Loathe as I am, gentlemen, to reduce the forum to bread and butter matters (when it more justly should be concerning itself with sartorial haute cuisine) I hope you'll lend your assistance in the subject of the ubiquitous white T-shirt.
You might wear it exercising or (to go by the characters in the wonderful Mad Men) under a shirt but most of us, I suspect, will have one in our wardrobes. But judging by my experience, a half decent one is devilishly difficult to come across.
So have any of the Lounge found the perfect white T-shirt; a maker from whom they would never consider straying?
Storm in a T Cup
-
oldemettle
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:25 pm
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
Zimmerli
-
Haliburton
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:14 pm
- Contact:
I am converted. Many thanks.
I favour Hanes' Tagless white crewnecks, which can't compete with Zimmerli in terms of quality, but come completely plain, without even a label, in very reasonably priced packs of three. The advantage isn't the price per se, although it's welcome, but the fact that because of the price I'm happy to bin the T-shirts and get a new batch as soon as they start to show signs of ageing.
But while we're on the subject can I ask what people think of wearing a T-shirt under a shirt, as they do in Mad Men? I find it inelegant - I hate seeing the collar of a T-shirt under an open-necked shirt, or the outline of a T-shirt's sleeve head under a dress shirt sleeve. I can't understand why the vest (tank, I think, in American) isn't more popular - it's a facet of Italian style (long socks being the other) that Northern European and American men seem resistant to adopting.
But while we're on the subject can I ask what people think of wearing a T-shirt under a shirt, as they do in Mad Men? I find it inelegant - I hate seeing the collar of a T-shirt under an open-necked shirt, or the outline of a T-shirt's sleeve head under a dress shirt sleeve. I can't understand why the vest (tank, I think, in American) isn't more popular - it's a facet of Italian style (long socks being the other) that Northern European and American men seem resistant to adopting.
La maglietta della salute they call it...Manself wrote:I can't understand why the vest (tank, I think, in American) isn't more popular - it's a facet of Italian style (long socks being the other) that Northern European and American men seem resistant to adopting.
I agree with you about the white T-shirt showing from beneath the open collar of the shirt.
Manself, I agree with you and Costi about the exposed neck of a crew or round-neck T-shirt under an open-collared shirt. For this application V-neck T-shirts were created. Under all but the most opaque shirtings, however, the tank or vest is at least as visibly unsightly as the appropriate T-shirt; I would say more so. In the U.S. there are old cultural associations with the vest, tank, or athletic shirt (A-shirt) worn as an undershirt. These derive from stereotypes of uneducated men wearing only their discolored A-shirts and trousers while watching televised sporting events and swilling beer. In some parts of the country these shirts are known as "wife-beaters." In the usual postmodern way, some (especially young) men and women both derive some frisson from playing with these associations and employing the garment ironically, the way Brando's Stanley Kowalski made the GI-issue T-shirt an erotic fetish for a while. (I also remember reading that Gable's undressing scene in "It Happened One Night," which revealed him to be bare-chested under his shirt, caused sales of the then-popular A-shirt to plummet.)
As to wearing an appropriately cut T-shirt as an undershirt (crew with tie and V-neck with open-collared shirt), it has the advantage, apart from extra warmth in season, of offering the shirt some protection against deodorant chemicals, perspiration, and body oils. It also (I recall this being a significant factor in the Mad Men era) makes a white business shirt look crisper and whiter under a jacket by providing a white backing that increases opacity.
The older concept of the collared shirt itself being "underwear" for a suit jacket that was never removed in public was largely passé in the U.S. by the postwar years. As good laundering and ironing has become rarer and more expensive (whether by spouse or professional) here in subsequent decades, the careless treatment of shirts seems to have become less common, at least until such time as suits themselves became optional and the rumpled casual look began to take hold.
I suspect the prejudice against T-shirts as undershirts originated in the assumption that a gentleman could afford to change shirts at least once during the day, discard them frequently, and take no notice of the cost of laundering them. So the hygienic and thrifty T-shirt undershirt, which was more easily expendable, became associated with a middle-class ethos, and perhaps particularly an American one. The postwar U.S. was indeed a little manic about hygiene . . . .
Personally I see nothing objectionable in wearing an appropriate T-shirt, especially if under a shirt and jacket to be worn all day and through the evening, although I grant that Brummell's idea of fresh linen (or crisp cotton) against the skin, preferably changed one or more times during the day, is more elegant in its simplicity, and I omit a T-shirt nearly as often as I wear one, especially if I change for the evening.
On the other hand, I wear long socks whenever possible.
As to wearing an appropriately cut T-shirt as an undershirt (crew with tie and V-neck with open-collared shirt), it has the advantage, apart from extra warmth in season, of offering the shirt some protection against deodorant chemicals, perspiration, and body oils. It also (I recall this being a significant factor in the Mad Men era) makes a white business shirt look crisper and whiter under a jacket by providing a white backing that increases opacity.
The older concept of the collared shirt itself being "underwear" for a suit jacket that was never removed in public was largely passé in the U.S. by the postwar years. As good laundering and ironing has become rarer and more expensive (whether by spouse or professional) here in subsequent decades, the careless treatment of shirts seems to have become less common, at least until such time as suits themselves became optional and the rumpled casual look began to take hold.
I suspect the prejudice against T-shirts as undershirts originated in the assumption that a gentleman could afford to change shirts at least once during the day, discard them frequently, and take no notice of the cost of laundering them. So the hygienic and thrifty T-shirt undershirt, which was more easily expendable, became associated with a middle-class ethos, and perhaps particularly an American one. The postwar U.S. was indeed a little manic about hygiene . . . .
Personally I see nothing objectionable in wearing an appropriate T-shirt, especially if under a shirt and jacket to be worn all day and through the evening, although I grant that Brummell's idea of fresh linen (or crisp cotton) against the skin, preferably changed one or more times during the day, is more elegant in its simplicity, and I omit a T-shirt nearly as often as I wear one, especially if I change for the evening.
On the other hand, I wear long socks whenever possible.
Last edited by couch on Sat Mar 20, 2010 11:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Interesting analysis, couch. I think the middle class connotations of the tank extend to at least some part of Europe, too. I am not sure how things are regarded today. I never wear T-shirts or tanks and prefer the look and feel of the shirt on my body. As for the shirt getting worn out more quickly, it's the least I can do: there is always more coming in than going out of use. I never had a shirt stained from deodorants - if anything, the collar or cuffs get worn out, and there is nothing a T-shirt or tank can do about that.
I am not a fan of the theory that wearing a tank in summer is beneficial as it absorbs perspiration and keeps it from reaching the shirt. After all, this is why shirts should be cotton or linen, to wick moisture (or perspiration, if it gets to that stage) away from the body and evporate it. The tank gets soaked (or moist) and doesn't dry up as quickly as the shirt. Not to speak of the added warmth, causing some of the perspiration in the first place.
The only time I wear upper body underwear is in extreme cold, when I use longjohns and long sleeve undershirts made of merinos wool. If the quality is good, it is not scratchy, keeps warm, breathes well, wicks moisture away from the body and evaporates it more effectively than cotton (more important in winter than in summer). I once bought a pair of longjohns made of silk in a shop in Helsinki, and they are surprisingly effective in keeping warm, besides feeling luxurious on the skin.
I am not a fan of the theory that wearing a tank in summer is beneficial as it absorbs perspiration and keeps it from reaching the shirt. After all, this is why shirts should be cotton or linen, to wick moisture (or perspiration, if it gets to that stage) away from the body and evporate it. The tank gets soaked (or moist) and doesn't dry up as quickly as the shirt. Not to speak of the added warmth, causing some of the perspiration in the first place.
The only time I wear upper body underwear is in extreme cold, when I use longjohns and long sleeve undershirts made of merinos wool. If the quality is good, it is not scratchy, keeps warm, breathes well, wicks moisture away from the body and evaporates it more effectively than cotton (more important in winter than in summer). I once bought a pair of longjohns made of silk in a shop in Helsinki, and they are surprisingly effective in keeping warm, besides feeling luxurious on the skin.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests