New Flusser Book

[Lafont]

Show me a knowledgeable poster of Style Forum who favors black suits. Until you do that, you are proving my point.

That would be impossible, man. No way to prove who's more "knowledgeable" or less.

 

[ginlimetonic]

Originally Posted by Lafont

Show me a knowledgeable poster of Style Forum who favors black suits. Until you do that, you are proving my point.


That would be impossible, man. No way to prove who's more "knowledgeable" or less.[/quote]

the SF consensus you are referring to, is what is commonly known as "SF approved" or not.

Personal sartorial choices may be much harder to pin to down a consensus e.g. amount of shoulder padding, 2 button or 3, navy suit with what colored shoes,

 

[Lafont]

Quotes in last post botched up.... I didn't make the statement: "Show me...."
I DID contradict that remark with the statement: "That would be impossible, man...."

 

[The Thin Man]

Originally Posted by Lafont

That would be impossible, man. No way to prove who's more "knowledgeable" or less.

You and Cruiser in AAAC must have a lot to talk about.

 

[Lafont]

I saw the first edition of Style and the Man again in the library and realized the 2010 book is virtually the same - word for word - other than the deletion of the large section on businesses in various cities. Even the introduction is the same in the 2010 edition, beginning with "This is my third book".... A bit confusing.

I already returned the 2010 edition to the library so cannot easily compare the two editions now, but for someone who can compare both - what are some of the changes? I noticed in the 2010 edition Flusser mentioned Brooks Brothers as offering a certain type of formal shoe, while BB wasn't mentioned in the 1996 reference. How about something significant - like a philosophical change in the new edition?

At least Flusser could have contributed a new introduction. As I posted above, Flusser did say hundreds and hundreds of the same things in the Dressing.... book but, in 2010, he kept the old Style.... sentence structure and phrases. Disappointing.
At least John T. Molloy, in his several "dress for success" series, kept the titles but changed many of the examples (and even made subtle changes like tie widths) from edition to edition.

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by Lafont

That would be impossible, man. No way to prove who's more "knowledgeable" or less.
There is no need to prove it ... it's accepted as fact that some are.

 

[Metlin]

Originally Posted by The Thin Man

Show me a knowledgeable poster of Style Forum who favors black suits. Until you do that, you are proving my point.
Thin Man, while I agree with what you've to say, I do believe there are knowledgeable posters here who've either commented on the inevitability/need for a black suit (gdl03 comes to mind) or even posted pictures of themselves in one (Vox). The "Old Guard", if you will, is definitely changing in some ways. More so with the absence/departure of some of the more knowledgeable members.

 

[The Thin Man]

Originally Posted by Metlin

Thin Man, while I agree with what you've to say, I do believe there are knowledgeable posters here who've either commented on the inevitability/need for a black suit (gdl03 comes to mind) or even posted pictures of themselves in one (Vox).

I was probably overstating it to make a point, but I believe Corbera uses his in limited circumstances (basically replacing black tie). There's probably somebody who likes bicycle toes, but you'd have to search for that person. I'm not going to minimize the vast range of differences on the forum, but there is such a thing as a Style Forum "consensus" or "school" or "approval," even if it isn't ironclad, on a range of issues that distinguish it from what you would pick up from GQ.

 

[Metlin]

Originally Posted by The Thin Man

I was probably overstating it to make a point, but I believe Corbera uses his in limited circumstances (basically replacing black tie). There's probably somebody who likes bicycle toes, but you'd have to search for that person. I'm not going to minimize the vast range of differences on the forum, but there is such a thing as a Style Forum "consensus" or "school" or "approval," even if it isn't ironclad, on a range of issues that distinguish it from what you would pick up from GQ.

Indeed. I was probably focusing on the letter vs. the spirit, but yes, I agree with your point.

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by Metlin

Thin Man, while I agree with what you've to say, I do believe there are knowledgeable posters here who've either commented on the inevitability/need for a black suit (gdl03 comes to mind) or even posted pictures of themselves in one (Vox).
Vox is not exempt from errors.

Originally Posted by Metlin

The "Old Guard", if you will, is definitely changing in some ways. More so with the absence/departure of some of the more knowledgeable members.
Several have only changed their names.

 

[Lafont]

Originally Posted by The Thin Man

I was probably overstating it to make a point, but I believe Corbera uses his in limited circumstances (basically replacing black tie). There's probably somebody who likes bicycle toes, but you'd have to search for that person. I'm not going to minimize the vast range of differences on the forum, but there is such a thing as a Style Forum "consensus" or "school" or "approval," even if it isn't ironclad, on a range of issues that distinguish it from what you would pick up from GQ.

I think you're calling John T. Molloy's "Dress for Success" rules a "StyleForum consensus. I've paid much attention to Molloy's rules myself, but an awful lot of ink has been spilled since the years when Molloy ruled in various circles and many of the later writers have some credibility. So anything more than a hint of a "consensus" here just ain't so!

 

[JayJay]

Originally Posted by Lafont

I think you're calling John T. Molloy's "Dress for Success" rules a "StyleForum consensus. I've paid much attention to Molloy's rules myself, but an awful lot of ink has been spilled since the years when Molloy ruled in various circles and many of the later writers have some credibility. So anything more than a hint of a "consensus" here just ain't so!

Isn't Molloy's book about 40 years old? I recall browsing through a copy at a used bookstore recently. He made some good points but I don't know how much of his thinking is still relevant.

 

[Lafont]

That's my point. There's timeless and timeless....

 

[JG000]

Originally Posted by Lafont

I already returned the 2010 edition to the library so cannot easily compare the two editions now, but for someone who can compare both - what are some of the changes? I noticed in the 2010 edition Flusser mentioned Brooks Brothers as offering a certain type of formal shoe, while BB wasn't mentioned in the 1996 reference. How about something significant - like a philosophical change in the new edition?
Search "Flusser book review" on Youtube and click the very first video. He goes over the differences between the two editions, they seem scant - besides the quite large omission of all vendors from the original version. IIRC almost zero was added to the new edition, a few words were tweaked at most. I'm actually going to buy a copy of the first edition, rather than an abridged 2010 book. The older version is cheaper and has more to read (albeit dated content).

 

[Lafont]

Yes, I've seen these reviews and the ones on Amazon. Frankly, if you can get hold of Dressing the Man at a considerably lower price than the retail $50 it currently goes for in regular bookstores I think you'd be far the best off. It offers much, much more than the '96 or '10 books and doesn't have all that out-of-date info. on the businesses in the various cities (though that text is extremely interesting to anyone who wants to know about regional or national menswear differences or history, etc.