or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Can someone please explain khakis?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can someone please explain khakis? - Page 5

post #61 of 132
Quote:
Actually I just bid on a pair of those new sport utility model Bill's which are a wool, cotton blend. Are those the ones you have?  How are they?
The ones I have (from 3 years ago) are all wool cavalry twill-very heavy with a pronounced twill. Full cut, deep pockets, too heavy to ever wrinkle, can't wear in spring or in fall. They were "limited edition" purchased from the website (but no longer shown as available on the website). The sport utilities will be much lighter, but I don't have experience with them. Good luck on your auction.
post #62 of 132
McCollough wrote some pretty cool books besides those two as well, including a book about the Panama Canal and ones bout Barbarians in the ancient world. He's one of my favorite writers.
post #63 of 132
Quote:
Thanks..  I'll check it out.  I don't really hate Adams, and my comments were a little harsh against him.
Have you ever seen the bar tab for the delegates at that convention? I saw it once and it was amazing. They went through an ungodly amount of whiskey, brandy, wine and beer. I mean a mind-boggling amount.
post #64 of 132
Quote:
Benjamin Franklin was absolutely essential in establishing the alliance with France, both in an economic sense and in a military sense. Without the French alliance, the American Republic would have collapsed quickly - many states were in a very sorry state of economic affairs after the Revolution, and the British were simply waiting for those silly colonists to louse things up a bit more before wandering back in and reclaiming their properties. John Adams was a puritan, and very anti-French, stubborn and stupid as hell. He actually claimed that by creating the alliance with France, Franklin was selling the new Republic to France, and they would all become French subjects. History has proven that idiocy entirely false. John Adams travelled to France because he was convinced, before even arriving, that Franklin was just partying and not taking care of any real business. The other leading American politicians found him highly annoying, and allowed him to go simply because he would not shut up about it. He repeatedly insulted the French court, and was forced to return to America after insulting the King so greatly that the court refused to speak further with any American, and was prepared to dissolve all ties with the struggling new Republic. It was Benjamin Franklin who was forced to clean up the mess John Adams made on his trip to France, and it angered Mr. Franklin so severely that he remained bitter about the experience for the rest of his life, and wrote that the jackassed lack of diplomacy in American politics would eventually cause its collapse. He was almost right (and maybe he was right... we are doing a dandy job of alienating most of the world currently). Even if you were to discount all the writings of the time regarding the situation (99% of which stated exactly what I just said above, about John Adams being an annoying ass and causing no end of trouble in France), history speaks for itself. Benjamin Franklin remained in France, and was able to maintain an absolutely crucial alliance with France through ongoing diplomacy. John Adams showed up uninvited, created all sorts of trouble, and was immediately dismissed, both by Franklin and the French court. The French king also asked that America please not send anyone else to work with the court shortly after John Adam's departure. Yes, Benjamin Franklin was a party animal. That was my point. By his very nature, and brilliant intelligence, he was able to stabilize a Republic that was in such chaos, it is miraculous that it was able to survive even a month. It was his popularity with the French court that allowed America to establish international trade, develop its first major military alliance, and prevent invasion by the British Crown. Would you dismiss all this? Are you saying that Franklin did no more than carouse in France? Whatever you may believe about Franklin, his enduring legacy and amazing wit will continue to remain the upmost example of American ingenuity, while John Adams will continue to remain a forgotten footnote, a bitter little puritan with much less impact on the history of our great Republic. Who do most Americans think of when they think of our Founding Fathers? Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington, and Payne. (I know there were others but most Americans are not familiar with them) Excepting Washington, these men and their brilliant rebellious beliefs kindled the fire that was later to be known as the Age of Enlightenment, quite possibly the greatest evolutionary stage in Western history. And if you were to speak with any history buff, anyone like me who is completely and totally in love with that age, you would find very little debate that Benjamin Franklin (bald-headed, womanizing, party animal that he was) was undoubtedly one of the most influential men of that entire movement. Even with the constant heated (and sometimes fatal) debate that raged between the great minds of the American Republic, Benjamin Franklin remained the most admired of all, and he often used his universal appeal to unify the more feisty elements of the fledgeling republic. You might recall that it was a certain Mr. Franklin who was required to get all those yahoos together for their first Constitutional Convention. Without his support, you would not even have an American Constitution. His diplomatic skill repeatedly saved the hide of the American Republic. So he was a party animal. And he hated wigs and underwear. But he was absolutely essential to the establishment of the Republic. There has never been an American with as much charisma, and such great intellectual and cultural influence worldwide, as Benjamin Franklin. He was the first, and ultimate, American gentleman.
I like how this has thread has suddenly switched from khakis to the founding fathers, but I have to disagree with your characterizations of Franklin and Adams. I admire Franklin, but his most important accomplishments were his inventions and his writing on character and virtue, rather than his political views or accomplishments. Yes, he did negotiate a very important treaty with France, but most of his time in France was devoted to philandering and living it up. As for Adams, he didn't have Franklin's charisma and he could be a stubborn bastard but he certainly wasn't "stupid as hell." The characterization of him as anti-French is also inaccurate; although he didn't care for the extravagance of French society during the so-called "Age of Enlightenment", he certainly recognized the vital importance of an alliance with France. Also, he didn't volunteer to go to France because he thought Franklin was just partying and he "wouldn't shut up about it." He was appointed ambassador by Congress in place of Silas Dean, who had been recalled, and was hesitant to accept the commission because he didn't want to leave his family. When he got there he found that Franklin had indeed spent most of his time carousing and had not even been keeping records of how much was being spent. True, Adams' time in France was sort of a disaster, but let's not forget his numerous accomplishments. His diplomatic efforts in Amsterdam led to the Dutch recognizing American independence and the Dutch bankers extending credit to America. The Dutch alliance was every bit as important as the French alliance to the economic recovery of the country after the end of the war. Adams' writings and activities in the period leading up to the Revolution were also more important than Franklin's in shaping the political thinking of the time. He also gave the key speech in July of 1776, in response to John Dickinson's speech against independence, that moved Congress to vote in favor of independence. Finally, Payne is not typically considered one of the "founding fathers." The term is generally used to mean Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Franklin. Adams was certainly more important than Payne and I would suspect he is also better known to most Americans.
post #65 of 132
Another cool thing about khakis is that they don't fade. Dark cotton trousers do. And khakis, by very nature of their color, tend to resist dirt a bit better than lighter-colored cotton trousers do. I'd go for Bill's, but the good doctor said they're kind of overpriced for what they are. ps. I'm more familiar with Samuel Adams than John Adams
post #66 of 132
Thread Starter 
I agree, Bryce. Touche. My statements were definitely overgeneralized. However, I definitely view Payne as one of the founding "minds" of America. The guy's writing, while being highly controversial (he was an avowed atheist) was absolutely central to many of the ideas put forward, for the first time in Western history, in American government - such as the distinct separation of church and state. He was the biggest proponent of completely secular government, and his arguments were influential enough to inspire the 1st Ammendment (that is a very long and highly debatable topic). Of course, he also inspired the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War. Outside of America, and especially in France, he was seen as one of the great writers of the Age of Enlightenment.
post #67 of 132
Thread Starter 
BTW - I posted a pic taken about 15 minutes ago in the pictures section. As you can see, my style is more influenced by Victorian style, very formal. I see khakis as very boring and plain. If it doesn't have flair, I don't really care for it. Thank god I have the money to support my habits. If I ruin a pair of $300 wool trousers, I could really care less, I just buy another pair and if they don't fit right, I take them to my tailor (I just found a great one here in Seattle - Mario's, on 3rd and Stewart, wonderful Italian lady that really knows what she's doing). I'd rather waste $300 on a pair of trousers that look sharp, than some pair of khaki chinos or whatever, that look, IMHO, totally boring and middle class. F**k the burbs, and everyone who lives there. I live and love the city, baby, and khakis (and all that they stand for) is anathema to urban culture. I guess it's that little bit of punk rawk left in my blood that keeps me from ever donning a pair, although I doubt I will wear them even when I am 65. I like what Chuck has posted on his website - "Cary Grant never went business casual." Oh so true.
post #68 of 132
Thread Starter 
Stu - I would give my left... uhm... foot, to have just an hour with that group of guys. Can you imaging swilling beer with Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison and the rest? Hamilton and Jefferson arguing in the corner, calling each other names. I'd have to butt in and tell Hamilton he's on the right track, no offense to Jefferson, but uhm... the proof is in the pudding, babe.
post #69 of 132
Hamilton should have spent a little less time swilling beer and a little more time practicing his marksmanship though...
post #70 of 132
Quote:
black trousers to work
Rule Breaker... God is this making me itch to make political comments. Damned gag mmph mmmph. Of course we all like Truman, he was a haberdasherer before...
post #71 of 132
Quote:
Quote:
black trousers to work
Rule Breaker...
damn straight... who needs rules <ducking>
post #72 of 132
Quote:
God is this making me itch to make political comments. Damned gag mmph mmmph.
I don't think historical analysis would violate your self-imposed ban on political commentary...
post #73 of 132
Quote:
Khakis are not very common in Australia. l have a pair though.
Your armed services used to wear them. Though I haven't been in Oz for a while, I remember them or variations on them being ubiquitous in Sydney and Melbourne. Now, maybe things have changed, and you being a young pup (I presume) will know best.
post #74 of 132
Quote:
I own one pair of khakis, which have rarely seen the light of day in three or so years, in part because they are a little fuller cut then I'd like them to be, but also because I find khakis rather conservative and uninspiring.
This is the reason I like them. To me though, they are strictly informal. I like one or two bland elements in an ensemble. Wait, what am I talking about, I like all the elements bland. FYI: And I'm just a few years younger than you.
post #75 of 132
Quote:
count me on the pro-khaki side.  I wear them all the time, and love em.  I can understand the criticism I suppose, from some of the more "fashion forward' in the forum, but really, to each his own.  (I think people automatically think of a paunchy middle aged man in pleated doctors when they think of khakis). When I see skinny young guys in tight boot cut jeans and pointy shoes I want to throw them in traffic, but I say nothing, and just chalk it up to "the each his own" theory on life.  For myself, I wear them with everything from a t-shirt, to a cashmere sweater, to an old BB button down and a tweed jacket.  Never ironed, never pleated, hopefully beaten up and frayed, and you are good to go.  Ive become slightly obsessed with Bill's Khakis of late, the M1 model, with the high waist.  They are too baggy, sloppy looking when unironed, but are really just perfect.  I love slim fitting clothes also, but everything doesnt have to be that way.  A great pair of loose fitting, frayed, fading khakis, put on right out of the dryer, there really isnt much better. In a clothing sense, at least.
Care to discuss the relative merits of the M1 v. m2?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Classic Menswear
Styleforum › Forums › Men's Style › Classic Menswear › Can someone please explain khakis?