Tie Etiquette: Or, Ten Golden Rules for a Tarnished Age

[skyvue]

Rules 1 and 3 simply cannot be followed when you wear vintage ties.

They can if you're wearing vintage ties AND vintage trousers.

 

[Edward]

Rules 1 and 3 simply cannot be followed when you wear vintage ties. If you tied a 30s tie with both ends meeting, they would certainly end far above the waistband---no matter what knot you tied.

As pointed out above, waistband were much higher back in the thirties, but it also seems to me that tie length was automatically less of an issue back then as the shorter ties of the day would more commonly have been worn with either close DB jacket, or a waistcoat (or even, sometimes, both), so the area of shirtfront between tie and waistband wouldn't typically have been on show, anyhow.

 

[David V]

"rules" 1 and 3 are incorrect. Otherwise, some pretty good guidelines.

 

[jamespowers]

They can if you're wearing vintage ties AND vintage trousers.

It still doesn't work. I have tried it and your average height man in the US will not be able to get a barely 48 inch tie around a 17 inch neck and down say 19 inches on both sides to a waistband high or otherwise. The rule does not apply because it is scientifically impossible to get 48 to equal 55 and that is without taking the length needed for making the knot.

 

[jamespowers]

As pointed out above, waistband were much higher back in the thirties, but it also seems to me that tie length was automatically less of an issue back then as the shorter ties of the day would more commonly have been worn with either close DB jacket, or a waistcoat (or even, sometimes, both), so the area of shirtfront between tie and waistband wouldn't typically have been on show, anyhow.

So you just proved the rule wrong. Think Laurel and Hardy and you have a perfect example of ties being too short when tied to meet the waistband. It barely fits in the coat! lol lol lol lol lol

 

[Fletch]

Well, lining up both blades while having the tie come to the belt eliminates me from wearing vintage ties.

Then again, in the old movies, I see lots of fellows whose ties don't come all the way down to the belt.

Is that such a fashion faux pas?

Didn't use to be. But ties today are more of a uniform piece than everyday wear. If they deviate too much from a serious, businessy look, they look comical.

 

[jamespowers]

Didn't use to be. But ties today are more of a uniform piece than everyday wear. If they deviate too much from a serious, businessy look, they look comical.

That's because the ties they produce today are comical in pattern, length and construction.

 

[skyvue]

It still doesn't work. I have tried it and your average height man in the US will not be able to get a barely 48 inch tie around a 17 inch neck and down say 19 inches on both sides to a waistband high or otherwise. The rule does not apply because it is scientifically impossible to get 48 to equal 55 and that is without taking the length needed for making the knot.

I've done it successfully, and I think I'm pretty average-sized (5' 11" if I stand up straight, and a 16" neck). I have lots of high-waisted trousers, some of which come to just below my rib cage. Reaching them with a vintage tie is no problem whatsoever.

 

[Widebrim]

Rules 1 and 3 simply cannot be followed when you wear vintage ties. If you tied a 30s tie with both ends meeting, they would certainly end far above the waistband---no matter what knot you tied.

That's why I mentioned to Tony that it wasn't uncommon to have a tie end way above the beltline before the Bold Look came around (and it can even be seen in some photos/movies up to the early '50s). If a tie is, say, 48" long and you're wearing low-rise trousers, it's just about impossible to have both tie blades meet at the belt, unless you are somewhat shorter in stature. (It is impossible for me, probably due to my being 6' tall. Right now, I'm wearing a 51" long Towncraft Deluxe necktie, and some lower-rising trousers, and I can almost get both ends to meet at the belt.[huh] )

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Does anyone known where I should go to have some ties shortened?

A while back I purchased two of Magnolis Casablanca ties & took them to a tailor's shop. He was able to make the two ties one long tie. I can't imagine them not being able to make a single tie shorter.

 

[Geesie]

Gentlemen, there's a neat solution to all of this.
Wear more bow ties.

 

[jamespowers]

I've done it successfully, and I think I'm pretty average-sized (5' 11" if I stand up straight, and a 16" neck). I have lots of high-waisted trousers, some of which come to just below my rib cage. Reaching them with a vintage tie is no problem whatsoever.

What knot are you tying? I can't do it no matter how I try with a half windsor. You do mean both ends reaching the belt line right?
Below the rib cage might be a little too high for me. I would have to raise my arm to get my hand in my pocket. lol lol lol

 

[jamespowers]

That's why I mentioned to Tony that it wasn't uncommon to have a tie end way above the beltline before the Bold Look came around (and it can even be seen in some photos/movies up to the early '50s). If a tie is, say, 48" long and you're wearing low-rise trousers, it's just about impossible to have both tie blades meet at the belt, unless you are somewhat shorter in stature. (It is impossible for me, probably due to my being 6' tall. Right now, I'm wearing a 51" long Towncraft Deluxe necktie, and some lower-rising trousers, and I can almost get both ends to meet at the belt.[huh] )

You are tying a four in hand aren't you?

 

[Widebrim]

Gentlemen, there's a neat solution to all of this.
Wear more bow ties.

:eusa_doh:

 

[Yeps]

Gentlemen, there's a neat solution to all of this.
Wear more bow ties.

I agree. I wear a bowtie every friday, and normally to church, but I almost never wear a four-in-hand. I also wear an ascot/silk scarf for those days when the bowtie is absent, for a more casual feel.

 

[anon`]

It still doesn't work. I have tried it and your average height man in the US will not be able to get a barely 48 inch tie around a 17 inch neck and down say 19 inches on both sides to a waistband high or otherwise. The rule does not apply because it is scientifically impossible to get 48 to equal 55 and that is without taking the length needed for making the knot.

Your logic assumes as fact that all men have long torsos and large necks, and all vintage ties are 48 inches or less.

 

[Nick D]

Or wear a waistcoat

 

[Hal]

Or wear a waistcoat

Indeed! Does not the relatively short length of ties from before c.1950 imply that a waistcoat or sleeveless V-neck pullover (I think Americans call this a "sweater-vest") will be worn?

 

[Widebrim]

Indeed! Does not the relatively short length of ties from before c.1950 imply that a waistcoat or sleeveless V-neck pullover (I think Americans call this a "sweater-vest") will be worn?

Yes, it basically does imply that. And sweater vest is the correct term.

 

[Feraud]

Well, lining up both blades while having the tie come to the belt eliminates me from wearing vintage ties.

Then again, in the old movies, I see lots of fellows whose ties don't come all the way down to the belt.

Is that such a fashion faux pas?

Tony, adjust the tie so the rear blade is shorter and that will give you more length up front.