I am still reading the book. It is action packed so I am going slowly.

I haven't checked out the tome yet; however, from various comments made, it seems there are a lot of didactic rules, which are really pedantic, and subjective.

Perhaps, it's an attempt at tongue-in-cheek and in Machiavelli's tone?

Personally I don't see the evil that black shoes have. Now, red shoes, maybe.

Today I had the occasion to peruse the book. It was charmingly written in an anachronistic prose, and had various historical tidbits on clothing that were nicely revealing. However, since this is being marketed as a sort of guidance text along the lines of Flusser, Boyer, et al. the slightly arcane writing style possibly might alienate the people who would especially neccessitate this advice, if not unduly complicating the whole affair.

As has been mentioned previous, there are some rules that I do not think bodes well for a well-dressed man about town. For example, the author says that young people should eschew bow ties completey and instead fall back upon blue blazers, khakis, and other characteristic regalia of the casual preppy, which is a very limiting experience for a young person. He also dictates that colors should be avoided. Where is the fun in that?  As well, the book notes that aside from cufflinks, and a wristwatch all other jewelry should be relinquished. The classic diktat is a wedding band, a signet/intaglio ring, and a ring with a beautiful stone.

Kabbaz writes that this book is an update on long held (clothing) traditions but the author tenaciously makes claims of broad natures and justifies them with historical bases such as Benjamin Disraeli. Why are print ties gauche? Is there no there there to lease Gertrude Stein?

I recall reading an early post that the author made regarding the inception of this now completed project as a semi-joking meditation upon his first pair of Edward Greens. Now, if that were indeed the case, it would foretell the elemental nuances of this tome doesn't really constitute as an advice book; rather, it seems it's a case of totally divergent literary cum sartorial interpretation upon an Italian Renaissance political thinker. Therein lies the ambivalent worth of this as a strict advice text for CEO aspirants.

All, it is edifying on the basics of men's clothing and other essentials; yet, the veracity of some of its advice is particularly subjective. It has the fitness of a manifesto.

The author's biography was distinctly brief and non sequitur-ish.

Last edited by Incroyable (2006-05-26 00:28:52)

Don't forget to post your amazon review. What's with the weird proof cover, did one of his editors decide to strike back?


http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-images/0060891866/ref=cm_ciu_pdp_images_0/104-6160387-4055146?%5Fencoding=UTF8&s=books&index=0#gallery

I have been reading Manton's or rather Nicholas Antongiavanni's  book and I have to say I am a bit surprised at the number of different people, professions and walks of life he insults. Math teachers, plumbers, blue collar people, librarians, professors, carnival barkers, politicians, gangsters, detectives, heavy people and a lot of others just to name a few. Who is the ideal person for this book? Some dirtbag corporate attorney?

Also, he insults Americans an awful lot. It sounds like he is ashamed of them (If he is actually an American) and that he longs to be from somewhere else. Last I checked New Yorkers dressed great. Alright, we are a nation of over 300 millions, not everyone is Astaire. Have you walked around Naples recently? Not everyone there dresses like they shop at Marinella.

A lot of sweeping generalizations about rules, no footnotes and a very snob like mentality throughout the book on the assumption that he is in the know? Exactly what is his ironclad expertise based on? It sounds to me like he is on the outside looking in and still calling the shots. Maybe he picked up some style and beauty tips from Condee?

The grammar is ironclad, frankly it's a little tight cheeked. There are moments when I am not sure whether he is referring to the object or the subject. Its style is so dense and light on subject matter and proof that it made me nod off in spite of my wanting to finish it.

Who was the target audience for this book? A lot of the people he insults are some of the few who might buy this book. How many great men of fashion don’t ever read a book, and how many aspiring Math teachers might? If you buy this book for a college graduate, are they supposed to go find a drape suit or never be well dressed?

The whole anti Trad bias is a little thick too. He bashes the sack suit, the cordovan shoe, the bowtie. In favor of the drape? Who the hell makes that drape suit today? The two button suit is passable? So, unless you get this mythical Drape suit no one is well dressed? Do the Italians wear this or the Neapolitans?

Im sorry for my strong opinion but I really got the impression he was playing this super snob and we are the people who allowed him to develop that big head.

Yes its a play on the Prince, yes yes yes but who is going to know that really? Where is the disclaimer? in 5 years he may say he always intended it to mean exactly what it says.

I also do not understand what the correlation is with Dandies here. He starts out by saying a dandy is the essence of plainness but  throughout the book he discusses these advanced "dandy" steps or choices that seem out of the hum drum to me. I am not a dandy, I do like clothes and I do not like being talked down to.

That’s my 2 cents...for now.