Can anyone explain and defend a generalization (or two or three) about the relation of detailing to dressiness? (Or, failing that, explain why such generalizations are no good?)

Less is more.

KISS -- Keep It Simple Stupid

:icon_smile_wink:

 

I think it all comes down to being conservative, and not standing out. When I think conservative, I think British where I look good, but don't stand out. This means plain, simple, but neat and clean. When I want to be well dressed but stand out, I think Itailan where there is a bit more flare and fashion. Both seem to be on the extremes though as I hardly ever go ultra-conservative nor flashy or fashion forward; always something in between.

 

There are no rules.

When it comes to clothes, there are social customs, and there are non-verbal signals that particular styles of dress convey, but there are no rules. Think of clothing as a language all its own, not a set of commands you are expected to follow.

Modern male dress is descended from the Baroque Era, which begat the Age of Enlightenment, which in turn begat the Victorian period. In those times and cultures, ornamentation was systematically removed from male clothing. Before that process started, aristocratic men dressed like peacocks, as elaborate as the women. By the early 20th century, male formal attire was the epitome of simplicity -- coats and pants were all black, shirts were all white, and everyone was expected to dress the same.

This situation with the men was juxtaposed against the females, who were expected to dress uniquely. Female formal attire, which in turn affected less formal attire, was expected to be 100% custom, totally different from every other woman present, and even different from every other formal event that woman ever attended. Dresses were constantly remade and changed, to recycle the components. Naturally, that process lent itself to ornamentation, since that's where unique features could be added or subtracted.

So, for men at least, we have the general principal that formality = simplicity and uniformity. However, one of the factors that may seem like an exception to this principle is that formality also equals old-fashioned. The more solemn the occasion, the more antiquated the dress. However, since older styles were generally more elaborate than newer styles, you'll see that increasing formality means adopting older styles of clothes that were more ornamented than the more modern everyday clothes. Even today, some lawyers wear tails to argue before the Supreme Court, not because the ornamentation is itself what makes the clothing more formal, but because tails are archaic.

 

I don't think you can extrapolate a general hypothesis for formality based on this principle. White tie often has more details than black tie. And white gym shorts and tee shirt is certainly simpler than either, but not quite as formal.

 

Simple= More "dressy"

Can anyone explain and defend a generalization (or two or three) about the relation of detailing to dressiness? (Or, failing that, explain why such generalizations are no good?)

This is a rule of thumb that I have always believed in. I have always thought that the more simple your style for an occasion, the more important it is to have it done better. Maybe it is just me, but I think it has something to do with there being less flash to divert you from seeing the real lines of the clothes, and the real drape of fabrics Etc.

I have always thought of this the same way as I think of mixed drinks. I have had many bad gin and tonics, because it is too simple of a drink. Bad bartenders can't hide their inability to make a correctly proportioned drink with a bunch of other ingredients, they way they might be able to with a Long Island Iced Tea.

I just see formal ware this way, the more embellishments you add the less formal. But like I said it is just a rule of thumb. Something I would tell an average young man to use when in doubt. I am sure that plenty of gentlemen on this board could add great touches, and keep it formal.

 

I don't think you can extrapolate a general hypothesis for formality based on this principle. White tie often has more details than black tie. And white gym shorts and tee shirt is certainly simpler than either, but not quite a formal.

But we aren't comparing white tie to black tie, but rather white tie to white tie and black tie to black tie. Here, while the OP didn't specify, I'm fairly certain he meant in suit attire. So, is the customs/standards of suit wear specificly entail this? I think many people would agree.

 

But we aren't comparing white tie to black tie, but rather white tie to white tie and black tie to black tie. Here, while the OP didn't specify, I'm fairly certain he meant in suit attire. So, is the customs/standards of suit wear specificly entail this? I think many people would agree.

I don't think that was a condition of the OP's hypothesis, but irrespectively, is a suit jacket to which the detail of a PS has been added more or less formal? I don't believe that the amount of detail necessarily has anything to do with the degree of formality. But if someone wishes to think otherwise . . . :icon_smile_big:

 

I wasn't really thinking about the extreme ends of the range. Gym shorts and sweat pants are what they are, and for white tie there are very specific rules. Also, I wasn't thinking primarily about accessories like pocket squares. I was wondering about the effect, across the broad, slacks-to-suits middle, of built-in details like trouser cuffs, trousers pleats, jacket pocket pleats, jacket back pleats, and jacket vents. Also shoe captoes, brogueing, and blucher vs. traditional bal vs. wholecut.

I could imagine that the dressiness effect of detail depends on its historical origins, so for instance brogueing makes nice leather shoes a notch less formal because it was originally associated with traipsing through marshland. Similar rationales would apply to swing-back jackets, etc. Since a lot of detailing has such functional origins, this might be why details are often associated (even by people who don't actually know the origins anymore) with a lowered level of dressiness.

At the same time, utilitarian-based detailing might actually raise the dressiness level of very casual clothing, for instance signaling that a pair of chinos is nice enough to be worth putting cuffs on.

Lest anyone be tempted to say I'm overthinking this topic, keep in mind the nature of this site!

 

Two vents are dressier than one. Zero is dressier than two.

Cuffed is dressier than plain on suit trousers. Plain is dressier than cuffed on formal trousers.

French cuffs are dressier than button cuffs. Single cuffs are dressier than French cuffs.

Double-breasted suits are dressier than single-breasted suits. Single-breasted tuxedos are dressier than double-breasted tuxedos.

Pinstriped suits are dressier than plaid suits. Solid suits are dressier than pinstriped suits.

A blue jacket with blue trousers is dressier than a blue jacket with tan trousers. A black jacket with striped trousers is dressier than a black jacket with black trousers.

A pleated soft-front shirt is dressier than a plain soft-front shirt. A stiff plain-front shirt is dressier than a pleated soft-front shirt.

In conclusion, there's no pattern.

I could imagine that the dressiness effect of detail depends on its historical origins, so for instance brogueing makes nice leather shoes a notch less formal because it was originally associated with traipsing through marshland. Similar rationales would apply to swing-back jackets, etc. Since a lot of detailing has such functional origins, this might be why details are often associated (even by people who don't actually know the origins anymore) with a lowered level of dressiness.

This.

 

Two vents are dressier than one. Zero is dressier than two.

Cuffed is dressier than plain on suit trousers. Plain is dressier than cuffed on formal trousers.

French cuffs are dressier than button cuffs. Single cuffs are dressier than French cuffs.

Double-breasted suits are dressier than single-breasted suits. Single-breasted tuxedos are dressier than double-breasted tuxedos.

Pinstriped suits are dressier than plaid suits. Solid suits are dressier than pinstriped suits.

A blue jacket with blue trousers is dressier than a blue jacket with tan trousers. A black jacket with striped trousers is dressier than a black jacket with black trousers.

A pleated soft-front shirt is dressier than a plain soft-front shirt. A stiff plain-front shirt is dressier than a pleated soft-front shirt.

In conclusion, there's no pattern.

This.

A very fine summary that, well, sums it up! :idea:

 

Actually Amplifiedheat makes an interesting point. If you separate mens clothing at the black tie/semi formal mark then in general shirts, jackets and pants tend to be more dressy with more detail and the opposite is true for black tie/semi formal. White tie is a whole other world, there arent really "versions" of white tie so its more the case that you either "did it right" or you didn't so its better to set it aside as its own world.

Suits, odd jackets, shirts, pants and shoes GENERALLY get more complex in construction as they get dressier below the black tie cutoff point. Take shoes, Chukka boots arent considered dressy really but a brown balmoral wingtip would be. The detail is like "plummage", the more the dressier.

Black tie is supposed to be sleek and spare to better highlight how great the woman on your arm looks. You fade out while she gets the spotlight. This is why walking down the street alone at 10am in a tuxedo looks bizarre, its completely out of any context.

 

Everybody Knows This...

...Can anyone explain and defend a generalization...

No. I don't dream this stuff up -- I just comment on it.

It is the conventional wisdom (sigh.)

As Manton once pointed out, this stuff ain't strictly logical. Its part SR (or some other) standard, part social custom, part because some big wheel in ancient times couldn't button his vest and part something else...except for the exceptions...

That is why a whole cut, which is less detailed, is not (at this point in time) more formal than a plain-cap oxford. It don't quite fit in anywhere, precisely, because it is too new -- in thirty years, maybe it will be dressier.

That's (partly) why a Stanly Kowalski t-shirt is not dressier that a point collar, no pocket, long sleeve, button cuff white shirt -- because the t-shirt, which certainly has less detail, was, a relatively short time ago, underwear.

But, of course, a dress shirt was also underwear a relatively short, but longer time ago, than the t-shirt. Isn't that fascinating?

Now that I have cleared everything up (again) you're welcome. No charge for that -- today...

 

Two vents are dressier than one. Zero is dressier than two.

Cuffed is dressier than plain on suit trousers. Plain is dressier than cuffed on formal trousers.

French cuffs are dressier than button cuffs. Single cuffs are dressier than French cuffs.

Double-breasted suits are dressier than single-breasted suits. Single-breasted tuxedos are dressier than double-breasted tuxedos.

Pinstriped suits are dressier than plaid suits. Solid suits are dressier than pinstriped suits.

A blue jacket with blue trousers is dressier than a blue jacket with tan trousers. A black jacket with striped trousers is dressier than a black jacket with black trousers.

A pleated soft-front shirt is dressier than a plain soft-front shirt. A stiff plain-front shirt is dressier than a pleated soft-front shirt.

In conclusion, there's no pattern.

This.

Some of these seeming contradictions are coming from comparing daytime dress with evening dress. With daytime dress the detail is about function (cuffs, pleats, vents, patch pockets, etc.) where more details can be more functional and sportier.

The details on evening wear on the other hand (black tie/white tie) have less to do with function. In evening wear simple = elegant and sporty and functional details that are more formal and intricate in daytime clothing are inappropriate and therefore less formal on evening wear.

 

A black jacket with striped trousers is dressier than a black jacket with black trousers.

Just for reference, the principle behind the stroller/black lounge was that an all black lounge suit was considered too formal.

 

My feeling has always been that additional detail which can be seen from some distance away makes clothes less dressy, while details that are apparent only at very close range have the opposite effect.

 

Just for reference, the principle behind the stroller/black lounge was that an all black lounge suit was considered too formal.

But then I could don a plain navy serge with a white broadcloth plain collar button cuff shirt, black grenadine tie, black wholecuts and no PS, producing a much simpler ensemble than what is typically worn with a stroller, but it will still be less formal. And should I add the complication of a boutonniere with the stoller, the gap grows slightly broader.

 

From my experience in reading these forums and from various other sources, I have found that the goal (as far as formal clothes goal) is to achieve "understated elegance." While this could be misintrepted to mean less is more, I for one believe a better meaning would be "not to stand out." Formal clothes are more of a uniform than a suit, in that the look itself has been refined over the years to make a man look his best. Classically modern formal wear is the result of tradition and manufacturing innovations. In short, it has been my conclusion that less is more only in the sense that the less you deviate from the tried-and-true look, the more refined the formal wear will be.
Non-formal suits, on the other hand are a completly different arena.

 

FALSE. Sometimes details and dressiness are inversely related, sometimes they are directly related, and often they are entirely independent.

Morning dress is dressier than a lounge suit. A morning suit requires a waistcoat, which is an extra detail, and a lounge does not. A slipped waistcoat just adds an additional detail (a white slip at the top of the waistcoat), and is extremely dressy. A cufflink or stud is dressier than a button, despite the fact that cufflinks and studs are dressier than buttons.

In the other direction, there is no clothing simpler than a bathrobe, or a pair of athletic shorts and a t-shirt. Yet both are the opposite of dressy.

The rules of what is or is not dressy are too complex, and too socially contingent, to be reduced to a single variable, however pithy it might sound.

 

^ Thanks for all the great comments so far, including this one. But please do note that in my original post I used phrasing like "with due allowance for other factors" and "tends to make clothes less dressy."

In other words, no single variable. One of the posters to this thread has previously said that the various elements of a garment are "vectors in the resolution of its level of dressiness." With that idea in mind, I was trying to explore the vector having to do with amount of detailing.

 

One of the posters to this thread has previously said that the various elements of a garment are "vectors in the resolution of its level of dressiness." With that idea in mind, I was trying to explore the vector having to do with amount of detailing.

And other posters (including me, but many others, as well) pointed out numerous examples of more detailed items being more dressy, and less detailed items being less dressy. Level of detail is not a "vector of dressiness."

You seem to be presupposing some mathematical grid or matrix whereupon all garments could be placed, with various axes of the grid/matrix representing certain "vectors," with levels of dressiness assigned to each. It just doesn't work that way. For instance, lets take the color "vector." For many items of clothing, such as jackets, ties, and suits, navy/midnight blue is a very dressy color (remember that midnight is often used as a substitute for black in evening wear). But a navy pair of men's shoes would certainly be unconventional, and, arguably, not dressy as result. Even more clearly, a navy shirt is almost necessarily a sports shirt, unsuitable for use with a tie.

White is almost the converse. The dressiest of colors for shirts, it's either daring as a color for a day tie or the most formal color for a tie at night. And it's certainly a more casual color for shoes.

Almost any other "vector" you care to name (aside from maybe cleanliness ) can be readily shown to point in both directions at once, thus rendering it useless as an axis in the matrix you seem to imagine.

The rules of clothing are partially aesthetic and partially historical, and very largely culturally contingent. There is no "grand unified theory," no way to identify the "four forces" of clothes and fit everything into that scheme.

 

Details can be many things. Is it barely discernable pick stitching on a lapel, or handsewn buttonholes? Or is it patch and hacking pockets? Well, I would say "details" is all of the above. Any aspect of clothes can be a detail, and for those who care everything is a detail. And I think that is where we stand.

Each detail needs to be discussed within a context - however broad or narrow it would be. Some details lend elegance, while others lend informality.

 

You seem to be presupposing some mathematical grid or matrix whereupon all garments could be placed,

Maybe I shouldn't have used someone else's language ("vector") in trying to say what I'm after. All I really set out to do here was explore the relation between detail and dressiness, if any. I am happy to consider arguments, like yours, that there isn't any relation to speak of, or arguments that the relation is positive rather than negative (more detail ==> more dressy). I think my original post was pretty careful about that.

 

Maybe I shouldn't have used someone else's language ("vector") in trying to say what I'm after. All I really set out to do here was explore the relation between detail and dressiness, if any. I am happy to consider arguments, like yours, that there isn't any relation to speak of, or arguments that the relation is positive rather than negative (more detail ==> more dressy). I think my original post was pretty careful about that.

Fair enough. I think I just have a visceral reaction to claims of false rules/precepts!