Tête-à-Tête with Nicholas Storey

[alden]

I am very happy to introduce a new feature of the London Lounge called tête-à-tête. The idea is to host a one on one conversation with an LL member or invited guest to discuss various aspects of the elegant life that interest us here.

My first invite is Nicholas J. Storey our celebrity of the moment and author of the “History of Men’s Fashion.”

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.



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?

Mr. Storey, please allow me to call you NJS. I would call you Nick, but that was the chap’s book that came before you. NJS, the Edwardians changed their dress three times a day. In Naples if you go to a tailor’s with a piece of very light colored cloth he will tell you it is perfect for “la mattinata”, the morning period that stretches from 8-13 after which any self respecting inhabitant of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies toddles off to a three hour siesta before re-emerging for a few hours in the afternoon. Normally speaking a change of clothes occurs after the nap and in the winter time into darker clothes for the dark period of the day and night. Did the Edwardians share this habit to wear light clothes during the lighter period of the day and dark clothes for the darker?



Unless you happen to be Marcelo Mastroianni, most men look dreadful in dark clothes and especially black. And yet thanks to our common nemesis Giorgio Armani, black is the color that has dominated dress in the last decade. It is pretty ironic to see casual clothes veer towards black while formal dress took a complete dive. How can pale faced, fair haired or no haired, men dress well in dark colors? And these days does it not depend on one's occupation or endeavors in the city that dictate the shade and tone of dress? The thought of commanding dark colors will have the effect of chasing young men away from dress, don't you think?

Michael Alden

(Gents, I know this was a real softball, but its his first question, and judging from all your emails and the awfully tough questions you want me to ask him, I thought it was only fair to start off with an easy one. Be patient.)

[storeynicholas]

Well, after all, if I can't stand the heat, I shouldn't have come into the dressing room. I must say that you have put some real thought into this which underscores the privilege that I feel - as well as the responsibility - of being your first to be interrogated.

Just before I turn to the main questions, I should say something about the Duke of Windsor: I do say in my book that he devoted the rest of his life to frivolity and there was, undoubtedly, a feeling that he deserted his duty to please himself - but let us not forget too that he had been a remarkably dutiful and hard-working Prince of Wales and a fine sportman, a fearless horseman and a universally popular young prince, who shook hands with so many people on his tour of India that he had to offer his left hand by the end. Moreover, no one can hear his abdication speech without feeling a surge of pity for his situation and the fact that he had allowed it to happen; moreover, he probably would have been prepared to continue to serve in a real way - but was just not allowed to do so; partly because of his stupid willingness to be seen with Hitler.

A number of factors dictated the Edwardians' dress and in assessing it, we need to bear in mind that they were sporting and outdoor people, far more than we are. This is partly because there were more young people with more leisure time than the modern world will allow - and becauise there was far less to keep them indoors: no TV, radio,CDs, DVDs, computers - just books, meals (which they rightly treated as civil ceremonies), cards - and, if we believe the legends, musical beds.

They seriously indulged in seasonal outdoor sporting activities, as well as work: from boating and yachting and tennis to shooting, hunting, fishing in their seasons, as well as golf, cricket, riding and so on. Then they had organized seasonal events, especially those of the London summer season of which parts remain - the Chelsea Flower Show, Lord's and so on. Then there was the difference between town and country: all these factors, as well as time of day, played a part in the necessary dress. In a sense there was less choice and, maybe, that even made life easier. People dressed in a similar way for certain events and activities - so that dress was not, in a sense, an issue - either to agonize over beforehand or to concern oneself with at the event. The same principle, I suppose aplies to uniforms of various kinds - they provide a background feeling of belonging; of comity of purpose and group identity and, although things never are equal, a starting point of outward similarity which leaves concentration and concern for the real business of the day or the occasion: that is, in short, that the Edwardians dressed to live. Then, why dark clothes for formal occasions? and I think that the answer is that it is unobtrusive and unremarkable - so the more serious the business the less clothes obtrude on the thoughts of the participants. The same thing might apply to white clothes and, indeed, some cultures adopt white for formal occasions, including funerals: it ceases to be remarkable if everyone is in it. But if Mark Twain had gone to London and turned up for a London club dressed in his habitual white suit, he would have been remarkable:



This is because members would be dressed like his compatriot Anthony J Drexel Senior:

[/img]

I suppose that we do have Brummell to thank for this, to some extent, because he is the most famous early exponent of dark clothes, in an era just after the first French Revolution when it was increasingly considered by the ruling classes imprudent to be too gaudy and conspicuous in dress - for fear of provoking a similar uprising. King Charles I losing his head was enough and thanks, perhaps, to Brummell's encouragement of restraint, we had to wait until 1936 for the second king to do so.

And dark dress has, since around 1815, generally stuck for formal occasions. Interestingly, although black or blue civilian Court suits became standardized during the latter half of Victoria's reign, permitted superfine cloth variations continued at least into the 1920s in mulberry, claret and green - suggesting that green may be a formal colour after all.

Of course, many Edwardian Britons were out administering, supplying and soldiering for Empire and dress for them became adapted - there is an example in the book of Sir Philip Mitchell as G-G of Kenya in his tropical uniform in 1952 and here is Sir Gordon Yeatman Lagden, colonial administrator, in a safari suit and puttees:




Moreover, since studying your favoured subject of [/img]rus in urbe I have found this as one of several images of the time that suggest that the Edwardians had a grasp of the concept:



Centre, in the beard, standing in one of our favourite streets (Jermyn Street) is Sir William Eden (father of the man who lost us the Suez Canal in 1956 and now commemorated in a spectacular Cloth Club flannel). Here he is in town in a mid grey suit and probably black shoes plus a homburg hat. His neighbour is similarly attired. This Eden was something of a recluse but, even so, a man of fashion and I accept that he is not in a dark suit. 'Dirty' Scott the Cavendish porter, to the left, seems to be admonishing his dog, Freddie, for some misdemeanour. However, we can be reasonably sure that Eden was probably not venturing much further than his tobacconist or the park in this outfit at this time - sometime after 1902 and before 1914 (I won't go into how I know).

Remember too that George V caused a shock when he opened Chelsea Flower Show, much later than this, in a morning coat instead of a frock coat. Some occupations still require a degree of formality and this just means dark clothes. I can recall heads of divisions in government departments, as late as the mid 1980s, wearing short morning dress and cashmere striped trousers (or strollers) to meetings with ministers. The question whether dark clothes are pleasing is a separate one and the answer just depends on personal preference. However, dark does not have to mean plain or boring - there are bankers' navy blue chalk and pin stripes which can be fairly arresting and brighten up a drizzly London morning.

So far as youngsters are concerned - I read recently that the Garrick Club is debating abandoning the requirement for ties until 6 pm to encourage younger members - but, maybe they ought to be encouraging younger members to dress better - it is becoming the tail wagging the dog.

Just summing up on the Edwardians - they had more variety in their activities than we do and had dress for those activities - and so were never completely stuck in blue and black and grey and white. Maybe therefore, the answer is not to discourage dark colours in the city but to encourage people to get out more! Finally, here are some Edwardians at work and play:

[/img]
The Hon George Lambton, horse trainer, off to the races.


Newspaper proprietor and president of the RNIB, Cyril arthur Pearson, maybe at work, and in an outfit which, apart from the high stiff shirt collar, would pass unnoticed today.

[/img]
James Buchanan (of the whisky family) maybe having a drag with his hounds and, finally, Sir Arthur Quiller-Couch who lectured at Cambridge, until his death in 1944, in the same morning coat that he had been married in around 1889. Here he is, first among equals, in a break in yachting at Fowey:



It's not so much that the Edwardians knew how to dress; it's that they knew how to live and the dress followed their varied activities.
NJS[/img]

[alden]

NJS,

(Nice response.)

(To answer the question about dressing dark colors well: think about using cloth with patterns, depth and texture; and create an elegant shirt/tie combination.)

Now we have to turn our attention to the subject of handkerchiefs as it is one of paramount international and cosmic importance. You defy tradition, this time, in the book by interdicting their use in city wear (pg. 30). Now I simply cannot find a picture of Windsor, Cooper, Gable, Grant, Coward, Astaire (ie the usual lot) without a handkerchief.

Hardy Amies wrote, “This brings us to the principle that the arrangement of the handkerchief in the breast pocket must be done in such a way that it gives the appearance of being there for use and not for decoration, although this later function is important.” When in the taxi, the other day, my wife required some assistance of a linen kind, my kerchief was ready in less than a jiffy. I could not imagine carrying one in my pocket for this reason alone.

Hardy also exhorts to the use of “a carnation red silk handkerchief in the evening, I believe was correct in Edwardian times. Rex Harrison wore one in ‘My Fair Lady.’”Edwardian chic again?

Cheers

Michael

[storeynicholas]

I entirely agree that dark colours can set off brighter colours very effectively - cardinal red, cerise, gold and purple for examples.

I see that you have picked up on the 'General Warning' on pages 30-31 against wearing decorative handkerchiefs in the breast pocket of town suits. As you rightly say, this is of cosmic importance. I mention that Debrett's does seem to support the proposition, which almost all of our favourite style icons totally ignore - but ignoring a rule does not make a practice right. Probably, the rationale (if I may call it that) of the 'rule' derives from the fact that lounge or sack city suits have taken the everyday place of formal clothes, such as original evening coats, frock coats and Court dress (and uniform), which did not have breast pockets.

Here is a picture of Brummell (far left, next to Patroness of the Ball Room, Lady Jersey) at Almack's in 1815 in his innovative evening dress:-


Here is a picture of novelist and colonial administrator Sir H Ryder Haggard taken, in his Court suit, on the occasion of his knighthood in 1919:-


- Although even here he is breaking a rule - as black fobs and not watch chains were supposed to be worn!


Here is a modern version of a Court suit, still produced by Henry Poole for High Sheriffs of English counties - who seem to have gone back to the lace jabot of restoration England!:-


And here is a recent example of the Lord Chamberlain's Court uniform coat (by Henry Poole):-


That, I think, is the explanation (and evidence) for a rule that nearly nobody observes.

But at least we know that it is there!

The final picture is of actor-manager Sir Gerald du Maurier, in which he very elegantly wears the handkerchief in his sleeve - where it is even more readily available to assist a damsel in distress. As for the Edwardians' use of red silk handkerchiefs in the evening - I think that they were a more colourful race than, perhaps, we generally admit: that they could afford to be is a reflection of the certainties that they enjoyed. But, please, Michael, share your views on all of this too.



NJS[/img]

[alden]

The influence of Ian Fleming and Noel Coward is present in you book. Can you tell us about these two men and how they influenced dress?

Noel Coward was very much the dandy and the picture of him standing in the Nevada desert in a brown DJ (pg.93) has some Salvador Dali (whose tailor was Rovito in Paris) about it.

BTW, I thought you might like this picture of another dandy and A&S client, Rudolf Valentino.



Michael

[storeynicholas]

The influence of Ian Fleming and Noel Coward is present in you book. Can you tell us about these two men and how they influenced dress?

Noel Coward was very much the dandy and the picture of him standing in the Nevada desert in a brown DJ (pg.93) has some Salvador Dali (whose tailor was Rovito in Paris) about it.

BTW, I thought you might like this picture of another dandy and A&S client, Rudolf Valentino.



Michael

Valentino, Coward, Fleming and Buchanan
Rudolph Valentino
With pleasure and I hope that you do not mind if I add something about Valentino and Jack Buchanan too. We all now remember Cary Grant but we should not forget the influence of men such as Rudolph Valentino who enjoyed a popularity and a status which did even rise above the fame of such as CG - indeed CG refused to ´play´ Rudolph Valentino, who was still being referred to as a ´big shot´ decades after his death, in ´Sunset Boulevard´ which, strangely, had the same cinematographer as Four Horsemen - John Seitz . Here is a short piece about Valentino, originally in my book:
Rudolph Valentino (born Rodolpho Alphonso Rafaello Piero Filiberto Guglielmi 1895-1926) was one of the first great stars of the (silent) screen; starring in films such as The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (in which he spectacularly introduced the Argentinian tango to a wider audience with Beatrice Dominguez - who died before the film was realeased), The Sheikh and Son of the Sheik. Although they are over-acted in a wide-eyed, over-demonstrative way and even though the footage is black and white and old and crackling, it is still possible to see the star that briefly shone. Rather like Cary Grant, even now, most people have heard of Rudolph Valentino and even recognize him. The feverish, on-screen adulation which he inspired was not reflected in his personal life. Twice married and twice divorced, he did not seem to find and keep any woman; indeed, he said: ‘Women are not in love with me; I am just the canvass upon which they paint their dreams.’ When he died, at 31, of peritonitis, following an operation for a gastric ulcer, the public mourning was great and the streets of New York were lined with hundreds of thousands of weeping mourners - and Pola Negri threw a fit at the funeral - for which she was heavily criticised at the time, as her sincerity was doubted - but 10 years after his death she still mourned him. The anniversary of his death is still marked at the mausoleum where he was entombed in a vault originally reserved for the husband of his friend June Mathis. The vault was, at first, ‘borrowed’ and later quietly bought by his estate. Legend has it that he was buried still wearing the platinum slave bracelet and watch given to him by his second wife, set designer Natacha Rambova. For many years, following his death, a mysterious ‘lady in black’ used to appear at this annual ceremony. He was not, in fact, originally, the poor Italian boy of popular fancy but the son of a veterinary surgeon. Owing to his French mother, he spoke French as well as Italian and also learned English and Spanish and had some knowledge of German. The catalogue of the sale of his effects, following his death, shows that he had an extensive library and many valuable, even museum quality, antiques - especially furniture, doors, paintings, arms and armour (which he brought from his European tours), as well as the latest motor cars and four Arabian horses. Everything was sold off for a song to pay debts, following his death. His life was a far cry from following the cult of ignorance which governs the tastes and values of most modern celebrities. His former house (in a Spanish style) Falcon Lair, above Beverly Hills, has recently been stripped of most of the cladding materials and the site will probably become a ‘condo’ - in the best modern taste. He was not an innovator in dress but a great admirer and follower - indeed exponent - of timeless British style.

Noel Coward
Sir Noel (Peirce) Coward 1899-1973 - playwright, diarist, actor, songwriter, cabaret artist, film director and producer, leader of fashion; a polymath known as ‘The Master’: ‘But I believe that since the day my life began, the most I’ve had is just a talent to amuse’. From youth he frequently teamed up with actress-singer Gertrude Lawrence (1898-1952), born as Gertrude Alexandria Dagmar Lawrence-Klassen. He wrote several plays for her. George and Ira Gerschwin wrote the song Someone to Watch Over Me for her. She got Rodgers and Hammerstein to write The King and I and her stage performance in this was her most successful role. Coward sent her a couple of superb telegrammes. On one of her opening nights in a play he sent the words: ‘A warm hand on your opening’ and when she got married, he wrote:
‘Dear Mrs A, Hooray, Hooray,
At last you are deflowered,
On this, as every other, day,
I love you –
Noel Coward.
He lived in Jamaica (in a house called Firefly, near friend Ian Fleming’s Goldeneye) and in Switzerland. Plays, Revues and musicals include: The Vortex, Private Lives, Tonight at 8.30, Cavalcade, Design For Living,, Charlot Revues, Bitter Sweet, Blithe Spirit, Present Laughter, Nude With Violin, Operette, This Year of Grace. In 2006 Hay Fever was back on the stage in London with Dame Judi Dench. Some famous songs include: I’ll See You Again, If Love Were All, Don’t Put Your Daughter On the Stage Mrs Worthington, Uncle Harry, Mad Dogs and Englishman, Mrs Wentworth-Brewster, Poor Little Rich Girl, Mad About The Boy, Don’t Let’s Be Beastly To The Germans. Films produced by him, include: the great classic Brief Encounter, This Happy Breed (starring Robert Newton, 1905-1956, a fine actor, now chiefly remembered for the overblown (but lovable) characterization of Long John Silver in the 1950 Disney film of Treasure Island). There is also the wartime propaganda film In Which We Serve (which brought the King and Queen to the film set). He appeared in Our Man in Havana and The Italian Job as well as In Paris When it Sizzles and Boom. When James Bond creator Ian Fleming asked him to play Dr No in the first Eon Productions’ Bond film of the same name, Coward, fed up with witnessing the Flemings’ marital bickering, replied: ‘The answer is: No…No, No, No, No.’ On one of his visits to America Coward was tracked down by a newspaper reporter, as he was about to board a train. The puffed-out reporter blurted out:”Mr Coward, Mr Coward, do you have anything to say to the ‘Star?’’ Coward turned and said: “Yes - Twinkle.” He had spent happy childhood holidays in Charlestown in Cornwall and when the new steeple of the Church was erected and bells installed, he paid for one - called Noel - which was tolled out to sea when he died. A great style icon of the 1920s and 1930s, he popularized the polo neck jumper, the dressing gown on stage and favoured quite modern tailors such as Michael Fish in Clifford Street and Douglas Hayward in Mount Street. Archie Leach said that he drew mainly on Noel Coward, Jack Buchanan and Rex Harrison when he created Cary Grant - ´I became someone I wanted to be - or he became me...´

Ian Lancaster Fleming (1908-1964)
A member of the family which owned Fleming´s Bank, his early life was overshadowed by his father´s life and heroic death in WWI and also by the success of his elder brother Peter (author of such amusing works as A Brazilian Adventure. He took some time to develop and, after intelligence work in the RNVR (the wavy navy) in the war, he became a journalist on the Times writing the Atticus column, before buying land in Jamaica on which to build a getaway from the English winters and where he wrote the Bond books. He is more of a purely personal choice for me as I read the Bond books when still quite young and there is so much more in them than in the films especially about dress - although the early films are, to me much, much better than the later offerings and the influence of Terence Young shines through them. Young coached Connery for the role; even to the extent of introducing Connery to his tailors and his shirtmaker, Turnbull & Asser, who had just designed their cocktail cuff and it was chosen as a signature garment for Bond. Terence Young directed Dr No, From Russia With Love and Thunderball and is acknowledged as the inspiration for the screen persona and appearance of the James Bond of these early films – less sinister (and much more humorous) than the character in the books. Sean Connery is, certainly, and by a vast majority of those over 35, regarded as the definitive screen James Bond. Even Ian Fleming warmed to his performance, after initial doubts - and even introduced some Scottish ancestry for Bond in later books. Sean Connery appeared as Bond in seven of the films: Dr No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, Diamonds Are Forever, Never Say Never Again. Probably the best for me is From Russia With Love; although Goldfinger was one of the first films that I ever saw on the big screen (remember when Bond lies with his tender parts threatened by a laser and he says to Goldfinger (played by Gert Frobe): ‘Do you expect me to talk, Goldfinger?’ Reply: ‘No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die!’). It was certainly the film that helped me to prevail in my rebellion against having to wear short trousers: because James Bond did not wear them! Charles Gray’s impersonation of Ernst Stavro Blofeld in Diamonds Are Forever has given us one of cinema’s great villains (Charles Gray: born Donald Marshall Gray 1928-2000). According to Andrew Lycett’s biography of Ian Fleming, the author was trying to name the villain in his latest book when he came across the name of fellow Old Etonian Blofeld amongst the members of Fleming’s club and just added Ernst Stavro to it, giving him an East European identity. According to the novels, Blofeld shared Fleming’s own birthday (28th May1908). The real Blofeld who gave his name to this villain was a member of an old Norfolk family and the father of cricket commentator Henry Blofeld (born 1939) who was known as ‘Blowers’ to fellow commentator Brian Johnson (1912-1994) – ‘Johnners’; well known for his co-respondent shoes and his on-air consumption of cake at teatime. I think that it is Fleming´s poise and assurance that appealed to me as a little boy. Fleming´s friend Roald Dahl used to say that Fleming coming into a room brought in a big red glow.

Jack Buchanan
Jack Buchanan, 1891-1957, British actor, singer and impresario (star of stage and screen on both sides of the Atlantic) and, after a shaky start in the music halls of Glasgow (having, not pennies but sharpened rivets thrown at him as a signal to 'get off'), he starred in Andre Charlot's Revues and then teamed up very successfully for many years on stage, screen and in real life with singer-comedienne Elsie Randolph. He financed fellow Scot, John Logie Baird, in his pioneering work on the development of television at his workshop in Vicarage Lane, Ilford, Essex and, later, at Crystal Palace. There are sound recordings of him singing numbers such as Fancy Our Meeting, Goodnight Vienna and Her Mother Came Too as well as a number of amusing knock-about comedy films, largely co-starring Elsie Randolph - as well as The Band Wagon in which Fred Astaire (very much in the spirit of the film, as a matter of fact), graciously goes into a low gear to allow the ageing Buchanan one of his last memorable screen moments, in the number 'I guess I'll Have to Change My Plan' - that they sing and dance together. Modest and self-deprecating, it was said of JB 'No one ever threw any mud at Jack Buchanan - because there was no mud to throw. JB built and lived on top of a theatre which became the Odeon West End (about to be demolished, to benefit property developers who are going to erect a monstrous hotel on the site, on the south side of Leicester Square). JB also later managed the Garrick Theatre and lived in Mount Street, Mayfair where there is a privately erected blue plaque to his memory - as English Heritage (inexplicably) refused to erect an ‘official’ plaque to him. He is sometimes credited with the introduction of the double-breasted dinner jacket, made by either Frederick Scholte or Hawes & Curtis (a design taken up by the Duke) and, as mentioned in connection with Noel Coward, was one of the stars on whom Archie Leach said that he based Cary Grant. According to Michael Marshall's biography 'Top Hat and Tails - The Life of Jack Buchanan' - on being carried out, on a stretcher, from his flat in Mount Street, to go to the hospital where he would die, he called for his pearl grey Herbert Johnson trilby hat to be placed on the stretcher...and the foyer cleaners at the Garrick Theatre (where he had been performing, up to the last), until they retired, every day put a vase of his favourite clove carnations under Baron's magnificent photograph of him, which used to hang in the foyer and is now, sadly, out of general sight, in the royal retiring room.
NJS

[storeynicholas]

Since we have enjoyed, for several days now, the silence that only old friends can afford, I thought that I would sit right down and write myself a letter - and make believe that it came from you: you mentioned, off this thread, vents in coats and, maybe, I might just set out my own thoughts on these, even though they do not embrace the sartorial desires of - what was it? - Chicago cattle dealers! So here we are! -

Originally, lounge/sack suit coats had no vents. After the Second World War and under the influence both of Neil Munro 'Bunny' Roger (exponent of the New Edwardian style, adapted for the character of John Steed in the television series The Avengers, and later exaggerated by the 'Teddy Boys' - and continued, to some extent, by Ozwald Boateng), and exponents of the sleeker 'Conduit cut', such as Anthony Sinclair, tailor to the Sean Connery James Bond, vents started appearing. However, Cary Grant's famous grey suit in the 1959 film North by Northwest did not have any vents and in chapter 8 of the 1963 James Bond novel On Her Majesty's Secret Service, Ian Fleming has Bond mock a suit coat which has double vents at the back with the words '...quite the little baronet..' However, single vents, for single-breasted coats, deriving from hacking jackets, was the starting place and double vents are the most recent creation for both SB and DB but single vents for DB are, probably, a greater sartorial crime (according to Hardy Amies) than DB lapels on SB coats ever were....
NJS

[alden]

Sorry old chum, but I have been spending a good deal of time in Japan recently and just got out of the bath.

I am confused now. Here is a picture of a Windsor coat made by Scholte in 29. What are those two slits on the back of the coat? I promise you I did not take a knife with me that day.



This is a catalog from 1935 and the coat model B89 advertises “side vents.”



Yes, single vents originated from hacking or equestrian coats to accommodate sitting astride a saddle. The Yanks picked it up and made it the standard for business wear and it has been such until just recently there.

Cheers

Michael

[storeynicholas]

Thank you for this useful material - is the catalogue from the USA or Britain?
NJS

[alden]

I believe that that rationale can still be found where it's always been--in a sense of pleasure rather than knowledge (or "information" as Flusser rather apologetically terms it). Having absorbed the fundamentals of sartorial grammar while still schoolboys, men in the 1930s looked great because they unabashedly had FUN with the tailored clothes which they wore elegantly and appropriately in social contexts far beyond business or work. Fashion was something they followed with a conneuseur's eye rather than a consumer's anxiety. I suspect that the aspirational "dress for success" school of sartorial instruction has, ironically, done more to dampen popular enthusiasm for tailored clothing than to expand or refine it, robbing it of the "cool" it possessed before the term was coined.

There's nothing new about the "dress for success" school of sartorial instruction. It was certainly very present in the 30's which Montauk believes, as many do, was a golden age of men's fashion. What were all those Esquire water colors so popular here all about. As Flusser's own book shows it was quite common for menswear manufacturers to produce color and physique charts to guide people in choice of suiting, shirts and ties.

NJS

I am going to call on your expertise as a historian of dress. Above are two assessments of dress in the 1930s. May we have your view?

Michael


PS:

is the catalogue from the USA or Britain?

Objection denied, carry on counselor.

(I am getting to feel more and more like Perry Mason on the LL these days.)

[storeynicholas]

This is the Big One and I shall attend to it over the weekend but I should preface it by saying that I do not regard myself as an historian of men's fashion in the full sense because this to me really means someone who can take a reader through the ages from at least Greece and Rome and across national boundaries up to the present. I have just said in the Charlie Rose/Alan Flusser thread that the main title of my book was not my suggestion (let alone choice) and I had strong words against it. I just thank my lucky stars that it is not A History or, worse, The History and I hope that the main title as it stands just shows that it is in the genre of history; saved from over-seriousness by the sub-title. However, I do have views on the points raised and some very different pictures which are not generally available.
NJS

[storeynicholas]

I believe that that rationale can still be found where it's always been--in a sense of pleasure rather than knowledge (or "information" as Flusser rather apologetically terms it). Having absorbed the fundamentals of sartorial grammar while still schoolboys, men in the 1930s looked great because they unabashedly had FUN with the tailored clothes which they wore elegantly and appropriately in social contexts far beyond business or work. Fashion was something they followed with a conneuseur's eye rather than a consumer's anxiety. I suspect that the aspirational "dress for success" school of sartorial instruction has, ironically, done more to dampen popular enthusiasm for tailored clothing than to expand or refine it, robbing it of the "cool" it possessed before the term was coined.

There's nothing new about the "dress for success" school of sartorial instruction. It was certainly very present in the 30's which Montauk believes, as many do, was a golden age of men's fashion. What were all those Esquire water colors so popular here all about. As Flusser's own book shows it was quite common for menswear manufacturers to produce color and physique charts to guide people in choice of suiting, shirts and ties.

NJS

I am going to call on your expertise as a historian of dress. Above are two assessments of dress in the 1930s. May we have your view?

Michael


PS:

is the catalogue from the USA or Britain?

Objection denied, carry on counselor.

(I am getting to feel more and more like Perry Mason on the LL these days.)

I am going to address the two points in reverse order. But first, 'pleasure', 'power', 'success' are all highly subjective and open to considerable debate but I hope that the meanings that I have adopted will become clear from the context.

In the age of the caveman no doubt the most successful hunters had the choice of the amplest women: those with the finest furs got the biggest babes. The furs, the 'garments' were the product of success in a main undertaking and denoted success in it and this led on to social and sexual reward. Cockbirds are often more colourful than the hens and they also fight for precedence: the victor emerging more intact than the defeated; the splendid garb still in place after the endeavour of the fight; leading on again to the reward of mating for the victor.

The Aztecs reserved the cloth made from vicuna ('the fibre of the gods') for their royal family. The Romans regulated the wearing of the toga and its coloured trimmings. There were medieval sumptuary laws prohibiting the wearing of certain garments by certain social groups and, even into the 20th century, Imperial Russian blue sable was reserved for the Czar and his family. State decorations reflect accomplishments in endeavour and service. The normal run of things means that fine garments and accoutrements derive from the successful pursuit of a substantive endeavour or from inherent status.

'Dressing for success' or 'power dressing', very much supported and promoted by the likes of Armani, is assuming the garb of a successful man in order to aid securing the very substantive success and is a manipulation. The theory is that if you look the part you will get the part - ahead of better qualified men who are not so dressed. I am sure that there have been advisers in this technique for a very long time and its existence is very plain from relatively modern times, notably Georgian Britain and Brummell. Brummell's first fascination for society, from the Prince down, was his dress, which he funded from an early inheritance. He had had a good education, was certainly intelligent and excellent company. But the thing about Brummell was that his dress was virtually a profession - in which he vastly excelled. This says sonething of the extent of his influence: one of his tailors was asked by a customer over choice of cloth for a coat (Bath coating or superfine) and the tailor said 'This is favoured by the Prince and this is favoured by Mr Brummell but perhaps Mr Brummell has the preference.' Brummell was the epitome of a type of power dresser but not of a type that we are ever likely to see again.

Benjamin Disraeli tried power dressing and failed most appallingly. His outfit for his maiden speech in the House of Commons included oiled ringlets, rings, a multitude of chains and stockings with clocks, all of which, together with his flamboyant delivery, brought such howls of derision that he had to subside, calling out prophetically: "I will sit down now but the time will come when you will hear me."

Churchill was another nakedly ambitious young man whose dress certainly did not let him down. Diplomat and politician Duff Cooper was virtually always perfectly dressed - except in one photograph in his grand daughter's possession - Duff in Singapore in sandals and socks.

The last prime minister to be consciously well-dressed was probably Macmillan; since then they have seemed, in sartorial terms, to have become bland and boring and just about frightened of appearing well-dressed - culminating in Little Willie Hague's baseball caps and the 'user-friendly' open-necked shirts of 'Dave' Cameron. Now we have vote-catching inverse 'power-dressing' - to please the mob and catch the votes.

Therefore, overall, I think that it is clear that dressing for success has been around for a long time; however, I am not so sure that the 1930s' magazines and articles went quite so far as to amount to advice on dressing for business success as opposed to social success. Esquire was, amazingly, launched in October 1933, at the height of the depression and none of the images that I have seen depicts a work environment and, maybe, there is something here to suggest that dressing for success at work was not on the agenda; moreover, as suggested by the second question, men then dressed for every activity - and, I suggest, worked (so far as they could) to live. They did not live to work.

Turning then to the first question: from my own observation over my 50 years, I believe that the generality of the generation of men born between 1890 - 1920 was, probably, the last whole generation to share, as a matter of course, settled common standards of dress. I also think that many of them did not think about dressing beyond dressing as well as they could manage. Dressing for fun (nothing wrong with the notion) maybe did not readily occur to them - as those who survived (certainly the British men) had had the terrible experience of the First World War and they had other things on their minds.

For an example, here is my grandfather, a self-employed, middle-class 40 year old in 1935. he is wearing a mid-gray 3 piece SB suit, light shirt (maybe a collar pin) and gray tie. This was part of his normal dress on which (barring details) he never varied much. He did not have to reformulate it or agonize over it - it was just there.


[img][img]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg55 ... mage-6.jpg[/img]

Here he is, a generation later, in circa 1965, on a country picnic, in the summer. Under magnification, he is probably in a heavy west of England tweed coat, a shirt and checked tie and, probably, cavalry twills and brown boots. This is summer in Cornwall - hot enough for sunglasses for some! Most moderns would smirk at the get-up - but, for him, it was normal. As for 'power dressing', he would have laughed!

[img][img]http://i245.photobucket.com/albums/gg55 ... ge-2-2.jpg[/img]

Then 1970 happened - probably the most significant year in the decline in everything and the generation of men that I have described started to die.

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.

NJS[/img]

[alden]

NJS

I asked about the concept of “power dressing” for the simple reason that I have no idea what it is. Could just as easily be a suit of clothes you have to plug in.

The AA illustrations from the 30s do show men in offices, but they are normally playing with fishing rods. They do not show men in a work environment very often. Almost every plate I have seen show models at play, hunting, fishing, playing pool, golf, in Nassau, travelling, meeting with friends, at the races, in bars etc. That bit of evidence would tend to support Mr. Montauk’s thesis.

Elegant dress was a more generally occurring phenomenon in those days and to be picked by the most ample female, men had to work harder to catch her eye. I somehow have always associated dress with seduction more easily than with corporate gamesmanship probably because I have never seen a corporate type who dressed very well. And I know I am going to break a few hearts and infuriate others by saying that Michael Douglas’s dress in the vanities didn’t change my opinion. Loud shirts, ties, braces and suits do not an elegant image make; on the contrary, they nullify any potential of same.

The best way to dress for work is to be as inconspicuous as possible with one’s dress while being as conspicuous as possible with the output of one’s brain. Gray suits, light blue shirts, and subdued navy ties do a fine job. If you have to work, have fun with your dress at night, on holidays or on the weekend. Funny enough, the inverse is normally the rule, gaudy dress during the week followed by sweats off duty.

So give us your view of the post 1969 dressing meltdown, who do you blame most?

Cheers

Michael

[storeynicholas]

To me 'power dressing' is most closely associated with the 'Yuppie' culture of the 1980s and I think that it touched male and female dress; the aim being to impress colleagues and clients and intimidate the commercial opposition with noticeably expensive designer labels (guess whose was foremost). But it might mean different things to different people and clothes that light up when plugged in would be as impressive as the 'real thing'.

Apparently, 'dressed to kill' probably means dressed to seduce - certainly not to impress at work.

Onto the post-1969 decline and responsibility for it - I believe that it has its roots in socio-economic changes - such as population booms and life-style changes, changes in communication (importantly, the increasing influence of television) all aided and abetted by a good dollop of convenience, bad education, lack of aspiration beyond the easily obtainable - and laziness.

I mentioned before the demise of a certain generation and with them largely went the presence of natural authority which is as enigmatic and elusive of definition as natural elegance. The baby-boomers meant that there were more people to dress and this coincided with increasingly convenience-led lifestyles - washing machines, 'drip-dry' artificial fabrics, the fact that there began to be many more working mothers (partly linked to inflation and house prices - probably as much as to Ms Greer's female emancipation), the scarcity and expense of domestic help and shifts in aspirations. Popular musicians and sporting personalities became increasingly seen as providing templates for lifestyle and attitude, instead of the filmstars and other leaders of fashion which had, perhaps more glamorously and successfully, led the way a few decades before. Skilled trades began to be seen as unfashionable as their goods - bespoke makers - even the fifty shilling tailors as well as makers of made to measure and bespoke declined: Peal & Co had been in business for 400 years and for 200 of them there are all the records, including their 'Feet Books' of all their customers: they had seen the writing on the wall in their 400th year and closed shop with their dignity and history intact (the history thankfully preserved in the National Archives; including the fact that they had contributed to the nimble tread of the feet of Fred Astaire). The age of moulded rubber soles had arrived: not really so much the Age of Aquarius as the age of Mr Clarke's shoes.

Behind some of this shift was the gathering strength and marketing ability of the mass-'fashion houses', importers of sweated products and the supermarkets. Leisure in home-life bred couch potaotoes and the TV dinner, further exposing the masses to the advertizing campaigns - everyone exposed to the same old tired rubbish recommended with catchy jingles: mass brain-washing. Cheap and easy production had its obvious attraction for the producers - minimum input in labour and materials for maximum output and profit. Then the 'designers' caught on to the fact that you could intimidate kids and have them heckle and hassle their parents to buy them the clothes with the label of the moment. Then there was a gradual, if masked, decline in educational standards across the board - the old grammar schools (actually founded to teach the able poor latin grammar - as indeed were most of the great 'public schools) - were wiped out in a drive towards some pipe-dream of inclusive egalitarianism and so people came less and less to be able to discriminate between good and poor quality workmanship and some even lost the need to know. Subversion and rebellion against some needless censorship and restraint - already begun by the likes of Kenneth Tynan, roller-coastered into routine mockery of all tradition, ceremony and convention. Then came along the ridiculous exaggerated fashions of the 1970s - shoulder-width lapels, flared trousers; matched up with big shirt collars and Mr Fish's kipper ties - none of it meant to last - disposable consumer goods had arrived in clothing and have never gone away. The same thing is now happening to every product - short-lived, shiny tat is peddled in everything from clothes to cars - even to buildings and the developers now 'regenerating the centres of certain old market towns are probably already budgeting for 25 years' time when they will be back to replace it all as it crumbles away. But it is reactionary and unpopular to voice these views and one is seen as a loud-mouthed reactionary for mentioning that there is going to be cause to regret it all. I'll roll with that punch.

Meanwhile, we have to have a wry smile at the government in recession-hit Britain advocating an increase in export production - export of just what? Apart from the Cloth Club, it certainly isn't going to be in British cloth is it? Add to all of this that the consumer (who has become less and less discriminating, or as I say even less capable of the exercise) is now concerned with his pocket here and now and he is easily seduced into continuing to plump for cheap (but recognizably labelled) imports rather than expensive home production - certainly in clothes. But there is a further international dimension to it all - labour costs - it is not directly on point but the British China clay industry is dying for one simple reason - the same clay can be mined in Brazil for at least 1/10th of the labour cost - so where is it going to be mined?

For all the ever-increasing ease and speed of communication and travel, or maybe even because of them, we fill more and more time with needless activity and movement so that the ability to appreciate the detail of well-made things is becoming a lost indulgence -lost in the helter-skelter life-styles - in which all that you have time to catch is the label.

Also it cannot be ignored that migration of people has played a marked part in the loss of group identities. Acceptance of diversity (great in general principle - certainly to me as I choose to live in a country with some of the greatest diversity in the world) seems to me, in practice in the western nations (and, yes, I do dare to say it) to be a one-way street and middle class white males and their values and their badges seem to be virtually endangered - shamed and mocked into submission because they - we - have - apparently - led the world the wrong way for too long; so the badges associated with that identity are carefully put away for the sake of a quiet life: I can actiually live without everyone wearing a tie - but do we, instead, have to put up with baseball caps on heads and other examples of plain rudeness in smart restaurants? It seems that we do - and the above are some of the factors that have brought it about.

As to who is to blame - I think that I have generally described them above but they all have two things in common - a readiness to share and promote the shameless creed of the 1970s and 1980s that there is no such thing as society and a great willingness and ability to market the obnoxious concept to so many people who are prepared to buy-in. Now there nearly is no such thing as society - just, largely, a free-fall-free-for-all jamboree in tracksuits, jeans, sneakers and baseball caps - with the occasional freak holding out for bespoke suiting and shoes. It is not so amazing that the Peacock Revolution became the Barnyard Fowl Revolution as that any of the great bespoke trades have survived as they have.
NJS

[alden]

Well we have been through a good deal of the history of dress. What are your thoughts about the future of bespoke and the future of dress?

Michael