Jump to content


Photo

What Men Will Wear To The Royal Wedding


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#163 Sator

Sator

    Administrator

  • Root Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,940 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney, Australia

Posted 10 May 2011 - 09:34 PM

BTW why keep coming here to say the same thing over and over about how a modern bespoke tailoring forum is really meant to be a vintage clothing collector and period costume forum???? You guys must have repeated the same argument about a hundred times now.

There are plenty other fora out there you could go into and demand that they turn into vintage clothing fora. Here are a selection:

http://www.timezone.com/

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/

http://www.classicalmusicguide.com/

Can't you go and pick on them instead of torturing me?

Failing that why can't you:

Start your own vintage clothing collector and period costume forum?

I must have asked you guys that a dozen times now and you won't answer me. Why???? You will thank me for encouraging you to do it.
Gustav Mahler (1860-1911): "Tradition ist die Weitergabe des Feuers und nicht die Anbetung der Asche."

"Tradition is about passing on the flame, and not the worshipping of ashes"

#164 tailleuse

tailleuse

    Pro

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NYC
  • Interests:Tailoring and couture.

Posted 11 May 2011 - 12:08 AM

It is this latter aspect that makes it unfair to tarnish them all with the same brush of generalisation.
End of.


Just wanted to note that the set expression is:

"To tar [someone] with the same brush." or

"To be tarred with the same brush."

I assume it derives from the days when people were tarred and feathered. The tar was heated in a bucket and a brush was used to apply the tar. I've read it was very painful to remove.

I Googled the "tarnish" version and there are some references, but it's a mistake.
Dignity. Always, dignity. (Singin' in the Rain)

#165 tailleuse

tailleuse

    Pro

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,151 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:NYC
  • Interests:Tailoring and couture.

Posted 11 May 2011 - 12:33 AM

...I find it rather hard reading when a group of people are portrayed as weirdo hobbyists in moth-eaten hand-me-downs just for buying and wearing vintage clothing. You do know we're still in a global recession?



SRBA:

I haven't been a member of this forum for all that long, but I kind of know what Sator is getting at. This description comes from a post at The Sewing Divas blog:

"[I]f we're going to make 'repurposed' old clothes, we need a strong aesthetic – I see too many that look like a vision for a post-apocalypse novel. That's potentially brilliant on the screen or the stage or the runway, but in real life it can be a bleak vision."

http://thesewingdiva...-sewing-part-2/


Sometimes the strong aesthetic, the judgment, and the skill to make vintage-inspired clothes transcend mere costume are lacking.

For whatever it's worth, my grandparents lived through the Great Depression and did not have money, but they always dressed nicely. (They lived in New York, not on a farm.) In truth, most ordinary people get more of a lift out of feeling good, of presenting an attractive image of themselves to the outside world. The idea that they want to walk around in cleverly patched-up rags is a charming post-modern notion. I am NOT advocating excess, that is, buying huge numbers of ugly clothes you don't need. I'm also not a champion of stuffy, always correct dressing, either.


Through a link on the site I somehow came across an interview with the American journalist Gay Talese, whose father was a tailor of apparently great skill who could not make a good living. But he always dressed well. I found this reminiscence very touching:

"His public appearance meant much to him, for "appearance", carried great weight with a man who had little else going for him; what I mean is: he did not make much money from his fine tailoring, since few men in our little town — Ocean City, NJ, pop. 5,000 year-around — would or could afford the prices my father heeded to charge to justify the time & effort he'd spend on making bespoke suits and coats for clientele. Although he wasn't a financial success, he did not want to give the appearance that he wasn't; he wanted to look rich in the eyes of his follow citizens, and never did he leave the door of his store or residence without dressing up, being photograph-able in the manner of men who posed for his favorite magazine Apparel Arts."


http://mannerofman.b...n-with-gay.html

Edited by tailleuse, 11 May 2011 - 12:34 AM.

Dignity. Always, dignity. (Singin' in the Rain)

#166 SRBA

SRBA

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 11 May 2011 - 04:59 AM

I appreciate your point, tailleuse, and I don't want to drag out this whole vintage discussion too long. I suppose really morning dress represents a special case because though it is only worn rarely, when it is required you either wear it or you get shown up or can't attend. Even a half decent ready-to-wear morning coat is going to cost at least £400 new, so I think people could be forgiven for buying a good used morning coat and taking it to a tailor to be tweaked rather than opting for the substandard M&S budget one. That's not supposed to be a defence of vintage-ism in general, just that I think people that do go down that route for attending a friend'w wedding, for instance, might just as well be called sensible. It's something most people will only ever wear a handful of times at best.

(Not sure what you mean about 'Not on a farm'... is that relevant?)

Anyway, to bring this topic back on track somewhat: A few years ago my parents attended a garden party at Buckingham Palace and in spite of my mother's absolute mortification my father flatly refused to wear a waistcoat with his morning dress, insisting it was only tea on someone's lawn and not a state occasion. He's not a rebel or an avant-garde dresser, but he is rather on the corpulent side and it was summer. It's hard to say this without it sounding like a cheap name-drop or boast, but he was nevertheless one of few guests selected out of the rather large crowd to be introduced to the royal family so perhaps going without a waistcoat wouldn't offend as much as all that.

#167 hymo

hymo

    Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 163 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 May 2011 - 02:10 PM

Tangentially perhaps, but here are Beckham's style thoughts:
http://www.gq-magazi...e-david-beckham

#168 NJS

NJS

    Journeyman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South America

Posted 23 May 2011 - 05:26 AM

Tangentially perhaps, but here are Beckham's style thoughts:
http://www.gq-magazi...e-david-beckham


I really wish that I hadn't looked but I did: my sainted aunt! It leaves me speechless...Please bring me: a whole bulb of garlic; a silver cross; a wooden stake and an axe. Better also bring me a Rigby game rifle and a silver bullet too.

+
Let us pray: +++++
+
+
:frantics:

Edited by NJS, 23 May 2011 - 05:33 AM.

<b></b>NJS<b></b>

#169 Nishijin

Nishijin

    Master

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,704 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Paris, France.
  • Interests:Mainly tailoring it seems, but my friends know better...

Posted 23 May 2011 - 08:18 AM

Know what ? This time, I'm with you :) give me 5 minutes, I'm sharpening my axe.
http://www.paulgrassart.com

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.
Mark Twain

#170 NJS

NJS

    Journeyman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South America

Posted 23 May 2011 - 10:27 AM

Know what ? This time, I'm with you :) give me 5 minutes, I'm sharpening my axe.


Yo! Bro! - tattoos covering both arms to the wrist doesn't shout 'Style Icon' to me, it shouts 'sleaze' and 'shock'. I mean it is grotesque: the sort of thing associated with substance-abusing pimps and the seriously disturbed. Apparently, also, his wife sometimes dresses him (and "why not?" he asks). Then we learn that the lemming-like populace (the kind who are buying 200 page blank books and the publishers who are enquiring about 'translation rights' to it), are going to be 'treated' to a Beckham 'fragrance'. I'd bet my bottom dollar that the bloke doesn't know: petitgrain from neroli; from ambergris; from civet musk, yet the world is mesmerized by these people as though they have something to say to us that might improve our understanding of something - anything! He's just a footballer, past his best, never having led any stonking win for England, overpaid as a has-been in a LA showtime-club and she's a sometime girl-band backing singer, who groans, grunts and squeaks solo numbers and now has launched a fashion brand; presumably well represented by the funereal outfit that she wore to the royal wedding. Ugh! By all means market Angus Cundey to the world as a potential, ground-breaking fashionisto, if you and he like, but let's have much less trumpeting of the Beckhams as icons of modern (or any) style.

There again, here is a link to the wedding piccies of the daughter of the Duke of Northumberland; one of Britain's richest landowners (his principal house was used to portray Hogwarts in Harry Potter). Flick through the pictures. What DO they look like? Frankly, if these people can't get it even nearly right, with all that they have and know, I am not sure that there is much hope for any future of bespoke hangin' on in there, Buster!:

http://www.zimbio.co...BEO/Katie Percy

Edited by NJS, 23 May 2011 - 12:00 PM.

<b></b>NJS<b></b>

#171 David V

David V

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 16 posts

Posted 24 May 2011 - 01:15 AM

... but let's have much less trumpeting of the Beckhams as icons of modern (or any) style.


Again, they're "Life Style" icons. Which leaves it pretty well open.


There again, here is a link to the wedding piccies of the daughter of the Duke of Northumberland; one of Britain's richest landowners (his principal house was used to portray Hogwarts in Harry Potter). Flick through the pictures. What DO they look like? Frankly, if these people can't get it even nearly right, with all that they have and know, I am not sure that there is much hope for any future of bespoke hangin' on in there, Buster!:

http://www.zimbio.co...BEO/Katie Percy


I thought the coachman and the two coach attendants looked well turned out. :)

Edited by David V, 24 May 2011 - 01:16 AM.


#172 NJS

NJS

    Journeyman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 376 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South America

Posted 24 May 2011 - 01:29 AM

Again, they're "Life Style" icons. Which leaves it pretty well open.



Just thinking of the Beckhams pushes my blood pressure way up there - and they should be banned on health grounds. I have rights too and one of them is to kill myself (with hope, slowly), through the pleasurable use of tobacco and alcohol.

I thought the coachman and the two coach attendants looked well turned out. :)


Yes, the female footmen had hats too - the only ones on show - and quite fine ones at that! The bride also looked good but as for the rest what an absolute shower!
<b></b>NJS<b></b>

#173 gatto

gatto

    Umsie

  • Professional
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Milano - Italy

Posted 24 May 2011 - 07:25 PM

Just a stupid thing....

and then they sey are just fables !

Attached Files



#174 Cormac

Cormac

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New York

Posted 07 January 2012 - 05:58 AM

All a body coat does on an out-of-shape figure is to draw more attention to the fact. Old farts and fat boys should be banned from wearing them, as it does them no favours. The tails look like they are there to trip on, or worse it makes the figure look a potato on toothpicks.

Want to wear a body coat? Get thee to the gym!


I wonder if this is one reason that morning coats have become less seen in my own country (the U.S.) in the last couple of decades. Even in my youth it was common for a groom and his party to wear them for a daytime wedding (sometimes in quite modern colors, sometimes quite conservative.) Yet today those affairs generally involve the wearing of dinner jackets or other evening wear or of "alternative" formal wear involving long baggie coats, etc. This same period has seen an explosion in obesity along side an increasing figure-consciousness among males.


You might have explained this to those (I do not include myself) who shared your former plain, genuine interest in historical patterns and garments, instead of snapping their heads off, after an astonishing (unannounced) volte face. Any assessment of all the posts that you have put up in the past especially on the LL would demonstrate just what a change of heart you have had.


I think you need to give more weight to how much you read into his previous posts if there has been a misunderstanding, NJS. Sator's stated views and interests are exactly what I have always taken them to be in years of reading his posts on LL, SF, and other fora. Indeed, it was those posts that brought me to this forum. I find nothing new or surprising in the Sator's viewpoint (OK, I can't see why he liked Beckhams's outfit, which I hated.) and I think his frustration is easily understood.


If I've convinced you to stop wearing moth eaten hand-me-downs from your grandfather and order instead from Poole then I have done you a favour.


True enough, but to be fair I am reminded of the late Senator Caliborne Pell of Rhode Island. Born in 1918, Pell wore lounge suits made on SR for his father and grandfather in the 1890s until his death in 2009. He had brought them back to the same SR firm for re-tailoring, of course. It's never been clear to me whether this eccentricity came from some old Yankee sense of thrift or personal mania. This did give his appearance a stagey aspect, and one that contributed to his overall public persona (He was sometimes called "Senator Magoo,") but in a sense public figures can be like actors playing a role in the modern media world. Certainly it was noticed by others and seen as eccentric.

It strikes me that fashion, far from being "eternal," or "permanent," is reliant on context. Who you are, where you are, what you want to project, etc. Pell was about the closest thing we have in this country to the old-family aristocracy of the UK. His family helped found the state and were in the first wave of new world fortunes. Founding "old money," for this country. His social (and political) position were impregnable and whether it came naturally or was deliberate, he played into the public caricature for his generation and class, becoming beloved for his marriage of anachronistic patrician manner to passionate progressive politics.

Not a model for many (if any) others and perhaps the reverse of the iGents in his apparent comfort with who he was and where he came from. But an interesting case.

I think retrophilia is not limited to fashion, but is a characteritic of our contemporary society. In the XIXth and the main part of the XXth centuries, the dominant ideology was the one of "progress". Mankind was learning, increasing its control on nature, and tomorrow would be better than yesterday.
This ideology is nearly dead now. Progress is an obsolete concept, and more and more often it is seen as a negative thing.

Nobody cares that old cloths used to be heavy carpet, the common idea today is that "they don't know anymore how to make the great cloth of yore : today, cloth is rubish".

When you objectively look at pictures from the 1920s, you see dirty sleeves, unbalanced coats, many wrinkles though the cloth was carpet. Cutters have greatly improved their technique and their systems. But people see what they want to see, and "they don't know anymore how to make the great garments of the past, today everything is rubish".


An excellent insight. There is a difference between studying the past to understand how the present came about and what inspiration it can give you in making the future and throwing yourself into a nostalgic fantasy in order to turn from the challenges of the day. One difference between the two approaches is the ability to see and acknowledge the flaws of the past rather than whitewash and romanticize them. (For instance, Sator's clear eyed comments on another thread about the Duke of Windsor vs. his many apologists.)


I'll never have a substantial wardrobe of bespoken garments. I won't be able to commission something just because it takes my fancy at the time or because I'd just like to own and wear it for occasional wear. Aside from making me want to go bespoke this forum has given me the knowledge to make informed decisions and to make the most of what I will bespeak. That isn't to say I view this merely as a "style fora" mind.


You know, I don't own many bespoke pieces either, but isn't that a matter of choice rather than circumstance? I just went to my closet and counted; fifteen suits and twenty sports coats (including summer/season items and formalwear.) This is a tremendous wardrobe, historically speaking. It is larger than that of many a wealthy titan of generations past. It is certainly larger than the wardrobe that my father - or most American men - had when I was born.

The truth is that I could have fewer garments overall of higher quality if I owned more bespoke. And isn't that exactly Sator's point? I am keenly aware that there are many people whose purse is such that they stretch to purchase even one RTW suit for use on important occasions. But you know what? That isn't the vast majority in my country or the entire garment industry would be in collapse. And it seems fair to speculate that of many of those folks are spending time perusing website on modern tailoring like this one.

The struggle of bespoke is fundamentally about modern consumer habits, not poverty. It is the same with other things. In my parent's generation, home furniture was a major investment. You saved for it and purchased it for life. Indeed you handed it down as heirlooms. Today, a lot of folks buy inexpensive furniture from Ikea or its competitors and say 'who can afford "fine furniture" these days.' But actually, they spend more replacing broken or worn flat-pack furniture in a couple of years then it would have cost to buy quality. I have colleagues who are not at all wealthy whose house is filled with furniture from Thomas Moser of Maine. Handcrafted by master carpenters that will last for centuries. Each piece cost a packet, but they are willing to allocate their resources for that quality because it is important to them. The idea of many on this forum is that more people should feel that way about clothes. that they should pay for quality tailoring instead of for large numbers of shorter-lived, less-fastidiously made garments and/or other things to spend their money on.

What is wrong with that?

#175 greger

greger

    Master

  • Senior Professional
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,510 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Washington, USA

Posted 07 January 2012 - 11:33 AM

And then there is always the more wealthy who bought a couple or more black tie every year. After all, in peer groups and the clubs they went to you wouldn't dare wear that black tie (white coat) that you wore last year, unless you wanted to be laughted out of the club. Clothes were for fun.

#176 ladhrann

ladhrann

    Journeyman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 363 posts

Posted 08 January 2012 - 04:29 PM

True enough, but to be fair I am reminded of the late Senator Caliborne Pell of Rhode Island. Born in 1918, Pell wore lounge suits made on SR for his father and grandfather in the 1890s until his death in 2009. He had brought them back to the same SR firm for re-tailoring, of course. It's never been clear to me whether this eccentricity came from some old Yankee sense of thrift or personal mania. This did give his appearance a stagey aspect, and one that contributed to his overall public persona (He was sometimes called "Senator Magoo,") but in a sense public figures can be like actors playing a role in the modern media world. Certainly it was noticed by others and seen as eccentric.

It strikes me that fashion, far from being "eternal," or "permanent," is reliant on context. Who you are, where you are, what you want to project, etc. Pell was about the closest thing we have in this country to the old-family aristocracy of the UK. His family helped found the state and were in the first wave of new world fortunes. Founding "old money," for this country. His social (and political) position were impregnable and whether it came naturally or was deliberate, he played into the public caricature for his generation and class, becoming beloved for his marriage of anachronistic patrician manner to passionate progressive politics.




You know, I don't own many bespoke pieces either, but isn't that a matter of choice rather than circumstance? I just went to my closet and counted; fifteen suits and twenty sports coats (including summer/season items and formalwear.) This is a tremendous wardrobe, historically speaking. It is larger than that of many a wealthy titan of generations past. It is certainly larger than the wardrobe that my father - or most American men - had when I was born.

The truth is that I could have fewer garments overall of higher quality if I owned more bespoke. And isn't that exactly Sator's point? I am keenly aware that there are many people whose purse is such that they stretch to purchase even one RTW suit for use on important occasions. But you know what? That isn't the vast majority in my country or the entire garment industry would be in collapse. And it seems fair to speculate that of many of those folks are spending time perusing website on modern tailoring like this one.

The struggle of bespoke is fundamentally about modern consumer habits, not poverty. It is the same with other things. In my parent's generation, home furniture was a major investment. You saved for it and purchased it for life. Indeed you handed it down as heirlooms. Today, a lot of folks buy inexpensive furniture from Ikea or its competitors and say 'who can afford "fine furniture" these days.' But actually, they spend more replacing broken or worn flat-pack furniture in a couple of years then it would have cost to buy quality. I have colleagues who are not at all wealthy whose house is filled with furniture from Thomas Moser of Maine. Handcrafted by master carpenters that will last for centuries. Each piece cost a packet, but they are willing to allocate their resources for that quality because it is important to them. The idea of many on this forum is that more people should feel that way about clothes. that they should pay for quality tailoring instead of for large numbers of shorter-lived, less-fastidiously made garments and/or other things to spend their money on.

What is wrong with that?


Indeed its back to the old saying, ''poor people can't afford cheap clothes''. And there are a number of proverbs that say the same thing, you're better off buying less overall but of the highest quality you can afford, and it will stand to you over time. The way spending patterns have changed over time is quite fascinating, young adults etc. will save up for a playstation, xbox or whatever but the idea of saving up for a decent suit like the same age group in the 50s, 60s is seen as eccentric or laughable, although directly comparable.

The business model of the industries involved has also changed greatly and its something that very few people realise or care about, and has its paralells elsewhere. Instead of focusing on one good garment of excellent fit, and construction, it is based on buying multiples of essentially shoddy clothes (poly suits etc.) This can been seen elsewhere with built-in redundancy, take shaving as an example, men used shave with an expensive razor with that lasted years and took cheap blades, now they are brainwashed to use cartridge systems at enormous expense.

Part of bespoke or an interest in men's tailoring, I believe, involves an intellectual awakening or awareness of all this. You must now start to question and think about material, then construction, all that goes into producing what you wear and understanding the process. You must go from wearing a label on the outside of your clothes and accepting whatever is thrown at you as 'choice' or 'style' and go to wearing the labels on the inside and appreciating the difference.
To do this is no easy task because it is essentially a revolutonary act to say, I'm not going to take it any more, I will make my own decisions. Especially if you're a young individual you will face enormous resistance from peer groups and also begrudgers who see a desire to be better clothed as marking you out as some kind of aristocrat manqué, at least until you can convert them too.

What is more punk rock in an age of mass-production and standardisation than to have something made to fit yourself exactly?

#177 NuMor

NuMor

    Umsie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 30 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 09 January 2012 - 01:04 AM

Thank you Cormac and ladhrann for clear analysis :thumbsup:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users