The Abuses of Button-down

The Problem of Button-down Shirts

It doesn’t seem obvious that a shirt collar would need to be buttoned down. Unless you were the kind of Eastern-seabord, preppie douchebag who wore his shirt collars popped up about five years ago (these people should have had their collars permanently sewn down with hard titanium thread), you probably have not had problems with unruly collars. Apparently polo players did a century ago, hence why they wore shirts with collars that buttoned down to the shirt, a style that Brooks Brothers copied.

There is some confusion as to what the term “button-down” means. It refers to a style of collar. Here’s a picture of someone wearing one.

Francis Scott Fitzgerald, author of The Great Gatsby, as photographed in 1937 by Carl Van Vechten. Van Vechten's whole portrait archive is in the public domain and is a convenient source for stock photographs.

This could be called a “button-down shirt,” although I’d prefer to call it a “shirt with a button-down collar,” brevity having been sacrificed for the sake of clarity. Often, people say “button-down” when they mean “button-front,” which refers to a shirt that buttons completely down the front (as opposed to a pullover shirt).

Besides this, there seems to be confusion as to the nature of the button-down collar. The way I see it, the collar is one of the most important factors in determining how formal a shirt is. The collars descend in formality in this order:

1. Standing
2. Wing (also called “wingtip” or “poke”)
3. Straight/Spread/Rounded Turndown
4. Button-down
5. Band (what one sees on very old work shirts and t-shirts; dress shirts that accept detachable collars also feature banded collars, but, these are particularly rare today, and they are not meant to be worn without the collar)

The button-down collar is, for all practical purposes, a casual collar. When I was in high school, I thought of the button-down shirt as being suitable for wear with a suit, but I have since realized the error of this thinking. One could suggest that buttons are perfectly acceptable on on formal and informal garments, citing the numerous buttons on a typical suit coat, especially double-breasted ones. There is a difference between the buttons on a suit coat and these collar buttons. The buttons on suit coats are (or stand in the place of buttons that once were) used to close the garment. The buttons at the collar points are not closures–they’re meant to fasten the collar so that it doesn’t fly around.

First of all, a collar to be worn with a suit or anything more formal should be stiff enough that it does not fly around. Second of all, a man wearing a suit should avoid situations that would cause his collar to fly up. I’ve never had my collar fly up except when I was inverted. Third of all, consider analogues in other parts of clothing. Consider the buttons on a coat or shirt. They exist to keep the garment closed. Consider, on the other hand, the buttons on the flaps of work shirts military garments. These buttons exist to keep the flaps closed. These buttons are concessions to utility at the expense of appearance, hence why suits commonly don’t have buttons on the flaps for the pockets, except possibly for the rear back pockets, and these usually lack flaps so as to be less obtrusive. Military garments do typically have the button-flap pockets, although it is worth noting that the Ike Jacket, a particularly interesting military garment, completely conceals its buttons (partly for looks, partly because these buttons were snagging on things, hence the fly front). And military garments are of a different character than what we civilians generally wear.

I do, nevertheless, often wear button-down collars. Indeed, the straight collar with a sport coat and contrasting trousers looks slightly of place, in the same way that a standing collar would look out of place with a suit. But the button-down collar has its place: casual wear. Now, my definition of casual does differ from the generally accepted definition today. I’d use casual to define everything below a suit, but above athletic wear, sleepwear, work wear, or what people wear when they obviously are completely unconcerned about their appearance (e.g., leggings as pants, sleeveless shirt on a man).

The button-down collar has a special place in casual attire, as far as I see it. Consider a tweed sportcoat; twill, solid color trousers (or perhaps corduroy); a button-down shirt in a solid color or with a windowpane, tattersall, or stripe pattern; a wool, plaid or silk/cotton, knit tie; plain derby shoes, an eight-panel or ivy cap; and perhaps a very plain vest. This is the essence of good casual. Notice that this form of casual consists of basically the same garments worn with a suit:

• Matching coat, trousers, vest —> contrasting coat, trousers, vest in bolder fabrics
• White, straight-collar shirt —> boldly-patterned shirt with soft collar that requires no special pressing and that is more comfortable against the neck
• Silk neck tie —> sturdier neck tie in a less luminescent fabric that holds up better to laundering
  Oxford shoes, cap toe or brogues/wingtips —> Derbies with a less glossy finish, perhaps in a suede leather that requires no polishing
• Derby, fedora —> eight-panel cap that is less expensive, harder to crush and damage, softer, and easier to travel with

As you can see, this form of casual allows for gentlemanly but laid-back dress with relaxed rules that open up new possibilities for expressing one’s personality.

The button-down collar ought not to be worn with suits. It’s a great collar, and it’s great with casual-wear. Notice, however, that you’ll never find a suit model wearing a button-down collar in the Brooks Brothers’ catalogue, nor will you find said collar on suit models in just about any catalogue. Once this guideline was pointed out to me, I realized the good sense behind it, and I now follow it. Moreover, anyone I see wearing a button-down collar with a suit can instantly be identified as uninformed.

Advertisement