Some aspects of modern living seem to rest upon all the subtlety of a plate through a brick glass window [sic]. Discuss if you like.
NJS
PS Spelling of 'subtlety' corrected thanks to Costi. It is very curious because I just first misspelled it again writing this! The other day I spelled 'lewd' as 'lude' and couldn't correct it. Most embarrassing.
NJS
Subtlety
I note in the newly destroyed Savoy Grill that the dress code accepts denim jeans and trainers. I'm not sure whether they intend to serve food on actual plates or disposable cartons. It seems that to be over dressed today, is to wear clothes. Forgive me for being too subtle 
-
NJS
Like so many things in the UK, the Savoy Grill is now owned by A-y-rabs (not especially noted for casual dress - certainly not for the ladies (unless, of course, they are belly-dancing, for a group of obese 'businessmen', stinking of the tarrier, 'designer' aftershaves and slavering at their mouths)). They don't seem to mind the serving of alcohol there either - as long as it brings them a buck - and they do seem to have the world by the short and curlies with their oil, don't they? First the rest of the world sucks up to them and supplies them with arms and then it blasts them to hell and walks in, proclaiming that 'great western democracy' has arrived. Anyone been in the American Bar recently? Is it bomb-proof?Rowly wrote:I note in the newly destroyed Savoy Grill that the dress code accepts denim jeans and trainers. I'm not sure whether they intend to serve food on actual plates or disposable cartons. It seems that to be over dressed today, is to wear clothes. Forgive me for being too subtle
But what I'd really like to know is: who are responsible for these dress codes? I mean, presumably, the businesses eventually give in to customer demands; because, if they don't, they go bust. But who are these people - who lunch and dine in the Savoy Grill in denim and trainers? What do they do for a living? Where do they work? Who are their clients and what are their expectations? Where are the real businessmen and women? Who (and what) have taken their place? Is any of this a clue to the state of the world? Why do so many people just sit back and accept it all; acquiece in the face of pig-ignorance; over-regulation and oppressiveness? Or is the truth that very, very few any longer care?
Sometimes, frankly, I am driven to think that the world has been taken over by bloody Martians and no one noticed that either...
NJS
NJS, I am in much sympathy with this view. It's ironic, though, that one source of the catastrophic "casualizing" of much US/UK business dress (and by extension, evening-out dress) is the feeling, originating perhaps in the late '70s and early '80s among some of the then relatively few people working in the computer science/software field, that the corporate cultures (IBM, Xerox, DEC, etc.) were "over-regulating" and stifling their creative genius.
In the late '70s I knew a brilliant hardware troubleshooter from what would later become Silicon Valley (the Stanford-Berkelely nexus) who flew around the world untwisting the knickers of the computers that ran major financial and corporate operations. He was paid a king's ransom for his time, being indispensible, and didn't give fig what eyebrows his attire raised. It happens he was a big cheese in the Society for Creative Anachronism (a medieval/renaissance re-enactment group) and also a tall and imposing fellow. He used to wear a silver fillet on his brow over shoulder-length blond hair, a full-circle cloak with his device embroidered on it, a sheathed broadsword on a baldrick--the whole kit (he could even wear the sword on some flights in those days!).
Now, 35 years later, what was once an expression of independence from coporate sameness has become its own uniform of thoughtlessness as great swathes of the work force are now involved in one way or another with information technology and related new media, and have been socialized into, or at least directly influenced by, that culture. Perhaps the clearest example is Steve Jobs, who I believe has not appeared at any product launch in the last 20 in anything other than jeans, trainers, and a black mock-turtleneck. And he heads, or did up until a few days ago, the largest U.S. corporation by market capitalization.
I did some consulting in the late '90s - early '00s for a startup that manufactures superb high-end audio electronics. After about the third meeting, one of the two partners, both in their 40s (the one with the Harvard MBA, not the Russian engineer who designs the gear) pulled me aside, and said, "Next time come without the tie. It makes him suspicious." The pair had both left Hewlett Packard to form this company, and one of their prime motives was to escape what they perceived as an oppressive management culture. Fans of Monty Python may recognize this spirit of rebellion from the wonderful "Crimson Permanent Assurance" skit preceding "The Meaning of Life."
Unfortunately, now much of a whole generation has grown up with few models for dressing to respect others, or a sense of occasion, rather than to reflect an inherited and generalized idea of 'coolness' and illusory independence; or they simply put their own ease and comfort ahead of everything else. And it must be said that this trend has been reinforced by the shrinkage of middle-class purchasing power, at least in the U.S., over the last four decades. Many Americans now lack the resources to acquire, or more importantly to maintain, much of a classic wardrobe even if they might like to--though presumably this would not be much of a factor among most Savoy Grill patrons.
In the late '70s I knew a brilliant hardware troubleshooter from what would later become Silicon Valley (the Stanford-Berkelely nexus) who flew around the world untwisting the knickers of the computers that ran major financial and corporate operations. He was paid a king's ransom for his time, being indispensible, and didn't give fig what eyebrows his attire raised. It happens he was a big cheese in the Society for Creative Anachronism (a medieval/renaissance re-enactment group) and also a tall and imposing fellow. He used to wear a silver fillet on his brow over shoulder-length blond hair, a full-circle cloak with his device embroidered on it, a sheathed broadsword on a baldrick--the whole kit (he could even wear the sword on some flights in those days!).
Now, 35 years later, what was once an expression of independence from coporate sameness has become its own uniform of thoughtlessness as great swathes of the work force are now involved in one way or another with information technology and related new media, and have been socialized into, or at least directly influenced by, that culture. Perhaps the clearest example is Steve Jobs, who I believe has not appeared at any product launch in the last 20 in anything other than jeans, trainers, and a black mock-turtleneck. And he heads, or did up until a few days ago, the largest U.S. corporation by market capitalization.
I did some consulting in the late '90s - early '00s for a startup that manufactures superb high-end audio electronics. After about the third meeting, one of the two partners, both in their 40s (the one with the Harvard MBA, not the Russian engineer who designs the gear) pulled me aside, and said, "Next time come without the tie. It makes him suspicious." The pair had both left Hewlett Packard to form this company, and one of their prime motives was to escape what they perceived as an oppressive management culture. Fans of Monty Python may recognize this spirit of rebellion from the wonderful "Crimson Permanent Assurance" skit preceding "The Meaning of Life."
Unfortunately, now much of a whole generation has grown up with few models for dressing to respect others, or a sense of occasion, rather than to reflect an inherited and generalized idea of 'coolness' and illusory independence; or they simply put their own ease and comfort ahead of everything else. And it must be said that this trend has been reinforced by the shrinkage of middle-class purchasing power, at least in the U.S., over the last four decades. Many Americans now lack the resources to acquire, or more importantly to maintain, much of a classic wardrobe even if they might like to--though presumably this would not be much of a factor among most Savoy Grill patrons.
Having a pride in your dress and some sense of style is not a matter of income. Many designer trainers and jeans cost much more than quality clothes. I personally don't see a proper dress code as a restriction any more than a linen tablecloth over a paper one. I see it as a pleasure. There are many people who can easily afford to dine in the best places, but their business keeps them so busy and stressed that it can be an occasional treat. The man who has to save up to treat his wife to an evening out may have more time, but less funds. Either way, it should be a pleasure to look forward to and not a restriction on your pleasures. Sports gear can look really great, but in the gym where it belongs. Many people refuse to dress not because they are cool but because they are backward. Often, these people would suggest that table manners are not cool either, nor personal grooming...where does it end? I have had great 5 star luxury experiences and rough and ready camping trips. Each was equally enjoyable in its own way. I would not like to be deprived from the choice to experience either, in all its full expression. The alternative is a downward spiral to the mass mediocrity of sameness, which is a shame.
Dear NJS,NJS wrote: Where are the real businessmen and women? Who (and what) have taken their place? Is any of this a clue to the state of the world? Why do so many people just sit back and accept it all; acquiece in the face of pig-ignorance; over-regulation and oppressiveness? Or is the truth that very, very few any longer care?
Sometimes, frankly, I am driven to think that the world has been taken over by bloody Martians and no one noticed that either...
NJS
brilliant as always, thank you. The red Mandarins from China might soon teach the world what manners are for.
cheers, david
-
NJS
It is certainly true that the media types have something to answer for and I have recently read a couple of times about certain of their clubs banning suits and ties. I am not sure whether this is done just as a joke or whether they are serious but the tie seems to be attracting the kind of opprobrium that saw off city hats as symbols of those who caused the 1980s' economic crises. But bankers aren't the only ones who ever wore ties! Ironically, Couch, I know a current computer 'trouble-shooter' who travels the world untangling computers' knickers and he is always in bespoke Gieves & Hawkes' suits, bespoke Budd shirts and T&A ties (curiously he wears some just passable RTW shoes), so the worm turned there! Mind you, he is probably not representative.
Rowly - I entirely agree that mediocre sameness seems to be an increasing aim in dressing: dressing not to be noticed for excellence (rather than oddity).
David - I think it highly likely that in China and Japan will soon be found more of the best of British culture than in the British Isles themselves. I think that it's about time that middle-aged British men stood up and said to the sloppy, bolshie youngsters: "We have rights too!"
NJS
Rowly - I entirely agree that mediocre sameness seems to be an increasing aim in dressing: dressing not to be noticed for excellence (rather than oddity).
David - I think it highly likely that in China and Japan will soon be found more of the best of British culture than in the British Isles themselves. I think that it's about time that middle-aged British men stood up and said to the sloppy, bolshie youngsters: "We have rights too!"
NJS
NJS
The question of dress is indicative of a much greater malaise. And you have written often about it.
A few weeks ago I was travelling on the Eurostar when I struck up a conversation with an American couple (of lawyers in their 40s) who asked me my best bit of advice for their first visit to the Continent. As my first piece of advice I told them to always say “Please and Thank you.” And then I suggested they always remember to greet people with a happy “Good day” and leave people’s company with an equally happy, “Au revoir.” The middle aged lady looked at her husband with a wolf’s grin and laughed, “See what I mean, people actually do say please and thank you here! How odd!”
Another striking image of recent date occurred in the Paris metro. American girls have always had a mitigated reputation ( good or bad depending on your outlook and objectives) amongst European men. They have always seemed to be a bit masculine (especially about certain activities in life and once again you can pick your potion if this is good or bad.) The other day I saw a gaggle of American girls dressed in their best (worst?) urban wear, each weighing in with a good twenty kilos too much for their age, and each walking in manner that would have flattered (or challenged) John Wayne. These girls, who maybe had had a bit to drink, were catcalling and whistling at good looking men in the metro like the most virile of construction workers! “Hubba Hubba Hubba..look at that beef Delilah!”
You could see the terror in the eyes of the men whose adrenalin rush pushed them to flee rather than fight this unlikely female squad. Are these the subtle ladies that are supposed to inspire gallantry? Are their slovenly counterparts not a perfect match? They were truly like creatures from another planet. And thanks to TV, these are the role models of femininity for the world. Gracious! 
Cheers
Michael
The question of dress is indicative of a much greater malaise. And you have written often about it.
A few weeks ago I was travelling on the Eurostar when I struck up a conversation with an American couple (of lawyers in their 40s) who asked me my best bit of advice for their first visit to the Continent. As my first piece of advice I told them to always say “Please and Thank you.” And then I suggested they always remember to greet people with a happy “Good day” and leave people’s company with an equally happy, “Au revoir.” The middle aged lady looked at her husband with a wolf’s grin and laughed, “See what I mean, people actually do say please and thank you here! How odd!”
Another striking image of recent date occurred in the Paris metro. American girls have always had a mitigated reputation ( good or bad depending on your outlook and objectives) amongst European men. They have always seemed to be a bit masculine (especially about certain activities in life and once again you can pick your potion if this is good or bad.) The other day I saw a gaggle of American girls dressed in their best (worst?) urban wear, each weighing in with a good twenty kilos too much for their age, and each walking in manner that would have flattered (or challenged) John Wayne. These girls, who maybe had had a bit to drink, were catcalling and whistling at good looking men in the metro like the most virile of construction workers! “Hubba Hubba Hubba..look at that beef Delilah!”
You could see the terror in the eyes of the men whose adrenalin rush pushed them to flee rather than fight this unlikely female squad. Are these the subtle ladies that are supposed to inspire gallantry? Are their slovenly counterparts not a perfect match? They were truly like creatures from another planet. And thanks to TV, these are the role models of femininity for the world. Gracious! Cheers
Michael
-
NJS
Michael,
All true, I fear! However, on an optimistic note: I put a photograph of Grace Kelly on my blog with a short text - "Not to forget Grace Kelly - as if we could". This post has has had far more hits than any other subject and they continue. From this we might be able to infer that the spirit of Grace (in both senses) is still alive just not too visible at the moment. Thank God that it is still with us though.
NJS
All true, I fear! However, on an optimistic note: I put a photograph of Grace Kelly on my blog with a short text - "Not to forget Grace Kelly - as if we could". This post has has had far more hits than any other subject and they continue. From this we might be able to infer that the spirit of Grace (in both senses) is still alive just not too visible at the moment. Thank God that it is still with us though.
NJS
NJS
Rita Hayworth and Grace Kelly, fire and ice, what a pair of Yankee Doodle Dandies! And if you look in the Great Photos section, you will see dozens of elegant American women from the past. But in the last thirty years there has been such a move towards androgyny that these marvelous examples of femininity are all but extinct. And men with their manbags and mankinis? No wonder young men have a tough time figuring out how to dress? They first have to figure out what gender they are! We never had these problems, did we?
Michael
Rita Hayworth and Grace Kelly, fire and ice, what a pair of Yankee Doodle Dandies! And if you look in the Great Photos section, you will see dozens of elegant American women from the past. But in the last thirty years there has been such a move towards androgyny that these marvelous examples of femininity are all but extinct. And men with their manbags and mankinis? No wonder young men have a tough time figuring out how to dress? They first have to figure out what gender they are! We never had these problems, did we?
Michael
-
NJS
This is it. Part if the trouble is that many of our generation have not fought against the application of the castrating tongs, which certain people have wanted to bring to bear against us and so, for example, grown men end up meekly smoking in freezing COSAs or even in street doorways of clubs that they pay to maintain, because some bullies have presumed to take it upon themselves to save us all not just from each other but from ourselves.alden wrote:NJS
Rita Hayworth and Grace Kelly, fire and ice, what a pair of Yankee Doodle Dandies! And if you look in the Great Photos section, you will see dozens of elegant American women from the past. But in the last thirty years there has been such a move towards androgyny that these marvelous examples of femininity are all but extinct. And men with their manbags and mankinis? No wonder young men have a tough time figuring out how to dress? They first have to figure out what gender they are! We never had these problems, did we?
Michael
Most of the leading actors and actresses now look epicene and the choice of other role model is between foul-mouthed pop stars and rather thick and lumpen footballers. It is necssary to keep vocal and to protest and to promote a better way. Bullies voice their views. We should voice ours and not be intimidated into accepting the validity of claims that we are unfairly biased etc., etc.. We have rights too.
NJS
While I agree that social reality is becoming ever more challenging, I don't believe any kind or amount of action can turn "Delilah" into "Grace"; and even if it could be done, I am not sure most Fair Ladies are worth the effort. Moreover, I am not sure that we should "fight back" at all and so much the less with the same vocal means of the bullies, NJS: that would be playing their game, on their own field - and I am not sure we have anything to gain from this, so much the less win the game. It would defeat precisely what we stand for. Instead of retaliating loudly, I think we'd better go on following our own paradigm, creating our oases, letting those who think and feel the same join of their own accord. I feel that neither militantism nor a missionary approach work for the cause of elegance. Evangelize, yes - but that means showing the way for each to find his own revelation, not imposing your own, as the bullies do. Their weapons do not serve our cause. Let's stay subtle, if we are to prove that subtle is a viable alternative...
Reading these last two posts I am reminded of the scene in "The Quiet Man" (great movie the likes of which no one knows how to make anymore) when Barry Fitzgerald takes his leave to go into the pub to have a drink "and talk a little treason." I suppose that is the best we can hope for these days, those of us inspired to insurrection who represent an infintesimal fraction of men. There is no going back. God is probably alive but "Class" is dead.
-
NJS
I see the points made above but it is not just about dress and it is getting to the point where it is difficult to create one's own inviolate oasis; certainly when men may not get together in a club, founded for the purpose of socializing, smoking and drinking together, and maintained by private subscription, without having to observe a smoking ban throughout the whole of a private place. And it isn't just about smoking - it's about bullies. There is story (I believe true) that X suggested to various people that Dihydrogen monoxide is a potentially lethal substance (mentioning that it is possible to drown in it) and soon there was a pressure group of real morons formed to try to ban H2O. It seems that there is something in some people that needs to ban things just for the hell of it or to exert their miserable wills.
There is also now, despite the inefficacy of the fox hunting ban (an interference with private property rights that cannot sensibly be policed without land trespass first being committed) a general rumbling about shooting gamebirds and this will possibly turn into a green paper and then a white paper and, as a blandishment to some pressure group from the government to garner extra support, a Bill will appear and, if we all sit around quietly, it will become a law and shooting gamebirds will become illegal. Eating veal from tortured calves in mock Italian restaurants will remain OK of course because a shooting ban would not have anything really to do with animal cruelty, but everything to do with banning an activity and enjoyment which is misunderstood by certain fastidious urban bullies. The bullies who engage in all this banning are like the people who would kill every snake that they encounter, even the harmless ones, out of fear of something that they are too ignorant to understand: after all, if they could distinguish between venomous and harmless snakes, they need not kill them all 'just in case'.
Moreover, every time there is another ban, industry and employment (sorely needed in bankrupt economies) are reduced: the smoking ban caused many pubs to close so the bar staff are no longer exposed to customers' smoke but they are on the dole instead. Well done, Parliament! If the fox hunting ban had been enforced, thousands of hounds would have been slaughtered, as they are not pets; all the professional hunt staff would have been put on the dole; the makers of hunting clothing and boots would have been hit (another nail in the coffin for bespoke), and if shotguns are outlawed, the greatest gunmaking tradition in the world will be lost and even more put on the dole from the gunmakers to the keepers. Moreover, the anti-sporting lobby will now rely on the case of Raoul Moat - the man who went beserk with a shotgun and the argument will be put forward that if shotguns had been made illegal before, he would not have killed anyone; the argument will go on to lead to the unsavoury conclusion that every law-abiding citizen with a shotgun is a potential Raoul Moat and those who govern us will, effectively, be judging us all as though we were Raoul Moat. However, it seems likely that Raoul Moat should never have had a licence (but no one will answer for that blunder), although even if he had been denied a licence, he could easily have obtained an illegal gun (which flood in to the UK from Eastern Europe). Moreover, he could have killed and maimed as many as he did with various weapons or Molotov cocktails. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
So, if we just sit quietly in our cocoons and pretend that none of this is happening, the morons and the bullies will continue with their destruction. It is, I repeat, time to make a stand: "all it takes for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing" is as true as it ever was.
NJS
There is also now, despite the inefficacy of the fox hunting ban (an interference with private property rights that cannot sensibly be policed without land trespass first being committed) a general rumbling about shooting gamebirds and this will possibly turn into a green paper and then a white paper and, as a blandishment to some pressure group from the government to garner extra support, a Bill will appear and, if we all sit around quietly, it will become a law and shooting gamebirds will become illegal. Eating veal from tortured calves in mock Italian restaurants will remain OK of course because a shooting ban would not have anything really to do with animal cruelty, but everything to do with banning an activity and enjoyment which is misunderstood by certain fastidious urban bullies. The bullies who engage in all this banning are like the people who would kill every snake that they encounter, even the harmless ones, out of fear of something that they are too ignorant to understand: after all, if they could distinguish between venomous and harmless snakes, they need not kill them all 'just in case'.
Moreover, every time there is another ban, industry and employment (sorely needed in bankrupt economies) are reduced: the smoking ban caused many pubs to close so the bar staff are no longer exposed to customers' smoke but they are on the dole instead. Well done, Parliament! If the fox hunting ban had been enforced, thousands of hounds would have been slaughtered, as they are not pets; all the professional hunt staff would have been put on the dole; the makers of hunting clothing and boots would have been hit (another nail in the coffin for bespoke), and if shotguns are outlawed, the greatest gunmaking tradition in the world will be lost and even more put on the dole from the gunmakers to the keepers. Moreover, the anti-sporting lobby will now rely on the case of Raoul Moat - the man who went beserk with a shotgun and the argument will be put forward that if shotguns had been made illegal before, he would not have killed anyone; the argument will go on to lead to the unsavoury conclusion that every law-abiding citizen with a shotgun is a potential Raoul Moat and those who govern us will, effectively, be judging us all as though we were Raoul Moat. However, it seems likely that Raoul Moat should never have had a licence (but no one will answer for that blunder), although even if he had been denied a licence, he could easily have obtained an illegal gun (which flood in to the UK from Eastern Europe). Moreover, he could have killed and maimed as many as he did with various weapons or Molotov cocktails. Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
So, if we just sit quietly in our cocoons and pretend that none of this is happening, the morons and the bullies will continue with their destruction. It is, I repeat, time to make a stand: "all it takes for evil to prevail is that good men do nothing" is as true as it ever was.
NJS
Gentlemen, this is my very first post, since I honor the idea that especially when new to a forum one has to make himself familiar with the ruling mannerism.
I myself am dabbling around in hardware/software and encryption. As stated in an earlier post by couch; about another of my trades fellows : I also get machines back on track again. My dress however is what best can be described as: classical. I wear three piece suits and am never seen in jeans during office hours.
All my colleagues are half my age and have half the brains. Nobody however has the nerves to make any comment on my attire. Last one who thought he could vent his (unasked for) opinion was 3 years ago, and as things go in my neck of the woods: he has disappeared from view.
What I want to convey to my esteemed forum-members is not that it is what you wear, but more how you behave whilst doing so. I shocked one of my correspondents by writing him that my next project is going to be a marine frock-coat. His first reaction was to inquire where I would wear it. That’s simple: to work, and knowing my colleagues no one in his right mind will have the guts to make any remark. Not all bow to the “Friday casual look” and if you are consistent in your behavior you can and eventually WILL wear whatever you like.
And really, gentlemen; are you measuring the standard by what Americans wear?
I myself am dabbling around in hardware/software and encryption. As stated in an earlier post by couch; about another of my trades fellows : I also get machines back on track again. My dress however is what best can be described as: classical. I wear three piece suits and am never seen in jeans during office hours.
All my colleagues are half my age and have half the brains. Nobody however has the nerves to make any comment on my attire. Last one who thought he could vent his (unasked for) opinion was 3 years ago, and as things go in my neck of the woods: he has disappeared from view.
What I want to convey to my esteemed forum-members is not that it is what you wear, but more how you behave whilst doing so. I shocked one of my correspondents by writing him that my next project is going to be a marine frock-coat. His first reaction was to inquire where I would wear it. That’s simple: to work, and knowing my colleagues no one in his right mind will have the guts to make any remark. Not all bow to the “Friday casual look” and if you are consistent in your behavior you can and eventually WILL wear whatever you like.
And really, gentlemen; are you measuring the standard by what Americans wear?
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests