I, too, prefer to dress casually, and hate to feel overly constrained by clothing. Nothing make me react "ARGH!" like having to button the top button on a shirt and snug up a necktie.

I found a very comfortable, unlined, unbulky and soft distressed-cotton jacket at J. Crew that works for me when I am expected to "clean up."

Cheers,
Wade

P.S. To keep this post "Eating Out" related, and not completely sartorial, I also suggest Matsumoto.

[quote="riddlemay"]If you'll forgive my saying so, that sounds pretty much like a textbook example of observation (1) in my post above.[/quote]

Actually it's a textbook example of wanting to be comfortable when I'm dining. If the restaurant kept the room at 55-60 degrees I'd keep the sport coat on.

And I do forgive you for calling me a narcissist without ever having met me...

Mark

riddlemay wrote:1) making a statement by dressing too casually for the environment is a form of narcissism ("look at me--my comfort is all that matters, and I'm so special, I'm not governed by your silly rules of decorum and your so-called social contract"); ... The first is arrogance and the second is painful self-consciousness, but both are forms of an exaggerated sense of one's importance. And no doubt being excessively proud of one's duds is yet another form of narcissism.

You're assuming that people who don't want to wear jackets to dinner are trying to "make a statement", rather than trying to merely be comfortable. That is, that their goal is more to stand out than to enjoy their meal. I think, by and large, you're completely wrong.

And your "look at me -- my comfort is all that matters, and I'm so special, I'm not governed by your silly rules of decorum and your so-called social contract" is absurd. It's not particulary different than "look at that rube in the sweater -- my enjoyment of my meal is all that matters, and I'm so special, everyone should be governed by my righteous rules of decorum and social contract".

Do you see my point? People "dressing down" are doing it to enhance their enjoyment of their meal at the expense of those who want everyone to be dressed the same. People who want well-enforced dress codes are doing it to enhance their enjoyment of their meal at the expense of those who want to be able to dress how they want.


As an aside, to those who have been to any of the Alinea/Avenues/Moto/Tru/Trotters/etc restaurants and support dress codes: have you ever seen someone not wearing a jacket, and did that sight cause the enjoyment of your meal to suffer? And if so, by how much, and what were they wearing?

And to those who dislike "dressing up" -- by how much is your enjoyment of the meal lessened by having to wear a suit or jacket? If you had your choice, what would you wear instead?

The thing that I find hilarious about dress codes is the narrow focus on specific requirements of apparel, while the notion of aesthetics is completely beside the point.

In other words: If a jacket is required and you are wearing one, you pass -- even if it may be the ugliest garment imaginable.

I'm reminded of one of my own experiences. Years ago, I found myself in a huge federal courtroom (U.S. District Court) as a spectator (I swear). I was settling into a back row when I realized that the judge was addressing me, while at the same time summoning a bailiff. I was ejected for violating the jackets-required dress code. The bailiff took mercy on me, and issued me a loaner jacket from the lost-and found. Now, I'm a 38Long. This thing must've been a 50Short, and sported the brightest, largest, and most hideously colored plaid that I have seen in my life, before or since. Despite being much more of a visual distraction in my clown suit than I had been sans jacket, this passed the requirement and judge's (colorblind?) muster, and I was permitted to be reseated.

Cheers,
Wade

We live in a different day and age. I can count the number of times in the past ten years where I have been required to wear a suit or a coat - a couple of funerals, a wedding and a couple of wedding reception.

Personally, I wouldn't have a suit or jacket at this point if I hadn't bought one for a wedding in June.

Personally, I don't like to be confronted with a dress code at the door. If it is a big deal to the establishment, let me know well in advance.

DML wrote:Want to wear a sweater? Go someplace where a sweater is appropriate. Your husband wants to dress like a child but still play with the grownups. It is a matter of basic respect and basic manners.

And belittling someone shows basic respect and manners. Very nice.

so, back on topic....

has anyone suggested zealous? very innovative food. multi-ethnic preparations. interesting ingredients. a chef who really pushes flavors.

not gimmicky. not stuffy. not pretentious.

jlawrence01 wrote:We live in a different day and age. I can count the number of times in the past ten years where I have been required to wear a suit or a coat - a couple of funerals, a wedding and a couple of wedding reception.

I haven't been to a funeral that had a formal dress code for anyone except the guest of honor and while wedding invitations sometimes have suggestions of appropriate dress (e.g. "black tie"), it's rare for invited guests to be refused admission because they aren't dressed accordingly. So dressing up isn't a requirement, but a social nicety. Dressing up to go out to a fine-dining restaurant is the same thing.

(BTW, , dress codes are enforced for women, too, especially those like "no tennis shoes" or "no jeans." It's just that what constitutes appropriate dress for women isn't spelled out. But any restaurant that requires a jacket for men is unlikely to let in a woman in cut-offs.)

Most restaurants whose dress codes require a jacket will tell you so when you make a reservation. Other dress codes may be less well articulated. "Shoes and shirt required" is sometimes on the door, but enforced pretty much everywhere.

Do those who object to more formal dress codes also resent a requirement to cover their feet and upper body? To me, it's much the same thing -- somebody dictating your conformance with their standards before they'll consent to serve you.

I have to say I prefer the explicit dress codes as practiced by some restaurants to the ones practiced by nightclubs where the doorman judges how you look compared to the other people in line.

LAZ wrote:(BTW, , dress codes are enforced for women, too, especially those like "no tennis shoes" or "no jeans." It's just that what constitutes appropriate dress for women isn't spelled out. But any restaurant that requires a jacket for men is unlikely to let in a woman in cut-offs.)

I feel as if it's easier for a woman to look sufficiently dressed up for most restaurants. Maybe that's because I cannot imagine feeling comfortable in a tight collar and tie while eating! But as a woman you can wear a black skirt or pants, black top of some kind, maybe dress it up with a nice purse and little jewelry, and you can be both comfortable and not visibly out of place. The fashion conscious may think you look boring and notice that your clothes are inexpensive but you won't experience any real problems.

One weird thing I remember from living in Rome (early 90s) was that you would see a lot of couples out for dinner where the woman was very snappily dressed while the guy had on chino-type slacks and a shirt with short sleeves, very obviously dressed down compared to the woman.

"I cannot imagine feeling comfortable in a tight collar and tie while eating"

A properly sized shirt and jacket should not be uncomfortable to wear for even the lengthiest meals. It sounds to me like some folks need to double-check to see if someone's been shrinking their clothes on the sly.

LAZ wrote:(BTW, , dress codes are enforced for women, too, especially those like "no tennis shoes" or "no jeans." It's just that what constitutes appropriate dress for women isn't spelled out. But any restaurant that requires a jacket for men is unlikely to let in a woman in cut-offs.)

There's a big difference between "you CANNOT wear this" versus "you MUST wear this". One gives you choices, the other takes them all away.

Mark

Nancy Sexton wrote: The only inspiring menu was Tru - but I think I might find stuff that was interesting at The Custom House perhaps. Tru was that place that disgusted my husband when he saw them on TV with the fish bowl dishes and the caviar staircase. You just know you're paying for that too, and it's not worth it to us.

when it comes down to it... are you really paying for it, or are you paying for the caviar? caviar isn't all that cheap, afterall. the pre fixe menu at tru is somewhere around $100/pp (also depending on which particular one you pick, it can vary by +/- $20 or so). this includes the caviar staircase mentioned above, and a number of other courses including dessert...

compare that to the average "nice" restaurant... the average entree in the average "nice" restaurant is somewhere around $30-40, plus appetizer/salad of $10-15, plus dessert of $10... add that up... that's close to $60, plus chances are you haven't gotten food that is all that memorable outside of every other meal you've had. tru isn't much more $ and you're probably getting more food at tru, and definately more of an experience that's not to be forgotten...

Great. Feel comfortable. But when I look at your table I will assume that you have no respect for the chef, staff, or fellow diners.

That's simply a fact. We live in a society that has rules on how adults behave. Feel free to reject those rules, but don't be shocked by disapproval from those who do.

We had a brunch at our country club this morning that was "jackets required" (not ties). There was a fair amount of people that didn't wear jackets, but wore sweaters and nice shirts and were very presentable. If your judgmental and worry more about what others do rather than about taking care of your own business, it might bother you, but it didn't seem to bother any of the other diners. I certainly don't let other diners bother my meal, unless they are overtly obnoxious, drunk, etc.

If a restaurant wants to enforce the jackets required rule, that is up to them. If they don't, and you don't like it, go to a place that enforces the policy or put on a suit and stay at home. I'd rather set next to a group bending the rules a bit than a group of well-dressed, self righteous whiners who have nothing better to do than comment on those around them. Those are the kind of people that I find that have no respect for others.

Feel comfortable. But when I look at your table I will assume that you have no respect for the chef, staff, or fellow diners.

being a chef myself, i can assure you that whether you wear a jacket or not is of very little concern. the chef and staff do not measure your level of respect by what you're wearing.

be a gracious diner. be polite and friendly. dine with an open mind. try the dishes the way the chef has created them before making special requests (allergies notwithstanding). tip appropriately. and if you liked the experience, come back often.

that's how you show respect. anyone can put on a coat.

I went to North Pond with a group last summer, and one of us was wearing a pair of (nice) shorts, which was their only real dress no-no.

They allowed us to sit - but with a compromise - in a booth, to hide his legs I guess, next to a couple and two toddlers. Rambuncous toddlers in a fine restaurant are another issue, but we were seated away from the fine view, which is why we went.

This has happened a few other times to me with one of our party refusing to wear jackets or ties. They'll serve you, but expect to get the worst seat in the place.

kiplog wrote:I went to North Pond with a group last summer, and one of us was wearing a pair of (nice) shorts, which was their only real dress no-no.

When North Pond called to confirm our reservations in early November, they explicitly told us "No Formal Shorts". We found it incredibly amusing. Such an absurd limitation, and such a poorly worded one. Are daisy dukes, which are certainly informal, permissible?

gleam wrote:Such an absurd limitation, and such a poorly worded one. Are daisy dukes, which are certainly informal, permissible?

Those of you who are objecting to dress codes as inherently arbitrary, you're correct. They are arbitrary. The same kind of arbitrary that every social convention is based on, the same kind of arbitrary that allows a society itself to function.

The exact nature of social conventions change over time. But social conventions as a category are always with us, because no civilization can exist without them. It is no longer necessary to wear powdered wigs to parties, although it once was. At some point in the next century, it may be permissible to wear daisy dukes to New Year's Eve at The Four Seasons, but it is not permissible now. So those of you who say that wearing a sportjacket in certain situations is an arbitrary restriction with no inherent rationality, congratulations. You figured it out. It's a game. Now, the question is, what do you want to do about it? Do you want to play nicely with the fellow members of your civilization, and signal that you'll play by the currently accepted ground rules? Or do you want to signal that you're above everyone else, and that you're going to make up your own rules for the game as you go along, or try to change the rules for the rest of us, or try to tear down the very concept of rules? The choice, obviously, is yours. I believe that accepting the rules is the choice made by those who feel comfortable in the world as it is, and is a fundamentally friendly choice, while flouting the rules is the choice made by those who feel alienated from the world as it is, and is a fundamentally hostile choice--but that's just speculation.

Okay, I think it's clear that we're way past the point of saying everything twice. All points have been made, let's agree to disagree and move on. I know G Wiv has this vain hope that sometime, during the month of December, someone might use LTHForum to post about a meal they ate somewhere.