STYLETHREAD -- LET'S TALK SHOP!

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
stylethread site home page -> stylethread forum -> weddings -> boutonnieres with no jackets?
Post Info TOPIC: boutonnieres with no jackets?
DC Shopper


Dooney & Bourke

Status: Offline
Posts: 570
Date:
boutonnieres with no jackets?
Permalink Closed

our groomsmen will not be wearing jackets, they will be wearing the exact same khakis, a crisp white shirt, and a blue and yellow striped tie.  we figured it would be too much to also ask them to buy a navy blazer, and letting them just wear their own might look odd if they are different shades of navy or different cuts.  so the florist suggested that they not have boutonnieres since those normally go on the blazer lapel.  is it weird/wrong to not give the groomsmen boutonnieres?  i don't think they'd be devastated either way.  the other question is, could they rent the same navy blazer, and if so, about how much does that run?



__________________
Starstuff


Kenneth Cole

Status: Offline
Posts: 429
Date:
Permalink Closed

Blazers can be rented from most all men's-wear rental places. That way you're sure you'll ahve the same color, style, etc. I'm not sure about the fees.


I think that if the groomsmen don't have jackets they shouldn't have bouts. I think that would look strange.


Are you confident about having khakis, navy blazers, and bouts, if you go that way? The reason I ask is b/c khakis and blazers is (relatively) informal, and I'm not sure bouts with that would be the same level of formality, ya know? Maybe all the groomsmen should have matching pocket handkerchiefs instead? They can peak out a little from the pocket, adding some color, while still maintaining the 'feel' of the outfit.



__________________
"I base most of my fashion taste on what doesn't itch." - G. Radner
valenciana


Dooney & Bourke

Status: Offline
Posts: 941
Date:
Permalink Closed

i agree that no jackets = no bouts.  somehow it would seem like they're wearing corsages if it's just pinned to their shirts.  and i can't imagine a group of guys caring that they didn't have them, so if you're worried about their feelings, i'd say it's no big deal.  (unless of course your fiance really wants bouts, then it's another story)


i agree too, with Starstuff, i like the idea of pocket squares to add polish but keep it a little less formal.  i think smash is doing the same thing, and here's a picture i swiped from her:




__________________
Life is short - buy the shoes.
RyanJ


Coach

Status: Offline
Posts: 1915
Date:
Permalink Closed

I would say no the boutonnieres too. At a wedding my boyfriend was just in they wore tuxes. They place they rented them from gave him the wrong size jacket and it was really tight on him. He took the jacket off at the reception and to be a nerd someone had the idea of pinning the boutonnieres on his shirt. It just looked so goofy. It didn't look right to me.

I think the pocket squares would be nice idea also. It would make them look a little dressier, but not too formal.

-- Edited by RyanJ at 18:15, 2005-04-06

__________________
I don’t want no part of your tight-ass country-club, you freak bitch!
DC Shopper


Dooney & Bourke

Status: Offline
Posts: 570
Date:
Permalink Closed

hmmm, I am still mulling over the hanky idea.  I always thought the hankys added formality, but I am starting to see how it might look more casual than a boutoniere.  I think I am definitely going to have the groomsmen rent blazers, otherwise they're going to look like a bunch of random guys in matching khakis walking down the aisle.  thanks for the input, ladies!

__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.
stylethread site home page -> stylethread forum -> weddings -> boutonnieres with no jackets?
Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse 		Powered by ActiveBoard