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.
Twitter has a character limit, so I assume (intelligent) people will read context and know I'm talking about interior design and fashion, which today are coded as "gay interests" for men. Not painting or architecture, which carry no such stigma.
IMO, it's absolutely true that American Protestants were uniquely against certain forms of ornamentation, including fashion. For instance, the Quakers deliberately shunned adornment and extravagance in dress, stressing the importance of simplicity.
In his book "The Suit," Christopher Breward writes about how Quakers would talk about "troubling lapses into self-fashionableness by wayward members" during meetings. However, the Quakers were small in number and often seen as unusual by their fellow non-Quaker community members
I believe this jacket is from Dobell, a company that produces their tailoring in Turkey. I'll show you some telltale signs of quality and where you can buy a tailored jacket made in Britain. 🧵
I don't think there's anything wrong with buying clothes made abroad (I believe in free trade). However, I think it's strange when people rail against "globalism" and free trade, while benefitting from these things. Talk is cheap; one should put their money where their mouth is.
I asked Lee where he bought his jacket, but have thus far received no word. However, we can guess whether this is a high-end or low-end garment from two things.
I disagree that this is an aesthetically pleasing photo. Tristan's outfit ruins it and I'll tell you why. 🧵
I'll assume Tristan is telling the truth when he says he used Photoshop and not AI. If so, this is a very impressive Photoshop job. By removing the scaffold tarp, you reveal more of the building. By removing the other cars, you also achieve more aesthetic coherence.
What is aesthetic coherence? It's the idea that things based on shared history or spirit go together. For instance, I've long said that the Cybertruck could look very cool if you wore certain outfits (futuristic techwear) and lived in a Brutalist home.
Some people are incredulous that you can wear certain shoes without socks, such as leather loafers. Much depends on your body and climate. But I'll tell you one reason why you find this difficult to believe: you buy low quality footwear. 🧵
It's absolutely possible to wear certain shoes without socks. As mentioned in an earlier thread, men have been doing this for over a hundred years. Going sockless makes sense if the outfit is semi-casual (not business clothes).
In fact, if you wear socks with certain footwear styles, such as espadrilles, you will look like you don't know what you're doing.
Tim is right and wrong here. I'll tell you where he's right and where he's wrong. 🧵
It's perfectly fine to wear slip-on shoes without socks. Those who suggest otherwise are simply ignorant and unaware about the history of men's dress.
You don't have to take my word for it. We can go back to Apparel Arts.
Apparel Arts was an early 20th century trade publication that taught men how to dress well. It was sent to clothiers and tailors so they could smartly advise their clients, but it later became a public-facing publication under the title "Esquire."
I get this sort of comment all the time, often about bespoke suits or mechanical watches. "These things are boring," "This is only for rich people," or "Who cares?"
Let me tell you a story. 🧵
Before the age of ready-to-wear, men had clothes made for them, either in the home or, if they could afford one, by a tailor. Ready-made clothing was limited to simple workwear, such as what was worn by sailors or miners.
Tailoring shop, 1780:
In this older method, a tailor would measure you, sometimes using a string (before the invention of tailor's tape). Then they'd use those measurements to draft a pattern, cut the cloth, and produce a garment. This process is called bespoke.