New dress code

[Jonothan]

I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned it, but The Gulf Coast Room on the 2nd floor of the Contemporary had a "jackets required" dress code for gentlemen. Likewise did the Pompano Grill at the Lake Buena Vista golf club and the Empress Room on the Empress Lilly.

Of course, all of these restaurants are no more, but the dress code was present before Victoria and Albert's and for restaurants other than dinner shows.

 

[DancingBear]

Even if nothing else gets resolved....

Resolved? When do we ever get anything resolved?

 

[Uncleromulus]

Scoop:
The Chef's table at V&A. A place where I really would prefer NOT to wear a jacket, but I like so much I comply with a genuine rule that IS enforced.
As an aside, I no longer wear a suit nor does Mrs. U wear a dress,. Now when we eat at V&A I wear a wash' n' wear blue sportcoat and tan slacks. Mrs. U wears a pantssuit. Much easier to pack and a LOT more comfortable.

Anyhow-- as I said--it's how I always dress for dinner at WDW and until there is an ENFORCED policy, it's how I'll continue to dress. I'm still not sure we have a RULE, or in spite of all the wording, still just a "suggested" way of dressing. If a rule, they'll enforce it and I won't get in. If a suggestion, up to me whether or not to take it (or as you say-ignore it) and I'll get in.
Suggest we monitor the restaurant boards for reports of what folks ARE wearing and who is refused admittance. When they start turning folks away, then they DO have a policy/rule and then decisions must be made.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Jonathan:
True enough. And none of them are around any more.

 

[DancingBear]

Anyhow-- as I said--it's how I always dress for dinner at WDW and until there is an ENFORCED policy, it's how I'll continue to dress. I'm still not sure we have a RULE, or in spite of all the wording, still just a "suggested" way of dressing. If a rule, they'll enforce it and I won't get in. If a suggestion, up to me whether or not to take it (or as you say-ignore it) and I'll get in.

How about we consider it a "request"--not a firm rule, but something more than a "suggestion."

 

[eeyore0062]

I can't understand the flip flop... what constitutes a flip flop? The plastic variety mostly seen to go to and from the pool, or the decorated type that actually look very nice with a sundress? That is just begging for interpretation descrepancies.

I also have a problem with the "shorts", as many women wear nice dressy shorts, and shouldn't have to wear long pants, capris or dresses to be considered well dressed, same with men. Bermuda shorts on men look very nice with a casual shirt or a t shirt with a collared shirt over it.

That being said, many people seem to be more concerned about what is appropriate dress, as oftentimes we hear people ask if what they have on is OK for PI, or Fulton's, etc. But, gone are the days that everyone "dresses" for dinner out on vacation. Basically, for me as long as no "pits", bellies or excuse my lack of couth, "butt cracks" are showing on men and they have on shoes and as long as no bellies, ****s or butts are showing on women and they have on shoes and nobody stinks, I don't care what the person next to me at a restaurant is wearing-- regardless of the restaurant. I am there to enjoy my food and the company of the person I am with.

 

[DancingBear]

I also have a problem with the "shorts", as many women wear nice dressy shorts, and shouldn't have to wear long pants, capris or dresses to be considered well dressed, same with men. Bermuda shorts on men look very nice with a casual shirt or a t shirt with a collared shirt over it.

Shorts are permitted.

 

[eeyore0062]

Thank goodness... I think I had read the part where the weren't at one of the food and wine festival events. That is A BIT harsh!

 

[raidermatt]

I was just gonna let this thing die, but I finally went over to the restaurant board to read about all of the people supporting the policy.

I found the thread several pages back, and in the end, I found 26 posters supporting the code, 17 against the code. (That's posters... one person posting 10 times still counts as one) I did not post on the thread and therefore didn't count myself.

That's about 60-40, which isn't quite the overwhelming wave of support I expected based on what was said earlier in this thread.

Look further and 6 of those 26 supporters said that of course what they were talking about, like "nice" flip flops, or "clean" or "nice" t-shirts were ok. So while they SAY they support the code, they are more supporting the idea of a code that meets with their own tastes, not the code as stated.

Another person didn't technically express an opinion, but asked a question about attire that is banned by the letter of the code. I didn't count that as "against" the code, but very easily could have.

One of the people for the code justified using examples of clothing that isn't even banned.

At least 5 other supporters used swimwear as examples of why they supported the code. Something nobody is arguing with.

Two supporters specifically said it wasn't appropriate to have the code in theme park restaurants, which it apparently is (Bistro).

A couple of posters were either non-committal or posted their support initially, but after discussion with Captain Pirate, admitted that the code either went too far, or that they didn't really care if others wore their $40 Mickey Mouse t-shirt.

Resolved? When do we ever get anything resolved?

Good point. What have we resolved here?

1- I do not utilize my time in a productive manner.

2- 43 responses is hardly a meaningful sample size, but even so, it appears Dis'ers are pretty evenly split on the code as posted.

 

[DancingBear]

I don't care if anyone wears their $40 Mickey T-shirt either, or if they are girls in fashionable flip-flops with nice outfits, etc. And, really, neither does Disney. As I said waaaaaayyyyyy back, any dress code can be attacked on the margins; the key is in reasonable enforcement. That doesn't mean you should "throw the baby out with the bathwater" and not have the code.

 

[raidermatt]

Very few have indicated there should be no code whatsoever. I don't remember anyone supporting swimwear, coverups, or torn clothing in these restaurants. If that's really what they want to ban, keep it at that and simply enforce it as posted. In fact, many have indicated these things were banned all along. I'm not sure if that's true, but again, nobody is really arguing they should be allowed.

Much easier than throwing in t-shirts and flip flops, then asking CMs to make a judgement about what is an "acceptable" t-shirt or sandal.

Unless of course Disney really is banning the clean $40 Mickey T.

 

[DancingBear]

I think they're trading off administrative convenience for stating a "higher" standard. Again, IMO, this is more about sending out the general message that these restaurants are "a cut above" than about the details of the code. Sure it would be somewhat easier for CMs not to distinguish between AirLarry's LSU t-shirt and a Liz Claiborne t-top, but "allowing" all t-shirts wouldn't accomplish the objective.

 

[dan-tot]

I think they are doing this so that they can raise their food prices.

Dan-tot

 

[airlarry!]

Sure it would be somewhat easier for CMs not to distinguish between AirLarry's LSU t-shirt...

As usual, PUDBDO, you did not read the fine print:

Seven of the resort's spiffiest restaurants have upgraded to a “business casual” requirement. The restaurants involved are:

Jiko (Animal Kingdom Lodge)
Flying Fish (BoardWalk)
California Grill (Contemporary)
Citricos and Narcoossee's (Grand Floridian)
Artist Point (Wilderness Lodge)
Yachtsman Steakhouse (Yacht Club)
The restaurants are defining “business casual” as dress shorts, pants, jean pants, collared shirts, blouses and sweaters. Hats, swimsuits, swimsuit coveralls, tank tops, T-shirts, torn clothing and flip-flops are not permitted, unless they are licensed apparel emblazoned with the school colors and/or logo of any NCAA college football or college baseball national championship programs from Louisiana.

 

[Uncleromulus]

SO they ARE "banning" the DISNEY T---at these "spiffy" restaurants.
Since T's and polo shirts pretty much cover the same area of the body, then it's the COLLAR that counts for everything. Can't be just "writing" cause I have a # of polos with writing and logos on them. But they do have a collar, which makes everything OK.

 

[DancingBear]

Yes, Uncle, just as has been true on golf courses forever, and in most business casual offices now, a collared shirt is considered more "dressed up" than a t-shirt. That's really not a radical concept.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Just trying to pin down the real issue, is all.
And as I thought all along--is IS the collar.
Except for the feet, of course. Another matter entirely.
Raidermatt:
Thanks for the actual breakdown of the restaurant boards post!!

 

[Uncleromulus]

Would note that over on the restaurants board, reports suggest that folks in T's and flips, sandals, etc etc still being allowed in the "signature "restaurants. No sign yet of any enforcement of the "code".

 

[Peter Pirate]

Just to confuse things, when I made my reservations for Flying Fish yesterday I was told the dress code is "business/resort casual" ???

 

[Uncleromulus]

They could hardly make it more confusing--but then they do seem to try!!

Just have the ESPN Club as an alternate, in case you're hauled from the Fish for "mal" (mis??) dressing. It is a "signature" restaurant, as you know----