There are plenty of guys of all ages who can look like slobs--even when wearing an ill-fitting but expensive jacket/suit--and other guys of all ages who can look great and dashing without a jacket/suit. While YOU may think every guy should wear a jacket when going to a nice dinner, the younger generations (and I'm calling it <55 yrs of age now but recognize there is a standard deviation here) have moved away from such formality and codified requirements. Men can look dashing and well dressed without a jacket...which is why jacket requirements are outdated for most people under 50-55.

Jacket requirements are unheard of on the West Coast even at some of the finest restaurants--because requirements are less in vogue and we're less traditional out West. But that doesn't mean that people are less well dressed; it just means the well dressed have greater variety.

Old fashion rules die hard, and people who grew up with requirements tend to find them satisfying when they're older. But those of us on the younger end of things (I'm 44) don't like broad rules to dictate how we "have" to dress in order to seem well dressed.

I've been to so many restaurants with jacket requirements (that I often but not always have managed to evade) and seen so many idiot guys wearing ill-fitting jackets and suits that I could vomit...and yet they officially meet the dress code. I'm a gay man, and there was no doubt they weren't well dressed. Putting a jacket or suit on doesn't make you well dressed necessarily, PERIOD. THAT is another reason why I laugh at dress codes, especially at the pricey restaurants where people already know they need to dress well.

In today's world, dressing well means a lot more than it did even 20 years ago--thankfully.

http://eater.com/tags/the-gatekeepers

huh?

I mean that dressing well in the past meant formal or semiformal or some variant of that. Today, dressing well doesn't have to include a suit or jacket, as style and societal changes and cultural shifts have come to incorporate more variations in what well dressed means.

I like the whole no phones idea, but just because many of the best restaurants are small, and focused on a very small part of the population, does not mean guests in their target audience do not mind getting tossed out for texting.

But dragging them out for any reason typically removes them from your market, so maybe it is self-fulfilling. ;)

Interesting - I took photos of most of my courses both times that I ate there - once was two weeks before this article was published.

without flash? i got impression this change was for all his restaurants >

I think it's much more a geographical thing than an age thing. People tend to "dress up" more in places like New York/London/Paris than in places like Los Angeles - regardless of age. Guess you people on the "left coast" think everyone should do it your way - but there are many people in cities much more sophisticated and urbane than Los Angeles who don't see it that way. On our part - we learn the norm in advance when we're traveling. And pack and dress accordingly.

I understand what you're saying about ill-fitting suits. My husband has some issues with tailoring as a result of MS leg problems and wearing a leg brace - and there's only so much tailors can do. Still - we try to get the best tailoring we can (short of going into 4 figure suits he might wear once or twice a year at best these days).

We have booked Restaurant Andre in Singapore. No Michelin Guide in Singapore - but it's on your "best 50 list". I will honestly be happy if - at the price - it meets even Michelin 2 star standards. Robyn

I don't think anyone on the left coast thinks everyone should do it our way any more than everyone elsewhere thinks everyone should do it their way! The fact that most cities are more formal than Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and San Diego means there obviously are more who think we should conform to them, after all. The reason we live out West typically means we're less conformist and don't mind pushing boundaries, so not surprisingly we do that more than most.

That doesn't mean we don't dress well. Dressing well is different than dressing the way someone thinks we should--most notably with a jacket and/or tie. It USED to be that even tues were mandatory in such places, but that has changed...and so will the jacket requirement at more and more fine dining options. It is the idea that you must wear a jacket to be considered well dressed that offends me, since it is a ridiculous, outdated notion.

And that doesn't make Los Angeles or San Francisco any less sophisticated or urbane. Difference is tough for some. Thankfully, the limits we push tend to be adopted eventually in most other places. When in Paris, I dress very well, but I don't need a jacket to accomplish that. I need a jacket only to conform to the standard that has been set...and that is dying a slow death.

In other news, I hope you like Andre. I hear Singapore has amazing food.

i prefer 'psychographic' to 'demographic' >
attitudes, values, opinions, beliefs are not limited by demographic
sharing those things/interests brings very different people together
thats what makes the world an interesting place, instead of boring
the diverse international membership of flyertalk is an example

agree the "definition" may have expanded at least in unofficial terms
dont forget style though, i think that may be part of what confused me
(also agree that style is constantly/always evolving as well)

i think thats a common opinion and argument, but i dont think its a good/solid argument

i think "less conformist" is rarely if ever a good/solid argument. while "pushing boundaries" could be, in theory, i think "West" pushes boundaries in extremely few areas. is extremely few still more than many places? definitely. but numerical comparison becomes less dramatic. and area (not place) matters.

"dying a slow death" - where / who ?

Style is one of the reasons why I think jacket req't is silly--one can be stylishly and well dressed without a jacket. In many cases, I'd say I've been better dressed than half the men who were wearing jackets at some of the jacket-requiring dinners I've been to.

There are in increasing number of top restaurants outside the West Coast that now do NOT have jacket requirements. Even Eleven Madison Park does not, and Alinea, while formally it does, has admitted to us that they cannot enforce it since they charge for tickets in advance and therefore could not refuse service on that for which already has been paid.

L20, Le Bernadin, Jean Georges, Noma, Geranium, Relae, Meadowood, The Ledbury, Amber, Lung King Heen, 8 1/2 Otto e Mezzo, Caprice, Marea, Soto, Dinner by HB, the list goes on and on. The fact that there are now 2-3 star restaurants in London that do not require jackets is stunning...and the fact that there are 3 star restaurants in New York is almost as stunning. Hong Kong as well. It used to be that most 2-3 star restaurants or their like required jackets for men; that is ending in many places around the globe. The formal cities still have most, but more and more cities with increasing presence in the top cuisine department are less formal and fewer and fewer require jackets. The Old World/Europe is more formal, though look at Copenhagen as the growing exception along with The Ledbury. The New World is less formal overall...and the New World is increasing at a faster rate in offering new and exciting fine cuisine than the Old (e.g. mostly French and Italian!).

understood.

agree these kinds of things are interesting to watch.

In fact, it's really only a handful of the more Parisian style restaurants in London which still have jacket requirements. Markus Wareing used to (this might have changed with the relaunch?), and Le Gavroche does, but I actually can't think of any others that I've come across. The last public bar with a jacket code (the Ritz) ditched theirs a while ago - even the bar at Dukes now just requires a collar.

I have been following this conversation about suits with some amusement - nowadays many Americans both East and West coast dress very well, but as a European it's a rare thing to find an American in a suit which doesn't look like it's from 1980s Wall Street.

Even if a restaurant doesn't have a dress code or require jackets/ties - it is pretty much IMO an issue of "fitting in". One doesn't want to be overdressed for a particular place - or underdressed either. On our last trip to Los Angeles - men weren't wearing suits and ties for the most part - even in higher end restaurants. On our last trips to Paris and New York - they were.

Note that some restaurants on bhrubin's list - like Le Bernardin - still require jackets:

DRESS CODE

Jackets are required for gentlemen in the main dining room during both lunch and dinner. Ties are optional.
In the lounge, jackets are recommended but not required.

http://le-bernardin.com/reservations/

Jean-Georges too:

Gentleman are required to wear a jacket. No jeans, sweatshirts or sneakers allowed.

http://www.jean-georges.com/restaura.../jean-georges/

IOW - it's always best to check if there is a dress code before showing up. I also check what most people do wear - regardless of any dress code. So we more or less "fit in". At a place like Le Bernardin - even though suits and ties aren't required - most men wear them.

A lot of our meals are lunches. So perhaps some of what I see is a function of what men are wearing to work (they're not going to change clothes when they go out to lunch). IIRC - the place where I saw the most jackets/suits in Los Angeles was at Drago Centro. Downtown. I assume a lot of those men are working in those nearby tall office buildings at law firms - banks/other financial services firms - etc. And that they "dress up" for work more than men who work - for example - in the entertainment industry.

BTW - I mention men more than women because there are few absolute dress codes specific to women. As opposed to general dress codes that specify - for example - no jeans for people regardless of gender. But even women have to be a little careful. Especially if they're tourists. For example - I'll usually wear some type of athletic shoe for sightseeing in a big city. They're not allowed in many restaurants - so I have to carry an extra pair of shoes if I'm planning to dine at a restaurant with a "no sneakers" requirement.

FWIW - I've always thought that a specific dress code (like jackets required) is easier to interpret than something non-specific (like "smart casual" - a phrase I hear a lot today).

In terms of shopping for suits - it's good to buy a new one more than every 25 years or so ;). Robyn

thanks, i had missed that.

aug 3 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/20120803...dining-en.html >
jun 8 2012 https://web.archive.org/web/20120608...dining-en.html >
no change >
loosened even more >
nov 3 2013 https://web.archive.org/web/20131103...estaurant.html >

I've heard as much - and hope so. Our Singapore trip was the result of a badly timed trip to China (during Golden Week - just grabbed some great FF tickets without checking - and then wound up rebooking) - combined with a desire to "spend" FF miles in the front of various planes (I've only flown first class in a 3 class plane once before) before our miles were devalued in 2014 - combined with a desire to indulge in/learn more about Chinese and several other ethnic cuisines. I hope the A/C in Singapore is every bit as good as I encounter in Florida - because the weather is even hotter and more humid than Florida weather. Robyn