STYLE QUOTIENT TOO.
Poor Winkelmann only received a grade of 3.75/10; it's hardly worth him getting out of bed in the morning and dressed after that dismal report card.
He was thoroughly pummeled, poor fellow; his clothes, his style, his grooming were gleefully nuked in LL with lashings of malice added for good measure. I would plead attempted manslaughter.
Oh well. Just another sartorial victim left lying bloodied in the streets.
I for one thoroughly enjoyed that thread, one of my favorites infact, as LL members let us know what they really think. How refreshing. And I hope Winkelmann is fine, recovered and while chastened, has taken something home from our little disquisition.
http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... on+learned
But it seems that the concept of a Style Quotient (SQ), introduced 2 years by our LL host, Alden, has fallen into disuse. I have not seen a grade, passing or otherwise, since Winkelmann's expulsion from class. What a pity.
http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... ent#p47231
It might be worthwhile to revive the LL SQ.
Ofcourse no one is suggesting to put a sartorial magnum .45 in the hands of the mildly unstable here at LL.
Afterall, who elected us as arbiters of taste? Right? Gentlemen…? Hello?
Nor for that matter do I think that we would agree much on what is stylish and what is not when it comes right down to it. Nor need we agree.
I for one did not even pursue post graduate studies in the sartorial arts so I am hardly qualified to judge, much less hand out grades. I don’t know how to sew on a missing button. I dress poorly most of the time and live in pajamas, Ts, shorts and flip flops. I’m OK with that. I have little taste and most of that is bad. My qualifications are slim, to none. I would not personally want to be graded. I am not stylish and really, honestly, it is too much pressure to think too much about the whole damn matter of dress each day.
But still, how gleefully mischievious to hand out grades! Not only to the gods, but the demigods and the pretenders as well.
Why a Style Quotient now, again?
Well, actually, perhaps to help us understand what others here mean by style, by STYLE. And to help us understand each other better, my dear fellow LL Loungers out there in the blogosphere.
There are numerous threads on LL about style but few pictorial examples to support what is being discussed. I personally can't understand the discussions here most of the time. And although I agree that I shouldn't peruse LL at cocktail hour, I still doubt that I could understand many of the discussions of style here at any hour. Much too esoteric and philosophical for this addled, muddled brain. Oh well.
References to photos are indispensable for me. So let's discuss something concrete, pictorially.
And also, I think that it would be fascinating to examine the underpinnings of our own sartorial tastes although that may be asking too much. We never discuss this: who are we and from where does our individual taste come. Taste is not fixed nor universal…and there really is a wide diversity. My taste is not your taste. But we can learn from each others’ views. There is room to do so.
Hans Winkelmann helped start such a discussion but then the whole damn thing imploded due to his abysmal, shockingly bad taste. I hope that LL members have recovered from this now two years later.
When we look, when we assess, when we judge others' dress, don't we actually reveal, and learn, more about ourselves?: who we are, our backgrounds, our preferences, cultural signifiers and references? How we individually live today… or perhaps more accurately…in what era we imagine ourselves to live, and not least, just out of personal curiosity, how far into the deep end of sartorial conservatism, how far right of center, is this jolly crew at LL.? But this is just an aside….
We are ofcourse constantly assessing others in so many respects; why not try to understand and express a little bit more clearly, firstly, what we actually think, and see, sartorially, when we look at a photo, and secondly, why we think as we do? How does this inform our own sartorial choices? Who are we sartorially? What is our sartorial identity?
I think that some simple ground rules before we assign SQs, should be put in place and I would suggest these:
1) only photos of public personalities with some sartorial credentials should be eligible to be rated, plus those who choose to be on today's sartorial web sites. I would suggest choosing any individual you want within these guidelines. And then, discuss.
2) ratings should be supported by some reasonable and fair commentary and some general criteria and basis for judgement needs to be established
3) we discuss and include everything: the good, the bad and the ugly, the admirable, the abysmal, include disparate styles, historic as well as contemporary, besuited and casual
4) we be frank, but fair, and actually try to advance our discussion and understanding of style, without let or hindrance by trying to answer the question: is this dress, is this person, stylish, in our personal view, why or why not.
So…the LL SQ number you assign is meaningless without some thoughtful commentary to support your view. Commentary need not be impartial, balanced, excessively diplomatic, correct nor opaque but some explanation of your views is needed.
If you're game, I'll give it a shot and start it off and you can take it from there, add your comments, add your own SQs, and add other individuals…
Let's start with one of the perennial favorites, one of my favorites certainly: the Duke of Windsor.
The Duke of Windsor.
the suit: a double breasted suit. Wide, exaggerated lapels. Not current today. Very supple, full cut in both jacket and trousers. Drape, folds and movement throughout. Softly square shoulder with no "drape" in the chest. Rich and lush tailoring. Comfortable. This suit would almost be thought a half-size too large today. And so, the elegant drape.
the suit cloth: though the photo is black & white, appears to be a mottled mid grey flannel.
the shirt: hard to tell, but appears to be off-white, maybe even a light grey. Quiet and unremarkable. Cufflinks but not in a French cuff.
the tie: again, hard to tell, but appears solid, in a few shades lighter than the coat, perhaps with some texture. No perceptible pattern. Full knot, knotted comfortably, no buckling or dimple.
the shoes: black, highly polished, conservative, thick soled, bluchers it appears.
accessories: a hint of a white pocket square, falling into the breast pocket, inexpertly made. Patterned socks, the only noticeable pattern in the b&w photo.
grooming: Windsor had a good head of hair, worn slightly long and brushed to the side in the classic British style. Clean shaven. One might say, immaculate and pampered looking.
demeanour and effect: Windsor in repose. Relaxed, reading at home, with his pugs and pipe. Sitting erect, legs crossed, at ease yet elegantly posed, solid and prepoccessed The context and backdrop of this portrait, the room and props, are wonderful and highlight classic British style at its most refined and elegant. A man at ease in his environment without irony, pretense or display. Classic and old.
In my opinion : I think that the DB is the most elegant of lounge suits and flannel the king of cloth, together unfailingly elegant. Windsor's suit is outstanding for its easy fit, buttery folds and rich drape. The photo is in black and white and so it is hard to tell what the colors actually are; but that's the point: the fit, the proportions, and tones are so harmonious as to make color unimportant. Nothing in his dress binds, is stressed, pulled or strained. Mid grey or darker flannel. The tones are sedate and patterns are quiet and confident. The whole impression is rich and regal, comfortable grace at home.
SQ: 10/10. As good as it gets.
______________________________________________
Gianni agnelli
the suit : the suit appears to be a peak lapel SB worn unbuttoned as Agnelli is seated, legs crossed. Full cut in coat and trousers: nothing binding nor tight. The elbow pocket allows Agnelli to bend his arm freely without hindrance nor wrinkles while not pulling the sleeve end off the wrist. There is no drape in the chest and the shoulder is aristocratically square. The back neck begins high and tight against the shirt, and so begins the bespoke artistry, gracefully coming forward to fully cover the shirt collar. An English suit? A Huntsman?
the suit cloth: the cloth seems to be a charcoal flannel with low contrast grey chalk stripe. It appears heavier weight and the weather may be cooler given the sweater vest. Not stiff yet not insubstantial. The stripes are cut to align beautifully on the lapel.
the shirt: a master class. the collar leaf curves gracefully, arching high above the tie knot. Nothing ironed flat here. Ample tie space. No shirt tab showing above the tie knot. Comfortable ease around the neck. Nothing binding here. No wide French cuff. Off white?
the tie: a microdot. Wouldn't it be nice to know the color!? But the same tone as the suit cloth. No dimple. Not four in hand. Not tidy nor composed.
the shoes: Shined, conservative, black, probably English. Oxford toe caps? dark socks with clock pattern.
accessories: the sweater vest. appears to be a rough wool in a shade similar, though a shade lighter, to the suit cloth. Low cut V neck, buttonless. no jewelry.
grooming and effect : an older Agnelli. greying hair, combed back in classic style, tufts around ears. Serious demeanor. Distinguished elder businessman, dominant, legs crossed, in the center of his domain. Attending a presentation with elder Italian businessmen. Sober. Conservative. Yet a touch casual given the wool sweater. Comfortable.
IMO: Agnelli gives a master class in how conservative business dress is worn stylishly. He elevates quintessential businesswear of a grey chalk stripe flannel suit to a statement in style. Layering is a given among many Italians and has been for a long time; this instantly transforms otherwise standard business wear to another plateau of business-chic; he does it with a sweater, not a matching vest. Agnelli wears his suit with casual nonchalance, occupies the suit with confidence and self possession. As with Windsor, the suit fits loosely around the body though it is not slouchy, baggy nor ill fitting. Rather, it hovers. The clothes have come home, draping themselves lovingly around their owner.
SQ: 10/10. Classical elegance, Italian style. Businesswear elevated to stylish with panache, confidence and power.
