Quote:
Originally Posted by
Teger 
Does anyone else see a discontinuity between foo's argument that certain stylistic liberties (if you can even call a curved yoke, considering the history of American West sportcoat styles a stylistic liberty) and his own slavish devotion to his own preferred idiosyncrasies? How is it that having a curved yoke is objectively 'ugly', while wearing a button-down collar with the buttons down, or having a shell-cordovan longwing made up on an aggressive last is the height of fashion conservatism? The problem is that foo is projecting his narrow understanding of what constitutes classic dress onto a world which is not in agreement with his personal taste (and, at its heart, it is personal taste). I know that foo has an obsession to this internalized worldview -- see, again, OneShoe -- but his inability to recognize that it's, at its heart, completely personal is baffling.
Thanks for engaging me in this discussion. I was hoping to get some thoughtful back-and-forth.
First of all, you should keep in mind I allow myself some self-professed idiosyncrasies that I would never prescribe to others as general good practice. Have you ever heard me say everyone else should only where Plaza-lasted longwings? I mean, other than in obvious jest.
Also, things can be idiosyncratic for different reasons. A longwing is not an idiosyncratic shoe in the canon of classic menswear. And the Plaza last is really not an aggressive shape--it is just one of the sleekest used by Alden, which is really saying nothing. Anyway, I chose it for fit, not style. Yet, you are right,
only wearing longwings
is idiosyncratic. I just see nothing wrong with idiosyncrasy in and of itself. In fact, I think it is part and parcel to one's personal style. The big, huge difference between my point of view and others is that there is plenty of room for eccentricity and idiosyncrasy
within the established language of classic menswear. I would not begrudge someone else for only wearing another type of shoe that is both classic and equally versatile. I never wear my longwings when they would be patently wrong, keeping in mind they
do make my outfits more casual than they otherwise would have been.
Another mistake you make in your commentary is conflating different forms of conservatism. I never said to dress conservatively. I don't really even know what that means. I said that it is important to be conservative about our approach to the canon of classic menswear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Teger
Consider this: wasn't one of foo's points that there are so many different variations on overcoat and Great Coat designs over the last seventy five years, that it was actually hard to articulate a particular style, and that because of this virtually any overcoat configuration can be considered 'classic'? Yet, despite the hundreds of different pocket designs, piping patterns and lapel sizes, having a curved back-yoke in an attempt to smoothly continue the lines from the arms is simply, inarguably ugly, and the opposite of classic dress?
You aren't following the line of your own reasoning. Yes, overcoat taxonomy is clearly a muddled space. Yet, within that space there are certainly defined forms and components. Taub's funny yoke details are not part present there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Teger
edit: Even worse, foo is now trying to talk about
function in the context of traditional dress. How is wearing a button-down collar with a tie 'functional' in this day and age? Are you playing polo? Or does the fact that it's
traditional mean it doesn't have to be functional? Where's the line?
You must have skimmed over that part of my analysis. Function is not only physical. It is also social and communicative. The button-down collar has a defined place in our clothing culture. It has certain connotations, chiefly that it is more sporting and casual than other collars one would wear with a tie. Hence, if I want to make my suit a little more casual, I might select a buttondown collar.
