trousers looked better to my eye, and most of those seemed to be wearing shirts that fit them better and better shoes. This is in the D.C. suburbs, so is not widely applicable. 

Last week I was at an attorney conference - only about twenty men, most in suits. None of them wore black suits. Again, small data point. As an aside, I was the only one wearing a pocket square, and a young female associate said "nice touch" about my blue and white gingham pocket square I wore with a navy blazer. Made my day :biggrin: so thanks AAAC people for encouraging me to do wear what I like!


----------



## Pirendeus

CuffDaddy said:


> Again, you seem to be imagining someone consciously thinking, "Mu-ahh-hah-HAH-HAH, I hold your fate in my hands, and I choose to banish you to the customer service department for the crime of wearing a black suit, you peon!" Nobody is suggesting that is what happens. What is far more realistic is this internal monologue: "Bill and Bob are both pretty good performers by the numbers, but there's only one spot. Bill's nice enough, but Bob is really my kind of guy... classy, polished, and he'll fit in great with the upper managment. I should take him for a round of golf at the club. Yep, Bob's the one." The words "black suit" are unlikely to appear in the supervisor's mind... but that does not mean that it made no impact and had no role in the decision.


Point for you. I failed to connect my two points adequately; without actual data, the best I can propose is a tenuous relationship


----------



## Jovan

J. Marko: I would contend that a simple folded white cotton/linen looks more professional. It's great that you got a compliment though.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Jovan said:


> J. Marko: I would contend that a simple folded white cotton/linen looks more professional. It's great that you got a compliment though.


I agree on both counts. Forum matters. The pocket square described by Mr. Marko sounds quite handsome, but I personally would favor simple white for most business encounters.


----------



## Mad Hatter

3holic said:


> When I was a marketing manager, a subordinate of mine who oversaw 60-70 service reps once told me she wears black suits to project a no-nonsense image. Thus, personal affinity in this case will favor those who imitate her and wear black suits.


Although the intended seriousness might be held in common, can this example stand for both women and men? I'm a tradesman; I have no idea about corporate culture. I ask because I'd think that women had a bit more discretionary color palette; that is, black would perhaps be seen as more acceptable for them than men, especially in upper management.


----------



## CuffDaddy

FWIW, I see lots of black suits on women. From my perspective, it does not have the same stigma as black suits on men. Of course, women can wear red suits, bright blue suits, purple suits, etc., for business.


----------



## Jovan

CuffDaddy: Actually, the hosts of "What Not to Wear" (a great show) recommend against bright colours and predominantly black clothing for women in business. Same for the men, of course.


----------



## Mike Petrik

David_E said:


> Just a quick observation from driving through downtown Chicago last week (been too busy to post recently).
> 
> In the lunch hour rush, in the financial district and a few other parts of down town, it was at least 25-1 black vs any other color of suit - all ages, all levels of prestige. I saw exactly 2 blue suits. (post recession when all excuses to lay people off have already been exhausted)
> 
> Maybe its just a Chicago thing (I HAVE noticed that Chicago business dress tends to be very dark, all year round) but pragmatically it appears the safest suit color to wear to work *here* is black.
> 
> I've been watching the suits the gents on TV wear on our local channels. At least one anchor on each program is wearing a black suit each day.
> 
> All our politicians wear black frequently.
> 
> Most of the high profile lawyers (when appearing on TV) wear black.
> 
> My lawyer usually wears black.
> 
> The president, CIO, and Chancellor at my institution usually wear black suits on "public appearance" days.
> 
> I saw one of the attorney's in the Blago case wearing a frigging black blazer for goodness sake.
> 
> The upper brass in my wife's company - lots of black suits.
> 
> I'm not saying I like it, but __for Chicago__ I would not advise wearing anything OTHER than black to an interview as it is the absolute safest color (here). If you can't bear to wear it, then go for a very dark charcoal and hope they just assume its black. If your interview panel are all wearing brown, blue, and gray, then make sure you switch to something different for your second interview.
> 
> Now obviously I haven't done a scientific study, just what I see down town, on the streets, and on the news in the 3rd biggest city in the US. (and definitely the most "mainstream" of the 3. OK yeah that's debatable lets not get sidetracked.)
> 
> Any other Chicago members want to chip in? I'd really like to see some evidence that my observations are incorrect as I don't really want to go buy a black suit before I start interviewing again. (Evidence please, not opinion or belief).
> 
> There was another post earlier that mentioned that this might be a regional thing. I strongly suspect that the sartorially "right" choice is far more location specific than we would like to believe.
> 
> Finally one final *opinion*: If your working in a place where they take your suit color into consideration when thinking about your place in the company, run, run fast and far. Those are scary creepy people and I at least would not want to work for them. If the company lets people like that get to positions of power, I wouldn't even want to associate with that organization - its corporate culture has gone to rot and its probably not long for the world.


My brother, a senior vp in the investment banking house of one of the world's largest commercial banks, calls 100% bs on this post. He is based in Chicago and has been for 20 years. Tells me he very seldom sees lawyers, bankers, CPAs or other business professionals in black suits, and then it is almost always an under 30 year-old newbie who also wears squared-toe shoes. In addition to his vibrant practice and considerable board work, my brother is observant about clothing, even if his interest is not quite as developed as mine. He adamently disagrees with this post and suspects someone cannot distinguish between black and dark grays and navies. As a Chicago native and frequent visitor, I stand with my brother.

Postscript: My good friend who is a partner at Sidley & Austin's Chicago office says he never sees lawyers at the large white shoe firms wear black suits. Was very surprised and skeptical when I shared this account. His only explanation -- "perhaps in advertising, I don't know."


----------



## J.Marko

Jovan said:


> J. Marko: I would contend that a simple folded white cotton/linen looks more professional. It's great that you got a compliment though.


I generally agree, and I wore that the first day. On the first day I also discovered I was over dressed in a suit, since the people in suits were all presenting. The other handful of in house counsel that were not presenting (like me) were wearing at best blazers with polo shirts and cotton slacks, so the 2nd day I wore a tie, navy blazer and khaki wool trousers with walnut cap toe bluchers, and went with the gingham pocket square to make it even less formal. I was still a bit over dressed, but I think I looked good, and I am glad someone else did too!

By the the way, "legal conference" means kind of a legal class (generally for CLEs) and are usually rather informal. Usually the guys in suits are selling something, or presenting. I have in the past gone without a tie - again, this forum has encouraged me to wear what I like, and it was to good effect.


----------



## J.Marko

I just saw Chris Wallace on Fox news wearing a black chalk stripe suit, white shirt and gold toned tie and matching pocket square. It did not look good. It seemed like he was getting ready to go to a Tango competition after the show, in which context it would have looked much better.

Maybe it was charcoal though, and the tie was more cream than gold, but still was a bit much.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Mike Petrik said:


> My brother, a senior vp in the investment banking house of one of the world's largest commercial banks, calls 100% bs...he is based in Chicago and has been for 20 years. Tells me he very seldom sees lawyers, bankers, CPAs or other business professionals in black suits, and then it is almost always an under 30 year-old newbie who also wears squared-toe shoes.


The thread now resembles a school yard.

You've yelled for your big brother to punch holes in the theories of those of us who think that a load's being peddled our way. Why is this brother of yours supposed to be anymore convincing than what many of us here have observed to the opposite? Because he's _a senior vp in the investment banking house of one of the world's largest commercial banks_? Your phrasing suggests you get off on that title; naw, not me, not nowadays, if you know what I mean. Can't help but notice you're from Atlanta, Cuff Daddy's home base. Just what goes on down there that makes y'all stick your noses so high in the air? Don't mean to be too harsh, but remember, you're the one who used the phrase BS. No one else here has resorted to the profane.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> The thread now resembles a school yard.
> 
> You've yelled for your big brother to punch holes in the theories of those of us who think that a load's being peddled our way. Why is this brother of yours supposed to be anymore convincing than what many of us here have observed to the opposite? Because he's _a senior vp in the investment banking house of one of the world's largest commercial banks_? Your phrasing suggests you get off on that title; naw, not me, not nowadays, if you know what I mean. Can't help but notice you're from Atlanta, Cuff Daddy's home base. Just what goes on down there that makes y'all stick your noses so high in the air? Don't mean to be too harsh, but remember, you're the one who used the phrase BS. No one else here has resorted to the profane.


Peak,
All I did was respond to the post I quoted which explicitly invited confirmation or non. That post mentioned the professions and status of those who were putatively wearing black suits in Chicago. My little brother, whom I quoted, didn't mean anything by the "bs" -- investment bankers tend to be blunt. My apologies to David E if that offended. Other than that I have nothing to say to you.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Geez, don't stomp off all mad. You're a big part of the discussion here. I like your stuff, really. Was a little surprised by the tone of the last one that's all.


----------



## David Reeves

So what did I miss?


----------



## Jovan

Limbaugh converted to Democrat, the polar ice caps un-melted themselves, and all stray cats/dogs are now sterile. How about you?


----------



## David Reeves

Opinions on clothes are all just that opinions and also attitude, opinions aren't facts.This isn't Math. There are no "sacred rules". I know some quite conservative clients of mine that wear black suits. I actually don't own a black suit myself......must get one lest I get caught out at a funeral, but I don't have a problem with them.....unlike centre vents which are awful. Just my opinion and attitude.


----------



## David_E

Mike Petrik said:


> My brother, a senior vp in the investment banking house of one of the world's largest commercial banks, calls 100% bs on this post. He is based in Chicago and has been for 20 years. Tells me he very seldom sees lawyers, bankers, CPAs or other business professionals in black suits, and then it is almost always an under 30 year-old newbie who also wears squared-toe shoes. In addition to his vibrant practice and considerable board work, my brother is observant about clothing, even if his interest is not quite as developed as mine. He adamantly disagrees with this post and suspects someone cannot distinguish between black and dark grays and navies. As a Chicago native and frequent visitor, I stand with my brother.
> 
> Postscript: My good friend who is a partner at Sidley & Austin's Chicago office says he never sees lawyers at the large white shoe firms wear black suits. Was very surprised and skeptical when I shared this account. His only explanation -- "perhaps in advertising, I don't know."


Mike,

Thank you for the response - a bit more hmm "confrontational" than I would have preferred but, I really appreciate the data.

My observations differ, but its really reassuring - like I said I don't _want_ to get a black suit just to be "correct" in downtown Chicago. I was just pointing out what I've seen the last 10 years, - admittedly I haven't been paying much attention until recently.

You will forgive me if I still give my own observations weight over those recieved 2nd hand? Of course I expect you and any other reader who doesn't live in Chicago to do the same. (take my post with a grain of salt/trust your own observations more). I really do appreciate your passing along your Brothers input! I an see your very proud of him 

BTW - Do they still really call them "White Shoe" firms? I thought that term went out when many of those firms declined after the little "black suit" merger and acquisition firms ate their lunch in the 70s-90s? (I not being snarky - I'm really curious. I'd only heard it when reading about the industry's history in Outliers".)

Thanks again! (but please do remember we can disagree without resorting to such a hostile tone).


----------



## David_E

Entirely off topic:
I was thinking of the Cargo Cults of the pacific earlier today. All these poor villagers dressing up like Airforce(? Navy?) officers, building fake planes, hoping to bring back the "gods" by imitating them. They kept wasting all these resources, abandoning their own culture for a pale mockery of something they would never obtain - they weren't born to the right parents, in the right place, at the right time and no amount of imposture would make them something else. It makes me sad when I think about how much better their lives would have been if they had focused their efforts on finding their own joy rather than pining after the impossible and trying to ritually re-enact the past.

Back on topic:
I tried to actually tried to look up some scholarly papers on men's suit/garment color choices and perception. I couldn't find anything. Either the black suit debate is too trivial for sociologists and psychologists to bother writing a study (*), or there isn't any empirical evidence on way or another. No science means this whole discussion is just conjecture and anecdotes signifying nothing - so carry on and have fun lads! Just be careful, I hear too much of this sort of thing can impair one's eyesight.

I think my take-away from this thread is that there are some who don't like black suits with a strange and undying passion that eats away at their soul. I think I am going to start wearing black suits to all interviews to make sure I don't end up working for them! 

CuffDaddy - Your powers for looking into my heart of hearts to know what I truly believe are astounding, but I'm afraid they were inaccurate this time. I really would prefer to work at a company/institution that values my merit as a person and a professional over my taste in clothes. I really do think that a corporate culture that worries about such things out side of the ritual costumes needed for some professions (Sales, Court Appearances, flipping burgers, etc) is rotten, and I sincerely do NOT want to play those stupid games. I don't really respect those who do. I'm sorry if that offends you but its the way I'm built. Corporate dress has gone casual because it makes the company more competitive - its easier to get and retain the best talent if you focus on what they add to the bottom line rather than how they would look in promotional material or how they fit in with the Old Boy's Club. Its kind of a shame, but its a move for the better.

(*) As a person who took WAY too many classes in both and long ago got a minor in one, I find it hard to believe there is anything is to trivial the a psychologist or sociologist to write a grant proposal/paper about. That means I should probably keep looking. I kid you not for the longest time there was a Poster up in one the the halls near the psych department about an experiment to find evidence of seasonal affective disorder in victims of a severe vegetative disorder.


----------



## J.Marko

Can we all at least agree that black SHIRTS, although popular, are inappropriate for business? Most business, anyway?
:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## 46L

David_E said:


> Corporate dress has gone casual because it makes the company more competitive - its easier to get and retain the best talent if you focus on what they add to the bottom line rather than how they would look in promotional material or how they fit in with the Old Boy's Club. Its kind of a shame, but its a move for the better.


Casual corporate dress was a result of the tech revolution of the mid-to-late 90's thumbing their noses at traditional business dress. It certainly did not make companies more competitive as most of the start-ups of that era are long distant memories. Wearing shorts and flip flops and bringing your dog to work does not make you more competitive.


----------



## MikeDT

Hu Jintao nearly always wears a black suit, and I see nothing wrong in that.


----------



## Mike Petrik

David_E said:


> Mike,
> 
> Thank you for the response - a bit more hmm "confrontational" than I would have preferred but, I really appreciate the data.
> 
> My observations differ, but its really reassuring - like I said I don't _want_ to get a black suit just to be "correct" in downtown Chicago. I was just pointing out what I've seen the last 10 years, - admittedly I haven't been paying much attention until recently.
> 
> You will forgive me if I still give my own observations weight over those recieved 2nd hand? Of course I expect you and any other reader who doesn't live in Chicago to do the same. (take my post with a grain of salt/trust your own observations more). I really do appreciate your passing along your Brothers input! I an see your very proud of him
> 
> BTW - Do they still really call them "White Shoe" firms? I thought that term went out when many of those firms declined after the little "black suit" merger and acquisition firms ate their lunch in the 70s-90s? (I not being snarky - I'm really curious. I'd only heard it when reading about the industry's history in Outliers".)
> 
> Thanks again! (but please do remember we can disagree without resorting to such a hostile tone).


David,
I apologize once again for the perceived hostile tone.
I honestly do not know what you mean by the "little 'black suit' merger and acquisition firms." If you are referring to Skadden and Wachtell, it is true that they did were considered upstarts in the 70s and 80s, and did (and have done) very well. But I don't think Davis Polk, Cravath et all especially suffered. I know several Skadden and Wachtell partners (NY not Chgo) , but have never seen any of them wear a black suit. And as far as I know the term "white shoe" still has currency, and in recent years has been know to have been applied to both Skadden and Wachtell.


----------



## Jovan

J.Marko said:


> Can we all at least agree that black SHIRTS, although popular, are inappropriate for business? Most business, anyway?
> :icon_smile_wink:


An emphatic YES unless you're an undertaker. Even then it's sort of iffy. The cultures that wear all black for a funeral generally limit it to the family members only if I recall correctly.



46L said:


> Casual corporate dress was a result of the tech revolution of the mid-to-late 90's thumbing their noses at traditional business dress. It certainly did not make companies more competitive as most of the start-ups of that era are long distant memories. Wearing shorts and flip flops and bringing your dog to work does not make you more competitive.


 Try telling that to Google, who are thumbing _their_ collective noses at Microsoft right now. They're probably as casual as a corporation can get. I'm not saying I agree with it (I would think button front shirt, trousers, and shined shoes at minimum), but they've obviously done _something_ right even if it's not the dress code.


----------



## Cruiser

As I've previously said I don't wear black suits to work, but I do wear them for social outings at night. Here I am on my way out to dinner one night last year wearing a black suit. This is the only way I wear mine.

_Photo Not Available_

While I don't wear a black suit to work, I have been wearing black pants to the office at least one day a week for almost forty years now without any apparent negative effects. In fact, I wore black pants today.

Cruiser


----------



## 46L

Jovan said:


> Try telling that to Google, who are thumbing _their_ collective noses at Microsoft right now. They're probably as casual as a corporation can get. I'm not saying I agree with it (I would think button front shirt, trousers, and shined shoes at minimum), but they've obviously done _something_ right even if it's not the dress code.


My point is Google is not beating Microsoft and just about every other company SOLELY based on an extremely casual dress code. They have some pretty smart dudes (and ladies) doing some pretty cool things. The casual dress code suits most of their personalities, but I doubt they would any less talented wearing chinos.


----------



## Pirendeus

To me, black pants are completely different from a black suit, because you are forced to wear something more vibrant on the top half of your body. To me, it seems that most of the effects of black suits stem not just from the totality of the black, but also from the simple lack of other colors. If you wear a blazer or other coat (or even just a colored shirt or tie), it changes the entire look.


----------



## David_E

While the business casual thing reached its peak in the doc com boom, it started well before that:
(complaints about the khakis and turtle necks in Carter Whitehouse)
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...&pg=1330,2309058&dq=pants+khakis+office&hl=en

Andy Rooney talking about going to work in casual clothes in 1984:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...&pg=2441,4164199&dq=pants+khakis+office&hl=en

BR starting its business casual empire in '86
https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/boston...desc=BUILDING+AN+EMPIRE+ON+KHAKI&pqatl=google

The smart guys and gals at Google would be equally smart in chinos, suits, or buck naked (gahh... how do you wash the thought of naked geeks out of your brain!?!? - I qualify for geekdom so I can make fun of others), but the fact that they can focus on their work rather than what they wear at work is part of what helps google collect these people. I think our making my point for me! 

The dot com bubble burst for the most part, and we have had one (two?) recession and one (minor) depression since then. Companies had the chance to shed their scruffy techs when times got hard. Instead they kept them (after reigning in the over-the-top excess) and instead of insisting they moved to suits, the suits started moving to casual. Companies don't do this to be "hip" or "cool" or "accommodating" except so far as presenting the company as such betters the bottom line. Apparently it does or so many wouldn't still be doing it.

I have mixed feelings about it... I certainly won't work someplace that will snub me based on suit color, but when work also becomes an inappropriate place to dress well, it leaves fewer places to let others bask in ones sartorial glory :icon_smile_big:


----------



## David_E

I think it might have been Skadden and Flom? I was thinking of... been a while since I read the book - I think the point the author was making was that the Old School firms of the time missed out on a huge opportunity because at the time they thought it was "beneath them."

I think this is the guy I was thinking of:

Joseph H. Flom

Hmm yeah I think he was the guy I was thinking of:
https://www.ferguslex.com/ferg.401.review.flom.html

The author of the book I was reading was trying to make a point about the importance of the role Time and Place in the lives of very successful people - he described Flom's appearance and social graces in a less than flattering fashion to focus the readers attention on his other characteristics. He described the other partners of the firm as all coming from... backgrounds that would not qualify them for the dominant law firms of the time - those firms were described as "white shoe" referring to wearing white bucks at the country club and not wanting to get their hands dirty with hostile takeovers (then). In that context I took it as a negative term... So I was surprised to hear you use it in an apparently positive fashion, so thought I would ask about it. I threw in the "black suite" as a contrast to "white shoe" originally. I don't know if any of the partners or associates at the time wore black suits - I'll see if I made that up entirely or if it was mentioned in the book.

Anyway I strongly suggest Outlies by Malcom Gladwell to anyone who is interested in a good read about how greats end up great. Its slightly depressing though as at one level he provides a great deal of evidence that initial conditions and the year one is born in has a much larger effect on the chance of become a super star in your profession than we would like to think. On the other hand he also makes a good case for taking a good look at arbitrary limits and timings so as to provide more MORE great Hockey, Baseball, Technology, Music, super-stars. (Such as one's own children.)


----------



## 3holic

JJR512 said:


> No, I don't. Do you have a problem with polite conversation?
> 
> *I've always maxed out the score on any reading comprehension test I've ever taken*. But I'm not perfect, of course. I don't see how the part of my quote that you emphasized indicates a lack of comprehension of what you said. I stand by what I said, whether you think it was a misstatement, or wrong, or whatever.


Good for you. Yet you still have failed to grasp my point, so I will repeat it here: Raises and promotions are based *primarily* on merits and achievements, *not the color of one's suit*."

Nowhere did I assert that there are no other determinants beside merit that affect career advancement.



JJR512 said:


> If the boss doesn't trust men with blonde hair, and you have blonde hair, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like pink ties, and you wear pink ties, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like overweight women, and you're an overweight woman, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If your boss doesn't like homosexuals, and he suspects you're a homosexual, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less. If the boss doesn't like wingtips (to answer an earlier question), and you wear wingtips, your promotions might come slower and your raises might be less.


I am sure that there are bosses who don't trust men with blonde hair, pink tie, overweight men or women, gays etc. But there are also bosses who will give preferrence to them if the bosses themselves share the same sartorial taste, or have the same physical characteristics, or of the same sexual orientation.

As for black suit being detrimental, see my reply below...



Mad Hatter said:


> Although the intended seriousness might be held in common, can this example stand for both women and men? I'm a tradesman; I have no idea about corporate culture. I ask because I'd think that *women had a bit more discretionary color palette; that is, black would perhaps be seen as more acceptable for them than men, especially in upper management*.


Many women are in positions of power in the corporate world today. Ebay, Yahoo, and formerly HP have/had female CEOs. And yes, they do have more leeway with their choice of suit colors. Furthermore, it is my observation that powerful women have less hang-ups than men over the color of their subordinates' suits.

My point is that if a manager likes to wear black, it would be advantageous for his/her staff to emulate him/her if the concept of personal affinity -- as mentioned by Cuffdaddy -- is indeed valid.

Another poster wrote that he had observed many men in various career positions wearing black suits. Assuming some of them are shallow enough to judge his subordinates by their suit colors, wouldn't he give preferrence to those who wear black?


----------



## JJR512

3holic said:


> Good for you. Yet you still have failed to grasp my point, so I will repeat it here: Raises and promotions are based *primarily* on merits and achievements, *not the color of one's suit*."


Then perhaps when you quoted me, you should have emphasized the word "solely" instead of the part you did; "solely" was the only thing I said that indicated I may have misunderstood you, or at least failed to take into account when choosing how to word my reply. As before, I continue to stand by the part of my post that you actually _did_ emphasize previously.



> Another poster wrote that he had observed many men in various career positions wearing black suits. Assuming some of them are shallow enough to judge his subordinates by their suit colors, wouldn't he give preferrence to those who wear black?


Of course. And this doesn't contradict anything I said, either. As earlier in this post, my post you just quoted, and the earlier post you quoted, my point continues to be that a smart employee will know the rules and standards, both written and unwritten, of his or her organization, and stick to them as best as possible. If that means don't wear black suits at all, then don't wear them at all. If it means wear black suits at least three times a week, then wear them at least three times a week. If it means were pink ties, orange suspenders, and green shoes, then wear pink ties, orange suspenders, and green shoes. It doesn't matter what the standards or rules are, unwritten or not; either follow them, or prepare to have your lack of compliance held against you, either directly or indirectly, or go work somewhere else.

Now I cannot help but notice that although I may have missed one word you wrote, I did at least have something of value to say as a result, whereas all you've seemed to want to do is point out a mistake I made and ask silly questions with obvious answers but no point. I hope this will prove to be the last bit of time I waste on that kind of BS with you.


----------



## 3holic

JJR512 said:


> I hope this will prove to be the *last bit of time I waste on that kind of BS with you*.


_"Another high-quality post by Justin J. "JJR512" Rebbert" -- _your words.


----------



## JJR512

3holic said:


> _"Another high-quality post by Justin J. "JJR512" Rebbert" -- _your words.


That's right, and it also tasted great and was low in sodium.

And all that has what, exactly, to do with what you quoted and emphasized? No, disregard that, it doesn't matter. You really don't. Perhaps you will find your experience here to be more enjoyable if you add me to your ignore list, that way you won't have to read anything else from an inexperienced uncomprehending guy like me who doesn't take kindly to rudeness. Bye now! :smile:


----------



## 3holic

^Irony obviously escapes you also.


----------



## JJR512

3holic, perhaps it would be best if you understood what, exactly, the problem is.

The problem is you saying, "Do you have problem with reading comprehension?" to me. I perceived this as you being very rude to me, as if you were calling me stupid. I do not feel that missing one word yet still managing to write something relevant qualifies me for that classification.

What you _could_ have said was something like, "That's why I said _primarily_. " That wouldn't have seemed rude at all, and there it would have ended, and I might not now want to tell you where you can shove your irony. I mean, honestly, didn't minoring in psychology--especially social psychology--teach you anything about interacting with others in social situations?


----------



## 3holic

^I admit I was in a cranky mood after reading your statement "*it is foolish to believe that all promotions and raises are given solely on the basis of merits and achievements*"

Not only had you twisted my words into something entirely different from what I had said, but also proceeded to say that it was foolish. Hence my harsh words.

Okay, let by-gones be by-gones and let's move on.


----------



## Mike Petrik

David,
I am familiar with Outliers but have not read it. In my experience it is correct that "initial conditions and the year one is born" bears surprising influence on outcomes. And yes it is true that in the first half of the 20th century old line law firms (and not just in NY) often eschewed litigation in favor of more "genteel" practices. Skadden's willingness to take on hostile takeover work launched the Firm into the highest tier of the profession, at least in terms of financial metrics. Joe Flom was the fellow who developed that expertise within the Firm and the rest is history. And yes, while Skadden comprised (and still comprises) mostly Ivy League law grads, the lore is that it was more willing to accept new associates from middle and working class backgrounds than established Wall Street firms. That is much less true today in that pretty much all firms are more interested in talent than pedigree, but social graces (though perhaps not social background) are still important even if perhaps not as important.


----------



## eagle2250

Jovan said:


> Limbaugh converted to Democrat, the polar ice caps un-melted themselves, and all stray cats/dogs are now sterile. How about you?


If my memory is working this AM, hasn't Rush Limbaugh been spotted wearing black suits, as part of monochromatic black ensembles on several occassions?


----------



## Pirendeus

Does that imply that black suits are fair and balanced?


----------



## Jovan

Geez, I try to make a joke about completely unrelated subjects and...


----------



## Peak and Pine

Some of you may have brushed by the tainted dialog between 512 and 3holic that just took place. I chose to wade thu it. Very interesting. Like 512, I thought 3's reading comprehension remark was a little whoa. But then 512's reply was tornado-esque. Anyhow, I only comment to say that both went on to make strong points. Most importantly, to me, is that all this was done, obviously, thru the written word. It takes a high degree of skill to speak coherently and persuasively 'on paper'. And they both have it. But since it was done here and not thru PM, it was meant for others, like me, to see. So, marks: Effort A, Debating ability A, Skill with words A, Brevity C, Humor F.


----------



## CuffDaddy

David_E said:


> CuffDaddy - Your powers for looking into my heart of hearts to know what I truly believe are astounding, but I'm afraid they were inaccurate this time. I really would prefer to work at a company/institution that values my merit as a person and a professional over my taste in clothes. I really do think that a corporate culture that worries about such things out side of the ritual costumes needed for some professions (Sales, Court Appearances, flipping burgers, etc) is rotten, and I sincerely do NOT want to play those stupid games. I don't really respect those who do.


David E, I was not seriously contending that I had the ability to read your mind. I was taking the position that _no_ person could seriously contend that clothing is irrelevant. Showing up in a grass skirt and coconut-shell bra for back-office accounting? An electric blue 5-button sleeveless suit on the CEO? Daisy duke cut-offs for secretaries? Ball gowns for field technicians? In most businesses, each of these things would, through their immediate effects, adversely in-office productivity and professionalism and/or credibility within the community.

Clothing is communication. What we communicate matters. The question is not whether clothes matter, but which clothes communicate unacceptable or undesirable messages. It is a question of line drawing... everybody's view is somewhere on the spectrum.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Please....stop giving these bizarre examples to make your tiny point. We're talking strictly about black suits here. Nobody disputes that clothing is communicative. Focus. Think black suit only please.


----------



## CuffDaddy

David_E said:


> BTW - Do they still really call them "White Shoe" firms? I thought that term went out when many of those firms declined after the little "black suit" merger and acquisition firms ate their lunch in the 70s-90s? (I not being snarky - I'm really curious. I'd only heard it when reading about the industry's history in Outliers".)


Mike's response pretty much covered this, but I will add that a law firm having its "lunch eaten" in a particular sphere of business for a particular time does not necessarily mean a decline in the fortunes of that firm at all. First, law firms can adapt and get into new areas of practice and accept new types of cases very quickly. There's no new hardware to buy, no factory to set up... simply laterally recruit some lawyers who are willing to do it. Second, just because a firm does not participate in this or that lucrative area of business does not mean that they are not doing very well in other profitable areas of practice.

As Mike's post further indicates, the definition of "white shoe" has shifted a bit, being slightly less oriented on the longevity of the firm and more on the sophistication and profitability of its practices and clients. Like the rest of American culture, it matters progressively less and less who your parents were, _provided_ you can adequately adopt the culture of the firm.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Peak and Pine said:


> Please....stop giving these bizarre examples to make your tiny point. We're talking strictly about black suits here. Nobody disputes that clothing is communicative. Focus. Think black suit only please.


P&P, I would love to, except that people keep making absurd statements that clothing doesn't matter in determining profession progression, organizational success, etc., and that "merits" are all that count. If one accepts that (incorrect) proposition as true, then black suits are perforce universally acceptable.

Instead, the truth is that clothing, like all communications, matters to some degree. The question is where on the spectrum the line is drawn, and where black suits lie in relation to that line. Several of us have said that, in our spheres and experience, black suits lie on the wrong side of the line. One common response (from you, Cruiser, and others) can be summed up as: "Nuh-uh. It doesn't matter where I am, so it can't matter anywhere, unless you're among solely crazy people." (Another, more modest, response is limited to "The norms are different where I am.")

I make no claim to the absolute truth of whether black suits are good or bad for business, largely because I don't think those sorts of absolute truths exist. But I feel very, very, very confident that they matter in a good many places and spheres.

As to similarities between the pitch my of nose and that of Mike, it's easily explained. Although we have different personal backgrounds, and are of somewhat different ages, we do operate in some _broadly _similar circles - shared circles that are not all that exclusive, I would add. And in those circles, black suits on men are a rare exception, and are unlikely to not "read" well even among those who have never had a single conscious thought about whether black makes a good color for suits.


----------



## Acct2000

I hesitate to get involved with this, but isn't the real answer that whether the black suit is or is not appropriate is entirely a matter of time and place?

They are more fashionable now and more people are wearing them. That means that are probably more acceptable than they were. I would imagine the number of places where they are unacceptable are fewer now than in the past.

There probably are still a lot of situations where they are not the best idea. 

Some rules for clothing are probably a good idea. Too many rules makes all of them look silly and obscures the really important ones. Many "rules" should probably be "strong suggestions for this situation."


----------



## CuffDaddy

forsbergacct, your last line is right-on. In a previous thread, I suggested three levels of direction/authority on clothing, in declining order of strength: rules, conventions, and preference/advice. I don't think black suits were ever against the rules. I think for a long time there was a broad (in America) consensus on a convention against black business suits. It appears that, in some parts of America, the guidance against black suits has moved from convention to preference/advice, and may even be falling out of that last category. OTOH, there are places where I think it remains firmly entrenched as a convention.


----------



## Peak and Pine

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I hesitate to get involved with this, but isn't the real answer that whether the black suit is or is not appropriate is entirely a matter of time and place?


That's about as good and succinct as anything so far.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -​
Have received a couple of PMs regarding all this. My stance hasn't been questioned, nor that of Cuff's. They just wondered if I am as bent about this as it may read. No. No, I'm not. I think both Daddy's and my position are fairly unwavering and I also think the whole thread makes for really great conversation between a bunch of people who, for the most part, have no idea even what the other looks like. And all this amazes me because years and years ago I wrote a letter to the editor and it took weeks and weeks to get published and nobody ever countered it or for that matter probably ever read it. Not so now. And like it's been said, there's no such thing as bad publicity, there's no such thing, to me, as a negative or angry or crazy internet response; it's that there's a response at all that always amazes me.


----------



## Acct2000

Now the Peak has had his chances to speak can a mens fashion and political advisory be a part of Peak's near future??

Fashion for the truly trad New Englander


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Rules, schmules. There are no rules in clothing! There is however, etiquette and required dress codes be they social or workplace codes. That's it!

As regards black trousers, NEVER! The only time I wear black around my legs is on the odd occasion I wear black jeans, otherwise NEVER. Primarily I don't ever wear black slacks because I think they're ugly and look scruffy. They look as if the person wearing them (usually pensioners in Sweden) can't be bothered to match his slacks and jacket correctly.

But black slacks is a whole other discussion


----------



## Acct2000

I don't own a black suit, but I have some black slacks and I wear them without a second thought. I don't wear them often, but I don't shy away from them either and there are a couple sport coats I really like them with.

While I suppose I risk someone popping out of the internet and chastising me during my real-life day, I shall bear the responsibility of taking that risk.


----------



## CuffDaddy

FWIW, I do not percieve there to be the same convention against black odd trousers.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> One common response (from you, Cruiser, and others) can be summed up as: "Nuh-uh. It doesn't matter where I am, so it can't matter anywhere, unless you're among solely crazy people."


I've never said that so I'm not sure how you can sum up my comments that way. Although I have been incorrectly labled in the past as some kind of "anything goes" person when it comes to attire, the truth of the matter is that I probably pay more attention to my surroundings and try to fit into them moreso than most folks here. I've never been afraid to follow the crowd in this regard. If I worked in a culture that frowned on black suits, I wouldn't wear a black suit. And if I worked in a culture that rewarded black suit wearers, I would most likely wear one. I'm not stupid.

My only point was that in most workplaces it's a non-issue either way; however, it is obviously up to each person to evaluate his own environment to determine if it might be an issue. It would be no different than trying to determine if it's OK to wear jeans to the workplace.

If you follow this forum on a regular basis just look at how many folks here castigate the masses for being sheep. How often do you see someone posting about how they aren't going to wear business casual like everyone else at their workplace. They are going to do their own thing and wear their suits regardless of what everyone else, including the boss, is doing. Not me. I always got the lay of the land and tried to fit in, whatever that might entail. Clearly nothing that I've posted can be summed up as you suggested.



> the truth is that clothing, like all communications, matters to some degree. The question is where on the spectrum the line is drawn, and where black suits lie in relation to that line. Several of us have said that, in our spheres and experience, black suits lie on the wrong side of the line.


I don't think that I've disputed this. I've just said that what the black suit "communicates" to someone else may not be the same as what it would communicate to you. Like I said previously, if you wear brown shoes with a charcoal suit you are communicating to a minority that you aren't good at matching colors. This minority is probably not much smaller than the minority to whom a black suit communicates something negative. In reality a small minority of the population hates black suits and a small minority of the population loves black suits. The much larger group in the middle really doesn't care one way or the other. It's just another suit to them. But again, each person must evaluate his own circumstances to see who is around him and more importantly, above him in the pecking order. This applies to just about everything, not just black suits.

Cruiser


----------



## JJR512

Cruiser said:


> If you follow this forum on a regular basis just look at how many folks here castigate the masses for being sheep. How often do you see someone posting about how they aren't going to wear business casual like everyone else at their workplace. They are going to do their own thing and wear their suits regardless of what everyone else, including the boss, is doing. Not me. I always got the lay of the land and tried to fit in, whatever that might entail. Clearly nothing that I've posted can be summed up as you suggested.


There are also a lot of people here, though, that _encourage_ others to be sheep. Just take a look [thread=105966]at this thread[/thread]. Here's a guy that buys boat shoes from some other brand, then a bunch of people come along and say, "Oh, that simply won't do! You MUST buy them from Sperry like all of us or you just don't count!"


----------



## tocqueville

I see a lot of black suits, but I also think that more than just "clothes" people are biased against it. I bought one years ago but stopped wearing it after my aunt commented that I was dressed like a chauffeur. And my wife thinks its only fit for funerals. In fact the only time I've worn it in the past 5 years has been for funerals.


----------



## ZachGranstrom

JJR512 said:


> There are also a lot of people here, though, that _encourage_ others to be sheep. Just take a look [thread=105966]at this thread[/thread]. Here's a guy that buys boat shoes from some other brand, then a bunch of people come along and say, "Oh, that simply won't do! You MUST buy them from Sperry like all of us or you just don't count!"


I'm starting to really like you, JJR512....


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser, replace "crazy people" with "clothing enthusiasts," and that's precisely what you've said. My statements that I know plenty of non-clothing enthusiasts who don't ever, ever, ever wear black suits and would likely not percieve them well were dismissed.

W/r/t almost every clothing choice offending a subset of the population, you are quite correct. The question is: *Which *subset? While acknowledging the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, I submit that whether your clothing offends the 16 year old down the street is, for most professional adults, not as important as whether it offends bosses, clients, professional peers, etc. And I contend that there is some correlation (imperfect, to be sure) between the latter group and the group of people who "speak" classic clothing (one does not have to be an "enthusiast" to speak and understand that language, anymore than one has to be a novelist to speak and understand English). There are certain advantages, then, in "speaking" correct classic clothing, just as there are certain advantages to speaking proper English. (I will admit that there are also some circumstances in which speaking correct English will draw funny looks or worse, classic clothing is not universally appreciated. But suit-wearing workplaces are rarely such circumstances.)


----------



## coase

As an outsider in a profession with poor dress habits, I note that part of the difficulty seems to be that conventions are weaker today than they used to be. And that those who would take black suits amiss are a smaller share of the market than in previous decades. Moreover, there are probably a greater number of people in positions of power and influence -- especially from Asian firms but also in odd corners of the US -- who would even look favorably on black suits. As a result some of the vehemence expressed in this forum against them seems to be a desire to uphold a certain tradition against visible changes that weaken the boundaries of convention. Indeed, the fact that many of the standard, "good taste" rules are interpreted by many people as signalling lack of modernity and even being outdated further raises the hackles of the core group here.

So I think it is an interesting empirical question to enquire as to when a black suit is appropriate, and which groups are liable to take it amiss. Or conversely whether some groups actually favoring these suits should be seen as counterbalancing the possibility of their being dismissed in the right time and place.


----------



## Mike Petrik

"Like I said previously, if you wear brown shoes with a charcoal suit you are communicating to a minority that you aren't good at matching colors. This minority is probably not much smaller than the minority to whom a black suit communicates something negative. In reality a small minority of the population hates black suits and a small minority of the population loves black suits."

Agreed, Cruiser. But people may care about which minority they please or offend. Most people are likely comfortable claiming that they "could care less about dress conventions irregardless of what stodgy traditionalists might prefer." But a few of us nonetheless hold certain conventions, both grammatical and satorial, more dear. Others find us annoyingly eccentric at best and pedantically fascist at worst. One must, I suppose, decide who, if anyone, is worth pleasing. 

I do agree with your "only point" that in most workplaces black suits are a non-issue either way. I believe Cuff and I would note that this is much less true in high end law, banking, and accounting firms. And it is also less true among the top executives at most large businesses (I honestly cannot recall a black suit at a board meeting), though certainly the technology, advertising, and entertainment industries are more receptive to fashion than tradition. If I were in one of those professions I would likely alter my dress to fit in, even if the taste is not mine. Like you, I'm a practical man.

P.S Just dropped my wife off at the airport, and observed a group of men, all suited, getting out of a stretch limo. Only one wore black. The driver.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> Cruiser, replace "crazy people" with "clothing enthusiasts," and that's precisely what you've said.


You will have to give me an example or two of where I spoke in terms of such absolute totality as you suggested when you paraphrased me as saying



> "Nuh-uh. It *doesn't matter where* I am, so it *can't matter anywhere*, unless you're among *solely* crazy people."


Throughout this thread I have repeatedly talked about the overall majority and I never said that there are no environments where something like this doesn't matter. The only point I tried to make was that based on my personal experiences working at various locations around the country over the past 40 years I don't think that most (not all, but most) people are going to encounter any signficant bias or negative job impact by wearing a black suit. Obviously each individual must evaluate their own situation; something a smart person does in every regard, not just with black suits.

Cruiser


----------



## PJC in NoVa

CuffDaddy said:


> (I will admit that there are also some circumstances in which speaking correct English will draw funny looks or worse)


A bit OT, but for a hilarious depiction of this, there's the Mike Judge movie "Idiocracy."


----------



## CuffDaddy

PJC, I _love_ that movie. Love it.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser said:


> You will have to give me an example or two of where I spoke in terms of such absolute totality as you suggested when you paraphrased me as saying


Cruiser, your consistent position earlier in the thread was that only clothing enthusiasts followed/knew of the no-black-suits rule. I'll quote you, if you like:



> As I've noted before, this is yet another of those details that clothing enthusiasts debate, think about, anguish over, etc., etc., which the vast majority of folks out in the world don't give a second thought about. That doesn't mean that it isn't fun to do this, it is; and that's how we should approach it. It's just that we err when we think that many others view this the same way.


　



> If you go back through this thread you will see that the only persons saying that wearing a black suit will somehow be a negative in one's professional life are die hard clothing enthusiasts and references to articles and books written by die hard clothing enthusiasts. In other words the same people who talk about the notch lapel like it's an abomination while totally ignoring the real world around them.





> On the other hand the "numerous non-AAAC sources" are esentially the opinions of other clothing enthusiasts in other mediums. Heck, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the fact that this bias against black is present among this group. Remember, AAAC isn't the only source out there for info directed at clothing enthusiasts. What we're saying is that this bias isn't found in the general public where almost all of us spend our work days.


　



> The only point that I've made is that the portion of the general public that even thinks enough about suit colors is so small that it really shouldn't be the deciding factor in whether or not to wear a black suit.





> I suspect that one is far more likely to encounter an average guy when it comes to clothing during a business day than he is likely to encounter a clothing enthusiast like one finds in a forum such as this. What this means is that you are probably less likely to be on the receiving end of a negative thought wearing a black suit than you would be wearing some of the colors, combinations, and pattern mixing that one routinely sees here.


As for the "overall majority," your earlier comments suggested that the minority who felt differently were so small as to be unimportant, or no more numerous/significant than those holding any other random view on clothes. That simply isn't so in some pretty big circles. And I'm generally a permisivist on clothing choices, agreeing with you on the notch lapeled tuxedo issue, bluchers with suits, etc. Black suits are different. In some areas, a significant number of people _would_ notice them, and those people are disproportionately people whose opinions might matter.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

CuffDaddy said:


> PJC, I _love_ that movie. Love it.


Interestingly, it's become an unexpected cult hit in the DVD-rental market, which suggests that perhaps we're not that idiotic after all . . . .

Mike Judge is something of a national treasure. I'm bereft that "King of the Hill" is now off the air.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Cuff said:


> ....your [Cruiser's] earlier comments suggested that the minority who felt differently [that wearing a black suit was code for _get lost_] were so small as to be unimportant. *That simply isn't so in some pretty big circles.*


I've got a big circle for ya, a big fat zero on this. This topic has become wearisome beyond despair. You are speaking for some extraordinarily narrow clique of disagreeable people who apparently surround you there in Atlanta and whose opinions on this, if they exist in reality at all, are becoming more and more marginalized with every posting here and who are living in a forgotten time of ill founded prejudice and scorn. Let's separate this into two camps. Yours is in a pup tent. These disproportionate people of whom you speak do not matter to anyone but their silly, small-minded selves. This is 2010 and anyone with a modicum of awareness of that fact would run yelling from the company of, or working in the company run by, the people of whom you speak.


----------



## lt114

Peak and Pine said:


> I've got a big circle for ya, a big fat zero on this. This topic has become wearisome beyond despair. You are speaking for some extraordinarily narrow clique of disagreeable people who apparently surround you there in Atlanta and whose opinions on this, if they exist in reality at all, are becoming more and more marginalized with every posting here and who are living in a forgotten time of ill founded prejudice and scorn. Let's separate this into two camps. Yours is in a pup tent. What you proffer, while true if you want it to be, is so dislikable as to equate with racism. These disproportionate people of whom you speak do not matter to anyone but their silly, small-minded selves. This is 2010 and anyone with a modicum of awareness of that fact would run yelling from the company of, or working in the company run by, the people of whom you speak.


I'm sorry, but that is out of line. CuffDaddy hasn't said anything to warrant that sort of vitriol.


----------



## Mike Petrik

lt114 said:


> I'm sorry, but that is out of line. CuffDaddy hasn't said anything to warrant that sort of vitriol.


Of course not, but hardly surprising.


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> I was having fun until that remark. I request a retraction.


You got it. Edit done.


----------



## Peak and Pine

lt114 said:


> I'm sorry, but that is out of line. CuffDaddy hasn't said anything to warrant that sort of vitriol.


It isn't vitriol nor out of line just because you differ with it. I'm tired of this over and over and over rephrasing of the same stand: that there is a small, but powerful group to whom this black suit business means something and you better be careful because, who knows, your fate might someday be in their hands. Enough already. Make it true if you want to. The power of the mind is amazing.


----------



## Billyjo88

Hi Guys!

Based on all this black suit talk, it really put me in the mood so I ran out and ordered a MTM Golden Fleece suit in black from BB. Really excited about it -- will post pics on this thread as soon as it is ready. Look forward to tons of compliments -- thanks in advance!
:idea:


----------



## Trouble9129

I had to explain to a suit sales man the reason why I didn't want any of the 10 black suits he had shown me while he himself was wearing a black suit. I simply said "some guys look good in black and I am not one of them". What I really wanted to say to him was that "black suits are just to serious for me so unless somebody has died or we are going to trial I am not wearing that thing". But after going to a wedding and being only one of a handful of people in a suit I have come to the conclusion that in this day and age in America anything goes. A nice black suit is better then no suit at all. If you feel comfortable in it then nobody is going to say a thing.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> Cruiser, your consistent position earlier in the thread was that only clothing enthusiasts followed/knew of the no-black-suits rule. I'll quote you, if you like:


The problem Cuff is that nothing you quoted indicated that I said that "only clothing enthusiasts" felt as you do. What I consistently said was that outside of the small fraternity of clothing enthuisasts there aren't many people who really care about black suits one way or the other. My objection to your characterization of me in what you said in this post is your use of the word "only." I never said that.

In your other post I was only objecting to your paraphrasing me with, "It doesn't matter where I am" and "it can't matter anywhere" and finally your use of the word "solely." I never implied any of these things. Again, what I was consistently saying was that outside of clothing enthusiasts one isn't likely to encounter very many people who would hold a black suit against them. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me on that, but please don't put words in my mouth or alter my position for me.

And for what it's worth I spent a short period of time working in Atlanta and I saw quite a few black suits. Most were trim cut suits worn by guys driving exotic sports cars and wearing Italian loafers rather than the full cut business suits worn by guys wearing wingtips and driving Buicks which is what I was more accustomed to seeing back in my home city at the time. Of course that was 22 years ago and perhaps things have changed. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## 46L

CuffDaddy said:


> ]Daisy duke cut-offs for secretaries? ]


Assuming said secretary looked good in said daisy dukes, I say sign me up. My secretary is ready for a promotion to a much more important sounding title. I am sick of hiring women based on intelligence and talent. Oh bring me back to the good old days with bimbos and no black suits in the office.

:icon_jokercolor:


----------



## FrontHeadlock

I don't know; I've always thought that black suits were a big no-non, and that was way before I was interested in clothing or had a high-powered job.

In any event, I think the strongest criticism to a black suit during the daytime is that, invariably, a navy or gray suit almost always looks better.


----------



## Cruiser

FrontHeadlock said:


> I think the strongest criticism to a black suit during the daytime is that, invariably, a navy or gray suit almost always looks better.


I agree 100 percent with that, which is why I wear a navy or charcoal suit if a suit is in order; however, saying that a navy or charcoal suit looks better is a far cry from saying that wearing a black suit will have negative repercussions solely because of the color of the suit. I think that is a distinction that many aren't making.

Like I said previously, there are more than a few folks out there who think wearing brown shoes with a charcoal suit is a bad look; but that isn't likely to stop those who like brown shoes with charcoal suits from wearing them. I personally think that brown shoes with a charcoal suit looks much worse than it would look with black shoes, but I'm not going to react negatively toward someone who wears this combination. Same with black suits. It's just not that big of a deal.

Cruiser


----------



## David Reeves

Well I love clothing and talking about clothing but really!? I think some people here need scientific help. I mean shouldn't you spend more time on your Wives/Mistresses?


----------



## ZachGranstrom

David Reeves said:


> Well I love clothing and talking about clothing but really!? I think some people here need scientific help. I mean shouldn't you spend more time on your Wives/Mistresses?


I nominate this as the best response ever made....


----------



## 3holic

Peak and Pine said:


> So, marks: Effort* A*, Debating ability *A,* Skill with words *A*, Brevity *C*, Humor *F*.


I always knew I am a well-rounded student. ;-)

Hmmm, did you just encoded *A*sk *A*ndy *A*bout *C*lothes *F*orum in the grading system?


----------



## MikeDT

JJR512 said:


> There are also a lot of people here, though, that _encourage_ others to be sheep. Just take a look [thread=105966]at this thread[/thread]. Here's a guy that buys boat shoes from some other brand, then a bunch of people come along and say, "Oh, that simply won't do! You MUST buy them from Sperry like all of us or you just don't count!"


It's stuff like that and this thread which makes the AAAC fora so interesting and entertaining for me and some of the English language students here.


----------



## 3holic

CuffDaddy said:


> P&P, I would love to, except that *people keep making absurd statements that clothing doesn't matter in determining profession progression, organizational success, etc., and that "merits" are all that count.* If one accepts that (incorrect) proposition as true, then black suits are perforce universally acceptable.


Nobody here has said, at least I haven't, that clothing doesn't matter. What I have said pertained to only black suits. As Cruiser had said "focus."

*If you have to resort to putting words in my mouth to make an argument, you have already lost the debate.*

Let's re-examine some facts:

1. Only in some geographically-confined and limited in number U.S. locales exist a minority of people who dislike black suits and will consciously or subconsciously discriminate against their black-suit-wearing subordinates.

2. Countering these people, there exist an increasing number who do don black suits (as observed by several posters, including myself) and may therefore favor subordinates who dress like them.

3. Internationally, black suits do not carry the stigma as they do in some small parts of the U.S. In certain Asian countries, black suits are the de rigueur corporate-wear.

4)With global commerce and travels becoming ever more common, international influence will make black suits more acceptable than ever before.

5) Gray and Navy suits are more complimentary to most Americans' complexions. They are also more appropriate and acceptable as professional wear here in the U.S. *But that does not translate to black suits being unacceptable.*


----------



## eagle2250

PJC in NoVa said:


> ....Mike Judge is something of a national treasure. I'm bereft that "King of the Hill" is now off the air.


True dat but, at least we still have the syndicated reruns!


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> But, in many places, it's an issue (whether consciously or sub-consciously) with a non-trivial minority who are disproportionately socially and professionally influential.


CD, I think you are seriously overestimating the amount of pull and influence that is actually possessed and exerted by the boys in the star chamber, the lodge, and the old school tie network.


----------



## CuffDaddy

3holic said:


> 5) Gray and Navy suits are more complimentary to most Americans' complexions. *They are also more appropriate and acceptable as professional wear here in the U.S.* *But that does not translate to black suits being unacceptable.*


You know what? I'll take that. As I have already posted, the anti-black-suit sentiment has always been more of a convention than a strict rule. You now appear to be acknowleding the legitimacy/existence of that convention. (And this thread has convinced me that, in some places, the strength of that convention is diminishing.) A convention is not a "myth," which was the reason I weighed into this thread at the outset.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> CD, I think you are seriously overestimating the amount of pull and influence that is actually possessed and exerted by the boys in the star chamber, the lodge, and the old school tie network.


Earl, see the posts by Mike in the thread for a sense of the breadth and scope of the matter. As he said, black suits are very, very rarely seen at the big law firms, accounting firms, and executive suites, at least in our part of the country. Since those are generally the places where people actually still wear suits (or, at least suits that are not glued together and sold for $99), it's hard to overestimate the matter. There's no "star-chamber," no "lodge" involved. It's not that half the office know the secret handshake and conspire against the half that do not. You just don't wear black suits to the office in my line of work, and you look out of place if you do. It's not the done thing. Nobody is going around policing the matter or holding secret meetings on it. If you wear a black suit, you'll just look naff, to borrow a British-ism. That's all culturally and contextually contingent, but where I am, that's how it is.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> If you wear a black suit, you'll just look naff, to borrow a British-ism. That's all culturally and contextually contingent, but where I am, that's how it is.


Is that just your particular office or are you saying that is the culture in Atlanta? The reason I ask is because a quick Google search turned up this article in an online magazine about a child molestation trial in Atlanta in 2006. Quoting from the article:

_"Defense attorney Douglas N. Peters appeared as the classic southern conservative gentleman, wearing a black suit with a white shirt"_

For what it's worth the defendant accused of child molestation wore a gray suit. :icon_smile_big:

https://www.adoptinfo.net/BlogDay1x.html

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy

Criminal defense attorney. Not even close to what I'm talking about.

In addition, I suspect that the reporter may have mistaken a navy suit for a black one, which is not unusual. Navy fabric looks very dark, whereas black fabric often looks... funny.


----------



## Mike Petrik

CuffDaddy said:


> Criminal defense attorney. Not even close to what I'm talking about.
> 
> In addition, I suspect that the reporter may have mistaken a navy suit for a black one, which is not unusual. Navy fabric looks very dark, whereas black fabric often looks... funny.


I agree, Cuff, on all counts. The notion that a black suit is "classic southern conservative gentleman" is laughable. Not a chance.


----------



## CuffDaddy

I got a little curious as to how often this topic has been discussed, and how heated the discussions have become. Apparently, this thread was entirely predictable.

Anyway, I noted this post providing some anecdotal evidence that an interviewee's black suit had been mentioned in evaluations - in NYC. https://askandyaboutclothes.com/com...76206-Black-Suits-...-Too&p=418540#post418540

But, as with this thread, there are lots of posts on both sides. The numbers were more in favor of the no-black-suits posters, though... does provide some evidence that the no-black-suit convention is diminishing in force and/or prevalence. That, or that the taste and perspicacity of the average AAAC poster has declined. *;P*


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> Criminal defense attorney. Not even close to what I'm talking about.


Cuff, it appears that with each passing post the world of which you speak shrinks. I thought you were speaking of Atlanta in general and then I thought that you were speaking only of the legal profession in Atlanta. Now we are down to only a portion of the legal profession in Atlanta. At this rate we will eventually be down to just your firm and perhaps even just your private office.:icon_smile_big:

Don't get mad at me, I'm just having some fun.



> But, as with this thread, there are lots of posts on both sides. The numbers were more in favor of the no-black-suits posters, though... does provide some evidence that the no-black-suit convention is diminishing in force and/or prevalence. That, or that the taste and perspicacity of the average AAAC poster has declined.


You are talking about clothing enthusiasts posting in this forum. Even if the disdain for black suits is shrinking here, the fact remains that hardly anyone has denied the dislike for black suits on the part of clothing enthusiasts in general. I understand that. Heck, I've never in my life worn a black suit for business even though I have one hanging in the closet. I don't even wear the thing for funerals.

I say this because you seem to think that I'm advocating black suits for business. I'm not or I would be wearing mine. All I'm saying is that most folks, excluding clothing enthusiasts, are fairly neutral on the subject. A black suit might not be the positive factor that a navy or charcoal suit could be, but it also isn't likely to be the negative factor in most situations like some are suggesting either. And again, I didn't say "all" situations, just "most."

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser said:


> Cuff, it appears that with each passing post the world of which you speak shrinks. I thought you were speaking of Atlanta in general and then I thought that you were speaking only of the legal profession in Atlanta. Now we are down to only a portion of the legal profession in Atlanta. At this rate we will eventually be down to just your firm and perhaps even just your private office


This is growing tiresome. I am not talking about the legal profession writ large, which includes all sorts of characters. I'm talking about a group that includes attorneys, accountants, consultants, bankers, executives, and many others, but excludes some of them, as well*; in my city alone, it is thousands or tens of thousands.** But it is not millions, and since I live in a city of millions, you can honestly say that it's a "minority." Depending on what you do, and where you want to go, and how you plan to get there, their opinions may not matter or they may matter all out of proportion to their numbers. For a lawyer who wants to do sophisticated business-oriented work (as opposed to criminal defense), for instance, this group matters a great deal. For a cell phone salesman at the mall who wears a suit because of a dress code, it doesn't.

As with 3holic, though, I'll take this:



> All I'm saying is that most folks, excluding clothing enthusiasts, are fairly neutral on the subject. A black suit might not be the positive factor that a navy or charcoal suit could be, but it also isn't likely to be the negative factor in most situations like some are suggesting either.


If you're now agreeing that in many professional situations, navy/grey gets you "positive," and black gets you "neutral," then I think that settles it. "Neutral" compared with "positive" is a _negative_. I think you underestimate the difference between the two, you think I overestimate, but the point is that there *is* a difference.

*The groups intersect, but none is a subset of the other. Don't make me draw you a f***ing venn diagram.

** Mike's office alone comprises a few hundred.


----------



## FrontHeadlock

Having read through this thread, I suspect that more of us should really pay attention to what CuffDaddy is saying.

When I was in law school, we were always told for interviews with law firms that black suits were a big no-no. Why? Not because everyone looks bad in them, not because everyone hates them, and not because there is some strange law against them. It is simply that, as CuffDaddy has pointed out, they are controversial. When you are interviewing for a job you want to give yourself every possible advantage. If you are interviewing with 20 law firms, and partners at 5 of them give you a negative comment because you are wearing a black suit, well then that to me is reason enough not to wear one.

Now, I'm not saying that you won't get a job wearing a black suit, and i'm not saying that that one negative remark will necessarily preclude you from any particular job. What I am saying is this: why take that chance? There is no need to wear a black suit for daytime business, just as there is no need to wear a 4-button suit. In both cases, there is a better option, so why not take it?


----------



## JJR512

Lots of people have provided evidence both against and in favor of black suits, including comments to the effect that where they work, the vast majority of people wear black suits all the time, or hardly anybody ever wears any black suits ever. To that effect, I'll throw something in as well, for whatever it's worth (meaning: nothing).

My mother worked at the Howard County (Maryland) Circuit Court for many years. She was a judge's secretary, so she saw many lawyers on a daily basis. She also sometimes doubled as a court reporter, so was in the courtroom a lot, too. She's retired now but works part-time as a court reporter, so she still gets into courtrooms a few times a week. My sister also worked as a court reporter in the same court for a time.

They both agree that black suits were rare. They say that blues and grays were the most common, and that the brown family, from tan to chocolate, while not as common as blue or gray, was more common than black.

Although they both agreed that black looks more formal, neither felt that it necessarily looked wrong or out of place per se. Neither of them ever thought, "What's this lawyer thinking, wearing a black suit?"

In fact, they both agree that even a black suit would make a far more favorable impression than what many defendants wear. Yes, it has actually happened that people charged with DUI show up wearing Budweiser t-shirts.


----------



## JJR512

FrontHeadlock said:


> Now, I'm not saying that you won't get a job wearing a black suit, and i'm not saying that that one negative remark will necessarily preclude you from any particular job. What I am saying is this: why take that chance? There is no need to wear a black suit for daytime business, just as there is no need to wear a 4-button suit. In both cases, there is a better option, so why not take it?


I agree, to a certain extent. When applying for a job, don't take unnecessary risks. Conform to the established standard. However, depending on the particular job one is applying for, there may be a little bit of room for creativity, for freedom of personal expression.

If you are applying for a job where you will be one of many people doing the same thing, just another faceless entry on a company payroll, yes, by all means, dress as conservatively as possible. Show that you know how to fall in line and do what's expected and not call attention to yourself. But if you are applying for a job that requires creativity, intelligent though, thinking outside the box, etc., there are ways to show through what you wear that you are capable of this. You can show this by carefully choosing a tie, pocket square, cufflink, or socks that are just a little bit different, not entirely what is expected. Still, for an interview, stick with a navy or gray suit (unless a black suit is required for the specific job, or known to be favored at that particular company).


----------



## CuffDaddy

LOL re: the Bud t-shirt at the DUI hearing!

I guess I will try to conclude my involvement in this thread with this:

*Why would I lie?* I derive no benefit from convincing other men not to wear black suits in tradition-minded (American) business settings. I have not shorted black suits on any sort of commodity exchange. While my personal tastes are fairly traditional/purist, I have usually been on the "permissive" side of similar exchanges on other topics. To the contrary, I have a long history on this board of _debunking_ "rules" that are made up iGent stuff or are so archaic as to be totally irrelevant. I do not confuse personal preference with rules, and do not expect men interested in dressing _appropriately_ to become clothing enthusiasts.

If it makes any difference to anyone, I once bought a black suit in my first years of practicing law. (I bought it for a funeral, but thought it would fit into the work rotation reasonably well.) I wore it to the office a few times, but realized that no other men in my firm wore black suits, ever. Ever. (BTW, not only was that a different firm than my current place of business, it was one headquartered in a different city.) Nobody ever said anything to me about it, but it never felt comfortable (and I'm someone who can get comfortable wearing bow ties, vests, aggresively striped shirts, windowpane-check suits, and even real hats - not _all_ at the same time, of course). It was quickly relegated to the closet, and thence IIRC to goodwill.


----------



## CuffDaddy

JJR512 said:


> If you are applying for a job where you will be one of many people doing the same thing, just another faceless entry on a company payroll, yes, by all means, dress as conservatively as possible. Show that you know how to fall in line and do what's expected and not call attention to yourself. But if you are applying for a job that requires creativity, intelligent though, thinking outside the box, etc., there are ways to show through what you wear that you are capable of this. You can show this by carefully choosing a tie, pocket square, cufflink, or socks that are just a little bit different, not entirely what is expected. Still, for an interview, stick with a navy or gray suit (unless a black suit is required for the specific job, or known to be favored at that particular company).


Nicely said, JJR. My only addition is that a black suit would be a lousy way to show creativity, in contrast to the methods of individual distinction that you suggest.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> ]Why would I lie?.


If you have been accused of lying, it wasn't by me. All I see is that we have a different perspective on this subject. In fact, we don't disagree with the idea that both navy and charcoal look better than black. Our only disagreement is in whether or not it is a significant negative to wear black.

I'm sorry that you got angry at me because to me it has been nothing more than a fun debate. I try to not take internet discussions too seriously, and in those instances when I appear to be serious it's usually more tongue in cheek than anything. Sorry.

Cruiser


----------



## CuffDaddy

Not angry, just irked. Which is, of course, foolish. It is, as you point out, just idle chatter.


----------



## J.Marko

CuffDaddy said:


> Criminal defense attorney. Not even close to what I'm talking about.


Yes, there is a huge difference between your average criminal defense attorney and an associate or partner at a very large law firm. The same sort of difference perhaps between the stereotype of a used car salesmen and car company executive (I am sure there are some well dressed used car salesmen out there - no offense intended).

I remember the first time I went to a local state court - I couldn't believe all the bad suits and toupees! It was bizarre - the defense bar really looked like the bad stereotype of icky used car salesmen, or the guys you see on the streets of New York trying to get you to come in the shop to buy knock off gold watches. That was long long before I joined this forum. I was also surprised by the defendents and non-lawyers in general, who were dressed in shorts and t-shirts with brand logos on them or sports teams, or baggy jeans not covering their underwear, or track suits, or whatever. It was rather shocking to me, really.


----------



## J.Marko

CuffDaddy said:


> Not angry, just irked. Which is, of course, foolish. It is, as you point out, just idle chatter.


Wouldn't blame you for being angry, given the tone of some of the bashing you have been taking here. I am irked from just reading it. At the same time, most have seemed to finally agree that there is at least some segment of the population somewhere that still believes that black suits are not suitable for business.


----------



## Cruiser

J.Marko said:


> Yes, there is a huge difference between your average criminal defense attorney and an associate or partner at a very large law firm. The same sort of difference perhaps between the stereotype of a used car salesmen and car company executive


OK, since I'm the one who brought up the criminal defense attorney in a black suit, here is the guy in question. I don't know if he's a schlub or not with his attire. I don't know him but indications are that he is a successful attorney. I wouldn't know.










Cruiser


----------



## PJC in NoVa

I know it's a side point, but I'm baffled by the notion that brown shoes don't go with a gray suit.

Maybe I'm defensive because I wear the combo all the time, but I have to say that's one "rule of thumb" (or preference, if you like) that I never encountered till I joined "Ask Andy."


----------



## JJR512

PJC in NoVa said:


> I know it's a side point, but I'm baffled by the notion that brown shoes don't go with a gray suit.
> 
> Maybe I'm defensive because I wear the combo all the time, but I have to say that's one "rule of thumb" (or preference, if you like) that I never encountered till I joined "Ask Andy."


My understanding of this "rule" was that it's not absolute, it's conditional. The condition is that the brown shoes have to be at LEAST as relatively dark as the gray suit. So, dark brown shoes is OK with a charcoal suit, while a lighter brown shoe would not be OK with charcoal, but it would be OK with a light gray suit.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

JJR512 said:


> My understanding of this "rule" was that it's not absolute, it's conditional. The condition is that the brown shoes have to be at LEAST as relatively dark as the gray suit. So, dark brown shoes is OK with a charcoal suit, while a lighter brown shoe would not be OK with charcoal, but it would be OK with a light gray suit.


Thanks. When you explain it that way, it makes more sense to me. "Brown" is a pretty broad colorway family. I wouldn't wear my London tan (i.e., light-brown) brogues with something in a really dark gray as there would be too much contrast.

But shoes like the A-E 5th Ave in the dark-brown (as distinguished from the walnut) calfskin shade I see as quite compatible with even a rather dark shade of charcoal trouser/suit:

https://www.josbank.com/menswear/shop/Product_11001_10050_101108


----------



## JJR512

Yeah, you can actually see the shoe in different colors along with various types of pants at the AE website: 

Just pick the color from the box on the right, then click the "See with pants" link at the top-right of the shoe image. Then you can select from several different types of pants to see how the combo looks. Unfortunately, there is no light gray pair, but there is a charcoal, and if you pick that with the walnut, you can see it looks fine, but with walnut, not so good.


----------



## ATLien

Cruiser said:


> Is that just your particular office or are you saying that is the culture in Atlanta...
> Cruiser


Sorry as somebody living in Atlanta I have to say that this city does not have any culture!


----------



## Mike Petrik

ATLien said:


> Sorry as somebody living in Atlanta I have to say that this city does not have any culture!


Very sorry you are disappointed, son. I support both the Atlanta symphany and opera, as does Delta. Delta is ready when you are, and I'll pay for a one-way first class ticket to anywhere in the continental US.


----------



## CuffDaddy

PJC, it's not a rule at all. A couple of posters have said over the last few years that they didn't like grey and brown together, and one guy posted several months ago that some woman approached him while wearing the combination to say that his shoes didn't match, or some silliness. 

The DoW wore brown shoes (suede even) with grey striped suits. So much for that "rule."


----------



## Cruiser

PJC in NoVa said:


> I know it's a side point, but I'm baffled by the notion that brown shoes don't go with a gray suit.


Since I'm the one who brought this up I guess I should respond. As far as I know clothing enthusiasts have always liked brown shoes with gray. It's in the non-clothing enthusiast world where you are most likely to find folks thinking that these don't go together well.

I only brought that up to make a point; that being that while clothing enthusiasts generally dislike black suits, they are held in much higher regard by non-clothing enthusiasts. It's just the reverse with the brown shoes/gray suit. Clothing enthusiasts like it while many non-clothing enthusiasts do not. I was attempting to contrast these two schools of thought in an effort to demonstrate how something might look good to one group and not so good to another.

On a personal note I dislike brown dress shoes with any color suit. I much prefer black or burgundy. My brown shoes are reserved for casual and business casual wear. I figure that if the occasion calls for a suit and tie, I'm not going to drop them down a notch by wearing brown shoes. Of course that's nothing more than a personal preference as far as I'm concerned.

Cruiser


----------



## 3holic

CuffDaddy said:


> *Why would I lie?*


No, I don't believe you would. But you did distort my post about raises and promotions into something completely ludicrous to strengthen your argument, an act that I find intellectually dishonest and graceless.



CuffDaddy said:


> Not angry, just irked. Which is, of course, foolish. It is, as you point out, just idle chatter.


Does this mean you will turn into *Huff*daddy?


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Cruiser said:


> I figure that if the occasion calls for a suit and tie, I'm not going to drop them down a notch by wearing brown shoes.
> Cruiser


I take much the same view when it comes to what I call the more "high-formal" occasions for wearing a suit: Attending a wedding or funeral, appearing in court, going on a job interview, things of that nature.

In all those cases, I would wear black shoes.

When it comes to everyday businesswear, however (I'm a 5-days-a-week coat & tie man), brown shoes become part of the suit-wearing picture.

But of course I would never wear brown shoes with a black suit! (And I actually do own one, an H-F lightweight-flannel chalkstripe, which I bought because I thought it was deep midnight blue; didn't realize it was black till I got it home--I like it, but won't be out looking for more black suits.)


----------



## Grudge Match

I've been thinking of buying myself a relatively inexpensive black suit. I did a bit of research and came up with this as a possible choice:

https://www.mensitaly.com/products.aspx?id=164

" This imported suit is made of ultrafine merino wool for exceptional softness and for uncompromising fit as well. Featured with self-fabric scalloped facing, superior lining, double reverse pleated trousers have fine Italian cotton pocketing, half-lined to the knee, dual side vents, hand basted-canvas backed and hand finished. Unfinished bottom for altering ease. Dry clean. If you are looking for the nicest Italian Made suit on the planet look no further. This suit is as nice and luxurious as it gets. Also has real Italian superfine merino wool fabric that look like pure spun liquid with the finest drape I have ever seen! Embraces of Italian cut and design, hand tailored and hand finished, hand pick stitching. No expense was spared on this suit as it is first cabin all the way! "

For under $200 that looks a steal to me. I don't want it to last forever. Just to wear it on formal occasions such as job interviews. At least I has planned that until I came across this thread!

Interstingly, after doing further research I came across this essay on another forum:

"Black has power, mystery, sex appeal, it slims, it is counter culture and it is undeniably formal and appropriate also. It is the color of the night, of the city, of things modern, the new age. Also, at some point, there was a concurrence amongst the egalitarian (but talented) smart set, rather than try to compete (at a disadvantage) with those to the manor born, they would create their own "Oxford and Yale". It amounted to nothing less than a new clothing dialect that announced their membership to their own _clubs and universities_. A new _lingua Franca_, for a new aristocracy of the asphalt night."

I do want to show that I'm not some out iof date fuddy duddy at the interviews (and also when I am tripping the light fantastic into the ashphalt night LOL)

https://www.filmnoirbuff.com/article/the-history-of-the-black-suit-part-1

Your considered opinion please gentlemen.


----------



## J.Marko

Grudge Match said:


> "Black has power, mystery, sex appeal, it slims, it is counter culture and it is undeniably formal and appropriate also. It is the color of the night, of the city, of things modern, the new age.


This is precisely why a black suit is not the right choice for most job interviews. It is up to you of course what image you want to project.


----------



## Cruiser

J.Marko said:


> This is precisely why a black suit is not the right choice for most job interviews. It is up to you of course what image you want to project.


I'm sure that just about everybody posting in this forum has one or more suits that they really like that aren't the right choice for certain things, like most job interviews for example. Just because a particular suit isn't right for a job interview doesn't mean it should be avoided for other activities, unless of course one simply doesn't care for the style, cut, color, etc.. I have a black suit, but it was never my suit of choice for work.

Cruiser


----------



## ZachGranstrom

Grudge Match: why? Why did you open this thread up? Now we're going to have 10 new pages from Cuffdaddy explaining why the black suit is somehow the work from the devil. ( he really does not like black suits)


----------



## J.Marko

Grudge Match said:


> . . . Just to wear it on formal occasions such as job interviews. At least I has planned that until I came across this thread!
> . . .
> 
> I do want to show that I'm not some out iof date fuddy duddy at the interviews (and also when I am tripping the light fantastic into the ashphalt night LOL)
> . . .
> 
> Your considered opinion please gentlemen.


Cruiser,

I had the impression he was asking about using it at a job interview so I responded in a way that I hoped was at least slightly amusing and insightful. Perhaps I failed 

Zach,

I kinda wished I hadn't said anything and let this die, but I had to respond to the guy's question . . .


----------



## Grudge Match

Grudge Match said:


> "Black has power, mystery, sex appeal, it slims, it is counter culture and it is undeniably formal and appropriate also. It is the color of the night, of the city, of things modern, the new age. Also, at some point, there was a concurrence amongst the egalitarian (but talented) smart set, rather than try to compete (at a disadvantage) with those to the manor born, they would create their own "Oxford and Yale". It amounted to nothing less than a new clothing dialect that announced their membership to their own _clubs and universities_. A new _lingua Franca_, for a new aristocracy of the asphalt night."





J.Marko said:


> This is precisely why a black suit is not the right choice for most job interviews. It is up to you of course what image you want to project.


So you reckon this guy I'm quoting has got it all wrong then? Maybe he has. How would I know? But he does say it's a new clothing dialect. Doesn't it show the interviewer that you are up-to-the-minute and not a stick-in-the-mud!


----------



## J.Marko

Grudge Match said:


> So you reckon this guy I'm quoting has got it all wrong then?


No, I think the guy is right. So, if the job is going to be at night, in the city, and involves mystery, sex appeal and counter culture, black is the suit to wear to the interview. A few jobs come to mind - the guy that holds the velvet rope at night clubs, the body guard to a rock star, a show promoter, a bar tender at a trendy club, reporter at Rolling Stone, etc. If your job involves sitting at a desk during the day, then maybe not so much. I am being a bit silly and over the top for fun's sake, but I think you get my point? Just giving you my personal opinion, based on the quote you gave.

On a more serious note, maybe you want to consider not only the type of job, but the age of the interviewer. If the interviewers are going to be in their 20s, maybe they will think the black suit makes you look cool, mysterious and sexy and will like that. If your job involves double entry book keeping, and the person interviewing you is in his 50s, then maybe they don't want someone counter culture reminiscent of the asphalt night . . . that is what I am trying to say. And I seem to be unable not to be a bit flip about it. Sorry.


----------



## Cruiser

J.Marko said:


> I had the impression he was asking about using it at a job interview so I responded in a way that I hoped was at least slightly amusing and insightful. Perhaps I failed


Not at all. I really wasn't directing my comments at you personally; they just opened up another line of thought. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## 3holic

ZachGranstrom said:


> Grudge Match: why? Why did you open this thread up? Now we're going to have 10 new pages from Cuffdaddy explaining why the black suit is somehow the work from the devil. ( he really does not like black suits)


LOL!

This thread is epic. View count is close to 10,000. Great post from the Earl.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

The day I want to start looking like an old guffer (US = goober) I'll start wearing brown shoes with both light grey and dark grey suits.

Until then I will continue to wear only black shoes with grey suits. And reserve my brown shoes for navy suits and casual wear.


----------



## sirchandler

Great thread, this is.


----------



## ATLien

Hmmm all those angry postings against black suits motivate me more and more to actually buy one...maybe a BB Fitzgerald for wear at night, museums...


----------



## Billyjo88

I have already done just so -- an excellent motivator, this thread is.


----------



## JJR512

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The day I want to start looking like an old guffer (US = goober) I'll start wearing brown shoes with both light grey and dark grey suits.
> 
> Until then I will continue to wear only black shoes with grey suits. And reserve my brown shoes for navy suits and casual wear.


I assume you're posting this more or less in response to some comments I made earlier about brown shoes with grey suits. What I said earlier is something I've heard from some source that I can't remember, and I honestly don't know how sartorially acceptable that is, so I'd be interested in hearing any arguments on that issue. But, to keep that separate issue clear and unmuddled, I think it deserves its own thread. I'll be watching with interest to see if you commence one.

(It seems that the spellchecker doesn't like "unmuddled". If I've just invented that word, I hereby ™ and © it and demand a US $5.00 check every time somebody uses it.)


----------



## ZachGranstrom

^^^^
In response to your comment, all I have to say is this: unmuddled,unmuddled,unmuddled,unmuddled, and unmuddled.


----------



## Bartolo

Billyjo88 said:


> I have already done just so -- an excellent motivator, this thread is.


Amongst other things already noted in this thread, owning a black suit apparently makes one speak like Yoda.


----------



## JJR512

ZachGranstrom said:


> ^^^^
> In response to your comment, all I have to say is this: unmuddled,unmuddled,unmuddled,unmuddled, and unmuddled.


I want my $50, Zach. Oh yes, $50. That's $25 for you saying it, and $25 more for you saying it again when I quoted you.


----------



## CuffDaddy

JJR512 said:


> I assume you're posting this more or less in response to some comments I made earlier about brown shoes with grey suits. What I said earlier is something I've heard from some source that I can't remember, and I honestly don't know how sartorially acceptable that is, so I'd be interested in hearing any arguments on that issue.


I've said all I have to say on the subject of black suits (and Mr. Marko summed it up quite well in a recent post), but this grey-with-brown thing is so easy to resolve that it doesn't need its own thread. Here's the DoW wearing brown shoes (suede, no less) with a grey suit:

He routinely wore brown shoes with all manner of grey suits, including chalkstripes. People may have individual _preferences_ against brown shoes with grey suits, but personal preference is all they are. There is no rule against it, and has not been for 100 years.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> this grey-with-brown thing is so easy to resolve that it doesn't need its own thread. Here's the DoW wearing brown shoes (suede, no less) with a grey suit:
> 
> He routinely wore brown shoes with all manner of grey suits, including chalkstripes. People may have individual _preferences_ against brown shoes with grey suits, but personal preference is all they are. There is no rule against it, and has not been for 100 years.


I agree totally that things like this are nothing more than personal preference. That's why I wouldn't choose to wear brown shoes with a gray suit just because some celebrity or public figure like the DoW wore them. It's also why I wouldn't wear a black suit just because celebrities and public figures like Sean Connery, Harrison Ford, George Clooney and Barack Obama wear them. I only wear what I personally like.

In fact I have a personal rule; if I like it, it should be a rule and those celebrities and public figures should be wearing it because I am. Of course now I have to come up with a way to make them aware of what I'm wearing. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Billyjo88

Bartolo said:


> Amongst other things already noted in this thread, owning a black suit apparently makes one speak like Yoda.


Hmmmm....a good point, Bartolo makes. Also worth noting that Darth Vader was reviled and a black suit wearer as well, he was.


----------



## J.Marko

CuffDaddy said:


> Here's the DoW wearing brown shoes (suede, no less) with a grey suit:


Wow Windsor looks great, the unfortunate fellow next to him not so much.

Thanks by the way.


----------



## JJR512

It looks like at least four people in that photograph are staring straight at the camera.


----------



## Richard Baker

Cruiser said:


> ....I wouldn't choose to wear brown shoes with a gray suit just because some celebrity or public figure like the DoW wore them. It's also why I wouldn't wear a black suit just because celebrities and public figures like Sean Connery, Harrison Ford, George Clooney and Barack Obama wear them. I only wear what I personally like....
> 
> Cruiser, I am very much on your side as far as following celebrities in regards to black suits and brown shoes with grey suits are concerned. As far as the famous example of the DoW, a private retiree at that stage, with the brown suede shoes and the grey suit goes - thank you CuffDaddy for the photo - this is an example where following celebrities might not always be desirable in all situations. As a more relaxed look in a leisure situation it would be an option, although not my personal preference, and again the situation and circumstances are important to decide whether these outfits are optimal. Btw, this is also a greet photo showing a man with a well-fitting suit next to a person with an ill-fitting suit.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser said:


> I agree totally that things like this are nothing more than personal preference.


I don't say all "things like this are nothing more than personal preference." Some practices (or taboos) are so well-established that they rise to the level of rules (withing a particular sartorial language), and many others are sufficiently prevalent amongst fluent speakers of a particular language that they are conventions.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Richard Baker said:


> As far as the famous example of the DoW, a private retiree at that stage, with the brown suede shoes and the grey suit goes - thank you CuffDaddy for the photo - this is an example where following celebrities might not always be desirable in all situations. As a more relaxed look in a leisure situation it would be an option, although not my personal preference, and again the situation and circumstances are important to decide whether these outfits are optimal.


What the DoW did, by and large, became so prevalent amongst well-dressed men of prior generations that his "celebrity" has nothing to do with the propriety of following his example.


----------



## 3holic

Hmm, am I the only one who noticed the severe pulling on the DoW's jacket?


----------



## JJR512

I wonder if the inner button isn't buttoned.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Cruiser said:


> I agree totally that things like this are nothing more than personal preference. That's why I wouldn't choose to wear brown shoes with a gray suit just because some celebrity or public figure like the DoW wore them. It's also why I wouldn't wear a black suit just because celebrities and public figures like Sean Connery, Harrison Ford, George Clooney and Barack Obama wear them. I only wear what I personally like.
> 
> In fact I have a personal rule; if I like it, it should be a rule and those celebrities and public figures should be wearing it because I am. Of course now I have to come up with a way to make them aware of what I'm wearing. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


Very good points Crusier, which I share. Further, as the complete waste of space and Nazi lover that he was, the DoW was never an icon of any kind for the vast majority of British men. For some reason, perhaps his American wife, America liked him and they were welcome to him!


----------



## eagle2250

Cruiser said:


> ...
> In fact I have a personal rule; if I like it, it should be a rule and those celebrities and public figures should be wearing it because I am. Of course now I have to come up with a way to make them aware of what I'm wearing. :icon_smile_big:
> 
> Cruiser


LOL. Well, some of us don't have that problem. Homer Simpson, the Family Guy and Hank Hill call me all the time, seeking my sartorial counsel! I have not yet advised any one of the three to wear a black suit and shall not do so.


----------



## Jovan

JJR512 said:


> I wonder if the inner button isn't buttoned.


 Did double breasteds even have an inner button back then?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Well, some of us don't have that problem. Homer Simpson, the Family Guy and Hank Hill call me all the time, seeking my sartorial counsel! I have not yet advised any one of the three to wear a black suit and shall not do so.


I think Cruisers point is that if Cuff Daddy & other gentlemen continue to dress in a certain way simply becuase the DoW and other celbes, did, then Cruiser want's the same to apply to his sartorial wonder & people should copy him.


----------



## CuffDaddy

If Cruiser can convince enough people that he's the best-dressed man in the world, then he will get his wish. The DoW is worth emulating in matters of clothing (if little else) because he was widely considered to hold that distinction, not because he was a "celebrity."


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> If Cruiser can convince enough people that he's the best-dressed man in the world, then he will get his wish. The DoW is worth emulating in matters of clothing (if little else) because he was widely considered to hold that distinction, not because he was a "celebrity."


But he was a celebrity, all royals are by definition celebrities.
The DoW was only copied and humoured because he was a royal. If he'd been Joe Bloggs no one would have taken a blind bit of notice of him.
The followers will always humour the royals and copy them to make them feel good.


----------



## Peak and Pine

I must have been dozing because, jeepers creepers, this thread is alive again. It's baaaaack! And with the original cast of characters. Which now, perhaps unfortunately, includes me.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Further, as the complete waste of space and Nazi lover that he was, the DoW was never an icon of any kind for the vast majority of British men. For some reason, perhaps his American wife, America liked him and they were welcome to him!


Earl, thank you thank you for that. I was hesitant to say similar for fear it would irk too many. But you went first, so now let me give the American side of this. Most here were probably not alive when the Duke was. I was. And on this side of the ocean he was a total laughing stock, buffoon, King For A Day and dandied up ne'er do well. Few Americans were fascinated with him during his globe-trotting forays. The same was asked of him as is asked of Paris Hilton: who is this person and why is he famous? It was only later as a teenager that I learned of his unsavory past, the pro Nazi thing (altho that's still debated) and his time in the Bahamas throughout WWII while the King and his wife trudged thru the rubble of the Blitz with aid and moral support. But apparently the Duke's manner of dress, to some, seems to have placed him in some sort of hallowed place of which I've never understood. And while we all here have a differing degrees of interest in mens' clothing, I think the degree that emulates this man's dress while overlooking his character, which was mostly absent, is a degree way too far.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The DoW was only copied and humoured because he was a royal. If he'd been Joe Bloggs no one would have taken a blind bit of notice of him.


There were dozens of other royals at the time, few/none had their every sartorial move cataloged and copied. If royalty (or celebrity) were the deciding factor, then why should the DoW have achieved unique reknonwn as a dresser?

Look, you don't have to revere the DoW to recognize his central location in the pantheon of classic style deities. If you just don't like "classic style" in general (and it seems your real affections lie elsewhere), of course he's no more convincing to you than Abraham would be to a Taoist.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Peak and Pine said:


> And while we all here have a differing degrees of interest in mens' clothing, I think the degree that emulates this man's dress while overlooking his character, which was mostly absent, is a degree way too far.


Why? If I were young and talented and wanted to become a major-league hitter, I would study the techniques of Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Pete Rose, and numerous other individuals whose skill as a batter is beyond dispute, but whose personal character was/is the subject of some controversy (to put it kindly). In my own profession, there are lawyers whom I find personally noxious, but whose prowess as advocates is undeniable; if I were to ignore the lessons that they teach on the grounds that they are, in my view, rotten people, I'd be the one to suffer for it. And there's lots to learn from Tiger Woods on the subject of golf, even if he now appears to be something of a personal travesty.

Similarly, _regardless_ of what one may think of the DoW as a human being, he was widely regarded as one of the best dressed men in history. Just because you don't want to take your lessons on patriotism, egalitarianism, duty, or courage from him doesn't mean that one cannot learn a great deal about dressing with style from his example. Frankly, I don't have a personal opinion on him as an individual. I've never been interested enough in the DoW as anything other than a dresser to take the time to learn enough about the details of his life to pass any judgment. But if I found out he ate kittens for breakfast, it still wouldn't change the fact that he was a hell of a dresser.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> Look, you don't have to revere the DoW to recognize his central location in the pantheon of classic style deities. If you just don't like "classic style" in general (and it seems your real affections lie elsewhere), of course he's no more convincing to you than Abraham would be to a Taoist.


Please, don't try to guess what I do and don't like, because I'm very eclectic so you're certainly doomed to failure. I lke classic style, however the DoW did not wear the classic British style of yesteryear that I like. I think some of his rigs looked absolutely ridiculous, especially when you compare him to the other royals of the day and when you compare him to the fashionable men about town of the day.

And while we're at it, may I say that I feel that now in 2010 the DoW's eclectic fashion statements from the 1930s and 40s are far from relevant for today's man, unless of course you like looking as if you're dressed in costume and part of an amateur dramatics group.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl, I can only go by the statements that you've made on this forum. From them, I don't get the sense that you're working from the same style lexicon as I am. And that's fine. We don't all have to speak the same language, nor do we have to speak with the same accent.

That said, I'd love to see some examples of the classic British style of yesteryear that you do like. (Frankly, I generally enjoy threads with lots of pictures of things that look _good_ as compared to threads about things that look _bad_.)


----------



## beherethen

Earl of Ormonde said:


> And while we're at it, may I say that I feel that now in 2010 the DoW's eclectic fashion statements from the 1930s and 40s are far from relevant for today's man, unless of course you like looking as if you're dressed in costume and part of an amateur dramatics group.


I couldn't agree more and I for one am throwing out my copy of the East India Trading Company dress code. :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> Earl, I can only go by the statements that you've made on this forum. From them, I don't get the sense that you're working from the same style lexicon as I am. And that's fine. We don't all have to speak the same language, nor do we have to speak with the same accent.
> 
> That said, I'd love to see some examples of the classic British style of yesteryear that you do like. (Frankly, I generally enjoy threads with lots of pictures of things that look _good_ as compared to threads about things that look _bad_.)


 Good points!


----------



## JJR512

Jovan said:


> Did double breasteds even have an inner button back then?


I don't know. I wasn't around back then.


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> ...if I found out [the Duke of Windsor] ate kittens for breakfast, it still wouldn't change the fact that he was a hell of a dresser.


But_ hell of a dresser_ isn't an occupation. It's an enhancement to one's personal and professional life; an adjective only, a modifier to character. (I'm struggling to play along with your never-ending metaphor of clothing as language).



Cuff said:


> . I've never been interested enough in the DoW as anything other than a dresser to take the time to learn enough about the details of his life to pass any judgment.


Well there you have it. You know nothing about him except his clothes. Probably true of many here. Consider reading about him then. Bone up. He committed a disgraceful act and rather than quietly slink away he decided to celebratize himself; he was the original jet-setter; the originator of the term pussy whipped. Shopping trips and cruises and parties and polo, that's all he was, a glutton for nothingness. And photographed all along the way.

Understand his position in 1936. A threat looms unlike the world has ever seen and London is as close to Berlin as El Paso to San Antonio. A wildly popular king dies and the young man who is to become the face of Britain says _naw, I think I'll just take my woman and leave._ Thankfully he thought to take his clothes, else we'd have far less to talk about here.

I did not know about his "central location in the pantheon of classic style deities" until you told me. So did you know the details of the abdication, the St. Loo-ee woman, the mug always in the magazines, the Nazi thing, the time in Bermuda while his country burned before I told you? Did we just go to different schools, or do you really not care as much as you've let on?


----------



## CuffDaddy

P&P, I am generally aware of all of those things, mostly because every poster on a board who does not like the DoW style of dressing resorts to _ad hominem_ attacks on his character (obviously a vulnerability) to wave away his undeniable influence on the manner in which men dress. So what? Accepting all you say as true, and assuming that there are no extenuating circumstances or nuances of fact that change the coloring of the story, what does that have to do with how he dressed, and whether that dressing style was influential? I know lots of good men who are lousy dressers. The fact that I admire and respect their character doesn't mean that I want to learn anything about how to dress from them.

Regarding your purported attempt to "play along" with my metaphor, it's so far off base that it's a _non sequitur_. Clothing is the language, not life. Life is bigger than any language.


----------



## JJR512

Either you look at the Duke of Windsor and like the way he dresses, or you don't. The _only_ thing that matters in deciding if you like the way he dresses is if you like the way he dresses. Period.

If you look at a man and your first thought is he's dressed well, then what difference does it make if you find out later he eats kittens for breakfast? What difference does it make what his occupation is? If you later learn any unpleasant fact about the man, do you suddenly say, "Oh, my goodness, I was so wrong about him, he's not a good dresser at all!" No, you don't, unless you're a moron. It just doesn't follow.

So the DoW's personal life, his likes and dislikes, his choice of breakfast foods can all be safely left alone because they are completely and totally irrelevant to whether or not one happens to like the way he dresses.


----------



## Jovan

Don't hold your breath, but I get the feeling someone will respond to you with something like, "You wouldn't wear the uniforms of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, right?"


----------



## 3holic

JJR512 said:


> I wonder if the inner button isn't buttoned.


That might have been the case. But that doesn't explain the pull on the left side of his jacket.



CuffDaddy said:


> But if I found out he ate kittens for breakfast, it still wouldn't change the fact that he was a hell of a dresser.


Fair enough point.

For the record, he did order the execution of dogs at the palace, an brutal act for which Q.E. II still hasn't forgiven him.

I for one would not emulate someone's style of dressing if that someone had repulsive character flaws.


----------



## Mike Petrik

3holic said:


> That might have been the case. But that doesn't explain the pull on the left side of his jacket.
> 
> Fair enough point.
> 
> For the record, he did order the execution of dogs at the palace, an brutal act for which Q.E. II still hasn't forgiven him.
> 
> I for one would not emulate someone's style of dressing if that someone had repulsive character flaws.


As a tribute to consistency I suggest you consider reversing your hands on golf clubs in order to avoid emulating someone named Woods.


----------



## JJR512

Jovan said:


> Don't hold your breath, but I get the feeling someone will respond to you with something like, "You wouldn't wear the uniforms of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, right?"


If they did, I'd try to find a way to politely tell that's a stupidly irrelevant question. I didn't talk about _wearing_ anything at all, I only talked about _liking_ something.

Not that it's relevant to this conversation, but I happen to like the Nazi uniform. I like it's _appearance_. I don't like what it stood for and I don't like Nazis. I just like the appearance of the uniform.


----------



## JJR512

3holic said:


> I for one would not emulate someone's style of dressing if that someone had repulsive character flaws.





Mike Petrik said:


> As a tribute to consistency I suggest you consider reversing your hands on golf clubs in order to avoid emulating someone named Woods.


Exactly, Mike. Exactly.

I've said it before and I'm saying it again: Someone is either a good dresser or not. Repulsive character flaws do not, or should not, change one's opinion on that. And one should decide what to wear, or what style to emulate, based on if one likes that style or not; the character flaws of the person wearing the style are irrelevant.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> P&P, I am generally aware of all of those things, mostly because every poster on a board who does not like the DoW style of dressing resorts to _ad hominem_ attacks on his character (obviously a vulnerability) to wave away his undeniable influence on the manner in which men dress.


Well, I developed a dislike for the DoW the man when I was reading about him many many years ago, long before the internet and long before I ever saw photos of him that specifically focused on his civilian clothing. To that point I'd seen one or two of him in uniform or in royal gowns. Subsequently I obviously had no desire to search out photos of him. It was only when I started visiting forums like this that I starting seeing photos of him in a relaxed manner and (like some of the other people in photos of the day) I thought he looked like a buffoon. I'll grant you that I think the clothing of the 30 and 40s looks ridiculous anyway. My favourite old period is the Edwardian. My favourite newer period is the suits of the 60s.


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> P&P, I am generally aware of all of those things, mostly because every poster on a board who does not like the DoW style of dressing resorts to _ad hominem_ attacks on his character (obviously a vulnerability) to wave away his undeniable influence on the manner in which men dress.


I can see this is going nowhere, for like elsewhere in this thread, once you've decided on your spin, you won't be unwound. Still, just so I can say to myself I tried, I will. In order for an attack to be _ad hominem_, there has to first be an attack. You apparently see my listing of Windsor's notoriety as that. It's not, but might be twisted into such if I had left out an equal list of accomplishments. I didn't. There were none. So, no attack. If you persist in seeing it as such, and you may, then I just don't know what to tell you.

Tho maybe this. Let's, for a moment, say it was an attack. So now we can discuss the _ad homine_m part. And for those unfamiliar with the term, it is the attempt to discredit by bringing in true, but unrelated facts, i.e., the Duke was a lousy dresser because he was a closet Nazi. But I have never said anywhere in this thread that I believed him to be a lousy dresser. I believe him to be a lousy human being, true, but I've never attempted to say that you should dislike his ties because of that. I have simply been curious why so many in our niche world here can climb beyond his disrepute and get so far as even considering his clothing a worthy topic.

For what it's worth, being a Big Fat Liberal, I was a supporter of John Edwards in the primaries. Unrelated to that, I thought he looked and dressed well. For reasons thoroughly unrelated to his ability to govern, reasons now known to all the world, I do not like this man and while he may look and dress just as well as before, I can't stand even to look at him. I cannot compartmentalize on these topics as well as others. Sorry.


----------



## Peak and Pine

JJR512 said:


> If you *later learn* any *unpleasant fact* about the man, do you suddenly say, "Oh, my goodness, I was so wrong about him, he's not a good dresser at all!" No, you don't, unless you're a moron.


We're not talking about _unpleasant facts_. We're talking about a public life of nothingness. Nor are we talking after the fact, as in _later learned_. We're talking about those alive at the time he was (me) who recall his vapidity vividly and never even noticed his dress, he was that repulsive. So I don't accept your moron tag. You are the the most recent and most wired chamelion to join us here. I cannot get a read on you. Your confessional thread where you regret certain confrontations, your philosophy of apology thread, your helping me post an avatar at 2 a.m., a few pleasant even funny exchanges and now you hurl this moron thing. I am disappointed. Take something.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Peak and Pine said:


> We're not talking about _unpleasant facts_. We're talking about a public life of nothingness.


Exactly, add to that a life of letting other people and a whole country down.


----------



## JJR512

Peak and Pine said:


> We're not talking about _unpleasant facts_. We're talking about a public life of nothingness. Nor are we talking after the fact, as in _later learned_. We're talking about those alive at the time he was (me) who recall his vapidity vividly and never even noticed his dress, he was that repulsive. So I don't accept your moron tag. You are the the most recent and most wired chamelion to join us here. I cannot get a read on you. Your confessional thread where you regret certain confrontations, your philosophy of apology thread, your helping me post an avatar at 2 a.m., a few pleasant even funny exchanges and now you hurl this moron thing. I am disappointed. Take something.


So a "public life of nothingness" and "vapidity" aren't, in your opinion, unpleasant characteristics?

The "moron tag" was not being directed at you, personally, if you knew these unpleasantries about him to begin with. What I said was moronic was changing your mind about how well someone dresses based on what you later learn about a person. Further, if you had no opinion of how the man dressed to begin with, then you can't really change your mind about how well he dresses.

On the other hand, I find it--shall we say, distasteful, is that a better word than moronic?--to base one's opinion on how well a man dresses based on what you know about the man personally. Peak and Pine, I don't know what you consider to be "well dressed", but imagine in your mind a well-dressed man. See the clothes in your mind. Now imagine those clothes on Adolf Hitler, suitably tailored and altered for an equally-perfect fit on him as on the man you were originally seeing in your mind. Now, would you say that Hitler, in this imaginary case, is poorly dressed? Or not well-dressed? If you do say that, then your opinions are too easily influenced by prejudice. Maybe you're comfortable with that, and that's fine for you. I find that distasteful, though.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Just when I wanted to go to bed, along comes this.



JJR512 said:


> So a "public life of nothingness" and "vapidity" aren't, in your opinion, unpleasant characteristics?


Ahhhhhh, no? They're way beyond that. This is not a case of an older guy (me) telling a younger guy (you) all kinds of stuff I know that you probably couldn't. Hardly. Like you, I wasn't alive in 1936. So why don't you, like me, just read about it. Then come back and tell us all about the Duke of Windsor.



> On the other hand, I find it--shall we say, distasteful, is that a better word than moronic?--to base one's opinion on how well a man dresses based on what you know about the man personally.


Yeah, that's a better word, tho it's hardly synonymous. I base a lot of things on the seemingly unrelated. Clinton's eloquence didn't seem quite as moving to me after they got him getting blown while on the phone with Arafat. The girl I work with who isn't very pretty now seems quite alluring now that her personality's taken over (and she laffs at my stuff, which always colors me.) This is a form of ad hominem which works with me, because real is real and, except in the sterility of Cuff's courtroom or the hard-and-fast dictums of your posts, that can hold sway with me.

I'm going to go to bed now, but I promise you that tonight I won't drift away to the Alan Combs Radio Show, but will try to think of Hitler in Armani instead.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I'll grant you that I think the clothing of the 30 and 40s looks ridiculous anyway. My favourite old period is the Edwardian. My favourite newer period is the suits of the 60s.


Well, there you go, then. We just speak different sartorial languages. The language of the mod and the neo-Edwardian is related to what I call "classic" (or mid-atlantic mid-century) in the way that, say, two romance languages are related. The roots may be the same, but French and Spanish are nevertheless two pretty different languages.

Perhaps in mod, brown shoes don't go with grey suits. I wouldn't know, I don't speak it; I'll defer to you within that language.


----------



## JJR512

Peak and Pine said:


> Ahhhhhh, no? They're way beyond that. This is not a case of an older guy (me) telling a younger guy (you) all kinds of stuff I know that you probably couldn't. Hardly. Like you, I wasn't alive in 1936. So why don't you, like me, just read about it. Then come back and tell us all about the Duke of Windsor.


I am often accused of being too literal. Now it is my turn to do the accusing. By "unpleasant facts" or "unpleasant characteristics" I do not mean only facts or characteristics that are exactly unpleasant, to the exclusion of those that are slightly less than tolerable or extremely distasteful. No, I mean anything you don't like. So that includes "public life of nothingness" and "vapidity".

To put it succinctly, don't refuse to like the way a man dresses just because you don't like the man. Don't like the way a man dresses just because you do like the way a man dresses.

To generalize even further, like something because you like it, and dislike something else because you dislike it, and leave out any other factors that aren't relevant. One of my favorite authors is Douglas Adams. I hate lima beans. If I should find out that Douglas Adams liked lima beans, I'm not going to suddenly start liking lima beans. I dislike Tom Cruise as a person, but I think he's a good actor and I enjoy watching his films.


----------



## Jovan

CuffDaddy: I wasn't thinking of "mod" when he said that, personally. I was more thinking of this. Different sartorial languages indeed!


----------



## Tomasso

Jovan said:


> CuffDaddy: I wasn't thinking of "mod" when he said that, personally. I was more thinking of this. Different sartorial languages indeed!


I like Roger's DB the best; a decidedly 30's-40's cut.


----------



## 3holic

Mike Petrik said:


> As a tribute to consistency I suggest you consider reversing your hands on golf clubs in order to avoid emulating someone named Woods.


You must have me confused with another poster. I don't even play golf. And for the record, I have never puchased any Tiger Woods apparel even before the scandal broke. Furthermore, I have never written anything about liking his clothes or game and wanted to emulate him.

First Cuffdaddy indirectly attributed something I didn't write to me, now you implied that I am being inconsistant. Are all Altantans so easily confused?

Now if your statement is to mean people who dislike Woods ought not hold a golf club like he does, that is not even a logical statement given that holding a club the correct way does not equate to emulating him.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

CuffDaddy said:


> Well, there you go, then. We just speak different sartorial languages. The language of the mod and the neo-Edwardian is related to what I call "classic" (or mid-atlantic mid-century) in the way that, say, two romance languages are related. The roots may be the same, but French and Spanish are nevertheless two pretty different languages.
> 
> Perhaps in mod, brown shoes don't go with grey suits. I wouldn't know, I don't speak it; I'll defer to you within that language.


hhhmmm....I'd never thought of it that way. Good point! You're a clever and observant man using a language analogy on me.


----------



## 3holic

JJR512 said:


> I've said it before and I'm saying it again: Someone is either a good dresser or not. Repulsive character flaws do not, or should not, change one's opinion on that. And one should decide what to wear, or what style to emulate, based on if one likes that style or not; the character flaws of the person wearing the style are irrelevant.


Whether or not someone is a good dresser, and the desire to emulate that someone are two separate issues -- don't bundle them together.

There are repulsive people who may be well dressed, but I have no desire to emulate them. Now is that so difficult to comprehend?


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

3holic said:


> Whether or not someone is a good dresser, and the desire to emulate that someone are two separate issues -- don't bundle them together.
> 
> There are repulsive people who may be well dressed, but I have no desire to emulate them. Now is that so difficult to comprehend?


Well said, the last thing I would want to do would be to emualte the style of some horrendous character to the degree that it was easily recognisable, regardless of whether or not he was a good dresser. I fully agree, the two are separate issues.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Tomasso said:


> I like Roger's DB the best; a decidedly 30's-40's cut.


It's another sign of this show's attention to detail: Roger Sterling is older (I figure his character would be born around 1910, maybe even a bit earlier); it makes sense he'd wear a cut that he probably first decided was right for him as a young fellow back in the early 30s, when the dreaded Duke of Windsor (oh no, not him again!) was making the drape cut all the rage among a certain class of men.

btw, I think that suit would look less out of place today, fwiw, than the other suits, which would look dated (or at any rate self-consciously "retro," which Roger's suit is not, even in the context of 1960).


----------



## CuffDaddy

Jovan said:


> CuffDaddy: I wasn't thinking of "mod" when he said that, personally. I was more thinking of this. Different sartorial languages indeed!


Of those guys, only Sterling doesn't look ridiculous. Well, Don looks good because Jon Hamm is handsome guy. JMHO, of course. I think people started raving about the clothes in the show not because they are good, but because most people have forgotten what an entire office of guys in suits (and women in proper business attire) looks like. Even if the suits are kind of ridiculous, it's a big step up from rumpled khakis and logo golf shirts.


----------



## Jovan

PJC in NoVa said:


> It's another sign of this show's attention to detail: Roger Sterling is older (I figure his character would be born around 1910, maybe even a bit earlier); it makes sense he'd wear a cut that he probably first decided was right for him as a young fellow back in the early 30s, when the dreaded Duke of Windsor (oh no, not him again!) was making the drape cut all the rage among a certain class of men.
> 
> btw, I think that suit would look less out of place today, fwiw, than the other suits, which would look dated (or at any rate self-consciously "retro," which Roger's suit is not, even in the context of 1960).


Today, the fact that he was wearing a double breasted alone would get him some "gangster" jeers. Most of the time he's clad in a narrow lapel three piece -- with a belt showing below the waistcoat. :crazy:



CuffDaddy said:


> Of those guys, only Sterling doesn't look ridiculous. Well, Don looks good because Jon Hamm is handsome guy. JMHO, of course. I think people started raving about the clothes in the show not because they are good, but because most people have forgotten what an entire office of guys in suits (and women in proper business attire) looks like. Even if the suits are kind of ridiculous, it's a big step up from rumpled khakis and logo golf shirts.


Tiny belts aside, I don't see anything ridiculous about them, but you're speaking to a fan of that style.


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Jovan said:


> Today, the fact that he was wearing a double breasted alone would get him some "gangster" jeers.


I doubt it. I happen to own a very similar gray chalkstripe DB suit, have worn it for years, and have never had anyone say such a thing.

Once I wore a navy SB pinstripe with a French-blue shirt and solid-black tie, and someone jestingly said I looked "like you're about to put out a contract on someone." (It was the last time I wore those 3 items together.) But the gray DB has never aroused that kind of waggery.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Jovan said:


> Tiny belts aside, I don't see anything ridiculous about them, but you're speaking to a fan of that style.


Really? Tiny lapels that don't make it a quarter of the way to the shoulder seams? Near-monochrome coloring? It seems a very repressed, stiffled way of dressing to me.


----------



## JJR512

3holic said:


> Whether or not someone is a good dresser, and the desire to emulate that someone are two separate issues -- don't bundle them together.
> 
> There are repulsive people who may be well dressed, but I have no desire to emulate them. Now is that so difficult to comprehend?


Apparently, it is for some people. But to be clear, what you quoted from me had nothing to do with emulating the _person_, which is what you're talking about here. I was talking about emulating that person's _style_. Emulating a person's _style_ does not equal emulating the person, and it is on this point that I think some people are getting hung up. I believe that either some people do think it's the same thing, or they're worried that other people who see them emulating the "bad man's" style will think it's the same thing, meaning other people will think that anyone who is emulating the bad man's style is also emulating the person's character flaws.



Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well said, the last thing I would want to do would be to emualte the style of some horrendous character to the degree that it was easily recognisable, regardless of whether or not he was a good dresser. I fully agree, the two are separate issues.


You indicate your agreement with 3holic, but the very next thing you say indicates otherwise.

For simplicity, allow me to paraphrase you: "I don't want to emulate the style of a bad person." Why not? I asked this before, and got no real answer, so I ask it again: Suppose you see some photos of a man you've never seen before and know nothing about. This man's style produces some deep feeling within you and you like it very much, and you decide that the next time you go to your tailor, you're going to show him these photos and say you'd like to dress a little bit more like that guy. But in the meantime, before you actually get to your tailor, you chance to learn some things about that man that you do not like. Now: do you still go to your tailor as planned, or do you scrap that idea? If you choose the latter: why not?

If you find a man to be such a good dresser that you would like to emulate his style, then do so. Any other factors are irrelevant. As 3holic said, they are separate issues and should not be bundled together.


----------



## Mike Petrik

JJR512 said:


> Apparently, it is for some people. But to be clear, what you quoted from me had nothing to do with emulating the _person_, which is what you're talking about here. I was talking about emulating that person's _style_. Emulating a person's _style_ does not equal emulating the person, and it is on this point that I think some people are getting hung up. I believe that either some people do think it's the same thing, or they're worried that other people who see them emulating the "bad man's" style will think it's the same thing, meaning other people will think that anyone who is emulating the bad man's style is also emulating the person's character flaws.
> 
> You indicate your agreement with 3holic, but the very next thing you say indicates otherwise.
> 
> For simplicity, allow me to paraphrase you: "I don't want to emulate the style of a bad person." Why not? I asked this before, and got no real answer, so I ask it again: Suppose you see some photos of a man you've never seen before and know nothing about. This man's style produces some deep feeling within you and you like it very much, and you decide that the next time you go to your tailor, you're going to show him these photos and say you'd like to dress a little bit more like that guy. But in the meantime, before you actually get to your tailor, you chance to learn some things about that man that you do not like. Now: do you still go to your tailor as planned, or do you scrap that idea? If you choose the latter: why not?
> 
> If you find a man to be such a good dresser that you would like to emulate his style, then do so. Any other factors are irrelevant. As 3holic said, they are separate issues and should not be bundled together.


100% agree. Admiration and emulation of Tiger Woods' golf mechanics does not in any way suggest endorsement of his character. One would think that should be obvious. The D of W may well have been a scoundrel, but the man knew how to dress -- and that included knowing how to pair brown shoes with gray suits.


----------



## upr_crust

*Emulating a style made popular by one person is different than emulating that person's style . . .*

If one emulates some aspect of a particular person's style without emulating the entirety of that style, that extracts the aesthetic from the symbolic, but if one emulates the entire style of a particular person (especially a public figure) in such a way that the source of the emulation is clear to other people, one might posit that the emulator feels some solidarity with the emulated source.

Clothing is symbolic, to some degree - how one uses (or diffuses) that symbolism can be taken as identification with the source of style choice.


----------



## Mike Petrik

upr_crust said:


> If one emulates some aspect of a particular person's style without emulating the entirety of that style, that extracts the aesthetic from the symbolic, but if one emulates the entire style of a particular person (especially a public figure) in such a way that the source of the emulation is clear to other people, one might posit that the emulator feels some solidarity with the emulated source.
> 
> Clothing is symbolic, to some degree - how one uses (or diffuses) that symbolism can be taken as identification with the source of style choice.


In theory that is correct, but I would suggest that the style would have to be pretty eccentric (bordering on costume) in order for such a phenomenon to apply. A point in fact would be the emulation of the satorial style of the D of W could not reasonably be expected to suggest such solidarity. Indeed, it is difficult to think of an actual example. Perhaps Tom Wolfe, though one would be a bit hard pressed to identify the substance of the hypothesized solidarity.


----------



## upr_crust

*The Duke of Windsor - no - Tom Wolfe - maybe (though to what end) - however - Louis Farrakhan - yes . . .*

Farrakhan was the first example that I could think of where the iconic style (dark suit, white shirt, bow tie), if emulated, could be used to indicate solidarity with the original wearer's ideas. Does that mean that every man who wears a bow tie in such a manner is a member of the Nation of Islam? Not always, but for some, very definitely yes.



Mike Petrik said:


> In theory that is correct, but I would suggest that the style would have to be pretty eccentric (bordering on constume) in order for such a phenomenon to apply. A point in fact would be the emulation of the satorial style of the D of W could not reasonably be expected to suggest such solidarity. Indeed, it is difficult to think of an actual example. Perhaps Tom Wolfe, though one would be a bit hard pressed to identify the substance of the hypothesized solidarity.


----------



## Mike Petrik

upr_crust said:


> Farrakhan was the first example that I could think of where the iconic style (dark suit, white shirt, bow tie), if emulated, could be used to indicate solidarity with the original wearer's ideas. Does that mean that every man who wears a bow tie in such a manner is a member of the Nation of Islam? Not always, but for some, very definitely yes.


Ah, I hadn't thought of that. While I am not all that acquainted with F or his "style," I do see your point.


----------



## Miket61

Mike Petrik said:


> Ah, I hadn't thought of that. While I am not all that acquainted with F or his "style," I do see your point.


Mr. Farrakhan is the leader of the Nation of Islam. His mentor and predecessor, Elijah Muhammad, wore bow ties only as part of a ceremonial costume, which had a Shriner-like blend of Western formalwear and Eastern symbolism.

This is an old picture of Mr. Farrakhan:

And this is a later picture:

I would like to think he's changed his style to lighter suits and straight ties because they flatter his older, heavier frame. But it's also possible that as younger NoI members hold fast to the old look as a public refutation of hip-hop culture, he may have felt that to dress like that would suggest he was trying to be a twenty-something firebrand again.

On the original topic of black suits, I have one that I originally bought with the expectation I would wear it to a funeral. I occasionally bring it out, pairing it with a white shirt and the brightest tie I can feel comfortable wearing.


----------



## Jovan

CuffDaddy said:


> Really? Tiny lapels that don't make it a quarter of the way to the shoulder seams? Near-monochrome coloring? It seems a very repressed, stiffled way of dressing to me.


 I will grant that Draper's lapels are too narrow for my tastes, but I don't see anything wrong with 2.5-2.75". I think I put a little more colour into my outfits than those guys, too.

We obviously don't like the same things, but that's okay. I was just using it as an example of early '60s boardroom style.


----------



## 3holic

JJR512 said:


> Apparently, it is for *some* people. But to be clear, what you quoted from me had nothing to do with emulating the _person_, which is what you're talking about here. I was talking about emulating that person's _style_. Emulating a person's _style_ does not equal emulating the person, and it is on this point that I think some people are getting hung up. I believe that either some people do think it's the same thing, or they're worried that other people who see them emulating the "bad man's" style will think it's the same thing, meaning other people will think that anyone who is emulating the bad man's style is also emulating the person's character flaws.


I think it is for *most* people. That's why companies have a moral turpitude clause in their contracts with their endorsers. Most people will not buy products endorsed by scoundrels. Noticed that numerous companies dropped Tiger Woods after the scandal broke?

Woods performance on the golf course might not have suffered, but people's desire to buy the products he endorses most likely did.

The DoW may be well-dressed -- but IMHO not the greatest dresser in history as one poster asserted -- as I had seen pictures of him wearing some garish outfits. So even though I give him a conditional nod on many of his clothes, due to his character flaws I have absolutely no desire to emulate him (i.e., using the tailors he once used, mixing 3 patterns as he often did, and wearing full-cut tailored clothing which he favored.)

As to emulating someone's style versus emulating his character, one needs to be mindful of others' perception. If you dress like a well-dressed mafioso (the dapper Don comes to mind), of course you are not emulating his criminal activities, but others will nevertheless have a negative perception of you.


----------



## 3holic

Peak and Pine said:


> We're not talking about _unpleasant facts_. We're talking about a public life of nothingness.


LOL. The DoW was the Paris Hilton of his time, except Paris did not slaughtered dogs, or sympathized with the Nazis.



upr_crust said:


> Farrakhan was the first example that I could think of where the iconic style (dark suit, white shirt, bow tie), if emulated, could be used to indicate solidarity with the original wearer's ideas. Does that mean that every man who wears a bow tie in such a manner is a member of the Nation of Islam? Not always, but for some, very definitely yes.


Excellent point, upr! To which I would add wearing dreadlocks like the Rastafarians.


----------



## Jovan

I disagree, 3holic. If we're talking about _Ye Olde Paris Hilton_ then Jayne Mansfield is a better candidate.


----------



## 3holic

Jovan said:


> I disagree, 3holic. If we're talking about _Ye Olde Paris Hilton_ then Jayne Mansfield is a better candidate.


Didn't Mansfield at least starred in some B-rated movies? I must admit she was before my time so I know little of her. Paris, OTOH, starred in, what, an X-rated video with her then boy-friend.

This thread is now completely derailed. Sorry, Earl.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

JJR512 said:


> You indicate your agreement with 3holic, but the very next thing you say indicates otherwise.


Not at all, as I wrote: _regardless of whether or not he was a good dresser_. Same argument, just from the other direction.
Two separate issues.


----------



## JJR512

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Not at all, as I wrote: _regardless of whether or not he was a good dresser_. Same argument, just from the other direction.
> Two separate issues.


Mmm....I'm not talking about wanting to emulate someone's style regardless of if he's a good dresser or not, I'm talking about deciding to _not_ emulate a good dresser's style just because he's a "horrendous character".

See...


Earl of Ormonde said:


> Well said, the last thing I would want to do would be to emualte the style of some horrendous character to the degree that it was easily recognisable, regardless of whether or not he was a good dresser. I fully agree, the two are separate issues.


"Regardless of whether or not he was a good dresser" is irrelevant to the fact that you "would [not] want...to emulate the style of some horrendous character". In other words, your "regardless..." statement means your "not want to emulate" statement is always true:

If a horrendous character is a good dresser, you wouldn't want to emulate his style.
If a horrendous character is a bad dresser, you wouldn't want to emulate his style.
It's the first of these two statements that's been at the heart of what I've been talking about for my last few posts. The second one is irrelevant to my point. Your argument from a different direction is really a different argument altogether. Your argument is disregarding whether the horrendous man is a good dresser; my argument is disregarding whether the good dresser is a horrendous man. You being in favor of not emulating the style of a horrendous man even if he is a good dresser is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing, which is that one should be free to emulate the good style of a man even if he is a horrendous person.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

JJR512 said:


> Mmm....I'm not talking about wanting to emulate someone's style regardless of if he's a good dresser or not, I'm talking about deciding to _not_ emulate a good dresser's style just because he's a "horrendous character".
> 
> See...
> 
> "Regardless of whether or not he was a good dresser" is irrelevant to the fact that you "would [not] want...to emulate the style of some horrendous character". In other words, your "regardless..." statement means your "not want to emulate" statement is always true:
> 
> If a horrendous character is a good dresser, you wouldn't want to emulate his style.
> If a horrendous character is a bad dresser, you wouldn't want to emulate his style.
> It's the first of these two statements that's been at the heart of what I've been talking about for my last few posts. The second one is irrelevant to my point. Your argument from a different direction is really a different argument altogether. Your argument is disregarding whether the horrendous man is a good dresser; my argument is disregarding whether the good dresser is a horrendous man. You being in favor of not emulating the style of a horrendous man even if he is a good dresser is the exact opposite of what I'm arguing, which is that one should be free to emulate the good style of a man even if he is a horrendous person.


Ok, I now understand your position better. We'll have to disagree then. I couldn't emulate a horrendous man, because I think, what the person IS is very important, and being associated with such a man, as I said earlier would be the last thing I would want to do.


----------



## CW Psmith

lizardking said:


> If I only had an hour to live, I would put on a black suit and read this thread. It would seem like an eternity.


Well said!


----------



## Tim Correll

3holic said:


> Didn't Mansfield at least starred in some B-rated movies? I must admit she was before my time so I know little of her. Paris, OTOH, starred in, what, an X-rated video with her then boy-friend.
> 
> This thread is now completely derailed. Sorry, Earl.


Actually, this thread is not just derailed, but horribly derailed (and horribly over discussed). This thread super desperately needs to lay to rest forever.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Audi S5 TC said:


> Actually, this thread is not just derailed, but horribly derailed (and horribly over discussed). This thread super desperately needs to lay to rest forever.


Some of us are enjoying it. If you don't care to read it, you don't have to.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

3holic said:


> Didn't Mansfield at least starred in some B-rated movies? I must admit she was before my time so I know little of her. Paris, OTOH, starred in, what, an X-rated video with her then boy-friend.


Jayne would have made several of those herself from what I hear, but the camara's then weren't small or portable enough!!

That was one Hoochie Mamma!!


----------



## CuffDaddy

3holic, are you seriously contending that if someone wears A&S suits and matches 3 patterns at once, an observer is likely to believe the wearer to have fascist sympathies and to have a Vick-like relationship with dogs?

So many thousands of men have emulated the DoW's style, or at least large elements of it, that the chance of his style being recognized (when appropriated by another) as _his style_ is remote. It just looks like classic-but-exuberant dressing.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> 3holic, are you seriously contending that if someone wears A&S suits and matches 3 patterns at once, an observer is likely to believe the wearer to have fascist sympathies and to have a Vick-like relationship with dogs?
> 
> So many thousands of men have emulated the DoW's style, or at least large elements of it, that the chance of his style being recognized (when appropriated by another) as _his style_ is remote.


I'm going to have to agree with you on this point. Don't get me wrong, I think he looks more like a clown than a well dressed man in many of the pictures I've seen of him; however, when I see somone else dressed in a similar manner I don't think of the DoW. Actually I suspect that most people in the U.S. don't even know who he was.

I think that the kind of association that is being mentioned here is the same type of nonsense that goes on when people talk about associating the navy blazer and gray pants with security guards or notch lapel tuxedos with waiters; pure nonsense.

Cruiser


----------



## J.Marko

Thank you all so much for pointing out that this Duke of Windsor was a man of questionable character. From now on I will never again wear brown shoes with a grey suit. Just knowing that he wore such a combination and that he had sympathy for Hitler prior to the War would just be too much for me. I will endeavor to eschew the wearing of Prince of Wales plaid as well, since it is named after him. 

In fact, this revelation opens a new world of reasons to avoid certain clothing and style. I have discovered that Edward VII, an even more important arbiter of style (although I am sure certain people in this thread would disagree with that as well, just to be contrary), may have committed adultery and certainly played an illegal game of cards, for money! From now on I am going to button the last button on my vest. Black tie with dinner jacket is right out, I will return to white tie from now on so that no one will associate me with this blaggard. Windsor knot in my tie? Never again!

Unfortunately, I must now give up my love of dry martinis. Don't you know that Churchill made a deal with Stalin to give him eastern europe? It is good I gave up cigars long ago - I would not want anyone thinking I was in with Stalin.

Tartans are right out. Once a Scotsman gave me a cross look. 

Don't forget about the opium wars in China. I may never wear khakis again!

Once again, thank you for bringing this to our attention.


----------



## beherethen

Today is Bastille Day and I think it's a little ironic that we're discussing the DoW. At least the French had the good sense to guillotine their royals, instead of fawning over them.

As this is a thread about black suits, how about someone like Lenny Bruce who wore them all the time.


----------



## Mike Petrik

J.Marko said:


> Thank you all so much for pointing out that this Duke of Windsor was a man of questionable character. From now on I will never again wear brown shoes with a grey suit. Just knowing that he wore such a combination and that he had sympathy for Hitler prior to the War would just be too much for me. I will endeavor to eschew the wearing of Prince of Wales plaid as well, since it is named after him.
> 
> In fact, this revelation opens a new world of reasons to avoid certain clothing and style. I have discovered that Edward VII, an even more important arbiter of style (although I am sure certain people in this thread would disagree with that as well, just to be contrary), may have committed adultery and certainly played an illegal game of cards, for money! From now on I am going to button the last button on my vest. Black tie with dinner jacket is right out, I will return to white tie from now on so that no one will associate me with this blaggard. Windsor knot in my tie? Never again!
> 
> Unfortunately, I must now give up my love of dry martinis. Don't you know that Churchill made a deal with Stalin to give him eastern europe? It is good I gave up cigars long ago - I would not want anyone thinking I was in with Stalin.
> 
> Tartans are right out. Once a Scotsman gave me a cross look.
> 
> Don't forget about the opium wars in China. I may never wear khakis again!
> 
> Once again, thank you for bringing this to our attention.


Exactly.


----------



## Mike Petrik

beherethen said:


> Today is Bastille Day and I think it's a little ironic that we're discussing the DoW. At least the French had the good sense to guillotine their royals, instead of fawning over them.
> 
> As this is a thread about black suits, how about someone like Lenny Bruce who wore them all the time.


Finally something everyone can agree on. Black suits are perfectly appropriate for Hollywood stand-up comedians.


----------



## 3holic

CuffDaddy said:


> 3holic, are you seriously contending that if someone wears A&S suits and matches 3 patterns at once, an observer is likely to believe the wearer to have fascist sympathies and to have a Vick-like relationship with dogs?
> 
> So many thousands of men have emulated the DoW's style, or at least large elements of it, that the chance of his style being recognized (when appropriated by another) as _his style_ is remote. It just looks like classic-but-exuberant dressing.


No, of course not. But if I were to emulate his style, _I_ would know I am emulating the style of a despicable person.



J.Marko said:


> Thank you all so much for pointing out that this Duke of Windsor was a man of questionable character. From now on I will never again wear brown shoes with a grey suit. Just knowing that he wore such a combination and that he had sympathy for Hitler prior to the War would just be too much for me. I will endeavor to eschew the wearing of Prince of Wales plaid as well, since it is named after him.
> 
> In fact, this revelation opens a new world of reasons to avoid certain clothing and style. I have discovered that Edward VII, an even more important arbiter of style (although I am sure certain people in this thread would disagree with that as well, just to be contrary), may have committed adultery and certainly played an illegal game of cards, for money! From now on I am going to button the last button on my vest. Black tie with dinner jacket is right out, I will return to white tie from now on so that no one will associate me with this blaggard. Windsor knot in my tie? Never again!
> 
> Unfortunately, I must now give up my love of dry martinis. Don't you know that Churchill made a deal with Stalin to give him eastern europe? It is good I gave up cigars long ago - I would not want anyone thinking I was in with Stalin.
> 
> Tartans are right out. Once a Scotsman gave me a cross look.
> 
> Don't forget about the opium wars in China. I may never wear khakis again!
> 
> Once again, thank you for bringing this to our attention.


You are quite welcomed. Using your logic -- if there is one -- why don't you avoid breathing, as no doubt there are murderers and rapists who are breathing right now.


----------



## 3holic

Now back to the subject of this thread...

Guess who is wearing a black suit on the cover of the Aug. issue of Esquire? Bill Clinton.


----------



## Mike Petrik

3holic said:


> No, of course not. But if I were to emulate his style, _I_ would know I am emulating the style of a despicable person.
> 
> You are quite welcomed. Using your logic -- if there is one -- why don't you avoid breathing, as no doubt there are murderers and rapists who are breathing right now.


Wow. Cognitive dissonance and satire impairment in a single post!


----------



## PJC in NoVa

Cruiser said:


> I think that the kind of association that is being mentioned here is the same type of nonsense that goes on when people talk about associating the navy blazer and gray pants with security guards
> Cruiser


Word.

I wear gray pants and navy blazers all the time, and no one but no one has EVER mistaken me for a security guard.

And the first person who does is gonna get pepper-sprayed, flex-cuffed, ground under the heel of my black, rubber-soled pseudo-dress shoe, and coshed on the noggin with my employer-issued handy-talkie, let me assure you of that!


----------



## 3holic

Mike Petrik said:


> Wow. Cognitive dissonance and satire impairment in a single post!


Wow. Cognitive dissonance and satire impairment in a single post!


----------



## WouldaShoulda

Suffice it to say a black "business" suit is an inappropriate aborration.

That's no myth.

It's a fact!!


----------



## Cruiser

WouldaShoulda said:


> Suffice it to say a black "business" suit is an inappropriate aborration.


A few years back I lived in a community where I often stopped in after work for Happy Hour at a couple of establishments frequented by Japanese executives from Nissan and Bridgestone. As a group these gentlemen were some of the nicest dressed men I've ever encountered and black suits seemed to be the order of the day for them. There was never any doubt that they meant "business."

Cruiser


----------



## Jovan

That's already been brought up. In western societies it's more advisable to go for grey or navy.

Now, I wouldn't dare call out _these_ guys on their black suits (or how badly they fit) but that's another thing entirely. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Cruiser

Jovan said:


> That's already been brought up. In western societies it's more advisable to go for grey or navy.


The fact of the matter is that these guys were living, working, and doing business in Tennessee (a Western society) and their black suits didn't seem to be holding them back any. That's why I contend that this whole black suit thing is nothing more, for the most part, than group think from a small minority of men's clothing enthusiast. It just doesn't matter enough to most people to be of any consequence, but I do prefer navy or gray myself.

Cruiser


----------



## Jovan

Yes, but someone starting out buying suits may think it's the most versatile thing when it really isn't. That's the mistake I made. The new people or lurkers looking for information shouldn't get the wrong idea about black suits.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Cruiser, that's the most assinine argument yet. Of course if you already own/run the factory, you can wear overalls and people will line up to do business with you. And if someone is obviously an alien, certain cultural differences are expected and discounted. 

I've been keeping track since this thread showed up. I've seen a total of 2 black suits worn by people of equivalent or greater status. And hundreds of navy and grey suits. And a smaller, but still very large, number of olive, brown, khaki, and seersucker. And a vast number of bizcas outfits.

Your observations simply don't square with mine. And I've been paying attention.


----------



## beherethen

3holic said:


> Now back to the subject of this thread...
> 
> Guess who is wearing a black suit on the cover of the Aug. issue of Esquire? Bill Clinton.


This seem to confirm the fact that even despicable people can wear nice things.:icon_smile:


----------



## beherethen

*Black suits as Trad*
The black suit has been in and out of fashion forever. There have even been times when it's been the only acceptable color. There are still sub cultures that insist upon it like the Amish and the clergy. The notion that it is unacceptable is fairly recent and will change back and forth over time.

*Black suits by race*
Asians and other people of color look good in dark colors and can wear them well. In the recent movie Nine, the central figure (an Italian) wears a black suit and looks great.

*Black suits by function*
Blue and gray suits probably work better in office situations, but the world does not consist of only white collar work. The black suit can be worn for all kinds of social situations like gallery openings, blues and jazz clubs and parties.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Lots of good points beherethen, provided "fairly recent" is read to mean the last 100 years or so in the U.S.


----------



## amplifiedheat

Earl of Ormonde said:


> I think some of his rigs looked absolutely ridiculous,


 I tried and failed to find the picture of him in full Native American costume.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

Cruiser said:


> That's why I contend that this whole black suit thing is *nothing more, for the most part, than group think from a small minority of men's clothing enthusiast.* It just _*doesn't matter enough to most people to be of any consequence,*_ but I do prefer navy or gray myself.
> 
> Cruiser


Exactly, which is why I started this thread in the first place. And like you I prefer grey and navy; and never wear and have never worn a black suit.


----------



## amplifiedheat

Cruiser said:


> That's why I contend that this whole black suit thing is nothing more, for the most part, than group think from a small minority of men's clothing enthusiast.


 And I, raised by Okies, had heard of the rule long before I heard of AAAC or SF or knew the difference between black and white tie. I suppose personal experience is all we have to go on.


----------



## Mike Petrik

amplifiedheat said:


> And I, raised by Okies, had heard of the rule long before I heard of AAAC or SF or knew the difference between black and white tie. I suppose personal experience is all we have to go on.


Yep, and Brooks Brothers and Amy Vanderbilt were in on this group think conspiracy from the very beginning.

From Wiki: Between 1865 and 1998 Brooks Brothers did not make an off-the-rack black suit. This policy was unrelated to the mistaken idea that the policy was because Abraham Lincoln wore a bespoke black Brooks frock coat when he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, however, this concept often is stated as the basis for a traditional American fashion rule, that black suits for men are proper only for servants and the dead. (Vanderbilt, Complete Guide to Etiquette (1956)).

But Cruiser is right. Most men don't buy their clothes from Brooks Bros, especially since they do not sell jerseys and squared toe shoes. And the very idea of an etiquette book is quaint to modern sensibilities.

Seriously, the claim that the "solid black suits are inappropriate for business" idea is a myth or a product of idiosyncratic group-think is manifestly false. But such suits are increasingly accepted, especially for social occasions and in the so-called creative world, even if not yet in large law firms, banks, accounting firms, or Congress. It seems Hollywood likes black suits, and for better or worse life does imitate art.


----------



## amplifiedheat

Mike Petrik said:


> Seriously, the claim that the "solid black suits are inappropriate for business" idea is a myth or a product of idiosyncratic group-think is manifestly false. But such suits are increasingly accepted, especially for social occasions and in the so-called creative world, even if not yet in large law firms, banks, accounting firms, or Congress. It seems Hollywood likes black suits, and for better or worse life does imitate art.


 This is it. This is the answer to the black suit question. We can finally stop arguing.


----------



## Billyjo88

amplifiedheat said:


> This is it. This is the answer to the black suit question. We can finally stop arguing.


One can only hope...


----------



## archduke

Mr Petrik,

What about the world outside of America and Brooks bros? What was the 'fashion' in Europe? I have always believed, perhaps mistakenly, that black was common in Victorian and Edwardian era. The Victorians did wear bright waistcoats.

(I am not sure that BB is a standard for anything. Their shirts lately have been a thorough disappointment. And sack suits are a mystery to me.)


----------



## Mike Petrik

archduke said:


> Mr Petrik,
> 
> What about the world outside of America and Brooks bros? What was the 'fashion' in Europe? I have always believed, perhaps mistakenly, that black was common in Victorian and Edwardian era. The Victorians did wear bright waistcoats.
> 
> (I am not sure that BB is a standard for anything. Their shirts lately have been a thorough disappointment. And sack suits are a mystery to me.)


archduke:
I freely admit that my commentary relates only to US style conventions. My knowledge of 'fashion' is limited, and my knowledge of either fashion or "style" in Europe even more so. The fact that their sack suits strike you as mysterious and that their recent shirt offerings have been uneven does not impair the fact that Brooks Brothers was the traditional standard for menswear in the US for many decades. Admittedly, both their quality and influence have declined somewhat in recent years: they started offering black business suits in the late 1990s.


----------



## Cruiser

CuffDaddy said:


> Cruiser, that's the most assinine argument yet.


It wasn't an "argument" but rather an observation. To use the word argument is to imply that I am defending black suits for business. I'm not, and I certainly don't wear one for business as I personally think there are better choices. My business suits are navy and charcoal.

All I'm saying is that I think that the odds of there being any negative reaction of any significance to a black suit are extremely small. Of course there are some who will react that way, but there are some who will react in a negative way to just about anything. For example, are you aware that there are some out there who think that a pocket square MUST match the tie in order to be correct? And some of these people are in positions of authority.

Does the thought that one of these people might one day be in a position to negatively impact your life alter your thoughts on matching pocket squares to ties? Of course it doesn't, any more than anyone should let the thought that they might encounter someone who would do this over a black suit alter their thoughts on black suits. I don't wear a black suit for business because I like navy and charcoal more, not because I fear some negative reaction from someone. Like I said, it's just a non-issue with most people.

Cruiser


----------



## De-Boj

Mike Petrik said:


> Seriously, the claim that the "solid black suits are inappropriate for business" idea is a myth or a product of idiosyncratic group-think is manifestly false. But such suits are increasingly accepted, especially for social occasions and in the so-called creative world, even if not yet in large law firms, banks, accounting firms, or Congress. It seems Hollywood likes black suits, and for better or worse life does imitate art.


I think this explaines it in a nutshell. The traditional rule in the US is that black is not appropriate for business, but we can expect that this will change over time. Sorry to have to break it to everyone, but these things do change.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde

De-Boj said:


> I think this explaines it in a nutshell. The traditional rule in the US is that black is not appropriate for business, but we can expect that this will change over time. Sorry to have to break it to everyone, but these things do change.


Black has always been acceptable in the UK.


----------



## Mike Petrik

De-Boj said:


> I think this explaines it in a nutshell. The traditional rule in the US is that black is not appropriate for business, but we can expect that this will change over time. Sorry to have to break it to everyone, but these things do change.


Just to be clear, the traditional rule in this context refers to solid black, not black pinstriped suits. And yes, we can count on change. But not always for the better and seldom in the way we would predict. I expect (but only very unreliably) that square toed shoes will run their course as will trousers hanging (barely) on hips. Will solid black suits become normalized for business in the US? I have no idea. I can't even predict whether business suits will survive. If trends continue perhaps the few of us who work will do so at home in underwear.


----------



## De-Boj

Mike Petrik said:


> Just to be clear, the traditional rule in this context refers to solid black, not black pinstriped suits.


Good point.



Mike Petrik said:


> If trends continue perhaps the few of us who work will do so at home in underwear.


Would solid black underwear be appropriate for business?? maybe I should beat the rush and get some navy and / or charcoal boxers....


----------



## harvey_birdman

De-Boj said:


> Would solid black underwear be appropriate for business?? maybe I should beat the rush and get some navy and / or charcoal boxers....


Certainly a robe of some kind would be required, at the very least.


----------



## Peak and Pine

I don't think life is worth living if the Black Suit Thread isn't running, so, a few claps please, I've brought her back. For a single reason. This: the cover of the current Esquire. No links, just play along. Gracing the cover is one of the great men of contemporary times (tho would that Esquire was around when Wilson was President). This cover boy, this giant of my mind, is wearing a three-piece of finely tailored coal black threads. Doesn't he know?


----------



## ZachGranstrom

Noooooooooo!!!!!! (let it die already)


----------



## Peak and Pine

It cannot die. It is Atlanta vs. New England, it is me and the snooties, it's all I have left. Humor me. Let's keep it going.


----------



## ZachGranstrom

......Ok.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Why thank you, Zach. I could stare at that cover all day.


----------



## ajo

Here in Canberra the Government Public Servants wear black all the time. It has actually put me off wearing black to work. I can't work out if there in mourning for their careers or if its a fashion statement. And its worn by both men and women. But not on Friday which is casual across the board, all the better to run off to the pub in after 5pm.

As for Esquire well i shall have to find a copy.


----------



## CuffDaddy

Alright, P&P, I don't want you to get bored. I'll *play *one more round, just for fun.  Here goes:

So you are seriously making the argument that, because Bill Clinton was stuffed into a black suit (the trousers of which are evidently so tight he can't even get his hands into the pockets) for a fashion magazine shoot, we are to deem it tasteful? I think there are a number of things wrong with this argument, but I'll just pick one. Doesn't it rely on the premise that _Bill Clinton is a man of taste and discernment_? That seems are rather dubious proposition:










(I voted for Billy boy, and would likely do so again, given the chance. But as the barometer of taste and decorum, he lacks something. Specifically, taste and decorum.  )


----------



## WouldaShoulda

ajo said:


> Here in Canberra the Government Public Servants wear black all the time. It has actually put me off wearing black to work. I can't work out if there in mourning for their careers or if its a fashion statement.


It's popular and it's easy so they go for it.

There isn't a lot of thought at all to it!!



CuffDaddy said:


> (I voted for Billy boy, and would likely do so again, given the chance. But as the barometer of taste and decorum, he lacks something. Specifically, taste and decorum.  )


Just being from Arkansas for one!!


----------



## Peak and Pine

CuffDaddy said:


> *So you are seriously making the argument* that, because Bill Clinton was stuffed into a black suit (the trousers of which are evidently so tight he can't even get his hands into the pockets) for a fashion magazine shoot, we are to deem it tasteful?


Why yes, yes I am. Probably because what you see as _stuffed into_ I see as a swell fitting trim suit, arms akimbo, hand half-way into pocket to show off his links.



> I think there are a number of things wrong with this argument, but I'll just pick one. Doesn't it rely on the premise that _Bill Clinton is a man of taste and discernment_? That seems are rather dubious proposition


I am simply and graciously pointing out that one of the world's most admired men is currently appearing on the cover of one of the world's most admired men's magazines wearing a three-piece all-black suit and looking mighty, mighty fine. Atta go, Bill. The cover and inside shots were taken at the UN and since no background is shown in either picture, I assume he was at the UN not as a back drop, or "fashion shoot" as you've termed it, but because he had business there, like maybe coordinating his continued and tireless efforts at Hatian relief. But trot out the pics of Lewinsky anyway. Then make the link for me that what you do behind closed doors has anything at all to do with taste or decorum.


----------



## J.Marko

I needs must refrain from comment about the illustrious previous president and those who worship him to avoid the wrath of the moderators.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Nah, go ahead. We were pretty tough on Windsor and nobody shut us down. Ah, when you use the word President, whether you like him or not, you capitalize it.


----------



## Jovan

Gentlemen, that's enough. Don't turn this thread into a political argument.


----------



## Scott Hill

Interesting that at an International conference, that the bulk of the participants were wearing casual..then of the limited amount of men wearing suits.. so many were black.. although the majority were not wearing suits at all, in favor of business casual. I believe you saw a majority of suits being black at your convention.. as traveling with 1 black suit is an easy pack and go.. not much forthought goes into coordinating accessories.. a pair of black shoes.. white or blue shirt.. black stripe or check shirt.. black belt.. black light weight knitwear.. and your dob kit. EASY! One can go on a 3-5 day trip with one suit; several shirts, 1 paif of shoes and create a smart look that is clean and professional and simple. Add a pair of shades when in the outdoors and one can actually create a modern.. clean look. 

That being siad, this is why I think you saw so many black suits on the attendees. ease of packing. not necessarily "style" although black dressing is always a nice clean look. Personally, I dress every day for my mood and the statement I wish to make to others, during my day and appointments. I prefer pinstripes, windowpanes, subtle micro weaves for my suits and personally only wear black in the evening or to a semi formal event. I prefer navy, charcoal and chocolate brown in the Fall and gravitate to lighter colors.. pearl gray, sand, and stone colors for Summer. In the Spring, I wear all but hold off on the stone suit until Summer. When I travel, I will take a gray suit, a navy blazer and two pair of brown shoes.. one I will wear with dark denim and a sport coat on a plane and the other I'll pack. I prefer navy and brown with gray and find a gray suit as simple to coordinate as wearing "all black". 

I also agree that "old school" traditions are that black is not appropriate for daytime business. This is a matter of personal style and culture background and influence from those around you that have helped develope your personal style. As far as an opinion.. I am in the fashion business and the influences to my personal style have come from Italians and my artisan hand made makers. This personal style has been developed from years of travel to Italy.. Milan, Florence, etc.. and has been mixed with "British" style from visiting London. Even my investment banker clients have been an influence on my personal style.. as well as "Hollywood" red carpet influence. It is really about your surroundings. ]

That being said, I find there very little individual style offered these days in top quality department stores. Those stores are afraid to offer unique and special cloths and their clothing selections are influenced by accountants.. If they had a 70% sell through in solid black suits.. they buy more black suits. With the economy at a time of struggle and retail suffering.. merchants have been buying extremely safe and boring. When the economy is difficult.. you see people re investing in updating their BASICS.. solid navy, blue blazer, charcoal solid suits and new solid white and blue shirts.. pinstripes, windowpanes, houndstooth check "character suits and jackets" start to to hit the seen again.. when the economy if more robust and people have the confidence to look more unique. IMHO, this is why you see more solid black suits in an apathetic time in fashion.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> Why yes, yes I am. Probably because what you see as _stuffed into_ I see as a swell fitting trim suit, arms akimbo, hand half-way into pocket to show off his links.


Do you seriously think that he can button his jacket?


----------



## Peak and Pine

Mike Petrik said:


> Do you seriously think that he can button his jacket?


I don't know.

All I know is that he is one handsome guy who looks mighty damn good in his impeccably tailored *all-black suit* smiling at me from the cover of Esquire. And now that I've managed to bring you and fellow Atlantan Cuff Daddy out of the woodwork to post once again in this thread, it's interesting that neither of you have commented on the fact that the suit is noir, the purpose of the thread, but have instead brought in a few, what Cuff would like to call, _ad hominem_ remarks that haven't really hit their marks, to me.


----------



## CuffDaddy

P&P, I could not have been more clear that my remarks were in jest.

To respond _slightly_ more earnestly: Esquire has been displaying men in black suits on their pages for quite a while. Their decision to do so does not enhance the standing of the black suit; it hurts the standing of Esquire.


----------



## JJR512

Peak and Pine said:


> Nah, go ahead. We were pretty tough on Windsor and nobody shut us down. Ah, when you use the word President, whether you like him or not, you capitalize it.


Ironically, you are both right and wrong at the same time.

In America, _president_ is capitalized when referring to a specific person: President Clinton, the previous President, etc. It is _not_ capitalized when you are referring to the word or position in a general sense. So, you were right to point out that J. Marko should have capitalized the word; however, you were wrong to capitalize it in your correction of J. Marko.


----------



## Mike Petrik

Peak and Pine said:


> I don't know.
> 
> All I know is that he is one handsome guy who looks mighty damn good in his impeccably tailored *all-black suit* smiling at me from the cover of Esquire. And now that I've managed to bring you and fellow Atlantan Cuff Daddy out of the woodwork to post once again in this thread, it's interesting that neither of you have commented on the fact that the suit is noir, the purpose of the thread, but have instead brought in a few, what Cuff would like to call, _ad hominem_ remarks that haven't really hit their marks, to me.


Not "interesting to me." I have better things to do than to rehash this issue. Readers can decide for themselves. I only wished to point out that the jacket looks quite small on our former president. I have no opinion on his alleged handsomeness, but it seems that you and Ms. L are kindred spirits in this respect.


----------



## WouldaShoulda

CuffDaddy said:


> Esquire has been displaying men in black suits on their pages for quite a while. Their decision to do so does not enhance the standing of the black suit; it hurts the standing of Esquire.


Ring-a-ding-ding!!


----------



## J.Marko

my left shift button sticks . . .


----------



## ajo

WouldaShoulda said:


> There isn't a lot of thought at all to it!!


Wow I didn't realise that civil servants were the same the world over.:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Peak and Pine

Mike Petrik said:


> *I have better things to do than to rehash this issue. *I only wished to point out that the jacket looks quite small on our former president.


So the_ better things to do_ would be crapping on his jacket?


----------



## Peak and Pine

JJR512 said:


> Ironically, *you are both right and wrong at the same time.
> *
> In America, _president_ is capitalized when referring to a specific person: President Clinton, the previous President, etc. It is _not_ capitalized when you are referring to the word or position in a general sense. So, you were right to point out that J. Marko should have capitalized the word; however, you were wrong to capitalize it in your correction of J. Marko.


Note quite._ I _ was both right and wrong. Marko was just plain wrong. But as he's explained, his shift key was stuck. I know that feeling. My mouse fails every time I reach for a smiley.


----------



## Cowtown

Peak and Pine said:


> I don't know.
> 
> All I know is that he is one handsome guy who looks mighty damn good in his impeccably tailored *all-black suit* smiling at me from the cover of Esquire. And now that I've managed to bring you and fellow Atlantan Cuff Daddy out of the woodwork to post once again in this thread, it's interesting that neither of you have commented on the fact that the suit is noir, the purpose of the thread, but have instead brought in a few, what Cuff would like to call, _ad hominem_ remarks that haven't really hit their marks, to me.


That is not a good look at all, although he does look better with the weight loss.


----------



## J.Marko

Peak and Pine said:


> Marko was just plain wrong.


What I should have said is that the rule about capitalizing 'president' is a myth propagated by a small number of language enthusiasts that post on grammar forums, and the rule smacks unpleasantly of elitism.


----------



## Peak and Pine

Cowtown said:


> That is not a good look at all...


In a desperate effort to keep this thing going, I will ask why.


----------



## Peak and Pine

J.Marko said:


> *What I should have said* is that the rule about capitalizing 'president' is a myth propagated by a small number of language enthusiasts that post on grammar forums, and the rule smacks unpleasantly of elitism.


But you didn't. And here at Ask Andy we don't give second chances. So we'll stick with the stuck SHIFT key thing.


----------



## J.Marko

Peak and Pine said:


> But you didn't. And here at Ask Andy we don't give second chances. So we'll stick with the stuck SHIFT key thing.


You are correct, and I shouldn't have attempted to make such a lame, unsupported argument against a rule that is well known by experts but unknown by the general population.

I should go back to my sometime eccentricity of capitalizing all nouns, whether proper or common as we Americans used to do and Germans still do, but I will also be on the look out for the Grammar Police in informal web discussions. Plus I have the problem of the sticky shift key.

However, to miss quote Emerson: a foolish reliance on grammar is the hobgoblin of little minds. (I thought you would enjoy an allusion to a fellow New Englander)


----------



## 3holic

J.Marko said:


> However, to *miss quote* Emerson: a foolish reliance on grammar is the hobgoblin of little minds. (I thought you would enjoy an allusion to a fellow New Englander)


Miss quote? Is she related to Miss Manners?


----------



## AskDandy

Um... so we're agreed, then?

Black suits look good. They looked good on Tommy Lee Jones as K and Will Smith as J and Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes and all of the Reservoir Dogs and Old West lawmen.

They look good. They also look, according to the whims of modern fashion, a tad out of place as daytime business wear. Just as a nice pair of spats might.

I'm so glad we had this discussion.


----------



## CuffDaddy

No, we're not agreed on that at all.


----------



## clothingconnoisseur

Although I have not owned one in quite some time, the two black suits that I have owned always drew compliments. One was an off the rack model in a super 140's fabric from Pal Zileri and the other was a MTM from a tailor from Canada that used to make office visits to the Wall Street Firms. The MTM had a subtle burgunds shadow stripe. I wore both with white, light grey or pink shirts and red or burgundy backgroun Hermes ties - at the time the only ties I wore, what can I see about peer pressure on Wall Street.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a black suit if you keep in mind that it is simply too formal for most day to day business use. Let's not forget that there was a time when dark brown suits were frowned upon but then President Reagan started wearing them and they became more acceptable. 

I think the more important factor to consider is that not everyone looks good in black. It is a severe color that looks best on those with either very dark hair and complexions (like myself) or the opposite end of the spectrum which would be fair skinned blondes (like my wife). Most others seem to look washed out, at least to me.


----------



## Peak and Pine

clothingconnoisseur said:


> Although I have not owned one in quite some time,* the two black suits that I have owned always drew compliments.*


So you never wore them in Atlanta, correct?


----------



## J.Marko

3holic said:


> Miss quote? Is she related to Miss Manners?


Yes, but she is much hotter!


----------



## J.Marko

Peak and Pine said:


> So you never wore them in Atlanta, correct?


I thought we already went over this. The issue is not whether black suits can look good or draw compliments, it is whether or not they are viewed as appropriate for business my some non-trivial number of people. Two separate issues.

We know black looks good, hence the enduring popularity of the black tux. Does the fact that a tux looks good on men mean that wearing a tuxedo to work is appropriate? No, it does not.


----------



## Beardmidget

J.Marko said:


> We know black looks good, hence the enduring popularity of the black tux. Does the fact that a tux looks good on men mean that wearing a tuxedo to work is appropriate? No, it does not.


Unless it is after 6... I mean, I'm not an animal.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

De-Boj said:


> Good point.
> 
> Would solid black underwear be appropriate for business?? maybe I should beat the rush and get some navy and / or charcoal boxers....


Black underwear to me means a tart. They often work at home though.


----------



## Beardmidget

De-Boj said:


> Would solid black underwear be appropriate for business?? maybe I should beat the rush and get some navy and / or charcoal boxers....


Navy boxers may have the finesse, but army is always the way to bet.

As for charcoals, they're all burnt out. Like Sly in the latest Rocky.


----------



## Tim Correll

clothingconnoisseur said:


> Although I have not owned one in quite some time, the two black suits that I have owned always drew compliments. One was an off the rack model in a super 140's fabric from Pal Zileri and the other was a MTM from a tailor from Canada that used to make office visits to the Wall Street Firms. The MTM had a subtle burgunds shadow stripe. I wore both with white, light grey or pink shirts and red or burgundy backgroun Hermes ties - at the time the only ties I wore, what can I see about peer pressure on Wall Street.
> 
> There is nothing inherently wrong with a black suit if you keep in mind that it is simply too formal for most day to day business use. Let's not forget that there was a time when dark brown suits were frowned upon but then President Reagan started wearing them and they became more acceptable.
> 
> I think the more important factor to consider is that not everyone looks good in black. * It is a severe color that looks best on those with either very dark hair and complexions (like myself) or the opposite end of the spectrum which would be fair skinned blondes (like my wife). Most others seem to look washed out, at least to me.*


Are you serious, clothingconnoisseur? Fair skinned blonde haired people wearing black and/or white are one of the most unattractive things to look at.

Black haired, gray haired, salt and pepper haired (hair that is one of the following colors: black and gray, gray and silver or silver and white), silver haired and white haired people (especially if people with these hair colors are dark skinned) wearing black and/or white are one of the most attractive things to look.

Dark brown haired and medium brown haired fair skinned people wearing black and/or white are super close to being as attractive to look at as black haired, gray haired, salt and pepper haired (again, hair that one of the following colors: black and gray, gray and silver or silver and white) people (again, especially if people with these hair colors are dark skinned) wearing black and/or white are to look at.

Red haired fair skinned people wearing black and/or white are merely adequate to look at.


----------



## Saltydog

I wondered why, after being a member of the forum for almost 3 years I only had 340 some odd posts and others had enormous numbers of postings after a relatively short time. But then, I've ignored this thread since its inception and after taking a look at the drivel on this last page it is clear. I was under the mistaken impression one should have something remotely relevant to clothing or fashion. That, or an even remotely witty or sardonic quip. I see now that, for many, that is hardy the case.


----------



## AskDandy

_"Fair skinned blonde haired people wearing black and/or white are one of the most unattractive things to look at."_

Some people sure have a funny sense of what's attractive and what isn't. Google is your friend, here. Tell me Claudia Schiffer doesn't look attractive in a black dress. Ditto Brad Pitt in a tux. Even old Abe Lincoln looked rather distinguished wearing a black suit. Of course, he had dark hair...

Black clothing looks good on people. Always has. Always will. Fashion is temporary. Aesthetic principles are eternal. Anyone who believes black suits are not _appropriate_ is simply conforming to culture and fashion. Anyone who believes black suits do not look _good_ simply has no _taste_.


----------



## Cruiser

AskDandy said:


> _Anyone who believes black suits do not look good simply has no taste._


_

I was in agreement with you up to this point. I know guys who don't wear black suits because they don't like black suits, but they are still very tasteful in their attire. I also know guys who like black suits who are also very tasteful in their attire. This is purely a personal preference.

There are plenty of colors and combinations of colors, patterns, etc., that I don't personally care for; however, I can't say that just because someone else likes them that they have no taste.

Cruiser_


----------



## CuffDaddy

AskDandy said:


> Anyone who believes black suits do not look _good_ simply has no _taste_.


Thanks for the disclosure. I now know that your sense of taste is so different from mine that I won't waste time considering your positions in the future. Should save me a bit of time.


----------



## J.Marko

AskDandy said:


> Anyone who believes black suits do not look _good_ simply has no _taste_.


That is probably the worst insult anyone can hurl in this forum. Are you sure that is what you meant to say?


----------



## AskDandy

Knew that'd get a rise out of ya. :icon_cheers:

To feel that the little black dress or the tuxedo do not look good on people means that your "taste" runs counter to the taste of virtually every other member of human society throughout history. So by one reasonable definition, then yes, it means you have "no taste."

Someone, somewhere, prefers the looks of a Datsun B210 to that of a Duesenberg Model J. Most people would consider that person to have "no taste."

A principle feature of this entire forum, one could argue, is to build _agreement_ on what constitutes good taste and poor taste. Just look at the entire point of this very thread. "Do black clothes look good?" It's one camp arguing that the other camp has... wait for it... no taste.

But I sincerely apologize for bruising anyone's feelings with my choice of terminology. If it helps, I will gladly retract my earlier statement and amend it as such:

"If you believe that black clothes do not look good on people, then you have rare and peculiar tastes which run counter to the tastes of most people in the world, including influential and acknowledged stylists, designers and experts on human beauty and fashion."


----------



## AskDandy

But I personally wouldn't wear a black suit if it wasn't a tuxedo.

Some people would look at me funny.


----------



## CuffDaddy

AskDandy said:


> To feel that the little black dress or the tuxedo do not look good on people means that your "taste" runs counter to the taste of virtually every other member of human society throughout history. So by one reasonable definition, then yes, it means you have "no taste."


When you made the statement that "people who don't think black suit look good have no taste," there wasn't really anything to argue with. You were expressing your own taste, albeit in an extremely arrogant and ungentlemanly way.* There's really no sense arguing with someone about whose taste is superior.

But now you've gone further. You've made an empirical statement that "virtually every other member of human society throughout history" thinks black suits look good. And that's complete horsesh!t. That's not a matter of my personal taste. That is a matter of *fact*.

Consider the views of published authors on the subject. For instance, Nicholas Antongiavanni says, in _The Suit_:Hipsters and celebrities denounce [the rule against black suits] and even deny its existence, thinking themselves sartorial supermen, above the strictures that bind the multitudes; but these men deceive themselves, and their hubris often produces the very errors the rules exist to prevent. For my part, *I do not deny their right to wear black suits; I assert only that in doing so they look bad. For black either overwhelms or overvivifies other colors.* This is desirable for women and perhaps for for professional sports uniforms. But gentlemen understand that *on men it looks oily*.
​Antongiovanni, p. 81 (2006) (emphasis added).

Or how about the blogosphere's foremost exponent of classic clothing (and AAAC member), Will Boehlke? I commend to you his post on this subject, entitled Black Is for Evening. I'll quote you just a bit, to make absolutely clear that his position is based on taste, not just adherence to a rule:The second and perhaps more generally acceptable anti-black rationale is that *it simply looks bad on most men in the light of day*. Save for those blessed with high contrast complexions, black washes color from the skin and gives the wearer that pallid look so beloved of the goth movement. Further, it washes out most accompanying colors, leaving the wearer little choice but to combine it with more black or other high contrast but overdone pairings. *White shirt, red necktie and a black suit is the sign of a clothing noob, or a man parodying one.* (emphasis added)​Moreover, surely if black were such a stylish and flattering color as you suggest, it should be easy to find undeniably well-dressed men wearing it with regularity. And not just from the last 8-10 years, when it became popular, but throughout the 20th century (in the Victorian era, it was socially-compelled, and no man actually _chose _it, anymore than he _chose_ to wear shoes).

Yet it's [email protected] hard to find examples of well dressed men in black suits. Cary Grant, whose dramatic coloring would have made him able to wear it better than most and as well as any, doesn't appear to have ever worn one. And Grant was not one to shy away from breaking sartorial rules if he thought it would look good. (He famously wore, from time to time, a button-down-collared shirt with french cuffs and a DB suit.)

Likewise, the Duke of Windsor, who flouted as many conventions of men's dress as he created, not only didn't wear black suits - he didn't wear black _evening wear_. He thought black cloth tended to look cheap and greenish, and it does, so he started wearing (and in doing so made it acceptable) midnight/navy evening clothes.

These men aren't outliers. They represent the predominant thinking among men who have bothered to think at all about the question. Black suits make most men, and most other clothes, look like [email protected] The very overvivification of accompanying color described by Antongiavanni is part of why black suits are so popular with young men, and middle-aged men of unrefined taste. People with unsophisticated taste often prefer super-saturation of the senses. When a child first discovers that their Crayola-fueled scribblings are made more vivid by the juxtaposition of black, their drawings soon become outlined in heavy black. A black suit does the same thing to any tie paired with it. It makes it loud and garrish.

I note that when I was in my early 20's, I thought black suits looked good. This was the same time of my life when I thought the most vivid blue was the best blue for shirts, when I thought the more jewel tones packed into a jacquard weave of a glossy silk tie the better, etc. Then I bought one, wore it a few times, and realized I looked like a douche. My taste got more restrained, and I fell out of love with the unsophisticated, blunt-force-trauma approach of a black suit.

Black suits are unique in their ability to be both boring and garish at the same time. That's a combo whose appeal is lost on me.

They have become favored in modern celebrity culture because they photograph dramatically. In their TMZ/twitterfied world, grabbing instant attention is considered desirable. But in the _real_ world, things are different.

I could go on, but will not. There are doubtless good men of gentlemanly deportment and courtesy reading this thread who do not share these attitudes towards black suits, and I do not wish to belittle them. Again, whether they look good is ultimately a matter of taste, and no man is the ultimate arbiter of such things. I merely wish to make perfectly clear that your statement that a dislike of black suits represents some bizarre, minority opinion is simply and undeniably false.

* And few bothered to argue this point one way or the other in the thread, because that wasn't the bloody _point_ of the discussion. The continued existence or demise of the traditional rule against black suits was the discussion. So the absence of people expressing a personal taste against them is evidence of nothing.


----------



## AskDandy

I hear you on the arrogance part. _Mea culpa._ I sincerely apologize to anyone offended by my choice of words or implied tone.

Ditto your comments on "taste." All considerations of aesthetics are inherently personal, and subjective.

However, you cannot deny that throughout history, black suits have not only been considered attractive garments, but are in fact now nearly _required_ apparel during some of the most important events in life. Our culture has not evolved the rule that men wear black for _both_ joyous weddings _and_ solemn memorial services because black makes us... look bad. It is a neutral color. And, as such, an inherently flattering one.

Treading back into the debate about "taste," well... again, with a nod to the fact that it's subjective, I defy anyone to look at Grace Kelly in a black dress or George Clooney in a black suit and tell me that either of them is sporting an "unattractive" look. If you honestly believe that, then you must realize that your tastes run counter to, yes, almost everyone in the world. Including, but not limited to, acknowledged and respected fashion designers, wardrobe stylists, photographers, artists and others whose taste in clothing and standards of beauty have made them world-renowned. And who have chosen, and continue to choose, to adorn their models with black suits.

A majority of people, both educated and uneducated, believe black clothes look good. A smaller majority - though certainly more likely a minority - believe black clothes are best worn only during certain occasions.

Therein lies the distinction.


----------



## CuffDaddy

AskDandy said:


> I defy anyone to look at Grace Kelly in a black dress or George Clooney in a black suit and tell me that either of them is sporting an "unattractive" look.


Really? That's your argument? Because George Clooney looks good in a black suit, black suits must be flattering?

Here's Raquel Welch in a fur-trimmed bikini. Raquel Welch looks good. By your logic, this is proof that fur-trimmed bikinis are flattering.*

Based on comments from numerous female acquaintances and family members, I am under the impression that George Clooney would be attractive if he were wearing this: 
But it wouldn't be the barrel doing the work, you know? And the black suit isn't doing the work for Clooney. In fact, because Clooney is a very good looking guy, he can get away with wearing some travesties. Here he is with a grey pinstriped shirt and solid black shirt:










Here he is in some sort of tank top basketball jersey:










There's this elegant combination:










I don't even know how to describe this get-up:










I'm not trying to make fun of Clooney. He's a hell of an actor, IMO. But he's no great dresser. And he's never needed to be. He's good looking no matter what he wears. More power to him.

But what he manages to look good is, as a result, utterly meaningless.

* I won't veer further off topic to discuss why women's clothing, and what is flattering to women, has no bearing on men's clothing and what looks good on men. But I think if you'll think about it for a moment, you'll realize that fact.


----------



## CuffDaddy

As for the argument that the custom of wearing black clothes at weddings and funerals must indicate that they are flattering: hah. The wedding industry long ago supplanted all sense of individual, or even societal, taste or aesthetic. The majority wear what is pushed. (I will proudly tell you that I did not wear a black tuxedo on my wedding day. Since I was married during the day, I wore morning dress.) 

As for funerals, you've thrown another falsehood out there. It is not "de rigeur" to wear a black suit to a funeral. Not only is there no rule requiring one to do so, it's not even the majority practice, at least at the funerals I have attended (3 within recent memory).


----------



## AskDandy

Funny, but of the photos you selected, he certainly looks best wearing black.

:icon_cheers:


----------



## JJR512

Peak and Pine said:


> Note quite._ I _ was both right and wrong. Marko was just plain wrong. But as he's explained, his shift key was stuck. I know that feeling. My mouse fails every time I reach for a smiley.


Ahh..._You_ were the only one I was talking to when I said that _you_ were both right and wrong at the same time. Your correction is what I was saying in the first place.


----------



## JJR512

To respond to what *CuffDaddy* is saying, and to talk in general about whether black suits look good or bad: I don't agree that black suits look bad. Not in general. I personally feel that on white men (caucasians), black suits generally look slightly inappropriate _in a business setting_. But you're using celebrities as an example, and although one could make an argument that being at a movie premiere or awards show is akin to being "on the job" for a celebrity, it's _not_ a "business setting" in the traditional sense.


----------



## AskDandy

I'm not using celebrities to address the _appropriateness_ of wearing a black suit at a given time of day or at a given event. I don't really have a dog in that fight. I'm just using George Clooney et al. to examine the claim made by some that black suits are, in and of themselves, visually unappealing. A claim that I find absurd. The wealthiest, most stylish, most powerful and influential men in the world all choose to wear black suits to look their best and most elegant in formal, social occasions. Cary Grant wore black suits when he felt the occasion called for it. John F. Kennedy did. Name a style icon... chances are he's worn a black suit, and on multiple occasions. The nature of the event does not change the nature of the clothing, and a tuxedo does not turn into a pumpkin at the crack of dawn or when stepping from a State Dinner to a roadside diner. Black suits, quite simply, look _good_. (Same goes for the "little black dress," by the way.)

But are they appropriate for wear outside of State Dinners, the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony, the Academy Awards, your cousins wedding or a memorial service?

Sure. Why not? Barack Obama wore one on the campaign trail. Didn't stop him from becoming the most powerful man in the world. So if you want to wear a black suit, go ahead. You're in some good company. And if you don't... then don't.


----------



## JJR512

No, AskDandy, sorry, I wasn't referring to you using celebrities. That comment was more a response to CuffDaddy quoting Nicholas Antongiavanni in _The Suit_, back in post #476. I think you and I are more or less in general agreement, at least from what I can tell from the points you've just made.


----------



## J.Marko

No way am I wearing a little black dress to work. Even in the evening. Even if it would look smashing.


----------



## J.Marko

Earl of Ormonde said:


> The Black Suit Myth
> 
> I'm writing this from the jumping off point of my own taste in suits i.e. I don't like black suits, and the idea put about on these forums that a black suit is not the done thing as regards daytime business wear.





AskDandy said:


> I'm not using celebrities to address the _appropriateness_ of wearing a black suit at a given time of day or at a given event. I don't really have a dog in that fight.


It may now be irrelevant, but the appropriateness of a black suit for business attire is the point of this thread. :teacha:


----------



## AskDandy

President Obama wears black suits with colourful ties during normal business hours, and while conducting normal business. As do other world leaders such as Kevin Rudd of Australia and Stephen Harper of Canada. The suggestion could be made that these men are in some ways "entertainers," and as such have different requirements for their dress, but it seems to me that signing economic treaties worth billions of dollars can reasonably be regarded as "business." If one of these world leaders walked into your company boardroom, wearing a black suit, would you feel out of place or "inappropriate" for wearing the same?

I remember hearing somewhere that a good rule of thumb for men's fashion is to look to what the current President of the United States is wearing. It follows, then, that wearing black suits for daytime business wear is perfectly acceptable. Because Obama hath made it so. As with President Reagan wearing brown suits. Or John F. Kennedy going hatless.


----------



## JJR512

Um, just as a point of fact which is largely irrelevant to your overall point, I feel I should point out that Kennedy was probably more _following_ than _leading_ when he went hatless. Hats were already well on their way out by Kennedy's time, a trend which started pretty much at the end of World War II. This association with Kennedy starting the hatless trend goes back to the mistaken belief that he went hatless at his inauguration. He wasn't wearing a hat during his actual inaugural address, but he wore a top hat for almost the entire rest of the day. (These are facts which I have learned here at AAAC, by the way.)


----------



## AskDandy

Good to dispel another myth, so thanks for that. In keeping with the original intent of the thread.


----------



## 3holic

J.Marko said:


> Yes, but she is much hotter!


I will take your word for it -- since you are so good with words.


----------



## 3holic

Beardmidget said:


> Unless it is after 6... I mean, I'm not an animal.


My departed tuxedo cat looked good 24/7


----------



## 3holic

CuffDaddy said:


> Consider the views of published authors on the subject. For instance, Nicholas Antongiavanni says, in _The Suit_:Hipsters and celebrities denounce [the rule against black suits] and even deny its existence, thinking themselves sartorial supermen, above the strictures that bind the multitudes; but these men deceive themselves, and their hubris often produces the very errors the rules exist to prevent. For my part, *I do not deny their right to wear black suits; I assert only that in doing so they look bad. For black either overwhelms or overvivifies other colors.* This is desirable for women and perhaps for for professional sports uniforms. But gentlemen understand that *on men it looks oily*.​




I would not place too much credence in what Nicholas Antongiavanni, aka Manton, has to say since he posted on the other forum that ticket pockets ought to be banned.​


----------



## CuffDaddy

AskDandy said:


> Cary Grant wore black suits when he felt the occasion called for it.


I'd like to see the evidence.


----------



## CuffDaddy

AskDandy said:


> I'm not using celebrities to address the _appropriateness_ of wearing a black suit at a given time of day or at a given event. I don't really have a dog in that fight. I'm just using George Clooney et al. to examine the claim made by some that black suits are, in and of themselves, visually unappealing. A claim that I find absurd.


Are you really that incapable of following a line of logic? You argued that black suits look good. I had no quarrel with that, other than to note that your taste was obviously very different from mine. Unsatisfied, you went on to claim that virtually everyone agrees that black looks good, which I think I pretty conclusively demonstrated to be false. I did not ask you to agree with the authors I cited. They were not cited for their correctness (though I think they are as "right" as someone can be about a matter of pure taste). They were cited to prove that an opinion that black suits simply look bad is not a bizarre opinion of a tiny minority. In fact, it is the dominant view within men of classical clothing tastes.

Now you're just back to arguing taste, or something (I'm having a hard time following). If we're just trading taste preferences, I'll tell you that I have hardly ever seen a black suit that did not look cheap, or that did not make its wearer look like a refugee from the _Jersey Shore_ tv series. Again, though, that's just a matter of taste. You want to look like a Blues Brothers impersonator, be my guest.


----------



## CuffDaddy

3holic said:


> I would not place too much credence in what Nicholas Antongiavanni, aka Manton, has to say since he posted on the other forum that ticket pockets ought to be banned.


That's some logic there, 3holic.


----------



## AskDandy

CuffDaddy,

Were you not recently accusing me of arrogance? Physician, heal thyself.

I'll attempt to make my positions as easy to follow as possible:

*"Are black suits acceptable for daytime business wear?"*

Yes. The President of the United States and other world leaders have recently worn black suits with white shirts and coloured ties to conduct business during daylight hours. It is acceptable to use Presidents and Prime Ministers are role models regarding business wear.

_*"Are black suits tasteful and attractive?"*_

Yes. Virtually *all* of the wealthiest, most powerful, most intelligent and most fashionable private citizens regularly wear black suits with white shirts and black ties to formal social events. These men *choose* to adhere to long-standing custom in this regard, as do many other men the world over. Witness any State Dinner or other important ceremony. In many cases these men could choose to wear navy suits, but choose instead to wear black tie. They would not do so if they thought the look was unappealing or unflattering. And in cases where social custom actually *requires* black tie, these men are following a tradition that was adopted because the majority of important men, like themselves, recognized the black suit to be the pinnacle of elegance and visual appeal.

The most powerful men in the world did not, and do not, choose to present themselves looking anything less than their very best.


----------



## CuffDaddy

You know what, AskDandy? I think I've made my point.


----------



## AskDandy

_"Champ."_

You know, I apologized (and rightly so) when I was called out (and rightly so) for my own impolite behaviour. Just something to consider.

To reiterate: Black suits "work" both in the daylight hours as business attire, and also in the evening as social attire. The President of the United States - and other heads of state - currently adopt the black suit for both uses. Your definition of what "works" may differ from theirs. Understandable. We're all just human.

You further suggest that the most powerful, educated, influential, fashionable and esteemed men on the planet routinely wear black suits for formal and semi-formal events because it is "the social standard."

Agreed.

And yet, why did this social standard arise?

Is it because these _titans,_ these most highly cultured and fiercely competitive members of our society, have decided in concert that the most acceptable social standard is to present themselves to one another - and to suitable, potential mates - in anything _but_ the most flattering look?

Well, you referenced "logic" earlier on...


----------



## AskDandy

CuffDaddy,

I see you've edited your post between the time I read it and the time I replied. So please ignore my reference to "champ" from your earlier post.

So, let's agree to disagree. We're in good company on that regard, and in regard to this topic in general.

You have my best wishes. Sincerely.


----------



## CuffDaddy

AskDandy, if you're willing to admit that whether black looks flattering on most men (exclusive of formal wear) is a matter of taste, then I'm happy to agree to _agree_. We would disagree as to that matter of taste, but that's not unusual.

As for the reasoning that, because some of the most powerful men on the planet have started wearing something, it must necessarily look good, I'm afraid I'm going to have to haul out some more pictures. Here's a very wealthy and powerful man who has clearly _not_ chosen the "most flattering look."

Here he is wearing a suit. He didn't choose to have the collar stand off him because he thought it was flattering. He chose it because he didn't know any better, or simply didn't care.

As you can see, very wealthy and powerful men routinely make _awful_ choices about what to wear. The sudden vogue for black suits is inducing many of them to make yet another error. (Although I will note that Pres. Obama, being a black man, can better carry off the black suit than most white men. In his favor, he tends to pick fairly restrained ties - usually pastel blue - to go with them, which minimizes the overvivification effect described earlier.)


----------



## AskDandy

CuffDaddy,

I think we can find common ground, here. On the matter of taste, certainly. On Bill Gates and other wealthy men making some poor stylistic choices, most certainly. On the vogue for black suits being an "error," I trust we can agree to disagree since, as agreed upon, it's ultimately a matter of taste.

In the end, _I_ believe the black suit has been agreed upon socially because it's the choice which, in my opinion, looks most flattering on most men. But...and more importantly... because it _also_ allows for no variance in shade, tone, hue, etc. Black is black. A black suit, white shirt and black tie allow men to go about their most important social obligations without involving such trifles as sartorial considerations. So yes... it's a uniform. But I think it's a spiffy one.

So... now... Cuffed? Or non-cuffed?

:icon_smile_wink:

Have a great week.


----------



## 3holic

CuffDaddy said:


> That's some logic there, 3holic.


If you mean that sarcastically, then allow me to elaborate. Hacking pockets are conventional and acceptable as evidenced by quite of number of Savile Row tailors putting them on their jackets. Huntsman, one of the most venerable tailor, has that as their standard feature.

The fact that Manton started a thread to advocate the banning of them showed that he is not without personal bias. He is of course absolutely within his right to opine his likes and dislikes -- but that is not the point here. The point is that his writing against a widely accepted convention leads the reader to wonder whether his other writings on sartoral conventions are legitimate, or biased.


----------



## CuffDaddy

3holic, you misunderstood my citation of Manton entirely. I consider him to be a persuasive authority, but not an inerrant or final one. My point, though, was *not *the correctness of his opinion. If I had been trying to make the argument that black suits look bad on most men, I'm capable of making that argument myself without citation to others.

The citation's purpose was to refute AskDandy's earlier claim that anti-black-suit taste was aberrant and bizzarre, aking to prefering some subcompact Datsun to some fine antique automobile (I can't recall which one, and don't want to go look it up) - an opinion, in short, held only by madmen or the very eccentric. In fact, the notion that black is not a flattering color on most men is the _dominant_ opinion within classic dressing circles, and is extremely common in both the published and online sources regarding the matter. My citations demonstrated this.


----------



## Jake Genezen

My apologies for interjecting. 'The Power of Color' is well documented, analysed and illustrated in Flusser's _Dressing the Man_. This is a good starting point. Look at Seurat's painting, too, to see what effects can be achieved by juxtaposing colours. There are numerous books, also, on the theory (and science) behind colour, albeit slightly convoluted at times.

Slightly off the main point of the thread: no, Brad Pitt does not look good in black tuxedo; Johnny Depp does. Depp's colouring has a symbiotic relationship with the monochromatic tuxedo and white shirt, Pitt's does not. With Brad Pitt, you have his face followed by his outfit; there is no continuity: a head on a serving platter. Compare Paris Hilton and Audrey Hepburn below:

















Good looks can blind people to the reality of their ensemble. In my humble opinion. 

If one is not looking for continuity in one's colouring, then my above comments are invalid.

Many politicians wear ill-fitted suits - are we, too, meant to adopt ill-fitting suits because they do? What has wealth and power to do with taste? How does that bestow sartorial authority? The greatest artists lived and died in poverty and only became famous posthumously.


----------



## J.Marko

So it is settled, we should all start wearing tuxedos to work. :icon_smile_wink:


You raise a good point about presidents being bellweathers, or at least indicators of a change in fashion. Reagan helped usher in brown suits to the business world, and it is possible Obama will help make black suits acceptable in the business world. There is plenty of evidence that brown was shunned for business use before, and plenty that until now black has been likewise shunned. Only time will tell if it sticks. We are not all wearing extra wide lapels because of Carter.




Oh man, that Audrey Hepburn . . .


----------



## David_E

This thread is like a sore tooth... so painful but you just. can't. stop. nudging. 

Anyway... Undercover Boss a night or two ago: The CEO and Founder of I think Garmin loves him his black suit. It was tailored properly and accented properly, if not fantastically so he isn't totally sartorially oblivious.

An interesting observation just occurred to me after writing the previous line - it seems one of the common threads regarding who seems to wear black suits is that they tend to be people who either A) are not clued in the deep subtleties and corners of "Advanced Dressing" or B) more interestingly - people already on top of the pile who don't give a rotten banana about what self appointed arbiters of style think of their color choices as they have already proved them successful.

One final point, if we are going to use BB as a gold standard of Conservative Business Dress, then I think the fact that they finally did start selling black suits has to be treaded as a watermark of when it became acceptable. We can't have it both ways - using them as the bellwether of whats proper and then saying they have lost it when we disagree with them. Live by the Brooks, Die by the Brooks!


----------



## 3holic

^ Very well said.


----------



## Scott Hill

I agree with Cuff Daddy that the pages of Esquire showing a black suit in several different styles.. with tie, without tie, with dark shirt, whith white shirt is a waist of ink. Minimalistic dressing is always a nice clean look. I don't think we need 5 pages of editorial on "the black suit". We all know what it is and how to wear it !!


----------



## Saltydog

Scott Hill;1132998 I don't think we need 5 pages of editorial on "the black suit". We all know what it is and how to wear it !![/QUOTE said:


> AMEN bro!


----------



## bluesmobile_440

Just because black doesn't look great on many white men doesn't mean that Black should be avoided if it works for your skin complexion. Some may argue that an extremely dark charcoal is more appropriate, but the better quality black dyes don't give off a nasty sheen in daylight. I'm asian with olive skin and jet black hair. A black suit with a contrasting shirt and subdued tie is a look that has garnered me many compliments. The colors just work better for me as a winter. I think that some on this forum need to rethink the black suit issue in terms of complexion. If your complexion works for a black suit, I see no reason why one shouldn't wear it in the appropriate circumstances.


----------



## oroy38

I think it's amusing that we who are "sartorially enlightened" think black suits are so wrong, when the majority of the population thinks they're the only suit you need. Black IS the most popular suit color. Why? No one reason explains it, but that doesn't change the way things are. I think the most obvious reason is that black is considered formal, and business settings are considered formal by many, therefore black is the go-to color.

I think a properly tailored black suit looks as great as the equivalent navy suit. For "nights out" with the ladyfriend and others, a very slim tailored black suit with a crisp white shirt (no tie) is my default. Sure, that might make me "wrong" but it doesn't change the fact that it looks damn good and I like the way I look in it. Being young and vain I can afford to make such transgressions.

At the end of the day, if I am much more concerned with fit and tailoring than the color. As such, I'm inclined to have more sartorial respect to someone in a well tailored black suit than someone in an ill-fitting, but perfectly color coordinated, navy pinstripe suit.


----------



## Tim Correll

bluesmobile_440 said:


> Just because black doesn't look great on many white men doesn't mean that Black should be avoided if it works for your skin complexion. Some may argue that an extremely dark charcoal is more appropriate, but the better quality black dyes don't give off a nasty sheen in daylight. I'm asian with olive skin and jet black hair. A black suit with a contrasting shirt and subdued tie is a look that has garnered me many compliments. The colors just work better for me as a winter. I think that some on this forum need to rethink the black suit issue in terms of complexion. If your complexion works for a black suit, I see no reason why one shouldn't wear it in the appropriate circumstances.


Because you are Asian and a winter with jet black hair and olive skin, bluesmobile 440, all shades of dark gray (especially charcoal-including the darkest charcoal), dark medium gray and medium gray also work extremely well for you. This is absolutely a fact.


----------



## bluesmobile_440

Not saying that it doesn't, but it doesn't preclude black at all. That was my point.


----------



## upr_crust

To add fuel to this seemingly unquenchable fire, I am wearing a black pinstripe suit today, with pictures posted to WAYWT. If you like it - fine - if you don't like it - that's your opinion, you're perfectly entitled to it. Whether you think that the looks is suitable for day wear, see my previous comments. FWIW, I am a fair-skinned pale Caucasian who can't tan to save his life, and yet I don't think that I look washed out from today's attire.


----------



## J.Marko

oroy38 said:


> I think it's amusing that we who are "sartorially enlightened" think black suits are so wrong, when the majority of the population thinks they're the only suit you need. Black IS the most popular suit color. . .


In the same way, the majority of the population thinks that square toed thick rubber soled shoes are the best to go with a suit to work. Square toe rubber soles are the most popular suit shoes. Does that mean they are not viewed by a significant number of educated people as inappropriate? Or at least crappy looking?



oroy38 said:


> For "nights out" with the ladyfriend and others, a very slim tailored black suit with a crisp white shirt (no tie) is my default. Sure, that might make me "wrong" but it doesn't change the fact that it looks damn good and I like the way I look in it. Being young and vain I can afford to make such transgressions.


No transgression! No one is saying that black suits are not right for a night out - in fact just the opposite. The argument is about whether they are _only _good for a night out. I think everyone agrees that black suits are good for evening wear (perhaps the best for evening wear). Wear it in good health with your lady friend on a night out with no regrets!

The argument is about whether it is a myth that black suits are viewed as inappropriate for daytime business. Arguments that they look good, are now popular or are worn by so and so are not relevant to the question of whether some significant number of people consider them inappropriate for daytime business wear. It may be that the number of people who consider them inappropriate for business wear is declining, but I believe it has been established that at least some people think they are not appropriate for daytime business wear.


----------



## J.Marko

upr_crust said:


> To add fuel to this seemingly unquenchable fire, I am wearing a black pinstripe suit today, with pictures posted to WAYWT. If you like it - fine - if you don't like it - that's your opinion, you're perfectly entitled to it. Whether you think that the looks is suitable for day wear, see my previous comments. FWIW, I am a fair-skinned pale Caucasian who can't tan to save his life, and yet I don't think that I look washed out from today's attire.


I believe that the so called myth in question about the appropriateness of black suits for business wear only applies to solid black suits. I believe that there is agreement that pinstripe or other non-solid black suits are considered acceptable business wear. Correct me if I am wrong, oh you keepers of the acceptable suit color lore!


----------



## CuffDaddy

J.Marko said:


> In the same way, the majority of the population thinks that square toed thick rubber soled shoes are the best to go with a suit to work. Square toe rubber soles are the most popular suit shoes. Does that mean they are not viewed by a significant number of educated people as inappropriate? Or at least crappy looking?


Bwa-hah-hah! Well played!



> I believe that there is agreement that pinstripe or other non-solid black suits are considered acceptable business wear.


I'm no lore-keeper, but that's my understanding/perception as well.


----------



## Peak and Pine

J.Marko said:


> Arguments that they [all-black suits] look good [or] are now popular or are worn by so and so *are not relevant *to the question of whether some significant number of people consider them inappropriate for daytime business wear.


You are correct it; it isn't relevant to the fact that a _number _of people consider them inappropriate. But how significant is that number, in size and influence? That a black suit (or anything) _looks good or is popular or is worn by so-and-so_ is certainly worth noting. Why would you think otherwise?

Black suits are worn by me not because I dreamt up the idea, but because I saw my father wear them and liked him and liked the look. There are reasons people of influence are called that. Post after post here has cited men of power, personality, influence and celebrity who wear and look good in black suits. I have posted of President Clinton (to scattered chuckles). Others have told of Kennedy, Gates and Clooney. Yet to some because we cannot (yet) dig up a shot of Cary Grant in black it all becomes malarkey.

There is dogma going on here posing as personal preference. True personal preference allows me to wear black, you not to and neither of us will cast aspertions on the other.


----------



## upr_crust

Darn! And I thought that I was setting myself up for being flamed for horrible taste - oh, well, I am sure that I can wear something that will get a rise out of the arbiters of fashion rectitude . . . 



J.Marko said:


> I believe that the so called myth in question about the appropriateness of black suits for business wear only applies to solid black suits. I believe that there is agreement that pinstripe or other non-solid black suits are considered acceptable business wear. Correct me if I am wrong, oh you keepers of the acceptable suit color lore!


----------



## J.Marko

Peak and Pine said:


> You are correct[]; it isn't relevant to the fact that a _number _of people consider them inappropriate. But how significant is that number, in size and influence? That a black suit (or anything) _looks good or is popular or is worn by so-and-so_ is certainly worth noting. Why would you think otherwise?


I agree and would go further to suggest that the _only_ remaining issue here is how significant is the number in size and influence. I don't think there is enough (or perhaps any) data on this to get a real answer to this question though. As a consequence the resulting argument consists largely in the stating of opinions and personal observations, which is probably why the debate has gotten a bit heated.

I don't think think opinions about whether black suits look good (especially whether they look good at night) are relevant to this question because we are talking about how many people think they are not appropriate for business wear, which is an empirical question (about what is) that seems to me unrelated to whether it looks good or not. The question of whether black suits look good or not seems to me to be more of a normative question (about what should be). If you are trying to convince someone that thinks black is not appropriate for business wear that it _should_ be appropriate, you might point out that many movie stars wear solid black suits, or that it looks good at night in formal wear or whatever, but it says nothing about what people think. I think bikinis look great on slim young woman, but unfortunately most people do not think they are daytime business appropriate. No amount of argument about how awesome a slender beauty looks in a bikini will convince me that people believe bikinis are business appropriate.

Observations that so and so is wearing a black suit for daytime business use only shows that so and so thinks black suits are appropriate for business wear (strictly speaking, it doesn't even show that since the person may be choosing to flaunt convention), and not how significant is the group of people who do not believe this to be the case. President Kennedy often did not wear a hat, but that doesn't tell us whether a large significant proportion of people at the time thought he was being inappropriate. It only shows us that a significant person thought it was appropriate, which is not the question at hand. As an aside, presidents are not engaged in what I consider the type of business we are talking about.

At this point I think the only thing that would convince me that the old rule that solid back is not acceptable for day time wear is to see a significant number of black suits being worn for business in a serious main stream business context in various places in these U.S. This is what the OP was trying to show evidence of, and the argument developed about whether the people he saw at the meeting were representative of business wear and this was certainly a legitimate argument. We have since veered into more questionable territory in my opinion.


----------



## Cruiser

upr_crust said:


> Darn! And I thought that I was setting myself up for being flamed for horrible taste - oh, well, I am sure that I can wear something that will get a rise out of the arbiters of fashion rectitude . . .


I was surprised when you got away with wearing that black leather jacket a while back when you were in Europe, I believe. That was you wasn't it? Just about that same time there was a discussion ongoing about how terrible it is to wear black leather jackets. Everyone seemed to let you slide then too.

Personally I like both the black leather jacket and the black suit. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Saltydog

This thread just won't quit. It reminds me of a very old Saturday Night Live skit in which an irritating visitor would come to someone's house and just stay and stay and stay far beyond his wecome. it was entitled "The Thing That Wouldn't Leave". Maybe that would be a more accurate name for this thread. Or maybe "The Thread That Could Not Be Stopped". This irritating thread will, I predict, still be going on long after AAAC is--Heaven Forbid--a distant memory. Libraries will be filled with its many volumns. People will major in it in college. Dissertations will be written. Commentaries penned. Political parties started. It will go on and on and on. While in an alternate universe.....


----------



## Richard Baker

Using most politicians as argument for good taste and appropriate dressing rules is questionable, and recently ousted Kevin Rudd....might have many laudable character feats, but I doubt that sartorial leadership is one of them. Cuff Daddy might have proven his point at least to some extent. Some politicians dress well, no doubt, but their occupation has very little to do with it. Given many countries' media-driven political spin and campaigning, politicians have to be entertainer too. 


CuffDaddy said:


> You know what, AskDandy? I think I've made my point.


----------



## AskDandy

Must... resist... urge... to... *NOPE!* Gave in.

So, if you can't look to the President of the United States or Brooks Brothers to learn how to dress appropriately for business, then... to whom?

:tongue2:


----------



## CuffDaddy

Me. Just do what I tell you, and you'll be fine.


----------



## Jake Genezen

AskDandy said:


> Must... resist... urge... to... *NOPE!* Gave in.
> 
> So, if you can't look to the President of the United States or Brooks Brothers to learn how to dress appropriately for business, then... to whom?
> 
> :tongue2:


Look to someone who's an expert on aesthetics. Presidents are not (though some may have understood some 'rules' that govern aesthetics). Brook Brothers _raison d'être_ is ... to make money.










David Cameron, Prime Minister, multi-millionaire (and so is his wife); David Cameron with aristocratic blood coursing through his veins (same for his wife). He has absolutely no idea how to get a suit, tux, or whatever to fit. In fact he has absolutely no idea, full stop.


----------



## Cruiser

Jake Genezen said:


> David Cameron with aristocratic blood coursing through his veins (same for his wife). He has absolutely no idea how to get a suit, tux, or whatever to fit.




Or perhaps he just knows how he likes for HIS suits to fit. The fact that he might not be adhering to the sartorial rules of clothing enthusiasts may be of no concern to him at all. I know plenty of people who wear their clothes exactly like they want to wear them and they don't care whether they are in compliance with a rule book or not.

While I can agree, for example, that his pants are too long, I also believe that several folks known here as "well dressed" wear their pants too short. But hey, they own the clothes and who am I too say they can't wear them any way that they want.

To paraphrase Humpty Dumpty; who is the master, the man or the clothes? :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## Jake Genezen

Cruiser said:


> Or perhaps he just knows how he likes for HIS suits to fit. The fact that he might not be adhering to the sartorial rules of clothing enthusiasts may be of no concern to him at all. I know plenty of people who wear their clothes exactly like they want to wear them and they don't care whether they are in compliance with a rule book or not.


I can't argue with that!

I do think his sleeves are too long though, and thus looks like he's wearing his dad's tux. Or maybe Nick Clegg's.


----------



## Douglas Brisbane Gray

Jake Genezen said:


> I can't argue with that!
> 
> I do think his sleeves are too long though, and thus looks like he's wearing his dad's tux. Or maybe Nick Clegg's.


could be one of nick's old ones, he's turning into a bit of a porker these days so probably has had to go up a couple of sizes.


----------



## J.Marko

AskDandy said:


> So, if you can't look to the President of the United States or Brooks Brothers to learn how to dress appropriately for business, then... to whom?
> 
> :tongue2:


Brooks Brothers also sells jeans and fleece - does that make them appropriate for daytime business wear? Brooks Brothers sells things for casual and evening wear in addition to business wear. The fact they sell black suits will hardly convince all holders of 'the myth' to change their minds.

As for presidents, if you have a job similar to that of president of a large country, and a similar build and complexion, you could certainly emulate his/her style at work. That being said, it doesn't necessarily change what a perhaps significant portion of the business public believes is appropriate for work. Personally, I would not dress similarly to Angela Merkel, even though she is also the president of a largish country (I wouldn't dare wear this outfit and would opt for a tux instead). :tongue2:


----------



## WouldaShoulda

^^^

I could use a St Pauli Girl about now...


----------



## Bog

Black suits are bad because they pretend to be something they are not: a morning coat or a frock coat. Which, by the way, should be black.

Suits are a more casual, informal, style. They are sportswear. Trying to make them formal by making them black is silly. 

Just as silly as boat shoes in patent leather.

Get used to the fact that they are what they are and wear them as they should be.


----------



## upr_crust

Well, were you to take into your head to emulate Angela Merkel's attire, I would hope, at least, that you would have "une opulente poitrine que Mme. Merkel" - that's a LOT of cleavage for a head of state.



J.Marko said:


> As for presidents, if you have a job similar to that of president of a large country, and a similar build and complexion, you could certainly emulate his/her style at work. That being said, it doesn't necessarily change what a perhaps significant portion of the business public believes is appropriate for work. Personally, I would not dress similarly to Angela Merkel, even though she is also the president of a largish country (I wouldn't dare wear this outfit and would opt for a tux instead). :tongue2:


----------



## jblaze

I don't expect this to change anyone's opinion, but I was at a large (~30 people) business meeting with Top Level Management, Lawyers, and Advisers, and 90%+ had on black (or extremely dark gray/ blue) suits. I couldn't exactly determine if a suit was black or just really dark, due to lighting and not wanting to stare at people's clothes.

Anyway, that goes to show that even if it's wrong, according to high English society, it's a rule that is broken all of the time, potentially enough to become the new norm.


----------



## CuffDaddy

jblaze said:


> I couldn't exactly determine if a suit was black or just really dark, due to lighting and not wanting to stare at people's clothes.


I think you've just impeached yourself as a witness. If you couldn't tell black from dark grey or navy, then you really don't have any probative facts. As the lawyers in that crowd would have told you.


----------



## lizardking

*It's all context*

Johnny still looks the best, and the most stylish of the three:









Pretty sure Johnny's the one in black


----------



## J.Marko

lizardking said:


> Johnny still looks the best, and the most stylish of the three:
> Pretty sure Johnny's the one in black


Do you mean this Johnny?









If so good point - he is THE Man in Black after all. It is relevant, however, that he wore black as a statement, and one that he felt he needed to explain. If I understand the man properly, it is a sort of mouring, protest and penitence all rolled into one. A haunting song.






I hope I am permitted to link to youtube, if not I apologize to the moderators and will remove it.


----------



## Cardinals5

Is there a "White Suit Myth" that should concern me?


----------



## lizardking

*J. Marko. That's the one.*

Click on the jpg in my post if you haven't already. It's likely the picture I posted is related to the one you show. I think yours is of the backstage waiting room. :icon_smile_big:

When it comes to clothes, if the look is you and comfortable on you, then it doesn't matter what the rules are.


----------



## ykurtz

Cardinals5 said:


> Is there a "White Suit Myth" that should concern me?


Man, that's a pretty cool outfit. Except for the black pocket square. I saw that in real life last week and it just doesn't work for me.


----------



## YOgun27

Since we're on the topic of black suits...I just purchased a RLBL *Black Pinstripe* suit on sale (extra 40%) at the RL store for $530 (pre-alterations). Was this a good deal? My reasoning was, I figured that I would get more wear out (like a charcoal or navy suit) of it (like a charcoal or navy suit) since it can possibly be worn in a business setting. Thoughts?


----------



## bluesmobile_440

Black pinstripes are widely considered to be business appropriate and are seen as relatively versatile. The point of consternation on this thread appears to be solid black suits. As for whether or not it's a good deal, I'd say so as long as alterations aren't arm, leg, and first born. :aportnoy:


----------



## 3holic

$530 is a very good buy. RLBL suits are made by Corneliani and are full canvassed.


----------



## Jake Genezen

YOgun27 said:


> Since we're on the topic of black suits...I just purchased a RLBL *Black Pinstripe* suit on sale (extra 40%) at the RL store for $530 (pre-alterations). Was this a good deal? My reasoning was, I figured that I would get more wear out (like a charcoal or navy suit) of it (like a charcoal or navy suit) since it can possibly be worn in a business setting. Thoughts?


If you have the right complexion and hair colouring to pull off a black (pin-stripe) suit, go for it! Before I read Antongiavanni's 'The Suit' and posts on this forum, I was oblivious to the rules of the black suit. Personally, I will now probably stay away from black suits (I already have a dark charcoal pin-stripe suit anyhow).

The general population perhaps don't now about the black suit rule, so, as I say, if you have the complexion/colouring to pull it off you'll probably get compliments. Plus it's Ralph Lauren suit at a bargain price! (I can't got over how much his RTW suits are - I could get a Clement and Church bespoke for that (C&C are new award-wining tailors in my area) )

(About five/six years ago I did have a black pin-stripe suit - that got more compliments than anything else.)


----------



## ATLien

J.Marko said:


> Brooks Brothers also sells jeans and fleece - does that make them appropriate for daytime business wear? Brooks Brothers sells things for casual and evening wear in addition to business wear. The fact they sell black suits will hardly convince all holders of 'the myth' to change their minds.
> 
> As for presidents, if you have a job similar to that of president of a large country, and a similar build and complexion, you could certainly emulate his/her style at work. That being said, it doesn't necessarily change what a perhaps significant portion of the business public believes is appropriate for work. Personally, I would not dress similarly to Angela Merkel, even though she is also the president of a largish country (I wouldn't dare wear this outfit and would opt for a tux instead). :tongue2:


Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, the President of Germany (a purely representative role) is Christian Wulff.


----------



## J.Marko

ATLien said:


> Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany, the President of Germany (a purely representative role) is Christian Wulff.


That is correct. You win a no-prize! As you point out, the Chancellor is more analogous to the U.S. president. And, she dresses very differently from me, which is why I used her.


----------



## smmrfld

camila0017 said:


> [spam link removed] can be found here as well.


Moron post.


----------

