Men's undershirts, crew or V–necks?

I noticed while doing laundry yesterday that my undershirts
are getting kinda worn, it's about time start tossing and replacing
them. However, I'm not quite sure what to replace them with. I've
noticed a lot of guys buying undershirts in various non–white colors
(black, grey) etc... and have been getting the impression that
having a white undershirt sticking out from behing a dark shirt
collar is turning into a faux pas.
However, I have enough trouble matching shirts with slacks...
the idea of stocking my drawer with multi–colored undershirts and
working that into the mix as well doesn't get me very excited. It
occurs to me that I instead could start buying my usual all–white
undershirts but switch to the V–neck variety, so you would never see
anything sticking out from behind my shirt collar.
Still, I haven't seen guys wearing V–necks since my Dad back
in the '70s/'80s. I don't know what the general fashion consensus
is, but I personally kinda expect to see an undershirt sticking out
behind the shirt collar on a guy in a professional office
environment... not seeing it is like seeing a guy not wearing a
belt, it just seems lazy or sloppy.
Oh well, I though I'd find a place to ask online because I
really don't know that much about fashion myself. What's the
consensus on male undershirts... are V–necks actually okay, or are
you expected to stock a variety of colors these days, or is my
original premise incorrect and there really isn't anything wrong
with wearing a white crew–neck undershirt beneath a dark shirt?

My DH is a 40–year old professional who wears ties some days and some days
not. Telling you this to say I'm not sure what is considered fashionable,
but he tells me that the T–Shirt shouldn't show from under the shirt;
therefore, when wearing a closed neck shirt with tie or otherwise, it's a
round (crew) neck that won't be seen and when he wears other shirts such as
open–necked polos or button–downs, he wears V–Necks. My opinion is that you
may wear any undershirt that you deem appropriate and matching shouldn't
matter that much when it doesn't show. I also wanted to mention that
T–shirts shouldn't show through the shirt they are underlying. One of my
peeves has always been to see someone trying to look professional and being
able to see a college logo (or a darker shirt) through their dress shirt.
Makes me think they didn't have any clean laundry. I don't expect a shirt
protruding from a man's short shirt sleeves either. That looks very un–put
together and sloppy.
JMO but that's what you were asking, right?
Jamie

My dad used to wear white tank–style undershirts.

3) The extremely rare occasion (perhaps a half dozen times in my adult
life) when I accidentaly buy a particularly thin shirt or one that has
polyester in it.

I have a hard time imagining you as ever being a "mere" anything, Joe! :)

Personally, I wouldn't wear an undershirt in a fit or seizure. It either

through the fabric of the shirt, in which case it looks horrid, or it does

in which case it's wildly superfluous.
I'm a voice in the wilderness, but there you go.
–Joe in SoFla
Re: Hurricanes: "And thick and fast / They came at last / And more
and more and more / All climbing from the frothy waves / And scrambling
to the shore" –Lewis Carroll (MWAH!)

Personally, I wouldn't wear an undershirt in a fit or seizure. It

through the fabric of the shirt, in which case it looks horrid, or it

in which case it's wildly superfluous.
I'm a voice in the wilderness, but there you go.

I can appreciate your stance (how personal these experiences are). My DH
sweats a bit and the T–shirt serves dual purposes. It keeps him dry and
keeps his abundant chest hair from poking through the shirt. It may be
gross to some, but he has much hair and although I love to see it, it is

appealing when poking through his professional attire!
Jamie

Jrgboj M. Gpkgbdfike Jr. wrote:
either peeks
does not,
I can certainly see why a man would want an extra layer under his
shirt, especially in colder weather.
My dad used to wear white tank–style undershirts. The scoop of the
neckline was low enough it didn't peak out, and since they were
sleeveless, he didn't get that weird line on the shirt sleeve, either.
Otherwise, if I were a man and the goal was not to wear a tie or suit
jacket, but rather go a little more business casual, I'd go with a
crewneck that is intended to peak out. It could be white, for under a
light colored shirt such as pink or yellow. Or, grey or blue, etc, to
coordinate under a darker shirt.
A v–neck seems weird to me for some reason. I guess if it absolutely
did not show under the shirt, it'd be fine. But I'd think it might peak
out just a bit. You'd have to try it on and see, I guess.
jen

Personally, I wouldn't wear an undershirt in a fit or seizure. It
either peeks through the fabric of the shirt, in which case it looks
horrid, or it does not, in which case it's wildly superfluous.

Personally, I wouldn't wear an undershirt in a fit or seizure. It either peeks
through the fabric of the shirt, in which case it looks horrid, or it does not,
in which case it's wildly superfluous.
I'm a voice in the wilderness, but there you go.
–Joe in SoFla

Well, it's like the mighty oak and the acorn, y'know.

I think even the acorn has to know it's special...

Personally, I wouldn't wear an undershirt in a fit or seizure. It
either peeks through the fabric of the shirt, in which case it looks
horrid, or it does not, in which case it's wildly superfluous.

The extremely rare occasion (perhaps a half dozen times in my adult
life) when I accidentaly buy a particularly thin shirt or one that has
polyester in it.

UsahB3 said:
I would have to be in the midst of the aforemntioned fit or seizure to have
bought a shirt (or an garment, mind you) with any polyester in it. Perhaps I am
overreacting, but I think polyester just might be what the Book of Revelation
refers to as the Mark of the Beast.
For the record, I'm not concerned about any of my two chest heairs peeking out,
and to date, I have never perspired profusely enough to warrant an absorbent
layer between me and my shirtings.
I realize not all men may be so genetically blessed, but there you go. Mind
you, my dad (aged 70) has worn undershirts––even UNDERNEATH T–shirts!––since
the dinosaurs roamed the earth, but to me, I'm thinking a burlap straightjacket
might be more comfortable.

Im alot like you, no chesthair and i dont sweat much at all, but i
never ever go anywhere whithought some sort of tshirt on under my
other shirts. Just about the only time i dont wear one is when the
tshirt im wearing is more fitted and just doesnt look right witha ts
under it!

I would also add the "nipple
factor"... something most guys wouldn't think about, but that makes
them look really embarrasing when they're wearing only one layer of
fabric on a cooler day.

Personally, I wouldn't wear an undershirt in a fit or seizure. It either peeks
through the fabric of the shirt, in which case it looks horrid, or it does not,
in which case it's wildly superfluous.

Joe....hath spoken.
DH concurs.

Personally, I wouldn't wear an undershirt in a fit or seizure. It
either peeks through the fabric of the shirt, in which case it looks
horrid, or it does not, in which case it's wildly superfluous.
I'm a voice in the wilderness, but there you go.

When I was a mere lad living in Michigan I never wore one. I just
bundled up with more sweaters, jackets, etc.
–Joe in SoFla
"Avanti, Commendatore, la vittoria e nostra!"

Well, it's like the mighty oak and the acorn, y'know.

I'm particularly proud of my humility.

jmgarci...@aol.comply (Jrgboj M. Gpkgbdfike Jr.) wrote on 09 Nov 2004:
I have a hard time imagining you as ever being a "mere" anything, Joe! :)
I think even the acorn has to know it's special...

Poetic Badgers wrote:
Cut it out, Badgers. That's my man you're talking to.
Priscilla

Trilby <p...@LOVELYmidway.SPAMuchicago.edu> wrote on 11 Nov 2004:
Hee! <nudges Trilby in the arm>
Since when did his acorns fall and sprout in your yard?

Poetic Badgers wrote:
Tsk tsk tsk. Far be it from me to bandy a tree's name around in a
public forum. It's not the done thing.

Hey, no problem. It's all good. He gets turned on by catfights. (It's
too bad you were'nt an English major, but since this is a virtual
catfight, he can pretend you were. Or you can.)

It seems readilyapparent this could rapidly devolve, so to prevent that, I
better see––but quick––either:
1– A pit filled with lime Jell–O or
2– References to e.e. cummings and William Blake.
(Mentioning Jerome K. Jerome is, however, playing with fire)
–Joe in SoFla

I was thinking:
1. A pit filled with sugar free strawberry Jell–O (I look better in red)
2. combatants must be capable of participating in learned discussions
about Alexander Pope and/or P. G. Wodehouse
3. a girl in an oxford cloth button–down shirt and a ponytail walking
around with a tray of cigars for the spectators
4. a bar serving top–shelf drinks

Trilby <p...@LOVELYmidway.SPAMuchicago.edu> wrote on 14 Nov 2004:
I'm not sure if you're currently joking (as I thought you were before) or
attempting to scold me.
Name or not, I laid neither public nor private claim, though you did by
using "my." I paid the gentleman a well–meant & respectful compliment.
Anything more than that did not and does not exist.
If the gentleman doesn't want me to reply to any of his posts, I should
think he should say so himself. I shall, of course, do as the gentleman
requests.

It seems readilyapparent this could rapidly devolve, so to prevent
that, I better see––but quick––either:
1– A pit filled with lime Jell–O or

2– References to e.e. cummings and William Blake.

(Mentioning Jerome K. Jerome is, however, playing with fire)

I must regretfully decline your lime Jell–0 wrestling invitation. I have
a personal obligation that day.
Keats at 40 paces is as far as I'll go. You can keep your innocence,
experience and nonstandard capitalization.
Not wishing to play with fire, I'll instead think fondly of Moss Hart and
his lovely wife, Kitty.

jmgarci...@aol.comply (Jrgboj M. Gpkgbdfike Jr.) wrote on 15 Nov 2004:
Hey, no problem. It's all good. He gets turned on by catfights. (It's
too bad you were'nt an English major, but since this is a virtual
catfight, he can pretend you were. Or you can.)
I must regretfully decline your lime Jell–0 wrestling invitation. I have
a personal obligation that day.

Hey, no problem. It's all good. He gets turned on by catfights. (It's
too bad you were'nt an English major, but since this is a virtual
catfight, he can pretend you were. Or you can.)

Trilby <p...@LOVELYmidway.SPAMuchicago.edu> wrote on 15 Nov 2004:
The gentleman can pretend I'm anything he wants me to be; there's nothing
wrong with a little fantasy. However, why on earth would I want to pretend
to be an English major? Does majoring in English somehow make one superior
to or better than others?
PB
busy packing for an OOT trip

Or do you mean when they wear sweaters and there's a white undershirt
or a t–shirt peeking in the V–neck of the sweater?