Men's Clothing Forums banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi all,

If this has been discussed, please point me to the sources. I have searched threads but my search terms are yielding many false-positives on the topic.

Given a normal non-detachable collar, I had always presumed that the correctly* tied necktie would hide the band between tops of the collar. I had always believed that the button (assuming it is actually buttoned!) should be entirely hidden by the tie knot. More than that, I'd assumed that the knot should also cover parts of the collar band above the button. Is this generally viewed as the case?

Two things have made me wonder about my beliefs regarding this view. Firstly, my thinking has been affected by pictures of stiff detachable collars. There are numerous examples of photos in which chaps are wearing ties and showing band above the knot. The trouble is that these always leave the question of whether this was intentional in those photos. But consider the example of the Arrow Collar model below showing a clear space above the tie. I've also seen pictures in which the front stud is actually visible above the tie. Which brings me to the second: I recently saw a decorative Edwardian shirt stud on Ebay, which I believe would have been a single item (i.e., not part of a set of matching ones). The stud had a decorative design, so I believe it was intended to be visible.

So is there history of showing space above the collar? Can someone explain what the significance is of this look?
Can this be extended to non-detachable collars? Are there implications toward the sort of collar, or the level of formality? Could this be carried off today, perhaps by replacing the top button with a decorative stud?

* If you're not a stickler for rules, replace "correctly" with "most attractively"

https://img370.imageshack.us/my.php?image=acjcleyendecker72tr2.jpg
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
311 Posts
Given a normal non-detachable collar, I had always presumed that the correctly* tied necktie would hide the band between tops of the collar. I had always believed that the button (assuming it is actually buttoned!) should be entirely hidden by the tie knot. More than that, I'd assumed that the knot should also cover parts of the collar band above the button. Is this generally viewed as the case?
It is correct that the neckband be hidden behind the tie. In fact modern collars are manufactured with a "tie space" between the two leaves of the collar for just such purpose and it follows that one would choose a knot to suit both the "tie space" and collar design.

Below is an example of a modern collar with the necktie using the tie space, and funnily enough, showing a little "virility" as mentioned below as well.:icon_smile_wink:



There are numerous examples of photos in which chaps are wearing ties and showing band above the knot. The trouble is that these always leave the question of whether this was intentional in those photos.
In the case of the old stiff detachable collars, there was typically no "tie space" between the wings or leaves of the collar so the tie could not fit into the collar properly, also the collar generally had a much higher neckband. The necktie being typically half the width of the neckband, left a lot of neckband showing.

Mostly the necktie knot was worn above the stud, the stud (sometimes elongated) was used to support the knot and project it forward, giving the tie some sense of "virility" being the phallic symbol it is.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,866 Posts
Hi all,

If this has been discussed, please point me to the sources. I have searched threads but my search terms are yielding many false-positives on the topic.

Given a normal non-detachable collar, I had always presumed that the correctly* tied necktie would hide the band between tops of the collar. I had always believed that the button (assuming it is actually buttoned!) should be entirely hidden by the tie knot. More than that, I'd assumed that the knot should also cover parts of the collar band above the button. Is this generally viewed as the case?

Two things have made me wonder about my beliefs regarding this view. Firstly, my thinking has been affected by pictures of stiff detachable collars. There are numerous examples of photos in which chaps are wearing ties and showing band above the knot. The trouble is that these always leave the question of whether this was intentional in those photos. But consider the example of the Arrow Collar model below showing a clear space above the tie. I've also seen pictures in which the front stud is actually visible above the tie. Which brings me to the second: I recently saw a decorative Edwardian shirt stud on Ebay, which I believe would have been a single item (i.e., not part of a set of matching ones). The stud had a decorative design, so I believe it was intended to be visible.

So is there history of showing space above the collar? Can someone explain what the significance is of this look?
Can this be extended to non-detachable collars? Are there implications toward the sort of collar, or the level of formality? Could this be carried off today, perhaps by replacing the top button with a decorative stud?

* If you're not a stickler for rules, replace "correctly" with "most attractively"

https://img370.imageshack.us/my.php?image=acjcleyendecker72tr2.jpg
I think the only significance in the above illustration is that it depicts an era during which shirts and collars were not cut and made in a way that allowed ties to fit snuggly into the "V" of the collar. However there are plenty of illustrations from AA and Esky during the '30's showing detachable collars that did permit this.

I prefer a collar with a 1/4" of tie space and band cut so that it won't show above the knot. When I still had the services of a shirtmaker, this is how I requested they be made. I started with a locked collar (no space.) but found the 1/4" seemed to fit just about any knot better, even on full spread of a cutaway. BD's were no different. He cut the ends of the neck band where the button and button hole were on a curve. This formed a slight depression above the top button when it was buttoned, making it almost impossible for the band to ride above the knot. I have seen very few shirts with what I view as an improtant feature, including plenty of fine English RTW and even bespoke.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks for the replies.

Flanderian, it took me a second reading to realize that when you say the button band was curved, it was (obviously!) curved downward. That is indeed cunning.

I just saw this picture and am now irritated that the costume people allow the stud to show.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
41 Posts
The tie should completely fill the space. Anything else looks sloppy. Costumers (on TV, movies etc.) are in the main prisoners of present day "fashion" norms that skew to sloppy, improper etc. and can't seem to resist putting a "contemporary" slant on costume of whatever era. It is rare that they get things completely right. Just dig up some old pictures of Cary Grant and other stars of the '30s and '40s and note those crisp knots tight to the top of the inverted V. 'Nuff said.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
608 Posts
I just scrolled to the top to make sure this is in the Trad forum. It is, and seems a strange question for this audience. I mean to say ... what about the folks, some here, who dispense with even buttoning the top button while wearing a tied tie? That would turn this discussion upside down.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,866 Posts
I just scrolled to the top to make sure this is in the Trad forum. It is, and seems a strange question for this audience. I mean to say ... what about the folks, some here, who dispense with even buttoning the top button while wearing a tied tie? That would turn this discussion upside down.
Only if one's definition of traditional is imitating high school kids from the 1950's. Grown-ups never dressed like that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I just scrolled to the top to make sure this is in the Trad forum. It is, and seems a strange question for this audience. I mean to say ... what about the folks, some here, who dispense with even buttoning the top button while wearing a tied tie? That would turn this discussion upside down.
Well I might have posted this in the wrong place, but did so because I know that some trad readers wear the brooks GF stiff collar dress shirt. I thought they might know more about how these are (and were) worn.

Note that my original post mentions two things:
1. Vintage advertising that shows space above the tie.
2. A collar stud that has a decoration as if it were intended to be seen. It is hand painted, and while potentially for the owner's pleasure only, I doubt that.

The answers given reflect that there are historical reasons for (1.) given the collars and how this is to be avoided. All the posts strongly reflect an aesthetic that says showing the band is unattractive. But what my post was really asking is if this aesthetic is timeless, i.e. has showing the collar band above the cravat always been something avoided by neat dressers. (I consider having the undone button and loosened tie an affectation that says "I'm serious enough to have a tie, but I'm also laid back enough to relax and be causal.")

In addition to my point above about why I posted to the trad forum: the majority of my posts (few) have been here, so I thought it more likely to be answered here. I also noticed that responses to questions in the FF often seem to given current "best-practice" rather than a more historically aware view.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,866 Posts
But what my post was really asking is if this aesthetic is timeless, i.e. has showing the collar band above the cravat always been something avoided by neat dressers.
I think that's an interesting and separate question regarding historical modes of dress. Without researching it, and consulting my ever more faulty memory, I'd say the answer is that it was not something that always concerned meticulous dressers. I recall that the tie, as we know it, had evolved continually, as has the way in which it's worn. I do know that it only began being worn in the 19th century, and initially there were a huge variety of types as well as how they were worn. Originally, it was often a fairly limp and shapeless bit of cloth worn around an equally limp and shapeless collar. Worrying about tie space under such circumstances would have been pointless.

Indeed, I can look back to photos of my very own grandfather at the end of the 19th century, and beginning of the 20th, and see ties that often hung below the top button. But I maintain that was as much a product of limitations in manufacture as preference, and that "look" largely vanished by the 1930's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
Only if one's definition of traditional is imitating high school kids from the 1950's. Grown-ups never dressed like that.
Sinatra did. He left his collar unbottoned while wearing a tie regularly. There is NO WAY anyone could EVER argue that he wasn't stylish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
238 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Gents above, I did not intend to offend, and it looks like I did. I apologize.
You didn't offend me... but I did think quite hard about where to post this. I admit, part of me said, "where would sartor be most likely to read it...."

On the other question of wearing a tie with a loosened top button, I am undecided. I don't like it, but I sometimes do it because doing so allows me to wear a tie where otherwise it would be seen as overdressing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
I just scrolled to the top to make sure this is in the Trad forum. It is, and seems a strange question for this audience. I mean to say ... what about the folks, some here, who dispense with even buttoning the top button while wearing a tied tie? That would turn this discussion upside down.
I'm guilty of that...

For two reasons:

Most otherwise well-fitting RTW shirts are too tight in the neck. I know many people experience this problem.

Outside of traditional business dress or funerals, it is a less stuffy look. I think it pairs especially well with soft button-down collars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
608 Posts
I'm guilty of that...

For two reasons:

Most otherwise well-fitting RTW shirts are too tight in the neck. I know many people experience this problem.

Outside of traditional business dress or funerals, it is a less stuffy look. I think it pairs especially well with soft button-down collars.
I was thinking of you in particular Moose, when I wrote what I wrote. I thought it better to drop the topic than justify my post. (I'll see you over in the WAYWT thread)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,387 Posts
I disagree with you.

Sinatra was generally stylish, however when he or anyone for that matter has their top button undone and tie skew they are most definitely not stylish.;)
Ahhhh. It was stylish; it was his personal style. Sinatra always looked very rakish with his tie loosened and collar un-buttoned. I'll submit that this is definitely not a look anyone can carry off or a look that everyone will like but I don't think you can argue that it isn't "stylish." To the contrary something like this is the essence of the word style.

I don't want to make this into a semantic argument though. Maybe this is a simple issue of symantics...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Sinatra to me is kind of an exception, he could probably get away with most anything. By the way that pic above looks like a skinny Robert Downey Jr. with the other chicks guy :cool:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,866 Posts
Sinatra did. He left his collar unbottoned while wearing a tie regularly. There is NO WAY anyone could EVER argue that he wasn't stylish.
Ahhh - but he was Sinatra, and most of us aren't! :icon_smile_big:

He certainly did have his own personal style, and love it not, I still don't think of it as being traditionally well dressed. He remained, authentically, a rakish kid from Hoboken, and I applaud his sense of style.

On a tangent, I loved his and all of the other costumes in the film Guys and Dolls. Wonderful style! Though of course I wouldn't wear a single one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
97 Posts
The tie should completely fill the space. Anything else looks sloppy. Costumers (on TV, movies etc.) are in the main prisoners of present day "fashion" norms that skew to sloppy, improper etc. and can't seem to resist putting a "contemporary" slant on costume of whatever era. It is rare that they get things completely right. Just dig up some old pictures of Cary Grant and other stars of the '30s and '40s and note those crisp knots tight to the top of the inverted V. 'Nuff said.
'

Yes, completely agree! Use larger tie knots, such as the Windsor, for shirts with a wider collar spread. The classic FIH or half Windsor are better suited for shirts with a narrow collar spread or button down collar shirts. I also prefer the FIH know with solid color ties.

Besides the collar, look at your body type. If you have a large neck, then shirts with a wide collar spread are going to look much nicer. A small tie knot on a heavier build man looks like he is choking :eek:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
27,866 Posts
'
Besides the collar, look at your body type. If you have a large neck, then shirts with a wide collar spread are going to look much nicer. A small tie knot on a heavier build man looks like he is choking :eek:
The Coke bottle effect! :icon_smile_big:

At the time I had the services of a shirtmaker, I had about an 18" neck and 54" chest, and I have a moderately large head. Unfortunately, I'm also fond of club collars, sometimes worn pinned. I had my shirtmaker make the collar itself larger and slightly longer, and liked the result. Since I also had my suits made at the time, the over-all effect was proportionate. Since I received compliments from some other folks who were knowledgeable about such matters, I think the look worked. But your point is a good one, there are limitations.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top