It appears CG's collar may roll similar to a buttondown simply because he removed his pin, much as it is usually obvious if one has worn a tie all day and then removed it in the evening. The collar, no matter the type, has taken a 'set' from the day's wear....
I've always thought the buttondown was considered 'casual' because it was, at essence, a 'sport shirt;' that is, a polo shirt. Backward logic, I suppose, but logical all the same: A more formal shirt collar, buttoned down to prevent the notorious 'flapping' and thereby eventually assuming the role of 'casual' shirt.
I remember years ago "M" magazine had a feature on stylish young Italians who were wearing buttondowns and ties with their double-breasted suits...
Button down collar with double cuffs.
That soft, large semi-spread with a roll (no buttons, no pin) is something one sees from certain Italian shirtmakers these days. I am not sure how they do it. When I see it done well, I am envious, but I haven't been able to replicate it myself.
-
BirdofSydney
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:33 am
- Location: Australia
- Contact:
I have an Italian made shirt of that very description sir. The collar has a stay actually sewn in it, albeit a very fine and short one, suspended in place by a triangle of cloth. Please forgive my clumsy description. The effect is that the area where the stay is lays flat, and is a little thicker, but then where the edge of the extra triangle is, it begins to curve up. Two collar buttons, set at an angle, reinforce the effect.That soft, large semi-spread with a roll (no buttons, no pin) is something one sees from certain Italian shirtmakers these days. I am not sure how they do it. When I see it done well, I am envious, but I haven't been able to replicate it myself.
I was initially sceptical about buying a collar with a stay sewn in, but it is so heavy and well-made that the collar doesn't even need ironing, just a gust of steam every now and then. I wash all my own shirts by hand. Alas, if I could only get more - I have the white, and there's a blue herringbone in the same cut, which is not to my taste. The others have either Windsor collars or much smaller ones.
Best,
Eden
Last edited by BirdofSydney on Sun Oct 30, 2005 11:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Well...in that last scene from Notorious, Cary Grant is indeed wearing a button-down shirt with double cuffs. No doubt about it. His suit is Single Breasted by the way. Below are the pictures. I have chosen multiple shots so that you can see with maximum clarity. These are from the 2nd last and last scene in Notorious film.
Click on the links below to view multiple angles
Cary Grant Picture 1
Cary Grant Picture 2
Cary Grant Picture 3
And while I am at it... in the meantime experience something that I have known for a while; a picture of Cary Grant wearing black penny loafers with dinner suit / black tie attire. This is from early 50s.
Cary Grant in loafers with Black Tie
I have edited it so you can see the detail better. This is the same picture that appeared on the front cover of biography of him by Marc Elliot, which I think came out in 2004. This biography has some pretty decent pictures in it. Let me also tell you that none of these two unusual instances... were adopted as a habit by him. He mostly wore proper pumps or patent leather oxfords whenever in white or black tie. Similarly, he didn't wore button downs in 30s or early 40s (well not mostly). But his style is a broad topic and not proper (in great detail) for this thread. However, these few unusual sightings of him certainly raise some very interesting points.
sincerely
etutee
Click on the links below to view multiple angles
Cary Grant Picture 1
Cary Grant Picture 2
Cary Grant Picture 3
And while I am at it... in the meantime experience something that I have known for a while; a picture of Cary Grant wearing black penny loafers with dinner suit / black tie attire. This is from early 50s.
Cary Grant in loafers with Black Tie
I have edited it so you can see the detail better. This is the same picture that appeared on the front cover of biography of him by Marc Elliot, which I think came out in 2004. This biography has some pretty decent pictures in it. Let me also tell you that none of these two unusual instances... were adopted as a habit by him. He mostly wore proper pumps or patent leather oxfords whenever in white or black tie. Similarly, he didn't wore button downs in 30s or early 40s (well not mostly). But his style is a broad topic and not proper (in great detail) for this thread. However, these few unusual sightings of him certainly raise some very interesting points.
sincerely
etutee
Dear Etutee
The BD shirt is the least formal of shirt designs as the DB suit is the least formal of suitings. There is, therefore, a logic that says that these two can be paired. For every picture of Grant or Stewart not wearing a BD shirt one can find one of Astaire or Agnelli wearing same with a DB. Who is right?
Both Grant and Astaire are examples of men “making the clothes” elegant and not the contrary. So Grant is right and Astaire is not wrong. (Note: Etutee can you find a larger sample of the above Astaire photo?)
If one intends on wearing a DB suit in a conservative business environment, it would be best to stick to the plain collared shirt. (Of course there is an argument that would say that in a very conservative business environment, one will prefer a SB in any case.) If one is wearing a linen DB suit to the seaside and would like to remove the coat in very warm situations, the button down is perfectly acceptable. One might, for example, prefer linen and cotton BD shirts with linen and fresco DBs and SBs worn with belted trousers in summertime. If it becomes unbearably warm, one can remove the jacket and maintain an elegant, sportive image.
There is another way to look at the subject. I remember a conversation with Mr. Maurizio Marinella a few years ago in his lovely store in Naples. Mr. Marinella, an exceptionally elegant man, explained that he had the majority of his shirts made up as BDs. His thinking was that having a wardrobe of custom shirts was an expensive investment and ideally it would be smart to get as much use from the shirts as possible in a variety of situations. To Marinella, the BD could be worn under a normal business suit since the collar’s points and buttons are covered by the lapel of the jacket. Therefore, the fact of the shirt being a BD is a moot point unless the jacket is removed. The same BD shirt can also be worn with sportswear and without a jacket in the hot summer months. In his way of thinking, the BD served two purposes admirably and the double usage amortized the bespoke investment well.
It should be stated that the Neapolitan shirt collars are a bit larger than a standard Jermyn Street collar and the collar points are as a consequence longer. This solution would not work well with a typical BD shirt as the points would not be long enough to fit under the lapel of the jacket. It is also true that many men prefer to remove their jackets at their workplace. In this case the wearing of a BD shirt would be seen.
The BD collar has other disadvantages. On the positive side of the ledger, the BD collar has a natural tie space of normally 2 cms, but the line of its points are very closed and vertical. This does not work well for those who prefer the more open “spread” or Windsor collar. And for many men, including yours truly, the Windsor collar is what looks best and is most harmonious with a suit, DB or SB.
The BD shirt is the least formal of shirt designs as the DB suit is the least formal of suitings. There is, therefore, a logic that says that these two can be paired. For every picture of Grant or Stewart not wearing a BD shirt one can find one of Astaire or Agnelli wearing same with a DB. Who is right?
Both Grant and Astaire are examples of men “making the clothes” elegant and not the contrary. So Grant is right and Astaire is not wrong. (Note: Etutee can you find a larger sample of the above Astaire photo?)
If one intends on wearing a DB suit in a conservative business environment, it would be best to stick to the plain collared shirt. (Of course there is an argument that would say that in a very conservative business environment, one will prefer a SB in any case.) If one is wearing a linen DB suit to the seaside and would like to remove the coat in very warm situations, the button down is perfectly acceptable. One might, for example, prefer linen and cotton BD shirts with linen and fresco DBs and SBs worn with belted trousers in summertime. If it becomes unbearably warm, one can remove the jacket and maintain an elegant, sportive image.
There is another way to look at the subject. I remember a conversation with Mr. Maurizio Marinella a few years ago in his lovely store in Naples. Mr. Marinella, an exceptionally elegant man, explained that he had the majority of his shirts made up as BDs. His thinking was that having a wardrobe of custom shirts was an expensive investment and ideally it would be smart to get as much use from the shirts as possible in a variety of situations. To Marinella, the BD could be worn under a normal business suit since the collar’s points and buttons are covered by the lapel of the jacket. Therefore, the fact of the shirt being a BD is a moot point unless the jacket is removed. The same BD shirt can also be worn with sportswear and without a jacket in the hot summer months. In his way of thinking, the BD served two purposes admirably and the double usage amortized the bespoke investment well.
It should be stated that the Neapolitan shirt collars are a bit larger than a standard Jermyn Street collar and the collar points are as a consequence longer. This solution would not work well with a typical BD shirt as the points would not be long enough to fit under the lapel of the jacket. It is also true that many men prefer to remove their jackets at their workplace. In this case the wearing of a BD shirt would be seen.
The BD collar has other disadvantages. On the positive side of the ledger, the BD collar has a natural tie space of normally 2 cms, but the line of its points are very closed and vertical. This does not work well for those who prefer the more open “spread” or Windsor collar. And for many men, including yours truly, the Windsor collar is what looks best and is most harmonious with a suit, DB or SB.
This surprises me, though I can understand the comparatively informal aspect of the DB from an historical prospective (say, from ca. 1780 to ca. 1840).alden wrote:. . . the DB suit is the least formal of suitings. . . .
. . . . ( . . . in a very conservative business environment, one will prefer a SB in any case.) . . . .
Otherwise, I should have thought the most conservative business suit to be a three-piece, single-breasted, and the least, a two-piece, single-breasted, with the DB (generally hiding the lack of a waistcoat, and thus more "closed" than a two-piece, single-breasted) between, regardless of whether it be worn with a waistcoat (though I would personally have put a three-piece DB at the most formal end of this short continuum). Perhaps my opinion is skewed by working in southern New England, where that scale of conservative dress -- 3-pce. SB, DB, 2-pce. SB -- seems to be the general measure.
RWS, I had the same reaction. I have always considered DB coats to be more formal than SB coats. Partly that's a historical effect: the modern DB coat is descended from the frock coat, which was the most formal day coat of the 19th century. But it's also a matter of intrinsic effect: the DB coat is closed across the front, peaked lapels are more formal and elegant than notch, etc.
"Conservative" and "formal" are not always the same thing, of course. Sometimes they collide. For instance, I would say that the patent oxford is the more conservative evening dress shoe, but the pump is slightly more formal. I would agree that SB coats are in almost all circumstances more conservative than DB coats. I almost agree that DB with a vest is the most formal suit one can wear. I would put the SB peak with a DB waistcoat one click ahead, however.
As to BDs with DBs ... admittedly, it looks good on Astaire and Agnelli. When I see it on the street or in an office building, well, that is another story. This is (yet another) rule that can be broken, breaking it successfully is hard. I think alden is right that the size and shape of the collar -- especially the length of the points -- is crucial. Small, no-roll BDs will not work with a DB coat.
"Conservative" and "formal" are not always the same thing, of course. Sometimes they collide. For instance, I would say that the patent oxford is the more conservative evening dress shoe, but the pump is slightly more formal. I would agree that SB coats are in almost all circumstances more conservative than DB coats. I almost agree that DB with a vest is the most formal suit one can wear. I would put the SB peak with a DB waistcoat one click ahead, however.
As to BDs with DBs ... admittedly, it looks good on Astaire and Agnelli. When I see it on the street or in an office building, well, that is another story. This is (yet another) rule that can be broken, breaking it successfully is hard. I think alden is right that the size and shape of the collar -- especially the length of the points -- is crucial. Small, no-roll BDs will not work with a DB coat.
From 1920s on, until a certain Windsor espoused them, DBs were considered too informal. In 1922 Emily Post takes the time to forbid the wearing of DB dinner jackets at all.
“The trousers are identical with full dress ones except that braid, if used at all, should be narrow. “Cuffed” trousers are not good form, nor should a dinner coat be double-breasted.”
See the full article at the following: http://www.bartleby.com/95/34.html
Windsor put the DB on the map, to the shock and dismay of his time, when he popularized its use. He single-handedly made DB dinner jackets a fashion that continues to this day.
In today’s usage in the US the DB is probably considered to be more formal. One used to be taught in England to dress 2B single breasted suits for wear at night outside of formal or semi-formal occasions. DBs were for day wear only. Things have changed, but at their origins in the early part of the last century the BD shirt and DB were at the bottom of the formal totem pole.
“The trousers are identical with full dress ones except that braid, if used at all, should be narrow. “Cuffed” trousers are not good form, nor should a dinner coat be double-breasted.”
See the full article at the following: http://www.bartleby.com/95/34.html
Windsor put the DB on the map, to the shock and dismay of his time, when he popularized its use. He single-handedly made DB dinner jackets a fashion that continues to this day.
In today’s usage in the US the DB is probably considered to be more formal. One used to be taught in England to dress 2B single breasted suits for wear at night outside of formal or semi-formal occasions. DBs were for day wear only. Things have changed, but at their origins in the early part of the last century the BD shirt and DB were at the bottom of the formal totem pole.
Last edited by alden on Mon Oct 31, 2005 2:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Interesting. Over here, DB has long been considered the best coat for an evening out, short of the DJ, of course. I would bet that the difference has something to do with the prevelance of "dressing for dinner" over there. It never really caught on here, certainly not to the same extent.alden wrote:DBs were for day wear only.
That's an interesting idea. I imagine that at some time in the US, people dressed for dinner, but that the trend did not survive. Most people these days barely have time for dinner, much less dressing for same.
Emily Post was American, born in Baltimore. Her book on Etiquette of 1922 was probably greatly influenced by Old World etiquette but was intended for an American society minded readership.
Emily Post was American, born in Baltimore. Her book on Etiquette of 1922 was probably greatly influenced by Old World etiquette but was intended for an American society minded readership.
You missed the point completely, which was not about rules or standards or practices or guidelines; rather it was about those who set themselves up as the interpreters and keepers of those rules, etc. What I am unclear about is just how you have gone about determining how much evolution of a style you are willing to allow (style itself doesn't make this determination, only self-styled arbiters)?manton wrote: Once again, if we must have this semantic debate over what is a "rule" or a "standard" or a "practice" or a "guideline", I am prepared to have it. In the meantime, I would only ask those who inisist that there are no rules and mock anyone who insists that there are: Would you wear a purple notched lapel tailcoat with a buttondown shirt and a long tie and tan suede loafers in the daytime? And if not, why not?
In both cases at issue, button-down collars and double cuffs, they have evolved from their origins into something quite different, yet you would fix them at some arbitrary point in this evolution, saying, in essence, "this far and no farther". Or do I misread you and you would really not even allow the button-down to be anything other than a sporting shirt, fit only for the polo field?
What truly surprises is that even when such a stylistically iconic figure as Cary Grant chooses to pair up a button-down collar with a double cuff (which, BTW, he also did in the penultimate scenes in "North by Northwest"), you set yourself above him and dismiss it and him out-of-hand with such perceptive comments as, "Ugly, ugly, ugly", totally missing the aesthetic rightness of a soft collar with a soft cuff. You equate this with something as aesthetically and logically absurd as your "purple tailcoat... and tan suede loafers".
Perhaps I did overstate with the Mammoth comment. Upon reflection, I realize you probably would have stopped with the fig leaf (I, personally, would have stopped with naked, but that's another story
).Not only did it not survive, I don't think it was ever nearly as robust here as it was in England. American "society" (meaning high society) was much more diffuse than English society, which after all had deeper and older roots. American society was also spread out over more cities and places. It had no true capital like London but many centers (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, others). Also, America was always more democratic, and democratically minded people frown on exclusive customs. Even the upper classes go a little out of their way to pretend that they are not really an upper class at all.alden wrote:That's an interesting idea. I imagine that at some time in the US, people dressed for dinner, but that the trend did not survive.
rip, yours is obviously a good point, as the rules have changed over the years. The rules of what was appropriate to wear in 1875 were very much different than in 1930. Watch some of the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes and you will see more 5, 6-button suits than you thought possible. Rounded detachable collars also used to be a "rule" that does not survive. In some sense, then, there has to be some flexibility to acount for changing times.
At the same time, a "conservative" view of the rules would be just that: to conserve the rules as they currently stand and not make any changes or allowances unless it's entirely necessary. Even those who adhere stringently to the rules can often be caught saying, "Well, you could get away with it, but it's not actually 100% appropriate." So, there is some flexibility in there.
I think the "rules," as they are currently are advocated, take their cue from the 20th century conventions - like 1920s or 30s and on.
Going back to what it means to look at the rules conservatively, I think that since we've seen such a casualization (if I can make up a word) of dress in the past 50 years, I think there is even more reason to freeze the rules as they were when jackets and ties were last worn by a majority of the populus on a daily basis.
Is it presumptuous of me to suggest that we have reached the culmination of the evolution of design? Probably. My premise, of course, has been that while tailored clothing styles were still "evolving" at the turn of the 19th Century, it no longer is: we have reached the end of the road. That premise is surely not entirely accurate. I'm afraid, sadly, that at this point we're are going to see less of an evolution of styles and more of a steady extinction of the tailored styles that we have come to know and love, not replaced by other suit styles, but rather newer casual styles.
So, I suppose that my theory on the subject is that whereas there once was a time to be daring in your attire, to take a chance - like cutting off the tails of one's tailcoat and giving birth to the DJ as we know it [gasp!] - those times are over.
However, we reached some sort of point in the 19th century, at a time when casual wear hadn't taken over everyday life yet. My reasons for having the rules the way they are thus two-fold: I not only like the styles and the "rules" that existed at this time from an aesthetic point of view, but I also think that conserving them as they existed at that point makes sense from a historical point of view too. The rules preserve that point, that culmination of tailored style before before the casualization - they preserve a moment in the history of style and tailoring that deserves to be preserved and not lost completely.
At the same time, a "conservative" view of the rules would be just that: to conserve the rules as they currently stand and not make any changes or allowances unless it's entirely necessary. Even those who adhere stringently to the rules can often be caught saying, "Well, you could get away with it, but it's not actually 100% appropriate." So, there is some flexibility in there.
I think the "rules," as they are currently are advocated, take their cue from the 20th century conventions - like 1920s or 30s and on.
Going back to what it means to look at the rules conservatively, I think that since we've seen such a casualization (if I can make up a word) of dress in the past 50 years, I think there is even more reason to freeze the rules as they were when jackets and ties were last worn by a majority of the populus on a daily basis.
Is it presumptuous of me to suggest that we have reached the culmination of the evolution of design? Probably. My premise, of course, has been that while tailored clothing styles were still "evolving" at the turn of the 19th Century, it no longer is: we have reached the end of the road. That premise is surely not entirely accurate. I'm afraid, sadly, that at this point we're are going to see less of an evolution of styles and more of a steady extinction of the tailored styles that we have come to know and love, not replaced by other suit styles, but rather newer casual styles.
So, I suppose that my theory on the subject is that whereas there once was a time to be daring in your attire, to take a chance - like cutting off the tails of one's tailcoat and giving birth to the DJ as we know it [gasp!] - those times are over.
However, we reached some sort of point in the 19th century, at a time when casual wear hadn't taken over everyday life yet. My reasons for having the rules the way they are thus two-fold: I not only like the styles and the "rules" that existed at this time from an aesthetic point of view, but I also think that conserving them as they existed at that point makes sense from a historical point of view too. The rules preserve that point, that culmination of tailored style before before the casualization - they preserve a moment in the history of style and tailoring that deserves to be preserved and not lost completely.
Then I would submit that you and not I "missed the point completely." I did not and do not set myself up as the "interpreter and keeper of the rules". I stated my opinion that such a shirt is ugly. And I stated the fact that, in the London/New York/Italian sartorial tradition, button-down shirts do not take French cuffs. After that I gave some reasons as to how and why that fact came to be. My opinion is merely that and as such not really a matter for dispute. If I am wrong on the facts, then I would welcome being corrected.rip wrote:You missed the point completely, which was not about rules or standards or practices or guidelines; rather it was about those who set themselves up as the interpreters and keepers of those rules, etc.
It is not a question of what I or any individual (except for perhaps the handful of great style innovators) is willing to allow. It is a question of what becomes generally accepted by the most accomplished dressers and by society at large. There is an enormous element of convention and irrationality and evolution in this. And, no, "style" does not get to make this or any determination because "style" has no noetic capabaility. Only God and the human mind have that.What I am unclear about is just how you have gone about determining how much evolution of a style you are willing to allow (style itself doesn't make this determination, only self-styled arbiters)?
In both cases at issue, button-down collars and double cuffs, they have evolved from their origins into something quite different, yet you would fix them at some arbitrary point in this evolution, saying, in essence, "this far and no farther".
Again, I did not fix them. I stated my opinion, and I stated a fact. My opinion may not coincide with your taste. De gustibus. My statement of fact may be wrong (though I don't think it is). If someone thinks it is, I await an argument.
No, as to the specific case, I said one thing and one thing only: button down collars should not be paired with link cuffs (whether single or doube).Or do I misread you and you would really not even allow the button-down to be anything other than a sporting shirt, fit only for the polo field?
Cary Grant is not an authority, except as to the tastes of Cary Grant. He was certainly a well dressed man, one of the very best. Yet in this case he went off the rails. Astair pinned button-down collars. I wouldn't do that either. I would even say that it is against the rules. Yet I still believe that Astaire was the best-dressed man of the 20th century. Again, the issue is not whether examples of this or that rule being broken by well dressed men can be found. Of course they can. The issue is whether any rules exist independently of whether you or I or Cary Grant say so or act otherwise. I say they do, based on my reading, observation, conversations, and experience.What truly surprises is that even when such a stylistically iconic figure as Cary Grant chooses to pair up a button-down collar with a double cuff (which, BTW, he also did in the penultimate scenes in "North by Northwest"), you set yourself above him and dismiss it and him out-of-hand with such perceptive comments as, "Ugly, ugly, ugly", totally missing the aesthetic rightness of a soft collar with a soft cuff.
As to the issue of softness, I agree that soft collars ought to be paired with soft cuffs. I still think that link cuffs, no matter how soft, are too formal to be paired with button-down collars. That is both my opinion and (I believe) the regnant practice of the best dressers and shirtmakers over the past 80 or so years.
Here I think you really do miss the point. Once you admit that any article of clothing or sartorial practice can be "aesthetically and logically absurd" you have conceded the main principle. All such combinations are inherenly conventional. There is nothing in nature (or scripture) which says that DB coats should not have notched lapels, for instance. But tradition and convention and practice say that they indeed should not. Now that is an extreme case. So is the purple tailcoat. The french cuff BD is arguably much less extreme. But the principles which forbid each are identical.You equate this with something as aesthetically and logically absurd as your "purple tailcoat... and tan suede loafers".
This is a crude insult which adds nothing to the discussion and I think is out of place on a gentlemen's forum.Perhaps I did overstate with the Mammoth comment. Upon reflection, I realize you probably would have stopped with the fig leaf.
-
Cufflink79
- Posts: 711
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:16 pm
- Contact:
Wow I had no idea that I would set off some tempers in this post. I better be more careful. Etutee, thank you for the nice photos that you have put up. How did you find those pictures? Cary Grant is still my haberdashery hero even if he has brokem a rule or two.
Best Regards,
Cufflink79
Best Regards,
Cufflink79
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests