Are Jeans (not frayed or with holes) Smart Casual?

[coiran]

Folks, it is simply a matter of proper manners. We do not care what others wear in the dining room. However, we will not associate with those who eschew the proper dress code.

 

I agree - those that care to dress out of the bounds of the suggested attire can sit with others who do the same - My DW and I do not have to sit with them!!

Ron

[rcacace]

No, no, a thousand times no...they are not considered smart casual no matter what you might hear on this elongated and highly repetitive thread.

 

Read the cruise answer booklet. Jeans are not allowed in the DRs for dinner. Don't question the rules/suggestions...abide by them as that's wants Princess wants you to do so as not to p*** off the rest (majority) of people who do abide by them.

 

Ciao for now!!!

 

Well since by Princess's own words "casual jeans(with fraying and/or holes) are not permitted in the dining rooms.", which means to me & lots of other folks that they do allow them in the dining room's on the ships, I guess the people who get p*ssed off will just have to accept the fact that we'll be wearing them. By the way some people on this board carry on about them, you would think that people were doing so on formal evenings. :rolleyes:

[skt4cruise]

Maybe jeans are smarty pants casual...;)

 

Yes, this has to be the answer to an obvious question:mad:

jeans are not "smart"...get the Dockers.

[2buggers]

I don't know, but isn't "dress jeans" an oxymoron? :confused:

[JerseyGuys]

Smart casual

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about a code of dress. For the album by Kids in Glass Houses, see Smart Casual (album)

 

Smart casual (as distinct from business casual) is a loosely defined dress code, casual, yet "smart" enough to conform to the particular standards of certain Western social groups.

 

As "smart casual" is not formally defined, the lines between it and the other casual styles (see Dress code (Western)) are often blurred. For example, some may use the term smart casual interchangeably with business casual.

It has been suggested that smart casual for men consists of dress trousers—some, but not all definitions may allow jeans or chinos[2]—a long-sleeve dress shirt[3] (tie optional), leather loafers or dressy slip-ons, dress socks, a belt, and, if appropriate, a sport coat. For women, it consists of slacks, jeans or a skirt (long or short), a blouse or turtleneck, a fashionable belt, a jacket, a vest, or a sweater coordinated to your outfit, hosiery or socks with boots, flats (leather, suede, or fabric) or mid-heel shoes. Women may also wear jewelry, such as earrings that complement their overall outfit, at least. This category demands a pulled-together, harmonious, complete look with colors, fabrics, shoes, and accessories, for both men and women.

 

Formality is subjective, and in some places, the above would describe 'casual', with smart casual requiring a jacket and tie.

[sp2]

My hubby and I enjoy dressing up every night for dinner. Its part of the fun of cruising for us, since we don't often have such elaborate meals at home. Neither of us would consider wearing jeans to the dining room; if we don't want to dress up we would go to the Horizon Court for dinner.

 

I think its a sign of respect for your fellow passengers to dress appropriately per the dress code.

 

We also cruise mainly in the Caribbean so I would not even take jeans with me - too heavy for the warm weather and too bulky in the suitcase.

 

We have cruised on NCL and have noticed a much more casual atmosphere on board, where jeans would be a perfectly acceptable option. Personally, we prefer Princess and like to make each dinner a special event.

 

Enjoy your cruise!:)

[2buggers]

That's it! It's fabulous drag for me.

[JerseyGuys]

not to be labor the point (and i'm one of those who think people shouldn't wear jeans in the main dining rooms) but exactly where does it say (and I'd like to see the quote) that jeans are not allowed in the Dining Rooms on smart casual nights, because I can't find it.

[rcacace]

Lets look at it this way;

 

1. My interpenetration (and others) of what Princess prints says that jeans are permitted (providing there are no holes or tears).

2. Calls to Princess reps. by numerous people have confirmed the fact that they are acceptable.

3. The Maitre D' doesn't question them on any ship I've been on...and it has been quite a few.

 

I can't possibly see how anyone could question them except a few on this board who just plain despise them & would like to convenience others to do likewise.

[JerseyGuys]

Lets look at it this way;

 

1. My interpenetration (and others) of what Princess prints says that jeans are permitted (providing there are no holes or tears).

2. Calls to Princess reps. by numerous people have confirmed the fact that they are acceptable.

3. The Maitre D' doesn't question them on any ship I've been on...and it has been quite a few.

 

I can't possibly see how anyone could question them except a few on this board who just plain despise them & would like to convenience others to do likewise.

 

You've summarized my interpretation of the rules exactly. I just have seen some posts about it being "written" that jeans aren't allowed.

[coiran]

not to be labor the point (and i'm one of those who think people shouldn't wear jeans in the main dining rooms) but exactly where does it say (and I'd like to see the quote) that jeans are not allowed in the Dining Rooms on smart casual nights, because I can't find it.

 

It doesn't say jeans are not allowed nor does it say they are allowed -t states "casual jeans(with fraying and/or holes) are not permitted.

This can be interpreted in different ways:

1. jeans are permitted - OR

2. jeans are not permitted, especially worn or with holes.

Ron

[coiran]

You've summarized my interpretation of the rules exactly. I just have seen some posts about it being "written" that jeans aren't allowed.

 

 

Not exactly, some posters have insisted that it clearly states "jeans are permitted" and it does NOT state that.

Ron

[Cruisers from WA]

The Maitre D' Hotel (the "Captain" of food service/all dining) is usually in an office...it is the Head Waiters that over see admitting people to the dining room and they are directed by the Maitre D' as to whether to admit a person wearing jeans or not, and

 

YES, I have seen (& heard) people being turned away from the dining room for wearing jeans and directed to the horizon court.....

[coiran]

The Maitre D' Hotel (the "Captain" of food service/all dining) is usually in an office...it is the Head Waiters that over see admitting people to the dining room and they are directed by the Maitre D' as to whether to admit a person wearing jeans or not, and

 

YES, I have seen (& heard) people being turned away from the dining room for wearing jeans and directed to the horizon court.....

 

On the Dawn last fall the actual Maitre De , Neville Sahldana, was very visible at dinnertime - not necessarily admitting people, but talking with everyone.

 

Ron

[navybankerteacher]

The point of "smart casual" is to be casual, while looking smart. Jeans - even brand new jeans, with no holes, frayed edges, apparent wear or bleached areas are casual; but, because they are essentially work clothes or outdoor recreation wear, they are not smart. Chinos, by the way, could only be considered "smart" if they were clean and pressed.

 

I frankly do not care what other people wear: the problem is that people who "...wear what I want because it is my holiday..." often display other self-centered attitudes.

[Host CJSKIDS]

In my latest copy of "Cruise Answer Book" it states

"Inappropriate dinner wear such as pool or beach attire, shorts, ball caps and casual jeans (with fraying and/or holes) are not permitted in the dining rooms. Shoes must be worn.

 

It doesn't say jeans or denim jeans, it states casual jeans and uses fraying and holes as an example.

 

I don't own jeans so never wear them but prior to our last cruise I did speak with a contact I have in Passenger Relations about a few questions and one of them was wearing jeans as our son's friend had asked us. The answer I received was that jeans were permitted in the dining room as long as they didn't have holes. We laughed about how my son's jeans with strategically placed holes cost so much from abercrombie and we paid extra to have it that way. My family has never worn jeans in the dining room but I have seen them in the dining room on every Princess cruise that I've been on.

 

Since Alan Buckelew has been so nice about answering emails, I figured I would send one along with this question since it's such an argument on here. If I receive an answer I'll post the response.

[cruisemom42]

As an English major and an editor, I just have to respond, although I'm sure it will do no good and this thread will be zapped....:rolleyes: (And for the record, let me state that I personally do not agree that jeans are "smart casual" but I do realize that this is MY viewpoint, not necessarily Princess's.)

 

This is the exact wording from Princess that is being debated so contentiously:

 

"Inappropriate dinner dress such as pool or beach attire, shorts, ball caps and casual jeans (with fraying and/or holes), is not permitted in the dining rooms."

 

First, I have looked at several different grammar guides both online and real books (after all, I am an editor....) and virtually all agree that parenthetical material is supplementary material -- in other words, material that further clarifies the "bones" of the sentence.

 

Nowhere do I read that parenthetical material should be disregarded; otherwise, why include it in the first place? Just because Mrs. Jones in the 5th grade told you to disregard parenthetical material when you were diagramming sentence structure, doesn't mean that you should disregard it when parsing the actual meaning of the sentence.

 

Here are a few references, in case you don't believe me:

 

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/parens.asp

 

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Uses-of-Parentheses.topicArticleId-29011,articleId-28994.html

 

 

Second, even if one were to stubbornly insist that parenthetical material is meaningless, there is still that qualifying word within the actual sentence: casual jeans. By your own argument, material included in the sentence itself is essential. Thus, the fact that Princess included the descriptor "casual" clearly implies that other types of jeans (i.e., those that are not casual) would be acceptable.

 

I'm quite sure that Princess's intent was to imply that "casual jeans" (not just "jeans") are not allowed; and in an attempt to be helpful and clarify what "casual" means in this context, they added the further parenthetical information "with fraying and/or holes"; this way, there can be no debate if someone shows up in the MDR with fraying jeans or jeans with holes, that they are dressed inappropriately.

 

Whew! Well, at least I feel better now. :D

[JerseyGuys]

As an English major and an editor, I just have to respond, although I'm sure it will do no good and this thread will be zapped....:rolleyes: (And for the record, let me state that I personally do not agree that jeans are "smart casual" but I do realize that this is MY viewpoint, not necessarily Princess's.)

 

This is the exact wording from Princess that is being debated so contentiously:

 

"Inappropriate dinner dress such as pool or beach attire, shorts, ball caps and casual jeans (with fraying and/or holes), is not permitted in the dining rooms."

 

First, I have looked at several different grammar guides both online and real books (after all, I am an editor....) and virtually all agree that parenthetical material is supplementary material -- in other words, material that further clarifies the "bones" of the sentence.

 

Nowhere do I read that parenthetical material should be disregarded; otherwise, why include it in the first place? Just because Mrs. Jones in the 5th grade told you to disregard parenthetical material when you were diagramming sentence structure, doesn't mean that you should disregard it when parsing the actual meaning of the sentence.

 

Here are a few references, in case you don't believe me:

 

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/parens.asp

 

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Uses-of-Parentheses.topicArticleId-29011,articleId-28994.html

 

 

Second, even if one were to stubbornly insist that parenthetical material is meaningless, there is still that qualifying word within the actual sentence: casual jeans. By your own argument, material included in the sentence itself is essential. Thus, the fact that Princess included the descriptor "casual" clearly implies that other types of jeans (i.e., those that are not casual) would be acceptable.

 

I'm quite sure that Princess's intent was to imply that "casual jeans" (not just "jeans") are not allowed; and in an attempt to be helpful and clarify what "casual" means in this context, they added the further parenthetical information "with fraying and/or holes"; this way, there can be no debate if someone shows up in the MDR with fraying jeans or jeans with holes, that they are dressed inappropriately.

 

Whew! Well, at least I feel better now. :D

 

Well done Cynthia. That's all I've been trying to say is that in today's world people love to sprout rules and regulations without a clear analysis of the source. From now on, when ever this issue comes up, your going to be my reference...:)

[coiran]

As an English major and an editor, I just have to respond, although I'm sure it will do no good and this thread will be zapped....:rolleyes: (And for the record, let me state that I personally do not agree that jeans are "smart casual" but I do realize that this is MY viewpoint, not necessarily Princess's.)

 

This is the exact wording from Princess that is being debated so contentiously:

 

"Inappropriate dinner dress such as pool or beach attire, shorts, ball caps and casual jeans (with fraying and/or holes), is not permitted in the dining rooms."

 

First, I have looked at several different grammar guides both online and real books (after all, I am an editor....) and virtually all agree that parenthetical material is supplementary material -- in other words, material that further clarifies the "bones" of the sentence.

 

Nowhere do I read that parenthetical material should be disregarded; otherwise, why include it in the first place? Just because Mrs. Jones in the 5th grade told you to disregard parenthetical material when you were diagramming sentence structure, doesn't mean that you should disregard it when parsing the actual meaning of the sentence.

 

Here are a few references, in case you don't believe me:

 

http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/parens.asp

 

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/CliffsReviewTopic/Uses-of-Parentheses.topicArticleId-29011,articleId-28994.html

 

 

Second, even if one were to stubbornly insist that parenthetical material is meaningless, there is still that qualifying word within the actual sentence: casual jeans. By your own argument, material included in the sentence itself is essential. Thus, the fact that Princess included the descriptor "casual" clearly implies that other types of jeans (i.e., those that are not casual) would be acceptable.

 

I'm quite sure that Princess's intent was to imply that "casual jeans" (not just "jeans") are not allowed; and in an attempt to be helpful and clarify what "casual" means in this context, they added the further parenthetical information "with fraying and/or holes"; this way, there can be no debate if someone shows up in the MDR with fraying jeans or jeans with holes, that they are dressed inappropriately.

 

Whew! Well, at least I feel better now. :D

 

So, in laymans terms, what are you saying? Are you suggesting that the Princess answer book states that casual jeans are permitted or not permitted, and what is the difference between casual jeans and jeans?

Ron

[Lookingforfacts]

So, in laymans terms, what are you saying? Are you suggesting that the Princess answer book states that casual jeans are permitted or not permitted, and what is the difference between casual jeans and jeans?

 

 

Ron

 

It defines casual jeans as jeans with fraying and/or holes. Casual jeans, as defined by Princess, are not permitted.

[PescadoAmarillo]

The fact that Princess does, in fact, allow jeans in the dining room for dinner on non-formal nights is old, old news, but the fact that some are still trying to interpret Princess rules to fit their own agenda doesn't surprise me. Here is the original thread on the subject when Princess first changed their policy, two years ago.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=607282&highlight=

 

BTW, I've worn jeans in the dining room once, in New Zealand, after returning back from an all day excursion. The head waiter caught us looking at the posted menu before we went up to our cabin to change, and invited us in for dinner. This was before the policy change, so technically we were being non-compliant; however, I was always taught that it is best to respect the wishes of my host, and so I did. I haven't taken jeans on a cruise since then, so it's not a personal bias that makes me interested in this topic...it's that this particular issue really has been settled, by our host, Princess Cruises.

[coiran]

The fact that Princess does, in fact, allow jeans in the dining room for dinner on non-formal nights is old, old news, but the fact that some are still trying to interpret Princess rules to fit their own agenda doesn't surprise me. Here is the original thread on the subject when Princess first changed their policy, two years ago.

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=607282&highlight=

 

BTW, I've worn jeans in the dining room once, in New Zealand, after returning back from an all day excursion. The head waiter caught us looking at the posted menu before we went up to our cabin to change, and invited us in for dinner. This was before the policy change, so technically we were being non-compliant; however, I was always taught that it is best to respect the wishes of my host, and so I did. I haven't taken jeans on a cruise since then, so it's not a personal bias that makes me interested in this topic...it's that this particular issue really has been settled, by our host, Princess Cruises.

 

 

Your reference link is a reference to a blog and not a Princess policy. Sorry!!

 

Ron

[peterv]

Some women and men do not l:eek:k "smart" in jeans....not flattering at all.

 

If one's anatomy is "well gifted" (or well fed) in the booty area....please,skip the jeans in the dining room!

 

I always equate jeans with hiking....not dining

 

Funny, I always equate jeans with wearing. :D

 

I do however always equate food with dining and mountains with hiking.

 

Cheers,

Peter

[JerseyGuys]

This is one of the we all need to agree to disagree....LOL

[coiran]

The problem with "dress" threads is - everyone interprets the Princess answer book to meet their own desires.

 

Everyones posts as to what is allowed nd what is not allowed is just an opinion.

 

Greanted, the Princess answer book guidelines is rather hazy, somewhat like "O",s proclamationas and plans.

 

It appears that it is up to the Maitr De to make the call.

 

In any event, we always choose Anytime Dining, and that allows us to dine with whomever we want - If I am at a table with underdressed people, braggarts or oneuppers, I can always walk away and get a new table.

 

Ron