Nicely controversial FNB, should hopefully, stimulate some good, interesting debate on all the forums if certain people put their ego's and persecution complexes aside. Just had a little mooch on the internet about the 'Men's Dress Reform Party' which was created in Britain in the inter-war years. (gunna do a bit more digging about this lot!) and found this article originally written in the 30's. It's a bit 'dry' as you would expect from an academian but interesting nevertheless. It might explain the creation, adoption and longevity of some of the 'rules' from a socio/psychological perspective:

http://www.charlie.tcwirefree.co.uk/psychology.htm

More to follow as I find it.

The reason clothing ‘rules’ have ceased to be relevant anymore is that they no longer reflect the clothing needs of modern men. Society and man's role in it have changed hugely since these ‘rules’ were made. Another reason is men are also rediscovering their individuality again, because you work for The Man doesn’t mean you have to or want to dress like you do.

Women and gay men’s influence in the role of fashion designers and stylists can’t be underestimated either. Men’s clothes are becoming more feminine; when I say feminine I don’t mean effeminate. Suits are still cut to emphasise the classic male torso, they still respect what we all recognise to be the standard architecture of the suit but they’re now being realised in softer fabrics, interesting textures and patterns and bolder use of colour.

I agree with the statement that we’re living in a more experimental age; I think technology has played a major part in this. Men can now view and purchase different clothing styles from many countries each imbued with their own cultural aesthetic. It’s never been easier to purchase that beautiful tie, shirt, whatever from Italy or wherever.  Men have never been freer(?) to experiment and find their own style, express their own artistic sensibility without being judged, without being considered odd or reactionary.


The more I think about clothing rules the more I see them as a kind of covert sumptuary law. That’s why I believe they are largely unwritten, you either know them or you don’t, you are either part of the ‘in’ crowd or you aren’t. This is the reason why some men like to cling to them. I’m not fooled by the argument that they want to uphold sartorial standards, I think that’s bollocks, it’s because they like to think they’re better than everyone else, they know something that the great unwashed don’t, they’re part of the in crowd and you aren’t. As if knowing when to wear white tie makes you a better person, makes you more refined.

Some of the best dressed men on the boards are rule breakers. This is not to say the rules are not important. To me, they are vital. Knowing the rules of traditional taste is vitally important if dressing well is to be approached in an artful way as is when and how to break them.

Consider rules of english and consider how its rules were broken by skillfull authors. This is what makes Ezra Pound's work much different and meaningful than what I would produce playing with refrigerator   poetry magnets.

Consider Beethoven and compare him against those who came before him such as Mozart and Haydn with their clearly defined melodies. Beethoven did not toss this out, but he know how to build up a melody, then destroy it with dissonance sustaining emotions of tension, anxiety, and then at last, resolution. Had Beethoven thrown out all rules he would have been nothing more than your two year old neice banging away on your old Casio.

I understand ful well I will never be called on the carpet for having incorrect number of buttons on my jacket's sleeve, or for wearing bluchers with a suit. I break these rules when needed for reasons that are personal. After all to even have a personal style, a norm must be established in the form of rules to assess someone's deviation from it and hence, their personal style.

An excellent post by koolhistorian. The rules as they are propagated in the forums are largely American. Like koolhistorian I had never heard of the oxford and derby (balmoral and blucher) rule before I can to the US, in the UK all that matters is that business shoes are black and ideally should have laces. Likewise there is no difference in formality between brogues and cap toes in business wear, and wearing a double breasted suit is quite acceptable if getting rarer. As for an interview, provided you are wearing a dark suit, black shoes, a restrained shirt and tie you cannot go far wrong. Lif is much simpler in the UK.

Yes Capt'n P., jeans, etc. became casual attire in the 50, but they became "attire" -i.e. acceptable to wear in public (and I stress acceptable) - in the late 60. The late 80 and 90 brought in, including in diplomatic protocol, the "no-tie meeting" - I remember when such a meeting was perfected between Gorbatchev and Mitterand, at the Mitterand's farm in Latche, F.M. sported a traditional french peasant buttoned up jacket, he just could not imagine himself with an exposed neck! On the other hand, casual dress codes are very american, in Europe people tend to be more traditional (aside the IT industry, where, to quote friends that are working in, it will be impossible to keep a guy if you put him in a suit), but also more relaxed about different "rules" than the americans. Also, after a certain age and status, you are expected to dress according to it, so you can see more mid-aged guys in suits and ties. BTW, in Europe you can spot an american in 3sec.'s on the street, despite his/hers being dressed or casual, they dress "american".
On the other hand, to go back at the OP's rules, one of the causes of decline in quality of goods is the fact that we are both in larger numbers, as consumers, and we also want more (in individually owned items). In the 30 and 40 (according to my now late grandfather and grand uncles) a normal wardrobe would had been 2-3 every day suits and one "good suit", around a dozen shirts, normally white ones, 3-4 pairs of shoes. If you take Will's A Suitable Wardrobe list you have, for the basic wardrobe something like the double, plus the sports jackets and accompanying trousers, then you add good quality casuals. See the difference in how closets became "walk-in closets" (from a piece of furniture towards a piece of architecture) and you see the increase in numbers. Combine that with the decline (social and economic) of skilled manual professions - tailors, cordwainers, shirt-makers, etc. (now even a barber is a hair-stylist!) and with the increase in how much you pay for manual work to be done, and you get the laser cut, glued and fused garment made in China!
To be very frank, either we go into more "restrained" consumption - less, but better, sort of "gourmet" clothing, either we accept branded rags as garment!

In my second post I said '...I believe the rules are largely unwritten...' The reason I said this is because I've never seen any of the supposed rules for men's dress codified to such a degree that you see implied on the clothing boards. I think British men and to a large extent our continental cousins learn our dress sense from observation, we see what others wear in similar circumstances and just copy it. I think the rules are largely an Internet construct created by men who confuse style with 'correctness' at best, or substitute 'correctness' for style at worst.

Edit: Spelling

Last edited by formby (2008-07-28 15:28:45)

What are "the rules" anyway? They seem to be an attempt to codify good taste to avoid the accusation that you don't have it. This is odd really since by definition you are adopting someone else's taste so nobody can tell if you have good taste or not, just homogenised.

If you need to be told it's a rule then it probably isn't. As koolhistorian said earlier people absorb styles by observation and copy what they see. If you ask someone in London why they wear black shoes to work (I have tried this after a few drinks) they will look puzzled and if pushed will say it's because you do. They were never told to but they do it because everyone else does.

What John T Malloy attempted to do was to interview and codify what the rules were by interview people to find out their prejudices. In contrast Alan Flusser started from a style he liked and then built the justification around it - as a designer that was his right but it doesn't make him correct it merely makes his a point of view. Case in point is his fixation with drape which is very difficult to pull off except in bespoke clothing.