Men's Clothing Forums banner

Something I've been struggling with -- The Suit without a Tie --

26K views 114 replies 43 participants last post by  Acct2000 
#1 ·
Personally I think it looks quite naff, at best a small step up from the "lost jacket" look. On my daily commute to work I now see businessmen of all ages wearing their full suits and spread collar white shirts without a tie. In fact its becoming a norm, if not the norm (I'd say its about 50/50 tie/no-tie).

So I know its now a well-established rule for the sartorially inclined that a tie is not to be worn with a shirt when the jacket is left at home or else you might give off bank teller/ supermarket manager vibes, but I would like to know if there is such a rule stating that men really should be wearing a tie with the suit and dress shirt. To me it seems like an obvious faux-pas, yet PutThisOn who I have taken many style cues from seems to endorse the missing tie look.

What is AAAC's take on the matter?

Please don't remind me that the proverbial 'you' can do whatever the heck you please when it comes to dress and rules.

Best,
VA
 
#28 ·
Perhaps. ;) I see nothing wrong with a poplin suit and a button-down collar shirt. It is one of the best collars without a tie since it props itself up.
 
#29 · (Edited)
Great illustration, I don't recall seeing it before. Do you know what issue it was in?
OK, it's from Esquire, not Apparel Arts, and while I couldn't find a date for that specific page, a print that appears as if it may have been from the same, or a near issue is dated March 1936. And the accompanying text with the illustration you queried discusses spring. So March '36 is my best guess unless I can find some additional information.
 
#32 ·
I agree with several above that a light colored, more "casual" suit can be worn well with a buttoned polo, or a button-down or other that sort of stands up. But a dark "serious business" suit with spread collar and no tie always makes me think the guy was wearing a tie but took it off because "Jeez, dese t'ings makes me feel like I'se chokin'". A bit Slobbovian.
 
#36 ·
Serious question?

OK, it's warmed-over early '70's designer ersatz.

Not taken seriously 45 years ago, they are in the same class as Thom Browne and cargo shorts.

Oh, wait . . . .
Hm; I didn't know that as I did not experience the '70's and neither do I feel the urge to educate myself about them. I kind of like mao collars...

I think upr_crust works in IT....and has been known to wear a tie from time to time.
Yes, but look at the WAYWT thread; it's really not that often, so they might think he's only a little bit crazy :drunken_smilie:
 
#39 · (Edited)
Great illustration, I don't recall seeing it before.

A man who dared break the closed neck rule - a cad who makes his way in the world cheating at cards.
1936 or not, the guy with the suit on without the tie foreshadows the ugly 1970s disco suits (shows they got some things wrong even in the 1930s style world, occasionally)

I seem to remember reading that telephones are very high on the list of contaminated things.
The best thing about cellphones is not having to use disgusting public phones (and in NYC by the 1970s, disgusting was the best thing you could say about them).

What 99.9% of folks consider the only suits need a tie, because it looks either sloppy or trendoid not to wear one. Of course, if you want to look like a trednoid, here's your ticket.

In my rule book, the exceptions are ultra casual summer suits of linen, cotton poplin or seersucker which I've actually seen look both good and smart worn with a high quality polo buttoned at the neck. And also any of these suits with an appropriate neckerchief or ascot.

My rule book further states that for cooler weather, corduroy, tweed, cavalry twill suits can be worn with an ascot or high quality wool or cashmere turtleneck for an ultra casual look. The key is to be sure the neck is closed.
I always thought the turtleneck was the "acceptable" way to wear a suit without a tie in more casual situations and I like the look - but for some reason, that seems to have all but disappeared. Wasn't the idea that the turtleneck covered the open neck and went high up and, thus, had enough structure to be consistent with the suit (which is echoing Jovan's point about an OCBD at least "standing up" on its own)?
 
#42 ·
Auchincloss rules

While this is not the Trad Forum, I have been surprised that no posts refer to the Rector of Justin. In chapter 2, Auchincloss has the title character encounter some students taking advantage of a new master's uncertainty about discipline by removing their ties. The Rector orders the ties back on and tied, then utters the sentence that applies to many abandoned standards of dress that we discuss here, "When a gentleman undresses, a gentleman goes to bed." There it is.
 
#43 ·
I think it only works casually and in warm weather, although to get it to look right, one must be wearing a light-weight two-piece suit with a loop-collar shirt, collar out. Maybe I've been looking at too many old photos again.
Strangely enough, I've seen some shots of 3P heavier suits, especially tweed, where the tieless look is sort of Okay...but dark 2P, still no.
 
#45 ·
While this is not the Trad Forum, I have been surprised that no posts refer to the Rector of Justin. In chapter 2, Auchincloss has the title character encounter some students taking advantage of a new master's uncertainty about discipline by removing their ties. The Rector orders the ties back on and tied, then utters the sentence that applies to many abandoned standards of dress that we discuss here, "When a gentleman undresses, a gentleman goes to bed." There it is.
Great quote from a really good novel. That is my favorite Auchincloss book - he upped his game for that one. The characters are more fully developed, the interpersonal relationships deeper and more nuanced and the sweep of the story is broader than his other novels (or at least the several I've read).
 
#47 ·
pay no heed to such ephemeral conceits -- misapprehensions -- of style.

retain excellence; you know the truth here, by the tone in your post.
 
#48 · (Edited)
What is a mao collar?
This is porbably the only time this VigLink stuff's actually helpful, you'll get to a picture of one if you click it (altough I button them up all the way).

A mao collar is a short stand up collar, a bit like a turndown collar without the turndown portion.
 
#51 · (Edited)
1936 or not, the guy with the suit on without the tie foreshadows the ugly 1970s disco suits (shows they got some things wrong even in the 1930s style world, occasionally)

The best thing about cellphones is not having to use disgusting public phones (and in NYC by the 1970s, disgusting was the best thing you could say about them).

I always thought the turtleneck was the "acceptable" way to wear a suit without a tie in more casual situations and I like the look - but for some reason, that seems to have all but disappeared. Wasn't the idea that the turtleneck covered the open neck and went high up and, thus, had enough structure to be consistent with the suit (which is echoing Jovan's point about an OCBD at least "standing up" on its own)?
Your post raises some interesting issues, and bears upon some thoughts I've had recently about '70's menswear.

Whether anyone finds a turtleneck with a suit appealing, or not, I believe is very much a matter of personal preference. It's certainly not obligatory, and a man can live his whole life never having worn that combination and be very well dressed. But I think it's a little inaccurate to smear the aesthetic by tying it to '70's disco suits, revolting though they may have been. (I had a colleague who had a suit he wore for business that was supposed to be "Sand" colored, but was, in fact, orange.)

It sounds as if you too also lived through that decade, which I might more accurately term, survived. Certainly, it was one of my least favorite aesthetically. But the turtleneck with country suits, or sport jackets was something I witnessed being worn throughout the '60's and '50's, and judging by photographs and illustrations, was worn for decades before. My opinion is that the common negative reaction to a turtleneck with tailored clothing owes more to its having become fashion and being over-seen, and to its association with ugly clothes, than to the intrinsic value of the aesthetic itself.

And my other thought involves '70's fashion as a whole: Certainly not the best decade for menswear. And at its worse, there are no competitors, but when I run across some old fashion photography of better quality clothing from the era, and compare it to what I see now, it can actually make me nostalgic! And I'm shocked by my reaction! Yes, a surprising amount of better '70's clothing looks a heck of a lot better than what I see parading around Pitiful Uomo or going down Thom Browne's walkways. It's more graceful, better balanced, doesn't make the wearer look ugly, and some of it actually had style, at least compared to a surprising amount of contemporary fashion.

People who didn't experience the decade tend to think of the options available as consisting exclusively of tie-dyed shirts, jeans, platform shoes and fringed jackets. But during the era I was buying business suits at Paul Stuart, Chipp or Wallach's that though they may have been cut with straight-leg trousers and a higher button stance with a wider lapel, are far better looking than what I see being sold as fashion now. And that is true right down the line for all the accoutrements that I wore with them.

So were the '70's a wonderful sartorial decade? Heck no! But look around.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top