A reader asked the following questions. I have paraphrased the first half, and left the second half, which I put in quotes, in the reader's words:
There are distinctive attributes of trad/ivy business attire, which include:
- The sack,
- The hook vent,
- The billowing shirt,
- No break 1¾" cuff,
- The rolling button down collar, and
- The classic pairing of navy blazer and grey trousers.
"I really have two questions for your kind readership. Are there other distinctive aspects worth mentioning, and which, if any, still make sense today and are worthy of preservation and emulation?I shall begin by stating my own opinion that billowy shirts and sack suits make sense for all sorts and conditions, being both comfortable and flattering. I further posit that the no break cuff is more practical than the potentially too long style associated with too many folk. The hook vent, or even a center vent, is more comfortable and attractive than the debonair mud flap created by side vents.What say the readers?"
One that I maintain— against significant countervailing pressure, from both coworkers and the culture at large — is making sure to always wear a tie with a suit. That is, no suit sans tie, that ubiquitous horror of the modern office age. Another essential marker is the four-in-hand knot. Then, as the post says, a softer, more generous suit cut. And never ‘playful’, patterned socks. Not wanting to shirk convention to the point of being odd (which would itself be a faux pas), a nod to Casual Friday is corduroys and loafers, never jeans. Most important of all, a cheerful attitude, and the total eschewing of office politics.
ReplyDeleteOn the rare occasion you really need to wear black shoes, you're not sure where to find them.
ReplyDeleteAldens. Loafers in summer, lace ups rest of year.
ReplyDeleteCambridge gray suit, likely in flannel; a white moderate spread collar shirt in royal Oxford; black or burgundy cordovan captoe balmoral gunboats; quiet, small paisley's or diamonds tie on a dark burgundy field necktie in a half-windsor knot; and an off-white silk, unspilled-out pocket square. Of course the shirt is not regulation Ivy, but this is business, Bud. And for some of you, I realize a half-windsor is kinda kinky. Get over it! GYST!
ReplyDeleteWearing the BDU aka Battle Dress Uniform - Coat & Tie is a standing rebuke to moral & cultural relativism. It is a means of silent protest. Dressing well
ReplyDeleteintimidates people. It kind of reminds me of that Dallas preacher, Dr. Tony Evans "If you don't stand for something, you will fall for anything".
A suit without a tie isn’t a suit. I can excuse the Geo Bush sock thing, but I can’t embrace it. But no suits without ties.
ReplyDeleteThe hook vent, many think, is less attractive than the side vent when one has aged into a certain girth. The hook vent, in our opinion, is not as pleasing to the eye nor as comfortable as side vents if one has acquired a bay window, even a small(ish) one. What’s wrong with looking a little “debonair?”
ReplyDeleteWhere and which stores/brands do you recommend shopping for suits/sports jackets/blazers that meet all these criteria?
ReplyDeleteJ. Press. Full stop.
DeleteO'Connell's also has a deep inventory.
DeleteI appreciate all of the classic trad/Ivy details, but they're not necessarily for me. I do agree that suits should be worn with ties -- I experimented with the tieless look when I joined a new company some years ago, but I quickly found it unbearable. I do adhere to casual Fridays, wearing a blazer, chinos and an open collar. During the rest of the week, I wear suits, but in a more modern British style than trad: single-breasted, peaked lapels, side vents, surgeon's cuffs. My dress shirts have French cuffs with silk-knot cuff links, a moderate spread collar, no chest pocket, no placket, and they're tailored, not billowy. (I also have my tailor make my casual button-downs, with traditional OCBD details but still no billowing.) I mainly use a half-Windsor knot for my ties, and I recently began wearing a sterling silver tie bar with horizontal grooves, as I'd gotten tired of my ties shifting around too much. All of that said, again, I do appreciate the people who still fly the flag of the sack suit; I just go a different way for myself.
ReplyDeleteLoafers with a sport coat, lace up shoes with a suit. Also, a suit jacket is not a sport jacket; don't wear it with mismatched trousers.
ReplyDeleteI also like a a 3-button jacket.
ReplyDeleteThe 3-roll-2 lapel is the closest thing we have to a secret handshake among men of a certain type.
DeleteIs that a 3 button jacket, collar roll and 2 inch lapels?
DeleteNatural shoulder jackets. Plain fronted trousers (a holdover from WWII). Light to moderate fraying on shirt cuffs and collars from long use. Accessories with a touch of biography, e.g., school/college/club/society/monogrammed ties, blazer buttons, belts, cufflinks, as appropriate to the circumstances.
ReplyDeleteOnce when I was playing backgammon my opponent noticed my frayed shirt cuffs. "I see you wore your old money shirt," he gently kidded. "Well, old, at any rate," I replied, as I paid up. We both had a good laugh.
Frayed shirts was the 1960's version of today's torn up jeans. Both try too hard and neither looks good. I prefer clothes in good condition.
DeleteWell said
DeleteMay I add an amen to most of the advice above, and put in a word for ancient madder and striped repp ties. I heartily agree that a tie is mandatory with a suit, and dress shoes should have leather soles; Alden and Allen Edmonds are both good U.S. sources for the latter. I am a 3/2, sack suit and oxford cloth button down devotee, and second the opinion that J. Press is a great source for all of the above, especially since the fall of Brooks Brothers. Corduroys and a tweed coat or Shetland sweater are perfect for autumn and winter weekends, and seersucker deserves a place in one's summer wardrobe, at least where I live. Argyles are about as playful as my socks ever get, but not recommended with a business suit.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, at church on Sunday someone asked my wife whether we were from New England, because of our tweedy clothes. My wife noted that she was originally from Georgia, but temperatures in the teens call for wool, and plenty of it. Glad to know that New England still has a reputation for dressing well, even down here.
"dress shoes should have leather soles"
DeleteAs I was walking through salt and some slush today wearing a pair of leather soled Aldens, I found myself thinking I'd made a poor choice in shoes. The salt and slush will just kill good leather soled shoes. Tomorrow I'll probably wear some desert boots, or at least a pair of Allen Edmonds with rubber half soles. I also wear a sport coat and flannels with Bean boots during spring storms.
Kaaterskill - I agree completely. While Bean boots may not qualify as dress shoes, they most certainly are the better choice for slushy/salty days, even with a suit.
Delete@Charlottesville Bean boots are the best I've found for all-weather footwear that will pass in a dressier environment (or at least not draw attention to themselves), but the soles have never been great on snow or ice. Does anyone know if there's a similar boot out there with a better sole? I'm not looking for a big hiking boot, I'm thinking of something that's low enough profile to wear with just about anything.
DeleteI have two pairs of Allen Edmonds leather bluchers (one plain-toed and the other a long wing) which have rubber soles with lugs. The former remind me of the old Vibram soles on hiking boots, and the latter have Dainite soles. I also have a pair of pebble grain lace-up brogue ankle boots with Dainite soles from Orvis. They all do well on snow or ice, but if you want something for salty slush, I think the Bean boot is probably the better bet.
DeleteTweed, cords, and sweaters/sweater vests with a tie (bow or necktie) and some kind of brogues or penny loafers on the feet. . . Or a wool flannel two or three-piece suit -- always with a tie -- for those more formal days. I always think my own habitual winter attire as somewhere more in the direction Bertie Wooster, Bingo Little, or Tuppy Glossop. Perhaps slightly dandy, and slightly silly given the general standards of the 2020s, but playfully insouciant nevertheless.
ReplyDeleteKind Regards,
Heinz-Ulrich
"What do ties matter, Jeeves, at a time like this?"
Delete"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter."
"Indeed, Sir." (In my best Stephen Fry voice).
DeleteH-U
One or two days a week I substitute teach in public schools. It helps keep this retired guy in touch with reality. This is sometimes not easy to do. We live in a bubble of a dozen or so somewhat rural, small, New England towns. They are filled with retirees who have fled the city. We are many miles from “big box” stores, fast food restaurants, four lane highways and all that. No need to remark about what today’s students and, yes, what most teachers wear. Sigh. All my life I wore a tie, 8 years of grammar school, high school, ok not in college. But as soon as I graduated and in a career job it was back to wearing a tie. We even were required to wear a tie when we worked part time during high school stocking shelves in a grocery store. Wearing a tie was part of getting dressed. Almost like putting on underwear. It never bothered me. So, it was without a second thought I tied on a tie when I started as a “sub.” The students of course noticed, and remarked on it. The younger ones, who say immediately what comes into their heads, right off the bat called me, “Mr. Serious.”
DeleteI often think of my 12th grade English teacher - Miss Hightower - who apparently owned two suits. One navy for the summer and one plaid for the winter. Her blouses were different colors but it's doubtful she owned more than 5 - all beautiful fabrics. She used to say it was important to dress up during the day so "one can shed that persona with that clothing and become a different person" after getting home in the evening. That seemed so odd when I was 17 but I completely understand it 50 years later. Good for you for trying to maintain some standards and dressing appropriately for your age. (I really miss see beautifully dressed people).
DeleteOne can quibble with the cuff height and no break standards, I like a 1-1/2" cuff height and a slight break.
ReplyDeleteA 1 3/4" cuff will look different on a 6'5" guy and a 5'5" guy. And the same shirt fit will look different on a 250lb guy and a 150lb guy. So I would say use the traditional guidelines but adjust for your particular stature.
DeleteI have a number of classic Brooks Brothers OCBD shirts that I wore before I retired. Once in a while I will pull one out to wear with a tie and I am so satisfied with that beautiful collar roll. I also still prefer the 3/2 button suit or sport jacket.
ReplyDelete3/2 button roll, flat front always, nothing wrong with black or brown shoes…I think a shirt should complement the physique…so no hard and fast rule there…some skinny guys look great in baggy shirts…some not…I am 5’10 195 and really look better in a shirt that is not too baggy or slim…bulky shirts make me look fat and slim shirts make me look foolish…and I am very fit at 59…collar or nice collar roll button down…and ties without suits? Double ugh. Blazer, maybe…suit…just no.
ReplyDeleteThere, those are the rules to live by…😂
As Lord Chesterfield said, "Great care should be taken to be always dressed like the reasonable people of our own age in the place where we are, whose dress is never spoken of one way or another, as neither too negligent, or too much studied." And, even better, "Any affectation whatsoever in dress implies, in my mind, a flaw in the understanding." Tradition is great. I'm wearing an O'Connell's shetland, Press OCBD, and hand-sewn mocs as I type. But the best clothing is like the best haircut. No one notices it.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Though it is difficult not to stand out when attired presentably in the 21st century. Even in grad school (mid-90s to early 2000s) it never would have occurred to me to leave home looking like I had just rolled out of bed and donned something gray, stained, and wrinkled from beneath the bed to cover myself.
DeleteH-U
Agree with *most* of the above (save the half-Windsor suggestion), but to return to the spirit of the original request: what is “worth” preserving? I’m all for tradition for its own sake, but in addition it’s worth pointing out that the sack suit is best because it’s so flipping comfortable. The notion of feeling uncomfortable or constrained after wearing a suit all day is completely foreign to the trad dresser. A well cut sack 3/2 suit is more comfortable than pajamas. THAT is worth preserving.
ReplyDeleteKnee length skirt and cashmere twinset
ReplyDeleteIn this current era of accepted slovenliness 'trad' is an affectation - nouveau punk. If you're not kitted out in gym clothes or jeans, no matter the occasion, high or low, it's reactionary. Hoodies at the Proms and tees at Michelin restaurants (whom should lose their status if no dress code is enforced). The slipshod nod in approval before leaving their glitzed up hovels thinking they 'look good'. It's a $1k sweatshirt after all. The rot is prevalent and unavoidable but reality is reality. Our toned down, time tested timelessness is anything but. I'm 'dressed up' when I'm not even dressed up. When I am properly attired I'm mistaken for a Minister of State. It's ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteShell cordovan loafers, both tassel and penny. Can't go wrong with a white shirt and rep tie although a pink shirt is also a strong option if you're okay with a touch of whimsy or (perhaps) and perhaps being perceived with a lack of seriousness (i.e. not for an interview). I prefer not to wear button-down collars with a suit as it is a mismatch of formality. I like a white pocket square if it's a social occasion or church, but not for a business setting. Ties have really gone by the wayside in business settings. I may never wear one again, which is sad.
ReplyDeleteBe a good example even if it means standing out a little. There's no shame in defending these things
ReplyDeleteAdd to the list above : the jacket should be long enough to cover your rear irrespective of style.
ReplyDelete1 3/4” cuffs seem quite elaborate. If I recall TOPH mandated 1 1/4” inch cuffs. I have always used that, except lately for cotton khakis which get there if one starts out with 1 1/2” JDV
ReplyDeleteElaborate is the right word -- especially paired with "no break" trousers. This works only if you are a professional basketball player. Otherwise my advice would be "light break" and 1.5" cuffs.
DeleteI never knew about hook vents but I like the idea.
ReplyDeleteDressing in belted wide-wale corduroys, a pressed white button-down and a knotted rep tie makes me feel great. Sometimes barefoot on grass in warm weather. Suits aren't for me.
ReplyDeleteI am finding this thread interesting especially with all the talk in the senate about changing the dress code. Who would of thought about appearing in public dressed like some of our senators - hoody and shorts.
ReplyDeleteWhen I started my career I had to work some nights redoing grocery stores. We could dress how ever we wanted. There was a national manufacturer who insisted their representatives wear white long sleeve shirts with a tie no matter what time of day or night it was.
Thankfully just one of our senators appears in public dressed in a hoody and shorts. Like one commenter above I also stocked grocery store shelves more formally attired than this particular senator. We were stocking shelves more formally attired, in fact, than nearly all of today’s general male population. At that time - the mere idea of that would have been unthinkable. .
ReplyDeletePart one:
ReplyDeleteYou ask if there are distinctive aspects worth mentioning, and which, if any, still make sense today and are worthy of preservation and emulation? The answer, in my view, is not to ask which are valid (as most viewers of your site will largely agree to all of them) but where you can source examples which meet the criteria you mention.
Most of the best sources for men’s trade/Ivy attire are now either sadly closed, trading off a past heritage or claiming a legacy that is not theirs.
The stores that have put their shutters up could be relied upon to provide shirts with the right amount of billow, leather shoes that could take a parade ground shine and an in-house tailor versed in the right break.
Four of the best, all now sadly departed international stores selling the Ivy edit were Trimminghams on Front Street, Hamilton, Bermuda, ironically given the climate there, for their wide range of Scottish Shetland knitwear; The Scotch House in Knightsbridge, London for the best in Scottish knitwear; Westaway and Westaway, whose store next to the British Museum in London was a shrine to British knitwear and The Old England Store on the Boulevard des Capucines in Paris for a finely edited selection of Ivy-acceptable English clothing
Some still exist around the country but sourcing stock is their problem rather than misunderstanding the Ivy ethos. In the past, they will have stocked shirts with the right unstructured three finger roll collar, maybe with full buttoned or pop-over options and in materials such as Oxford cloth and flannel for the colder months, madras and seersucker for more clement weather. Now, even if they can find stock with the right details, it is unlikely to have been made in America.
So maybe there should be another question for your kind readership; can garments that have been manufactured offshore still count as Ivy.
Ironically, the country doing the most to keep the Ivy flame burning is Japan. Witness their Kamakura shirts or Buzz Rickson range (as well as many others) where the attention to Ivy detail is staggering. Having bought up all of Cone Mills old looms, they have burnt the bridge behind them so producing good selvage denim in the US is not an option anymore. Strangely the Brooks Brothers Japan website still keeps the faith with Ivy ideals and the ranges of goods available there, such as the many shades and styles of Alden cordovan shoes provide a glimmer of hope of what could still be.
It might come as a surprise to today’s powerhouses of menswear design and manufacturing such as Italy and most of Asia that America has made a major contribution to men’s fashion (and not just sportswear). Most of these elements were made in the USA or bought in from carefully curated best-in-class sources in Scotland (particularly knitwear), England (for outerwear, shoes and high quality durable fabrics) and Ireland (for woollens, hand knitted by the fireside). Other selected examples can be found, for example in France by JM Weston and their 180 loafer, Italy (particularly grenadine ties from Lake Como), Spain (mainly Carmina and their range of Cordovan shoes) and Norway, with their hand-knitted sweaters via LL Bean.
Fortunately, many of these European sources can still be relied upon for the goods which bought them to our attention in the first place.
TBC
I know that some of the old Cone Mills looms have stayed here in the US and are being used to make denim by Vidalia Mills. Otherwise, I definitely agree that Japan is hotbed for so much great apparel, from workwear, trad/ivy and even street style and runway fashion, if that’s your thing. I would like to point out that, because a clothing house is no longer, it doesn’t mean the values that someone cherished are gone with it. The important values are still around, they just might look a little different (not directed at any particular poster, just a general comment)
DeletePart 2
ReplyDeleteHowever, existing examples of US manufacture and (with apologies to Haspel and others) Yankee craftsmanship are few and far between. We can still trust Alden, Rancourt, Allen Edmonds and Quoddy for footwear (with Wigwam socks to go in them); Mercer and Gitman for OCBDs and Jack Donnelly for chinos.
But these manufactures are overshadowed by the brands we have lost over the years and particularly those glorious names from the boom period.
Shirt manufacturers such as Sero, Career Club, Hathaway, Wren, Gant, Enro, Eagle, Troy Shirtmakers Guild whose factory in Glen Falls is now sadly closed and not to be confused with Lion of Troy, whose madras shirts were an object of beauty.
Shoemakers, who once adhered to the Ivy style but have lost their way along with their US manufacturing base. Names such as GH Bass but only when they were handcrafting shoes in Wilton, Maine, and particularly for their light brown waxy leather hand-sewn loafers. Cole Haan, mainly outsourced but lovely quality leathers, before losing its way with Nike and other Private Equity masters. Nettleton, anything from the Nettleton of old, before the name was resurrected. Florsheim, for their Imperial long wings (much loved by Lee Marvin who wore a size 13 scotch grain pair in Point Blank) and Yuma ranges. Sperry, once the gold standard for nautical footwear and still with us but from an offshore perspective. Dexter and Sebago, both once beefrolls to be reckoned with but now one gone and the other manufactured in South American locations.
Belt makers such as Canterbury, and their surcingle belts with bridal leather, brass buckles and a myriad of colour striping options.
Outerwear from Columbia, LL Bean and Lands End, all still delightfully ‘down home’ but manufactured abroad and with a wider vision from their buyers.
We could also turn to the UK for Ivy-acceptable knitwear but the list of casualties is long and survivors often only do so by off-shoring. Where they still exist a smokescreen of ‘Scottishness’ on their web sites often obscure their real manufacturing base or a token manufacturing base in the UK is retained. Brands weaving Ivy-acceptable knitwear included Drumohr, Braemar, Ballantyne, Pringle, Alan Paine, J & D McGeorge and others. Today, the brands, where they still exist, have moved in a fashion-forward direction, with production elsewhere at a lower price point.
So where does that leave us? Enjoying the luxurious feel of a mid-80s Brooks Brothers Scottish wool herringbone soft shouldered jacket from the back of the closet? The chalky handle of a Macclesfield woven silk ancient madder tie with a restrained paisley, medallion or repeated motif? Rinsing down our mud-splattered Barbour Beaufort jacket. Longing for a world of vegetable dyes rather than chemical ones when madras really did bleed. A world where non-iron is an abomination and where we appreciate the creases, and not just those in linen.
The retail landscape is very different now and if we do still have a US made Brooks Brothers soft shouldered herringbone jacket in the back of the closet, we should treasure it. Replacing it with an authentic piece is problematical at the very least with outlets either closed or lost their way. And Brooks Brothers, it isn’t just you we are looking at. The Ivy look has gone from mainstream normal to niche; a fashion look restored to life every few years in a fashion cycle.
At least we can maintain a sense of Ivy decorum through good manners, a respect for others and a polite reserve even if we are falling short in the wardrobe department.
It is what it is, as they say.
Thanks for both of your comments. Very lovely.
DeleteFor normal business days, I'm wearing a gray or navy flannel suit, it being January as I write this, with an OCBD, tie, and Alden lace-ups or cordovan tassel loafers. For slightly more casual days at the office, tweed sport coat, OCBD, tie (or bowtie), gray flannel trousers, and Alden loafers. On very casual days or Saturday, I'm in a Shetland sweater, OCBD, cords, and loafers. I've been doing this for the last forty years, with minor variations. The interchangeability of items in the Trad/Ivy wardrobe, e.g., OCBDs that work with everything, is one of the things I like: the style is both comfortable and appropriate.
ReplyDeleteThis guy knows how to dress. Good stuff.
DeleteWhile I can appreciate the traditional ivy style I think it works best for more casual or informal settings. For a more formal or elegant style I look for a well tailored 2 button ( not 3roll 2 ) suit coat, a moderate spread or point collar shirt and trousers tailored to a proper length ( no high tides please, I do not want to see your socks) and lace up, well polished shoes.
ReplyDeleteFor most men, the sack suit is a poor substitute for a well tailored suit. A thin, athletic man will look good in just about any style of suit, but a man with a more generous build will never be flattered by a sack suit. Superficially, they may appear more comfortable than a more tailored, side vent suit but that is only because the art of tailoring is disappearing and not due to the style of the suit. A suit jacket with a gentle suppression at the waist and side vents which permits a better draping of the fabric will always look better on a wide range of body types. A suit with a center vent will never flatter a gentleman with a larger posterior, especially when he is bending forward (I believe center vents came into style for sporting jackets allowing a man to more easily mount a horse-not much of a consideration when dressing for business or a special event today). One other suggestion. If you want your suit to fit well, do not use a tailor who works at the shop at which you bought the suit. The days have longed past when shops employed competent tailors who spent most of their working lives at the same shop. Today, at most, these individuals can handle minor alterations, and generally these are never done correctly the first time around. Find yourself a good local tailor and always take your newly purchased suit to him.
ReplyDeleteAll for the good. But be it a sack or a more tailored suit, don’t be afraid to have the alterations done by a seamstress. She most likely has a good eye. She will make the suit look it’s most flattering and feel it’s most comfortable. Isn’t making a suit attractive to women what it’s all about?
ReplyDelete