# Is it strictly necessary to wear a cummerbund with black tie?



## dingbat (Jul 24, 2008)

Upcoming black tie event. Will be wearing my tux of course, along with a marcella front dress shirt, black silk self tie bow tie and a nice pair of dress shoes.

Is a cummerbund viewed as necessary? I've only actually worn one once and did so purely on a whim...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

dingbat said:


> Is a cummerbund viewed as necessary?


GQ says no. Most here say yes. I wear a vest and avoid the issue.

Cruiser


----------



## JAGMAJ (Feb 10, 2005)

Wear a double-breasted dinner jacket. Otherwise, you probably should wear one.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Single breasted: cover the waist with a vest or cummerbund
Double breasted: no need for cummerbund. You can wear a vest if you wish.


----------



## Lagavulin16 (Nov 9, 2008)

No. Can´t stand them. Either double breasted or usually a vest, finished in the back, by the way.


----------



## paper clip (May 15, 2006)

My understanding of the 'rule' (however you take that) is that the waistband of the pants is to be covered while wearing a DJ - that is the function of the cummerbund. A waistcoat will also do this.

In a DB DJ, that problem is solved in that your jacket is always buttoned and covers the waistband.


----------



## Orsini (Apr 24, 2007)

dingbat said:


> ...Is a cummerbund viewed as necessary?...


Assuming SB and no vest then, yes.


----------



## PinkPlaidSocks (May 1, 2008)

Opinions vary, including on BlackTieGuide.com, but the general wisdom is that the waist needs to be covered. One of the common reasons for this is that many tux shirts sport only four studs that don't extend all the way to the pant line. Wearing a fly front shirt is one way to get around that but I personally still prefer a waist covering. Like Cruiser, I go with a waistcoat. I think they look sharper anyway.


----------



## dfloyd (May 7, 2006)

*As others have said,*

SB requires cummerbund or vest. DB requires none, but keep your jacket buttoned.


----------



## Andy (Aug 25, 2002)

dingbat said:


> Upcoming black tie event. Will be wearing my tux of course, along with a marcella front dress shirt, black silk self tie bow tie and a nice pair of dress shoes.
> 
> Is a cummerbund viewed as necessary? I've only actually worn one once and did so purely on a whim...


   
dingbat:

YES!

From the Formalwear Chapter of *The Encyclopedia of Men's Clothes*:
*Waist Cover: * The waistband of formal trousers must always be covered! This is dictated from the practice of wearing the jacket of White Tie open. 

The formal shirt will have a pleated front (to the waist *only*, so that it doesn't buckle when you sit down) - that's the other reason (as we discussed in shirts above) the waist is always covered with either a cummerbund or waistcoat. 

The choices are cummerbund (has *nothing to do with holding up your pants*), a vest or a double breasted dinner jacket which is never unbuttoned in public!​


----------



## Penang Lawyer (May 27, 2008)

Depending on the function I will wear either a waisrcoat or a cummerbund. However at a recent dinner many of the men did away with either. All their dinner shirts were cut so that front extended below the waist. It looked nice.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Penang Lawyer said:


> Depending on the function I will wear either a waisrcoat or a cummerbund. However at a recent dinner many of the men did away with either. All their dinner shirts were cut so that front extended below the waist. It looked nice.


Nope. Couldn't happen.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Doing without*



Penang Lawyer said:


> Depending on the function I will wear either a waisrcoat or a cummerbund. However at a recent dinner many of the men did away with either. All their dinner shirts were cut so that front extended below the waist. It looked nice.


I have a tux that has a satin trouser waistband. Obviously it was intended to be worn without a cummerbund. I have done so with a shirt that had pleats the full length of the front, right down to the end of the tail. Normally, I wear a cummerbund or a vest, even with those trousers. However, I think going without when the tux and the shirt are designed for that looks fine. The shirt is going to "buckle" whether you are wearing one that has pleats that stop higher plus a cummerbund or not. And, guess what, very few people will notice or care!

Cummerbunds are one reason many men hate to wear a tux:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

Blueboy1938 said:


> I have a tux that has a satin trouser waistband. Obviously it was intended to be worn without a cummerbund. I have done so with a shirt that had pleats the full length of the front, right down to the end of the tail. Normally, I wear a cummerbund or a vest, even with those trousers. However, I think going without when the tux and the shirt are designed for that looks fine. The shirt is going to "buckle" whether you are wearing one that has pleats that stop higher plus a cummerbund or not. And, guess what, very few people will notice or care!
> 
> Cummerbunds are one reason many men hate to wear a tux:icon_smile_wink:


The issue is not what you can get away with since others won't know or care. It has more to do with what you know is right and how you perceive yourself. You know the rules or, since you are here, you want to learn. Now you know better, why do less?


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Blueboy1938 said:


> I have a tux that has a satin trouser waistband. Obviously it was intended to be worn without a cummerbund.


I posted this picture earlier today in another thread before I read your comments here. If you look really close (I know it's hard to see in this picture) this appears to be the type waistband on Kevin Spacey's pants. Is this what you are talking about?

https://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kevinspacey1754988wo8.jpg

Cruiser


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

I assume the original question asks not what third piece to wear, but whether a third piece is even necessary anymore.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Rule of thumb:Cummerbund looks better with shawl collar (or notch),waistcoat (low cut three button,no exception) with a peak.I have worn waistcoats with a shawl collar DJ before,and recieved rave reviews.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Blueboy1938 said:


> Cummerbunds are one reason many men hate to wear a tux:icon_smile_wink:


Yes. In that vein, thank goodness opera pumps aren't mandatory.

.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

welldressedfellow said:


> waistcoat (low cut *three* button,no exception)


Not to be too nitpicky, but four buttons are perfectly acceptable as well.

.


----------



## dingbat (Jul 24, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> I assume the original question asks not what third piece to wear, but whether a third piece is even necessary anymore.


Yep, that's really where I was coming from. All opinions welcome though!


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*Can't tell*



Cruiser said:


> I posted this picture earlier today in another thread before I read your comments here. If you look really close (I know it's hard to see in this picture) this appears to be the type waistband on Kevin Spacey's pants. Is this what you are talking about?
> 
> https://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kevinspacey1754988wo8.jpg
> 
> Cruiser


But what I can tell is that he is apparently not wearing braces either, or else has a ridiculous break in those trousers. Shoving his hands in his pockets drags the trousers down, of course, to the point of showing shirt under the DJ buttons. A very sloppy look, indeed.

However, on the couple of occasions I have worn my trousers that have a satin waistband sans cummerbund, I haven't looked like that, if that's the implication. I *always* wear braces and *never* show shirt below the button, thanks to a high rise, nor an exaggerated break.

Most tux trousers, and all the others that I have, would not be suitable for wear without a vest or cummerbund, so I don't. That one pair, with its invisible inside flat hook closure and no button showing, and its satin waistband, looks finished enough to wear without a covering. If nothing else, it travels well, because one doesn't have the hassle of including a cummerbund.


----------



## stylesnob (Feb 25, 2008)

Traditionally either wear a cummerbund or a vest! Personally, I prefer the vest.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

The middle aged entertainer looks like ****



Blueboy1938 said:


> But what I can tell is that he is apparently not wearing braces either, or else has a ridiculous break in those trousers. Shoving his hands in his pockets drags the trousers down, of course, to the point of showing shirt under the DJ buttons. A very sloppy look, indeed.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

To the OP: have you considered a waistband cover? Although not classic, and not technically a tuxedo piece, it is much more dignified than going sans anything. Only the contemporary gentleman need apply


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> To the OP: have you considered a *waistband cover?* Although not classic, and not technically a tuxedo piece, it is much more dignified than going sans anything. Only the contemporary gentleman need apply


???


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

From the blacktieguide.com:

• Exposed Waist

As discussed under contemporary trouser innovations, some men are choosing trousers with a satin finished waistband in lieu of either type of traditional waist covering. Despite the fact that an exposed waistband is still regarded by many as a formal faux pas, this style received a big boost in credibility in 2006 when Daniel Craig was shown wearing it with an open dinner jacket on the poster for the hugely popular James Bond film Casino Royale.

However, men planning to imitate the look of Mr. Craig's rough-edged Bond interpretation should keep in mind that they would also need to copy his unbuttoned shirt and undone bow tie (not to mention the unholstered handgun) which is, of course, inexcusable for anyone other than elite British spies. They would do much better to take their cue from the film itself wherein 007 tactfully keeps the jacket buttoned whenever he is standing. In this regard, his appearance is indistinguishable from someone wearing a cummerbund or low-cut evening waistcoat.

Bond fans who absolutely insist on displaying their modern waistband should keep in mind that Mr. Craig’s dinner suit was personally made for him by a master tailor and his exposed waistline is as flat as a washboard. Unless you can duplicate these factors then you should not expect the same results.

Would-be imitators should also remember that traditional formal shirts will not work with this look as the stud eyelets do not extend all the way down to the waist. Consequently, the working button intended to be hidden behind a cummerbund or waistcoat will be instead be very much exposed.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

It's basically a strip of silk sewed onto the waistband. I had never heard of it until investigating blacktieguide.com last year.


----------



## Wizard (Feb 29, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> It's basically a strip of silk sewed onto the waistband. I had never heard of it until investigating blacktieguide.com last year.


Thank you. I don't think it's for me though.


----------



## Unregistered (Mar 13, 2008)

I find that horribly wrong.

As for the waistcoat - 3 button only, low cut with a lapel of it's own. 

High cut 4 button waistcoats seen oh-so-common these days... no.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> However, men planning to imitate the look of Mr. Craig's rough-edged Bond interpretation should keep in mind that they would also need to copy his unbuttoned shirt and undone bow tie (not to mention the unholstered handgun) which is, of course, inexcusable for anyone other than elite British spies.


I don't know about that. I have a permit to carry a handgun. I guess this means that if I unbutton my shirt and loosen my bow tie, I'm good to go. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Unregistered said:


> I find that horribly wrong.
> 
> As for the waistcoat - 3 button only, low cut with a lapel of it's own.
> 
> High cut 4 button waistcoats seen oh-so-common these days... no.


Actually, I think he meant 4 button low cut


----------



## Nantucket Red (Jan 26, 2006)

It's already been said, but cummerbund with shawl collar jacket and vest with peak lapels. A DB jacket would avoid the issue altogether, though you'll need braces to hold your trousers up.


----------



## culverwood (Feb 13, 2006)

No a cummerbund is not necessary with either a single breasted or double breasted DJ neither is a waistcoat. On this side of the Atlantic a much more casual attitude to black tie seems to apply (at least among those I mix with) and the cummerbund is seen as an old fashioned suburban article of clothing. 

Of course if your shirt requires it a cummerbund or waistcoat is necessary but a cummerbund gives one the image of Hyacinth Bucket's husband. I am probably picking the wrong forum to say this in but fashions change and to my mind ditching the cummerbund was long overdue.


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

culverwood said:


> No a cummerbund is not necessary with either a single breasted or double breasted DJ neither is a waistcoat. On this side of the Atlantic a much more casual attitude to black tie seems to apply (at least among those I mix with) and the cummerbund is seen as an old fashioned *suburban* article of clothing.
> 
> Of course if your shirt requires it a cummerbund or waistcoat is necessary but a cummerbund gives one the image of _*Hyacinth Bucket's husband*_. I am probably picking the wrong forum to say this in but fashions change and to my mind ditching the cummerbund was long overdue.


ROFLMAO:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big: That is a truly lethal post!! I think you delivered a fatal blow to the bund!!:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Nantucket Red (Jan 26, 2006)

What??! You mean no more plaid bow tie and matching cummerbund sets? What's the world coming to?

Truth to tell, I've always hated the cummerbund. It's just a glorified crumb-catcher.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> Actually, I think he meant 4 button low cut.


Yes. Low-cut, 4-button waistcoats do exist...and they look fine. In fact, they're even more traditional than the 3-button versions. At any rate, the 4-button configuration has a long pedigree. (Note: IMO, "more traditional" doesn't necessarily mean better...or worse.)

.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

A low-cut, 4-button evening waistcoat. Forgive the grubby mannequin.


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> I posted this picture earlier today in another thread before I read your comments here. If you look really close (I know it's hard to see in this picture) this appears to be the type waistband on Kevin Spacey's pants. Is this what you are talking about?
> 
> https://img355.imageshack.us/my.php?image=kevinspacey1754988wo8.jpg
> 
> Cruiser


This picture shows exactly why one should wear a cummerbund. That triangle of white at the bottom makes you look like you do not know how to dress.

As for comfort, if you don't wear a cummerbund or vest, you'll have to yank your pants way up to where people haven't worn their pants since the zoot suit. Not very comfortable.

What kind of statement are you trying to make by not wearing a cummerbund? I don't think anyone will find it shocking or a faux pas that you are wearing a cummerbund with a tux. ( As they might with a top hat say). On the other hand you would call attention to yourself if you didn't wear one. Did he lose it? Does he not know?

If it's all about comfort, why not ditch the tie as well? Hell I went to a black tie wedding where a guest wore a "loud pipes save lives" t-shirt.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

charlie500 said:


> What kind of statement are you trying to make by not wearing a cummerbund?


Are you addressing that question to me personally? If so, I'm not trying to make any kind of statement. Like I said, I wear a vest and avoid this issue entirely.

Cruiser


----------



## 14395 (Mar 10, 2004)

Kevin Spacey's "outfit" is ill fitting. The built in silk
waistband is too narrow. I've seen tuxedo trousers
that fit properly with a wider silk waistband.

If anyone remembers the Dean Martin television show,
Dean never wore a cummerbund or vest (or suspenders),
but he had the silk waistband. Sy Devore, the original
tailor to the rat pack made tuxedo trousers that way
for some of his clients.

I'd still wear a cummerbund with a SB though :icon_smile:


----------



## charlie500 (Aug 22, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> Are you addressing that question to me personally? If so, I'm not trying to make any kind of statement. Like I said, I wear a vest and avoid this issue entirely.
> 
> Cruiser


No, not at all. It's something my sister asks me a lot when she's trying to get me to dress more conservatively.

"What kind of statement are you trying to make?"

If everyone is wearing cummerbunds and you aren't, why aren't you. What are you telling your fellow guests? Or if everyone is wearing a suit and you are wearing a tux, what are you telling your fellow guests. While some events are a forum for making a fashion statement - the Oscars, a Madri-Gras ball, others demand that you dress like everybody else - weddings, charity balls, business related events.

My grandmother used to say that good manners is the art of making everyone feel comfortable. I would extend this to fashion statements.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

misterdonuts said:


> ROFLMAO:icon_smile_big::icon_smile_big: That is a truly lethal post!! I think you delivered a fatal blow to the bund!!:icon_smile_big:


I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I may want to wear a cummerbund more frequently knowing that it seems 'out of it' to certain people. I enjoy upholding traditions, especially minor, inoffensive, aesthetically-pleasing ones that bring to light the silly anti-bourgeois affectations of certain types of people. Sort of like a character in a Whit Stillman film. That's the statement I'm trying to make.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Gotta say, I prefer a waistcoat to the cummerbund.

charlie500: From what I understand, that triangle is avoided if the jacket fastening and trouser rise are where they should be. With Spacey, neither seem to be the case!


----------



## misterdonuts (Feb 15, 2008)

Taliesin said:


> I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I may want to wear a cummerbund more frequently knowing that it seems 'out of it' to certain people. I enjoy upholding traditions, especially minor, inoffensive, aesthetically-pleasing ones that bring to light the silly anti-bourgeois affectations of certain types of people. Sort of like a character in a Whit Stillman film. That's the statement I'm trying to make.


You seem to have taken my post very seriously...:icon_smile_big: I reacted to culverwood's post, which has a reference that is very specific in its national and cultural context and does not at all translate across the pond. Wear your cummerbund in good health.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*"Strictly necessary?"*



dingbat said:


> *Is it strictly necessary to wear a cummerbund with black tie?*
> 
> Upcoming black tie event. Will be wearing my tux of course, along with a marcella front dress shirt, black silk self tie bow tie and a nice pair of dress shoes.
> 
> Is a cummerbund viewed as necessary? I've only actually worn one once and did so purely on a whim...


Let's take another look at what actually was asked: "Is is strictly necessary to wear a cummerbund with black tie?"

The answer to that is a qualified "No." You can alternatively wear a waistcoat and satisfy the "correctness" squad. It's an added layer and thus warmer, but no one will object.

My previous post proposed another limited possibility that is only really possible when the trousers have a waistband that is "finished" in the same material as the side stripe and the DJ's lapel, has no button showing, plus having a shirt that has a front that goes all the way down into the trouser waist, pleats or otherwise. This will not win much approval in these fora, but it is "doable" without looking terrible.

The key words are "strictly necessary" here. That, and how much one is willing to deviate from the "norm" in order to accommodate not wearing the rather archaic, truncated version of the cummerbund we now have available to us.


----------



## wheredidyougetthathat (Mar 26, 2006)

Taliesin said:


> I don't see it that way at all. In fact, I may want to wear a cummerbund more frequently knowing that it seems 'out of it' to certain people. I enjoy upholding traditions, especially minor, inoffensive, aesthetically-pleasing ones that bring to light the silly anti-bourgeois affectations of certain types of people. Sort of like a character in a Whit Stillman film. That's the statement I'm trying to make.


Well said!!!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I quite like the no covering look, with or without a "finished" waistband, but agree it has to be done right.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

Nantucket Red said:


> What??! You mean no more plaid bow tie and matching cummerbund sets? What's the world coming to?


Good thing I got mine out of the way at prom a few years ago.

Here's a fun picture to provide a laugh for today.

and yes she is chewing gum.


----------



## Nantucket Red (Jan 26, 2006)

Now, if that's not _sprezzatura_, nothing is!


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Personally, I find the 'finished' waistband rather ugly and thin. Surely, they should make it thicker by at least 4 inches for it to cover enough waist and be made of a non-satin silk. It would at least look more dignified that way.


----------



## Midnight Blue (Apr 22, 2007)

I love the cummberbund in the context of the classic '50s look with a shawl collar jacket and a strict black-and-white palette. However, I fear that the '80s enthusiasm for brightly coloured cummerbunds and matching ties has stripped the formal sash of its dignity in the eyes of most people and it will take at least another decade before that gaudy association is erased from our collective conciousness!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Cardcaptor Charlie said:


> Personally, I find the 'finished' waistband rather ugly and thin. Surely, they should make it thicker by at least 4 inches for it to cover enough waist and be made of a non-satin silk. It would at least look more dignified that way.


I thought it was the same fabric as the lapels, which usually isn't satin.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

I actually have a four button formal vest by Giorgio Armani. Wool. No lapels. It has a low, u shaped cut. I also have a silk, double breasted (8x4) formal vest I got off of eBay a couple months ago. The tag of this vest says "Made in Germany." The back of this vest is jacquard with an anchor like logo. You seem to be in the know about vests, maybe you can identify the maker if I post a pic?



Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> Yes. Low-cut, 4-button waistcoats do exist...and they look fine. In fact, they're even more traditional than the 3-button versions. At any rate, the 4-button configuration has a long pedigree. (Note: IMO, "more traditional" doesn't necessarily mean better...or worse.)
> 
> .


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

I was thumbing through the latest _GQ _while at the grocery store and couldn't help but notice that they re-emphasized their previous suggestion that one leave the cummerbund at home. Actually they took it one step further in this issue and said "No" to a vest also. On the other side of the coin they did say suspenders are required.

Please don't yell at me. I'm just reporting what I read in the magazine. And I am aware that everyone hates _GQ. _I'm not a big fan myself, but one cannot deny that it probably does influence a lot of people.

Cruiser


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

I hope they at least reported how to do it right -- with a full fronted shirt -- if they're going to give out misleading advice to young men. Yeah, they recommended suspenders. Still, the advice from GQ I saw once about one OR TWO button, peak OR NOTCH (sorry Cruiser) with no mention whatsoever of 4x1 double breasted (which looks great on the thin men they're selling to) and shawls has me a bit worried along with this. Of course, they probably changed their opinion about these things in the last three years considering it changes on the "issue" of two button vs. three button every single month. 

Now really, I don't prefer the cummerbund although I could wear it comfortably, but what in blue hell is wrong with a formal waistcoat? You'd think GQ of all sources would be promoting it considering that three piece suits are officially in vogue these days and people like Tom Ford and Sean "Puffy" Combs are donning them in their evening wear ensembles.


----------



## mczewd (Jul 21, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> From the blacktieguide.com:
> 
> • Exposed Waist
> 
> ...


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

mczewd said:


> Scoundrel said:
> 
> 
> > I have noticed in the older Bond movies that Sean Connery at times wore a tuxedo sans cummerbund or waistcoat on many occasions (Dr. No being one such film, if my recollection is correct). It seems that I don't recall there being studs in his shirt, either. If Bond displays such sartorial excellence in so may other ways, why is he often seen without the usual accoutrements of formal wear?
> ...


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Jovan said:


> Still, the advice from GQ I saw once about one OR TWO button, peak OR NOTCH (sorry Cruiser) with no mention whatsoever of 4x1 double breasted (which looks great on the thin men they're selling to) and shawls has me a bit worried along with this. Of course, they probably changed their opinion about these things in the last three years considering it changes on the "issue" of two button vs. three button every single month.


I don't recall there being any mention of double breasted jackets. In this latest issue GQ recommended the one button notch lapel as the best overall choice for most guys with the peak and shawl lapels for guys who are out to make more of a "statement".

Cruiser


----------



## 3stylelife (Nov 9, 2008)

As someone fairly new to this type of dress, would someone mind explaining why waist covering is so important in this case?

I knew previously that a cummerbund/vest is typical, for that purpose, but never really understood why. Is it simply to prevent an awkward view of the shirt as it meets the trouser (as in the picture above), or is there some other reason?


----------



## StoryTroy (Nov 8, 2008)

Midnight Blue said:


> I fear that the '80s enthusiasm for brightly coloured cummerbunds and matching ties has stripped the formal sash of its dignity in the eyes of most people and it will take at least another decade before that gaudy association is erased from our collective conciousness!


Exactly. Thanks for ruining everything, Ralph Marlin... and I'm looking at you, too, Nicole Miller.

You've already read it many times here, but the vest is the way to go sans cummerbund.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

3stylelife: As with many things in menswear, it comes down to tradition. That, and most evening wear shirts only have a bib front of marcella or pleats, not all the way down to the bottom.

Courtesy of Black Tie Guide, this is what happens if you don't wear a waist covering with them. There aren't enough studs to cover the front, so the bottom button is exposed.



Daniel Craig fares better with the fly fronted shirt.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

I'm not a fan of the cummerbund, but it certainly looks better than an exposed waistband with a single breasted dinner jacket. Personally, I like the low stance formal or semiformal lapelled vest best.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Jovan said:


> 3stylelife: As with many things in menswear, it comes down to tradition. That, and most evening wear shirts only have a bib front of marcella or pleats, not all the way down to the bottom.
> 
> Courtesy of Black Tie Guide, this is what happens if you don't wear a waist covering with them. There aren't enough studs to cover the front, so the bottom button is exposed.


The problem there isn't because of the studs or bib, it's because the trousers are sitting on the hips instead of the waist. This problem shouldn't occur if the trousers are worn at the proper height.


----------



## Mannix (Nov 24, 2008)

I hate them, and I would never wear one.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Matt S said:


> The only time you see Connery Bond with a cummerbund is in Diamonds Are Forever. Bond was never much a fan of the cummerbund. He occasionally wore studs, like in Diamonds Are Forever. Bond's clothes were about not showing off. He never wanted to come off as a dandy (as Brosnan did).


He he, it was mczewd who actually wrote what you quoted. The first part of his post is what I wrote.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

3stylelife said:


> As someone fairly new to this type of dress, would someone mind explaining why waist covering is so important in this case?
> 
> I knew previously that a cummerbund/vest is typical, for that purpose, but never really understood why. Is it simply to prevent an awkward view of the shirt as it meets the trouser (as in the picture above), or is there some other reason?


By definition, a tuxedo is composed of three pieces: pants, coat and vest or cummerbund. To not wear the third piece of a tux is to not wear a tuxedo, technically.


----------



## 3stylelife (Nov 9, 2008)

Jovan said:


> 3stylelife: As with many things in menswear, it comes down to tradition. That, and most evening wear shirts only have a bib front of marcella or pleats, not all the way down to the bottom.
> 
> Courtesy of Black Tie Guide, this is what happens if you don't wear a waist covering with them. There aren't enough studs to cover the front, so the bottom button is exposed.


Jovan, thank you very much. This makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Matt S said:


> The problem there isn't because of the studs or bib, it's because the trousers are sitting on the hips instead of the waist. This problem shouldn't occur if the trousers are worn at the proper height.


I agree with them being a bit low, but to cover that button they look like they'd have to hit his _ribcage_. Not a good look, IMO. Even my vintage trousers aren't that high!



Scoundrel said:


> By definition, a tuxedo is composed of three pieces: pants, coat and vest or cummerbund. To not wear the third piece of a tux is to not wear a tuxedo, technically.


I's personally argue that it's not even a tuxedo or "tux," but a _dinner jacket and trousers_. Sometimes called a dinner _suit_, but I've read that's not really correct terminology either.

I remember references to only a dinner jacket or "tuxedo coat" in the history of it, where gentleman paired it with evening trousers made for tail coats (which were formerly de rigeur evening wear with a white marcella bow tie and waistcoat).

In any case, I think rules can be slightly bent if you do it sensibly. I know not everyone's a fan of this, but I love how Cary Grant pulled off well-polished black loafers with a black tie ensemble.


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> Not to be too nitpicky, but four buttons are perfectly acceptable as well.
> 
> .


I know,but I forgot to add that in.


----------



## Benjamin NYC (Dec 28, 2006)

Yeah, it is kind of necessary. I can't really explain why other than that it is part of what makes black tie such, and that it likely has the effect of concealing and somewhat visually repressing the waist of one's figure. It also covers the ends of the suspenders where they attach to the pants. So, while there probably is no real existential reason why a cummerbund is necessary, it is indeed a fairly integral part of black tie. Now, if your tuxedo is purple and you are wearing a purple hat and snakeskin gloves or some other "creative" interpretation of the black tie standard for prom or whatnot, I don't think anyone will be the wiser, but yup, a cummerbund is part of the deal otherwise.


----------



## deandbn (Mar 6, 2006)

Hi, Yes it is definitely as necessary to wear a cummerband with black tie, as it is necessary to wear a black tie with black tie, as it is necessary to wear a black suit with satin tape down the trouser legs as it is necessary to have satin fronted jacket lapels with black tie. 

The cummerband covers / finishes off / makes elegant the join between the trousers and shirt. It has a purpose.

If you are going to break some of the rules then why not wear brown trousers, green shirt, red tie, white sandals and no jacket and call it black tie, or take it to the nth degree and go naked.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

Some of the local private schools have semi-formal senior proms where the boys do just that! DJ, tux shirt, bow tie, cummerbund, flip flops, and board shorts or madras shorts. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## anglophile23 (Jan 25, 2007)

MarkfromMD said:


> Some of the local private schools have semi-formal senior proms where the boys do just that! DJ, tux shirt, bow tie, cummerbund, flip flops, and board shorts or madras shorts. :icon_smile_big:


Are the flip-flops at least patent leather? Maybe with a grosgrain bow on top like my opera pumps.


----------



## dingbat (Jul 24, 2008)

Perhaps it is an Irish thing, but at the event I attended last weekend I saw the following...

140 guests, of which approximately 80 were male. Mostly very smart company.

Of these 80, I saw five waistcoats and two cummerbunds. The rest simply wore tux, dress shirt, bow tie.

However, I will state, for the record, that I received three compliments on my own cummerbund.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

MarkFromMD: At my prom, someone wore a morning coat and striped trousers. Yikes. I think me and only a few others were somewhat traditional. (I'm including notched lapels here!) My friend had a cream double breasted dinner jacket, black cummerbund, and black trousers with a turn down collar pleated front shirt and a proper (self-tie) black bow. He looked great and it was all a hand-me-down from his grandfather.  I was envious.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

What are thoughts on wearing a cummerbund with a DB dinner jacket, but wearing the dinner jacket open?


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> What are thoughts on wearing a cummerbund with a DB dinner jacket, but *wearing the [double-breasted] dinner jacket open*?


"Flapping in the breeze" comes to mind.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Scoundrel said:


> What are thoughts on wearing a cummerbund with a DB dinner jacket, but wearing the dinner jacket open?


That it is a bad idea.

Leaveing a DB open allows the front quarters to sag and flap about.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> What are thoughts on wearing a cummerbund with a DB dinner jacket, but wearing the dinner jacket open?


While I will admit to not being a fan of DB jackets in general, to me they really look bad when left unbuttoned. It's something about the way the jacket hangs. I don't normally pay attention to other men's clothing but I couldn't help but think how bad David Letterman looked one night when he was doing his monologue with an unbuttoned DB jacket. I think a tuxedo jacket would be even worse.

Cruiser


----------



## AdamInSF (May 14, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> While I will admit to not being a fan of DB jackets in general, to me they really look bad when left unbuttoned. It's something about the way the jacket hangs. I don't normally pay attention to other men's clothing but I couldn't help but think how bad David Letterman looked one night when he was doing his monologue with an unbuttoned DB jacket. I think a tuxedo jacket would be even worse.


Funny, although I nearly never watch Letterman, a while back I happened to tune in and immediately noticed how awful he looked with his DB jacket unbuttoned.

I agree w/the others - keep your DB DJ buttoned, please. In which case there's no reason to wear a cummerbund with it.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Can someone explain what this coat is? The picture is from the new Paul Stuart line for fashion forward people. What is it, some kind of contemporary styled morning dress coat? It's definitely not long enough to be a classic morning coat. Even though it's double breasted, why would some people say it looks good unbuttoned?


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

7B SB monster.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> Even though it's double breasted, why would some people say it looks good unbuttoned?


Why? Because it's cut to be worn unbuttoned all the time. That's what the photo indicates. It's possible that the jacket is just overly pinned up at the back for the photo shoot, but I doubt it.


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

Scoundrel said:


> Can someone explain what this coat is? The picture is from the new Paul Stuart line for fashion forward people. What is it, some kind of contemporary styled morning dress coat? It's definitely not long enough to be a classic morning coat. Even though it's double breasted, why would some people say it looks good unbuttoned?


It is not a morning coat but more like a stroller jacket. I can't be bothered to list what ills there are here...


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

It's probably trying to emulate this portrait:


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Another emulation of the same portrait. This version is single-breasted: https://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/64/49/73/18857503.jpg


----------



## xcalibre0 (Dec 1, 2008)

Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> Another emulation of the same portrait. This version is single-breasted: https://img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/medias/nmedia/18/64/49/73/18857503.jpg


Is it just me, or can you see his waistband in that picture even with the waistcoat?


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Don't say it too loudly. Prince Vlad might bite you.


----------



## Matt S (Jun 15, 2006)

Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> Why? Because it's cut to be worn unbuttoned all the time. That's what the photo indicates. It's possible that the jacket is just overly pinned up at the back for the photo shoot, but I doubt it.


I thought it was a 6 on 2 double-breasted suit pinned back. It has square-cut quarters as a double-breasted coat would. It's probably pinned to display the waistcoat.


----------



## Arnold Gingrich fan (Aug 8, 2008)

Matt S said:


> I thought it was a 6 on 2 double-breasted suit pinned back.


You might be right. And if you are, then the photo doesn't show what a unpinned (read: normal) double-breasted jacket really looks like when left open.

This is more realistic: https://www.bestweekever.tv/bwe/images/2007/08/oprah%20letterman%20pic.JPG


----------



## deandbn (Mar 6, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> Can someone explain what this coat is? The picture is from the new Paul Stuart line for fashion forward people. What is it, some kind of contemporary styled morning dress coat? It's definitely not long enough to be a classic morning coat. Even though it's double breasted, why would some people say it looks good unbuttoned?


I would describe it at as double breasted, peak lapelled frock coat.

Wierd the stuff they dream up today!


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

deandbn said:


> Wierd the stuff they dream up today!


I don't think folks dream up stuff any more weired today than they have throughout history. Sometimes the weird stuff catches on (tailless dinner jacket) and sometimes it doesn't (Nehru jacket, except for maybe in India).

Only time will tell if something new and different today will become something timeless and classic tomorrow.

Having said that I do think I made the right choice when I chose to not save my leisure suits from the late 70's. :icon_smile:

Cruiser


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Matt S said:


> I thought it was a 6 on 2 double-breasted suit pinned back. It has square-cut quarters as a double-breasted coat would. It's probably pinned to display the waistcoat.


You are probable right. I hadn't thought of the coat being pinned back. That would explain a lot about the odd button stance.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> I don't think folks dream up stuff any more weired today than they have throughout history. Sometimes the weird stuff catches on (tailless dinner jacket) and sometimes it doesn't (Nehru jacket, except for maybe in India).
> 
> Only time will tell if something new and different today will become something timeless and classic tomorrow.
> 
> ...


Hopefully there will always be wise sartorial mandarins around, with the courage to denounce the next leisure suit or Nehru jacket.:icon_smile_wink:

The Paul Stuart is sort of actually sort of intriguing. I may stop in on my way home today to get a better look.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

I did stop in Paul Stuart today. From what I saw in the Phineas line, I'm guessing that picture depicts a regular double breasted suit with the coat pinned open.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Did you see any DB coats that were unbuttoned?


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

They showed me a double breasted suit on the hanger, but they didn't have it my size. It could have been the same model of suit as in the pic, but in a darker grey. 

The coats I did try on were cut very snug, although the salesman said that they're supposed to fit that way, and he was kind enough to asssure me that I'm not just too pudgy for that line. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## maestrom (Nov 29, 2008)

*Footwear*



Arnold Gingrich fan said:


> Yes. In that vein, thank goodness opera pumps aren't mandatory.
> 
> .


I am actually quite a fan of the traditional opera pump. It's so impractical! Love it. I am also a fan of the Albert slipper as well.


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

maestrom said:


> I am actually quite a fan of the traditional opera pump. It's so impractical! Love it. I am also a fan of the Albert slipper as well.


What is an "Albert slipper" please?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

For the record, despite my earlier comments in this thread, I think one should wear a cummerbund or waistcoat if you need to make a good impression on important people.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

Jovan said:


> For the record, despite my earlier comments in this thread, I think one should wear a cummerbund or waistcoat if you need to make a good impression on important people.


What I've gotten out of this thread is that you can eschew the waist covering if you are going stag and want to affect a rakish air, assuming that's appropriate for the event. If you are escorting a woman, or otherwise want to look more conservative, you should probably wear the cummerbund or vest.


----------



## David V (Sep 19, 2005)

Wyvern1138 said:


> What I've gotten out of this thread is that you can eschew the waist covering if you are going stag and want to affect a rakish air, assuming that's appropriate for the event. If you are escorting a woman, or otherwise want to look more conservative, you should probably wear the cummerbund or vest.


You should take from this thread no such thing.

A waist covering is always called for unless you are wearing a DB Dinner Jacket.


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Blueboy1938 said:


> What is an "Albert slipper" please?


An Albert slipper is one usually made of suede, or velvet, and that has a leather heel and sole, just like a regular pair of dress shoes. Some people insist that is acceptable footwear with a tuxedo (under certain circumstances). The vamp goes out a bit, like a loafer.  The Albert slipper can be lined with leather, but quilted lining is also common. Another major distinction is that the toe area can be monogrammed for the wearer. I believe Andy favor's Del Toro brand. I personally don't care for the style of slipper, it's a bit, ahem, outdated for me.



Wyvern1138 said:


> What I've gotten out of this thread is that you can eschew the waist covering if you are going stag and want to affect a rakish air, assuming that's appropriate for the event. If you are escorting a woman, or otherwise want to look more conservative, you should probably wear the cummerbund or vest.


Nuh uh Wyvern... The proper gesture that signifies ladies are present is a white, cotton bow tie, not a cummerbund! This, however, is an old fashioned practice, that probably only old stalwarts enforce still.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

David V said:


> You should take from this thread no such thing.
> 
> A waist covering is always called for unless you are wearing a DB Dinner Jacket.


That's okay: the vest is my favorite part of my black tie ensemble, and in any event, I don't expect to attend any such event stag.

However, if I do run across a young fellow with no date and a visible waist band, I won't be inclined to think ill of him.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> Nuh uh Wyvern... The proper gesture that signifies ladies are present is a white, cotton bow tie, not a cummerbund! This, however, is an old fashioned practice, that probably only old stalwarts enforce still.


Are you saying that black tie is inappropriate for mixed company? That's the first I've ever heard of that, and if it's the case I've never seen it obsevred.

Anyway, this reminds me of something that popped into my head recently, and now it's bothering me. Back in 2000, one of my close friends got married. I won't even tell you about my "co-best man" get up, except that it inolved a dinner jacket and it was an early afternoon ceremony. Now the groom, on the other hand, wore a tailcoat...

...and black tie.

Or maybe it was burgundy, but I don't think it was white. There may also have been a burgundy vest involved.

Did I let of one my best friends get married dressed as waiter?!? :icon_pale:


----------



## welldressedfellow (May 28, 2008)

Historically,white tie was worn when in the presence of ladies.Black tie was reserved for the club,where only men were present.



Wyvern1138 said:


> Are you saying that black tie is inappropriate for mixed company? That's the first I've ever heard of that, and if it's the case I've never seen it obsevred.
> 
> Anyway, this reminds me of something that popped into my head recently, and now it's bothering me. Back in 2000, one of my close friends got married. I won't even tell you about my "co-best man" get up, except that it inolved a dinner jacket and it was an early afternoon ceremony. Now the groom, on the other hand, wore a tailcoat...
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoundrel (Oct 30, 2007)

Well... I think you're friend was on the right track. I personally think wearing a tuxedo to a wedding (yes, in the daytime), is traditionally, and distinctly, American, Trad in its own little way. As I've said before (you can search for it if you really want, just type "Internet," "Las Vegas"), I intend to wear a tuxedo when I get my second chance at marriage; I didn't the first time I was engaged. The problem with the well dressed man and weddings is that sometimes bridezilla wants control over every last detail of the wedding, and things end up getting... tacky, silly, incorrect, etc., etc., etc. I guess the important thing is both people say "I do." So, it's not always the guy's own doing when he's standing there in a gray tailcoat and top hat, wearing a black neck tie...


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

Scoundrel said:


> Well... I think you're friend was on the right track. I personally think wearing a tuxedo to a wedding (yes, in the daytime), is traditionally, and distinctly, American, Trad in its own little way. As I've said before (you can search for it if you really want, just type "Internet," "Las Vegas"), I intend to wear a tuxedo when I get my second chance at marriage; I didn't the first time I was engaged. The problem with the well dressed man and weddings is that sometimes bridezilla wants control over every last detail of the wedding, and things end up getting... tacky, silly, incorrect, etc., etc., etc. I guess the important thing is both people say "I do." So, it's not always the guy's own doing when he's standing there in a gray tailcoat and top hat, wearing a black neck tie...


This was an an evening tailcoat, not a morning coat.

I've ceded control of most of the nuptual decisions to my own bride-to-be, but I had to put my foot down and tell her that there will be no evening attire unless she wants a six-o'clock ceremony.

I would have considered daytime formal, but I couldn't work out the logistics of renting, and I couldn't justify the expense of spending $1,800 on something I'd most likely wear only once, so I settled on a suit.

Luckily, that provided just the excuse I needed to go bespoke.:devil:


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*What would Emily have said?*



Wyvern1138 said:


> I've ceded control of most of the nuptual decisions to my own bride-to-be, but I had to put my foot down and tell her that there will be no evening attire unless she wants a six-o'clock ceremony.


Actually, it is "correct" to wear evening attire at an afternoon ceremony IF the festivities will continue into the evening.

After all, with the time it takes for all those pictures on the cliffs overlooking the sea, or whatever, you'll be lucky to make it to the reception in time to cut the cake:icon_smile_big:


----------



## Bird's One View (Dec 31, 2007)

Blueboy1938 said:


> Actually, it is "correct" to wear evening attire at an afternoon ceremony IF the festivities will continue into the evening....


Perhaps someone more industrious than I will provide a quotation, but I remember it the other way around: it is correct to wear formal daywear into the evening at a reception that immediately follows a daytime wedding.


----------



## Wyvern1138 (Jun 3, 2006)

If anything, I would wear a suit to the wedding and don black tie for dinner. I reckon that if I have to put my clothes back on for dinner, they need not necessarily be the same clothes. :devil:

By the way, is "informal" the correct dress code to mean suits for the gentlemen? Or do we actually need to say "lounge suits", "business suits" or something?


----------



## Cardcaptor Charlie (Jul 7, 2008)

I watched the British Comedy Awards last night (but only the last half) and most of the guests wore what looks like funeral wear. Some had DJs but with no waist covering and unbuttoned (Frank Skinner wore a normal shirt which bulged out at the waist which was horrible). Adrian Chiles wore a DB one (buttoned; and I think Clive Anderson also too) and he was the star dresser of the second half IMHO (though this is considering that none that I noticed wore a pocket square). Thankfully, most I saw wore a self tied bowtie.


----------



## Unregistered (Mar 13, 2008)

Bird's One View said:


> Perhaps someone more industrious than I will provide a quotation, but I remember it the other way around: it is correct to wear formal daywear into the evening at a reception that immediately follows a daytime wedding.


It is acceptable to wear daytime formal wear into the evening if the event continues. The only time that evening formal/informal wear (Tailcoat/dinner jacket) is acceptable before 6pm is if it is dark before then, or traveling to an event that is in the evening.



Wyvern1138 said:


> By the way, is "informal" the correct dress code to mean suits for the gentlemen? Or do we actually need to say "lounge suits", "business suits" or something?


Unfortunately in this day and age, one runs the risk of someone showing up in shorts and a Hawaiian shirt if one requests "informal".


----------

