The Style Quotient
I have introduced a new term that needs a bit of definition.
The “style quotient” is the sartorial equivalent of the Richter scale. It measures how much a man or woman is able to create and project presence.
The SQ is measured on a ten point scale.
2.5 points are assigned based on the use of apparel: suits, jackets, trousers etc.
2.5 points are assigned for the skillful use of the main actors of dress: the shirt, shirt collar, neckwear and the use of accessory items.
5.0 points are assigned based on the overall style impact, the presence created by the above.
You see that in this system, the skill of dress, represented with five full points, has much more weight than either of the two clothing components. And there is a very good reason for this. How many times have you seen men who have invested fortunes in their clothes but still are unable to manifest style?
This system follows the outline set forth in a recent DWS video about how dressing is like telling a story. Our outerwear is the introduction to the story. The main actors of the story lay in the center of our body, the shirt/tie combination. Finally, if magnetism has been created, it will register first in the harmonious image that radiates from our eyes and face.
I am certain this SQ will be a major disappointment to clothes horses who continue to believe in the mirage created by fashion. It should inspire them to focus more on dress and less on clothes, as dress is the only real way to achieve style.
Cheers
M Alden
The Style Quotient
STYLE QUOTIENT TOO.
Poor Winkelmann only received a grade of 3.75/10; it's hardly worth him getting out of bed in the morning and dressed after that dismal report card.
He was thoroughly pummeled, poor fellow; his clothes, his style, his grooming were gleefully nuked in LL with lashings of malice added for good measure. I would plead attempted manslaughter.
Oh well. Just another sartorial victim left lying bloodied in the streets.
I for one thoroughly enjoyed that thread, one of my favorites infact, as LL members let us know what they really think. How refreshing. And I hope Winkelmann is fine, recovered and while chastened, has taken something home from our little disquisition.
http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... on+learned
But it seems that the concept of a Style Quotient (SQ), introduced 2 years by our LL host, Alden, has fallen into disuse. I have not seen a grade, passing or otherwise, since Winkelmann's expulsion from class. What a pity.
http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... ent#p47231
It might be worthwhile to revive the LL SQ.
Ofcourse no one is suggesting to put a sartorial magnum .45 in the hands of the mildly unstable here at LL.
Afterall, who elected us as arbiters of taste? Right? Gentlemen…? Hello?
Nor for that matter do I think that we would agree much on what is stylish and what is not when it comes right down to it. Nor need we agree.
I for one did not even pursue post graduate studies in the sartorial arts so I am hardly qualified to judge, much less hand out grades. I don’t know how to sew on a missing button. I dress poorly most of the time and live in pajamas, Ts, shorts and flip flops. I’m OK with that. I have little taste and most of that is bad. My qualifications are slim, to none. I would not personally want to be graded. I am not stylish and really, honestly, it is too much pressure to think too much about the whole damn matter of dress each day.
But still, how gleefully mischievious to hand out grades! Not only to the gods, but the demigods and the pretenders as well.
Why a Style Quotient now, again?
Well, actually, perhaps to help us understand what others here mean by style, by STYLE. And to help us understand each other better, my dear fellow LL Loungers out there in the blogosphere.
There are numerous threads on LL about style but few pictorial examples to support what is being discussed. I personally can't understand the discussions here most of the time. And although I agree that I shouldn't peruse LL at cocktail hour, I still doubt that I could understand many of the discussions of style here at any hour. Much too esoteric and philosophical for this addled, muddled brain. Oh well.
References to photos are indispensable for me. So let's discuss something concrete, pictorially.
And also, I think that it would be fascinating to examine the underpinnings of our own sartorial tastes although that may be asking too much. We never discuss this: who are we and from where does our individual taste come. Taste is not fixed nor universal…and there really is a wide diversity. My taste is not your taste. But we can learn from each others’ views. There is room to do so.
Hans Winkelmann helped start such a discussion but then the whole damn thing imploded due to his abysmal, shockingly bad taste. I hope that LL members have recovered from this now two years later.
When we look, when we assess, when we judge others' dress, don't we actually reveal, and learn, more about ourselves?: who we are, our backgrounds, our preferences, cultural signifiers and references? How we individually live today… or perhaps more accurately…in what era we imagine ourselves to live, and not least, just out of personal curiosity, how far into the deep end of sartorial conservatism, how far right of center, is this jolly crew at LL.? But this is just an aside….
We are ofcourse constantly assessing others in so many respects; why not try to understand and express a little bit more clearly, firstly, what we actually think, and see, sartorially, when we look at a photo, and secondly, why we think as we do? How does this inform our own sartorial choices? Who are we sartorially? What is our sartorial identity?
I think that some simple ground rules before we assign SQs, should be put in place and I would suggest these:
1) only photos of public personalities with some sartorial credentials should be eligible to be rated, plus those who choose to be on today's sartorial web sites. I would suggest choosing any individual you want within these guidelines. And then, discuss.
2) ratings should be supported by some reasonable and fair commentary and some general criteria and basis for judgement needs to be established
3) we discuss and include everything: the good, the bad and the ugly, the admirable, the abysmal, include disparate styles, historic as well as contemporary, besuited and casual
4) we be frank, but fair, and actually try to advance our discussion and understanding of style, without let or hindrance by trying to answer the question: is this dress, is this person, stylish, in our personal view, why or why not.
So…the LL SQ number you assign is meaningless without some thoughtful commentary to support your view. Commentary need not be impartial, balanced, excessively diplomatic, correct nor opaque but some explanation of your views is needed.
If you're game, I'll give it a shot and start it off and you can take it from there, add your comments, add your own SQs, and add other individuals…
Let's start with one of the perennial favorites, one of my favorites certainly: the Duke of Windsor.
The Duke of Windsor.
the suit: a double breasted suit. Wide, exaggerated lapels. Not current today. Very supple, full cut in both jacket and trousers. Drape, folds and movement throughout. Softly square shoulder with no "drape" in the chest. Rich and lush tailoring. Comfortable. This suit would almost be thought a half-size too large today. And so, the elegant drape.
the suit cloth: though the photo is black & white, appears to be a mottled mid grey flannel.
the shirt: hard to tell, but appears to be off-white, maybe even a light grey. Quiet and unremarkable. Cufflinks but not in a French cuff.
the tie: again, hard to tell, but appears solid, in a few shades lighter than the coat, perhaps with some texture. No perceptible pattern. Full knot, knotted comfortably, no buckling or dimple.
the shoes: black, highly polished, conservative, thick soled, bluchers it appears.
accessories: a hint of a white pocket square, falling into the breast pocket, inexpertly made. Patterned socks, the only noticeable pattern in the b&w photo.
grooming: Windsor had a good head of hair, worn slightly long and brushed to the side in the classic British style. Clean shaven. One might say, immaculate and pampered looking.
demeanour and effect: Windsor in repose. Relaxed, reading at home, with his pugs and pipe. Sitting erect, legs crossed, at ease yet elegantly posed, solid and prepoccessed The context and backdrop of this portrait, the room and props, are wonderful and highlight classic British style at its most refined and elegant. A man at ease in his environment without irony, pretense or display. Classic and old.
In my opinion : I think that the DB is the most elegant of lounge suits and flannel the king of cloth, together unfailingly elegant. Windsor's suit is outstanding for its easy fit, buttery folds and rich drape. The photo is in black and white and so it is hard to tell what the colors actually are; but that's the point: the fit, the proportions, and tones are so harmonious as to make color unimportant. Nothing in his dress binds, is stressed, pulled or strained. Mid grey or darker flannel. The tones are sedate and patterns are quiet and confident. The whole impression is rich and regal, comfortable grace at home.
SQ: 10/10. As good as it gets.
______________________________________________
Gianni agnelli
the suit : the suit appears to be a peak lapel SB worn unbuttoned as Agnelli is seated, legs crossed. Full cut in coat and trousers: nothing binding nor tight. The elbow pocket allows Agnelli to bend his arm freely without hindrance nor wrinkles while not pulling the sleeve end off the wrist. There is no drape in the chest and the shoulder is aristocratically square. The back neck begins high and tight against the shirt, and so begins the bespoke artistry, gracefully coming forward to fully cover the shirt collar. An English suit? A Huntsman?
the suit cloth: the cloth seems to be a charcoal flannel with low contrast grey chalk stripe. It appears heavier weight and the weather may be cooler given the sweater vest. Not stiff yet not insubstantial. The stripes are cut to align beautifully on the lapel.
the shirt: a master class. the collar leaf curves gracefully, arching high above the tie knot. Nothing ironed flat here. Ample tie space. No shirt tab showing above the tie knot. Comfortable ease around the neck. Nothing binding here. No wide French cuff. Off white?
the tie: a microdot. Wouldn't it be nice to know the color!? But the same tone as the suit cloth. No dimple. Not four in hand. Not tidy nor composed.
the shoes: Shined, conservative, black, probably English. Oxford toe caps? dark socks with clock pattern.
accessories: the sweater vest. appears to be a rough wool in a shade similar, though a shade lighter, to the suit cloth. Low cut V neck, buttonless. no jewelry.
grooming and effect : an older Agnelli. greying hair, combed back in classic style, tufts around ears. Serious demeanor. Distinguished elder businessman, dominant, legs crossed, in the center of his domain. Attending a presentation with elder Italian businessmen. Sober. Conservative. Yet a touch casual given the wool sweater. Comfortable.
IMO: Agnelli gives a master class in how conservative business dress is worn stylishly. He elevates quintessential businesswear of a grey chalk stripe flannel suit to a statement in style. Layering is a given among many Italians and has been for a long time; this instantly transforms otherwise standard business wear to another plateau of business-chic; he does it with a sweater, not a matching vest. Agnelli wears his suit with casual nonchalance, occupies the suit with confidence and self possession. As with Windsor, the suit fits loosely around the body though it is not slouchy, baggy nor ill fitting. Rather, it hovers. The clothes have come home, draping themselves lovingly around their owner.
SQ: 10/10. Classical elegance, Italian style. Businesswear elevated to stylish with panache, confidence and power.
Poor Winkelmann only received a grade of 3.75/10; it's hardly worth him getting out of bed in the morning and dressed after that dismal report card.
He was thoroughly pummeled, poor fellow; his clothes, his style, his grooming were gleefully nuked in LL with lashings of malice added for good measure. I would plead attempted manslaughter.
Oh well. Just another sartorial victim left lying bloodied in the streets.
I for one thoroughly enjoyed that thread, one of my favorites infact, as LL members let us know what they really think. How refreshing. And I hope Winkelmann is fine, recovered and while chastened, has taken something home from our little disquisition.
http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... on+learned
But it seems that the concept of a Style Quotient (SQ), introduced 2 years by our LL host, Alden, has fallen into disuse. I have not seen a grade, passing or otherwise, since Winkelmann's expulsion from class. What a pity.
http://www.thelondonlounge.net/forum/vi ... ent#p47231
It might be worthwhile to revive the LL SQ.
Ofcourse no one is suggesting to put a sartorial magnum .45 in the hands of the mildly unstable here at LL.
Afterall, who elected us as arbiters of taste? Right? Gentlemen…? Hello?
Nor for that matter do I think that we would agree much on what is stylish and what is not when it comes right down to it. Nor need we agree.
I for one did not even pursue post graduate studies in the sartorial arts so I am hardly qualified to judge, much less hand out grades. I don’t know how to sew on a missing button. I dress poorly most of the time and live in pajamas, Ts, shorts and flip flops. I’m OK with that. I have little taste and most of that is bad. My qualifications are slim, to none. I would not personally want to be graded. I am not stylish and really, honestly, it is too much pressure to think too much about the whole damn matter of dress each day.
But still, how gleefully mischievious to hand out grades! Not only to the gods, but the demigods and the pretenders as well.
Why a Style Quotient now, again?
Well, actually, perhaps to help us understand what others here mean by style, by STYLE. And to help us understand each other better, my dear fellow LL Loungers out there in the blogosphere.
There are numerous threads on LL about style but few pictorial examples to support what is being discussed. I personally can't understand the discussions here most of the time. And although I agree that I shouldn't peruse LL at cocktail hour, I still doubt that I could understand many of the discussions of style here at any hour. Much too esoteric and philosophical for this addled, muddled brain. Oh well.
References to photos are indispensable for me. So let's discuss something concrete, pictorially.
And also, I think that it would be fascinating to examine the underpinnings of our own sartorial tastes although that may be asking too much. We never discuss this: who are we and from where does our individual taste come. Taste is not fixed nor universal…and there really is a wide diversity. My taste is not your taste. But we can learn from each others’ views. There is room to do so.
Hans Winkelmann helped start such a discussion but then the whole damn thing imploded due to his abysmal, shockingly bad taste. I hope that LL members have recovered from this now two years later.
When we look, when we assess, when we judge others' dress, don't we actually reveal, and learn, more about ourselves?: who we are, our backgrounds, our preferences, cultural signifiers and references? How we individually live today… or perhaps more accurately…in what era we imagine ourselves to live, and not least, just out of personal curiosity, how far into the deep end of sartorial conservatism, how far right of center, is this jolly crew at LL.? But this is just an aside….
We are ofcourse constantly assessing others in so many respects; why not try to understand and express a little bit more clearly, firstly, what we actually think, and see, sartorially, when we look at a photo, and secondly, why we think as we do? How does this inform our own sartorial choices? Who are we sartorially? What is our sartorial identity?
I think that some simple ground rules before we assign SQs, should be put in place and I would suggest these:
1) only photos of public personalities with some sartorial credentials should be eligible to be rated, plus those who choose to be on today's sartorial web sites. I would suggest choosing any individual you want within these guidelines. And then, discuss.
2) ratings should be supported by some reasonable and fair commentary and some general criteria and basis for judgement needs to be established
3) we discuss and include everything: the good, the bad and the ugly, the admirable, the abysmal, include disparate styles, historic as well as contemporary, besuited and casual
4) we be frank, but fair, and actually try to advance our discussion and understanding of style, without let or hindrance by trying to answer the question: is this dress, is this person, stylish, in our personal view, why or why not.
So…the LL SQ number you assign is meaningless without some thoughtful commentary to support your view. Commentary need not be impartial, balanced, excessively diplomatic, correct nor opaque but some explanation of your views is needed.
If you're game, I'll give it a shot and start it off and you can take it from there, add your comments, add your own SQs, and add other individuals…
Let's start with one of the perennial favorites, one of my favorites certainly: the Duke of Windsor.
The Duke of Windsor.
the suit: a double breasted suit. Wide, exaggerated lapels. Not current today. Very supple, full cut in both jacket and trousers. Drape, folds and movement throughout. Softly square shoulder with no "drape" in the chest. Rich and lush tailoring. Comfortable. This suit would almost be thought a half-size too large today. And so, the elegant drape.
the suit cloth: though the photo is black & white, appears to be a mottled mid grey flannel.
the shirt: hard to tell, but appears to be off-white, maybe even a light grey. Quiet and unremarkable. Cufflinks but not in a French cuff.
the tie: again, hard to tell, but appears solid, in a few shades lighter than the coat, perhaps with some texture. No perceptible pattern. Full knot, knotted comfortably, no buckling or dimple.
the shoes: black, highly polished, conservative, thick soled, bluchers it appears.
accessories: a hint of a white pocket square, falling into the breast pocket, inexpertly made. Patterned socks, the only noticeable pattern in the b&w photo.
grooming: Windsor had a good head of hair, worn slightly long and brushed to the side in the classic British style. Clean shaven. One might say, immaculate and pampered looking.
demeanour and effect: Windsor in repose. Relaxed, reading at home, with his pugs and pipe. Sitting erect, legs crossed, at ease yet elegantly posed, solid and prepoccessed The context and backdrop of this portrait, the room and props, are wonderful and highlight classic British style at its most refined and elegant. A man at ease in his environment without irony, pretense or display. Classic and old.
In my opinion : I think that the DB is the most elegant of lounge suits and flannel the king of cloth, together unfailingly elegant. Windsor's suit is outstanding for its easy fit, buttery folds and rich drape. The photo is in black and white and so it is hard to tell what the colors actually are; but that's the point: the fit, the proportions, and tones are so harmonious as to make color unimportant. Nothing in his dress binds, is stressed, pulled or strained. Mid grey or darker flannel. The tones are sedate and patterns are quiet and confident. The whole impression is rich and regal, comfortable grace at home.
SQ: 10/10. As good as it gets.
______________________________________________
Gianni agnelli
the suit : the suit appears to be a peak lapel SB worn unbuttoned as Agnelli is seated, legs crossed. Full cut in coat and trousers: nothing binding nor tight. The elbow pocket allows Agnelli to bend his arm freely without hindrance nor wrinkles while not pulling the sleeve end off the wrist. There is no drape in the chest and the shoulder is aristocratically square. The back neck begins high and tight against the shirt, and so begins the bespoke artistry, gracefully coming forward to fully cover the shirt collar. An English suit? A Huntsman?
the suit cloth: the cloth seems to be a charcoal flannel with low contrast grey chalk stripe. It appears heavier weight and the weather may be cooler given the sweater vest. Not stiff yet not insubstantial. The stripes are cut to align beautifully on the lapel.
the shirt: a master class. the collar leaf curves gracefully, arching high above the tie knot. Nothing ironed flat here. Ample tie space. No shirt tab showing above the tie knot. Comfortable ease around the neck. Nothing binding here. No wide French cuff. Off white?
the tie: a microdot. Wouldn't it be nice to know the color!? But the same tone as the suit cloth. No dimple. Not four in hand. Not tidy nor composed.
the shoes: Shined, conservative, black, probably English. Oxford toe caps? dark socks with clock pattern.
accessories: the sweater vest. appears to be a rough wool in a shade similar, though a shade lighter, to the suit cloth. Low cut V neck, buttonless. no jewelry.
grooming and effect : an older Agnelli. greying hair, combed back in classic style, tufts around ears. Serious demeanor. Distinguished elder businessman, dominant, legs crossed, in the center of his domain. Attending a presentation with elder Italian businessmen. Sober. Conservative. Yet a touch casual given the wool sweater. Comfortable.
IMO: Agnelli gives a master class in how conservative business dress is worn stylishly. He elevates quintessential businesswear of a grey chalk stripe flannel suit to a statement in style. Layering is a given among many Italians and has been for a long time; this instantly transforms otherwise standard business wear to another plateau of business-chic; he does it with a sweater, not a matching vest. Agnelli wears his suit with casual nonchalance, occupies the suit with confidence and self possession. As with Windsor, the suit fits loosely around the body though it is not slouchy, baggy nor ill fitting. Rather, it hovers. The clothes have come home, draping themselves lovingly around their owner.
SQ: 10/10. Classical elegance, Italian style. Businesswear elevated to stylish with panache, confidence and power.
Uppercase
A truly great post full of excellent, practical commentary. The SQ thread is now installed as a sticky and I hope it gets plenty of use because the idea you have developed is useful because it is so immediately accessible.
I would have to agree with the 10s you have attached to both Windsor and Agnelli. Your commentary was so thorough there is little to add. What strikes me is how both of these men incorporate an individual note into their conservative mode of dress. Windsor winks his eye with his colorful stockings. And the sweater under the suit coat reminds us it is Agnelli.
The other thing that stands out is the concentration of ease in the dressing of these two men. The look is one of effortless comfort.
As regards the cloth used in these garments. It would be very heavy, in excess of 16 ozs. Yet both men look quite comfortable in them, even sitting in front of a fire or wearing a sweater underneath.
And both men show extreme care in the crafting of their shirt/tie combination. The collars are well cut with ample tie space and the ties sober and without dimples. Men could make such a dramatic improvement in their dress if they would pay more attention to the essentials and forget the ornament and dross. The focus on essentials is amply demonstrated in the photos you have selected.
Cheers
A truly great post full of excellent, practical commentary. The SQ thread is now installed as a sticky and I hope it gets plenty of use because the idea you have developed is useful because it is so immediately accessible.
I would have to agree with the 10s you have attached to both Windsor and Agnelli. Your commentary was so thorough there is little to add. What strikes me is how both of these men incorporate an individual note into their conservative mode of dress. Windsor winks his eye with his colorful stockings. And the sweater under the suit coat reminds us it is Agnelli.
The other thing that stands out is the concentration of ease in the dressing of these two men. The look is one of effortless comfort.
As regards the cloth used in these garments. It would be very heavy, in excess of 16 ozs. Yet both men look quite comfortable in them, even sitting in front of a fire or wearing a sweater underneath.
And both men show extreme care in the crafting of their shirt/tie combination. The collars are well cut with ample tie space and the ties sober and without dimples. Men could make such a dramatic improvement in their dress if they would pay more attention to the essentials and forget the ornament and dross. The focus on essentials is amply demonstrated in the photos you have selected.
Cheers
Noel Coward
The overcoats: Two very different cuts of overcoats, one splendid display of style: the city coat cut close to the body, the Polo large, flowing, worn like a cape. The city coat is made from a beautifully rich mottled grey flannel and the Polo in a dense and thick camelhair. Both are perfect choices for the applications.
Shirt and tie: Another great display. The shirts collars are perfectly cut with ample tie space and the ties are knotted with nonchalance. It looks like ten or more year had passed between the photos and yet the shirt and tie construction is very similar. Sometimes there is something to be said for consistency. If it is not broke, stop trying to fix it. Men would do well to stop fiddling with their dress.
Accessories: A large dotted silk scarf draped lazily around the neck provides color and gaiety. The hat a beautiful shade of brown. No jewelry.
Grooming: Ideal.
Overall effect: As with Windsor and Agnelli one feels ease and comfort in the dress of Coward.
SQ: 10. A masterful display.
The overcoats: Two very different cuts of overcoats, one splendid display of style: the city coat cut close to the body, the Polo large, flowing, worn like a cape. The city coat is made from a beautifully rich mottled grey flannel and the Polo in a dense and thick camelhair. Both are perfect choices for the applications.
Shirt and tie: Another great display. The shirts collars are perfectly cut with ample tie space and the ties are knotted with nonchalance. It looks like ten or more year had passed between the photos and yet the shirt and tie construction is very similar. Sometimes there is something to be said for consistency. If it is not broke, stop trying to fix it. Men would do well to stop fiddling with their dress.
Accessories: A large dotted silk scarf draped lazily around the neck provides color and gaiety. The hat a beautiful shade of brown. No jewelry.
Grooming: Ideal.
Overall effect: As with Windsor and Agnelli one feels ease and comfort in the dress of Coward.
SQ: 10. A masterful display.
Fred Astaire:
the coat: a bold patterned, light colored sports coat. Glenplaid? Worsted or tweed? Single breasted, 2 button front with 3 cuff buttons. Buttons appear to be leather. The patterns match up nicely throughout. The coat is soft with rounded shoulders, the seam extending a bit beyond the natural shoulder. Rather close fitting. Darted chest. Low notch. Only moderate roll to the lapels. Little chest drape. The hip pocket seemed to be slanted downward. Breast pocket slanted. A full cut sleeve, tapering significantly at the wrist. Ample room at the elbow; no creases here. Coat sleeve length cut to show a full 1” of shirt cuff.
the trousers: Appear to be a dark, mottled flannel. Full cut with many ripples, valleys and peaks. The trousers move beautifully. Strong color/textural contrast to the coat.
the shirt: appears to be a cream colored button down with magnificent collar roll. Unbottoned to display an ascot.
the shoes: appear to be dark suede bluchers. Little contrast in shade with the trousers. Certainly dark brown. Socks: a much lighter color, certain to draw the eye to the shoes. Wonderful suede texture juxtaposed upon the flannel trousers.
accessories: 3 items: a trilby, ascot and pocket square. A serious hat and ascot are seldom seen any longer. The pocket square is casually stuffed into the breast pocket. The ascot, with little pattern, is again placed in a haphazard, throw-away manner. All an afterthought....
grooming and effect: Astaire appears the consummate boulevardier. Dressed casually, yet elegantly. Strolling, arm extended to Kim Novak. Older but in command. Standing erect. Slim. Looking forward. Knowing. Worldly. A strong, confident presence.
IMO: this is how casual wear is properly done. Sports coat and trousers. Strong contrast in tone and cloth texture between coat and trousers. Bold, confident pattern in the sports coat.
Yes to the ascot and trilby, though rarely seen today.
A mix of textures: suede, tweed, flannel, silk, felt.
Why can Astaire confidently go forth? Another era, another standard in dress.
His dress is effortless. There is no self consciousness, no hesitancy. He inhabits his clothes and they drape effortlessly around him. Casual, throw-away, nonchalant elegance.
How refreshing to be bold! Goodbye to the wallflower.
Welcome to clothes which will be noticed!
Superb.
SQ: 10/10
the coat: a bold patterned, light colored sports coat. Glenplaid? Worsted or tweed? Single breasted, 2 button front with 3 cuff buttons. Buttons appear to be leather. The patterns match up nicely throughout. The coat is soft with rounded shoulders, the seam extending a bit beyond the natural shoulder. Rather close fitting. Darted chest. Low notch. Only moderate roll to the lapels. Little chest drape. The hip pocket seemed to be slanted downward. Breast pocket slanted. A full cut sleeve, tapering significantly at the wrist. Ample room at the elbow; no creases here. Coat sleeve length cut to show a full 1” of shirt cuff.
the trousers: Appear to be a dark, mottled flannel. Full cut with many ripples, valleys and peaks. The trousers move beautifully. Strong color/textural contrast to the coat.
the shirt: appears to be a cream colored button down with magnificent collar roll. Unbottoned to display an ascot.
the shoes: appear to be dark suede bluchers. Little contrast in shade with the trousers. Certainly dark brown. Socks: a much lighter color, certain to draw the eye to the shoes. Wonderful suede texture juxtaposed upon the flannel trousers.
accessories: 3 items: a trilby, ascot and pocket square. A serious hat and ascot are seldom seen any longer. The pocket square is casually stuffed into the breast pocket. The ascot, with little pattern, is again placed in a haphazard, throw-away manner. All an afterthought....
grooming and effect: Astaire appears the consummate boulevardier. Dressed casually, yet elegantly. Strolling, arm extended to Kim Novak. Older but in command. Standing erect. Slim. Looking forward. Knowing. Worldly. A strong, confident presence.
IMO: this is how casual wear is properly done. Sports coat and trousers. Strong contrast in tone and cloth texture between coat and trousers. Bold, confident pattern in the sports coat.
Yes to the ascot and trilby, though rarely seen today.
A mix of textures: suede, tweed, flannel, silk, felt.
Why can Astaire confidently go forth? Another era, another standard in dress.
His dress is effortless. There is no self consciousness, no hesitancy. He inhabits his clothes and they drape effortlessly around him. Casual, throw-away, nonchalant elegance.
How refreshing to be bold! Goodbye to the wallflower.
Welcome to clothes which will be noticed!
Superb.
SQ: 10/10
Philippe Noiret
Suit: a simple khaki or light brown gabardine suit that serves as the frame of a colorful canvas. The suit is cut full, ripples of cloth flowing in harmony with the wearer's movements. Hand sewn shoulder on a 3 horn button front coat. Great tailoring on display.
Accessories: Noiret was masterful in his use of color. Here an orange necktie is paired with a sky blue and white striped shirt. The pocket square has its own life but works in perfect harmony with the other textures and colors. A short brimmed Fedora in brown with a lovely dark brown silk accent. A wedding ring.
Overall effect: Noiret, like Astaire, was a world class performer. On stage, he was able to hold audiences spellbound, or bursting in laughter, tears or a mix of the two. He used a soft reedy voice the way Rubinstein did the keys of a Steinway. His dress is relaxed, easy, and composed...a framework that puts to its best effect a magnificent and endearing personality.
SQ: 10/10
Suit: a simple khaki or light brown gabardine suit that serves as the frame of a colorful canvas. The suit is cut full, ripples of cloth flowing in harmony with the wearer's movements. Hand sewn shoulder on a 3 horn button front coat. Great tailoring on display.
Accessories: Noiret was masterful in his use of color. Here an orange necktie is paired with a sky blue and white striped shirt. The pocket square has its own life but works in perfect harmony with the other textures and colors. A short brimmed Fedora in brown with a lovely dark brown silk accent. A wedding ring.
Overall effect: Noiret, like Astaire, was a world class performer. On stage, he was able to hold audiences spellbound, or bursting in laughter, tears or a mix of the two. He used a soft reedy voice the way Rubinstein did the keys of a Steinway. His dress is relaxed, easy, and composed...a framework that puts to its best effect a magnificent and endearing personality.
SQ: 10/10
Although all the posts above are written in a way that makes the style quotients look like they are derived from the smart analysis of those examples, it seems to me that is not the case.
I agree with the final verdicts, but believe that the grading has been greatly pre-determined by what we already knew and admired about the subjects. Grading the style quotient of very well-known style icons is not fair (or at least not challenging).
Instead try applying Alden´s scale to some unknown chap seating nearby in a café
I agree with the final verdicts, but believe that the grading has been greatly pre-determined by what we already knew and admired about the subjects. Grading the style quotient of very well-known style icons is not fair (or at least not challenging).
Instead try applying Alden´s scale to some unknown chap seating nearby in a café
Get us a picture.Instead try applying Alden´s scale to some unknown chap seating nearby in a café
I think Uppercase's initiative is a good one. Let's start by calibrating the Richter scale to the ideal of 10. A few examples set the stage for what is to come. Once we have an idea of what 10 is we can understand what it is not 10. For example, reading these last posts, I see a number of adjectives that appear frequently and we will look for these in other examples.
Cheers
-
NJS
A challenge might be to find living examples of style-leaders. I have to say that, in terms of exemplars of style, in relation to 'stars' of stage and screen, they seem to be few and far between now. Daphne Guinness is an icon of modern feminine style and innovation - but name one male counterpart...The latest James Bond looks as though he is going for a stroll on the 'Sahfend' pier; guys like Beckham look as though they are about to revive music hall turns, and our leading politicians, professionals and execuitves (all chorusing, to complete strangers: ''Call me 'Tim'), often look as though they have just come out of the pub, after a bit of a seesion on ten pints of the stronger type of Dutch Lager; fallen down a pot hole, and emerged to a televison interview, after emergency surgery (but don't expexct that anymore on the NHS!).alden wrote:Get us a picture.Instead try applying Alden´s scale to some unknown chap seating nearby in a café
I think Uppercase's initiative is a good one. Let's start by calibrating the Richter scale to the ideal of 10. A few examples set the stage for what is to come. Once we have an idea of what 10 is we can understand what it is not 10. For example, reading these last posts, I see a number of adjectives that appear frequently and we will look for these in other examples.
Cheers
NJS
-
bond_and_beyond
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:49 pm
- Contact:
The Prince of Wales perhaps? Otherwise I agree that the pickings are slim...NJS wrote:
A challenge might be to find living examples of style-leaders. I have to say that, in terms of exemplars of style, in relation to 'stars' of stage and screen, they seem to be few and far between now. Daphne Guinness is an icon of modern feminine style and innovation - but name one male counterpart...The latest James Bond looks as though he is going for a stroll on the 'Sahfend' pier; guys like Beckham look as though they are about to revive music hall turns, and our leading politicians, professionals and execuitves (all chorusing, to complete strangers: ''Call me 'Tim'), often look as though they have just come out of the pub, after a bit of a seesion on ten pints of the stronger type of Dutch Lager; fallen down a pot hole, and emerged to a televison interview, after emergency surgery (but don't expexct that anymore on the NHS!).
NJS
BB
Dear NJS, dear BB,bond_and_beyond wrote:The Prince of Wales perhaps? Otherwise I agree that the pickings are slim...NJS wrote:
A challenge might be to find living examples of style-leaders. I have to say that, in terms of exemplars of style, in relation to 'stars' of stage and screen, they seem to be few and far between now. Daphne Guinness is an icon of modern feminine style and innovation - but name one male counterpart...The latest James Bond looks as though he is going for a stroll on the 'Sahfend' pier; guys like Beckham look as though they are about to revive music hall turns, and our leading politicians, professionals and execuitves (all chorusing, to complete strangers: ''Call me 'Tim'), often look as though they have just come out of the pub, after a bit of a seesion on ten pints of the stronger type of Dutch Lager; fallen down a pot hole, and emerged to a televison interview, after emergency surgery (but don't expexct that anymore on the NHS!).
NJS
BB
I agree that excellence has become rare. But there are a few true gentlemen around still:
- The Duke of Edinburgh, always immaculate
- Prince Michael of Kent, immaculate most times
- Mr Beppo Modenese
- Marchese Luca Cordero di Montezemolo
- Mr Mariano Rubinacci
And a few others lurk around here on the LL
cheers, David
-
bond_and_beyond
- Posts: 409
- Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 4:49 pm
- Contact:
I left out Prince Philip and Prince Michael. Shame on medavidhuh wrote:
Dear NJS, dear BB,
I agree that excellence has become rare. But there are a few true gentlemen around still:
- The Duke of Edinburgh, always immaculate
- Prince Michael of Kent, immaculate most times
- Mr Beppo Modenese
- Marchese Luca Cordero di Montezemolo
- Mr Mariano Rubinacci
And a few others lurk around here on the LL
cheers, David
And the other esteemed gentlemen refer to also seem to be over a certain age unfortunately. Though the world's younger "celebrity elite" probably never have had more money than they do know, few of them seem to know how to spend it properly
Imagine if someone like with a sizeable fan following like Justin Bieber (replace with any other "hip" name you can think of) had the style and class of Frank Sinatra, that would have a great impact on the way a whole generation of (soon to be) men dress.
Ah well...
BB
-
NJS
Yes, David, all true - but they are few and far between. Moreover, with their resources, they should be ashamed not to be able to achieve more than most; in some cases, more than they do. The problem is that, overall, their best examples are not typical of popoular aspirations anymore. Popular aspirations seems to be centred on securing: riches for their own sake; a stonkling, over-powered car; some big, flash flat and dressing like everyone has gone to hell already - by jogging in trackies and trainers (sneakers) - and then being snapped, trousers-down, by the newspaper guys and complaining about the fact!
NJS
P.S. Justin Bieber looks as though he might be my grandson... I just hope that he is not.
NJS
NJS
P.S. Justin Bieber looks as though he might be my grandson... I just hope that he is not.
NJS
-
NJS
Here is Brummell's own favourite sketch of himself; by Grego, at an Almack's Wednesday evening ball. For some reason, Brummell left it behind when he fled, to be sold by Christies, a few days later. But, if we look for style quotient; for me, here it is distilled: sobre dress; poise; a certain disengagement; yet holding, two hundred years later, a fascination for us, even more, perhaps, than the fascination that he held for them:
NJS
NJS
NJS
Those shoes on BB almost hurt to look at...and the gent in the green coat seems to be wearing diving fins. Must have been tough to dance in....
Brummel does still embody ideal masculine elegance for the very qualities you have listed.
They serve as a reminder today as they did to men like Lord Byron then.
As far as present day style icons, beyond the few Princes here or there or De Niro, I draw a blank. We live in "The Age of the Slovenly" and it is not about to change anytime soon. What I find most distressing is that even people in the trade, and I include the blogging entrepreneurs, have little talent for dressing. I am truly amazed that anyone bothers to look at them.
Cheers
Those shoes on BB almost hurt to look at...and the gent in the green coat seems to be wearing diving fins. Must have been tough to dance in....
Brummel does still embody ideal masculine elegance for the very qualities you have listed.
They serve as a reminder today as they did to men like Lord Byron then.
As far as present day style icons, beyond the few Princes here or there or De Niro, I draw a blank. We live in "The Age of the Slovenly" and it is not about to change anytime soon. What I find most distressing is that even people in the trade, and I include the blogging entrepreneurs, have little talent for dressing. I am truly amazed that anyone bothers to look at them.
Cheers
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests