Overcoats and hats

[JLibourel]

I was quite wrong about this place, somewhat depressingly.... (Mr Alden is a decent, civilized fellow: he was kind enough to welcome me to the site, and I am most grateful for the gentleman's good wishes.)

As a new member, it is essential to show proper respect for the rules which bind a community. Of course, one needs to be assertive or risk boring the readership to distraction. But it is nonetheless key to observe proper decorum, while adding at least something of value to the discussion. I humbly state that I have done that. And been roundly ignored, despite the plain fact that my contributions are invariably written in English.

This "club" is a clique. There is little hospitality extended to new fellows, and that is a bloody shame, since the site is bereft of the nastiness one sees in other places. Instead, glacial disregard is the norm. A few insiders post to great and fawning acclaim, while new boys are ignored. And the posts in question, while mostly rewarding, contain the occasional inanity which goes unchallenged, because the creator is an accepted component.

I am half American and half Scottish; I suffer from egalitarian tendencies; I am solidly middle-aged; I have met the Queen of England--and Philippe Noiret, too. My family is an odd, hybrid product, which combines respect for the old continent, with understanding of a sometimes dismally changing world. I should think that etiquette would have required at least nodding acceptance for a new person in your midst, who never once showed lack of consideration or respect for any among you, whether he agreed with your point of view or not. I am disappointed by your marked indifference, but not surprised, human nature being what it is....

Good luck to you all. And please remember that it is vital to be the person you appear: a gentleman at his best looks impressive, but he must behave like a decent sort, as well.

Respectfully,

J. MacMaster

I am quite at a loss to comprehend what this gentleman's problem is. I have joined the Lounge more recently than he has and have certainly not felt "cold shouldered" by any manner or means!

[Guille]

I know this thread has been dead for a time but there is something I want to discuss, even though it is not related to the original topic of the thread:

"Formal" is used in two senses:

1) A distinction in kind: a dinner jacket, a tailcoat, a stroller, and a morning coat are "formal" coats in a way that even the dressiest lounge suit coat is not and can never be. There is a fundamental difference in kind between any lounge suit and these coats.

2) A distinction in degree: a double-breasted midnight blue lounge suit is more "formal" than a worsted glen-plaid, which is more "formal" than white linen. Nonetheless, these are all lounge suits; no fundamental difference in kind separates them from one another.

I don't agree with this. One can argue that the stroller and black tie dresses are semi-formal equivalents to morning coats and tailcoats, as they are they are essentially the same wear with a different cut in the coat. But I think the opposite argument is stronger. I'll explain. The type of coat he is wearing dictates the type of dress a man is wearing, this is something evident. The dinner jacket or tuxedo is similar to the lounge suit’s coat in basic size and shape, and so is the stroller. We can thus say that black tie and stroller are particular forms of lounge suits. In the case of black tie, it is a black lounge suit with a formal cut and lapels made usually of a different fabric, and worn with a black bowtie (and other black tie accessories such as the cummerbund, detachable sometimes wing collar…). In the case of the stroller, it is an odd formal jacket with a striped trouser. So in fact although there is that difference of kind, there is also really a difference in degree. We can say that if we follow language, then as they are considered kinds of formal wear they are different in kind to the lounge suit and “closer” to the morning coat and tailcoat, but if we follow logic, then as they are particular cases of lounge suits they are really only different in degree.

[ccox]

In Europe one tends to break down dress by city clothes and country clothes; and eveningwear versus daywear. So one might refer to “Formal, City and Country” as categories of dress; and “Evening and Daywear” as subs of each.

The concept of “dressy” or “formal” or gradients of “dressiness” seems a bit vague since one is supposed to be well dressed at all times. And the use of the word “formal” as a synonym to “dressy” does create confusion with Formal with a capital “F” (see Manton’s distinction above.)

“Formal” describes a specific category of dress. Semi-formal, as pointed out above, is a sub of Formal.

City eveningwear describes the kinds of city suits most appropriate for wear after nightfall, to restaurants, clubs, for a walk in the park. City daywear indicates the kind of suits best worn in the city for work purposes, or for living a life of leisure (God willing!)

It is hard to breakdown Country wear into Evening and Day use. So that leaves us with the following:

Formal
Evening and Daywear

City
Evening and Daywear

Country

This subject will be developed in its own thread, upcoming.

Cheers

Was this topic ever developed? I've been searching the archives, but may have missed it. I'm curious about the distinction between daywear and eveningwear (excluding, for my purposes, the dinner jacket) appropriate for the City. This is all in light of an upcoming visit to Washington, D.C. and my need for packing light. Are striped suits still considered inappropriate for dinner in our increasingly casual society? What of the birdseye navy DB (I know, a strange hybrid) for daywear, through cocktails into evening? In such cases I am tempted to pack the Bondian navy blue and black knit tie and leave it at that.

Forgive me if this has been addressed elsewhere and please point me to the right thread.

Regards,
Chris