The London Lounge

In his excellent book History of Men's Fashions, Nicholas Storey says that Beau Brummel thought that the worst thing a gentleman could do was to be noticed for his dress. Does this apply today when in some cases a tucked in shirt is noticable?

I try to dress appropriately for the situation. In the absence of a set dress code I have developed my own definitions(ex.casual is a collared shirt with maybe a sportcoat). Working within these defintions I judge the individual situation. This means dressing in the upper end of the acceptable range (ex. collared shirt but no sportcoat to a BBQ). But even then I tend to stand out. Returning to my original question, can you be elegantly dressed in the understated way that seems to be favored here even if it makes you stand out as the "dressy" guy?

Things were much different in Brummel's times.
Nowadays I think it is a function of three variables:
- the style of your wardrobe
- the places you go
- how you carry your clothes.

A classical wardrobe gets noticed against a background of blue jeans and T-shirts - there's little you can do about that. If you take your classically-styled clothes to very casual places and situations, you will again look different - but then you can't either stay home or dress like everyone else for the sake of going unnoticed. The third ingredient is what you can actually do about it: since you get noticed as dressing "differently", if people understand that your clothes are not costume, snobbery or pretence, but they are just an expression of your personality, this will atenuate the perceived contrast with the environment and what most of the others wear out of conformism. Look and behave naturally in your coats, shirts, trousers and shoes. If you are consistent in your dress, those who know you won't see it as "dressing up", but as your normal style.

^My thougths exactly. I think the people who know me are used to my hats, sportcoats and polished shoes by now.

Brummell’s idea that a gentleman’s clothes should not draw too much of attention to the wearer was also related to his conception of “studied carelessness, but without the appearance of study”. But the attempt to apply this concept nowadays requires new abilities, for sheer carelessness seems to have become the norm. And whatever goes against the norm is likely to attract other persons’ attention.

I have posted in another thread a link to a short clip of a film depicting Brummell’s life in which these ideas are approached. This passage may perhaps add some thoughts to the subject matter of this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CAxG5_C ... re=related

kilted2000 wrote:In his excellent book History of Men's Fashions, Nicholas Storey says that Beau Brummel thought that the worst thing a gentleman could do was to be noticed for his dress. Does this apply today when in some cases a tucked in shirt is noticable?

This is a complex question.

If we try to understand Brummel correctly, his thought is like a creative paradox - you must, in fact, stand out, but without being noticed - or without being noticed just for your dress.

It is much more a problem of attitude, not just dress.

http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... f=4&t=7980

This thread is similar to what I was asking about.

I also mention that Brummell did actually draw as much attention as the Prince Regent, because of his deportment. I think that Brummell really meant that one should not wear outlandish clothes.
NJS

Within about twenty years of Brummell’s death, Trollope wrote of Plantagenet Palliser: “He dressed very quietly, never changing the colour or form of his garments; and in society was quiet, reserved and very often silent. He was tall, slight, and not ill-looking; but more than this cannot be said for his personal appearance – except, indeed, this, that no one could mistake him for other than a gentleman.”
Maybe both Brummell and Trollope did think men could, or even should be noticed, but not for what they wear.

marcelo wrote:Within about twenty years of Brummell’s death, Trollope wrote of Plantagenet Palliser: “He dressed very quietly, never changing the colour or form of his garments; and in society was quiet, reserved and very often silent. He was tall, slight, and not ill-looking; but more than this cannot be said for his personal appearance – except, indeed, this, that no one could mistake him for other than a gentleman.”
Maybe both Brummell and Trollope did think men could, or even should be noticed, but not for what they wear.

Yes, I am sure that this conclusion is correct; it was, after all, being noticed that brought Brummell to the point where he could (and I paraphrase) claim that he might be standing in the centre of a room and beckon to both (the Marquis of) Lorne and (the Duke of ) Bedford "and they would come to me". His influence was such that he once condemned a consignment of (eagerly awaited), snuff at Fribourg & Treyer and, the word going around, no one would touch it until, the second word went out that Brummell had bought several jars for himself (at a hefty discount) and F&T then sold out! According to his first biographer, Captain Jesse, apparently, he was 6 feet tall and well made (the statue in Jermyn Street seems to represent his attitude in his prime) but he had a broken nose (from a horse fall) and an amused look in his eyes. His ready wit would distinguish him from the crowd and Jesse's account of the occasion of Brummell's nearly bumping into the Prince Regent at the opera, during the period of their row, is astonishing - Brummell moving repectfully away - but never lowering his gaze; recognizing rank but daring to be a man. What is most demonstrative of his character, as an original, is that, despite the dreadful later years (beginning in early middle age), his beggging letters back home, even imprisonment for debt in France, he is commemorated and celebrated - to the extent that long descendants of his friends paid for, and subscribed their names at the feet of, his statue. One of them even has his former house in Chesterfield Street; bearing the plaque, that reads "Leader of Fashion". At the end, penniless, loveless and, so far as we know, childless, he left behind him a rich inheritance that has stood the test of time. Much like Dr Johnson, he is important to us because he demonstrates that the human spirit leaves imprints; or, as Longfellow put it 'footprints in the sands of time.'
NJS

It is perhaps a vague speculation, and I apologize in advance if the analogy sounds too loose, but I suspect Brummell’s attitude towards dress, his idea of sartorial beauty emerging from studied carelessness without the appearance of study, was deeply ingrained in the mentality of his time, and was also a distinguishing feature of English gardens in eighteenth century. Even in France the jardin anglais was gradually imitated as an opposition to the formal, geometrically conceived French gardens. Voltaire himself was very proud of his jardin anglais. The basic principle of studied carelessness without the appearance of study was, it seems, also applied to the laying out of shrubberies, paths, ponds, etc.

There is probably something in this - although those, such as The Prince Regent himself who actually used to go to watch Brummell dress would have been on the inside track as to the study involved!
NJS

I agree that while simply tucking in your shirt or wearing a tie gets you noticed now, the trick is to act the same as you would in the comfort clothes of a worn-in t-shirt and jeans -- be natural. It was hard for me at first, but I've mostly eliminated the bad habits of tugging on lapels, adjusting trousers, brushing off lint, etc. when clothed in coat and tie... at least in public. I'm sure people won't judge if you do that in the public restroom.

In any case, I feel when I'm dressed that way in public I get noticed in a good way, i.e. not snobbish or pretentious. I think it's a combination of good fit and accessories (pocket square or tie clip), non-loud colours, showing good character, and being perfectly at ease.

As a "ridiculous" frock coat wearer, I have been seething quietly since discovering mr Manself's remarks in the 'Elegance versus Foppery' discussion before the L.L.'s suspension. I see the modern interpretation of Beau Brummell's dictum of 'studied carelessness' to be bespoke facsimiles of the ugly dress the vast majority wear: bespoke football shirts, track-suit trousers, T-shirts, etc.: not a wise policy.

Surely this is the decision one faces: how far, and when, to compromise one's values and copy one's peers to avoid attention, when, in a population clad so unattractively - for many possible reasons - merely by subscribing to this forum we become popinjays ("noticeably over-concerned with dress", NJS above).

I wear full Victorian morning dress at work in the cooler months. I like to dress in 'white tie' for dinner, but would not do so when none of my associates would be dressed thus, because it would draw unwanted attention to our party. However, my colleagues (predominantly female) would be happy for me alone to wear 'white tie' if ever we had a 'works do' together. During most weekends, I dress 'casually' (i.e., slovenly), because I spend as little time as possible in town. During the winter months, I might don my smoking jacket and a white tie for dinner at home, even though alone. Does one dress according to one's own values, and add to the sum total of the world's beauty, or 'follow the herd'? I would do the latter if out with a party. I do the former at work, because I may, and the frock coat, black silk cravat, Victorian shirt, deep wing collar, etc. - and 'white tie' for dinner - to me are the most beautiful of Western male costumes. An associated problem is one's being judged by one's appearance about town: wearing afore-mentioned frock coat, etc., is assumed by passing beggers, hawkers, and feral youths, to be a sign of wealth and high class: I have and claim neither.

Sorry to ramble, but I hope my points can be understood. Gentlemen, I beg you all to ignore mr Manself, for he is lost in the wilderness, and we must pity him. Join me in making the world a prettier place, and order your frock coats now. Must finish, as I have to contact Patey's about a plant pot...

I answer only for myself, as the other people that make you seethe are able to answer for themselves. I think that it is, generally, a fault to be noticeably over-concerned with clothes - once they are on for the occcasion, that should be the end of it. Above everything, remember that we should dress to live and not live to dress. If you go riding on a wet day, you will (you should) end up spattered with mud. If you take your children on a summer picnic, you might do well to start out in a navy blue reefer jacket, white flannel trousers and co-respondent shoes - but it is a testament to a very fine day indeed if you end up: with ice cream smeared over the knees of your trousers; the dog's footprints on the white buckskin of your shoes; your wife's lipstick on your face and a few strands of burnished gold from your daughter's head on your shoulder, as you carry her sun-kissed and sleepy, homeward bound.

I do not think that a frock coat makes a popinjay - since a frock coat is too formal to do anything of the sort - but wearing a frock coat in their offices was last done by Coutts' bank managers and they stopped the practice a few years ago because I suppose that they suddenly noticed that no one else was wearing them anymore. You have every right to wear a frock coat if you like but I am not sure that too many people around here are advocating bespoke t-shirts instead - generally just very well-made, under-stated, classic suits for every day and formal things for occasions when prevailing social conventions expect them.
NJS

I had suggested a vague analogy between Brummell’s idea of 'studied carelessness' and eighteenth century English gardens, and insisted the analogy was quite vague. But I have just come across a similar point in Chenoune’s “History of Men’s Fashion”. The author compares the eighteenth century French “full-dressed coat” to the English “loose frock”, and then suggests that “The same distinction would soon be made between the rigid, classical geometry of French gardens that domesticated nature, and the charming, pre-romantic chaos of English landscape gardens.”

In addition to the inherent beauty of classical men’s apparels, one thing I like about them is the way they reflect the culture and history of the environment in which they were originally worn.