Dappered

Affordable Men's Style

4 Reasons why the “Short Suit” is a bad idea

By | Heads up: Buying via our links may result in us getting a commission. Here's why.

Business Insider & NPR: Short Suits Go Mainstream.

Many thanks to Reuben A. and Jon L. for sending in the style tips on this story. Of course it’s fine to not like a trend or a specific article of clothing. But throwing rocks at something without actually giving a reason (or reasons) as to why you don’t like it, doesn’t do anyone any good. That said, here’s an attempt to explain why the short suit might not be the best idea for most:
.

1. Is it even practical? Are you really going to be that much cooler?

When it comes to staying cool while wearing a suit in warm weather, the pants are the least of your worries. It’s the jacket that causes the most problems. Often fully lined (and on the cheapest options, in suffocating polyester), suit jackets can smother your core. Yes, some jackets are made (like the Bemberg lined J. Crew jackets above) to be more breathable, and extra points for half lined jackets. But chopping the usually unlined or barely lined pants at the knee in an attempt to stay cooler, while wearing a jacket + shirt & tie, is kinda like having an AC window unit in the basement, but sleeping on the 2nd floor.

 

2. Male legs don’t look as good as female legs.

The hair. The stockiness. The overall unkempt state of the skin (y’know how much time & effort women put into the skin on their legs?). Us guys don’t have gams, we’ve got gahs.

macys bar III short suits40% off? Looks more like 60 – 65%.

 

3. You’re stuck going sockless

Sure, plenty of guys like going sockless, but for others, all that foot funk accelerates the mucking up of their nice dress shoes. There are ways to minimize this of course, but bare sweaty feet + dress shoes can also make for blisters. Sometimes a cool, fresh pair of socks feels better. But who’s gonna wear socks with their short suit? Because that would be crazy.

 

4. It’s a clash of formality. It’s too high/low.

This is why it visually looks “off” to so many. The high/low thing (mixing traditionally more formal pieces w/ more casual pieces in one outfit) works when the pieces aren’t really that far apart in formality. A tweed sportcoat w/ dark wash jeans works because traditionally, a tweed sportcoat was made for more casual activities (riding, shooting, etc…). Dark wash jeans are considered to be the most dressed-up version of denim (mainly uniform color in somber navy), so combining the two isn’t that big of a leap. But shorts? Shorts are really casual. And suits, even in summer fabrics, really aren’t. It’s this uber high/low conflict that drove the Beverly Hillbillies. Come to think of it, Jed would probably hack the legs off a pair of suit pants for summer.

Your turn fellas. Can you see it ever working? Or do you see these things rotting in the clearance section of the retailers who are selling them forever and ever? Leave it all below.

Comments

  2. I can’t see this taking off for one simple reason: most men are afraid to branch out their style. The reason for the sea of French blue shirts with dark trousers in every office park is exactly the same reason that men won’t reach out for anything this extreme. Also, massively agree on point 1, that is why this is laughable. It will go the way of the “adult” onesie – a few college students trying to stand out will do it, and immediately drop it when it comes time to enter the job market.

  3. Angus Young and English schoolboys are the only ones who can get away with this look.

    I don’t think you need a reason to throw stones at something like this – it’s not really worth the effort to say why it’s bad. I’d just like to hear someone give one reason why it would work.

  4. The only thing I disagree with in this article is Joe’s introductory comments about needing to give explanations about why we think this idea won’t fly. Some things don’t need ANY explanation whatsoever to justify rejecting a new style idea. This is one of them.

  5. I’m sure most of us will see some people doing this eventually. I have two questions: (1) will they take off their jackets ever? I can’t imagine seeing someone with shorts and a tie… (2) will we be able to not bust out laughing when we see it?

  6. I was in Vegas and saw an old guy wearing a navy pinstriped suit jacket and… boxer shorts.

    I guess he figured that he thought that he was old enough to both not care and to be able to pull it off at the same.

  7. A friend of mine has a short suit, and actually pulls it off pretty well… however it’s worn as a joke, in a full blown floral pattern, and only in circumstances where he could just as easily be wearing shorts alone.

    I think the key to wearing it is confidence (and being able to joke about yourself) and doing it in appropriate circumstances. And the suit can’t be anywhere close to something you would wear in a full suit (i.e., the JCrew pinstripes make me cringe).

  8. I will start wearing these just after I start wearing short-sleeve dress shirts to work.

  9. Paralegal to the devil’s advocate here, (unpaid internship).
    If I may, how can fashion advance unless we accept otherwise stupid combinations? 100 years from now, if we’re still stuck on the endless cycle of varying lapel widths and non-conservative vs, minimalist color choices I believe it will be a shame. These may not pique our interest immediately, but years down the line their prodigy will. Take for example the cargo pant: Universally panned for its atrocious style it is now squarely in the court of sexy. The tailoring in these might be a bit off, but would fit in flawlessly in an Ghanaian boardroom or Indian marketing meeting.

    I submit to you that three years from now some Italian will sport this exact look with some incomprehensibly stunning woman on his arm and we will clamor about him saying ‘teach me your ways’.

    In short, (get it) this is the equivalent of bringing crocodile Dundee to the big city. He may not fit…but his grandson, Hugh jackman, certainly does.

    I rest awaiting the rebuttals.

  10. > 2. Male legs don’t look as good as female legs.

    Eh. Some of us think the reverse is true.

  11. I’d say Nick Wooster is the only other exemption, but he’s a notorious style badass.

  12. A perfectly acceptable outfit, just don’t forget to match the color of your Gibson SG to your belt and shoes.

  13. At least we can’t question why the “average guy” dresses like crap. Thank goodness for the slobs.

  14. I’m not saying this look won’t be a trend, or eventually become the norm, or any of that. However, at least for myself, it’s just not going to happen. The history behind the parts of the outfit and colors of the outfit say as much as the appearance of the outfit as a whole.

  15. Here is the analysis: under what circumstance would one want/need to wear a suit? To a job interview, to appear in court, give a board presentation, etc. Would you ever wear shorts to a job interview, to court, to give a board presentation? No. Never. Ever. Will that rule change in 100 years? No.

  16. I think it’s always fair game, and frankly, good, to ask “why” (or why not). And that’s not just limited to clothing choices.

    Just because something is not gonna fly for the vast majority, “just because” isn’t a good enough explanation. Because sometimes, if you can’t come up with solid reasons for “no”, you end up making rules based on emotion instead of reason.

  18. Good argument(s) for sure, but I don’t buy the “some Italian will sport this exact look” part. There’s a good chunk of us, if not the majority, who don’t clamor for and copy every fashion trend. It looks awful fake, awful fast.

  19. What surprises me is that the purveyors of these aren’t presenting them as more casual. Imagine either of the JCrew suits above with the Uniqlo pinstriped polo (featured on this very site)? Great for a nice restaurant in a hot climate, right? Or even a summer beach wedding? But honestly, at what point is this full suit version ever practical in a business situation? Who would wear a tie with shorts, who isn’t a student at a British boarding school? No one, unless you work for the Royal Bank of the Bahamas…

  22. It seems that the best reason against this idea is the first. If the form is totally divorced from the function, then the form comes off as forced and frivolous, not fashionable–at least not for any of the right reasons. It does seem that even a half-lined jacket would do more for coolness than shorts.

    Having to go sockless isn’t a dealbreaker, and you can always do no-show socks. The clash of high/low might not be everyone’s cup of tea, but that 1) might be the goal, and 2) the perceptions of what is dressed up or down can evolve. Although I would have to strongly agree that females legs >>> male legs (not all would, as the comments demonstrate), I’m not sure that equates to male legs being necessarily gross and best hidden from sight at all times.

  29. Exactly who I thought about. Most people don’t pull this look off very well, but Wooster does just fine. It’s his demeanor and style that really sells the look.

  31. There’s been two common responses.

    1. You don’t need a reason!
    2. Just four?

    Yes, and… yes 🙂

  35. Lest we forget that capes were a “thing” last year, and those certainly didn’t catch on with the average @Joe. Neither will suits with shorts.

  36. When it’s 105*F outside with “Devil’s Arse” percent humidity, and you can get away with it, you’ll wear those short-sleeve button ups.

  39. Fair enough and I wasn’t trying to be being critical of the article, only that I respectfully disagree that failing to give an explanation for why we don’t think a certain style is not workable somehow doesn’t do us on the forum any good. For example, that same business article above had a Barney’s shorts suit that sells for $800 that has chaffon on the jacket cuff and a skirt as the “shorts” with chaffon on the skirt too boot. Why rationalize why it doesn’t work? Because the chaffon gets in the way when typing? No. It’s because it just stupid and that is a truer explanation than any practical explanation that anyone could give. And sometimes like with this shorts suit idea that giving any other reasons will only dignify this idiotic idea.

  40. I think I’ve decided the only things missing are a throat latch and sleeve buttons. MAXIMUM RIDICULOSITY

  41. I live in Devil’s Arse humiditiyland, and not even at 105 degrees would get me to wear a short-sleeved dress shirt. When heat stroke finally takes me down, my body won’t be found in one of those.

  42. My friend on Twitter, Alexander Chee, said it best: short suits, just another humiliation of climate change. In 100 years, we might just ditch the shorts altogether.

  46. Yeah, but you have to show a 1/4 inch cuff (hem?). Otherwise it just looks tacky.

  47. keeping the pleats on a kilt made of linen would be insane. But cotton blend casual kilts are plenty airy already. They feel great in So Cal heat. I just need to find an appropriate shoe to go sockless in with them.

  48. I disagree about point #2, and I think most women would agree. Men tend to have beter legs than women, and there’s nothing wrong with showing the off. flaunt em if you’ve got em. But in terms of style and practicality I have to agree that the short suit just doesn’t work. If you want to cool off, lose layers on the top FIRST, because heat rises, and insulating your core while cooling a lower extremity makes no sense! As for why it looks off, the fact that it is entirely impractical should be enough, but there’s more, so SO much more! I agree with all your points above (except as already noted) and then some! Another important point is balance. Lots of clothes on top, and little or none on the bottom gives a top-heavy look that is the opposite of cool. Some people call it “Donald Ducking” All that said I am not entirely opposed to putting on a lightweight summer sportcoat on top of a casual summer shorts outfit in the cool evening, or even on a cool summer morning, when I know the temp is going to rise substantially and fast. As a matter of practicality, throwing on a jacket is much quicker and easier than changing your pants, and layering like that is often sufficient to stay comfortable at a BBQ or a beach evening, or for the walk to work.

  49. technically it appears to be following the golden ratio, more so than separates would be, but bleh. Maybe it is the top heavy-ness. I wonder if it would be okay on pear shaped silhouettes?

    Or maybe what bothers me about it is the same problem as all-black suit/shirt/tie combos, but instead of looking like a floating head, you look like a levitating amputee?

  52. After their win over my beloved Ghana yesterday…I am forced to concede that as a valid, logical, airtight response.

    I apologize for insulting your wisdom.

  53. After further thought…I’ll come at it from this angle. Some things in fashion are like slang. They start on the fringe, and are generally panned by the rest of us. But over time, some distiller version of them gets into the public vernacular…and soon, it’s routinely used on cable news. These words will never be acceptable among the elite, just like this suit will never get you a job…but some form of them may be adopted by the masses…even if only for a short time.

    During that time they’ll leave an indelible mark on the English language or on American style.

    But hell no, I aint’ buying one of these.

  54. I was thinking a blazer with a 1/4 length sleeve, but that’ll do nicely. 😀

  56. My 2 year old son has a seersucker shorts-suit. I think if you can’t fit into his, then you shouldn’t be wearing one.