Best bespoke commission ever? I think so. *** PICTURES ADDED FOR THOSE LACKING IMAGINATION

[TheFoo]

How often do Fuuma and I come this close to agreeing?

Let's not get caught up in semantics and word games. The point is that there is an approach to dressing, whatever you want to call it, that greatly values the stabilization of its component forms. That's what I mean when I say "classic menswear" or "classic men's tailoring" or "classic men's clothing," etc. There is often no good reason for why such component forms have stabilized the way they have. Half the stuff we wear evolved because men used to ride horses a certain kind of way. The other half has roots in social customs and court dress that could not be further from today's practical reality. Yet, stabilization has value even a stout modernist should appreciate. It provides a toolkit of components that are pre-defined and that have grounded, predictable meanings. We can learn to "say" a lot of new things just by learning to use those components.

Good modernist thinking is about truth-seeking, objective improvement, etc. In many other expressive forms, such as architecture and art, it's led to significant, even traumatic, change. Yet, in most of those cases, such changes made sense because they were cost-effective. As technology improved, it made sense to build buildings differently. There is no added cost in painting a new, different kind of painting. Yet, here we have "classic menswear," stuck in the mud. Is that an affront to modernism or something else? I actually think it is the latter (here, I think Fuuma would most strongly disagree). Why? Because technology has not provided us with sufficiently superior clothing solutions to make it worthwhile to dump the old norms and their communicative value. If a good modernist should seek to maximize a thing's capacity to function, and clothing is in no small part about communication, then he should also play the conservative every now and then--as significant adjustments to the meanings of things occur over generations, even centuries, not seasons or years. Incidentally, this is why you don't hear about many modernists trying to invent "better" languages.

That brings us back to Taub. Yes, I see he is clearly not tied to classic menswear norms. But, that doesn't mean classic menswear norms aren't good standards by which to judge his clothing. Under all the ornamental flash, you can still find the classic foundations (the odd jacket, the suit, the overcoat, etc.) that he cannot bring himself to divorce. Hence, he is implicitly acknowledging their communicative, or otherwise pressing, value. Do his additions add to that value? I have argued they do not. But I think by admission of his own design, you cannot avoid the question.

As for postmodernists--well, they can go ***************.

 

[Lovelace]

How often do Fuuma and I come this close to agreeing?

Let's not get caught up in semantics and word games. The point is that there is a approach to dressing, whatever you want to call it, that greatly values the stabilization of its component forms. That's what I mean when I say "classic menswear" or "classic men's tailoring" or "classic men's clothing," etc. There is often no good reason for why such component forms have stabilized the way they have. Half the stuff we wear evolved because men used to ride horses a certain kind of way. The other half has roots in social customs and court dress that could not be further from today's practical reality. Yet, stabilization has value even a stout modernist should appreciate. It provides a toolkit of components that are pre-defined and that have grounded, predictable meanings. We can learn to "say" a lot of new things just by learning to use those components.

Good modernist thinking is about truth-seeking, objective improvement, etc. In many other expressive forms, such as architecture and art, it's led to significant, even traumatic, change. Yet, in most of those cases, such changes made sense because they were cost-effective. As technology improved, it made sense to build buildings differently. There is no added cost in painting a new, different kind of painting. Yet, here we have "classic menswear," stuck in the mud. Is that an affront to modernism or something else? I actually think it is the latter (here, I think Fuuma would most strongly disagree). Why? Because technology has not provided us with sufficiently superior clothing solutions to make it worthwhile to dump the old norms and their communicative value. If a good modernist should seek to maximize a thing's capacity to function, and clothing is in no small part about communication, then he should also play the conservative every now and then--as significant adjustments to the meanings of things occur over generations, even centuries, not seasons or years. Incidentally, this is why you don't hear about many modernists trying to invent "better" languages.

That brings us back to Taub. Yes, I see he is clearly not tied to classic menswear norms. But, that doesn't mean classic menswear norms aren't good standards by which to judge his clothing. Under all the ornamental flash, you can still find the classic foundations (the odd jacket, the suit, the overcoat, etc.) that he cannot bring himself to divorce. Hence, he is implicitly acknowledging their communicative, or otherwise pressing, value. Do his additions add to that value? I have argued they do not. But I think by admission of his own design, you cannot avoid the question.

As for postmodernists--well, they can go ***************.

Ah, a Modernist eh? That explains everything. Never leave home without a manifesto.

You raise some interesting points.

 

[johanm]



How often do Fuuma and I come this close to agreeing?

Let's not get caught up in semantics and word games. The point is that there is a approach to dressing, whatever you want to call it, that greatly values the stabilization of its component forms. That's what I mean when I say "classic menswear" or "classic men's tailoring" or "classic men's clothing," etc. There is often no good reason for why such component forms have stabilized the way they have. Half the stuff we wear evolved because men used to ride horses a certain kind of way. The other half has roots in social customs and court dress that could not be further from today's practical reality. Yet, stabilization has value even a stout modernist should appreciate. It provides a toolkit of components that are pre-defined and that have grounded, predictable meanings. We can learn to "say" a lot of new things just by learning to use those components.

Good modernist thinking is about truth-seeking, objective improvement, etc. In many other expressive forms, such as architecture and art, it's led to significant, even traumatic, change. Yet, in most of those cases, such changes made sense because they were cost-effective. As technology improved, it made sense to build buildings differently. There is no added cost in painting a new, different kind of painting. Yet, here we have "classic menswear," stuck in the mud. Is that an affront to modernism or something else? I actually think it is the latter (here, I think Fuuma would most strongly disagree). Why? Because technology has not provided us with sufficiently superior clothing solutions to make it worthwhile to dump the old norms and their communicative value. If a good modernist should seek to maximize a thing's capacity to function, and clothing is in no small part about communication, then he should also play the conservative every now and then--as significant adjustments to the meanings of things occur over generations, even centuries, not seasons or years. Incidentally, this is why you don't hear about many modernists trying to invent "better" languages.

That brings us back to Taub. Yes, I see he is clearly not tied to classic menswear norms. But, that doesn't mean classic menswear norms aren't good standards by which to judge his clothing. Under all the ornamental flash, you can still find the classic foundations (the odd jacket, the suit, the overcoat, etc.) that he cannot bring himself to divorce. Hence, he is implicitly acknowledging their communicative, or otherwise pressing, value. Do his additions add to that value? I have argued they do not. But I think by admission of his own design, you cannot avoid the question.

As for postmodernists--well, they can go ***************.

I think you're losing focus with your argument. You made a valid point that deviations from orthodoxy shouldn't be arbitrary and capricious. Fuuma echoed the point by contrasting design gimmicks against innovations driven by genuine points of view and vision. No one would deny this or that there is good design and bad design. The other points you're making are just arbitrary and unpersuasive pronouncements - casting the history of clothes as linear/incremental/universal and driven by concerns of functionality (as opposed to, e.g., cultural expression), taking for granted the "stabilization of component forms", tenuous analogies to technology and language (ignoring the constant evolution of lexicon, usage, style), etc.

 

[aravenel]

Foo, that's a very well thought out post that makes what I think are some excellent points--and even if folks disagree, I think you have laid out a very coherent and considered opinion. Well done, sir.

 

[TheFoo]



I think you're losing focus with your argument. You made a valid point that deviations from orthodoxy shouldn't be arbitrary and capricious. Fuuma echoed the point by contrasting design gimmicks against innovations driven by genuine points of view and vision. No one would deny this or that there is good design and bad design. The other points you're making are just arbitrary and unpersuasive pronouncements - casting the history of clothes as linear/incremental/universal and driven by concerns of functionality (as opposed to, e.g., cultural expression), taking for granted the "stabilization of component forms", tenuous analogies to technology and language (ignoring the constant evolution of lexicon, usage, style), etc.

Is "whatever" a valid response to this?

No, nobody who wants to sound objective and reasonable will deny that design can be good or bad. However, there are many who arbitrarily distinguish between the two--often to vindicate their own less considered impulses or intrinsically unrelated agendas.

The point of my post was to reboot what had become an unwieldy discussion, derailed by a debate over whether a thing is "classic menswear" or not.

As for my "unpersuasive pronouncements," you have grossly misread me. There is no doubt that clothing forms often stabilize for the sake of cultural expression. Nothing I said denies that. In fact, that is exactly what it means for a form to stabilize. Even if it once had a functional purpose, it is nonetheless maintained for its established communicative value. I thought I made that abundantly clear by reference to clothes with equestrian and courtly origins that we nonetheless still wear. The reason why the thing has become what it is (whether that reason be "functional" or "cultural" or whatever) is irrelevant when it has nonetheless adopted a particular meaning that others understand. Just like the words we speak.

I think it is safe to grant the "stabilization of component forms." Look at Taub's work itself. Does it now contain the same component forms one would find at a more traditional Savile Row firm? Can you not identify the same forms you might have seen fifty or a hundred years ago? They are quiet evidently present.

The reference to technology was not analogical. It was a direct analysis. Evidently, technology has not produced clothing solutions superior enough and cheap enough to overcome the communicative (or "cultural" if you prefer) value of more classical forms. In other expressive contexts, it has. So, now maybe you can see that this was an attempt to explain an apparently dissonant phenomenon, not it any way a tenuous analogy.

 

[etkl]



^
pay attention
to the thickness
at teh back
if you decide
to do a belted
back

Will do, thanks.

 

[Strange]

Truly beautiful commission, :foo:, I admit, I wasn't sure about the interplay of cashmere and the tweed patterns when you first started working together on this but seeing it done I can't imagine a better combination.

 

[andreyb2]

Speaking on asymmetric coats...

This one is from Richard Anderson.

Andrey

 

[ctp120]

Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!

Okay, here's the Appreciation.

The coat is fully lined with the plaid cashmere, but the typical silk lining is laid over the shoulders and lines the sleeves (not shown).

This loop can be used to fasten the fronts together so they don't flap around. As you can tell from the other button, you can also fasten it back to its own side if you want to keep it out of the way.

I can find only one interior pocket. Due to the horizontally oriented entry, I was worried it wouldn't be the right shape or size for my wallet. However, the pocket curves downward into a vertical rectangle, so the wallet slips in very easily. Strikes me as an unusual solution, but I'm no expert on overcoat construction.

You have to look carefully, but you can see that the lining is fully hand-stitched to the coat. I have to admit, I was at first surprised to hear how much they charge for an overcoat. It is more than a suit. I was imagining it shouldn't cost more than making a really long odd jacket. However, after seeing all the extra detail work that must go into this sort of thing, I totally understand. If nothing else, it must be real pain to hand-stitch so much thick and heavy cloth.

The somewhat vestigial breast pocket. If I could have had it my way, it wouldn't exist. I don't like that it is so close to the top button.

The controversially chunky martingale. For what it's worth, I asked for it this wide--to the centimeter.

The pleated rear opening. Very cool. The opening is stitched shut right where the belt ends.

My eight centimeter cuffs. I asked for ten, but was vetoed. It turned out that everything is eight centimeters wide: the pocket flaps, the martingale belt, and the cuffs.

For those who missed them earlier, the envelope-style hip pockets. Or mailbox, mail-slot, whatever. I think an investigation into the various forms of such pockets would make for an interesting future (near future?) discussion. Apparently these are globally atypical, but a known form in Naples (see the last few pages).

My earlier guess that such pockets are unheard of in Naples is clearly wrong.

Spoiler

The pics of the breast wallet penetrating the coat's pocket are quite p0rn-like indeed, and they feature one of Styfo's most [in]famous starlets.

 

[Despos]

Classic

Same car as a concept car

 

[TheFoo]



Speaking on asymmetric coats...

This one is from Richard Anderson.

Andrey

Was this made to show clients what different lapels look like?

The thing is, if it weren't Richard Anderson who designed it, and if it weren't Davide Taub who designed the asymmetrical stuff posted earlier, I think many of you would judge very differently.

 

[Lovelace]

Was this made to show clients what different lapels look like?

The thing is, if it weren't Richard Anderson who designed it, and if it weren't Davide Taub who designed the asymmetrical stuff posted earlier, I think many of you would judge very differently.

Maybe, but couldn't the same accusation be levelled at appraisals of your tailor too?

 

[TheFoo]

Well, relative to what example?

Basically I have a great coat with Ulster-appropriate pockets, when overcoats categories are already sort of amorphous. That is not the same thing as adding forms that were never part of the classic lexicon or randomly rendering details asymmetrical. Notice, both my pockets are the same.

 

[Baron]



Was this made to show clients what different lapels look like?

The thing is, if it weren't Richard Anderson who designed it, and if it weren't Davide Taub who designed the asymmetrical stuff posted earlier, I think many of you would judge very differently.

I doubt anybody here likes that Anderson jacket, but the Taub stuff is kinda interesting.

 

[Lovelace]

Well, relative to what example?

Basically I have a great coat with Ulster-appropriate pockets, when overcoats categories are already sort of amorphous. That is not the same thing as adding forms that were never part of the classic lexicon or randomly rendering details asymmetrical. Notice, both my pockets are the same.

I wasn't referring to any specific garment, yours or otherwise I was referring to the work of your tailor or any tailor for that matter.

Its always amusing how the mere mention of a particular name can blunt peoples critical faculties.

True in other walks of life too. Take the art world for example.