Button down collar with double cuffs.

[Metcalfe]

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.

I've been thinking about how we could design an experiment to determine if the combination of a button-down collar and double cuff is intrinsically ugly (the alternative hypothesis) or whether a random sample of people would be indifferent to the choice--just as we seemed to ignore Cary Grant's choice (the null hypothesis). Designing the experiment raised the following questions:

(1) Should experimental evaluations of ugliness seek trial participants who are naive to the history of clothing? Or is historical cohesion between cuff and collar a fair criterion for evaluating ugliness? I would opt for the former group, but I suspect that Manton might want to study people who were familiar with original role of the button-down.

(2) Which outcomes should we investigate? For example, we could study the number of seconds until participants' eye darted back and forth between cuff and collar. Or we could ask participants to rate the overall attractiveness of the clothing. I'm obsessed with understatement to facilitate the exchange of ideas. But Manton tells us that his third reason for dressing is to look good; he might prefer the second outcome.

(3) By what margin must participants reject the naff button-down over the rule-honoring spread collar when paired with a double cuff? What constitutes an aesthetically meaningful difference?

(4) When we take the two photos--a man wearing the button-down/double cuff and a man wearing a spread collar/double cuff--what else should he wear? I could imagine that we would get different results if it's a worsted navy suit vs. a tweed jacket. Should he wear a woven tie or a knit tie? Should he wear metal cuff links or silk knots? I suspect that the visual interaction of the button-down with the ensemble will produce different findings. The choice of man for the photo may matter, too. For example, Cary Grant may be so attractive that few people notice any minor details.

I remain skeptical that ugliness is the source of the rule. I suspect that it would be difficult to produce numeric evidence that people find one combination intrisically uglier. However, I admit that the ugliness findings may depend on numerous considerations, some of them concerning the audience, some of them concerning the man dressing. Would such an experiment (or set of experiments) settle the matter for LL Members?

Fruity Mecalfe

[Metcalfe]

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.

Eden,

Your deep thinking on the question prompted me to design the experiment outlined above. Your paragraph on the hypothetical royal and the dressy button-down brings fresh insight. But it fascinates me that you situate the problem in an inevitable historical context. I'm more interested in evaluating the intrinsic elegance or grace of the button-down/double cuff today--as if there were no history to shape our thinking about sportiness.

I'm trying to refute the combination on principles of balance, proportion, etc. But the generosity of cotton folded over itself in the long-roll (Brooks) button-down almost mirrors the generosity of cotton folded twice for the cuff. Both cuff and collar seem luxurious because they could be accomplished with less material and fewer closures. The combination almost begs for a double-breasted jacket to complete the ensemble (i.e., excess cloth and buttons/links). I think it would deserve the thick mother-of-pearl buttons for the collar that you hypothesized above to balance the slik knots on the cuffs.

Fruity Metcalfe

[RWS]

. . . . I remain skeptical that ugliness is the source of the rule. I suspect that it would be difficult to produce numeric evidence that people find one combination intrisically uglier. However, I admit that the ugliness findings may depend on numerous considerations, some of them concerning the audience, some of them concerning the man dressing. Would such an experiment (or set of experiments) settle the matter for LL Members?

Fruity Mecalfe

Ugliness is the spring for my disdaining to pair buttondown collar with double cuffs. I may be informed by precedent, but I would disregard that (even though I am a former historian) were I to consider the result of traducing history as aesthetically superior. I likewise am little concerned with the results of a psycho-sociological poll: it is my own aesthetic that most concerns me.

As for that aesthetic: it appears that most other Loungers subscribe to it, though a vocal minority does not. Let that minority wear the combination, and let us see a more general reaction!

[maxnharry]

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.

Eden,

Your deep thinking on the question prompted me to design the experiment outlined above. Your paragraph on the hypothetical royal and the dressy button-down brings fresh insight. But it fascinates me that you situate the problem in an inevitable historical context. I'm more interested in evaluating the intrinsic elegance or grace of the button-down/double cuff today--as if there were no history to shape our thinking about sportiness.

I'm trying to refute the combination on principles of balance, proportion, etc. But the generosity of cotton folded over itself in the long-roll (Brooks) button-down almost mirrors the generosity of cotton folded twice for the cuff. Both cuff and collar seem luxurious because they could be accomplished with less material and fewer closures. The combination almost begs for a double-breasted jacket to complete the ensemble (i.e., excess cloth and buttons/links). I think it would deserve the thick mother-of-pearl buttons for the collar that you hypothesized above to balance the slik knots on the cuffs.

Fruity Metcalfe

When presented so logically, I think that I agree with your premise about the folded over layers of cloth. I think it is the buttons that trouble, but again the front of the shirt has buttons, so it is not as if buttons are prohibited anywhere on a dress shirt.

This clearly is a cousin of the "no brown in the City" rule. There's little to explain either rule (particularly today), but the rules still hold with those who care. Since we're unable to enforce the "no hoodies in the City" or "no g-strings poking out of your jeans in the City" rule, it would seem that rule on no button down/double cuff shirts has been passed by by time.

If you chose to enforce these rules personally (or even wear a suit like members of this august body), my hat is off to you.

[manton]

This clearly is a cousin of the "no brown in the City" rule.

I don't think so. I think there are two basic types of "rules." The first and more fundamental governs how things should be made. E.g., no notched lapels on a DB coat. Or, for that matter, no French cuffs on a BD shirt. The second set of rules governs what may be properly or "correctly" worn with what and when. E.g., no BD shirts with DB coats. Let us call the first set "construction" rules and the second "usage" rules. The latter are much easier to break elegantly.

No brown in town is a usage rule. The idea was that earth tones belong in the country, whereas somber blues and grays are best for the city. It was probably in part a midly snobbish attempt to distinguish those who "get it" and "belong" from those who do not. But it also had an aesthetic rationale. Different cloths and colors for different settings and purposes help to differentiate a wardrobe, enliven one's closet, and widen one's options. That may seem counterintuitive, in that the upshot of the rule was to forbid a color from a certain setting. But look at it another way. In the absense of the rule, when anything can be worn anywhere, the inevitable result is homogeonization. The differences between town and country, and work and play, erode. Certain cloths and colors are more or less abandoned. Everybody starts wearing the same stuff everywhere. Boring. The only advantage is that we save money.

That said, the no brown in town rule has been broken with some regularity by well dressed men for decades. It was even formally "rescinded" in 1993 by the Federation of Merchant Tailors. Those who still abide by it are, I suppose, those who need to (those who would be scoffed at by their peers if they wore brown), and those who want to (for whatever reason).

There's little to explain either rule (particularly today),

I disagree with this, too. There is plenty to explain most of the rules. Where the explanations necessarily fall short is if someone demands incontrovertible proof of a rule's existence or its origin.

it would seem that rule on no button down/double cuff shirts has been passed by by time.

Oh, I don't think so. This rule should hold until collared shirts and tailored jackets both die.

[Cufflink79]

Dear Etutee:
Thanks for answering my question about the photo process. I sincerely appreciate all of your hard work. My good friend Jess Blea told me that a lot of shirts from the Paul Fredrick catalog were sold with BD collar and double cuffs as well.

Best Regards,

Cufflink79

[Metcalfe]

RWS wrote:

"Ugliness is the spring for my disdaining to pair buttondown collar with double cuffs. I may be informed by precedent, but I would disregard that (even though I am a former historian) were I to consider the result of traducing history as aesthetically superior. I likewise am little concerned with the results of a psycho-sociological poll: it is my own aesthetic that most concerns me."


I applaud your courage to assert your own taste in deciding what's ugly. What I ask is that you tell us why you think the combination is ugly today. I've outlined some specific reasons that I think the button-down collar and double cuff can coexist gracefully under the right conditions. However, I keep an open mind that the combination may be intrinsically ugly; I'm just looking for an explanation that doesn't refer to rules or history. It's no different than any other hypothesis: It stands until it's refuted.

Metcalfe

[manton]

However, I keep an open mind that the combination may be intrinsically ugly

Whether or not something can be "intrinsically ugly" is an ancient philosophical debate that will not be resolved here. It probably cannot be resolved at all. Probably the most we can establish is whether the broad mass of people consider a certain thing beautiful or ugly, and whether the small number of people with expertise, interest and experience in that thing consider it beautiful or ugly. When critical and popular tastes coincide, that still is not proof that something is intrinsically beautiful or ugly.

It's no different than any other hypothesis: It stands until it's refuted.

No, this is much different because the decisive factor is taste, not logic or fact. We can perhaps establish that a majority of LL members consider the BD/FC combination ugly. I am willing to be that if we polled everyone, opinion would be at least 80% against the combination. But that would say nothing about its intrinsic aesthetic qualities (again, if it even has any). It also does not "refute" the taste of those who like it. They will still like it -- perhaps even more, cherishing it as a minority taste.

And I dispute your suggestion that no reasons have been given in this thread as to why those of us who don't like the combination believe as we do. Several of us have given reasons based not on historical or practical but precisely aesthetic grounds.

[RWS]

I applaud your courage to assert your own taste in deciding what's ugly.

Each Lounger -- indeed, each person anywhere -- "decid[es ] what's ugly", for, as all aesthetics, this ultimately is an individual choice and may, in fact, be irrational. Some people purport simply to assume others' aesthetics; but I doubt that any Loungers are among them.

What I ask is that you tell us why you think the combination is ugly today.

I've done so twice. Should you care to read my comments, you may find them in this thread, under dates of October 28th and 29th.

[maxnharry]

This clearly is a cousin of the "no brown in the City" rule.

I don't think so. I think there are two basic types of "rules." The first and more fundamental governs how things should be made. E.g., no notched lapels on a DB coat. Or, for that matter, no French cuffs on a BD shirt. The second set of rules governs what may be properly or "correctly" worn with what and when. E.g., no BD shirts with DB coats. Let us call the first set "construction" rules and the second "usage" rules. The latter are much easier to break elegantly.

No brown in town is a usage rule. The idea was that earth tones belong in the country, whereas somber blues and grays are best for the city. It was probably in part a midly snobbish attempt to distinguish those who "get it" and "belong" from those who do not. But it also had an aesthetic rationale. Different cloths and colors for different settings and purposes help to differentiate a wardrobe, enliven one's closet, and widen one's options. That may seem counterintuitive, in that the upshot of the rule was to forbid a color from a certain setting. But look at it another way. In the absense of the rule, when anything can be worn anywhere, the inevitable result is homogeonization. The differences between town and country, and work and play, erode. Certain cloths and colors are more or less abandoned. Everybody starts wearing the same stuff everywhere. Boring. The only advantage is that we save money.

That said, the no brown in town rule has been broken with some regularity by well dressed men for decades. It was even formally "rescinded" in 1993 by the Federation of Merchant Tailors. Those who still abide by it are, I suppose, those who need to (those who would be scoffed at by their peers if they wore brown), and those who want to (for whatever reason).

There's little to explain either rule (particularly today),

I disagree with this, too. There is plenty to explain most of the rules. Where the explanations necessarily fall short is if someone demands incontrovertible proof of a rule's existence or its origin.

it would seem that rule on no button down/double cuff shirts has been passed by by time.

Oh, I don't think so. This rule should hold until collared shirts and tailored jackets both die.

I will always have to defer to you in these matters, but not sure I get why this is still a hard in fast rule in a time where we can't get most people to even put on a dress shirt. I wouldn't ever wear a BD/FC shirt, but don't think it would bother me as much as visiting my attorney and seeing him wearing a hoodie in his office.

[arkirshner]

Gentlemen,

In the discussion of the propriety of Mr. Grant wearing a button down collar with French cuffs there seems to be two underlying assumptions. First, that Mr. Grant chose the shirt; and second, that because Mr. Grant chose the shirt it was because he thought it to be an elegant, or at least an appropriate shirt form.

Allow me to question both assumptions. As to the first assumption, can one be sure the shirt indeed was Mr. Grant's choice? After all his appearance in the film was as a performer not as a "private" citizen. Alfred Hitchcock directed the film and it was he, not Mr. Grant who controlled the wardrobe. As to the second assumption, arguendo, if Mr. Grant chose the shirt (or Mr. Hitchcock for that matter) the choice may have been made not according to his private aesthetics, but rather chosen to make a statement, subtle as it may be, about the character he was playing.

In short the conclusion that Cary Grant was in favor of button down collars with French cuffs is not supported by this film appearance. On the other hand it would be quite a different matter if Mr. Grant had been observed on numerous occasions wearing such a shirt in his private life.

[manton]

I will always have to defer to you in these matters, but not sure I get why this is still a hard in fast rule in a time where we can't get most people to even put on a dress shirt.

Well, I guess we are jsut defiining "hard and fast" differently. I am posing it as an "ought." If you're going to wear a dress shirt, do it right, I say. And even if you don't, I still maintain the wisdom and existence of the rule.

I wouldn't ever wear a BD/FC shirt, but don't think it would bother me as much as visiting my attorney and seeing him wearing a hoodie in his office.

I'm with you there. Though I might slip him my shirtmaker's business card.

[maxnharry]

I will always have to defer to you in these matters, but not sure I get why this is still a hard in fast rule in a time where we can't get most people to even put on a dress shirt.

Well, I guess we are jsut defiining "hard and fast" differently. I am posing it as an "ought." If you're going to wear a dress shirt, do it right, I say. And even if you don't, I still maintain the wisdom and existence of the rule.

I wouldn't ever wear a BD/FC shirt, but don't think it would bother me as much as visiting my attorney and seeing him wearing a hoodie in his office.

I'm with you there. Though I might slip him my shirtmaker's business card.

Here, here!

[Metcalfe]

Joseph Williams's book, Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace (2004)includes a brilliant chapter on writing elegantly. I think some of his ideas also apply to dressing:

"Here's the point: The risk in striving for elegance is that you fail spectaularly and never risk it again. I can only encourage you to accept with good humor those first awkward failures that we all survive." page 180

Here's another insight that could be adapted to dressing elegantly:

"What most makes a sentence graceful is a balance and symmetry among its parts so that one echos another in sound, rhythm, structure, and meaning. A skilled writer can balance almost any two parts of a sentencee, but the most common balance comes from coordination." page 160

By thinking of the shirt as a sentence, we can imagine equivalent echos in dressing: cut, weight, texture, color, pattern, etc. One way to evaluate cuffs and collars might be according to the balance and symetry of their cut and closure:

spread collar : turn-back cuff

points forward collar with collar bar : double cuff with metal link

button-down collar: barrel cuff

I prefer the first combination for suits because I cannot imagine a more understated, elegant choice--the way Terrence Young dressed Bond in the first few films (with the help of Turnbull & Asser). Zero affectation.

Metcalfe

[Cufflink79]

Metcalfe, thanks for sharing that great infomation. I like the early years of the T&A 007 look as well. Some people say a collar bar or collar pin with cuff links is a bit too much. Maybe for some it is, but I really like that look I have seen it on Cary Grant a few times and it just really looks elegant.

Best Regards,

Cufflink79