Formal Wear Primer

[Chasseur]

Very nice Charlie! Great project.

 

[Charlie Huang]

More or less finished:

Pardon the odd waistcoat stud.

Getting the button alignments right was the most tricky and time consuming aspect of making it... Still waiting to get a 2-pronged buckle through the post to finish the buckle attachment.

 

[Charlie Huang]

Okay, completed. Buckle installed, minor flaws corrected, washed, waistcoat studs gotten, etc.

Selection of my waistcoat studs:

Top left: Richard James Weldon flat 22L
Bottom left: RJW cupped 18L
Top right: modern, from a RTW waistcoat 18L
Bottom right: VSC/Darcy's 20L

 

[boushi_mania]

Looks like it's coming along! Not being handy with a needle and thread (or anything requiring manual dexterity, for that matter), I'm still waiting to find a decent used tuxedo from the same thrift shop where I got my morning coat. Alas, I'm still waiting. Plenty of slipped black morning waistcoats, though.

Pardon my absence from the forum, by the way; I've been in and out of an internet connection while my wife and I moved into our new apartment, and clothes and such have generally fallen by the wayside. (That, and I've gained an interest in the "English country" style, which means that I've been spending my time lately looking at tweed, moleskin, and corduroy.) But here's a question for the rare daytime city occasion:

With a stroller, is it ever acceptable to have turn-ups/cuffs on the trousers? It's not something that I'd ever do with proper, striped dress slacks, but some '30s illustrations (Esquire or Apparel Arts, I forget which) have men wearing strollers with what appear to be checked trousers with cuffs. Is this actually possible for the more casual end of semi-formal morning dress, or was it more of a fad from the era of excess fabric all around? (Or are my eyes just playing tricks on me?)

 

[Charlie Huang]

In my mind, yes, turn-ups can be used on black lounge (but not for cashmere stripe trousers). It is only for formal dress that turn-ups are forbidden.

 

[Cobden]

My ha'p'eth would be that with turn-ups, it ceases to be a black lounge and instead becomes a black jacket with separate trousers; though I suppose it depends on whether you consider a black lounge the most formal of informal dress, the least formal of formal dress, or semi-formal - as such there is some leeway

 

[dhermann1]

Innnnteresting picture from Shorpy.com . Here's a pic of a gentlemens' banquet from 1920. There is a fascinating array of formal wear in evidence. I made a rather extensive comment (my username on Shorpy is Jazznocracy) that I hope will stand the scrutiny of my more knowledgable fellow Loungers.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/9351?size=_original
And can someone please confirm my feeling that the two men in front are NOT wearing spats? I'm thinking that's the style of shoes that would be worn then, patent leather on the lower part, and calfskin for the upper part. What would that style of shoes be called?

 

[Cobden]

Yes, they are not wearing spats; not sure if what the technical term is, but I've heard them refered to as spatboots

 

[Qirrel]

You are correct, they are not spats. I refer to them as button boots myself. And they are most likely just highly polished, not made from patent leather.

 

[Hap Hapablap]

I was under the impression that these are called Balmoral boots. Or maybe that is a more general term?

 

[Hap Hapablap]

What a great snapshot of stylistic eccentricities and details: two button sleeves, three; standing collars, rounded ones; two stripes with dinner jacket; no stripes at all. I wish I was there!

 

[Tomasso]

I was under the impression that these are called Balmoral boots.

Balmoral boots employ closed lacing as opposed to Derby boots which have open lacing. Button boots use buttons.

 

[Charlie Huang]

Yes, they are called button boots and this is another piece of evidence that says they are allowed for evening dress.

 

[dnjan]

What a great snapshot of stylistic eccentricities and details: two button sleeves, three; standing collars, rounded ones; two stripes with dinner jacket; no stripes at all. I wish I was there!

And interesting mix of ivory and black waistcoats, as well as white and black ties.

 

[Warbaby]

I noticed that two chaps in the front row are wearing those odd cross-over ties (don't know what they're called) - I always thought those were a relatively recent (60s-70s) invention.

 

[dhermann1]

Actually I think they're Victorian. Interesting, aren't they? Never seen them with black tie before. I think this picture is a real eye opener in general. Blows away a few myths, and illustrates a few esoteric points that the real experts have often asserted, such as the black waistcoat with white tie.

 

[Charlie Huang]

Also proves what I have been coming to think of: the formal dress of earlier periods were rather free and varied whilst the formal dress of today is very restrictive and almost anti-progressive (in terms of 'the rules' and not that wearing formal dress is restrictive, etc).

 

[Cobden]

I agree, that's probably the case over time. Not that, IMHO, it's a bad thing

 

[dhermann1]

The perpetual debate. The thing is, all those new variations that you see from the Oscars all seem so . . . just not right.

 

[Feraud]

I noticed that two chaps in the front row are wearing those odd cross-over ties (don't know what they're called) - I always thought those were a relatively recent (60s-70s) invention.

I do not think those are crossover ties. They look to be bowties but under the collar look like two crossed ends.