Is the taste on this forum too "nouveau riche"?

[Infrasonic]

Originally Posted by yfyf

I've had neither the opportunity nor the desire to splurge on a pocketsquare so I'm kind of curious if the more expensive ones have some distinctive feature to them. Like Tom Ford's $200 ones.

I think you have to watch the fit on those TF pocketsquares though...

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by Infrasonic

I think you have to watch the fit on those TF pocketsquares though...

Ridiculous. TF's pony-tailed master tailor can alter any of their pocket squares to fit...even do other shapes, e.g. in the shape of a peeled banana:

- B

 

[heavyd]

I think the today's notion of nouveau riche style is irrelevant. there was a time in the not too distant past when men would work as their fathers did and wear suits as their fathers did and lunch at clubs as their fathers did. there was a higher barrier to entry on this lifestyle because the economy was different.

A man who wore custom suits in 1978 and was a respected professional or entrepreneur lived a different life from his son in 2008 who might in fact earn more but wear jeans. Is the son "nouveau riche" because he wears a cashmere sweater, jeans and prada shoes to work (that cost the same as a custom suit?)

Back in 1980 if a man who came into means by way of en entrepreneurial endeavor (trader, etc) he was an outcast rouge. He wore jeans and put his name on charities and dined out mid-week! This was not the traditional course of action for a man of establishment and means.

Today however, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates and the rest of the new establishment have muted the line required for respectability. True a guy from a modest background might not have learned how to tie a proper tie, (as I did) from his father... but his business acumen is no longer considered rouge or outcast - instead admired.

I agree Russian Oligarchs and the like have a lot of money and a loud style. But I don't think it's the new money. It's simply that they don't have the same traditional style popular on SF. I think men who wear mink slippers and yellow pants must have tremendous confidence. Even if their fathers were Russian bankers, doctors and scientists, they did not grow up wearing suits to work.

I personally think "Bijan" clothes are absurd. He had a store on prime 5th avenue open only by appointment. Michael Jordan shopped there. Michael Jordan did not grow up in a home where his father was a banker. He likes Bijan, he can afford it - more power to him.

My point being - Ralph Lauren is in fact, "new money". The old definition is no longer relevant.

 

[Doc4]

Originally Posted by Eccentric

When I think "nouveau riche", one word comes to mind: Russians.

I was thinking of the statement "my Rolex have a dust in it."

 

[Dakota rube]

Originally Posted by Augustus Davies

My money's so new it smells like sweat!
You a stripper?

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Do.

Don't

Do
Do

 

[bmulford]

Originally Posted by yfyf

For reallies? I've had neither the opportunity nor the desire to splurge on a pocketsquare so I'm kind of curious if the more expensive ones have some distinctive feature to them. Like Tom Ford's $200 ones.

Charvet squares do stand out. The silk is ultra light (almost transparent) an delicately sewn. brioni's tend to have a super heavy satin silk that stands out above most others.

Talbott and Zegna seem to be about the same - nice silk prints.

Overall , the Charvets were the most elegant, but still too expensive at $80+ each.

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Although there is some diversity, I wouldn't place the general taste here at nouveau riche.

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

Although there is some diversity, I wouldn't place the general taste here at nouveau riche.

Not enough riche?


- B

 

[Will]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Not enough riche?


- B

Not enough nouveau?

 

[Film Noir Buff]

Quote: Originally Posted by voxsartoria Not enough riche? - B

Originally Posted by Will

Not enough nouveau?
Well, I don't know how much this comes into play. I think of several factors which isolate the "nouveau riche" most revolving around having made money quickly without also developing the tastes and manners (both real and perceived) that go with it. But this is a hobby, and while hobbies can involve a certain class, it does not have to. Additionally, we are online which changes the dynamics considerably. The mere discussion of class making some uncomfortable (and indeed, belligerent) is somewhat of it's own answer. Apparently, at least in the US, there is some belief that class has some positive, winning aspects to it, the higher up you go. However, class with clothes does not always have to involve social or economic class. The class I generally associate with clothes is the "class of taste" which has an objective appreciation and can be developed irrespective of the user (or wearer's) "class". But when I think of style forum, i dont necessarily think of class at all. I think of conformity and a certain blandness developed by some of the most active posters battering everyone to a certain standard or "mealy" middle. I know a lot of people don't think of themselves as conformist here but that's the way i see it. Conformity and acceptance can be OK, it's all a matter of degree, not the presence or absence of it. Additionally, there are times when people choose something outlandish which punctuates the conformity with the occasional lunge. Although a hobby we congregate around, clothes are a primarily visual and tactile one. The tactile part is out (unless we meet offline) and the visual part has it's own issues; not least of which are bringing into the discussion some of the very physical issues clothes are meant to camouflage. What we are left with is writing - and writing about clothes is difficult; which makes a forum necessarily more about gossip, than about clothes.

 

[Eccentric]

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

Quote:
Originally Posted by voxsartoria
Not enough riche?


- B





Well, I don't know how much this comes into play. I think of several factors which isolate the "nouveau riche" most revolving around having made money quickly without also developing the tastes and manners (both real and perceived) that go with it.

But this is a hobby, and while hobbies can involve a certain class, it does not have to. Additionally, we are online which changes the dynamics considerably. The mere discussion of class making some uncomfortable (and indeed, belligerent) is somewhat of it's own answer. Apparently, at least in the US, there is some belief that class has some positive, winning aspects to it, the higher up you go.

However, class with clothes does not always have to involve social or economic class. The class I generally associate with clothes is the "class of taste" which has an objective appreciation and can be developed irrespective of the user (or wearer's) "class".

But when I think of style forum, i dont necessarily think of class at all. I think of conformity and a certain blandness developed by some of the most active posters battering everyone to a certain standard or "mealy" middle. I know a lot of people don't think of themselves as conformist here but that's the way i see it. Conformity and acceptance can be OK, it's all a matter of degree, not the presence or absence of it.

Additionally, there are times when people choose something outlandish which punctuates the conformity with the occasional lunge.

Although a hobby we congregate around, clothes are a primarily visual and tactile one. The tactile part is out (unless we meet offline) and the visual part has it's own issues; not least of which are bringing into the discussion some of the very physical issues clothes are meant to camouflage. What we are left with is writing - and writing about clothes is difficult; which makes a forum necessarily more about gossip, than about clothes.

I think you are right with regards to "taste" constituting its own class. While the socio-economic upper class has the means to show good taste, they do not always do so.

I think you are overplaying the conformity aspect, however. I do not see any more conformity on SF than any other place with a group discussion dynamic. It is human nature to follow a few individuals in a crowd. Even so, there are certainly enough discordant opinions here to allow for meaningful discussion.

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by Film Noir Buff

The tactile part is out (unless we meet offline)...

- B

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by Eccentric

While the socio-economic upper class has the means to show good taste, they do not always do so.

That's no reason to be sore at us.

We give to charity and stuff like that.


- B

 

[Felix Krull]

The term "nouveau riche" beckons to one who has acquired considerable wealth within his or her own generation, as opposed to those who are the products of wealth and grew accustomed to possesssing money through their upbringing. As I imagine the majority of the people on this forum are of "middle class" means, with a net worth of less than $1 million, I would hesitate to label them "nouveau riche." Not that a $1 million classifies one as rich, but it is a classic cut-off point.

When considering brand consciousness, it is necessary to take into account the times in which we live. The information age and the plethora of high-end retailers in formerly obscure markets have made luxury goods far more readily available than they were just 20 to 30 years ago. This generation has access to brands and goods that the one before did not. Everyone on this forum can log onto the internet, buy a Brioni suit and have it altered at their local needle and thread shop. There is not enough room here to delve into the intricacies of the upwardly rising American middle class, so suffice to say that everyone with enough available credit and access to a phone line can own a Brioni suit.

By making high-end goods available to more potential buyers, more knowledge about the competing brands is naturally acquired by would-be consumers and that knowledge is naturally disseminated among peers of like mind and interest. That is what this forum represents, individuals who appreciate style and fine clothing and wish to adopt such to the extent that their purse permits.

On automobile forums, rather than debate the merits of Ford versus Toyota, you will find that most participants hold court on the elegance of a Lamborghini against the craftsmanship of a Ferrari. Thus, why would not clothing afficianados contrast the beauty of a bespoke garment from one house with the equally compelling habiliments of a competing house. Of course, because of its lower absolute cost, the finest clothing is easier to obtain that the finest automobiles, and thus easier to espouse personal opinions based upon relevant experience.

While I certainly do not need advice on style from anyone on this forum due to my extensive experience with clothing, there are many inexperienced individuals who come to a forum like this in search of knowledge and it is to them I think that we provide the greatest benefit. And, in the end, even those of us with great knowledge can learn about various reaches of the style universe that we may not have personally explored from others on this forum who have been to that corner of the sartorial galaxy.

 

[Eccentric]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

That's no reason to be sore at us.

We give to charity and stuff like that.


- B

Sorry, didn't mean to come off as a bitter pleb. I was just pointing out that having good taste is not intrinsic to having money.