The London Lounge

Mark Seitelman wrote: What would be the appropriate headgear other than top hat or bowler? I would think that the homburg is better than a fedora or trilby.

Dear Mark,
You are certainly correct in thinking that a homburg would be most the appropriate form of headwear with this coat. The formality in headwear flows (in descending order) from Top hats to Homburgs to Bowlers to Snap Brims / Trilbys to Tyrolean types. Plus there are many a few styles in-between these. Now there are a few things to consider in this…

Apologies to other form members for digression to follow.

It is not necessarily the coat that dictates the headgear in an outfit….more than often it is what’s underneath. For example, in the two pictures I posted the first one is on a formal day occasion and the second one is considerably less formal. Yet both have the same coat…however, what’s underneath the coat is different, hence dictating the use of a Top hat is the first instance and bowler in the second one (when worn with Lounge Suits).

This is where it gets tricky. What if you wear a more casual coat with a formal garb (black-tie or day semi-formal) OR a more formal coat with casual / relaxed suiting? Prime example being…black-tie events on resorts / cruises where a polo coat or covert coat is permissible mainly because of the surroundings (specific circumstances) where the formal event is taking place. Here in this instance, the best type of headgear would be a panama or a light colored (& weight) felt hat rather than the customary homburg. Actually, some may argue that under these circumstances it would be in-appropriate to wear a homburg and ONLY a panama / straw hat would fit the bill.

In this above mentioned instance the coat is more causal than the rest of the attire (black-tie) and under ordinary circumstances a trilby or snap-brim fedora would be correct type of headgear with such a coat. Yet, when used with black-tie…the headgear needs to be changed accordingly.

So I would venture and say that indeed a trilby (a race course hat actually) would be out of place with this coat (if worn with city suiting). Color and fabric will also heavily dictate the appropriateness of such a hat. Usually Trilby’s are in brown or some derivative of brownish/green colors thereby somewhat odd with a deep blue-velvet collared Db coat. Homburgs are actually quite formal hats and are used only (or mostly) with suits cut along very formal lines.

But, you know what Mark at the end of the day…with these strict (old-fashioned) rules, a brown suede shoe would be Never acceptable for proper town-wear….which we all love so dearly. Even though all of my evidence suggests that tribly should not be worn with this (in such & such way)…deep down inside…something says….Why Not?

Maybe we need to ask other esteemed members…I would also like to know Manton’s thoughts on this topic. Hopefully he can read this soon and would be kind enough to offer his advice.

Dear Manton…your sartorial opinion is needed!

Sincerely
e-tutee

One does not wear a straw hat of any kind with a wool overcoat; wool and fur felt complement one another, though you may certainly choose a tweed hat of the type no longer seen in the known universe--think Basil Rathbone in the old Sherlock Holmes series--to pair with a woolen overcoat. Of course, trench coats and rain coats afford a great deal of latitude: you may wear your trench over a dinner jacket, and place upon your well-filled head a wide array of headgear, anything from a homburg on down to fedora...or even e-tutee's cherished trilby, a hat style that I find particularly attractive. Astaire on occasion wore porkpies with dinner jackets, for goodness sakes...! Freedom reigns among persons like ourselves.

I agree wholeheartedly that the choice of hat is dictated, to the extent that it is dictated, more by what's underneath the topcoat than by the coat itself. I would make one small change to Tutee's taxonomy of hats, inserting the Fedora in between the derby and the trilby. I think, in America at least, it is a distinct enough style of snap-brim to deserve specific mention.

To the rest, I would change nothing but add a few thoughts.

1) For summer, cruise or resort black tie (whatever the overcoat may be) I think a straw boater with a soild black band is both appropriate and elegant. Not seen much any more, but they dot the pages of AA and Esquire.

2) There are very nice-looking light gray trilbies out there. One with a dark gray, black, or even blue-gray band might work very well.

3) With the coat mentioned, worn over a lounge suit, I think a homburg is the best choice. The homburg is the most formal hat that can be worn with a lounge suit, though it is not required by the lounge suit; one can also wear several other styles that are less formal. Yet, with such a formal topcoat, the more formal hat seems to "belong" better than the others.

A question from someone who wears hat rarely:

If the hat is supposed to match the suit under the coat, what happens when you go inside, the hat and coat comes off. Why then should the hat match the suit UNDER the coat (and thus only the barest minimum, such as the lower pant leg is visible), and not what is in open view? In my mind this would make the most sense, since the hat and the most visible part of the outfit are in harmony, and not the hat and the least visible part.

Jan

T4phage wrote:A question from someone who wears hat rarely:

If the hat is supposed to match the suit under the coat, what happens when you go inside, the hat and coat comes off. Why then should the hat match the suit UNDER the coat (and thus only the barest minimum, such as the lower pant leg is visible), and not what is in open view? In my mind this would make the most sense, since the hat and the most visible part of the outfit are in harmony, and not the hat and the least visible part.

Jan

Manton and I had a discussion about this yesterday. My inclination is to agree with you. In general, everything should be in harmony. Manton’s main point, which I don’t deny, is that, except for strict formal-wear, there is a the range of overcoats appropriate for each clothing ensemble is fairly wide and the range of hats is even wider (or better put, most overcoats and hats are appropriate over a wide range). The problem you and I are concerned with is really only relevant at the extremes. A DB herringbone worsted overcoat and a tan or gray fedora will work most of the time with most suits.

As a practical matter, Manton is certainly correct - you will rarely find your overcoat out of harmony with the clothes underneath unless you are really trying. As an abstract matter, I am still convinced that the rule should be: If your overcoat doesn’t harmonize with what is beneath, you made an error. Your best recovery is to tie the hat to the overcoat, not what is beneath. Harmonizing the hat with the suit may be more "correct" as they are both accessories to the suit beneath, but you will nonetheless be presenting a discordant image.

I expect (and hope) that Manton will articulate his view better than I did.

"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.

To the best of my knowledge, there is no "formal" overcoat in sense #1. Rather, overcoats are more or less formal only in sense #2. Thus it is not possible to "match" the hat with the overcoat, in the way that (for instance) the top hat is "required" with the morning and tail coats. The "rules"* of proper dress have never dictated what hat belongs with which overcoat; rather, they have matched hats with the underlying ensemble. The principle, I think, is a sound one: relative to the suit or coat, the overcoat is an accessory. Your suit or coat determines how "dressed up" you are; it is your primary presentation to the world on that day. Thus your overcoat should be chosen with that in mind, not the other way. The hat, which is even more of an accessory (which is to say, even less intergral to the ensemble) than the overcoat, ought also to be chosen with the suit in mind.

Now, as a practical matter, I think too much is made of the apparent difficulty that might arise from incongrutiy between suit and overcoat. Because, if one assembles one's ensembles wisely, there such incongruity will not arise. The suit and overcoat should both be at roughly the same point on the "formality continuum", or at most one or two clicks divergent. Therefore, it ought to be easy to choose a hat that goes well with both.

Where one might run into a problem is if one were to tro to "push the outside of the envelope" in some way. For instance, wearing Ed Hayes' marvelous -- but by no means formal -- tweed Raglan coat with a formal navy suit. Even then, the difficulty is more apparent than real. To assume that there is a difficulty, one must assume that there is no single hat that works well with both the suit and the coat. But is that true? Would not a chocolate brown fedora work equally well? (Especially assuming a pair of brown shoes.)

Which brings me to my final point. A "formality continuum" exists for every garment type, and they overlap. Pick any suit, from any point on its continuum. There is a range of hats and coats that go with it. The only way you will not be able to choose a hat that works with both is if the coat and suit are so incongruous that they don't belong together in the first place (Brtish warm with a dinner jacket, for instance).

*If anyone would like, yet again, to dispute my use of this term, by all means I am prepared to have that debate. But in order to stave it off, since it has become tiresome, let me say simply that I mean it in the most uncontroversial way possible: the historical reality that, in certain cultures at certain times among certain groups of people, certain standards and protocols of dress were expected to be followed, and were followed by and large, in the same way and for the same reason that rules of etiquette (such as the proper way to address an invitation, or set a table) were followed.

Dopey, your name doesn't match your wits, 'caus you're smart, see.... Excellent post.

Manton: brilliant treatise.

You are both right, somewhat paradoxically. However, there is one overcoat that fits into Manton's "sense #1"--the dark grey or black chesterfield is a formal overcoat that may be worn with Manton's first category of garments. (A dark grey or black homburg ideally complements the chesterfield.)

There are many factors that contribute to a winning combination. And basic rules are immensely important. But the rules that govern a gentleman's life in New York, Paris or London are less closely followed in the provinces. One thing is sure, there is a fundamental difference between knowingly and willfully bending the rules to suit your taste, and blithely riding into clueless gulch.

exigent wrote:However, there is one overcoat that fits into Manton's "sense #1"--the dark grey or black chesterfield is a formal overcoat that may be worn with Manton's first category of garments.

I disagree. I would classify this coat as the dressiest of all overcoats, and thus the most formal in sense #2. But for it to be formal in sense #1, it would have to be "incorrect" with a lounge suit, and I don't think it is.

I tend to agree with Manton, my impression is that the only overcoat to qualify under #1 may be the "paddock" style introduced to this discussion by Etutee, or possibly some form of cape. The construction, and thus lineage, of all other current topcoat styles, even the Chesterfield, is related to the lounge suit, not the frockcoat / tailcoat / morning coat.

If I insisted on being pedantic, I should ask for black tie to be removed from #1 because it represents "informal" dinner dress (as opposed to the "formal" tailcoat). The stroller is a true bastard in the sense that its cut is not formal but its colouring is.

Anyway, the objective is to look both correct, but also at ease. This permits the mixing of a coat about one degree less formal than the dress underneath (e.g. pale trench coat over black tie instead of a Chesterfield). The undoubted practicality justifies the slight breach of rules and can create an effect of relaxed elegance.

The justification becomes clear when examining the opposite: A cashmere Chesterfield worn in the country over a thornproof hacking jacket and moleskins will look laboured and misplaced rather than relaxed. Was it a hand-me -down from a rich relative in town?

The same applies to most accessories, whether they be hats, ties, shirts or shoes. A suit without a tie is bad enough, but imagine a denim button down shirt under a fleece adorned with a tie! A US acquaintance is responsible for indelibly imprinting this image on my mind. The result is both laboured and inelegant.

Finally, rules cannot explain everything. As remarked elsewhere, the men who influenced fashion most in the last two centuries were all considered avantgarde rule breakers at the time. And they made history rather than following it! True elegance is a fine balance between confidence, formality, history, practicality and (rather importantly) beauty.

TVD wrote:If I insisted on being pedantic, I should ask for black tie to be removed from #1 because it represents "informal" dinner dress (as opposed to the "formal" tailcoat). The stroller is a true bastard in the sense that its cut is not formal but its colouring is.

I see your point, but I still disagree. strictly speaking the dinner jacket and stroller are "semi-formal" and hence are, I think, both fundamentally different in kind from lounge suits, and fundamentally in the same family as tail and morning coats. Their younger brothers, as it were.

This permits the mixing of a coat about one degree less formal than the dress underneath (e.g. pale trench coat over black tie instead of a Chesterfield).

This principle strikes me as most sound.

Finally, rules cannot explain everything.

I did not say, or mean to imply, that they could. But they are useful as, if nothing else, a starting point for reasoning our way out of quandries such as that originally posed in this thread by Mr. Seitelman.

As remarked elsewhere, the men who influenced fashion most in the last two centuries were all considered avantgarde rule breakers at the time. And they made history rather than following it!

I would make the same point somewhat differently. Perhaps it helps to think of this in Machiavellian terms. Machiavelli teaches that there are two kinds of men, the people and the great. The great desire to command and oppress the people; the people desire not to be oppressed. All political regimes -- all states as we have known them -- are established by the great (usually by one person acting alone, or through lieutenants) who imprint their will on the matter that is the people. They create the "rules" (Nick would say "modes and orders") which govern society until some other great personage comes along and changes things, or overthrows them, or conquers them, whatever.

Something similar happens, I think, with clothing. Great innovators "found" regimes or epochs of dress. That is, they set "rules" which are more or less followed for some number of decades. I do not meant to exclude the possibilty -- nay, the certainty -- that others refine and enlarge those "rules." But the foundations are laid by one (e.g., Brummell) or a few (the British upper class in the late 20s). These become the rules within which we all operate until the next upheaval and the introduciton of new garments, new rules, and "new modes and orders."

I agree with quite a few of the points you have made.

Yes, rules are most useful, and to know them is essential if one wishes to breach them knowingly (and potentially even innovatively) rather than embarras oneself by ignorant violation.

The danger in analysing the history of fashion is the nature of our evidence. It tends to concentrate on the great style icons. These may have set the trend, or mereley have been embodying the Zeitgeist. It would be necessary to compare precisely dated evidence of a general, social nature (for example the AA illustrations, or Tailor & Cutter - I am always reserved about film evidence because much that is depicted today does not resemble reality, would that link have been stronger in the past?) with dateable instances when the alleged style setter can be shown to have worn said innovation. Or even better, find contemporary (rather than retrospective) analysis and commentary.

I recall a lot of research being undertaken into Louis XIV. He deliberately imposed changes in fashion to control the previously independent-minded nobility. The Ancien Regime lifestyle he created dominated France and Continental Europe until the Revolution and beyond.

In a way, this is the great argument between social and political history, or "above" and "below", or whatever other tag one wishes to attach. I cannot presume to offer an answer. I am unable to spend the time it would take to research the sources and provide a meaningful analysis, even if I had the talents to do so.

The more grateful I am to those who do, for all their hard work, and for sharing it with the rest of us.

As an aside, the parallel with Michiavelli brought up all sorts of interesting ideas in relation to the Duke of Windsor. Maybe more of a Prince than fate allowed him to prove. Another area of research that must await better opportunity.

manton wrote:

exigent wrote:However, there is one overcoat that fits into Manton's "sense #1"--the dark grey or black chesterfield is a formal overcoat that may be worn with Manton's first category of garments.

I disagree. I would classify this coat as the dressiest of all overcoats, and thus the most formal in sense #2. But for it to be formal in sense #1, it would have to be "incorrect" with a lounge suit, and I don't think it is.

We must agree to disagree. You may wear the Chesterfield with any "formal" lounge suit, and it is entirely appropriate to do so, but the Chesterfield is a formal overcoat just as surely as the dinner suit is a formal suit. Your categories work, Manton. And the chesterfield fits into the first one...though you may of course grant that the garment deserves all-round top-of-the-food-chain status in both. I propose a special dispensation for this dressiest of overcoats.

TVD:

"As an aside, the parallel with Michiavelli brought up all sorts of interesting ideas in relation to the Duke of Windsor. Maybe more of a Prince than fate allowed him to prove. Another area of research that must await better opportunity."


That is an absolute first: I have never before seen the Duke of Windsor compared to Machiavelli....

Funny how we celebrate a fellow's sense of style, while choosing to ignore the truly worrisome details of his actual life. The duke was a schmuck who dallied with neo-fascist ideas, respected Hitler above most, and generally disgraced himself at every turn (rubbish in Spain, foolishness and financial shenanigans in the Caribbean, tomfoolery and low-level idiocy in post-war France...). Machiavelli and Windsor? Hardly. That said, and deeply felt by your humble servant, his personal style was riotously entertaining, and I am certainly a fan of his heavy tweed suits, which were inspired by his father's love of "tweedy opulence" (HRH's own words). Now don't get me wrong, TVD, I am a half Scottish loyalist who loves Britain, and there is much to respect in your fine posts--this ain't no flame, merely a statement of fact. And for the record, I think that you and Manton have covered the subject in a balanced manner--as my own posts indicate.

This business about the formality ranking of hats has me confused. As I have understood matters in the years since I got interested in such things, Mark was right to begin with. The ranking runs topper, derby, homburg, fedora. However, when our most formidable mavens like Manton and Etutee disagree, both ranking the homburg ahead of the derby, and Manton even ranks dressier versions of the fedora ahead of the derby, my certainty is profoundly shaken.

However, I suppose it is rather immaterial since it is my impression that the derby/bowler is pretty much dead except as a costume piece, e.g., at some kind of "Old West Days" event. At least, I couldn't envision myself wearing a derby under any other circumstances, whereas I do have a couple of homburgs that I wear on occasion. Am I correct in my impression that the derby is defunct as stylish, elegant headgear and has been for a good many years? (I think its last bastion was among officers of the Guards regiments when they were "in mufti.")

JLibourel wrote:Manton ... rank[s] the homburg ahead of the derby, and even ranks dressier versions of the fedora ahead of the derby

I do rank the homburg as more formal than the derby, as it can be worn with black tie, whereas the derby cannot. But I did not mean to put the fedora ahead of the derby. I think I said that I would put it "in between the derby and the trilby." That is, ahead of the trilby, behind the derby.

Am I correct in my impression that the derby is defunct as stylish, elegant headgear and has been for a good many years?

I think so. I am not much of a hat wearer, but if I were, I would not hesitate to wear a fedora or a trilby. I would hesitate a bit before wearing a homburg, but I can at least imagine it. Under no circumstances can I image wearing a derby.