Has anyone read Nick Foulkes snarky caricature of 5 types who love tweed?
Humourous, though harsh and snobbish.
Published in the Financial Times, How to Spend It Magazine. September 18, 2010 (USA) issue.
I have the hardcopy magazine but can't find a link on the net to the article....
UC
The need for tweed: 5 sartorial types.
Uppercase
I have had the misfortune of seeing said author twice in London near SR wearing tweed suits. My general impression is that he should not be giving lessons to anyone. I find it puzzling that SR has made him the poster boy for English tailoring. Not all the free suits from all the houses on the greatest of Rows can make a Dandy out of less than dandy.
Harshness and snobbery are the very antipodes of Style.
“The elegant being does not look down upon or render judgments on the less fortunate. In the elegant life empathy and above all, generosity are cherished qualities and snobbery is despised above all things.”
Read the description of a few sartorial types here: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... =32&t=5162
Dandy is bandied dandily and all too much these days. Studied eccentricity is a bit of a cliche. And the aberrations of Style it renders would have sent shivers up the spine of the founders of Dandyism, Brummel, Byron et al.
Balzac described pretenders well, "In reality Dandyism is studied affectation. In becoming a dandy, a man becomes a piece of bedroom furniture, an elaborated stuffed dummy one can position on a horse or on a couch, one who sucks and bites the end of a cane, but never a thinking being... this never! The man who only sees dress in dressing is a fool.”
The audience targeted by garish dress does not wear bespoke and is otherwise preoccupied with fashion and brands. SR will not haul them up from the deep with florescent bait.
The one major writer on clothes who knows how to dress is Bruce Boyer.
Cheers
Michael
I have had the misfortune of seeing said author twice in London near SR wearing tweed suits. My general impression is that he should not be giving lessons to anyone. I find it puzzling that SR has made him the poster boy for English tailoring. Not all the free suits from all the houses on the greatest of Rows can make a Dandy out of less than dandy.
Harshness and snobbery are the very antipodes of Style.
“The elegant being does not look down upon or render judgments on the less fortunate. In the elegant life empathy and above all, generosity are cherished qualities and snobbery is despised above all things.”
Read the description of a few sartorial types here: http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... =32&t=5162
Dandy is bandied dandily and all too much these days. Studied eccentricity is a bit of a cliche. And the aberrations of Style it renders would have sent shivers up the spine of the founders of Dandyism, Brummel, Byron et al.
Balzac described pretenders well, "In reality Dandyism is studied affectation. In becoming a dandy, a man becomes a piece of bedroom furniture, an elaborated stuffed dummy one can position on a horse or on a couch, one who sucks and bites the end of a cane, but never a thinking being... this never! The man who only sees dress in dressing is a fool.”
The audience targeted by garish dress does not wear bespoke and is otherwise preoccupied with fashion and brands. SR will not haul them up from the deep with florescent bait.
The one major writer on clothes who knows how to dress is Bruce Boyer.
Cheers
Michael
alden wrote: I saw a light, loose weave Breanish tweed 3 pc suit made by AS on a noted UK fashion writer (who is supposed to be a dandy and know better) and it looked like a chocolate sundae melting on him, or cobwebs blowing in the wind amidst the spars of some lost, battered and grounded ship. In other words, it looked ghastly.
Sometimes a wee bit of structure is needed to spruce things up.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests