It appears that FBB is wearing a handsome DB suit from Steven Hitchcock on the book's dust cover.
Steven , over on London's St George Street , is certainly a leading practitioner of the soft Scholte look which FBB favors.
http://thesavilerowtailor.co.uk/
"True Style..."
Completed reading the book and it is very enjoyable.
I am not sure that I will be a better dresser as a result of reading this book, but I will certainly be more educated.
The shortcoming of books such as these with no photographs is that it is hard to visualize what FBB is talking about here. So we use our imaginations.
Ofcourse, we all know the FBB style through photos here and there, and it is very individual and compelling. Though not a style you would expect from reading True Style because text cannot adequately convey nor explain what true style is, as, for example, FBB interprets it himself.
Yes, true style comes in many forms and through many Schools. The book discusses the Ivy style, the Italian style, the Old English Country House look. But what do they actually look like....?
Ofcourse, true style is first and foremost an individualistic expression within certain classic parameters.
And FBB is not dictating in True Syle, but rather guiding, and asking us to use our own imaginations as to what he is describing and what we understand ourselves from reading the book.
Reading, such chapters such as The Shoe-Hoisery-Trouser Nexus, and Mixing Patterns might make me a more self-aware, stylish dresser, but only if I understood what FBB means; otherwise, left to my own interpretation, I could bungle up the whole business.
And that can only be achieved through color photographs illustrating the classic principles about which FBB writes so eloquently. He, himself, would be a fine model to illustrate the principles of his own text.
Without it, true style remains elusive...explained, yet not understood.
I am not sure that I will be a better dresser as a result of reading this book, but I will certainly be more educated.
The shortcoming of books such as these with no photographs is that it is hard to visualize what FBB is talking about here. So we use our imaginations.
Ofcourse, we all know the FBB style through photos here and there, and it is very individual and compelling. Though not a style you would expect from reading True Style because text cannot adequately convey nor explain what true style is, as, for example, FBB interprets it himself.
Yes, true style comes in many forms and through many Schools. The book discusses the Ivy style, the Italian style, the Old English Country House look. But what do they actually look like....?
Ofcourse, true style is first and foremost an individualistic expression within certain classic parameters.
And FBB is not dictating in True Syle, but rather guiding, and asking us to use our own imaginations as to what he is describing and what we understand ourselves from reading the book.
Reading, such chapters such as The Shoe-Hoisery-Trouser Nexus, and Mixing Patterns might make me a more self-aware, stylish dresser, but only if I understood what FBB means; otherwise, left to my own interpretation, I could bungle up the whole business.
And that can only be achieved through color photographs illustrating the classic principles about which FBB writes so eloquently. He, himself, would be a fine model to illustrate the principles of his own text.
Without it, true style remains elusive...explained, yet not understood.
Dear Uppercase,uppercase wrote: I am not sure that I will be a better dresser as a result of reading this book, but I will certainly be more educated.
personally, I would be pleased with such an achievement
Once in a while, I like to disagree a little. I understand the wish for illustrations and photographs. But there is an advantage in having none or little: it stimulates imagination and creativity - at least for me, it works this way. And style, after all, is not something one can copy from a picture - it must reflect yourself and nobody else.uppercase wrote: The shortcoming of books such as these with no photographs is that it is hard to visualize what FBB is talking about here. So we use our imaginations.
Ofcourse, we all know the FBB style through photos here and there, and it is very individual and compelling. Though not a style you would expect from reading True Style because text cannot adequately convey nor explain what true style is, as, for example, FBB interprets it himself.
Yes, true style comes in many forms and through many Schools.
Cheers, David
^^^^
I do not disagree by any means.
Otherwise, we would all be dressing alike, like salesmen at Ralph Lauren.
Yet I love photos, and GBB is a great dresser, and I am sure that we would all have enjoyed a compilation of his "looks" to illustrate his principles of classic menswear.
I do not disagree by any means.
Otherwise, we would all be dressing alike, like salesmen at Ralph Lauren.
Yet I love photos, and GBB is a great dresser, and I am sure that we would all have enjoyed a compilation of his "looks" to illustrate his principles of classic menswear.
Agreed. But this book by G. Bruce Boyer probably is not the case.davidhuh wrote: I understand the wish for illustrations and photographs. But there is an advantage in having none or little: it stimulates imagination and creativity.
When GBB here describes styles of dressing, garments, etc. he is not stimulating your imagination or creativity; he is just appealing to your memory. Of having seen the images a hundred times before, of knowing the garments by heart already.
And when you have no previous memory to this regard, -although the exercise might be fun- your imagination or creativity cannot come clear with things like what the Ivy style is, what the specific results of Rubinacci´s Neapolitan softening of the British elegance are, or the final effect of Windsor´s combining 3 o 4 patterns at once. Pictures are an advantage in this case and, IMO, they would have added value to the book.
And in doing so, the reader is left with the author's words. Surely the author's voice can stand on its own.davidhuh wrote: I understand the wish for illustrations and photographs. But there is an advantage in having none or little: it stimulates imagination and creativity.
Regards.
GBB´s book has a section explaining how combining patterns might work. And he does a good job. From his abstract word you may indeed infer the author´s general prescription.
He quotes this specific example as inspiration for proposing guidelines in playing with patterns, but no image is provided. It´s a well known photograph, at least amongst the majority of the LL crowd, and we may not need to see it since it´s already on our minds. But given the nature of the book, target audience, etc. I would have seen an added value in including it on the page.
He quotes this specific example as inspiration for proposing guidelines in playing with patterns, but no image is provided. It´s a well known photograph, at least amongst the majority of the LL crowd, and we may not need to see it since it´s already on our minds. But given the nature of the book, target audience, etc. I would have seen an added value in including it on the page.
Dear Hectorm,
that's a fair point, absolutely!
Cheers, David
that's a fair point, absolutely!
Cheers, David
I was thumbing through the Paul Stuart (New York) catalog the other day.
I have rarely seen such well coordinated outfits, so many patterns artfully matched, all the precepts of scale and texture and color followed.
If you have the chance, walk past their NYC showroom windows on Madison Avenue and 45th street.
Yet...where's the style? And is it True Style?
I get the same of cold, analytic, calculated sense of being well-dressed when I walk into any Ralph Lauren store with the sales people being so well put together. And at Brooks Brothers, as well, with the sales people there being so noticeably....what?... bland?
...what is missing?
And what's going on here to leave me feeling so bereft when I walk out of these stores with nothing in hand except new underwear and socks?
I have rarely seen such well coordinated outfits, so many patterns artfully matched, all the precepts of scale and texture and color followed.
If you have the chance, walk past their NYC showroom windows on Madison Avenue and 45th street.
Yet...where's the style? And is it True Style?
I get the same of cold, analytic, calculated sense of being well-dressed when I walk into any Ralph Lauren store with the sales people being so well put together. And at Brooks Brothers, as well, with the sales people there being so noticeably....what?... bland?
...what is missing?
And what's going on here to leave me feeling so bereft when I walk out of these stores with nothing in hand except new underwear and socks?
UC, well said! -- can't agree more.
(I've never been in NYC, so can't speak for PS salesmen, but I know and saw what you mean.)
Andrey
(I've never been in NYC, so can't speak for PS salesmen, but I know and saw what you mean.)
Andrey
A nice review by the Wall Street Journal.uppercase wrote:Anyone had a look at G. Bruce Boyer's new book yet...?
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-element ... 1443817447
I know it will be tiring to hear again...but here it goes: its the MAN that makes the clothes. Clothes are inanimate dead objects that cannot have style. You can mix and match them till the cows come home and they will not have style. They can only be seen as stylish if they are draped upon a man who is style endowed. I have never met a clothes salesman who had this kind of style though I imagine they do exist. A man who is blessed by the magnetism of style usually has some other kind of career than selling dreams by way of retail clothing.Yet...where's the style? And is it True Style?
I get the same of cold, analytic, calculated sense of being well-dressed when I walk into any Ralph Lauren store with the sales people being so well put together. And at Brooks Brothers, as well, with the sales people there being so noticeably....what?... bland?
...what is missing?
And what's going on here to leave me feeling so bereft when I walk out of these stores with nothing in hand except new underwear and socks?
This kind of truth telling does not sell clothes or books. If you want to appear stylish then get yourself an interesting, captivating personality or aura or whatever you wish to call it. Give it whatever name that pleases you, but get ahold of a large dose of it. When you can physically feel the pulse of women in the room quicken when you enter, see heads turn and rosy cheeks blush, you'll know you have it and not an instant before.
Sadly you can't buy it, Mr. Porter ran out of stock. It isn't manufactured anymore. You'll just have to figure it out by yourself or get a charm coach. Lord knows they exist with arrays of smoke and powder; and the only thing they will charm is your credit card.
The Man makes the clothes. CUT! That's a take.
Cheers
I must applaud Alden's Dictum above because it states in one succinct paragraph what Style is, and what I have been trying to descipher for quite a while now:
It is the man. Indeed.
It is not the clothes.
It is not pattern matching.
It is not the shoe-sock- trouser nexus.
It is not heritage clothing brands.
It is, if I understand Alden's Dictum correctly: my (your) personality, grace, carriage, manner, experience, certainty, vitality, humanity, essence, and on....
This is problematic.
It takes us very far away from the thousands of posts we have collectively written about clothes, makers, button holes, cloth, Savile Row, Neapolitan Row, and on, which we have posted here on LL endlessly over the years.
Have we deceived ourselves?; have we been on the wrong track in our considerations all along...?
Listen: It is the man. Not the clothes. Alden's Dictum.
What a novel concept. It's not the clothes.
Yet we speak so little (never?) about this (our individuality). Why?
Is it that our common language is clothing and that we cannot express our individuality adequately through these words written on anonymous sites...? Nor want to reveal ourselves...other than through a headless photo of a suit in the making?
And, as Alden intimates, style is also: how we are perceived. By others. It is how attractive we are to others. It is our magnetism. Our presence. Our masculinity.
It is our individual histories, our projection of our individuality, our expression of our personalities, our statement to the viewing world: all expressed through our clothing choices.
We are communicating who we are, daily. We are not pattern matching. And we shouldn't be thinking about this. How unimaginative, uninspiring, formulaic would that be?
Go to a charm coach?
Well, it is not by chance that many of the people we collectively think of as 'stylish' are actors from the old days, or are 'actors' on the world stage: industrialists, royalty, politicians - all people who are actively communicating, projecting, their personality and views to others, to the public, their constituency, their message fortified through their clothing.
Communication.
I guess the message of Alden's Dictum is: just do it subtlety, not obviously, not self-consciously, and carry on with your life because it is much more compelling and interesting than the clothes you wear.
It is the man. Indeed.
It is not the clothes.
It is not pattern matching.
It is not the shoe-sock- trouser nexus.
It is not heritage clothing brands.
It is, if I understand Alden's Dictum correctly: my (your) personality, grace, carriage, manner, experience, certainty, vitality, humanity, essence, and on....
This is problematic.
It takes us very far away from the thousands of posts we have collectively written about clothes, makers, button holes, cloth, Savile Row, Neapolitan Row, and on, which we have posted here on LL endlessly over the years.
Have we deceived ourselves?; have we been on the wrong track in our considerations all along...?
Listen: It is the man. Not the clothes. Alden's Dictum.
What a novel concept. It's not the clothes.
Yet we speak so little (never?) about this (our individuality). Why?
Is it that our common language is clothing and that we cannot express our individuality adequately through these words written on anonymous sites...? Nor want to reveal ourselves...other than through a headless photo of a suit in the making?
And, as Alden intimates, style is also: how we are perceived. By others. It is how attractive we are to others. It is our magnetism. Our presence. Our masculinity.
It is our individual histories, our projection of our individuality, our expression of our personalities, our statement to the viewing world: all expressed through our clothing choices.
We are communicating who we are, daily. We are not pattern matching. And we shouldn't be thinking about this. How unimaginative, uninspiring, formulaic would that be?
Go to a charm coach?
Well, it is not by chance that many of the people we collectively think of as 'stylish' are actors from the old days, or are 'actors' on the world stage: industrialists, royalty, politicians - all people who are actively communicating, projecting, their personality and views to others, to the public, their constituency, their message fortified through their clothing.
Communication.
I guess the message of Alden's Dictum is: just do it subtlety, not obviously, not self-consciously, and carry on with your life because it is much more compelling and interesting than the clothes you wear.
It is perfectly fine to discuss the craft of tailoring, fabrics, fit and all the various subjects dear to the members of the LL. Just beware confusing clothes with style. Its like comparing oils to Rembrandt, marble to Michelangelo, piano wire to Chopin, printed text to an Orson Welles etc. These men brought life to inanimate objects through their talent, instincts, all of what we describe as creative intuition or in the case of greatness, genius. Style is this kind of intuition that some men are blessed with or have allowed to grow within them.
“A Maasai warrior is a fine sight. Those young men have, to the utmost extent, that particular form of intelligence which we call chic; daring and wildly fantastical as they seem, they are still unswervingly true to their own nature, and to an immanent ideal. Their style is not an assumed manner, nor an imitation of a foreign perfection; it has grown from the inside, and is an expression of the race and its history, and their weapons and finery are as much a part of their being as are a stag’s antlers.”
Isak Dinesen
....and that tweed coat is as much a part of his being as are a stag’s antlers.
Yes, and if your life is compelling and interesting to you, there is a good chance you will be compelling and interesting to others and all that surrounds you will, naturally and organically, be compelling and interesting i.e. imbued with Style. The assumed manners and imitations most men condemn themselves to constitute the foppery of falseness.
Cheers
“A Maasai warrior is a fine sight. Those young men have, to the utmost extent, that particular form of intelligence which we call chic; daring and wildly fantastical as they seem, they are still unswervingly true to their own nature, and to an immanent ideal. Their style is not an assumed manner, nor an imitation of a foreign perfection; it has grown from the inside, and is an expression of the race and its history, and their weapons and finery are as much a part of their being as are a stag’s antlers.”
Isak Dinesen
....and that tweed coat is as much a part of his being as are a stag’s antlers.
Yes, and if your life is compelling and interesting to you, there is a good chance you will be compelling and interesting to others and all that surrounds you will, naturally and organically, be compelling and interesting i.e. imbued with Style. The assumed manners and imitations most men condemn themselves to constitute the foppery of falseness.
Cheers
-
internationalist
- Posts: 127
- Joined: Fri Sep 24, 2010 12:45 pm
- Location: Europe
- Contact:
Gentlemen,
How do you think? Is it best that the chapters are in alphabetic order, or arranging them differently could have been more beneficial?
Long time haven't been around here. Feeling good checking in again.
Maybe this one? https://www.permanentstyle.com/2015/01/ ... boyer.htmluppercase wrote:Have ordered my copy.
I don't know if it was The Rake which published a nice portfolio of a few of GBB's outfits.
This is exactly how I view it as well.davidhuh wrote:Once in a while, I like to disagree a little. I understand the wish for illustrations and photographs. But there is an advantage in having none or little: it stimulates imagination and creativity - at least for me, it works this way. And style, after all, is not something one can copy from a picture - it must reflect yourself and nobody else.
How do you think? Is it best that the chapters are in alphabetic order, or arranging them differently could have been more beneficial?
Long time haven't been around here. Feeling good checking in again.
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests