English suts give backache - according to Tom Ford

[Manself]

A couple of things occur to me about Tom Ford:

Given the 'body conscious' cut of all the clothes he's ever designed and worn it's quite extraordinary that he ever went to A&S. Either he did it to put people, who might otherwise have guessed who 'inspired' the TF silhouette, off the scent, or he entirely failed to do his homework. Were one seeking the source of his inspiration you'd do better to look to the work of Edward Sexton than of A&S.

It's rather feeble that Ford used to rave about A&S but now, without any explanation as to what has happened to change his opinion, he grumbles incoherently about English suits. One's tempted to think that it's a poor defence against the obvious reaction men give on discovering the price of TF suits - "What? But you could go to Savile Row for that!" It's possible that despite the bluster his brand has not been an unqualified success.

That said we Loungers should acknowledge that, with his own label, Ford has been instrumental in changing the way many men dress and making it acceptable again to wear colours, patterns, silk ties, pocket handkerchiefs, etc. He's made it acceptable, at least within the fashion business, to dress up again. We might not need or want his permission to do so, but we ought applaud the fact that he's encouraging more timid men to experiment with exuberant clothes. His look might be an exaggerated version of the kind of clothes we like, but it's an improvement on the intensely dull aesthetic of skinny minimalism that it replaced. Let's face it, his customers aren't buying his suits to the detriment of Savile Row, they're buying his suits to the detriment of Dior Homme, Prada, Gucci, etc.

He can't be too wide of the mark, because we're discussing him and his clothes, which immediately separates him from the massed ranks of the international menswear designers.

[Des Esseintes]

ridicule them by relating them to the “obligatory oiled chest hair”, as displayed by their inventor and in their marketing campaigns, rather than discussing their cut, cloth, silhouette etc without prejudice should be below the standards of the members of this lounge.

dE

You can be so creative when it comes to facts.

Please gather yourself and reread this:

"The clothes in the picture of Ford above look very good to me. In my opinion, it’s the way they are worn and the overall image that, in living practice, misses the style mark."

I think it is a fair comment. From where the offense?

Michael

Dear Mr Alden

I did indeed gather myself - and I did so before I posted my earlier comments.

I guess you are much better known for being creative than I am, and for all the right reasons, I suppose. I am sure some may consider it a rather disputable expression of that creativity to select one positive comment - yours - in a thread otherwise dominated by negative comments on Tom Ford (right or wrong), to question the reason for my concerns.

As opposed to many other posters on internet fora, fewer of them among the membership of this lounge, fortunately, I have no particular desire to "win" in a discussion of Tom Ford's merits or lack thereof. Frankly, I don't care much about the person or his clothes. What I do care about is the previously very amicable and "gentlemanly" culture of discourse in this forum, which I see threatened by an increasing degree of "not invented here syndrome" and a pervading air of condescension towards those not privy to the deeper secrets of the tailoring trade.

Even if challenged, I will not provide evidence for these assertions by quoting some of the earlier threads I implicitly refer to. Let me just post this comment for everyone so inclined to consider Costi's kind response to my earlier post and indeed make a new effort to maintain the high standards of civilised discussion among the members of the London Lounge.

dE

[storeynicholas]

If you don't care for Ford or his clothes, what on earth is all this about? Forget backache, if this goes on much longer, certain members are going to be suffering from wrist ache . As for Costi, he is never less than kind; even in the face of the provocation that he has been offered in this lively thread. I cannot help thinking that there is viral marketing at play here and someone knows, very well, the thrust of the maxim "No Publicity is Bad Publicity", even when they are preaching (although disavowing the cause), as here, to the unconvertible.

So far as I am concerned Tom Ford can hang loose and be happy but if he starts throwing bricks through plate glass windows, he can hardly complain if defence is mounted on behalf of those whose windows are targetted. There used to be an honourable advertising convention (from tooth-brushes to motor cars) that promotion of a product by running down a perceived competitor's product was just not done: for two reasons: first, it is caddish and, secondly, because it screams desperation in the merits of the products being offered in the alternative. Those days have, apparently gone. Or have they? No, not quite, because SR won't play the twister's game. This all began as a result of loud-mouthed, heedless generalizations and attempts to ridicule SR, by Armani and Ford. The first criticism of that approach centres on their right to proclaim their opinions, on the basis of limited information and actual self-serving motives. The second turns to what they are turning out in the alternative and, even from you, there doesn't seem to be very much to say in favour of it, does there?

Moreover, the next thing will be chest rugs of faux hair and curling tongs.
NJS

[Costi]

While some of us may have been scornful of luxury RTW clothing stars, or - as NJS suggests - disdainful of their criticism of the bespoke culture, I can't recall anyone being condescending towards newer members interested in broadening their horizon with regard to the apparel arts - on the contrary, I remember many instances when helpful guidance was readily provided.
As for regretting a former atmosphere no longer present in the LL, I think we should also consider the fact that some time ago we were all less familiar with each other, knew less about each other's interests, tastes, opinions and it was therefore to be expected that conversation be more vague and opinions expressed more cautiously. I may not be the only one here to find himself exchanging ideas with fellow members of the LL more often than with older friends that one sees more often in flesh in blood. I think some of the symptoms you accuse may be, in reality, the effect of this familiarity, of this increased readiness to express opinions, debate and communicate, as old friends do, with courtesy but without excessive preoccupation about etiquette and form (as as is the case with more distant acquaintances). It makes me wonder whether such a sense of condescendence and self-righteousness is indeed a matter of fact, or a matter of perception.

[Simon A]

..

[marcelo]

...I may not be the only one here to find himself exchanging ideas with fellow members of the LL more often than with older friends that one sees more often in flesh in blood. ...

This is indeed an impression I often have with a mixture of amazement and enthusiasm, for it is not only the time one spends posting in the LL, but actually the time one spends brooding over the issues and arguments raised here, even when one is not before the computer screen anymore. I quite often vividly remember old and new LL threads while strolling throughout the city, or when I read or contemplate certain photos of in a book, or see and old film. The matter of fact, in my own personal case, is that I hardly have opportunities to exchange ideas on the culture of bespoke garments – understood in a very broad sense, to include even instructions on how a brolly should look, as I have recently experienced in a local shop – with flesh and blood fellows of my acquaintance.