Semi-Formal Confusion

11839 Views 69 Replies 28 Participants Last post by Phileas Fogg, Mar 23, 2009

ss1088

Discussion Starter · Mar 15, 2009

I have been invited to a wedding where the dress code is listed as semi-formal. However, I am still confused on what to wear. I know most of you guys would be correct in translating this to be a black tie event. However, it seems most people these days just assume this means a suit and tie. I really don’t want to be out of place at this event by wearing a tuxedo. I have tried to contact the host/hostess but they are in the military and not prompt to respond. This gives me only two weeks to get a tuxedo together if necessary. Any advice would be appreciated.

41 - 60 of 70 Posts

pbc

· #41 · Mar 17, 2009

the420skipper said:
... showing up in a suit when everyone else is in dinner jackets would be worse than the other way around, I think. Moreover, I don't know the crowd you're dealing with, but it's quite likely that at least some men will show up in black tie. So even though it's quite unclear, it's always better to be overdressed than under.

I heartily disagree with this assessment and suggestion. It is not always better to be overdressed than under. Nor is it always better underdressed than over. For business and casual social settings, being dressed one step up is fine and plays on the safe side. But this assumes you know it involves two close categories and you've chosen the step up.

Once you get into black or white tie territory, those categories are so distinct that one step up isn't so simple. If the question is whether the event is black or white tie, I'd suggest the lesser of the two to play it safe. Between black tie and dark suit I'd choose dark suit. These are almost always acceptable alternative as they respectfully represent the wearer's best attire available and won't overshoot the host, guest of honor, or wedding party. (Note: This applies to the situation of the opening post and not to events where I know both dress categories will be present.)

pbc

pbc

· #42 · Mar 17, 2009 (Edited)

Redirecting Our Efforts

Whether you prefer a step up or a step down to play it safe, our debate ad nauseum can't solve the problem. We know what semi-formal should always mean. And the problem isn't that it has come to mean something else. The problem is that it has come to mean ANYTHING, not one of two possibilities but a wide range: from chinos to tie to sport coat/blazer to suit to black tie. This is the sad state of affairs with dress codes and habits since they've been intended and taken to mean virtually anything for so long that no one knows what is appropriate without calling the host directly for clarification by listing examples. Stating formality can actually cause more confusion than it solves, as we have seen time and again here.

So, as we strive to teach dressing well by lesson and example, what can we do to clean up the invitation dress code mess? Let's go to the source of this problem. How can we educate others? Some thoughts are to:

1. Use the correct traditional designation. If you use "formal" to mean ties and coats, what will you use for suits, "extra formal"? And for black tie, "uber formal"? White tie would have to be "astronomically formal" or something likewise ridiculous. Stick with the traditional, make no accommodations for modern dress codes; it only prolongs the illness. Secondary benefit - some may begin to understand that black and white tie, listed as semi-formal and formal, aren't so astronomical and ties and coats aren't so formal.

2. Include a brief parenthetical explanation. Yes, this is redundant but people don't know and you're taking the opportunity to educate.

3. Step up the dress for your events (not necessarily black or white tie). This may not work for every occasion, but the more people see and equate correct dress and its designation the better. Secondary benefit - having everyone dressed better will automatically make the event more classy and memorable; nothing else needed.

4. Send more invitations. If we stop and think, many social get togethers we plan can use invitations - definitely when the event is more formal or includes more people, especially for both. Besides, they are useful and elegant. Engraving gilded vellum is not required, just be classy and simple. I LOVE written invitations because the information is all together, I tend to remember it better, and I can easily refer to it later.

5. Answer questions politely and with confidence. If they have to ask then they don't know, which means you are the authority in this conversation (nevermind that you are the host). Be ready with a simple reference or two if they ask for one (www.blacktieguide.com, original Emily Post, etc.).

6. Include some help for the ladies. Women are often dressed better than men, but they have their habits as well. The "little black dress" is NOT the solution to any and all non-swimsuit occasions and "cocktail dress" is no more authoritative than "business casual." Business dress is at least knee-length and conservatively styled (covered shoulders and no low-cut tops). Semi-formal calls for at least mid-calf length. Formal is floor length evening gown or ball gown.

Other than our own events, how do we educate and spread the good word? Even influencing events of friends and family is slow in the overall scheme. I don't have all the answers. There are those among us who have written books, made presentations, done interviews, published reports, consulted, etc. on clothing and advocated for classical style. Can something be done with dress code designations and invitations? Bridal magazines and trade publications? Community presentations as a service of AAAC members? I believe in using the forum for more than debating shoe styles and looking for discounts.

pbc

See less See more

culverwood

· #43 · Mar 17, 2009

OP, I assume you have contacted the host(s) by now. What did they mean?

jackmccullough

· #44 · Mar 17, 2009

Notwithstanding the wishes of the Canutes of the dress code who are so prevalent on these boards, I suspect that there is no longer any common understanding of terms such as "semi-formal" outside of a small coterie of enthusiasts. While some recipients will recognize "semi-formal" as a term of art, others will simply understand it as a general description; similarly, some senders will use it in a way that would never have been recognized fifty years ago, but is commonplace now. After all, hardly anyone has ever been to, seen, or possibly conceived of an event calling for a higher level of formality than a DJ, so they reason that "formal" would mean black tie, so semi-formal must be a lower level of formality than that.

Much as pbc's suggestion is appealing, I don't think it's likely to succeed in generally spreading knowledge, understanding, and acceptance of the "right" meanings of the terms. I think it's a safer move to simply say what you mean when you're sending out invitations: black tie, etc.

Or you can adhere to the codes and either fume when people don't observe them or when they call looking for clarification.

See less See more

Acct2000

· #45 · Mar 17, 2009

helo-flyer said:
I think JCV brings up an interesting perspective

Probably not the correct one, though. I would wear a dark suit and tie to the wedding unless you are pretty sure most of the men would really wear evening clothes.

Pleasant McIvor

· #46 · Mar 17, 2009

Miket61 said:
I live in Buckhead.

I'll grant you that on the occasion of a black tie party at the Cherokee Town Club, it's unlikely to see any rentals, or any nondescript dark suits. At the spring debutante balls, the gentlemen will be in white tie without exception.

But to suggest that all of my neighbors, from Deering Road to Club Drive, from Piedmont Avenue to Defoors Ferry, make a regular habit of wearing dinner jackets, is not even a quaint notion now gone with the wind - it's just false.

Yes, I certainly overstated that, and you would know better.

But, if wishing made it so...

(it doesn't).

Pleasant McIvor

· #47 · Mar 17, 2009 (Edited)

^ And of course I meant that the men in question make a habit of wearing dinner jackets to events that can be formal, not every day after six. I assumed that the context of the thread still applied to my post. Nevertheless, I should have been clearer.

Mike Petrik

· #48 · Mar 17, 2009

Cruiser said:
Over the past 60 years I have lived in Beaufort, South Carolina; Nashville, Tennessee; and Jacksonville, Florida; in addition to spending a considerable amount of time in Atlanta, Georgia. The majority of guys that I know do not own tuxedos and I have routinely seen semi-formal interpreted to mean a suit. I can only assume that you hang with a very select group of people, but they certainly aren't the norm.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the invitation doesn't mean black tie. I'm just saying that based on my personal experiences I would not interpret it that way. And like I said, I am very familiar with the South East.

Cruiser

Charleston is Charleston. It is one of the few remaining bastions of tradition -- hence its charm.

Mike Petrik

· #49 · Mar 17, 2009 (Edited)

Prescriptive versus Descriptive

The problem here is one of vocabulary and usage. In the prescriptive sense, semi-formal has a precise meaning that is not at all confusing. Andy and others are 100% correct in this respect. However, dictionary definitions change over time depending on prevailing usage. In other words, definitions serve two functions that can be at tension: a prescriptive function defining terms based on traditional norms and usage, and a descriptive function defining terms based on common or developing current usage. Both are valid, though most people interested in words tend to favor one camp over the other. As a traditionalist, I admittedly favor the prescriptive sense and deplore the laziness and ignorance that leads to exactly the kind of difficulty that this thread is trying to address. But a gentleman does not elevate this kind of principle over the comfort and happiness of his friends, which is why Cruiser is correct that it is important to further investigate intentions if at all possible. As to which course is preferable if further investigation is impractical or futile, I am torn. On balance, I suppose I lean toward assuming black tie. If you guess wrong, rely on humor: explain that you are embarrassed to admit that you obviously live in the wrong century and abide by antiquated definitions, and then offer to drive your Packard right back home to change. But I could be wrong.
This type of situation is exactly why change junkies who insist on changing usage are such irritants.

See less See more

Cruiser

· #50 · Mar 17, 2009

Mike Petrik said:
Charleston is Charleston. It is one of the few remaining bastions of tradition -- hence its charm.

All I know is that if a slightly inebriated woman you don't know comes out of the blue at a club (Flying Dutchman on Dorchester Blvd 1971) and asks you to dance, don't do it. She has a large boyfriend who she is angry at and trying to make jealous. It did.

And then to make matters worse, while trying to exit Charleston and return to Beaufort in the late night hours my buddies and I were looking for a restroom. Finding none we decided to just go around behind a closed gas station where we were immediately surrounded by Charleston's finest men in blue. After determining that we were merely relieving ourselves rather than stealing from the gas station, they escorted us to to city limits and told us to stay out of Charleston. Just like in an old western movie.

Oh yeah, clothing related; the large angry boyfriend tore my shirt. Luckily I was not wearing semi-formal attire. :icon_smile_big:

Cruiser

bbcrock

· #51 · Mar 17, 2009

gtsecc said:
Miket61 said:

Yes. It shows the range of confusion that this silly, vague term causes.

"Semi-formal" implies that the hosts and all invitees have a common definition of "formal." Clearly, the original poster doesn't think that they do.[ /QUOTE]

But formal and semi-formal are precise terms. They specify exactly what to wear down to the color and style amd cloth and how many buttons to what shoes to wear. They mean the samething in every country in the world.

Click to expand...

I would think that people have made it abundantly clear that this is not true. You cannot judge what someone else is thinking on these matters these days.

What is the difference between soda, pop, and cokes. What do you call the strip of grass between the street and the sidewalk. What do you call a drinking fountain? What is the proper pronunciation of scallop? What is pavement?

I understand that in society and by that I mean SOCIETY or high society that we should understand these terms. But people in low society get married too.

When I described my wedding as "informal" my in-laws just about had two individual strokes, demanding that people wear suits.

Well, duh.

Was I supposed to call it International Business Attire?

bbcrock

· #52 · Mar 17, 2009

helo-flyer said:
Exactly, which leads me to believe a host that knew the true meaning of "semi formal" would never affix it to an invitation because of the confusion it would cause.

very good point.

bbcrock

· #53 · Mar 17, 2009

Mike Petrik said:
...
This type of situation is exactly why change junkies who insist on changing usage are such an irritants.

agreed. I am not a person wrapped up in formality and tradition and did not require that people dress any better than informal to my wedding and my wife was even more open than that (blazers).

But time and time again I find that people who misuse terms that have a given meaning (I see this in economics for instance) are the most irritating of all.

ToryBoy

· #54 · Mar 17, 2009

People are stupid. Whenever I used to get invites to parties/events and there is a dress code, most of the time they are unclear so I always call to find out. Now people do not sent me invites, they just call me and I ask the dress code - so much better this way.

It would be so much clearer if people just wrote 'Semi-formal - Black tie' or if they are clueless 'Semi-formal - suit, no jeans or trainers'

the420skipper

· #55 · Mar 17, 2009

pbc said:
I heartily disagree with this assessment and suggestion. It is not always better to be overdressed than under. Nor is it always better underdressed than over. For business and casual social settings, being dressed one step up is fine and plays on the safe side. But this assumes you know it involves two close categories and you've chosen the step up.

Once you get into black or white tie territory, those categories are so distinct that one step up isn't so simple. If the question is whether the event is black or white tie, I'd suggest the lesser of the two to play it safe. Between black tie and dark suit I'd choose dark suit. These are almost always acceptable alternative as they respectfully represent the wearer's best attire available and won't overshoot the host, guest of honor, or wedding party. (Note: This applies to the situation of the opening post and not to events where I know both dress categories will be present.)

pbc

My suggestion was based on the idea that the groom and at least some of the wedding party would be wearing black tie... but I suppose that's not really a fair assmuption.

Having read other people's viewpoints, and thinking about it more, it does seem unlikely indeed that the invitation means black tie. After all, if that's what they meant, assuming this is not a very old-fashioned invitation, why wouldn't they have just said black tie? Regardless of his sartorial knowledge, anyone would know that black tie is a much more specific and facile way to express the dress code requiring a dinner jacket than "semi-formal".

Blueboy1938

· #56 · Mar 18, 2009

Pleasant McIvor said:
Could someone explain why the cummerbund here should be worn with downward-facing pleats? Thank you.

No reason, it's just a rule:icon_smile_big:

I actually think that it is more logical than the civilian practice of wearing the pleats upward. Although the upward custom is, I am informed, a vestige of the use by the men of India, whence the cummerbund originated, in order to enable the carrying of small items in the folds of the sash.

gtsecc

· #57 · Mar 18, 2009

No one would use slang on an invitation, so they cannot say "black tie" or "tux" on an invitation. There are rules on how invitations are written so that there is no confussion about things. Nobody would go to the trouble of printing invitations without knowing what they are saying. And, even if they did not know, the engraver would clue them into how to communicate the dress code on an invitation.

Cruiser

· #58 · Mar 18, 2009

gtsecc said:
No one would use slang on an invitation, so they cannot say "black tie" or "tux" on an invitation.

From the web site about.com on the matter of how to word wedding invitations:

Optional details include telling your guests what to wear. Strictest etiquette tells you not to include information about attire on your invitation, but I think this is an outdated opinion. Guests appreciate clues about how to dress, and are not as instinctively knowledgeable as they used to be. To avoid someone showing up in blue jeans, include a line such as:

Black Tie

Other options: Semi-formal, cocktail attire, festive attire, creative black tie, white tie, black tie optional, dressy casual, informal.

The same web site provides the following definition of "semi-formal":

Semi-Formal or After Five means that tuxes are not required, nor are long dresses. An evening wedding (after 6 PM) would still dictate dark suits for him, and a cocktail dress for her. Daytime semi-formal events mean a suit for him and an appropriate short dress or dressy suit for her.

And while I am sure you will say that you do not consider this to be your definitive guide in such matters, that isn't the point I'm making. I'm saying that one cannot assume that everyone is reading from the same book. All I know is that I've been to more than a few "semi-formal" weddings where a suit was what was being requested.

Heck, in many of these "semi-formal" weddings the groom was wearing a suit and I don't think I would want to show up at someone's wedding in a tuxedo with the wedding party in suits. Like I suggested previously, the issue isn't about who is technically right or wrong.

Cruiser

See less See more

pbc

· #59 · Mar 18, 2009

the420skipper said:
My suggestion was based on the idea that the groom and at least some of the wedding party would be wearing black tie... but I suppose that's not really a fair assmuption.

Ah ha. In that case I agree. When I know two levels of dress will be represented I like to go for the more formal. I may even push the envelope for public functions (such as opening night at the opera), especially when they traditionally called for more formal dress. My note on this issue was meant to indicate events when only one category will be present and the other may be out of place. For example, wedding receptions are personal events, it is more comfortable to have everyone on the same page, and I don't want to upstage the wedding party.

pbc

Mike Petrik

· #60 · Mar 18, 2009 (Edited)

Cruiser said:
From the web site about.com on the matter of how to word wedding invitations:

Optional details include telling your guests what to wear. Strictest etiquette tells you not to include information about attire on your invitation, but I think this is an outdated opinion. Guests appreciate clues about how to dress, and are not as instinctively knowledgeable as they used to be. To avoid someone showing up in blue jeans, include a line such as:

Black Tie

Other options: Semi-formal, cocktail attire, festive attire, creative black tie, white tie, black tie optional, dressy casual, informal.

The same web site provides the following definition of "semi-formal":

Semi-Formal or After Five means that tuxes are not required, nor are long dresses. An evening wedding (after 6 PM) would still dictate dark suits for him, and a cocktail dress for her. Daytime semi-formal events mean a suit for him and an appropriate short dress or dressy suit for her.

And while I am sure you will say that you do not consider this to be your definitive guide in such matters, that isn't the point I'm making. I'm saying that one cannot assume that everyone is reading from the same book. All I know is that I've been to more than a few "semi-formal" weddings where a suit was what was being requested.

Heck, in many of these "semi-formal" weddings the groom was wearing a suit and I don't think I would want to show up at someone's wedding in a tuxedo with the wedding party in suits. Like I suggested previously, the issue isn't about who is technically right or wrong.

Cruiser

As much as I deplore the confusion caused by sites such as the one Cruiser shared, I think he is, unfortunately, absolutely right.

41 - 60 of 70 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.