The CM Graveyard: First Sartoria Partenopea... next J. Crew?

[dieworkwear]

The suit has emotional baggage attached to because of all the situations you mentioned it being worn, including graduation, interviewing for first job, formal dances, etc. Suits were about signaling growing up (what the article mentions); wearing or not wearing JNCO jeans doesn't have any of that emotion attached.

When I graduated with my degree in Dance Dance Revolution, I showed up to the ceremony in a pair of JNCOs.

 

[UrbanComposition]

At the same time, I think articles like that should serve as a wake up call to some (not all, but some) CM dudes who are comfortable in suit and tie and suddenly find themselves in a situation where they want to dress casual. And what do they do? They take off their coat and tie, and ask, "Am I doing this right?"

Casual is not a bad thing, just like a suit is not a bad thing. It's likely that the suit will be relegated more and more, but just as that doesn't mean it's completely out of style, neither does it mean that the advent of a casual society should be met with derision. All too often I see suit-lovers pooh-pooh casual clothes, when really, they're all just clothes.

 

[smittycl]

NYT on shopping there after Barneys.

"... I visited the heirs apparent, the stores that have taken on the mantle of early Barneys, each homing in on a particular segment of the high-end marketplace, or a particular angle of view: Dover Street Market New York, Totokaelo, Forty Five Ten, the Webster and Kith.

(I skipped long-running competitors like Bergdorf Goodman, Bloomingdale’s and Opening Ceremony; new wide-umbrella competitors like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus; and avant-garde specialists like Atelier New York and IF.)

Barneys Is Gone. Where Should You Shop Next? (Published 2019)

New York already has its replacements. We visit the heirs apparent.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Caustic Man]

I haven't read many of the posts leading up to this so I don't know if this has been covered already, or if it's off topic altogether, but with regard to the subject of the suit's place in contemporary dress I begin to wonder if the story of its decline as business-wear is beside the point. The disappearance of the suit in corporate settings is not, and has never been, synonymous with a broader decline. Nor is the rise of casual clothing necessarily a signal of its demise.

The disappearance of the suit as the standard business uniform has, rather, freed it to be used as a valuable tool in the exploration of men's fashion and classic menswear. Perhaps fewer people are wearing suits today but the ones who do look better than they ever have, and the suits they wear are generally of a higher overall quality than ever in terms of both construction and cloth. I could care less if we ever go back to a world in which the streets are teeming with schmucks in ill fitting suits and poorly chosen ties like the hallowed days between 1935 and 1968. The suit isn't being relegated to anything, it is being refined and made for people who actually want to wear them.

The moment when you need to worry about the suit actually disappearing is the moment when all that is available is cheap, poorly made, junk meant to be worn once at prom and then thrown away. Now is not that moment.

 

[papa kot]

The disappearance of the suit as the standard business uniform has, rather, freed it to be used as a valuable tool in the exploration of men's fashion and classic menswear. Perhaps fewer people are wearing suits today but the ones who do look better than they ever have, and the suits they wear are generally of a higher overall quality than ever in terms of both construction and cloth. I could care less if we ever go back to a world in which the streets are teeming with schmucks in ill fitting suits and poorly chosen ties like the hallowed days between 1935 and 1968. The suit isn't being relegated to anything, it is being refined and made for people who actually want to wear them.

Right on. Could not have said better!

 

[papa kot]

At the same time, I think articles like that should serve as a wake up call to some (not all, but some) CM dudes who are comfortable in suit and tie and suddenly find themselves in a situation where they want to dress casual. And what do they do? They take off their coat and tie, and ask, "Am I doing this right?"

Casual is not a bad thing, just like a suit is not a bad thing. It's likely that the suit will be relegated more and more, but just as that doesn't mean it's completely out of style, neither does it mean that the advent of a casual society should be met with derision. All too often I see suit-lovers pooh-pooh casual clothes, when really, they're all just clothes.

Most men who fancy classic menswear can pull off casual just fine. It is just that their idea of casual is still "dressed up" for the majority out there. If you have a bunch of suits and you know what you're doing, then it is highly likely that you'll have a few sport coats, jeans, shirts, and shoes that could produce fairly pleasant casual outfits.

The problem happens with people who follow the dress code without understanding the "know-whys." These are the same people who will wear grotesque-fitting suits with labels still attached to sleeves. If you tell them to dress it down, they'll change trousers for jeans and wear suit jackets with untucked shirts and casual odd shoes.

My advice to any man who wants to look more-or-less housebroken is to learn the essence of the why. Don't memorize the rules, try to understand what is behind them. And if lost, leave it up to the professionals.

 

[smittycl]

Most men who fancy classic menswear can pull off casual just fine. It is just that their idea of casual is still "dressed up" for the majority out there. If you have a bunch of suits and you know what you're doing, then it is highly likely that you'll have a few sport coats, jeans, shirts, and shoes that could produce fairly pleasant casual outfits.

The problem happens with people who follow the dress code without understanding the "know-whys." These are the same people who will wear grotesque-fitting suits with labels still attached to sleeves. If you tell them to dress it down, they'll change trousers for jeans and wear suit jackets with untucked shirts and casual odd shoes.

My advice to any man who wants to look more-or-less housebroken is to learn the essence of the why. Don't memorize the rules, try to understand what is behind them. And if lost, leave it up to the professionals.

As a CM guy most of my casual wear is from the same brands I buy suits from. Casual shirts and pants from Paul Stuart, RLPL, Zegna, Canali, BB, Barbera, etc. Same with shoes. C&J Connaught and Harvard for CM and C&J Chelsea V or Harvard II for casual. Add some Barbour, Viyella, Billy Reid.

I think most of us do casual well without having to venture too far into SW&D. Although I did pick up this funky Basquiat sweatshirt a while back...

 

[Luigi_M]

The disappearance of the suit as the standard business uniform has, rather, freed it to be used as a valuable tool in the exploration of men's fashion and classic menswear.

Good point

 

[clee1982]

Most men who fancy classic menswear can pull off casual just fine. It is just that their idea of casual is still "dressed up" for the majority out there. If you have a bunch of suits and you know what you're doing, then it is highly likely that you'll have a few sport coats, jeans, shirts, and shoes that could produce fairly pleasant casual outfits.

The problem happens with people who follow the dress code without understanding the "know-whys." These are the same people who will wear grotesque-fitting suits with labels still attached to sleeves. If you tell them to dress it down, they'll change trousers for jeans and wear suit jackets with untucked shirts and casual odd shoes.

My advice to any man who wants to look more-or-less housebroken is to learn the essence of the why. Don't memorize the rules, try to understand what is behind them. And if lost, leave it up to the professionals.

that's not really casual though, imagine you showed up in your neighbor's bbq in sports coat and jeans...

 

[clee1982]

NYT on shopping there after Barneys.

"... I visited the heirs apparent, the stores that have taken on the mantle of early Barneys, each homing in on a particular segment of the high-end marketplace, or a particular angle of view: Dover Street Market New York, Totokaelo, Forty Five Ten, the Webster and Kith.

(I skipped long-running competitors like Bergdorf Goodman, Bloomingdale’s and Opening Ceremony; new wide-umbrella competitors like Nordstrom and Neiman Marcus; and avant-garde specialists like Atelier New York and IF.)

Barneys Is Gone. Where Should You Shop Next? (Published 2019)

New York already has its replacements. We visit the heirs apparent.

www.nytimes.com

not very CM I suppose

 

[crazn]

As a CM guy most of my casual wear is from the same brands I buy suits from. Casual shirts and pants from Paul Stuart, RLPL, Zegna, Canali, BB, Barbera, etc. Same with shoes. C&J Connaught and Harvard for CM and C&J Chelsea V or Harvard II for casual. Add some Barbour, Viyella, Billy Reid.

I think most of us do casual well without having to venture too far into SW&D. Although I did pick up this funky Basquiat sweatshirt a while back...

View attachment 1295719

Wow smittycl. It’s very reverse ageist lol

 

[manowar]

that's not really casual though, imagine you showed up in your neighbor's bbq in sports coat and jeans...

I don't consider shorts and t-shirt "casual", but rather sportswear/recreational wear.

Though "casual" in the relative sense could mean simply less formal than the alternative, I am using the term to define a level of formality. A pair of chinos and a tucked-in collared shirt would be a good example of casual. Business casual could be a step above that, and may or may not include a sports jacket. A jacket/tie lands squarely in the business-wear category, not to be confused with semi-formal wear and formal wear!

I have long considered denim as a definitive line between casual wear and streetwear, though I know many would disagree. I could also classify denim as "workwear" (as opposed to business-wear). Also, untucking your shirt disqualifies it as casual in most cases, landing you in the lower categories.

To me, anything less formal than denim is automatically in the sportswear/recreational wear category. As arbitrary as it may sound, one has to draw the lines for themselves (or their company/organization dress-code) somewhere.

Here's a helpful graphic from RMRS. I disagree on the point of jeans being casual wear, but at least I'm not calling anyone sloppy. What he says is "ultra casual" I would consider sportswear or recreational wear.

Before I duck for incoming "snob" comments, I want to mention that I oftentimes wear jeans and/or untucked shirts to the office, though usually I'm in casual or business casual.

 

[gnatty8]

One data point. I have a leadership role in a Treasury organization in a F100 company and have had similar roles for at least the last 10 years. I own at least 75 ties. In the last 24 months I have worn a tie exactly once.

 

[Texasmade]

I would say the "casual" guy in a polo and what I'm assuming are chinos/khaki pants would also qualify as business casual. That look is pretty common in my office. Once you switch out the chinos/khaki pants to denim jeans then you're into the casual territory.

 

[lefty]

This actually makes me feel awful. Looks more like an ad for Kohl's. Can't believe it's for Barneys New York.

View attachment 1289531

I was at Barneys on Saturday. Those signs are all over the place and the racks look like they were hit by bombs. If you ever questioned the power of retail display, go look at how ****** a rack of expensive clothes look when no one cares to straighten them out.

lefty