Tete a Tete Questions or Comments Should Be Posted Here

"The brute covers himself, the rich man and the fop adorn themselves, the elegant man dresses!"

-Honore de Balzac

dopey
Posts: 862
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:24 pm
Location: New York City
Contact:

Wed Jan 07, 2009 7:07 pm

alden wrote:.
To begin our conversation about the history of men’s fashion, I would like to take you back in time to the first airing of a reality show anywhere in the world. It occurred in Rosemont, Illinois on March 12, 1929. The show, entitled “Who will be king?” , had only a few airings before it was canceled but the photo below shows a picture of the line outside the studio at one of the castings.

Image

It’s very hard to get any specific detail about the contestants in the shot and to make matters more confusing, a convention of the Central States mortuarial society was being held nearby, but one of these chaps actually became King for a day or was it a few months? Now the dashing fellow in the center with the moustache and hat who seems the most appropriately dressed is actually the head of the largest undertakers in Rosemont, so don’t be fooled by his stiff good looks. The short one in the light gray overcoat and suit simply is out of the question because of his ridiculous light colored attire. So who do you suppose won?
. . .
The biggest winner was certainly Cartier.

BTW, the guy in the light suit looks like Edward Fox.
alden
Posts: 8209
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:58 am
Contact:

Fri Jan 09, 2009 4:03 pm

Most interesting.

May I then conclude that one may wear a handkerchief in one's breast pocket, as long as one is not in formal dress? A lounge suit obviously is not formal (Is it Sator who refers to lounge suits as "beach wear"?). What of morning suits then, and evening wear? There are photographs, in NJS's excellent book, of "full fig" kit with a (white) pocket handkerchief.

Another question, about the above illustration of Gerald du Maurier: I remember reading somewhere that wearing one's handkerchief in one's sleeve was a military custom. Is that correct? If so, would that be because of a lack of convenient or easily accessible pockets on uniforms? Or would that be actuated by a desire not to disturb the line of a tight fitting uniform coat?

Hair-splittingly yours Smile , (but I am interested in finding out)

Frog in Suit
storeynicholas

Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:05 am

Here is the gist of the reply to FiS whiuch has gone into a virtual black hole! -

As I say in the main thread, the use of handkerchiefs with city suits and morning and evening wear is here to stay. All that I mean about it all is that there is some reason to suppose that, previously, pocket handkerchiefs would not have been worn in this way.

I am sure that naval and military coats without pockets would have meant that handkerchiefs started appearing in sleeve ends, sometimes also inside tunics and even being stored in hats. I am not sure whether naval and military practice was the origin of the more general practice but must have played an important part.
NJS
alden
Posts: 8209
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:58 am
Contact:

Mon Jan 12, 2009 4:13 pm

Nicholas:

If memory serves, your retelling the story about the crowds of adoring fans lining the streets of New York for Valentino's funeral is something of a misnomer. Crowds there may have been, but the studio wanted a good show for the Press so publicists handed out money for weepers and wailers to stand in front of Frank E. Campbell, the funeral home of choice for biggies, baddies and other assorted riff-raff up to this day. It was a stunt, that's all there is to that. The first commandment of entertainment is Give 'em a good show!

JMB
storeynicholas

Mon Jan 12, 2009 7:44 pm

alden wrote:Nicholas:

If memory serves, your retelling the story about the crowds of adoring fans lining the streets of New York for Valentino's funeral is something of a misnomer. Crowds there may have been, but the studio wanted a good show for the Press so publicists handed out money for weepers and wailers to stand in front of Frank E. Campbell, the funeral home of choice for biggies, baddies and other assorted riff-raff up to this day. It was a stunt, that's all there is to that. The first commandment of entertainment is Give 'em a good show!

JMB
This could broaden out into the power of the media! Of course, the scenes at the funeral parlour were set up and nearly turned into a riot of mass hysteria; the reason for this uproar created by the studio, United Artists, being that they intended the mass release of Valentino's last film, 'The Son of The Sheik' to coincide with his funeral! In fact, you could say that his whole life was a set up and a grand manipulation; the overall effect of it probably killed him. In her autobiography, Gloria Swanson recounts knowing him and their riding their horses around Beverly Hills together, calling in on their celebrity neighbours; always finding him reserved and pleasant. The gastric ulcer on which the ill-fated operation was performed probably came from the anger and concern over a journalist's remarks that his purported example was diluting American masculinity on the appearance of powder puffs in a gents' lavatory. Of course, in the early cinema all the actors (male and female) were heavily made up because of the poor film available. In counterpoint to the adoration, there was also envy. My point about him is not that tens of thousands turned out for his funeral because they had lost their friend and a human being that they cared about - hardly any of them had met him but, rather, that he had some human characteristic which enabled him to be made into one of the first celluloid heroes and, importantly, that he actually had the substance as a man to justify being a popular template for elegance and, moreover, one that endures to this day. That is why I mentioned the reference to him in 'Sunset Boulevard', made nearly 25 years after his death, as a 'big shot'.
NJS
marcelo
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 12:07 pm
Contact:

Sun Feb 08, 2009 4:14 am

storeynicholas wrote: No one dresses to sit alone in a darkened room and I believe dressing properly satisfies a basic instinct of group approval - being part of a social unity sharing common high values. But high values are not 'in' because they are elitist and exclusive and so the 'values' of the losers rule the earth; the losers subjecting themselves to the marketing strategies of users and infidels and all their junk.
Posted: Sun Feb 08, 2009 12:28 am, Post subject: Sticky: Tête-à-Tête

It is true that no one dresses to sit alone – or almost no one. But I have sometimes thought of following the example of Machiavelli. The reason for this is quite straightforward and can be put forth by means of an analogy with auditory perception: dressing for the sake of dressing, for the pleasure of being dressed, can be as enjoyable and inspiring as listening to a good CD, sitting alone in a darkened room. Inspiring it certainly was to Machiavelli. He recalls, in a letter to Francesco Vettori, how he would get dressed, at the end of the day, to sit alone in his not so darkened studio in order to indulge himself in an imaginary meeting with the great classics of antiquity. He says these were such pleasant moments that he would experience no boredom at all, not even fear of death.

“When evening comes, I return home and enter my study; on the threshold I take off my workday clothes, covered with mud and dirt, and put on the garments of court and palace. Fitted out appropriately, I step inside the venerable courts of the ancients, where, solicitously received by them, I nourish myself on that food that alone is mine and for which I was born; where I am unashamed to converse with them and to question them about the motives for their actions, and they, out of their human kindness, answer me. And for four hours at a time I feel no boredom, I forget all my troubles, I do not dread poverty, and I am not terrified by death.”

Niccolò Machiavelli to Francesco Vettori
Florence, 10 December 1513
storeynicholas

Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:04 pm

Captain Jesse tells us that poor old Brum went much the same way; enacting evening´s entertainments with the ghosts of his past. Maybe I should have qualified the statement by saying ´most people´!!
NJS :shock:
alden
Posts: 8209
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:58 am
Contact:

Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:13 pm

I find the subject of the future of bespoke very interesting. NJS’s response neatly sums it up, I think: the future will depend on the existing customers as well as on the bespoke trade. I believe that the response was specific about the tailoring trade in London, but it may just as well apply to other trades offering bespoke products and in other cities. I might add further that it may also depend on the values and priorities held by prospective customers.

As people’s disposable income increased in the last half century, we also saw a significant increase in demand for instant gratification. And this is not just in terms of consumption of goods but also of information. Letters became faxes, faxes became emails, and access to emails became 24/7 through handheld devices. Annual accounts became quarterly results. Proliferation of fast food chains also seems to be another indication that the world wants to move faster and faster. The world seems to have evolved into a place where certain things like the European directive to limit the number of work hours are immediately labelled as being uncompetitive and derided as a sign of laziness. While I am not clever enough to take sides on the matter, it is apparent to me that many aspects of modern life seem to be driven by the desire to get there first, wherever “there” is. It also appears that the media lubricates this phenomenon by proposing the latest thing or idea that one cannot live without.

A related development is what is commonly called the throwaway culture where people buy things, many things, without expecting to use it for a long time. It is a necessary bi-product of the desire to have the latest thing. Or even ideas, such as corporate strategy. Why worry about Year 7 when you need to be terrified about what to announce next quarter and the median tenure of a plc CEO is something like 2 years?

All this seems to fly in the face of anything bespoke. It seems to me that the biggest challenge is that it takes too long for most people.

That said, I understand that, whilst Q4 last year was horrific for most London tailors, January trading on and off the Row was quite positive for many houses, giving them a New Year’s relief. The impression is that people are seeking fewer, better things. Anecdotes suggest that many unemployed City bankers have been back ordering new suits in preparation for a new start.

Fewer, better things. It is a notion that I like very much. Both the customers and the tailors can and should encourage others to buy into this notion. And, it would not hurt for the world to slow down a bit. Am I being a bit too quaint?
alden
Posts: 8209
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2005 11:58 am
Contact:

Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:18 pm

shredder wrote: Am I being a bit too quaint?
Not at all. I almost got mobbed at a party a week ago when, in the middle of an intense discussion about the effects of THE crisis, I dared say that it might have SOME good side-effects (none intended), certainly not on the short term. Modern society has a good capacity to adapt and regenerate. Let's take food, for instance, I expect many expensive and artificial products to disappear, making room for less expensive and more natural alternatives.
Going deeper, having to make do with less might change the way people see their lives and each other and make them wonder a bit more about the purpose of it all. In some less wealthy countries (Portugal, for instance, which I have recently visited) people seem to enjoy life more than in richer countries where they are more concerned with keeping up the standard. Less worries (because there is little at stake or to lose), more hope, which doesn't mean they don't appreciate the fine things life has to offer - on the contrary, they enjoy them more as they don't take them for granted. Perhaps that's it: we should not take our lives and our created world for granted.
shredder wrote: it is apparent to me that many aspects of modern life seem to be driven by the desire to get there first, wherever “there” is.
True, and we never seem to get "there", because "there" keeps moving, like the horizon, as soon as we appear to have reached it. So, where are we really going?
The following lines were written by Octavian Paler, a philosopher and historian of the antiquity I admired, who sadly passed away a year ago well into his eighties:
"The logical way is this: we leave and then arrive somewhere. We leave for a moment, for an hour, for a lifetime, perhaps we should not have left at all, but this is not the issue, the issue is that we arrive somewhere, we always arrive somewhere, perhaps we don't arrive in time, we don't arrive where we should, we don't arrive where we wanted to, but we do arrive somewhere and, as long as we arrive somewhere, everything is logical, even though logic and happiness are completely different notions; nevertheless we left a place and arrived somewhere, we took the wrong way, but we still arrived somewhere, but when we no longer arrive anywhere everything becomes illogical. Where are we going if we don't arrive anywhere?"
Costi
Posts: 2963
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 6:29 pm
Location: Switzerland
Contact:

Mon Feb 16, 2009 5:41 pm

Yes, Michael, that's where the comments belong, sorry I'm putting you to work... :)
storeynicholas

Mon Feb 16, 2009 6:38 pm

I have a Sri Lankan Hindu friend - very sophisticated man - has a doctorate in some very recondite knowledge but he used to say about travel and movement: where you would be, you're there already and about life in general, he used to say Life is about resignation and, much as I didn't want to believe either of these things at 30, at 50 they make much more sense!

On simple enjoyments, a poor 18th century curate called Thomas Traherne came out with the great line:
[/i]You will never enjoy the world aright 'til the sea itself runneth in your veins, 'til you are clothed with the Heavens and crowned with the stars and I always find that remembering that brings a sense of proportion to most concerns; especially when gazing up into the firmament at night. That's another thing, we must not lose sight of the stars. John Betjeman's poem, Slough, gives us a glimpse of his foresight on the future, in relation to the speculative building of the 1930s: http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrel ... /1522.html
NJS
sartorius
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 10:32 am
Location: London
Contact:

Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:43 pm

I have a Sri Lankan Hindu friend - very sophisticated man - has a doctorate in some very recondite knowledge but he used to say about travel and movement: where you would be, you're there already and about life in general, he used to say Life is about resignation and, much as I didn't want to believe either of these things at 30, at 50 they make much more sense!
If I may politely intrude on the conversation?

I think John Lennon said it best, in my favourite Beatles' lyric (from All You Need Is Love): There's nowhere you can be which isn't where you're meant to be / it's easy!

Lennon was 27 when he wrote that. Not bad going.
storeynicholas

Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:55 pm

Sartorius - How, if the Beatles' lyric represents the truth, can your presence in the conversation possibly be an intrusion?
NJS
shredder
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:27 pm
Location: Duchy of Brabant
Contact:

Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:38 pm

Another excellent post by NJS, this time on the notion of class in dress.
storeynicholas wrote: Class in dress denotes the natural use or adoption of dress appropriate to the top drawer of society and wearing it well as part of the act (I do not mean pretence) of belonging to that class.
Whilst recognising the distinction between act and pretence, I still sense a lingering whiff of aspiration and approximation in its reference to the top drawer. Chic, like Gemütlichkeit, is one of those words that has no true English equivalent. There seems to be a theory that chic traces its origin to the German schick; regardless, it appears to have come into French use just a few decades after she became a republic. I mention this only to hypothesise, admittedly on rather shaky grounds, that the reference to class perhaps runs counter to the esprit of chic. (OK, so I could not have inserted more weasle terms in the last sentence... :D ) It may be true that one might expect to observe chic-ness in the top drawer of society more than in other segments. It may be argued that the notion of chic includes certain ideals that are commonly associated with royalty and nobility. However, I get the impression that chic actually transcends class.
storeynicholas wrote: Class in dress has to satisfy some basic prescription of appropriate, well-made clothes which are carried off at least reasonably well: there may be style and elegance in the wearer too but these cannot be seen at a glance.
NJS's reference to appropriateness in both paras is interesting given that the original meaning of chic seems to have been closely related to subtlety and tact. If we conclude that class in dress has nothing to do with social stratum, then is it possible that class is indeed the English synonym for chic?
storeynicholas

Tue Feb 24, 2009 2:44 pm

Shredder - You make two very good points here - on the first one, I think that, for example, one wouldn't say that, say, a Duke had 'class' in his dress - because he should have! Therefore, there is something apirational in the use of the word. On the second point, about the English 'class' being a synonym for the French 'chic' I certainly see your point, although (and I cannot say why) there is some element of the notion of 'chic' that, for me, is exclusively French. Even though I cannot say exactly why I can give something of an example. I once came across an old French black silk top hat. It was rather battered and too small for me and it is now on display in Ede & Ravenscroft - but I wish that I had kept it. I have seen many very fine toppers and most of those that I have seen have been English, Scottish or German but this was just the very best shape - it had that something else (and I am sure that you couldn't measure it) that made it chic and I know that it was French - so maybe that is the road that has brought me to my personal view on the application of the word.
NJS
Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests