New Flusser Book

[Lafont]

So what are some opinions regarding the new Flusser Book - 2010 edition of Style and the Man? Amazingly, I just found out about it yesterday. As I look regularly at the clothing/style sections of every bookstore I visit, including the big box chains, I'm surprised I haven't seen it but it must say something about the state of these stores. Also, there seem to be only a few copies floating around in all the Greater Cleveland public libraries. I might possibly catch it at at B&N this evening?
Anyway, for those lucky enough to have already seen the book what do you think?

 

[Cant kill da Rooster]

What do you need books for? So you can determine if suspenders should be worn or if you need a 1/2" of cuff showing? You have SF.

Probably makes a great gift though.

 

[RSS]

Does it have an updated list of retail sources? If yes, that would make it worth the price.

 

[DocHolliday]

The sources have been cut completely, IIRC.

I own it, have browsed it, but probably would not have bought it had I looked through it before ordering. It's like Dressing the Man, only without the pictures.

 

[RSS]

Originally Posted by DocHolliday

The sources have been cut completely, IIRC.
Thanks for the info. It won't be on my buy list.

 

[Lafont]

I got the book from the library and find it basically just an abridged, cheaper version of "Dressing the Man." It's missing the good photos of the earlier volume and various sections of interest, such as "dress-down Fridays type attire, outerwear (including hats). Okay for someone who doesn't won the first book, I suppose, but I know the earlier book is still available new in some stores (or at least it was very recently). I suppose some material might be slightly more up-to-date, but the whole point of Flusser's books is the timelessness of many of the concepts discussed. Again, this one's less $ so that might be the appeal for some. And it's more compact.

Yes, it's got many of the good ideas I associate with Flusser. I almost always respect his knowledge and taste. Now I'm curious to see his first "Style and the Man" to compare. As for comparing the new book with "Dressing the Man," he changed around many sentences but still said basically the same things.

I'd be very curious regarding some of Flusser's ideas regarding casual clothing - what most guys were most of the time - but I guess he doesn't care that much about it and is concentrating on dress clothes. I believe his first book, though, showed all basic menswear types.

Once I posted here a question about a remark Flusser made in at least one of his books I found it difficult to go along with. Sure wish I knew what is was so I could see if he mentions it in the new volume. Can't find it with Google; is there a way to look up search terms under only our own posts here?

 

[KObalto]

Originally Posted by Lafont

Once I posted here a question about a remark Flusser made in at least one of his books I found it difficult to go along with. Sure wish I knew what is was so I could see if he mentions it in the new volume. Can't find it with Google; is there a way to look up search terms under only our own posts here?
Uhh, enter keyword, enter user name, click search now? http://www.styleforum.net/search.php? http://www.styleforum.net/search.php?searchid=9175578

 

[Lafont]

Found it. Thanks. About never buttoning a formal jacket when wearing a cummerbund. Was in the 1996 book but not 2002 book. Now I'm curious to look in the new one.

 

[The Thin Man]

My guess is that since casual/sportswear is much more influenced by fashion than the "permanent style" of tailored clothing, Flusser has had a harder time keeping up with it for his later books. There are sections on sportswear in both Making the Man (1981) and Clothes and the Man (1985). While the some of the sportswear photos in CatM are interesting, his recommendations in MtM can be embarrassingly dated in a way the tailored sections never are.

This touches on something that has interested me since I found Style Forum more 19 months ago. While Flusser's approach is similar to the Style Forum consensus on tailored clothing, there's no similar set of workable recommendations for casual clothing. None of the potential solutions (overdress with tailored sports jackets and flannel trousers that haven't been considered casual in 40 years; wear the same crap everyone else wears; follow Streetwear & Denim [whether of the updated-Americana or Euro-fashion modes] orthodoxy; go back in time with Japanese repro; pursue StyleZeitgeist postmodernism) are as satisfying as to me as the Flusser/SF solution to business/formal situations.

Some people treat some combination of Take Ivy/Brando-Dean Hollywood/vintage L.L. Bean as the casual equivalent of 1930s Apparel Arts, but it doesn't ring true to me. I guess this is a mixed blessing. When there are fewer signposts for how to dress, your individual taste will be most apparent -- even if it emerges unwittingly.

 

[Lafont]

Pretty much agree with all you just said, The Thin Man, except the reference to "the Style Forum consensus." I have never found any such animal - not in anything I've ever asked about that brought about numerous responses. Enormous range here in opinions, attitudes, priorities - even in all areas of tailored clothing, it appears.

 

[The Thin Man]

It's not unanimous, but black suits; corrected-grain and square- and bicycle-toed shoes; many-hued brightly patterned ties; and dark dress shirts are all very common in real life and outside of the Style Forum consensus.

 

[Lafont]

I'd say far, far from consensus. Perhaps you read the posts you agree with more? Or your own posts attract - which you're very likely to follow closely - more the individuals with more taste? I've been following this forum a number of years now and, frankly, I'm not sure about all of your examples if what you consider the "consensus" is pro or con! Are you saying, for example, it's against black daytime suits? John Crosby Freeman sure used to come out strongly against them, and Brooks Brothers didn't sell them (not sure about now) but they were terribly common in the U.S. of the 19th and early 20 centuries and Armani and many other designers (and menswear fashion book authors) seem to like them.

We have many followers here of such designers, IMHO. Now there are some more consistently conservative - or traditional - forums, such as Fedora Lounge. Perhaps one can sense somewhat of a "consensus" (though still not totally) with that group....

 

[The Thin Man]

Originally Posted by Lafont

I'd say far, far from consensus. Perhaps you read the posts you agree with more? Or your own posts attract - which you're very likely to follow closely - more the individuals with more taste? I've been following this forum a number of years now and, frankly, I'm not sure about all of your examples if what you consider the "consensus" is pro or con! Are you saying, for example, it's against black daytime suits? John Crosby Freeman sure used to come out strongly against them, and Brooks Brothers didn't sell them (not sure about now) but they were terribly common in the U.S. of the 19th and early 20 centuries and Armani and many other designers (and menswear fashion book authors) seem to like them.

We have many followers here of such designers, IMHO. Now there are some more consistently conservative - or traditional - forums, such as Fedora Lounge. Perhaps one can sense somewhat of a "consensus" (though still not totally) with that group....
Whether you want to characterize it as a consensus, there are common themes across this forum. Few of the more knowledgeable posters champion black suits. Few champion bicycle-toed shoes or extreme square-toed shoes. Few champion dark dress shirts. Few champion many-colored ties or ties with bright, print patterns. These are facts.

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

 

[The Thin Man]

I had fun the other day making a list of who I've found to be the most knowledgeable posters (tossing in a few outside authorities like Flusser):

http://www.styleforum.net/showthread...86#post3943586

These tend to be people with experience with Savile Row or Neapolitan tailors. While they may disagree on a thousand points, they converge on essential questions that distinguish the Style Forum consensus from the typical officewear consensus.

I don't think people seek discussions on here because it's a random assortment of people interested in clothes. They're seeking knowledgeable people. You clearly don't like my definition of consensus -- general agreement. For you, I guess, agreement must be universal to be a consensus.

 

[Lafont]

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


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