# How guys dress in my workplace



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

These luminaries of the advertising industry (not Mad Men era, sorry) are wearing the uniform perfectly. Actually, they're in a San Francisco agency, but they're all exactly the same....

Can you spot the orphaned suit jacket?


----------



## richard d. (Mar 17, 2010)

*How guys dress in my work place.*

Money has it on the guy on the left?



Joe Beamish said:


> These luminaries of the advertising industry (not Mad Men era, sorry) are wearing the uniform perfectly. Actually, they're in a San Francisco agency, but they're all exactly the same....
> 
> Can you spot the orphaned suit jacket?


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

*I'll go right.*

My money's on the right.


----------



## KRMaley (Mar 28, 2010)

I'm going right, although I can't really see the left that well...

KM


----------



## Youngster (Jun 5, 2008)

You can tell from the smoothness of the fabric on the Left that the coat was once suit.
You can't really tell if Mr. Left is wearing a suit coat too, but there is no reason to think otherwise.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

You guys are missing the point. Don't these guys look just awesome?

As far as I can tell, the guy on the right is absolutely wearing a bloody suit jacket. The guy on the left, who knows. Looks like a Banana small wale cord jacket. 

Both jackets appear to be black.

I posted this to give a sense of the backdrop of my own clothing. This is what I'm surrounded by every day, except in the summer, when they'll be wearing flip flops every day and no jacket.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Judging by the rest of their outfits, they probably don't have strong opinions about shoulders (or the lack thereof) on their jackets. In consideration of this, it is highly unlikely that the man on the left bought a suit with such natural, unpadded shoulders; one generally needs to look to find such items. Therefor, I believe it's probably some un-constructed jacket that he picked up at a store like BR. The man on the right is without question wearing a suit jacket that is probably a size or two too large and is unaltered. It may also serve as a flotation device in emergency situations.

Beamish,

Keep it up.


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

uh...no?


----------



## richard d. (Mar 17, 2010)

*How guys dress in my workplace.*

Joe...Great humor you have. Viewing both, actually, it was quite apparent they were both wearing jackets to a suit. Lord knows what suit the left went too??? Don't mention to either of them about flipflops...they look as though they may try to start a new fad around your office. I'm afraid to ask how they'll be dressed for Easter...perhaps their finest Dressy Easter Flip Flops? Richard d.



Joe Beamish said:


> You guys are missing the point. Don't these guys look just awesome?
> 
> As far as I can tell, the guy on the right is absolutely wearing a bloody suit jacket. The guy on the left, who knows. Looks like a Banana small wale cord jacket.
> 
> ...


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Although I think they both look pretty sloppy, the jackets do add some small degree of a white collar aesthetic. Imagine them w/o their orphaned suit coats. They would look like manual laborers.

Their jeans and shirts say: "I'm a regular guy, a man of the people." Their jackets add, "oh, yeah, and I make a good amount of money." 

It's a perfect example of the Boomer belief that they have found the perfect middle way between Rebel and Bourgeois, integrating elements of both. David Brooks writes about this in his book _Bobos in Paradise_.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

AdamsSutherland -- Excellent ratiocination! I am convinced by your shoulder argument.

Taliesin: Cogently put. I am reminded of the Lennon lyric (which I will not complete here), "They think they're so clever and classless and free...."

I can't tell you how ubiquitous this look is. I mean there's no other look in the industry. 

I do often notice a close similarity between ad guys and jocks in their dress, though I can't quite explain it. I guess it's usually a boomer thing combining "man of the people" with "but I'm makin' money also". 

For the ad guys, it's probably "I sold out, but not totally."


----------



## Acacian (Jul 10, 2007)

Males in their 40s/50s wearing intentionally ripped jeans = sad.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> I am reminded of the Lennon lyric (which I will not complete here), "They think they're so clever and classless and free...."


Actually the line is "And *you* think you're so clever and classless and free---" and the "you" are the corporate types in pinstripes; the guys that working people refer to as "suits."



> I can't tell you how ubiquitous this look is. I mean there's no other look in the industry.


Just about every industry has it's ubiquitous look.

Cruiser


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Cruiser -- 

Yes, you're right. Each industry tends to adhere to a certain look -- although I'd argue there's less differentiation these days than ever. 

My issue is....how to reconcile my own "look" (90% fastball-over-the-plate "trad") with this look. Hmm. It's not easy!

That's why I consider such maneuvers as trading in my brass buttons for self (or some other non-elitist, non-country-club looking) buttons. On at least one navy sport coat anyway.

I'm not likely to break out the suit coats and jeans anytime soon. Sorry!

I'm not sure Lennon is addressing the "suits" in that song (or indeed on that album -- listen to "I Found Out"). In fact I think he's addressing the hippies. 

Perhaps I will chuck it all (ties, blazers, khakis) and join these wonderfully appointed gents. Dang it!


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Hahaha, you should come to work with me, and you'd be beggin' for these guys back. Although I respect the intelligence of my coworkers and consider most of them friends, they are very poor dressers (but they take pride in that fact!). I work in IT and live in the West, two points that often contribute to poor dress (and the combination is worse).

There was certainly a bit of distrust (and a good many threats to my ties, mainly involving scissors) when I moved into the department with my ties and coats (they are already distrustful of QA punks testing and complaining about their work), but I think they've accepted me. If any other fellow makes the mistake of wearing a tie however, there is a chorus of "Hey, only C--- is allowed to wear a tie!"


----------



## Ron_A (Jun 5, 2007)

Taliesin said:


> It's a perfect example of the Boomer belief that they have found the perfect middle way between Rebel and Bourgeois, integrating elements of both. David Brooks writes about this in his book _Bobos in Paradise_.


Great book! These guys capture that aesthetic perfectly - especially the guy with the long hair. They are the baby boomer-era guys (or therebouts) who want to be seen as non-conformist and even hip to the counter-culture, while, at the same time, adding the orphaned suit coat to show that they can mix it up with the capitalists.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Yes. Their clothes are statements saying, "We're relaxed. Comfortable. None of that suit and tie stuff."

Comfortable = creative, free, flexible, not uptight.

Ties, khakis, flannels, etc = uptight, elitist, narrow-minded, conservative, decidedly uncreative. Linear.

That's the "read". 

Never mind that my "trad" clothes are probably much more comfortable, physically, than the combo of jeans, t-shirts, flops and suit jackets.


----------



## eightysixed (Jan 10, 2010)

1995 called and wants its clothes back.


----------



## farrago (Apr 27, 2006)

Joe Beamish said:


> Yes. Their clothes are statements saying, "We're relaxed. Comfortable. None of that suit and tie stuff."
> 
> Comfortable = creative, free, flexible, not uptight.
> 
> ...


Hmm. My bull**** detector reads, "shallow and pretentious."


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> Actually the line is "And *you* think you're so clever and classless and free---" and the "you" are the corporate types in pinstripes; the guys that working people refer to as "suits."


I don't think so. The lyric is



> Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV,
> And you think you're so clever and classless and free,
> But you're still . . . peasants as far as I can see,
> A working class hero is something to be.


I couldn't begin to care what John Lennon said or thought about anything, but a fair interpretation of this ditty is that it is describing the indignities one must endure in order to be successful, infused with Lennon's view that that outcome isn't worth the price. The "you" is everyone who strives for success within this dehumanizing system.

Since the Boomers in jeans and suit jackets often work pretty long hours and indulge in non-traditional-but-still-materialistic status markers, they cannot be said to have lived up to Lennon's bohemian standard. Grinding, levelled meritocracy is still a grind.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

I hope the Baby Boom generation is happy with the slovenly, post-hippy world they've created.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Oh, wonderful. We're blaming everything modern and bad on hippies again.


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

Jovan said:


> Oh, wonderful. We're blaming everything modern and bad on hippies again.


Are you suggesting that jeans, men with shoulder-length hair, and untucked shirts did not enter the mainstream via the hippy generation?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Are you suggesting that those, individually, are bad things?

Jeans are perfectly fine in the right context and have been a staple of casual wear since the '40s.

Long hair has been in and out of fashion so many times it's not even funny. As long as it's clean and well-kept.

Untucked shirts depend. I admit the curved shirt tails blousing out has become a horrible cliché. Some casual shirts with square hems are meant to be kept out. But those too have been around long before the hippy movement.


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

^^ If the flip flop fits....


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I guess I'm fascinated or obsessed with the turnabout in how people generally perceived men's clothing. This originated in the 60s, of course. Many of the virtues of "trad" clothing -- relaxed, versatile, unstuffy -- are now ascribed to what these guys are wearing in the photo. Meanwhile the trad stuff is seen as uptight, elitist.

So, I try to wear trad stuff in a relaxed way. 

The other week, I met an old coworker for coffee and she said, "what are you all dressed up for?". 

I was wearing an OCBD and a blazer with jeans and no tie.

EDIT: And I do appreciate Cruiser's point. Some industries have a "look". The implied point is also important; you have to "dress the part". Hence the challenge -- one I believe I'm not alone in pursuing -- of how to dress correctly for one's workplace without looking like these otherwise admirable chaps in the photo.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Jovan said:


> Oh, wonderful. We're blaming everything modern and bad on hippies again.


Boomers, not hippies. Boomers deserve far more blame than they currently receive.

I actually rather like real hippies, the ones who stick to their guns about being anti-capitalist and leading sustainable, modest lives. Boomers in jeans and t-shirts, making large sums of money in advertising or whatever while affecting a pseudo-bohemian aesthetic, are not hippies.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

Beamish: My mother recently commented on how I was wearing dress shoes. I fail to see how "loafers" connote dressiness! I guess anything that can be polished is seen as a dress shoe now.

Anyways, blaming this stuff on the hippies or boomers is just trite and ridiculous. The much storied "decline in standards" was happening long before. It reminds me of how people try to pin hats being killed off on JFK (who actually DID wear hats from time to time). We can't find any definitive answer, so we point to one smoking gun. Much like we point to violent video games, song lyrics, or other things to blame our children's antisocial behaviour on. It's not constructive and doesn't do anything but show our prejudices.


----------



## Cowtown (Aug 10, 2006)

Ron_A said:


> Great book! These guys capture that aesthetic perfectly - especially the guy with the long hair. They are the baby boomer-era guys (or therebouts) who want to be seen as non-conformist and even hip to the counter-culture, while, at the same time, adding the orphaned suit coat to show that they can mix it up with the capitalists.


I think it is the mix of the two which makes it look worse. If you want to be non-conformist then go ahead and do so and skip the coat. More power to you. If you want to have a more "business casual" look without resorting to suits, then ditch the jeans and t-shirts.


----------



## Pink and Green (Jul 22, 2009)

Jovan has a point here, and I see Taliesin's as well.

That said, an example of the sad standards upon which we have fallen:

When working for a southern department store chain's men's department, I often dressed in suit, shirt, tie, etc. Typically undarted three buttons, pinpoint shirts, the minimum of dressed for work.

Some months in, utterly annoyed and frustrated by the store, I decided to rebel against authority and wear what *I* wanted to work. Thus most days of the week I wore khakis, an OCBD, repp tie and unstructured cotton jacket with Weejuns, blucher mocs or (if particularly snippy) top-siders.

When asked "Why I was so dressed up" while selling Polo that evening, I told my fellow salesman that I was practically in my pajamas.

Sadly this once reliable store seems on the downturn. No more sized OCBD of any type, and all the dress shirts except Polo are non-iron. I weep for the future.


----------



## Taken Aback (Aug 3, 2009)

Coleman said:


> If any other fellow makes the mistake of wearing a tie however, there is a chorus of "Hey, only C--- is allowed to wear a tie!"


Three letters leaves little to the imagination. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Well, I certainly hope they are not calling me _that_! LOL


----------



## Coleman (Mar 18, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> Hence the challenge -- one I believe I'm not alone in pursuing -- of how to dress correctly for one's workplace without looking like these otherwise admirable chaps in the photo.


I'm just lucky in that there was not too much risk in my becoming the office eccentric (in matters of dress at least). I know other offices and industries are not so forgiving.

That being said, it's not so hard as it sounds (as long as one isn't in a cutthroat evironment where any eccentricity is discouraged). It's only novelty for one's coworkers for a month or two.

Now they ask if I'm sick or if something's the matter if I don't wear a tie Mon-Thur.


----------



## Pr B (Jan 8, 2009)

*My workplace*

I work in a church, and it's the Lands' End collection here, be it the staff or the members. If LE sells it, you'll see it here. Jackets and ties are limited to funerals and weddings. I don't know if this is "better" or not than at the OP's workplace.

This is a step-up, I think, from when I was in the acquisition business in the Air Force (Dayton OH, Boston MA, and Washington DC), there it was open-collar, short-sleeve uniform shirts, pretty much year-round.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

rojo said:


> Are you suggesting that jeans, men with shoulder-length hair, and untucked shirts did not enter the mainstream via the hippy generation?


The so called hippies had no real influence on how corporate America dressed, at least no more influence than corporate America allowed. The change to a more casual workplace came about primarily through a new generation of young people most of whom had no greater association with hippies than watching _Woodstock _at the movie theater. Now perhaps these folks were influenced by the hippies; but it was them, not the hippies, that changed the workplace.

When I entered the workforce in 1975, after the military and then college, the first thing I did was cut my shoulder length hair and exchange my jeans for a suit and tie. Don't forget, the "man" back then was the World War II generation and without a significant number of them embracing this shift toward casual, it simply couldn't have taken place. Believe it or not, many of those guys didn't like wearing neck ties either.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Jovan said:


> Anyways, blaming this stuff on the hippies or boomers is just trite and ridiculous. The much storied "decline in standards" was happening long before. It reminds me of how people try to pin hats being killed off on JFK (who actually DID wear hats from time to time). We can't find any definitive answer, so we point to one smoking gun. Much like we point to violent video games, song lyrics, or other things to blame our children's antisocial behaviour on. It's not constructive and doesn't do anything but show our prejudices.


I blame Boomers for the clothing styles that Boomers popularized. This is called accountability. I'm sure they don't care what I think, so there's no need to worry that I've hurt any feelings.


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> Don't forget, the "man" back then was the World War II generation and without a significant number of them embracing this shift toward casual, it simply couldn't have taken place. Believe it or not, many of those guys didn't like wearing neck ties either.


This is true -- the WWII generation had little interest in the high formality that had characterized clothing up to the 1930s.

The difference as I see it is that they didn't strive to dress in an oxymoronic manner. The Boomers do, intentionally combining "rebel" elements with "bourgeois" elements and producing an unsatisfying, ugly hybrid of the two. The photo posted by the OP illustrates this very effectively.


----------



## ashcroft99 (Dec 12, 2008)

*re: photo*

I've no compelling reason to doubt that the men in the photo are amiable, go about their business with confident energy, pay taxes with great scrupulosity, are otherwise sober-minded citizens, etc. What was Orwell's quip? By the time he reaches 50 a man gets the face deserves--these guys look pleasant enough to me, I suppose. Even so, the look is crummy--and doesn't serve any kind of conspicuously useful end. Why bother with the jacket? Why communicate to the world the possibility that you spent the night in the trunk of your car (that's not implausible given the appearance of the man on the left)? I wear a suit for twelve plus hours each day--you know, it's a lot more comfortable than the USAF flight suits I wore for 20 years...it takes me about 5-8 minutes to dress in the morning, and I rather like the appearance of the silk around the neck. What message do these guys mean to communicate? I don't know, but "authority" and "maturity" don't come to my mind--others differ, I can see. Blue jeans are for kids--I gave them up at the age of about 32. Again, they may be wholly competent people, but if I met them they would have to overcome the impression they had to know they would have created in some minds. Comfortable and sloppy are not necessarily yoked. I think it's a sign of maturity to show some informed attention to your appearance when you go out in public.


----------



## raincoat (Oct 31, 2009)

As a voice of optimism here, I think standards of clothing are getting better. Someone on this forum posted an article not too long ago describing this generation's desire to dress better than their parents (as in wear a suit and tie again). I can't remember where or what the article was called. It may have even been an article about Mad Men. Another sign of things improving: the word "trad" is seen as popular enough to use in the marketing of the new Take Ivy re-release.


----------



## chacend (Mar 4, 2008)

Joe Beamish said:


>


I had no idea Michael Bolton was in the Ad Industry!


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I don't disagree, ashcroft99, but "maturity" isn't the main quality these two (and their uniformed army) aim to project. They're shooting for "creativity" -- which would explain the childishness (or more positively for them, "child-likeness") that you describe. That's what their more "conservative" MBA type clients are paying for, or so they've been led to believe.

The irony is interesting. If as an ad guy you DON'T dress this way, you are seen as NOT creative.

As for the gals, for some reason they usually dress fairly well. This is largely a guy thing.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

*hippies, boomers, suits*

The hippie connection is not gratuitous. They were the generation(s) that changed style -- and at the time were anathema to trad-dressed conservatives. However, it was a change not a relaxation: long hair instead of crewcuts, bell bottoms instead of khakis, beads instead of ties, sandals and bare feet instead of loafers and oxfords. But when the hippie era passed, the once rebellious style translated into a rejection of stylishness, not into making a bold style statement -- think Jimi Hendrix. The '60s style change got absorbed into older American/Puritan mores, like a suspicion of anything "fancy" and a rejection of dress codes. The comments that forum members hear when wearing traditional shoes, dress shirts like OCBDs, and ties, amount to a very real pressure to conform, this time not to the gray-flannel suit but to no-style. Calling professionals "suits" as a pejorative is part of that pressure. Curiously, trad style is precisely a very American embrace of what's comfortable and unpretentious. It's not that folk wear jackets and jeans and no ties that's irksome. It's the vibe that you're doing something wrong if you wear any other kind of pants, a dress shirt, even one as laid back as an OCBD, and a tie. There is a moral judgment passed on those who dress this way, and a smugness about not "dressing up," which, if it's the bosses who go casual who's going to call them on it? And American dress is the world's most influential -- even rabid anti-Americans wear blue jeans. Judging from photos posted here, members of this forum defy the anti-dress code because they damn well feel like it. _Plus ça change_. Those who dress like old-time conservatives are now the rebels fighting The Man in untucked shirts, open collars, athletic shoes and blue jeans. The hippies got it wrong back then and the bobos have it wrong now. Clothes _don't_ make The Man. You say you want a revolution?


----------



## stuman (Oct 6, 2005)

Guy on the right looks like a sober Nick Nolte. Meanwhile it looks forced and contrived. I'm 58 years old and I manage to dress casually and fit in with the IT types at work without wearing jeans and an untucked shirt. Secret is to find out what looks good on you, dress appropriately for your age and feel comfortable and confident in your appearance.


----------



## stuman (Oct 6, 2005)

By way of example, Mort Sahl


----------



## eightysixed (Jan 10, 2010)

I don't think even the most ardent supporter of jeans would approve of the gentleman on the right. He needs an extreme makeover.

His long hair combined with his receding hairline kills any chance of him making a good visual impression regardless of what he wears.


----------



## Trip English (Dec 22, 2008)

Pink and Green said:


> Jovan has a point here, and I see Taliesin's as well.
> 
> That said, an example of the sad standards upon which we have fallen:
> 
> ...


This is the problem I have as a business owner setting a "dress code." Because I sell a high-end lifestyle product, it's important that people look their best, but most people in their 20s & 30s look as if their suit unzips down the back shirt and all. So if I come up with an arbitrary dress code I'll have people who look terrible in suits.

It's a no-win situation.


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Trip English said:


> This is the problem I have as a business owner setting a "dress code." Because I sell a high-end lifestyle product, it's important that people look their best, but most people in their 20s & 30s look as if their suit unzips down the back shirt and all. So if I come up with an arbitrary dress code I'll have people who look terrible in suits.
> 
> It's a no-win situation.


We want a "win-win-win" situation.

(The Office, anyone?)

I happen to have an exam in Alternative Dispute Resolution on Thursday.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Taliesin said:


> This is true -- the WWII generation had little interest in the high formality that had characterized clothing up to the 1930s.
> 
> The difference as I see it is that they didn't strive to dress in an oxymoronic manner. The Boomers do, intentionally combining "rebel" elements with "bourgeois" elements and producing an unsatisfying, ugly hybrid of the two. The photo posted by the OP illustrates this very effectively.


All they are doing is wearing a jacket with jeans and baby boomers weren't the first to do this. It was actually popular with rural and mountain people before the boomers joined in to the point of being somewhat stereotypical. For example, as early as 1960 Briscoe Darling was wearing a peak lapel jacket with jeans on the old _Andy Griffith Show_.










And to further solidify this stereotype of mountain folks, Jed Clampett also wore a jacket with jeans on _The Beverly Hillbillies_.










Actually it has been the film industry that has set the tone for fashion for the past 90 years or so. People follow the lead of what they see on the folks on the silver screen. While TV characters like Briscoe Darling and Jed Clampett were sporting the look in question, it didn't really take off with the younger folks until Robert Redford did it in the 1975 movie _Three Days of the Condor._










I know that is when I first got the idea and as more and more Hollywood stars started dressing this way it just took off. For example, look at the movie 1995 movie _The Fugitive. _You've got both Harrison Ford and Tommy Lee Jones running around in jeans, sport coats, and ties. They didn't do this because ordinary people were doing it; ordinary people were doing it because they were doing it. It was less of a baby boomer thing than it was just a spurious relationship between the two.

Remember, blue jeans didn't really start taking hold until the 1950's when Levi Strauss went national with their product. I have no doubt that if these events had occurred in the 1940's it would have been the WWII generation that would have embraced it. Here is a picture of my Dad taken in 1945 wearing an unbuttoned double breasted suit jacket with an open collared shirt. I have no doubt that he would have worn jeans if the market had been then what it was 15 years later.










What often amuses me is when younger guys come here and start offering up their theories of what happened in the 1950's and 60's when they really have no earthly idea what they are talking about. They weren't there. And then they start telling guys who were there that they don't know what they are talking about.

Cruiser


----------



## phyrpowr (Aug 30, 2009)

^^Roger that Cruiser, but then kids have always thought that they discovered fire and invented the wheel. And old f*rts like us think the current young generation is brain damaged

One aspect of "trad" that's seldom brought up is that it, with "preppy", "frat", etc., was at least in part a reaction to "greaser": jeans (often rolled up), white sox, black loafers or bluchers, leather jackets and t-shirts


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> All they are doing is wearing a jacket with jeans and baby boomers weren't the first to do this. It was actually popular with rural and mountain people before the boomers joined in to the point of being somewhat stereotypical....
> 
> What often amuses me is when younger guys come here and start offering up their theories of what happened in the 1950's and 60's when they really have no earthly idea what they are talking about. They weren't there. And then they start telling guys who were there that they don't know what they are talking about.
> 
> Cruiser


I don't care whether you are amused or not, Cruiser, but the gravamen of my posts is that Boomers combine jeans with suit jackets not because it is casual or convenient, but because it is a hybrid of 'rebel' style and 'bourgeois' style. The 'mountain man' examples you cite are interesting, but reflect a different rationale for the look -- the jeans were work clothes worn by men engaged in outdoor labor. And the jacket was likely one of the only ones they owned.

This is not the case with aging hipsters and their artificially aged clothes. The jeans and sport coat look was a known aesthetic by the late 1960s. Warhol did it, for example. It's as old and tired as can be.

Your anecdotes are just that -- anecdotes. And your I-know-better attitude is classic Boomer.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Do not discount the possibility that orphaned jackets, t-shirts and jeans constitute the new chic. This look does not appear accidental, although it is surely not cool. I can envision these guys paying big bucks to stylists who decreed that this was The Look, never mind that it could be easily achieved for less than $20 in any thrift store on the continent. That's the way this stuff works, the grunge look from the early 90s being case-in-point. Kurt Cobain et al bought their flannels and ripped jeans from Salvation Army because they couldn't afford anything else, next thing you know, Italian designers are foisting it on idiots for hundreds if not thousands of dollars.

If only we could all be so resourceful. Hey, look. Orphaned jackets that don't fit, t-shirts that do and jeans that lie somewhere in the middle. Ka-ching--you're a genius. Relax, be patient, breathe in, breathe out. There. Our aesthetic is truly timeless. I know this because J. Press, BB, O'Connell's and others still make money selling sacks. I know this because no one I encounter has ever said I appear old-fashioned, even in a 3/2 set-up with bow tie. I could wear my Pressidential in my coffin (hopefully many years from now) and no one would look askance. But if I wore a leisure suit or a dashiki or ripped jeans with an orphaned suit jacket, I hope someone would close the casket before the muted guffaws got too loud.

In my neck of the Midwestern woods, folks somehow seem to know that the clothing is different, but they can't pinpoint exactly how, and that's the beauty. There's a difference between class and pandering, and people who count can distinguish, perhaps subconsciously and even if they're wearing Dockers.


----------



## ZachGranstrom (Mar 11, 2010)

raincoat said:


> As a voice of optimism here, I think standards of clothing are getting better. Someone on this forum posted an article not too long ago describing this generation's desire to dress better than their parents (as in wear a suit and tie again). I can't remember where or what the article was called. It may have even been an article about Mad Men. Another sign of things improving: the word "trad" is seen as popular enough to use in the marketing of the new Take Ivy re-release.


He has a point.

Recently, I have noticed a change in appearance with kids my age. So maybe there's a chance for change? :icon_smile:


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Joe, it's pretty much the same kind of uniform the ADs and media types wear over here in Sweden as well. As for The ICT branch, man, don't even ask, it makes these two look like Noel Coward! :icon_smile_big:

However, over here it is disparagingly referred to as "Dansband chic", 
i.e. the sort of rig that "older" men wear to try to look young when going out to a club, especially to the venues that put on dance bands, i.e. meat markets! :crazy:

I think it looks bloody awful, scruffy,undressed and messy .I never ever wear a blazer or jacket with blue jeans. And I never ever wear a tie with blue jeans either.


----------



## Reds & Tops (Feb 20, 2009)

Poor Jeff & Rich - if only they knew...


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

Hey, Joe [nb hidden allusion to hippie-era song]: this has turned into a wonderful thread: well done, lad.


----------



## Patrick06790 (Apr 10, 2005)

Ron_A said:


> Great book! These guys capture that aesthetic perfectly - especially the guy with the long hair. They are the baby boomer-era guys (or therebouts) who want to be seen as non-conformist and even hip to the counter-culture, while, at the same time, adding the orphaned suit coat to show that they can mix it up with the capitalists.


Why do all the non-conformists look the same?

The large guy is one of my fellow reporters, who asked one day if I ever saw anything in his size at thrift shops. I just happened to have a tape handy.

Never found anything, though. I made him a 52L, or thereabouts.

When he comes in the office the copy editor's dog, who loves everybody, growls.


----------



## Topsider (Jul 9, 2005)

I blame it on "casual Friday."


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Patrick06790 said:


> Why do all the non-conformists look the same?


I think that many, if not most, of the folks that are labeled as non-conformist aren't really making a conscious effort to be non-conformists. They are just dressing in a manner that they like.

Actually, anybody can fit the label of non-conformist. At my office it would have been the handful of guys wearing coats and ties while everyone else was wearing khakis and jeans with no jackets and open collared shirts. One could reasonably ask why did those non-conformists all look the same with their dress pants, dress shirts, jackets, and ties?

I know that during my so-called hippie years in the early 70's I wasn't dressing like I did as an expression of rebellion or non-conformity. I just dressed consistent with the group with which I associated. I think that everybody does that to a great extent whether one is an old hippie or a corporate executive.

Most folks try to fit in; however, if you wear a suit and tie to a business casual office you are clearly a non-conformist who is staging an overt act of rebellion. At the same time you still look like all those other non-conformists in suits and ties who are rebelling along with you. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

Cruiser, you've expressed the conundrum quite well. I'm a fan of trad style and I enthusiastically agree with so many of its typical virtues: relaxed but sharp; gentlemanly but unstuffy. 

And yet, and yet. I'm surrounded by people who interpret my clothing in quite the opposite way. Once I spend time with people, the clothes become unimportant. 

And yes -- my trad approach is nonconformist. By wearing a jacket and often a tie to work, I'm not conforming. I wish it weren't quite that way, although people rarely object. But they do perceive me in a very specific way. 

The guys in the photo -- or guys like them -- see me as conservative, uncreative, buttoned up, by the book, maybe a little uptight, a little too fond of following the rules, etc.

The ladies see me as cute :icon_smile_big: And hopefully not self-involved.....


----------



## The Rambler (Feb 18, 2010)

The original photo (itself) looks highly professional, as if it were destined for the annual report, so presumably a lot of thought was given to what to wear.


----------



## YoungClayB (Nov 16, 2009)

Its a beautiful day here in Charlotte, and I decided to have lunch outside today. As I ate, I noticed that of the many passers by, not one of them had on a pair of leather soled shoes.

This observation surprised and saddened me all in one fell swoop.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Taliesin said:


> I don't think so.


What do you mean by "I don't think so?" The line that I quoted is exactly the same as the line that you quoted with the exception of the comma after "free" in yours. You also included the entire verse while I just used the one line from the verse, but the two lines are exactly the same.

But that isn't really of any consequence because I'm not a follower of John Lennon in any sense of the word. What he said means nothing to me as I was just responding to another post.

My interest is in this notion that somehow the folks we call "hippies" are responsible for everything in the world that is contrary to each individuals desires. They are no more responsible for men not wearing ties or wearing jeans today than are the beatniks of the 50's. To give them this much credit is to turn a blind eye to history.

Look at what both men and women wore 300 years ago, 100 years ago, and today. What we see is a gradual shift toward simpler, less elaborate clothing for both men and women. Look at the old movies that came out prior to beatniks and hippies that depicted the future. How many jackets and ties do you see? Usually they show people in one piece jump suits.

While this trend did accelerate quite over the past 50 years, so did just about everything else in society. Trends in just about anything that once took a decade to develop, now come about almost overnight.

For example, I was 19 years old the first time I went to California in 1968. I had grown up in the Southeast part of the U.S. and was stunned by what I encountered in California. It was such a different world than anything I had ever seen. People dressed differently, the music was different, the stores were different, and so on. Heck, you could go to a store and shop on Sunday. I had never heard of anything like that. I heard songs on the radio that wouldn't get airplay back home for another year at least. Today I see comparatively few differences between the two places.

My point is that everything in society moves at a much faster pace today thanks to all of the technological advances over the past 50 years, a pace that is unprecedented in history. Consequently this trend toward more simple, less elaborate clothing being worn by the masses that has been on the march for several centuries just moves much faster now. The hippies were just one little piece of all of this.

Cruiser


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think everything is wrong here. Cruiser himself was personally responsible for all declining dress standards from 1950 until December, 2009. In 2010, he has been far too busy personally causing the earthquakes in Chile and Haiti to monkey around with dress standards, but I hear he has some time on his hands now.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> I hear he has some time on his hands now.


Not true. I'm working on a plan to dislodge an asteroid from the Kuiper Belt and see how close it can come to Earth without actually hitting and and wiping out all life as we know it. I would hate to be disturbed and make an error in my calculations.

Cruiser


----------



## philidor (Nov 19, 2009)

Joe Beamish said:


> These luminaries of the advertising industry (not Mad Men era, sorry) are wearing the uniform perfectly. Actually, they're in a San Francisco agency, but they're all exactly the same....
> 
> Can you spot the orphaned suit jacket?


There is too much room between the guy on the right and his lapels. If you put your hand underneath it should pull on the topmost button. Why not an OCBD underneath his sweater?

Suit jackets are never to be divorced from their pants. You need a blazer or sportcoat to wear with jeans or chinos. And his hair is touching his jacket collar! Perhaps this is his way of rebelling; since when he was in school he would be punished for having his hair long enough to touch his collar.


----------



## philidor (Nov 19, 2009)

Cruiser said:


> I think that many, if not most, of the folks that are labeled as non-conformist aren't really making a conscious effort to be non-conformists. They are just dressing in a manner that they like.
> 
> Actually, anybody can fit the label of non-conformist. At my office it would have been the handful of guys wearing coats and ties while everyone else was wearing khakis and jeans with no jackets and open collared shirts. One could reasonably ask why did those non-conformists all look the same with their dress pants, dress shirts, jackets, and ties?
> 
> ...


What ever happened to tieing your tie loose and wearing a tie with an extra small stripe being considered letting loose?


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> What do you mean by "I don't think so?" The line that I quoted is exactly the same as the line that you quoted with the exception of the comma after "free" in yours. You also included the entire verse while I just used the one line from the verse, but the two lines are exactly the same.


The "I don't think so" refers to the second portion of your quote, where you opined that Lennon's song was addresing "the guys that working people refer to as 'suits.'" I quoted the whole lyric and then explained why I disagree with your interpretation of it. Pretty straightforward stuff. I write very clearly and there's really nothing more I can do to facilitate your comprehension.



> But that isn't really of any consequence because I'm not a follower of John Lennon in any sense of the word. What he said means nothing to me as I was just responding to another post.


If you go back and read the rest of my post (I can only assume you didn't the first time) you will see that I noted that Lennon is of no consequence to me either.



> My interest is in this notion that somehow the folks we call "hippies" are responsible for everything in the world that is contrary to each individuals desires. They are no more responsible for men not wearing ties or wearing jeans today than are the beatniks of the 50's. To give them this much credit is to turn a blind eye to history.


I don't know which posts you are responding to, but I clarified more than once in this thread that I'm not talking about hippies, I'm talking about Boomers.


----------



## Sir Cingle (Aug 22, 2009)

I think the earlier comments about trad as non-conformist make sense. But, to me, there's something very peculiar about this. One of the reasons I have been attracted to this style--even well before I knew of a name for it--was that it struck me as a way to look nice without drawing undue attention to oneself.

Naturally, I always enjoyed the trad look, which is the main reason I try to dress in this manner. But I also dislike very fashionable stuff, which tends to draw a good deal of attention to the wearer and can look ridiculous in very short order.

All the same, at my job, I've discovered that merely by wearing a jacket and tie I actually wind up getting lots of stares. I'm a professor, and I find that most people around me dress like out-of-work gym teachers. Even lots of faculty members dress rather poorly--though the students really take the cake. 

An older colleague of mine, who is very preppy, wears jackets and ties, and no one seems to notice this at all. But I, as a younger guy, seem to get lots of attention for my sartorial choices. Much of this is complementary, which I obviously like. But at times I get annoyed by the attention. To me, it's particularly fun to wear an item that normally attracts much attention--like a bow tie or a colorful grosgrain belt--to class and have no one notice it; it's just part of my typical uniform.

It is interesting that the trad manner of dress can be perceived as stuffy and rule-bound at the same time as it can seem non-conformist. But perhaps, with everyone so casual these days, *any* attempt to "dress up" appears iconoclastic.


----------



## efdll (Sep 11, 2008)

I thought jacket and jeans (and OCBD) was a prep school thing. Never went near one, so I'm not sure. As for Warhol, his outfit, like that of many artists, was intensely detailed. Blazer, white OCBD, tie, 501 jeans, black penny loafers: it gave him the silhouette of a man in a business suit so he could blend in back when suits were basic uniform, even at Studio 54, while not wearing a suit. And, topped by his blond mop (alas, toward the end an ill-fitting wig, which is how I saw him once on the street), it was a signature look. Interesting how some modernist artists easily recognized by a signature look were actually wearing very conservative traditional clothes, folk like Jean Cocteau and Salvador Dalí. Even Picasso wore bespoke, though he did patent a certain Mediterranean casual style.


----------



## GentlemanGeorge (Dec 30, 2009)

This is a bit of a personal aside, but one that relates. I went to a private school in my hometown that had a dress code requiring a coat and tie. By third grade--this was the mid seventies--gone was the jacket. By sixth grade, the school tie. Then came casual Fridays--or "wear what you want to day"--which meant no cutoffs and no "I slept on a Virgin (island)" or Budweiser/St. Pauli Girl t-shirts. By high school, no longer a blue or white button down, jeans were ok, even ripped, and the shirt just had to have a collar. By the time I graduated, forget about it, standards of dress had been thoroughly eroded by the programmatic "individualism" foisted on everyone. Luckily, I matriculated college at small, conservative liberal arts based university that valued it's traditions--even preserving the academic gown for professors and as an honor to be bestowed on leading students. Casual wear consisted primarily of what was left after removing the jacket and tie. Sadly, by the time I graduated, it was an island of tradition in a sea of grunge rock and raver "culture", postured irony, and the residue of the "transgressive" art and "critical theory" academic movements of the preceding couple decades. It was into that cesspool many of us were cast at that time and, particularly if unmarried, even somewhat reservedly embraced. Thank God I had sense enough to make it through without tattoos.

Allow me to add that, by removing primary signifiers of dignity and self respect--true individualism--the "casual" aesthetic is used as an instrument to groom us for servitude.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Cruiser said:


> Not true. I'm working on a plan to dislodge an asteroid from the Kuiper Belt and see how close it can come to Earth without actually hitting and and wiping out all life as we know it. I would hate to be disturbed and make an error in my calculations.
> 
> Cruiser


C'mon dude, that's a post for your astronomy board. We talk about clothes here!! (Oh and How 'bout those MSU Spartans?)

P.S. If you send the leather coat to Michigan where I can give it a loving home, I'll lay off of you on the forum.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Taliesin said:


> If you go back and read the rest of my post (I can only assume you didn't the first time) you will see that I noted that Lennon is of no consequence to me either.


No, I read it. I was just letting you know that we are in agreement on this. Unlike the other three Beatles, Lennon was from an upper-middle class family and had a much more privileged childhood. I liked Beatles music, but someone like John Prine is actually more my style.



> I don't know which posts you are responding to, but I clarified more than once in this thread that I'm not talking about hippies, I'm talking about Boomers.


Doesn't matter, that still won't alter the gist of my argument. What I'm saying is that it wasn't the hippies or boomers or whatever that was the change agent; it was the times themselves. The boomers just happened to be the generation that came of age during that period of time. I think that you could have put the folks from any 19th century generation or the turn of the century generation into that unique period in time and things would have evolved the same way.

I don't know how old you are but I was both a baby boomer and a hippie. I was a child during the Cold War of the 50's when we would practice getting under our desks at school in case of a nuclear attack.

I remember the fear that we experienced during the Cuban missile crisis, not knowing if there would be a nuclear war by the end of the day.

I remember what it was like during the days following the assassination of President Kennedy.

I remember when major U.S. cities were under martial law with the U.S. Army patrolling the streets while entire city blocks were burning.

I remember a war that lasted for more than ten years and claimed the lives of nearly 60,000 Americans.

I remember Watergate and the President of the United States stepping down in shame, but not before there was real fear among many that he might attempt to use the U.S. military to retain his power. A military takeover of the government, if you will.

In short, baby boomer came of age in a period of time unlike any in American history. The Civil War and the two World Wars were certainly traumatic, but none of these drug out over twenty years during a period of tremendous advancements in technology. Those who weren't there simply cannot comprehend the difference in the world of 1956, when Elvis took the stage on the Ed Sulllivan Show, and the world thirty years later.

To even suggest that attitudes about things like clothing wouldn't be severely altered during these traumatic events that led to such distrust of authority would be foolish. The changes in the world that took place during this period are unmatched by any other period in history. The baby boomers were nothing more than the generation that came of age at that time. I have no doubt that if our great grandparents had lived during this period, things would not have been any different.

In other words, don't blame the people; blame the times. And if you weren't there, you really have no way of knowing one way or the other.

Cruiser


----------



## Taliesin (Sep 24, 2004)

Cruiser said:


> To even suggest that attitudes about things like clothing wouldn't be severely altered during these traumatic events that led to such distrust of authority would be foolish. The changes in the world that took place during this period are unmatched by any other period in history. The baby boomers were nothing more than the generation that came of age at that time. I have no doubt that if our great grandparents had lived during this period, things would not have been any different.


The notion that trauma = change is probably sometimes true, although I don't think men dressed substantially different after the Civil War, for example, than they did before it. But none of that is my point. I'm saying that the Boomers tried to reconcile The Rebel with The Bourgeois, and that the result is unattractive and, in my mind, pretentious. This follows from the book I mentioned already, Bobos in Paradise.



> In other words, don't blame the people; blame the times. And if you weren't there, you really have no way of knowing one way or the other.


It doesn't work that way. If it did, Edward Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire would have no authority since Gibbon lived about 1,500 years after many of the events he wrote about. In fact, not having "been there" is what gives historians the opportunity to analyze events objectively. Not having been there is an advantage, not a disadvantage. You clearly have a lot of emotions about the time period we're talking about. This inhibits objective analysis.


----------



## Joe Beamish (Mar 21, 2008)

I agree with those who "blame" the boomers. Before them, standards of dress didn't vary for a long time. You wore jackets and ties everywhere that you were expected to encounter citizens in society. Ladies wore hats, gloves, etc.

I put "blame" in quotes because this shift in how we interpret clothing came with good intentions:

Factor: "Clothes don't matter. It's what's inside a person that counts." 

Factor: "More than ever, creativity is the engine of the American market. Creative people are individualists; therefore dressing like your own person is good."

These beliefs have since led to wondrous ironies. As Patrick said, all the nonconformists look the same. And clearly clothes DO matter if my tie freaks you out. 

Somehow the idea of showing respect for others got flipped upside down. 

But....

I think a good number of younger people are looking at generations of films and photos of well dressed men and starting to sense that the loss of this aesthetic is a considerable rip off.


----------



## WouldaShoulda (Aug 5, 2009)

Jovan said:


> Oh, wonderful. We're blaming everything modern and bad on hippies again.


Damn Hippies!! ic12337:


----------



## AdamsSutherland (Jan 22, 2008)

Young person says, "yawnnnn."


----------



## rojo (Apr 29, 2004)

_"don't blame the people; blame the times."_

Cruiser, what an interesting series of statements. Certainly the times influenced how the Boomer generation turned out. But nobody ever suggested that the Boomer generation was somehow _genetically_ or _anatomically_ different from generations before or since. Of course any other generation would have grown up the same way if we could raise them in the mid-20th century. You've brought back the old, "Does man make history, or does history make the man?" argument, which is a variation on the chicken and the egg. But I don't buy the argument that you were all tossed about haplessly by the period in which you lived, like so much flotsam. True, you had no choice about being a Boomer. But not everyone in your generation chose to be a hippy or just dress like one. Some of you voted for Nixon instead of McGovern and joined the ROTC instead of the Yippies. One of you grew up to be Bill Ayers, but one of you grew up to be Rush Limbaugh. "Blame the times, not the people" could be used to excuse the Khmer Rouge, the Reign of Terror, the Nazis, or frankly anything else. At some point somebody is responsible for their actions.

_"And if you weren't there, you really have no way of knowing one way or the other." _

That's an amazing statement given that the 1960s have turned out to be the decade that just won't go away. Practically every year TV and newspapers commemorate the anniversary of Woodstock, the Summer of Love, the Tet offensive, the Kennedy and King assassinations, the moon landing, and the day the Beatles came to America. The proliferation of books and documentaries is astounding. And never mind that most of us have grown up listening to relatives talk about the 1960s. (I myself am old enough to remember Watergate and Vietnam, but not President Kennedy.)

_The hippies were just one little piece of&#8230; this trend toward more simple, less elaborate clothing._

I asked my 74-year-old mother if she agreed that late 1960s hippy clothing was simply a piece of a long running trend in fashions and not chosen to make a deliberate political statement. "I don't believe it," came the immediate reply. 

Love beads and peace symbols were an integral part of the hippy look, and it's hard to argue those items were not chosen to make deliberate political statements about the Nixon and Johnson administrations, the draft, and the Vietnam War, just as much as Flower Power, attending a Love-In or a protest march, and burning your bra were political statements. Do you disagree that wearing blue jeans, especially torn and ragged, was a way to show that you were part of the counter-culture, thoroughly anti-establishment, and sympathetic to the struggle of the workers? Blue jeans are hot, bulky, and uncomfortable compared to khakis or dress trousers. And T-shirts were perfect for adorning with Boomer words of wisdom like "Tune in, turn on, drop out," or "If it feels good, do it," or "Don't trust anyone over 30." 

I remember how my very conservative grandfather used to lecture my long-haired Boomer cousins circa 1970, and if he were still alive he'd no doubt have some choice words to say in response to "don't blame the people; blame the times."


----------



## angry young and poor (Jun 5, 2010)

Well, this thread has definitely developed a life of its own. I thought I'd like to clarify that I don't have scorn for non traditional types. I think creating an individual style has more to do with the rules you choose to break more than the ones you follow. For instance I don't see a problem wearing a suit jacket w/o the pants. Granted, there are some patterns that demand the matching pants, but for say... an impeccably fitting worsted grey wool suit jacket? I don't see the hang up about not having the pants. I also don't see the problem with the untucked dress shirt. I probably wouldn't show up to work that way, but afterwards? why not? as long as the shirt tails don't come down so far as to look ridiculous. Its hot here in New Mexico, Why not untuck and take off the tie, when the day is done? As long as you get the right fitting clothes you should still look great!


----------



## g.michael (Jul 9, 2010)

*The answer here could lie in*

what shoes these guys are wearing.

I would bet some type of rubber soled monstrosity with the guy on the left definitely in tennis shoes of some sort.


----------

