Camps de Luca article in The Rake (Issue 10)

[Costi]

On the contrary, I think that NOW we are on topic. J. S. Groot's experience and transmutation in tastes is emblematic, but the change does not occur on the outside, it occurs on the inside - at the level of perception, ideas, ideals - and is naturally followed by adequate outer expressions. Perhaps it would be useful to explain how and why your preferences changed, if it's not too much of an introspective effort: others may find they are travelling in the same direction and it might save them some useless and expensive detours. Or they may realize that what they really want is in the opposite direction.

[Yale Cameron]

I think the true change is basically a change in confidence due to knowledge. I, unlike many on htis form have not changed to liking drape cut suits. I do not think it is the best for me (particularly because of my large shoulder drop) and frankly the aesthetic is jsut not the one my eye prefers. that being said, I have undergone the same change in moving away from the eye of others telling me what looks good (this is what designers do). I think essentially, we start out lacking confidence in our own natural aesthetic sense, so we defer to the "professionals" (the designers, the GQ people etc. etc. this is because we simply lack enough knowledge to trust our own eyes and thoughts. What Groot has identified is that as we become more knowledgeble, we become more confident and comfortable in our own natural eye for the aestehtic. Hence, we trust it more and thereby we feel more comfortable in the clothing that comports wiht our natural aesthetic preference. But, this development cannot come with sufficient knowledge that leads to confidence and trust in one's own aesthetic sense. Now, on htis board, that has led many to the soft or drape like suit. But, i think the comfort is probbaly more in the fact that those people like that look and feel comfortable in it. I feel incredibly comfortable in my "harder" or "stiffer" english style Len Logsdail suit. It comports with my natural aesthetic preference, therefore I am comfortable. I think sometimes people are backwards about it. they think that comfort comes from the cut of the suit or what no. I tend to think the comfort or naturalness in wearing the suit comes from it fitting properly and the style part of it being congruent with our natural aesthetic preference. though that only occurs once we have the confidence to trust our eyes on the style choice.

[alden]

Individuals who write about subjects they do not understand, lacking sufficient experience, often can provide interesting and quirky insights despite themselves. The exuberant and unqualified praise for Marc Deluca,for instance, has not strayed far from the mark. DeLuca’s father was considered one of the top five tailors in Paris in the 1960s and Marc Deluca certainly ranks among the best in the city today.

http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... uca#p24592

The criticism of the Deluca cut, as evidenced in the photo of his son, is more a judgment on modern Parisian style than on Deluca’s tailoring. The French tailors like a very narrow, built up shoulder whose slimming effect is intensified by a strong rolled shoulder (called a cigarette.) This creates a very column like silhouette with pronounced parallel lines as opposed to the more often sought after and masculine V shaped torso. Many men will find the Parisian cut a bit feminine and precious. The almost “pagoda” shaped shoulder can appear pretentious and studied to some and it is very formal and austere. Oh, and the very narrow shoulder will make even a normal sized head look like a Slazenger tee'd up.

http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... =32&t=7249

From a tailoring point of view, Deluca’s father produced some of the most beautifully crafted and finished clothes I have ever seen and his son Marc is continuing with the same objective in mind. If the style suits you Deluca is very much worth a try.

Cheers

Michael Alden

[crooky13]

Interesting, because when I wrote that post initially, the word striking was not in it, I put it in when I was proofreading it. To be honest, for no deep meaningful reason, but the reason I put it in inverted commas is because I know not everyone will think a Tom Ford suit is striking. By striking, I simply mean it looks good on a man, but you have to be in shape. Tom Ford is no artisan, he leaves the craftsmanship to Ermenegildo Zegna as we all know. I agree, the celebrities he dresses often look no where near as good as the lookbooks, where the proportions and lengths of coats/trousers are perfect.

I think we've gone way off topic now. Sorry.

This is wholly off topic now (and please feel free to delete this post) but is it really Zegna that produces the Tom Ford range?

[J.S. Groot]

Perhaps it would be useful to explain how and why your preferences changed, if it's not too much of an introspective effort.

The amusing part of it is that I actually think it was fashion that lured me away from fashion. As explained, when I first started getting interested in clothes, what mattered what to be seen and recognized as confident, individual, smart and all these other things that people seek from fashion (but rarely get, since in their effort to stand out, they adapt to the trends and so end up looking like everybody else; at least that's how it works in Denmark). It started out with magazines, but I soon discovered that runways and street style blogs was the way to go if I wanted to get on top of things. This was back when all the designers started fighting over who could shout "classic with a twist" loudest, so naturally I began becoming interested in classic style, albeit with a heavy fashion influence. However, it triggered something inside me that I'm not sure I can pinpoint. I've always been very consumed with aesthetics and especially quality, even as a child, although this was not geared towards clothes. Maybe this was brought back to full when I got into classic dressing? I don't know. What happened was that when fashion started to promote classic clothes I was given the key to peeling off my skin tight jeans. When I had first done this, I realised the folly of wearing clothes that you don't really want to wear. So it was goodbye the jeans (the tight ones anyway), but apparently it took some time before the realisation fully sank in, because now I started buying suits and jackets off from eBay. Armani suits. YSL suits. Brooks Brothers suits. And I never wore them. After spending what amounts to at least one high quality bespoke suit on things I didn't wear and after growing tired of following runways and blogs on daily basis, never being able to fully catch my breath and always with something new to buy, aforementioned realisation finally crashed in. As Cameron says, I needed to listen to myself, get to know me and then dress accordingly. It wont work the other way around.

To me, the key aspect of style is not if you wear drape or constructed, heck it is not even if you wear suits. It is that you do what you do consistently. That you want to wear your clothes all day, every day. This is of course about comfort, as have been laid out by Cameron and others, and about looking at home in your clothes. It's also about practice. Wearing shirt and tie, for example, takes some practice. If you do it once a year, it'll probably seem quite constricting on that one day. If you do it every day, though, you'll end up feeling naked without it. But you'll only wear it every day when it looks good on you and it only looks good on you if it fits and if the cut is right for you. What's right for you depends on your physique, of course. For me, the more roomy cut is right, not because of my build (although being quite small I think that a fitted cut on me would give the same result as on m. Luca above), but probably because I'm a neurological nut-case with dangerously unpredictable sweat glands. Tight clothes will make me sweat. Even on a cold day. Therefore, I will never look at home in a tight fitted suit. I will just look... glistening.

Did this give more insight to my transformation? I don't know, but it's a nice edifying story, no?

On a side note, the change showed itself in other amusing ways. When I first read Flusser's "Dressing the Man" I remember thinking: "Nice photos, but what a nutter. What does a small wrinkle on your neckline mean as long as you wear a Gucci suit?" Now, it's: "Nice photos, but what a nutter. He's just like the designers, telling people what to wear instead of helping them figuring out how to see it for themselves".

[alden]

On a side note, the change showed itself in other amusing ways. When I first read Flusser's "Dressing the Man" I remember thinking: "Nice photos, but what a nutter. What does a small wrinkle on your neckline mean as long as you wear a Gucci suit?" Now, it's: "Nice photos, but what a nutter. He's just like the designers, telling people what to wear instead of helping them figuring out how to see it for themselves".

Helping others see for themselves is a thankless task akin to a U.N. mission providing agricultural advice as opposed to sacks of food to the needy. This approach does not sell books, magazines or interest advertisers because most men do not want the bother of work, they want to be fed. But developing style is in reality a pleasure filled labor where success and failure are always relative, two tiny pawns on a larger board.

I have been working non stop the last month with a team of architects, stone masons and construction workers refurbishing a 200 years old stone home. The plans have been drawn, a road map that is called into question every day. As such I am called on every day to make quick decisions on architectural and design matters. With little training in the two, I have to rely on my instinct. My architect can tell me how a generic house should be made, but the house I am rebuilding is for me to live in so his advice is by no means gospel. I am building the house to suit my own vision of aesthetics, comfort and living. When you visit a tailor, keep these three things in mind and let your instinct lead the way.

[Costi]

As usually, the some of the best ideas are found in side notes and "off-topic" posts

[andreyb]

Used to be good, I'm afraid.

I must admit that it's some time since I last read something from the magazine, so the standard might have declined of course. Could you elaborate on your comment? Is it all flash and no substance now?

Sorry for late reply.

First issues were filled with articles like the one we discuss here. Not especially instructive, but... interesting, sometimes with funny stories and always with superb photos (their photographer, Munster, is excellent).

With each new issue, there were less and less of them... and more of either almost unreadable texts on boring subjects or blatant repetition of GQ-esque fashion coverage. In recent issues pages upon pages filled with photoshots demonstrating androgine models wearing clothing from YSL, Lanvin, Dolce&Gabbana and the like.

Andrey

[couch]

Excellent thread. One additional factor in the evolution of a person's taste may simply be having lived through at least one full cycle of the fashion pendulum's swing (and perhaps more). When you're very young, it's harder to see that the dominant style features that surround you may represent an extreme; they are so ubiquitous that they seem normative. So today, the stylish youth thinks jackets should be short and tight; trousers likewise. I remember having a whole aesthetic rationale for bell-bottom pants and jeans in 1970--that they created a graceful transition between the vertical of the leg and the horizontal of the foot. I assumed they and Dingo boots would be around forever. Then there were the skin-tight shiny Nik-Nik shirts of the Saturday Night Fever era. Then Armani introduced the relaxed jacket, and jackets and trousers went to roomy extremes epitomized by David Byrne's Big Suit in "Stop Making Sense." In between there were Ralph's neo-classic cuts, Reagan's inaugural, and Charles and Diana's wedding.

It didn't take me that long to recognize the extremes of cut (long/short, trim/full) as such and to realize that if I wanted durable clothes that would always look good on me, I should calibrate against the mean of these extremes and make any deviations deliberate and relative to that standard, rather than to the current vogue (which, like the political "center," drifts considerably back and forth over the decades). I think that's what's useful in Flusser's term "permanent fashion"--a style that takes as its foundation proportions based on the historical human figure and adjusts for personal conformation and taste. Indeed this should result in a style that feels instinctively "right," comfortable, and suitable to one's way of life, as Michael says. But before, or in addition to, relying on confidence and one's own taste, it's helpful to have an accurately calibrated measuring instrument, so to speak. And that's what I think many people mean when they say they have stopped looking to designers for guidance--it's not so much that designers are all doing terrible things, so much as the fact that they are making and following trends about cut, color, texture, and so on that almost by definition move away from a neutral point to emphasize particular effects. It's the recognition that emphasis by exaggeration is being employed that represents liberation. Once one learns to see a range of possibilities, then confidence, taste, and suitability to lifestyle can be recruited effectively to develop the look that becomes an elegant personal style.

[shredder]

Couch, sorry just spotted this... Super dredge... Well said. I'm still experimenting, however.