or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › St. Crispin's Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

St. Crispin's Appreciation Thread - Page 136

post #2026 of 2531
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmorel View Post


I think what Ville brings up is an interesting topic that has caused a few ripples way back when with the older posters.

In the big picture view, everything is personal preference. So in that sense, nothing is wrong. Its your taste/money and you should wear whatever makes you happy. But if this site is to be viewed as an enthusiast community, where people come to teach and to learn, then there has to be a framework. No different than other enthusiasts communities (like watches, food etc). There is nothing wrong with a diamond encrusted Rolex, but I probably shouldn't wear it to my job interview at IBM.

Addressing Ville's post, there is a city/country difference in shoes, suits, shirts etc. There are also reasons for the differences, many of which have been hashed out here many times. If you choose to ignore them, that is perfectly fine (I ignore some myself) but you would benefit from knowing the "rule" in order to know how to break it. The great thing about classic menswear is that there is a large body of work that you can draw upon to see "correct" applications, and that the tools of our trade have remained unchanged for over 50 years. Suits/shirts/ties have pretty much remained the same for decades. You look at what people who are considered great dressers (past and present) wear and you take what you can from them. You adjust the choices to fit in with your lifestyle (unless you are a British aristocrat you probably can't get away with some of the Duke's outfits) and you start to develop your style from there. Its an evolving process, at least it has been for me. So what does this all have to do with what Ville said? Well, if there is no right or wrong and its just personal preference, there is no evolution. In that world, we are all great dressers, all of our choices are fine and there is nothing to learn. Scotch grain shoes are fine with a tuxedo, work boots with suits, captoes with jeans etc. What Ville is saying is that, historically (and presently), textured leathers are used in country settings. That does not mean that you have to be a slave to that "rule" but to say that its simply personal preference or a stupid rule, is spitting in the face of the Bruce Boyers/Alan Flussers/Duke/Cary Grant's etc etc etc.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Now I know that RogerP is not someone that I am ever going to see wearing sneakers with a suit and you do not need preaching to, so I know where your post is coming from but there are a lot of guys on here that have the "fuck it, this is my style" attitude even though they have a tremendous lack of style. WAYWN has become very similar to the AskAndy WAYWN that people here used to bemoan and that caused a lot of the Ask Andy people to come over here. There has to be more that "RoboKop!!! and everything being "Amazeballs!!!" for the forum to mean anything
. Otherwise its just a mastubatory group exercise; all the purchases are great, all the applications of those purchases are great and everyone looks amazing.

Worth repeating.

I thought that was extremely well said...and it applies to so many things and so many discussions across the board. Now, having said that, bear in mind that I am not a particularly good dresser. I've been known to wear a kilt on special occasions and an Ike jacket in lieu of a sports coat. But I like the way you think--I think the logic and the reasoning is unimpeachable.

Anyway that's just my opinion and probably carries little weight in this context...FWIW.

Nevertheless...

Good on ya, cheers.gif
post #2027 of 2531
Do you wear underwear when you wear your kilt? Also, what book is the fabric from?
post #2028 of 2531
Quote:
Originally Posted by edmorel View Post

***SOAPBOX RANT**********

I think what Ville brings up is an interesting topic that has caused a few ripples way back when with the older posters.

In the big picture view, everything is personal preference. So in that sense, nothing is wrong. Its your taste/money and you should wear whatever makes you happy. But if this site is to be viewed as an enthusiast community, where people come to teach and to learn, then there has to be a framework. No different than other enthusiasts communities (like watches, food etc). There is nothing wrong with a diamond encrusted Rolex, but I probably shouldn't wear it to my job interview at IBM.

Addressing Ville's post, there is a city/country difference in shoes, suits, shirts etc. There are also reasons for the differences, many of which have been hashed out here many times. If you choose to ignore them, that is perfectly fine (I ignore some myself) but you would benefit from knowing the "rule" in order to know how to break it. The great thing about classic menswear is that there is a large body of work that you can draw upon to see "correct" applications, and that the tools of our trade have remained unchanged for over 50 years. Suits/shirts/ties have pretty much remained the same for decades. You look at what people who are considered great dressers (past and present) wear and you take what you can from them. You adjust the choices to fit in with your lifestyle (unless you are a British aristocrat you probably can't get away with some of the Duke's outfits) and you start to develop your style from there. Its an evolving process, at least it has been for me. So what does this all have to do with what Ville said? Well, if there is no right or wrong and its just personal preference, there is no evolution. In that world, we are all great dressers, all of our choices are fine and there is nothing to learn. Scotch grain shoes are fine with a tuxedo, work boots with suits, captoes with jeans etc. What Ville is saying is that, historically (and presently), textured leathers are used in country settings. That does not mean that you have to be a slave to that "rule" but to say that its simply personal preference or a stupid rule, is spitting in the face of the Bruce Boyers/Alan Flussers/Duke/Cary Grant's etc etc etc.

Now I know that RogerP is not someone that I am ever going to see wearing sneakers with a suit and you do not need preaching to, so I know where your post is coming from but there are a lot of guys on here that have the "fuck it, this is my style" attitude even though they have a tremendous lack of style. WAYWN has become very similar to the AskAndy WAYWN that people here used to bemoan and that caused a lot of the Ask Andy people to come over here. There has to be more that "RoboKop!!! and everything being "Amazeballs!!!" for the forum to mean anything. Otherwise its just a mastubatory group exercise; all the purchases are great, all the applications of those purchases are great and everyone looks amazing.

Disclaimer: This is not a dig at the boots mentioned or at RogerP or at anyone that uses Amazeballs.

 

Well said Ed - no dig taken.

 

The boots under discussion are not something I would choose to wear with a suit.  Two tones, two textures, contrast stitching, split toe and open lacing all combine to take them out of the dress boot category for me.  But for a casual / country boot, I think they are pretty Amazeballs. :D

post #2029 of 2531
Somebody on here was thinking of getting some contrasting grains in some oxfords. I brought up formality of it. It is something I struggle with as I like grains very much, but mostly dress very formally. I think once I have 50 pairs of shoes I will go that route.

I find that artificial grains have their place in utility. I wear scotch grain boots in the snow. The stamped grain tightens up the pores, or it seems, giving them extra water permeability. They don't get has soaked and water beads off of them in a manner it doesn't with uncorrected calf.
post #2030 of 2531
We all know that St. Crispins makes amazing shoes, but some of the materials and combinations are rather out there....

I reckon it's also due to the vendor the buyer is dealing with. I know for sure that my vendor, Mr Karl Sussmann would scrunch his face up with a massive frown if I wanted certain makes on this thread. satisfied.gif It's important how they guide you in direction and choice, also what SF is here for too!
post #2031 of 2531
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Do you wear underwear when you wear your kilt? Also, what book is the fabric from?

No gentleman would ask...lol8[1].gif

Seriously, I keep some extra long undershirts that, if necessary...and very Traditional...I could tie underneath. Don't try to make a mental image. But at certain events, I don't--it's "regimental" all the way.. No one who takes the kilt seriously does...that I know of, at any rate.

Trouble is and by way of answering the second part of your question I had my kilt made of 16 ounce wool from Marton Mills (? I think that's the one) in Scotland. Wool can be very chafing on sensitive parts of the anatomy. Again, avoid mental images.

I actually have two kilts--a 10 yard Scottish National pleated to the stripe (like military kilts); and a 4 yard box pleated Black MacSuibhne. The box pleated kilt went out of favour in the late 19th century(?) but is very Traditional. The Black MacSuibhne was designed for me as a subdued version of the MacQueen (a variation of MacSween--the clan I am distantly related to) and registered with the Scottish Tartans Authority in my name. MacSuibhne is pronounced MacSween and due to the idiosyncrasies of Gaelic, MacQueen is a variation of MacSween. After Bannockburn most MacSweens migrated to Ireland. Those that were left, adopted the MacQueen variation for defensive reasons.

The oldest still standing stone castle in Scotland is Castle Sween on Loch Sween.

And now you know more than you ever wanted to know about kilts and this auld crabbit.

--
post #2032 of 2531
I only know three things about Scotland. Loch Ness, of course because of the mystical sea creature, and Jimmy Page of Led Zeppelin owned Allister Crowley's Boleskine house on said lake. Also, of a town called Calendar, that an old substitute teacher used to talk about in high school lucidly. Lastly, Scotland is considering separating from the European Union, which in my own uninformed opinion would be a mistake. Now I have some more knowledge! Thank you!
post #2033 of 2531
Ed has more patience than I for detailed SF posts, he put it so much better than that blind, terse shot of mine. So...thank you. No one will be shot for wearing grain with a suit but smooth leathers will always look more formal, that is, if this is something the dresser was after. Usually I just remain silent when I've nothing positive or interesting to add but there are times when grumpiness sets in.
post #2034 of 2531
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrickBOOTH View Post

Lastly, Scotland is considering separating from the European Union.......

It is the United Kingdom (or at least popular opinion within the UK) that is considering separating from the European Union (EU). Scotland is considering severing the Union with England (as part of the'United Kingdom') and to become a separate nation state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707

If Scotland were to decide in about six months time (Referendum is on September 18th) to become an independent nation, their membership within the European Union (as part of the UK) would automatically seize, but an independent Scotland is likely to apply forthwith to become a member of the EU.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_independence
post #2035 of 2531
Quote:
Originally Posted by VRaivio View Post

but there are times when grumpiness sets in.

  I'm glad you brought that up. Mainly because that post didn't come across as one of your usual posts. They're normally constructive.

  We all know the cost of a St Crispins boot along with their fit. If the guy wants to spend his hard earned dollar bills on those two things and does it to his own

  design for a particular aesthetic then so be it. It's irrelevant that we like or dislike it and there should be no insinuation that some antiquated dogma may have

  been ignored

post #2036 of 2531
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoGent View Post

  I'm glad you brought that up. Mainly because that post didn't come across as one of your usual posts. They're normally constructive.
  We all know the cost of a St Crispins boot along with their fit. If the guy wants to spend his hard earned dollar bills on those two things and does it to his own
  design for a particular aesthetic then so be it. It's irrelevant that we like or dislike it and there should be no insinuation that some antiquated dogma may have
  been ignored

Slavishly adhering to "Tradition," to cultural norms, to accepted standards may seem rigid and outdated, but the fact that these "memes" have come down to us through literally hundreds of years, in most cases, is not insignificant. They have stood the test of time and been found to exemplify the best practices and best expectations of those who look to them.

The problem is that it is actually easier to become a prisoner of iconoclasm...even nihilism...than to orthodoxy. It's easier because it absolves a person of the need/responsibility to understand the motives and insights that inform Tradition or cultural standards. And thereby absolves a person of the need to understand anything or anyone outside of themselves.

So what are we talking about? What's the purpose of posting to a community that holds certain "truths to be self-evident"? If it's only to discredit hairy old shibboleths, that's not particularly constructive.

In passing, I agree with you about it being "irrelevant...". But you've just dismissed all the many, many "me too"ers and four word ego-strokers on the board. And given even more credence to what Edmoral was intimating when he said that without convention, Tradition, even dogma, "its just a mastubatory group exercise; all the purchases are great, all the applications of those purchases are great and everyone looks amazing." (my apologies to Edmoral if I got it wrong)
post #2037 of 2531

The false dichotomy is the favored tool of the sophist.  We are not bound to either mindlessly follow rigid conventions or else categorically dismiss them as being wholly without value.  The choices are not so stark.

post #2038 of 2531

aesthetic is aesthetic and a personal choice . . . . choice being the operative word

unlike one of my own screw ups with a shoe design & materials choice, the boot which began the discussion isn't for any of us to judge

using 'tradition' or any other mantra as a basis.

 

granted, experience is learning & knowing the rules and expertise is knowing how and when to bend the rule but even then if whatever

works for whomever then it's a winner for that person for that purpose

post #2039 of 2531
Quote:
Originally Posted by SoGent View Post

aesthetic is aesthetic and a personal choice . . . . choice being the operative word
unlike one of my own screw ups with a shoe design & materials choice, the boot which began the discussion isn't for any of us to judge
using 'tradition' or any other mantra as a basis.

granted, experience is learning & knowing the rules and expertise is knowing how and when to bend the rule but even then if whatever
works for whomever then it's a winner for that person for that purpose

Truth is I don't judge any shoe or boot by anything but quality of materials and techniques...many of which, most of which, are informed by Tradition even if only as a pale substitute/pretense for and of Traditional values. And I don't pay much attention to conventions such as black is formal and brown is not. ( I can't afford it and anyway, all my shoes are black)

But purely in the spirit of mental exercise...it strikes me, being at a distance, that your remarks only emphasize a focus on the personal and the ego-centric. One can make the points you made but I don't see how they can be made without dismissing all reference to other people. In point of fact, they seem to me...a dyed in the wool iconoclast in his own right...to be almost solipsistic.

All of which belies the fact(?) that we're voluntarily part of a community...just by posting here.
post #2040 of 2531
Quote:
Originally Posted by DWFII View Post


Truth is I don't judge any shoe or boot by anything but quality of materials and techniques...many of which, most of which, are informed by Tradition even if only as a pale substitute/pretense for and of Traditional values. And I don't pay much attention to conventions such as black is formal and brown is not. ( I can't afford it and anyway, all my shoes are black)

 

   of course you use materials & technique as your benchmark . . . . you're a shoemaker having simmered in

   quality of workmanship  I don't give anything remotely close to a rat's patoot that a choice is egocentric.

   Because it IZ. Otherwise there would not be much more than a single pair per person of true quality with

   each likely following the tradition of looking like the other and creating the 'norm'.

 

   Yes, I do know the statement is to the extreme . . . . just for the helluvit not unlike my shoe I referenced

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › St. Crispin's Appreciation Thread