The migrating dress code.

[Coley]

The threads about dress codes reminded me of this. For a high school reunion a number of years ago, the planners sent information to alumni stating a formal dress code for the dinner. My friends from school and I talked about the dress code, and several of them were hesitant to attend because of it. We all wondered if the planners were confused about what "formal" means. Surely, they didn't mean formal.

Lo and behold, another mailing went out and the dress code was softened to cocktail. Apparently, the RSVPs were slow, so the planners thought changing the dress code would help.

Then a third mailing went out with a new dress code: church clothes. We were asked to pay our share of the dinner cost in advance with our RSVPs, which I did.

Given the multiple dress code options, I ended up wearing a LBD. A friend wore a burgundy street-length dress. The reunion planners were all in black cocktail dresses. Other attendees were wearing a variety of clothing, including jeans, sport coats, street dresses, dress pants, etc. 

The kicker: When we arrived at the dinner, we were informed that we had to pay extra for our meals because they didn't get enough RSVPs to cover the cost of the meal.

[gellchom]

The planners who specified "church clothes" all showed up in cocktail dresses?

They must go to a very interesting church.

[siamesecat2965]

Interesting. I would htink, that as adults, people could figure out what was appropriate to wear, and what wasn't!

I know for my HS reunion, I saw everything from jeans (both men and women) to suits and ties, fancy dresses, and everything inbetween. I wore black pants, a black sequin tank, and a black sweater shrug. Dressy, but not too fancy, and comfortable, and it looked nice.

[magicdomino]

I suspect that the planners wanted a fancy formal reunion, and put down a hefty deposit based on X number of people.  Then they couldn't get anywhere near X number of people who were willing to wear black tie and gowns.  Perhaps someone responded, "I'd love to see everyone, but I don't want to buy an expensive dress just for that."  So, they kept lowering the dress scale, hoping to get enough people to pay for the cost of the dinner and ballroom.  Finally, they got to, "Oh please, just come.  It doesn't matter what you wear, we want to see you."  (And pay for the ballroom.     ) 

The problem is that they didn't communicate the change in dress code to the people who first RSVPed.  The fact that the planners themselves wore cocktail dresses just means that they were really, really looking forward to dressing up. 

[Coley]

I suspect that the planners wanted a fancy formal reunion, and put down a hefty deposit based on X number of people.  Then they couldn't get anywhere near X number of people who were willing to wear black tie and gowns.  Perhaps someone responded, "I'd love to see everyone, but I don't want to buy an expensive dress just for that."  So, they kept lowering the dress scale, hoping to get enough people to pay for the cost of the dinner and ballroom.  Finally, they got to, "Oh please, just come.  It doesn't matter what you wear, we want to see you." (And pay for the ballroom.     ) 

The problem is that they didn't communicate the change in dress code to the people who first RSVPed.  The fact that the planners themselves wore cocktail dresses just means that they were really, really looking forward to dressing up.

There was a statement in the third mailing along those lines! And yes, very interesting that the planners were in cocktail dresses while they encouraged everyone else to wear church clothes. It reminds me a little of that "dress to impress" dress code in gellchom's RSVP thread. As stylish as the planners looked, I don't know that the attendees were impressed about having to pay more for the dinner!