The Obama tan suit controversy was pretty contrived and obviously driven by politics. But in recent years, I also see it represented here as being just about color when that's not the full story. So let's talk about the meaning of colors in menswear. 🧵
A recap: In August 2014, Obama wore a tan suit on live television while talking about ISIS in Syria. Conservative media then slammed him for wearing what they felt was inappropriate attire for the occasion (ie talking about US response to terrorism). It was suit color + occasion
As I've mentioned before, our "rules" for traditional men's dress largely derive from Britain, and particularly that period in the 19th and early 20th century when dress was still governed by TPO (time, place, and occasion). People were expected to wear things to certain places.
Although the suit was originally worn by working-class clerks and administrators, who sat a few rungs lower on the social ladder than elites in frock coats, it took on new meaning in the 20th century with the development of industrial capitalism.
The standard business uniform at this time was dark worsted suit, typically navy or grey, worn with a crisp white shirt, dark silk tie, and oxford shoes in either black or dark brown. Suits in colors such as brown or olive were reserved for leisure or sport in the country.
This historical legacy casts such a long shadow that it still shapes how we think of colors today. When he was director of the FBI, Robert Mueller exclusively wore dark blue Brooks Brothers suits, white shirts, and foulard ties in conservative colors such as navy or burgundy
Mueller imposed this uniform on his subordinates because he felt it represented the FBI's seriousness. There are stories of FBI agents scurrying out in the night to buy the right clothes before briefing him in the morning. From a 2008 Washingtonian profile by Garrett Graff:
However, even as recently as the late 1980s and early 90s, US Presidents wore all sorts of things. Reagan wore tan suits, plaid suits, and even tartan blazers! Bush Sr. was considerably less stylish but still wore very good tailoring in a variety of non-business colors.
The issue is just whether one thinks wearing a tan suit to discuss US response to ISIS is the best choice. For instance, no one remarked how he met with John Tefft, US Ambassador to Russia, in the Oval Office that same day because a tan suit is pretty natural in that regard
Personally, I think the controversy was contrived and overblown. Here's Reagan appointing Donald Rumsfeld (1983), discussing War on Drugs (1983), addressing US-Soviet diplomatic talks (1987), and answering questions about his vetoing the Defense Appropriation Bill (1988)
To answer the original question: when would a tan suit be a bad call? Certainly, you should not wear one on the most serious of occasions. When Obama announced the US had killed Osama bin Laden, he rightly wore a dark worsted suit, white shirt, and conservative tie.
But politicians wear tan suits all the time, even in relatively formal settings, as evidenced here. IMO, it's lamentable that so much variety in tailored clothing is lost today. We should not further reduce everything to dark worsted suits.
So when might you want to wear a tan suit? Certainly, the color is best in the morning and afternoon (nighttime tailoring calls for darker colors). Non-business colors such as tan are also the easiest way to make a suit look more casual. So wear it for casual settings.
It's a natural choice for materials such as linen or cotton. But even in wool—tropical wool, Solaro, or gabardine—the slightly more casual color is a good way to knock some of the stiff formality that can be inherent in tailoring.
If you don't like wearing ties, going open collar will look much more natural with a casual suit than a dark worsted one. To me, a dark worsted suit without a tie is like the night sky without stars. But for a tan suit, everything looks coherent and relaxed.
Few people will hold a Presidential press conference, but the takeaway here is that colors in menswear often have social meaning. This is why I think charts like this are dumb. So is any color theory that strips away context and culture.
When it comes to choosing colors, dressing for your skin tone is much less important than understanding social language. Pink may flatter your skin tone the best, but a pink suit will mean something very different from a grey suit. One says "business," the other says "leisure."
So when choosing colors, it's helpful to take into consideration certain factors. What will be the time of day? What is the occasion? What is the season and climate? What do you want to express? This is what I mean by "dress is a kind of social language"
One last thing: I don't comment on womenswear because I don't know anything about it. But it's interesting to me that Harris wears suits in all sorts of colors. This language of men's dress doesn't necessarily transfer to womenswear because they have different histories.
For more on Harris' tailoring, you can check out these recent articles by @theprophetpizza and @VVFriedman.
A few years ago, I interviewed my friend @andrew3sixteen, who runs one of my favorite denim brands, 3sixteen. I really like how he combines workwear in a way that feels relatable. For the feature, he wore this tremendous Schott B-3 sheepskin jacket. 🧵
The B-3 is a thick and heavy sheepskin jacket originally designed to protect US pilots. I think it looks great, but it can be very much of a statement piece in civilian life. Alternatively, there's the B-6, which saw service from 1939 to 1943.
Left: B-3 Right: B-6
The B-6 was designed to fill the space between the lighter A-2 and the heavier B-3. Made with a smaller wool pile and shorter body length, it was primarily worn by ground crew members and bomber crewmen who were less exposed to the elements.
I sad that, despite belabouring the point over and over again, it still does not come through. So I will make another attempt at explaining why I think respectability in dress is stupid. 🧵
When it comes to respectability in dress, there are two sides of the equation: you as a person getting dressed and you as an observer.
If you're going somewhere, you can make a decision to dress "respectably," if you wish.
For instance, if I were to attend a wedding, I would wear a suit to communicate that I wish to honor my hosts on their special day. My clothes are an outward representation of what's in my heart. I'm using the clothes to communicate to people.
My intention is never to tell you to purchase a garment from a certain brand, and certainly not luxury brands like Tom Ford. Instead, it's to hopefully pull back the curtains and show you why some things look the way they do. I will give some examples. 🧵
I don't encourage you to buy garments just because of how they look on other people. Instead, it's to develop an eye for why something works or doesn't work. For instance, the Winklevoss twins have very broad, square shoulders.
To my eye, they do not look good in these suits because the jackets have too much shoulder padding. If you place a shoulder pad—even something as thin as 1.5 ply—on a person with very square shoulders, they will look like a linebacker.
Dislike the term "fatass" here. IMO, it's unnecessary to body shame anyone, regardless of how you feel about them. But I can explain why you have this impression. 🧵
Aside from the fact that Musk is one of the most photographed men in the world and anyone can be made to look in any way if you take enough photos of them, what you're seeing is partly the effect of clothes. Some years ago, the WSJ reported that Musk shops at Nordstrom.
If you zoom in on photos of Musk, you will see a curious detail: his suit jackets have five buttons at the cuff, rather than the more standard four, and one buttonhole is longer than the others. This is a signature of Tom Ford suits.
Many people go about this the wrong way: they throw some wacky item into an outfit, thinking this makes things more interesting. This is like inserting random letters into a sentence. When you do so, you spoil the meaning. The tchotchkes here ruin the business suit.
To make an outfit more interesting, you have to know what you want to say. This requires knowledge: knowledge of self (who are you), knowledge of cultural hitsory, knowledge aesthetic language, and knowledge of what do you want to say.
I think very slim trousers in a tailored outfit can work on certain men, but the percentage is much smaller than many believe. It often doesn't work in real life for a variety of reasons. Here are some. 🧵
When you slim the trousers beyond a certain point, you end up breaking the silhouette into two distinctive blocks: upper and lower. This ruins the harmony of a tailored aesthetic. To me, the coat and trouser should have some relationship so they form a coherent whole.
The second reason has to do with the rise. The cut of the legs typically moves in concert with the rise. Full legged trousers have a high rise; slim trousers typically have a low rise. It would be weird to switch these bc you'd mess with the proportions of pants.