Bruce Boyer wrote that when the company closed its custom tailoring department it made the front page of the New York Times. The Press family outfitted their own sons in their competitors' boys' department(!) Why? How do we explain how and why it gained such a hold for so long? Part of it, no doubt, was what they had to sell and how they innovated in the early years, but much no doubt had to do with how they sold it--the (social) psychology and marketing that made it into an institution rather than just a company for several generations in the minds of many men, some of whom could easily have afforded much more expensive tailoring, and amidst others who in many respects offered similar goods. What is the psychology behind the way Brooks in part created its own mythology? Why did the tailors such as Rosenberg and Press that emerged on campuses around the turn of the century see it as the standard on which (selectively) to create their own tailoring styles and curate goods? Was their custom tailoring even the best in America in its time for its style? Help me to understand this.
Last edited by katon (2019-03-14 03:30:20)
Excellent post katon... I think you speak to something really important that gets lost in all the Brooks branding and all the wannabe-elite posturing that surrounds "Ivy" and "trad" styles... i.e. that Brooks Brothers was never worn by the rich because it was the highest quality or the most fashionable tailoring... It was worn for the opposite reasons... It was durable and it was tactful, not a flashy or tacky display of wealth...
Last edited by Yuca (2019-03-14 17:24:38)
This is my conclusion from being fortunate enough to own a few vintage Brooks bits and pieces.
For a survey of old money's taste in tailors (of which BB was only one), as well valuable tidbits, contemporary to 1960, by George Frazier:
https://classic.esquire.com/article/1960/9/1/the-art-of-wearing-clothes
Last edited by TimF (2019-04-07 09:37:09)
I'm just back from Washington DC where I was with sixty USA colleagues of ages from late twenties to their early sixties from across USA - I was the only one wearing a 3/2 jacket that I observed. A few wore Glen Plaid sportcoats, most wore English styled blue blazers with hacking pockets if they wore a jacket at all. More wore a zip up sweater over a shirt and no jacket. A few BB shirts - not much Ivy in USA businesses now it seems.
More relevantly to this topic, why was it that Brooks Brothers was sold to Marks and Spencers in 1988? (and sold by them for a third of the price in 2001).
Happy for this to be a new topic.
^ Also worth noting that in the article Frazier repeatedly includes Brooks in lists of high quality tailors, rebutting this thread's OP, which places Brooks on a level below "more expensive tailoring."
Maybe it was a subtle way of telling people that Grant was actually a homosexual?
Subtle for the time. Coded might be a better word.
Is it fact or speculation that he was actually gay? I thought the former but admittedly I haven't studied him much. I can't help but think that a straight guy would be far less likely to wear women's undies.
As for being flattering and not showing through clothing - I think traditional boxer shorts fit that description. And I can't see boxers being difficult to pack or taking up too much room in luggage. I'll concede though that women's briefs are probably easier to hand wash and dry than boxers.
Yes he admitted his preference - perhaps at the time it was the closest he could come to admitting his sexuality publicly. Or maybe someone else outed it so he was trying to pretend it had no significance and was no secret.
Before your time I believe but I once admitted I was going to do the same (loafers with dinner suit) and someone called me a retard or something similar. I can't be bothered to search for it but it was a nice little spat to liven the forum up for a little while.
I must admit none of CG's films do much for me although I can watch them and him. His Brooks BD in N by NW is impressive.
It all starts here although it took a while to kick off: http://forums.filmnoirbuff.com/viewtopic.php?pid=299587#p299587
Ha, well, best to leave it in the past perhaps, but that was a fun read It's something I like about TI, lots of different opinions here, that's the way we like it...
I saw some patent Belgian shoes on eBay a while ago that would have looked great with a tux... Like an Upper East Side version of Frank Sinatra's Mary Janes...
>I'd be interested in reading a good biography of him that doesn't fall into the gossip or the hagiography trap, like the Anthony Summers/Robyn Swan biography of Sinatra. Even those who deny that he was gay/bisexual admit he hated being touched and was generally packed with complexes. A complicated man.
This is the book to go for: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01B28OLOO/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
Last edited by Lawlib (2019-04-07 23:36:03)