or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014) - Page 2588

post #38806 of 43873
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by agjiffy View Post

But to answer your question, kind of. I think what I would say is that outside the world of igentry there are impeccably dressed people who are dressed that way for different reasons than your typical igent and wouldn't consider your typical igent to be much of a style icon.

Agreed :cheers:

 

That's why I was only speaking to the world of iGentry. I'm an academic; we don't care that our queries are irrelevant to the real world.

 

And who says that online slapfights can't be reasonably resolved?

post #38807 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by agjiffy View Post

never seen spalla camicia on a business suit in London or NY. Where else matters?

I think the spalla is reserved for sport coats and casual suits....
post #38808 of 43873

Very interesting conversation. Thanks to all involved.

post #38809 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordsuperb View Post

I think the spalla is reserved for sport coats and casual suits....

Fuck it. I will wear my only spalla camicia suit to a meeting this week. I bet someone makes fun of me but one way or another we will have a better sense of whether I'm right.
post #38810 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post
 

I'm an academic; we don't care that our queries are irrelevant to the real world.

 

Also, yes we do. :D

post #38811 of 43873
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 

 

Also, yes we do. :D


Contributions to theory get into better journals than contributions to practice. That's probably one of the many things that is wrong with the study of management and organizations.

post #38812 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claghorn View Post
 


Contributions to theory get into better journals than contributions to practice.


I'd say that isn't necessarily so among historians. You are an economics guy, right?

post #38813 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caustic Man View Post
 


I'd say that isn't necessarily so among historians. You are an economics guy, right?

 

That's a whole kettle of fish right there.  The splashy jobs and splashy books in history almost always correlate to heavy theoretical application (though if a scholar is also a good writer, the theory can be subcutaneous).  People who write brilliant, field-changing books are frequently terrible at the basic practice of empirical accuracy.  The recent(ish) kerfluffle instigated by Daniel Feller over Walter Johnson, Ed Baptist, and their collective failure to demonstrate an undergraduate-level command of the basics of the Jacksonian era comes to mind.  

 

Put differently, you can get a historical education at the University of Virginia (for example) and know the political narrative of US history brilliantly but have little idea about the dominant theories that drive historiographical interpretation.  You can get a historical education at Grinnell (for example) and read lots of Foucault and Judith Butler but not be able to articulate the sequence of political events leading up to the Civil War with any degree of accurate command.  That's because the respective faculties care about different things.  

post #38814 of 43873

Leadership and organizations space (on the management spectrum) greatly privileges theory building for journals; practice related for speaking/executive education. At least in my experience.

post #38815 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by pravda View Post

Birthday Party. Host requested guests to wear black and white.


Shirt and jacket look fine, but suggest you lose the belt. I don't care if the "H" stands for Hermes or Handsome, it's...how shall I say this...the opposite of subtle and understated.

post #38816 of 43873

This is exactly the kind of thing I was thinking of when I made that comment. I defer to your expertise since you are more experienced int he field. However, what comes to mind is the popularity of post modernism in historical theory. Remarkably influential in theoretical terms, however it seems to me that people doing actual historical work at the time simply didn't pay much attention to it. Possibly because post modernism called into question the very possibility of making factual determination from historical sources. Nonetheless, people still did history and, of course, still do it today. In the meantime, while post modernism posited some very interesting critiques it is mostly passed up by most of the up and coming grad students, as well as recent PhD graduates that I know. Of course, this is my personal view based now hat I have seen.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by heldentenor View Post
 

 

That's a whole kettle of fish right there.  The splashy jobs and splashy books in history almost always correlate to heavy theoretical application (though if a scholar is also a good writer, the theory can be subcutaneous).  People who write brilliant, field-changing books are frequently terrible at the basic practice of empirical accuracy.  The recent(ish) kerfluffle instigated by Daniel Feller over Walter Johnson, Ed Baptist, and their collective failure to demonstrate an undergraduate-level command of the basics of the Jacksonian era comes to mind.  

 

Put differently, you can get a historical education at the University of Virginia (for example) and know the political narrative of US history brilliantly but have little idea about the dominant theories that drive historiographical interpretation.  You can get a historical education at Grinnell (for example) and read lots of Foucault and Judith Butler but not be able to articulate the sequence of political events leading up to the Civil War with any degree of accurate command.  That's because the respective faculties care about different things.  

post #38817 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by agjiffy View Post

I of course have no idea what type of business you are in but I have a pretty good view of of what's going on in the places I'm mentioning and I'm just telling you what I'm seeing. Are you seeing people in the street in spalla camicia and asking them what they do for a living? Are you in the meetings? Or are you just kind of guessing? I'm having a hard time understand how your experience is so different than mine, particularly in New York but in all the major world financial centers.
I suppose my argument would be best summarized like this in styleforum terms. Let's posthulate that you can get an amazing suit from any one of 15 different tailors on savile row (debatable - but not crazy) who are never mentioned here or in the blogosphere and who appear have fewer than 3 customers each on this board and the internet in general. Where are all the customers of those places? Who buys enough suits so that huntsman, kilgour, a&s, Poole, dege, etc can make four trips a year to multiple US cities? It isn't the Igents, right, because if it were then they would be blogging about it and posting it. Igent and well-dressed are not the same.

 

I dont think that anyone can pretend to have a full view on what happens in the world's business centers sartorial wise, not even in one of them. I never made such a claim. My only point is that I have seen neapolitan suits in several of them, worn by businessmen and I doubted your comment that they would be regarded as out of place. My experience is also that most businessmen that I have met, and there are quite a few, were not dressed particularly well, even if there are great exceptions of course. And by "not well dressed" I don't mean in terms of brands or style, but more that they wore ill fitting clothes and were clearly not very interested in what they wore. That's all.

 

Your basic premise that most of the world's best dressed people are not blogging about it on the internet I agree with completely. But isn't that true about basically any given subject? Most of the best chefs in the world are not active on food blogs, athletes are generally not active on sports blogs etc etc.

 

And aren't you underestimating the love Savile Row gets in forums like these? I have myself posted garments from Chester Barrie, Fallan & Harvey, Hardy Amies, Huntsman, Thom Sweeney and Kilgour and some others here post Savile Row stuff on a regular basis.

post #38818 of 43873
When did "iGent" become anything other than a perjorative describing the #menswear equivalent of reality TV celebrities?

Answer: it didn't.
post #38819 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by agjiffy View Post

Fuck it. I will wear my only spalla camicia suit to a meeting this week. I bet someone makes fun of me but one way or another we will have a better sense of whether I'm right.

I don't think it's necessarily fair to assign attributes gleaned from those in your bubble to the overarching whole.

For the most part, I agree with you, but the idea is that a given look (Spalla camicia, in this case) is entirely out of place is a tad overblown. I know and interact with a decent amount of Wall Street/hedge fund folks, and they're certainly a mixed bag from my experience. Some are among the lines of your thinking, some wear meh, relatively ill fitting suits, and some are cool with wearing a shirt, sweater, and khakis.

I KNOW (again, this is only my experience, nothing more) a Spalla camicia suit, regardless of the fabric, design, etc would be seen as overdressed in some of those circles. However, to your argument, they would also be seen as out of place in others.
post #38820 of 43873
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiplomaticTies View Post

I dont think that anyone can pretend to have a full view on what happens in the world's business centers sartorial wise, not even in one of them. I never made such a claim. My only point is that I have seen neapolitan suits in several of them, worn by businessmen and I doubted your comment that they would be regarded as out of place. My experience is also that most businessmen that I have met, and there are quite a few, were not dressed particularly well, even if there are great exceptions of course. And by "not well dressed" I don't mean in terms of brands or style, but more that they wore ill fitting clothes and were clearly not very interested in what they wore. That's all.

You aren't answering the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiplomaticTies View Post

Your basic premise that most of the world's best dressed people are not blogging about it on the internet I agree with completely. But isn't that true about basically any given subject? Most of the best chefs in the world are not active on food blogs, athletes are generally not active on sports blogs etc etc.

Ok. If you agree with me then I'm not sure why you made the claim that I'm simply extrapolating from my own experience. Seems like our takeaways are the same from vastly different experiences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DiplomaticTies View Post

And aren't you underestimating the love Savile Row gets in forums like these? I have myself posted garments from Chester Barrie, Fallan & Harvey, Hardy Amies, Huntsman, Thom Sweeney and Kilgour and some others here post Savile Row stuff on a regular basis.

I would say that this place has historically had, and continues to have, a relative dearth of people who can speak about personal bespoke savile row experiences. If you've been posting on your bespoke experiences at those houses then I've missed it but I will certainly do a search now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › HOF: What Are You Wearing Right Now - Part IV (starting May 2014)