http://askandyaboutclothes.com/forum/showpost.php?p=910460&postcount=5
I am beginning to see why this one gets under the skin.
I like the way ol' Boozer sets up Johnny Cash as a counterpoise to Frank Sinatra in that thread. I had never thought of Johnny Cash in his all-black outfits as in any way a style icon in the sense that Sinatra was!
However--and perhaps I'm channeling my inner Cruiser--I much prefer Cash as a singer to Sinatra, who was never really to my taste.
I can remember when Sinatra cashed in his chips about ten years ago and they were playing a lot of his music, my young stepson remarked to his mother, "Old peoples' music." She replied, "Well, Jan doesn't like that music." I was only about 56 at the time, and so that hurt a bit. These days I bloody well am old!
http://askandyaboutclothes.com/forum/showpost.php?p=911280&postcount=1
At first glance this post could either be engaged in benignly or treated like the blither it is, however there is something more dangerous at work. Although the suit trends towards minimalism, it doesn't do so at the behest of one person, a small group or by people who do not understand the nature of the suit, either through design, manufacture or background. To understand why suits evolve the way that they do and how they export or cannot export their particular look is to understand the relationship of the suit on those who wear them rather than whether the details make sense or not.
For example, getting rid of functioning buttonholes says more about the writer than the suit or their purpose. Do they bother the writer? Ironically, perhaps functioning buttonholes serve an important non-function?
There are fit functions, social functions, class, taste and purpose functions built into the suit. Generally speaking, they are regional. WHen a given suit style gets exported, there is a reason; uch as other areas admire those wearing that particular style.
Sometimes suit details are irrelevant and quirky and sometimes their absence is the very same. The trick is to know which is which. Likewise the trick with clothes is to know when you do not know something and until you gain a better understanding, to leave it alone.
Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-03-29 18:30:11)
Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-03-30 08:30:14)
could somebody plaese increase the demand for first year lawyers in nyc so that sgr fan won't have quite as much time to post. Not only are his posts worthless in content they never fail to have an argumentative tact to them. Also no more pictures please!!!!.
^ I gather you don't like Rubinacci?
Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-03-30 21:43:51)
Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-03-31 08:07:55)
"Australian members - where do you source your shoe care products? "
http://www.styleforum.net/showthread.php?t=99062
l could give the aussie S.F members a wealth of info on local Saphir sources (private source and a certain little shop), but i'm not tellin' them anything. l can also get `Collonil' with a discount off wholesale prices through being the member of a certain club, but i'm not telling that mob about it either. All those guys can go jump in the lake (Sator excepted). lf the uncouth mob have the cheek to ban harmless people...they cut there own throats in the end.
l could also make some comments on R.M.Williams shoo polish, but l think it's best to let those guys find out the hard way, hahaha, snark snark, hiss hiss.
Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-03-31 01:59:50)
in response to cruz, I have no problem with London House. IMHO it is way overpriced and like many brands overhyped. I don't think any brand needs vigilante type defenders who jump all over anybody who opines in less than a stellar manner. Also don't reduce differing oppinions to ad hom attacks like sgr fan has done with the good dr T.
I had never visited 'that' place, therefore never quite got the point of this thread.
I have now spent a sum total of 120 seconds there and have observed that:
1. this thread is far too tame for what those guys deserve
2. some poeple have too much time/money/desire to lie for their own good (or, which is scary, endless combinations and mixes of those ingredients)
3. Manton looks like Lurch (yes, I have already made that remark. I just thought I'd reiterate)
4. anyone investing in a 27-page thread on Balmorals should be disqualified from disucssing style, errr... from discussing tout court
5. an apter name for the forum would be 'Pageantry Forum', or 'Costume Forum'
BTW, I have just begun reflecting on this and already wonder why I am leasing these people space in my head.
Last edited by The_Shooman (2009-03-31 08:12:18)