Tuxedo Fashion Question...

wrong about the waistcoat, or wrong about not arguing with the dude?

bk

 

Here, here, Baron!

Of course, you were absolutely correct, sartorially speaking (assuming it was an evening waistcoat) but he's the boss!

 

Frankly speaking, your boss lacks class. No matter what he thought, it was not gentlemanly of him to have made you feel ill at ease. He's a waste of space.

 

Clearly.

The tipoff is the "CEO" bit. A gentleman does not use initials not his own.

Sardou

 

Would he have prefered that you go wearing a t-shirt with a black tie, lapels and studded shirt silk screened on the chest?

 

Sergei:
Your CEO sounds like a Big Fat Jerk.
Vests with a tux have a long tradition- just check out some of Alan Flusser's books and the illustrations he uses from the vintage "Apparel Arts" magazine (forerunner of "GQ").

Besides, what sort of gentleman uses his position to browbeat his employees in public?

You made the correct sartorial move with the vest and you made the correct ploitical move by not arguing with the CEO, but he's still a jerk.

 

Current fashion...

I think the germane statement is that the CEO thought that CURRENT fashion dictated no vest or cummerbund. I have never heard that and don't know where the CEO would have heard that. What does one wear then? Just the pleated shirt and bow tie? That would leave a plain shirt area just above the pants waist and that wouldn't look good. Jacket buttoned all the time.....? The whole incident sounds strange to me. Had there been a lengthy cocktail hour before dinner?

 

Golden Globes a good indicator of sartorial correctness? ...

bk

 

Wouldn't know about Riehle Brothers tavern, but Harry's is still in West Lafalot. Survived yet another fire. Not many tuxedos, though ... very little style. I believe there's another FL member who spent some time in Lafalot. Small world ...

bk

 

I think William Powell is wearing a single breasted, black tuxedo and white vest, at the end of the first Thin Man movie.

If it works for Powell, it works for me.

I think you should challenge your boss to a duel.
Shall we say pistols at dawn?

 

How about shotguns across a dinner table?

 

Eeeeeewwww

That'd be a real mess.

 

So difficult to clean the tablecloth!

I'm thinking more like the valets of yore. If they really didn't like a guest they would weaken a few stitches in the sole of one shoe with a razor blade (never cut it, just weaken it) so that a few days/weeks later, the sole of his shoe would come apart. They might also do the same with a few stitches in the seat of his trousers. The clothing was never harmed; it was always repairable, but the owner got a good dose of embarassment -- away from the instigator!

 

And what's everyone's take on suspenders/cummerbund? Personally, I don't care for the cummberbund, so I wear suspenders with my tux. There are, of course, opposing sides. Some say you always have to wear a cummerbund, even with suspenders and others say it's one or the other, it being akin to wearing suspenders and a belt. Of course I don't give a rat's a** as to what modern fashion dictates because if I were subject to that I'd be wearing the ridiculous black necktie.

Regards,

Senator Jack

 

The cummerbund was never intended to hold up the trousers; it derives from sashes worn in the British colonies (especially India). They were adopted as a cooler, more comfortable alternative to the waistcoat in tropical climes. Evening trousers should never really be worn with belts so suspenders should be worn with a cummerbund. Of course, a gentleman would never dream of removing his dinner jacket at a formal function so you would never see the suspenders anyway. If you're concerned about your braces showing when you gesticulate, white suspenders are always acceptable with evening wear.