If your wardrobe is too large, you end up looking worse.

[radicaldog]

A wise man pointed out this old piece by George Frazier: http://thematerialist.net/artofwearingclothes.html#4 That was back when many well-to-do Americans were quite European in many respects, or so I'd like to think. Look at how limited A. J. Drexel Biddle's (considered by many the most elegant man in the US) wardrobe was: Even in its entirety, Biddle's wardrobe seems, by contrast, almost monastic. It includes seven so-called business suits—two double- and one single-breasted navy-blue serge; one double- and one single-breasted dark-blue pin-stripe flannel; one single-breasted charcoal-grey flannel. (They were made by either H. Harris of New York, who charges $225 and up for a two-piece suit, or E. Tautz of London who charges, as to do most topnotch British tailors, almost a quarter less. All have skeleton alpaca linings and the sleeves have three buttons and open buttonholes. The single-breasteds have three-button, notched-lapel jackets.) For formal daytime wear, Biddle has a charcoal-grey cheviot cutaway, a single-breasted white waistcoat, and black trousers with broad white stripes. (With these, he wears a black silk ascot and a wide wing collar.) For semiformal daytime occasions, he has a charcoal-grey single-breasted cheviot sack coat and trousers, in either black or Cambridge grey, with broad white stripes. Besides a ready-made Aquascutum raincoat, Biddle owns three outer coats—a double-breasted blue chinchilla ($175 from Tautz), a single-breasted light drab covert cloth ($225, H. Harris), and a double-breasted polo coat with white bone buttons ($325, Harris). He has, in addition to a tweed cap, four hats, all of them purchased at Lock's in London too many years ago for him to recall exactly what they cost. One is a high-silk, one an opera hat, and the other two homburgs—one black and one green. For formal evening wear, Biddle has tails ($175, Tautz), a double-breasted dinner coat with satin shawl lapels ($150, Tautz), and, for warm weather, two single-breasted, shawl-collared white gabardine dinner coats ($98 each, Tautz). His evening shirts, with which he wears a conventionally-shaped bow tie, have pleats, roll collars, and are made for him by Dudley G. Eldridge of New York at $28 each. Biddle's sports clothes include three tweed jackets ($160 each, Harris), three pairs of charcoal-grey flannel slacks, and a half-dozen button-down shirts made by Eldridge out of silk that he, Biddle, bought in Spain. His shoes, of which he has three pairs of black for daytime wear and one patent leather and one calfskin for evening wear, were made by Paulsen & Stone of London, who also made for him, for sports wear, a pair of black moccasins, a pair of black loafers, and two pairs of white canvas shoes with brown leather toes and rubber soles (which he wears with either prewar white flannels or an ancient double-breasted light-grey sharkskin suit). Biddle's neck-band shirts, which are either starched dickey bosoms (elongated so that the bosoms extend below the middle button of his jacket) or semi-starched pleated bosoms, have white cuffs and bodies of either grey or light blue. They cost $26 each and are made by Eldridge, who also makes his stiff white collars ($3 each) and his ties ($7.50 each), which run to solid black silks and discreet shepherd checks and are shaped so as to make a knot small enough to fit neatly into a hard collar. His underwear is ready-made and comes from Jacob Reed's. As for his military wardrobe, [...] Biddle somehow manages to squeeze by on a total of five uniforms. Incidentally, that description is quite moving for me, as if we adjust for the times the wardrobe is remarkably similar to that of my father (born 1932), also a (retired) army officer. It never occurred to me that the preponderance of black shoes must have been characteristic of earlier generations. Apologies for the digression.

 

[radicaldog]

Originally Posted by voxsartoria

Now, despite what a person with a philosophy of non-chalance about clothes might call an obsession with details, could one actually claim that these men of leisure did not "own" their Neapolitan clothes? They most certainly did.

Now, their obsession was aesthetic. Beyond that, it was probably devoid of intellectual content, and therefore, they were not "intellectualizing" clothes in the way that I think you mean.

I think, however, that 99% what you might call intellectualizing on Internet clothing forums is really just shooting the breeze...like I am doing right now.


- B

This is probably just another way of restating your point, but it is worth noting that those leisured Neapolitans were dandies at best, and most probably just a bunch of vacuous narcissists. I do think part of the point of this thread was to set aside dandyism and focus on what one may gracelessly call the 'style civilian' way of dress (you know how Wilde sometimes wore his 'aesthetic uniform' etc.).

 

[JPHardy]

I agree with the premise that a smaller, let's say more refined wardrobe will make some one look better.

I don't agree that a smaller wardrobe makes someone looked more "lived in"(assuming we agree on what that term means). That can be the case sometimes but it is not universal.

I know I'm restating my case again, by Using Vox as an example like you did. If he only wore 5 of his suits exclusively for the next 5 years and then posted pics, I predict that his pictures would look the same they do now. That is just the way his clothes are made, the way he dresses and the way he projects himself.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]

I still dont know about smaller, but simpler maybe.

My wardrobe is getting more simple, I dont wear nearly as many bright colors as before, and when I do its seasonally appropriate and not at all overwhelming.

I think when you first start admiring clothing you look to the more extreme ways of being noticed for it and as you become aware of the fact that people are gawking at you, rather then admiring, one might tone it down to a level that can be admired instead.

My wardrobe is small compaired to many on here but i find that I would be comfortable with about 2-3 suits, 10 jackets and 10-20 trousers.

I'm finding what i dont like as well as what i like, so I'm rotating out some of the stuff i dont like to keep the quantity down and quality up. No need to keep things that you will never wear.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

Well, I just took it for granted that anybody with an account here is guilty of this style-adverse overthinking.

But, professional overthinker that I am, I offer two replies: (i) the current style disarray of the real world partly justifies taking refuge on the interwebz, the idea being that it a small evil (overthinking) for a greater good (the preservation of the classic style sensibility); (ii) there are some people here who are certainly more guilty of this than others (Mafoofan, yours truly, etc.), but I say, if you're going to do something, do it properly! (Where's the smiley for tongue-in-cheek?)
Well, you can over intellectualize clothing in different ways. FWIW, your comments and points don't cross that line for me, and I find them interesting, and think that, in many ways, they look to examine and understand the difference between a well thought out, yet natural, way of understanding clothing and style as it has existed, and a recreation of that style under terribly false pretenses that nearly always goes awry.

 

[voxsartoria]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

A wise man pointed out this old piece by George Frazier:

http://thematerialist.net/artofwearingclothes.html#4

Originally Posted by radicaldog

Incidentally, that description is quite moving for me, as if we adjust for the times the wardrobe is remarkably similar to that of my father (born 1932), also a (retired) army officer. It never occurred to me that the preponderance of black shoes must have been characteristic of earlier generations. Apologies for the digression.

I like that digression.

Originally Posted by radicaldog

This is probably just another way of restating your point, but it is worth noting that those leisured Neapolitans were dandies at best, and most probably just a bunch of vacuous narcissists.

The titled aristrocracy are the scum of the earth.

But often well dressed.


- B

 

[Parker]

I like clothes.

 

[luftvier]

I've not gone through tall 15 pages of this thread. It's duly entertaining. To address some of the concerns raised:

1) WAYWRN is a blessing and a curse. The iGentry pea-cocking has really opening my eyes to what is possible, sartorially, with a few nice pieces and some creativity. Coming from a background that is neither sartorially inclined nor wealthy, I had no clue as to what was appropriate or acceptable in terms of creativity in men's style.

That said, the thread has changed quite a bit since I first joined. My first posts were responded to with constructive criticism on how to improve my appearance and tailoring - compare this to today's

or

, and the functionality of WAYWRN is diminished.

2) It's not a matter of how many clothes one owns, it's a matter of how one wears them and how put-together he appears.

Not to pick on Moo, but everyone knows how much forvmites skewered (and continue to skewer) him on WAYWRN for his choices of SFvm Approvedâ„¢ but ill-fitting clothing. He's learned now, due in part to the relentless torment, but it's a problem that can affect many newer posters on the Fvm. No hard feelings Moo, please, it's just that you seem to have become the resident celebrity on such matters, and your visibility makes the best example for reasons of this thread.

Seeing so many well-dressed guys when all you have in your wardrobe is Men's Wearhouse can cause two things - first, feelings of shame for your ****** suits, and two, an immediate desire to up your ante and jump into the narcissistic WAYWRN fire.

Coupled with the aforementioned pea-cocking, we have what's really best described as a circle jerk

There are a number of people on this forum who know what they like and do it well. Vox is rather classical in his stylings, as does HoldFast. Man of Kent looks, to my American eye, quintessentially English. PG generally looks fantastic with his excellent accessorizing. PandArts and I look to the 50s/60s for our muse (not to say that I am, in any way, the archetype of sartorial success). Niidawg just looks classy. Regardless of how many clothes each has, each knows what he likes and owns his looks.

Now, I myself have been guilty of a few impulse purchases (what sticks most in my mind is a 3btn notch lapel BOSS tuxedo), as have we all. But that's a consequence of learning one's own style, just as relapse is part of recovery from drug addiction (see e.g. smoking).

I would buy more, but I am out of the money and the closet space to facilitate more purchases.

Keep on the excellent conversation, iGents.

 

[james_timothy]

Originally Posted by embowafa

Doesn't the existence of someone like Vox kind of debunk the OP's argument? Dude has what looks to he an insanely large wardrobe and he has a success rate in the high 90%ile with what he wears.
I think it is support for Vox's argument that one can avoid the peacocking of WAYRN by having a sufficiently large wardrobe that one has what is right for today without having to spice up what one wore yesterday.

1) You either have "it" or you don't. It doesn't matter how you got it, just that you have it. Guys like vox, PG, iammatt, cravate noir, maomao, yfyf have it.

I think I disagree with this- it does matter how they got their ability to dress, and it isn't something in-born but is acquired by watching how other people dress. Outside of the web, we just don't get much opportunity to see people who really know how to do it. It isn't something magical- just an acquired skill that takes time to learn.

It doesn't matter how large their wardrobe is and how worn/lived-in/"owned" their items are. Sure, having the money to purchase said items is important, but key. Their style allows them to pick items, coordinate them, and wear them with what is perceived to be relative ease.

Because they have a sufficiently large wardrobe. (I can't believe I've come around to Vox's way of thinking.) Otherwise one has to work at extracting the most out of what you have and one usually errs on the side of peacock. At heart RadicalDog's argument is that the best is always just what is necessary and sufficient, not an overwhelming surplus nor a poverty stricken lack. He never tells one how to achieve what is essentially a theoretical aesthetic position.

I think it is true that actually having older clothes is only part of the story. Despite Vox's 15 year old suit and shirt, if I was to wear them I would still look like a newly minted Vice President of something or other, because I have not in the past worn pinstripes, and I wouldn't know when now to wear them. In my context it would be out of whack, and I'd look like I had the junior VP psychology. This despite the objectively high quality of the clothes.

2) WAYWRN thread. ... And in a rush to immitate these looks people forget that these guys have been honing their wardrobe/'craft' for YEARS.

I have to agree with that.

 

[Will]

Even with closets full of the most classic elements, it takes a critical mass of clothing to achieve good looks day after day without undue repetition. No matter how good a man's ensemble, if he wears it every other day it loses its impact.

Whatever number of suits, shoes and other things a man requires to achieve that objective is the correct wardrobe size. Vox, from his photos, is well past that. Foo, not to pick on him for he is on his way, is not there yet.

This is perhaps the principal reason that the very well dressed tend to be either middle aged, or the inheritors of an Agnelli-class wardrobe.

 

[Diavolo]

That George Frazier piece has been an inspiration to me for decades. Biddle really is the core of what Vox said earlier about "aplomb" being able to do more with less. To reconcile his limited wardrobe with the fact he was regarded as the best dressed man in America is something everyone here should give thought to.
I have a little more than him but console myself that it balances out because I don't have his more extensive morning and evening garb.

 

[radicaldog]

Originally Posted by james_timothy

At heart RadicalDog's argument is that the best is always just what is necessary and sufficient, not an overwhelming surplus nor a poverty stricken lack. He never tells one how to achieve what is essentially a theoretical aesthetic position.

Yes, more or less. But I did give a rough indication of what I thought would be an appropriate wardrobe. It seems to me that the kind of wardrobe size described by Diavolo is about right:

I have a modest wardrobe by SF standards I suppose, with (all cashmere) winter sportcoats in plain navy, brown check, navy check, grey check and tan and three flannel suits in navy, navy pinstripe and grey. Summer brings suits in bone, light grey PoW and navy and sportcoats in navy (2), tan and olive/brown linen. Total for all seasons is 15. With various (mainly) solid ties, flannel pants, cords, jeans (incl white) and shirts in mainly blue and blue and white I feel I have enough combinations to wear something different every day for the rest of my life. (and a dinner suit, as Diavolo remembered later. I also imagine he has some outerwear and a reasonable amount of shoes -- say twelve or fifteen pairs.)

It would say that it could be expanded by about 50% without aesthetic damage, and there's still room to add some luxurious self-indulgence (e.g. a smoking jacket and such like) on top of that. Anything beyond that would seem somewhat wasteful to me, and thus inelegant.

On a different but related note, the curse that comes with the blessing of a place such as MC SF is that informative discussion of classic men's style is often turned into yet another form of consumerist exhibitionism -- something which the classic aesthetic clearly considers abhorrent.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

Yes, more or less. But I did give a rough indication of what I thought would be an appropriate wardrobe. It seems to me that the kind of wardrobe size described by Diavolo is about right:

I have a modest wardrobe by SF standards I suppose, with (all cashmere) winter sportcoats in plain navy, brown check, navy check, grey check and tan and three flannel suits in navy, navy pinstripe and grey. Summer brings suits in bone, light grey PoW and navy and sportcoats in navy (2), tan and olive/brown linen. Total for all seasons is 15. With various (mainly) solid ties, flannel pants, cords, jeans (incl white) and shirts in mainly blue and blue and white I feel I have enough combinations to wear something different every day for the rest of my life. (and a dinner suit, as Diavolo remembered later. I also imagine he has some outerwear and a reasonable amount of shoes -- say twelve or fifteen pairs.)


For me, this is about right as well. I might have a few more suits, and a couple fewer sportcoats, but something similar. I also agree about indulgences. They can be fun. Mine is a cream dupioni suit.

 

[JLibourel]

This has certainly been on of the most interesting and thought-provoking threads I've seen on this or any forum in quite a while!

I would certainly second Will's recent comment that one does need a certain "critical mass" (as he aptly puts it) to be really well dressed. I certainly think that it is possible to exceed the critical mass to an extent that it passes from simple wardrobe building or a concern with looking good into the realm of addictive acquisition or onomania (as I think the psychological term is). Most of us probably don't have the means or the closet space to go too far in that direction.

The bottom line for me is that so long as other things are equal--i.e., one does not sacrifice quality in favor of quantity--it that it is impossible to discern how having more clothes and more diversified choices will make you "end up looking worse." Your level of taste ought to remain the same no matter how many clothes you have.

For all the debate about "lived in" clothes, if you have a limited wardrobe that you utilize on a daily basis, your clothes won't looked "lived in" for long, they will looked tired and then worn out. The larger your rotation, the longer the clothes all survive.

For what it's worth, Cary Grant--generally esteemed one of the best dressed men of the 20th century--had a positively enormous wardrobe--so much so that he couldn't house all of it in his home. He had to place some of it in rental storage. Having that many clothes certainly didn't seem to hurt him stylistically!

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by radicaldog

I did give a rough indication of what I thought would be an appropriate wardrobe. It seems to me that the kind of wardrobe size described by Diavolo is about right...
Indeed you did give a indication. I would call it relatively precise as opposed to rough ... but the key word here is relative(ly).

Are you suggesting that such a wardrobe is appropriate for everybody ... or you in particular given who you are?

This matter continues to seem oh so very subjective to me ... and yet some are attemting to define the "right" wardrobe in very narrow terms ... proposing -- or adhering to -- numbers as if the appropriate wardrobe were one of the laws of nature. That's a tad Straussian -- well, third generation "Straussian" -- for me.

Even so ... this is quite an enjoyable discussion you fellows are having.