My opinions:
1) What was the problem ?
~ The mix of wool/Dacron or cotton/Dacron was perceived to be cheap or inexpensive.
2) Why they are despised?
~ Some blends were cheap or rough to the touch. Their 100% natural fiber counterparts performed better.
3) Is a touch of synthetic good or bad in a Ivy-modernist wardrobe?
~ Other posters have noted that there are some blends which are quite outstanding. The old Brooks tropical weight blends were quite good.
4) And,with the great progress of the science chemical,the defects of the originals "miracle" fibers can be deleted?
~ I am one of those who has the view that polyester will always be polyester, no matter how it is marketed, CoolMax or otherwise. Cotton will always wrinkle, hence the great leap forward (sorry for the pun) into the plasticized non-iron treatment of today. Better living through chemistry still hasn't made these fabrics breathable.
Last edited by farrago (2011-04-17 11:18:07)
The dogmatic insistence on natural fibers comes for most on the "fora", I suspect, from the adoption of the Preppy Handbook as gospel.
However, it's my understanding that the anti-synthetic dogmatism in that book is reflective of a growing realization in the early 80s, following the polyester filled 70s, that as said before it's not breatheable and therefore, if you wear anything with a high synthetic content, and perspire, you will stink.
Plus that 50s-70s era was one of expanding frontiers. You wanted the car with the big fins, the space-age fibers, the modernist architecture, the undanceable (not to say it's not good) modern jazz. Let's send some men to the moon.
The 80s saw (albeit to some extent contrived and artificial) a return to more classical tastes--block letters were out, new housing subdivisions of colonials were back in, cars were square and non-controversial looking, rock music became highly commercialized (though I love most of it from that era anyway), and natural fibers came back in. The challenger blew up and space exploration seemed to pale in comparison to culture wars at home.
Last edited by Coolidge (2011-04-17 12:48:24)
^^ Good explanation. I don't mind wool-dacron blends for light-weight trousers, but really dislike the cotton-poly blends in shirts (makes me stink, doesn't wrinkle like a shirt should, pills easily, and feels fake). I'm happy with cotton-poly blend "poplin" suits - it's great that I can just throw them in the washer when they need a cleaning.
Dacron is one of the brand names for polyester.
It seems to ba a question of personal metabolism whether people can stand poly in shirts or not. It doesn't bother me, but the old 60/40 in looser weaves like oxford does tend to pill unattractively.
Polycotton poplin for suits and outerwear is more than fine.
The 'older' natural synthetics are not to be sniffed at either: I have a 1959ish sharkskin suit which I think may be all viscose, lovely heavy but cool material that holds a sharp crease. There is also a mid 60's NOS POW check ivy suit in the wardrobe pending sleeve and trouser shortening, in acetate, incredibly light.
I suspect there were/are also massive differences between the quality of the blends. A case in point - I have a 60s 'Cambridge' brand Dacron-Cotton mix shirt, that's very itchy and scratchy indeed, but don't have this same problem with a vintage Gant The Hugger Durable Press, which is very lightweight and comfy in hot weather as well, and there's very little evindence of wear to it too despite the age.
I do look forward to the day when "moths will starve to death".
Great collection of DuPont propaganda! I've always admired their coup in making wrinkles socially unacceptable to some classes.
I recall that most private schoolboys in the late 70's and early 80's in the US had many of their daily-wear, button-down shirts in (the now practically extinct) 60/40 cotton/poly blend as even the most clumsy first-years could wash their shirts and wear them without looking too bad or running afoul of the dress codes. Sure they didn't wear as well or as long as all-cotton, but most got replaced every year from being outgrown or were torn up in one way or another.
Only somebody who has worn a bri-nylon shirt can appreciate what an improvement polycotton was.
Sold as'permanent press' they had a different image to that which they have nowadays.
Ah, all copying Brooks. I have been getting shirts from Mercer and more recently Press and hadn't noticed. It makes sense, though.
Van Heusen used to make pretty "non-non irons" in 100% cotton as well...but those were few and far between when I worked there. Some of the first shirts I owned though were hand me down Van Heusens from an uncle which I thought were great shirts.
Sta-Prest and W&W polycotton poplin... a bit of outerwear like some zipper jackets and a Mac... Sometimes it's useful, functional...
You don't really need it, though, usually.
Lots of nice ads for sharp "Dacron" and "Orlon" suits over here...
"The material's crap, but look at the cut!"
Always loved the style of those old Brooks illustrations... Oh how much we have lost !
A bit like my earlier Jazz album sleeve obsession, Brooks catalogues were a whole world of style - Far better than the J. Press catalogues. Their presentation was Ivy heaven.