Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In this day and age of shifting boundaries, i'm slightly flummoxed by 'the dress code' thing.


I've been invited to an event at an Embassy (one of the Scandinavian ones). I'm looking forwards to it as it's a prelude into some business i'm persuing over there. However, when I inquired as to the dress code, I received the response 'business'


But what does that mean in this day and age. Suits. Shirts, tie or not? And the Scandinavians are pretty laid back, so i'm further not sure.


Any ideas?

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/128606-dress-codeswhat-to-wear/
Share on other sites

Business dress is nice and easy: suit, shirt, tie and smart (preferably black) shoes. No need to worry about brown shoes or the right tie-knot in this day and age (for the most part).


Even in Scandinavia. Just don't wear a white tie - they're for funerals.


The nightmare begins with smart-casual!

The pocket handkerchief remains firmly in fashion across Scandinavia (and Finland). Often worn flamboyantly erupting from a blazer. When I worked for a Swedish company I eventually developed a taste for it myself.


Having said that, the most important thing is to wear stuff you know looks smart, and doesn't make you feel uncomfortable. Pocket squares are good if you're confident enough not to feel the need to check and fiddle with them. British businessmen are renowned for simple smart elegance, so a lounge suit and tie would enable you to emphasise any British decency stereotypes.

Agree that suit, shirt and tie is the safest interpretation of "business dress". That said, there are a few photos of more social events (one at the Swedish embassy on children's literature for example) which suggests an equal mix of tie/no tie (but all in suits/shirts).

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I haven't even got a suit and i work in the

> 'corporate' world - Tie (as compulsory)seems a bit

> over the top in 2016?


If an event is marketed as business dress, and you want to do business or otherwise get on, it would be prudent to wear a suit and tie. That's what business dress is.


Once you get there you can establish whether people are tie-wearers or not, and take yours off. In law and finance for example ties are still virtually mandatory; in consulting they're unfashionable.


If you really feel uncomfortable in a suit, then follow the old actor's advice - wear one for a few days in advance until you become comfortable and forget what you're wearing.

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't think Seabag is in Law and Finance tho


I have no idea - he or she was asking what to wear to an event where the dress code is "business dress"


As a Scandinavian businessman with modest diplomatic connections I felt qualified to provide some advice. The other posters commented in such a way as to suggest Seabag is a he, and so I added my advice within that context.

Ah Seabag. I think if it is business then definitely a suit (navy or grey best bets) and (polished!) black shoes.


To be clear, modern business attire does not dictate a tie any more (check out VC and Private Equity guys, bankers etc) but for a non corporate embassy do its a chance to show some character... you can wear a brighter tie and possibly accessorise with a pocket square. Or go open necked shirt but make sure it has a crisp collar with some depth which stands up a bit (not a cutaway type designs for a tie knot. You want to look like you intended to go without a tie not like you just took it off on the bus.


One thing though - nothing worse than a man who never wears a suit squeezed into one if it is dragged out the wardrobe and leaves you looking/feeling uncomfortable. So wear something inc shoes you feel at ease in if you can. If you don't have a suit at home that you like, it may be time to go out and invest in a suit that fits you.


You get plenty good made to measure type options now from places like asuitthatfits.com for ?300 or so. If you're luckier than me you'll have a body shape that lends itself to "off the peg" in which case you can buy cheaper than that from the likes of M&S and get it altered by a tailor. You can also make an old suit look better with a dry clean and buy a crisp new shirt (in white) with the right sleeve lengths (0.5 inch showing at the cuff or less). Try Lewins in the City ( www.tmlewin.co.uk) for a decent but cheap option.


Off the peg is also your best option if the do is in a few weeks and you don't have time to wait for m2m. I know a great alterations shop in the bowels of Soho who will sort you out if needed and they take 2 days max to turn stuff around. If so PM me.


All that said don't streets too much about it. Embassy do's are great. Only been to one but usually plenty booze doing the rounds. Enjoy. Ferrero Rocher sir?

So a navy boiler suit, with a tie and Grenson dispatch rider boots won't cut it (even with a florid hanky)


Oh well, it's the Aquascutum suit then and the rest


Tho I might add a knitted tie from Cordings


In for a penny and all that, will wear it for the day prior.


Whilst I'm at it, I'll get Barry Rd barbers to give me his 'media beard and haircut' special tomorrow

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Hi - I posted a request for some help with a stuck door and possible leaky roof. I had responses from Lukasz at Look_as.com and Pawel at Sublime Builders. I don't see any/many reviews - has anyone used either person?  Could use a recommendation rather then just being contact by the tradespeople... Many Thanks 
    • I'm a bit worried by your sudden involvement on this Forum.  The former Prince Andrew is now Andrew Mountbatten Windsor Mountbatten in an anglicisation of Von Battenburg adopted by that branch of our Royal Family in 1917 due to anti-German sentiment. Another anglicisation could be simply Battenburg as in the checker board cake.  So I surmise that your are Andrew Battenburg, aka Andrew Mountbatten Windsor and that you have infiltrated social media so that the country can put the emphasis on Mandelson ather than yourself.  Bit of a failure. I don't expect an answer from police custody.  
    • We had John fit our PLYKEA kitchen (IKEA cabinets with custom doors) and would happily recommend him and Gabi to anyone. Gabi handled all communication and was brilliant throughout — responsive and happy to answer questions however detailed. John is meticulous, cares about the small details, and was a pleasure to have in the house. The carpentry required for the custom doors was done to a high standard, and he even refinished the plumbing under the sink to sit better with the new cabinets — a small touch that made a real difference. They were happy to return and tie up a few things that couldn't be finished in the time, which we appreciated. No hesitations recommending them.
    • Not sure about that. Rockets seems to have (rightly in my view) identified two key motivating elements in Mcash's defection: anger at his previous (arguably shabby) treatment and a (linked) desire to trash the Labour party, nationally and locally. The defection, timed for maximum damage, combined with the invective and moral exhibitionism of his statement counts as rather more than a "hissy fit".  I would add a third motivation of political ambition: it's not inconceivable that he has his eye on the Dulwich & West Norwood seat which is predicted to go Green.  James Barber was indulging in typical LibDem sleight of hand, claiming that Blair introduced austerity to *councils* before the coalition. This is a kind of sixth form debating point. From 1997-1999 Labour broadly stuck to Tory spending totals, meaning there was limited growth in departmental spending, including local govt grants. However local government funding rose substantially in the Noughties, especially in education and social care. It is a matter of record that real-terms local authority spending increased in the Blair / Brown years overall. So he's manifestly wrong (or only right if the focus is on 1997-1999, which would be a bizarre focus and one he didn't include in his claim) but he wasn't claiming Blair introduced austerity more widely. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...