NJS
The Style Quotient
-
NJS
Time for another picture. The first to name the subject wins entitlement to a frozen rum sundowner - over here
NJS
NJS
I'll suggest Clive Brook. A former Sherlock Holmes.
Regards
Russell
Regards
Russell
Well I have for a long time promised myself a trip to South America - now there's an extra incentive. I'll give you plenty of warning! 
Actually, I think I'll go & pour myself a Wray & Nephew white OP to get in practice.
Regards
Russell
Actually, I think I'll go & pour myself a Wray & Nephew white OP to get in practice.
Regards
Russell
I'm going through all these threads with the intent of learning but something that's troubling me is the consistency of having references of style being people who are long dead or belonging to a class of society where the label 'ordinary' does not apply.
There is, with cause, lamentation of the vanishing art of tailoring and a general population who I would agree will not be satisfied with the term 'casual' until they are able to go to the mall in plastic flip flops and diapers. There ought to be however, an effort to bring style and its example to those who are not so well-funded, famous, or dead but who live in the real world - travel on public transport, deal with dodgy air conditioning or difficult people at work and commute.
These are the people who aspire and currently spend their disposable income on RTW because in large part (and I speak for myself here) there is an absence of relevant, modern examples to follow (other than getting tat'd like Beckham in Prada or slobbing around in loosely formed sports jerseys in neon colours).
I guess I'm saying it'd be good to see someone held up as an example who doesn't have 24hr SAS protection and has to work for living...
There is, with cause, lamentation of the vanishing art of tailoring and a general population who I would agree will not be satisfied with the term 'casual' until they are able to go to the mall in plastic flip flops and diapers. There ought to be however, an effort to bring style and its example to those who are not so well-funded, famous, or dead but who live in the real world - travel on public transport, deal with dodgy air conditioning or difficult people at work and commute.
These are the people who aspire and currently spend their disposable income on RTW because in large part (and I speak for myself here) there is an absence of relevant, modern examples to follow (other than getting tat'd like Beckham in Prada or slobbing around in loosely formed sports jerseys in neon colours).
I guess I'm saying it'd be good to see someone held up as an example who doesn't have 24hr SAS protection and has to work for living...
Some thoughts, BAO, on the topics you introduced: accessibility and time frame.
On the accessibility topic, the fact that this forum emphasises bespoke fabrics and suiting by definition creates a slant towards the pricier end of the garment spectrum. I fear that is inevitable in the same way that a forum about superyachts might not have as much content for the middle-class weekend fiberglass boater. However, the breadth, depth and quality of information is, in my opinion unsurpassed.
On the time reference topic, I think you've already answered your own question. To use a metaphor, again, if we were discussing figurative, Christian art we would unavoidably mostly end up talking about the renaissance and medieval artists, who represented that apogee of that form.
Nonetheless, I am sure that even someone on a moderate budget living in the present can dress very, very elegantly and interestingly and I think a close read of many posts, here, will help you do that (it certainly has helped me).
On the accessibility topic, the fact that this forum emphasises bespoke fabrics and suiting by definition creates a slant towards the pricier end of the garment spectrum. I fear that is inevitable in the same way that a forum about superyachts might not have as much content for the middle-class weekend fiberglass boater. However, the breadth, depth and quality of information is, in my opinion unsurpassed.
On the time reference topic, I think you've already answered your own question. To use a metaphor, again, if we were discussing figurative, Christian art we would unavoidably mostly end up talking about the renaissance and medieval artists, who represented that apogee of that form.
Nonetheless, I am sure that even someone on a moderate budget living in the present can dress very, very elegantly and interestingly and I think a close read of many posts, here, will help you do that (it certainly has helped me).
Luca - all fair points, so let me clarify
I understand that the world of bespoke presents an inate economic filter. I had to wait until my career and finances were such that I could venture into it. However, what I've learned is that the price differential is actually not so much that, with a bit of messaging and targeting, there could be a much wider customer pool for tailors and in turn, that rise in demand (born through greater awareness) will lead to more talent entering the supply chain.
I work in market demand/sales and marketing and so I just see things in that paradigm. Case in point, I 've bought Zegna suits in their better cloths and occasionally inquired about their their MDM services. These suits RTW and MDM especially are at least if not more than what I've commissioned through Duffy - and I'm using quality fabrics with him (Cashmere/Wool Flannel from CHarles Clayton and Lesser cloth from Harrisons - I assume these are quality anyway...).
It's as much an awareness and comparability issue (with RTW/MDM) as it is economic IMHO. In another thread I was told a tailored shirt from Geneva in NYC is only $75 more than what I paid recently on Thomas Pink shirts that look nice but really aren't that comfy.
I consider myself an upper-middle management guy and fall into the 'ordinary' catagory in terms of lifestyle (no private jets, Amtrack into NYC or NJTransit, etc), I have many contemporaries who spend I'd guess the same on clothes and whose personal presentation are as important to them as mine is. While I'll obviously share with them what I've learnt here and make the referrals it would still be to all our advantages if the content of timeless style (a la Flusser) could be occasionally framed with contemporary examples as well historical ones.
It's just a suggestion, I'm very much grateful for LL and Mr. Alden for creating this site so I hope I'm not coming across otherwise.
I understand that the world of bespoke presents an inate economic filter. I had to wait until my career and finances were such that I could venture into it. However, what I've learned is that the price differential is actually not so much that, with a bit of messaging and targeting, there could be a much wider customer pool for tailors and in turn, that rise in demand (born through greater awareness) will lead to more talent entering the supply chain.
I work in market demand/sales and marketing and so I just see things in that paradigm. Case in point, I 've bought Zegna suits in their better cloths and occasionally inquired about their their MDM services. These suits RTW and MDM especially are at least if not more than what I've commissioned through Duffy - and I'm using quality fabrics with him (Cashmere/Wool Flannel from CHarles Clayton and Lesser cloth from Harrisons - I assume these are quality anyway...).
It's as much an awareness and comparability issue (with RTW/MDM) as it is economic IMHO. In another thread I was told a tailored shirt from Geneva in NYC is only $75 more than what I paid recently on Thomas Pink shirts that look nice but really aren't that comfy.
I consider myself an upper-middle management guy and fall into the 'ordinary' catagory in terms of lifestyle (no private jets, Amtrack into NYC or NJTransit, etc), I have many contemporaries who spend I'd guess the same on clothes and whose personal presentation are as important to them as mine is. While I'll obviously share with them what I've learnt here and make the referrals it would still be to all our advantages if the content of timeless style (a la Flusser) could be occasionally framed with contemporary examples as well historical ones.
It's just a suggestion, I'm very much grateful for LL and Mr. Alden for creating this site so I hope I'm not coming across otherwise.
BAO,
I think you'll find that many of us who post here are regular people who work for a living. An unusual assortment of careers, too. Academics, IT people, musicians, lawyers, writers, professional dancers, wine consultants, bankers, the odd civil servant. But I take it part of your point is that the exemplars of dressing with style mentioned here relatively rarely come from among the living or at least from among the relatively young. That's a fair point. Although a thorough search of the archives will yield some exemplary pictures of members, including out host, showing how it should be done. Part of the reason for the golden-age bias is that many of the most stylish contemporary men are drawing on golden-age lessons: composition students may love the work of Ligeti or Schoenberg or Ives or Jennifer Higdon, but they still study Bach. And part perhaps is that it's less efficient to trawl through endless photos from the Sartorialist or magazine sites or other forums looking for the few well-proportioned garments worn with elegance or panache than it is to recur to the libraries of professionally made images of men acknowledged to be the most skilled in dressing and presenting themselves well in an age when tailored clothing was the norm for most men. That verdict of superiority resulted from a useful winnowing.
But I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I'd welcome any images you find of contemporaries who exhibit noteworthy style or even specific successful aspects from which we can all learn. (Bear in mind also what Michael has often pointed out--that with some exceptions, like many cloth club commissions, most cloths today lack the body, drape, and depth of color and texture of earlier decades because they are made to be lighter in weight, silkier of hand, and to be "tailored" in factories with little or no iron work. This naturally affects how they photograph.)
I think you'll find that many of us who post here are regular people who work for a living. An unusual assortment of careers, too. Academics, IT people, musicians, lawyers, writers, professional dancers, wine consultants, bankers, the odd civil servant. But I take it part of your point is that the exemplars of dressing with style mentioned here relatively rarely come from among the living or at least from among the relatively young. That's a fair point. Although a thorough search of the archives will yield some exemplary pictures of members, including out host, showing how it should be done. Part of the reason for the golden-age bias is that many of the most stylish contemporary men are drawing on golden-age lessons: composition students may love the work of Ligeti or Schoenberg or Ives or Jennifer Higdon, but they still study Bach. And part perhaps is that it's less efficient to trawl through endless photos from the Sartorialist or magazine sites or other forums looking for the few well-proportioned garments worn with elegance or panache than it is to recur to the libraries of professionally made images of men acknowledged to be the most skilled in dressing and presenting themselves well in an age when tailored clothing was the norm for most men. That verdict of superiority resulted from a useful winnowing.
But I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I'd welcome any images you find of contemporaries who exhibit noteworthy style or even specific successful aspects from which we can all learn. (Bear in mind also what Michael has often pointed out--that with some exceptions, like many cloth club commissions, most cloths today lack the body, drape, and depth of color and texture of earlier decades because they are made to be lighter in weight, silkier of hand, and to be "tailored" in factories with little or no iron work. This naturally affects how they photograph.)
I'm sure there are modern examples, my only point is that given it's in all our interests to keep the aspiration of being well-dressed alive through progressive generations then modern and relevant examples alongside the usual staples ought to be used. Perhaps just in better balance and more readily searchable threads?couch wrote:BAO,
I think you'll find that many of us who post here are regular people who work for a living. An unusual assortment of careers, too. Academics, IT people, musicians, lawyers, writers, professional dancers, wine consultants, bankers, the odd civil servant. But I take it part of your point is that the exemplars of dressing with style mentioned here relatively rarely come from among the living or at least from among the relatively young. That's a fair point. Although a thorough search of the archives will yield some exemplary pictures of members, including out host, showing how it should be done.
Bingo! Who? Let's have them pictured here with examples and graded to the Quotient so people like me, who can't necessarily dress themselves properly yet, can have a modern reference to work from. It's like this, if we want more people to dress elegantly and perhaps behave better then we need to use examples that are relevant to the people who need changing, not those who already know it or are at least trying. This way the message of LL can be related to by a greater audience. It doesn't have to be about large budgets, but it does have to have commitment elicited from a general population that seems to want to make the minimal effort or even worse, a concerted effort at looking bad! That's inertia that needs a head on assault to change.couch wrote: Part of the reason for the golden-age bias is that many of the most stylish contemporary men are drawing on golden-age lessons:
I'm new to style, very new (I'm looking at how many shirts I have that Mr. Alden would say is 'mis-cast' as a primary actor...) but i'm not new to messaging and business development. My comments are not to say the examples being shown are wrong from a style perspective, I'm just saying that if we want more people in on this, then we need to recognize there's room for expanding the gene pool of references used. However, I will make this commitment to you, when I have my suits, I will present myself for scrutiny. I find I learn much more from sincere criticism than I ever have done from praise...couch wrote: But I'm sure I'm not alone in saying I'd welcome any images you find of contemporaries who exhibit noteworthy style or even specific successful aspects from which we can all learn. (Bear in mind also what Michael has often pointed out--that with some exceptions, like many cloth club commissions, most cloths today lack the body, drape, and depth of color and texture of earlier decades because they are made to be lighter in weight, silkier of hand, and to be "tailored" in factories with little or no iron work. This naturally affects how they photograph.)
Actually, I might just go ahead and wear what I wore to my last client meeting and have at it... stay tuned...
Here's an example of what I'm refering to. It's a GQ spread on being the best dressed man in the office. Look at the prices of the suits and labels of the designers. While not at top end bespoke prices, they are certainly in the neighbourhood and I would argue the percentage difference in price is more than made up by the percentage difference in quality and fit.
http://www.gq.com/style/suit-guide/2008 ... ow#slide=1
I don't want to make too big a deal of my view, so I'll leave it at this with the pics of my suits to follow.
http://www.gq.com/style/suit-guide/2008 ... ow#slide=1
I don't want to make too big a deal of my view, so I'll leave it at this with the pics of my suits to follow.
Dear BAO,
You are probably less "ordinary" than you tend to consider yourself on account of what you do for a living. Extraordinary men do not necessarily lead extraordinary lives. Some extraordinary men do not dress "nicely", but their dress is nonetheless as interesting as they are.
However, thinking in terms of ordinary vs. extraordinary doesn't take us very far in the subject at hand. Perhaps too much segmentation, in your terms
, following inadequate criteria. Style is not a matter of being out of the ordinary.
Tailoring never really took on an apostolic mission to educate. Conversions don't work too well in this field. Nowadays, the scarcity of tailoring talent causes many tailors to actually demarket their products - so you assume that more messaging, targeting, business development will increase demand, attract more talent, etc. Efforts are already being made, but the market remains limited, due mostly to cultural factors. On the other hand, learning the craft takes very much time and effort. The scale of time and effort to make these ends of the supply chain, as you say, meet, is such that there is little hope tailoring will ever be again what it was until a few decades ago. Thank goodness that it adapted itself to living in an ecological niche and survived.
It's not just a matter of price - it's also a matter of time (long lead times), effort (fittings), having to make choices (cloth, trimmings), having to work together with an artisan to get what you want. Some people appreciate this, but others can never be bothered with all this just to get some clothes, even if they care about how they dress.
Fortunately, Style (that which is measured by the Quotient discussed here) is not the exclusive attribute of any social class or age and doesn't necessarily rely on bespoke clothes - in fact it has relatively little to do with clothes in themselves at all; if anything, it has to do with how they are worn and what the man looks like in them, how he comes across - projecting presence. Although "dress" (as opposed to "clothes") gets half of the points making up Michael's Style Quotient, I would argue that this half weighs much more than the other (if possible) in qualitative terms. And this takes no budget, cannot be sold or bought and cannot be trained like a technical skill. It emerges.
You are probably less "ordinary" than you tend to consider yourself on account of what you do for a living. Extraordinary men do not necessarily lead extraordinary lives. Some extraordinary men do not dress "nicely", but their dress is nonetheless as interesting as they are.
However, thinking in terms of ordinary vs. extraordinary doesn't take us very far in the subject at hand. Perhaps too much segmentation, in your terms
, following inadequate criteria. Style is not a matter of being out of the ordinary.Tailoring never really took on an apostolic mission to educate. Conversions don't work too well in this field. Nowadays, the scarcity of tailoring talent causes many tailors to actually demarket their products - so you assume that more messaging, targeting, business development will increase demand, attract more talent, etc. Efforts are already being made, but the market remains limited, due mostly to cultural factors. On the other hand, learning the craft takes very much time and effort. The scale of time and effort to make these ends of the supply chain, as you say, meet, is such that there is little hope tailoring will ever be again what it was until a few decades ago. Thank goodness that it adapted itself to living in an ecological niche and survived.
It's not just a matter of price - it's also a matter of time (long lead times), effort (fittings), having to make choices (cloth, trimmings), having to work together with an artisan to get what you want. Some people appreciate this, but others can never be bothered with all this just to get some clothes, even if they care about how they dress.
Fortunately, Style (that which is measured by the Quotient discussed here) is not the exclusive attribute of any social class or age and doesn't necessarily rely on bespoke clothes - in fact it has relatively little to do with clothes in themselves at all; if anything, it has to do with how they are worn and what the man looks like in them, how he comes across - projecting presence. Although "dress" (as opposed to "clothes") gets half of the points making up Michael's Style Quotient, I would argue that this half weighs much more than the other (if possible) in qualitative terms. And this takes no budget, cannot be sold or bought and cannot be trained like a technical skill. It emerges.
Gentlemen seem to be masters of style - the rest seem to be slaves of immediate fashion
That reminds me (and I am not sure if I am not repeating myself with this) of a scene that took place a few years ago in Prague. As I was strolling around downtown on a free afternoon, I spotted a shop window full of beautiful ladies' gloves. I stepped in and asked (in English) if they also had gentlemen's gloves in the shop. The elder of the two ladies behind the counter echoed with an involuntary nostalgic smile: "Zhentlemen!?" - as she waved her hand over the shoulder in the vague direction of a bygone era; "we have gloves for men", she added dutifully and opened a drawer to produce a few pairs which proved that also the factory churning them out had ceased to believe in such holdovers.Dr T wrote:Gentlemen seem to be masters of style - the rest seem to be slaves of immediate fashion
IMG_6651 by The London Lounge, on FlickrThe suit: a 3 button glenplaid rolled to the top button.
Soft shoulders extend beyond the natural shoulder. A fair amount of drape.
Straight cut; very little waist suppression. Rumpled in the waist below breastpocket. Button pulls. Pattern does not match between chest and sleeves.
Sleeves ironed with a crease.
Closed front quarters. Uneven shirt cuff exposed.
Coat collar sits high on the shirt collar. Coat collar pulling away from the neck/chest.
Cuffed trousers are full cut; no break. Short by today's standard.
the shirt: pencil stripe against a white background. collar cut high on the neck, with tie space.
the tie: a regimental stripe. Tied in what appears a 4 in hand, no dimple.
the shoes: hard to tell. Thick soled. Black oxfords?
accessories: a pocket square, falling down.
grooming: clean shaven. Thinning hair, combed back.
demeanour and effect: a commanding, self confident gaze. A ruddy complexion from weather or drink. Old,yet standing erect, determined. At home: Marble fireplace, dog, standard
IMO: Here is a example of the man wearing the clothes, the clothes disappearing behind the force of the man. The suit is imperfect and not fussed over. Yet the materials are rich, old and appear well worn. The regimental tie anchors everything in tradition. The props of his home support the impression of ancient strength and ownership. Here, we see style through heritage, not artifice. There is nothing sharp, slick or shiny about this ordinary suit...which would not suit the man.
Can a man wear unremarkable clothes and yet be stylish?
SQ: Yes. True style. 10/10
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests