Button down collar with double cuffs.

[manton]

Wow I had no idea that I would set off some tempers in this post. I better be more careful.

Don't be careful on my account. My temper is a cool as a can of refrigerated selzer.

[Cufflink79]

Don't be careful on my account. My temper is a cool as a can of refrigerated selzer.

Ok, glad to hear that Manton.

Best Regards,

Cufflink79

[le.gentleman]

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.

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.

Dear manton, dear rip,

in my opinion you are both correct in your own way. Manton expressed his opinion supported by "the rules" - and he is correct about everything he said. On the other hand, the point rip focused on, was those who set themselves up as the interpreters and keepers of those rules...

Personally I do have a BD shirts with french cuffs and 3 closure buttons on top - this contradicts every rule. Nevertheless, I wear it as I personally think that style is what you make of it...I for myself hate BD shirts with a tie but that is personal taste...
Nevertheless, as we are all sophisticated gentlemen, I think there is no need to offend any other members' opinions in a 'rude tone'.

[cuffthis]

sheez, I have to plan the opening of my next business venture more timely. I missed this whole (great) thread as I am way behind my LL reading.

For the record, I loathe the BD and double cuff look. IMHO, it is a classic example of a bad marriage of a formal and informal look together. I would expect a shirt of this design to be worn with a DB suit and notched lapels.

[manton]

sheez, I have to plan the opening of my next business venture more timely.

Tom, how is it going?

[Metcalfe]

Gentlemen:

Why are we dressing? Mr. Alden focuses our discussion productively on a theory of elegance, a theory of grace. What combination of cuff and collar allows an audience to focus their undivided attention on the man--instead of his clothing?

I think of dressing as a form of communication, comparable to writing. I typically write for others. That's why I value Joseph Williams's insights on "Correctness" from his book, Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. I've typed a few passages so you can appreciate how his principles for writing inform our discussion.

"Here's the point: If writers and readers we judge competent do not think that sentences beginning with and are a problem, then it is not those writers who should change their useage, but grammarians who should change their rules. If vast numbers of otherwise careful writers choose to "violate" some alleged rule of usage and the vast majority of their otherwise careful readers don't notice, then regardless of what any editor or grammarian says, the useage in question cannot be a grammatical error."

I value this passage for our discussion because it speaks directly to Cary Grant wearing double cuffs and a button-down shirt in Notorious. We've all seen that film--Giorgio Armani's favorite film--and yet almost no one noticed the rule had been broken until it was brought to our attention. I would ammend Williams's principle so that it wouldn't require "vast numbers" to invalidate a rule. One thoughtful style leader should be sufficient to raise the question of whether a rule matters for preserving elegance.

Williams continues by distinguishing two types of rules:

"Folklore. When you violate "rules" like these, few careful readers notice, much less care. So these are not rules at all, but folklore you can ignore, unless you are writing for someone with the power to demand whatever kind of writing that person idiosyncrastically prefers."

"Options. When you ignore these rules, few readers will notice. But paradoxically, some readers will notice when you observe them, because when you do, you signal special formality. So you can observe these rules or not, depending on how you want to impress different groups of readers."

I think the "Options" definition governs double cufffs and button-downs. The choice can only be answered intelligently in relation to the audience and what the wearer hopes to communicate in the way of formality. Would I wear that combination to St. James's Palace? Absolutely not! Would I wear that combination to dinner at a restaurant in St. James's? Certainly.

Several London Lounge Members have demonstrated an impressive command over historical details. But what really matters is why we dress and for whom.

Fruity Metcalfe

[manton]

Why are we dressing

Speaking only for myself:

1) To keep warm
2) To avoid fiscal ruin and social ostracism
3) To look good.

In that order.

What combination of cuff and collar allows an audience to focus their undivided attention on the man--instead of his clothing?

I think any of the traditional combinations will accomplish that. It's when one veers far outside the traditional that one draws unwanted attention to one's clothes. I think the BD/FC combination is too outré to be sublte.

"Here's the point: If writers and readers we judge competent do not think that sentences beginning with and are a problem, then it is not those writers who should change their useage, but grammarians who should change their rules. If vast numbers of otherwise careful writers choose to "violate" some alleged rule of usage and the vast majority of their otherwise careful readers don't notice, then regardless of what any editor or grammarian says, the useage in question cannot be a grammatical error."

I disagree with this. An error is an error no matter what the common usage, and in spite of the fact that elegant sentences can be crafted with deliberate errors. For instance, the rule "don't split an infinitive" can be unwieldy and result in some real stylistic clunkers. So good writers break it when they must. But the rule is still the rule. It is not "alleged."

Language of course evolves. Rules die. New ones are invented. It is hard to say at what precise point a long-ignored rule no longer has force. As always, the borderline cases are the hardest to judge.

Also, the creation of new rules and the death of old ones often originate from rule breakage. I do not deny that. But to condude from the fact that something is done that therefore it cannot be wrong is a logical fallacy. People say "ain't." Decades of repetition have not made it a word.

I would ammend Williams's principle so that it wouldn't require "vast numbers" to invalidate a rule. One thoughtful style leader should be sufficient to raise the question of whether a rule matters for preserving elegance.

One thoughtful style leader can raise the question. It's less clear than one person can both raise and answer it. Some rule violations result in a look so clearly elegant that the rule almost immediately dies everywhere but in the minds of the most conservative. For instance, suede shoes with a city suit. Others never catch on because they don't have much in the way of intrinsic worth to offer. I would put BD shirts with french cuffs in that category.

"Folklore. When you violate "rules" like these, few careful readers notice, much less care. So these are not rules at all, but folklore you can ignore"

Again, I disagree with this. Or at least half of it. Of course anyone can ignore any rule he wants. People can wear whatever they want, and write any way they like. Consequences will ensue, and they should be aware of that, but that is a topic for another thread. But the fact that our conduct in these matters is up to us does not constitute a proof, or even evidence, that there are no rules.

That is, by the way, really the only thing that I keep on insisting: the extistence of rules or standards or practices or traditions (or whatever you want to call them) that govern what should be worn and how if one wants to look "correct" according to traditional, societal norms, but which are by no means binding. That is all. I am consistently surprised that this mere assertion of existence proves so consistently controversial, but there we are.

"Options. When you ignore these rules, few readers will notice. But paradoxically, some readers will notice when you observe them, because when you do, you signal special formality. So you can observe these rules or not, depending on how you want to impress different groups of readers."

I think the "Options" definition governs double cufffs and button-downs.

I disagree once again. Given the definition above of "option", the BD/FC shirt would seem to be precisely the opposite. Since it is so rarely seen, and considered "naff" (to borrow from Hardy Amies) by so many dressers and makers, it stands out. Whereas following the no FC with BD rule definitely does not "signal special formality." It is to follow common usage, and is thus largely unremarkable -- to say nothing of the fact that the BD shirt is inherently informal.

The choice can only be answered intelligently in relation to the audience and what the wearer hopes to communicate in the way of formality.

Really? All other answers and argments are a priori unintelligent?

Would I wear that combination to St. James's Palace? Absolutely not! Would I wear that combination to dinner at a restaurant in St. James's? Certainly.

I would not wear it at all, anywhere. Less because of the rule, more because I find it ugly. But I think there is a connection: some rules come into being to discourage ugliness.

Several London Lounge Members have demonstrated an impressive command over historical details. But what really matters is why we dress and for whom.

Historical details are described when people ask, or when they help to shed light on the origin of a rule or practice. Some members also find them intrinsically interesting. I don't recall anyone suggesting that we should take all our dressing cues from history, and follow historical practice by rote.

[Metcalfe]

Manton,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply and clarification. I now appreciate your position on the existence of rules:

"That is, by the way, really the only thing that I keep on insisting: the extistence of rules or standards or practices or traditions (or whatever you want to call them) that govern what should be worn and how if one wants to look "correct" according to traditional, societal norms, but which are by no means binding. That is all. I am consistently surprised that this mere assertion of existence proves so consistently controversial, but there we are."

As noted in the related thread on collars, the vast production of double cuff shirts with spread collars (not button-down collars) for RTW establishes the rule or norm. The data support you. But I found Cary Grant's choice of button-down collar in Notorious informative for our discussion because even though most LL Members could tell you the rule and usually follow it, almost no one noticed when Grant violated it. Violating that rule doesn't appear to reduce the clarity or grace of Grant's performance--the only standard I use for evaluating rules (borrowing from Joseph Williams's advice on writing). However, I respect that you're dressing for the 99th percentile of professionals and that you've reduced the odds of offending or distracting anyone by honoring that rule. Joseph Williams would tell you the same about using "which" and "that" correctly according to the 1906 rule established by grammarians at Oxford.

Fruity Metcalfe

[BirdofSydney]

I wonder, and I say this without any overt or concealed malice or desire to perpetuate any controversy, what we feel about the following proposition:

It is proposed that a prominent and well-dressed gent sponsoring an item of clothing cannot redeem the fact that it is unsuitable or unsightly under the circumstances.

By and large the reason that we consider a man to be a style leader, in my opinion, is that they are a constant and consistent apotheosis of those styles we consider timeless, and yet simultaneously manage to subtly update them. We do not, by and large, look to them to create new garments, but to display perfectly cut and matched specimens of the finest garments of the ages, and continuously keep them up to date. "Trends" amongst proper menswear, then, are really a case of certain garment becoming particularly visible in the public consciousness, or associated with a particular lifestyle, rather than materialising out of the aether. At their heart, garments are born of function, not conjured out of whimsy.

To be sure, one aberration, such as the BD/FC in Notorious (if indeed an aberration it be, and I say it probably is, but this is merely an example), worn once, is an eccentricity, a vicissitude of fortune, not a trend. For all we know, perhaps it was a brand new shirt, and the tailor made an egregious error, yet the filming schedule permitted no replacement. Perhaps Grant had a big night beforehand, and slipped on a shirt in error which was never meant to be worn on screen, and had only been purchased on a whim as an experiment. We cannot know. He may have even hoped to start a trend, spontaneously generating an idea which failed the test of selective retention because it lacked the logic that is at the heart of dress (to borrow the language of biological evolution).

One aberration is not enough to cost a man his status as a fashion leader, but a multitude more may well do so. Had Astaire or Grant had a volte-face mid career, and began to dress in a consciously perverse fashion, their status could not have imparted credibility on their choices, rather their choices would have quickly sapped their sartorial status. There is a fine line between innovation and tearing up the rulebook, a line walked expertly by the Duke, for example, though I must note that many of his stylistic choices were considered radical at the time. That said, they were logical choices, and with the benefit of hindsight, we may see the majesty of many of his outfits in the sense that they were intended. But, if anyone could buoy a potentially questionable innovation, it was the Duke. That said, had he worn his Fair Isle sweater not to golf, but to dinner, one supposes that his noble birth and generally immaculate style could not prevent such a move being seen as perverse.

My point, if I indeed have one, is that menswear is a relatively finite vocabulary. Eminent persons may adopt a bold style on account of their eminence (or at least, be the visible exponent of the style, for in reality it is potentially worn by a great many men of no note already), and popularise it thereby, but they are lending no more than visibility and perhaps elegant accesorisation to styles that stand or fall on their rationality and inherent attractiveness. To do otherwise would be the equivalent of shopping blind and judging by label alone.

To bring this home to the example at hand, then, I would cautiously argue that, even if Grant, Astaire and the Duke (for example) all consistently wore the BD/FC combination, it would still be "wrong". On the other hand, I suppose, if the origins and associations of the button down collar were grounded in these gents' dressed-up lifestyle, rather than in equestrian practicality, it is possible that it would be appropriately teamed with french cuffs.

Not to stretch the point to far, but let us suppose that polo was never played in button downs. Instead, let us say a British royal one day decided that it would look elegant to display two especially fine mother-of-pearl buttons on his collar, and had a shirt made thus, and the collar style thus grew up in such circumstances and such circles, it may be considered dressy rather than sporty. Likewise, if cufflinks were adopted not as jewellery by the King of France, but as a practical device by sportsmen to keep unwieldy sleeves slipping down, their associations may be different also.

As it happens, neither of these suppositions is the case. In the real world, button-downs are sporty and French cuffs are formal, and this is unlikely to change at all soon.

Best,

Eden

[BirdofSydney]

As noted in the related thread on collars, the vast production of double cuff shirts with spread collars (not button-down collars) for RTW establishes the rule or norm. The data support you.

To further my point then, sir, I would respectfully argue that the style was "right" before it was produced en masse, due either to the origins of spread collars, or their inherent aesthetic features. Their popularity is an incident of their correctness, not the source. Numbers are of less importance. But, I may be reading more than I ought into your statement. I do not mean to quarrel.

With kind regards,

Eden

[manton]

As noted in the related thread on collars, the vast production of double cuff shirts with spread collars (not button-down collars) for RTW establishes the rule or norm.

I don't think this is quite right. I think the rule actually came first. It was developed by shirtmakers and clients (and the opinion of "society) over a few years. RTW manufacturers simply followed suit. This is the way it works in men's style for the most part. Style leaders and their bespoke artisans set the tone and the styles. RTW follows.

Even so, today one is much more likely to see the rule violated by RTW makers than by bespoke artisans. This is due primarily to the visectitudes of fashion (and the need of the RTW industry to constantly introduce new products and ideas) and to their lack of knowledge. Whereas if you walked into Battistoni or Charvet or Turnbull & Asser or Kabbaz and asked for a BD shirt with french cuffs, at a minimum, they would try to talk you out of it. I dare say some would refuse to make it.

However, I respect that you're dressing for the 99th percentile of professionals and that you've reduced the odds of offending or distracting anyone by honoring that rule.

I must not be making myself clear. To repeat: I refuse to buy or wear BD/FC shirts because I find them ugly, not because they violate a rule, and not because I fear they will offend someone. There are rules which I cheerfully violate if the violation is more elegant than the rule.

I do suspect, however, that in this particular chicken-and-egg conundrum, the ugliness is the source of the rule. Decades ago, the majority of men and shirtmakers also found the style ugly and incongruous, and thus the rule came into being.

[Mark Seitelman]

I think that Cary Grant (or the costume designer or Alfred Hitchcock) utilized the buttondown to make Grant look more American as a CIA operative. However, they stopped short of making Grant wear the equivalent of a Brooks buttondown. Notice that Grant's collar is long and is similar to his straight collars (with cuffs) that he wore in the 1950's.

I don't think that Grant wore the button down with cuffs again.

I have no hard information about the production of "Notorious", but it is my guess that Sir Alfred would have had a major say in Grant's wardrobe if not the final say. Hitchcock tightly controlled the "look" of his films including the sets and costumes. E.g., he went shopping with Eva Marie Saint at Bergdorf Goodman (when Bergdorf's was Bergdorf's) for "North by Northwest." I have heard that there was a recording of a discussion between Grant and Hitchcock as to wardrobe in "To Catch a Thief." Htichcock did a story board for each shot. He started in flims in set design. His films have a definite look. See the recent book, "Hitchcock Style."

Cheers.

[Etutee]

Well… what a discussion!

I think that Cary Grant (or the costume designer or Alfred Hitchcock) utilized the buttondown to make Grant look more American as a CIA operative. However, they stopped short of making Grant wear the equivalent of a Brooks buttondown. Notice that Grant's collar is long and is similar to his straight collars (with cuffs) that he wore in the 1950's.

Mark… you took the words from my mouth! I was just about to suggest that. There are some unusual things in Notorious, especially when compared with other Grant movies. The last time I saw the movie was about some 10 years ago… maybe even longer and that was on TV. You tend to notice these things less because there is no pause, slow-motion or rewind. Why did I miss the button-down & double cuff combo beats me….may be too much Ingrid Bergman or a stunning plot. That shirt cuff combo is present in 3/4th of the movie in multiple scenes… let alone the last one. I know excuses, excuses but I did notice something even the last time and took notes. I retrieved these yesterday… and even many years ago I noticed that it was one of the first movies where Grant wore a SB jacket with a center vent. This time when I saw it… I spared nothing and took notes for almost everything. It was interesting to note that later in the movie Grant is wearing a SB peak dinner suit with low cut vest (showing two studs on pique turndown collar shirt)… when all the Nazi’s and the guests are mostly in DB dinner jackets. see the picture below.

Close up of Grant’s dinner shirt

This was 40s when Grant was thoroughly using DB dinner jackets himself in most of his movies. Yes, later in 50s he adopted SB for both lounge and dinner attire. Plus, there is a scene of him wearing button downs with DB chalk stripe suit… which again is unusual from him in mid-40s. All of this certainly cannot be without a cause and I think this is where your observation seems correct. It had to do something with it, one way or another. Whether it was Hitchcock’s idea to make these changes or Grant’s himself… is rather tough to say but there is a change in pattern for sure. See, this was not typical of Grant’s role either; those being in Philadelphia Story, An affair to remember, I am no Angel, Holiday, Awful Truth, etc.

In all of these pictures below he is wearing the same button-down and double cuff combination.

Cary Grant BD collar shirt 1

Cary Grant BD collar shirt 2

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?

I have a surprise for you. Look below at the picture to see what I uncovered from Notorious.



Grant in DB with button-down. At that far up with Astaire, Grant or Agnelli, it is very tough to say who is right… These people had their style preferences and I have no doubt in my mind that they were also perfectly aware of what they were doing (when breaking rules) and all of that is fine with me. Although, this is one of the primary reasons why I place Adolphe Menjou over any one else. He had no peers (in cinema) in my opinion… when it comes to being correct for the occasion.

(Note: Etutee can you find a larger sample of the above Astaire photo?)

Yep I have that picture… the question is if I can find it?

From 1920s on, until a certain Windsor espoused them, DBs were considered too informal.

Not only informal but fresh and new… & thereby a preferred choice of the younger generation. I think I have explained this concept in one of my posts before…

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.

Yep… he is to be held primarily responsible for that. In the strictest possible sense DB dinner jacket is best reserved for summer / resort wear, at home or at (very informal) black-tie events. That, however, is a pre 30s rule.

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.

This is a very interesting topic of discussion. As I have understood the level of formality; a DB suit is less formal than the SB one but here is the key… A 3-pc SB suit Not a 2-pc. Back in the days… hardly any 2-pc SB were scene (except summer days or resort wear) so the distinction as observed was easy to spot. This gets complicated when you add a 3-pc DB into the bracket. Whether it is more formal than a 3-pc SB peak lapel suit… with SB vest, is very tough to say. In current days…a DB 3-pc would probably be placed at a higher formality by most people… mainly because DB in general (especially in US) is considered more formal. Now as you mentioned, about the SB peak with a DB waistcoat… this was regarded back then to be one of the most formal of lounge suits & I myself place this on top of anything. Much of that has to do with its uncanny resemblance with formal day wear garb. This whole distinction was very easy in formal wear, where without a doubt DB articles were less formal than their SB counterparts…May that be evening or day.

Etutee, thank you for the nice photos that you have put up. How did you find those pictures?

You have to run the film through a software program in which film is broken into frames per second (or variable rates) then take stills from there and use additional photo rendering software for editing purposes. It is a pain-in-the-posterior with VHS movies but much easier with DVDs.

Sincerely
etutee

[iammatt]

On page 134 of Dressing the Man, Luciano Barbera is wearing what appears to be a double breasted suit, with a button down collar with unbuttoned points.

[BirdofSydney]

This is a very interesting topic of discussion. As I have understood the level of formality; a DB suit is less formal than the SB one but here is the key… A 3-pc SB suit Not a 2-pc.

One piece of evidence, at least, may be this. We have (with I think no remaining reservations) established that the button-down collar is casual. One may wear one with a 2pc SB suit. One may, at a stretch, wear one with a 2pc DB suit. One should never wear one with a 3pc SB suit however, I would think, though I'm sure I've seen it done! To me, that suggests, were there any doubt, that a 3pc SB is more formal than a 2pc DB.

Why is the DB considered more formal by some? I would suggest, for a start, the perception of formality may be due to the military overtones of a DB jacket. It may be due to the fact that it is a style worn by few young men, and indeed a style which is rarely made well in RTW, such that most that one sees will be bespoke? That it is further a style at least typically embraced my men of grander proportions (though it can look excellent on small men)? Even that the extra cloth serves no especial practical purpose, and can be seen as an embellishment therefore?

Cheers,

Eden