Formal Wear Primer

[Guttersnipe]

Regarding trouser stripes with white tie, the guide I've always known - which I believe I picked up from this particular thread - is that the stripes should match or complement the lapel facings (e.g. dinner jackets with self-faced lapels out to be matched with trousers with no stripe). Since all the white tie tails I've ever seen are faced, I would assume that striped trousers should always be worn. But what do I know, I'm just a yank who likes vintage western wear. . .

 

[Dr Kilroy]

I am sorry, I misunderstood you. I thought you were talking about striped trousers, like for morning dress. :eusa_doh: Of course you are right - white tie trousers should have two silk stripes down the seam.

Best regards, Dr

 

[Midnight Blue]

On another note, I recently turned up this rather interesting picture of evening dress:

These are good examples of why watch chains look out of place with evening dress. They're much to busy for an otherwise minimalist wardrobe.

On a related note, I have always thought that the slightly pointed close-cropped beard favoured by George V made older men look very distinguished. Perhaps I will try it myself someday.

 

[Feraud]

These are good examples of why watch chains look out of place with evening dress. They're much to busy for an otherwise minimalist wardrobe.

That makes sense. There are short, elegant vest fobs one can use in place of a chain.
Here is one-

 

[Dr Kilroy]

I am familiar with this device, but I always wondered about that: how do you wear it?

Best regards, Dr

 

[Feraud]

The small clip is attached to a vest pocket (or also a dress trouser watch pocket?) and the metal mesh ribbon hangs outside of the pocket. The ribbon is small, approx. 3-3.5" in length by .75" in width. You can also find these in grosgrain ribbon with metal accents.

 

[dhermann1]

On another note, I recently turned up this rather interesting picture of evening dress:

I believe that full evening dress is being worn, as would befit the occasion, although I am not positive on this. The things that struck me included the variety of collars, including two turndowns (one with the ends of the bow tucked underneath it!) and a rounded wing, the strip of broguing on the toe cap of the shoes on the gentleman in the middle, the scoop neck waistcoats, the variety of styles of lapel facing, and the apparent total absence of stripes on the trousers. I don't particularly favour the look, but I think it is interesting nonetheless.

Hmmmm!!! More grist for the mill. The caption shows the date at 1910, pretty close to the peek of white attire. Two of the four gentlemen have turn down collars, and one of those has a rounded collar. They all have white tie with black waistcoats. And there's an interesting variety of ties. Faskinatin'.

 

[Charlie Huang]

That makes sense. There are short, elegant vest fobs one can use in place of a chain.
Here is one-

I am familiar with this device, but I always wondered about that: how do you wear it?

Best regards, Dr

You wear it clipped onto the fob pocket of your trousers (or breeches) with the watch inside the pocket and the ribbon dangeling outside.

This is supported by numerous images.

Never understood it being used on the waistcoat pocket and have only seen it done once in a film with Rupert Everett in it...

 

[Feraud]

I stand corrected on the watch fob placement. Thanks Charlie!

 

[Dr Kilroy]

Thank you both!

Best regards, Dr

 

[Phileas Fogg]

If I may play devil's advocate the issue of clutter on a "minimalist wardrobe" is fine only if you wear no decorations, but as full evening dress is the civilian dress with which is usual to wear the highest number of decorations should someone start to have some (and there are pictures with people who have a lot of them) a mere pocketwatch chain will get lost in the dazzling splendour of ribands, stars, crosses and the like.

Following the clutter and minimalist approach it would be wrong to wear a pocketwatch with say...a lounge suit.
The basic idea behind not wearing a chain is to politely hide the fact that at a party you may want to check the time.
Anyway the fob is a nice item which gives a Victorian touch to your wardrobe.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg

 

[Charlie Huang]

If I may play devil's advocate the issue of clutter on a "minimalist wardrobe" is fine only if you wear no decorations, but as full evening dress is the civilian dress with which is usual to wear the highest number of decorations should someone start to have some (and there are pictures with people who have a lot of them) a mere pocketwatch chain will get lost in the dazzling splendour of ribands, stars, crosses and the like.

Following the clutter and minimalist approach it would be wrong to wear a pocketwatch with say...a lounge suit.
The basic idea behind not wearing a chain is to politely hide the fact that at a party you may want to check the time.
Anyway the fob is a nice item which gives a Victorian touch to your wardrobe.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg

You forget that most decorations of the highest level involve a sash/riband worn over the waistcoat which would make wearing a watch on a chain impractical and illogical.

 

[Phileas Fogg]

Oh, well, no I did not forget, but uses do warry from country to country Basically, in many countries (like the Vatican City - Holy See, which also has a good number of knights among people from the UK or USA let alone other countries), the riband is worn under the waistcoat if the Grand Master of the order is not present (in UK terms it probaly applies to whenever H.M. the Queen is there as many UK orders have a Grand Master who is not the Queen herslef, while she is the Patron or other similiar figure of Supreme moral authority). In all other occasions the riband has to be worn under the waistcoat and in such cases the chain does not interfere at all. Actually teh extra weight on the waist may even help to keep things in place.

Still, it is true that whenever one has to wear the riband over the waistcoat a chain becomes an impracticality. Another good reason to use a fob.
Yours,

Phileas Fogg

 

[Midnight Blue]

These are good examples of why watch chains look out of place with evening dress. They're much to busy for an otherwise minimalist wardrobe.

On a related note, I have always thought that the slightly pointed close-cropped beard favoured by George V made older men look very distinguished. Perhaps I will try it myself someday.

It just struck me that the watch chain + full dress trend seems to have been limited to black waistcoats. By the time white waistcoats became the norm in the 1920s watch chains essentially disappeared from full-dress rigs. Often they would be replaced by key chains which are much slimmer, worn at the hip and therefore much more understated.

 

[Midnight Blue]

Obama's white-tie kit has all the elegance of rented prom wear. Just as bad as George Bush Jr. What's with American presidents and their turndown collars and low-slung trousers?

 

[David Conwill]

They are Americans, nobody has worn it in their family for generations - if ever. To most of us, white tie is a costume that we'll never wear in our lifetime, so we don't look at ease in it, and we're not good at making better choices as to trouser rise, etcetera than we are for a lounge suit.

The average American politician can't even manage to keep his jacket on (especially during campaign season - how would people see his "down-to-business" rolled up sleeves??), or tie his tie the right length. Why would you expect him to demonstrate mastery of formalwear?

-Dave

 

[avedwards]

It just struck me that the watch chain + full dress trend seems to have been limited to black waistcoats. By the time white waistcoats became the norm in the 1920s watch chains essentially disappeared from full-dress rigs. Often they would be replaced by key chains which are much slimmer, worn at the hip and therefore much more understated.

I always find the key chain a bit out of place on formalwear. It looks too casual for my liking and in my opinion it is best kept to a lounge suit where it can be covered up by the jacket (like Humphrey Bogart does in "The Big Sleep").

 

[avedwards]

They are Americans, nobody has worn it in their family for generations - if ever. To most of us, white tie is a costume that we'll never wear in our lifetime, so we don't look at ease in it, and we're not good at making better choices as to trouser rise, etcetera than we are for a lounge suit.

The average American politician can't even manage to keep his jacket on (especially during campaign season - how would people see his "down-to-business" rolled up sleeves??), or tie his tie the right length. Why would you expect him to demonstrate mastery of formalwear?

-Dave

That isn't just an American thing, it's the same in the UK. Low rise trousers are the norm here and even the Prime Minister sees them fit to wear on a daily basis. Our politicians seem to dislike wearing formalwear except when it's absolutely necessary so I can't really comment on how well they wear it.

 

[DocMustang]

This is the same president who is guilty of this:

Although I think I read somewhere that his inaugural suit/tux was made byMiguel Caballero a company that manufactures bullet proof clothing. It does not excuse the poor tailoring of the coat. However, if the tailcoat was cut to be worn over body armor of some sort and Obama chose to go without, it would explain why his tailcoat resembles a pair of pajamas. That still does not explain the photo above, nothing excuses the white tie with a notch collar. Nothing.

 

[Dr Kilroy]

A white bow tie is actually acceptable for dinner suit, as long as it is suitably Edwardian (of course Obama's outfit is not).

Best regards, Dr