Quote Originally Posted by Jock Scot View Post
CMcG.
What is this semi-formal thing? Never heard of it.
I also can’t get my head around people saying that a jacket like this should be worn/can be worn unbuttoned to "black tie" events. It's already been explained to us over here that black tie has a different meaning in the USA, ( and now, apparently, also Australia), but I still can't quite get the "unbuttoned" business.
I am asking this because this thread is in the “traditional” section: This jacket is designed to be worn with a belt over the waist, so why would you unbutton it?
Would you take the belt off?
Or would you just not wear a belt with it?
If the latter, then why not just wear an Argyll?

The Prince Charlie is a jacket designed to be worn “unbuttoned” and that’s one of the reasons why I have never owned one, I don’t see the point in whichtin’ aroon’ in a jaiket that disnae’ dae’ fit a jaiket’s supposed tae’ dae’ an’ hae’ ivvery ither cheil’ smekkin’ Ah’m a feil gype.

Even with an Argyll, where would you wear one “unbuttoned”? I am looking right now at the programme/menu of the last formal function I attended, there were about 150 kilted men present, mostly in black Argyll's but two of the "Old & Bold" were wearing Sheriffmuir Jackets with belts over the top. (We are talking about two men in their late 80's here, and that's their understanding of evening dress, from their time period).

After supper, in print, permission is given to “loose a button”. As it was a big dinner, that’s understandable. There was then a medal presentation and an MSR from a piper. Buttons were then firmly back in place for the official toasts, the Queen and the Regiment. I'm no expert on sartorial correctness, I'm just a scunner from a cooncil hoose that dis' fit he's telt, but I've been doing what I'm told in the name of tradition for a long time.

Why and where would “unbuttoned” suit a formal occasion?