This thread started on the West Coast forum, but I believe it deserves all our attention. The basic question ishow do we, who enjoy wearing grown up clothes, deal with the informality of everyday life without making ourselves ridiculous, and those around us uncomfortable?
I believe that 'retro-centrics', who go about in stove pipe hats, spats and frock coats, riding penny farthings, carrying a silver topped cane, are ridiculous. They have the right to wear what they like, but no more right to be taken seriously than a man who chooses to go about with a plant pot on his head.
The problem arises when one of our number, who adhere to traditional 20th century dress codes, encounter a group of people who consider our clothes to be as ridiculous as I consider someone sporting spats and a cane to be. Most of my friends are relentlessly casual in their appearance - and I live in London - and my clothes are, at best, a source of amusement, and at worst a source of slight friction. The recent news about the tie's slow death made me think about this issue - after a certain point it will be professionally unhelpful, and socially awkward, to wear a necktie in most situations, at least outside the world's great capitals. Already in most of the UK a man dressed well (at least in our eyes) is so out of place that he looks like he's off to a fancy dress party. I don't want to give up on the vision of elegance that this forum promotes, but neither do I want to make the people around me feel uncomfortable, because that, surely, is the height of bad manners.
Any suggestions?
Elegance versus foppery
-
Bishop of Briggs
- Posts: 337
- Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 7:02 pm
- Contact:
I also live in London and agree with your comment about "retro-centrics". However, it is our duty not to give in and maintain high standards. I find that the St James's clubs maintain elegant sartorial standards. If you are not a member of such a club, I suggest that you seriously consider joining one as you will make new friends who share your concerns. In most cases, you can recoup the joining and membership fees through lower bills in the clubs' bars and restaurants.
-
storeynicholas
To my mind, there are three apophthegms which cater for this plight: The first comes from Leigh Hunt, quoted in Captain William Jesse's The Life of George Brummell, Esq.:"I remember that Lord Byron once described him [Brummell] to me as having nothing remarkable in his dress, except a certain'exquisite propriety'." The second comes from W Somerset Maugham: "The well-dressed man is he whose clothes you never notice." The third comes from from Sir (Edwin) Hardy Amies: "A man should look as though he he has chosen his clothes with intelligence, put them on with care ---- and then forgotten all about them." If I were going to good London restaurant for dinner I should wear a plain dark blue suit and socks and dark tie, black shoes and a plain light shirt and just hope that, after 18 months away (in a place where, owing to the climate and the local customs of a sleepy hollow, I wear very little at all), my choice for the London restaurant would not turn me into a figure of fun. If it turned out that it had, I truly think that I would not trouble myself with consideraton of the matter of dress for anything, except truly formal occasions, again. Moreover, besides the fact that, although there is increasing tolerance in the UK towards the consumption of waccy baccy, smoking my choice of tobacco is now banned - and now I may not legally smoke at all in a London restaurant. All these facts might just compound the case into a consideration that I left the Great Wen at the right time.
NJS
NJS
The Hardie Amies quote says it all, but in particular the point about chosing one's clothes "with intelligence". Being well dressed or elegant, or whatever one's "vision" happens to be, is not just about having a good tailor or the means to afford quality garments, it is just as importantly about having an eye for what works, an appreciation of what is appropriate to one's surroundings and company, and the ability to carry it all off with nonchalance.
Manself - my advice would be simply this: these are things which come with experience and, let's face it, we are all prone to getting it wrong from time to time. Don't beat yourself up about the occasional mistake. Persevere!
Manself - my advice would be simply this: these are things which come with experience and, let's face it, we are all prone to getting it wrong from time to time. Don't beat yourself up about the occasional mistake. Persevere!
I agree with answers that suggest that there are those who should be encouraged to run around in their underwear/slobwear because they are incapable of dressing with sufficient aplomb to make it look totally natural and unaffected.
The suggestion that wearing a tie is akin to spats or a frock coat is utterly ludicrous.
The suggestion that wearing a tie is akin to spats or a frock coat is utterly ludicrous.
Manself
I don’t think this has anything to do with style, retro or otherwise. It’s about one human fault that can be found in most bolgia, according to the Florentine: envy. To avoid inspiring ugly things in others, we are all to dress democratically and look the same.
But then it’s not egalitarian for one woman or man to be handsome and another to be dumpy. So the next logical step will be to enforce mask wearing or ask the aesthetically endowed to be good looking on the sidewalks as opposed to public places. There are those who believe that a “beauty tax” should be applied to those with good looks or good taste because these people apparently get better paying jobs etc. Taxation is another great (envy driven) equalizer, but that is another discussion.
I was reading Antoine de Saint Exupery:
“That we differ, my brother, does not disserve me, but rather enriches.”
What you have written would read “that we differ, bro, makes me very uncomfortable and will cause friction between us.” That’s not a very politically correct diversity statement.
If you cede to the pressure to conform, pressure driven by the most base of human instincts, I am not sure you are being well bred or polite. There are times when displays of character are the most genuine of good manners. It’s called leading by example. If you choose to stand rather than slouch you might help a sloucher learn to stand.
I don’t think this has anything to do with style, retro or otherwise. It’s about one human fault that can be found in most bolgia, according to the Florentine: envy. To avoid inspiring ugly things in others, we are all to dress democratically and look the same.
But then it’s not egalitarian for one woman or man to be handsome and another to be dumpy. So the next logical step will be to enforce mask wearing or ask the aesthetically endowed to be good looking on the sidewalks as opposed to public places. There are those who believe that a “beauty tax” should be applied to those with good looks or good taste because these people apparently get better paying jobs etc. Taxation is another great (envy driven) equalizer, but that is another discussion.
I was reading Antoine de Saint Exupery:
“That we differ, my brother, does not disserve me, but rather enriches.”
What you have written would read “that we differ, bro, makes me very uncomfortable and will cause friction between us.” That’s not a very politically correct diversity statement.
If you cede to the pressure to conform, pressure driven by the most base of human instincts, I am not sure you are being well bred or polite. There are times when displays of character are the most genuine of good manners. It’s called leading by example. If you choose to stand rather than slouch you might help a sloucher learn to stand.
-
storeynicholas
I didn't mean, by saying that I wear very little in the sleepy hollow, to imply that I run around in slobwear or my chuddies, I just meant that I have ditched the frock coat and topper in favour of a lounge suit, as in this:[img][img]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg55 ... moking.jpg[/img]
Where I am in a mere suit for the beach and paying a technically challenged tribute to Horst Tappe's famous photograph of Ian Fleming in this his anniversary year - and Oh! - if anyone had suggested to him that a tie was foppish he would, no doubt, have sneered at them - as they deserve. This, incidentally, is my very favourite suit.
NJS[/img]
Where I am in a mere suit for the beach and paying a technically challenged tribute to Horst Tappe's famous photograph of Ian Fleming in this his anniversary year - and Oh! - if anyone had suggested to him that a tie was foppish he would, no doubt, have sneered at them - as they deserve. This, incidentally, is my very favourite suit.
NJS[/img]
Although I can't really tell what you are wearing in the picture, the overall effect is very nice. I can see the tie and I like it. I was given a spotted navy bowtie, but though it is diamond tipped as I asked for, it is still not that nice. I envy you yours.
-
storeynicholas
Thank you, Dopey. The Horst Tappe photograph of Fleming, as well as the example of my paternal grandfather, probably had the earliest impact on me in relation to dress and, to echo a pain elsewhere recently expressed in the LL, it appalls me to reflect that there is abroad in various places (as a result of the example of the largely worthless 'celebrities' who abound), the spirit of the age of the common man - which is constantly thrust in our faces, as a template to be emulated and also, presumably, in the hope that we will give up such things as the founding principles of the LL. Heartening then to see that Charvet is becoming something of a feature here. The tie in my picture came from nowhere quite so grand, although I forget exactly where and the polk dots are too numerous to mirror the Fleming tie.
NJS
NJS
-
masterfred
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:16 am
- Contact:
SN, you look like a more dapper version of Sean Connery around the time he filmed "The Untouchables." It's a great look, and you pull it off well.
-
storeynicholas
Thank you Master Fred - a kick start to the day indeed! It was, in fact, owing to a combined impact of the Fleming photograph plus the viewing of the Bond film (Goldfinger in 1964) that I managed, at 5 years of age, to negotiate my way out of having to wear short trousers anymore. Just going back to the wording of the thread - to my mind a 'fop' is essentially a worthless fellow who is also over-concerned with dress - such as the pretend persona assumed by Sir Percy Blakeney to disguise the reality of the Scarlet Pimpernel; a 'popinjay' is not necessarily overall a worthless fellow but he is noticeably over-concerned with dress and, maybe, a little too brightly coloured. As to 'dandy' 'elegant' and 'beau': we seem to use the adjective 'dandified' rather than the noun and it carries, to the ear of the puritan, a slightly pejorative connotation - maybe of rakishness; 'elegant' we use as an adjective and its meaning is obvious; 'beau' seems to have faded, except with historical reference to such as Nash or Brummell and as a name for a Southern Belle's admirer. It should be quite easy to avoid being called a fop by having some useful occupation and to avoid being a popinjay by following reasonably traditional conventions in cut and colour for the occasion (especially time, place and company).
NJS
NJS
Last edited by storeynicholas on Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sirs,
I must disagree most vehemently with Messrs. ‘Manself’ and ‘Bishop of Briggs’. Your advice / prescriptions sound to me like a surrender to the grossly inelegant majority. Yes, wearing ‘smart’/’formal’ men’s clothes outside of a few places / situations is no longer mainstream. But it is also not yet (at least in London) something so unusual as to attract opprobrium, under most circumstances. I would be interested in an example of your apparel making others uncomfortable.
Worse, you deride and criticize people for making a ‘retro’, unconventional choice. I strongly believe that such people add to the variety and appeal of a metropolis tremendously. Certainly in a way that the typical GAP-wearing or JB-sports-clad everyman does not. I was recently fortunate enough to join a party with people sporting the most intriguing (even outrageous) costumes and become acquainted with a chap who always dresses in original pre-1914 military uniforms. Silly? Maybe. To me, an ornament upon the drab masses.
The conclusion is that we have to make a choice, on style. Whether to capitulate to the mean (and what a mean mean - pun intended - it is) or to resolutely stick to our guns. I side with originality, with a personal view of elegance, with refusing to conform for the sake of quietude.
On a less contentious note, Messrs. ‘Storeynicholas’ and ‘Sartorius’ imply that elegance consists in part or largely in a certain detachment and lack of conspicuousness. That may well have been the case a few generations ago. Nowday the only way a man can truly say (and appear to) dress ‘nonchalantly’ and have his clothes ‘go unnoticed’ is to dress, again, in GAP/JB sports. Effortlessness no longer equates with elegance. That’s over.
Lastly, Mr. ‘Sator’ recoils at the comparison between Spats and neckties. To that I reply: it’s but a matter of time. Already, there are otherwise desirable establishments where a suit & tie may deny one admittance. A Few years ago, a ‘style’ commentator opined that in a few years the only me under 70 wearing a tie regularly would be politicians and people working in the “hospitality” industry.
Lastly, I applaud Mr. Alden’s post.
My view is that, increasingly, what seems to me like anything approaching elegance places one clsoe to dandyism and, eventually, outright foppery. Conversely, men slathering themselves with moisturizers, eating like a girl to keep an adolescent figure and other such borderline effiminacy goes unmentioned. I'll stick to the reactionary view of masculine good taste, whether we ever return to it or not.
I must disagree most vehemently with Messrs. ‘Manself’ and ‘Bishop of Briggs’. Your advice / prescriptions sound to me like a surrender to the grossly inelegant majority. Yes, wearing ‘smart’/’formal’ men’s clothes outside of a few places / situations is no longer mainstream. But it is also not yet (at least in London) something so unusual as to attract opprobrium, under most circumstances. I would be interested in an example of your apparel making others uncomfortable.
Worse, you deride and criticize people for making a ‘retro’, unconventional choice. I strongly believe that such people add to the variety and appeal of a metropolis tremendously. Certainly in a way that the typical GAP-wearing or JB-sports-clad everyman does not. I was recently fortunate enough to join a party with people sporting the most intriguing (even outrageous) costumes and become acquainted with a chap who always dresses in original pre-1914 military uniforms. Silly? Maybe. To me, an ornament upon the drab masses.
The conclusion is that we have to make a choice, on style. Whether to capitulate to the mean (and what a mean mean - pun intended - it is) or to resolutely stick to our guns. I side with originality, with a personal view of elegance, with refusing to conform for the sake of quietude.
On a less contentious note, Messrs. ‘Storeynicholas’ and ‘Sartorius’ imply that elegance consists in part or largely in a certain detachment and lack of conspicuousness. That may well have been the case a few generations ago. Nowday the only way a man can truly say (and appear to) dress ‘nonchalantly’ and have his clothes ‘go unnoticed’ is to dress, again, in GAP/JB sports. Effortlessness no longer equates with elegance. That’s over.
Lastly, Mr. ‘Sator’ recoils at the comparison between Spats and neckties. To that I reply: it’s but a matter of time. Already, there are otherwise desirable establishments where a suit & tie may deny one admittance. A Few years ago, a ‘style’ commentator opined that in a few years the only me under 70 wearing a tie regularly would be politicians and people working in the “hospitality” industry.
Lastly, I applaud Mr. Alden’s post.
My view is that, increasingly, what seems to me like anything approaching elegance places one clsoe to dandyism and, eventually, outright foppery. Conversely, men slathering themselves with moisturizers, eating like a girl to keep an adolescent figure and other such borderline effiminacy goes unmentioned. I'll stick to the reactionary view of masculine good taste, whether we ever return to it or not.
-
storeynicholas
"Effortless ERROR
Last edited by storeynicholas on Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
storeynicholas
Luca says that "Effortlessness no longer equates with elegance. That's over." I am not sure that effortlessness ever amounted to a row of beans (let alone elegance) - because any worthwhile achievement has to be earned - what we admire is apparent effortlessness: anything from Viv Richards with a cricket bat in his hand to Fred Astaire dancing - the demonstration of some faultless act as a result of combined innate skill and hard practice. However, if I may add that qualification to the statement, I then need to ask what is 'over'? and why is it 'over'? Surely we will always admire apparent effortlessness in some endeavour - a best shot, hitting the mark, with power and grace. How can admiration of that ever be 'over'? It might be 'over' for the trainer-brigade (maybe it never even began) - but Luca argues against following their example anyway. Therefore, maybe the prospects are not as gloomy as all that.
Could someone please remind me how to use 'quote'?
NJS.[/i]
Could someone please remind me how to use 'quote'?
NJS.[/i]
Sure. Admiration for the illusion of effortlessness is not over. Nor is it likely to be as long as popular culture is broadly informed by Romanticist ideas.
What I meant is that at a time when the mainstream in 'clothes' has sounded abysmal depths, anyone who achieves an even moderate standard of elegance, as defined in my (our?) reactionary way, will unfailingly bear the 'taint' of having made an effort (or, in one of the most abhorrent phrases in the English language, to me, “trying too hard").
What I meant is that at a time when the mainstream in 'clothes' has sounded abysmal depths, anyone who achieves an even moderate standard of elegance, as defined in my (our?) reactionary way, will unfailingly bear the 'taint' of having made an effort (or, in one of the most abhorrent phrases in the English language, to me, “trying too hard").
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 71 guests