Nice!

This, I think, is more in line with Gibson Gardens' thinking: that clothes are more than JUST clothes.  Unless we are simply having fun - we can do that as well, of course - we are moving into the regions of the aesthetic - and all the better for it.  It can be argued that clothing, in common with literature, music, eating habits, the development of ergonomics, art and design etc. is 'socially constructed', reflecting the subtle complexities of its time-frame.  More, it has a psychological component - primarily for the wearer, but also for the observer.  So, cut, colour, fabric, simplicity (or otherwise) of construction all play their part, creating the dividing line between, say, a Mercer shirt and a Ralph Lauren; or a pair of loafers that might appear, to the untrained eye, broadly similar.

Chiltern Street wrote:

This, I think, is more in line with Gibson Gardens' thinking: that clothes are more than JUST clothes.  Unless we are simply having fun - we can do that as well, of course - we are moving into the regions of the aesthetic - and all the better for it.  It can be argued that clothing, in common with literature, music, eating habits, the development of ergonomics, art and design etc. is 'socially constructed', reflecting the subtle complexities of its time-frame.  More, it has a psychological component - primarily for the wearer, but also for the observer.  So, cut, colour, fabric, simplicity (or otherwise) of construction all play their part, creating the dividing line between, say, a Mercer shirt and a Ralph Lauren; or a pair of loafers that might appear, to the untrained eye, broadly similar.

Aye.

Important also to 'leave room to dream'. The clothes are the point. The rest is up the wearer.

Hank, check this old thread.

I said 1963 but that should be 1965.

Chiltern Street wrote:

This, I think, is more in line with Gibson Gardens' thinking: that clothes are more than JUST clothes.  Unless we are simply having fun - we can do that as well, of course - we are moving into the regions of the aesthetic - and all the better for it.  It can be argued that clothing, in common with literature, music, eating habits, the development of ergonomics, art and design etc. is 'socially constructed', reflecting the subtle complexities of its time-frame.  More, it has a psychological component - primarily for the wearer, but also for the observer.  So, cut, colour, fabric, simplicity (or otherwise) of construction all play their part, creating the dividing line between, say, a Mercer shirt and a Ralph Lauren; or a pair of loafers that might appear, to the untrained eye, broadly similar.

Blimey. That's a great observation in a great thread.

Another toot for 1966.



I found these 2 shots very inspiring.


Fantastic heathering that really compliments the madras. Wonderful contrasts.

I was thinking the same. I nearly bumped it a couple of hours ago.

Eris posted this. I hate him for it.

Last edited by Liam Mac (2011-12-07 13:00:17)

Nice one, Elder Statesman!

A couple of shots of the 1950s Brooks that sold on eBay for $600.



1 1/2" cuffs. I notice that the belt loops drop below the waistband. I suppose this is typical of tweed suit Ivy trousers and that it's the Dacron-type Ivy trousers where the belt loops tended to stay on the waistband?


The tweed Brooks for sale recently for about 90 seconds on Newton St Vintage reminds me of this (don't know the hem of the one above, but I see the Newton one was 18.5"). Neither would've fitted me anyway, but naturally I'm still jealous of those two lucky owners.

Simple & stylish.

1966 wrote:

Let me toot my own horn here.

http://i38.tinypic.com/121vr7p.jpg

1963...

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/8924/19657tw7.jpg

Honk Honk baby!

What are the measurements and price? It sure is a beauty that blazer.