Never throw anything away

[alden]

I have been asked to republish a few of the older LL articles.

"Never Throw Anything Away"

As a follow on to the minimum wardrobe subject designed to give our younger members a road map for their bespoke acquisitions, there is a very fundamental principle that will help save them lots of time, aggravation and resources.

Aphorism I

A gentleman is taught to never throw anything away!

I recall the example of the Gentleman's response to a lady from the Salvation Army who queried as to what he did with his old, worn out clothes. His response was a crisp, "Madame I wash them, hang them up and wear them again the next day."

Now, I will leave it to Country western singers and other troubadours the task of rating which items get better or suffer with age, but the fact is that clothes that are well made and from the best fabrics do look and perform better after a few years (voir, decades) use.

This will seem a real anomaly in our consumption driven society. The moguls of men's fashion have been determined to see men become as addicted to dressing according to "Fashion" as women are. This objective, backed with millions in marketing, has been successful.

Imagine a woman’s wardrobe. It should ideally be equipped with a conveyer belt that enters her closet from the front door of her domicile. The conveyer belt would split into a series of mini belts placing new articles of clothing in their places and gathering the old articles that would exit toward the door of her home on a belt leading directly to the nearest Salvation Army depot. This entire operation is clocked by an illuminated Amex card counter that signals the staggering inflow. The grateful charities would likewise be equipped with counters to manage the mass of inflow to their system.

Men should not be equipped with this kind of system. Ever!

The minute a man takes the Amex from the vest pocket, he should think to himself, “I do solemnly swear that in sickness and health...despite wrinkles, sagging and fading.. and until my parting and your rebirth on the back of one of my lucky offspring.. I do thee purchase." Voila.

Every purchase, being de facto a long term commitment, is immediately well thought out. Since we are engaged together for life, maintenance becomes a question of necessity.

"Maintenance is the sine qua non of Elegance"

There he is again, the genial Balzac.

If you don't throw anything away, you will throw less resources away as well. And the concentrated effect of the resources you employ will allow you to grace your wardrobe with few objects, but with objects of great beauty, grace and with luck, a touch of elegance.

Never throw anything away!

Cheers.

[RWS]

Never throw anything away, indeed!

I'm minded of one of the Yankee aphorisms I grew up with: "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, do without." And of one of the Whitney women saying, when the family was enormously rich, more than a century ago, "I am a poor woman: I can afford only the best."

By buying sparingly, and then, only the best one can, he is assured (with careful, even loving maintenance) that he will benefit himself and others in innumerable ways (less pollution, more encouragement of fine workmanship, heightened aesthetic enhancement of the natural environment, and much, much more). There never was a good excuse for disposable purchasing; in these days of over-population and over-pollution, even less.

(I am not, however, trying to impede the fine work of the Salvation Army; donate time and money instead of possessions!)

[HappyStroller]

A never-throw-away-anything solution is to have more than one place of abode. For example, all my rubbish is left in Shanghai where the Sartorial Police are unable to find a livelihood. For example, a tailored-in-Shanghai evening tailcoat with two front side pockets. Worn out shoes and belts. Short socks. Made in China shoes of poor quality.

[MTM]

Words to live by.
I prefer to have fewer things but good things.
And I love it when things become like old friends.

But long-term commitments require long-term thinking. Part of that is wisdom that comes with experience. As one of the younger members, I am very grateful for the wisdom other members have shared here. It's a big help for making those long-term commitments--and maybe more so for avoiding bad ones!

GQ did something helpful a few years ago (Sept 2000). They had a chart called "Dressing by the Decade" with columns for men in their 20's, 30's, and 40's. Each decade had sections on "You Should Get" and "You Should Get Rid of." Then there were columns for "Ageless/Timeless," "Never," "Before Age 5/After Age 75" and "One in a Million Can Wear."

For example, for the 30's it recommended, among other things, "a proper knee or calf-length raincoat," "some Hermes ties to make you feel like a man of the world" and "several pocket squares." It recommended that in one's 30's one Get Rid of "the $199 cowhide-leather jacket you bought at a flea maket during your junior year abroad in Madrid," "your pilled old flannel shirts, unless you're emulating Neil Young or you belong to an alt-country band like the Jayhawks or Wilco," etc. Levis 501's were Ageless/Timeless. Never: "mesh T-shirts," black dress socks with sneakers," etc.
Before 5/After 75: "overalls," "pants w/ elastic waistbands." One in a Million: "bolo ties," "spectators," etc.

Now what I would like is a LL version of this. Any takers?

To the minimal wardrobe it adds a few things, such as (1) a program or progression, an order in which things should be acquired, (2) naming of brands appropriate to the salary levels of various age groups (which do vary, but there's some value to this. Or we could just say, Modest, Moderate, and Outrageous/Unlimited spending accounts rather than 20s, 30s, 40s).

I, at least, would find it very helpful for making good long-term commitments and avoiding foolish ones.

[RWS]

. . . . naming of brands appropriate to the salary levels of various age groups (which do vary, but there's some value to this. Or we could just say, Modest, Moderate, and Outrageous/Unlimited spending accounts rather than 20s, 30s, 40s). . . .

We are traditional enough that grouping by age would make little sense (indeed, that "age-appropriate" clothing might vary among adults is a very recent and, I think, mistaken concept). But a listing of brand names wouldn't interest me, either; I save my pennies for commissions from good craftsmen.

[culverwood]

(indeed, that "age-appropriate" clothing might vary among adults is a very recent and, I think, mistaken concept)

So I can still wear that wet look safari jacket I kept from the 60's then!

[MTM]

We are traditional enough that grouping by age would make little sense (indeed, that "age-appropriate" clothing might vary among adults is a very recent and, I think, mistaken concept). But a listing of brand names wouldn't interest me, either; I save my pennies for commissions from good craftsmen.

Hi RWS,

Thanks for your reply. I think there definitely is truth to what you say but also that there's value to what I requested.

Saving pennies for good craftsmen is the preferred route, but who in his twenties could afford a bespoke wardrobe?

I'm not recommending we become slaves to labels, nor even that the guide name names for every item,
but is there no merit to recommending Allen Edmonds over Kenneth Cole to someone in his 20s?

Your point about tradition vs. "age-appropriate" clothing is very good, but I'm not sure I would call it an absolute rule that all clothes are equally appropriate for all ages. I think that much of the level gradation is based on means and not age, though the two often coincide. Additionally, some measure of nodding, not bowing, to fashion is more acceptable for the young, imho.