Jump to content

Talk:Suit/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

History

I'd like to see a history of the suit. I'm curious where its roots lie - User:popefelix

Extreme suit

This section is a little odd. It's interesting but perhaps over-states the case and should be edited in parts. The following line is an example of some POV undertone that could be cleaned up. "And the worst of it is, few of our younger men know any better until they go abroad and find their wardrobe a subject for jest and derision." I won't change anything for now since I don't know what efforts are taking place on this page, except to edit the above line. Chooper (talk) 21:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I also removed "double-breasted" from this section, as a double-breasted suit hardly can be considered "extreme". 【 MqaTalk 】 18:31, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Men's Suits

What is this about bathing going with certain of Brummel's suits? Likethewatch 02:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Likethewatch

Suit Color?

I've heard from a number of sources (not really fashion gurus, but people that wear suits pretty much every day of the week) that navy blue suits aren't really "in" for men in the business world these days. The preference has shifted to black. The suit color section says otherwise; it doesn't have a definite source, but then, neither do i. can anyone point me towards a source for a popular consensus on this matter? Zoffoperskof 08:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that this section needs references and/or updates. I perceive black as acceptable in the US but reserved for formal occasions and/or funerals in other countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.128.175 (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

History

Here is a brief quote that answers your question:

"Charles, following the example of the court of Louis XIV at Versailles decreed in 1666 that at court, men were to wear a long coat or jacket, a waistcoat (originally called a petticoat, a term which later became applied solely to women's dress), a cravat (ancestor of the modern necktie) a wig, and breeches or trousers gathered at the knee, as well as a hat for outdoor wear."

The above quote is contained in the following article:

http://www.answers.com/topic/suit-clothes

Aha. How can Charles II be said to have caused a revolution, when all he did was copying the French coat? Seems to me that Louis XIV was the innovator. I'm going to delete that statement, if nobody objects. Dkviking 09:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Circular argument. :-) The Answers.com article is from Wikipedia - almost everything there is.
Charles may have got the idea of the coat from Louis XIV's justacorps a brevet - scholars disagree - but he mandated the costume as required wear at the English court and in its earliest version it was rather different from what was worn in France at that time, being based also on Russian and/or Turkish costume. There is much discussion of the origins of Charles's new "suit" in Ribeiro, Aileen: Fashion and Fiction: Dress in Art and Lierature in Stuart England, Yale, 2005, ISBN 0-300-10999-7. Still, the majority of costume historians point to Charles's coat, vest, and breeches as the origin of the modern 3-piece suit. - PKM 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Discomfort in a suit

I'm the person who just added a bunch to the suit discussion about suit etiquette...and I kind of agree with the above comment, strict adherence to suits is a bit ridiculous. For instance, I think its strange to make college students wear suits...I think they are a bit young, and it looks strange. At the same time, I'd probably chide the professor for wearing his suit improperly though (if only in my mind). I also kind of wish their weren't social norms for dress code, I'd rather everyone just wear what they want to wear...(in my case that would be a suit with attention to traditional ediquette, ironically).

One thing though...there are very light-weight suits available for hot weather. Ones that are a large portion cotton or silk as opposed to wool. I think tan suits are traditionally acceptable in hot climates. Also, seersucker fabric is increadibly light-weight and breathable, and at least used to be made into suits (I don't know if it still is). It is as breathable as a T-Shirt I am told. Although, I have to admit I'm not sure how appropriate seersucker is considered at this point (I'm young), I haven't actually ever seen it in person except for once.

Suit Etiquette

Edited the section about three button suits - it is a serious faux-pas to do what the previous version was suggesting - viz buttoning only the top button. The perennial wisdom is "Sometimes, Always, Never" - ie the top is only buttoned if the middle is buttoned, and the bottom never. Variations are a matter of personal taste, but the above rule is "etiquette" --Freddie de Sibert 08:58 AM EST, April 29, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.151.163 (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re-did this section. I removed a large portion of the disclaimer and some other stuff. It seemed very POV, stating over and over again that Europe was more conservative than America. That may well be true, but the article is about suits. =| If my edit was out of line, feel free to revert. --User:Jenmoa 23:52, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have re-edited the etiquette section as well with greater detail and addressing certain omissions. I also changed the wording to make it more explicitly oriented towards a contemporary-conservative viewpoint than a "traditional" one, though I have retained much of that wording. Traditional is a word that can be very misleading--technically, paisley and foulard are traditional, but few people would consider them especially conservative by today's standards. Garters on socks are also traditional, but where can you find those? And what about bow ties (I mean, I know where you can find those, but who wears them other than Tucker Carlson)? Also, there were distinct errors about how one properly buttons a double-breasted suit (they are not normally cut to have both to-buttons fastened and the tailoring would turn out strange if one had it fitted with both buttons fastened). Also, the issue of the black suit needed further elaboration, as did the color of shoes, accessories and socks. I made the leap of mentioning contemporary conservative standards because, while they will eventually need to be updated once fashion makes a significant enough shift, the information should actually be useful in a current context, I feel, or there is no point in having a section like "etiquette" which is clearly only there for application is a social milleau. Also, regarding the comments on a previous edit, this was written from an American (N)POV, but most of this is widely applicable beyond the United States because this isn't about hyper-specifc things like what vents are in fashion. Thanks, Chris [still haven't registered...] 22:53, 25 March 2005

Good edits, Chris. I have broken your new material into subsections and linked to other Wikipedia artcles. Since you seem to know something about traditional menswear, you might want to take a look at shirt and collar (clothing) - they could use some cleanup. PKM 20:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Follow up

Not at all, thank you very much for editing it, it looks much better now! I wrote the article on a whim in about 5 minutes late at night in a hotel room...and greatly appreciate someone cleaning it up for me!

History of the suit

I cleaned up the article a little and added a considerable history of the business suit, drawing on what I know of the history of men's dress. I'm just an amateur, but I believe the information is correct- any edits would be helpful. I also added a small paragraph on the symbolic rejection of the suit by some non-European political leaders.

I quite like wearing a suit myself, and would probably do so even if I didn't need to, but times have changed. As a casual alternative, I like wearing a sport coat- it is the male equivalent of a woman's purse. You can hold so much in it, and a good one can be worn with practically any clothing.

SR, 17/04/05.

(suit-etiquette person). yeah I should totally get a logon...any way, I think I'd like a literal purse, it would seem handy at some times, a nice louis vuitton one is somewhat masculine, at least for a purse that is. Although obviously...I would not carry around my purse when wearing a suit in a "respectful or formal manner"!

Wot no suit!?

In the UK, and all of Europe, I am seeing the suit just disappear, and I hate it: I shall always wear a suit. I know people who get fined every Friday by their colleagues for wearing a suit! I know that people are relaxed about this in the US and let me report from the Old World to those of you of the New: things are like that here, now. There are a few bastions, though: the City, for example. Bureaucrats in France seem to adhere perfectly to traditional suit etiquette, but MPs in the UK do not. Black suits and red ties--argh！

Frankly, that is a small consolation.[[User:Zhengfu|Zhengfu (talk)]] 15:09:19, 2005-07-27 (UTC)

If it's any consolation, I work at a movie studio in California - which is about as casual as it gets - and many of the executives and all the lawyers and accountants wear suits, at least several days a week. PKM 04:15, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Fined for wearing a suit! Another example of the fascism of the Left! Uporządnicki (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Mao Suit

The "Mao Suit" is not of Mao Zedong's devising. The linked article itself explains it. Unless I'm not aware of a particular definition of "to devise", I think this should be corrected. 12:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How to wear a suit

Hi, I'm the person who started what was once a very sloppy section of traditional suit etiquette...which I see now has been improved upon to an amazing degree! Thanks everyone!!!!

I did some very minor editing:

1.) Dropped the sentence about buttoning all of one's shirt buttons including the top most one. First of all, one should NOT button their top most button unless they are wearing a tie. Secondly, I think it is self explanatory that one should button all the rest of the buttons. Although, if any one disagrees about the self explanatory part, I have no objection to adding it back (sans the top button part).

2.) Changed the sentence that said black suits are for "evenings and formal wear". That made it sound like black suits were the traditional norm for evenings...they weren't, at least not in the way we mean suit. Dinner jackets (aka tuxedos) are typically black, but a standard black suit has never been traditional. I also replaced "formal wear" with dinner jacket, as formal wear is vague, and I honestly don't know of any formal wear outside of a tuxedo which was traditionally black.


PS Good point about changing wording to contemporary conservative from traditional PPS Yeah...thanks for correcting the double breasted suit part (I've never worn one, nor do I obviously know much about them)

Suits and the issue of men's fashion freedom

I removed this section today:

Some men have questioned why men are so often required to wear suits to dress up, while women have been able to forgo the wearing of traditional formal attire such as blouses, skirts or dresses, for more simple and practical clothes to do the same. As mentioned earlier, clothing such as sweaters or T-shirts are strictly casual wear (or "dressy casual" at most in the former's case) for men, while women are commonly seen as being fully dressy while wearing such, or not wearing skirts. there may be several reasons for this descrepancy: In the case of women being able to choose to wear pants over skirts, the desire for equality with men, driven by feminism is the most probable cause. As a result of the breaking of the standard female dress code , blouses may have lost their dominance as well. The reason for the expectations of men to wear suits (or at least a shirt and tie) is most probably the result of males not having any equivilent drive for equality.

for the following reasons:

  1. "some men" is a weasel term and needs to be replaced by some references to which men - the fact that I have never heard this complaint does not, of course, mean it does not exists, so a citation to the article in the New York Times which defines it will do nicely.
  2. the terms "dressy casual" and "fully dressy" are somewhat odd; business casual and business dress or formal dress are probably the correct terms in context, but I don't really understand the argument well enough form the context of the paragraph to know whether it is only in the business context that this alleged problem exists
  3. the idea that men suffer any form of overt discrimination over dress codes seems to me to be highly ocntentious. Women suffer far more form this, having to tread a delicate line between being castigated for being frumpy and being villified as tarty. Skirt above the knee? below the knee? mid-calf? Neckline?
  4. the opposite case to that put in this paragraph could also be made: the suit is a marvellous fashion device, never out of place. Suit with tie: adequately formal. Too formal? Remove the jacket. Still too formal? Take the tie off. Still too formal? Roll the shirt sleeves up. There is almost no business context, and few social contexts, in which the wearing of a suit constitutes a faux pas.

If we are goign to cover this, we need to do it in a much more thorough manner - but actually I think it is already well covered at dress code. Just my $0.02

Handkercheifs have never been good form in Britain???

"Handkerchiefs and pocket squares/silks in the upper welt (chest) pocket are not especially common in today's conservative dress, and have never been 'good form' in Britain..."

Can someone please elaborate on why this is the case? I'd agree that handkerchiefs are not used the vast majority of the time, especially in business due to their non-conservative look. That said, handkerchiefs can be folded conservatively or flamboyantly.

However they are used very extensively at Mayfair's gentlemen's clubs, formal events (i.e. black tie) and formal parties. To make a statement that they "have never been 'good form' in Britain" is quite frankly, ludicrous.

--IamNear 13:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Broadly correct. Certainly they have been acceptable for the past fifty years. I seem to remember from Wodehouse that conservative dressers might still have disapproved back in the twenties and thirties, though.

That said, I believe it is still improper to wear a hankerchief that does not match the tie.--Evil Capitalist 16:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense! How could anyone be so louche as to match pocket square and tie? (I am British) As long as British men have had their breast pocket, they have had hankies; the 'conservative men' in the teens were the ones who still wore frock coats (which, of course, have no pockets at all on the outside).Kan8eDie (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the section on pocket squares said that they were now uncommon. Thought that is true, it is my observation that they are currantly becomming more fashionable. Perhaps someone who is knowledgable in that area should comment on this in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.41.212.70 (talk) 04:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

At the base of the article there is a link to a custom tailor.

Is this appropriate?

They may be a good tailor, but there are at least 1000s of good tailors the world over, why does this one warrant mention in an encyclopedia article on suits?

On second thought, I'm not sure this article's discussion page gets much traffic, so I'm taking it out for now, but here's the link if people think it should be replaced:

It might be worth having something on notable designers, tailors etc. Briony, Kiton, Canali come to mind since the rise of these elite tailors has social significance. Armani suits, for example, have certain social connotations(81.131.31.33 21:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

American bias?

While not an expert on this subject, I get the feeling that the history section of this article gives a somewhat americanocentric view of the development of the lounge suit. Perhaps it is just because of my country of origin, but surely such an account is not complete without reference to the Duke of Windsor and so on. Could someone with more knowledge than myself perhaps do the honours?--Evil Capitalist 16:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Definitely so. Here in Japan, the suit is common among all ages and classes of men, and there's no evidence that it's going anywhere soon. 223.219.53.2 (talk) 02:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Seperate Article For Men and Women's Suits

The rules for men's and women's suits are very different and make use of different fabrics, color, texture, pattern, ad constructions. Rather than general article on suits why not a Men's suits and a women's suits article? Absent comments to the contrary I'll implement this in a few days.

just use separate sections. the material still fits on the page. it may be hard to disambiguate incoming links if they refer to "suits" to include both.--Jiang 06:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

Hey, etiquette article starter here again - Totally agreed, seperate articles make great sense to me as well.

Cleanup

Removed some of the superfulous talk regarding suit (while retaining the question). Wikipedia is not meant to function as a blog. 68.203.127.188 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Mr. Burns August 10, 2006

Modern suit created in Britain as adaption of frock coat for horseriding.

I once read somewhere that the modern suit evolved in Britain as the old fashioned court dress was shortened to allow for horseriding, probably hunting. Thats why suits (apart from double breasted) have one or two vents at the back, to allow the legs to spread over the horse. And not an American invention, as it currently says in the article.

optical illusion on TV

Does anyone know the name of the optical illusion that happens with certain patterned suits or shirts on TV. It looks like there are curved lines of darker patterning that shift along the patterned surface as it moves. It sometimes also creates colour where there isn't any ie. a black and white houndstooth suit might seem to have a hint of rainbow where these bands appear. I'm sorry I can't describe this phenomenon better. I know it has a name though. Mike.lifeguard 05:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a moiré pattern caused by the intersection of the plaid fabric and the red, green, and blue color grids on the video camera.

It's not an optical illusion; it's really there in the signal. - PKM 17:33, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an illusion nonetheless, because it's NOT really there in the suit. 198.49.180.40 21:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Belts with suits

Suits made by English tailors do not have belt loops but have side fasteners and braces (suspenders) buttons. Suits bought off the peg at high street stores do have belt loops. A gentleman would never wear a belt with a suit. However, I am not sure that this (unlike most issues in the UK) is so much to do with class as with growing informality. In the days when all working men owned a "Sunday Best" suit, it would have been held up by braces. I have amended the accessory section to convey this without starting a class war. Is this only a UK phenomenon or is wearing a belt with a suit considered vulgar behaviour elsewhere? Terwilliger 21:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Trousers for Suits had belt loops as far back in the 1920's. Not everyone wears suspenders. In the 1920's they were considered out-moded and obsolete. They came back into fashion in the 1940's. By the 1970's, they were again obsolete. A true gentlemen would know his history. ;) 67.169.43.113 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this section should be removed, I have a tailored three-piece suit, and it has loops for a belt. I would like to remind people here that the most common type of braces nowadays are those which clip on to ones trousers, rather than needing buttons-GeorgeFormby1

For the record, clip-on braces are undeniably tacky, and certainly not befitting for a gentleman. Kan8eDie (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Three-Button Fashion

The article states that it is highly fashionable to fasten all three buttons of a three-button coat.

Fastening all three buttons is never done. It usually shows the wearers lack of fashion knowledge. Thus, the only people I see buttoning all three buttons are high-school prom goers, who generally don't know how to properly wear a suit.

Is there any sort of citation for this supposed new "fashion trend"? (75.50.101.58 04:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Black tie

The current photograph is a poor illustration of black tie. None of the three gentlemen pictured is wearing a cummerbund or waistcoat, and therefore their dress cannot properly be considered to match the black tie dress code. (Furthermore, at least in Europe, black tie is usually worn with a fold-down collar, the wing collar being reserved for white tie. I don't know if that is true outside Europe.)



Their collars are quite normal for American black tie, but I agree that it would be nice if at least one of them had a cummerbund, and in any case the photo doesn't clearly show the details of the cut of their jackets and trousers. Anyone have a better photo?

65.213.77.129 (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Waistcoats and Disco

The paragraph linking waistcoats and narrow waist jackets to disco must surely be a joke. Waistcoats are no longer universally popular, but they remain very much a mark of a well-dressed man, especially in Europe. I very much doubt that any European would link a three-piece suit to disco. The remarks about loose-fitting jackets may be true in the U.S., but European suit jackets still taper to the waist.

In Britain the three-piece suit is certainly still associated with Disco-User:GeorgeFormby1

In the UK here I would never link a three-piece to disco. If I see someone with such a business suit, I think 'executive', or in tweed I assume that at least one person in the family is landed.Kan8eDie (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The link to Xiushui and the surrounding paragraph seem like a really poor attempt at advertising their services. The type of service that they provide can be just as adequately displayed without referring to any company name. Before I edit it, I will check to see if they are the only company that offer this service (highly unlikely). 202.67.103.131 02:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Going to remove it now, as a cursory google-search shows that there are plenty of other tailors who travel to other cities/their clients homes/businesses with fabric and measuring-tape. 202.67.103.131 02:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

????

  • that bit about buttoning suits is total nonsense, it's over complicated and wrong, I own a suit which was made in 1937 and as was the style at the time has three buttons, I find it restricting to fasten the top two button's and normally only use the lowest one, It's entirely possible that this is because it wasn't fitted for me, but I've seen photographs of people from that time (the most notable of whom was George Formby) with only the bottom button fastened, should some research be in order to find out about this apparent fashion trend?-User:GeorgeFormby1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeFormby1 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well it was fashionable at the time to leave the top button unfastened, but I'm pretty sure it's never been fashionable to fasten only the bottom button of a suit. In fact as far as i know it's generally considered bad taste to fasten the bottom button at all on single breasted suits. Display Name (talk) 07:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I always fastened all the buttons, else the corners flapped about too much. Now that I am retired, I always wear a boilersuit and to the expletive-deleted with smartness convention:: more comfortable, much cheaper, lasts much longer, much easier to clean it, warmer in cold weather. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

clothing company not reliable historical source

The claim that the left-over-right convention traces back to sword-carrying is sourced to bensilver.com, a company that sells clothes. I don't think they are a reliable source on this issue, because they neither cite their own sources nor give a reason for us to think they are experts on fashion history. --Allen (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The Suitability of a Suit of Clothes

To the extent that what a man wears on his back, legs, and feet are of any concern to his social superiors, the fact is that business can be and often is accomplished without visual cues that imply seriousness, sobriety, competence, and respect. It should be a given that someone in business brings these attributes to the table. The suit of clothes isn't doing the business. The man (or woman) inside is. Of course, Traditionalists think I'm crazy and wrong to make this statement. My reply is a razzberry. This article can remark on the reduced need to send visual cues through clothes in a society in which most persons who engage in business are highly educated and socially adept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.240.13 (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

But what are they?

Both Lounge suit and Business suit redirect here. The article uses the terms extensively, but fails to explain what the main characteristics of these variants are and how they differ from other variants.  --Lambiam 08:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, they are synonyms, not variants.Kan8eDie (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, then the article should make that clear. I'm an American of a certain age and don't recall every having heard or seen the term "lounge suit" until today, when I found it on a British culture page. I came to Wik to find out what it means, and only here on the talk page did I reall find out.202.179.16.84 (talk) 03:19, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

missing section?

There appears to be at least one and possibly more paragraphs missing between the present first and second paragraphs of the History section of this article. The first paragraph is good, but the second jumps several hundred years and starts off with "In the early 1800s, Brummel’s style..." without any reference before or after to who "Brummel was and why his style was important. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This was the result of insufficiently repaired vandalism. Fixed now.  --Lambiam 00:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinion

It seems that this article on suits contains significant opinion on what "should be" worn with suits, rather than what "customarily or traditionally" has been worn with suits. This is clearly a value judgement on the part of the author(s). Such comments as only wearing slip-on shoes with less formal suits reflects the author's opinion only, and should be reflected as such in the text. 151.191.175.234 (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC) Geoffrey Silverstein

Self-published sources

This article relies heavily on self published sources. bensilver.com and englishcut.com are not qualified sources. The first is not even a tailor. Lumarv (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think a little bit of common sense is required here. I have reverted most of your edit because firstly slapping two [citation needed] tags to the sentence in a section already marked as requiring sources is just gratuitously unreadable, and secondly englishcut is not used as the main source for the sections you tagged. Besides, Thomas Mahon is one of the most skilled and eminent tailors alive at the moment, and is a first-class authority. If you go and remove every blog or web citation from articles, you would make the facts much less readily verifiable by the average reader, and also remove a large bulk of valuable supporting material. References to, for example, englishcut, while not the main sources for an article, are hence useful. I remember you indicated somewhere that you owned a copy of some books by I think Flusser, so if you object to the balance of references, I suggest it would be much more constructive to add some citations yourself instead. —Kan8eDie (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
"Finest" cannot be backed by SPS only. Assuming Mahon is first class tailor, it does not mean his blog is first class authority. We need WP:RS to confirm - or change wording, like "some fine". Did check Flusser (2002): not in it. What about bensilver.com ? Lumarv (talk) 14:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Flusser is more a general reference than a detailed one. He does mention cost. The three citations I added to that sentence should satisfy you. Ben Silver is fine to use - the article certainly is not claiming that the story is true, so we merely need to show in refs that someone is telling it. If you have good sources, we would appreciate it if you added references yourself, which you are free to do, and I see that you have done this once before, so don't be shy about helping. —Kan8eDie (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OR/"Perceptions"

The comment on the Republic of China sounds like OR. China has always had a characteristic style of dress for each dynasty. In fact, the Zhongshan suit was not a rejection of Western culture, but an attempt at adopting certain kinds of Western dress in Chinese culture. See Mao suit. 118.90.96.198 (talk) 03:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moved -- Aervanath (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Try this for a list of online dictionaries that use the term. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 21:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • boilersuit
    unusual, and certainly nowhere near the primary association of the word suit
    suit (formal)
    again, no such thing
I agree that suit (clothing) is a bit broad given the narrow focus of the article, so if there is to be a move, the only suitable title is lounge suit, as this is the proper name of the garment, and is exactly what the article is about (read the lead: business suit narrower than the article, and so on). Also, many articles in the area of men's clothing are badly named, and not an example to emulate.Kan8eDie (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I still maintain 'invented', unless this has some circulation in America. The only dictionary worth using is the OED, and the ones google turns up are a) unreliable, b) describe white tie, not the subject of this article anyway, and c) at least one states that the phrases are "rare".— Kan8eDie (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What constitues "smart"?

It's rather circular to refer to "smart shoes" or a "smart belt" -- without further explanation of what specifically constitutes a smart belt or shoes, informing the reader that a suit should be worn with smart shoes is tantamount to saying that a suit should be worn with shoes that are appropriate for wearing with a suit. Moreover, "smart" isn't generally defined in Wikipedia in this sense. I suggest these style words be removed in favour of some text that actually describes the type of shoes, belt, etc. that are appropriate. --Ross Fraser (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationalities and manufacturers

Noticing the following statement:

Black shoes are worn with all business suits by the English, who traditionally keep brown shoes with suits for tweed or linen only. The rest of the world wears black with grey or black suits, and brown with navy and non-business suits. The shades of brown also vary considerably, as only Americans generally wear colours like cordovan or oxblood; lighter browns are less formal and more appropriate for summer, for example with linen.

It struck me that it may be worth including a section on the traditional approach to suit design and etiquette in different countries, or at least something that points out that when the term 'English' is used, this doesn't refer to an actual cultural standard in England. The vast majority of people in England (and, indeed, the whole of the UK) have little or no idea about this form of proper etiquette, and I'd imagine the same is true for Americans, Italians, and any other nationality you'd care to mention. Maybe a note towards the beginning of the article stating that use of the term 'British', 'American' or 'Italian' would be in reference to a traditionally held view of how suits are worn or made in that country, rather than typical practice, would help clarify matters.

On another note, there's nothing on traditional suit-makers or prominent retailers. I would have thought that a mention of Saville Row, as well as some of the larger manufacturers, perhaps listed by country of origin, wouldn't have been out of place. And, for that matter, what about the distinction between bespoke, tailored and off the peg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.207.73 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Two- and three-piece suits

This article is very nice, and covers just about everything--except two- and three-piece suits (in contrast and/or detail), which are barely covered beyond the second paragraph! Perhaps someone would like to migrate some information from waistcoat?  — SheeEttin {T/C} 07:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Length of women's suit jackets

I am wonder what all you fashion experts think about the long suit jacket.

I'm not sure if I should discard a very nice navy blazer/suit jacket; it is pretty long, has 5 plain buttons (approximately 30 inches from top of collar to the bottom hem on the back side), "slash" flap pockets - I don't have matching pants.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.71.77.179 (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research in "perceptions" section

Especially the last paragraph or two. Someone please rewrite. Preferably a tailor or haberdasher or someone with an actual idea of what they're writing about and not some disgusting plebeian or yuppie or nouveau riche blackguard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.22.109.153 (talk) 09:56, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Suits and Informal Shoes in Japan

In Japan, perhaps largely because of the cultural requirement to remove one's shoes when entering many place, it is quite common for both men and women to wear tennis shoes with a suit or other businesswear indoors. Many of them will wear dress shoes outdoors, but will exchange them for their often informal "indeer shoes".

This is common in schools (where teachers often wear suits), city government offices (Board of Education and City Hall) to name the examples I experienced. I'm not an editor, but I will try to find some good sources for this. I think it is worth mentioning in the Shoes section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.247.1 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Given style rules are Anglo-saxon POV

They mostly do not apply in continental Europe. Please make this clear. 84.152.40.199 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup

In reading this piece from the beginning, incorrect and illogical sentence structure can be seen throughout, including instances of editing errors where portions of the original text appear to be missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.53.58 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a pinstriped suit

A pinstriped suit is sewn of cloth that has wide stripes of dark blue or dark gray (maybe dark purple but I don't recall black) with very narrow stripes of a much lighter color -- very light gray or white. The picture included in this webpage has stripes of about equal width and the blue is a bit lighter than expected ; the result doesn't look near-formal at all. Similarly, Red, Green, Teal, and Brown as the predominant color would not look near-formal, either.

But the New York Yankees professional baseball team has uniforms of light gray with black pinstripes (a sports uniform, not a suit) to humorously compare this team with the banking and investment professionals of the city.66.19.201.182 (talk) 23:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

No, pinstripes can be any color on any background color. It is not in any way required to be white on navy or dark grey. It might not be as staid, true, but the idea that the term "pinstriped suit" only describes the staidness of a banker's suit is just plain false. oknazevad (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 9 May 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. There is a consensus that the clothing is the primary topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by long-term significance (century old). Former Suit could be moved to Suit (disambiguation). None of the listed items there could be said to compete as primary topic really, can they? PPEMES (talk) 11:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Suit of cards, lawsuit. Are these really comparable as such? PPEMES (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are; and you cannot argue with the numbers.
Cardplayers don't talk about 'playing card suits' or 'suits of cards', they talk about 'suits'. Those are artificial descriptors added for Wikipedia purposes.
British lawyers, at least, don't talk about 'lawsuits'. They talk about 'suits'. Narky Blert (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Really? I've never heard of lawsuits (or similar referred to as just "suit") however I agree the card game is also relatively common. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suit/Archive_1&oldid=1172335890"