Alan Flusser Interview

[Cufflink79]

I must post a defense for Alan Flusser.

I have known Alan for at least 10 years, and I was a good customer at his Saks Fifth Avenue Custom Shop. He sold me my first made to measure suit.

Alan is a great dresser. He used to be more formal in that he would never allow himself to photographed in anything but a coat and tie. Lately he has been fairly casual and a little bit shaggy.

In the Charlie Rose interview (2002), Alan's coat got bunched-up, and he probably was not sitting straight. He was a bit nervous because he is not a TV person. The Rose staff should have had Alan un-bunch his coat. You should note that Rose has no bunch-up because he is a trained TV personality. It should be noted that where Alan had control over a filming he looked great. I have a set of "how to dress" VCR tapes that he did for Coppley Clothing, and he was very well dressed.

If you talked to Alan about the "rules" he could discuss them as well as anyone. However, he always has had individual touches. He is in the clothing business, and he is not a bank manager. I recall that when I first worked with him he wore Belgian slippers with his suits. Very elegant. On one occasion at the store on a Saturday he wore an old, grey sweat shirt with a beautiful Michael Drake wook chalis scarf (the unicorn).

Alan's books are classics. They have influenced me and countless others.

I have fond memories of my dealings with Alan, Mark, and staff, and I recommend the Flusser Shop. It is probably one of the most beautiful shops in NYC, and as a poster collector I particularly like his PKZ posters.

I am a bit puzzled about the "attack Alan" movement on the internet which seems to be taking root here.

Dear Mark:

This is a nice post about Alan Flusser. I've never had the chance to meet him in person, but have met with Mark before. My first visit to the Flusser shop was in June of 2000 when they were at Saks. I went with Tom Hudson (Cuffthis) and brought my first ever seven fold tie there.

Haven't had a chance to get to the new shop, but I've had my friend and Haberdasher Bert Downes pick up a few things for me there when he's gone out to NYC.

As for Flusser's books, they're probably the best books to have in one's haberdashery library.

As for Alan's TV appearance, I can see why he'd be nervous when TV is not one's career. I'm studying broadcasting myself, and when I do on camera interviews and anchoring for class it can be very nerve racking.

Best Regards,

Cufflink79

[Guest]

here's some pictures of Allan Flusser:

http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/search?q=flusser

i also seen allan flusser wearing the same dark striped coat with black tie, and jeans. for an interview.

[Etutee]

hello gents

Saw this post and thought I should post a thing or two.

First of all a thing or two about the notion of having "fun" with your clothes…. I know it was not intended to be taken literally but believe me Alan Flusser is having "FUN" with the way he dresses and he is supremely confident about what he wears. It may seem like he dresses in the dark but he doesn’t. At his age, I believe he is genuinely living the theme of "fun" with clothing and has thrown much caution to the wind.

You can agree or disagree with the way he dresses but I can assure you he is 100% in accord with some of the points raised earlier in this thread. However, and that is a BIG however... the trouble lies in the fact that his dressing is not congruent with what he teaches… whether that is important or not is for each own person to decide.

After looking at the interview, I cannot cut him any slack for not even looking decent. I mean forget his coat. Did you guys even look at his shirt sleeves? Throughout much of the interview he was showing like 4-5 inches of shirt cuff! Charlie Rose actually seemed like the person who should have been talking about dressing well.

But again Flusser dressing like this in personal life doesn't disqualifies him from what he has done for menswear or what his books are about. It is just unfortunate to see it on TV though.

The biggest problem with men and menswear that I find exists today, certainly in US, is the notion that I see more young people are under the impression that dressing well or knowing about clothes is NOT something a “straight” man is suppose to do (on his own that is). He needs help for someone else (here is the MOST dangerous bit) and that someone else is NOT his father or older brother but rather his Mother, sister, girlfriend or gay friends if he has any because all of them DO have a fashion sense as opposed to him or his father.

The more, common "straight" young men see dressing or caring about clothes as an effete thing, the further they are going to remove themselves from even trying to be decently dressed or caring about it.

So the underlying notion is that it is OK to be sloppy and not know about dressing because you are a man and men don’t care or know about such things. It may not be true in Europe or rest of the world but in US it is one of the TOP causes for this mayhem you see in men’s state of dressing, especially younger men.

Although, I must confess it is out of question to expect Flussser or anyone else in the industry for that matter to bring this "can of worms" up

[Guest]

at the end he is just the owner of a salon, who dresses badly, as many other store owners do. but it does not mean their merchandise is bad in any sense. We as the buyers must select. And really, there's lots of style books out in the market, why would he dressed differently than the other authors, meaning well dressed.
i don't expect ralph lauren to be well dressed. the Italian designer are out of the question, obviously.

[Pelham]

What I found interesting about that interview was that, although Flusser has previously implied that his preference for the drape cut was a product of his Anglophilia, he admits there that the preference for a looser, easier cut (and softer construction) is actually more of a classically American thing.

A.A. Whife suggests that the drape cut may be of American or Continental in origin. Scholte was Dutch, and German texts of the early 20th century omit the front waist seam in the same manner as contemporary American cutting texts. In German, the word for the American English "sack coat" (lounge coat in British English) is to this day "ein Sakko". If you read the original texts to vintage Esquire/Apparel arts publications they will talk about "sack suits" and "sack coats".

As for the Duke of Windsor - so admired by Americans, ever since his manner of dress on visits caused a sensation on that continent - he was actually an Americanophile. He thought that the English manner of dress was too stuck up, and he wanted to introduce the easier and more casual American style to the British Isles. He even abdicated the British Monarchy to marry an American. Little wonder he went for the more American/Continental styled A&S sack coat, largely eschewing what he thought was the more "stuck up" structured coat of more classically British tailors.

I cannot but feel that Flusser represents a continuation that American sloppiness and easiness in dress, taken to an extent far greater than that advocated by the Duke of Windsor, whose manner of dress retained some semblance of British tidiness.

Here is a 1950's British caricature of how Americans dress:





The resemblance to Flusser is uncanny...

So true, Sator. That baggy look is yet another reason why the man on the street (esp. in N America) regards wearing a suit as an unsexy chore- because he associates that look with suits in general, and why pay extra money to look like a slob if he can just go on looking like a slob for cheap?

Yes, Flusser's off-handed remark about the American nature of his preferred style is what caught my attention immediately in that interview...

Now I haven't read any of Flusser's books, but now I think I've been permanently dissuaded. He's entirely failed to sell himself. He may have written some sensible words on dress, but the words "physician, heal thyself" are just ringing too loudly. Maybe this is a case of being scared off by the gargoyle at the cathedral gate, for me. (Oh well ; )

Actually I did read an excerpt from his book "Clothes and the Man", which is posted online, and in this portion he discusses the difference between American style and European style, as he perceives it - as if the wealth of variety in tailoring could be reduced to those two camps. I won't comment on his comments except to observe that he clearly believes his countrymen have the edge on style:
http://www.throughtherye.com/flusser/ch2.htm

The European Silhouette

Only since the late 1960s has the European-cut silhouette been a major factor on the American scene. This shape relies upon severity of line to project its style. The dominant shape and style in France and Italy for the past thirty years, it has been maintained in a jacket with squarish shoulders, high armholes, and a tight fit through the chest and hips. It is two- buttoned, its back is usually non-vented, and it has a much more structured feel to it than the sack suit. The trousers tend to have a lower rise and fit more snugly through the buttocks and thigh, sitting just under the waist so that one feels them fitting through the hips and thigh, hugging the line of the leg.

As Stephen Birmingham pointed out in Vogue, European men liked to “ ‘feel’ the clothes they wore...a man in a European-cut suit was very much aware that he was inside something. Sitting down was a delicate operation, and crossing the legs was not to be undertaken lightly....”

In the 1960s and ‘70s, the European fit gained much popularity in this country, in part because of the mass acceptance of jeans and the notion that clothes ought to express a man’s physicality. This silhouette offered a radical alternative to the sack suit and appealed particularly to women, who perhaps unintentionally promoted this exaggerated style, which emphasizes a man’s sexuality at the cost of subtlety and comfort. While it is true that a man wearing this silhouette did look thinner, it is also clear that he was compromising taste and style in order to feel thin.

After the initial excitement of this style wore off, American men realized they were projecting a character that was not their own. Europeans, after all, have long dressed in a more formal, studied manner. Their clothing evolved to reflect not only their thin and lithe body types, but also their penchant for elegance and formality. Americans, on the other hand, have always preferred a more subtle and casual style. With their broader shoulders and wider chests, they require a softening in the lines of their clothing, not the hard angles identified with
the European styles. Recognizing this, they are returning in greater numbers to endemic styles that are designed to complement their larger physiques; clothing that is soft and comfortable, but with a tasteful subtlety that is the purest idiom of the American heritage.

The Updated American Silhouette

The updated American silhouette is a combination of the best elements of the sack and the European-cut suit. The jacket has some of the same softness and fullness through the chest and shoulder areas of the sack, to which it adds some of the European notion of shape.

Long the staple of fine dressers, from Clark Gable to Fred Astaire to Cary Grant, this soft, shaped suit was essentially a spin-off from the sack. The three-button sack coat was modified to a two-button version with some suppression at the waist by Paul Stuart. As mentioned earlier, this style was then modified further by Ralph Lauren, beginning in the mid-1960s. Both his espousal of it and the subsequent support of a score of young American designers gained, for this updated American style, the national recognition and the widespread acceptance it has today.

Like the European model, the new American-style jacket is tapered at the waist, giving the wearer something of a V-shaped appearance. The jacket, with its two-button design, has a longer lapel roll. In further contrast to the sack, this style also has a somewhat higher armhole and the chest is a bit smaller. All these details work to give it more definition than its dour predecessor.

These modifications give the updated American suit a freedom that allows the materials to adapt themselves to the wearer’s physique. This is as it should be. Angular clothing tends to impose itself on the body. It has its own shape, and the wearer must fit into it rather than the other way around. The adaptation of clothing to the wearer’s physique, on the other hand, is the ideal expression of oneself. Like a good haircut, the cut of a suit should never call attention to itself. Elegance or style can be achieved only through softness of line. This is why the updated American-style suit jacket has a modified natural shoulder and is cut with a slight taper at the waist, while the trousers take their line from the shape of a man’s leg.

Now, personally, I don't find that either of those two illustrations has an edge over the other. They're just templates, abstract, and they can both be tasteful depending on the man, whether he's right for it, and how he wears it. Yet I find it interesting that Flusser's predilection for the second sillhouette has led him down such a frightful path.

[Costi]

Good post, Pelham. I think it goes to show this is not about WHAT you do, but HOW you do it. I agree with the principles expressed by Flusser with regard to softer lines (I won't comment how purely American they are), but I don't agree with his personal rendition of these principles as shown in the photograph.

[marcelo]

Twenty one years back...



What does "a wonderful arrogance" mean?

[ottovbvs]

Twenty one years back...



What does "a wonderful arrogance" mean?

Sprezzatura? And whose that with him....Joe Lieberman's twin brother?

[Trey]

Marcelo et al:

Excellent find. Who among us wishes to be "wonderfully arrogant" when we dress? Why not set your goal each day to be "almost a gentlemen", which is equally oxymoronic. There is nothing wonderful about being arrogant, just as one can not almost be a gentlemen. Either you are a gentlemen or you are not. There is no middle ground.

Equally perplexing in the Flusser advertisement is, how many of us desire to be "relentlessly stylish"? Perhaps most disturbing is his pitch to dress "haughty" and "snappy". Loungers, how many of you desire to wonderfully, but arrogantly have your relentlessly stylish attire announce to the world, "Look at me. I am haughty and snappy."?

Rather than have initials on your custom shirts, why not have "H & S" boldly emblazoned in their place in some very indiscreet place. (Of course, in Flusser parlance, the color of such initials and their shape should best suit your skin tone and best match the size of your face.) That way when people inquire, "Hey, John Doe, why do you have 3" neon green or ruby red 'H&S' initials conspicuosly emblazoned on your shirt?" You can haughtily look down on them with disdain and proclaim in your almost gentlemanly best, "Because I am haughty and snappy." It would be to almost ungentlemantly to say the following, so instead, think to yourself, "Some people just don't get it. Thank goodness that I am among the chosen few."

Fellow loungers, I re-direct you to my "Ode to Flusser" that I penned on the bottom of page three of this thread. Poor Flusser has taken a beating, but upon further examination, all wounds appear to be self inflicted.

Trey

[marcelo]

Well said, Trey. Still, you should not overstate the case and forget that those were not Flusser’s, but an unfortunate customer’s words.

[Costi]

There is a saying here that goes something like this: "One bat is enough for a cartful of pots". Let's not get bitter and remain within the boundaries of lucid analysis. After all there is (or there should be) nothing personal about these reflections.

[sartorius]

you should not overstate the case and forget that those were not Flusser’s, but an unfortunate customer’s words

They may not have been Flusser's words but it was Flusser who chose to publish them as the strap line for the ad. Even if we give him the benefit of the doubt and allow that he may not himself have shared the customer's sentiments, he must have felt the message would strike a chord with his target audience. Or perhaps he simply loved the quote and wanted to publicise it as widely as possible. Whatever the explanation, I agree with Trey. It is not a matter of personal criticism but simply of the way someone presents himself to the world - which is how this thread started.

[Costi]

Indeed, and the person is just a pretext to express our ideas and make reflections on how one should / may present oneself to the world, without making the person the object of the discussion through dedicated odes. My observation is not about what we are saying, which may be right and valuable, it is about how we choose to say it. I hope my intervention is taken as it is meant, in good faith, as a constructive proposition and not as a polemical remark.

[Huzir]

Dear Sartorius,

The image is not from a Flusser ad, but from a 1988 magazine article on NY tailors, although your assumption is understandable, given the lack of context for the image.

Marcelo posted the link elsewhere on this forum. The original article is here:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=VOUC ... 0#PPA52,M1

[sartorius]

The image is not from a Flusser ad, but from a 1988 magazine article on NY tailors, although your assumption is understandable, given the lack of context for the image.

In which case I retract my previous post.