Big Tony wrote:

Is there any chance we could get back on topic here? This thread had a great start and I find it more interesting than what people are planning for their hundredth suit...

I think we are on topic. A three piece checked (even tweed) suit is a total red flag. Unless it's really subtle, no one but no one will be able to keep themselves from a comment or question. That's why the English are better about these things, you can wear bolder things and no one will say anything. Americans think they're in a reality TV show and can interact with you because of what you're wearing.

I thought I was daring getting a striped blazer made up. This chap has gone whole hog.


http://www.festivalpreviews.com/blog/53 … el-attree/




Can you wear this in London? The rest of the UK?


I think in NYC, I would have to be going somewhere awfully exclusive.

Bruno Puntz-Jones, a man who knows how to wear a Panama hat -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP_L7lDv5Ns#t=01m10s

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

I thought I was daring getting a striped blazer made up. This chap has gone whole hog.


http://www.festivalpreviews.com/blog/53 … el-attree/

http://forums.filmnoirbuff.com/uploads/ … ksmall.jpg


Can you wear this in London? The rest of the UK?


I think in NYC, I would have to be going somewhere awfully exclusive.

The whole hog? Only on stage.

As a jacket only it has a marina/regatta type vibe to it. Cowes week, maybe.

I could see a young student wearing it as a jacket though, no problem.

What sort of colors and materials of trouser can you use?

White ducks maybe. Jeans would work too. I'd treat it as a standard blazer, so something out of that cotton gab.

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

What sort of colors and materials of trouser can you use?

White ducks maybe. Jeans would work too. I'd treat it as a standard blazer, so something out of that cotton gab.

Ducks? Kinda entering the iGent zone there.

Well, they're the traditional I suppose.

...sometimes you have to rescue things from iGentism.

...OK...jeans it is then

Film Noir Buff wrote:

formby wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

Ducks? Kinda entering the iGent zone there.

Well, they're the traditional I suppose.

...sometimes you have to rescue things from iGentism.

...OK...jeans it is then

Jeans, fine quality, soft jeans, white shirt and either boat shoes or some sort of brown lace up.

You know, I might wear a bow tie, grey tropical trousers, white bucks and my red rabbit waistcoat. But this would be for a lunch at 21.

With all due respect, you'd be disrespecting the Bowie.
May I suggest a necktie, slightly undone, as if it was a hot day and you just want some air, given your tropical trousers and waistcoat. Come to think of it,why the waistcoat?

Film Noir Buff wrote:

Chévere wrote:

Film Noir Buff wrote:

Jeans, fine quality, soft jeans, white shirt and either boat shoes or some sort of brown lace up.

You know, I might wear a bow tie, grey tropical trousers, white bucks and my red rabbit waistcoat. But this would be for a lunch at 21.

With all due respect, you'd be disrespecting the Bowie.
May I suggest a necktie, slightly undone, as if it was a hot day and you just want some air, given your tropical trousers and waistcoat. Come to think of it,why the waistcoat?

How about a cravat? Anything less just wouldn't be civilized.

I have a tough time with bow ties. Theoretically, I should look good in them but instead I look a right fool. Somehow i just don't have that bow tie cachet. What's worse is that people sense this and give me trouble over it. Same for hats. On the other hand, I can wear the most striking suit patterns, shirts and ties and no one thinks twice. Go figure.

I wouldnt wear the vest without the bow tie, it would need to be during a cooler period and sort of a fogeys night out.

Ordinarily I would wear a boating blazer with a plain white, open necked shirt, grey trousers or jeans and brown or white shoes and a plain brown belt. Im not in Eye-Oh-A, in NYC, I would need to keep the costume element down which would make the item slightly more rock and roll.

I have two cravats which I wear sporadically.  I look for the right occasions and wear them.  Antiqueing or going to an art gallery or auction?? fine.  Yes, people think I am a dick but no one thinks it is out of place or some sort of cos play thing.  Bow ties I wear infrequently.  I love them but they really freak people out (except in the south) for some reason - they need to discuss them constantly. Seersucker is another thing.  A jacket? ok, a pair of trou? just fine  . . . but a suit??? Other red flags are bucks (shoes not horns) which seem to cause some commotion.   Many other things are simply "under the radar."

The more you guys go on about supposed cultural differences and social class anxieties, the more you apparently reveal about your own anxieties and insecurities.

*****

Under no circumstances are paisley shirts dignified, adult, or masculine in these times. We can do better if we want to "shock and awe" or re-enact childhood fantasies about the 60s or 70s.

I knew I was forgetting something - Ascots (or cravats)! Again, a red flag item that can be worn unobtrusively and well, but often marks the wearer as a douchebag, rube, regional theater actor, goat fancier, or closet fascist:









Again, this may be a context thing, context in this case involving age, formality, location and occasion (as g- mentions). An ascot, it seems to me, is something to be worn socially with friends, not, for instance, to a Papal mass, regional dinner theater performance, or Costco.

g-, I'm surprised that you mentions bucks. I wear bucks all the time and they never seem to attract attention of any sort (white or dirty). Maybe the color white could qualify as a red flag (white shoes, white belts, white jackets; white trousers don't seem unduly weird to me).

Buffy, in grad school I wrote a short paper on class anxiety and online game "twinking", and from what I remember I agree strongly with your assessment. "Twinking" in online games is getting equipment through unfair means, either by buying it using real money or receiving it as gifts from more experienced players (or, more rarely, cheating). Most online games measure player progress (and hence quality) by level, and players usually earn levels through hard, tedious, and repetitive work (like killing thousands of orcs).

Having better equipment makes this work much easier, and often allows access to areas of the game that ill-equipped players cannot reach. Thus non-twinks feel that twinks have not "earned" the right to possess exalted equipment or to have fun in areas of the game reserved for people who have spent thousands of hours stabbing rats in a virtual sewer. There is usually nothing in the game rules (either those enforced by the computer or by the legal terms of service) that prevents people from paying a commercial-minded nerd $10 for a rare enchanted sword. But the non-twinks nonetheless think of twinking as cheating or at least as not playing fair.

This is a classic repressive class structure as described by Marx and as developed by countless other scholars, notably Paul Willis, whose book Learning to Labour shows how working class kids in northern England learn to despise education and remunerative white collar work, and to valorize the degrading, dangerous, and physically difficult life of the factory worker. The exploited class has learned to worship the activity that keeps it from accumulating meaningful wealth, and to denigrate as "dishonest" anything that helps their peers get ahead of them. Really, the journeyman orc-slayers of the online world should be asking the game developers (the holders of the means of production) why they had to work so hard for their magical breastplates instead of criticizing the people who obtained them easily.

Paul Fussell harps on this in his book Class (which is surely not to be taken seriously as sociological inquiry but is nonetheless pretty accurate, and very nasty); he describes the middle class (including the upper proletariat, which thinks of itself as middle class according to Fussell) as a fundamentally anxious body, desperately trying to seem sophisticated without opening itself up to the accusation of putting on airs.

Of course this leads us to ask whether believing in red flag clothing is a sign of middle class jealousy - do we hate red flag clothes because they represent a desire to rise above one's station? Personally I would like to believe that my objection to most red flag clothing is aesthetic (or mostly aesthetic) rather than class-based, but perhaps I'm deluding myself.

Gilgamesh2003 wrote:

I knew I was forgetting something - Ascots (or cravats)! Again, a red flag item that can be worn unobtrusively and well, but often marks the wearer as a douchebag, rube, regional theater actor, goat fancier, or closet fascist:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4943/hpim0513dd9.jpg
http://www.countrysports.se/files/DPP_0017.JPG
http://www.countrysports.se/files/image … er-gun.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e141/ … 1049cq.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5337/ascfs6.jpg
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92 … 0_post.jpg
http://styleforum-testing.s3.amazonaws. … h45407.jpg

Again, this may be a context thing, context in this case involving age, formality, location and occasion (as g- mentions). An ascot, it seems to me, is something to be worn socially with friends, not, for instance, to a Papal mass, regional dinner theater performance, or Costco.

g-, I'm surprised that you mentions bucks. I wear bucks all the time and they never seem to attract attention of any sort (white or dirty). Maybe the color white could qualify as a red flag (white shoes, white belts, white jackets; white trousers don't seem unduly weird to me).

Buffy, in grad school I wrote a short paper on class anxiety and online game "twinking", and from what I remember I agree strongly with your assessment. "Twinking" in online games is getting equipment through unfair means, either by buying it using real money or receiving it as gifts from more experienced players (or, more rarely, cheating). Most online games measure player progress (and hence quality) by level, and players usually earn levels through hard, tedious, and repetitive work (like killing thousands of orcs).

Having better equipment makes this work much easier, and often allows access to areas of the game that ill-equipped players cannot reach. Thus non-twinks feel that twinks have not "earned" the right to possess exalted equipment or to have fun in areas of the game reserved for people who have spent thousands of hours stabbing rats in a virtual sewer. There is usually nothing in the game rules (either those enforced by the computer or by the legal terms of service) that prevents people from paying a commercial-minded nerd $10 for a rare enchanted sword. But the non-twinks nonetheless think of twinking as cheating or at least as not playing fair.

This is a classic repressive class structure as described by Marx and as developed by countless other scholars, notably Paul Willis, whose book Learning to Labour shows how working class kids in northern England learn to despise education and remunerative white collar work, and to valorize the degrading, dangerous, and physically difficult life of the factory worker. The exploited class has learned to worship the activity that keeps it from accumulating meaningful wealth, and to denigrate as "dishonest" anything that helps their peers get ahead of them. Really, the journeyman orc-slayers of the online world should be asking the game developers (the holders of the means of production) why they had to work so hard for their magical breastplates instead of criticizing the people who obtained them easily.

Paul Fussell harps on this in his book Class (which is surely not to be taken seriously as sociological inquiry but is nonetheless pretty accurate, and very nasty); he describes the middle class (including the upper proletariat, which thinks of itself as middle class according to Fussell) as a fundamentally anxious body, desperately trying to seem sophisticated without opening itself up to the accusation of putting on airs.

Of course this leads us to ask whether believing in red flag clothing is a sign of middle class jealousy - do we hate red flag clothes because they represent a desire to rise above one's station? Personally I would like to believe that my objection to most red flag clothing is aesthetic (or mostly aesthetic) rather than class-based, but perhaps I'm deluding myself.

I think the 3rd picture looks fine myself. The ascot is the most underestimated and misunderstood menswear item.

Last edited by David Reeves (2012-04-10 09:15:10)

David Reeves wrote:

I think the 3rd picture looks fine myself. The ascot is the most underestimated and misunderstood menswear item.

I agree - I tried to find both good and bad examples.

David Reeves wrote:

Gilgamesh2003 wrote:

I knew I was forgetting something - Ascots (or cravats)! Again, a red flag item that can be worn unobtrusively and well, but often marks the wearer as a douchebag, rube, regional theater actor, goat fancier, or closet fascist:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4943/hpim0513dd9.jpg
http://www.countrysports.se/files/DPP_0017.JPG
http://www.countrysports.se/files/image … er-gun.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e141/ … 1049cq.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5337/ascfs6.jpg
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92 … 0_post.jpg
http://styleforum-testing.s3.amazonaws. … h45407.jpg

Again, this may be a context thing, context in this case involving age, formality, location and occasion (as g- mentions). An ascot, it seems to me, is something to be worn socially with friends, not, for instance, to a Papal mass, regional dinner theater performance, or Costco.

g-, I'm surprised that you mentions bucks. I wear bucks all the time and they never seem to attract attention of any sort (white or dirty). Maybe the color white could qualify as a red flag (white shoes, white belts, white jackets; white trousers don't seem unduly weird to me).

Buffy, in grad school I wrote a short paper on class anxiety and online game "twinking", and from what I remember I agree strongly with your assessment. "Twinking" in online games is getting equipment through unfair means, either by buying it using real money or receiving it as gifts from more experienced players (or, more rarely, cheating). Most online games measure player progress (and hence quality) by level, and players usually earn levels through hard, tedious, and repetitive work (like killing thousands of orcs).

Having better equipment makes this work much easier, and often allows access to areas of the game that ill-equipped players cannot reach. Thus non-twinks feel that twinks have not "earned" the right to possess exalted equipment or to have fun in areas of the game reserved for people who have spent thousands of hours stabbing rats in a virtual sewer. There is usually nothing in the game rules (either those enforced by the computer or by the legal terms of service) that prevents people from paying a commercial-minded nerd $10 for a rare enchanted sword. But the non-twinks nonetheless think of twinking as cheating or at least as not playing fair.

This is a classic repressive class structure as described by Marx and as developed by countless other scholars, notably Paul Willis, whose book Learning to Labour shows how working class kids in northern England learn to despise education and remunerative white collar work, and to valorize the degrading, dangerous, and physically difficult life of the factory worker. The exploited class has learned to worship the activity that keeps it from accumulating meaningful wealth, and to denigrate as "dishonest" anything that helps their peers get ahead of them. Really, the journeyman orc-slayers of the online world should be asking the game developers (the holders of the means of production) why they had to work so hard for their magical breastplates instead of criticizing the people who obtained them easily.

Paul Fussell harps on this in his book Class (which is surely not to be taken seriously as sociological inquiry but is nonetheless pretty accurate, and very nasty); he describes the middle class (including the upper proletariat, which thinks of itself as middle class according to Fussell) as a fundamentally anxious body, desperately trying to seem sophisticated without opening itself up to the accusation of putting on airs.

Of course this leads us to ask whether believing in red flag clothing is a sign of middle class jealousy - do we hate red flag clothes because they represent a desire to rise above one's station? Personally I would like to believe that my objection to most red flag clothing is aesthetic (or mostly aesthetic) rather than class-based, but perhaps I'm deluding myself.

I think the 3rd picture looks fine myself. The ascot is the most underestimated and misunderstood menswear item.

I agree and like your thinking David.

g- wrote:

Gilgamesh2003 wrote:

I knew I was forgetting something - Ascots (or cravats)! Again, a red flag item that can be worn unobtrusively and well, but often marks the wearer as a douchebag, rube, regional theater actor, goat fancier, or closet fascist:

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/4943/hpim0513dd9.jpg
http://www.countrysports.se/files/DPP_0017.JPG
http://www.countrysports.se/files/image … er-gun.jpg
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e141/ … 1049cq.jpg
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/5337/ascfs6.jpg
http://i254.photobucket.com/albums/hh92 … 0_post.jpg
http://styleforum-testing.s3.amazonaws. … h45407.jpg

Again, this may be a context thing, context in this case involving age, formality, location and occasion (as g- mentions). An ascot, it seems to me, is something to be worn socially with friends, not, for instance, to a Papal mass, regional dinner theater performance, or Costco.

g-, I'm surprised that you mentions bucks. I wear bucks all the time and they never seem to attract attention of any sort (white or dirty). Maybe the color white could qualify as a red flag (white shoes, white belts, white jackets; white trousers don't seem unduly weird to me).

Buffy, in grad school I wrote a short paper on class anxiety and online game "twinking", and from what I remember I agree strongly with your assessment. "Twinking" in online games is getting equipment through unfair means, either by buying it using real money or receiving it as gifts from more experienced players (or, more rarely, cheating). Most online games measure player progress (and hence quality) by level, and players usually earn levels through hard, tedious, and repetitive work (like killing thousands of orcs).

Having better equipment makes this work much easier, and often allows access to areas of the game that ill-equipped players cannot reach. Thus non-twinks feel that twinks have not "earned" the right to possess exalted equipment or to have fun in areas of the game reserved for people who have spent thousands of hours stabbing rats in a virtual sewer. There is usually nothing in the game rules (either those enforced by the computer or by the legal terms of service) that prevents people from paying a commercial-minded nerd $10 for a rare enchanted sword. But the non-twinks nonetheless think of twinking as cheating or at least as not playing fair.

This is a classic repressive class structure as described by Marx and as developed by countless other scholars, notably Paul Willis, whose book Learning to Labour shows how working class kids in northern England learn to despise education and remunerative white collar work, and to valorize the degrading, dangerous, and physically difficult life of the factory worker. The exploited class has learned to worship the activity that keeps it from accumulating meaningful wealth, and to denigrate as "dishonest" anything that helps their peers get ahead of them. Really, the journeyman orc-slayers of the online world should be asking the game developers (the holders of the means of production) why they had to work so hard for their magical breastplates instead of criticizing the people who obtained them easily.

Paul Fussell harps on this in his book Class (which is surely not to be taken seriously as sociological inquiry but is nonetheless pretty accurate, and very nasty); he describes the middle class (including the upper proletariat, which thinks of itself as middle class according to Fussell) as a fundamentally anxious body, desperately trying to seem sophisticated without opening itself up to the accusation of putting on airs.

Of course this leads us to ask whether believing in red flag clothing is a sign of middle class jealousy - do we hate red flag clothes because they represent a desire to rise above one's station? Personally I would like to believe that my objection to most red flag clothing is aesthetic (or mostly aesthetic) rather than class-based, but perhaps I'm deluding myself.

I should have been more specific - White bucks or other colors.  I have white ones and blue ones and they both attract attention which is always a suprise to me as they are just shoes and I wear them to places where other people are wearing sandals.  Oh well.

Sometimes people stare because they find something attractive and are too shy to ask.  Blue bucks sounds like a great idea; a nice strong royal blue?

Americans have very short memories. Things that are a given now for clothing, were unheard of a few years ago. I know this personally because I used these items partly because few others did, bold English shirts, side vents, single breasted suits with peak lapels, spectators, bold sports jackets. Now, not only are these things more or less common in NYC but people will act like they were never any other way. Americans and perhaps all of us create a normalization based on familiarity. Anything that stretches or challenges that status quo is going to get looks. It doesn't always mean they're frightened or think its wrong, sometimes they think, that looks nice, I didnt know you could do that.

I'll never forget two hairspray girls at an October party in Chicago when the temperature was in the low 80s. Both of them were looking at me and finally approached me saying that I shouldnt be wearing white shoes after labor day because it breaks the "No white after labor day rule". I replied I that I made my own rules. They were so confused that my remark wasn't even a little bit amusing.