I don't know … even Prince Charles can be such a dowdy dresser when you take a look at
Voxarts tumblr recent posts.
Clothing is not timeless. But of its era.
Proportions change. Perceptions change.
A recent voxsart tumblr post.
Any links, UC? I saw some great clips of Prince Charles, by the way, but I´m not sure I found the pictures you mention.
-
culverwood
- Posts: 402
- Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:56 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
The guy is nearly 70 give him a chance. He has never tried to be a fashion or style leader and is not about to start now.
-
bond_and_beyond
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:49 pm
- Contact:
The fashion that might impregnate clothing, by definition, is not timeless, but wouldn´t we agree that Mr. Grant in this picture from 60 years ago looks "timeless"? Today, those clothes, the proportions, etc. would be perceived as elegant as they were in that time, and someone wearing them today would not be out of context (I hope for my own sake).uppercase wrote:
Clothing is not timeless. But of its era.
Proportions change. Perceptions change.
http://www.voxsartoria.com/image/147606776503
The only one I don't quite like is the boat shoes image channeling the Duke of Windsor. The trousers should sit higher.
Yes, it was the boat shoe photo which prompted the post.
In truth, the suit photos all look pretty good to me.
A good suit, moderate in all points, will look fine for years.
And indeed, an attentive suit and coat man, can master looking good in that uniform.
But get him out of that zone and into casual wear and all bets are off.
That's probably why everyone here admires the Esky drawings of suits and formal wear but would never venture near the style of the casual wear. These are so colorful bold and dandyish that most of us could never getting near that stuff.
Yet if you think about it, the same Esky man in that era in his elegant unimpeachable suit, also transitioned to the illustrated casual wear.
No one among us would feel comfortable wearing much of that casual wear. Today, it would seem much too forward. Too much peacock. Draw too much attention. Even effeminate.
That was a different era. And we are of a different mind today.
And hence Pr. C looks pretty frumpy in that boat shoe photo.
He could learn from Esky. Or indeed,the Duke.
In truth, the suit photos all look pretty good to me.
A good suit, moderate in all points, will look fine for years.
And indeed, an attentive suit and coat man, can master looking good in that uniform.
But get him out of that zone and into casual wear and all bets are off.
That's probably why everyone here admires the Esky drawings of suits and formal wear but would never venture near the style of the casual wear. These are so colorful bold and dandyish that most of us could never getting near that stuff.
Yet if you think about it, the same Esky man in that era in his elegant unimpeachable suit, also transitioned to the illustrated casual wear.
No one among us would feel comfortable wearing much of that casual wear. Today, it would seem much too forward. Too much peacock. Draw too much attention. Even effeminate.
That was a different era. And we are of a different mind today.
And hence Pr. C looks pretty frumpy in that boat shoe photo.
He could learn from Esky. Or indeed,the Duke.
For moccasins, you either want shorter inseam or narrower bottoms on the trousers. Some of the Neapolitans will get you there. Traditional Savile Row is made to be worn with real shoes.ballmouse wrote:The only one I don't quite like is the boat shoes image channeling the Duke of Windsor. The trousers should sit higher.
Please. It was 1986. There's not an item in that ensemble I wouldn't wear today, and not feel peacockish or frumpy. I'd probably not choose navy boat shoes, in favor of tan or brown, or of canvas topsiders (a style which Van's has copied and made cool for some years now, but is straight 1930s). I agree the trousers are bit long and a bit full, but it also looks like the crease has lost its hold and the wind has billowed the cloth laterally. They'd probably look much better otherwise. But today it would be difficult to buy casual trousers of that fullness anyway unless one bespoke them. And I agree the waistband might be slightly higher; but those are typical of the '80s incarnations. The basic ensemble (colors, Daks top waistband, shirt, etc.) seems fine to me for a man of young middle age in a summer garden, and indeed flattering to HRH. Certainly superior to the shrunken casual shirts and extended-toe shoes coupled with sprayed-on trousers that make all feet look like skis (or medieval pointed hose begging for pattens) that pass for "contemporary" fashion these days. In ten years I suspect people will look back on them as ruefully as they now view Nik-Nik polyester disco shirts and mullets. And we won't even mention the below-the-knee baggy cargo shorts, illustrated T-shirts, gimme caps, and flip-flops (or bizarrely expensive fluorescent trainers) that still comprise the bulk of male summer casual wear in Philadelphia.
If the colors in Charles's rig seem bright, I'll just observe that I grew up the the southern U.S. (Texas) and so am positively conditioned to the brighter summer palette often worn in the intense sun in the trad South and in southern Europe. As was made abundantly clear by responses to my comments on the wardrobe for The Great Beauty, some members recoil in horror from saturated colors even in sweltering Rome, which one might think the fons et origo of painterly bravura. Each to his own. In my view it's all about context. New England has its Nantucket reds, and its patchwork madras or pastel-embroidered go-to-hell trousers, which raise not an eyebrow in their native habitat; in the UK there are checked tweeds that would induce nausea in weaker stomachs but seem to satisfy the strictest criteria of taste when suitably broken in and worn in the country by (preferably landed) countrymen, or hipsters in beards on bikes in town.
"Dowdy" is an interesting choice of words. It suggests a lack of sartorial adventurousness and a deliberate drabness, as if intending to look old. "Peacock" suggests the opposite, so it seems contradictory to me. Not all Esky illustrations merit literal revival, it's true. But they are a valuable seed bank of ideas that can be adapted to modern circumstances, and plenty of them do merit recreation and would look great on the right confident person in the right context. If Michael has urged anything here, it's that style is individual and is more about how something is worn than whether the garment follows either a "rule" or a trend.
When I was growing up, men in Texas (on golf courses, tennis courts, etc.) wore crew socks. Period. With shorts or trousers. None of these anklets or "invisible" socklets—that would have signaled effeminacy beyond the pale. Now nobody wears crew socks with shorts except rubes. So these mores are fickle, and caution is probably in order when making generalized judgments.
In spring and fall I have worn white or blue pinpoint buttondowns with open collar and turned-up cuffs over butter yellow, ice pink, white, or sky blue piqué polo shirts (collar up) with casual trousers for at least 30 years. I have a longish neck, so it works for me, and it's far more comfortable than an undershirt. I think it was a fashion once, but that's long been forgotten. People just think of it as something I do. If anyone notices at all, it's to compliment the look (usually young people, who've never seen it before). I'm sure some here would consider it infra dig, but I find it cheerful and inspiriting, which makes me more effective. And I don't give a rat's ass (if members will pardon an old Southern expression) whether it's of this era or another. I'm in this era and I'm wearing it, so it's contemporary.
Cheers,
Couch
If the colors in Charles's rig seem bright, I'll just observe that I grew up the the southern U.S. (Texas) and so am positively conditioned to the brighter summer palette often worn in the intense sun in the trad South and in southern Europe. As was made abundantly clear by responses to my comments on the wardrobe for The Great Beauty, some members recoil in horror from saturated colors even in sweltering Rome, which one might think the fons et origo of painterly bravura. Each to his own. In my view it's all about context. New England has its Nantucket reds, and its patchwork madras or pastel-embroidered go-to-hell trousers, which raise not an eyebrow in their native habitat; in the UK there are checked tweeds that would induce nausea in weaker stomachs but seem to satisfy the strictest criteria of taste when suitably broken in and worn in the country by (preferably landed) countrymen, or hipsters in beards on bikes in town.
"Dowdy" is an interesting choice of words. It suggests a lack of sartorial adventurousness and a deliberate drabness, as if intending to look old. "Peacock" suggests the opposite, so it seems contradictory to me. Not all Esky illustrations merit literal revival, it's true. But they are a valuable seed bank of ideas that can be adapted to modern circumstances, and plenty of them do merit recreation and would look great on the right confident person in the right context. If Michael has urged anything here, it's that style is individual and is more about how something is worn than whether the garment follows either a "rule" or a trend.
When I was growing up, men in Texas (on golf courses, tennis courts, etc.) wore crew socks. Period. With shorts or trousers. None of these anklets or "invisible" socklets—that would have signaled effeminacy beyond the pale. Now nobody wears crew socks with shorts except rubes. So these mores are fickle, and caution is probably in order when making generalized judgments.
In spring and fall I have worn white or blue pinpoint buttondowns with open collar and turned-up cuffs over butter yellow, ice pink, white, or sky blue piqué polo shirts (collar up) with casual trousers for at least 30 years. I have a longish neck, so it works for me, and it's far more comfortable than an undershirt. I think it was a fashion once, but that's long been forgotten. People just think of it as something I do. If anyone notices at all, it's to compliment the look (usually young people, who've never seen it before). I'm sure some here would consider it infra dig, but I find it cheerful and inspiriting, which makes me more effective. And I don't give a rat's ass (if members will pardon an old Southern expression) whether it's of this era or another. I'm in this era and I'm wearing it, so it's contemporary.
Cheers,
Couch
Dear Uppercase,uppercase wrote:Yes, it was the boat shoe photo which prompted the post.
actually, this is the one I like most. He looks relaxed, caught in a private moment.
Perfection is boring, life is not a Ralph Lauren advertisement.
Cheers, David
Please, indeed.
No one is suggesting that the boat shoe photo is either peacockish or bold.
On the contrary , it is bog standard casual wear today in the US.
However, wear that to work, in those proportions, and let me know what your colleagues think.
Thirty years on, the proportions are both dated and frumpy. The colors however - blue/khaki - all standard uniform.
Who here will disagree ?
Check out the Esky illustrations of casual wear, and you will find some very stylish ensembles but you will find very few here willing to attempt such stylish casual wear today.
You may consider that you are contemporary because you are alive and so what you wear is accordingly contemporary but that doesn't make much sense to me.
A matter of proportion and perception.
Anyone willing to go to work in Pr. C's 1986 uniform ?
No one is suggesting that the boat shoe photo is either peacockish or bold.
On the contrary , it is bog standard casual wear today in the US.
However, wear that to work, in those proportions, and let me know what your colleagues think.
Thirty years on, the proportions are both dated and frumpy. The colors however - blue/khaki - all standard uniform.
Who here will disagree ?
Check out the Esky illustrations of casual wear, and you will find some very stylish ensembles but you will find very few here willing to attempt such stylish casual wear today.
You may consider that you are contemporary because you are alive and so what you wear is accordingly contemporary but that doesn't make much sense to me.
A matter of proportion and perception.
Anyone willing to go to work in Pr. C's 1986 uniform ?
-
bond_and_beyond
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:49 pm
- Contact:
If my job was being a royal prince relaxing in my palace with my conservative court, sure.uppercase wrote: Anyone willing to go to work in Pr. C's 1986 uniform ?
BB
UC, "can be" suggests you're judging and criticizing the 1986 Prince Charles according to today's fashion standards.I don't know … even Prince Charles can be such a dowdy dresser when you take a look at
Voxarts tumblr recent posts.
Apparently I'm not getting your point.Thirty years on, the proportions are both dated and frumpy.
My contention is that many of today's fashion standards err in the opposite direction from what you're describing as dated and frumpy in that photo, and that a reasonable person today need not follow fashion to either of those extremes. But if he's following the 1986 trend in 1986, he's not likely to be perceived as frumpy but rather trendy.
Formulating an individual style may include adopting some proportions or patterns, etc. that are no longer a la mode, if they look good on the individual. And some that are not yet a la mode. Conformity is only relevant at the margins, unless one wants to engage in the narcissism of small differences. And there, in the most conservative workplaces, classic proportions will be acceptable always. In the matter of trousers, I take classic to be a mean between slim and full (or tight and baggy, if you prefer).
I work at an R1 university, so I could wear that exact 1986 outfit in those exact 1986 proportions and no one would notice. But it's probably more casual than I'd wear to work anyway. And most of my trousers are moderately more tapered than Charles's, but not nearly as slim as the recent look books. For one thing, I have long legs and long feet, and skinny pants exaggerate both facts unhelpfully. That's a criterion that has nothing to do with fashion and everything to do with the individual, i.e., harmonious proportions for personal style. In my view, too many people wear fashions that look terrible on them because they are more concerned with conformity than with doing critical thinking about their own appearance.
The first two jackets that Philip Parker cut for me at Poole are longer than I prefer, but he liked to cut "a nice length of coat." My more recent commissions there and at Steed are a bit shorter, but far from the bum freezers one sees everywhere now. But because the proportions of those first two jackets are so harmonious, I regularly get compliments on them today despite a length that a fashionista might consider frumpy—more compliments, in fact, than for my more recent commissions. And since one is the LL TW01 Coop tweed, I expect to be wearing it for some decades yet.
Anyway, I'm happy to agree to disagree, if that's where we end up. I just don't see the problem. I think variety in style (at a given moment in history) is a good thing, if thoughtfully managed, and I'm just pleased that more dudes (as Vox might say) seem to be making an effort.
I don't think Vox posts his historical pictures as literal ideals to copy—for one thing, the range is too great: from '20s sacks to mod-era stovepipes and winklepickers to '70s flares and platform boots. So it's hard for me to get exercised about them.
Peace,
Couch
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests